HONI SOIT QVI MAL Y PENSE   blazon or coat of arms   

A DISCOURSE OPENING THE NATURE OF THAT EPISCOPACY, WHICH IS EXERCISED IN ENGLAND.  
Wherein, With all Humility, are represented some Considerations tending to the much-desired Peace, and long expected Reformation, of This our Mother Church.  
By the Right Honourable ROBERT LORD BROOKE.  
LONDON, Printed by R. C for Samuel Cartwright, and are to be sold at the sign of the Hand and Bible in Duck-lane. 1641.   

TO THE MOST NOBLE LORDS, WITH THE HONOURABLE KNIGHTS, CITIZENS, AND BURGESSES, Now assembled in PARLIAMENT.  
IN Epistles Dedicatory, sometimes men render an account to the world, by what Principles they were Led to such a work Sometimes they maintain and strengthen, what they have done, by New Arguments. Sometimes ad captandam Benevolentiam, they present their whole Design, in a brief Epitome, that so they may invite the Reader. But I shall do None of These.  
The first I need not: For if the Ten Kings must hate the Whore, Eat her flesh, and Burn her with her fire; Will not every good Christian offer himself a ready Servant to This Work, a Willing Soldier under this Standard?  
The Second, I cannot; without questioning my own Diligence, or (which is worse) my Readers Gentleness: Either of which every Writer carefully shuneth.  
The third I will not, left I be injurious to myself: For, Humane Nature is ever Novorum avida; and the Soul of vast comprehension; the Book therefore would seem but Crambe bis cocta, to All that read the Epistle; and but create a nausea to Those that had already gathered all, by viewing the Breviate.  
If it be the Glory of a King's Daughter to be clothed in Needlework; surely This poor Birth will need more than Fig-leaves, to make it Beautiful. When it is Clothed with its Best Robes, It will not be worthy to appear in so Great a Presence. How much less then, when presented only in a bare and naked Sceleton?  
The Work then of These Lines, is to lay prostrate at Your Feet (most Noble Lords, and Gentlemen) the Retirements of Your Humble Servant in the Last Recess.  
If you shall ask me, how I dare take the boldness to interrupt Your more serious Thoughts, with These Things of Little Worth: All I shall plead for myself is but This, the bow must be sometimes unbent; and if then This Pamphlet may be called for, it is all I aspire to. For, Your Protection, and Your Patronage, not Your Trouble, is My Request: Of which being no whit Doubtful; with all Humility commending This to Your Noble Favour; Yourselves and Counsels to the Almighty; I crave le●ve for ever to remain  
Your most obliged and devoted Servant ROBERT BROOKE.   

The CONTENTS of the Sections, and Chapters, in the following Discourse.  

SECT. I. CHAP. I.  THe Subject Stated Not a Bishop's Name, but Office Opposed: nor Office in general, but Such. Such a Bishop repug●nt to state-policy; Antiquity; Scripture. The Method pro●unded for the first Section, containing Arguments drawn ●●om state-policy. 
fol. 1.  Chap. II. Of Our Bishop's Birth; how unsuitable to his Office: how Hurtful to Himself and Others: How incongruous ● state-policy. 
3  III. A Bishops Breeding not fit for his Calling: against Rules of Policy. Some Objections answered. 
5  IU. Of Our Bishop's Election; whether suitable to state-policy. Of his Office: Principles, or Maxims, by which he governeth: and Practise according to Those Principles. 
11  V. Of the Nature of Indifference; what it is: and in what i● h●th place: whether in Re, or only in Appearance to our Understandings. 
19  VI. Where the Power of Indifferent Things seems to be fixed: whether in the Church, or not: or if in the Church, How far. Of the Churches Deciding Commanding Power. Of Doubts, and how we must deport ourselves under Doubts. 
30  VII. Of the Consequents to a Bishops Office. His Relations Upward and Dependences. Of his Vote in Parliament. Relations Downward: How repugnant to State Policy. 
35  VIII. What Good our Bishops can do to the State, is examined, whether they have been, or can be, friends to Monarchy, or Civil Government. 
42  IX. How suitable such Episcopacy can be to Monarchy, is farther considered. Whether the Best form of Church Government be Monarchical. Whether other Forms may not well stand with Civil Monarchy. How Church and State Government differ and agree. 
48  X. Who it is that opposeth, and exalteth himself above all that is called God. Who is properly a Papist: and what is Popery: Why the Pope is most properly Antichrist: How such Episcopacy differs, or agrees with Popery. 
53   

SECTION II. Considereth how Consonant such Episcopacy is either to sound Antiquity or Scripture.  Chap. I. Some Antiquities produced by a late most Learned and Reverend Patron of Episcopacy, are discussed. 
65  II. Our Bishop's Election, Delegation, etc. Examined by Antiquity. 
69  III. Of Ordination, whether proper only to Bishops: or equally committed to all Presbyters: discussed by Ancient Authorities. 
72  IU. Of the Name and Office of a Bishop in Scripture. How little, or how much the Scripture makes for, or against Bishops, Divers Texts are discussed. 
75  V. What form of Church Government seems most consonant to Scripture. Whether Monarchical, Aristocratical, or democratical. 
81  VI Of the consequemts that may possibly follow the change of Church Government. Of the great danger of Schisms, Sects and Heresies. Of One new Sect to come in the Last Days. Whether Bishops, can keep the Church from Schisms, Sects, etc. What is, or who are the Cause of most Schisms among us. 
86  VII. The danger of Schisms and Sects more fully discussed: the Nature and Danger of Anabaptism, Separatism, and Unlicensed Preaching. The conclusion with an affectionate desire of peace and union. 
98    

ERRATA.  
PAge 4. line 24. Affection, for Affectation p. 19 l. 2. Indifferent, for indifference. p. 26. l. 35. at one any time, for at any one time. p. 5. l. ●0. joy for Ivy. p. 56. l. 11. may be the more, for may be more. p. 88 l. 2. of all Civil, etc. for of all. Civil, etc. p. 94. l. 32. Orders, for Orders from Rome. p. 98. l. 7. deal now.   

A DISCOURSE OPENING THE NATURE OF THAT EPISCOPACY WHICH IS EXERCISED IN ENGLAND: Wherein, with all humility, are represented some Considerations tending to the much-desired Peace, and long expected Reformation, of this our Mother Church.  


CHAP. I.  
IAyme not at Words, but Things; not loving to fight with Shadows. It is not the Look, much less the Name of a Bishop that I fear, or quarrel with; it is his Nature, his Office, that displeaseth me.  
Nor yet his Nature, or Office in General; but Such, and so clothed, or rather veiled, with such and such adjuncts.  
For to me the Word Bishop-signifies, either one that is to Preach, Administer the Sacraments, Exhort, Reprove, Convince, Excommunicate, etc. not only in some one distinct Congregation, his own Parish; but in many, several Congregations crowded up together in one strange (and, for long, unknown) word, a Diocese.  
Or one who hath to all this added, not only the name of a Civil Lord, (with which bare name, or shadow, I fight not) but also a vast, unwieldy (I had almost said unlimited) Power in Civil Government; which must needs draw on a mighty Train, and clothe itself with glorious Robes of long extended and magnific styles, scarce to be marshaled by a better Herald than Elibu, who could give no Titles.  
Or in the last place, (which should be first) a true faithful Overseer, that, over one single Congregation, hath a joint care with the Elders, Deacons, and rest of the Assembly, who are all fellow helpers, yea servants each to others faith.  
This last is a Bishop, of the first Institution; of Christ's allowance; settled in divers Churches, even in the Apostles times.  
The first is of the second Century, when Doctrine, Discipline, all Religion, began to wain. For even then Mysterious Antichrist was not only conceived, but began to quicken.  
The second rose last, (though first intended by the Church's Enemy.) Rising up while the world was busy, looking all one way; as amazed at the new Beast, successor to the Dragon.  
This is now our Adversary; One monstrously compounded, of different, yea opposite Offices; and those the greatest, both Ecclesiastic and Civil: for which he seems no way able, no way fit; and that for many reasons, which may be brought from Scripture, Church-Antiquity, State-Policy.  
I shall begin with the last, (as that I now aim at most.) Here let us view our Bishop a while as a private man, before his Office. Next as a Lord over Church and State, in his Office. Then, with some necessary Consequents to his Office; as now it is exercised in this Kingdom. Thus shall we quickly judge how suitable to true Policy of State, are either the Antecedents, Concomitants, or Consequents, of this too officious, two-headed Bishop.  
Antecedents to his Office, are his Birth, Education, Election, Ordination, etc.  
Concomitants, (or rather Ingredients) we may call, that almost illimited power, both Intensive, in sole Ordination; Jurisdiction (Directive; by Injunctions, Canons, etc. Corrective, by Excommunication, Suspension, Deprivation, &c▪) As also Extensive, over so vast a Diocese.  
Hither also we may refer his power juridical or Legislative, in Parliament; Judicial in many Great, yea Civil Tribunals. And (of all monsters most ugly) his power Delegative: than which this sun hath seen nothing more monstrous, at least as of late it hath been exercised.  
By Consequents I mean his Relations, (acquired by his office) both Upward, to his Sovereign, Creator, Benefactors; as Downward, to his own family, Creatures, and hang-by Dependants.   

CHAP. II.  
LEt us begin with Antecedents; in them the first. Which we shall find very unsuitable, to his after acquired office. For the most part he is Ex faece plebis; humi-serpent; of the lowest of the people (an old complaint.) Now for such a low borne man, to be exalted high, so high, and that not gradatim, but per saltum too, as oft it is (in one of few, or no School Degrees; which yet indeed at best are scarce degrees to the Civil honour of a Peer●;) must needs make as great a Chasm in politics, as such leaps use to do in Naturals.  
A great Evil must it be, and that both in himself, and to himself from others.  
In others eye, his honour will be the object, not so much perhaps of envy, as scorn: while every man of lowest worth, will still value himself at as high a rate, and still conceive he wanted not the virtuous desert, but fortunate reward, a Bishop had. Now every Action will from hence displease, sith unexpected, sudden happiness, is oft times fault enough.  
Now That fitting deportment, which may but express the just dignity of his place, & answer the majesty of his high calling, shall be esteemed but pride, insolence, and at best but affection. And from some such displeasing action, or gesture, (though but surmised on some groundless fancy,) oft his very person comes to be distasted: and then adieu all effectual good, which his words or actions, else, might soon effect.  
Sure the chief Dominion of Gospel Ministers should be in That, the Lord and master of the Gospel so much requires; My son, give me thy heart. If a Minister once come to lose the heart, and affections of his people, he may indeed study some way to force their bodies; but shall scarce ever win a soul, or save a sinner. Homo duci vult, cogi non potest: if you can fasten any force on his whole person, it must be that of Love. For sure the Gospel's constraint, is only that of Love. The love of Christ constraineth. This, and this only is an irresistible Attractive, an uncontrollable constraint. Thus is the Minister, the Bishop hurt, in regard of Others.  
In regard of Himself: sudden great changes are dangerous in Nature: the skilful Grazier, the expert Gardener, will not translate from barren to an over-fruitfull soil; for this suffocates the Spirits, and destroys the Plant. The sudden unexpected news of a son's life, (which was reported dead) was the death of the Parent, as we read in Roman Histories.  
High places cause a swimming in the brain: your Falconers seel a Pigeons eye, (when they would have her soar high) to prevent a vertigo. I conceive from this Reason, and mainly from this, it was the good pleasure of the Spirit, that under the Law, when the Church had an influence into state affairs, the High Priest should be chosen out of one eminent family, of the stock of Levy: and some of the Kings of Israel are reproved by God, for that they chose their Priests out of the meanest of the people. He that is to go in and out before the people, and is their guide, must be without blemish.  
Those Horses which are designed to a lofty Air, and generous manage, must be of a Noble race. Non bene conveniunt, nec in una sede morantur, Majestas & Origo plebeia. The Vapours which by the sun are raised to a great height, even to the second Region, being of so mean a Progeny, are but the matter of hail, snow, rain, storm, and tempest, which by Historians are observed to be the frequent Prognostickes, or at least companions of Wars, and confusions.   

CHAP. III.  
BUt some will say, this defect (in Birth) may be repaired in Breeding: else we shut the doors of hope, (and by Consequence of Industry) to Cicero, Marius, and such other Worthies; who though but of a low Pedigree, may advance themselves even to the Helm, and there approve themselves men admirable, in the way of Government.  
'Tis true, Art ofttimes helpeth Nature: some men of small beginnings, by their virtues have deserved for a Motto, and impreso, the Poet's words,— Et quae non fecimus ipsi, Vixea nostra voco— But when was this seen in a Bishop?  
Let us therefore, in the next place, examine their Breeding; and see whither in probability, that be not as disadvantageous to their Office, as their Birth.  
Our Education, (if we intent service in way of Civil Policy) must be in converse with those who are therein Arts Masters: or in reading their writings: or lastly, and mainly, in an happy use of both. Neither of the two former, hardly both together, can make us so expert, as Practice. Scribendo discimus scribere. Long, Active, costly, and dangerous Observations, are the only way to make a wise Statesman.  
Now when these Gentlemen, I mean, the most refined wits amongst them, (for others come not within our question;) design the Ministerial Function, they either lay aside Divinity, and so God is displeased: or else they labour seriously in the more spiritual paths; and then the Common Weal is by them deserted. For, these two (so different) studies, cannot go forward pari passu. A Minister cannot serve God and Mammon.  
I know other men think otherwise, (of these Studies) but I conceive the case is clear: For sure the complaints of good men, Canòns and Act● of Counsels (forbidding Ministers to meddle in State affairs) and the Answers of our own breasts prove this truth more than sufficiently.  
You shall have St. Austin (in his 81. Epist.) complaining, that worldly affairs distracted his thoughts from his calling: and S. Cyprian apprehends, those great persecutions were but just consequences of the Clergies guilt in this kind. Gregory the great was much troubled to feel himself under that load.  
Secondly, Canons and Counsels discover their judgements fully in this point; so Can. 6.8. and 83. of the Apostles. Counsels also do the same; Con. Carthag. Can. 16. Counc. Calced. Can. 3. and thus still they did while Canons and Counsels did at all study the advancement of Christ's Kingdom.  
I confess of later times, Ministers (like Watermens) have looked one way and rowed another; so that perhaps now you may find Canons of another strain.  
But thirdly, (which may answer all Objections) let every good Minister examine but his own breast, his own heart; and then let him speak.  
I am sure, to those who maintain such Prelatical Bishops, this absurdity will follow; that to one man the whole power may be given, both in Civilibus, & Ecclesiasticis: a Thing, which God thought Christ only fit for; and so on His shoulders only, did he place the World's Government.  
Yet some will perhaps affirm, 
Object.  Both these compatible, and this by example from Gods own Injunctions, to some of the Ministers, under the Law, in the Jewish Polity.  
But I answer, 
Answ. 1.  first; There are Two main things in which our Ministry, and the Jews (of old) do differ.  
First, all their solemn external worship, (at least most part of it) lay in Bodily Work, in such things wherein the mind & brain was but little exercised; as in offering Sacrifice, burning Incense, divers washings, etc.  
Secondly, That which made their members uncapable of coming into their assemblies, was outward uncleanness, (as touching of a dead body, Leprosy, want of Legal washings, etc.) and from hence their Ministerial watch (one of the greatest works) became as Easy, as Outward and Visible; so that even of the inferior Levites, were made Porters; and to these, the Office of restraining unmeete persons, from their Congregation, did belong.  
But, now, the Work of our Ministers under Christ, differeth toto Caelo; and that both in public and private.  
In public, it is Preaching, Expounding, Catechising, etc. which require mighty workings of the brain, and inward man: specially sith these must be done with Majesty and Authority, (Let no man despise thy youth;) and yet with all sweetness and gentleness, (for a Bishop must not be fierce.)  
In private, his Work is to compose differences, (that they break not out into public) to visit the sick, to comfort the afflicted, (for Who is sick (saith Paul) and I am not troubled? who is weak or offended, and I burn not? Yea and many more works of this Nature. And all this, besides the care of his Family, and besides his private study, a work too great for any man.  
If you then con●ider the quantity, the variety, or spirituality, of the Ministerial Work under the Gospel; you cannot but acknowledge it great, very great, and much greater than that of old under the Law. Indeed they dispute sometimes, who have not tried; but a painful Preacher still cryeth out, Who is sufficient, who is fit, for These things?  
In the Censures of the Church (though indeed the Keys be entrusted with others as well as himself, yet) by his learning, piety, and prudence, he must steer all: so that he must always be awake. Caveat Dictator nequid detrimenti capiat Respublica.  
Will any man now say, that the Case of a Priest, and a Minister, is all one? for, suppose the Priests of old, did intermeddle with secular affairs, shall any Minister now from this example, (when the calling is so vastly different) take upon him both functions? If he do, let him take heed he be not as one that hath taken up the Plough of the Kingdom of Heaven, and then doth the work of the Lord negligently: If so, his judgement will be intolerable.  

Answ. 2.  But, in the second place, I answer confidently, and I hope truly, that these two Offices, or Callings, did not under the Law, meet in One, except in some Extraordinary Cases, and persons.  
First, the old Patriarches, I confess, did exercise Both Functions, in some sense, and in some sense they did not: (I mean as a Calling.) Abraham indeed swayed the Sceptre; but his whole Kingdom was limited to his own Family; and so he was a King, and no King; for every Master of a Family must in the like case keep up Government.  
I confess he offered Sacrifice; but then, when there was no Law, no Priest: and others might have done it as well as He, had they been so well inclined. Thus he was a Priest, and no Priest; for in his Priestly Office, he did but what every good man would do; at least might have done: and in his Kingly Office, he was but as a Master of a Family. And so it was in the rest of the patriarchs; so that little can be urged from these examples. To which may also be referred, that old instance of Melchisedech; if at least he were a man, and not the Second Person of the Trinity, in man's form; as Cuneus, Molineus, and many others hold.  
Secondly, I find Two Judges that were High-Priests also; Samuel and Ely: but it seems they were thus, by some express, particular, Extraordinary Command: for God saith to Samuel, These have not rejected Thee, but Me: intimating that he had particularly appointed him to judge, as in an Extraordinary Case, which may therefore be no precedent for Ordinary men, in Ordinary Cases. samuel's special calling appears not only from his being devoted before his Birth, and strange call of God, after: but most clearly in that he was not (as all the Priests were to be) of Aaron's house; as appears by 1 Sam. 1. Compared with 1 Chron. 6. Yea and Ely too, though of Aaron, yet was not of the eldest son; (whose Line by right aught to have had the High-Priesthood) as the Jews discourse at large; and of late Cloppenburge, in his Excellent School of Sacrifice.  
Now Hoseah may by special Licence take a wife of Adulteries; Abraham Sacrifice his child; the Jews borrow Jewels of the Egyptians, and Phineas do justice by an extraordinary command or instinct, but we may not follow these precedents.  
Some say that inferior Levites did intermeddle in secular affairs. But I answer, there were Levites of two sorts; out of one sort, Priests were chosen, (out of Aaron's Line;) the others were like the Seculars among the Jesuits. And these last did (as the Seculars do●) perform the Civil part of those Religious Services; and nothing else, that I can find in Scripture, or Story.  
Lastly, for the High Priests after the Jewish Government was broken in pieces, I hope no body will bring them for a precedent: there being then no Vision for spiritual things from God, no more Government for Civil things, according to the Rule of God.  
Of those times Ios●phus complaineth, that the Ghasmonei had taken upon them the Uniting of Priesthood and Secular power, in one person; which could not be done, but in extraordinary cases, by God's special command. And thus I suppose they will get but little from God's injunctions among the Jews.  
But some still will say, that one of these Studies may fit for another. 
Object.  All truths, Polemicke, positive, whether Politic, Philosophical, or Theologicall, are of near consanguinity; and he that is a Gnostique in one, cannot be a mere Tyrunculus in the other.  

Answ. 1.  I confess did they improve their Studies to the ripening of Reason, and enlarging of their understanding, This might in some sense be true. But they spend their time in Critical, Cabalistical, sceptical, Scholastical Learning: which fills the head with empty, aerial, notions; but gives no sound food to the Reasonable part of man. Yea their study is mainly laid out upon books; which they prise, and sleight as they please; while they want, Cotem Scientiae & ingenii, a Real Adversary, that by contradiction might raise their Parts, and much enlarge their judgements. Their learning is in Terms, it is but Nominal; and waters cannot rise higher than their Fountain.  
But allow that they improve their studies to the best; 
Answ. 2.  yet this is not enough: For, State Policy is the Daughter of Converse, Observation, Industry, Experience, Practice; and Books will never Teach That: but They are but ill Leaders of the Blind, and what will be the issue in that Case, judge you.   

CHAP. FOUR  
WE have seen our Bishop's Birth, and Breeding, with all his Studies, and preparations to his Office; to which we have now brought him; only that his Election, and Ordination Interpose. Of which I might speak much; but because This is the common Theme of all complaints, I shall pass it here; the rather because it may perhaps be better examined by Scripture, and Antiquity, than State Policy, in which I now am.  
Yet by the way I cannot but propose it as worthy of State consideration; how like the inferior Clergy is to yield true Canonical Obedience, to one (that nescio quo jure, requires it by Oath) though he be oft forced on them against, and never with, their express will; which they cannot express, having neither positive, nor negative votes in election. Except perchance the whole Clergy of a Diocese or Province, may be fully represented by a Cloistered Chapter, among which are usually the very dregs of lowest men. Who yet indeed (themselves) have no Elective votes; but after the solemn dirge of Veni Sancte Spiritus, are as sure to find the Spirit in a Congee d' eslire, as others not long since, in the Tridentine Post-mantile.  
Certainly, it is to be desired, that Christians would show as much care and conscience in setting heads over whole Churches, as some Heathen Emperors did in setting Governors over private Towns; which yet they would not do, till at least free liberty was given to the Citizen's complaint and rejection, if not Election, of the party propounded. And this Antoninus learned from the Jews, and Christians choice of Their Church Governors in Those Times: though now Latter ages are grown Wiser. But I must leave This subject.  
We are now come to view our Bishop in his Office. Though we may complain (as one once of Lewes the II.) he cannot be fairly limned, because still in Motion: which yet in itself might be, at least excusable; were he not nimium Dilig●ns, too officious; being made up of Two most inconsistent Offices, the one of Church, the other of State.  
His deportment in Both, we may guess by his Maxims or Rules by which he goes; which once seen, we shall quickly perceive how well he squares his Practice by his Principles; and how consonant both be to true Church or State Policy.  
I shall instance but in one or two, for we may know Ex ungue Leonem. The Climax runs up thus.  
First, the Church hath power in all Indifferents.  
Secondly, the Church is Judge what is Indifferent.  
Thirdly, the Bishops (and their Creatures) are This Church.  
If a Prince hath power to Command the persons and estates of his Subjects in case of Necessity, and the same Prince be sole judge of Necessity, it will be no wonder to me, if That People be ever Necessitous.  
If the Church have power in Adiaphoris, and the same Church be Judge Quid sit Adiaphoron; and This Church be the Bishops; I shall not wonder to see those things that are purely Indifferent, made absolutely necessary, to the insupportable burden of all men's consciences.  

Object.  But some will perhaps say, These Maxims have influence only into Church Government, and so belong not to the present question of State Policy.  
I confess, 
Ans●.  did they confine the pressing of these, within the confines of the Church, they could not so properly belong to the dispute in hand: but they run over; For the Maxim is very large. It is not only Indifferent things in the Church, but Indifferent things in general, All-Indifferent things; and so they may take in, what they will.  
Again, they do really set Laws in State matters, under the notion of Indifferent; so that all the Subjects Liberty, or propriety in goods. They compass with their Net of Indifferency; which they make heavy with the plummets of greatest penalties.  
Yea, though they meddled not at all, with such Things as these, without their Horizon; yet if they make those Things to be Indifferent which are sinful, (as they do▪ I fear) and to These enforce obedience with pretence of Church Policy, They overthrew all Civil Government.  
I take such Maxims, to be the very Hinges upon which our Bishop's Practice turneth. I shoot not Arrows of Scorn: For truly I have not in my intentions, either by ●outs, or jeers, or by a factious Spirit, to deal with This Adversary. Michael himself would not revile the Devil: It much less becomes me, so to behave myself towards These Men (with whom I treat) among whom I know so many truly Eminent: I desire to speak nothing but Truth. Yea, I should exceedingly rejoice, if by the Spirit of Meekness, men of that Learning, and abilities, (which many of them are) might be reduced to That, which I from my Soul conceive to be truth, and am persuaded will be so acknowledged by Themselves, one day.  
If these than be their Tenets, (as I suppose they will confess them to be) Is there any thing more Unreasonable? more Vnbrotherly? more savouring of Self, than These Positions?  
Unreasonable? For, allow the Church hath all power in Indifferents, (which I dare not yet yield,) who hath made the Church a judge (beyond appeal) what is Indifferent? Is not this, to bring necessary and indifferent things all under one notion, If the Church shall judge indifferent things to be necessary, and necessary to be indifferent? which would to me be a sad story.  
But you will say, if the Church be not the Judge of what is Indifferent; who may be That Judge?  
I tell you, ask of questions is no answering of difficulties.  
But secondly, (because I love to deal plainly,) I will tell you who shall be Judge: In expounding of Scripture, the Scripture; but in finding out what is indifferent, Recta Ratio must be Judge.  
But who shall tell us what is Recta Ratio? I answer, Recta Ratio; Will any man, if the Church shall judge That to be indifferent, which is not, say it is indifferent? or that my conscience is bound in this case? Ex. great. I do confess the hour when the Congregation shall meet, is indifferent; if the Church will appoint hereupon Eleven of the Clock at night, and Five in the morning (in this Latitude under which we are) I hope no man will say but that it is ill done of the Church; and that neither my conscience, nor my outward man, is bound further in This, than to a passive obedience; certainly all force upon me, in this case, would be sin in them.  

Object.  But they will say, this is a thing in its self Unreasonable, and so cometh not into the nature of indifferent thing.  

Answ.  But the Church having such power, as is claimed, who may dispute it?  
But secondly, this action must be considered either in the universal nature of it, or else as it is presently to be put in practice. If you value and balance it in this last sense, nothing is indifferent, no substantial, nor circumstantial Being. For we being bound to do That, which hic & nunc is best, That which is so with the circumstances, will be our guide, and the Church will have, can have, no power against This.  
But if you consider things in the universal nature, (not clothed with these and these circumstances) than it seemeth to have some Indifferency; and then, if ever, it is in the Church's power; and yet even then, the Church can go no further, than what will be according to Reason. For, for a Church to say, I will, because I will, is most Papal, Tyrannical, and altogether displeasing to Christ: but of This, more in another place.  
Thus their Tenets seem to me very Unreasonable; They will do more than Adam did: He gave Names to Things according to their Natures; they will give Natures according to their own fancies.  
Secondly, very Vnbrotherly; in that they make themselves the Church, excluding all others: in which act, (according to their Tenets) they exclude all others from Salvation; for they say, in an ordinary way, there is no Salvation out of the Church; and They in this, admit none into the Church, but themselves.  
Moses was, upon a mistake, reproved by the Jews, in that he made himself a judge, though in that decision he released a Jew. Truly I know not by what authority these Bishop's stile themselves the representative Church; for they must do it either jure humano, or Divino. By the last we do not yield; That is the Question in hand: by the first they cannot; for where do the people, either implicitly or explicitly, elect them and resign up their power to them?  
Is it in their Convocation, that they obtain this privilege? That, by the Laws of this Land, is not at all obligatory till confirmed by Parliament.  
Secondly, the people choose not These Convocation men, but the Clergy, and so they cannot represent the whole Church.  
Thirdly, the Clergy have no free election, for the Bishop will appoint whom they must choose; and this too Sub poena anathematis.  
The Angels (for the whole Ministry of the Church) in the Revelation, seem to receive some particular honour from the Spirit; yet not the power of a Representative Body: but Quo jure humano, aut Divino, Twenty six men shall challenge to themselves, as proper, That which is not so much as by a figurative right, given to those Angels, I know not. And is not this Vnbrotherly, to intrude myself, and exclude all others from Their Right?  
But lastly it savoureth very much of Self. For certainly he that will outdo the Pope, is grown to a pretty height of pride. Now in the Papacy it is a dispute, whether the Pope alone; or the whole College of Cardinals; or a General Council; or the People; or All These; or Some of These, with their joint forces, may style themselves the Church. But Our men without dispute, (like the Lion in the Fable) challenge All: of whom the Poet is verified; Aetas Patrum, pejor avo, tulit progeniem nequiorem. And yet, whoever takes up Error at the Second hand, will have an ill bargain; though he buy it cheap; he will be no gainer. Error being like the jerusalem-artichoake; plant it where you will, it over-runnes the ground and chokes the Heart.  
Thus having with the chains of Indifferency bound up the People's Liberty; they deal no better with their Prince. Only Polyphemus-like, they leave Ulysses for the last. For, when the People are devoured, Kings cannot escape. But because Kings are of more prying Spirits, they steal in upon them, with Sugared Baits: such as That of Theirs, No Bishop, No King. But of This more anon.  
I might instance in many other of their Maxims, which I conceive very prejudicial, both to Church, and State Policy. But I will rather view their Practice, according to These Principles of Indifferency. In this I shall be very short, not meaning to upbraid them with many monstrous miscarriages of late; the rather, because I am confident that God, his Majestic, and The Parliament, will not permit them longer to transgress in This height.  
Only I cannot but entreat you to observe, how by Their Injunctions founded on Those Maxims, They have imposed as necessary, many things that are but Indifferent, some things that are Unlawful.  
First many Things but Indifferent, they have enjoined as necessary. Some to Ministers, as Cassocks, Gowns, Tippets, Hoods, Caps, Canonical Coats, Blacks, and many other. Some to People, as Sitting with their hats off; Standing up at Gloria Patri, the Gospel, and other parts of service. Weighty matters indeed, for Grave, Learned, Holy, Reverend Divines, to spend their time and thoughts upon.  
I might perhaps go a little higher; though I must confess in some other things (now pressed as necessary) They have had Authority above their own (though I conceive, none for such rigid imposall;) I mean the Highest, granted by the whole representative State Civil and Ecclesiastical: which yet (with all duty to that womb which bore me, and Those Breasts That gave me suck hath thought some things indifferent, which (I could scarce ever apprehend such: at least as of late they have been enjoined on greatest penalties. It hath oft made my soul bleed, to see the greatest sins daily committed, without more than a paper check, (that I may not say countenanced) while thousands must sigh in private, with loss of ears, goods, estates, livings, liberty, all; only for refusal of Those things, that at best can be but Indifferent.  
But However these things may be in themselves: sure I am, our Bishops have pressed them not only beyond the Laws intention, but also much against the meaning of those good men; who in the first Reformation, did (though perhaps erroneously) what Christ once lawfully permitted, in almost the same case; allowing a convenient Time for Burial of those Ceremonies, which yet appeared not Mortiserae, though Mortuae.  
Yea and some things unlawful, by their own power They have forced upon Minister and People under the mask of Indifferent.  
On the Ministers, the Reading of the Book of Sports, (first invented by themselves) that monstrous and prodigious late Oath, with divers new Canons, not enjoined by Parliament, or any other Legal authority. I might add their bare bidding form of Prayer, Second Service at the Altar, (though it could not be heard) an illegal Oath of Canonical Obedience, (blind devotion) and a new form of subscription before Degrees, Orders, Institutions, etc.  
On Them and the People, placing the Communion Table Altarwise; Railing it in; Bowing to it; Receiving at it, etc. For I will now pass over their most unchristian Oath Ex Officio, (fouler than the foulest dregs of that cruel Inquisition) at one blow cutting asunder all the nerves, not only of positive, but moral, natural Laws; all which (being tender of the least grain of man's liberty) have entrusted us with this Universal maxim, Nemo tenetur se prodere.  
Thus it is manifest, Their Practice is according to their Principles, towards the People. And they have no less encroached upon the Crown.  
Do they not affirm, that in Civil Government, Democracie, Aristocracy, Monarchy, are all lawful: and that of These, several people may (at first) choose which they please. But for Episcopacy, 'tis still with them, only jure Divino: in which they seem to affirm Themselves to stand upon a surer Rock than Kings. In This they err against much light, (I fear) But, God forgive them.   

CHAP. V.  
BUt that we may no longer be imposed upon, by This principle of Indifferent, give me leave to discover my thoughts in these two particulars.  

First, What is Indifferent.  
Secondly, Where the Power of Indifference is fixed,   
Some call those things Indifferent which are neither forbidden, nor commanded: but here they tell us only what 'tis not, and Negatives make no Definition.  
Those also who affirm that to be Indifferent, which may, or may not be done, leave us as much to seek, as the former.  
I must entreat the Reader to remember, that we are now upon Moral beings: where the Two main Ingredients, Matter and Form, can be but Metaphysically notional, and therefore it will be hard to give an exact Definition: Seeing even in Naturals (whose matter occurrit sensibus) 'tis difficult enough.  
Before I assay to give the nature of it in a Definition, give me leave to present you with some kind of Etymology.  
In the word Indifferent, the preposition In, is (They say) purely negative, though in other compounds (as incipere, inflammare, incitare, influere, &c,) it beareth another sense, which they call augmentative. But in the word Indifferent it must deny a Difference, as much as non differens.  
But under favour of our learned Critics, I do not conceive that particle in This place wholly negative. Nor can I think Caninius, Martinius, or other good Grammarians (when they call this preposition privative) intent to make it wholly negative: but to my eye, to my sense; in such, and such circumstances.  
When a man is said to be Imprudens, incautus, or the like; we may not judge Him altogether, sine prudentia, sine cautela: for Animal Rationale cannot be quite devoid of these. And therefore if we take Imprudens (in this proposition, Hic homo est imprudens) in a pure negative sense, the Predicate is destructive to the Subject. So that I dare not think our Ancestors and learned men would give Epithets, or make Compositions contrary to all reason.  
Such Propositions are then thus far Negative, as by way of figure, to deny any caution, any prudence, whereas indeed they must allow both; except in such or such a particular, such or such a sense.  
Such doubtless is the sense of this Preposition, in the word Indifferent: not purely Non differens, but in such, or such a respect, it Differeth not. Though in another respect, it may, and doth Differ; even from the very same Thing with which yet in other respects it Differeth not.  
This Etymology I choose the rather, because I see the Critics, in all their Etymologies, love to give to each part (in the composition) a Positive signification. Which I cannot do here, unless I translate Indifferens, Differing, and yet not differing: a sense which also the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will fully bear; For (if by other employments I have not lost the smattering once I had in that Tongue) the phrase seems best appliable to a Medium, that doth not fully, or wholly, carry itself off from both the Extremes, but participates of either.  
Such an Indifferent-difference hath clearly place in all those Natura's, which between two positive extremes (such as Black and White; Hot and Cold) have a positive Medium, Participationis (because it participates of both extremes) and Negationis too, because it is neither. This Medium is properly Indifferent to either Extreme; from which it Differeth, and yet it Differeth not: because it is neither of the Two Extremes, yet participates of Both. Thus Lukewarm, as Warm, Differeth not from Hot, yet Differeth as Cool: and therefore is Indifferent.  
This sense of Indifferent, being thus made good in Naturals; some would borrow and apply to Moral, Theological Being's also. So that between Good and Bad▪ they fancy an intermediate Entity, neither Good nor Bad, but Indifferent to either. As once a Moderator in the Schools, being to determine whither Eucretia did well in stabbing herself; seeing that Action Good in many respects, and Bad in as many more, concluded thus, Nec bene fecit, nec male fecit, sed Interfecit.  
But I conceive, such Indifference, will not, cannot be found in Morals, as it is in Naturals. The reason is, because the two extremes are not here (as in many Naturals) Both Positive Being's; so that a Medium may really participate of Both. White and Black indeed are Both positives, but so is not Evil; but only the privation of Good, which is the other extreme.  
Moralists dispute how Passions are Indifferent, but they are put on great straits; and limit it only to passions in specie (indeed only in a Notion) which yet in sensu composito cannot be said to be ever Both Good and Bad, or neither Good nor Bad, but being still Good naturally, may be morally either Good, or Bad, in individuo, but in sensu diviso, not Composito.  
For the same individual action, or passion (in man) cannot be said both Good and Bad (take it in actu exercito) in the same respects; yea, if in any One moral respect, it be truly Bad, it cannot at all be said to be properly Good. For an Error or Defect in any one Moral (though but so much as a Circumstance) truly donominates the whole action Evil; but only a perfect and universal concatenation of all essentials and circumstantials too, denominates it Good. Even as in Logic, any one negative proposition makes the whole Syllogism such; when to an Affirmed Syllogism, every part must be affirmed. So 'tis in Morals too▪ And hence perhaps the old Stoics affirmed, Omnia peccata to be paria▪ Which is one of Tully's Paradoxes: because saith he▪ One Step beside the Line, may as truly be said to to be a Transgression, as a thousand, or running a thousand miles from it. It is well observed by Aquinas, that as a Body is not perfectly set in suo bene esse naturali, by a bare form without Accidents; so neither an Act in bene esse morali, by only object and end, rightly fixed: except also every Moral circumstance, of ●ime, place, etc. rightly concur.  
They who will have our Virtues equally distare ab extremis, are much more in the right, than they who will have an Indifferent thing (speaking of Morals) to partake of Both extremes. Indeed Virtue f●ying from o●e extreme, when it is ●ancountred with an equal Evil, is arrest in medio: as Iron when accosted by two Loadstones of equal virtue on either side, not daring to embrace either, hovereth in medio, between Both. Or as the Magnetical needle about the Azores, keepeth itself directly parallel to the Axis of the world; and admitteth no va●●tiv●s: because in medio, between the two great Continents (of Europe and America) to which some great Philosophers ascribe the Magnetical virtue, with better reason perhaps then others did, before, to the Northern pole, or north rne Climates.  
From all these premises, we will now assay to draw some conclusions that may help us in judging what may be Indifferent.  
First, it must be in itself Good, whol●y Good. For if it have but one dram of Evil, it is wholly Bad (as was proved before) and so not Indifferent. We have found the Genus of it; it is Good, Lawful.  
In the second place, to make our approach a little nearer (if we can) and to descend more particularly into the Differing nature of it; We must confess it lies mainly in the seeming equality of Use. So that it may be thus described, a thing Lawful and Good, which (as we think) may be Used or not: may or may not be done.  
But here we must take heed we lose not ourselves in Terms: For if they mean that some things at one time may be done, and at another may not; I yield this True: For perhaps This year I may not marry, and yet next year I may, and in some circumstances must, else I sin. But in this Hypothesis Marriage is not generally Indifferent, because not generally Lawful; but at some time lawful, at sometime not.  
If they mean the same Thing, (the same Act) at one and the same time by the same person, may, or may not, be done ad placitum, without offence: I must crave leave to descent, till I see more, than now I see.  
For I conceive two direct contraries, (as to marry, and not marry) at the same time, to the same person, cannot be so equally circumstantiated, that one of them, at least in one circumstance (which is enough) shall not be Better than the other. And if one be Best, I conceive it past scruple, that I may not reject that Best, and choose the Worst.  
Now, if I mistake not, I am near the Apex of this question, which yet (Pernassus-like) hath a double Vertex.  
The one is, whether in two contraries (as Doing, not doing) one must not needs be Better than the other.  
The second is, whether in this case I am not tied to take, and do the Best, but am equally Indifferent to B●th.  
I will begin with this last first. In this I know I have many opposites, who stiffly maintain, that Optimun●●no● estisemper faciendum: amongst these is that good man lately deceased, (to the Churches great loss) Reverend M. Ball, in his Friendly Trial of Separation.  
I think it a subtle dispute, worth the discussing; for if they mean thus, That which is Best, is not at all times Lawful to be done while it is best; This sense cannot be true: for here the Predicate is destructive to the subject; For, that which is unlawful is no● good, much less Best, at the time when unlawful.  
Or if they mean, that 〈◊〉 Best (in Re) is not always Possible to be done, they say ●rue, but tell me no● new thing. For all men will yield This; and in This case I must consider, what is Best possible to me; because I cannot do the Best in Re.  
I suppose than they mean that which is Best, and possible to me, is not still necessary to be done, even while it is best: but though I may do it, yet I may also leave it undone, and do that which is less good.  
Here also they may deceive us with Terms. For they may mean either Best in Truth, or Best to appearance. And when these two cannot be reconciled by all my search, I must consider that which seems (though perhaps is not) the Best.  
We shall now soon join issue. And the case is; whether, when I must of necessity either do, or not do, or when I must do either This or That; I be not bound to do what is Best, (or at least on exactest search, seems Best) if it be possible to be Done by me.  
If they take the Negative part (of this question so stated) I hope yet they will give me leave to hold the affirmative, and yet without offence, till my judgement may be better informed.  
My grounds briefly are these, First it is Lawful to do This Best; else it is not Good, much less Best, as was said before. Again, it is expedient to do this Best: or else some thing (at least some one Ciocumstaice of Expedience) is in the other good, which is not in This, and so This is not Best, but That, at this time, though at another time, perhaps, This may be Best, it is not Best now, because not best expedient and most convenient.  
And now this case comes not to our question, which is of Best in all circumstances; for we know one circumstance may so alter the case, that now That may be worst, which else would have been best, as was said before. So that at this time, This cannot be Better than That, except This be not only in itself expedient, but also more expedient than That is at this p●●●●t: for one grain of more expedience makes that to be ●est, which else would be Worst.  
I demand now how I can be determined to That which is less expedient? though supposed equally lawful by Right Reason? All Philosophers yield, (and it needeth no dispute) that the Understanding rectified still dictates to the Will Optimum faciendum. And how is it possible I should do well, if I follow not the Dictate of Right Reason? Video meliora, proboque; deteriora sequor.  
See now to what a straight I am brought; If I follow the Dictate of Right Reason, I must still do what is Dictated, as now Best. And Right Reason must still (where some Action is necessary) dictate That to be done, which is (at least, seems) Best.  
For, if Right Reason should ever (though but once) dictate, that This which is Best, is not Now to be done, but somewhat Worse; It may much be suspected Right Reason may never dictate the Best to be done.  
For, by this Case (of one such Dictate) it would appear, that when ever Reason doth happen to dictate Right, it is but by chance, or some fancy of its own; not by any certain constant Rule, taken from the Nature of Things, rightly stated in such and such circumstances; For if so, it must still judge eodem modo, of That which is so circumstantiated. And, if it once vary from this Rule, it will seem to have no Rule, but it's own fancy. And in this Case, we shall be under Reason, as under a most corrupt judge, that will follow no constant Rule (founded on the Nature of Things) but only his own humour; which will give very Different judgements on the very same, or like Cases, in all circumstances.  
I see but Two Things can help them out of This strait. Either, that (though Right Reason cannot but dictate that the Best in all circumstances, must still be done, yet) we are not bound to follow Right Reasons Dictates, when we see them. Or else, we be not bound to ask Right Reason, what it will dictate; but may do (hand over head as they speak) without any Dictate of Reason, Right or Wrong.  
But, Both These seem to me very strange Doctrine. For,  
First, If I may but once go against the Dictate of Right Reason, and yet not sin; I may go ten thousand times, yea Ever against it; and so all my acts may be Irrational, and yet not sinful: a strange Tenet: and sure a Case never to be found but in a distracted man; who sins not though all his Acts be against Reason, because His Reason is not able to direct him; or at least He not able to follow Reason; and in this case God requires it not.  
And the Case is even the same; when I Act without ask Reasons Dictate, as if I acted against Reasons Dictate. For till I see I act with, for aught I know, I act against Right Reason; and so I sin.  
Not yet, that I think a man bound before Every (though the most common) Action, to stay disputing for some hours or days, till Reason hath given its final Dictate. For, this were to turn all practice into bare and nice Speculation. There are many Things by common use, and by themselves, so clear that at first view Reason presently determines. Yet if there rise but the least scruple at the first glimpse; Then, man is bound to discuss it, till Reason rectified dictate the Action Lawful, and Best to be done: And till This Dictate, the Act must be suspended. For I still thought That a dangerous Maxim in State policy; first, to Do matters (not like to sound well) and then to dispute Them: and it sounds worse in Matters of Religion.  
I have done with the first Great Question, whether Optimum sit semper faciendum.  
I come to the Next, whether amongst divers Things (to be done) There be still One Optimum. I must mean whether there be any Optimum, for more than One there cannot be at one time.  
We may briefly State the Question Thus. Whether at one any time Two, or more Things, (suppose to Marry, and n●t to Marry) can possibly be so Equally Good to me, that One of them is not Better than the Other.  
I Think not. For, I dispute thus; I must be determined to one of these Two, (having no medium) I must Marry, or not Marry. Now I ask what shall determine me to either? Right Reason (they must answer) or my own Fancy, Will, or other Thing.  
I rejoin; if Right Reason determine me; either it doth so on no good ground; (and then I do a groundless unreasonable Act, in following Reason) or on some Ground, whose foundation is in Re. For, if we once grant Reason any Rule, or Ground, but that Certain, Constant Truth, which is fixed in the Nature of Things; we shall make it, of all Judges, most uncertain, most corrupt. If once I see my Reason judge point blank against Real Truth, I shall suspect it still.  
Well then, it must be granted, Right Reason hath determined me (not to Marry) on some good Ground, taken from the Nature of Marriage; (not in General, for This would deceive me, but particularly considered with all circumstances pro hic & nunc;) so that it must also be granted, There was one or more circumstances, which made Marriage more unfit than non Marriage (else Reason hath made, not found a Ground in Re, which it must never do;) Ergo, of Marriage and Non-Marriage, One still is Best in re, (at least to Reason's eye) else Reason doth unreasonably determine me not to Marry, or to Marry.  
And if Right Reason have not, or cannot, determine me; to which side so ever I incline, and rest, I sin; because I act Unreasonably: being determined by humour, fancy, passion, a wilful Will, and not Right Reason; The Candle of God, which He hath lighted in Man, left man groping in the Dark should stumble, and fall.  
I may now step a little higher; and affirm, that of Two Contraries, or any Two Extremes, Both are so far from being Equally Good, that pro hoc statu, in these Circumstances, Both cannot be Good at all or Lawful.  
For, if of These Two, One must be Best, and but One; and this One now necessary to be done (because Best) as was proved before; It will follow that the other extreme is now, in these circumstances, not Good at all to me; because unlawful to be done, while now there is a better in view; though else in itself, with other circumstances, it would have been Lawful, Good, and Best.  
If Right Reason determine it be better not to Marry; at this time, and I be still bound to do what Right Reason shall dictate Best (as was proved before:) Now, in these Circumstances, Marriage is unlawful to me, and so not Good at all, at this time, because less Good than Non-Marriage. so Achitophel's Counsel was Bad, being not good for That time, because not Best.  
For as Moralists say, if it be possible Man could be necessitated to choose One of Two Evils; in That case the Less evil, would be Good: So, when I am necessitated to choose One out of two (supposed) Goods, the less Good would be Evil, and unlawful to me, who am still bound (for aught I can yet see) to do Optimum pro hoc statu.  
The Conclusion I aim at, through all these Premises is This. There is no One Thing, no One Act, in all the World, That I may do, or not do, ad placitum, all Circumstances considered.  
For, This Act (so propounded) either is Best for that time, and so must needs be done: or not Best, and so must not be done; because in these Circumstances, at This Time, it is Unlawful; as not being Good while a Better is in eye: as hath I hopefully been proved.  
From This, results our final Determination concerning Indifference (which is our Subject in hand:) No Thing, No Act, is Indifferent in Se., in Re: but either necessary to be done (if Best) or unlawful to be done, if Bad, or less Good, pro hoc statu.  
What shall we say then; hath the World talked so much of Indifference, and the power in Indifference, And yet no Indifference, at all, be in the World?  
Give me leave here freely to propound my own thoughts, without offence; being still more desirous to learn, than to Dictate.  
I conceive that all the Indifference (in the world) lies in our Understandings, and the Darkness thereof, (which makes them wavering sometimes, and doubtful whether to do or not, so that in Them seems some Indifference to either extreme) but there is none in the things themselves, or Actions; which are still either unlawful, or necessary (if Lawful, at this time in these Circumstances;) never Indifferent in Themselves.  
As than it is in the point of Contingence, every thing is either True or False; Certainly to Be, or not to Be; and in one of these still Necessary in Re, and never Contingent; yet to M●e, (who cannot see the whole Chain of Causes) some things seem Contingent, that are necessary. So for Indifference. All Things, All Acts, are in Re, either Necessary to be done, or Unlawful; but to my blind judgement, (while I cannot discern whether I may Act, or may not) some things Seem, but are not Indifferent; and so we think (but erroneously) that These may be done, or not, as we please.  
For example sake, suppose an unskilful Physician have two Simples by him, one of which is poison, and the other a precious Cordial; will any man living say, These are Indifferent for a sick man's cure; so as he may use them, or not, ad placitum, without peril? And yet now suppose the Physician ignorant of both their Natures: they may be said to be Indifferent (though not in themselves) yet to Him; who not knowing either, is Indifferent to Both; and thinks he may apply which he will, without offence; yet if he apply the one he errs, because 'tis poison.  
So it is in all the Things, or Acts we think Indifferent. In themselves they are poisons, or cordials, very Good (and so necessary) or very Bad, and so unlawful: But while our judgements are clouded, so that we see not the Nature of these Objects, or Acts: we are Indifferent (because wavering) between Them; but They are not so in se; or Really to us.  
I may conclude then, Nothing is Indifferent in Re, in se; but to our Understanding some things seem so, for want of Good light.   

CHAP. VI  
I Have now done with the Nature of Indifference, in which I have been the more large, because I found it more abstruse than it seemed at first view. I come now shortly to examine What power may determine in Indifference, and where this Power is fixed.  
To All, I may answer briefly thus. By Divine Right, This Power is, and is not, in the Church. The Church hath, and hath not, power in Indifferent things.  
First, the Church hath no power to make any one thing Indifferent in itself: (that is, to make it, at one, and the same time, lawful to be done, or left undone, positis omnibus circumstantiis.) For all Things and Acts, are in themselves necessarily Good or Bad, and cannot be Indifferent in Re, as hath been proved at large.  
Again, we cannot say the Church hath power to determine what is Indifferent. If at least All Indifference comes only from the Darkness of our Understanding (as before;) It then lies not in the power of all other men living, to determine what seems Indifferent to one man's Understanding, since He may perhaps not see, what they all see; & e comrario.  
We are now reduced into a narrow compass, having only left to be considered, Those Things which generally seem Indifferent (For there is no Indifference in Re, but only in appearance unto us;) because neither Scripture without, or light within, hath fully cleared, whether such things should be done, or not: or if done, whether in such, or such a time, place, etc. and in such cases only Things seem Indifferent.  
Now in These seeming Indifferents (which sure are not so many as some pretend) the Church hath, and yet hath not, power to determine.  
All (though but Seeming) Indifference, is as it were in medio, between Two Extremes, as was said before. Now, when Neither of these extremes is necessary, There, (specially where Both extremes are doubtful) I conceive the Church hath not power to determine to Either Extreme.  
As suppose Black and White colours should be Doubtful, whether both or either, or neither, were Lawful: In this case (for aught I yet see) the Church hath no power to determine (any one so doubting) to either Black or white. The Reason is, because Neither of These extremes are necessary, there being so many intermediate colours between Both.  
But when One of the extremes (between which we waver as Indifferent) is necessary to be embraced, (as in most cases it is;) Here all the Power Lawful, I conceive, can do no more but resolve which of the Two extremes is Best; whether it be safest to Do, or not to Do (whereof one is necessary;) to do so, or so, if I must do.  
This Power (wherever it be) must be very warily exercised: since of All Two extremes, only One (as was proved) can be Lawful: so that one is wholesome, but the other poison.  
In These also the Church hath, and hath not power. If you please, Thus; It hath a power judicative, (or if you will juridical,) but not Legislative. It may and must determine; (for aught I know, beyond all external appeal) yet again it must not determine, What, and How it Will, because it Will. No, It also hath its bounds, a Rule to go by, a constant Law (and that non factam, sed natam) Right Reason.  
So that the Church is like the judges on the Bench in Westminster Hall (that have a judicative, or Declarative power, being entrusted with the explication, application, & execution of the Laws:) but not as the King and Parliament, who have a Legislative power: and so not only to declare what is Law, but to make new Laws. And yet even This High Court hath one Rule, or Law to go by, (and this is also the Law of the Church, even Right Reason.) And if they or the Church, should err from This Rule, (which God forbid) we must obey indeed, but Patiendo, I will, I must give Passive obedience to Lawful Authority; even there where I dare not, I cannot, I may not, give obedience Active.  
By the Church here I mean, not only One, or Two, or a Few, of what Rank soever; but All, even every True Member of the whole Church. For I conceive every such Member hath the jure a Vote in This Determination.  
But what if after the Determination, I yet descent from the judgement of the greater part of the Church, which in all doubtful causes, seems justly to challenge (even by the law of Nature) a decisive power; What shall I do in This Case? shall I make a Rent, Schism, Faction that may fire Church or State?  
God forbid; no, I must Read, pray, discourse, and confer with all humility submitting myself to the Reason of any man that will teach me; much more to the Judgements of many together eminent for learning and piety. And yet if after all This, I cannot be satisfied in my Doubts (which must be Real, and not pretended scruples of a factious spirit) In this case, which sure will be very Rare (where Right Reason is made supreme Judge) I must suspend till my judgement be cleared, left That which to another is Lawful, become sin to me: Who cannot Act in Faith, while I act against or with Doubts, or Scruples.  
However in the mean time, I must quietly deport myself without faction, turbulent commotion, or uncharitable censure of Those who descent from me, both in Judgement and Practice; well knowing that the same thing may be Lawful and necessary to one that sees it so; which yet to me is unlawful, while I so doubt.  
In This Case, I conceive no Power on Earth ought to force my Practice more than my judgement. For I conceive the Churches utmost compulsive power (which must also very warily, and but: rarely be used) is but Expulsion, or Excommunication: which yet I suppose may scarce ever be exercised on one that so doubteth: much less Fine, Imprisonment, loss of member, or life: Except his dissent in practice hath necessarily with it a destructive influence into the State also, and Body Politic. Which case I think hardly ever possible, in Those Things which can be objects of Rational Doubts: which are only such, as the Scripture hath not determined. And in all things not determined by Scripture, (which sure must needs be of less consequence) One that Doubts with reason and humility, (may not for aught I yet see) be forced by Violence.  
Give me leave by some Instances to clear my meaning, in all the premises concerning the power in Indifferent Things.  
Time, Place, and Deportment of ourselves in the Congregation, are the main, if not sole Things, which bear this acceptation of Indifferent: The Scripture not having laid down express Rules for all particular cases of This Nature. So that we seem least Indifferent to the use of This or That Place, This or That Time, This or That Gesture, etc.  
In These Things (not determined by Scripture) there must be some determination, because one of the extremes is necessary, (We must use some Place, some Time, some Gesture) else all limitation here were needless, if not unlawful, as was said before.  
The Church then Doubtless hath power to resolve here, What Time, what Place, what Deportment, etc. and what they do herein (though it should prove to be Evil) They do by power which God hath entrusted them with.  
And yet again, The Church here must not command what she will, because she Will; but must go by her Rule, which is Right Reason: if she swarve from This, she errs. And He that seeth Her error, or Doubteth, sins also, if (while he so doubteth) he yield her more than Passive Obedience: and if she force one so Doubting, I think she sinneth more.  
Now, I need not rip up the foulness of our Bishop's miscarriage in their practice about Indifferent Things; which yet hath fully suited with their principles, as was touched before.  
For though I should grant (which I never shall) that only they, and their Creatures, were the whole Church: Yet would they be so far from a power of Making things Indifferent, (which yet some seem to challenge or at least to exercise) that indeed they have no power to determine what is Indifferent: since it may be very easy for some men to think That Indifferent, which to others seems clearly either unlawful or necessary.  
Again, in things seeming (generally) Indifferent, they have no power peremptorily to determine to one Extreme, when there is a medium between both extremes, and so neither is Necessary.  
In things seeming Indifferent, where One extreme is necessary, They cannot determine pro arbitrio, (but by a constant Rule of Reason) much less by a Tyrannical club Law force us to do (though we rationally, and modestly doubt whether it be Lawful) what they first Make, rather, than find Indifferent; and then (by their wont maxims in Indifferent Things) make Necessary, on pain of Imprisonment, loss of Ears, yea life itself.  
Which yet might be more tolerable, if they only took a Dictatorlike power to direct our judgements, in things that seem most abstruse, or doubtful (in which yet they make themselves Gods; for none but God can fully clear (much less force) my Judgement;) But they scruple not, point blank to contradict our Reason, and force our consciences, in things extremely manifest; as in Bowings, and many other things, which one as blind as he that so much commended Rhombus, may see to be unlawful.   

CHAP. VII.  
WE have seen the Antecedents, Concomitants, or Ingredients, to Our Bishops Office. Let us a little view some of the Consequents, that result from his Office.  
We shall consider but Two, or rather One with Two Heads, (like himself,) at least looking two ways; His Relations both upward and downward.  
First, Upward. Nescio quō fato, Our Bishops have still depended on an others Beck. In the time of Popery, they were wholly moulded to the Pope's Will; which oft produced such wilful and stubborn deportment (both towards their Sovereign and equals) that wise men of those times began to perceive how insufferable such foreign dependence would still be in any free State.  
Winchester was not the first, though One, that in Edward's the first Time, professed such universal Obedience to his Creator the Pope, that he quickly learned to refuse (that I may not say, disdain) to call the King his Lord. And his Treasons against the King's Person, made all men see how easy it was, and still would be, to reduce such Principles into Practice.  
Edward the third summoned a Parliament to enable himself for the wars he designed: But the ArchBishop Stratford (fearing it might injure the Pope's Title if he might not be permitted there to erect his Cross) refused to come, detained his Bishops, and prided himself in hindering his Sovereign's design.  
Norwich handled the second Richard with the same pride and Insolence; Levying Soldiers at the charge of the King's Subjects to fight the Pope's Battles.  
We have not forgotten Becket, and divers other of his temper, but reserve them to another place.  
Under the Reformation; if they have indeed cast off the Pope, (which may be doubted in most, but is past doubt in some) yet they have ever been at their command, by whose favour they stand, though (with that unhappy bird) they design the Death of Those that give them Life.  
This Dependence appears in a threefold Gradation▪  

1 The Calling (of the Bishops now in dispute) being only jure Humano, they must therefore comply, not only to fix their Persons, but their Callings.  
2 When they are invested in their Sees, the smile or frown of the Court, addeth or detracteth much from their splendour, comfort, and emolument.  
3 Their further advancement, either to a better Bishopric, or archbishopric, wholly depends on the Princes Will.   
Naturalists observe, there is not so much appearance of change in many degrees of Entity, acquired by a second motion; as in one degree, at the first step from Non Ens, to Entity. But Moralists find that one little step of new preferment makes more impression upon low spirits, than their first Creation out of Nothing. Both are well reconciled in our Bishops Rising. For what can so sudden unexpected advancement (from Nothing to such an Height of Being) seem but a new Creation? so that hence such a dependence must needs result, as is that Relation which Nature fixeth in the Creature to his Creator.  
Courtesies and Hopes are the most oily Bribes, and Bribes blind the eyes of the most wise. With what nature soever Obligations meet, they have an irresistible force. If they descend so low as men of base spirits, They there get a species of Profitable; and so become like Lime-twigs to Little Birds. It was doubtless most feelingly spoken by the Slave in Plautus, Esculenta Vincula sunt firmissima.  
If they meet with men of high raised, Generous, Noble thoughts; they yet work much more, (though out of a more ingenuous Principle) while a true Noble spirit cannot breathe under the least shadow of Ingratitude: having first learned that old Proverb, Ingratum si dixeris.—  
How hardly then a Bishop's Conscience, Judgement, Reason, or Will, can be his own; under not only so many Obligations, (for the greatest engagement passed) but Hopes also for new favours to come, (either in higher advancement, or at least in continuance of His smiles, whose first frowns may quickly reduce Them to their first principles of Nothing) I leave it to wise men to judge.  
To whom also I humbly propound, (as worthy mature Consideration) how fit these Spiritual Lords may be to sit as Lawmakers in That Highest Court, by whose fundamental Orders (as also by the Law of nature) None ought to have Vote, but Free men.  
And how can They possibly be deemed Free, that wholly depend on another's Thought, (for I need not say, Beck, Smile, or Frown) not only for their first Creation, but continual Preservation in This State, and power of giving Vote in that Court?  
But They say, This may be also objected against other Lords, Created by his Majesty's favour; Especially Officers of Court, which yet are not Excluded from Votes in Parliament.  
I answer first, Incommodum non solvit argumentum.  
Again, If the Case were alike in all These (which I yield not) Because we are under One (perhaps invincible Difficulty) must we needs run and plunge ourselves into another? Or being once in, may we not get out if we can?  
But Thirdly, There is a Vast Difference between Those who cannot but still be affected with Noble, generous, and most virtuous deportment; (being still to live in their Names, Honours, Posterity) and Those, who in Their height, are but as Meteors, that must quickly blaze out, vanish, fall, and be no more. Between Those whose Birth and Breeding hath filled their veins with Heroick noble blood; and Those that are so much disadvantaged both by their Birth and Breeding: though Their Birth is nothing so Ignoble as their Education; Compared with that Breeding a true Statesman should have.  
For, will any wise man living think them fit to give Counsel in Princes Closets; to make Laws in Parliament; and sit Judges in the Highest Tribunals of Civil Justice; that all their life time, (before the Congee d'eslire diverted their thoughts) were wholly taken up in turning (rather then reading) Aquinas and Scotus, with some other school Trifle●s, before they came to some Church Benefice, where ever since they have spent all their time (that might be spared from Tything) in Liturgies, or Canons; Except some new scruple with some of their Neighbours, have called them to peruse some Author de Decimis?  
If you view their Civil Converse, they have practised little, but to wrangle down a Sophister, or to delude a Proctor, in the University; to say Grace to a Gentleman, or acquaint themselves with a Reading-P●●, in the Country. In Cases of Conscience, they have studied little, but how, with most compendium, to digest the Oath of Direct and Indirect, in point of Simony; and to swallow the Vow of thrice Nolo Episcopari, when God and their own Consciences well know, many of them are not so solicitous for Heaven, as for a Bishopric. And are These men fit, not only to rule the whole Church; to Ordain, Censure, Suspend, Deprive, Excommunicate, ad placitum; to govern our Consciences, by Articles, Canons, Oaths, (and what else a Lawless Convocation may invent;) but also to direct and advice (I might say more) in the Privy Juncto's; to sit at the Helm, to dictate Laws; & tantum non to sway the Sceptre; which if they forbear to touch, It is but as Mercury once spared jupiters' thunderbolts, which he dirst not steal, lest they should roar too loud, or at least burn his fingers.  
In the last place my Answer shall be thus. Though the Birth, Blood, Thoughts, Breeding, and all, of a Bishop were as noble as any One, or all the Peers; (which none dare say) Yet are not, cannot, Bishops be possibly so free, (and so, not so sit, to fit and Vote in Parliament) as other Lords, and members of that Great Body.  
For First, They that have large Estates by Inheritance, and to continue their Names and Families to the same Inheritance, are in all reason probable with more impartial freedom to provide for the Good of the Commonwealth in general; than those that having little or no Estate of their own (at least, to leave to posterity) are not like much to look after the Weal-public, or Good of posterity; but rather will seek to humour the present times, (being truly Filii unius Horae) especially to insinuate themselves into more and more favour with their Creator, and Preserver, on whose smile wholly depends more than their Bene Esse.  
My Judgement in This is much confirmed by the observation of a truly Noble Gentleman, and most-highly-well-deserving Statesman, (R.Ea. of E.) who said, he had now served thirty years in Parliament, and in all that time never knew but Two or Three Bishops stand for the Commonwealth.  
Again, though all the Branches of Nobility first sprouted out from the Root of Royal●y; (Honours being in all Good States, Appendices to Majesty, and wholly disposed by the Royal hand;) Yet Estates and Revenues did not; which are the Parliaments and Supporters of Noble Honours. And These also in Bishops, depend on the Princes Will.  
Yea, Our Honours and Baronies, though first they were granted by the King; yet now being so invested in Our blood, and become Hereditary, They cannot be revoked. In This therefore we are Freer than any Bishop, whose Baronies are only annexed to their Office, and not invested in them by blood.  
We have seen our Bishop's Relation upward; Let us now view it looking down to his own Family, Creatures, and Dependencies. We shall see all these Consequents, as unsuitable to State policy, as were the Ingredients, and Antecedents to his Office.  
A Bishop's Title and Place is High and Splendid, but his Estate (for the most part) Mean and Low: at least That which may be left as Inheritance to posterity.  
Now to what unworthiness will not Ambition and Avarice carry them? When they look on themselves as Peers and Grandees of the Kingdom, and again reflect on their Wives and Children, as those which (after Their Decease) must soon be reduced from such an h●ight (like falling Stars) into their first principles; Must not This be a Great Temptation, by any means, right or wrong, to seek the private inrichment of themselves, and Families, even much before the public Good of the Commonwealth; which is never more injured, then when it is made to stoop and veil to the boundless Ambition of some private, low, base, sordid spirit?  
Or suppose, by penurious Living they may in many years glean up a mean Estate to leave to their House, to preserve their name: how miserable and sordid must be their deportment? how base their House-keeping? how Little their Hospitality? Which yet not only by Scripture, but Reason, seems much (if not most) to be required of the Clergy. Such a Bishop must be as much given to Hospitality, as Blameless in other particulars. But alas, how can Ours be so? Except, They can be content to live without any Retinue of Attendance; or be Cursed by Posterity, brought up perhaps as Lords, but left as Beggars.  
Except than it might be with our Bishops, or Bishop's Children, as once it was with that Roman Dictator, who being brought from the Plough, was content again to return to the Plough, (after he had with all humility, fidelity, and success, served the Commonwealth in the Highest Office That State at that time did afford) I cannot see why They should so ambitiously desire a Lordly Prelacy; which they can neither leave to posterity; nor carry down to the Grave; nor yet are sure to keep all the time they live: for of all Riches, Those of a Bishop, may soon fly away.  
If therefore Our Prelates would seriously reflect on their own Peace, Credit, and Esteem; Or the Good of their Family and Posterity; (though they would despise the Church, and trample on the State, with the Weal, peace, and flourishing prosperity thereof) sure they would leave the Commonwealth to Statesmen; and think it honour more then enough to serve the Church, and wait on God's Altar▪ I mean That Holy Table, which may be served by Them that attend the Word and Sacraments; though they must not neglect This, and serve any Other Tables.  
But Venales Animae will do any thing to Rise. Yet I hope Our Bishops do not, at least Will not do so any more. If so, Let them know the Wheel of providence can run as fast backward as ever it did forward. In its descent, they may perhaps sadly reflect on a serious dying speech of one of themselves; Had I served my God, as I have served my Prince, I should not have been so deserted now. Though I must confess I doubt they have well served neither G●d, nor the King. But this shall be discussed more an●●.   

CHAP. VIII.  
WE have seen how much our Bishop makes against State Policy; Let us now see what he doth, or can do, For the State; For, Both parts must be heard.  
It hath still been the practice of These men to buzz into Prince's Ears, that They strike at Monarchy that are displeased with such Episcopacy: Like one of the old Queen's Jesters, that would box and pinch any that stood near him: and if they returned the like, he would step before the Queen, and cry, Madam here comes a Traitor to strike at your Majesty.  
I know it is one of their first Canonical principles, No Bishop, No King. On this Axletree the whole body of Popery is wheeled about. A specious show indeed, and One of their Masterpieces of Policy; to acquaint and persuade Kings, of what use they are to Them:  
Sed Timeo Danaos, & Dona ferentes.  
It is but a Trojan Horse. Mors est in Olla. While they seem to please Kings, they weaken Crowns.  
Powers are Gods Ordinances; and set over us for Our Good: And Kingdoms certainly have more for them in holy writ than any other Government: Shall Royal Crowns than come and stoop to a Mitre?  
La France ne tombe pas en Keneville. With Them a Woman must not bear the Crown, and shall the Sceptre, with us, bow to the Cros●ers Staff▪ Let it not be spoken in Ashkelon, nor published in the streets of Gah. Hath Christianity abated the Glory or power of the Diadem? Bishop's would, but Christ will not.  
In short, What is the sense of this Maxim? What can it be other than This, that the Strength, nay the Being of a King, depends wholly upon a Bishop?  
Prodigious State-Blasphemie! King's have been when Bishops were not, and shall be yet much more Glorious, when such Bishops shall be no more. Which shall still be my desire for all Kings; but especially for Ours; whose Good and Gracious Government, I shall pray, may yet endure long, and long amongst us.  
It is much rather true, If any such Bishop, no King; as I shall make good in my subsequent discourse. Otherwise, (had These been only Metaphysical No●ions, or Mathematical speculations) I should not have been troubled more with a square Cap on a Bishop's Head, than I am with a Circle squared in a Mathematical brain.  
It is true, their Grand M●ster the Pope, seemed very officious in setting up the German-Franck Emperor, (the Image of the old beast,) But it was not long before he showed his Ends. Turn your Eye but a little about, and you shall see an Emperor stand barefoot at his Gout: Here One kneels to kiss That foot that spu●●●●th off His Crown: There one holds the stir●up; while that Proud Bishop steps up into the saddle.  
And have not our Bishops the same Designs with their Holy Father? Even to free themselves from all Power, and ●● bring all things under their own Power?  
What meaneth of his Maxim of Episcopacy, that a Clergy man cannot fall under the Execution of a Civil Magistrate, Except they first degrade him; which they may refuse to do as long as they please? Is not This to Exempt themselves from all Civil Jurisdiction?  
What is the sense of This, that for breach of Their (Church) Injunctions, they may Excommunicate people, Ministers, Lords, Kings themselves, whom they please; But shortly This, to reduce all men, (Even Princes as well as others) to plenary Obedience to themselves? And when Once They have passed that sentence on their Sovereign, at their own fancy, I doubt not but some of Them would be ready to receive the Crown from their kneeling Prince, (as of old) If any King would again so far forget himselve, and lay his Glory in the dust to be trampled on by such proud insulting Prelates. Which God forbid.  
Their Insolent Words and Actions, vented lately against the Crown, are very suitable to these Principles.  
Some of themselves, in open Court of Judicature, have dirst to affirm, They were beholding to none, but Christ, for the place they held.  
Others of Them (and Their Creatures) have said They are under no Law of man.  
Some have preached point blank, that Their standing did not at all depend on the Crown.  
Others have flatly denied the King to be Head and Governor in Ecclesiastical Causes, over all persons: though they cannot but know that This Title was given mainly to Exclude any other Earthly Head, as it is Interpreted by Order of Parliament.  
All of them Erect Episcopal Courts, send out Summons, Exercise Jurisdiction, Sentence, Fine, Imprison, do what they list, in their Own name. Though All the Bishops put together (& Vis unita est fortior) da●e not to do so; (for, the High Inquisition had a Commission under the Broad Seal) and yet Every particular Bishop Exerciseth Jurisdiction under their own seal, by their own power, in their own name; without any Commission, directly against Statute, by which they all incur a Praemunire.  
Indeed they have learned to faun upon Princes, and would make them believe all This is for their Honour, and Advantage; yet they are but Impostors; This is but to stroke the Horse (as the Proverb is) till they are well up in the Saddle: for, at That they aim, and thither would they come; which God forbid.  
I could heartily wish, the Kings of the Earth would be pleased to read Master Broughtons' Epistle in his Refining the Roman Fox. Or Ni●hol. de Clemengiis, in his Excellent piece de Corrupto Ecclesiae Statu. Or that Noble Learned Lords incomparable Mysterium Iniquitatis; presented to Our Late Learned Sovereign King james; though in some late Prints It hath been refined by an English-Romish Index Expurgatorius, yet It will still (with the other) represent the sleights of this kind of Episcopacy, in such lively Colours, that I believe no Prince would trust them again.  
I need not go far to seek instances that may fully represent how much Our Bishops have in all ages promoted the Weal, Peace, and Honour of This Kingdom and Cowne: For their Treasons against the State and King, want not a Register. I could briefly present you with a true Emblem of Episcopacy ab ovo ad malum; and yet not go higher than the Conqueror.  
Lanfranck would have conquered the Conqueror: and by gentle insinuations have persuaded him to submit his Sceptre to the Triple Mitre: but, Etiamsi suasit, non persuasit.  
Art could not prevail, and therefore Anselm went more rudely to work; Though Rufus forbade him, yet with many thanks and much honour from the Pope, he went to Rome for his Pall. After he had oftentimes bearded the King in many matters, he succeeded so well, that he attempts the same against the First Henry: and left not till he had caused the Sceptre to bow, and the Crown to totter.  
In Stephen's time, Two Great Prelates dispute about Precedency, and at last passing by the King, they call the Pope to be Moderator.  
Beckets heights are well known, and scarce paralleled in amy Story: Only as Henry the second (that Great Prince) did suffer sore stripes here; so did the Duke of Thoulouse in France, for joining with the Albigenses. That was done by a Pope, This by a Bishop.  
King john fell (with his whole Kingdom) under an Interdict, for some quarrel betwixt himself and Two or Three Prelates: nor could he buy or beg his peace but on his knees, resigning his Crown ●o proud Pandulph.  
In Edward the seconds time Gaveston was much abetted by Coventry, in this a Traitor to his Country.  
What pranks Winchester played with Edward the First, Stratford with Edward the Third, and with the second Richard, Norwich, was touch the ●ore.  
Henry the fourth was ill handled by York, that waged war with him: at the same time Arandell vowed he would not leave a slip of that Religion which then he saw Dawning in England.  
In Henry the sixts time, Yorke● Quarrel with W●●chester, lost all that England had gaine● from France▪ at last York sides with Warwick against the King.  
Edward the fourth had little course no pardon the new Archbishop.  
Ely ended better than he began, but it was per accidens; for first he persuaded Buckingham to claim the Crown, but He refusing (at least not daring to stir for himself) sets him on Richmond, the true Heir.  
But you will say, These were all Papists, and lived in the dark times of Popery.  
True, and were not Their Sovereign's such also? were not Kings and Bishops of one Religion then? Are they more now? hath a Protestant Prince now more reason to trust a Protestant Prelate, than a Popish King a Popish Bishop? Let all the world judge Seeing in Those times it was no difference in Religion, But Malignance against Civil Government, that produced Th●se Commotions, in Those Bishops.  
But since the Pope, and Popish Religion is confessed to be the Cause of all those Treasons and Rebellions, what if I prove Prelacy and Popery to be the same in re, and only to differ in name? This we stall Essay anon. In the mean time It is worth considering whether Our Prelates be not more like to s●de with the Pope against a Protestant, then Popish Prince.  
I will overlook the dark times of Popery; Let us begin with the Reformation, (which yet could hardly have entrance, for that strong Opposition the Prelates still made) Alas what Commotions have they still raised in Scotland, ever since the Reformation? We have felt, what Our Parents only saw. They Eat (at least suffered) a sour grape, and Our Teeth were almost all set on edge. But blessed be God that hath delivered That Church and state from Tyrannical Prelates; and will ere long deliver us also.  
They did the same in Denmark, till One of their Kings did persuade the people to Choose another Church Government: After he had in publke read a Charge for three hours long, containing Their Treasons, and Rebellions even since the Time that the Pope was cast out of that Country.  
When I call to mind their Carriage and miscarriage here in England, I must begin with that of the Poet,  
Infandum Regina jubes renovare dolorum.  
Our first Reformation was much opposed by Bishops. Gardiner, Bonner, and some others were no Changelings. Yea we shall find some Good men were Bad Bishops; and the Evil were intolerable. Ridley was too fierce in maintenance of Ceremonies. Cranmer and Ridley both were for allowing Mass to the Lady Mary: but That Admirable young Prince, was even in his Infancy, with King David, wiser than his Teachers; and could weep, though not yield to Their persuasions.  
What Our Bishops did in Queen Mary's days (Bloody Times!) we all know; sure it was an unhappy Proverb that was then learned, The Bishop's foot hath trodden here. What they intended under the Old Queen; Essayed in King james his Reign; and had well nigh performed under Our Gracious King Charles, to the Ruin of the Crown, We now begin to know: If at least Knowledge may properly be said to be wrought by Sense; for, If so, our Feeling was enough to Teach us. Yet what wanted in This, may be supplied by the Daily complaints we are forced to hear not only from England, but Ireland also; where yet perhaps they have more parts to act then One. But he that sitteth in Heaven laugheth at them, the most High hath them in derision.   

CHAP. IX.  
I Have scarce done with that Grand Principle of Episcopal policy, No Bishop, No King. Yet I must now divert you a little from it, or at least lay it aside awhile, till It come in again at due place: which perhaps may be in This next dispute.  
I am now come to the most moderate of Episcopal men. For even These affirm that The absolute Best Church Government, under a Monarchy, is Monarchical.  
By the Way I must desire it may again be remembered that hitherto I have contended only with our Lordly Civil Episcopacy, (properly called Prelacy) I have not yet disputed Ecclesiastical Episcopacy in general, or the Prelacy of One Minister before another (though I may touch That also before I conclude:) so that I am not bound to answer this Objection; which sure cannot mean that the Best Church Government under Monarchy, is Tyrannical, (as indeed such Lordly Prelacy is even in their own Judgements which are moderate) but simply Monarchical, scilicet in Ecclesiasticis: against which I have not yet disputed; though I know This was One of the main Foundations on which That Destroyer, That man of sin began first to build.  
But I am content to follow them Here also. Yet I must first sift out their meaning, lest they deceive me with words. Do they mean that All other Church Governments are destructive to Monarchy? or do they mean, Monarchy is destructive to All other Church Governments, but Monarchical?  
The first sense is even the same with the former Axi●ome we discussed, No Bishop, no King; except perhaps the● grant, that every Monarch is a King, but every King's not an absolute Monarch.  
But take Monarchy in what sense you please: why cannot it stand with any kind of Church Government? doth the supreme Civil power receive any essential part of it from Church Monarchy? Is not Monarchy complete even there where is no Church?  
I am by no means of Their judgements who say, None that are without the pale of the Church have right to any Thing here below. A Tenet almost necessary to those that use to excommunicate Princes ad placitum, and then stir● up foreign Enemies, or Subjects themselves, to dispossess such Princes; but to other States of very dangerous consequence.  
I clearly conceive an Heathen Emperor may be as lawful a Monarch, as any Christian Prince; And I doubt not, but His Subjects owe as exact obedience to Him, (if his Civil Title be just) as we justly pay to our Kings and Governors.  
To say then that Monarchy cannot stand without Monarchical Discipline in the Church, is to weaken (if not to break) the nerves and ligaments of supreme power: nay to say that such a government will best suit with Monarchy, is to veil the lustre and Majesty of monarchy▪ which like an healthful stomach, can easily assimilate all things to itself; but is not changed by any.  
If they would but speak their own Thoughts, They would turn the Proposition thus, Church-Monarchy cannot stand without Civil. Here the Mystery is unmasked. It is true, This Discipline cannot stand, but where Princes will uphold it. For That which hath no Footing in Scripture, must lean upon Humane Right; and thus it discovereth its own weakness. Divine Institution is able to bottom itself upon itself; but Humane is like the weak Vine or Hop, which without a pole, must creep, and so rot, upon the earth. Yea some inventions of Men (specially in matters of Religion) are like the weak Fruitless Ivy, that must be propped up by some El●●, or mighty Oak, and yet most unnaturally destroyeth That prop which holdeth it up. And of This kind is That Humane (or rather Demonicall) Episcopacity of which we have treated all this time.  
Our Bishops foreseeing This, (for They are wise in their generation,) thought best to invert the propositions; and instead of this, that Church Monarchy cannot stand without Civil; They affirm Civil Monarchy cannot stand without That of the Church. Thus they delude Silly people.  
But to come a little nearer to their Best meaning, (Who stand so much for Church Monarchy) I would gladly be showed by Reason, what there is in Church government, why it may not derive itself into several Corporations; where either more or fewer may bear the sway; still subscribing to those things which are left by Christ to the Civil government, or Monarchical power. We see hundreds of Corporations are thus managed: And what there is in formali ratione of Church government (essential to Church government that will not endure This; mihi non liquet; Truly I do not yet know, I cannot yet Imagine.  
We see ever since the reformation of Luther and Calvin, the Churches of Christ have had another discipline than ours; under Elective and Successive, under Protestant and Catholic Princes, as will appear clearly in Poland, Denmark, in Scotland, and the Palatinate, in France, and Germany. I do from my heart agree that Civil Governors are Custodes utriusque Tabulae: but what the Civil Magistrate hath to do in Church matters, till the Church hath done her utmost, I could yet never learn.  
The government of Christ is spiritual; and He will have his work wrought in a sweet way; by the power of the Spirit, not by force.  
If I err in This, I shall upon better reason recant; In the interim, hoping that the clearness of my thoughts shall with the candid Reader receive gentle interpretation, I shall freely declare my opinion in This point.  
Christ (as I shall more fully prove hereafter) hath clearly unfolded to us the Two main things of Church affairs: 

1 The Doctrine.  
2 The Discipline of his Church.    
Who will come in this case to add or diminish any thing?  
I appeal to any Ingenuous Reader, of what Religion soever he be (yea of what sect in any Religion) Whether any power ought to force a Church in matter of Doctrine.  
I conceive, what is True Doctrine the Scripture ●ust judge, and none but the Scripture: but what a C●●●ch will take for True Doctrine, lies only in That C●u●ch.  
Will Rome admit us to expound to them this place, Hoc est corpus meum? shall we admit Rome's exposition? Will either of us admit force?  
There is certainly but one Truth: but what shall be taken by the Church for Truth, the Church must judge.  
If you descend to Discipline, will not the Case 〈◊〉 be the same?  
In Discipline consider three things.  

1 Admission of members.  
2 Excommunication.  
3 Officers to execute these, and other Ordinances.   
Whether you will Baptise children, and so ●y administering to them the Sacrament of Initiation, admit them members of the Church?  
Whether you will admit all for Church members that barely profess, though they be open drunkards, and very ignorant persons?  
Whether you will have Pastors, Teachers, and Elders, as your superiors in this work, or Bishops, Archbishops, Primates, etc. who shall judge but the Church?  
So long as the Church, in her Church Tenets, intermeddleth not with State matters under the notion of Religion, I suppose the Civil power is not to interpose.  
It is most true, if the Church will broach (with the Anabaptists) that they will have no Governors, nor Government: This is a point not of Divinity, but Policy; and here the Sceptre must set a rule. or with the Adamites (if there be any such) allow Communion of wives: This takes away property, The sword must divide this quarrel. or with the Papists, that it is lawful to kill Kings: that faith is not to be kept with Heretics: I conceive in all these, (and cases of the like nature) the decision lieth in the Magistrate; for These tenets overthrow either Civil Government, or civil converse; The Church must not go out of her bounds.  
But if the Question be, how you will expound such a Scripture: what Gesture you will use in such an ordinance: what man is fit to be excommunicated: what deserveth excommunication: what is Idolatry: what is will-worship: what superstition: what is the punishment of those crimes: who shall judge but the Church?  
The Prince hath granted to such a Body by Charter, such privileges, such offices, who can interpose but the power instituting? Christ hath given us a platform of Church government, with the offices, and officers; who may here intermeddle, but Christ himself?  
It is most true when the Church findeth any refractory, and thereupon doth excommunicate him, he falls into the hands of the Civil Magistrate, if he continue pertinacious, and not before.  
When Parliaments do consider matters of Religion, they do it to deliver the Church from some who would impose upon her; who would take the keys from her, that by the help of these keys, they may wrest the Sceptre out of the hand of Sovereignty, which God forbid.  
And whilst Parliaments labour thus for the Church, dealing no further in the affairs of the Church, than by Scripture they may, certainly they do well; but if they once exceed their bounds, the issue will be Confusion instead of Reformation.  
Church and State government differ as much as the Sexes Yet as there may between These be an happy union: (Both keeping their bounds whilst the Husband hath the supremacy;) So may there be between the Church, and State a sweet harmony. The State having Committed to it the custody of the 10. commandments, and yet the Church preserving to herself Her rights.  
If the Church swallow up the State, as it is in Popery, & Episcopacy, the issue will be slavish, gross superstition, and stockish Idolatry. If the State overtop the Church, there will be ignorance and atheism: But give to God that which is Gods, and to Caesar that which is i● Caesar's: and both Church and State will far the better.  
Thus under favour, both by reason and precedent it is clear, that any Church policy besides Episcopacy, (though only one by right aught) may stand with Monarchy.   

CHAP. X.  
WHen I say, Any Church Government may stand with Monarchy, or other State Policy, I desire to be understood of any Church Government Well regulated: Which as I cannot conceive of our Episcopacy, so I must again publicly protest, that I verily believe This kind of Episcopacy is destructive, not only to Good Monarchy, but all other State Policy whatsoever.  
I mean not now to run over, so much as the Head● of my former discourse: Every particle of which is to represent how uncongruous, and incompatible to True policy of State, Our Bishop's Place, Calling, and Office, is, as now it stands established in this Kingdom.  
If any man shall yet descent from me in this Cause, I shall now only entreat him to view one place of Scripture, which yet perhaps at first glance may seem to make but little for my purpose: but it is an old Maxim among Interpreters, Non est haerendum in Cortice. Let us therefore a little examine the Text, and if I be not in the Right, I will gladly learn of any that can better inform me.  
The Place I mean, is that which of old in the Primitive Church was wont to be more perused, and examined, than I think it is now, or hath been of late: and I cannot much wonder, sith I see all men view the Sea, and well consider it at distance, from the top of a Cliff or Rock; but when they are once fallen into it, they shut their eyes, wink, and care to see as little as ●ay be of it, while they have so much round about them.  
I must not detain you too long without, left you think my Porch longer and bigger than my House. It is That of the Apostle to the Thessalonians 2. Epist. 2. Chap. 3. and 4. Verses, specially those words; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or is worshipped.  
For the understanding of this place, we must premise This, That it must not be taken as spoken of One single person: but a Compages of many, either existing together, or else succeeding one another; yet agreeing together in This Great Apostasy, the main thing here spoken of. And in This I have but few Adversaries: None I ●hinke, but some few of the Romish faction, that maintain the grand Deceiver, False Prophet, or Apostate ●●or so I ●●ther call him, than Antichrist, though I doubt not al●o but he is most truly Antichrist in Re) shall come only in the end of the world, and endure but three years and an half: which yet begins to found but ill among the Romanists themselves.  
In the next place I affirm, This Man of Sin (for so I must style him) is not of the Laity, over whom (even over their Princes and Gods) he exalteth himself; but of the Clergy, For he sitteth in the Temple of God.  
Being come so far (without any Real opposition) I now demand, Who This Man (Compages or Systeme of Men) is, or can be? The Pope, I suppose will be answered by most of our Church: And I yield it so; believing Him to be prncipally intended here. But if I can prove that Popery properly taken, is the same in Re, with Our Episcopacy; or at least that This is but a Piece and Part of That Mystery of Iniquity; then I hope it will be granted, that such Episcopacy is also here intended: & per consequens, that such Episcopacy is altogether against True Policy of State: because it opposeth and exalteth itself above All that is called God, etc.  
This therefore is now my Task, to prove that Our Episcopacy, is the same Really with Popery taken Properly.  
Let us first then see what Popery properly may signify: for, for aught I yet see, the World is scarce agreed in this particular. I cannot conceive that All Errors or Heresies held by some (nay All) Papists, may in proper speaking be called Popery. Most (I hope All) of the Papists agreed with us in many Truths, and All is not Heresy in which they Differ: and yet All Heresy in Them, not proper Popery. No, not every Error or Heresy in the Pope himself can proprie loquendo be said to be Popery. There are many Things the Papists hold in common with many, if I 〈◊〉 not say, All Heretics: yet none ever properly called All Heretics by the compendious Name of Papists. Many points are not yet so fully determined among themselves, but that some of them affirm, and others deny of the same subject. All of them will not agree about Original sin, Free will, Merit. etc. In this last (which yet is one of the most fundamental points of controversy now between us) I see many of them coming so near the Truth, that one must have a quick sharp eye to see where they come short, for many of them yield Our works do not properly merit as Ours, but as Tincta sanguine Christi; yea and some are not rigid in pressing the phrase Merit, in its proper sense: so that perhaps Their most refined opinion in This, may be the more dangerous in the Consequence, than substance or form of it.  
Nay, before the Council of Trent (before which yet Popery had been long in the world) most of their Tenets were so much indetermined, that scarce any of them knew what he was to hold and believe yet he was a Papist then, and is so still, and yet to this Day I think there is scarce one Doctrinal point in which they all agree.  
We must then consider what that is which Denominates a Papist, and may properly be called Popery. It must sure be somewhat Essential (as I may speak) to that Church, so that without This It could not be called a Popish Church.  
That is doubtlessie such and such Dependence on the Pope: This is in the Pope's subjects truly Popery; and this Dependence on Him, ●s perhaps expressed by receiving his Name or Character in the Apocalypse. In the Pope himself, it is not This or That error, This or That Heresy, but such an Independance, such a Lordship, such a Prelatical Tyranny, over civil and Church estates, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Popery. And this is it that is so emphatically expressed here in This place to the Thessalonians, He opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, etc. And the exercise of This Popish Tyranny is lively limned out in Apoc. 13. vers. 16, & 17. And he caused all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads. And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.  
This Tyrannical Prelatical Power and Dominion, which the Pope ufurpeth and excerciseth (contrary to God's Word) over Clergy and Laity, Princes and Subjects, in their estates and consciences, is in Him, (as in His Clients, yielding and submitting to this Popish Prelacy) True Proper Popery. And This is the Giving, Imprinting, or forcing of a Name, Character or Number, on the Pope's part, as Receiving This on the part of Papists: though I have not now time, at least not opportunity, to discuss how much the Pope's Name, Character and Number may differ. I doubt not but all are parts of That Prelatical, usurped Power which is truly Popish; and received by Papists, as Servants, and Soldiers of old received their Lords and Commanders Tessera, or Character in their hands and foreheads. But God also hath impressed his Motto on them all, let them read it and tremble; Apocal. 14.9, 10. And the third Angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the Beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation, and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy Angels, and in the presence of the Lamb.  
God hath been pleased to parcel out Church and Commonwealth as several and distinct Governments: yet so that Princes should be Custodes utriusque Tabulae, as was said before.  
God hath been pleased to make, appoint, and leave the Ministers of the Gospel Brethren, and hath permitted none of them a Lordly Prelacy above another.  
But now the Pope comes, with a wide mouth, and swallows down at once, all Civil and Ecclesiastical power; Challengeth to himself, not only the Keys, but the Sword; not only Papal Dominion in Ecclesiasticis, but Regal also in Civilibus. This Usurpation of His, is properly Popery; & this robbeth Christ of his Regal Office.  
As every sin breaks all the Commands, (the whole Law) yet some sins do more properly entrench on some particular command: so also is it in all Hereses and errors. All someway oppose the whole Law of Christ, and all the three Offices of Christ: yet some more properly One of these Offices, some another. As the Doctrine of Merit de Condigno, & Congruo, encroacheth on Christ's Priestly Office; the Al●horan mainly against his Prophetical. But Popery most properly strikes at his Kingly Office and Authority. For it is Christ's Kingly Office to bind Kings in Chains, and Princes in Fetters of Iron, if they resist him. And He that usurps this Power and Privilege, labours to unthrone Christ, to s●t above him, and so properly opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or is worshipped. This is the Pope; and this is Popery. Yea I may add, This is truly and most properly Antichrist; though indeed perhaps not That Antichrist of whom S. john speaks in his first Epistle Chap. 2.22. and 4.3. who, it may be, was Ebion, or Cerimbus, or some other: though perhaps also Saint john might speak that of some Lordly Prelacy, which began (though but to dawn, if I may so speak of that dark mystery beginning to show itself) even in Saint john's days: for in some respect we will not stand to yield a Bishop's Pedigree might perhaps extend so high: for even then Antichrist was conceived.  
However, I doubt not to affirm the Pope is now most Really, Truly, and properly, The Grand Antichrist. For such is He most properly, that encroacheth on Christ's Regal Office. This being It which now (of all the three) is most proper to him in his Glory: and This he hath received as a most glorious Reward (if I may so speak) for all his sufferings in his humane Nature: and This I think the Scripture Language (Esay 53.12. Psal. 110.7. Phil. 2. 8, 9, 10, 11. 1 Cor. 15.27.) His Priestly work was for the most part accomplished in his Death; His Prophetical Office, as it were resigned over to his Holy Spirit; But his Kingly Office is his own propriety, (till the end come) and so He that opposeth This, is most truly Antichrist. This is the Pope, and this is Popery.  
Now on the other part if any man please to survey Episcopacy with an unpartial eye, he shall find this kind of Episcopacy, & Popery to be all one in Re, for they have the same Rise, the same Media of their progress, and the same End.  
The rise of Popery, was by overthrowing Christ's ordinances, and setting up of his own. That this may appear the more distinctly, give me leave to show you the Bishop's boldness in the particulars of it.  
Christ's ordinances in the New Testament are either concerning Doctrine, or Discipline. I confess the Pope hath made great assaults upon the doctrinal part; but what he hath done in that kind, he hath done many times by gathering up the negorgements of others, and so they are not his own: or as an Heretic, but not as Pope, for the reasons which I have even now mentioned.  
But he hath played his part mainly in point of Discipline: This most properly belonging to Christ's Royal Office, as Doctrine to his Prophetical.  
In the Discipline there are two things considerable, 

1 That which concerneth the Officer.  
2 That which concerneth the Nature of his office. In the case of the Officer, you have his Access to his Office, and his Execution of the Office. In the first Election and Ordination are considerable.    
By God's rule his Election is to be by the people; his Ordination from the people by the hand of the Presbytery. By the rule of Popery a Minister is Ordained by the Pope, and his substitute, and is elected by the same power and in the same way. And as their School darkens (with a mist of their terms) what they cannot clear: So do These; to cloud their swarving from Christ's rule, They raise up new terms, and instead of Election, have Presentation, Institution, & Induction. The first is done by the Patr●n, the second by the Bishop; a way which Christ never knew. It is so well known to all men that Episcopacy traces these very paths of Popes, that I shall not need to say more for this part of their Identity.  
In the execution of his O●●ce there are Acts of 2. sorts: some wherein he hath a joint power with other; some wherein he is a sole Agent: he is sole in Church preaching and in administration of the Sacraments: he is coadjutor to others in Admission of members, in Excommunication.  
Under the Papacy the Minister or Priest hath the power of Preaching, and Administration according to God's Law (and this only with relation to the Bishop who in his Church superintends:) But in the other he hath no power at all; it is wholly given up to the Pope, and by him committed to the Bishop. And thus the Pope may truly (while he is Dominus Dominorum) style himself servum servorum: for he impropriates all offices to himself; and in lieu of coadjutors given by God to the Minister, the Bishop hath Officers appointed him by the Pope.  
The Coadjutors of the Ministers by the Word, in some cases were the People, in some cases the Elders and Deacons, and sometimes people, Elders and Deacons: but the Pope in lieu of these hath instituted another generation of helpers; and lest that true name should reduce true Officers, he hath given them yet another title, as Apparitor, Surrogate, Chancellor, Official, Commissaries, Deans, Churchwardens, Overseers of the poor. In all which Episcopacy and Popery have so twinlike a frame, that seeing one, you see both; Nec Sofia Sofiae similior, nec simiae simia. And so I leave that point, which concerns the Officer.  
In the Nature of his office it is considerable, 1 What the work of his Office is: Secondly, from what power: and thirdly, in what manner he doth it.  
For the first, the subject matter of his office is Administration of the Sacraments, Preaching, Admission of members, Excommunication. In reckoning these, the Pope conformeth to God's Word, and so doth Episcopacy; for if we will err, we must sometimes go right, and then we may transgress with less suspicion.  
But Consider from what power the Minister of the Gospel Acts. He ought not to borrow his Commission from any but from Christ, from Scripture; and he ought to keep close to That: now the Papacy is wholly steered by Traditions, Decretals, Counsels, Canons, College of Cardinals, and the Pope in the Chair, where he cannot err in matters of Faith. The Pandects of the Civil Law are too too boisterous, and of too great extent for any Civilian to comprehend; and yet that body of their learning is boiled up to such a degree, that it runs over, and no memory is able to attain it, more than to compass perfection in the learning of the Chin●es, where the A. B. C. amounts to 10000 letters. Constitutions cross one another, and almost all fight against the Gospel of Christ.  
Doth not Episcopacy (Si magna licet componcre parvis) according to its modicum, do the same? I confess, with them the Scripture is the rule: but who must expound this Scripture? Synods, Counsels, Convocations, Bishops, Archbishops. Some of these sometimes, sometimes All of them: And though by their own confession, These bind not men's Consciences, yet They bind them to obedience: which obedience they do precisely Challenge, and when they fail thereof, they do without the least scruple of conscience, proceed to excommunication, fine, imprisonment, deprivation, and what not? In the mean time it is held a sin for a Lay man at all to think of these studies. The Priest's lips (they say) must preserve knowledge: It is a sad case (say they) when men with unhallowed hands will touch the Ark, and with unsanctified eyes, pry into these mysteries. and so These men, making the Scripture a Rule in appearance, do in truth Monopolise all to themselves: This is just and flat Popery.  
In the last place, The Manner which God hath prescribed, is that every thing be done in decency and in order: with what singleness and plainness may be: without any addition of men's inventions. The Pope carrieth on his Jurisdiction with pomp and much outward glory; They have commissions, Injunctions, Charters, Seales, Secretaries, Clerks, and 1000 other inventions, to grind the face of the poor. Episcopacy hath its Courts, Summons, Clerks, Seals, with other Ceremonies of the like nature.  
Christ's rule is that Ministers of equal rank, shall all have equal power. Apostles indeed were above Evangelists, and Evangelists above Pastors; and Teachers: but one Apostle was not above another, nor one Pastor did not superintend another. The Pope hath Priest, Bishop, Archbishop, Primate, Patriarch, Cardinal, Pope▪ and Episcopacy hath Ministers (now called Priests) Deacons, Bishops, Archbishops, Primates, etc.  
The Scripture commandeth Preaching in season and out of season, but with the Pope, and our Bishops, All preaching is now out of Season, I am sure out of fashion in themselves; and cried down in others: for with them Ignorance is the mother of Devotion.  
The Scripture alloweth but two Sacraments; the Pope addeth five; and our Bishops are ambiguous: Two only (they say) are generally Necessary to salvation; which may clearly intimate, that there are More than Two; though perhaps not absolutely Necessary to Salvation, or though necesary, yet not Generally necessary, to all men, in all times, states and conditions whatsoever. and so much the Papists yield of Their five Sacraments, nay of fix of their seven: For, only Baptism (they say) is absolutely and generally necessary to salvation; the Eucharist even with them, is not Necessary to Infants, much less Matrimony, Orders, Confirmation, Penance, Vection. In what do our Bishops then differ from Papists in This?  
How do they differ in Baptism? Both Pope and Bishops hold it necessary, absolutely necessary to salvation. Yea the most Moderate of Both, maintain a general Baptismal Grace, Equally conferred to all partakers of that Sacrament. Indeed Our Bishops do not openly use Salt and spital, but yet they retain the Cross, (perhaps much worse) and begin to Claim spiritual alliances as the Papists do.  
In the Lord's Supper, the Pope makes (rather than finds) an Hostia, an Altar, a Priest; and This Priest must offer for the sins of the Quick and Dead. Our Bishops must have Priests, Altars, a Sacrifice, Corporals, and what not that Papists have? to say nothing of their Times and Gestures, which sure the Scripture never so determined, much less excluded any that could not yield to such and such circumstances, which none ever thought could be more than Indifferent.  
In all Ordinances the Scripture now speaks of no other Holiness, then That which is Spiritual, Rational, the Holiness of the whole man. The Pope hath found out new Holiness, which he puts on Places, Times, Vestments, Bells, Tapers, Water, Wafers, Copes, Basins, Pots, and Cups, with other Vtensles.  
And do not our Bishops so also? What means such rigid pressing of Holy days? Bare heads in Churches? Holy Surplices? What mean they else by their Holy Chalices? Holy Knives? Holy Patents? Holy Vtensles? all which may be so sanctified by a devout Priest, t●at they may become profitable to the Souls of those that use them. How then do our Bishops differ from Papists in administering Sacraments, Manner of all Ordinances?  
And is there any Greater Difference in Admission of Members, and Excommunication? This last being the last and Greatest Censure of the Church, by both Bishops and Pope is made not only most Common (as the humour moves them) but also most Ridiculous; being the usual appendix of one groat short in our Reckonings with our Lord Bishop's Register, Proctor, or Apparitor.  
I would not be mistaken here; I bring not in These Things of Doctrine, or Discipline, as if by agreeing in One or Many of These, I might convince Bishops and Papists (or the Pope) were all one. The main thing I drive at in all this, is the Original fountain from whence All These spring, and all the banks that keep in These Rivulets; That virtue and power which moves and actuates all these in their proper Channels: And This is Papal.  
For, what ever the Pope doth of his own head, by his own Power, Dictating to his Vassals, as Head of the Church, This is truly Papal, and such is the Power by which They usurp so much over men's persons, and consciences, in enjoining and pressing such or such Doctrine or Discipline.  
So that a Bishops wearing a Surplice, Cope, Mitre; using the Cross, Bowing to the Altar, and many such Things (though they may be Errors, yet All These, or One of these) makes him not a Pope, a Popeling, or properly Antichristian: But Receiving These from the Pope's Dictates, doing them because he commands, acknowledging his power in commanding; This makes a Papist: and Commanding them, Pressing them on Others, in such despotical power, makes a true Pope, a Real Antichrist.  
Nor may Our Bishops Evade by This (which I easily see will be answered) that though indeed they do these things, and command these Things; yet they neither do them from the Pope's Command, nor Command them in the Pope's Power.  
Though I should grant This, which yet many wise men will not grant, (for, Our Bishop's first Power came from the Pope, and of late also We have found letters, advice, commands, Dictates from the Pope, to some of our Bishops; and that in Matters of greatest Consequence, both for Church and State; But grant all They say, yet they may be Antichristian, and so such in Re, as the Pope is; though not literally Romanists, Except they do, or command, in the Power of Rome.  
This I shall be bold to affirm, and maintain, till I see better Reason, that He (whoever he be) that Commands the least title of Doctrine or discipline, merely Ex imperio Voluntatis, in his own Power, and Authority; without Licence or Warrant from Scripture, or Right Reason, (where the Scripture hath been silent) though the Thing he so commands should happen to be good in itself: Yet He in his so Commanding, is not only Tyrannical, but Antichristian, properly Antichristian; Encroaching on the Royal Office of Christ, which is truly High Treason against God; and most properly Antichristianisme. I care not whether we call him a Pope, Papist, Romanist, or any other name; I call him Antichrist: and if you will call Antichrist by the name of Pope, I call such an Imperious Commander among us, (though he have no shadow of Dependence on Rome, or Romish Pope) an English Pope; I mean an English Antichrist.  
I need not spend much time in showing by what means Either the Pope or Our Bishops began, and continued to be so Antichristian: Du Plessis and Others, have saved me This labour. In a word, they have been These. With One hand they have laid Pillows under Princes, and all Governors (appointed by God) that so they might fall softly, while they thrust them down with the Other (the stronger) Hand, Arm and all. When These have been so surely, though gently, laid down asleep; They have been bold to tread on them, (yet with Plush Slippers, lest they should chance to wake, stir, and get up again) and by Them, as so many stairs or steps, mount up themselves into this Height of Tyranny. Thus have they still opposed, and advanced themselves, against and above All that is called God, or is worshipped. And If with your own thoughts you will please to go on in the Chapter, you will find some other Media (as Lying Wonders, and others) by which they have ascended.  
I shall not need to parallel Popish and Episcopal Media to Their Height. All the world sees them now, For, they were not done in a Corner.  
What means their Crying up an unjust and illimited power in Princes? Is not This their bleating out of an illegal unwarranted Prerogative (with which all Our pulpits have rung of late) intended to tickle Princes till they be lulled asleep? or to sow pillows under them, till. They themselves can thrust them down; not only from that Tyranny which Bishops would persuade them to usurp; but also from their wholesome and lawful prerogative.  
What meaneth their Buzzing in Prince's Ears, That Kings cannot stand without such Bishops? that if they should be put down, the Church and State too, must needs be Ruined? to This purpose they cry Blood, Blood; They can never fall without Blood: so some of them have vaunted. But Let them remember what Christ said to One (to whom they so much pretend) He that smiteth with the sword, shall perish by the sword. They know also whose Coat was sent home to their Holy Father, with this Inscription (written with his own blood) judge Holy Father whether This be Thy Son's Coat or not.  
I have not forgotten how they have dealt with the People, Ministry, Gentry, Nobility, All sorts of men: For they have many stairs to step up by, to such an Height; but Princes are their highest steps, their first Aim.  
That which they have most sounded in the People's Ears, is the Church, the Church, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord! by This, as by a stalking horse, they have come much nearer than else they could. But now their Vizard begins to fall off; and Men begin to see the true power of the True Church; and the Tyranny of that Antichristian Mock-Church; which under the Mask of Indifference, hath brought in most abominable Superstitions, and most intolerable slavery on the Persons, Liberties, Bodies, and Souls of Men. For they have pressed Consciences, even unto Gasping: yea, and would not be satisfied, though they daily heard the sighs and groans of those bleeding hearts, which themselves had stabbed with the poisoned sword of Church-Indifference.  
Indeed they have used Both hands, and have stricken with Both. What the Keys could not break, the Sword hath cut. And it had been much more tolerable, If This Sword had pierced no farther than the Ears of Men: with which they have yet been much more busy than He was, whom they brag to have been their first Predecessor. Yet methinks it was a sad Omen that this Sword should cut off the Ear of Malchus, which signifies (they say) a King, or Kingly Authority. At This they strike indeed, through the Ears, and Hearts of so many Loyal Subjects.  
We need not seek their End, in all This. It cannot be doubted, but by all These Means, they aim at One End, (which is also the Popes) to pull down all Other Power, and set up their own. Thus, Thus they Oppose, and Exalt themselves above All that is called God, or is Worshipped; as is more fully represented in another place of this Discourse.  
Now let any man Living speak: Are These Bishops, These Usurping Prelates to be suffered in a Church, or State, where there is any respect to Right Church Government, or True State Policy? since it is Evident They are truly Papal, most properly Antichristian; and as Antichrist must Oppose and Exalt themselves above all that is Worshipped, or Called God: Which is most True Popery, (as hath been demonstrated) And as Popery, Destructive to all Church and State Policy.  
Doubtless some such Apprehensions as This, wrought in their Breasts, who being offered, have refused Bishoprics; and being possessed, could not rest till they had Disinvested themselves again.  
Histories are full of foreign and Domestic Examples of This sublect. Such was Niceph. B●emnides chosen Patriarch of Constantinople. Weringbaldius chosen Bishop of Triers. Theophilus' Bishop of Adiana. Aminonius cut off his Ear, (being Bishop) that so he might be uncapable of That Function. Eugenius (the Philosopher) left his Ministry rather than he would be a Bishop. Bassiances an Elected Bishop, was by Memnon whipped before the Altar (three hours together) because he would not be made a Bishop. Adrian (with us) refused the archbishopric of Canterbury, being pressed thereunto. Two or Three Popes might come into this Catalogue; Clement the first was One: E● quis fuit Alter? Shall I name Marcellus? He neither refused, nor resigned the Papacy; yet solemnly professed be saw not how Those that possessed such high places could be saved.  
O but had These piously considered what Good they might have done in such high places, or duly remembered their Own, or their friends, advancement, they could never have doom This: But Ignoti nulla cupid●.  
For answer to This Objection, I shall give you some instances of Those that have resigned up their Bishoprics after they had held them long enough for a full Trial. Yea perhaps there be more of This kind than of the other, though the Proverb be, Aegrius Ejicitur quam non admittitur Hospes.  
Of These were Vlbranius Bishop of S●etune, Arnulphus Bishop of Ment●, Add● Bishop of Lions, Vi●erbus Bishop of ●atisbone, Henger Bishop of M●●●s, Michael Bishop of Ephesies, with many more.  
Amongst our Own was Edmund Boniface, and Robert Kalwarby, (Both Arch-Bishops of Canterbury) Will. Beavose and William De Sancta Maria (Bishops of London.) One of Lincoln, and Two of Coventry. I may add Miles Coverdale, who being deprived in Queen Mary's days would not be reiny●sted in Queen Elizabeth's, but taught a School. There is One Pope Cornelius: And Gregory the Great, must not be forgotten; who said, He that affects the Primacy of the whole Church, must be Antichrist, or His Predecessor.  
If some few Walloons, or men of Geneva, should declaim against Episcopacy, They would prevail but little, because it would be said of Them, perhaps (as of That great disturber of the Church of old) Insaniunt, quia non sunt Episcopi: But now Ex Ore Tuo judicaberis, Bishops contend with Bishops: not with Words, but Deeds. I beseech you consider that Flesh and Blood is not wont to refuse, or part with such great Advantages: Sure we may conclude there is somewhat that stings within, Latet Anguis in Herba. These Good men, doubtless, found a Sting, and they would not kick against Pricks.  
When Saint Paul (a Great Philosopher) bids us beware lest we be entangled with Philosophy: When Solomon (who had tasted all the dainty Cates Nature could provide or dress) cries out, All is Vanity, All is Vanity: When Bishops themselves (who have fully enjoyed all the sweetness a Bishop's Honour can afford) shall pause and cry, It is Enough, It is Enough, Non iterum bibam veneunm, (as once Dioclesian, of his Empire) Sure there must be something worth reflecting on; a fair warning for our Present or Future Bishops.  
O you Judges of the Earth, why will you not be wise? O you Senators (for such our Bishops are) why will you not learn Wisdom? God forbid that of You should be said (what the Spirit speaketh of some) Why should they be smitten, They rebel more and more? Why should they be reproved, They will still do follishly?  
Yet but for a little while; For I am Confident yet within few Years, if not Months, if not Days, the God of Peace and Truth will deliver his Church of This heavy yoke, from which (with the Litany Give me leave to conclude) Good Lord deliver us.    

SECTION II.  

CHAP. I.  
HAving clearly proved how uncompatible Our Episcopacy is to Civil Government in State Policy; let us now consider whether It may shelter itself under the Mysterious Covert of Antiquity.  
I could heartily wish, that in matters which receive their being from Scripture, so immediately as Church Discipline doth, we might make the Scripture (which is a sufficient rule) our sole guide, our sole moderator. But as Heretics in the day of Judgement shall cry to the mountains to cover them; so Heresies now also, fly to the craggy rocks of remotest times: and in such dark corners hope to shelter themselves.  
Thither also we will follow them, quo fata trahunt, we will advance. Not doubting but to unkennel those little Foxes: hoping even with Goliah's sword to lay Goliath in the dust, and bring the five uncircumcised Princes of the Caenaanites, to their just censure, before the King or Captains of the Israelites.  
There is a most Reverend man, famous for learning, (especially for that learning which is not open to every eye) hath taken upon him the defence of This Cause: I shall therefore in few words present to Him my thoughts upon those His determinations; Concluding with Philip of Macedon, that if I can but win the chief City, the whole Country is gained: Then I shall see whether Those things which are pressed by others, be not altogether ineffectual to determine the point which they dispute. And so I shall leave the decision of This, to the judgement and opinion of the learned.  
Before I consider that Treatise in the parts of it, give me leave to say that which is most true, and I hope will satisfy all men; If every word of that his book were true, yet it is little to the point: For the Question is not, Whether there have been Bishops ever since Christ's time; but, Wh●ther these have had power over their brethren: or, Whether one Bishop hath had Jurisdiction over another. And this Question is double:  
First, Whether they have had any superintendence one above another.  
Secondly, Whether this hath been mixed with that lordliness which now is used; forcing obedience by the edge of the Sword, where the Keys can give no entrance: And of this, in the whole book there is not the least hint, ne gry quidem. Though this also were not enough for our Question; which is not only of their Lordly power in Ecclesiasticis, but also in Civilibus.  
In the first Querie, we shall quickly join issue; agreeing with our Antagonists, that there have been Bishops (viz. Ministers of the Gospel) who have had a Scripture power in matter of Government, over particular flocks; but the other we do absolutely and confidently deny.  
First, He endeavoureth to prove the succession of seven and twenty Bishops, in the seat of Timothy: and this he essayeth by one single (not to say simple) witness, a certain man named Leontius; whose writings have not delivered him famous to us for learning, nor his exemplary holiness (mentioned by others) famous for pi●ty.  
Truly, a man of greater authority than he, (as Papias, Ignatius, Polycarpus, who, almost all, knew the Apostles) shall not be of credit sufficient to sway my faith in this point: Not but that they were most worthy men; but because all Antiquity hath passed the refining pot of the Index expurgatorius, I shall consider well before I subscribe. And shall I then give credit to an unknown Author, in those things that were acted almost five hundred years before his birth? Let the world judge whether it be equal.  
Neither is this Author quoted, from witness of his own; but out of a Council. Now, how Counsels have been abused, those who have ever had place or note in great Assemblies, can too well tell: where there is almost no Order drawn up, but after a serious review, reducing the mistakes of the Clerks, to the sense of those who did frame the Order, which might else come forth most disorderly.  
By what I have already said, That other testimony brought from a fatherless Treatise of Timothy's Martyrdom, cited only by Photius, (a learned man, who lived seven or eight centuries after Christ) will be of no weight: for Photius doth but say he read it. Hear-say in matter of judicature is no good testimony: and reports in matter of opinion, at the second hand, are good to amuse those who defy venerable Antiquity; but will never edify those who desire to bottom their resolutions upon sound Reason.  
The testimonies of Faelix, john of Antioch, and Theodore, are not of age sufficient to be registered among the Ancients, or to be valued, because they are old. I confess, I set a greater value upon Ignatius, and Irenaeus, who affirm, Polycarpus was made Bishop of Smyrna, by St. john; but this must not be of undeniable authority.  
For of Ignatius I shall affirm this, that All those who are any whit learned in Antiquity, know that five of his Epistles are spurious; and how unmingled those are which we allow to be his, we do not know, who look upon Antiquity at such a distance. But allow it to be true, that Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus, Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna, etc. This may be true, but evinceth in no measure the Question in dispute: Which is not of a Bishop in general, but such a Bishop.  
The Authority of Tertullian also, is of the same credit: He tells us that Polycarpus was placed by St. john at Smyrna; and at Rome Clement by St. Peter. This no body will dispute; (though I am not bound to believe it.) But where is the stress of this Argument?  
In the last place, that of Clement Alexandrinus, is as much questioned as all the rest. But allow it to be true, that john did appoint Bishops, they have gained nothing; for I shall allow that Christ also hath instituted Bishops, and that Bishops are jure divino; yea, I will allow that they are to feed Christ's flock, to rule Christ's inheritance, in Christ's sense; but I shall never allow of these Bishops, which are now the subject of our dispute.  
There are Three sorts of Bishops, as Beza saith: There are of God's Institution, and they are those who have a power over their proper flock, with the rest of the Church, and no other. There are also of Man's Institution; and this ever overfloweth into the Neighbour parish. And lastly, there is a Demonicall Bishop; and this is he who challengeth the Sword, as well as the Keys.  
This last may well be styled Demonicall; for sure God never erected This order; nor Man in his right senses: Where it will then fix, is clear enough. Even on him, Whose dark Mysteries, most of these men have been very well acquainted with.  
The long Robe and the Sword do not well agree. To see a Lawyer tied to his Sword till he put off his Gown, is not so comely; but to see a pair of Lawn sleeves to stifle a Sceptre, if it were but on a stage, I would cry out,  
Spectatum admissi risum teneatis?   

SECT. II. CHAP. II.  
THus having run through that little Treatise, (yet with some wonder, that a person of his profession, piety, and known learning, should do That, which might in any sense, seem to impose on those whom he loveth.) I proceed to some other things, which I find produced from Antiquity, by the greatest Patrons of that kind of Episcopacy which we now oppose.  
Yet by the way, I must note here also, That either none seem to state the Question (between us) right; or else, all seem to dissert it.  
Our Question (as I have often said) is not of the name of Bishop, or his power in ecclesiasticals only; but also, and mainly, of his Civil power, and temporals. Which all the Patrons of Episcopacy seem to shun, as a dangerous Rock; and hover aloof off, go about to prove by Antiquity, that Bishops had this Name, and some power even in the Primitive Church; which (though I think none can force me to believe, yet) I dispute not: But demand, Whether any Bishops had such power in Ecclesiasticis, & Civilibus, as ours now have in England.  
Yet; because they insist so much on Antiquity, for Ecclesiastical Episcopacy, I will be content to follow them there also; believing we shall find no one foot-step (in true Antiquity) of such a Bishop as we now have established in England, though we should strip him of all Civil power, and consider him only in Ecclesiasticis.  
Shall I begin with his Election? which indeed is somewhat higher than they use (perhaps dare) to begin. I can produce many Antiquities to prove the Election of all Church Officers, was in the People; yea, and that for divers ages after the Apostles; who indeed at first appointed These themselves: and good reason why, when there were no People to choose their Officers, till converted by the Apostles; who afterward left This Power to the Whole Church, rightly constituted. And This continued in the Church for divers ages: as appears by Constantine's Epistle to the Church of Nice; Athanasius also ad Orth●doxos; and St. Cyprians sixth Epistle: with many instances more, which might be, and daily are produced.  
It is true, that after the Apostles, and purer times of the Church were gone, the Clergy began to lord it over the people, and to bereave them of their due privilege; yea oft times agreed among themselves to choose One Superintendant (as we may call him) whom they called Father, and Bishop; and in This perhaps they did not amiss, if This Bishop's power rested only on the Clergy, and never reached to the people; who else sure by all reason should have had a vote in choosing any Officer, much more such a great Commander.  
But let all the Patrons of Episcopacy produce me one found Antiquity for such Election as is now in use with us. Let them from undoubted Antiquity for three hundred years after Christ, (nay much more, for I easily see their evasion) let them, I say, show me but one instance of our Congee d' eslire: It is the Thing I speak of, not the Word.  
Let them show me (except in the dark times of Popery) power given to ten or twelve Men (except all the Clergy explicitly consented) to choose such a Bishop. And yet This is not half that which lies in our Elections; which indeed are not at all made by so much, as the Chapter of any Cathedral, but received only by Those who dare not refuse it: but of this I spoke before in the first Section.  
I am content to pass their Election, (which I perceive none of them care much to examine;) and come to the Execution of their Office. In which I might instance in two or three main points; as sole Ordination, sole Jurisdiction, Delegation, etc.  
I meet with none that take upon them to defend this last; which as a Great Statesman observed many years since, was a Thing at first view, most monstrous, and unreasonable. For, will any man living think it reasonable my Lord Keeper should, ad placitum, delegate whom he will to keep the Seal, and judge in Chancery, without consent of his Majesty and the State, that entrusteth him with this Great Office? Yet These Men hold it fit to entrust a Vicar-general, Chancellors, Officials, Surrogates, (and yet under Officers;) to keep the Seal, yea we●d the Sceptre of Christ, and all the Church, which yet they say is entrusted with them. But with whom have they left the sheep in the Wilderness? Were there nothing else but This, I cannot but hold our Episcopacy an intolerable Tyranny; s●eing a Bishop's Dog, (I am not much amiss) lording it over the People, Ministers, Gentry, Nobility, All: while his Master is perhaps Revelling, Dicing, or doing Worse; for, worse they do.  
Nor is this any way to be helped, ' while to one Lord Bishop is granted so vast a Territory. Which yet he commandeth as absolutely under that most significant term of Diocesan, Primate, or Metropolitan, as any Temporal Prince can do, by the name of Earl, Duke, King, Emperor, or any other.  
I oft remember the dry Oxhide, that was brought to represent Alexander's great Dominions: But I see them so far from standing on the middle, (to keep down all) that indeed they oft touch is not at all; but are acting the Lord Temporal (I might say more) remote enough from their own Diocese.  
Which yet of itself is oft so large, that no one man living could sufficiently Visit and Oversee it; except he could get the Pope to Transubstantiate him also, and so get a Vbiquitarian Body. To supply which, he is oft forced to puff up his wide sleeves, and look very big: And yet much, yea most of all his Office, must be done by Delegates; who are oft, yea usually, the lowest dregs of basest men.  
In good earnest, I would thank any man, that can show me one good Antiquity to countenance such Delegation of an entrusted Office, to Deputies, specially to such Deputies, as themselves do not, cannot trust.  
Doth any man dare, or can any man think it fit, to Delegate the Tuition or Education of a tender Prince, committed to his Charge or Care, by his Royal Father? I beseech you; Is not the flock of Christ styled by the Spirit of Christ, An Holy Priesthood, a Royal People? Shall it then be fit, or lawful; For any man to transmit this Trust to any whomsoever? especially to such a crew of faithless Hirelings? God forbid.   

SECT. II. CHAP. III.  
I shall pass their Sole jurisdiction also, being the Common Theme of all that write of this Question; specially when I find some of themselves disclaim that Epithet of Sole: and if they can be content to leave This out, I have less to speak against them.  
We come to Ordination; or to speak as they use; (though some of them love not to hear of it) Sole-Ordination. This is the main & Masterpiece of all Episcopacy. All things else in the Church, they yield equally committed to Presbyters; only Imposition of Hands, they say, is solely retained to the Bishop; so Downham, Bilson, and of late One of their own, that offers to yield the Cause, for one example of Lawful Ordination by Presbyters without a Bishop.  
One Example? what dare he say, France, Belgium, no parts of Germany, hath Lawful Ordination, though by sole Presbyters, without Bishops? Downham is somewhat more moderate, and yields such Orders Lawful; but in case of Necessity, or at least some great Exigency: in which he hath the Charity to include the Reformed Churches abroad, though, as he saith, They are of age, and might speak for themselves.  
But they urge us to show Antiquity allowing any such Ordination without a Bishop. It hath been showed, and yet never answered (that I know:) that some Counsels have intimated enough; Presbyters were wont of old to Ordain without Bishops.  
As that of Ancyra, Can. 1●. It shall not be lawful for Choriepiscopi, or Presbyters to Ordain, without consent of the Bishop, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; (for so the words are in Balsamon, though some of themselves translate the words very strangely.) Which clearly intimates, That before this Canon, Presbyters and Choriepiscopi (who had not still Ordination from three Bishops, though some had so,) did usually Ordain without the Bishop's leave, (much more without his presence;) and that too in Other parishes besides their Own: Else it is strange the Council should now forbid it, if It had never been done before. Nay, the Canon doth not now absolutely forbid it, (which is much to be marked) but only commands, the Bishop's leave should be asked to all such Ordinations. But if This Imposition of hands were a Sole property of Bishops, (as now some make it) the Bishop could not give leave, or depute others to do it. For, This, even among themselves is a received Axiom, Episcopus potest delegare ea quae sunt jurisdictionis, non ea quae sunt Ordinis.  
Hitherto also may be referred all those Canons that require Presbyters to Lay on their hands with the Bishop in Ordination: As, Can. 3. Concil. Carth. about the year 418. and that of Aken, 400. years after: Yea, and this was the practice of the Church in St. Cyprians time, as appears by his 6. and 58. Epist. So Jerome in his Epistle to Rome; and St. Ambrose among his Epistles Book. 10. Yea, and This is our Law also; which requires ●●oadjutors to Bishops in Ordination: Consonant doubtless to the most Ancient practice of the Primitive Church, even in the apostles Times; as appears by that of Paul to Timothy, on whom were laid the Hands of the Presbytery; not of the Presbyterate, or one Presbyter, as learned Mr. Thorndick not only yields, but proves; who yet is no enemy to Bishops.  
Neither could I ever find one good Antiquity against Ordination by Presbyters, or for Sole Ordination by Bishops. I find indeed Collythus, and some others, Un-priested by Counsels, because Ordained by Presbyters alone; but That Act of the Presbyters was done in faction, against the Bishop, and their fellow Brethren. Yea, and in most cases, if not in all, Those Orders (so annulled by Counsels) were conferred by One Priest alone, and so were indeed as unlawful, as if by one Bishop alone.  
I might add, that some Great men of good Note, have strongly maintained, all those Counsels erred, which so Unpreisted Those that had been Ordained by a Presbyter, or Presbyters, without a Bishop. Amongst These are some of Note in the Popish Church; It being a Common Instance among the Schoolmen, disputing, Whether Orders once conferred could be annulled; and they all conclude the contrary. Yea, and many of These also strongly prove, that Priests may as well Ordain as Bishops; and their Reason seems very good; for, say they, Seeing a Priest can Consecrate, and by Consecration Transubstantiate, (which is more,) Why can he not also Administer the Sacrament of Orders, which is less?  
Yea, and some of them dare affirm, Neither Bishop nor Pope can licence Priests to give Ordination, except The Power of Ordination be de jure, in Presbyters: For, They all yield the Pope himself cannot licence One that is not a Priest, to Consecrate the Host; because none but Priests have That Power of Consecration. And a Licence doth not confer Orders without Imposition of hands, as They all grant.  
F●r my own part, I ever thought That of Bucer most Rational, Deus non simpliciter singularibus Personis, sed Ecclesiae Ordinandi potestatem tradidit. For so indeed it seems the Work of the whole Church, who are to Elect, to testify also and seal their Election by Laying on their hands: And the Presbytery are but the Church's servants in This Act. I could heartily wish It were reduced to This again, which I fully conceive to be most agreeable to Right Reason, Scripture, and All Good (untainted) Antiquity. Yet till This be again restored, I much desire the Prelates would leave off some of the Ceremonies, which I hear they use in it, (though not by Law I think,) lest they drive all good men from taking Orders.   

SECT. II. CHAP. IV.  
I Shall now pass from this kind of Church Antiquity, and pass to the best Antiquity, the infallible Truth of God, in Holy Scripture. In it I shall show there is little for, much against Bishops; whether we consider the Name, or Office of a Bishop, as now it is settled.  
The Name, I find but four times in all the New Testament: In Two of which, the Name is so indifferently used, that it maketh nothing towards an issue of This Question. Those are, 1 Tim. 3. vers. 1, 2, 3. and, 1 Pet. 2.25. And what can be gained from hence, truly I see not.  
In the other places it maketh against them, as I shall show more at large by and by.  
But the Word Elder, (a true Bishop) is used twenty several times in the New Testament. And you shall find the Apostles honouring This Name so much, that one of them styles himself an Elder, but none calls himself a Bishop. Indeed, judas is so called; Who (as it were Prophetically) behaved himself so, that his Archbishopric was given to another. I doubt not but the Spirit foresaw this Word would be quickly mounted high enough; so that it brands judas first with This stile.  
Of much more majesty is the Word Presbyter, which signifies Senior. Under the Law Youth was bound to pay Tribute to Grey hairs; and Senatus of old was so styled, à Senioribus; Whereas Episcopus signifies nothing but an Overseer: And such indeed Bishops have been for many years.  
Perhaps the Name of Bishop is sometimes (though rarely) used, that the wilfully blind might stumble: But the Name Presbyter very frequent; that Those who love Truth and Light, might still see such a Glimpse that might Enlighten them in the midst of Egyptian darkness: from which, I doubt not, but God will deliver all Christendom in due time.  
I can find as little also for the Office of a Bishop, as for his Name in Scripture, yea much less. I can find our Saviour rebuking his Disciples, striving for precedency; saying, He that will be first shall be last. I can find St. Peter saying, Lord it not over the flock of Christ: And St. john branding Diotrephes with seeking the Pre-eminence.  
But where shall we find the usurped Office of our Bishops in all the Scripture? Can they find it (by a multiplying glass) where ever they see the Name of Bishop, though but in a Postscript, of St. Paul's Epistles, Whither I see many of them fly for their own Name.  
I must confess I have found some Praescripts of David's Psalms (and other Texts) to be now part of Scripture; but never yet found any Postscript of such Authority. I dare not therefore give it unto These;  
Which first, were never (that I could learn) received by the Church for Authentic Scripture; nor ever fully joined to the Scripture, but by some distinctive note, till our Bishop's times. Yea, some Ancient Copies have them not at all; as one very old Greek Copy in Oxford Library, if I be not misinformed.  
Again, These Postscripts have many Improbabilities and some repugnancies; as many Learned men observe.  
As, That of the first to Timothy; From Laodicea the chiefest City of Phrygia Pacatiana. Which sure was never so subscribed by St. Paul, who would not have spoken of a First Epistle, when as yet there was no Second, nor appearance of any. Again, the Epithet Pacatiana, came from Pacatianus a Roman Deputy, 300. years after St. Paul wrote.  
The Epistle to Titus is thus subscribed, (or rather superscribed,) To Titus, ordained the first Bishop of Crect; from Nicapolis of Macedonia: but it should have been added; Whither St. Paul meant to come after the Epistle, but was not there at his writing; as appears very probably from the third of the same Epistle verse 12. But what means that Phrase, Bishop of the Church in Crect? was there but one Church in all Crect? This sounds not like the Scripture stile; which always expresseth national Congregations by Churches in the Plural. But it may very well be, Titus was Bishop (or Pastor) but of one Church in Crect: so that we shall not need to contend about This.  
Our Adversaries themselves yield, there cannot be much urged from these Subscriptions. Baronius, Serrarius, and the Rhemists, will ingenuously confess so much; and Bishop Whitgift also against Mr. Cartwright.  
●he Postscripts failing, where will they show either Name or Office of a Bishop as now it is used? I know their strong Fort, Tit. 1.5. For this cause I left thee in Crect, that thou shouldest set in Order the things that are Wanting, and Ordain Elders in every City, etc. Here they think the Power of a Bishop is set forth at large.  
But what if so? Will they be content to be limited to This Power? if so, we shall the sooner agree. I think no man ever thought, Good Titus had a Commission here to draw the Civil Sword; or so much as to strike with his Church Keys.  
Let us a little examine This Commission; Which seem● but a Brief of a large Patent which Saint Paul had given him before.  
If we first examine the Date of This Commission, we shall find it before any Church Government was settled; and so an Extraordinary Case, not fit, perhaps not lawful, to be produced as a constant precedent.  
Extraordinary Cases of Necessity, break through the Ceremonial, yea Moral Law too. The Show Bread may refresh fainting David; Cain and Abel may marry their own sisters to propagate the World; Samuel may be a Priest, though not of Aaron's House, as was showed before. And why then may not an Extraordinary way be taken in the first settling of Church Government, where there is yet none settled? Any man might now in the conversion of the Americans, or Chinois, give direction how to admit Members, elect Pastors, exercise the keys, etc. This Titus did, and no more.  
But secondly, in what manner his Commission was, I know not; and nothing can be proved from hence, till that be agreed upon. It is as probable he did it but instructiuè, exhortatiuè, and not imperatiuè.  
Timothy received his gift by imposition of Presbyterial hands. If an extraordinary gift was conveyed in an ordinary way: Why might not an ordinary calling, and affairs of an ordinary nature, be managed by an extraordinary man, be carried forth in an extraordinary way? The contrary is not proved, and so This must till then, be Ineffectual to them.  
But thirdly and lastly, I beseech you consider by what power he did it; by the power of an Evangelist. There are two sorts of them,  

1. Who write.  
2. Who proclaim the Gospel in an extraordinary way, as coadjuters and messengers to the Apostles in this great work.   
Of this last sort certainly he was 
* See 2. Cor. 8.23. . A Bishop he was not; for our adversaries do all agree, that it is the duty of a Bishop curae sue incumbere, to watch over his charge: now this he did not, for if Crect was his Charge (which in no way, neither by Scripture nor Antiquity is proved) he did not attend it; for we find him continually journeying up and down; he leaveth Crect and cometh to Ephesus, from thence he is sent to Cor●nth, after that into Macedonia, from Macedonia he is returned to the Corinthians. Neither is it to be found in History that he ever returned to Crect. Thus if I mistake not, the Text is less advantageous than the Postscript.  
Some think to find Episcopacy established in that example of Saint john, writing to the Angels of the seven Churches. But this is Argumentum longè petitum.  
Because Paul endorseth the Letter of a Corporation, or an Assembly, to the most eminent man in the Congregation; Therefore He shall have sole Jurisdiction; therefore the Mayor shall have sole power without the Aldermen, est par ratio.  
When Paul writes to the Church of the Thessalonians (1 Thes. 5. v. 27.) commanding That Epistle to be read to all the holy Brethren; the Church of the Thessalonians should have Jurisdiction over other Churches: which truly I do not think to be a strong Argumentation.  
Secondly, the Word is taken collectively for the Assembly and charge of Ministers, and not for One, as appear evidently, Revel. 2. v. 24. He saith, speaking to the Angel, To you and to the rest in Thyatira: he puts the Angel in the plural number, which he would not have done had he written to a single Bishop.  
Thirdly, these Epistles are written to the whole Church for the threats and promises are read to them, and the Epiphonema of every Epistle is this, he that hath an ear let him hear, what is spoken to the Churches.  
But yet if this superscription could give any advantage to the Angel, it would but extend to his own congregation.  
The Laodicean Angel hath no influence upon the Philadelphian, or the Smyrnite; and if that be not proved, nothing is gained in the point of Episcopacy, except it could be proved, that these Angels had in their care many congregations under these particular Churches: which never hath, nor ever will appear. I hope it is manifest to all men that they cannot establish Episcopacy by Scripture.  
Secondly, there is much in Scripture against them; For the word Elder and Bishop is all one, Tit. 1. ver. 7. For this cause left I thee in Crect, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders in every City, as I had appinted thee; for a Bishop must be blameless, as the Steward of God.  
First, he sheweth Titus what manner of man an Elder must be, viz Blameless; and now proveth it, because a Bishop must be blameless. As if I should write to Thomas to live soberly, because a Man must be sober; it necessarily followeth that Thomas is a man.  
So that Phil. 1. he writes to the Bishops and Deacons at Philippi. Is it probable that a little Town in Macedonia should have many Bishops, when one Bishop must have many Cities, in his Diocese? Those Who translated the Bible, foresaw This: And therefore Acts 20. They have translated the word Episcopus an Overseer. Yet in other places they translate it Bishop. And the Jesuits say Piae fraudes sunt licitae.  
The carriage of the Apostles, in several places is remarkable: when they come to a City (as Acts 20.) They send for the Elders of the Church, never thinking of a Bishop, he is so inconsiderable a man. These places I hope make clearly against them; So now I will endeavour to show what the Scripture holdeth forth for Church Government.   

SECT. II. CHAP. V.  
IN this search you will agree that the Government is fixed there, where you shall see settled the plenary and absolute power of Election of Officers, Decision of controversies, and Excommunication of those that transgress.  
This you will find ministerially in the Officers, But initiatiuè, virtualiter, & conclusiuè, in the People.  
The Officers are called Overseers, Rulers, and Elders, etc.  
Some of these are to preach and administer the Sacraments, others to watch over men's manners, others to serve Tables, and look to the poor: All these are chosen by the People: but whensoever by their industry any delinquency is discovered, the whole matter is brought to the Church, and there the people and Elders do pass their definitive sentence.  
Examine but where election of Officers, decision of controversies & excommunication of members are recorded, and you shall have them all in the Church; not representative, but in the whole Church, consisting of Officers and other members.  
As first for election, Acts 1.15. Peter speaketh to the People, and telleth them they must choose one in judas his place, and ver. 23. It is said They appointed Two. It is true the lot divided which of them two should be the man, (a course in the like case, not unlawful to us at this day:) But the reducing of it to Two, was the act of the Church; though Peter was amongst them. So afterwards Timothy received his Evangelicall gift by the Imposition of Presbyterial hands; which Presbyters were in this work, the servants of one present Congregation.  
Secondly, Decision of Controversies, either in cases of Conscience, or in point of manners. In cases of Conscience when Paul and Barnabas had no small difference about Circumcision, they sent to Jerusalem where the Apostles, Elders, and Brethren meeting together, jointly returned that answer which you find Acts 15. 23.24.2●.  
Some would press this place, this act of the Apostles further, and give to every Synod a Commanding Power; because it is said Act. 15.28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay no further burden upon you. Therefore they say a Synod hath a commanding and burdening Power.  
But I cannot consent to that: for then the major part of the Churches in Europe, Africa, Prester john's Country, might meet and command all the Churches of Christ (which God forbid,) in what they pleased; and that jure divino: for God when he giveth a rule to his Church, he speaketh to the whole Church of Christ, and not to any particular Congregation. I only press it thus far, That the People were joined even with the Apostles, in that Great Synod.  
The Commanding power of the Synod lay in this, that the Apostles speak the mind of the Holy Ghost. But such authority is not left in us; and therefore no such Obligation upon others: Truly if there were such a power left us, I should with much scurple resist any act of such Government; whereof I could make a good construction; For many times the power Commanding is more dangerous than the thing Commanded: but there is no such power. Neither, as I said before, do I press it with such a design.  
In cases of Civil converse, Mat. 18.17. We must make our addresses to the Church; and he that will not hear the Church must be as a Publican.  
In that place the greatest dispute will be, What is meant by the Church? for some will say, Here is meant the Church representatiuè; either in more, as the Presbytery, or in one, as the Bishop; and not the Church at large. But I would labour to evince the contrary. Weigh either the Context, or the general signification of the word Church, and I hope the true sense will be manifest.  
For, Let us see how Church is taken in the Scripture; It is used sometimes figuratiuè; and sometimes properly. Figuratiuè, as when a particular house is called a Church; As, the Church in his house, Rom. 16.5.  
Secondly, When by Synecdoche, the head is put for the whole; as Christ is called the Church, 1 Cor. 12.12.  
Thirdly, Collectiuè, When all the Churches of Christ are called the Church, 1 Cor. 10.32. It is used perhaps under some other figures, but it will be long to quote them all.  
Secondly, It is used Properly in two phrases;  
First, When the Congregation is called the Church; as the Church at Ephesus, Corinth, etc. Secondly, When the Congregations are called Churches; as the Churches of Galatia, and of jadea. Thus it is used Properly, Thus Figuratively; but no where Representatiuè: scil.. the Ministers, the Presbyters, or the Bishops; or all these, for the Church. You shall find these and the Church contradistinct; as, To the Saints, the Bishops, and the Deacons, 1 Phil. 1.1. To the Church, and the Elders, Act. 15.4.  
I conceive we are bound to take a word in that sense which is currant in Scripture; except that sense clearly cross the scope and spirit of the text.  
You shall meet with that word 48. times in the New Testament, and no where signifying that which we call the Representative Church; Very often for the Saints themselves: As, 1 Cor. 1. vers. 15.2 Cor. 1. vers. 1. 1 Thes. 1. vers. 1. Why should we not then take it in the same sense? Are not we then bound to expound the word Church in some of those significations which are frequent in Scripture; and not in that sense, which is so far from being found in the text, that a Contradistinct phrase is, as I said before, ●ather used?  
Again, From the text and context that will appear to be the meaning of the Spirit, and no other: The text is, Mat. 18. vers. 17. If he shall neglect to hear Them, tell the Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen man, and a Publican. The context is in the 15. and 16. verses, If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: If he shall bear thee, than hast thou gained thy brother; but if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more; that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.  
In the context and the text there are three things to be examined, before the true sense can be found out: First, Who are meant in that Gradation, in the 15, 16, 17. v. Secondly, Who is meant by Them, v. 17. (if he will not hear Them.) Thirdly, What is meant by Publicans and sinners.  
First, Who is meant in that Gradation. In the first place is meant the Party; in the second is meant the Elders, or the Bishops, the Officers of the Church.  
If you say, They are not there understood: yet I am confident you will not, I am sure you cannot, say, they are there excluded. If then the Spirit pointed at them, with the other members of the Church, or them solely; It would be an unnecessary thing, to bring him afterwards to them again, as to the Representative Church.  
Secondly, By Thee, (v. 17.) is not meant only the Party, but every Christian, every Church member, to whomsoever the news of such a miscarriage shall come: Else this will be a means to nourish particular parties sidings, (which the Scripture doth exceedingly shun,) If by God's Law he should be a Publican to one of the Church and not another: If he be so to every member of the Church, this will be a hard case, That if a Bishop, or an Elder, one, two, or more, shall pass the bitter sentence of Excommunication, he must be so to me also, though I know nothing of it.  
But some will say, that must be done before the Church. To which I answer, The word saith no such matter. And thus those who mis-expound the Scripture, must eck out the Scripture, to make good their own imagination.  
But secondly, Why should it be complained of, before the Church, if the deciding power be in the Officers? Frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora.  
But thirdly and lastly, If you will have the whole Church hear; it seemeth to me against all reason in the world, that the party deputed should have power, the party deputing being present. The Steward of a Court Leet, or Court Baron, is annihilated, if the Lord be there. All Officers veil bonnet, when the party giving them power is present.  
Why are Parliaments the representative body of the Kingdom, but because the Plough cannot stand? but because no pla●e can contain the whole body? But if all the people could meet in Campo Martio, should Those who now are but servants, then be more than servants? surely the whole Church being present, four or five by God's Law shall not rule all, seeing God's Law never appoints any standing Laws against the rules of nature.  
In the third place we must inquire after the sense of Heathen and Publican: sc. the most odious of men. Is it possible that any Christian shall be to any Christian the most odious of men, for the sentence of a Judge which he never heard, neither hath right to hear?  
Thus if you will be bound either by text or context, or the common acceptation of the word in the Scripture; by Church must be understood the whole Congregation.  
Again, for excommunication of members, 1 Cor. 5.13. S. Paul commandeth Them, (sc. the whole Church) to put away that wicked person, and to deliver up such a one to Satan. 2 Cor. 2. They restore him, They forgive him.  
Thus we see every where, That in election of Officers, in decision of Controversies, in cases of Conscience, in Excommunication, the whole Church disposeth everything, not the Bishops, not the Presbyters alone.  
I do not observe the Church hath power in other things, but in these, and in all these, in election of Officers, in decision of controversies and excommunication of delinquents, the whole power is in the Church.  
I conceive than I have clearly and briefly proved these three things: 

1 That there is little in Scripture for Episcopacy; much less for such an Episcopacy as Ours.  
2 Something against them.  
3 Another Government clearly delineated.     

SECT. II. CHAP. VI  
IT being (as I conceive it is) cleared both from State-policy, Antiquity and Scripture, how incompatible Civil Government and such Episcopacy are, I hope we shall never hereafter be choked with that Proverb, No Bishop, no King. I do most willingly pay very great reverence to a saying delivered to us by many successions, from the wisdom of our forefathers; But I shall ever crave leave to question that Maxim which may justly seem to me the birth either of Ignorance or ends. Antiquity must have no more authority than what it can maintain, by reason frequent impostures of this nature command us to be circumspect; did not our predecessors hold the torrid zone inhabitabilem aestu? till Noah's Dove, Columbus discovered Land, the world was confined in the Ark of Europe, Africa, and Asia.  
In Divinity, where an error is of most dangerous consequence, we have been too credulous: how many hundred years did our fore fathers swallow this pleasant bait, We must believe as the Church believeth? And since the light of Reformation, was not particular assurance of our Salvation delivered us, as an exact definition of our faith?  
We have ventured our bodies as well as our souls upon these sands; for in the Art of Physic (though our parents at a very great remoteness were wiser) it hath passed for a currant position that Phlebotomy almost in any case was more than dangerous; and that men might pay dear for their learning, they have been as wise in Tenets of State-Policy.  
Have not too many great ones closed in with Nero's conclusion, m● oderint dum metuant?  
Lastly, Episcopacy hath been the basis, the superstructure, the All, the soul of Church Discipline for these many ages: but dabit his meliora Deus.  
Some of these Tenets spring from invincible Ignorance; others have been the base pullulations of spirits enslaved to false ends: This No Bishop, no King (as I have fully proved) partakes of both, and therefore hath no weight with me, nor I hope shall ever hereafter be of credit with any body else; for we see that old received truths are not always to be entertained: and so I leave them with their maxim to the sentence of every judicious Reader.   

SECT. II. CHAP. VII.  
THere yet remaineth an objection or two, which must necessarily receive an answer, before I shut up this discourse. 
Object. 1.  1 Obj Allow there are some inconveniencies, (yea great ones) in Episcopacy; yet ex malis minimum, it is better to bear these than groan under worse. If Episcopacy be taken away, Schisms and Heresies will break in, as armed men; Tyranny is more eligible than Anarchy; the woeful sense of Anarchy begot that sad Proverb, It is at it was with Israel, when there was no King.  
Ans. I do agree to this, 
Answ.  that a confusion is a most lamentable condition; and that those times are very perilous, when every man's hand is up against his brother; Ephraim against Manasses, and Manasses against Ephraim: Yea, I do profess the distraction of Heresies, the most miserable of all Civil conquassations, disjoint the outward estate; but Heresies distract our souls, dismember our Churches, stave off jew and Gentile, who know not whether part to believe, shake the weaker, cause heartburning amongst the stronger, do exceedingly provoke God to wrath and displeasure. But first, let us consider whether it be possible to be without Heresies and Schisms. Secondly, whether Episcopacy be not the efficient cause of the most grievous Schisms, and Heresies. Thirdly, whether Those which may justly be feared upon the removal of Episcopacy, be of such dangerous consequence, as to weigh down the keeping up of that Government, rather than to hazard what inconveniences may there-hence follow.  
And 1 to the first of these.  
It will be clear both from experience, and Scripture, and reason, that Heresies must come. Look over all Nations, and all times, and you shall find them distracted with difference of opinions: How many several Sects do you hear of amongst the Jews, and some of them extreme gross? the Sadduces, the Pharisees, the Esseans, Herodians, with many more; though a great Critic reduce them to Three. Christ had no sooner committed the care of his Church to the Apostles, Disciples, and ordinary Ministers; but they were over-runne with Heresies: Yea, in their time, some were of Paul, some of Apollo, some of Cephas; in the interim Christ quite laid aside. In the Church of Pergamus, were there not some that held the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans? In Thyatira did not some of the Church listen to the Prophetess jezebel, who taught them to commit fornication, and to eat things offered to Idols? Barnabas and Paul were at some difference: the Doctrine of works was pressed upon the Galatians, and the resurrection from the dead questioned by the Corinthians.  
Amongst Heathens (where Morality was their God) had you not the Peripatelickes, the sceptics, the Platonists, the Epicureant, and many other Sects? The Pope and Papacy, have been much turmoiled with Schisms; and these Schisms have produced great confusions amongst them.  
In the year of the Lord 420. Boniface the eighth being chosen, the Clergy chose Eulatius, and there they decreed one another Heretics; Simmachus and Lawrentius caused the same distraction in the year 499.760. Pope Custantine being convinced of Schisms and bereavest of both his eyes, he and Philip (another Pope) were deposed, and Stephen elected in their places. Thus it was 958.973.995.1047.1058.1062.1083.1100.1118.1124. in the year of the Lord 1130, the disputes betwixt Gregory and Peter (Both chosen Popes) were so famous that it was grown a Proverb and recorded in this verse.  
Petrus habet Romam, totum Gregorius orbem.  
Every twenty years had such changes as these, even till of late, that Church hath been vehemently turmoiled with all their Learned. Amongst the Schoolmen, some are Scotists, some Thomists: among the Polemiques, some Jesuits, some Dominicans. And all these wrangle each with other.  
In the year of our Lord 1400. there was a great dispute about the Original sin of the Virgin Mary. Between 1215. and 1294. was that great Faction between the Guelsians and Gibelines (though both were Papists) One descending the authority of the Pope, the other of the Emperor. In some points of Controversy, Bellarmine (one of their ablest Writers) is not to be read without restriction, and not without Licence of superiors.  
If we survey all Antiquity, we shall find no one Century free from Heretics. Ebion, Cerinthus, Martion, Samosatenus, Novatians, Sabellians, Nepotians, Manichees, Arrians, Pelagians, with many others, have troubled the Church from time to time.  
If you descend so low as our days, even among Protestants you shall meet with too too many Divisions. Luther and Calvin; and the English Church between both; a Calvinist for Doctrine, a Lutheran for Discipline. The Lutherans are divided in Rigidiores, & Molliores, and these differ toto Coelo. The Calvinists have many disputes: How fiercely doth learned Erastus contend with Calvin and Beza, about Excommunication denying the Church any such power?  
The Church of England hath three main Divisions; The Conformist, the Nonconformist, and the Separarist. The Conformist hath the Orthodox Divine, contending with the Arminian, Socinian, Pelagian, Anabaptist, and divers others; who yet All style themselves Sons of the Church of England. The Nonconformist is uncertain what he scrupleth; for some can dispense with one of the three Grand Nocent-innocent Ceremonies; some with another, some with neither. The Separist is subdivided too (as they say) into Separatist, and Semi-seperatist. Many other Divisions there also be, will be, in Churches here.  
Yea, it is clear in Reason, that Divisions, Sects, Schisms, and Heresies, must come; For, many are apt to advance themselves and undervalue all others: and men's Brains being fertile of errors, after they have conceived they must bring forth; though the Gospel suffer never so much by it. And while This Temper is among men, you must still expect Schisms and Heresies.  
The Scripture hath put this out of all doubt, it saith, Heresies must come. Christ came to set a Sword, not only between the Good and Bad, but even among Professors of the same Christian Religion; that Those who hold out to the End may have their Honour and Reward. It is to be marked that Christ doth not press his people to seek their freedom, till Rome be falling, and then he saith, Come out of her my People.  
Yea, the Scripture foretelleth of one Heresy that is not yet (perhaps) come; it may be it is now in the Birth; sure it is not far off, It is mentioned in the second of Tiothy, the third Chapter and some of the first verses.  2 Tim. 3.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.  
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy.  
3 Without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good.  
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God.  
5 Having a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.  
Expositors all agree This misery to be in the Wain: But in their agreement they differ very much; for some conceive the Papist is here understood; others apply it to the late Troublers of Israel, the Arminian, Socinian, and the worst sort of Episcopal men, that under the Notion of indifferent Ceremonies would have brought us to swallow down all Popery.  
But under favour, I doubt neither of These, reach the full meaning of the Text. It cannot be the Papist, because it is not to rise till the Last Days. Indeed Popery is clearly expressed in the 1 of ●im. the fourth, verse the 1, 2, 3. ● (as that most Learned and Reverend man Mr. Mead hath fully cleared in his most excellent piece on that Text) yet there they are said to rise in the Later Times (viz. of the Roman Empire;) but here these new Heretics come not out till the Last (not only Later) Days, not only Times, but Days of those Times.  
Again, it seems not to be the Arminian (or any of that Rabble I mentioned but now.) For first, the Character of their Times is Perilous, as if it would intimate men indeed should be in danger, but yet escape, the Times being only perilous: But while Popery bore all before it, forced the whole Church into the Wilderness, clothed the Witnesses with Sackcloth, and at last prevails to kill them: sure these Times are more than perilous. But perhaps there is no pressing force in This.  
In the second place let us consider the Character of the Persons. First, they are expressed as Breakers of the Laws of Civil Converse; and then as Hypocrites in Religion: the first of these beginneth at the second, and contiveth to the fifth verse: The second is in the fifth and si●th verses. Let us view some passages in both.  
Lovers of themselves, Covetous, Proud, etc. And have not men been such ever since Adam? Why then doth the Spirit speak of This as a strange thing in the Last Days? Mr. Calvin saw this Objection, and therefore oft affirms (that the Scripture may not seem to speak Frigidè) Here must be some new strange Crew of Men that act all These in a most eminent manner, even to the eye of all men.  
But some will say, Are not the Papists so? Is not the corrupter part of Prelates such? Are not the Arminians of this temper? Certainly they are such, and in an eminent manner; and yet to me they seem not the men the Spirit pointeth at in this place.  
The main Thing in which these men (here expressed) pride themselves, is not Learning, or Parts; But (if I be not much mistaken) somewhat beyond and within all these: That, I suppose, which seems to them to be the Spirit. This, I conceive, is the Basis of all their vanity, pride, and insolence. They have the Spirit, and so know more than all the Learned, Pious, Godly Men in the world. They have the Spirit, they cannot sin, they cannot err; they will not pray, but when that Spirit moves. Adultery is but an act of the Flesh, but they are all Spirit, and no flesh. What should these men do with Natural affections, they are all Spirit? in this case if they be Traitors, highminded, Heady, etc. Who will wonder? What may they not be carried up to, by the imagination of the Spirit? But let them take heed, if they have any thing of God in them; let them be wise in this their day, for the time may come when it will be too late. In the mean time I will say as Peter did to Simon, Pray (that if it be possible) this wickedness of heart may be forgiven.  
If we look on the other part of their Character, Having a form of Godliness, but denying the Power thereof, Creeping into the houses of silly women, Laden with divert Lusts, etc.  
How can these be spoken of Arminians, Socinians, or our Prelates? It were to be wished that most of These had so much as a Form of Godliness. Sure the World is now grown too wise to take Duckings, and Cringing, Crossing, and Crouching, with all of this kind, to be so much as a Form of Godliness.  
Do These creep into women's houses? the Socinians, and Arminians attempt no such pranks, that I know of. And the Patrons of Episcopacy use not much persuasion, but Club law: All else is in Corners.  
It seems very probable to me, that the Holy Ghost in This text points out some such, as the Family of Love, the Antinomians, and Grindletonians are, if (at least) they are not much belied. And to these, I think, every piece of This Character will most properly belong. Yea and the Close of it also, or the Issue of That Sect. They shall proceed no farther, for their folly shall be made manifest to all men, which can hardly be understood either of Arminianism, or Prelacy, since That in several names, This in several dresses, hath been in the world above 1000 years.  
Thus you see Sects, Schisms, and Heresies will still come, and must come: And therefore if by keeping such Bishops we think to keep out all Divisions, we are much deceived. Which yet I spoke not to take away watchfulness in Church-governors, (who are still bound to suppress Divisions as much as they can) but to convince men of This (if I can) that Episcopacy is never like to prevent Schisms: which I hope to clear more fully in my subsequent discourse.  
I could never conceive more than Two ways, that in probability may be like to quiet us in respect of Divisions. One of These we have no mind to try, and the other we may not if we would.  
The Spaniard indeed by his cruel Inquisition, hath inclined his Subjects to a kind of Unity; but an Unity of Darkness and Ignorance: so that the Remedy proves worse than the Disease. Neither will, or can Tyranny either Civil, or Ecclesiastic, bring forth better fruit.  
The other Way is That of the United Provinces (in the Low Countries) who let every Church please herself in her own way, so long as she leaveth the State to herself. And how Religion doth flourish There, is known to most men. I will not dispute This now; only I wish heartily, men would remember, that even Nature herself as much abhors a forced violent Union, as a Rent or Division.  
BUt in the next place, let us seriously consider, whether the Bishops (as now they be settled here) be not the Cause of most Sects, Schisms, and Heresies now amongst us.  
Some of them will not deny themselves to be Arminians; and others cannot deny themselves Socinians. If at least they think we can understand their writings, printing, yea and Sermons, though These be very Rate.  
Yea some do not deny, but they may (at least) receive Orders; they mean a Pale, Mitre, and Cardinal's Hat, if they come. All which we may yet better construe by their carriage to Priests and Jesuits, both in public and private, which now we know more than by bare surmise. Many of These they countenance openly, and never question any, though it be certainly known: we had (they had) more such in London, than were good Ministers in all England almost.  
All the Livings under most of our Bishops have been committed to the Cure and Care of superstitious Formalists, Arminians, Socinians, Papists, or Atheists. Yea the Universities are much corrupted by their malignant influence; for, Nero-like they think they have done nothing, till they have murdered their own Mother. In a word, through the whole Kingdom, Preaching, Praying, Expounding, and the like exercises, both in public and private, are severely suppressed, and in many places altogether forbidden (except such and such, more pernicious than profitable;) and all This by the Fathers of our Church, the Lords our Bishops. And is not This the most compendious way possible to beget and increase Heresies?  
They cry out of Schism, Schism; Sects and Schisms; and well they may: They make them, and it is strange they should not know them. When they laid such stumbling blocks (Real Scandals, not only accepta, but data) in the way of good men, whose Consciences they have grievously burdened, and wounded with Things (violently pressed on the greatest fines) that are so far from being indifferent, that many of them were point blank unlawful: have they not by This even forced their brethren to separate themselves in Judgement and Practice, till they could find some remote place that might separate their bodies also? Was not This in Them the readiest way to produce Divisions, Separations, and (as they call it) Schisms in the Church? Rents are bad, I confess, where ever they be violent; but yet then worst, when most out of the eye. Schisms in the Conscience are of greatest danger; and to prevent These, if I am forced to That, which they please to call a Schism in the Church, Woe to Him that so forceth me. Scandals, Schisms, and Divisions must come; but woe to him by whom they come. God forgive them in This paticular.  
I profess I take no pleasure in ripping up their foul, loathsome sores; I would they could be throughly healed without lancing and opening. I could give you a strange account of sad Divisions, which themselves have caused both to Church and State: I could tyre you and myself in This, though I should begin but little higher than mine own Time, mine own Knowledge.  
In Queen Elizabeth's Time, many good men were cut off from the Church, some from the State, a sad Schism! Some by violence laid asleep; Many suspended, silenced, deprived, cut off (by a strange Schism,) from liberty, livings, (that I go not higher;) And all This for one word, of their own compounding, Nonconformity: While they themselves are indeed the greatest Non-Conformists to all the Reformed Churches in Europe.  
Surely, It would have savoured more of Humility, of Christianity, if they had suspected their own Judgements and Opinions; allowing something to the Judgement, Learning, and Piety of those holy, worthy, precious Saints, Calvin, Beza, Bucer, P. Martyr, Oecolampadius, Zuinglius, with many more, great, famous, and eminent Lights, in their times.  
If they will stand for Conformity; Let any man living judge, whether it be fitter for some few Bishops, newly come out of gross Popery, (and still retaining their old Popish Ceremonies,) to reform, and conform themselves to the Judgement and Practice of all Reformed Churches; or all Churches to subscribe to Them.  
As they began, so they continued: Christ and they being like parallel lines, though they should run out in infinitum, they would never meet: Nay rather, like the Crura of a Triangle, the farther they run (out from the Centre) the more they differ, and are distant each from other.  
Under King james, in a few years, four or five hundred Reverend men were divided from their Livings, and Ministry: And was not this a cruel Schism? Now also by Them was first forged that sharp Razor, (or, Book of Sports) with which they have since made great Divisions of heart.  
But in our Gracious King's Reign, they have come to Cutting off Ears, Cheeks; and have yet struck deeper, and estayed many Soule-Schismes; not only in the Hearts and Consciences of thousands of good men; but whole States also and Kingdoms, as much as in them lay.  
While I hear the sad groans, and see the bleeding wounds of Three Kingdoms at once, by their Schisms; I have almost forgotten the parting sighs, and farewell tears of ten thousand poor Christians, by Their Tyranny forced to abandon their native Country, and dearest acquaintance; while others were here violently detained in Fetters, some smothered in Dungeons, some Dismembered, some driven out of house and Living, and forced to beg: All which yet would have been born patiently, had not only all Good men, but Goodness itself, Learning, Religion, Piety, All that speaks any worth, been altogether, not only discountenanced, but suppressed, smothered, and by most exquisite Tortures almost forced to breathe its last.  
Yet that these Glorious Princes (under whom such Tyrannies have been committed) may not suffer in your thoughts, Give me leave to speak some things on mine own knowledge and experience, others from best intelligence. Queen Elizabeth, when she heard of Their miscarriages, fell on Them in most sharp language, threatening Them, if they should ever do the like again to her Subjects.  
King james offered fair discourse to the Non-Conformists; honoured Mr. Cartwright and others of them; disclaimed the Book of Sports: And being asked, why he made so many Bad Bishops, answered ingenuously, with a strong asseveration, That he was very sorry, but could not help it; For, no good men would take the Office on them. And our Gracious Sovereign (since some light hath dawned out of darkness,) hath delivered our Sister Church of Scotland from that unhappy Generation.  
For, now I hope the Clouds begin to break away; Light springeth up, while Dark Iniquity is forced not only to shut her mouth, but hide herself and disappear. Now the Sun again mounteth up in our Horizon, and quickeneth the drooping spirits; so that now many that were Bedrid some months since, now begin to take up their Beds and walk, leaping up and blessing God.  
Fire and Water may be restrained, but Light cannot; It will in at every cranny: and the more it is opposed it shines the brighter: so that now to stint it, is to resist an enlightened, inflamed Multitude; which still was, and still will be Durissima Provincia.  
Their mad outrage in all the three Kingdoms, of late, hath so incensed the Common People, that in all men's eyes they are become most vile: and while all men reflect on their constant trade of mischievous practices, the wisest begin to conclude, The very Calling hurt the Men, as much as These disgrace the Calling.  
Thus we have, by too too long, great, and sad experience, found it true, That our Prelates have been so far from preventing Divisions; that they have been the Parents and Patrons of most Errors, Heresies, Sects and Schisms, that now disturb This Church and State.   

SECT. II. CHAP. VII.  
BUt it may be, the Remedy will yet be worse than this Disease. Let us therefore, yet more exactly weigh all the Inconveniences that may attend the Change of This Church-Government, which we now dispute.  
The Dangers which some have fancied may hence accrue to the State, have been discussed in the former Section, to which more properly they do belong. We have here only to consider, such Evils as may have bad influence into the Church, and Polity thereof.  
Arminianism, Socinianism, Superstition, Idolatry, Popery, will pack away with Them; being Their Attendants, as was showed before. What is there then to be feared? Anabaptism, Brownism, Separatism; nay every body, every Lay man will turn Preacher.  
Suppose all This be true, (which can be but supposed;) Would it not be much better to hazard the coming in of all These, than still to suffer our souls and bodies, to be grouned to powder by these Tyrannical, Antichristian Prelates, that under pretence of keeping out Separatism, introduce downright Popery, and a sink of almost all Errors and Heresies? Yea, and these Errors of the Right Hand (which These pretend so much to oppose) owe their birth to our Bishops also; as was but now, and might yet more fully, be cleared. We all know, that within these ten years, all the Non-Conformists in England, could not amount to more than one or two hundred: And now how many thousands there be, (yea of such that rise one pin higher than Old Nonconformity,) Themselves, perhaps, know much better than I: Yet our Bishops never were more active, than in all this time. Whence then ariseth this New Nonconformity, or Separatism, but out of our Bishop's Commotions? I will not say, as the Fathers did of old, Ex martyrum sanguine pullulat Ecclesia; yet I must confess, I begin to think there may be perhaps somewhat more of God in these (which they call new Schisms,) than appears at first glimpse.  
I will not, I cannot, take on me to defend That, men usually call Anabaptism: Yet I conceive that Sect is Twofold: Some of them hold Freewill; Community of all things; deny Magistracy; and refuse to Baptise their Children. These truly are such Heretics (or Atheists,) that I question whether any Divine should honour them so much as to dispute with them; much rather sure should alexander's sword determine here, as of old at the Gordian knot, where it acquired this Motto, Que solvere non possum, dissecabo.  
There is another sort of them, who only deny Baptism to their Children, till they come to years of discretion, and then they baptise them; but in other things they agree with the Church of England.  
Truly, These men are much to be pitied; And I could heartily wish, That before they be stigmatised with that opprobrious brand of Schismatic, the Truth might be cleared to them. For I conceive, to those that hold we may go no farther than Scripture, for Doctrine or Discipline, it may be very easy to err in this Point now in hand; since the Scripture seems not to have clearly determined This particular.  
The Analogy which Baptism now hath with Circumcision in the old Law, is a fine Rhetorical Argument, to illustrate a Point well proved before; but I somewhat doubt, whether it be proof enough, for that which some would prove by it: since (beside the vast difference in the Ordinances,) the persons to be Circumcised are stated by a positive Law, so express, that it leaves no place for scruple: but it is far otherwise in Baptism; Where all the designation of Persons fit to be partakers, for aught I know, is only, Such as believe. For this is the qualification that, with exactest search, I find the Scripture require, in persons to be baptised: And This it seems to require in all such persons. Now, how Infants can be properly said to believe, I am not yet fully resolved.  
Yet many things prevail very much with me in this point.  
First, For aught I could ever learn, It was the constant custom of the purest and most Primitive Church, to baptise Infants of believing Parents; For I could never find the beginning and first Rise of this practice: Whereas it is very easy to tract Heresies to their first Rising up, and setting soot in the Church.  
Again, I find all Churches (even the most strict) have generally been of this judgement and practice: yea though there have been in all ages some, that much affected novelty, and had parts enough to discuss and clear what they thought good to preach; yet was this scarce ever questioned by men of Note, till within these Last Ages. And sure, the constant judgement of the Churches of Christ, is much to be honoured, and heard in all things that contradict not Scripture.  
Nor can I well clear that of St. Paul (1 Cor. 7.14.) Else were your Children Unclean, but now are they Holy. I know some interpret it thus, If it be unlawful for a believer to live in wedlock with one that believeth not; Then have many of you lived a long time in unlawful marriage; and so your very Children must be Illegitimate, and these also must be cast off (as Base-born:) But it is not so; for, Your Children are Holy; that is, Legitimate.  
I confess, This seems a very fair Interpretation; yet I much question, Whether This be all the Apostle means by that phrase Holy; especially when I reflect on the preceding words, The unbeliever is Sanctified by the Believer. Nor yet can I believe any Inherent Holiness is here meant; but rather That Relative church-holiness, which makes a man capable of admission to Holy Ordinances, and so to Baptism; yea and to the Lords Supper also, for aught I see; except perhaps Infants be excluded from This Sacrament, by That Text, Let him that eateth, Examine himself, aod so let him eat. As Women are excluded from Church-Government and preaching in Congregations, by That of the same Apostle, I permit not a Woman to speak; Let Women keep silence.  
The second thing we fear so much, is Separation, or as some term it Brownism; for I am not so well studied in these, as to give an exact difference between them, or properly to state or phrase either. Yet I think this also hath Latitude, and admits of difference. Before you pass any severe censure, be pleased to Hear these Poor men (you call Separatists;) Know their Tenets, and then Judge.  
Their main Tenets (for aught I could ever learn) are about some few Points in Discipline, in which sure there is less danger, than in Doctrine, of which they dispute not.  
First, they would admit none as members of their Assemblies, generally to partake with them in all the Ordinances, but such which seem Believing Saints, and so members of Christ's true Church.  
Secondly, they conceive every several Congregation (rightly constituted) hath within itself the power of the keys, committed to it, without dependence on other Churches: Yet not denying the lawful association of several Churches, not refusing the advice and counsel of Counsels and Synods.  
I shall crave leave to scan the first, and see how much it differeth in truth, from the received Tenets of the Church of England.  
I do conceive that England, Scotland, France, all Churches, even Rome itself will agree in this, that a Church is Cetus Fidelium, Gathered together in the Name and power of Christ, to wait on him, in the way of his Ordinances revealed in his Word. In this I suppose we all agree; where then is that Chasma, that great Gulf of difference, which brands so many with the black spot of Separation?  
All the difficulty lies in Stating who are believing Faithful Saints, for of these only all agree, a true Church consists. I beseech you let us call him a Believer, and a Saint whom the Scripture calls so, and we shall soon agree.  
The Pope saith, he is a faithful Saint, and a true Member of the Church; Who believeth as the Church believeth.  
The Church of England saith, he is a Believer (enough to make a Member of that Church) that professeth the truth, though in his life he deny it.  
Those men say he is a faithful Saint who professeth the truth, and to all appearance (for we cannot see the heart) practiseth as he professeth.  
Now all men will agree, this last is a Believing Saint: And these will have none but this to be a Saint; and so none but this to be a Member of Christ's Church.  
I beseech you: Is this such an error, to desire Profession and Practice to be conjoined in one that is to be a Member of the Church of Christ?  
When I desire a good Wife, a faithful Servant, a constant Friend, a familiar Companion; Am I not as desirous to know the Heart as well as the Head, the Will as well as Skill, Affection as well as Profession? And why then may I not do as much in choosing my Spiritual Friends; my constant Companions in the worship and service of God?  
Can any man by right, force me to marry such or such a woman, to take such a servant, to dwell with such a friend, to choose such a companion? And may any man force me then to be companion, in the nearest and most intimate converse of Spiritual Ordinances, with any one or more, whom I dare not, I cannot, I may not trust, to be either friends to God or me; because what ere their lips profess, their life and ways deny God, trample on the blood of Christ, despise, at least profane all his Ordinances.  
I could heartily wish some pity might be showed to these poor men's souls. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to his own Soul. And is it not then much better to keep these men off (as they do in Scotland and other Reformed Churches) till they give the Church satisfaction upon good ground of their Repentance and Faith; that so they may not hurt themselves by God's holy Ordinances?  
Sacraments confirm, but do not confer Grace; if they did so, the case were altered; but now they are like the Paradise of God, guarded with the Flaming Sword; so that the Tree in the midst of the Garden, (which is Christ) cannot be Touched by profane hands.  
The other Grand Heresy (men so much cry against) in Separation, is the Independence of their Congregations, as it was stated before.  
But why should the Independence of One Assembly, to a Province, or Nation, be more Schismatical, than that of a Province, or Nation, to the whole World? Why may not Geneva be as Independent to France, as France may be to the other parts of Europe's Continent? In Geneva, why may not one Congregation, be as independent to All Geneva besides, as Geneva is to all France besides? Doth indeed such a Wall, or River, or Sea, so limit and bond the Church within it, that it may be independent on any Church without it; and may not one Congregation within this River be as well independent on all other Assemblies, within the same River or Sea?  
Are there not some sparklings of this Truth even amongst us in England? Have not we Peculiars? some Congregations exempt from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop within whose Diocese they be? And I think no Separatist desireth more than this, That all Parishes (I mean all Congregations) should be Independent Peculiars.  
Suppose an East Indi- Merchant's Ship be cast on some Remote Island beyond China where there shall be no Inhabitant; may not in this Case, the men of this Ship gather together, choose out some one or more (of themselves) to Read, Preach, Administer the Sacraments? is not this a true Church, and so to be reputed while they believe the Truth, and do what they believe? Is there any one Essential part wanting to this Church, so Constituted?  
If it be answered affirmatively, that there is yet wanting some Essential; I rejoin, than it is not a true Church; nay so far from being vera Ecclesia, that it is not vere Ecclesia: For He is not vere Hom●, that wants something Essential to Man: nor It vere Ecclesia, that wants any thing Essential to a Church.  
If it be yielded that in such a Case there is nothing Essential wanting to This Church: I will again suppose that within a year or Two, another English Ship be cast on the same very Island, and have such another Company or Church; I demand now whether it be necessary, that Both These Churches must needs join together, or at least depend One on the Other.  
If it be not necessary, I have what I desire. If it be necessary; Then was not the former Church a Tr●e Church; because it wanted something Essential and necessary to a Church; to wit, Dependence on some other Church.  
If it be said, This Church did before depend on the whole Catholic Church, I will not gain say it; so They mean only Thus much, that This Church was a true member of the True Church or Body of Christ; which is but made up of so many particular Congregations, as man's Body, of its particular members. And so This will be no more then to say, All the members of the Body are Parts of the Body, and conjoined together, but only subordinate to the Head. For, I suppose no man will say One of my hands is dependant on the Other; but both (as all the other members) dependant on my Head: so are all particular Churches (I mean Congregations) dependant on their General Head, Christ, but not on other of their fellow members.  
If any man shall say, that Hands depend not only on the Head; but also on the Arms, Shoulders, and Neck; which are between Them and the Head, on whom they ultimately depend.  
I answer, It is true, the Hands are conjoined to the Arms; These to the Shoulders; and Both by the Neck to the Head: but yet They depend not on any but the Head. I mean they are not directed and guided by the Dictates of Arm, Shoulder, or Neck, but only by the Commands of the Head: so that there is only a bodily outward Continuity, and no virtual Dependence, but on the Head. The Head sends out Animal Spirits, and by them guides my Hand, as my fancy pleaseth. This Guiding or Directing Depends only on the Head, not Arm, which (when I mean to move my Hand) is but as it were my Hands Servant, that must go and call, and lead my Hand (as a Gentleman Usher) but not command it.  
So are also all the Churches, all several Congregations; They are all members, and are all outwardly conjoined One to another (through all the world) by the tendons and ligaments of Rivers, Seas, Hills, Valleys, and the like. Yea and some of These are nearer to Christ their Head, as they keep themselves purer, and walk more closely in dependence on Him. Yet All these Churches are but Coordinate, not among themselves Subordinate; They are but conjoined each to other, not dependant each on other, but All on their Head; which alone can command and move them. Yea though perhaps some One Church may come between Christ and another Church (as the Arm between the Head and Hand) yet it is there but as a servant to call on, lead, help, uphold, (being so commanded by the Head) but not to command, dictate, or over-top its fellow member.  
You see here what Power we give to Synods and Counsels, or all other Churches over one particular Church; ●o wit, a counselling, persuading (which sure is very prevailing) but not commanding Authority.  
I doubt not but Christ doth sometimes require One Church to incite, exhort, admonish, and persuade another fellow Church (though This be not required of any one Angel in the Apocalypse, towards another Church or Angel, yet I suppose it may be in some Cases) yea and so that the Other Church may haply sin if she do not follow This Call and Counsel: yet not because it comes from her fellow Church, (or any Synod) but because It comes from Christ her Head, that speaks through This Church to her fellow. As the Hand might justly be styled rebellious that rejects the Animal Spirits sent from the Head, though they come through the Arm; Which is here in this Case, not only a servant to the Head, but to the Hand also.  
Yet doth not the Hand rebel, because it refuseth That which comes from the Arm, but because it came from the Head, but through the Arm as an Instrument. For if ever the Arm impose aught on the Hand, which comes not from the Head (as it doth sometimes in a flux of putrid humours from an ulcer in the Arm) in this Case the Arm errs in so imposing on the Hand, but the Hand rebels not in rejecting what the Arm so sends: because it comes not from the Head. On which (and on which alone) all the members virtually depend, and not on any one or more fellow members.  
All this while, though we dispute the independency of Churches among themselves; yet we have not the least shadow of a Thought to withdraw any Church from the Civil Magistrate; Nay, These men (whom our Bishops brand so with Separation) most cordially affirm that if Episcopacy can prove greater or better subjection, or but equal to Them, They will not scruple to subscribe to Them.  
But alas, if we once give way to Dependence of Churches, must not the Church of England Depend on the Dutch; or the Dutch on England; as much as one Church in England must Depend on a Provincial Church of Canterbury, or national in all England?  
And if the English Church must Depend on the Dutch, or Dutch on English, which shall be Inferior? This or That? by This Dispute of Precedency, we shall at length ●ast all Churches into such a Confusion, as some of our Bishops Sees were heretofore, for superiority. Pompejus non admittit superiorem, Caesar non parem. And now I conceive York is Inferior to Canterbury, Durham to York, not by any Law Moral, or of Nature, but positive of State.  
Yea, by This Dependence, will follow a far greater Evil than This dispute and confusion about Precedency: For if One whole Church must so depend on another, then must also the Officers of This depend on Those of That Church, And if so, shall not all Church Officers return to the Pope at length, as to One Supreme Head on Earth.  

Question.  If Geneva Depend on France, why not France on Spain? Spain on Italy? Italy on Rome? Rome on the Pope? And had I begun a great deal lower, I should have come up higher to This Head.  
Perhaps All the Inconveniences that can be objected on Independance, though they could not be answered (as I conceive they may) will not balance This One Inconvenience of Dependence. But no more of This.  
The next Grand Inconvenience that may be feared on the removal of our Prelates, is Licentia praedicandi; not only in that sense in which This phrase is used beyond the Seas, and was in that sense forbidden under our Last Royal King ' james: That was Licentia quoad Materiam; This quoad Personam.  
Now they say, Not only Every matter will be preached, what every Minister pleaseth, but also Every Person will turn Preacher: Even Shoemakers, Cobblers, Feltmakers, and any other.  
God is the God of Order, and not of Confusion. And if Order is to be observed any where, It is sure in matter of Worship: For if through the Church's default Disorder break in, at any craney: you shall find the Breach grow wider and wider every day: Except the Cleft be stopped, the Ship may quickly sink. And therefore I shall wholly agree, and join with Them that endeavour with the first, to allay the very semblance and apparition (less than the least bubbling up) of Disorder.  
Only this I could heartily wish, that Fire and Faggot may not determine this Controversy; that These men may not be dealt with, as were some of the Martyrs in Queen Mary's days; For oft when the Bishops could not reply, They would start up and swear by the Faith of their Body, that This was a dangerous, gross, and Heretical opinion: and All This was but a Prologue to That Tragedy, whose Epilogue was Flame and Faggot, or at least the Fasces to younger men.  
We have oft seen some of These Preachers before the highest Tribunal in This Kingdom; For we thought it unreasonable (with Those in the Acts) to condemn any before they were heard.  
I was not their Judge alone, nor will I be at. This time. Only that it may appear I attended their pleading (as it becomes any in a Court of Justice) I will give the world an account, what Those men say for themselves; and so I shall leave them to be judged by wise men.  
First, they conceive there be some Ordinances which are proper only to the Church, and Church-Officers, belonging only to Church Assemblies (such as is the Administration of Sacraments, the Conferring of Orders, and all of this nature) These they think Sacred, such as may not be touched by any but Church-Officers; and of These they say, let Vzza● take heed how he touch the Ark, though it shake.  
But there are other Ordinances (they say) of a Middle nature; as they are exercised in a Church Assembly, by Church-Officers, They may truly be called Church-Ordinances; yet are such as may be used Out of Church Assemblies, and therefore probably by Other th●n Church-Officers; As Praying, Reading the Scripture, Catechising, Exhortation, and the like; which (as they conceive) are not confined to the Church only, or Church-Officers.  
1. Because Heathens and Publicans may be admitted, nay aught to be invited, to These Ordinances. And it seems no Mortal sin, for a Layman in China, to call together a company of Heathens, and preach to them the Christian Religion, yet here is no True Church, till a Congregation will Embrace This Doctrine, and join in serving God.  
2. They conceive Our State, by public authority, hath and doth allow so much as This. For they see Clerks (even in public Assemblies) Read Psalms, Prayers, and oft some parts of Scripture; Deacons preach, yea and Baptise, and help to administer the Lords Supper, and yet no man takes them for complete Ministers: yea of old, and perhaps now also by Law, they are not at all Clergy men.  
3. Former Preachers have taught them, that every Master of a Family, may and must read, pray, Catechise, and the like, in his own Family, if he have none there that can do it better than himself. Therefore These seem rather to come under the Notion of Private Duties rather than Public Church-Ordinances; though sometime they be performed in Churches, yet other times they may be performed out of Churches, and by Those that are not public Church Officers.  
Therefore These poor men (through their weakness) think such Ordinances Free to be performed by any Christian, whether of the Clergy, or Laity. And their Zeal makes them conceive, If God give gifts of Understanding, Memory, Judgement, & Utterance; and an Earnest Desire to do good with These (lest they wrap up their Talon in a Napkin) They have the Main (to wit, an inward) Call to perform these duties in their own Families: or else where, if They have an outward Call too.  
For they solemnly profess, they hold it not fit to press or intrude themselves on any Congregation: But if any will come of themselves, either to their own Families: or send for them, and desire to hear them, among some Good men, they take this for a Call, an Outward Call, to perform Those duties, to that Congregation. For, they think the ways of God's Spirit are free, and not tied to a University man; so that having an Inward call, they conceive the desire of any One Congregation, is Outward call sufficient, though the Bishop call not.  
Yea, some Exercises in God's worship, They think there be, which are warranted from the Gift that enables, and not from the Call that invites: so that a man whom God hath enabled with Parts and Gifts, might use them, though no man Living call him. And this also is the Judgement of many Learned men; as of That Ingenuous, Worthy, Learned man Master Thorndick, of late Touching on That of the Corinth's.  
So long then as they Encroach not on Ordinances appropriate to Church-Officers, they think they sin not in performing other duties, where there are none that can, or will, perform them better. They have learned Latin Enough to say, Bonum quo Communius, eo melius. They have read of Moses, wishing all the Lords People were Prophets; and that God would pour out his Spirit on them all.  
Yea they have heard that God promised to pour out his Spirit upon all Flesh, all Believers (as well Lay as Clergy) so that Young men should see Visions, and Old men dream Dreams, and though This were begun to be accomplished Even in Our Saviour's time, yet They (perhaps through ignorance) Expect it should be yet still more and more accomplished every day, till Knowledge Cover the Earth, as Waters fill the Sea; even till there be no more need that any man should teach his neighbour, for all men shall know the Lord; and They poor men Expect a new Heaven, and a new Earth, wherein there shall need no more Temples of stone, but all Good men shall be Prophets, Priests, and Kings. In the mean time they say Waters must flow out of the bellies of all that believe, till at length the Great Waters of the Sanctuary flow forth without measure.  
Yea, they are much encouraged from the Practice of the Church in the Acts, where all the members, Every believer, 
Acts. 8.4, 11, 19  being scattered by persecution, went about Preaching.  
If it be Objected that This was an Extraordinary Case; at the first beginning of the Church; and in time of Persecution, etc.  
They Answer, that they conceive almost as Extraordinary a Case in This Land, at This Time; Where the Church is so much unsettled, and hath been so much persecuted. In some places they see no Ministers; scarce any in some whole Shires, as in Cumberland, Westmoreland, Northumberland, and especially, in Wales: Where the Church is even yet scarce (& ne vix) so much as well begun to be planted, or the Gospel Preached.  
In Other places, where there is some show of a Church, some Ordinances, some Ministers; Yet even here, they think the Church calleth for many more Ministers, at least for much more, and much better preaching than it yet hath.  
Specially since the late Cruel Tyranny of some Lording Prelates, hath almost quite put down Ordinances, silenced Good Ministers, and forbidden Preaching; Having so detained the Truth (and smothered it) by unrighteousness, that there is scarce left the Face of a True Church. They conceive This an extraordinary Time, an extraordinary Case, and Call, for all that are Enabled by God, with Parts and Gifts, fit for such Exercises.  
And they conceive 30. or 40. or an 100 Good men of any one or more Congregations, to be as Fit Judges of their parts and abilities every way, as One Lord Bishop and his Ignorant (perhaps Drunken) Chaplain; who make scruple of admitting any to Orders, but Bowers and Cringers, sinks of Superstition; Yet when they please, they can pose in an Alehouse, and lay hands (well quickened with angels) on Tapsters, Cobblers, Butchers, and many such, that are so far from the smell of a College, that they never saw an Abcee or Primer to purpose, much less a Ferula in a Grammar School.  
In the last place they solemnly profess they are ready to hear or read, any that either by writing, preaching, or private discourse shall inform them better than now they see or know. They would thank any man that will satisfy their Consciences, and convince their judgement: For, they profess they are not acted by vainglory, or faction, but Conscience and desire of propagating Truth, and spreading the Gospel, as God shall give them opportunities.  
And supposing such parts, gifts, and abilities, fit for those duties; They conceive no man may upbraid them with poverty, or former living in a trade; which yet they think not altogether incompatible to Preaching: for they have read of Saint Paul (and others) intermixing his Sermons with making of Tents.  
Yea though they have not such parts and gifts as Saint Paul; yet they think the work of Preaching much more compatible with all works of the Hands, than with any one other study of the brain, or mind: and yet they see many Civil Lawyers take Livings, and have Cure of Souls: Yea, and all their Lord Bishops have Two Callings, Two several (opposite) Studies; and yet for all Those Two, They can spend as much, or more time at Cards and Dice (or worse) than at either of their Callings.  
Nor are they so tied to their Outward Callings, but if the Church shall think it fit, they are ready to give up all, and apply themselves wholly to the study of Scriptures, and work of the Ministry.  
In the mean time they follow their Callings, (not living idly, or going up and down Tattling as Busibodies) but being diligent to serve God both with their hands, hearts also, yea and tongues too, if God shall call them, and give opportunity as well as abilities.  
I would not be mistaken by my Reader. All this time I am speaking Their words, not my own; All that I desire is, that they may have a fair Hearing, before they be severely censured. And I move this the rather, because they are still ready to say, Most that condemn them never heard them: I could not but do what in me lies, to remove This scandal.  
It may be Expected I should now show my own Opinion; and answer all These Things, which Those poor men say for themselves. But I must confess I am already almost tired with relating the Arguments of One part only; so that I dare not set on the Other.  
Neither indeed do I think it needful: Most of That which They say, being such, that it is not like to do much hurt; and so I think it not needful to refute it. What must be refuted, may much better be done by Others of better Parts, and founder judgements: for I know some that in One poor discourse of Truth, are by their wit able to find all the seventeen Intellectual Sinner; how much more in a discourse of Error?  
Only by the way, I cannot but show how weakly These poor Preachers answer some strong objections brought against them.  
As This in the First place: That by This Course, All Errors and Heresies shall quickly come to be vented and maintained in the Church, when every man may Preach that will, and what he will, without Control.  
To This Argument, All Their Answer, that I can remember, is This.  
First, that They maintain not that Any man may Preach that Will. No; They say it must be One of Parts, Gifts, and Abilities fit for a Preacher; and that not only in his own fancy, but in the Judgement of many Godly men: Who (being many) are as like to be fit and able to judge of Abilities on Their Trial, as any One Bishops Chaplain; that yet useth to present to his Lord, after little or no posing, One whom he never heard speak, (much less Preach or Pray) before he came for Holy Orders.  
Secondly, they say, They maintain not that any such man (so Gifted, and Called, being judged fit by the votes of many) may yet Preach what he will. No, they are as much limited, and kept within bounds, as if they were licenced by the Bishop.  
For, if he Preach false Doctrine, Either in matters of Church or State, they say the Bishop's Keys, or at least his Long Sword, may reach him as well in a Parlour, or some little Pulpit, as if he were a Licentiate in a Great Cathedral. And if he Preach no false Doctrine, must he suffer (say they) for Preaching True?  
It is true, No wise man living will blame (much less punish or fine) a man that speaks a good True Discourse of Law, or Physic, though he be Licentiate in neither; But These poor men consider not, the Case is not the same in Preaching a True discourse in Divinity. Yet let us give way, and they will speak more.  
Again they say, Suppose they did hold (which they do not) that Any man Living might Preach that would, and what he would; yet perhaps there would not follow so great Inconvenience as some imagine.  
For, All such supposed Preachers, are either Wise men or Fools. If Wise, they will Preach Wisely, and so do Good. If Fools, Foolishly, and so do no Hurt, or at least very little hurt: For, it is not for a Fool to broach an Heresy, and maintain it, or spread it much. No, Arrius, Pelagius, Arminius, and such, were men of the Greatest Parts, but set wrong.  
Yea suppose some of These Non Licentiate Preachers be men of the greatest parts possible, and so possible to become dangerous Heretics; Doth the Heresy spread itself the more for not being Licenced? Might not This Great man do as much hurt (yea much more) if he were Licenced, than now he is not?  
If any answer, It is True, He is like to do more hurt, if Licenced; but therefore the Bishop in wisdom will not Licence him.  
They rejoin: First, is it probable One Bishop in This case will show more care and conscience, than twenty or thirty Good men in a Congregation, where This parted Man would preach?  
But again, Suppose there be never a Good man (in all his Auditory;) or that all the Good men there, will not have care to suppress This man from doing hurt: How shall, how can the Bishop do This? How can he keep him from venting, and spreading his Heresy?  
First, when this man comes for a Licence to the Bishop, No man can tell how he means to Preach, (when he is Licenced) except the Bishop perchance be a Prophet also, as well as a Priest and King?  
Either he hath Preached, (before his coming for This Licence) or he hath not. If he have not, No Bishop can tell how he will preach; nor can any wise man living commend him to the Bishop, as fit to make a Good Preacher: since He that is the Best Scholar living, and perhaps as good a man as any, yet may prove but an ill preacher.  
If he have preached before, and done well, without Licence, than it seems it is lawful to preach without a Licence: for probation no doubt, (though most of late have denied This) But I ask how long shall he be a Probationer? how many years, months, weeks? Though he preach ten good Sermons, no man tan tell, but in the next he means to broach an Heresy.  
But alas These poor men see not how weak all This is. For, Is it not easy for three or four men, or a Bishop's Chaplain to commend a man (be he Scholar, or Groom, or Butler, or what he will:) let the Bishop without seeing or smelling This man, give him his blessing blindfold, and seal him a Licence, What hurt is in all This? For, if This man preach well, the Church will get good: if ill, cannot the Bishop as soon pull him down, as he set him up?  
They answer, Suppose he may, (which is hard to suppose, since Orders once given, leave an Indelible Character) why may not ten or twenty men, Good men in a Congregation, as well set up a man, and try how he will prove? For if Well, it is Well; he will do good: If ill, These ten or twenty men can as easily pull him down again, as set him up.  
Not so. For the Bishop is still a very wise, discreet, Good, Holy man and being entrusted by the Church, will have a special care, even more than an hundred others, to set up a good man, or else pull him quickly down again.  
To This they yet answer, The Bishop cannot tell how or what he preacheth when he hath set him up, (except he can be present in all places, at least many at Once, to ●eare all young preachers, that he Liceuseth;) and therefore though he would pull him down, yet he cannot because he cannot be still present to hear him. Though he come once, twice, ten times, yet the Preacher may hold in, all his Herise, till he see the Bishop absent; and sometimes he must be absent.  
But may not the Congregation then go and complain to the Bishop, if their Preacher do amiss? and upon complaint the Bishop will, may and must suppress that error.  
If he do not (they say) They are still where they were. But if he do Censure This Preacher, on the complaint of the Congregation; Either he sees they complain unjustly (and then He doth injustice in censuring-upon, an unjust complaint) or else he must yield they complain justly; and then he also grants, that This Congregation hath wisdom enough to judge, whether a man preach well or ill; and if so, why may not the Congregation censure him for ill preaching, without complaint to one Bishop?  
Sed frustra fit per plura; quod fieri potest per pau●iora. And so I leave This, and come to another great Question, that is wont still to be propounded to These poor Non Licenced Preachers.  
It is This, why (if indeed they be fit, or seem fit, or do but think themselves fit to be Ministers, why then) do they not enter into Orders? or at least present themselves, showing their desire to be in Holy Orders, if indeed they may be found fit for the Ministry, as they think themselves? Why do they halt between Two? either let them serve the Church wholly, and so be in Orders; or else let them forbear, and not meddle with dispensing of Holy Ordinances.  
This seemed to me a very serious Question, and therefore I much desired to hear their Answers.  
Some of them say, they know not yet whether they be worthy, or fit to take on them Those Greater Offices which follow Orders, only they desire they may have leave (as Probationers) to exercise, or keep Acts, before the Church; till the Church shall approve of them, and call them out (judging them faithful) for higher employment, or generally to dispense all the Ordinances. In the mean time, They meddle only with such Ordinances, as they conceive not proper to Church Officers only, but in some sort common to all Christians, yea to all men, as was said before.  
Others say, they would gladly (with all their Hearts) be consecrated to God, and wholly give themselves up to his service and worship in the Ministry; but they are afraid to take Orders, as Orders are now conferred, in This State. And yet in the mean time, they dare not abstain from Preaching, (where they have opportunity, and a Willing Auditory) lest they should detain the Truth, God hath revealed to them; and should be guilty of hiding their Talon in a Napkin. For they think they may do many Things belonging (though not proper) to a Minister; though they be not, nor can be (as things now stand) in holy Orders. Their Instance is David, who was a King, and of the Tribe of judah, and so could be neither Priest nor Levite; yet they find King David often Preaching; else they understand not the meaning of Those Phrases, O come hither and I will show you what God hath done for my poor soul, and the like.  
If these men in This be serious, and do not pretend Conscience where it is some other Principle that acts them, to some low end: I cannot but much pity them; that if they be fit, they neither may be licenced, nor yet preach without Licence. But let us see why they dare not enter into Orders, and so be Licenced Ministers.  
They answer that they have not so much against Orders conferred by our Church, or the manner of conferring them (though under some Bishops, This hath been very strange, and not warrantable either by Law of God or man, they conceive) as they have in their judgement and consciences, against the Power conferring them.  
For they doubt not to affirm, that He (who ever he be) that taketh on himself power, which the Scripture hath not given him, to appoint, dictate or command, any one Thing either in Doctrine or Discipline: though the Thing itself might possibly be good, yet He that so dictates, is Antichristian; encroaching on the Regal Office of Christ; and so a Traitor in Religion.  
Now they dare not touch That, which (how Good soever in itself, yet) comes in Power and Virtue of an Antichristian Traitor. Yea though such an one should command them a Thing very lawful in itself, (as to wear a black cloth) yet if He have not Commission to Command, from Scripture, they conceive He incurs a Praemunire with God; because he takes on him to do that (as an Officer) for which he is not fore-armed with lawful authority. In this case they think they ought not to obey Him so commanding: because though the Thing in itself be lawful to be done, yet they think him an unlawful Commander, and so dare not obey; if for no other Reason, yet for This, that by obeying here, they shall betray not only their own Privileges, (which yet are very precious) but also the Liberties and privilege of all the Subjects of Christ, even of the whole Church; so that they become Traitors to their spiritual Commonwealth.  
They give This Instance in Civil Things. Suppose a Sheriff, that is a lawful Officer, come and command me to give him forty pound, of his own head, without lawful Authority to beck his command. they say, if in This Case I give him forty shillings, I betray not only my own privilege, (which perhaps I may do) but also the whole Liberty of the Commonwealth, and so become (in Re) a Traitor to t●e State: though in itself it be lawful to give forty shillings to any man that asks, yet now I must not do it, because This officer commands it by unlawful Authority, and so without Commission.  
Not yet that they think it necessary to stay disputing the Authority of a Commander, there where is no appearance of Ground for a Doubt. But if once they see and know the Command is grounded on no lawful Authority; or do but really doubt whether the Power Commanding, or the Thing Commanded be Lawful: They conceive themselves bound to abstain till their judgement be cleared, (which they profess to desire, and by all lawful means to endeavour) lest while they do, they be condemned in their own consciences, because they do not act in Faith: and what is not of faith is sin.  
I must leave These Things to be discussed by men of better judgements. In the mean time I humbly desire again I may not be misunderstood; for it is not in my thoughts to abet the least miscarriage in any one of these poor men: nor by any means to countenance any of them, in a way of exercising those Duties that are too high for their parts, and abilities which God hath given them. yet if there be any of them that have extraordinary parts, and endowments of judgement, memory, and utterance; if God stir up these to improve their Gifts to the best advantage, yet with all meekness, and humility; I dare not condemn them till I hear them: for I know the Spirit of God is not tied to our Fancies, but yet the Spirit of the Prophets is subject to the Prophets.  
I take not on me to warrant all the paths which some cut out to themselves: Yet I most affectionately entreat men not to contemn all things in those they now brand with their usual stain of Separatism; which phrase many use in such scorn, as if with one stab (of that Italian dagger) they could run through Body and Soul at once.  
Light was one of the first Creatures, and yet not perfected till the fourth Day, (and perhaps not fully then) so was spiritual Light the beginning of Reformation, That New Creation; yet it was not perfect at first dawning, but increaseth still by degrees, till it have quite chased away darkness, and there be no more Night. All men yield there must be an increase of light in the world; Now whether That be more probable to be in Doctrine or Discipline, judge ye.  
At the first Rising out of Popery, the Church-lesse Church of the Albigenses & Waldenses, (Holy Good men) began an admirable Reformation. This was much advanced by Jerome of Prague, and john Hus. Luther had many gross errors, yet must not lose his place among These glorious Lights. After these appeareth Calvin, shining yet brighter both in Doctrine & Discipline. Since Him Our God hath raised up a more glorious Light among These Northern Iles. And yet some went from us lately with a candle burning, brighter perhaps than Ours; though it were lighted here. Thus Light dilating, & enlarging itself, seemeth to become more pure, more Light, more Glorious; and yet it seems not to be Noon. The Light still will, must, cannot but increase; why then do we shut our eyes? Let it not be said of us, that Light came in, and grew up among us, yet we would not use it (for we cannot but receive it) because we loved darkness.  
Godly men may not only neglect, but abuse light; Yea they may both grieve, and quench Gods Holy Spirit. A sad case! yet are they not still in some part Carnal? and the Flesh not only lusteth, but warreth against the Spirit.  
We are too too apt to slight the sweet breathe of God's Spirit, which He is pleased to communicate to others when we are destitute of the same Workings. Some Christians are as it were wholly legal; they Fast, they Pray, receive Sacraments, hear Sermons, pay every one his own, live inoffensively: This is well done, but This is not All; yet This they take for enjoying God in Christ Jesus. But alas! Quantum distat ab illo? Non est vivere, sed valere vita. These men may well be saved hereafter, but in the mean time, they lose the sweetest part of their life here.  
On the other side, if God please to communicate himself in any manner of sweetness, so that a man begins to taste and see how Good Communion & acquaintance with God is; how easily it is interrupted by loose walking; how sweet it is while enjoyed; so that it ravisheth the soul, and filleth the whole Heart, that it cannot but flow out at the Lips, in sweet breathe of, for, and after God in Christ Jesus, God in Christ Jesus. This man is presently stained with a taint of Madness, and I know not what Enthusiasm. If one that hath tasted and experimentally found the sweetness of Peace of Conscience, & knows how impossible it is to keep it, but by close walking with God; how easily it is broken; and how hardly it is made up again when broken: so that he is content to leave Friends, Living, Liberty, All, rather than to break his Peace, wound his Conscience, sin against God, in sinning against Light, or acting against Doubts. O this man is beyond all Rule of Reason; He hath a Tangle of Frenzy; one puffed up with a spirit of self conceit; a Rank Separatist.  
But sure it should not be so among Christians. Can we not descent in judgement (specially in These lower points of Discipline, while we agree in Doctrine) but we must also dis-agree in Affection? A Hard Case!  
I confess there are many now that turn the Light of Truth, into a Life of Looseness, vanity, and profaneness; and we are all too too prone to This. There are some Enthusiastickes, who profane the Spirit. This I would resist with all my might. But let not all suffer with the wicked. Some without warrant run away from their callings, and take up a bare, empty, fruitless Profession of Christianity, without the least dram of life or power; These men my soul hateth.  
But when God shall so enlarge his Hand, and unveil his face, that the poor Creature is brought into Communion and acquaintance with his Creator; steered in all his ways by His Spirit; and by it carried up above shame, fear, pleasure, comfort, losses, grave, and death itself; Let us not censure such Tempers, but bless God for them. So far as Christ is in us, we shall love, prize, honour Christ, and the least particle of his Image in Others: For we never Prove ourselves true members of Christ more, than when we embrace his members with most enlarged, yet straitest Affections.  
To This end, God assisting me, my desire, prayer, endeavour shall still be, as much as in me lies, to follow Peace and holiness. and though there may haply be some little dissent between my dark judgement, weak conscience, and other Good men, that are much more clear and strong; yet my prayer still shall be, to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace. And as many as walk after This Rule, Peace I hope shall still be on Them, and the whole Israel of God.    
FINIS.