feare that if I should perhaps dissent in opinion from this Epistler I might be thought at least in his conceite to incurre a sharpe censure both in point of reason and honesty Which I confesse at first somewhat troubled me untill I remembred you were wont to say that when vessels do once make such noises as these t is a very shrewd signe they are empty He who wrote the Letter seemes most desirous of Peace and truly Sir so am I besides we agree in this that we must not commit sinne for a good end so that if Peace it selfe cannot be attained without that guilt we must be content with a worse estate But you very well know with how many severall deceipts our affections can mislead our reason you remember who it was that said it unto the very face of a Prophet I have kept the commandement of the Lord and yet his sin remained still a great sinne and much the worse because he excused it For his guilt is lesse that commits a crime then his that undertakes to defend it because this cuts off all repentance nay it makes a sin to grow up into that more wicked heighth of a scandall and so t is not only a snare to the sinner himselfe but it warrants many more to be sinfull Whether this Oxford Londoner for so I take the Epistler to be hath not defended or made apologies for sinne and hath not in that sense done evil that good may come thereof I am now to make an enquiry and I shall follow him in his two generals 1. The delivering up the Kings friends whom they above call evil counsellors And 2. The businesse of the Church 1. For the Kings friends He sayes I know not how you can with reason gainsay the bringing offenders to justice indeed nor I neither but what if they be not offenders What if they must be brought to injustice I know no man that will refuse to be judged by a Parliament whose undoubted Head is the King and the King sitting there with an unquestioned Negative nay for his Majesty to referre Delinquents to be judged by the House of Peers sitting in a free Parliament and judging according to the known Lawes of the Realme is that at least which in my opinion would not be stucke at But the Parliament prerogative which this Letter speakes of being now so extended as we have cause to thinke it is I doubt in this case whether not only in point of honour but in point of justice and conscience the King for his own Peace can leave his friends to such men whom he is clearely bound by so many grand ties to protect But this Sir I shall commit to you to determine and if you returne me a negative I shall not presume to question your reason or honesty nor shall I perswade the Kings friends that they would banish themselves unlesse it were only to do that great favour to the two Houses now at Westminster as to keep them from some future foule acts of oppression and bloud because they shall have none left to act upon 2. For the busines of the Church which he againe divides into two parts first that of Episcopacy secondly of Sacriledge And in these Sir I shall speake with lesse hesitation I shall clearely tell you the Epistler is cleane out and though you very well know me a great honourer of your profession yet I cannot hold it fit to decide cases of conscience or in humane actions to tell us what is sinne or no sinne and I am confident Sir you will not take this ill at my hands First for Episcopacy his words are if I mistake not and if I do I pray reforme me The opinion that the government by Bishops is jure divino hath but lately been countenanced in England and that by some few of the more Lordly Cleargy These last words make me suspect some passion in the Writer as being in scorne heretofore taken up by men who for a long time were Schismatiques in their hearts and are now Rebels in their actions And since the Lawes of this Land makes some Church men Lords I do the more marvaile that the Epistler lookes awry upon it so that though his profession be that he has undergone labours and hazards for the Episcopall Government yet truly Sir I must thinke that t is then only fit for the Church to give him thankes when she has done all her other busines But grant that Tenet to be but of late countenanced it thence followes not that t is any whit the lesse true For in respect of the many hundred yeares of abuse the reformation it selfe was but of late countenanced here yet I take it for an unquestionable truth that the Laity ought to have the cuppe And though I was not desired to reforme this Epistlers errour yet in charity I shall tell him that he is out when he affirmes that this opinion was but of late countenanced in this Church as I could shew him out of Archbishop Whitgift and Bishop Bilson and others and since perhaps he may thinke these to be but men of the more Lordly Clergy I shall name one more who may stand for many and who wrote forty yeares since that most excellent man M. Hooker a person of most incomparable learning and of as much modesty who I dare be bold to say did not once dreame of a Rotchet he averres in cleare tearmes There are at this day in the Church of England no other then the same degrees of Ecclesiasticall order namely Bishops Presbyters and Deacons which had their beginning from Christ and his blessed Apostles themselves or as he expounds himselfe Bishops and Presbyters ordained by Christ himselfe in the Apostles and the seventy and then Deacons by his Apostles I may adde Bucer too no man I am sure of the Lordly Clergy who though he were not English born yet he was professor here in King Edwards time and he wrote and dyed in this Kingdome Bishops saith he are Ex perpetua ecclesiarum ordinatione ab ipsis jam Apostolis and more Usum hoc est spiritui sancto and sure if Bishops be from the Apostles and from the holy Spirit himselfe they are of divine institution Nay what thinke you if this Tenet be approved by a plaine act of Parliament I hope then it wants no countenance which England can give it and it needs not fly for shelter under the wings of the Lordly Cleargy you have these words in the booke of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops which is confirmed by Parliament It is evident to all men reading holy Scriptures and ancient Authors that from the Apostles times there have been these orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Presbyters and Deacons And againe the prayer in the forme of consecration of Bishops Almighty God giver of all good things which by thy holy Spirit hast appointed divers orders of Ministers in thy Church mercifully behold this thy servant now called to
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
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
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
Hierusalem Alexandria Antioch and Rome Ephesus at Creece at Athens and Colosse divers others it being easie to draw a Catalogue of them out of several Ecclesiasticall Writers And here it will be plain that its a foule corruption nay how flat a sinne is brought into the Church of Christ where Episcopacy is thrown down and so where Ordination is performed by any hands without theirs t is as grosse as if Lay-men should be allowed to baptize when a Presbyter doth stand by nay more it is as bad as if the Order of Presbyters should therefore be thrown downe that Lay-men might Baptize and what 's this but willingly to runne into a Necessity it selfe that wee might thence create an Apology T is a corruption farre worse then if a Church should audaciously attempt to pull down the Lords Day since the observation of that Time is neither built on so cleare a Text nor on the helpe of so Universall a Consent as is the Order of Episcopacy So that if men can thinke it sinfull to part with the Lords Day though the institution of it be meerly Apocryphall they must needs confesse there is at least so much sinne nay indeed more in parting with their Bishops and then the Oxford Doctrine which the Epistler gybes at and talkes of as transmitted for an orthodox truth will it seemes prove no lesse in earnest Secondly for the point of Sacriledge the better to clâ—â—â—e this I must premise these Assertions 1. That God accepts of things given him and so holds a Propriety as well in the New as in the Old Testament 2. That God gets this Propriety in those things he holds as well by an acceptation of what is voluntarily given as by a command that such things should be presented to him 3. That to invade those things be they moveable or immoveable is expresly the sinne of Sacriledge 4. That this sinne is not only against Gods positive Law but plainly against his Morall Law 1. Proposition God accepts of things given c. For proofe of this first I quote that Text I hungred and ye gave me meat I thirsted and ye gave me drinke c. Mat. 25. If Christ do not accept of these things he may say indeed yee offered me meat but he cannot say that yee gave it for a Present is then only to be called a Gift when it is accepted as his own that takes it And do's he thus accept of Meat and Clothing and do's he not accept of those kind of endowments that bring both these to perpetuity Will He take Meat and refuse Revenues Doth He like can you imagine to be Fed and Clothed to day and in danger to be Starved to morrow The men thus provided for He calles no lesse then His Brethren In as much as you have done it unto the least of these my Brethren yee have done it unto me Whether these were of those Brethren which he had enjoyned to teach others or of those which he would have instructed the Text there doth not decide without doubt it must be meant of both for it were a strange thing to affirme that Christ liked it extreame well to be Fed and to be Clothed in all those He called His but only in His Seventy and His Apostles but to put it out of doubt that what is done to them is done to Him too His owne words are very plain He that receiveth you teaching Disciples receiveth me in the Tenth of that Gospell where He sends all forth to preach and that reception implyes all such kind of provisions as is apparently plaine throughout the whole Tenour of the Chapter And againe I quote that so well known passage of Ananias and Saphyra his wife Act. 5. his sin was he kept back part of the price of those Lands he had given to God for the publique use of the Church yea given to God and t is as plaine that he did accept it for S. Peter you know thus reprooves him Why hast thou lyed or why hast thou deceived the Holy Ghost for so {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} do's properly import why doest thou cheat him of what is now his own proper right And againe Thou hast not lyed unto men but unto God and is this so strange a thing Are not all our lyes to be accounted sinnes before God yes all against God as a Witnesse and a Judge but yet not all against God as a Party and therefore t is a more remarkeable a more signall lye Thou hast not lyed unto men a negative of comparison not so much to men as to God what 's done to them is scarce worth the naming but thou hast lyed unto God as a Witnesse and a Judge yea and a party too Thou hast lyed rob'd God by lying and so runne thy selfe into an eminent sinne and that shall appeare in Gods judgement so the Fathers generally expound that place both of the Greek and Latine Church and affirme his crime was a robbing God of that wealth which by Vow or by promise was now become Gods propriety So the Modern Interpreters yea so Calvin Sacrum esse Deo profitebatur He professed that his Land should be a sacred thing unto God sayes he on that place and there Beza too Pradium Deo consecrassent the the man and his wife they consecrated this Land to God And he that will not believe so Universall a consent in the interpreting a place of Scripture should do well to consider whether upon the same ground as I told you before he may not be brought to doubt of his Dictionary for that is but Universal consent he may almost as well doubt whether {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifyes God and altogether as well whether {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifyes the Gospell The New Testament will afford more places for this purpose Thou that abhorrest Idols committest thou Sacriledge Rom. 2. 22. T is true these words are spoken as to the person of an unconverted Jew and may be therefore thought to aime only at those sinnes which were descryed in the Law of Moses but do but view S. Pauls way of arguing and you will quickly find they come home to us Christians too he there tells the Jew that he taught others those things which yet he would not do himselfe and he strives to make this good by three severall instances first Thou that Preachest a man should not steale doest thou steale Secondly Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery dost thou commit adultery In both these t is plain that the Jew he dealt with did the same things he reprehended and straightway the third comes Thou that abhorrest Idols dost thou commit Sacriledge So that hence 't will follow if S. Pauls words have Logique in them that these two sinnes are of the selfe same nature too And that to commit a sacriledge is a breach of the same Law as to commit an Idolatry so that crime will
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-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
And it cannot therefore be remitted but by them alone for whose sake the Oath was taken So that when in the second Paragraph of the first clause and more plainly in the fift he sweares a benefit to the Bishops alone in the behalfe of them and their Churches t is apparent that this Oath must perpetually bind except a remission can be obtained from the Bishops themselves and their Churches he was sworne to This then must be confessed to be the sense of the oath that when the King hath first sworn in generall to grant keepe and confirme the Lawes and Customes of the people of England he farther yet particularly sweares unto the Clergy to preserve their Lawes and Priviledges and Customes because since they are not able to make a negative in Parliament so that the Clergy may easily be swallowed up by the People and the Lords Therefore in a more particular manner they have obtained an oath to be made unto them by the King which being for their particular benefit it cannot be remitted without their expresse consent so that although an Act of Parliament being once passed by the Votes of the King and both Houses it doth Sir as you have told me bind the whole People of England yea the whole People as it includes the Clergy too yet it concernes the King by vertue of his Oath to give his Vote unto no such Act as shall prejudice what he hath formerly sworne unto them except he can first obtain their expresse consent that he may be thereby freed from his juratory obligation It may be said perhaps that in the consent given by both Houses of Parliament the consent of the Clergy is tacitely implyed and so it is say our Lawyers as you have told me Sir in respect of the power obligatory which an Act so passed obtaines upon them for they affirme that it shall as strongly bind the Clergy as if they themselves had in expresse termes consented to it Although Bishops being men barred from their Votes in Parliament And neither they nor their inferiour Clergy having made choice of any to represent them in that great Councell their consents can in no faire sense be said to be involved in such Acts as are done as well without their representative presence as they once without their personall But the Question is whether a tacite consent though it be indeed against their expresse wils can have a power remissory to absolve the King from his Oath he that affirmes it hath must resolve to meet with this great absurdity that although besides his Generall Oath unto the whole People of England His Majesty be in particular sworne unto the Rights of the Clergy yet they obtaine no more benefit by this then if he had sworn onely in generall which is as much as to say that in this little draught Oathes are multiplyed without necessity nay without signification at all and that the greater part of the first and the whole fourth clause are nothing else but a meere painfull draught of superfluous tautologies For his yeelding to the two first lines swears him to keep and confirme the Lawes and customes of the whole people of England which word People includes those of the Clergy too and therefore in generall their Lawes and Customes are confirmed no doubt in those words and so confirmed that they cannot be shaken but at least by their tacite consent in a Parliamentary way But since the King condescends to afford to their Rights a more particular juratory tye there is no doubt but it binds in a way too that is more particular so that His Majesty cannot expect a remission of this oath without their consents clearely expressed For as when the King sweares to keep the Lawes of the People in general he cannot be acquitted but by the expresse consent of the people or by a body that represents the People quatenus the people so that when in particular he sweares unto the Lawes and Customes of the Clergy this Oath must needs bind until it be remitted in an expresse forme either by the whole Clergy themselves or by some Body of men at least that represents the Clergy quatenus the Clergy and not only as they are involved in the great body of the People so that he that shall presume to perswade His Majesty to passe an Act in prejudice of this ecclesiastical Body to whom he is thus sworn without their expresse consent first obtained councels him to that which is both grosly injurious unto his fellow Subjects nay which is indeed a most damnable wickednesse against the very soule of the King Sir as I conceive t is now plaine enough that if the Parliament should destroy the Episcopall Order and take away the Lands of the Church the Houses in that Act would runne themselves into two sinnes and His Majesty into three and upon this supposition the Epistler and I are agreed I do not thinke saith he Conveniency or Necessity will excuse Conscience in a thing in it selfe unlawfull and before that he calls the contrary the Tenet of the Romanist or Jesuited Puritan Onely I would beseech him for his own soules sake to consider how great a scandall he hath given to mankind in defence of such sinnes as these For I conceive that Durand offended more in holding Fornication was no sinne against the Law naturall then Shechem did who was onely under that Law in his Lust upon old Jacobs Daughter Fraudem legi facere saith the Civilian is worse then Legem violare it argues a more un-Subject-like disposition for a man to put tricks and quirks upon his Prince his Lawes then to runne himselfe into a down-right violation And God we know is King I am a great King saith the Lord of Hosts and a King in whose hand is vengeance Malach. 1. 14. T is true Sir we are thus put into a very sad condition when the only Option that seemes left us now is either to choose sinne or ruine but yet if well used t is a condition glorious a condition wherein all that noble Army of Martyrs stood before they could come at Martyrdome and if in preparation of mind we thus lay our lives downe at the feet of Christ I am undoubtedly perswaded t is our only way to preserve them FINIS 25. H. 8. c. 19. Epist. Ans. Epist Ans. Epist. Ans. 2 Sam. 7. Act. 27. 8. Mal. 3. 8. Aquin. 2. 2. qu. 39. Art 1. Ibid. Art 3. 〈◊〉 verum de Furto Gel. l. 11. c. â—lt L. verum