The Good Old Way Defended, Treatise · Section 2
SECTION II.
The Question stated.
THe first of the New Opinions with which this Author is pleased to charge Presbyterians, is that they are for the Government of the Church by Presbyters acting in Parity, and against Prelacy, or the Jurisdiction of a Bishop over Presbyters. He is pleased to examine some of our Arguments, and pretendeth to answer them, c: 1, 2: and then cometh to prove his Opinion, c: 3. Thus stating the Question p: 105, whether the Rectoral Power, and Episcopal Jurisdiction that the Apostles had over subordinat Ecclesiasticks, was afterward committed to, and exercised by particular persons, or to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in perfect Parity and Equality. I do not fancy this Method, that a Dispute should be so copiously insisted on, and Arguments so much tossed for the one side, before we come to state the Question, and determine what we controvert about. Wherefore, though I intend to leave nothing in his Book untouched that is material, I shall use another Method. 1. I shall state the Question. 2. Bring more and plainer Arguments for our Opinion, besides these which he is pleased to take notice of. 3. Reinforce these our Arguments which he meddleth with. 4. Consider the strength of his Plea for Bishops, on account of their Succession to the Apostles.
§ 2. In order to stating the Queston, we are to consider, that there are different Sentiments about the Government of the Church, even among the Episcopal Party themselves, who talk so highly of Unity, and condemn others who differ from them, (I mean the Presbyterians) as Schismaticks; and such in whose Communion people may not safely abide, as this Author doth more than insinuat, p: 11. The various Opinions of our prelatical Brethren, I have taken notice of Rational des: of Nonconform: p: 159, 160, 161. I shall not resume what is there discoursed; but consider this Diversity somewhat more extensively. Some think that no one form of Government is held forth in Scripture, or was practised in the Apostolick Churches: I have seen this question learnedly Debated in a Manuscript; if the Abetters of it mean, that sometimes the Apostles acted by their own sole Authority; at other times they left the Management to the ordinary fixed Officers in the Church; and on other Occasions, deputed Evangelists to Govern for them, for a time; or that in some Circumstances of Government, they did not always observe Uniformity: I think all this may be allowed; but if it be meant, that the Substantials of Government were not always the same, as acted by the ordinarie fixed Officers; but that some Churches were then Governed by Bishops, others by a Colledge of Presbyters: I see no ground for such a Debate, nor to think that there was any such Variety in the Apostostolick Church. 2. I have some where found it denyed, that Apostles had Majority of Power or Jurisdiction over Presbyters: and Paul Bayn, dioces: Tryal, p: 73: Arg: 5: and p: 77. Conclus: 5. is cited for this Also Mr. Rutherf: Div: Right of Church Government, p: 21. I need not Debate this. And I find Bayn saith no more, but that the Apostles had not Majoritie of Directive or Corrective Power as Lords, but only as Christs Ministers; and that no such Power is in the Church, save in the Person of Christ: but he expresly alloweth in them Ministerial Power, declarative and authoritative. Mr. Rutherf: I suppose, meaneth no more. This indeed is the Opinion of many, and our Adversaries cannot disprove it, that the Apostles did not usually make use of their Power in settled Churches, further than to declare the Mind of Christ to them; but left the exercise of Church Power to the settled Officers of these Churches. 3. Some are of Opinion, that though the Apostles exercised Authority in Governing the Churches, and left Ecclesiastical Officers in the possession of it, to be exercised by them, during the want of the Christian Magistrat: yet as soon as the Church had a Civil Magistrat owning the Faith, that all ruling Power devolved into his hand. This is no part of our present Debate; though our Brethren in the late Reigns, allowed much more of the Exercise of Church power to the Magistrate, than was warrantable. 4. We debate not now about the Popes Monarchical power over the whole Christian Church, though many think that Monarchical power of Bishops, over the Presbyters and People of a large District, now called a Diocess, hath no more Warrand in Scripture, than this hath. Nor 5. Do we now debate whether the Government of the Church be Democratital, and to be managed by the body of the people: or so Aristocratical, as to be managed by the Elders in every single Congregation, independent on superior Judicatures, to whom no Appeal may be from them, or who may call them to an account for their actings, and authoritatively Censure them. 6. Some hold that no one Form of Church Government is now necessary, or of Divine right, but that the Church or Magistrat in several Churches, may Appoint what shall be found most fit and sutable to the people among whom it is to be exercised. This Opinion was lately generally owned by our Episcopalians, and asserted strongly by Doctor Stillingfleet, now Bishop of Worcester: (that learned Author doth also prove, out of an antient Manuscript, that this was the Opinion of Cranmer, and four other Bishops) and it met with no Opposition from that Party, so far as we could hearof; nay, not by this our Author who is now so highly become a Jure Divino man. It was then the way to Preferment, and suteable to the Oath of Supremacy, and more especially to the Test. But it is one thing with some men, to think that a Popish King may alter Church Government: and another thing to allow the same Power to a Protestant King. We are then agreed about the Jus Divinum of a species of Church Government, and the unalterableness of it: which maketh it seem strange, that this learned Author should make such Tragical Outcrys against our pleading a Divine Right, as if this were Enthusiasm, yea, much worse than speculative Enthusiasm, p: 14: Visions and fancies, ibid: while he is as positive for the Divine Right of what he holdeth: which we shall not call by so ill names; but think, that who hath the worse in matter of Argument, is in an Errour; but such an Errour as is consistent with Sobriety, and good sense.
§ 3. The Question is not 7. What sort of Church Government is best, and nearest to the Scripture Pattern? for that may be nearer to it, which yet doth deviate from the Scripture; but less than another Form of Government doth: and though that Form of Government is more commendable, than another which cometh nearest to the Pattern in all the Steps of the Administration of it; and we are willing that parity and prelacy be thus compared in all that they can charge us with, or we can charge on them; (which Comparison I cannot now stay to make in the Particulars in which it may be stated) yet they contend that Prelacy is exactly what Christ willeth to be exercised in the Church: and we say the same of Parity: and herein lyeth the Question. 8. It is to be noted that our Controversie is not about the name, but the power of a Bishop. The Pastors of the Church are called Bishops, Acts 20. 28. 1 Tim. 3. 1. and else where: for the power of a Bishop, (as this name is appropriated to one Presbyter.) We deny not that very early in the primitive Church, the Praeses in their Meeting for Discipline and Government was fixed, and had that place during life, and due management of his Office: and he had a power of calling and ordering their Meetings, and was subject to their Censures. But our Brethren are not content with this; but affirm, that by Divine Institution, and primitive Practice, the Bishop had a majority of power both extensively, that is over the Pastors and people, which other Presbyters had not: and that over the Pastors and people of many Congregations, which we call a Diocess: and also intensive, that is, that he hath power in some things wherein the other Presbyters have no such power: for they reserve to him the sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction. It is true, some of them shun the word of sole power, and call it but a Majority of power: which is but to cover the nakedness of their Opinion, and inconsistent with their own practice: for they will not say that the Presbyter is assumed by the Bishop in plenitudinem potestatis, but only in partem sollicitudinis: they make the Presbyters subject to the Bishop as a Rector, and as a Judge, in that they can do no act of power without his allowance: and he by himself may censure them, and cannot be censured by them, even in their collective Capacity: yea, they maintain that it is of the Bishops good will, not necessitie, or obligation, that he taketh the ad-Vice of the Presbyters in any act of Government: that he is the only Pastor of the Diocess; and all the rest of the Clergy are his Curats. It is true, some are more modest in expressing their Sentiments in this matter,; but these things are held by many in terminis, and particularly all this must be owned by this Author, (though he giveth us no distinct account of his Principles) seing he maketh Bishops Successors to the Apostles in their governing the Church, and that in their Rectoral Power, which he describes p. 97. to Preach, Govern the Church, give Rules and Directions to their Successors, and to all subordinate Ecclesiasticks, to inflict Censures, &c. This power Apostolical, he contendeth to have been communicated unto the Bishops, and not to all the Presbyters I. S. in his Principles of the Cyprianick age, talketh high of this Power' of the Bishops Majesty, Monarchy, singular Prerogatives, which I have else where examined.
§ 4. It is to be considered, 9. That there are diverse Opinions amongst the Episcopalians, who ascribe this power to the Bishop, about the Foundation of it, or how he cometh by it: some of them say, that Christ while he was on Earth, Instituted this Authority in the persons of Bishops, and made this difference between them and Presbyters. This the Bishop of Worcester denyeth, while Iren: p: 197. he saith, that Christ gave equal power for ruling the Church, in actu primo, to all Ministers of the Gospel: others make it to be of Apostolick Institution; affirming that the Apostles after Christs Ascension, did appoint it. About this we contend not; but acknowledge it to be of Divine Right and unalterable, if either of these can be proved: for what the Apostles did in settling Church Order, was by the infallible Guidance of the Spirit of God. Others again hold, that this power was not settled till after the Apostles time, and that it was brought in by Custume, which obtained in process of time, and by degrees: but being of such reverend Antiquity, and practised by the Fathers, and all the primitive Churches, it may not be altered. There are also among them who say, it is only Juris Ecclesiastici, and was settled by the Church, and may be by her Authority changed. Our Opinion is, it hath none of these Foundations: that it was never settled by Christ, nor his Apostles; but that they settled the Government of the Churches, by Presbyters acting in parity: nor gave power to the Church, or any man, or men, to alter this Constitution: and so that this Power is usurped and unlawful.
§ 5. Out of what hath been discoursed, our present Controversie turneth on this Hinge: whether the Government of the Church, which by Divine appointment, is to be used in all the ages and parts of the Christian Church, should be by one Prelate, managing it by his sole Authority, and the counsel of Presbyters, so far as he thinketh fit to ask or take it: or by the Presbyters of the Church in their several Classes or Combinations, acting with parity of power: the former part of the Question my Antagonist pleadeth for: I stand for the latter part of it: so that our Debate is not about the Accidentals or Circumstantials of Church Government; nor about what is practised by this or that Party, (for no doubt there are many things on both sides that want to be reformed, and which we can pretend no Divine right for) but it is about the Essentials of it, Prelacy or Parity.
§ 6: Be…ore I proceed to the Arguments pro or con, I shall briefly examine what my Antagonist is pleased to premise to his examining of our Arguments: which may possibly clear our way in some things to be after debated. I first notice an expression he uses in representing our Opinion; that we hold, that in all Meetings of the Church, Presbyters act in perfect parity: so p. 12. I hope he will suffer us to explain the meaning of that Expression, (if any have used it, which I do not remember) we pretend not to such a parity as excludeth the ordinary power of a temporary Moderator, as hath been above expressed: neither to exclude the majority of Power that preaching Presbyters have above them that …re only ruling; nor of both above Deacons: nor do we by perfect parity, exclude that Influence that one by his Reason, may have on others who are not so well gifted. Wherefore, we own a perfect parity, in no other sense, but that preaching Presbyters are of the same order with a Bishop; and that he cannot act in matters of Government, without their concurrence, more than any of them can act without him. 2. I take notice that p. 22. he saith that such a Doctrine (the Divine right of parity) must be of dangerous consequence; because it is altogether new. What is to be thought of its noveltie, I have shewed Sect. 1. §. 1, and 2. As also, how weak the consequence is from its noveltie (such as I have acknowledged) to its being false. The dangerous consequence of it is, in general asserted; but he hath not told what hazard, in particular, ariseth to the Church from this way of Government: many think that the greatest and most essential concernments of Religion, have been more promoted under Parity, than under Prelacy: if he will prove his Assertion, making the contrary appear, we shall consider the strength of his Reasons.
§ 7. He asserteth, that our Opinion is not only different from the uniform Testimony of Antiquity, (which we deny, and shall consider his proofs in the subsequent Debate) but also the first Presbyterians among our selves; who declare, in their Confession of Faith, that all Church Policy is variable: so … one they from asserting that indispensible Divine and unalterable Right of P…rity. He addeth, that they only pretended that it was allowable; and more to this purpose. Let me a little examine this confident Assertion of matter of Fact. I suppose by the Confession of Faith of the first Presbyterians, he meaneth that Summ of Doctrine which they appointed to be drawn up 1560, as that Doctrine that the Protestants would maintain: there, Artiole 22, are these words: Not that we think any Policy, and an order of Ceremonies can be appointed for all Ages, times, and places: for as Ceremonies, such as men have devised, are but temporary; so may and ought they to be changed, when they rather foster Superstition, than edifie the Church using the some. Here is not a word of Church Government▪ neither can these words rationally be understood of Ceremonies in a strick sense, as contradistinguished from Civil Rites and natural Circumstances in religious actings: for Ceremonies peculiar to Religion, the reforming Protestants of Scotland never owned, but such as were of Divine Institution. But that they did not hold the Government of the Church, by Prelacy or Parity, to be indifferent, is evident, in that in the Book of Policy, or 2d. Book of Discipline, they do own only four sorts of ordinary and perpetual Office bearers in the Church: to wit, Pastors, Doctors, Elders, and Deacons, where the Bishop is plainly excluded: nor did they ever look on Superintendents as perpetual Officers; but for the present necessity of the Church, not yet constituted. It is like this Debate may again occur: wherefore I now insist no further on it.
§ 8. He blindly throweth Darts at Presbyterians, which sometimes miss them, and wound his own party: as p: 13, he hath this Assertion, when a Society of men set up for Divine, absolute, and infallible Right, they ought to bring plain proofs for what they say; else they must needs be lookt on as Impostors, or at least self conceited and designing men; and much to this purpose. Is it easie to subsume, but this Author and his Partizans set up for Divine, absolute and infallible right for Prelacy; and yet they bring not plain proofs for what they say: therefore he and they are Impostors, self conceited and designing men: they indeed pretend to plain proofs; and so do we: let the Reader then judge whose proofs are plainest, and best founded; and who are to be judged Impostors, by his Argument. But in truth there is no consequence to a mans being an Impostor, from his owning a Divine Right, even though his Arguments be defective in plainness, and in strength: it only followeth that such do mistake, and understand not the mind of God in that matter, so well as they should; and that their strength of Reason doth not answer the confidence of their Assertion: and if this be a Blame (as I think it is) no men in the world are more guilty than his party; nor among his party, than himself: as will appear in examining his Assertions and Arguments. For self conceit, the Reader will easily see where it may be observed, if he consider the superciliousness with which his Book is written. If Presbyterians be the designing men, they are great fools: for there are no Bishopricks, nor Deanries, nor very fat Benefices to be had in that way: which might be the Objects of such designs. Who are the head strong men that will knock others on the head, unless they will swear they see that which indeed they cannot see, may be judged by the Excommunications, and the Capias's and consequents of these, which many of late did endure for pure Nonconformity. I am not acquainted with these Presbyterians, who say that none but wicked men will oppose our Government: this is none of our Doctrine: it is rather his own who excludeth from the Church such as are for Presbytery, and affirmeth it to be dangerous to continue in the communion of such: we do not Excommunicat any who differ from us about Church Government, for their Opinion, nor for not joining with us. Neither do we pronounce such a heavy Doom on the Prelatists who separate from us, as I. S. doth on them who separate from the Episcopal Church: Principles of the Cyprianick Age, p: 19. His calling our Arguments a labyrinth of dark and intricat Consequences, obscure and perplexed Probabilities, Texts of Scripture sadly wrested and Distorted, p. 15. This I say is a silly Artifice to forestal the Readers mind before he hear the Debate; which will take with few, even of his own party. We are not ashamed to produce our Arguments, for all this insolent Contempt.