Defense of the Kings Authority and Supremacy in the Church, Title page

Defense of the Kings Authority and Supremacy in the Church · Title page

A DEFENCE OF THE Kings Authority AND SUPREMACY, In the Church & Church-Diſcipline. And that He is Supream Head and Governour, over all perſons, in all Cauſes Eccleſiaſtical. Againſt theſe Diſciplinarians, the Pope, and his Clergy, the Biſhops and Epiſcoparians, the Scottiſh and Engliſh PRESBYTERIANS, with the INDEPENDENTS. Who have for a long time, uſurped the power of Kings, and authority of Magiſtrates, contrary to the will of GOD, and the Honour of KINGS. The ſecond Edition much enlarged. By THEOPHILƲS BRABOƲRNE.

Give unto Caeſar, the things that are Caeſars.

LONDON, Printed for the Author, and are to be ſold by William Nowell, Book-ſeller in Norwich, 1660.

p. 1A DEFENCE Of The KINGS SƲPREMACIE In the Church and Church-diſcipline: Againſt theſe Diſciplinarians, the Pope, Engliſh Biſhops, Scottiſh and Engliſh Presbyterians, and Independents: who have for a long time, uſurped the authority of the King and his Magiſtrates.

MY enſuing Diſcourſe ſhall be, to maintain the Kings Supremacy, in cauſes Eccleſiaſtical, and the authority of all Magiſtrates under him: and to confute the authority of Biſhops, and other Miniſters in Church-matters.

Now becauſe I will not diſpute on Generals, I will by and by come to a particular, namely to the cenſure and puniſhment of Excommunication, the which is all the authority that Biſhops and Miniſters do claim: and I ſhall try whether it belongs to the office of our Chriſtian Magiſtrates, or to the Biſhop and his Chancellour, or to the Miniſter and his Lay-Elders. Now if it can be made appear, as I believe it will, that the cenſure of Excommunication belongs to the Magiſtrate and not to the Biſhop, then Biſhops have loſt all their authority, even the richeſt flower in their Garland,

p. 2By the way note, that as the inferiour Miniſters rule with their Lay-Elders, ſo doth the Biſhop with his Chancellour, who is no Miniſter, but a Lay man: and thus you ſee, that all Diſciplinarians have their Lay-Elders.

Now my endeavour ſhall be to give unto Caeſar our King, the things that are Caeſars: and to his ſubordinate Magiſtrates, the things that are theirs: and to give unto Biſhops and Miniſters, the things that belong to them; as to be Preachers, not Rulers, like Magiſtrates I have 2 or 3 things more to premiſe before I come to my task.

1. Near twenty years agone, I took the Nationall Oath and Covenant, to be true and faithfull to the King and his Poſterity; the which I have been ever ſince, ſo far as in my power was, ſorrowing to ſee ſo many illegall and treacherous practiſes, beyond my power to amend. I then alſo did ſwear, to do my endeavour for the extirpation of Prelacy, that is, of Archbiſhops, Biſhops, and Chancellors, &c. In purſuance whereof I writ this little Treatiſe: holding my ſelf bound in conſcience to keep my Oath.

But it will be ſaid, the Parliament when they required this Oath was then illegall, the King being abſent.

I anſwer. Hence it follows, that my Oath was illegall, and binds not in the Common Law; but yet it binds in point of Divinity: For an Oath taken by force and feare, binds, as in the caſe of the Oath taken to the King of Babel, Ezek. 17.12, &c. And an Oath taken by fraud binds, as in the caſe of the Gibeonites: and no man on earth can abſolve from ſuch an Oath, Joſh. 9.3, 4.18, 19. with 2 Sam. 21.1, 2.6. wherefore I dare not be a perjured perſon. Jeremiah ſaid, Becauſe of Oaths, the Land mourns, Jer. 23.10. God plagued the Iſraelites in Davids time, for the perjury of Saul before him, 2 Sam. 21.1, &c. We have ſins enough in this Land to anſwer to God for: and ſhall we add wilfull perjury to them, to provoke the Lord to wrath? God forbid. Now I humbly beſeech our honourable Parliament, to order things ſo, as thoſe who have taken this Oath, which cannot be recall'd, may not be enforced by Law, to be forſworn by any of their endeavours to eſtabliſh or countenance our new Biſhops.

p. 32. Many ſay, as King James did: no Biſhop, no King; but King James was no Prophet, he ſpake as he thought and deſired: But had he lived to our dayes, and ſeen what we have ſeen, he might have changed his proverb. If I may be ſo bold to ſpeak my ſenſe, it had been good for King Charles, his Son, if he had caſt off Biſhops twenty years before his death: For, as I ſuppoſe, they were one great cauſe of his untimely end.

For he had armed his Biſhops with too much of his Authority; the which ſome of them abuſed to pride, calling them Jack Gentlemen.

Moſt of them abuſing his authority, for the uſhering in of Popiſh Ceremonies, ſpending their zeale, to maintain trifles, not beſeeming learned and grave Doctors: as an ayeriall Croſs, and white Surplice, an Hood and Tippet, whereby they became ridiculous to the people:

And then they abuſed his authority, to cruelty and perſecution for thoſe trifles: How many hundreds of painfull and godly Miniſters, of a good life and converſation, did they ſilence for non-obſervance of theſe, and unmercifully deprived them of their livings and livelihood, ſo as they were enforced to live upon Almes. So great was their perſecution in thoſe dayes, as they drove many hundreds of the Kings Subjects out of the Kingdome, to plant themſelves in a Wilderneſs: And how great was their tyranny in the High Commiſsion Court at London, and their Chancellours Courts in the Country, perſons of years know too well: and all this for trifles, whereby they became odious to the people then, and to thoſe that ſate at the beginning of this long Parliament after, who rooted them quite up: For theſe were eye-witneſſes, and ſenſible of the pride, ambition, and cruell perſecutions of the Biſhops, whereof many in our dayes being but young men, are totally ignorant, and therefore think to gather grapes of theſe thorns, and Figs of theſe thiſtles: But a wolf will be a wolf ſtill, though you crop his eares, and cut his tayle, the ſame is true of a Fox.

Now in proceſs of time, when unhappily the King and Parliament fell at odds, many thouſands of the people took in with the Parliament, ſome help them with money, others with their perſons and ſwords: but would not take in with the King, for feare p. 4of Popery, and for feare they ſhould be ſtill under the tyranny of cruell Biſhops; the which to conſcientious men, was more intollerable than monethly Taxes, or illegall Monopolies of old. Thus the King loſt the hearts of his Subjects, becauſe they ſaw themſelves in a deſperate caſe: For it was grown into a proverb, no Biſhop, no King.

3. Many who have read my former book of this ſubject, ſay, that I am an Eraſtine, but they are ſuch as know not the opinion of Eraſtus. I have ſeen his book, which was anciently a diſpute between reverend Beza and him, about Excommunication. Now Eraſtus held it to be no Ordinance of Chriſt, but a figment of mans brain: but I differ from him, and hold it to be an Ordinance of Chriſt, I onelyonly endeavour to ſet the ſaddle on the right horſe, ſaying, It is the office of the Magiſtrate, not of the Biſhop or Miniſter.

Theſe things premiſed, now I come to my taske, and ſhall handle by ſundry queſtions and anſwers thereunto drawing nearer and nearer unto it by little and little, untill I come to the main. The conſideration whereof, may prove uſeful to the King and Parliament: For deſire them I do, to be cautious of putting their own ſword into the hands of the Clergy, leſt they turn the point of it againſt Magiſtrates: Have not the Scots excommunicated their King? and may not our Biſhops (if true to their principles) do the ſame to any Member in Parliament, or Magiſtrate in the Kingdome? Yea, to the King himſelfe: as I ſhall prove before I have done, and ſo I come to the queſtions.

1. Queſt. Who are the Church?

I anſw. Not the Clergy onelyonly, but the Laiety & Clergy both, not excluding, but including the Magiſtrate: For the Magiſtrate is not onelyonly a member of the Common-wealth, but alſo a member of the Church: He is an Eccleſiaſticall perſon as well as the Miniſter: for he is of and belonging to the Church as well as the Miniſter: and ſo much is ſignified by the word Eccleſiaſticall: Wherefore you may not object againſt the Magiſtrate, ſaying, he may not meddle with Excommunication, becauſe he is a Lay-man: For we muſt know, that the Magiſtrate is an Eccleſiaſtical perſon as well as the Miniſter.

But you will ſay, the Miniſter is a Spirituall man, ſo is not p. 5the Magiſtrate. I anſw. He is a ſpirituall man that minds ſpirituall things, and leads a ſpiritual life, Rom. 8.1, 5. Rom. 7.6. Now God be praiſed for it, we have many Magiſtrates, who are ſpiritual men, and lead a ſpiritual life; and many thouſands of common people, who are ſo too: but Biſhops, and Clergymen, and the Pope, will be the ſpiritual men, and Magiſtrates and others muſt be the carnal men.

Whereas I ſaid even now, the Laiety and Clergy: I ſhall be quarrelled with by the Clergy, for giving the priority to the Laiety, and not to the Clergy, as hath been the cuſtome for many hundred years. Now I grant, that it hath been the cuſtome ever ſince there was a Pope, and ever ſince the Pope exalted himſelf above all that is called God; that is, above the Magiſtrate, 2 Theſ. 2.4. and ſee Pſal. 82.6. And this Popiſh cuſtome, would Biſhops and Clergy-men uphold ſtill: But are not the King, Parliament, and Magiſtrates Lay perſons, as they call them? and are not theſe above the Clergy? If theſe then be above Biſhops and Clergy-men, theſe muſt have the priority; as well as ſuperiority: and therefore I ſaid, the Laiety and Clergy: to ſay otherwiſe is Popiſh, and tending to a denyall of the Kings ſupremacy.

Queſt. 2. How are the members of the Church to be qualified?

I anſw. Not ſpeaking of the inviſible, but of the viſible Church on earth, theſe muſt have faith and repentance, or at leaſt a profesſion of theſe: now that this latter makes a member of the Church, I thus prove it.

1. Baptiſme is the door into the Church, and ſuch as were baptized were entred into the Church, and admitted as members of the Church: Now John the Baptiſt, baptized a great multitude, as Jeruſalem, and all Judea, and all the Country about Jordan, upon confeſsion of their ſins, Mat. 3.5, 6. Now John could not know any more of theſe, then their verball profeſſion, and yet he admitted them into the Church by baptiſme. 2. The 3000. converted and baptized by Peter, and ſo admitted into the Church, he could know no more of them then their externall profeſſion, by ſubmiſsion to his baptiſme, and by ſaying men and brethren what ſhall we do? which were but words. True, the Text ſaith, they were pricked in heart, Acts 2.37. But how could p. 6Peter know this; ſave by their words; and ſubmiſſion to his baptiſme? both which were externall: The Text ſaith, verſ. 45. they ſold their poſſeſsions to give to the poor, yet Ananias was a lyar, Acts 5.1, &c. See 1 John 2.19. & Mat. 13.20. Further, the people of Laodicea were a Church, Rev. 3.14. yet many of them had but externall profeſſion. Simon the Sorcerer was baptized, and ſo made a member of the Church, Acts 8.13. and Judas was a member of Chriſts family and Church.

By the way note, that there is a ſuperſtitious niceneſs in ſome, who will not admit one a member of their Church, without a moneths tryall, &c. but this is after the doctrine and commandements of men, Col. 2.22, 23. not after the practice of John the Baptiſt.

To return: If a Magiſtrate hath but an outward profeſſion, he is a member of the Church, and an Eccleſiaſticall perſon, as well as a Miniſter: Let none therefore ſay, he is a Lay-man, and therefore he may not meddle with Excommunication, as a Miniſter may.

Queſt. 3. Is a Magiſtrate an Elder and Ruler of the Church?

I anſw. He is not onelyonly an Elder and Ruler of the Common-wealth, but alſo of the Church: this later I thus prove.

Theſe called the Elders and Rulers of the people of this Common-wealth, Numb. 11.16, 24. were Rulers of the Church alſo; For Moſes commanded Aaron the chief Prieſt, to offer Incenſe, which was a Church-matter, Numb. 16.46. King Hezekiah did the like, 2 Chron. 31.2. King David did ſo too, 1 Chron. 16.7. And alſo King Joſiah, 2 Kings 23.4. and 2 Chron. 35 15.1, 2, 3, &c. Things written afore-time, were written for our learning, Rom. 15.4. Hence it follows,

1. If therefore a Magiſtrate be a Ruler of the Church, why may not he puniſh the ſcandalous ſinner in the Church? and that with any puniſhment ſutable to the offence? be it by their puniſhment of Excommunication, or any other puniſhment: it is in vain for him to command, if he may not puniſh.

2 If a Lay-Elder, be he the Biſhops Chancellor, or the Miniſters Elders, may puniſh with Excommunication; why may not the Magiſtrate do ſo too? though you call him a Lay-man.

But you will ſay, the Lay-Elder doth it not alone, but with the Miniſter.

p. 7Anſw. If he doth it with another, yet he doth it, though not alone. The chief Prieſts and Elders together, put Chriſt to death: Yet we may ſay, and ſpeak truly, the Elders put Chriſt to death.

Queſt. 4. Do you make two Churches in one Common wealth, the one of the Magiſtrates, the other of the Miniſters?

I anſw. Yea: for they hold the Congregation and Aſſembly of the Miniſter and people, in the Pariſh-houſe, to be one Church: and I ſhall prove, that there is another Church, as in the Senate-houſe, or common Hall, where the Magiſtrate and people, are congregated and aſſembled for matters of Juſtice.

For the word Eccleſia, tranſlated a Church, ſignifyeth a Congregation, or an Aſſembly of people, Acts 7.38. Acts 19.32, 39, 41. Now the Magiſtrate and people in the Senat-houſe, are a Congregation and an Aſſembly of people: and therefore they are a Church, and all of them are Eccleſiaſtical perſons, of and belonging to this Church.

As the Magiſtrate and people are a Church, ſo they are a Church of Chriſt; for they are all Chriſtians, profeſſing Chriſt, and faith in Chriſt, and they are alſo a Church of God: for their authority is of, and from God, Rom. 13.1. and they aſſemble in their Hall to ſerve God; The Magiſtrate by ruling for God, and in his place; the people to be ruled by God, and his righteous Lawes.

The Magiſtrates Court therefore, being a Church of God, why ſhould any ſay or think, that it is an unfit place, for the cenſure of Excommunication? may it not ſoon be as fit a place, as the Chancellours or Biſhops Conſiſtory?

Another queſt. of theſe two Churches, which is greater? Papiſts ſay, the Clergy Church, ſo they ſay, Biſhops too; for they ſay, Church and State: but we ought to give priority and ſuperiority to the State, and ſay, State and Church: For Moſes commanded Aaron, and ſo did Kings the Prieſts: to ſpeak otherwiſe, giving priority to the Church, is popiſh, and tending to a denyall of the Kings ſupremacy.

Queſt. 5. Being the Magiſtrate is no Divine, how can he know who is fit or not fit to be excommunicated?

p. 8I anſw. How can two or three Lay-Elders, know who is fit, and who not, being they are no Divines? And how can the Biſhops Chancellour know, who is fit, and not fit? for he is no Divine.

2. As for ſcandalous ſins, as adultery, drunkenneſs, ſwearing, and ſuch like, being all matters of Fact, the Magiſtrate knows them, as well as the Biſhop or Miniſter, for the Magiſtrate doth daily puniſh theſe ſins in his Court.

As for fundamentall doctrines, being none are ſuch, but onelyonly ſuch as are clearly laid down in Scripture: and being they are daily preached on by our Miniſters, the Magiſtrate is not ignorant of theſe: Or if he be, God hath ordained the help of the Miniſter, by way of counſel and advice: but ſtill ſo, as the power and authority as Judge to paſſe cenſure, is ſtill in the Magiſtrate, as you may read, Deut. 17.8, 9, 10, 11.

As for points diſputable, not cleerly revealed in Scripture, I hold, that no man is to be excommunicated for theſe; for if he be, the innocent may be puniſhed, as ſoon as the wicked. And therefore the Magiſtrate needs not meddle with ſuch points, but onelyonly with ſins clearly revealed to be ſins, as inceſt, 1 Cor. 5.1, &c. and by like reaſon, ſwearing, drunkenneſſe, and the like.

Whereas I ſaid, the Magiſtrate may take the advice of the Miniſter, &c. I mean his advice in a fundamentall doctrine, which is very cleerly a ſin in Scripture; for elſe he may give wicked advice: But as for a doubtfull and diſputable controverſie, wherein Scripture is alledged on both ſides, it is not ſafe for the Magiſtrate to condemn either ſide upon advice of the Miniſter: for a Church may erre, a Councell may erre, and 10. or 12. Miniſters may erre too. Suppoſe therefore a point comes before the Magiſtrate, which commonly is holden to be an error or hereſie, where will the Magiſtrate finde among the Clergy competent and fit Judges to determine it? for the Clergy hold the common opinion: Now if the Magiſtrate call in to his help and advice ten or 12. of the Clergy, will they not all adviſe for their own opinion? and then they will be incompetent and partiall Judges: Do you think, they will juſtifie the accuſed party, and condemn themſelves? I dare ſay it, that all the Biſhops in England, will p. 9condemn this book if not before they ſee it: But the Law permits no man to be a judge or a witneſs in his own cauſe: when the Clergy gives judgement, of a cauſe commonly holden by others and themſelves, to be an errour or hereſie, they are like the High Court of Justice, all or the major part came thither with a reſolution, to make an end of the KING before they roſe.

Queſt. 6. Is the King next under Chriſt, ſupreme head of the Church?

Anſw. This queſtion is out of queſtion with me: but being I hear of ſome Miniſters beyond Sea offended at this Title, and have read of ſome in England of like opinion, I ſhall here prove the point: and firſt by the Laws of our Kingdome, and then by the Scripture.

1. The Laws of our Kingdome, do give unto our King this juſt and Royall title, to be ſupreme Head under Chriſt, over all perſons, and in all cauſes Eccleſiaſticall or ſpirituall: wherefore the King is ſupreme haad of the Church, and therefore all good Subjects muſt acknowledge him ſo to be, Rom. 13.1.

2. I have before proved, out of the Scriptures, that King Hezekiah, David, and Joſiah, were Rulers and Governours over the Church, and in Church-matters, 2 Chron. 31.2. & 1 Chron. 16.7. & 2 Chron. 35.1, &c. 2 Chron. 35.15. & 2 King. 23.4. Now thoſe godly Kings were ſupreme in authority, for there was none above or before them. It was propheſied of, that in time of the Goſpel, Kings ſhould be our nurſing Fathers, Iſa. 49.22, 23. Now in our dayes, though we have many Magiſtrates of high authority, yet none of them can or will challenge the ſupremacy, but the King onelyonly.

3. See a pregnant Text for it, 1 Pet. 2.13. Submit your ſelves, &c. unto the King, as unto the ſupreme. So ſupremacy is the Kings juſt Title. Now being it is ſo, why do Biſhops ſay and write Church and State? as if the Church and Biſhops were above the King: where is then the Kings ſupremacy?

Queſt. 7. Doth the puniſhment of Excommunication belong to the office of a Biſhop and his Chancellour: or to the Miniſter and his Lay-Elders?

I anſwer negatively: This office belongs not to any Lay-Elder, p. 10who is not a Magiſtrate of the Common-wealth: nor to any Chancellour, who is a Lay-man, and no Magiſtrate: the contrary, I expect to ſee Biſhops or Miniſters to prove if they can. And I anſwer, concerning Biſhops or Miniſters alone, without their Elders or Aſſiſtants; and I deny alſo, that this office doth belong to a Biſhop or a Miniſter: The contrary lyes upon both of them, to prove if they can. In the mean time I thus prove againſt them.

1. Excommunication is a puniſhment, ſo confeſſed by all men, and ſo called in Scripture, 2 Cor. 2.6. and a puniſhment is a revenge, or taking vengeance on them that do evill, Rom. 13.4. Now Biſhops and Miniſters may not puniſh, and revenge: For this belongs to the Magiſtrate, Rom. 13.4. not to a Biſhop or Miniſter.

St. Paul ſaith, a Biſhop muſt be no ſtriker, 1 Tim. 3.3. Now I know not why a Biſhop may not as well ſtrike with his hand or fiſt, as puniſh, and take vengeance on any man by Excommunication. Their diſtinction of corporall and ſpirituall puniſhment will not help them, as you ſhall ſee in the next queſt.

2. The office of the Magiſtrate is, to ſummon into his Court, theſe ſcandalous ſinners, the adulterer, ſwearer, drunkard, and the like, and in his Court to examine them, and to examine witneſſes againſt them, and then if guilty, to judge and cenſure them to puniſhment, all theſe are acts of Magiſtraticall authority, and we daily ſee Magiſtrates exerciſing this authority. Now for Biſhops to uſe theſe ſeverall acts in their Conſiſtorie, it is an uſurpation of the Magiſtrates office and authority: and therefore this authority belongs not to a Biſhop or a Miniſter, nor to the Pope: and without theſe precedent acts of authority, there can be no Excommunication.

3. Chriſt hath forbidden the Pope, the Biſhop of a Dioceſs, and the Miniſter of a Pariſh, to exerciſe Lordly authority in the Church: for he ſaid, The Lords of the Gentiles exerciſe dominion, and they that are great, exerciſe authority: But it ſhall not be ſo among you, Mat. 20.25. Chriſt forbad his Apoſtles to Lord it; and St. Peter to like purpoſe ſaid, That Miniſters muſt not be ſo much as, or like unto Lords, over Gods heritage, 1 Pet. 5.3. Now for a Biſhop to puniſh with the Rod of Excommunication, p. 11it is a Lordly authority, for puniſhment is Lordly: and for a Biſhop in his Conſiſtory, to examine one, and witneſſes againſt him, and then to judge and condemn him to puniſhment, this is Lordly authority: wherefore the cenſure of Excommunication belongs not to a Biſhop.

I ſhall proſecute this point further, by ſundry abſurdities which depend upon it, as

1. If Excommunication be proper to a Biſhop, or a Miniſter, why doth the Biſhops Chancellour meddle in it? for he is a Lay-man: and why do the Miniſters Elders meddle in it? for theſe are Lay-men.

2. If the Biſhop will puniſh ſome ſins by Excommunication, as Adultery, then he muſt puniſh all ſins with Excommunication; for if he doth not, he is partiall and unjuſt. The Biſhop hath but one ſalve for every ſore, but one laſt for every foot, which is Excommunication for greater and leſſer ſins: wherefore he muſt inflict this one puniſhment upon every ſinner: and then he muſt excommunicate every thief, every traytor, and every murtherer before they are hanged: and there are a multitude of treſpaſſes by the Common Law, the which are ſins alſo: Now all theſe the Biſhop muſt ſummon into his Conſiſtory, for to undergo his ſpirituall puniſhment.

3. The Magiſtrate puniſheth in his Court, the adulterer, drunkard, ſwearer, &c. Now the Biſhop and his Chancellour, may not puniſh theſe in his Conſiſtory again with Excommunication; for if they do, they commit injuſtice: For after the Magiſtrate hath inflicted a full puniſhment, then for a Biſhop to bring the matter about again for another puniſhment: this is to puniſh twice for one fault, a double puniſhment for a ſingle ſin: It is a torment intollerable, and apt to make men run mad, to be trounced from the Magiſtrates Court, unto the Biſhops Conſiſtory, for one crime, to be twice examined in ſeverall Courts, to have witneſſes twice brought againſt them, to be twice cenſured and condemned, and to ſuffer two ſorts of puniſhments, and all for one fault, which hath been ſufficiently puniſht before by the Magiſtrate: this is intollerable.

To avoid this miſchief, either let the Magiſtrate do all acts of authority and juſtice, without the Biſhop: or let the Biſhop p. 12and his Chancellor, do all acts of authority and juſtice, in things Civill and Eccleſiaſticall, without the Magiſtrate; For to have two ſuch Magiſtrates, a corporall, and a ſpirituall, or a Civill, and an Eccleſiaſticall, is as if we had two Suns in the Firmament, or two Kings in England, the Pope was the author of it.

4. If Excommunication be exerciſed by a Biſhop, then he makes himſelf an Antichrist, or Pope: For in his Conſiſtory, he ſits as a Judge over a Magiſtrate if he be ſcandalous, examines him, and witneſſes againſt him, cenſures and condemns him: Now the marke of Antichriſt, is to exalt himſelfe above all that is called God, 2 Theſ. 2.4. And the Magiſtrate is called God, Pſal. 82.6. If therefore a Biſhop doth paſſe ſentence upon a Magiſtrate, he makes himſelf Antichriſt.

Queſt. 8. Is excommunication a ſpirituall puniſhment belonging to Biſhops?

I take this to be a popiſh device, and invented by the Pope: For when he encroached upon the authority of Kings, that he might with the more colour obtain leave from them, to reigne over the ſouls of the people, leaving the bodies and fleſhly carkaſſes for Kings to Reign over, then he ſtifled them with this Doſe; that Excommunication is no corporall but a ſpiritual puniſhment, and ſutable to his ſpirituall Clergy: and this hath been the doſe and plea of our Biſhops ever ſince.

But why the Clergy ſhould engroſs this ſpirituality as proper to them, I ſee no reaſon: For a Magiſtrate is an Eccleſiaſticall perſon, and a ſpirituall man, as well as a Biſhop: for he is a ſpiritual man that worſhips God in ſpirit and truth: and who minds ſpiritual things, and live after the guidance and motions of the ſpirit, John 4.23. Rom. 8.1, 5. Rom. 7.6. Now we have as many Magiſtrates, ſuch ſpirituall men as Biſhops: and therefore Magiſtrates are as fit to exerciſe the ſpirituall diſcipline of Excommunication as a Biſhop: this I thus prove.

1. If a Biſhops Chancelleour who is a Lay-man, or the Lay-Elders of Miniſters, may meddle in ſpirituall Excommunication, then a Magiſtrate may do ſo too, though you call him a Lay-man.

2. That Excommunication, if it be a ſpirituall puniſhment, yet it is in the power of the Magiſtrate, it is cleer, Ezra 10.3, 7, 8. p. 13where the Princes and Elders, did by a Proclamation, threaten the people with Excommunication, or ſeparation from the congregation, if they came not to take the Covenant.

3. King Solomon put off Abiathar the Prieſt, from his ſpirituall office of Prieſthood: which degradation was a ſpirituall puniſhment, 1 King. 2.27. as his office was a ſpirituall bleſſing.

4. If Excommunication be a ſpirituall puniſhment, yet it belongs not to a Biſhop, becauſe it is a Lordly power, forbidden by Chriſt to Miniſters, Mat. 20.25. & 1 Pet. 5.3.

5. If a Biſhop uſeth this ſpiritual puniſhment of Excommunication, he makes himſelf an Antichrist, and a Pope; as I lately proved.

Queſt. 9. Can you prove, that the cenſure and puniſhment of Excommunication belongs to the Magiſtrate?

I anſwer yes: But firſt give me leave to ſhew what, and how the Magiſtrate is to act in this his office: when he hath ſummoned into his Court the Adulterer, Swearer, Drunkard, &c. and hath examined him, and witneſſes againſt him, and hath convicted him as guilty of puniſhment, then he is to paſſe ſentence on him publiquely in Court, to ſuffer ſuch puniſhment as is ſutable to his ſinne: and if the Magiſtrate judgeth Excommunication to be more ſutable then any other puniſhment, then he is to denounce the ſentence thereof upon the offender: And this done, then he is to ſend his command to the Biſhop or Miniſter of the pariſh to deny him the Sacrament. I doubt not, but the Magiſtrate may command the Biſhop or Miniſter: For Moſes commanded Aaron, Hezekiah and Joſiah commanded the Prieſts and Levites; and ſo I come to prove the point.

1. The cenſure and puniſhment of Excommunication muſt either belong to the Biſhop or Miniſter, or to the Magiſtrate: But it belongs not to the Biſhop or Miniſter, as I have abundantly proved before. Therefore it belongs to the Magiſtrate.

2. The Princes and Elders in Ezra's time, commanded the people to come to Jeruſalem to take the Covenant, and threatned thoſe that refuſed, with excommunication or ſeparation from the Congregation or Church, Ezra 10.3.7, 8. whereby you ſee that excommunication was in the power of the Magiſtrate.

3. King Solomon degraded Abiather the Prieſt from his ſpirituall p. 14office, which was a ſpirituall puniſhment, 1 King. 2.27. Now if Kings and Magiſtrates will imitate Solomon, then they muſt excommunicate ſcandalous perſons: Solomon put off the Prieſt from medling in holy things, ſo ſhould Magiſtrates cut off ſcandalous ſinners from the communion of Saints at the Lords Table, and from medling with theſe holy things.

4. If the Magiſtrate may command ſpirituall duties, then he may inflict ſpirituall puniſhment for neglect of them, as in Excommunication: He that may command a duty, hath power to puniſh the neglect of it, or elſe he hath no power to command: to command without a coercive power to compell, is but an image or ſcare-crow: But the Magiſtrate may command ſpiritual duties, 1 Chron. 16.7. & 2 Chron. 35.15. & 2 Chr. 29.1, 4, 5. & 2 Kings 23.4. And therefore the Magiſtrate may inflict the ſpirituall puniſhment of Excommunication.

5. Excommunication is a puniſhment, and ſo called by all men, and ſo it is called in Scripture, 2 Cor. 2.6. and a puniſhment is a revenge. Now to puniſh and revenge is proper to the Magiſtrate, for he is the Miniſter of God, to puniſh and to take vengeance on him that doth evill, Rom. 13.4. Wherefore the cenſure of Excom. upon the ſcandalous ſinner, belongs to the office of the Magiſtrate.

6. The ſeverall acts of authority uſed in Excom. belongs to Magiſtraticall power, as to ſummon into Court, and to examine witneſſes againſt one, and to examine the perſon complained on: And without theſe precedent acts, there can be no Excom. Now to whom belongeth theſe acts, to him belongeth the cenſure of Excom. that is, to the Magiſtrate.

By theſe particulars it appears, that by the Word of God, the Biſhop in his Conſiſtory doth uſurp the Magiſtrates office.

Queſt. 10. Do Biſhops deveſt the King of his ſupremacy?

I anſwer yes: and thus I prove it.

1. It is clear by the Word of God, as hath been proved, that Biſhops do uſurp the Magiſtrates authority and office: Now he that uſurps the Magiſtrates authority, he uſurps the Kings authority, for the Magiſtrates authority is the Kings: and he that uſurps the Kings authority in cauſes Eccleſiaſticall, he denies and deveſts the King of his ſupremacy in cauſes Eccleſiaſticall: p. 15For if you deny him authority, you deveſt him of, and deny his ſuperiority and ſupremacy in authority. If a Maſter gives his ſervant five pounds, to diſpoſe of by his order, and the ſervant be robbed of it by the way, not onelyonly the ſervant is robbed, but his Maſter alſo: and then his money being loſt, he can exerciſe neither authority nor ſuperiority over it: So it is, if a Biſhop takes from the Magiſtrate the Kings authority, with it he takes the Kings ſuperiority and ſupremacy in Eccleſiaſticals.

But Biſhops will ſay, they had the Kings Commiſſion for it: and the King gave them this authority. But ſay I, Chriſt forbad them to take it, Mat. 20.25. and 1 Pet. 5.3.

Secondly, they ſay the King gave it them; and ſo doth a true man give his purſe to a Thief, but it is out of fear: So theſe Kings afore-time, gave their authority to Biſhops, but they got this gift by fraud: For the Pope perſwaded Kings, that the Key of Diſcipline and Juriſdiction was a Legacy left by Chriſt, firſt to Saint Peter, and ſo to his ſucceſſors, Mat. 16.19. which is falſe, and more then can be proved. Beſides, Chriſt forbad the Pope and Biſhops to exerciſe Lordly authority, Mat. 20.25. & 1 Pet. 5.3. Now as the Pope, ſo did thoſe Biſhops falſly plead that Legacy, and ſo got it by fraud and ſubtlety: wherefore as I conceive, the gift of thoſe Kings, and their Commiſſions was a nullity.

Cromwell of late, got off the Kings head by force: and thus Biſhops got away thoſe Kings regall authority in the Church by fraud and ſubtilty: Would it not grieve a man to ſee his friend cheated of his money at Dice? And how can it but be grievous to a loyall Subject, to ſee his Kings juſt and Royall prerogative, wreſted out of his hands by the wit of Biſhops?

In King Henrie the 8. the Biſhops of England took an Oath to the Pope; whereupon the Lord Cromwell then informed the King of it, ſaying, that he was but half King, and his ſubjects but half-ſubjects to him: As I conceive, that the King was King but over the bodies, and Biſhops were Kings over the ſouls of the people: ſo they fell into a premunire, which coſt them 100000. pounds. The Biſhops in thoſe dayes could not by flattery and ſubtlety perſwade the King and his Council, that St. Peters keyes did hang on the Popes girdle, or on the girdle of Engliſh Biſhops: he would not be ſo cheated of his ſupremacy, for they got it by fraud.

p. 162. The Pope holds his office Jure Divino, ſo did thoſe Biſhops, and ſo do our Biſhops: for all theſe plead for Peters keys, and ſuch like Scriptures: Now though our Biſhops take a commiſſion from the King, and ſay he is ſupreme, yet they hold a higher commiſsion, namely from God and Chriſt, and the Scriptures: How then can the King be ſupreme in cauſes Eccleſiaſtical? for Biſhops have a commiſſion higher then the commiſſion which they have from the King: And how can he be next under Chriſt, when the Biſhops have gotten the higher Commiſſion? The King may be ſupreme over the State, but Biſhops are next to Chriſt, and ſupreme over the Church, and in cauſes Eccleſiaſticall; for they ſay, they have an immediate commiſſion from Chriſt: If ſo, their commiſſion from the King muſt be an inferiour commiſſion.

3. If a Biſhop hath this Lordly authority to Excommunicate, then if he makes conſcience of his office, he muſt do juſtice to and upon all men, rich and poor, noble and ignoble, even to the K. as well as to the peſant: God is no reſpecter of perſons, a Biſhop muſt not be partiall. Now if a King be ſubject to a Biſhops Court, and the Biſhops there ſits as Lord and Judge over him, where is the Kings ſupremacy in Eccleſiaſticals? Notwithſtanding Biſhops conſciences and doing of juſtice, I know they dare not ſummon the King into their Conſiſtory: Yet I know, and they know too, that by their principles, and the power of Peters keyes, which hang at their girdle as they make the world believe, they are bound to make no ſcruple of any man, noble or ignoble.

The Scottiſh Diſcipline is odious to Epiſcoparians, for excommunicating their King: but in my opinion, the Scots are the more honeſt men, for they act according to their principles: but Biſhops halt of one leg, and are blind of one eye, when they look upon a King; and yet the Scots and our Biſhops do fetch their authority both from the ſame Scriptures. If therefore they may excommunicate the King by their principles, where is the Kings ſupremacy?

4. There is a ſecret deſigne of Biſhops for ſupremacy, for they write and ſay Church and State: Now though common people regard not which end goes forward, yet Biſhops do: for p. 17they do not onelyonly write ſo, and ſpeak ſo, but will have others to ſpeak ſo too: my ſelf being with a Biſhop long ſince, I ſaid State and Church: but the Biſhop corrected me, ſaying, you muſt ſay, Church and State. So Biſhops will have priority and ſuperiority over the State: and if ſo, then they aym at the Kings ſupremacy, for he is a Stateſ-man, and the chief of the State, there can be no ſupremacy, where there is not priority & ſuperiority. However the Biſhops do act openly for the Kings ſupremacy, yet underhand, they aime at the old Popiſh ſupremacy: why elſe do they keep on foot, that popiſh language of Church and State?

The Biſhops alſo uſe to name the Clergy and Laiety, giving the priority and ſuperiority to the Clergy and Biſhops: but where then is the Kings priority, ſuperiority, and ſupremacy? Alſo they uſe to ſay, Lords ſpirituall and Lords temporall.

Queſt. 11. Are Miniſters capable of a Biſhopricke, or the office of a Biſhop?

I anſwer negatively, and my reaſons are theſe.

1. As is before proved, Chriſt hath forbidden Miniſters to uſe Lordly authority in the Church, Mat. 20.25. & 1 Pet. 5.3. and therefore Miniſters are not capable of a Biſhoprick.

2. If a Miniſter takes upon him the office of a Biſhop, he makes himſelf a Pope or an Antichriſt, who exalts himſelf above all that is called God, 2 Theſ. 2.4. Who is the Magiſtrate, Pſal. 82.6. For in his Conſiſtory, he ſits as Judge over both Magiſtrate and people.

3. The office of a Biſhop by ruling, is contrary to the office of a preaching Miniſter, as I thus prove.

Chriſt ſent his Apoſtles to preach, Mat. 20.1, 2, 7. but not to rule. St. Paul charged Timothie not to rule, but to preach, and be inſtant in ſeaſon, and out of ſeaſon, 2 Tim. 4.2. And St. Paul ſaid, Woe unto me, if I preach not the Goſpel, 1 Cor. 9.16. And Miniſters had their Ordination, not to rule, but to preach.

But Lordly Biſhops are no Preachers: no ſooner Biſhops, but their heads are ſo full of Proclamations with ruling, as they lay aſide preaching. Queen Eliz. when ſhe went to make a Biſhop ſaid, I am now going to ſtop a Preachers mouth. I can ſpeak my knowledge of them for ſixty years, that they preach not above once a yeare, ſometimes twice, ſometimes not once. Biſhops p. 18have ever been Miniſters, but never Preachers: they have been the Drink … in the …ive, the … in Gods Vineyard, & thoſe that have hidden their Talent in the earth, or in a dark …; did not ſuch Biſhops well deſerve 2000. or 3000. pounds a year? ſurely the State in thoſe times, knew not what to do with their money. As for thoſe that ſate at the beginning of the long parliament, though I cannot call them legall, the King being abſent, yet I look upon them, as an Aſſembly of the wiſe men of our Kingdome: and thoſe judged it good for the Church to root our Biſhops, Archbiſhops, Deans, Chancellours, &c. and theſe wiſe men were eye-witneſſes and ear-witneſſes, and had too long an experience of Biſhops miſcarriages, the which our young dayes cannot afford us.

They ſaw with their eyes, how the heart of Religion was in a Conſumption; and how Religion was like a garden over grown with the nettle and weeds of humane inventions, and Biſhops, or rather the Popes inventions, untill Ceremony had well nigh eat up ſubſtance: all was for an outward form and faſhion, as to bow towards the Eaſt, and then to turn Weſt: To go up to the high Altar, and then come down again to the Deske, to be clad in white, and in the Pulpit to be clad in black, as if God were pleaſed with ſuch toyes: but I ſhall tell you of many more of theſe Ceremonies before I have done. One thing more I believe provoked theſe wiſe men, which was the Biſhops cruell perſecution, ſilencing and depriving of livelihood, very many godly and painfull Miniſters, men of a blameleſs life and converſation, and all for non obſervance of popiſh Ceremonies: and another thing was, that they drove hence many of the Kings Subjects, to plant in New-England.

Queſt. 12. Are Biſhops allied, or a kin to the Pope, or are they Popiſh?

I have often ſaid, that Biſhops Ceremonies are Popiſh, and now I ſhall prove it, by ſhewing their affinity to the Pope.

1. The Pope of Rome is a Clergy-man, a Biſhop, and a Lord-Biſhop, and ſo were our Engliſh Biſhops.

2. The Pope hath theſe many Orders of Archbiſhops, Biſhops, Deans, Commiſſaries, Chancellors, Arch-deacons, Prebends, and the reſt of them: ſo have our Biſhops, as like to the Pope as may be.

p. 193. The Pope reigns over many Nations: and our Biſhops, over hundreds of Towns and Pariſhes; and the Arch-biſhop, by reaſon of a larger circuit, is yet nearer the Pope.

4. The Pope challengeth the Lordly power of Excommunication, and ſo do our Biſhops.

5. The Pope exalts himſelf above all that is called God, that is, the Magiſtrate: and ſo did our Biſhops in their Conſiſtory.

6. Pope is a Miniſter, but no preacher: ſo were our Biſhops, Non-preachers: As ſoon might you draw a Bear to the ſtake, as a Biſhop into a pulpit: and if at once in a year, then they came trapped with their popiſh veſtments. Biſhops had high Altars in their Chappels, and wax Candles thereon unlighted, a fit Embleme of a Biſhop without light in a pulpit: They would be theſe Angels, Rev. 1.20. but they were not the Angels of light: for they gave no more light than their wax candles, unleſſe on Chriſtmas day in the forenoon.

7. The Pope was a cruell perſecuter of godly proteſtants: ſo were theſe Biſhops of many godly painfull Miniſters, men of an honeſt life and converſation, theſe they ſilenced from preaching: (The dog in the manger would eat no hay, nor ſuffer the horſe to eate) and they unmercifully deprived them of their Livings and livelihood, ſo as the Miniſter, his wife and children were enforced to live upon Almeſ-deeds.

8. Biſhop Wren, whilſt Biſhop in Norwich, forbad the Miniſters in his Dioceſs, to make any prayer in the pulpit, and nothing but an exhortation to prayer, according to the 55. Canon: as pray we for the King, or let us pray for the ſick, &c. but the Miniſter was not ſuffered to put up one petition to God, for the King, or for the ſicke. If this be according to the 55 Canon, then all the Biſhops were of this mind. Alſo papiſts do ſing their Maſs: ſo in our Cathedral Churches, Biſhops do ſing, cant, and chant their Service.

9. The Pope was horribly ſuperſtitious, ſo were theſe Biſhops: for both of them had their Croſs in baptiſm, the Surplice, hood and tippet, Copes, high Altars, Waxe Candles, Rails before the high Altar, bowings towards the high Altar, Saints dayes, ſtanding up at the Creed, with others like. Biſhops ſaid, theſe Ceremonies were innocent and decent things: but they have been defiled p. 20with ſuperſtition, as I read in their Canons: and are things defiled now innocent? and are popiſh ceremonies decent things in a Proteſtant Church?

Thus it appears that the Pope and thoſe Biſhops were much alike, and neerly allyed, and that I have done them no wrong, by ſaying they were popiſh: For I read not in Scripture, of Arch-Biſhops, Lord-Biſhops, Deans, Chancellours, &c. nor of a Croſſe in the ayre on an Infants fore head, nor of Surplices, Hood, and Tippet, nor Copes, Wax-candles, Rails, &c. Theſe never were plants of Gods ſetting, but of the Popes: I cannot therefore bow to this golden Image which the Pope hath ſet up.

The Popiſh Maſs doth crawl full of theſe Ceremonies, and ſo doth our Biſhops Divine Service in Cathedrall Churches, the which is one cauſe, why many people do ſo loath the Service-book: for where the Service-book comes in, there comes in theſe Romiſh ceremonies: and we have a ſuperſtitious Clergy, as ready and nimble to bid them welcome as may be.

Theſe Biſhops therefore, being ſo like the Pope in cruel perſecution of godly Miniſters, in ſuperſtitious ceremonies, and in ſuperſtitious Orders of Archbiſhops, Deans and Chancellours, &c. and being ſuch loyterers in Gods Vineyard, and hiding their talent of light in a cloſe Lanthorn; thoſe at the beginning of the long Parl. did us a good office to remove them quite: and I wiſh the King had been in preſence, to have confirmed it, and annexed their Lands to the Crown Lands, where they would have done good: but now they do none, but to maintain a Colledg of lazy perſons; but that which hindred our happineſs, was an over high carriage then with the King, for which we have ever ſince ſmarted full ſore.

Queſt. 13. Is there no meanes to pacifie and allay the animoſity between Biſhops and Epiſcoparians, Independents, and the Scottiſh Diſciplinarians, that ſo we may have peace in the Church.

I anſw. Yes, there is one means, and but one that I know of; which is, that the King would take his own ſword into his own hands, and manage in by his Magiſtrates, who are capable of it, as I have abundantly proved, and diſcharge Biſhops, Preſbyterians, Independents, and Scottiſh, Diſciplinarians of their Lordly power. This Kingly ſword is the bone of contention among them p. 21all, untill it be removed. I never look to ſee peace in the church: but if once removed, I hope to ſee theſe perſons, for highly conteſting, feed and play together like Lambs, and love like Chriſtians,