THe question about Episcopacie hath never yet been truly sta­ted, nor the chief points of it methodically distributed, and this is the cause that it is now become so intricate and invol­ved to the great disturbance of the world; for satisfaction therefore herein, the first thing to be questioned is the Quid esse of Episcopacy, and what is separable from the Order of it, as it is now constituted in England.

According to Bishop Bilson, there are foure things necessary in Religion.

• 1. Dispensing of the word.
• 2. Administring of the Sacraments.
• 3. Imposing of hands in Ordination.
• 4. Guiding of the keyes.

The first two of these being the ordinary means of Salvation, he attributes generally to all Ministers: the other two respect the clen­sing and governing of the Church, and are com­mitted (as he saith) to Bishops onely, and not; [Page 2] to all Presbyters equally, least by a parity of rule confusion follow, and ruine upon confusion. It seems then, that the end of Religion is, that God be duly served, and the end of Church­policie, that Religion be wisely maintained. And for the wise maintenance of Religion, it behooveth not only that some peculiar chosen men be separated & dedicated to officiate before God, and to direct and assist others in the offi­ces of Devotion, but also that all Anarchy and confusion be avoided amongst those that are so chosen into the Priesthood. Thus farre there needs no dispute: the main branches then of this controversie are three.

1. Who are designed by God to be gover­nours over the Priesthood for avoiding of con­fusion.

2. What proportion of Honour, Revenue, Power in Ecclesiasticall and in temporall af­fairs is due to those Governours.

3. What are the proper, distinct offices of that government to be executed & undergone.

As to the first main branch, the first question is, who is supreme Head of the Church under Christ: whether the Prince as Bishop Gardiner first held under H. 8. or the Bishop of Rome, as Sir Thomas More held, or the Aristocracy of Bishops, as Dr. Downing holds, or the Demo­cracie of Presbyters and Lay-elders, as Calvin taught; if Scripture be expresse in any precept to this purpose, or any Canon extending to all places and times, we must look no farther: but [Page 3] if no such expresse rule be, nor no necessity of any such, nor Divines were ever yet agreed upon any such, it seems that under the King, that Junto of Divines, Statesmen, and Lawyers in Parliament, which hath a Legislative power over the State, hath the same over the Church. And if the King have not the same supreme power in spirituall as in temporall things, it is either for want of sanctity in his person, or for want of capacity in his judgement: but that the Prince is more then temporall, and of sanctity competent for supremacie of rule in the Church is sufficiently evinced by Bilson, Hooker, &c. a­gainst Calvin, and the Papists, and Presbyteri­ans both; and that defect of judgement is no bar in the Church more then in the State, is appa­rent; for if the King be unlearned, yea, an in­fant, Lunatick, &c. yet by his Counsels and Courts of Law, warre and policie, he may go­vern the Common-wealth well enough; and it little skilleth whether he be Lawyer, Souldi­er, or Polititian: and there is the same reason in the Church. And if we admit the King to be supreme head of the Church, I think no man will deny but that the fittest policie for him to govern the Church by, will be the same pat­tern by which he governeth the State, making as little difference between them as may be; for it is the same body of men now, of which both State and Church are compacted, and so it was not in the Apostles times; and the same body hath the same head now, as it had not [Page 4] in the beginning: for Tiberius was then the head of the Christians, but the enemy of Chri­stian Religion. So the main [...] remaining is, whether the King having power to chuse subordinate officers and Counsellors in the Church, may or ought to chuse such as are meerly spirituall or meerly temporall, or a mi­xture of both. The Papists hold no Gover­nours over the Clergy competent, neither su­preme, nor subordinate, but such as are meerly spirituall: The Protestants every where al­most but in England, incline to a mixt govern­ment in the Church, though they exclude the King quatenus King: in the mean while, we in England admit of the King for our supreme go­vernour, but doubt of any subordinate mixt government. 'Tis not my taske at this present to dispute the conveniency of a mixt govern­ment, and an association of Spirituall and Lay rulers: but I think the Presbyterians have suf­ficiently asserted it though to another purpose. And it seems to me, that the Apostolicall form of government, as to the supremacy of it, is not now in force, because there is not the same rea­son, that head being then wanting in the Church which is since supplied; but as to any constitu­tion in the subordinate wheels of government, if the Laity had then any motion or influence therein, I think the same reason still remaines, and the same form ought still to be in force.

In the second branch: Be the subordinate governours of the Church mixt or simple, [Page 5] either according to the Popish or Presbyterian discipline: the question is, whether or no, such Ecclesiasticall governours ought to be vested, and dignified with temporall honours above the Judges of the Land, and equall with the Peeres of the Realme, and whether or no they ought to enjoy temporall revenues proportionable to that Honour, and power in secular affairs corre­spondent to those revenues; and if so, whether by divine or humane constitution. Also if these differences were added (as Bishop Bilson ac­knowledgeth) rather for the honour of the calling, then for any necessity of Gods Law, it is next to be questioned, whether or no a Par­liament hath not now power and cause to re­duce these additions of Episcopacy into more modest limits, for it seems that from Adam till Christ, no such grandour and splendor was in Church-men, nor from Christ to Constantine, and from Constantine to the Reformation, we know how they were abused to the mischief of the Church, and decay of Religion; and in the reformation, we know all Nations besides us did utterly remove them: and we know that the Church in England is now much impove­rished by many impropriations and commen­dams, &c. now deteined by Bishops and Cathe­drals, besides that which it suffers by Lay-men; and it seems strange that the Pastors of the flock should be starved, that Prelates should abound, and swim in too great excesse: and that the meer livelyhood of holy preachers should [Page 6] be held lesse necessary then the proud pomp of unusefull (nay as some think) mischievous do­minators.

As to the third branch: if the end of Episco­pacy (as Bishop Bilson holds) be to prevent the confusion of parity in the Church, we are first to question, whether Ordination by imposition of hands, and guiding of the keyes be necessary to Episcopacy, and so necessary, as that confu­sion cannot be prevented without them: All wise men will allow some authority requisite, whereby Ministers may be duly elected, and their true qualifications of learning and integri­ty tried, and that being rightly elected, they may be further consecrated by prayer and the solemnity of hands, and being consecrated, that they may be further instituted, and designed to some particular charge. The Presbyterians do not dislike such authority, nor are negligent in the same: the question is therefore onely, to whom this authority may be committed, whe­ther to Bishops onely, or to some such judicato­ry as the Presbyterians use, or some other of humane institution. As for example, if the Vni­versities, or some select Committee therein, be intrusted to try the sufficiency of Scholars, and to give Orders, and upon the vacancy of a Rectory to present three, &c. to the King, and the King out of those three to present two, &c. to the parish, and the parish out of two to chuse one for their Pastour, the question onely is, whether such election, ordination, presentation, [Page 7] and induction, be not as legall, and religious, as if it were by Bishops, and be not far more politike in preventing simony, and in better satisfying the right of the flock, whose soules are mainly concerned, and whose tithes are to that purpose contributed. And now it seemes S. Ierome al­lowes no further use of Bishops to have been of old: for he sayes plainly, that a Bishop differs from a Presbyter in no act exceptâ ordinatione: and as for the power of the keyes, that has been alwaies held common to the whole Clergie: but we wil not stand upon this, we will freely grant an authority necessary as well to superintend over Ministers in their charges, as to place them therein, and when B. Bilson appropriates to Bi­shops the guiding of the keyes, we will under­stand not the meere power of them, but the go­vernment of that power: we will admit also un­der this terme of guiding the keyes to be com­prehended

1. The power of making Ecclesiasticall Ca­nons.

2. Of giving judgement, and executing ac­cording thereto.

3. Of issuing the sentence of excommuni­cation.

4. Of deciding controversies.

And the question now is, whether the keyes may not be so guided by some other Ecclesi­asticall judges and magistrates besides Bishops, if the King thinke fit to designe them, for

First, the Legislative power of the Church was never yet only committed to Bishops, the [Page 8] whole Clergie, and the King were never yet excluded from Synods, and Councels, neither are the acts of Synods and Councels binding to any Nation unlesse the secular states ratifie them. And I think, there is no question of the validity of such Canons as are now made in those Protestant Countries, where Bishops have no command, or being at all.

And secondly, spirituall jurisdiction is not only appropriated to Bishops, but to Lay-men under Bishops, Canonists and Civilians are held more able and knowing herein than Bishops, and Bishops are held lesse fit by reason of their more sacred imployments: so the question here will be only this, Whether or no the jurisdicti­on of Lawyers, and such like, as now execute justice in the spirituall Courts under Bishops will be as competent under the King without Bishops as it is now under Bishops immediately. Some say, that Chancellours &c. are not meere Lay-men, no matter: For by the same reason any others to whom such Ecclesiasticall juris­diction shall be committed by the King shall be held sacred, and if they are not meere Lay-men, yet they are not meere Bishops; if they are pre­ferred to some equality with the Clergie, yet they are not preferred above the Clergie, and this preferment is no other, but such as may be bestowed upon any other Lay-man, that is not otherwise insufficient. And even amongst Pres­byterians there is a forme of Jurisdiction, and I think not held vaine, or unlawfull by any: and even in cases of heresie, blasphemie, &c. which [Page 9] are most spirituall, if none can so rightly judge what is heresie, blasphemy, &c. as spirituall go­vernours, yet this proves not any necessity of Bishops, for the fact may be tryed, & execution awarded by others, and nothing but an assi­stance of Councell from spirituall men will be needfull. In the third place also, if Excommu­nication be still held of necessity, and all other temporall authority defective without it, if it be concluded to be perpetuall, notwithstanding the decay of Prophecy, and the supply of other Christian jurisdiction, and if it be to be exten­ded also to all persons in all cases as our Chri­stian Court now extends it (which seemes to me a strange, obscure, unproved thing) yet the only question is, Whether it may not continue in the Church, and be still ordered and guided without Episcopacy: For it seemes that the Presbyterians, though they use not Excommu­nication for such violent, rigorous purposes as the Papists doe, yet they are more severe in it then ever the Fathers were before the Law or under the Law: and yet notwithstanding, their authority of using it, is not excepted against by their enemies. And fo [...]rthly, if it be granted that Bishops were first introduced for the pre­venting of schismes and factions in the Church, as being held the fittest meanes for to procure the decision of controversies, and the determi­nation of disputes in Religion: yet the question is whether discord and division may not be pre­vented, and difficulties of dispute as convenient­ly resolved by some other as by Episcopall au­thority: [Page 10] for it seemes there is great difference inter Ecclesiam constitutam, and Ecclesiam consti­tuendam, and between a Church whose supreme governor is ill affected to it, & a Church whose Prince is an indulgent Father to it: so that Epi­scopacy cannot be now of the same use, as it was at first in the infancy of the persecuted Church. And it seemes that amongst all other Prote­stants both Calvinists and Lutherans where Bi­shops rule not, controversies are not so mani­fold, nor innovations in Religion so easie to be induced, nor factions in the Church so dange­rously maintained, as they are in England under the sway of Bishops. It seemes also in all great emergent occasions of division and dissention in points of doctrine, that if our two famous Vniversities were consulted, and in case of dis­agreement there, if London, as our third Oracle should arbitrate by a Junto of all her Divines, the decision would be farre more honorable and satisfying to all, than if any one Bishop, or any Province, or Nation of Bishops should at­tempt to give the like. And to conclude this point, the solemn use of Synods, Councels, and Parliaments does not at all depend upon Epi­scopacy, so that it seemes as to this purpose no necessity can be alledged for the government of Bishops, as Bishops are now qualified in Eng­land.

These branches if they were thus orderly discussed by moderate, conscionable, & learned Divines, many incomparable advantages in pro­babilitie would arise thereby: for first, the very [Page 11] foundations of Popery would be laid open and naked, the very center of that tyrannous united Empire which has subjugated the world so long under such base slavery, would be ript up, and all its infernall mysteries discovered to the sun. Secondly, that unpolitike axiome, No Bishop, no King, whereby Bishops have alwayes imbar­qued Princes in their warres, would appeare to be sophisticate, and a meere color without all substance of reason. Thirdly, many great fruits of peace and unity both Ecclesiasticall and Ci­vill would redound to our whole Nation. Those many mischiefs which attend Episcopacy, a­gainst which the complaints are so grievous and universall would be remedied. That new mo­dule of government which so many have so va­riously phansied, and proposed in these latter times would open it self, and offer it self to us of its own accord. The pattern of the State would be sufficient to present to us a fit & harmonious pattern for the Church: and the body and head of both Church and State would appeare to be the self same. The King should be the same in both, and Councels and Courts govern under him by the same commission in both. A power to ordain fit Ministers, and to put a finall end to controversies and dissentions might be commit­ted to the Vniversities, and some gentle influ­ence by votes affirmative or negative might be also allowed therein to the Laytie. The power of making Articles and Orders for decency and peace in the Church might remaine unalter'd in [Page 12] the Kings Clergie, and Parliament: Able civill and canon Lawyers might still sit in their tribu­nals taking cognizance of such cases, as are truly Ecclesiasticall, and have not been by usurpation of the Hierarchy wrongfully wrested out of the Temporall Courts: and the spirituall sword of Excommunication might still be gently weel­ded in the same hands as it has been, when it is necessary. An assistance of godly Divines in all cases of Conscience might be allotted to the K. and all his Judges and Magistrates upon occasi­on, without wholly drawing them from their charges, and this would be no lesse effectuall, then that of the greatest Prelates. The inconve­niences of the Presbyterian Discipline also which is not so adequate and conformable to Monarchy would be rectified. And lastly, the bleeding Church which had so great a part of her Patrimony torn from her by Hen. 8. by the addition of Episcopall and Cathedrall livings might be healed up, and restored to her antient grace and vigour.