ask what better way there can be for interpreting Texts than that very same means whereby I know Text to be Text to wit The Consent of the Church Shall I believe and yet disbelieve that self-same Consent which is the best ground of my belief This is as 't were to say that I believe such a tale for the Authors sake who hath told it and yet now I do hold the self-same man to be a Lyar. Men do believe the Testimony of Universal Consent in the sense it gives of Singular terms and why not in the sense it gives of Sentences and Propositions Without the help of this Consent which indeed is the ground of our Dictionaries how shall we know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Resurrection of the Body which the Socinians at this day deny And I know no such way to confute their Errour as by the Authority of this Consent Admit then of that Rule that Consent Universal is the best interpreter of the Text and then I am sure that it is as clear as true that Episcopacy is of Divine or Apostolical Right And that Proposition There can be no Ordination without the hands of a Bishop will clearly appear to be as well grounded as this There can be no Baptism without a Lawful Minister which yet is good Divinity amongst our new Masters in Scotland and antiquity allowed it Extra casum necessitatis For I ask upon what Text do they ground this Rule I suppose they will say upon our Saviours Words Go teach all Nations and Baptize them but in the Institution of the Eucharist he spake those words too but only to the Twelve Drink c. Mat. 26. I demand then how shall we know that when our Saviour spake those words to the Eleven he spake them only as to Lawful Ministers but when he spake the other to the Twelve he spake them at large as to them that did represent all Christian men So that though only Ministers may Baptize yet all Christians may receive the Cup Perhaps they l say that this general receiving the Cup is manifest from the 1 Cor. 11. and I think so too where St. Paul seems to chide the whole Church for their irreverence at the Sacrament But if a quarreller should reply that he there speaks but of the Presbitery only whereof many were at that time at Corinth as when in Chap. 5. he seems to chide the whole Church for not Excommunicating the Incestuous Person yet t is plain that he means none but the men in Government as sure all Presbyterians will allow me I know not what could be said but to make it appear out of the Fathers and others that the whole Christian Church never took the words in that sence And if to stop the mouth of the contentious we must be constrained to quote the Authority of Universal Consent and of the common practise of Christs Church then you 'l easily see that those two Propositions named do stand fast on the same bottom There can be no Baptism without a lawful Minister extra casum necessitatis for so the Practise and Consent of Universal Church have still interpreted that Text. And again 't is true there can be no Ordination without the hands of a Bishop for so those Texts out of Timothy and Titus have been understood and practised for One thousand five hundred Years together by the Consent of the whole Church of Christ. 'T is true that this precept of Christ Go ye teach all Nations and baptize them runs not in exclusive words ye Apostles or ye lawful Ministers and none else yet extra casum necessitatis none was allowed but a lawful Minister so that though those commands Lay hands suddainly on no Man and do thou Ordain Elders in every City run not in Verbis exclusivis thou and none but thou or men of thine Order only yet the Church understanding and Preaching them in an exclusive sense no man for One thousand and five hundred Years in any setled Church was held rightly Ordained without the hands of a Bishop Nay that there is something Divine in the Episcopal Order will appear clearly by this That immediately from the times of Christ and his Apostles yea within the reach of those times it was Universally spread throughout the whole Church so that no man can name a Nation that was once converted to the Christian Faith but he shall soon find there were Bishops So that there must needs have been an Universal Cause for an Effect that was so Universal General Council there was none about it at which all Christians might have met and might thence have obeyed their directions Nor can any name a Power to which all Christians would submit for they were soon fallen into factions but either the Authority of Christ or his Apostles from them then must needs flow the Episcopal Order and at that Fountain I shall leave it I say within the reach of the Apostles times for before St. Iohn dyed there are upon good Church Records above Twenty-eight Bishops appointed to their several Sees as at Ierusalem Alexandria Antioch Rome Ephesus Crete Athens Colosse and divers others a Catalogue whereof I shall be ready to attend you with when you shall be pleased to command it And hence it will be plain how great a Corruption nay how flat a sin is brought into Christs Church when Episcopacy is thrown down and so where Ordination is performed by any hands without theirs 't is as gross as if the Laymen should be allowed to baptize where a Presbyter stands by Nay more 't is as bad as if the Order of Presbytery should be thrown down that Laymen might Baptize What is this but wilfully to run into necessity which may thence create an Apology 'T is a Corruption far worse than if a Church should audaciously attempt to put down the Lords day since the Observation of that time is neither built on so clear a Text nor on the help of so Universal consent as is the Order of Episcopacy So that if men can think it sinful to part with the Lords day though the Institution of it be merely Apostolical they must needs confess that there is at least as much sin nay indeed more in parting with their Bishops And then the Oxford Doctrine he abuses and talks of as Transmitted for Orthodox Truth will it seems prove no less in earnest Secondly For the point of Sacriledge and the better to clear this I must premise these directions 1. That God accepts of things given Him and so holds a Propriety as well in the New as Old Testament 2. That God gets that 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 unto Him 3. To invade those things be they moveable or unmovable is expresly the Sin of Sacriledge 4. That this Sin is not only against Gods positive but plainly against the Moral-Law For the
of abuse the Reformation was but lately countenanced and yet I take it for an unquestionable truth that the Laity ought to have the Cup And though I was not desired to reform the Epistlers Errors yet in charity I shall tell him he is out when he affirms that this opinion was but of late countenanced in the Church as I could shew out of Archbishop Whitgift by Bishop Bilson and divers others And since perhaps he might think these to be men of the more Lordly Clergy I shall name one more who may stand for many and who wrote forty years since that most excellent man Mr. Hooker a Person of incomparable learning and of as much modesty who I dare be bold to say never once dreamed of a Rochet he avers in clear terms There are at this day in the Church of England no other than the same degrees of Ecclesiastical Order Namely Bishops Presbyters and Deacons who had their beginning from Christ and his Blessed Apostles themselves or as he expounds himself Bishops and Presbyters are and by Christ himself in the Apostles and Seventy and then Deacons by the Apostles I may add Bucer too no man I am sure of the Lordly Clergy who though he was not English born yet he was Professour here in King Edwards time and wrote and dyed in this Kingdom Bishops saith he are ex perpetua Ecclesiarum ordinatione ab ipsis jam Apostolis and more visum est Spiritui sancto and surely if Bishops be from the Apostles and from the holy Spirit himself they are by Divine Ordination Nay what think you if this Tenent be approved by a plain Act of Parliament I hope then it wants no Countenancer England can give it and it needs not fly for shelter under the wings of the Lordly Clergy You have these words in the Books of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops which is confirmed by Parliament It is evident to all men reading holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons And again the prayer in the form of Consecrating 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 the Work and Ministry of a Bishop And in the Question to the Person to be consecrated Bishop Are you perswaded you be called truly to this Ministration according to the will of the Lord Iesus Christ c. I beseech you Sir consider whether these words or the Prayer could fall from any man not possessed with this Tenent that Episcopacy is of Divine Right For if the three Orders may be found by reading Scripture together with antient Authors if men are taught to pray That God by his Spirit hath appointed divers Orders in his Church and this made the ground of praying for the present Bishop If the Person to be consecrated must profess that he is called according to the Will of our Lord Jesus Christ either all this must be nothing but pure pageantry and then the Parliament mocked God by their Confirmation or else Episcopacy is grounded on 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 and countenanced only by some c. And we have the less reason to doubt that this Tenent was countenanced in this Church of ours because we find it desired in those parts that have lost Episcopacy For we are told by Doctor Charelton after Bishop of Chichester one that writ against the Arminians more than twenty-five years since That sitting at Dort he there protested in open Synod that Christ ordained no Parity but made twelve Apostles the Chief so under them the Seventy Disciples then Bishops succeeded the Twelve and Presbyters the Seventy Disciples He affirmed this order had still been maintained in the Church and then challenged the Judgment of any learned man that could speak to the Contrary Their answer was silence which was approbation enough But after saith he discoursing with divers of the best learned of the Synod He told them how necessary Bishops were to suppress the then rising Schisms Their answers were That they did Honour much Reverence that good Order and Discipline of the Church of England and with all their hearts would be glad to have it established amongst them but that could not be hoped for in their Estate their hope was that seeing they could not be what they desired God would be merciful to them that did what they could If they hoped for mercy to pardon what they did sure they must suppose that what they did was sinful nay they thought their necessity it self could not totally excuse that sin for then in that particular there had been no need of mercy Nor could they well think otherwise for being pressed they denied not but that Episcopacy was of Christs own Institution and yet they were not 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 But this Londoner goes on and proves this Tenent could not be here countenanced for we alwayes allowed the Protestants of Germany the Low Countrys c. part of the Reformed Catholick-Church though they had no Bishops The Reformed Catholick protestant-Protestant-Church a pretty expression just like that so well known the Roman-Catholick Church which we were wont to call a Popish Solecisme an Universal particular But wee 'l forgive him this Slip Suppose his Sence be well worded yet he has as ill luck in his Argument as his Expression For though we do maintain that Episcopacy is of Divine Right i. e. of divine Institution does it then follow That Germany and the Low Countrys are no Protestant Churches or no part of the Catholick Church I could almost believe that the Author of this Letter writ from London indeed for sure Oxford makes no such Arguments No it must be a Crime of most horrid Nature that makes a Church run in non Ecclesiam For though that of the Iews was bad Idolatrically bad yet God seriously professes He had sent Her no Bill of Divorce Nay no Learned Man of Judgment durst ever yet affirm That the Romaen Church her self was become no true part of the Church Catholick and yet She breaks a flat Precept of Christs Drink ye all of this And shall we be thought to deny the same right unto Christians without Bishops when they brake but Christ's Institutions No! Churches they are true parts of the Catholick Church but in point of Ordination and Apostolical Government they are not And to affirm this will I hope he thought I am assured by Learned Men neither irrational nor unhonest He goes on I am certain the King would never have have way for Extirpation of Bishops in Scotland had he conceived them to be Jure Divino
Church to another upon emergent Occasions which I think they will not deny if so who knows that the Parliament will transfer them to Lay-Lands They profess no such thing and I hope they will not but continue them for the maintenance of the Ministry I conceive the Bishops Answer would be That it is no Sacriledge to transfer Land from one Church to another but yet there may be much Rapine and Injustice the Will of the Dead may be violated and so Sin enough in the Action Men may be injuriously put from the Estates in which they have as good Title by the Law of the Land as these same Men that put them out To say then that the Church Lands may be totally given up because the Epistler hopes the Parliament will commit no Sacriledge is a pretty way of persuasion and may equally work 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 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 Right and that Sacriledge is no Sin yet if you cast your Eyes upon His Majesties Coronation Oath wherein He is so strictly sworn to defend both the Episcopal Order and the Church Lands and Possessions you would easily acknowledge That the King cannot yield to what this Letter aims at And though I must needs guess and that the Epistler knew well enough his Juratory Tye yet you will the less blame him for his concealment in this kind because he was not retain'd of the Churches Councel His Majesties Oath you may find published by Himself in an Answer to the Lords and Commons in Parliament 26 May. It runs thus Episcopus Sir Will You grant and keep and by Your Oath confirm unto the People of England the Lavs and Customs to them granted by the Kings of England Your Lawful and Religious Predecessors and namely the Laws Customs and Franchises granted to the Clergy by the Glorious King Edward Your Predecessor according to the Laws of God the true Profession of the Gospel established in this Kingdom and agreeable to the Prerogative of the Kings thereof and the ancient Customs of this Realm REX I grant and promise to keep them Episcopus Sir Will You keep Peace and godly Agreement intirely according to Your Power both to God the Holy Church the Clergy and the People REX I will keep it Episcopus Sir Will You to Your Power couse Law Iustice and Discretion in Mercy and Truth to be exeruted in all Your Iudgments REX I will Episcopus Will You grant to hold and keep the Laws and rightful Customs which the Commonalty of this Your Kingdom have And will You defend and uphold them to the Honour of God as much as in You lieth 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 we beseech You to pardon and grant and preserve unto us and to the Churches committed to our Charge all Canonical Priviledges and due Law and Iustice And that You would protect and defend us as every good King in His Kingdom ought to be Protector and Defender of the Bishops and the Churches under their Government Then the King ariseth and is led to the Communion Table where He makes a Solemn Oath in the sight of all His People to observe the Promises and laying His Hand upon the Book saith The Things which I have before promised I shall perform and keep So help me God and the Contents of the Book In the first Clause it is plain He makes a promissory Oath to the whole People of England a word that includes both Nobility Clergy and Commons That He will keep and confirm their Laws and Customs And in the second He swears a particular Promise to the Clergy That He will keep the Laws Customs and Franchises granted to the Clergy by the Glorious King Edward And again more plain in the fifth Clause he makes the like promissory Oath to the Bishops alone in behalf of themselves and their Churches That He will preserve and maintain to them all Canonical Priviledges and due Law and Iustice And that He will be their Protector and Defender Where since He swears Protection to the Bishops by Name 't is plain He swears to maintain their Orders For he that swears he will take care that Bishops be preserved in such and such Rights must needs swear to take care that Bishops shall first be for their Rights must needs suppose their Essence And where the King swears Defence it must needs be in a Royal Kingly way Tu defende Me Gladio Ego defendam Te Calamo is the well known Speech of a worthy Churchman to his Prince For sure where Kings swear defence to Bishops I do not think they swear to write Books in their behalf or to attempt to make it clear to their People That Episcopacy is Iure Divino But a King whose Propriety it is to bear the Sword swears to bear it in defence of Bishops For though it be against the very Principles of Christian Faith that Religion should be planted and reformed by Blood yet when Christian Kings have by Law setled this Religion and sworn defence of those Persons that should preach it he ought sure to bear his Sword to defend his Laws and to keep his Soul free from Perjury as well to them as the rest of his Subjects And as by Canonical Priviledge that belong to them and their Churches there must needs be implied the Honour of their several Orders as that Bishops should be above Presbyters c. together with all the due Rights and Jurisdictions And the words Due Law and Iustice cannot but import That His Majesty binds Himself to see that Justice be done to them and their Churches according to Law then in force when He took that Oath And the King swears Protection and Defence that Clause must needs reach not only to their Persons but to their Rights and Estates for He swears not only to Men but to Men in such a condition to Bishops of their Churches And whereas He swears to be their Protector and Defender to His Power in the Assistance of God those words To His Power may seem to acquit Him of all the rest if He fall into a condition wherein all Power is taken from Him But Sir I will prove that a mistake for one of the greatest Powers of the King of England Is His Negative in Parliament so that without Him no Law can be Enacted there since 't is only the Power Royal that can make a Law to be Law So So that if the King should pass a Statute to take away the Churches Lands He protects it not
he would have proved it of Apostolical Institution But it seems it was certainly in Practice amongst the Primitive Christians at Antioch whose Example he does alledge for its Justification for he says They Lampoon'd the Beard of the Emperour Iulian and Burlesqued his Princely Whiskers Surely this Instance serves much better to prove the Lawfulness of Reviling the King than to Confute the Doctrine of Passive Obedience But yet this Revolted Divine would pass for a true Son of the Church of England though he Renounces her Doctrine and Practice for he is very Angry she will furnish her Magazines with no other Weapons than Tears and Prayers for he thinks he could manage a Carnal Sword for Preferment much better than a Spiritual and for that Reason likes the Alcoran beyond the Gospel I know he blames our Saviour in 's Heart for commanding St. Peter to put up his Sword and for not making use of those many Legions of Angels that would gladly have Rescued him from the Iews But Alas this Son lyes in his Mothers Bosom only to Betray her and stays in the Vineyard for the same Reason the Boar does that he may have the better Conveniency of Rooting of it up I know how unpalatable a Doctrine is maintained in this Discourse but though like the best Physick it be bitter it is wholsome and will certainly Cure the Divisions of the Church for they can have no pretence to Quarrel Episcopacy if once they be perswaded that the Government by Bishops is Iure Divino Neither do I believe the Notion of Sacriledge will have a better Taste in their Mouths for it will not be worth while to pull down the Bishops if the Church-Lands cannot be shared God Almighty being the real Proprietor I hope this little Book may convince some of their Errors but if not I am sure it will confirm those that have embraced the Truth SIR YOU have put an odd task upon Me in commanding my judgment on a Letter lately sent to a Doctor in Oxon with a Commission to shew it to my Lord Dorset and to as many more as own Reason and Honesty for thus it is in the Post-script and many like passages more in the Letter As That the more Wise and Honest Party would make use of that Reason c. And I know you to be too great a Master of Reason to be unsatisfied which makes me fear if perhaps I should dissent in opinion from this Epistler I might be thought at least in his conceit to incur a sharp Censure both of Reason and Honesty which I confess at first somewhat troubled me till I remembred you were wont to say That when once Vessels make such noises as these it was a shrewd sign they were empty He who wrote the Letter seems most desirous of Peace and truly so am I. Besides we agree in this That we must not commit sin for a good Cause So that if peace it self cannot be obtained without that guilt we must be content with a worse Estate But you very well know with how many several deceits our Affections can mislead our Reason you remember who it was that said it to the very face of a Prophet I have kept the Commandments of the Lord and yet his sin remained a great sin still and much the worse because he excused it for his guilt is less that commits a sin only than his that undertakes to defend it because this cuts off all Repentance nay it makes a sin grow up to that more wicked height of a scandal and so it is not only a snare to the sinner himself but it warrants many more to be sinful Whether this Oxford-Londoner for so I take this Epistler to be hath not defended or made Apologies for sin and hath not in that sense done Evil that Good may come thereof I am now to make enquiry and I shall follow him in his two Generals 1. The Delivering up of the Kings friends whom they above call Evill Counsellors And 2. In the business of the Church 1. For the Kings friends he sayes I know not how you can with Reason gain-say the bringing of an Offender to Iustice. Indeed nor I neither but what if they be not offenders What if they be brought to Injustice I know no man will refuse to be Judged by a Parliament whose undoubted Head is the King sitting there with an unquestioned Negative nay for His Majesty to refer Deliquents to be judged by the House of Peers sitting in a Parliament and judging according to the know Laws of the Realm is that at least which in my opinion will be stuck at But the Parliaments Prerogative which this Letter speaks of being now so extended we have cause to think it is a 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 bound by so many grand Ties to protect But this Sir I shall commit to you to determine and if you return me a Negative I shall not presume to question either your Reason or Honesty Nor shall I perswade the Kings Friends that they should banish themselves unless it were to do that great favour to the two Houses of Westminster as to keep them from some future inhumane Act of Oppression and Blood because they shall have none left to Act them on 2. For the business of the Church which he again divides into two parts 1. That of Episcopacy 2. That of Sacriledge In those Sir I shall speak with less Hesitation and clearly tell you the Epistler is quite out And though you know me a great honourer of your Profession yet I cannot hold it fit for you to decide cases of Conscience or in humane Actions to tell us what is sin or not sin And I am confident Sir you will not take this ill at my hands 1. For Episcopacy his words are if I mistake not and if I do I pray you inform me The Opinion that the Government by Bishops is Jure Divino hath but lately been Countenanced in the Church of England and that but by some few of the more Lordly Clergy These last words makes me suspect some passion in the writer as being in scorn heretofore taken up by men who for a long time were Schismaticks in Heart and are now Rebels in their Actions And since the Laws of the Land makes some Church-men Lords I do the more marvel that the Epistler who seems so Zealous for the Laws should be angry at that So that though his profession be that he has undergone labours and hazards for the Episcopal Government Yet truly Sir I must think that it is then only fit for the Church to give him thanks when she has done all her other business But grant the Tenent to be but of late countenanced it thence follows not that it is any whit the less true For in respect of the many hundred years
Grant it were so yet of all mankind are Kings only bound that they must not change their opinions or if perhaps they have done ill must they for their Repentance be far more reproached than Subjects for their Crimes The King would not have given way to Presbyterians and Independents to exercise Religion here in their own way as by his late Engagement when such a Toleration in the face of a divine Law must needs be sinful There is a great mistake in this Argument for to Tolerate doth not at all signify either to approve or commend Factions neither of which the King could at all do to gross Schismatiques without sin But it meerly implyes not to punish which Kings may forbear upon just reason of State as David forbare the punishing of Ioabs Murther I say in Person he forbare though he bequeathed it to his Son And we our selves in our English State have no punishment for all kind of lyars and yet their sin is against a flat Law divine and we should not be still vexed with so much Poetical-News had we Sanction made that might prohibit and punish them And now Sir I conceive you think that what the Londoner hath said in this point amounts to just nothing yet since you would needs enjoyn me to acquaint you with the state and grounds of the Tenent he is pleased to deride I shall readily obey you For truly Sir I have ever held you a Gentleman of a pious Inclination and am confident you will welcome Truth for his sake who is Truth though it should cross both your gain and peace Indeed this Tenent of Divine right of Episcopacy hath been long since and of late much years opposed as on the one side by the Pope and his party in the Council of Trent and after that by some warmer Iesuites so on the other side by Schismatiques and Sectaries that call themselves of the Reformation And I remember You and I were oft wont to say that commonly the truth our English Churches Tenents lay in the midst between those and did seem the more Christian because they were Crucified oft between two such kind of Thieves We affirm then Episcopacy to be of Divine Right i. e. of Divine Institution and that must needs imply a Divine Precept too for to what end are things instituted by God but that it is presumed it is our part to use them To what end should some men be appointed to teach and to govern but that it is clearly implyed there are other men too who ought both to hear and obey them He that erects a Bridge over a broad swelling Stream needs not you will think add any express command that men should not hazzard drowning by going into the water Thus when our Blessed Saviour made his Institution of that great Sacrament the Eucharist he gave command indeed concerning the Bread Do this in remembrance c. And concerning the Cup Drink ye all of this but he gave no express command to do both these together and yet his Institution hath been ever held to have the Nature of a Command and so for One Thousand Years the whole Christian Church did ever practise it save only in some few cases in which men supposed a kind of necessity I say then Episcopacy is of Divine Right Instituted by Christ in his Apostles who since they took upon them to Ordain and Govern Churches you need not doubt they received from their Master an Authority to do both for sure men will not think they will break their own Rules No man takes this upon him but he that was called of God as was Aaron Episcopacy then was Instituted in the Apostles who were Bishops and aliquid amplius and distinguished by Christ himself from the Seventy who were the Presbyters so the most antient Fathers generally Or if you will take St. Ieroms opinion who neither was a Bishop nor in his angry mood any good friend to that order they were Instituted by the Apostles who being Episcopi Amplius did in the latter time formalize and bound out that Power which we do still call Episcopacy and so these received opinions may well stand together for Episcopatus being in Apostulatu tanquam Consulatus in Dictatura as the latter and Subordinate Power is alwayes in the greater we may truly say it was instituted by Christ in his Apostles who had Episcopal Power and more and then formalized and bounded by the Apostles themselves in the Persons of Timothy Titus and others so that call the Episcopal Order either of Divine Right or Apostolical Institution and I shall not at all quarrel with it for Apostolical I hope will seem Divine enough to Christians I am sure Claudius Salmasius thinks so a sharp Enemy to the Episcopal Order If saith he it be from the Apostles it is of Divine Right Thus we find the Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction to be given to those men alone for then that Power is properly Episcopal when one man alone may execute it So St. Paul to Timothy Lay hands c. in the singular Number Against an Elder receive not an accusation under two or three witnesses 1 Tim. 5. 19. And then the Text is plain he and he alone might do it So to Titus For this cause left I thee in Crete that thou and thou alone shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and Ordain Elders in every City Where plainly these two Powers are given to one Man of Government and Ordination so St. Iohn to the Seven Churches of Asia Rev. 14. where he presumes all the Governing Power to reside in the Angels of those Churches and in them alone as all the Antients understand it And hence it is plain that though we should yield that the Apostles only did institute Bishops Yet in this Revelation Christ himself immediately in his own Person and the Holy Spirit withall did both Approve and Confirm them And the Bishops of those Sees are called Angels by St. Iohn who was born a Iew because in Palestine their Chief Priests were there called their Angels and so this Appellation was taken up by the Apostle in that place because those were the Chief of those Churches This truth appears not only from cleare Texts but from the Universal Consent and Practise of more than One thousand five hundred Years space of all the Christian Churches So that neither St. Ierom nor any other Ancient did either hold Orders 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 the last Century who have collected and spread abroad far other Conclusions and that from the Authority of Text it self But as it is a Maxime in Humane Laws Consuetudo optima legum interpres So no rational man but will easily yield it as well holds in Lawes Divine For I would gladly
in his Apology tells the Iews Neither against the Laws of the Jews nor against the Temple have I offended any thing Act. 25. 8 For he might in some cause offend against the Temple and yet not against the Law Notwithstanding God pleads as much for his Temple in the Prophet Haggai as he doth in Malachi for his Tythes and Offerings In this his words are Ye have robbed me in Tythes and Offerings In the other Is it time for you O ye to dwell in cieled houses and this house lie waste Therefore ye have sown much and bring in little ye eat but ye have not enough And to affirm in the New Testament that God doth accept of meat drink and cloathing as is plain of money for which the Land was sold as in the case of Ananias And yet he doth not accept of Land it self is so contrary to all reason so contrary to the practice not only of the Christian but of the Heathen world so contrary to what God himself hath expressed in the Old Testament and no where recalled in the New that he which can quiet Conscience with such Conceits as these may I doubt not attain to the discovery of some Evasions which in his Conceit may palliate Murther or Adultery or to think those Possessions are indeed Gods which he commands but not those which he accepts 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 what I attain to by my own personal Acquisition be it by a just way by Study by Merchandize c. For the Third Sacriledge is then committed say the Schools and Casuists and they speak in their own Profession Quando reverentia rei Sacrae debita violatur when we violate the Reverence due to a thing Sacred by turning it into a thing Profane so that this Violation may be committed either per furtum strictly so taken by stealing a thing moveable or per plagium by stealing of a Man or per invasionem by spoiling Men of Lands or things immoveable For as any one of these done against our Neighbour is no doubt in Scripture phrase Theft a Sin against the Eighth Precept so done against God 't is no doubt a Sacriledge and a breach of the Table be it against the First or Second Commandment I stand not now to dispute Thus the word in the New Testament to express this Sin is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praeda or spolium so that Sacriledge is not only to be defined by Stealth strictly taken but 't is a depredation a spoliation of Things consecrated and so the word extends it self as properly it not more to Lands as to Things moveable And hence Aquinas is plain That Sacriledge reaches out its proper sense Ad ea quae deputata sunt ad sustentationem ministrorum sive mobilia sive immobilia For 't would be very strange to affirm That in the sacking of Ierusalem Nebuchadnezzar was sacrilegious when he transported the holy Vessels but not at all when he burnt the Temple For the Fourth Common Reason hath taught all even the Pagan Nations to hold Sacriledge a Sin so that Lactantius observes and he was well read in humane Learning and therefore chosen Tutor to a Son of Constantine the Great In omni Religione nihil tale sine vindicta God will remarkably revenge this Sin not only in the true but amongst Men of the most false Religions And 't were easie to shew That no Nation did ever yet adore a God but they thought he did accept them and possess himself of some substance I omit those Proofs that would be thought too tedious 't is enough to quote the Prophet's words which he speaks to the Iews Will a man rob God Yet ye have robbed me Malachi 3. 8. A Man any man though an Amorite or a meer Philistine a Pagan that must be the sense will not do that to his god which you Iews do to Me For the Law written in his heart and he can go by no other that Law controlleth this Offence and so plainly tells him that because his God may be robbed or despoiled he may therefore have a Property And if Sacriledge be a Sin against the Law Moral 't will follow That what we read in the Old Testament against that Sin must be as Moral and that whereby we Christians are as much obliged as what we read against Theft or Adultery save only these passages which are peculiarly proper unto the policy of the Iews and we may let them go for Judicial These Directions premised I return to this Epistler who conceives it no Sacriledge to take away Church-Lands Nor do I saith he ground my Opinion barely upon the frequent practice of former Times not only upon Acts of Parliament in the Times of Queen Elizabeth King James and King Charles if you have not forgotten the exchange of Durham-house as well as Hen. 8. but even by the Bishops themselves c. He will not ground his Opinion upon bare practice and indeed he hath little reason for it for if from a frequent practice of sin we might conclude it were no sin 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 sin it down And therefore I shall say no more of such Laws of Hen. 8. than I would of David's Adultery that it is no ground at all to make Men bold with other Mens Wives Queen Elizabeth made a Law so you have told me Sir for I speak nothing in this kind but from you That Bishops might not alienate their Castles Mannors c. but only to the Crown But if she sometimes took order that Churchmen should not be Bishops till they had first made such Alienations as I have oft heard you say she did I know not how to defend it but must withall tell you That if Prince or Subjects resolve to sell the Church Preferments it is great odds but in a Clergy consisting of Ten thousand Persons they shall have Chapmen for them For King Iames I must highly commend that most Christian Prince you say amongst his first Laws took away that of Queen Elizabeth Nor can I well tell when this Epistler doth quote King Charles for this purpose unless it were only for the Alienation of York-house but I must inform him that that Act was lawful because it was for the advantage of that Archiepiscopal See there being clear Text for it that the Levites themselves might change that which was theirs by Divine Law so they gained by Permutation and this Answer will serve for what King Charles did about Durham-house But he thinks it an Argument That by the Bishops themselves Deans and Chapters such things were done Alienations were made long Leases were granted True Sir for these Clergymen were but Men and their sins can no more abrogate
yet might alienate their Lands but none else without their consent And I conceive it would not now prove so easie a task to bring Churchmen to such an Alienation But the Parliament may do it For saith he I am sure it will be granted that by the Laws of this Nation whosoever hath Lands or Goods hath them with this unseparable condition of limitation viz. that the Parliament may dispose of them or any part of them at their pleasure This you have told me Sir is strange Doctrine For neither the Parliament I hope he means the King in Parliament doth this as being the Supreme Power or as being Representative and so including the consent of the whole People of England If as being the Supreme Power it will follow that any absolute Prince may as lawfully do the like and yet this hath ever been held Tyrannical in the Great Turk as being against the Rules of all Justice and Humanity Indeed Samuel tells the Israelites That since they would needs change their Theocracy the immediate Government of God himself though it were into a Monarchy the best of all humane Governments Their Kings should take your Sons and your Daughters their Fields and their Vineyards c. and they shall cry and find no help Yet the best Divines think this would be most sinful and most unjust in those Kings and expresly against the Law of Moses who grants to every Man his Propriety only the Prophet avers it should not be punishable in him they should have no remedy since being the Supreme Power it was in no Subjects hands to judge him So if the Kings in Parliament should take away the Church-Lands there is I confess no resistance to be made though the Act were inhumanely sinful or else the Parliament doth this as representing the whole People so including their consent For they who do consent can receive no injury And then I understand not which way it can now at all touch the Clergy who are neither to be there by themselves nor yet God knows by Representation Or if again they were there I would gladly know what Burgess or what Knight of a Shire nay what Clerk or Bishop do represent Christ whose Lands these are and by vertue of what Deputation Or do I believe that any Subject intends to give that Power to him that represents him in Parliament as to destroy his whole Estate except then only when the known Laws of the Land make him liable to so high a Censure But grant this Doctrine were true in Mens Lands yet sure it will not hold in Gods For since in Magnâ Chartâ that has received by Parliament at least Thirty Confirmations the Lands we now speak of are given to God and promise there made that the Church Her whole Right and Liberties should be held inviolable Surely the Kingdom must keep what she hath thus promised to God and must not now think to tell Him of implied Conditions or Limitations For 't were a strange scorn put upon Him that Men should make this grand promise to their Maker and then tell Him after so many hundred years that their meaning was to take it back at their pleasure I believe there 's no good Pagan that will not blush at this dealing and conclude That if Christians may thus use their God without doubt he is no God at all Hence it is saith he they sometimes dispose some part in Subsidies and other Taxes the Parliament disposes part of Mens Estate in Subsidy and without their consent Ergo it may dispose of all the Church-Lands though the Churchmen themselves should in down-right terms contradict it Surely Sir this Account is neither worth an Answer nor a Smile For I am sure you have oft told me That the Parliament in Justice can destroy no Man's Estate though private or if upon necessity it may need this or that Man's Lands for some Publick Use yet the Court is bound in Justice to make that Man amends Subsidies you say were imposed Salvo contenento so that a Duke may still live like a Duke and a Gentleman like a Gentleman Is 't not so with the Clergy too By your own consent indeed and not otherwise they are often imposed and payed by them but if they are burdens which they may bear Salvo contenento they are payed not out of God's Propriety by alienating his Lands but out of the Vsus Fructus they receiv'd from God and so the Name doth go on to their Successors So that to infer from any of these Usages that the Lands of Bishops Deans and Chapters may be wholly alienated from the Church is an Inference that will prevail with none but those who being led by strong passions that it should be so make very little use of the Reason He proceeds Now hence comes the mistake by reason there is not such an express Condition or Limitation in the Deed of Donation which should silence all dispute wherein it is as clear as truth that where any thing is necessarily by Law implied 't is as much as if in plain terms expressed c. No marvel if such Conditions be not expressed in Benefactors Deeds of Donation because it will make such pious Deeds most impiously ridiculous For who would not blush to tell God that indeed he gives him such Lands but yet with very clear intent to revoke them And what Christian will say that such an intent is tacitely there which were Impiety to express Nay it is apparently clear by the Curses added by such Donors upon those who shall attempt to make void their Gifts that their meaning was plain that such Lands should remain Gods For ever by Magna Charta these Gifts are confirmed unto the Church of England She shall have all Her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable and yet is there a tacite condition in that self-same Law that they may be violated No marvel if with us Men cannot trust Men if God himself must not trust our Laws and if that Charter or any else made by succeeding Princes do indeed confirm such Donations as without all doubt they do sure they must confirm them in the same Sense wherein the Donors made them for so do all other Confirmations I say in this case of a total Disinherison there cannot be in Law any such tacite Conditions or Limitations as the Epistler speaks of for I have shewed you such to be tyrannical and unjust in a private Subject's Estate therefore in Gods they are much more unjust because we are sure he cannot offend and the tyrannical and unjust meaning cannot be called the meaning of the Law The Letter goes on Besides it were somewhat strange that the Donors of the Land should preserve them in the hands of the Bishops from the power of the Parliament which they could not do in their own and give them to a greater and surer Right than they had themselves The Lay-Donor might preserve them thus in his own hands suppose him but an honest
Person for though a Parliament may Impunè disinherit such an innocent Man yet they cannot do it justly and so in this regard both the Donor and they are you see in the very same condition Besides 't is no such very strange thing for the self-same Right as a Right suppose a Fee-simple to become more sure in his hand that takes it than it ever was in his hand 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 come into a stronger hand and so by this means that self-same Right may become the stronger And sure with us God's hands should be more stronger than Man's Nay hence as some think Lands given to the Church were said to come in manum mortuam as 't were a dead hand that parts with nothing it hath once closed upon And why the Epistler should call this a strange thing I do not yet see the reason because 't is always so when any one Benefactor doth by vertue of a Mortmayne convey his Lands to any kind of Corporation Again Nor do I understand their meaning who term God the Proprietary of the Bishops Lands and the Bishops the Usu Fructuarii I conceive I have made this plain because such Lands were first offered to God and become his own Propriety by his own Divine Acceptation And if the Dominiam ad rectum of Kings do once rest in God the Dominum utile the Vsa fructus only is left a Patrimony to the Clergy But he adds a Reason For I know not how in propriety of speech God is more entitled to their Lands than to his whole Creation Here the Epistler speaks out for truly Sir I fear this Lawyer your Friend is little better than an Independant For has God no more Title in propriety of speech to one piece of ground than another No more to a Church no more to a place where a Church is built that where Men have placed a Stable Our English Homilies which are confirmed by Law cry down this gross piece of Anabaptism 'T is true God made all things and so the whole World is most justly his by that great work of Creation But yet the Psalmist's words are as true The earth hath he given to the children of men So as that great God is well content to receive back what Men will give him and this acceptance of his must needs in all reason make those things his more particularly Thus Christ calls the Temple My Father's House 'T was Gods and Gods more peculiarly not only by the right of Creation but of Donation Thus Lands given to God are his and his more peculiarly so that his Priests and his Poor being sustained by them he calls it in a more peculiar manner his meat and his drink and his cloathing And then if in point of acceptance with God there be a great difference betwixt feeding his Priests and feeding them that do him no service there must needs be as much difference betwixt Lands set out to that Sacred Use and Lands of a meer common employment He gives a second Reason Were Clergymen the Usu Fructuarii how come they to change dispose and alter the propriety of any thing which an Usu Fructuarii cannot do and yet is done by them daily Yes they may change or dispose or alter many kinds of things for so without doubt may an Vsa Fructuarii do so that he wrong not his Lord by an Abuse done to his Propriety Thus he may change his Corn into Cloathing or his Wooll into Books Nay he may alter the very Propriety of his Possessions too if he have express leave of his Lord. And God himself did tell Levi that he was well content that men should alter some things that belonged unto him so that it were to that Tribes advantage The Letter goes on Ask then by what Divine Law St. Mary's Church in Oxon may not be equally employed for Temporal Vses as for holding the Vicechancellor's Court the Vniversity Convocation or the yearly Acts He might as well have asked Why not for Temporal Uses as for Temporal Uses for if these he means be not so his Argument is naught and if they be so it is not well put down His meaning surely was for other Temporal Uses as well as for these 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 these meetings Yet something may be said for the Vicehancellor's Court because 't is partly Episcopal something for the Act at least in Comitiis because 't is partly Divinity but I had rather it should receive an amendment than an excuse though it follow not neither that because this Church is sometimes for some few hours abused therefore it may be always so as if because sometimes it is made a prophane Church therefore fit 't were no Church at all He proceeds And for the Curses those bugbear words I could never yet learn that an unlawful Curse was any prejudice but to the Author of which sort these Curses must be which restrain the Parliament or any other from exercising a lawful and undeniable Power which in instances would seem very ridiculous if any Curse should prejudice another lawful Right I am sure such Curses have no warrant from the Law of God or this Nation No warrant from the Law of God I conceive there is a very clear one and Our Mother the Church commends it to the use of Her Sons in the express words of the Commination Cursed be he that removes the marks of his Neighbours Lands and all the People shall say Amen If he be accursed that wrongs his Neighbour in his Lands what shall he be that injures his God If a Curse light on him and a publick Curse confirmed by Amen made by all the People who removes but the mark whereby his Neighbours Lands are distinguished 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 given to their Maker That such Curses restrain the Parliament in their undeniable Right is you have told me but a great mistake For though the Parliament may impunè which in some case is called lawful take away Church Lands yet the Church it self cannot do it justly without a Sin and that a greater Sin than removing a Land-mark and then a higher may follow it Let the Epistler then take heed of those more than Bugbear words for believe it Sir in such Curses as these there is much more than Shows or Vizards and if you will give trust to any Stories at all many great men have sadly felt it His last Argument is Ask your Bishops Whether Church Lands may not lawfully the Law of the States not prohibiting be transferred from one
to His Power since 't is plain so long as a Man lives and speaks he hath still power to say No For it cannot be said in this Case that the Church may be as it were ravisht from the King and then He may be no more guilty of the Crime than Lucretia was in her Rape for though a chaste Body may suffer Ravishment yet the strength of a Tarquin cannot possibly reach to Man's Will or Assent Now in all promissory Oaths made for the benefit of that Party to whom we swear 't is a Rule with Divines That they of all others do most strictly bind except then allow when Remission is made Consensu illius cui facta est promissio So although the King swear to the People of England That He will keep and preserve their Laws yet if upon their common desires these Laws be either abrogated or altered 't is clear that Oath binds no farther because a Remission is made by their own consent who desired that Promise from Him And upon this ground 't is true the King swears to observe the Laws only in Sensu composito so long as they are Laws but should this desire either to alter or abrogate either Law or Priviledge proceed from any other but from them alone to whose benefit He was sworn 't is plain by the Rules of all Justice that by such an Act or Desire His Oath receives no remission for the foundation of this Promissory is the Oath He was sworn to and it cannot be remitted but by them alone for whose sakes it was taken so that when in the second Part of the first Clause and more plainly in the fifth He swears a benefit unto the Bishops alone in behalf of them and their Churches 't is apparent this Oath must perpetually bind except a remission can be obtained from the Bishops themselves and their Churches He was sworn to This then must be confessed to be the sense of the Oath that when the King hath first sworn in general to grant keep and confirm the Laws and Customs of the People of England He farther yet swears to the Clergy to preserve their Laws and Priviledges and since these are not able to make a Negative in Parliament so that the Clergy may be easily swallowed up by the People and by 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 express 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 our Lawyers say bind the whole People of England yea the whole People as it includes the Clergy too yet it concerns the King by vertue of His Oath to give His Vote to no such Act as shall prejudice what He hath formerly sworn unto them except He can first obtain their express 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 tacitly implied and so it is say our Lawyers as you have told me Sir in respect of the Powers obligatory which an Act so passed obtains upon them for they affirm That it shall strongly bind the Clergy as if they themselves had in express terms consented to it although Bishops being debarr'd from the Votes in Parliament and neither they nor their inferiour Clergy having made choice of any to represent them in that great Council their Consent can be in no fair sense said to be involved in such Acts as are done as well without their Representative Presence as their Personal But the Question is Whether such tacit Consent though it be indeed against their express Wills can have a Power remissory to the King to absolve Him of His Oath He that affirms it must resolve to meet with this great Absurdity that although besides His general Oath to all the People of England His Majesty be in particular sworn ot the Rights of the Clergy yet they obtain no more benefit by this than if He had sworn only in general which is as much as to say that in this little Draught Oaths are multiplied without necessity nay without signification at all And that the greatest part of the first and the whole fourth Clause are nothing else but a more painful Draught of superfluous Tautologies For His yielding to the two first Lines swears Him to keep and to confirm the Laws and Customs of the whole People of England which word People includes those of the Clergy too and so in general their Laws and Customs are confirm'd no doubt in these words and so confirm'd that they cannot be shaken but at least by their tacit Consent in Parliamentary way And 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 's more particular so that His Majesty cannot expect a remission of this Oath without the Consent clearly expressed For as when the King swears to keep the Laws of the whole People in general He can by no means acquire a remission of this Oath but by the express Consent of the People So when in particular He swears unto the Laws and Customs of the Clergy this Oath must needs bind until it be remitted in an express Form either by the whole Clergy themselves or by some Body of Men at least that represents the Clergy quatenus a Clergy and not only as they are involved in that great Body of the People So that he that presumes to persuade His Majesty to pass any Act in prejudice of the Ecclesiastical Body to whom He is thus sworn without their express Consent first obtained counsels Him that which is both injurious to his Fellow Subjects nay which is indeed a most damnable wickedness against the very Soul of the King SIR As I conceive it is now plain enough That if the Parliament should destroy the Episcopal Order and take away the Lands of the Church the Houses in that Act will run themselves into two Sins and His Majesty into three And upon this Supposition the Epistler and I have agreed I do not think saith he that Convenience or Necessity will excuse Conscience in a thing in it self unlawful And before that he calls the contrary the Tenent of the Romanist or Iesuited Puritan only I will beseech him for his own Souls sake to consider how great a Scandal he hath given to Mankind in defence of such Sins as these For I conceive that Durand offended more in holding that Fornication was no Sin against the Law natural than Sechem did who was only under that Law in his lust upon old Iacob's Daughter for Fraudem legi facere saith the Civilian is worse than Legem violare It argues a more unsubject-like disposition for a Man to put Tricks and Fallacies upon his Princes Laws than to run himself into a downright Violation And God we know is a King I am a great King saith the Lord of Hosts and a King in whose hands is a vengeance 'T is true SIR we are thus put into a very sad Condition when the only Option that seems left us now is either to chuse Sin or Ruine but yet if well us'd 't is a Condition glorious a Condition in which all that Noble Army of Martyrs stood before they could come at Martyrdom And if in preparation of mind we thus lay our Lives down at the Feet of Christ I am undoubtedly persuaded it is the onely way to preserve them for this Word of God is the Lord of Hosts too and for his Glories sake he oft effects to save them who have lost both their strength and hopes But to you Sir whom I know so well such Persuasions as these are needless I rest Your very Faithful Servant FINIS M. I. 3. 8. Hagg. 1 4. 6. Mat. 25. Aquin. 22. Acts 1. Gell. l. 11. l. ult F. l. v. 1. Lev. 27. 13. Deut. 27. 17. 1646.