THE question CONCERNING The Divine Right OF episcopacy truly stated.  
LONDON, Printed for Robert Bostock, 1641.   

To the most Reverend and Gracious Father in God, my Lord Primate of IRELAND.  
MY LORD,  
IN a discourse lately written concerning Puritans, I had occasion offered me to declare my opinion against the Divine right of episcopacy. Those reasons which I then urged, seemed weak to your Grace, as I have heard, which was a great discouragement to me: but I thought it not fit to desert so well a seeming cause, and to resign my judgement presently upon a mere discouragement. I have since summoned up some more deep and retired thoughts, that I might gain a more just cause to retract my error, or to clear the truth, and persist in my assurance. The question of episcopacy, I think, I have now rightly stated, and if I am not deceived, I have let in such light upon it, that judicious men will now more easily ransack the profundity of it. Certainly the matter of itself is of great difficulty, and of great moment in these times, and it was not any confidence in my own wit that first engaged me in it, but the knowledge of my candour, and freedom from private respects. No man living, I conceive, can be more dispassionate, or more disinteressed in this case than I am, The heat of my own mind could never yet thrust me into any faction, or make me turbulent in the world, neither has any impression from without either by hope of gain, or fear of damage stirred up sleeping passion in me. Of myself I rather wish well then ill to episcopacy, because it is so ancient a government; and for my own interest I have found more friendship than enmity from Bishops, so that I am certain, there is nothing but the simple love of truth, as it is truth, is the bias of my actions at this time. As for the presbyterial discipline also, I have so laid open my opinion concerning that, that if I have erred therein, I am sure the world can charge me of nothing else but error. Had all men which have formerly treated of this subject, been as unswayde by private interests as I am, this controversy had not been so long protracted as it is; but your Grace knows well, that scarce any but Bishops have maintained Bishops hitherto; nor scarce any opposed them, but such as have found some opposition from them; My Lord, I now beg your gracious favour to lay aside your pall, and to put on the same impartial man in perusing these papers, as I now am whilst my pen is upon them: for I know there is none has a more clear Spirit, and less liable to the gross damp of worldly respects than yourself. Let this my humble address be a testimony at this time that I am not a prejudging, factious enemy to all Bishops, and let your gracious acceptance of the same be as strong a crisis that your Grace is not a prejudging factious enemy to all which maintain not Bishops.  
Your Graces in all observance most humbly devoted, H. P.   

The Question concerning the Divine right of episcopacy truly stated.  
THe question about episcopacy hath never yet been truly stated, nor the chief points of it methodically distributed, and this is the cause that it is now become so intricate and involved to the great disturbance of the world; for satisfaction therefore herein, the first thing to be questioned is the Quid esse of Episcopacy, and what is separable from the Order of it, as it is now constituted in England.  
According to Bishop Bilson, there are four things necessary in Religion.  

1. Dispensing of the word.  
2. Administering of the Sacraments.  
3. Imposing of hands in Ordination.  
4. Guiding of the keys.   
The first two of these being the ordinary means of Salvation, he attributes generally to all Ministers: the other two respect the cleansing and governing of the Church, and are committed (as he saith) to Bishops only, and not; to all Presbyters equally, least by a parity of rule confusion follow, and ruin upon confusion. It seems then, that the end of Religion is, that God be duly served, and the end of churchpolicy, that Religion be wisely maintained. And for the wise maintenance of Religion, it behooveth not only that some peculiar chosen men be separated & dedicated to officiate before God, and to direct and assist others in the offices of Devotion, but also that all Anarchy and confusion be avoided amongst those that are so chosen into the Priesthood. Thus far there needs no dispute: the main branches then of this controversy are three.  
1. Who are designed by God to be governors over the Priesthood for avoiding of confusion.  
2. What proportion of Honour, Revenue, Power in ecclesiastical and in temporal affairs is due to those governors.  
3. What are the proper, distinct offices of that government to be executed & undergone.  
As to the first main branch, the first question is, who is supreme Head of the Church under Christ: whether the Prince as Bishop Gardiner first held under H. 8. or the Bishop of Rome, as Sir Thomas More held, or the Aristocracy of Bishops, as Dr. Downing holds, or the democracy of Presbyters and Lay-elders, as Calvin taught; if Scripture be express in any precept to this purpose, or any Canon extending to all places and times, we must look no farther: but if no such express rule be, nor no necessity of any such, nor Divines were ever yet agreed upon any such, it seems that under the King, that Junto of Divines, Statesmen, and Lawyers in Parliament, which hath a Legislative power over the State, hath the same over the Church. And if the King have not the same supreme power in spiritual as in temporal things, it is either for want of sanctity in his person, or for want of capacity in his judgement: but that the Prince is more than temporal, and of sanctity competent for supremacy of rule in the Church is sufficiently evinced by Bilson, Hooker, &c. against Calvin, and the Papists, and Presbyterians both; and that defect of judgement is no bar in the Church more than in the State, is apparent; for if the King be unlearned, yea, an infant, lunatic, &c. yet by his Counsels and Courts of Law, war and policy, he may govern the commonwealth well enough; and it little skilleth whether he be Lawyer, soldier, or politician: and there is the same reason in the Church. And if we admit the King to be supreme head of the Church, I think no man will deny but that the fittest policy for him to govern the Church by, will be the same pattern by which he governeth the State, making as little difference between them as may be; for it is the same body of men now, of which both State and Church are compacted, and so it was not in the Apostles times; and the same body hath the same head now, as it had not in the beginning: for Tiberius was then the head of the Christians, but the enemy of Christian Religion. So the main {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} remaining is, whether the King having power to choose subordinate officers and Counsellors in the Church, may or aught to choose such as are merely spiritual or merely temporal, or a mixture of both. The Papists hold no governors over the Clergy competent, neither supreme, nor subordinate, but such as are merely spiritual: The Protestants everywhere almost but in England, incline to a mixed government in the Church, though they exclude the King quatenus King: in the mean while, we in England admit of the King for our supreme governor, but doubt of any subordinate mixed government. 'Tis not my task at this present to dispute the conveniency of a mixed government, and an association of spiritual and Lay rulers: but I think the Presbyterians have sufficiently asserted it though to another purpose. And it seems to me, that the apostolical form of government, as to the supremacy of it, is not now in force, because there is not the same reason, that head being then wanting in the Church which is since supplied; but as to any constitution in the subordinate wheels of government, if the Laity had then any motion or influence therein, I think the same reason still remains, and the same form ought still to be in force.  
In the second branch: Be the subordinate governors of the Church mixed or simple, either according to the Popish or Presbyterian discipline: the question is, whether or no, such ecclesiastical governors ought to be vested, and dignified with temporal honours above the Judges of the Land, and equal with the peers of the realm, and whether or no they ought to enjoy temporal revenues proportionable to that Honour, and power in secular affairs correspondent to those revenues; and if so, whether by divine or human constitution. Also if these differences were added (as Bishop Bilson acknowledgeth) rather for the honour of the calling, then for any necessity of God's Law, it is next to be questioned, whether or no a Parliament hath not now power and cause to reduce these additions of Episcopacy into more modest limits, for it seems that from Adam till Christ, no such grandeur and splendour was in churchmen, nor from Christ to Constantine, and from Constantine to the Reformation, we know how they were abused to the mischief of the Church, and decay of Religion; and in the reformation, we know all Nations besides us did utterly remove them: and we know that the Church in England is now much impoverished by many impropriations and commendams, &c. now detained by Bishops and Cathedrals, besides that which it suffers by laymen; and it seems strange that the Pastors of the flock should be starved, that Prelates should abound, and swim in too great excess: and that the mere livelihood of holy preachers should be held less necessary than the proud pomp of unuseful (nay as some think) mischievous dominators.  
As to the third branch: if the end of Episcopacy (as Bishop Bilson holds) be to prevent the confusion of parity in the Church, we are first to question, whether Ordination by imposition of hands, and guiding of the keys be necessary to Episcopacy, and so necessary, as that confusion cannot be prevented without them: All wise men will allow some authority requisite, whereby Ministers may be duly elected, and their true qualifications of learning and integrity tried, and that being rightly elected, they may be further consecrated by prayer and the solemnity of hands, and being consecrated, that they may be further instituted, and designed to some particular charge. The Presbyterians do not dislike such authority, nor are negligent in the same: the question is therefore only, to whom this authority may be committed, whether to Bishops only, or to some such judicatory as the Presbyterians use, or some other of human institution. As for example, if the universities, or some select Committee therein, be entrusted to try the sufficiency of Scholars, and to give Orders, and upon the vacancy of a Rectory to present three, &c. to the King, and the King out of those three to present two, &c. to the parish, and the parish out of two to choose one for their pastor, the question only is, whether such election, ordination, presentation, and induction, be not as legal, and religious, as if it were by Bishops, and be not far more politic in preventing simony, and in better satisfying the right of the flock, whose souls are mainly concerned, and whose tithes are to that purpose contributed. And now it seems S. Jerome allows no further use of Bishops to have been of old: for he says plainly, that a Bishop differs from a Presbyter in no act exceptâ ordinatione: and as for the power of the keys, that has been always held common to the whole clergy: but we will not stand upon this, we will freely grant an authority necessary as well to superintend over Ministers in their charges, as to place them therein, and when B. Bilson appropriates to Bishops the guiding of the keys, we will understand not the mere power of them, but the government of that power: we will admit also under this term of guiding the keys to be comprehended  
1. The power of making ecclesiastical Canons.  
2. Of giving judgement, and executing according thereto.  
3. Of issuing the sentence of excommunication.  
4. Of deciding controversies.  
And the question now is, whether the keys may not be so guided by some other ecclesiastical judges and magistrates besides Bishops, if the King think fit to design them, for  
First, the Legislative power of the Church was never yet only committed to Bishops, the whole clergy, and the King were never yet excluded from Synods, and counsels, neither are the acts of Synods and counsels binding to any Nation unless the secular states ratify them. And I think, there is no question of the validity of such Canons as are now made in those Protestant Countries, where Bishops have no command, or being at all.  
And secondly, spiritual jurisdiction is not only appropriated to Bishops, but to laymen under Bishops, Canonists and Civilians are held more able and knowing herein than Bishops, and Bishops are held less fit by reason of their more sacred employments: so the question here will be only this, Whether or no the jurisdiction of Lawyers, and such like, as now execute justice in the spiritual Courts under Bishops will be as competent under the King without Bishops as it is now under Bishops immediately. Some say, that chancellors &c. are not mere laymen, no matter: For by the same reason any others to whom such ecclesiastical jurisdiction shall be committed by the King shall be held sacred, and if they are not mere laymen, yet they are not mere Bishops; if they are preferred to some equality with the clergy, yet they are not preferred above the clergy, and this preferment is no other, but such as may be bestowed upon any other layman, that is not otherwise insufficient. And even amongst Presbyterians there is a form of Jurisdiction, and I think not held vain, or unlawful by any: and even in cases of heresy, blasphemy, &c. which are most spiritual, if none can so rightly judge what is heresy, blasphemy, &c. as spiritual governors, yet this proves not any necessity of Bishops, for the fact may be tried, & execution awarded by others, and nothing but an assistance of council from spiritual men will be needful. In the third place also, if Excommunication be still held of necessity, and all other temporal authority defective without it, if it be concluded to be perpetual, notwithstanding the decay of Prophecy, and the supply of other Christian jurisdiction, and if it be to be extended also to all persons in all cases as our Christian Court now extends it (which seems to me a strange, obscure, unproved thing) yet the only question is, Whether it may not continue in the Church, and be still ordered and guided without Episcopacy: For it seems that the Presbyterians, though they use not Excommunication for such violent, rigorous purposes as the Papists do, yet they are more severe in it then ever the Fathers were before the Law or under the Law: and yet notwithstanding, their authority of using it, is not excepted against by their enemies. And fo●rthly, if it be granted that Bishops were first introduced for the preventing of schisms and factions in the Church, as being held the fittest means for to procure the decision of controversies, and the determination of disputes in Religion: yet the question is whether discord and division may not be prevented, and difficulties of dispute as conveniently resolved by some other as by episcopal authority: for it seems there is great difference inter Ecclesiam constitutam, and Ecclesiam constituendam, and between a Church whose supreme governor is ill affected to it, & a Church whose Prince is an indulgent Father to it: so that Episcopacy cannot be now of the same use, as it was at first in the infancy of the persecuted Church. And it seems that amongst all other Protestants both Calvinists and Lutherans where Bishops rule not, controversies are not so manifold, nor innovations in Religion so easy to be induced, nor factions in the Church so dangerously maintained, as they are in England under the sway of Bishops. It seems also in all great emergent occasions of division and dissension in points of doctrine, that if our two famous universities were consulted, and in case of disagreement there, if London, as our third Oracle should arbitrate by a Junto of all her Divines, the decision would be far more honourable and satisfying to all, than if any one Bishop, or any Province, or Nation of Bishops should attempt to give the like. And to conclude this point, the solemn use of Synods, counsels, and Parliaments does not at all depend upon Episcopacy, so that it seems as to this purpose no necessity can be alleged for the government of Bishops, as Bishops are now qualified in England.  
These branches if they were thus orderly discussed by moderate, conscionable, & learned Divines, many incomparable advantages in probability would arise thereby: for first, the very foundations of Popery would be laid open and naked, the very centre of that tyrannous united Empire which has subjugated the world so long under such base slavery, would be ripped up, and all its infernal mysteries discovered to the sun. Secondly, that unpolitike axiom, No Bishop, no King, whereby Bishops have always embarked Princes in their wars, would appear to be sophisticate, and a mere colour without all substance of reason. Thirdly, many great fruits of peace and unity both ecclesiastical and civil would redound to our whole Nation. Those many mischiefs which attend Episcopacy, against which the complaints are so grievous and universal would be remedied. That new module of government which so many have so variously fancied, and proposed in these latter times would open itself, and offer itself to us of its own accord. The pattern of the State would be sufficient to present to us a fit & harmonious pattern for the Church: and the body and head of both Church and State would appear to be the self same. The King should be the same in both, and counsels and Courts govern under him by the same commission in both. A power to ordain fit Ministers, and to put a final end to controversies and dissensions might be committed to the universities, and some gentle influence by votes affirmative or negative might be also allowed therein to the laity. The power of making Articles and Orders for decency and peace in the Church might remain unaltered in the King's clergy, and Parliament: Able civil and canon Lawyers might still sit in their tribunals taking cognizance of such cases, as are truly ecclesiastical, and have not been by usurpation of the Hierarchy wrongfully wrested out of the temporal Courts: and the spiritual sword of Excommunication might still be gently weelded in the same hands as it has been, when it is necessary. An assistance of godly Divines in all cases of Conscience might be allotted to the K. and all his Judges and Magistrates upon occasion, without wholly drawing them from their charges, and this would be no less effectual, then that of the greatest Prelates. The inconveniences of the Presbyterian Discipline also which is not so adequate and conformable to Monarchy would be rectified. And lastly, the bleeding Church which had so great a part of her Patrimony torn from her by Hen. 8. by the addition of episcopal and cathedral livings might be healed up, and restored to her ancient grace and vigour.  
FINIS.