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,

By 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.

2. 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 [Page 4] of 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 onely 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 onely, but the Laiety & Clergy both, not excluding, but including the Magistrate: For the Magistrate is not onely 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 [Page 5] the 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 [Page 6] Peter 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 onely 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.

Answ. 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?

I 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 onely 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 onely 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 [Page 9] condemn 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 onely.

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, [Page 10] who 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, [Page 11] it 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 [Page 12] and 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. [Page 13] where 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 [Page 14] office, 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: [Page 15] For 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 onely 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.

2. 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 [Page 17] they do not onely 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 [Page 18] have 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.

3. 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 [Page 20] with 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 [Page 21] all, 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,