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