Sundry Particulars Concerning Bishops, Discourse 2
Againſt Biſhops holding their Office jure Humano from the King, and if they relinquiſh their jus Divinum, and derive their Authority from the King, then quere if it be not more ſafe to put juriſdiction into the hands of the Magiſtrate, then of the Biſhops: for this,
FIrſt, if the King would give the Office of juriſdiction unto a Biſhop, yet he may not take and exerciſe it; becauſe Chriſt hath forbidden it, Mat. 20 25. and 1 Pet. 5 3. And further in my book for the Kings Supremacy, I have proved by many arguments, that juriſdiction belongs to the Magiſtrate, but none to a Biſhop or Miniſter; wherefore it is Lawfull in a Magiſtrate, but ſinfull in a Biſhop to uſe juriſdiction.
2 If a Biſhop would derive his Authority from the King, yet it is againſt our publick Oath and Covenant to maintain Biſhops; and will Biſhops be ſo wicked, as to force us to be forſworne, by compelling us unto ſubjection unto them, and to their juriſdiction. What a dreadfull account ſhall Biſhops have to make to God, who for lucre, gaine, and honour, will force many thouſands to live in the ſin of perjury, all their lives long? Is it not better then for the King and Parliament to put all juriſdiction into the hands of the Magiſtrate, whom we can cheerfully and with a quiet conſcience obey, then into the hands of a Biſhop: whom we cannot obey with a good conſcience.
3 If a Biſhop take upon him the Office of juriſdiction from the K. then he makes himſelf a Pope or Antichriſt; for by ſummoning & cenſuring any Magiſtrate in his Conſiſtory, he exalts himſelf above one that is called God, 2 Theſ. 2 4. Pſ. 8 26. Now it is better to make the King a Ruler over the Church, and the Magiſtrate under him, then to make the Biſhop a Pope.
4 If a Biſhop take upon him the Office of juriſdiction from the King, then he muſt diſclaime and renounce his former Title and Office of jus Divinum, and alſo his right to St Peters Keies, with all other Scriptures, alleaged to prove their Divine right to a Biſhoprick; and muſt be content with an humane right from the King.
To hold their Commiſſion from God, and the King both; as to ſay, it is of God, and by the King, this cannot be: for 1. To hold their Commiſſion from God, it is falſe Divinity, as is proved in my book of the Kings Supremacy: and further I ſay, Biſhops cannot prove by the Scripture that their Office of juriſdiction is of God as ſhall appear by & by. 2 It is againſt the Honor of the King, by denying his Supremacy, as is proved in my book. 3 If they hold a Commiſſion from God & the K. both, then the Kings Commiſſion muſt be the inferiour Commiſſion: for their Commiſſion from God is higher then their Commiſſion which they have from the King: now it cannot ſtand with the Honour of the King and his Supremacy, to make his Commiſſion an inferiour Commiſſion: for how then can they be Superiour or next under Chriſt? Supremacy doubtleſs goes with the higher Commiſſion not with the lower: 4 If they hold from God and the King both, yet they hold two Offices, of Preaching and Ruling which are inconſiſtent, the one deſtroying the other; and that of Ruling is, 1 Superfluous, 2 Unjuſt, 3 Exceedingly Partiall, 4 The Biſhop muſt lay aſide his Office of Preaching; all which ſhall be proved by and by.
5 If a Biſhop take a Commiſſion from the King, to exerciſe juriſdiction, though he was Ordained a Miniſter to Preach, yet he muſt lay aſide, and renounce his Ordination, and Office of Preaching, that he may ſo attend to his Office of Ruling; for Queen Elizabeth ſaid, that when ſhe went about to make a Biſhop, ſhe was going to ſtop a Preachers mouth, and our experience for fifty or ſixty yeares confirmes it; for they Preached not above one, two, or three Sermons in an year, and ſometimes not once in a year. And indeed, theſe two Offices to Preach and to Rule are inconſiſtent, and cannot be well managed by any one man, as ſhall appear by and by.
6 Yea the Biſhop muſt not only lay aſide his Office of Preaching; but I ſay further, that his Office of Preaching is meerly ſuperfluous, to Preach as a Biſhop of a Dioceſs, if he would be a preacher to a particular Congregation, there might be good uſe of him, but none as a Biſhop: for 1 He hath no particular flocks to feed, or Congregation to preach unto: for every Congregation hath a Miniſter of their own to Preach unto them; nor is it poſſible for him to Preach to every Pariſh in his Dioceſs. 2 If he will make his Cathedrall Church to be his particular flock, yet there his preaching is alſo ſuperfluous: For firſt, Cathedral Churches are in Cities: Now in Cities there are many Pariſhes and Miniſters; and if people repaire every one to his own Miniſter, what need is there but of one Sermon in a day, at the Cathedrall? 2 The Cathedrall, is ſupplyed for a ſingle Sermon, once in the Sunday Morning, not by the Biſhop, but by a Combination of Miniſters, choſen out of the Dioceſs: and ſo it may be ſtill continued, if there be neceſſity for a Sermon in the Cathedrall: and then the Biſhops Sermon will be ſuperfluous, though he would preach every Sunday once.
Now let it be taken into conſideration, if it be not a laviſh and ſuperfluous reward, to allow a Biſhop two or three thouſands a year, for his preaching, when as it is ſuperfluous: or if he ſhould preach fifty Sermons in a year, is not two thouſand a laviſh reward? for he hath a thouſand pound for a Sermon if he preach but twice or thrice in a year: or about fifty pounds, if the preach fifty Sermons in a year. But it will be ſaid, he Ruleth alſo, anſwer, but 1 He Ruleth partially, 2 He holeth two Offices inconſiſtent, 3 He uſurps, 4 Chriſt forbad it, and ſo he deſerves no reward for Ruling.
7. Yet further, 1 we ought by Gods word, to have Liberty of Conſcience, as I have proved in my book of this Title. 2. the King out of his gracious compaſſion to tender Conſciences hath proffered it, in his Declarations more then once; now, hence it follows, that the Office of juriſdiction in a Biſhop is needleſſe and uſeleſſe.
For firſt Biſhops were wont to perſecute and puniſh Conſciencious men for refuſing the Croſſe and Surplice, and for working on the Popiſh Holidaies, &c. but if we have Liberty of Conſcience the learned Biſh. muſt ſpare his wicked perſecution: there will be no need of a Biſhops juriſdiction: 2. There are many controverſall points about Religion in our Church, which being points diſputable, ought not to be puniſht by the Biſhop, as I have proved in my book of Liberty of Conſcience; and therefore there is no need of a Biſhops juriſdiction: 3. For matter of Hereſie, being it is only in fundamentals: & every thing about a fundamentall is not fundamentall, but ſomething may be diſputable; ſuch points ſhould not be puniſhed by the Biſhop becauſe they are diſputable, and therefore there is no need of a Biſhops juriſdiction: 4. I hold no point for fundamental, but ſuch as is clearly laid down in Scripture: Now where will you find a Chriſtian to deny ſuch a point, and therefore no need of a Biſhops juriſdiction to puniſh it.
But ſuppoſe there be found one or two ſuch Hereticks in our whole Kingdome, what neceſſity is there for every Biſhop in the Kingdome to have two or three thouſand a year, to puniſh that one Heretick who lives but in the Dioceſs of one Biſhop? May not ten or twelve Miniſters be appointed for this end in every Dioceſs? and ſo ſave that mony. So you ſtill ſee, it is needleſſe to have a Biſhop uſe juriſdiction.
8. Yet againe, being the Magiſtrate puniſheth all matter of fact, as Adultery, Murther, Robbery, Drunkenneſſe, and many others: There is no need at all for a Biſhops juriſdiction, to puniſh Adultery with Excommunication; ſhall Adultery be twice puniſhed? once by the Magiſtrate, and then again by the Biſhop? this is double puniſhment for a ſingle ſin, which is injuſtice, wherefore a Biſhops juriſdiction is ſuperfluous.
But it will be ſaid that Hereſie is no matter of fact, but of opinion, and therefore the Biſhop muſt puniſh it: I anſwer, the Magiſtrate muſt puniſh it, not the Biſhop: for the Biſhops deliver the Heretick over to the Secular Power for puniſhment; wherefore juriſdiction is ſuperfluous in a Biſhop.
And further being the Magiſtrate puniſhes all manner of ſins, with a full and ſufficient puniſhment, ſuitable to the demerits of the ſin, it muſt be an act of injuſtice in a Biſhop to puniſh any with Excommunication afterward: it is an act of juſtice in a Magiſtrate to puniſh ſins, but it is an act of injuſtice and a ſinfull act in a Biſhop to puniſh any; and therefore a Biſhops juriſdiction is needleſſe.
9. A Biſhop will be a Magiſtrate in the Church, to puniſh ſcandalous ſins, and yet hath but one ſalve for every ſore, and but one Laſt for every foot, the which is too big for ſome feet, and too little for many: He hath but that one puniſhment of Excommunication for all manner of ſins, for the leaſt and for the greateſt: Adultery, and Fornication, the one of theſe greater, the other leſſer, and the Biſhop puniſheth both alike with Excommunication: For a man to commit Adultery, and for a Miniſter to refuſe the Croſſe and Surplice, or for people to work or to open a ſhop on a Popiſh Holiday: though theſe latter be no ſins, yet the Biſhop puniſheth all theſe alike with Excommunication, what abominable injuſtice is this?
Yet further is Excommunication a puniſhment great enough for the moſt horrid blaſphemy againſt God? 1. For a ſon to kill his Father, or a Subject to murther his King? The Magiſtrate hath variety of puniſhments, ſome greater ſome leſſer, ſutable to every ſin and ſinner: and therefore it is better to put the Office of authority and juriſdiction, into the hands of the Magiſtrate, then of a Biſhop.
10. If a Biſhop exerciſe juriſdiction, he will be exceedingly partiall and unjuſt in his Office, puniſhing one or two ſins, letting all others go ſcotfree: For the Biſhop in the Conſiſtory puniſheth Adultery and Fornication with Excommunication, but lets go ſcotfree, the Thief, Murderer, Traitor; the Swearer, and Perjured perſon; the Drunkard, the diſobedient to Magiſtrates, Maſters, and Parents; him that wounds, ſtrikes, or beats his neighbour, defames him in his good name, by ſlanderous words: him that breaks his neighbours fence, feeds his graſſe, and deſtroyes his corn; that ſtrikes, and lames, or kils his horſe or other cattel, and very many more: Now are not all theſe ſins, as well as Adultery and Fornication? why ſhould a Biſhop be ſo partial and unrighteous, as for to Excommunicat for one or two ſins, & not to Excommunicat for many other ſins? Is it not better therefore that the King and Parliament, put all authority and juriſdiction, into the hands of the Magiſtrate, who is not partiall, but doth and can puniſh all ſins, then into the hands of a partiall Biſhop, who doth puniſh but two or three ſins and ſinners?
11. If a Biſhop exerciſeth juriſdiction, he ſhall hold two Offices, Magiſtracy, and Miniſtry, which are inconſiſtent the one deſtroying the other: For firſt, look upon all Miniſters in the Kingdome, who have Paſtorall Charges, and they will confeſs that they find work enough to ſtudy the ſix daies againſt Sunday, and then to Preach, to adminiſter the two Sacraments, to bury the dead, to viſit the ſick, and to reconcile his pariſhoners at variance: the Office of a Miniſtry alone, requireth the whole Man. 2. So doth the Office of Magiſtracy in a Biſhop, for he is to exerciſe juriſdiction over a thouſand Miniſters and Towns: And ſo this is more then he can do alone; for he muſt have his Chanceler, and I know not how many Officers more to aſſiſt him: ſo you ſee the two Offices of Magiſtracy and Miniſtry are inconſiſtent: becauſe each one requireth the whole man; and to jumble them together, in the hands of one man, the one deſtroyes the other.
Theſe two great Ordinances and Offices of Magiſtracy and Miniſtry have ever been diſtinct, the one in the hands of the Laiety, the other in the hands of the Clergy, ſave where the Pope hath put in his foot: It is a confuſion of Order and Office, for a Biſhop to Rule and Preach both; as it is for the Lord-Chiefe-Juſtice, to Rule and Preach alſo. An Act was made 1640. In the raign of Charles the firſt, to diſinable Biſhops for ſitting in Parliament: upon this ground, that Biſhops ought not to be entangled with juriſdiction: the Office of the Miniſtry, being of ſuch great importance, that it will take up the whole man: Now is not this reaſon as ſtrong againſt a Biſhops juriſdiction in our dayes, as it was in the dayes of King Charles the firſt? It was the Pope that introducted this confuſion of diſtinct Offices, out of lucre, and gaine, and deſire to domineer over the Laiety: He hatched or nurſed if up this Monſter, this; Babel of confuſion; which as there were two ſuns in the Firmament, or two Kings in England, a Corporall King, and Spirituall King, or one King over the Commonwealth, and another King over the Church: Is it not better then to make the Biſhop a Preacher only, and the Magiſtrate a Ruler over all? For as you have ſeen proved, whilſt a Biſhop holds theſe two Offices of Preaching and Ruling, his Preaching as a Biſhop is ſuperfluous, and his Ruling as a Magiſtrate is ſuperfluous alſo, unjuſt and partiall.
12. If a Biſhop take his Commiſſion, to exerciſe juriſdiction, from the King, then his Authority is jus Humanum: and then the King with his Parliament, may order Biſhops at his wil and pleaſure: He may make ten or twenty Biſhops in his Dioceſs, or every Miniſter in his Town or Pariſh a Biſhop; in difficult cauſes to order ten or twelve Miniſters to determine it. 2. The King may have all done freely without reward for he hath under him many Magiſtrates, as High-Sheriffs, Majors, and Juſtices of the peace, who exerciſe juriſdiction freely without reward; and why ſhould a Biſhop require more for exerciſe juriſdiction in the Church? Spirituall men ſhould be fartheſt off from deſire of lucre and gaine. No doubt but the King may find in every Dioceſs Miniſters enough, who are grave, ſober, meek, learned and pious, who will take up their Office without lucre, and gain.
Theſe things conſidered, no doubt but Biſhops will renounce jus Humanum, a Commiſſion from the King; and will have their Office to be jus Divinum from God: but againſt this I have already ſaid enough, yet for further ſatisfaction, I will in brief anſwer their Texts.
1 They plead Peters two keies, the one for their juriſdiction: Anſw. The one may be the keie to open heavens gate to the penitent: the other key, may be to lock out the impenitent: and ſo there is not a third key for juriſdiction.
2. They plead the name Biſhop, ſuppoſing more to be in the name, then in the thing: Anſw. 1. The name Biſhop in Scripture, is given to every Miniſter, ſee Act. 20. 17, 28. thoſe called Elders, ver. 17. are called Biſhops in the Greek text, v. 28. ſee to the like purpoſe, Tit. 1.5.7. and ſee 1 Pet. 5.1, 2. it is Elders in v. 1. and Biſhops in the Greek Text, v. 2. Secondly, the name Biſhop doth not imploy any Lordly Superiority, and domineering juriſdiction, of one Miniſter over another: This I deny, and muſt ſee it proved, before I grant it: 2 It cannot be proved, for Chriſt forbad it, Mat. 20 85 and 1 Pet: 5 3.
3 They plead the Honorable title of Angel given to Biſhops, Rev. 2 1: Anſwer, 1 I may marvell why Biſhops would cauſe the word to be tranſlated Angel, rather then Meſſenger: for ſo it is tranſlated, Luke 7 24. and Iames 2 25. beſide the word ſhould be tranſlated Angel, when it is underſtood of a Spirit, but not ſo when it is underſtood of a man, as it is in the text Rev. 2 1: But Biſhops in thoſe daies, being cock ſure, that this honourable title of Angell, muſt be applyed to them, cauſed the word to be tranſlated Angel, that ſo their excellency might be admired among the vulgar ſort, and ſo they were when a Biſhop in the Cathedral, ſat in the chaire of State adorned with his Rochet, and pure white Surpliſſe, and Laune ſleves, the people did behold him as an Angell of Light: There is an Angell of Light, and Angell of darkneſſe, but thoſe Biſhops were not Light: For they gave no Light in the Pulpit all the year long, unleſſe of Chriſtmas day, Eaſter day or Whit-Sunday in the forenoon: 2. The word being tranſlated Meſſenger, as it ought to be, it doth not imploy any juriſdiction of one Meſſenger or Preacher over an other; but only a ſuper excellency of gifts and utterance, as that he was the beſt or chiefe Preacher or ſpeaker; like as Paul was called the chief ſpeaker, Act. 14.12.
4. They plead, Heb. 13.17. Obey thoſe that have the over ſight of you; Anſw. There is a Magiſtraticall obedience, and a Miniſterial obedience: Now this latter may be underſtood of obedience to the Faith, Rom. 6.17. Rom. 10, 16. Rom. 15.18. Heb. 3. 18, 19. But it may not be underſtood of Magiſtracial obedience; for if ſo, the Clergy may hang and draw: whip, and brand men.
5 They plead the poſtſcript, in 2. Tim. 4. Where it is ſaid Timothy was Biſhop of Epheſus; and that in Tit. 3. Where it is ſaid, Titus was Biſhop of Creet. But theſe poſtſcripts come too late, to do Biſhops any good; for they are no Canonicall Scripture, but foiſted into our Bibles of late: I have by me an old Bible printed a 120, years ago, and there is not any word of theſe two poſtſcripts; beſide the learneder Papiſts deny them, and ſay, ſomethings in poſtſcripts are falſe: Why then ſhould learned Proteſtant Biſhops own them?
6 When Biſhops are beaten out of play by the Scriptures, they flie to Antiquities, that Popiſh plea, and plead the the Records of the Church, that there hath been Biſhops in the Church 1500, years: Anſw 1 It ſeemes by what they ſay, that they find no ſuch record for above 100, year after Chriſt, when the Church was more pure: 2 Of this 1500, years wherof they boaſt, many hundred years were Popiſh: 3 Why do Biſhops, alleage the Records of the Church long ſince Chriſt, would they have us pin our faith on humane Hiſtories, and make them equal to Scripture? and do not they know that a Church may erre? and that the Churches ſince Chriſt have erred? 4 The Hiſtories of the Church anciently, will amount to no more then a tradition from our Fathers and Elders; now Chriſt reproved the Scribes and Phariſees, for walking after the tradition of the Fathers and Elders, Mark 7.2, 3, 4, 7, 8. & St Paul warnes us to beware of the tradition of men, which are not after Chriſt, Col. 2 8. Now what are Biſhops but traditions of men, and the Fathers and Elders for many hundred years before us which traditions are not after Chrſt? for Biſhops can ſhew no authority from Chriſt, but from our forefathers. The Record for the Church 1500, years, are no better then Apocripha Scriptures, which are not admitted of to prove any point of Divinity:
But ſuppoſe there were ſuch Scripture, to prove a Lording Biſhop that may exerciſe juriſdiction, what Scripture have Biſhops to prove an Archbiſhop, a Deane, a Chanceler, & the reſt of them? theſe orders muſt needs be from the Pope, as hatching, or nurſing them, for there is no Scripture for them: God is not their Father, but the Pope or ſome other thing is their Mother: ſo far of my twelft point.
13 This my 13. point ſhall be of gaine, of lawfull gaine; If the King and Parliament would put all authority and juriſdiction into the hands of the Magiſtrate, and take all juriſdiction from the Biſhop, the State may ſave their three or four thouſand pounds a year, which now is waſtfully ſpent on Biſhops, as is proved in my laſt point, and ſo it ſhall be again in four or five particulars: The which mony may better be added to the Crown lands, or a part of it yearly to ſuch Miniſters as have little livings and a part to ſuch Cities and Towns that are over burdened with multitudes of many miſerably poor, beyond the abilities of the richer ſort to relieve, who give four pence a week where need is of eighteen pence.
But it will be ſaid this is Sacriledge, and to rob the Church; Anſw. To rob the Church ſay you? 1. Though it be robbing, in a private man to take, yet it is not in a Parliament, who may diſpoſe of all men goods: 2. A Parliament may without robbery or Sacriledge, take a part of a Biſhops living, and of a Miniſters tythe, as well as of the Laieties mony, for publike uſe, as in the caſe of war.
Again, I hope 20 Biſh. are not the Church, but the leaſt number of the Chu for there are many thouſands of Clergy men too, being members of the Chur. and muſt go for a part of the Church, and for the greateſt part too: Now if the Parliament ſhall take away Biſhops livings, they ſhall take but from 26 men, to beſtow on hundreds of poor Clergy men; or on many thouſands of the poor Laiety: God will have mercy rather then ſacrifice, Mat. 12.7. God would rarher have the poor Clergy, and the Laiety provided for, then rich Biſhops, whoſe Office is ſuperfluous, and their great livings evilly beſtowed: If men would unpartially look into theſe, they might find it ſo.
For as their Office as Miniſters, they do not ſay Service in their Cathedrals, but others read for them; as for preaching in their Cathedrall it is, and ſtill may be ſo, if the State pleaſe by a Combination of Miniſters, as for their office of Ruling the Chanceler in his Conſiſtory, doth it for the Biſhop; and it may as well and better be done by the Magiſtrate; for point of hereſie, 10. or 12. Miniſters can judge as well as a Biſhop: ſo their office being ſuperfluous, to allow them 2000, or 3000 yearly is waſted, for other men do their work for them; me thinks therfore other men ſhould have their great livings divided among them; but it is in the power of a Parliament, to amend all this.
But it will be ſaid, if you take away Biſhops livings, you diſcountenance learning, and diſcourage young Students in the Univerſity: Anſwer, 1. None ſhall be diſcouraged, but ſuch as gape for a Biſhoprick; and as for ſuch Students, they are unfit to be Biſhops; for St Paul ſaith, a Biſhop muſt not be covetuous nor given to filthy lucre, 1 Tim. 3.3. and ſuch are they that ſtudy for learning, to obtain honour and gain by a Biſhopick; If ſuch men do not make uſe of their Biſhoprick when they have it to get honour and riches by it, they muſt faile of the end of their ſtudies: 2. Biſhops have been down in England neer 20 years, and yet learning flouriſheth in the Univerſities: 3. In Scotland, Holland and other Countries, where there are no Biſhops, yet learning flouriſheth: It is the love of God and learning, that makes a profitable preacher, not the love of honour and lucre by a Biſhoprick.
14 In this my 14. point, I ſhall propound four or five things more to be conſidered of.
1. For matter of juriſdiction, the Biſhops Chanceler, who is a Layman may exerciſe this Authority in his Conſiſtory as he doth, aſſiſted with two or three Miniſters; and then there ſhall be no need of a Biſhop; and why may not the Chanceler exercie this authority under the King, and for the King as well as under the Biſhop, and for a Biſhop? But if you deſire to hold this authority, in the line of the Clergy ſtill, then why may not every miniſter in his pariſh do it? who will do it without reward from the State, or why not by a Combination of 10. or 12. Miniſters, ruling over 10. or 20. Towns. But I judge it beſt, to have this authority in the hands of the Magiſtrate, for he is in offiee exerciſing juriſdiction already: So if you take away a needleſſe Biſhop, the State may ſave three or four thouſand pounds yearly for better uſe.
2. The Metropolitan or Archbiſhop, with other inferiour Biſhops do conſecrate, or make a new Biſhop: But why may not the King conſecrate, and make a new Biſhop, if it be neceſſary to have Biſhops, as well as the Metropolitan? For 1. ſure I am the King being the fountain of all juriſdiction in our Kingdom, he hath more right to confer his authority and juriſdiction to a new Biſhop then a Metropolitan hath; doth not the King create and make the Lord chief-Juſtice, and other Judges, and High-Sheriffs, who exerciſe juriſdiction? 2. Moſes did conſecrat Aron and his ſons, Ex. 29 1 &c. Now if Moſes did conſecrat the High-Prieſt, may not our King conſecrat an inferiour Biſhop? 3. Our Biſhops conſecration is a ſtrange thing to me; for our Archbiſhops being dead before theſe times, where is there a Metropolitan to create a new Biſhop.
3. When a Biſhop was made miniſter he was ordained not to rule but to preach; therfore when he is ordained a Biſhop, it is to rule, not to preach; unleſſe he be twice ordained to preach, which is abſurd, now to conſecrat or ordaine a Miniſter … in State or Church, what warrant is there for Archbiſhop … do it? doubtleſly Chriſt forbad it: Mat. 20.25, 26.
They ſay that Ordination and juriſdiction are two parts of a Biſhops office, and conferreth theſe two upon a Biſhop, at his conſecration: now the Archbiſhop have no right unto juriſdiction in himſelf, how can he then give it to another? can a man give what he hath not? The firſt news that I ever heard of an Archbiſhop, of a Deane, and a Chanceler, it came from the Popedom: This monſter was nurſed of old in Rome, and thence tranſlated into the Church of England; an Archbiſhop draws into the Church a multitude of inferiour officers under him, every one having a yearly living as much as would maintain an able Miniſter and all waſtfully ſpent for things might be better ordered; as to diſpoſe of their livings for the poor Laiety and to the poor Clergy to mend their livings. I ſee not but that we may have Abbots, and Cardinals, as well as Archbiſhops,, and a Pope over all; take in one of that Hierarchie, and take in all; reject one, and reject all and every one.
4 It is ſaid that State and Church have flouriſhed, for many hundred years, under and with the government of Biſhops: anſw. As for the State, it flouriſhed as well when we were Papiſts, as ſince: 2 The Act in Charles the firſt, and 17 yeare of his raign, complains of Biſhops then, for intermedling with ſecular juriſdiction, which occaſoned great miſchiefe in State and Church, and therefore diſinabled Biſhops to ſet in Parlament. As for the Church it hath flouriſhed many hundred year; but it were with Popery till a 100. years agone; and ſince it hath flouriſht with Popiſh ceremonies, and with Biſhops perſecutions, for Croſſe and Surplice; for not obſerving them, very many godly and conſtant preachers, of honeſt life and converſation, have been ſilenced, and their livings taken away.
5. I have before confuted Biſhops authority, to be jure Divino: and alſo to be jure humano: But then their is an occaſion which I have not wrot of: For Biſhops perhaps will ſay, we claim not juriſdiction from God, or from the King, but the exerciſe of it; and we have the Kings commiſſion to exerciſe our juriſdiction: anſw. 1. In Mat. 20.…5, 26. and 1. Pet. 5.2, 3. Chriſt forbad his Apoſtles to exerciſe authority: 2 If your Commiſſion be from the King, then he may give the like Commiſſion to a Lay man, as to a Magiſtrate? for the King is not bound to give Commiſſion only to the Clergy: 3. The office of preaching and ruling, as before I have proved, are inconſiſtent the one deſtroying the other, and therfore a Biſhop muſt not take or ſeek for a Commiſſion to rule or exerciſe authority.
Theſe things you have ſeen proved againſt Biſhops juriſdiction: 1. That Chriſt forbad it: 2. It is an uſurpation of the Magiſtrates office: 3. He makes himſelfe a Pope: 4. It is againſt our Covenant: 5. It cannot be proved by the Scripture: 6. If he rules he cannot preach: 7. His ruling is ſuperfluous, unjuſt, and partiall: 8 St Paul warns us to beware the traditions of men, which are not after Chriſt, Col. 2.8. Such are Archbiſhops, Deanes, Commiſſaries, Chancelers, &c. 9. Biſhops do not own the Kings authority in matters Eccleſiaſticall: 10. They rob the King of his ſupremacy.
Theſe things you have ſeen proved, againſt that other office of Biſhops, namely preaching: 1. If a Biſhop exerciſe juriſdiction; he muſt lay aſide his ordination to preach, and his office of preaching: 2. It is ſuperfluous for a Biſhop to preach as a Biſhop, as hath been proved. Then how can a Biſhop deſire 2. or 3 thouſands a year, for his pains taken in the Church; cannot this mony be better imployed.
By Theophilus Brabourn humbly ſubmitting to the wiſdom of this Honourable Parliament.
End of the text · Theophilus Brabourne, Sundry Particulars Concerning Bishops (1661)