A DEFENCE OF THE King's Authority AND SUPREMACY, In the Church & Church-Discipline. And that He is Supreme Head and Governor, 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 THEOPHILUS BRABOURNE.  Give unto Caesar, the things that are Caesar's. 
LONDON, Printed for the Author, and are to be sold by William Nowell, Bookseller in Norwich, 1660.   

A DEFENCE Of The KING'S SUPREMACY 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 King's 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 Chancellor, 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, than Bishops have lost all their authority, even the richest flower in their Garland,  
By the way note, that as the inferior Ministers rule with their Lay-Elders, so doth the Bishop with his Chancellor, 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 Caesar's: 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 ago, I took the Nationall Oath and Covenant, to be true and faithful 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 illegal and treacherous practices, 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, etc. In pursuance whereof I writ this little Treatise: holding myself bound in conscience to keep my Oath.  
But it will be said, the Parliament when they required this Oath was then illegal, the King being absent.  
I answer. Hence it follows, that my Oath was illegal, and binds not in the Common Law; but yet it binds in point of Divinity: For an Oath taken by force and fear, binds, as in the case of the Oath taken to the King of Babel, Ezek. 17.12, etc. 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 David's time, for the perjury of Saul before him, 2 Sam. 21.1, etc. We have sins enough in this Land to answer to God for: and shall we add wilful perjury to them, to provoke the Lord to wrath? God forbidden. Now I humbly beseech our honourable Parliament, to order things so, as those who have taken this Oath, which cannot be recalled, 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 spoke as he thought and desired: But had he lived to our days, 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 zeal, 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 painful and godly Ministers, of a good life and conversation, did they silence for nonobservance of these, and unmercifully deprived them of their live and livelihood, so as they were enforced to live upon Alms. So great was their persecution in those days, as they drove many hundreds of the King's Subjects out of the Kingdom, to plant themselves in a Wilderness: And how great was their tyranny in the High Commission Court at London, and their Chancellors 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 sat 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 cruel persecutions of the Bishops, whereof many in our days 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 ears, and cut his tail, 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 fear of Popery, and for fear they should be still under the tyranny of cruel Bishops; the which to conscientious men, was more intolerable than monthly Taxes, or illegal 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 man's brain: but I differ from him, and hold it to be an Ordinance of Christ, I only 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 task, and shall handle by sundry questions and answers thereunto drawing nearer and nearer unto it by little and little, until 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 Kingdom? Yea, to the King himself: 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 only, but the Laiety & Clergy both, not excluding, but including the Magistrate: For the Magistrate is not only a member of the Commonwealth, but also a member of the Church: He is an Ecclesiastical 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 Ecclesiastical: Wherefore you may not object against the Magistrate, saying, he may not meddle with Excommunication, because he is a Layman: For we must know, that the Magistrate is an Ecclesiastical person as well as the Minister.  
But you will say, the Minister is a Spiritual man, so is not the Magistrate. I answ. He is a spiritual man that minds spiritual 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 custom for many hundred years. Now I grant, that it hath been the custom 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 custom, would Bishops and Clergymen 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 than be above Bishops and Clergymen, 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 denial of the King's 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. Baptism is the door into the Church, and such as were baptised were entered into the Church, and admitted as members of the Church: Now John the Baptist, baptised 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, than their verbal profession, and yet he admitted them into the Church by baptism. 2. The 3000. converted and baptised by Peter, and so admitted into the Church, he could know no more of them then their external profession, by submission to his baptism, 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 Peter know this; save by their words; and submission to his baptism? both which were external: The Text saith, vers. 45. they sold their possessions to give to the poor, yet Ananias was a liar, Acts 5.1, etc. 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 external profession. Simon the Sorcerer was baptised, and so made a member of the Church, Acts 8.13. and Judas was a member of Christ's 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 month's trial, etc. but this is after the doctrine and commandments 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 Ecclesiastical person, as well as a Minister: Let none therefore say, he is a Layman, 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 only an Elder and Ruler of the Commonwealth, but also of the Church: this later I thus prove.  
These called the Elders and Rulers of the people of this Commonwealth, 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, etc. 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 suitable 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 Bishop's Chancellor, or the Minister's Elders, may punish with Excommunication; why may not the Magistrate do so too? though you call him a Layman.  
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, signifieth a Congregation, or an Assembly of people, Acts 7.38. Acts 19.32, 39, 41. Now the Magistrate and people in the Senate-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 Laws.  
The Magistrate's 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 Chancellors or Bishop's 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 denial of the King's 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 Bishop's Chancellor 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 fundamental doctrines, being none are such, but only 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 pass censure, is still in the Magistrate, as you may read, Deut. 17.8, 9, 10, 11.  
As for points disputable, not clearly 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 only with sins clearly revealed to be sins, as incest, 1 Cor. 5.1, etc. and by like reason, swearing, drunkenness, and the like.  
Whereas I said, the Magistrate may take the advice of the Minister, etc. I mean his advice in a fundamental doctrine, which is very clearly a sin in Scripture; for else he may give wicked advice: But as for a doubtful and disputable controversy, wherein Scripture is alleged on both sides, it is not safe for the Magistrate to condemn either side upon advice of the Minister: for a Church may err, a Council may err, and 10. or 12. Ministers may err too. Suppose therefore a point comes before the Magistrate, which commonly is holden to be an error or heresy, where will the Magistrate find 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 advice for their own opinion? and than they will be incompetent and partial Judges: Do you think, they will justify the accused party, and condemn themselves? I dare say it, that all the Bishops in England, will 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 error or heresy, 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 risen.  
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 Kingdom, and then by the Scripture.  
1. The Laws of our Kingdom, do give unto our King this just and Royal title, to be supreme Head under Christ, over all persons, and in all causes Ecclesiastical or spiritual: 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 Governors over the Church, and in Church-matters, 2 Chron. 31.2. & 1 Chron. 16.7. & 2 Chron. 35.1, etc. 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 days, though we have many Magistrates of high authority, yet none of them can or will challenge the supremacy, but the King only.  
3. See a pregnant Text for it, 1 Pet. 2.13. Submit yourselves, etc. unto the King, as unto the supreme. So supremacy is the King's 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 King's supremacy?  
Quest. 7. Doth the punishment of Excommunication belong to the office of a Bishop and his Chancellor: or to the Minister and his Lay-Elders?  
I answer negatively: This office belongs not to any Lay-Elder, who is not a Magistrate of the Commonwealth: nor to any Chancellor, who is a Layman, 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 lies 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 evil, 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 corporal and spiritual 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 magistratical authority, and we daily see Magistrates exercising this authority. Now for Bishops to use these several acts in their Consistory, 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 Diocese, 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 forbade 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 God's heritage, 1 Pet. 5.3. Now for a Bishop to punish with the Rod of Excommunication, 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 Bishop's Chancellor meddle in it? for he is a Layman: and why do the Minister's Elders meddle in it? for these are Laymen.  
2. If the Bishop will punish some sins by Excommunication, as Adultery, than he must punish all sins with Excommunication; for if he doth not, he is partial 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 traitor, and every murderer 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 spiritual punishment.  
3. The Magistrate punisheth in his Court, the adulterer, drunkard, swearer, etc. Now the Bishop and his Chancellor, 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 intolerable, and apt to make men run mad, to be trounced from the Magistrates Court, unto the Bishop's Consistory, for one crime, to be twice examined in several 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 punished before by the Magistrate: this is intolerable.  
To avoid this mischief, either let the Magistrate do all acts of authority and justice, without the Bishop: or let the Bishop and his Chancellor, do all acts of authority and justice, in things Civil and Ecclesiastical, without the Magistrate; For to have two such Magistrates, a corporal, and a spiritual, or a Civil, and an Ecclesiastical, 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, than 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 mark of Antichrist, is to exalt himself above all that is called God, 2 Thes. 2.4. And the Magistrate is called God, Psal. 82.6. If therefore a Bishop doth pass sentence upon a Magistrate, he makes himself Antichrist.  
Quest. 8. Is excommunication a spiritual 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 reign over the souls of the people, leaving the bodies and fleshly carcases for Kings to Reign over, than he stifled them with this Dose; that Excommunication is no corporal but a spiritual punishment, and suitable to his spiritual 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 Ecclesiastical person, and a spiritual 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 spiritual men as Bishops: and therefore Magistrates are as fit to exercise the spiritual discipline of Excommunication as a Bishop: this I thus prove.  
1. If a Bishops Chancelleour who is a Layman, or the Lay-Elders of Ministers, may meddle in spiritual Excommunication, than a Magistrate may do so too, though you call him a Layman.  
2. That Excommunication, if it be a spiritual punishment, yet it is in the power of the Magistrate, it is clear, Ezra 10.3, 7, 8. 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 spiritual office of Priesthood: which degradation was a spiritual punishment, 1 King. 2.27. as his office was a spiritual blessing.  
4. If Excommunication be a spiritual 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 show what, and how the Magistrate is to act in this his office: when he hath summoned into his Court the Adulterer, Swearer, Drunkard, etc. and hath examined him, and witnesses against him, and hath convicted him as guilty of punishment, than he is to pass sentence on him publicly in Court, to suffer such punishment as is suitable to his sin: and if the Magistrate judgeth Excommunication to be more suitable than any other punishment, than he is to denounce the sentence thereof upon the offender: And this done, than 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 threatened 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 spiritual office, which was a spiritual punishment, 1 King. 2.27. Now if Kings and Magistrates will imitate Solomon, than they must excommunicate scandalous persons: Solomon put off the Priest from meddling in holy things, so should Magistrates cut off scandalous sinners from the communion of Saints at the Lords Table, and from meddling with these holy things.  
4. If the Magistrate may command spiritual duties, than he may inflict spiritual 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 compel, is but an image or scarecrow: 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 spiritual 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 evil, Rom. 13.4. Wherefore the censure of Excom. upon the scandalous sinner, belongs to the office of the Magistrate.  
6. The several acts of authority used in Excom. belongs to magistratical 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 Magistrate's office.  
Quest. 10. Do Bishops divest 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 Magistrate's authority, he usurps the King's authority, for the Magistrates authority is the Kings: and he that usurps the King's authority in causes Ecclesiastical, he denies and devests the King of his supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical: For if you deny him authority, you divest 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 rob of it by the way, not only the servant is rob, 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 King's authority, with it he takes the King's superiority and supremacy in Ecclesiasticals.  
But Bishops will say, they had the King's Commission for it: and the King gave them this authority. But say I, Christ forbade 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 King's afore-time, gave their authority to Bishops, but they got this gift by fraud: For the Pope persuaded 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 than can be proved. Besides, Christ forbade the Pope and Bishops to exercise Lordly authority, Mat. 20.25. & 1 Pet. 5.3. Now as the Pope, so did those Bishops falsely 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 King's head by force: and thus Bishops got away those Kings regal authority in the Church by fraud and subtlety: 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 loyal Subject, to see his Kings just and Royal prerogative, wrested out of his hands by the wit of Bishops?  
In King Henry 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 praemunire, which cost them 100000. pounds. The Bishops in those days could not by flattery and subtlety persuade the King and his Council, that St. Peter's keys did hang on the Pope's 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 Peter's 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 than 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 Ecclesiastical; for they say, they have an immediate commission from Christ: If so, their commission from the King must be an inferior 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 peasant: God is no respecter of persons, a Bishop must not be partial. Now if a King be subject to a Bishop's Court, and the Bishops there sits as Lord and Judge over him, where is the King's 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 Peter's keys, 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 King's supremacy?  
4. There is a secret design of Bishops for supremacy, for they writ and say Church and State: Now though common people regard not which end goes forward, yet Bishops do: for they do not only write so, and speak so, but will have others to speak so too: myself 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, than they aim at the King's supremacy, for he is a Statesman, 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 King's supremacy, yet underhand, they aim 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 King's priority, superiority, and supremacy? Also they use to say, Lords spiritual and Lords temporal.  
Quest. 11. Are Ministers capable of a Bishopric, 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 Bishopric.  
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 Timothy 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 year, sometimes twice, sometimes not once. Bishops have ever been Ministers, but never Preachers: they have been the Drink ● in the ●ive, the 〈◊〉 in God's Vineyard, & those that have hidden their Talon 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 sat at the beginning of the long parliament, though I cannot call them legal, the King being absent, yet I look upon them, as an Assembly of the wise men of our Kingdom: and those judged it good for the Church to root our Bishops, Archbishops, Deans, Chancellors, etc. and these wise men were eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses, and had too long an experience of Bishop's miscarriages, the which our young days 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 Pope's inventions, until 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 Desk, to be clad in white, and in the Pulpit to be clad in black, as if God were pleased with such toys: 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 Bishop's cruel persecution, silencing and depriving of livelihood, very many godly and painful 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 King's 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 Bishop's Ceremonies are Popish, and now I shall prove it, by showing their affinity to the Pope.  
1. The Pope of Rome is a Clergyman, 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, prebend's, 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 Archbishop, 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, than they came trapped with their popish vestments. Bishops had high Altars in their Chapels, and wax Candles thereon unlighted, a fit Emblem 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, unless on Christmas day in the forenoon.  
7. The Pope was a cruel persecuter of godly protestants: so were these Bishops of many godly painful 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 eat) and they unmercifully deprived them of their Live and livelihood, so as the Minister, his wife and children were enforced to live upon Almsdeeds.  
8. Bishop Wren, whilst Bishop in Norwich, forbade the Ministers in his Diocese, 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, etc. but the Minister was not suffered to put up one petition to God, for the King, or for the sick. If this be according to the 55 Canon, than 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, Wax Candles, Rails before the high Altar, bowings towards the high Altar, Saints days, standing up at the Creed, with others like. Bishops said, these Ceremonies were innocent and decent things: but they have been defiled 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 nearly allied, 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, Chancellors, etc. nor of a Cross in the air on an Infants fore head, nor of Surplices, Hood, and Tippet, nor Copes, Wax-candles, Rails, etc. 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 Bishop's Divine Service in Cathedral 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 Chancellors, etc. and being such loiterers in God's Vineyard, and hiding their talon of light in a close Lantern; 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 College of lazy persons; but that which hindered 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 means to pacify 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 all, until 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,  

A word or two of false Translations.  
I Do find, by reading of learned Expositors on the Bible, that many words and Texts concerning the blessed Trinity, are falsely translated: I hold it my duty, no longer to conceal it, but to make it known, that it may come to the knowledge of the King and Parl. who I hope will take it into consideration, and in due time see that it be amended: And for a taste, I will give you some of the Texts, and shall be ready to show many more.  
1. See Eccl. 12.1. Remember thy Creators: so it is plurally in the Hebr. Text, as if there were more than one Creator of the World: And St. Paul said, God created all things by Jesus Christ, Ephes. 3.9. But it is falsely translated Creator singularly, as if there were but one.  
2. See Psal. 149.2. Let Israel rejoice in his makers: so it is plurally in the Hebr. Text, as if there were two or three makers of the world: And St. Paul said, God made the world by his son, Heb. 1.1, 2. But it is falsely translated Maker, or Him that made; as if there were but one.  
3. See Gen 1.2. The spirit of the Gods moved on the waters: so it is plurally in the Hebrew; as if there were two or 3 Gods: But it is falsely translated God singularly, as if there were but one God.  
4. See Ephes. 2.12. And ye were without Gods in the world: so it is in the Greek Text plurally, as if there were more than one God in the Trinity: But it is falsely translated God singularly, as if there were but one God in the Trinity.  
5. See Gen. 20.13. When the Gods, they caused me to wander: so it is in the Heb. Text plurally, both noun and verb are plural, as if there were two or three Gods in the Trinity. Genes. 3.22. The man is become like one of us. but it is falsely translated singularly, both in the noun and verb, as God caused me: as if there were but one God in the Trinity.  
6. See Gen. 35.7. The Gods, they appeared unto him. So it is plurally in the Hebr. Text, both the noun and verb are plural: as if there were two or three Gods, as God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Ghost: But it is falsely translated, both in in the noun and verb singularly, as God appeared: as if there were but one God in the Trinity.  
The Church saith, there is but one God: Now Translators, unfaithfully to maintain the Doctrine of the Church, translate falsely, to draw Scripture to the Church: but like honest men, they should translate word for word, number for number, to draw the Church to the Scriptures.   
FINIS.   

A Postscript, further proving, that Bishops usurp the King's Authority, and divest him of his Supremacy.  
THe King is the Fountain of all Authority and Jurisdiction: and whosoever exercises Jurisdiction in this Kingdom, wtthout authority from the King, they usurp the King's authority, and make void his supremacy; and this Bishops do: For  
1. There are two essential parts of a Bishop's office as they hold, Ordination and Jurisdiction. Now they lay as much claim to the power of Jurisdiction, as to Ordination, and receive them both from the same hand and Donor: As the one therefore is from God, not from the King, so is the other, even both from one and the same Donor, but neither of them from the King. 2. a Bishop is created, by his Metropolitan and other Bishops, who by Imposition of their hands, do confer upon him as from God, the office of jurisdiction as they say, now this Office is not derived from the King, nor can be: for the King doth not lay hands on the Bishop created. 3. Bishops claim their authority and jurisdiction in the Church, from Peter's Keys Mat. 16.19. but not from the King, for Peter's Keys were not delivered to Kings or lay persons, but to the Clergy. 4. All this Bishops confessed in their writings, concerning this similitude, the patron gives the Benefice or Living to the Incumbent, but the Bishop gives him his orders; so the King gives the Bishopric to the Bishop, that is his large maintenance of 2 or 3000. a year, but God gives him his Office, and makes him a Bishop: so than a Bishop doth derive his Office of jurisdiction from the King. 5. Bishops in disputation say their Office is Ius Divinum: so than they own not the King's Authority in Ecclesiasticals: for this is Ius Humanum.  
From the premises it is clear, 1. That Bishops have and exercise as high Authority in the Church, os the King hath in the Common Wealth: how then can the King be solely next under Christ? yea, the Bishops have the sole authority in the Church, but the King hath none at all: where is then the King's authority, superiority, and supremacy in Ecclesiasticals? the Bishops have all authority from God, in themselves: they derive none from the King: wherefore they own not the King's authority, sovereignty, superiority, nor supremacy: no more than Papists do.  
True it is, that Bishops pray for the King as supreme, and use their authority in his name: but for all this, as you have seen they do not own his authority, but deny it: they do but dissemble: for when they speak really and cordially, they reject his authority: but when they intent to flatter, then in words, they pray for the King as supreme, Those Exorcists, Act 19.13. did name over those that had evil spirits, the name of the Lord Jesus: but had no authority so to do, and their end was evil: so Bishops, use the name of the King and his authority: but have no authority from the King so to do as you have seen proved: wherefore they usurp his authority: and their end therefore cannot be good.  

Two or three things added to my postscript, further proving that Bishops were Popish.  
SInce my former writings, a book came to my hands, entitled, Reasons for the necessity of a reformation in Discipline etc. Wherein I note besides others, 2 things: and I shall add a third.  
1. That Bishops have foisted into the Book of Common Prayer many Apochriphal Scriptures, which by the Law ought to be read in Churches: and which worse is, they have rejected 100 Chapters of the sacred Canonical Scriptures, and placed 100 Chapters instead of them, of Apocryphal Scriptures: Oh abominable fact! do they deserve the name of protestant Bishops, who Pope-like, make Apochryphas Scriptures, of equal authority with the Holy word of God? was it not high time for the long Parliament to root them out?  
2. In the Litany of old, there was this Protestant prayer from the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities, Good Lord deliver us, but in our books of Service, afterwards printed, this prayer was rejected by Bishops, and not one word of it, were not those Bishops think you, greater friends to Papists than to Protestants? for they would not suffer us to pray against Popery.  
3. About 50 years ago, Bishops persecuted many godly and painful Ministers for the Cross and Surplice, but within about 20. year after, what a troop of popish ceremonies more did they pester our Church withal? then they brought in 1. High Altars 2. The second service at the high Altar. 3. Bowings and cringing towards the East and the high Altar. 4, Wax Candles on the high Altar in Bishop's Chapels. 5. Rails before the high Altar. 6. the Sacrament was denied to those that refused to come up to the high Altar for it: I cannot remember all their trinkets 100 Apochriphal Chapters instead of 100 Canonical Chapters. 8. No prayers to be made for the King in pulpit. 9 That the prayer in the Litany, against popery, must no more be used. All these have sprung up long since my time: and had not the long Parliament prevented it, by rooting out Bishops, we may fear that by this time or not long hence, England would have been another Rome. Judge I pray by these particulars, whether that was true or not, which I wrote at the beginning of this Book saying, not only Bishop's tyranny, but also the fear of popery, caused thousands of the people to desert the King, at the beginning of the unhappy war. Those that had eyes in their heads might easily see what a crew of Popish Bishops we had: for my part I never look to see them better, unless for a month or two or so long as our Gracitious King live: who I believe will awe them for his time: but what shall become of us afterward?   
FINIS.