of any man noble or ignoble The Scottish Discipline is odious to Episcoparians for excommunicating their King but in my opinion the Scots are the more honest men for they act according to their principles but Bishops halt of one leg and are blind of one eye when they look upon a King and yet the Scots and our Bishops do fetch their authority both from the same Scriptures If therefore they may excommunicate the King by their principles where is the Kings supremacy 4. There is a secret designe of Bishops for supremacy for they write and say Church and State Now though common people regard not which end goes forward yet Bishops do for they do not onely write so and speak so but will have others to speak so too my self being with a Bishop long since I said State and Church but the Bishop corrected me saying you must say Church and State So Bishops will have priority and superiority over the State and if so then they aym at the Kings supremacy for he is a States-man and the chief of the State there can be no supremacy where there is not priority superiority However the Bishops do act openly for the Kings supremacy yet underhand they aime at the old Popish supremacy why else do they keep on foot that popish language of Church and State The Bishops also use to name the Clergy and Laiety giving the priority and superiority to the Clergy and Bishops but where then is the Kings priority superiority and supremacy Also they use to say Lords spirituall and Lords temporall Quest 11. Are Ministers capable of a Bishopricke or the office of a Bishop I answer negatively and my reasons are these 1. As is before proved Christ hath forbidden Ministers to use Lordly authority in the Church Mat. 20.25 1 Pet. 5.3 and therefore Ministers are not capable of a Bishoprick 2. If a Minister takes upon him the office of a Bishop he makes himself a Pope or an Antichrist who exalts himself above all that is called God 2 Thes 2.4 Who is the Magistrate Psal 82.6 For in his Consistory he sits as Judge over both Magistrate and people 3. The office of a Bishop by ruling is contrary to the office of a preaching Minister as I thus prove Christ sent his Apostles to preach Mat. 20.1 2 7. but not to rule St. Paul charged Timothie not to rule but to preach and be instant in season and out of season 2 Tim. 4.2 And St. Paul said Woe unto me if I preach not the Gospel 1 Cor. 9.16 And Ministers had their Ordination not to rule but to preach But Lordly Bishops are no Preachers no sooner Bishops but their heads are so full of Proclamations with ruling as they lay aside preaching Queen Eliz. when she went to make a Bishop said I am now going to stop a Preachers mouth I can speak my knowledge of them for sixty years that they preach not above once a yeare sometimes twice sometimes not once Bishops have ever been Ministers but never Preachers they have been the Drink â— in the â—ive the 〈◊〉 in Gods Vineyard those that have hidden their Talent in the earth or in a dark 〈…〉 did not such Bishops well deserve 2000. or 3000. pounds a year surely the State in those times knew not what to do with their money As for those that sate at the beginning of the long parliament though I cannot call them legall the King being absent yet I look upon them as an Assembly of the wise men of our Kingdome and those judged it good for the Church to root our Bishops Archbishops Deans Chancellours c. and these wise men were eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses and had too long an experience of Bishops miscarriages the which our young dayes cannot afford us They saw with their eyes how the heart of Religion was in a Consumption and how Religion was like a garden over grown with the nettle and weeds of humane inventions and Bishops or rather the Popes inventions untill Ceremony had well nigh eat up substance all was for an outward form and fashion as to bow towards the East and then to turn West To go up to the high Altar and then come down again to the Deske to be clad in white and in the Pulpit to be clad in black as if God were pleased with such toyes but I shall tell you of many more of these Ceremonies before I have done One thing more I believe provoked these wise men which was the Bishops cruell persecution silencing and depriving of livelihood very many godly and painfull Ministers men of a blameless life and conversation and all for non observance of popish Ceremonies and another thing was that they drove hence many of the Kings Subjects to plant in new-New-England Quest 12. Are Bishops allied or a kin to the Pope or are they Popish I have often said that Bishops Ceremonies are Popish and now I shall prove it by shewing their affinity to the Pope 1. The Pope of Rome is a Clergy-man a Bishop and a Lord-Bishop and so were our English Bishops 2. The Pope hath these many Orders of Archbishops Bishops Deans Commissaries Chancellors Arch-deacons Prebends and the rest of them so have our Bishops as like to the Pope as may be 3. The Pope reigns over many Nations and our Bishops over hundreds of Towns and Parishes and the Arch-bishop by reason of a larger circuit is yet nearer the Pope 4. The Pope challengeth the Lordly power of Excommunication and so do our Bishops 5. The Pope exalts himself above all that is called God that is the Magistrate and so did our Bishops in their Consistory 6. Pope is a Minister but no preacher so were our Bishops Non-preachers As soon might you draw a Bear to the stake as a Bishop into a pulpit and if at once in a year then they came trapped with their popish vestments Bishops had high Altars in their Chappels and wax Candles thereon unlighted a fit Embleme of a Bishop without light in a pulpit They would be these Angels Rev. 1.20 but they were not the Angels of light for they gave no more light than their wax candles unlesse on Christmas day in the forenoon 7. The Pope was a cruell persecuter of godly protestants so were these Bishops of many godly painfull Ministers men of an honest life and conversation these they silenced from preaching The dog in the manger would eat no hay nor suffer the horse to eate and they unmercifully deprived them of their Livings and livelihood so as the Minister his wife and children were enforced to live upon Almes-deeds 8. Bishop Wren whilst Bishop in Norwich forbad the Ministers in his Diocess to make any prayer in the pulpit and nothing but an exhortation to prayer according to the 55. Canon as pray we for the King or let us pray for the sick c. but the Minister was not suffered to put up one petition to God for the King or for the sicke If
the patron gives the Benefice or Living to the Incumbent but the Bishop gives him his orders so the King gives the Bishoprick to the Bishop that is his large maintenance of 2 or 3000. a yeare but God gives him his Office and makes him a Bishop so then a Bishop doth derive his Office of jurisdiction from the King 5. Bishops in disputation say their Office is Ius Divinum so then they own not the Kings Authority in Ecclesiasticals for this is Ius Humanum From the premises it is cleare 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 Kings 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 Kings authority soveraignty superiority nor supremacy no more then 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 intend 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 booke came to my hands intituled Reasons for the necessity of a reformation in Discipline c. 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 Apochryphal Scriptures Oh abhominable fact do they deserve the name of protestant Bishops who Pope-like make Apochrypha 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 Letany 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 agone Bishops persecuted many godly and painfull Ministers for the Cross and Surplisse but within about 20. year after what a troop of popish ceremonies more did they pester our Church withall 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 Waxe Candles on the high Altar in Bishops Chappels 5. Railes before the high Altar 6. the Sacrament was denyed 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 Letany 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 feare 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 Bishops tyranny but also the feare of popery caused thousands of the people to desert the King at the beginning of the unhappy warr 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 moneth or two or so long as our Gracitious King live who I beleeve will awe them for his time but what shall become of us afterward FINIS
Court to examine them and to examine witnesses against them and then if guilty to judge and censure them to punishment all these are acts of Magistraticall authority and we daily see Magistrates exercising this authority Now for Bishops to use these severall acts in their Consistorie it is an usurpation of the Magistrates office and authority and therefore this authority belongs not to a Bishop or a Minister nor to the Pope and without these precedent acts of authority there can be no Excommunication 3. Christ hath forbidden the Pope the Bishop of a Diocess and the Minister of a Parish to exercise Lordly authority in the Church for he said The Lords of the Gentiles exercise dominion and they that are great exercise authority But it shall not be so among you Mat. 20.25 Christ forbad his Apostles to Lord it and St. Peter to like purpose said That Ministers must not be so much as or like unto Lords over Gods heritage 1 Pet. 5.3 Now for a Bishop to punish with the Rod of Excommunication it is a Lordly authority for punishment is Lordly and for a Bishop in his Consistory to examine one and witnesses against him and then to judge and condemn him to punishment this is Lordly authority wherefore the censure of Excommunication belongs not to a Bishop I shall prosecute this point further by sundry absurdities which depend upon it as 1. If Excommunication be proper to a Bishop or a Minister why doth the Bishops Chancellour meddle in it for he is a Lay-man and why do the Ministers Elders meddle in it for these are Lay-men 2. If the Bishop will punish some sins by Excommunication as Adultery then he must punish all sins with Excommunication for if he doth not he is partiall and unjust The Bishop hath but one salve for every sore but one last for every foot which is Excommunication for greater and lesser sins wherefore he must inflict this one punishment upon every sinner and then he must excommunicate every thief every traytor and every murtherer before they are hanged and there are a multitude of trespasses by the Common Law the which are sins also Now all these the Bishop must summon into his Consistory for to undergo his spirituall punishment 3. The Magistrate punisheth in his Court the adulterer drunkard swearer c. Now the Bishop and his Chancellour may not punish these in his Consistory again with Excommunication for if they do they commit injustice For after the Magistrate hath inflicted a full punishment then for a Bishop to bring the matter about again for another punishment this is to punish twice for one fault a double punishment for a single sin It is a torment intollerable and apt to make men run mad to be trounced from the Magistrates Court unto the Bishops Consistory for one crime to be twice examined in severall Courts to have witnesses twice brought against them to be twice censured and condemned and to suffer two sorts of punishments and all for one fault which hath been sufficiently punisht before by the Magistrate this is intollerable To avoid this mischief either let the Magistrate do all acts of authority and justice without the Bishop or let the Bishop and his Chancellor do all acts of authority and justice in things Civill and Ecclesiasticall without the Magistrate For to have two such Magistrates a corporall and a spirituall or a Civill and an Ecclesiasticall is as if we had two Suns in the Firmament or two Kings in England the Pope was the author of it 4. If Excommunication be exercised by a Bishop then he makes himself an Antichrist or Pope For in his Consistory he sits as a Judge over a Magistrate if he be scandalous examines him and witnesses against him censures and condemns him Now the marke of Antichrist is to exalt himselfe above all that is called God 2 Thes 2.4 And the Magistrate is called God Psal 82.6 If therefore a Bishop doth passe sentence upon a Magistrate he makes himself Antichrist Quest 8. Is excommunication a spirituall punishment belonging to Bishops I take this to be a popish device and invented by the Pope For when he encroached upon the authority of Kings that he might with the more colour obtain leave from them to reigne over the souls of the people leaving the bodies and fleshly carkasses for Kings to Reign over then he stifled them with this Dose that Excommunication is no corporall but a spiritual punishment and sutable to his spirituall Clergy and this hath been the dose and plea of our Bishops ever since But why the Clergy should engross this spirituality as proper to them I see no reason For a Magistrate is an Ecclesiasticall person and a spirituall man as well as a Bishop for he is a spiritual man that worships God in spirit and truth and who minds spiritual things and live after the guidance and motions of the spirit John 4.23 Rom. 8.1 5. Rom. 7.6 Now we have as many Magistrates such spirituall men as Bishops and therefore Magistrates are as fit to exercise the spirituall discipline of Excommunication as a Bishop this I thus prove 1. If a Bishops Chancelleour who is a Lay-man or the Lay-Elders of Ministers may meddle in spirituall Excommunication then a Magistrate may do so too though you call him a Lay-man 2. That Excommunication if it be a spirituall punishment yet it is in the power of the Magistrate it is cleer Ezra 10.3 7 8. where the Princes and Elders did by a Proclamation threaten the people with Excommunication or separation from the congregation if they came not to take the Covenant 3. King Solomon put off Abiathar the Priest from his spirituall office of Priesthood which degradation was a spirituall punishment 1 King 2.27 as his office was a spirituall blessing 4. If Excommunication be a spirituall punishment yet it belongs not to a Bishop because it is a Lordly power forbidden by Christ to Ministers Mat. 20.25 1 Pet. 5.3 5. If a Bishop useth this spiritual punishment of Excommunication he makes himself an Antichrist and a Pope as I lately proved Quest 9. Can you prove that the censure and punishment of Excommunication belongs to the Magistrate I answer yes But first give me leave to shew what and how the Magistrate is to act in this his office when he hath summoned into his Court the Adulterer Swearer Drunkard c. and hath examined him and witnesses against him and hath convicted him as guilty of punishment then he is to passe sentence on him publiquely in Court to suffer such punishment as is sutable to his sinne and if the Magistrate judgeth Excommunication to be more sutable then any other punishment then he is to denounce the sentence thereof upon the offender And this done then he is to send his command to the Bishop or Minister of the parish to deny him the Sacrament I doubt not but the Magistrate may command the Bishop or Minister For Moses commanded Aaron
Hezekiah and Josiah commanded the Priests and Levites and so I come to prove the point 1. The censure and punishment of Excommunication must either belong to the Bishop or Minister or to the Magistrate But it belongs not to the Bishop or Minister as I have abundantly proved before Therefore it belongs to the Magistrate 2. The Princes and Elders in Ezra's time commanded the people to come to Jerusalem to take the Covenant and threatned those that refused with excommunication or separation from the Congregation or Church Ezra 10.3.7 8. whereby you see that excommunication was in the power of the Magistrate 3. King Solomon degraded Abiather the Priest from his spirituall office which was a spirituall punishment 1 King 2.27 Now if Kings and Magistrates will imitate Solomon then they must excommunicate scandalous persons Solomon put off the Priest from medling in holy things so should Magistrates cut off scandalous sinners from the communion of Saints at the Lords Table and from medling with these holy things 4. If the Magistrate may command spirituall duties then he may inflict spirituall punishment for neglect of them as in Excommunication He that may command a duty hath power to punish the neglect of it or else he hath no power to command to command without a coercive power to compell is but an image or scare-crow But the Magistrate may command spiritual duties 1 Chron. 16.7 2 Chron. 35.15 2 Chr. 29.1 4 5. 2 Kings 23.4 And therefore the Magistrate may inflict the spirituall punishment of Excommunication 5. Excommunication is a punishment and so called by all men and so it is called in Scripture 2 Cor. 2.6 and a punishment is a revenge Now to punish and revenge is proper to the Magistrate for he is the Minister of God to punish and to take vengeance on him that doth evill Rom. 13.4 Wherefore the censure of Excom upon the scandalous sinner belongs to the office of the Magistrate 6. The severall acts of authority used in Excom belongs to Magistraticall power as to summon into Court and to examine witnesses against one and to examine the person complained on And without these precedent acts there can be no Excom Now to whom belongeth these acts to him belongeth the censure of Excom that is to the Magistrate By these particulars it appears that by the Word of God the Bishop in his Consistory doth usurp the Magistrates office Quest 10. Do Bishops devest the King of his supremacy I answer yes and thus I prove it 1. It is clear by the Word of God as hath been proved that Bishops do usurp the Magistrates authority and office Now he that usurps the Magistrates authority he usurps the Kings authority for the Magistrates authority is the Kings and he that usurps the Kings authority in causes Ecclesiasticall he denies and devests the King of his supremacy in causes Ecclesiasticall For if you deny him authority you devest him of and deny his superiority and supremacy in authority If a Master gives his servant five pounds to dispose of by his order and the servant be robbed of it by the way not onely the servant is robbed but his Master also and then his money being lost he can exercise neither authority nor superiority over it So it is if a Bishop takes from the Magistrate the Kings authority with it he takes the Kings superiority and supremacy in Ecclesiasticals But Bishops will say they had the Kings Commission for it and the King gave them this authority But say I Christ forbad them to take it Mat. 20.25 and 1 Pet. 5.3 Secondly they say the King gave it them and so doth a true man give his purse to a Thief but it is out of fear So these Kings afore-time gave their authority to Bishops but they got this gift by fraud For the Pope perswaded Kings that the Key of Discipline and Jurisdiction was a Legacy left by Christ first to Saint Peter and so to his successors Mat. 16.19 which is false and more then can be proved Besides Christ forbad the Pope and Bishops to exercise Lordly authority Mat. 20.25 1 Pet. 5.3 Now as the Pope so did those Bishops falsly plead that Legacy and so got it by fraud and subtlety wherefore as I conceive the gift of those Kings and their Commissions was a nullity Cromwell of late got off the Kings head by force and thus Bishops got away those Kings regall authority in the Church by fraud and subtilty Would it not grieve a man to see his friend cheated of his money at Dice And how can it but be grievous to a loyall Subject to see his Kings just and Royall prerogative wrested out of his hands by the wit of Bishops In King Henrie the 8. the Bishops of England took an Oath to the Pope whereupon the Lord Cromwell then informed the King of it saying that he was but half King and his subjects but half-subjects to him As I conceive that the King was King but over the bodies and Bishops were Kings over the souls of the people so they fell into a premunire which cost them 100000. pounds The Bishops in those dayes could not by flattery and subtlety perswade the King and his Council that St. Peters keyes did hang on the Popes girdle or on the girdle of English Bishops he would not be so cheated of his supremacy for they got it by fraud 2. The Pope holds his office Jure Divino so did those Bishops and so do our Bishops for all these plead for Peters keys and such like Scriptures Now though our Bishops take a commission from the King and say he is supreme yet they hold a higher commission namely from God and Christ and the Scriptures How then can the King be supreme in causes Ecclesiastical for Bishops have a commission higher then the commission which they have from the King And how can he be next under Christ when the Bishops have gotten the higher Commission The King may be supreme over the State but Bishops are next to Christ and supreme over the Church and in causes Ecclesiasticall for they say they have an immediate commission from Christ If so their commission from the King must be an inferiour commission 3. If a Bishop hath this Lordly authority to Excommunicate then if he makes conscience of his office he must do justice to and upon all men rich and poor noble and ignoble even to the K. as well as to the pesant God is no respecter of persons a Bishop must not be partiall Now if a King be subject to a Bishops Court and the Bishops there sits as Lord and Judge over him where is the Kings supremacy in Ecclesiasticals Notwithstanding Bishops consciences and doing of justice I know they dare not summon the King into their Consistory Yet I know and they know too that by their principles and the power of Peters keyes which hang at their girdle as they make the world believe they are bound to make no scruple
of them are Ecclesiastical persons of and belonging to this Church As the Magistrate and people are a Church so they are a Church of Christ for they are all Christians professing Christ and faith in Christ and they are also a Church of God for their authority is of and from God Rom. 13.1 and they assemble in their Hall to serve God The Magistrate by ruling for God and in his place the people to be ruled by God and his righteous Lawes The Magistrates Court therefore being a Church of God why should any say or think that it is an unfit place for the censure of Excommunication may it not soon be as fit a place as the Chancellours or Bishops Consistory Another quest of these two Churches which is greater Papists say the Clergy Church so they say Bishops too for they say Church and State but we ought to give priority and superiority to the State and say State and Church For Moses commanded Aaron and so did Kings the Priests to speak otherwise giving priority to the Church is popish and tending to a denyall of the Kings supremacy Quest 5. Being the Magistrate is no Divine how can he know who is fit or not fit to be excommunicated I answ How can two or three Lay-Elders know who is fit and who not being they are no Divines And how can the Bishops Chancellour know who is fit and not fit for he is no Divine 2. As for scandalous sins as adultery drunkenness swearing and such like being all matters of Fact the Magistrate knows them as well as the Bishop or Minister for the Magistrate doth daily punish these sins in his Court. As for fundamentall doctrines being none are such but onely such as are clearly laid down in Scripture and being they are daily preached on by our Ministers the Magistrate is not ignorant of these Or if he be God hath ordained the help of the Minister by way of counsel and advice but still so as the power and authority as Judge to passe censure is still in the Magistrate as you may read Deut. 17.8 9 10 11. As for points disputable not cleerly revealed in Scripture I hold that no man is to be excommunicated for these for if he be the innocent may be punished as soon as the wicked And therefore the Magistrate needs not meddle with such points but onely with sins clearly revealed to be sins as incest 1 Cor. 5.1 c. and by like reason swearing drunkennesse and the like Whereas I said the Magistrate may take the advice of the Minister c. I mean his advice in a fundamentall doctrine which is very cleerly a sin in Scripture for else he may give wicked advice But as for a doubtfull and disputable controversie wherein Scripture is alledged on both sides it is not safe for the Magistrate to condemn either side upon advice of the Minister for a Church may erre a Councell may erre and 10. or 12. Ministers may erre too Suppose therefore a point comes before the Magistrate which commonly is holden to be an error or heresie where will the Magistrate finde among the Clergy competent and fit Judges to determine it for the Clergy hold the common opinion Now if the Magistrate call in to his help and advice ten or 12. of the Clergy will they not all advise for their own opinion and then they will be incompetent and partiall Judges Do you think they will justifie the accused party and condemn themselves I dare say it that all the Bishops in England will condemn this book if not before they see it But the Law permits no man to be a judge or a witness in his own cause when the Clergy gives judgement of a cause commonly holden by others and themselves to be an errour or heresie they are like the High Court of Justice all or the major part came thither with a resolution to make an end of the KING before they rose Quest 6. Is the King next under Christ supreme head of the Church Answ This question is out of question with me but being I hear of some Ministers beyond Sea offended at this Title and have read of some in England of like opinion I shall here prove the point and first by the Laws of our Kingdome and then by the Scripture 1. The Laws of our Kingdome do give unto our King this just and Royall title to be supreme Head under Christ over all persons and in all causes Ecclesiasticall or spirituall wherefore the King is supreme haad of the Church and therefore all good Subjects must acknowledge him so to be Rom. 13.1 2. I have before proved out of the Scriptures that King Hezekiah David and Josiah were Rulers and Governours over the Church and in Church-matters 2 Chron. 31.2 1 Chron. 16.7 2 Chron. 35.1 c. 2 Chron. 35.15 2 King 23.4 Now those godly Kings were supreme in authority for there was none above or before them It was prophesied of that in time of the Gospel Kings should be our nursing Fathers Isa 49.22 23. Now in our dayes though we have many Magistrates of high authority yet none of them can or will challenge the supremacy but the King onely 3. See a pregnant Text for it 1 Pet. 2.13 Submit your selves c. unto the King as unto the supreme So supremacy is the Kings just Title Now being it is so why do Bishops say and write Church and State as if the Church and Bishops were above the King where is then the Kings supremacy Quest 7. Doth the punishment of Excommunication belong to the office of a Bishop and his Chancellour or to the Minister and his Lay-Elders I answer negatively This office belongs not to any Lay-Elder who is not a Magistrate of the Common-wealth nor to any Chancellour who is a Lay-man and no Magistrate the contrary I expect to see Bishops or Ministers to prove if they can And I answer concerning Bishops or Ministers alone without their Elders or Assistants and I deny also that this office doth belong to a Bishop or a Minister The contrary lyes upon both of them to prove if they can In the mean time I thus prove against them 1. Excommunication is a punishment so confessed by all men and so called in Scripture 2 Cor. 2.6 and a punishment is a revenge or taking vengeance on them that do evill Rom. 13.4 Now Bishops and Ministers may not punish and revenge For this belongs to the Magistrate Rom. 13.4 not to a Bishop or Minister St. Paul saith a Bishop must be no striker 1 Tim. 3.3 Now I know not why a Bishop may not as well strike with his hand or fist as punish and take vengeance on any man by Excommunication Their distinction of corporall and spirituall punishment will not help them as you shall see in the next quest 2. The office of the Magistrate is to summon into his Court these scandalous sinners the adulterer swearer drunkard and the like and in his