XVII. OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE KING AND THE TWO HOUSES, IN POINT OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT.

TOUCHING the GOVERNMENT of the Church by bishops, the common jealousie hath been, that I am earnest and resolute to maintaine it, not so much out of piety, as policy and reason of State.

Wherein so farre indeed reason of State doth induce Me to approve that government above any other, as I find it impossible for a prince to preserve the State in quiet, unlesse he hath such an influence upon Church-men; and they such a dependence on him, as may best restraine the seditious exorbitancies of ministers tongues; who with the keyes of Heaven have so farre the keyes of the peoples hearts, as they prevaile much by their oratory to let in, or shut out, both peace and loyalty.

So that, being (as KING) intrusted by God, and the lawes, with the good both of Church and State; I see no reason I should give up, or weaken by any change, that power and influence which in right and reason I ought to have over both.

The moving bishops out of the House of Peeres

(of which I have elsewhere given an account) was sufficient to take off any suspicion, that I encline to them for any use to be made of their votes in State affaires: though indeed I never thought any bishop worthy to sit in that House, who would not vote according to his conscience.

I must now in charity be thought desirous to preserve that government in its right constitution, as a matter of religion; wherein both My judgement is fully satisfied, that it hath of all other the fullest Scripture grounds, and also the constant practise of all Christian Churches; till of late yeares, the tumultuarinesse of people, or the factiousnesse and pride of Presbyters, or the covetousnesse of some states and princes, gave occasion to some mens wits to invent new models, and propose them under specious titles of Christs government, scepter, and kingdome; the better to serve their turnes, to whom the change was beneficiall,

They must give Me leave, having none of their temptations to invite Me to alter the government of bishops, (that I may have a title to their estates) not to believe their pretended grounds to any new waies: contrary to the full, and constant testimony of all histories, sufficiently con

vincing unbiased men; that as the primitive churches were undoubtedly governed by the Apostles and their immediate successours the first and best bishops; so it cannot in reason or charity be supposed, that all churches in the world should either be ignorant of the rule by them prescribed, or so soon deviate from their divine and holy patterne: that since the first age, for 1500 yeares not one example can be produced of any setled Church, wherein were many ministers and congregations, which had not some bishop above them, under whose jurisdiction and government they were.

Whose constant and universall practise agreeing with so large, and evident Scripture directions, and examples, as are set down in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, for the setling of that government, not in the persons onely of Timothy and Titus, but in the succession; (the want of government being that, which the Church can no more dispence with, in point of wel-being then the want of the word and sacraments, in point of being.)

I wonder how men came to looke with so envious an eye upon bishops power and authority, as to oversee both the ecclesiasticall use of them,

and apostolicall constitution; which to Me seems no lesse evidently set forth as to the maine scope and designe of those Epistles, for the setling of a peculiar office, power, and authority in them as president-bishops above others, in point of ordination, censures, and other acts of ecclesiasticall discipline; then those shorter characters of the qualities and duties of Presbyter-bishops, and deacons, are described in some parts of the same Epistles; who in the latitude and community of the name were then, and may now not improperly be called bishops; as to the over sight and care of single congregations, committed to them by the Apostles, or other apostolicall bishops, who (as Timothy and Titus) succeeded them in that ordinary power, there assigned over large divisions, in which were many Presbyters.

The humility of those first bishops avoiding the eminent title of Apostles, as a name in the Churches stile appropriated from its common notion (of a messenger, or one sent) to that special dignity which hath extraordinary call, mission, gifts, and power immediately from Christ: they contented themselves with the ordinary titles of bishops and presbyters, untill use, (the great

arbitrator of words, and master of language) finding reason to distinguish by a peculiar name those persons, whose power and office were indeed distinct from, and above all other in the Church, as succeeding the Apostles in the ordinary and constant power of governing the Churches, (the honour of whose name they modestly, yet commendably declined) all Christian Churches (submitting to that speciall authority) appropriated also the name of bishop, without any suspicion or reproach of arrogancy, to those, who were by apostolicall propagation rightly descended and invested into that highest and largest power of governing even the most pure and primitive churches: which, without all doubt had many such holy bishops, after the pattern of Timothy and Titus; whose special power is not more clearly set down in those Epistles (the chief grounds and limits of all episcopall claim, as from divine right) then are the characters of these perilous times, and those men that make them such; who not enduring sound doctrine, and cleare testimonies of all Churches practise, are most perverse disputers, and proud usurpers, against true episcopacy: who, if they be not traytours and boasters, yet they seem to be very