3. 8. A man any man though an Ammonite or a meere Philistine no Pagan that must be the sense will doe it to his God which you Jewes doe to me for the Law written in his heart and he can goe by no other that law controlls this offence and so plainly tells him that because his God may be robb'd he may therefore have a Propriety And if Sacriledge be a sin against the Law Morall it will follow that what wee read in the Old Testament against that sinne must be as morall and that whereby we Christians are as much obliged as by what we read against theft or against adultery save onely in those passages which are particularly proper unto the policie of the Jews and we may let them goe for Judiciall These Assertions being premised I returne to the Epistler who conceives it to be no sacriledge to take away the Church Lands Nor do I saith he herein ground my opinion barely upon the frequent practise of former times not onely by acts of Parliament in the times of Queen Elizabeth King James and so King Charles if you have not forgotten the exchange of Durham house as well as H. 8. but even by the Bishops themselves c. He will not ground his opinion upon the practise and indeed he hath little reason for it For if from a frequent practise of sinne we might conclude it were no sinne we might take our leaves of the Decalogue and as our new Masters do put it out of our Directory because our intent is to sinne it downe and therefore I shall say no more of such Lawes of Hen. 8. then I would of Davids adultery a that t is no ground at all to make men bold with their neighbours Wives Queene Elizabeth made a Law so you have told me Sir for I do speake nothing in this kind but from you that Bishops might not alienate their Mannors Castles c. but only to the Crowne but if she sometimes tooke order that Church men should not be Bishops untill they had first made such alienations as I have heard you say they did I know not how to defend it but must withall tell you that if Princes or Subjects resolve to sell the Church preferments t is great odds but that in a Clergy consisting of above 16000. Persons they shall not want Chapmen for them For King James I must highly commend that most Christian Prince who you say amongst his first Lawes tooke away that of Queen Elizabeth not can I well tell why this Epistler here doth quote that King for his purpose unlesse it were only for the alienation of York House but I must informe him that that Act was lawfull because 't was for the advantage of the Archiepiscopall See there being cleare Text for it That the Levits themselves might change what was theirs by a Divine Law so they gained by the permutation and this answer will serve for what King Charles did about Durham House But he thinks it an Argument That even by Bishops themselves Deanes and Chapters c. such things were done Alienations made and long Leases granted True Sir for those Clergymen were but men and their sinnes can at all no more abrogate Gods Law then can the sinnes of the Laity yet I could name you Church-men of great note who totally refused to be preferred by that Queene to any Bishopricke at all because they would by no meanes submit their conscience unto the base acts of such Alienations and one of them was Bishop Andrews I could tell you too that those long Leases he speakes of might have one cause more then the Marriage of the Clergy for when they saw men so sharply set upon the inheritance of the Church when they saw a Stoole of wickednesse set up of sacrilegious wickednes that imagined mischiefe by a Law some not the worst of men thought it fit to make those long Leases that the estate of the Church might appeare the more poore and so lesse subject unto Harpies and then their hope was at the length at least after many yeares spent it might returne whole unto their successours He goes on But to deale clearely with you Doctor I do not understand how there can be any sacriledge properly so called which is not a theft and more viz. a theft of some thing dedicated to holy use a Coâ—â—munion Cup for instance or the like and thâ—se you know must be of things moveable 〈…〉 civil Law and how theft can be of Lands or 〈…〉 by alienating Church Lands I pray aske your friend Holborne and his fellow Lawyers for ours here deride us for the question It seemes Sir they are very merry at London or at least this Epistler thinks so for being winners he might perhaps conceive they make themselves pleasant at a Feather And that this Argument is as light a thing appeares before from my third Assertion for can any man thinke in earnest that t is Sacriledge and so a sinne to take a Cup from the Church and t is none to take away a Mannour as if Ahab had been indeed a thiefe had he rob'd Naboth of his Grapes but Eliah was too harsh to that good King because he only tooke away his Vineyard Indeed there is such a nicety in the Civill Law that actio furti lyes only against him who has stolne Rem mobilem for Justinian it seemes in the composition of his Digests which he tooke from the writings of the old Jurisprudentes thought it fit to follow Ulpians judgement and yet Sabinus in his booke De Furtis a man of note amongst those men was known to be of another opinion Non tantum sayes he rerum moventium sed fundi quoque et aedium fieri furtum a theft properly so call'd may be of things immoveable I would gladly know of the Epistler whether he thinks all men both Divines and others bound to frame all the phrases of their speech according to the criticismes of the Civill Law as it s now put out by Justinian If not why may not some use the word furtum in Sabinus his sense as well as others may in Ulpians and then sacriledge may be properly called a theft and as properly in immoveables or if we will needs speake according to his sense whom Justinian hath approved I do not well see how men can spoile the Church of her Lands and at the Civil Law escape an action of theft for it lyeth against him that takes the trees the fruits and the stones and I am confident there is no Church-robber but he intends to make use of these kinds of moveables otherwise what good wil the Church-land do him And if he does make this use a thiefe he is in the Civill Law phrase then in the very sense of this Epistler himself he is without doubt a sacrilegious person but where I wonder did that Londoner learne that Furtum strictè sumptum was the genus of sacriledge so that where there
to the Prerogative of the Kings thereof and the ancient Customes of this Realme Rex I grant and promise to keepe them Episc. Sir will you keepe Peace and godly agreement entirely according to your power both to God the holy Church the Clergy and the People Rex I will keepe it Episc. Sir will you to your power cause Law Justice and Discretion in mercy and truth to be executed in all your judgements Rex I will Episc. Will you grant to hold and keep the Lawes and rightfull Customes which the Commonalty of this your Kingdome have and will you defend and uphold them to the honour of God so much as in you lyeth Rex I grant and promise so to do Then one of the Bishops reads this Admonition to the King before the People with a loud voice Our Lord and King Wee beseech you to pardon and grant to preserve unto us to the Churches committed to our charge all Canonicall priviledges and due Law and Justice and that you would protect and defend us as every good King ought to be a Protector and Defender of the Bishops and Churches under his government The King answereth With a willing and devout heart I promise and grant my part and that I will preserve and maintaine to you and the Churches committed to your charge all Canonicall priviledges and due Law and Justice and that I will be your Protector and Defender to my power by the assistance of God as every good King in his Kingdome by right ought to protect and defend the Bishops and Churches under his government Then the King ariseth and is led to the Communion table where he makes a solemne Oath in sight of all the People to observe the promises and laying his hand upon the Booke saith The Oath The Things that I have before promised I shall performe and keep So helpe me God and the contents of this Booke In the First Clause t is plaine he makes a promissory Oath unto the whole People of England a word that includes both Nobility and Clergy and Commons that he will confirme their Lawes and Customes And in the second Paragraph thereof he sweares peculiarly to the Clergy that he will keepe the Lawes Customes and Franchises granted to the Clergy by the glorious King S. Edward And more plainly in the fift clause he makes like promissory Oath unto the Bishops alone in the behalfe of themselves and their Churches that he will reserve and maintaine to them all Canonicall Priviledges and due Law and Justice and that he will be their Protector and Defender Where first since he sweares defence unto the Bishops by name t is plaine he sweares to maintain their order For he that Sweares he will take care the Bishops shall be protected in such and such Rights must needs sweare to take care that Bishops must first be For their Rights must needs suppose their Essence And where a King sweares defence what can it imply but defence in a Royall Kingly way Tu defende me gladio ego defendam te calamo is the well known speech of an old Church-man to a Prince For sure where Kings sweare defence to Bishops I do not thinke they sweare to write Bookes in their behalfe or attempt to make it clear to the People that Episcopacy is jure divino But a King whose propriety it is to beare the Sword sweares to weare it in the defence of Bishops for though t is against the very Principles of the Christian Faith that Religion should be planted or reformed by bloud yet when Christian Kings have by Law setled Christian Religion and sworne to defend those persons that should preach it he ought sure to beare his Sword to defend his Lawes and to keepe his soule free from perjury And by Canonicall priviledges that belong to them and their Churches there must needs be implyed the honour of their severall Orders as that Bishops should be above Presbyters c. together with all their due Rights and Jurisdictions The words Due Law and Justice cannot but import that His Majesty binds himselfe to see that justice be done to them and the Churches according to the Law then in force when he tooke that Oath And when the King sweares Protection and Defence that Clause must needs reach not only to their persons but to their rights and estates for he sweares not onely to men but to men in such a condition to Bishops and their Churches and those conditions of men grow little lesse then ridiculous if their estates be brought to ruine so that such a protection were neither at all worth the asking nor the swearing if the King should protect a Bishop in his life and yet suffer him to be made a begger since to see himselfe in scorne and contempt might more trouble him then to dye And whereas He sweares to be their Protector and Defender to his power by the assistance of God these words to his power may seem to acquit him of all the rest if he fall into a condition wherein all power seemes taken from him But that Sir will prove a mistake for one of the greatest Powers of the King of England is in the Negative in Parliament So that without him no Law can be enacted there since t is only the power-royall that can make a Law to be a Law so that if the King should passe a Statute to take away the Church-lands he protects it not to his power since t is plaine that so long as a man lives and speakes he hath still power to say No For it cannot be said that the Church in this case may be as it were ravished from the King and that then he may be no more guilty of that sinne then Lucrece was in her rape for though a chaste body may suffer ravishment yet the strength of a Tarquin cannot possibly reach unto a mans will or his assent Now in all promissory Oathes made for the benefit of that Party to whom we sweare t is a rule with Divines that they of all others do more strictly bind except then alone when remission is made Consensu illius cui facta est promissio So although the King sweare unto the People of England that he will keepe and confirme their Lawes yet if you their Commons desire these said Lawes be either abrogated or altered t is cleare that Oath binds no further because remission is made by their own consent who desired that promise from him and upon this very ground t is true that the King sweares to observe the lawes only in sensu composito so long as they are Lawes But should the desire either to alter or abrogate either Law or Priviledges proceed from any other but from them alone to whose benefit he was sworne t is cleerely plaine by the rules of all justice that by such an act or desire his Oath receives no remission For the foundation of this promissory Oath is their interest he was sworn to
it And hence t is plaine that though we should yeeld that the Apostles only did institute Bishops yet in this Revel. Christ himselfe immediately in his own person and the holy Spirit withall did both approve and confirme them And the Learned observe that the Bishops of those Sees are therefore called Angels by S. Iohn who was born a Jew because in Palestina their chief Priests were then called their Angels and so this appellation was taken up by the Apostle in that place because the Bishops were those Churches Chiefes this truth appeares not only from those cleare Texts but from the mutuall consent and pactise for more then 1500. yeares space of all the Christian Church So that neither S. Hierome nor any other Ancient did ever hold orders to be lawfully given which were not given by a Bishop nor any Church jurisdiction to be lawfully administred which was not either done by their hands or at least by their deputation I know there are men lately risen up especially in this last Century which have collected and spread abroad far other Conclusions and that from the authority of the Text it selfe But as t is a Maxime in Humane Lawes Consuetudo optima Legum Interpres Custome and Practice is the best Interpreter So no rationall man but will easily yeeld it as well holds in Lawes Divine For I would gladly aske What better way can there be for the interpreting of Texts then that very same meanes whereby I know the Text it selfe to be Text Sure the same course whereby I know the Epistles to Timothy and Titus to have been written by S. Paul must needs be the best course to understand the sense of those Epistles and if I therefore beleeve them to be written by that Apostle because the Universality of the whole Christian Church has brought me to that beliefe and there 's no other rationall way of beleeving it why doe I not beleeve the same Christian sense which the universal consent assures me they were written in Shall I beleeve and yet disbeleeve that selfe-same consent which is the best ground of my beliefe This is as it were in cleare terms to say that I beleeve such a tale for the Authors sake who hath told it and yet I doe now hold the selfe-same man to be a lyar Men doe beleeve the testimony of universall consent in the sense it gives of single termes and why not in the sense it gives of sentences or Propositions without the help of this Consent which is indeed the ground of our Dictionaries how shall we know that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifies the Resurrection of the body which the Socinians at this day deny And I know no such way to confute your error as by the authority of your consent Admit then of that Rule that consent universall is the best interpretation of Texts and then I am sure it is as cleare as true that Episcopacy is of Divine or Apostolicall Right yea and that proposition There can be no Ordination without the hands of a Bishop will clearely appeare to be as well grounded as this There can be no Baptisme without a lawfull Minister which is good Divinity amongst our new Masters in Scotland and Antiquity allowed of it Extra casum necessitatis For I aske upon what Text doe they ground this Rule I suppose they will say upon our Saviours words to the Eleven Matth. 28. Go teach all Nations and baptize them But in the institution of the Eucharist He spake those words too but only to the Twelve Drinke yee all of this Matth. 26. I demand then how shall I know that when our Saviour spake those words unto the Eleven he spake them only as to lawfull Ministers but when he spake the other to the Twelve he spake at large as unto them that did represent all Christian men So that though only Ministers may Baptize yet all Christians may receive the Cup Perhaps they will say that the generall practise of receiving the Cup is manifest from 1 Cor. 11. and I thinke so too where S. Paul seems to chide the whole Church for their irreverence at that great Sacrament But if a quarreler should reply that he there speaks but of the Presbyters alone whereof many were at that time at Corinth As when in the 5. Chap. he seemes to chide the whole Church for not excommunicating the incestuous Person yet t is plain he meanes none but the men in government as sure all Presbyterians will allow me I know not what could be said but to make it appeare out of the Fathers and others that the whole Christian Church never tooke the words in that sense And if to stop the mouthes of wranglers we must at length be constrained to quote the Authority of Universall consent and the Common practise of Christs Church then you will easily see that those two named Propositions do stand fast on the same bottome There can be no Baptisme without a lawfull Minister extra casum necessitatis for so the consent and practise of the Universall Church hath still interpreted that Text And againe t is true There can be no Ordination without the Hands of a Bishop for so those Texts both out of Timothy and Titus have been understood and practised for 1500. yeares together by the consent of the whole Church of Christ T is true that this precept Go ye teach c. runnes not in exclusive words yee Apostles or yee lawfull Ministers and none but yee yet extra casum necessitatis no man was allowed to baptise but a lawfull Minister so though these commands Lay hands suddenly on no man and Do thou ordaine Elders in every City runne not in verbis exclusivis thou and none but thou or men of thine Order only yet the Church understanding and practising them in an exclvsive sense no man for 1500 yeares in any setled Church was held rightly ordained without the hands of a Bishop Nay that there is something Divine in the Episcopall Order will appeare clearely by this that immediately from the times of Christ his Apostles yea within the reach of those times t was universally spread throughout the whole face of the Churches so that no man can name a Nationthat was once wonne unto the Christian Faith but he shall soon find that there were Bishops so that there must needs be an Uunversall Cause for an Effect that was so Universall Generall Councell there was none about it at which all Christians might have met and might have thence obeyed her directions Nor can any name a Power to which all Christians should submit for they were soone fallen into Factions but only the authority of Christ or of his Apostles from them then must needs flow the Episcopal Order and at that Fountaine I shall leave it I say within the reach of the Apostles times for before S. Iohn dyed there are upon good Church Records above 20. Bishops appointed to the several Sees as at
be of things moveable even by the Civil Law and how theft can be of Lands or sacriledge committed by aliening Church-Lands I pray aske your friend Holbourne and his fellow Lawyers for ours here deride us for the question As for the main quere touching the lawfulnes of aliening Church-lands I use the expression for the lands of Bishops Deanes and Chapters good Doctor give me your patience to heare my reasons And first I lay this as a foundation that there is no divine command that Ministers under the Gospell should have any lands the hire of a labourer at most a fitting maintenance is all to be challenged nor do we read that the Apostles had any Lands which I mention to avoid the groundlesse arguments upon the lands and portions allotted to the Tribe of Levi by Gods appointment to whom our Ministers have no succession and then it will follow that they enjoy their lands by the same Law of the State as others doe and must be subject to that Law which alone gives strength to their title which being granted I am sure it will not be denyed that by the Law of the Nation he that hath an estate in Lands in Fee-simple by an implyed power may lawfully alien though there be an expression in his Deed of purchase or donation to the contrary which being so makes the alienation of Bishops Lands even without any Act of Parliament to be lawfull being done by those who have an estate in Fee simple as the Bishop with the Deane and Chapter hath Then further I am sure it will be granted that by the Law of this Nation whosoever hath Lands or goods hath them with this inseparable implyed condition or limitation viz. That the Parliament may dispose of them or any part of them at pleasure Hence it is they sometimes dispose some part in Subsidies and other Taxes enable a Tenant for life to sell an estate in Fee-simple and not at all unlawfull because of that limitation or condition before mentioned and who ever will be owner must take them according to this Law Now hence comes the mistake by reason there is not such an expresse condition or limitation in the Deed of Donation which would silence all disputes whereas it is as cleare a truth that where any thing is necessarily by Law implied it is as much as if in plaine words expressed of which your Lawyers if Reason need a helpe from them can easily resolve Besides it were somewhat strange that the Donor of the Lawes should preserve them in the hands of the Bishops from the power of the Parliament which he could not doe in his owne and give them a greater and surer right then he had himselfe Nor doe I understand their meaning who terme God the Proprieter of the Bishops Lands and the Bishop the Usufructuary For I know not how in propriety of speech God is more entituled to their Lands then to his whole Creation and were Clergie-men but Usufructuaries how come they to change dispose or alter the property of any thing which an Usufructuary cannot doe and yet is by them done daily Aske them by what Divine Law S. Maries Church in Oxford may not be equally imployed for temporall uses as for holding the Vice-chancellours Court the University Convocation or their yearly acts And for the Curses those bug-beare words I could yet never learne that an unlawfull curse was any prejudice but to the Author of which sort those curses must needs be which restraine the Parliament or any other from exercising a lawfull and undenyable power which in instances would shew very ridiculous if any curse should prejudice anothers lawfull right I am sure such curses have no warrant from the Law of God or this Nation If this doth not satisfie the former doubts in your Bishops for I know you to be too great a Master of Reason to be unsatisfied aske them whether Church-lands may not lawfully the Law of the State not prohibiting be transferred from one Church to another upon emergent occasions which I think they will not deny If so who knowes that the Parliament will transferre them to Lay-hands they professe no such thing and I hope they will not but continue them for the maintenance of the Ministery which prevents all disputes upon the last question but if they shall hereafter do otherwise you know my opinion Onely mistake me not in this free discourse as if I did countenance or commend the Parliaments proceedings in their new Reformation but as a caution to you in the exigencies of times what is fittest to be done when I take it Mistresse Necessity in all things indifferent or not unlawfull must be obeyed in which cases the most constant men must be contented to change their resolutions with the alteration of time Your party have been resolute enough to preserve the rights of the Church and further peradventure then wise men would have done but at an ultra posse you and we must give over especially for an imaginary right And think seriously with your selfe whether after all other things granted it will be fit to run the hazard of the very being of this Church and State the King and his posterity and Monarchy it selfe onely upon the point of Church-government by Bishops or aliening the Church-lands or rather whether the Kings Councell in duty ought not to advise him the contrary who should be wise as well as pious yet herein may be both for I doe not thinke Conveniencie or Necessity will excuse Conscience in a thing in it selfe unlawfull what ever States-men maintain to the contrary your interest with the King is not small and your power with the Lords who are guided by reason very considerable you cannot doe better then make use of both at this time If they have a desire to preserve the Church it were wel their thoughts were fixed upon some course for setling a Superintendencie in the Presbyteriall Government which no way crosseth the Nationall Covenant and preserve the Revenues in the Church which I beleeve at Uxbridge Treaty would have been granted what ever it will be now I have given you my sense upon the whole businesse Si quid novisti rectius Candidus imperti si non his utere J. T. So farewell Doctor I give you commission to shew this to my Lord Dorset who by and something else can guesse my name and to as many more as owne Reason and Honesty An Answer to the foregoing Letter superscribed to D. Samuel Turner c. Sir YOu have put an odde taske upon me in commanding my judgement on a Letter lately sent to a Doctor in Oxford with a commission to shew it to the Lord of Dorset and to as many more as own reason and honesty for this is the Postscript and many the like passages in the Letter as that the more wise and honest party would make use of their reason and I know you too great a master of reason to be unsatisfyed makes me
the worke and ministery of a Bishop and in questions to the person to be consecrated a Bishop Are you perswaded that you be truly called to this Ministration according to the will of our Lord Jesus c. I beseech you Sir consider whether these words or this prayer could fall from any man not possessed with this Tenet that Episcopacy was of divine right For if the three orders may be found by reading the holy Scriptures together with ancient Authors if men are taught to pray that God by his Spirit has appointed divers orders in his Church and this made the ground of praying for the present Bishop if the person to be consecrated must professe that he conceives he is called according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ either all this must be nothing else but pure pagentry and then the Parliament mocked God by their Confirmation or else Episcopacy is grounded in Scripture is appointed by the Spirit of God is according to the will of our Lord Jesus and all this hath not been said of late nor countenanced only by some few of the more Lordly Cleargy And we have the lesse reason to doubt that this Tenet was countenanced in this Church of ours because we find it in those parts that have lost Episcopacy for we are told by Doctor Carlton after Bishop of Chichester and that wrote against the Arminians more then twenty five yeares since that sitting at Dort he then protested in open Synod That Christ instituted no parity but made twelve Apostles the chiefe and under them seventy Disciples That Bishops succeeded to the twelve and to the seventy Presbyters of an inferiour ranke he affirmed this order had been still maintained in the Church and then challenged the judgement of any learnned man that could speake to the contrary Their answer was silence which was approbation enough but after saith he discoursing with diverse of the best learned in the Synod he told them how necessary Bishops were to suppresse their then risen Schismes their answer was That they did much honour and reverence the good order and Discipline of the Church of England and with all their hearts would be glad to have it established among them but that could not be hoped for in their State Their hope was that seeing they could not do what they desired God would be mercifull unto them if they did but what they could If they hoped for mercy that might pardon what they did sure they must suppose that what they then did was sinfull Nay they thought their necessity it selfe could not totally excuse their sinne for then in that particular there had been no need to hope for Gods mercy nor could they well thinke otherwise since being pressed they denyed not but that Episcopacy was of Christs own institution and yet they were no Lordly Clergy nor do I well see how either by charitable or civil men they can at all be taxed either for want of reason or honesty 1. Indeed some seem to startle at this Tenet that Episcopacy is of Divine right as if because Divine it might therefore seem to endanger Monarchal power But under favour I conceive this fear to be among us very groundlesse for since the Tenents of our Church are in this particular the very self same with the ancient times as that the Bishops have no power but what is meerely directive only that all power co-active either in them or in others is derived meerly from the Royal authority that they cannot legally make use no not so much as of this directive power but only by the Kings leave So that if the temporall Lawes should forbid them to preach that which in point of salvation is necessary to be spoken yet they cannot preach but upon the forfeiture of their Heads and those being demanded by the Kings Lawes they must submit to a Martyrdome though t were sinne in them that demand it so that in the execution of all ecclesiastical power the supremacy is in the King alone these I say being so much the Tenets of our Church that I conceive there is no learned man amongst us who would not readily subscribe to them I cannot see at all where in the opinion we defend any danger lies to this Monarchy But examine the Presbyterian principles and you will clearely find Kings and they cannot stand together for either you consider that new government in the Scotish sence which allowes no appeale to any other power and then t is plaine that where men admit this they admit of a supremacy which doth not reside in the King and by consequent of two severall supremacies within the bounds of the selfe same Kingdome which can no more stand with Monarchy then it can with Monogamy to be maried to two severall wives And though t is said that this Presbyterian government meddles only with spirituall things which concerne the good of the soule and so it cannot hurt Regall power yet this is but onely said and no more for it is well known that in ordine ad spiritualia and all things may by an ordinary wit be drawn into this ranke as they have been by the Church of Rome this government intrudes upon what things it pleaseth and indeed where a supremacy is once acknowledged no wise man can thinke that it will carry it selfe otherwise So that King James his maxime was undoubtedly most true upon this same ground we are on No Bishop no King For that most prudent Prince did soone discerne that if a power were once set up which at least in the legall execution of it did not derive it selfe from the King there was no doubt to be made but it would ere long destroy the very King himselfe Or consider Presbyterian government in the English sense as it is now set up by the Two Houses at Westminster which is a government limited by an appeale to the Parliament for either by Parliament here they meane the Two Houses excluding the King and then t is as plain as before they set up two supremacies his Majesties and their owne or else by Parliament they meane the King with both Houses and then it will follow that either there must be a perpetuall Parliament which sure neither King nor Kingdome can have cause to like or else the supremacy will be for the most part in the Presbytery because when ever a Parliament sits not there will be no Judge to appeale to or if it be said the Parliament may leave a standing Committee to receive appeales in such ecclesiasticall causes then either in this Committee the King hath no negative and in that case t is clear that the ecclesiasticall supremacy will be not at all in the King or else the King hath a negative but yet is joyned with persons whom he himself chooses not and so most probably will be check'd and affronted in any sentence he intends to give and this clearely overthrowes that which is already declared by Parliament to
appeare without all doubt a plain robbery of God for he that steales from men yea though a whole community of men though bona universitatis yet he sinnes but against his Neighbour t is but an offence against the second Table of the Law in these words Thou shalt not steale but Sacriledge layes hold on those things which the Latine Lawes call Bona nullius it strikes downright immediately at God and in that regard no Idolatry can out doe-it as this is t is a breach of the first Table of the Law and both these crimes are equally built upon the self-same contempt of God the offenders in both kinds the Idolater and sacrilegious person both thinke him a dull sluggish thing the first thinkes he will patiently looke on while his honour is shared to an Idol the other imagines he 'l be as sottishly tame though his goods be stoln to his face This was without doubt the sense of all ancient churches for upon what ground could they professe they gave gifts to God but only upon this that they presumed God did stil accept them So S. Iraeneus We offer unto our God our Goods in token of thankefullnesse So Origen By gifts to God we acknowledge him Lord of all So the Fathers generally so Emperours and Kings so Charles the Great To God we offer what we deliver to the Church in his well known Capitulars And our own Kings have still spoken in this good old Christian language We have granted to God for Us and Our Heires for ever that the Church of England shall be free and have her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable they are all the first words of our Magna Chart. Her whole Rights Liberties words of a very large extent and imply farre more then Her Substance and yet these and all these Lands and Honours and Jurisdictions all these have beene given to God yea and frequently confirmed by the publique Acts of the Kingdome and yet if Ananias might thus promise and yet rob God consider I beseech you whether England may not do so too 2. Proposition God gets this Propriety as well by an acceptation of what is voluntarily given as by a command that such things should be presented to him For the second t is plaine in the Text that God did as much take the Temple to be his as he did the Jewes Tithes and Offerings These last indeed were his by expresse law command but the Temple was the voluntary designe of good David and the voluntary work of King Solomon Nay God expresly tels David that he had been so far from commanding that house that he had not so much as once asked this service And therefore in his Apologie Saint Paul tels the Jewes Neither sayes he against the Law of the Jewes nor against the Temple have I offended any thing For he might in some case offend against the Temple and yet not against the Law Notwithstanding all this God pleads as much for his Temple in the Prophet Haggai as he doth in Malachi for his tithes In this his words are Ye have robbed we in tithes and offerings in the other Is it time for you O ye to dwell in sieled houses and this house lie waste therefore ye have sowne much and bring in little ye eate but have not enough so Hag. 1. 4. And to affirme that God in the New Testament doth accept of meat and drink and cloathing as it is plaine Mat. 25. he doth accept of money land was sold for as in the case of Ananias and yet that he doth not accept Land it selfe is so contrary to all reason so contrary to the practice not onely of the Christian but humane world so contrary to what God himselfe has expressed in the Old Testament and no where â—â—called it in the New that he that can quiet his conscience with such concepts as these may I doubt not attaine to the discovery of some Quirkes which in his conceipt may either palliate murthers or adulteries For to think that those possessions are indeed Gods which he doth command but not those which he doth accept is to use God so as we would neither use our selves nor our neighbours for no man doubts but that 's as properly mine which I accept as a gift from others as what I attaine to by mine owne personall acquisition be it by a just war by study by merchandice or the like 3. Proposition That to invade those things consecrated be they moveable or immoveable is expresly the sin of Sacriledge Sacriledge is then committed say the Schooles and the Casuists and they speak in their owne profession quando reverentia rei sacrae debita violatur When we violate that reverence due to a thing sacred by turning it into a thing profane so as the violation may be committed either per furtum by theft strictly so taken by stealing a thing moveable or per Plagium which is the stealing of a man or per invasionem which is a spoiling men of lands or of things immoveable for as any one of these done against our neighbour is no doubt in Scripture phrase a theft a sin against the 8. Commandment Thou shalt not steale So done against God t is no doubt a Sacriledge and a breach of the first Table be it either against the first or the second Commandement I stand not now to dispute for the word used in the New Test to expresse this sin is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Praeda or spolium So that Sacriledge is not to be defined onely by theft strictly taken but t is a depredation a spoliation of things consecrated and so the word extends it selfe as properly if not more to Lands as it doth to things moveable And hence Aquinas is plaine that Sacriledge reaches out its proper sense ad ea quae deputata sunt ad sustentationem ministrorum sive sint mobilia sive immobilia For it would be very strange to affirme that in the sacking of Jerusalem Nebuchadnezzar was sacrilegious when he transported the holy vessels but not at all when he burnt the Temple 4. Proposition That this sinne is not onely against Gods positive Law but plainly against the Morall Law For this common reason hath taught all even Pagan nations to hold Sacriledge a sinne So that Lactantius observes and he was well read in humane learning which made him to be chose Tutor to a sonne of Constantine the Great Inomni Religione nihil tale sine vindicto God did still remarkably revenge this sinne not onely in the true but amongst men of the most false Religions And 't were easie to shew that never any Nation did yet adore a God but they thought he did accept and did possesse himselfe of some substance I omit those proofs that would be thought far too tedious t is enough to quote the Prophets words Will a man rob God yet ye have robbed me Mal.
and must now think to beginne to tell him of implyed conditions or limitations For it were a strange scorne put upon God if men should make this grand promise to their Maker and then tell him after so many hundreds of yeares that their meaning was to take it back at their pleasure I believe there is no good Pagan that would not blush at this dealing and conclude that if Christians may thus use their God without doubt he is no God at all He goes on Hence is it they sometimes dispose some part in Subsidies and other Taxes The Parliament disposeth part of mens estates in Subsidies and Taxes and with their consents ergo It may dispose of all the Church Lands though Church-men themselves should in down right termes contradict it Truly Sir this Argument is neither worth an answere nor a smile For I am sure you have often told me that the Parliament in justice can destroy no private mans estate Or if upon necessity it may need this or that Subjects Land for some publique use yet that Court is in justice bound to make that private man an amends Subsidies you said were supposed to be laid on Salvo contenemento so that a Duke might still live like a Duke and a Gentleman like a Gentleman Is it not so with the Clergy too By their own consent indeed and not otherwise they are often imposed and they are paid by them but yet they are burthens which they may beare Salvo contenemento and they are paid not out of Gods propriety by alienating of his Lands but out of that usus fructus they receive from God and so the maine doth still go on to their successors So that to inferre from any of these usages that the 〈◊〉 of Bishops and Deanes and Chapters may be wholly alienated from the Church is an inference that will prevaile with none but those who being led by strong passions that it should be so make very little use of their reason to oppose that passion He proceeds Now hence comes the mistake by reason there is not such an expresse condition or limitation in the Deeds of Donation which would silence all dispute whereas it is as cleare a truth that where any thing is necessarily by Law implyed It is as much as in plain termes expressed No marvell if such conditions be not expressed in Benefactors Deeds of Donation because it would make pious deeds most impiously ridiculous For who would not blush to tell God that indeed he gives him such Lands but with a very clear intent to revoke them And what Christian will say that such an intent is tacitely there which it were impiety to expresse Nay t is apparantly cleare in the curses added by such Donors upon those who shall attempt to make void their gifts that their meaning was plaine such lands should remaine Gods for ever By Magna Charta these gifts are confirmed unto the Church for ever She shall have her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable and yet is there a tacite condition in the selfe-same Law that they may be violated No marvell if with us men cannot trust men if God himselfe cannot trust our lawes And if that Charter or any else made by succeeding Princes do indeed confirme such Donations as without all doubt they do sure they must confirme such Donations in that same sence wherein the Donors made them for so do all other confirmations nay in this case of a totall dis-inhaerison there cannot be in law any such tacite conditions or limitations as the Epistler speakes of For I have shewed such to be unjust and tyrannicall in a private Subjects estate and therefore in Gods they are much more unjust because they are sure he cannot offend and an unjust and tyrannicall meaning must not be called the meaning of the Law The Letter goes on Besides it were somewhat strange that the Donors of the Lands should preserve them in the hands of the Bishops from the power of Parliament which he could not doe in his owne and give them a greater and surer right then he had himselfe The Lay-Donee might preserve them thus in his owne hands suppose him but an honest person for though a Parliament may Impunè disinherit such an innocent man yet they cannot doe it Justè and so in this regard both the Donor and the Donee are in the same condition Besides t is no such strange thing for the self-same right as a right suppose of Fee-simple to become more sure in his hands that takes then it ever was in his hands that gave it For though the right it self be still the same right for Nemo dat quod non habet yet by gift it may now come into a more strong hand and by this meanes that selfe-same right may become the stronger And sure with us Gods hand should be more strong then mans Nay hence as some think Lands given to the Church were said to come in manum mortuam as it were into a dead hand which parts with nothing it hath once closed upon And why the Epistler should call this a strange thing I doe not yet see the reason because t is alwayes so when any one Benefactor doth by vertue of a Mortmaine convey his Lands to any kind of Corporation Againe Nor doe I understand their meaning who terme God the Proprietor of the Bishops Lands and the Bishop the Usufructuary I conceive I have made this plaine because such Lands were first offered to God and became his owne Property by his owne divine acceptation And if the Dominium directum of these things doe once rest in God the Dominium utile the usus fructus alone is the onely thing left to be the patrimony of his Clergie But he addes a reason For I know not how in propriety of speech God is more entitled to their Lands then to his whole Creation Here the Epistler speaks out For truly Sir I feare the Lawyer your friend is little better then an Independent How hath God no more Title in propriety of speech to one piece of ground then another No more to a place where a Church is built then where men have now placed a Stable Our English Homilies which are confirmed by Law cry downe this crosse piece of Anabaptisme T is true God made all things and so the whole world is most justly his by that great right of Creation But yet the Psalmists words are as true The earth hath he given to the children of men So as that great God is now wel content to receive back what men will give him And this acceptance of his must needs in all reason make those things his more peculiarly Thus Christ calls the Temple his Fathers house 'T was God's and God's more peculiarly not onely by right of Creation but by gift Thus Lands given unto God are his and his more peculiarly His because he made them and his againe because having once given them to the children of men upon their gift
he did accept them So that his Priests and his Poore being sustained by them he calls it in a more peculiar manner His meat His drinke and His cloathing And then if in point of acceptance with God there be great difference between feeding his Priests and feeding them that doe him no such service there must needs be as much difference between Lands set out unto that sacred use and Lands of a more common employment He gives a second reason Were Clergie-men but Usufructuaries how come they to change dispose or alter the property of any thing which an Usufructuary cannot doe and yet is done by you daily How come they to change or dispose any thing Yes they may change or dispose or alter many kinds of things for so without doubt any Usufructuary may doe so he wrong not his Lord by an abuse done to his Propriety Thus he may change his Corne into Clothing or if he please his Wool into Books Nay he may alter the property of his possessions too if he have expresse leave of his Lord And God himself did tell Levi That he was well content that men should alter some things that belonged to him so it were for the Tribes advantage Levit. 27. 13 The Letter goes on Aske them by what Divine Law S. Maries Church in Oxford may not be equally imployed for Temporall uses as for holding the Vice chancellors Court the University Convocation or their yeerly acts He might as well have asked Why not as well for temporall uses as for temporall uses For if those he names be not so his argument is naught and if they be so t is not well put downe His meaning sure was for other temporall uses as well as for those And truly Sir to put a Church to any such kind of use is not to be defended and therefore I excuse not the University especially she having had at least for a good time so many large places for those meetings Yet something might be said for the Vice-Chancellours Court because t is partly Episcopal something for the act at least in Comitiis because t is partly Divine but I had rather it should receive an amendment then an excuse Though it follow not neither that because this Church is sometimes for some few houres abused therefore it may be alwayes so as if because sometimes t is made a profane Church t is therefore fit 't were no Church at all He proceeds And as for their curses those Bug-beare words I could never yet learne that an unlawfull curse was any prejudice but to the Author of which sort those curses must needs be which restraine the Parliament or any there from exercising a lawfull and undenyable power which in instances would shew very ridiculous if any curse should prejudice anothers lawfull right I am sure such curses have no warrant from the Law of God or this Nation No warrant from the Word of God I conceive there is a very cleare one our mother-Mother-Church commends it to the use of her sons in the expresse words of her Commination Cursed be he that removeth away the mark of his neighbours lands and all the people shall say Amen Deut. 27. 17. If he be accursed that wrongs his neighbour in his Lands what shall he be that injures God If a curse light upon him and a publique curse confirmed by an Amen made by all the people who removes but the mark whereby his neighbours Lands are distinguisht sure a private curse may be annexed by a Benefactor unto his Deed of Donation in case men should rob the very lands themselves that have been once given to their mother That such curses restraine the Parliament in its lawfull undenyable Rights is you have told me but a great mistake For though the Parliament may Impunè which in some sense is called lawfully take away the Church Lands though it may doe it without punishment because the King being there it is the highest power yet that Court it selfe cannot do it Justè cannot doe it without sinne and that a fouler sinne then the removing a Land-marke and then a fouler curse may follow it Let the Epistler then take heed of these more then bug-beare words For believe it Sir in such curses as these there is much more then Showes and Vizards And if you will give trust to any Stories at all many great Families and Men have felt it His last Argument is for all the rest is but declamation Aske your Bishops whether Church Lands may not lawfully the Law of the State not prohibiting be transferred from one Church to another upon emergent occasions which I thinke they will not deny if so who knowes that the Parliament will transferre them to Layhands they-professe no such thing and I hope they will not but continue them for the maintenance of the Ministery I conceive the Bishops answer would be that t is no sacriledge to transferre lands from one Church to another but yet there may be much rapine and injustice the Will of the Dead may be violated and so sinne enough in that Action many may be injuriously put from their estates in which they have as good Title by the lawes of the land as those same men that put them out To say then the Church lands may be totally given up because the Epistler hopes the Parliament will commit no sacriledge is a pretty way of perswasion and may equally worke on him to give up his own lands because he may as well hope to be re-estated again in that the Parliament will do no injustice And now Sir having thus observed your commands I should have ceased to trouble you yet one thing more I shall adventure to crave your patience in and t is to let you know that if this Epistler had been right in both his Conclusions That Episcopacy is not of Divine institution that Sacriledge is no sinne yet if you cast your Eyes upon His Majesties Coronation Oath wherein he is so strictly sworne to defend both the Episcopall Order and the Church-lands and possessions you would easily acknowledge that the King cannot yeeld to what this Letter aims at though he were in danger of no other sinne then that of Perjury And though I must needs guesse that the Epistler knew well of this juratory tye yet you will the lesse blame him for a concealment of this kind because he was not retained of the Churches Counsell His Majesties Oath you may read published by himselfe in an Answer to the Lords and Commons in Parliament 26. May 1642. It runnes thus Episcopus Sir Will you grant and keepe and by your Oath confirme to the People of England the Lawes and Customes to them granted by the Kings of England your lawfull and religious Predecessors and namely the Lawes Customes and Franchizes granted to the Clergy by the glorious King S. Edward your Predecessour according to the Lawes of God the true profession of the Gospell established in this Kingdome and agreeable