SUNDRY Particulars Concerning BISHOPS, Humbly offered to the consideration of this Honourable PARLIAMENT. C P ICH DIEN Printed for the Author, and are to be sold by William Nowell Bookseller in Norwich, 1661. Against Bishops holding their Office, Jure Divino from God. FIrst, Christ hath forbidden his Apostles, and in them all Ministers and Bishops, to exercise jurisdiction; as is proved in my book of Defence of the King's Supremacy; and as you may read in Mat. 20.25, 26. and 1. Pet. 5.2, 3. 2. If a Bishop exercise jurisdiction, as he doth in his Consistory, than he usurpeth the Magistrate's authority; which is contrary to the will of God: as is proved in my book of the King's Supremacy. 3. Whilst a Bishop take upon him the Office of jurisdiction in his Consistory, and summoneth and censureth any Magistrate, he makes himself a Pope or an Antichrist; for he exalts himself above the Magistrate, 2. Thes. 2.4. who is called God, Psa. 82.6. which is a brand of Antichrist. 4. It is against our public Oath and Covenant, to maintain Bishops; and will Bishops be so wicked as to force us to be forsworn, by compelling us to subjection unto them, and their jurisdiction? 5 Bishops cannot prove by the Scripture, that Christ hath left them any jurisdiction; and for them to prove it by humane Records to have been very ancient, 1500. years as they say: this is no Divine authority, or no better than Apocryphal Scripture; which are not admitted to prove any point of Divinity, or no better than an Ordinance of Men, for a tradition received from our Fathers: the Church or fifteen hundred years, of which were the Churches of the Pope for many hundred years: now Christ reproves the Scribes and Pharisees, for walking after the tradition of the Fathers or Elders, Mark. 7.2, 3, 4, 7, 8. and St. Paul warns us to beware of the traditions of Men, which are not after Christ, Col. 2.8. and such are the traditions of Bishops; for they can plead no authority from Christ, but from Men. And further what Scripture have they for Archbishops, Deans, Chapters, Presbends, etc. It is not meet to have so many, and so great Offices, and Officers in the Church, which were never appointed by Christ. 6. If a Bishop take upon him the Office of Ruling, he must renounce his office of Preaching; as shall be proved by and by. 7. If a Bishop shall exercise jurisdiction, he shall hold two Offices, which are inconsistent, the one destroying the other; as shall be proved by and by in my next point. 8. Being the Magistrate punisheth all crimes, both in Laiety and Clergy, it is merely superfluous for a Bishop to exercise jurisdiction; as shall be proved by and by. 9 Being the Magistrate punisheth all crimes, with a full and sufficient punishment, it is unjust for a Bishop to punish also; as shall be proved by and by. 10. A Bishop will be a Magistrate in and of the Church and exercise jurisdiction, and yet hath but one kind of punishment, as that of Excommunication for all sins greater and lesser, but one Last for every foot, which is too great for some, and too little for others; as shall be proved. 11 If a Bishop exercises jurisdiction, he will be exceedingly partial and unjust, punishing two or three sins, letting all other go scotfree, etc. 12 A Bishop exercsiing jurisdiction, doth usurp the Office of the Magistrate, as is proved in my book of the King's Prerogative; and he doth divest and rob the King of his Supremacy; as is proved in the same book. 13. Men say Bishops have a Commission from the King. But how can this be? for they own not the King's Authority, having an higher Commission from God: If their jurisdiction be Jus Divinum of God, than it is not jus Humanum of the King: Now Bishops do not own jus Humanum; if then their office be not of the King, how can he give a Commission to that thing wherein he hath no right? a man cannot give an house or land, unless he first have a right himself in them. Against Bishop's holding their Office jure Humano from the King, and if they relinquish their jus Divinum, and derive their Authority from the King, then quere if it be not more safe to put jurisdiction into the hands of the Magistrate, then of the Bishops: for this, FIrst, if the King would give the Office of jurisdiction unto a Bishop, yet he may not take and exercise it; because Christ hath forbidden it, Mat. 20 25. and 1 Pet. 5 3. And further in my book for the King's Supremacy, I have proved by many arguments, that jurisdiction belongs to the Magistrate, but none to a Bishop or Minister; wherefore it is Lawful in a Magistrate, but sinful in a Bishop to use jurisdiction. 2 If a Bishop would derive his Authority from the King, yet it is against our public Oath and Covenant to maintain Bishops; and will Bishops be so wicked, as to force us to be forsworn, by compelling us unto subjection unto them, and to their jurisdiction. What a dreadful account shall Bishops have to make to God, who for lucre, gain, and honour, will force many thousands to live in the sin of perjury, all their lives long? Is it not better then for the King and Parliament to put all jurisdiction into the hands of the Magistrate, whom we can cheerfully and with a quiet conscience obey, then into the hands of a Bishop: whom we cannot obey with a good conscience. 3 If a Bishop take upon him the Office of jurisdiction from the K. then he makes himself a Pope or Antichrist; for by summoning & censuring any Magistrate in his Consistory, he exalts himself above one that is called God, 2 Thes. 2 4. Ps. 8 26. Now it is better to make the King a Ruler over the Church, and the Magistrate under him, then to make the Bishop a Pope. 4 If a Bishop take upon him the Office of jurisdiction from the King, than he must disclaim and renounce his former Title and Office of jus Divinum, and also his right to St Peter's Keys, with all other Scriptures, alleged to prove their Divine right to a Bishopric; and must be content with an humane right from the King. To hold their Commission from God, and the King both; as to say, it is of God, and by the King, this cannot be: for 1. To hold their Commission from God, it is false Divinity, as is proved in my book of the King's Supremacy: and further I say, Bishops cannot prove by the Scripture that their Office of jurisdiction is of God as shall appear by & by. 2 It is against the Honour of the King, by denying his Supremacy, as is proved in my book. 3 If they hold a Commission from God & the K. both, than the King's Commission must be the inferior Commission: for their Commission from God is higher than their Commission which they have from the King: now it cannot stand with the Honour of the King and his Supremacy, to make his Commission an inferior Commission: for how then can they be Superior or next under Christ? Supremacy doubtless goes with the higher Commission not with the lower: 4 If they hold from God and the King both, yet they hold two Offices, of Preaching and Ruling which are inconsistent, the one destroying the other; and that of Ruling is, 1 Superfluous, 2 Unjust, 3 Exceedingly Partial, 4 The Bishop must lay aside his Office of Preaching; all which shall be proved by and by. 5 If a Bishop take a Commission from the King, to exercise jurisdiction, though he was Ordained a Minister to Preach, yet he must lay aside, and renounce his Ordination, and Office of Preaching, that he may so attend to his Office of Ruling; for Queen Elizabeth said, that when she went about to make a Bishop, she was going to stop a Preachers mouth, and our experience for fifty or sixty years confirms it; for they Preached not above one, two, or three Sermons in an year, and sometimes not once in a year. And indeed, these two Offices to Preach and to Rule are inconsistent, and cannot be well managed by any one man, as shall appear by and by. 6 Yea the Bishop must not only lay aside his Office of Preaching; but I say further, that his Office of Preaching is merely superfluous, to Preach as a Bishop of a Diocese, if he would be a preacher to a particular Congregation, there might be good use of him, but none as a Bishop: for 1 He hath no particular flocks to feed, or Congregation to preach unto: for every Congregation hath a Minister of their own to Preach unto them; nor is it possible for him to Preach to every Parish in his Diocese. 2 If he will make his Cathedral Church to be his particular flock, yet there his preaching is also superfluous: For first, Cathedral Churches are in Cities: Now in Cities there are many Parishes and Ministers; and if people repair every one to his own Minister, what need is there but of one Sermon in a day, at the Cathedral? 2 The Cathedral, is supplied for a single Sermon, once in the Sunday Morning, not by the Bishop, but by a Combination of Ministers, chosen out of the Diocese: and so it may be still continued, if there be necessity for a Sermon in the Cathedral: and then the Bishop's Sermon will be superfluous, though he would preach every Sunday once. Now let it be taken into consideration, if it be not a lavish and superfluous reward, to allow a Bishop two or three thousands a year, for his preaching, when as it is superfluous: or if he should preach fifty Sermons in a year, is not two thousand a lavish reward? for he hath a thousand pound for a Sermon if he preach but twice or thrice in a year: or about fifty pounds, if the preach fifty Sermons in a year. But it will be said, he Ruleth also, answer, but 1 He Ruleth partially, 2 He holeth two Offices inconsistent, 3 He usurps, 4 Christ forbade it, and so he deserves no reward for Ruling. 7. Yet further, 1 we ought by God's word, to have Liberty of Conscience, as I have proved in my book of this Title. 2. the King out of his gracious compassion to tender Consciences hath proffered it, in his Declarations more than once; now, hence it follows, that the Office of jurisdiction in a Bishop is needless and useless. For first Bishops were wont to persecute and punish Conscientious men for refusing the Cross and Surplice, and for working on the Popish Holidays, etc. but if we have Liberty of Conscience the learned Bish. must spare his wicked persecution: there will be no need of a Bishop's jurisdiction: 2. There are many controversal points about Religion in our Church, which being points disputable, ought not to be punished by the Bishop, as I have proved in my book of Liberty of Conscience; and therefore there is no need of a Bishop's jurisdiction: 3. For matter of Heresy, being it is only in fundamentals: & every thing about a fundamental is not fundamental, but something may be disputable; such points should not be punished by the Bishop because they are disputable, and therefore there is no need of a Bishop's jurisdiction: 4. I hold no point for fundamental, but such as is clearly laid down in Scripture: Now where will you find a Christian to deny such a point, and therefore no need of a Bishop's jurisdiction to punish it. But suppose there be found one or two such Heretics in our whole Kingdom, what necessity is there for every Bishop in the Kingdom to have two or three thousand a year, to punish that one Heretic who lives but in the Diocese of one Bishop? May not ten or twelve Ministers be appointed for this end in every Diocese? and so save that money. So you still see, it is needless to have a Bishop use jurisdiction. 8. Yet again, being the Magistrate punisheth all matter of fact, as Adultery, Murder, Robbery, Drunkenness, and many others: There is no need at all for a Bishop's jurisdiction, to punish Adultery with Excommunication; shall Adultery be twice punished? once by the Magistrate, and then again by the Bishop? this is double punishment for a single sin, which is injustice, wherefore a Bishop's jurisdiction is superfluous. But it will be said that Heresy is no matter of fact, but of opinion, and therefore the Bishop must punish it: I answer, the Magistrate must punish it, not the Bishop: for the Bishops deliver the Heretic over to the Secular Power for punishment; wherefore jurisdiction is superfluous in a Bishop. And further being the Magistrate punishes all manner of sins, with a full and sufficient punishment, suitable to the demerits of the sin, it must be an act of injustice in a Bishop to punish any with Excommunication afterward: it is an act of justice in a Magistrate to punish sins, but it is an act of injustice and a sinful act in a Bishop to punish any; and therefore a Bishop's jurisdiction is needless. 9 A Bishop will be a Magistrate in the Church, to punish scandalous sins, and yet hath but one salve for every sore, and but one Last for every foot, the which is too big for some feet, and too little for many: He hath but that one punishment of Excommunication for all manner of sins, for the least and for the greatest: Adultery, and Fornication, the one of these greater, the other lesser, and the Bishop punisheth both alike with Excommunication: For a man to commit Adultery, and for a Minister to refuse the Cross and Surplice, or for people to work or to open a shop on a Popish Holiday: though these latter be no sins, yet the Bishop punisheth all these alike with Excommunication, what abominable injustice is this? Yet further is Excommunication a punishment great enough for the most horrid blasphemy against God? 1. For a son to kill his Father, or a Subject to murder his King? The Magistrate hath variety of punishments, some greater some lesser, suitable to every sin and sinner: and therefore it is better to put the Office of authority and jurisdiction, into the hands of the Magistrate, then of a Bishop. 10. If a Bishop exercise jurisdiction, he will be exceedingly partial and unjust in his Office, punishing one or two sins, letting all others go scotfree: For the Bishop in the Consistory punisheth Adultery and Fornication with Excommunication, but let's go scotfree, the Thief, Murderer, Traitor; the Swearer, and Perjured person; the Drunkard, the disobedient to Magistrates, Masters, and Parents; him that wounds, strikes, or beats his neighbour, defames him in his good name, by slanderous words: him that breaks his neighbour's fence, feeds his grass, and destroys his corn; that strikes, and Iames, or kills his horse or other , and very many more: Now are not all these sins, as well as Adultery and Fornication? why should a Bishop be so partial and unrighteous, as for to Excommunicate for one or two sins, & not to Excommunicate for many other sins? Is it not better therefore that the King and Parliament, put all authority and jurisdiction, into the hands of the Magistrate, who is not partial, but doth and can punish all sins, then into the hands of a partial Bishop, who doth punish but two or three sins and sinners? 11. If a Bishop exerciseth jurisdiction, he shall hold two Offices, Magistracy, and Ministry, which are inconsistent the one destroying the other: For first, look upon all Ministers in the Kingdom, who have Pastoral Charges, and they will confess that they find work enough to study the six days against Sunday, and then to Preach, to administer the two Sacraments, to bury the dead, to visit the sick, and to reconcile his parishioners at variance: the Office of a Ministry alone, requireth the whole Man. 2. So doth the Office of Magistracy in a Bishop, for he is to exercise jurisdiction over a thousand Ministers and Towns: And so this is more than he can do alone; for he must have his chancellor, and I know not how many Officers more to assist him: so you see the two Offices of Magistracy and Ministry are inconsistent: because each one requireth the whole man; and to jumble them together, in the hands of one man, the one destroys the other. These two great Ordinances and Offices of Magistracy and Ministry have ever been distinct, the one in the hands of the Laiety, the other in the hands of the Clergy, save where the Pope hath put in his foot: It is a confusion of Order and Office, for a Bishop to Rule and Preach both; as it is for the Lord-Chiefe-Justice, to Rule and Preach also. An Act was made 1640. In the reign of Charles the first, to disinable Bishops for sitting in Parliament: upon this ground, that Bishops ought not to be entangled with jurisdiction: the Office of the Ministry, being of such great importance, that it will take up the whole man: Now is not this reason as strong against a Bishop's jurisdiction in our days, as it was in the days of King Charles the first? It was the Pope that introducted this confusion of distinct Offices, out of lucre, and gain, and desire to domineer over the Laiety: He hatched or nursed if up this Monster, this; Babel of confusion; which as there were two suns in the Firmament, or two Kings in England, a Corporal King, and Spiritual King, or one King over the Commonwealth, and another King over the Church: Is it not better then to make the Bishop a Preacher only, and the Magistrate a Ruler over all? For as you have seen proved, whilst a Bishop holds these two Offices of Preaching and Ruling, his Preaching as a Bishop is superfluous, and his Ruling as a Magistrate is superfluous also, unjust and partial. 12. If a Bishop take his Commission, to exercise jurisdiction, from the King, than his Authority is jus Humanum: and then the King with his Parliament, may order Bishops at his will and pleasure: He may make ten or twenty Bishops in his Diocese, or every Minister in his Town or Parish a Bishop; in difficult causes to order ten or twelve Ministers to determine it. 2. The King may have all done freely without reward for he hath under him many Magistrates, as High-Sheriffs, Majors, and Justices of the peace, who exercise jurisdiction freely without reward; and why should a Bishop require more for exercise jurisdiction in the Church? Spiritual men should be farthest off from desire of lucre and gain. No doubt but the King may find in every Diocese Ministers enough, who are grave, sober, meek, learned and pious, who will take up their Office without lucre, and gain. These things considered, no doubt but Bishops will renounce jus Humanum, a Commission from the King; and will have their Office to be jus Divinum from God: but against this I have already said enough, yet for further satisfaction, I will in brief answer their Texts. 1 They plead Peter's two keys, the one for their jurisdiction: Answ. The one may be the key to open heaven's gate to the penitent: the other key, may be to lock out the impenitent: and so there is not a third key for jurisdiction. 2. They plead the name Bishop, supposing more to be in the name, then in the thing: Answ. 1. The name Bishop in Scripture, is given to every Minister, see Act. 20. 17, 28. those called Elders, ver. 17. are called Bishops in the Greek text, v. 28. see to the like purpose, Tit. 1.5.7. and see 1 Pet. 5.1, 2. it is Elders in v. 1. and Bishops in the Greek Text, v. 2. Secondly, the name Bishop doth not employ any Lordly Superiority, and domineering jurisdiction, of one Minister over another: This I deny, and must see it proved, before I grant it: 2 It cannot be proved, for Christ forbade it, Mat. 20 85 and 1 Pet: 5 3. 3 They plead the Honourable title of Angel given to Bishops, Rev. 2 1: Answer, 1 I may marvel why Bishops would cause the word to be translated Angel, rather than Messenger: for so it is translated, Luke 7 24. and james 2 25. beside the word should be translated Angel, when it is understood of a Spirit, but not so when it is understood of a man, as it is in the text Rev. 2 1: But Bishops in those days, being cock sure, that this honourable title of Angel, must be applied to them, caused the word to be translated Angel, that so their excellency might be admired among the vulgar sort, and so they were when a Bishop in the Cathedral, sat in the chair of State adorned with his Rochet, and pure white Surplice, and sleves, the people did behold him as an Angel of Light: There is an Angel of Light, and Angel of darkness, but those Bishops were not Light: For they gave no Light in the Pulpit all the year long, unless of Christmas day, Easter day or Whit-Sunday in the forenoon: 2. The word being translated Messenger, as it ought to be, it doth not employ any jurisdiction of one Messenger or Preacher over an other; but only a supper excellency of gifts and utterance, as that he was the best or chief Preacher or speaker; like as Paul was called the chief speaker, Act. 14.12. 4. They plead, Heb. 13.17. Obey those that have the over sight of you; Answ. There is a magistratical obedience, and a Ministerial obedience: Now this latter may be understood of obedience to the Faith, Rom. 6.17. Rom. 10, 16. Rom. 15.18. Heb. 3. 18, 19 But it may not be understood of Magistracial obedience; for if so, the Clergy may hang and draw: whip, and brand men. 5 They plead the postscript, in 2. Tim. 4. Where it is said Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus; and that in Tit. 3. Where it is said, Titus was Bishop of Crect. But these postscripts come too late, to do Bishops any good; for they are no Canonical Scripture, but foisted into our Bibles of late: I have by me an old Bible printed a 120, years ago, and there is not any word of these two postscripts; beside the learneder Papists deny them, and say, somethings in postscripts are false: Why then should learned Protestant Bishops own them? 6 When Bishops are beaten out of play by the Scriptures, they fly to Antiquities, that Popish plea, and plead the the Records of the Church, that there hath been Bishops in the Church 1500, years: Answ 1 It seems by what they say, that they find no such record for above 100, year after Christ, when the Church was more pure: 2 Of this 1500, years whereof they boast, many hundred years were Popish: 3 Why do Bishops, allege the Records of the Church long since Christ, would they have us pin our faith on humane Histories, and make them equal to Scripture? and do not they know that a Church may err? and that the Churches since Christ have erred? 4 The Histories of the Church anciently, will amount to no more than a tradition from our Fathers and Elders; now Christ reproved the Scribes and Pharisees, for walking after the tradition of the Fathers and Elders, Mark 7.2, 3, 4, 7, 8. & Saint Paul warns us to beware of the tradition of men, which are not after Christ, Col. 2 8. Now what are Bishops but traditions of men, and the Fathers and Elders for many hundred years before us which traditions are not after Chrst? for Bishops can show no authority from Christ, but from our forefathers. The Record for the Church 1500, years, are no better than Apocryphas Scriptures, which are not admitted of to prove any point of Divinity: But suppose there were such Scripture, to prove a Lording Bishop that may exercise jurisdiction, what Scripture have Bishops to prove an Archbishop, a Dean, a chancellor, & the rest of them? these orders must needs be from the Pope, as hatching, or nursing them, for there is no Scripture for them: God is not their Father, but the Pope or some other thing is their Mother: so far of my twelft point. 13 This my 13. point shall be of gain, of lawful gain; If the King and Parliament would put all authority and jurisdiction into the hands of the Magistrate, and take all jurisdiction from the Bishop, the State may save their three or four thousand pounds a year, which now is wastefully spent on Bishops, as is proved in my last point, and so it shall be again in four or five particulars: The which money may better be added to the Crown lands, or a part of it yearly to such Ministers as have little live and a part to such Cities and Towns that are over burdened with multitudes of many miserably poor, beyond the abilities of the richer sort to relieve, who give four pence a week where need is of eighteen pence. But it will be said this is Sacrilege, and to rob the Church; Answ. To rob the Church say you? 1. Though it be robbing, in a private man to take, yet it is not in a Parliament, who may dispose of all men goods: 2. A Parliament may without robbery or Sacrilege, take a part of a Bishops living, and of a Ministers tithe, as well as of the Laieties money, for public use, as in the case of war. Again, I hope 20 Bish. are not the Church, but the least number of the Chu for there are many thousands of Clergy men too, being members of the Chur. and must go for a part of the Church, and for the greatest part too: Now if the Parliament shall take away Bishops live, they shall take but from 26 men, to bestow on hundreds of poor Clergy men; or on many thousands of the poor Laiety: God will have mercy rather than sacrifice, Mat. 12.7. God would rarher have the poor Clergy, and the Laiety provided for, then rich Bishops, whose Office is superfluous, and their great live evilly bestowed: If men would unpartially look into these, they might find it so. For as their Office as Ministers, they do not say Service in their Cathedrals, but others read for them; as for preaching in their Cathedral it is, and still may be so, if the State please by a Combination of Ministers, as for their office of Ruling the chancellor in his Consistory, doth it for the Bishop; and it may as well and better be done by the Magistrate; for point of heresy, 10. or 12. Ministers can judge as well as a Bishop: so their office being superfluous, to allow them 2000, or 3000 yearly is wasted, for other men do their work for them; me thinks therefore other men should have their great live divided among them; but it is in the power of a Parliament, to amend all this. But it will be said, if you take away Bishops live, you discountenance learning, and discourage young Students in the University: Answer, 1. None shall be discouraged, but such as gape for a Bishopric; and as for such Students, they are unfit to be Bishops; for St Paul saith, a Bishop must not be covetous nor given to filthy lucre, 1 Tim. 3.3. and such are they that study for learning, to obtain honour and gain by a Bishopick; If such men do not make use of their Bishopric when they have it to get honour and riches by it, they must fail of the end of their studies: 2. Bishops have been down in England near 20 years, and yet learning flourisheth in the Universities: 3. In Scotland, Holland and other Countries, where there are no Bishops, yet learning flourisheth: It is the love of God and learning, that makes a profitable preacher, not the love of honour and lucre by a Bishopric. 14 In this my 14. point, I shall propound four or five things more to be considered of. 1. For matter of jurisdiction, the Bishop's chancellor, who is a Layman may exercise this Authority in his Consistory as he doth, assisted with two or three Ministers; and then there shall be no need of a Bishop; and why may not the chancellor exercie this authority under the King, and for the King as well as under the Bishop, and for a Bishop? But if you desire to hold this authority, in the line of the Clergy still, then why may not every minister in his parish do it? who will do it without reward from the State, or why not by a Combination of 10. or 12. Ministers, ruling over 10. or 20. Towns. But I judge it best, to have this authority in the hands of the Magistrate, for he is in offiee exercising jurisdiction already: So if you take away a needless Bishop, the State may save three or four thousand pounds yearly for better use. 2. The Metropolitan or Archbishop, with other inferior Bishops do consecrate, or make a new Bishop: But why may not the King consecrate, and make a new Bishop, if it be necessary to have Bishops, as well as the Metropolitan? For 1. sure I am the King being the fountain of all jurisdiction in our Kingdom, he hath more right to confer his authority and jurisdiction to a new Bishop then a Metropolitan hath; doth not the King create and make the Lord chief-Justice, and other Judges, and High-Sheriffs, who exercise jurisdiction? 2. Moses did consecrat Aron and his sons, Ex. 29 1 etc. Now if Moses did consecrat the Highpriest, may not our King consecrat an inferior Bishop? 3. Our Bishop's consecration is a strange thing to me; for our Archbishops being dead before these times, where is there a Metropolitan to create a new Bishop. 3. When a Bishop was made minister he was ordained not to rule but to preach; therefore when he is ordained a Bishop, it is to rule, not to preach; unless he be twice ordained to preach, which is absurd, now to consecrat or ordain a Minister 〈◊〉 in State or Church, what warrant is there for Archbishop 〈◊〉 do it? doubtlessly Christ forbade it: Mat. 20.25, 26. They say that Ordination and jurisdiction are two parts of a Bishop's office, and conferreth these two upon a Bishop, at his consecration: now the Archbishop have no right unto jurisdiction in himself, how can he then give it to another? can a man give what he hath not? The first news that I ever heard of an Archbishop, of a Dean, and a chancellor, it came from the Popedom: This monster was nursed of old in Rome, and thence translated into the Church of England; an Archbishop draws into the Church a multitude of inferior officers under him, every one having a yearly living as much as would maintain an able Minister and all wastefully spent for things might be better ordered; as to dispose of their live for the poor Laiety and to the poor Clergy to mend their live. I see not but that we may have Abbots, and Cardinals, as well as Archbishops,, and a Pope over all; take in one of that Hierarchy, and take in all; reject one, and reject all and every one. 4 It is said that State and Church have flourished, for many hundred years, under and with the government of Bishops: answ. As for the State, it flourished as well when we were Papists, as since: 2 The Act in Charles the first, and 17 year of his reign, complains of Bishops then, for intermeddling with secular jurisdiction, which occasoned great mischief in State and Church, and therefore disenabled Bishops to set in Parliament. As for the Church it hath flourished many hundred year; but it were with Popery till a 100 years ago; and since it hath flourished with Popish ceremonies, and with Bishop's persecutions, for Cross and Surplice; for not observing them, very many godly and constant preachers, of honest life and conversation, have been silenced, and their live taken away. 5. I have before confuted Bishops authority, to be jure Divino: and also to be jure humano: But then their is an occasion which I have not wrote of: For Bishops perhaps will say, we claim not jurisdiction from God, or from the King, but the exercise of it; and we have the King's commission to exercise our jurisdiction: answ. 1. In Mat. 20. ●5, 26. and 1. Pet. 5.2, 3. Christ forbade his Apostles to exercise authority: 2 If your Commission be from the King, than he may give the like Commission to a Lay man, as to a Magistrate? for the King is not bound to give Commission only to the Clergy: 3. The office of preaching and ruling, as before I have proved, are inconsistent the one destroying the other, and therefore a Bishop must not take or seek for a Commission to rule or exercise authority. These things you have seen proved against Bishop's jurisdiction: 1. That Christ forbade it: 2. It is an usurpation of the Magistrates office: 3. He makes himself a Pope: 4. It is against our Covenant: 5. It cannot be proved by the Scripture: 6. If he rules he cannot preach: 7. His ruling is superfluous, unjust, and partial: 8 St Paul warns us to beware the traditions of men, which are not after Christ, Col. 2.8. Such are Archbishops, Deans, Commissaries, Chancelers, etc. 9 Bishops do not own the King's authority in matters Ecclesiastical: 10. They rob the King of his supremacy. These things you have seen proved, against that other office of Bishops, namely preaching: 1. If a Bishop exercise jurisdiction; he must lay aside his ordination to preach, and his office of preaching: 2. It is superfluous for a Bishop to preach as a Bishop, as hath been proved. Then how can a Bishop desire 2. or 3 thousands a year, for his pains taken in the Church; cannot this money be better employed. By Theophilus Brabourn humbly submitting to the wisdom of this Honourable Parliament.