a Presbyter The one a successor of the Apostles indued with power of ordination and other jurisdiction the other the Successor of the Presbyters ordained by Timothy and Titus endued with power of administring word and Sacraments Neg. FOr the sounder and clearer resolving of this question I shall proceed by way of Thesis fetching things from the first original barely proposing only what is confest by all but proving those things wherein there is any controversie or whereon the controversie hath dependance Thesis 1. first its agreed amongst all that all the teaching Officers that can challenge Livine institution are set down in an intire Catalogue Eph. 4.11 And gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers and therefore all that cannot derive their pedigree from one of these must be in the case of those Neh. 7.64 Thesis 2. That of these Officers some were extraordinary some ordinary Thesis 3. That Apostles Prophets Evangelists were extraordinary officers for the first planting of Churches and Pastors and Teachers ordinarie Thesis 4. That the extraordinary officers were temporary and the ordinary to be perpetual in the Church Bilson perp govern p. 300. The office of Evangelists was extraordinary and temporary Field of the Church lib. 5. c. 22. And indeed whatsoever is extraordinary is temporary Thesis 5. That Apostles were the highest of extraordinary officers and Pastors the highest of those that were ordinary Apostles are named first and all that are named before Pastors are acknowledged extraordinary Ephes 4.11 Thesis 6. That in the extraordinary Officers there were some gifts and acts peculiar to them as such as to the Apostles immediate calling divine inspiration infallibility in doctrine universal charge and in the Evangelist to be an assistant to an Apostle not to be perpetually fixt to any place but for the finishing some special work as Timothy at Ephesus 1 Tim. 1.3 Titus at Creet cap. 1.5 3.12 Secondly There were some qualities and actions which though required in and done by them as extraordinary officers in an extraordinary way yet are of necessitie and are in an ordinarie way perpetually to be continued in the Church of God as abilities to teach and rule the Church and the acts of teaching praying ordination of Ministers Church-censures c. See Bilson perp govern chap. 7. pag. 106 107. Thesis 7. That these Pastors Eph. 4.11 that are the highest ordinary Officers are Successors to the Apostles in all that power and authoritie and all those acts flowing from it which are necessary perpetual and ordinary in the Church of God This also is clear power and authoritie require a subject divine power and authoritie a subject of divine institution Now no other remains of those of Gods institution but Pastors and Teachers which if they be not the same Pastor is the chief The other as temporary are ceased therefore Pastors must be their successors in all this power and in them must the commands for execution be kept without spot or unrebukable untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Tim. 6.14 And to them must that Apostolical promise be performed Matth. 28.20 Behold I am with you to the end of the world Thesis 8. The Pastors and Teachers 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 are no other but Synonymaes with those Elders ordained in every Church Acts 14.23 and in every City Tit. 1.5 This is clear for those Elders that were here ordained were officers of Christs giving The Apostles would ordain no other it had been sacrilegious presumption but they were neither Apostles Prophets nor Evangelists Ergo if Christs they must be under either Pastors or Teachers Thesis 9. These Elders were by the Holy Ghost also stiled Bishops and were indeed Bishops aliud aetatis aliud officii nomen and of them it is that direction is given under the name of Bishops 1 Tim. 3. Herein Jerome is most plain seconded by Ambrose or Hilary an approved Author under his name who though they differ from other fathers who understand by Bishop Hieron in Ep. ad Titum 1 Tim. 3.2 Bishop distinct from a Presbyter such as was in their times Yet Jeromes reason preponderates all because drawn out of the bowels of the Text 1 Titus 1.5 6 7. Attend saith he the words of the Apostle who having discours'd of the qualities of a Presbyter after infers for a Bishop must be blameless c. Therefore a Bishop and a Presbyter are the same Again if any yet doubt saith he whether a Bishop and a Presbyter be not all one let him read the Apostle Phil. 1.1 Paul and Timotheus the servants of Jesus Christ to all the Saints which are in Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons Philippi saith he was a City of Macedonia and certainly in one City as now they are called more Bishops could not be But St. Paul thus wrote because at that time Presbyters and Bishops were all one If yet this seem ambiguous saith he that Presbyters and Bishops were all one it may be proved by another testimony It 's written in the Acts of the Apostles when St. Paul came to Miletum he sent to Ephesus and called to him thence the Elders of that Church to whom amongst other things he spake thus Take heed to your selves and to your flock over which the Holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to feed the Church of God c. Observe this diligently saith he how calling the Presbyters of one City Ephesus he afterwards calls them Bishops he adds Heb. 13.17 1 Pet. 5.1 2. and concludes these things that we might shew that amongst the Ancients Presbyters and Bishops were the same Thesis 10. After the decease of the extraordinary Officers Apostles Prophets Evangelists and their Office with cause of it with them the Church acknowledgd no other Church-Officers as instituted of Christ but only the two mentioned 1 Tim. 3. Titus 1. 1 Bishops or Presbyters 2 Deacons Clemens mentioned Phil. 4.3 who is witnessed by Tertullian to be ordained of St. Peter himself de prescrip in an Epistle to the Corinthians writes thus The Apostles preaching through the Countries and Regions their first fruits whom they had tryed by the spirit they appointed for Bishops and Deacons to believers Here you see by the Apostles were constituted but these two Offices Bishops and Deacons of whom he afterwards saith that those that have humbly and unblameably ministred to the sheep-fold of Christ those we may not think may be justly thrown out of their Ministry whence he infers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It 's a filthy thing beloved yea very filthy and unworthy that conversation which is in Christ Jesus to hear that the most strong and ancient Church of Corinth for one or two persons should make a faction against their Presbyters He concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You therefore who have laid the foundation of sedition be instructed to repent and be subject to your Presbyters so whom he called Bishops he now calls
them only with a Proviso unless they had the consent or commission of the Bishops which prohibition doth plainly shew that before they were used to ordain without him and after might with his leave Fourthly the Fathers differ more from the high Prelatists then from the Presbyterian For the Presbyterian alwaies have a President to guide their actions which they acknowledg may be perpetuall durante vitâ modò se bene gesserit or temporary to avoid inconvenience which Bilson in his preface and again and again in his book of perp gover takes hold of as advantageous because so little discrepant as he saith from what he maintains but now the high Prelatists exclude a Presbyterie as having nothing to do with jurisdiction which they put as far above the sphear of a Presbyter as sacrificing above a Levites to wit an act restrained to an higher order whereas the Fathers acknowledg a Presbyterie and in divers cases Counsels tye the Bishop to do nothing without them and so its clear the high Prelatists are at a further distance from the Fathers then the Presbyterians Fifthly for that wherein we differ from the Fathers we have the Plea of one of the most judicious of the Fathers Augustine who being prest with the authoritie of Cyprian answers lib. contra Cresscon 2. cap. 32. His writings I hold not as Canonicall but examine them by the Canonicall writings And in them what agreeth with the authority of Divine Scriptures I accept with his praise what agreeth not I refuse with his leave This is our apologie in dissenting in this thing from some of the Fathers wherein you see we follow a Father and in that wherein Bilson makes use of him to put off the authorities of some learned men of his age and adds God suffers the best of men to have some blemishes lest their writings should be received as authentique p. 15.2 Lastly if we differ from the Fathers in point of Prelacie wherein our opponents are in no better terms with them then we yet I would have them to consider in how many things we jump with the Fathers wherein many of them have been dissenting both in opinion and practice as touching promiscuous dancing especially on the Lords day 2. Touching residency of Pastors in their Churches which excludes also pluralities 3. Frequencie and diligence in preaching 4. Touching the abuse of health drinking or drinking ad aequales calices 5. Touching Bishops not intangling themselves with secular affairs or businesses of State in Princes Courts 6. Touching gaming at Cards or Dice and such like so that they can with no great confidence triumph in the Fathers against us in this one point wherein themselves also are at a distance from them while we keep closer to the Fathers then they do in many others And thus Doctor I shall leave it to the judgment of the indifferent reader whether Apostle-Bishops be not a meer fancy of your own framing and indeed now there be no other but Presbyter-Bishops one of which for Ecclesiastical custome for pious ends had some power added to his Presidency for order which afterwards degenerated into tyranny CHAP. IV. PARAG. 4. Wherein is shewed the impertinency of the Doctors sixth chapter against perjury which the Author of the Case detests as much as be TO come now to your 6. Chapter where you propose the question whether the King without the impeachment of his Oath at his Coronation may consent to the abrogation of Episcopacie And then tell us Parag. 1. This question hath two branches 1. Whether a Christian King be bound to keep his oath 2. Whether he may not c. But did not your eyes dazzle when you made this division Did I ever question whether the Kings oath was obligatory so far as it was lawful and in that sence that it was intended and so dispute whether the sence of it were not the same of that with the people that ingageth only till alteration by consent in Parliament Did not I express in the preface that unless it did appear that abrogation of Episcopacy might stand with the sence of the oath the King ought not to consent how falsly do you then affirm that I perswade the King to break his oath and how useless is this whole chapter either taking for granted what is not proved that Episcopacy is a truth and ordinance of Christ or proving what is not in question that oaths are to be kept perjury to be avoided wherein you are so vehement that you faâ—l into rank anabaptistry pag. 34. asserting that oaths therefore must be avoided lest we fall into condemnation as though all oaths were unlawfull for fear of perjury You do also admixe so many foul and bold slanders uttered with such bitterness and such evident falseness that any but a partial reader will detest them and therefore I think them unworthy any answer If I had said as that Court-Preacher Herles answer to Doctor Fern. p. 3. that the King is not bound to keep any oath he took to the people to be ruled therein by law His oath was but a piece of Coronation-show he might take it to day and break it to morrow c. On such a man you might have spent some of your zeal against perjury but to me it is impertinent as the judicious reader shall plainly see by that which follows now to be set down out of the Case resolved which supposes the oath ought to be kept and only enquires after the true sense and intention of it and this may satisfie this impertinent chapter The Case Resolved THe usual way of clearing this assertion is thus The King is sworn to maintain the laws of the Land in force at his Coronation yet no man questions and the constant practice shews that it is not unlawful after to abrogate any upon the motion or with the consent of his Parliament The meaning of the oath being known to be to maintain the laws while they are laws but when they are abrogated by a just power in a regular way they are then wiped out of his charge and oath So the King by his oath is bound to maintain the rights of his Clergie while they continue such But if any of their rights be abrogated by just power he stands no longer engag'd to that particular And this I conceive to be a sound resolution For the Kings oath is against acting or suffering a tyrannous invasion on laws and rights not against a Parliamentarie alteration of either But here steps in my first opponent and though he disputes modestly onely proposing what he holds forth A nameless Author in a Book impleading all War against the King to serious consideration yet he objects subtilly and his Discourse runs thus The oath for maintenance of laws is made Populo Anglicano to the people of England and so may be taken off by a future act because it is by their own consent represented in Parliament But the oath to maintain the priviledges
take the Apostles to be the foundation is it in respect of their persons authoritie or doctrine Their doctrine I believe Sir and will you compare your Bishops for doctrine to the Apostles and Prophets Who as such were infallible Nay do you not confess the doctrinal part of the Ministerie to belong to the Presbyter as well as your Prelate and to be more performed by them and have you not made a fine proof of the fall of the Church with Bishops out of this place But you add Parag. 19. What no danger of sacriledg in robbing Father and Mother But you answer for me that it is no sacriledg because the means shall stil be setled on the Church and that 's a reason which you cannot answer For sacriledg is an alienating of that which was justly devoted for sacred to civil or prophane use therefore change so there be a continuance of holy use is no sacriledg Nor shall we rob our Father for as you confess holy treasure was first given to the Church in general The Bishops had not propriety but use of some and with the rest they were to maintain the Presbyters which are wanting in many places for want of maintenance Now for those in whom authority lyes to take care for the edification of the Church To dispose the Churches Patrimonie so as may be best for edification of the Church appointing it to maintain preachers not pomp will be counted neither sacriledg nor theft by rationall and good men But you say we rob the Church of her husband too for though a Church have 1000 Presbyters yet she hath but one husband so that great Counsell of Calcedon but that Counsell spake according to the corrupt customes of those times not according to the tenure of Scriptures who make all the Presbyters over-seers over their particular flocks to dwell with them as men of knowledg and to take care for them and that 's to be in your sence husband is it not After you have made the Church a widow without a Bishop you add while a widow she can bring forth nothing but a bastard brood consider that yes I shall consider it but to your shame what if a Church continue as often it hath through covetousness and faction long without a Bishop are all the Converts begotten by the word of truth preach'd by Prebyters bastards nay what if Churches cast off Episcopacie are all her Presbyters bastards Do you thus gratifie the Papists and abuse all the Ministers of our sister reformed Churches many of which far outstrip you in all ministeriall qualification your assertion therefore is very considerable to discover what a Popish spirit you are of For Parag. 20. Whether your conclusion will follow on the premises or mine I now leave to the judicious Reader I would not have the King for fear of the people to do any unlawfull act I disclaimed it in the very entrance of my Case resolved but I only perswade to what for ought I yet see I have proved lawfull and that to rescue a perishing kingdom and prevent the hazard of his Crown which that it may be free and flourishing on his head is my daily and heartie prayer as those that know me can very well witness notwithstanding your ignorant calumniations to the contrarie Case of Conscience Resolved MY second Antagonist exceeds the first both in subtiltie and peremptoriness for he plainly affirms that the King cannot desert Episcopacie without flat perjurie and hence falls foul both on those that would force him to it and also on those moderate Courtiers that for peace sake counsell'd it He disputes thus There 's difference between laws and oaths Where the supream Jus dominii is there is a power above all laws but not above their own oaths in whom that power is for law bindes only while it is a law that is till it be repealed But an oath bindeth as long as it pleaseth him to whom it is taken The reason is because the supream power may cedere jure suo and obliege himself where before he was free which if they do by promise justice bindes them to performance but if by an oath the matter being lawful then are they bound in religion and conscience for an oath adds a religious bond unto God If this were not so no oath were binding to them I answer First it s a ground laid down by this Author in the same place that no oath is obligatorie beyond the intention of it and then I first propound it to consideration whether the intention of this oath be not only against a tyrannous invasion on the rights of the Clergie not against an orderly alteration of them if any prove inconvenient and to protect them against violence not against legal waies of change For first this is as much as is rationall for a King to undertake and therfore in right reason the oath should have no other sense if the words of the oath will bear it as the words of this oath will Secondly this oath to the Clergie must not be intended in a sense inconsistent with the Kings oath to the people first taken for their protection in their laws and liberties for then the latter oath will be a present breach of the former and so unlawfull Now one of the Priviledges of the People is that the Peers and Commons in Parliament have power with the consent of the King to alter whatever in any particular estate is inconvenient to the whole And therefore he cannot afterward engage himself to any particular estate to exempt it from this power for by that oath at least cessit jure suo in this Authors judgment The Clergie and their priviledges are subject to the Parliament or they are not I hope they will not now claim an exemption from fecular power But if they be under Parliamentarie power how can it be rationally conceived to be the meaning of the Kings oath to preserve the Priviledges of the Clergie against that power to which they are legally subject or how were the oath in that sense consistent with the priviledges of the nation formerly sworn to by the king If the oath had such a sence in times of Poperie when the Clergie were a distinct Corporation yet when that exemption was abolish'd as a branch of Anti-Christian usurpation The change of their condition must needs change the intention of the oath unless they will say that the Crown stands still engaged to them to maintain such priviledges as by Act of Parliament were long since abolish'd which is to make his oath to them contrariant to that taken before for the maintenance of the laws It s apparent then to make the intention of the oath to be against a legal alteration by Parliament makes it unlawfull and so not obligatorie And if it be not intended against legall alteration the king may pass a Bill for the abolition of Episcopacie when his Houses of Parliament think it convenient and petition for it without