17. Of the differences between the KING and the two Houses, in Point of Church-Government.
T Ouching the Government of the Church by Bishops, the common Jealousie hath been, that I am earnest and resolute to maintain it, not so much out of pietie, as policie, and reason of State.
Wherein so far 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 dependance on Him, as may best restraine the seditious exorbitancies of Ministers tongues; who with the Keyes of Heaven have so far the Keyes of the Peoples hearts, as they prevail much by their Oratory to let in, or shut out, both Peace and Loyalty.
So that I 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 Peers (of which I have elswhere given an account) was sufficient to take off any suspicion, that I inclined 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 years, 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 suspicious titles of Christs government, Scepter, and Kingdom; the better to serve their turns, 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 beleeve their pretended grounds to any new waies: contrary to the full, and constant testimony of all Histories sufficiently convincing unbiased men; that as the Primitive Churches were undoubtedly governed by the Apostles and their immediate Successours the first & 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 & holy pattern: That since the first Age, for 1500 years 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, are set down in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, for the setling of that Government not in the persons onely 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 Sacrament in point of being.)
I wonder how men came to looke with so envious an eye upon Bishops power and authority, as to over-see 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 & community of the name were then, and may now not improperly be called Bishops; as to the oversight and care of single Congregations, committed to them by the Apostles, or those Apostolicall Bishops, who (as Timothy and Titus) succeeded them, in that ordinary power, there assigned over larger 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 speciall dignity, which had extraordinary call, mission, gifts and power immediately from Christ: they contented themselves with the ordinary titles of Bishops and Presbyters, until 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 moderately, yet commendably declined) all Christian Churches (submitting to that special Authority) appropriated also the name of Bishop, without any suspicion or reproach of arrogancie, 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 clear testimonies of all Churches practice, are most perverse Disputers, and proud Usurpers, against true Episcopacy: who if they be not Traytours and Boasters, yet they seem to be very covetous, heady, high-minded; inordinate and fierce, lovers of themselves, having much of the form, little of the power of godlinesse.