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
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
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
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
AN ANSVVER TO A LETTER VVritten at OXFORD And superscribed to Dr. SAMVEL TVRNER Concerning the CHURCH and the Revenues thereof Wherein is shewed how impossible it is for the King with a good conscience to yeeld to the change of Church-Government by Bishops or to the alienating the Lands of the Church Printed in the Yeere MDCXI VII Faults escaped correct thus Page 5. line 30. for Lawes read Lands p. 7. l. 30. r. preserving p. 9. l. 8. r. this in the Postscript p. 12. l. 20. r. visum p. 17. l. 15. r. and elsewhere part p. 18. l. 27. for then r. that p. 19. l. 11. for since r. sure p. 19. l. 15. r. aliquid p. 20. l. 20. for this r. the p. 21. l. ult. r. that error ibid. l. ult. r. that consent p. 24. l. 8. r. Creet ibid. l. 27. r. Apostolicall p. 31. l. 14. r. vindicta p. 35. l. 26. dele not p. 39. l. 1 r. must not p. 44. l. 5. for there r. other p. 47. l. ult. r. preserve p. 50. l. 3. r. the Commons p. 51. l. 22. for 〈◊〉 r. are p. 52. l. 19. dele that A Letter written to D. SAMUEL TURNER concerning the Church and the Revenues thereof Noble Doctor I Expected when you had seen the Kings last Messages your reason would have prompted you to have look'd this way which caused a delay in sending unto you untill the difficulty of the passage made me suspect whether this may come safe to you and by the preparations and designes here I feare I shall not have another oportunity take this therefore as a farwell-truth that the moderate party here are at their Ne plus ultra the presbyterians Independants will agree and the Scots and we shall not fall out and it must now be the wisdome of your selfe and such as have power and interest with the King to save him your selves and Country from ruine Your visible strength to hold out much lesse to prevaile is too well known here and your hopes from France and Ireland will soon vanish which if successefull by a victorious Army which I beleeve you shall never see would but make you and us slaves to a forraign Nation and extirpate that Religion both sides pretend to maintaine To be plaine I know no way left you but to accept such conditions of peace as may be had you are too much a souldier to thinke a retreate upon so many disadvantages dishonourable to a Generall or acceptance of hard conditions by a starved beleagured Garrison to the Governour In short of evils choose the least and I must tell you it is expected from you and the more wise and honest party with you that they should make use of their reason and advise the King to save what is left wherein it is believed you may prevaile considering what hath already passed in so many free offers to give satisfaction in the Militia Ireland paiment of the publique Debts choice of Judges Lord Admirall Officers of State and others with an Act of oblivion and free Pardon free exercise of Religion to Presbyterians and Independants their own way and a promise to endeavour in all particulars that none shall have cause to complaine for want of security things so farre beyond our former hopes that I cannot doubt but the same reason which moved the offer of these will obtaine to concession of such others as the Parliament shall require in order to peace which as neere as I can guesse will be either the removall and punishment of evill Counsellors and Ministers who have drawn the King into these troubles or the busines of the Church all other materiall things to my apprehension being already offered For the first of these I know not how you can with reason gain-say the bringing offenders to Justice and if the Parliament Prerogative streine justice in the tryall and punishment beyond example of better times it were wisdome for such as may therein be concerned to withdraw Dum furer in cursu for if it must come to suffering Melius unus quam unitas for the busines of the Church I wish it could be prevented there are who can witnesse the labour and hazards I have undergone for that end conceiving no government equall to a well ordered Episcopall for the well-being of this Church and State But when the necessity of times hath proposed this sad question for resolution whether consent to alter Episcopall government in the Church or let both Church and State ruine together my reason assents to the former I beleeve the doctrine of the place where you are would perswade the contrary and it hath been from thence transmitted hither as an orthodox truth that the altering that government being as they say jure divino is sinfull and the taking away the Church-lands sacriledge at least unlawfull which if I could believe would change my opinion for I cannot give way for the committing a sin for a good end what ever the Romanist or Jesuited Puritan pretend in defence of it but if I mistake not and if I doe I pray reforme me the opinion that the government by Bishops is jure divino hath but lately been countenanced in England and that but by some few of the more Lordly Clergy for we alwayes acknowledge the Protestants of Germany the Low Countryes and elsewhere part of the reformed Protestant Catholique Church though they had no Bishops and I am certaine the King would never have given way for the extirpation of Bishops in Scotland had he conceived them to be jure divino nor to the Presbyterians and Independants here to exercise their Religion their own way as by his late Messages when such a tolleration in the face of such a divine Law must needs be sinfull and for the latter opinion against taking away of Church Lands I am lesse satisfyed being so farre from conceiving it sacriledge that I do not conceive it unlawfull but may be done without breach of any Law which must be the rule for tryal of the lawfulnes or unlawfulnes of every action nay though there be never so many curses or imprecations added to the donation nor do I herein ground my opinion barely upon the frequent practise of former times not only by Acts of Parliament in the times of Queen Eliz and King James and King Charles if you have not forgotten the exchange of Durham house aswell as Henry the eighth but even by the Bishops themselves and Deanes and Chapters insomuch that if the wisdome of the State after Clergy men were permitted to marry had not prohibited their alienations and restrained their Leases to 21. yeares or 3. lives their Revenues at this day would not have been subject to envy But to deale clearely with you Doctor I do not yet understand how there can be any Sacriledge properly so called which is not a theft and more viz. a theft of something dedicated to holy use a Communion-Cup for instance or the like theft you know must
be of things moveable even by the Civil Law and how theft can be of Lands or sacriledge committed by aliening Church-Lands I pray aske your friend Holbourne and his fellow Lawyers for ours here deride us for the question As for the main quere touching the lawfulnes of aliening Church-lands I use the expression for the lands of Bishops Deanes and Chapters good Doctor give me your patience to heare my reasons And first I lay this as a foundation that there is no divine command that Ministers under the Gospell should have any lands the hire of a labourer at most a fitting maintenance is all to be challenged nor do we read that the Apostles had any Lands which I mention to avoid the groundlesse arguments upon the lands and portions allotted to the Tribe of Levi by Gods appointment to whom our Ministers have no succession and then it will follow that they enjoy their lands by the same Law of the State as others doe and must be subject to that Law which alone gives strength to their title which being granted I am sure it will not be denyed that by the Law of the Nation he that hath an estate in Lands in Fee-simple by an implyed power may lawfully alien though there be an expression in his Deed of purchase or donation to the contrary which being so makes the alienation of Bishops Lands even without any Act of Parliament to be lawfull being done by those who have an estate in Fee simple as the Bishop with the Deane and Chapter hath Then further I am sure it will be granted that by the Law of this Nation whosoever hath Lands or goods hath them with this inseparable implyed condition or limitation viz. That the Parliament may dispose of them or any part of them at pleasure Hence it is they sometimes dispose some part in Subsidies and other Taxes enable a Tenant for life to sell an estate in Fee-simple and not at all unlawfull because of that limitation or condition before mentioned and who ever will be owner must take them according to this Law Now hence comes the mistake by reason there is not such an expresse condition or limitation in the Deed of Donation which would silence all disputes whereas it is as cleare a truth that where any thing is necessarily by Law implied it is as much as if in plaine words expressed of which your Lawyers if Reason need a helpe from them can easily resolve Besides it were somewhat strange that the Donor of the Lawes should preserve them in the hands of the Bishops from the power of the Parliament which he could not doe in his owne and give them a greater and surer right then he had himselfe Nor doe I understand their meaning who terme God the Proprieter of the Bishops Lands and the Bishop the Usufructuary For I know not how in propriety of speech God is more entituled to their Lands then to his whole Creation and were Clergie-men but Usufructuaries how come they to change dispose or alter the property of any thing which an Usufructuary cannot doe and yet is by them done daily Aske them by what Divine Law S. Maries Church in Oxford may not be equally imployed for temporall uses as for holding the Vice-chancellours Court the University Convocation or their yearly acts And for the Curses those bug-beare words I could yet never learne that an unlawfull curse was any prejudice but to the Author of which sort those curses must needs be which restraine the Parliament or any other from exercising a lawfull and undenyable power which in instances would shew very ridiculous if any curse should prejudice anothers lawfull right I am sure such curses have no warrant from the Law of God or this Nation If this doth not satisfie the former doubts in your Bishops for I know you to be too great a Master of Reason to be unsatisfied aske them whether Church-lands may not lawfully the Law of the State not prohibiting be transferred from one Church to another upon emergent occasions which I think they will not deny If so who knowes that the Parliament will transferre them to Lay-hands they professe no such thing and I hope they will not but continue them for the maintenance of the Ministery which prevents all disputes upon the last question but if they shall hereafter do otherwise you know my opinion Onely mistake me not in this free discourse as if I did countenance or commend the Parliaments proceedings in their new Reformation but as a caution to you in the exigencies of times what is fittest to be done when I take it Mistresse Necessity in all things indifferent or not unlawfull must be obeyed in which cases the most constant men must be contented to change their resolutions with the alteration of time Your party have been resolute enough to preserve the rights of the Church and further peradventure then wise men would have done but at an ultra posse you and we must give over especially for an imaginary right And think seriously with your selfe whether after all other things granted it will be fit to run the hazard of the very being of this Church and State the King and his posterity and Monarchy it selfe onely upon the point of Church-government by Bishops or aliening the Church-lands or rather whether the Kings Councell in duty ought not to advise him the contrary who should be wise as well as pious yet herein may be both for I doe not thinke Conveniencie or Necessity will excuse Conscience in a thing in it selfe unlawfull what ever States-men maintain to the contrary your interest with the King is not small and your power with the Lords who are guided by reason very considerable you cannot doe better then make use of both at this time If they have a desire to preserve the Church it were wel their thoughts were fixed upon some course for setling a Superintendencie in the Presbyteriall Government which no way crosseth the Nationall Covenant and preserve the Revenues in the Church which I beleeve at Uxbridge Treaty would have been granted what ever it will be now I have given you my sense upon the whole businesse Si quid novisti rectius Candidus imperti si non his utere J. T. So farewell Doctor I give you commission to shew this to my Lord Dorset who by and something else can guesse my name and to as many more as owne Reason and Honesty An Answer to the foregoing Letter superscribed to D. Samuel Turner c. Sir YOu have put an odde taske upon me in commanding my judgement on a Letter lately sent to a Doctor in Oxford with a commission to shew it to the Lord of Dorset and to as many more as own reason and honesty for this is the Postscript and many the like passages in the Letter as that the more wise and honest party would make use of their reason and I know you too great a master of reason to be unsatisfyed makes me
the worke and ministery of a Bishop and in questions to the person to be consecrated a Bishop Are you perswaded that you be truly called to this Ministration according to the will of our Lord Jesus c. I beseech you Sir consider whether these words or this prayer could fall from any man not possessed with this Tenet that Episcopacy was of divine right For if the three orders may be found by reading the holy Scriptures together with ancient Authors if men are taught to pray that God by his Spirit has appointed divers orders in his Church and this made the ground of praying for the present Bishop if the person to be consecrated must professe that he conceives he is called according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ either all this must be nothing else but pure pagentry and then the Parliament mocked God by their Confirmation or else Episcopacy is grounded in Scripture is appointed by the Spirit of God is according to the will of our Lord Jesus and all this hath not been said of late nor countenanced only by some few of the more Lordly Cleargy And we have the lesse reason to doubt that this Tenet was countenanced in this Church of ours because we find it in those parts that have lost Episcopacy for we are told by Doctor Carlton after Bishop of Chichester and that wrote against the Arminians more then twenty five yeares since that sitting at Dort he then protested in open Synod That Christ instituted no parity but made twelve Apostles the chiefe and under them seventy Disciples That Bishops succeeded to the twelve and to the seventy Presbyters of an inferiour ranke he affirmed this order had been still maintained in the Church and then challenged the judgement of any learnned man that could speake to the contrary Their answer was silence which was approbation enough but after saith he discoursing with diverse of the best learned in the Synod he told them how necessary Bishops were to suppresse their then risen Schismes their answer was That they did much honour and reverence the good order and Discipline of the Church of England and with all their hearts would be glad to have it established among them but that could not be hoped for in their State Their hope was that seeing they could not do what they desired God would be mercifull unto them if they did but what they could If they hoped for mercy that might pardon what they did sure they must suppose that what they then did was sinfull Nay they thought their necessity it selfe could not totally excuse their sinne for then in that particular there had been no need to hope for Gods mercy nor could they well thinke otherwise since being pressed they denyed not but that Episcopacy was of Christs own institution and yet they were no Lordly Clergy nor do I well see how either by charitable or civil men they can at all be taxed either for want of reason or honesty 1. Indeed some seem to startle at this Tenet that Episcopacy is of Divine right as if because Divine it might therefore seem to endanger Monarchal power But under favour I conceive this fear to be among us very groundlesse for since the Tenents of our Church are in this particular the very self same with the ancient times as that the Bishops have no power but what is meerely directive only that all power co-active either in them or in others is derived meerly from the Royal authority that they cannot legally make use no not so much as of this directive power but only by the Kings leave So that if the temporall Lawes should forbid them to preach that which in point of salvation is necessary to be spoken yet they cannot preach but upon the forfeiture of their Heads and those being demanded by the Kings Lawes they must submit to a Martyrdome though t were sinne in them that demand it so that in the execution of all ecclesiastical power the supremacy is in the King alone these I say being so much the Tenets of our Church that I conceive there is no learned man amongst us who would not readily subscribe to them I cannot see at all where in the opinion we defend any danger lies to this Monarchy But examine the Presbyterian principles and you will clearely find Kings and they cannot stand together for either you consider that new government in the Scotish sence which allowes no appeale to any other power and then t is plaine that where men admit this they admit of a supremacy which doth not reside in the King and by consequent of two severall supremacies within the bounds of the selfe same Kingdome which can no more stand with Monarchy then it can with Monogamy to be maried to two severall wives And though t is said that this Presbyterian government meddles only with spirituall things which concerne the good of the soule and so it cannot hurt Regall power yet this is but onely said and no more for it is well known that in ordine ad spiritualia and all things may by an ordinary wit be drawn into this ranke as they have been by the Church of Rome this government intrudes upon what things it pleaseth and indeed where a supremacy is once acknowledged no wise man can thinke that it will carry it selfe otherwise So that King James his maxime was undoubtedly most true upon this same ground we are on No Bishop no King For that most prudent Prince did soone discerne that if a power were once set up which at least in the legall execution of it did not derive it selfe from the King there was no doubt to be made but it would ere long destroy the very King himselfe Or consider Presbyterian government in the English sense as it is now set up by the Two Houses at Westminster which is a government limited by an appeale to the Parliament for either by Parliament here they meane the Two Houses excluding the King and then t is as plain as before they set up two supremacies his Majesties and their owne or else by Parliament they meane the King with both Houses and then it will follow that either there must be a perpetuall Parliament which sure neither King nor Kingdome can have cause to like or else the supremacy will be for the most part in the Presbytery because when ever a Parliament sits not there will be no Judge to appeale to or if it be said the Parliament may leave a standing Committee to receive appeales in such ecclesiasticall causes then either in this Committee the King hath no negative and in that case t is clear that the ecclesiasticall supremacy will be not at all in the King or else the King hath a negative but yet is joyned with persons whom he himself chooses not and so most probably will be check'd and affronted in any sentence he intends to give and this clearely overthrowes that which is already declared by Parliament to
be a right in the King as inherent in his Crowne that ecclesiasticall appeales may be made to him alone in Chancery for the Statute names no other and that his Majesty alone may appoint what Commissioners he please for their finall decision I say consider the Presbyterian government in the English Parliament sense and in the sense of the English Assembly for the Presbyterians there are wholly for the Scotish forme as appeares by their quarrels at what the Houses have already done in their Ordinances so that their aime is not only to set up a new Government but in plain tearmes a new supremacy And hence to say truth he must see very little who discernes not that though the Presbyterian party seemes to strike at the Bishops yet their maine aime is at the King whose supremacy they endure not as being a flower which they intend for their owne Garland and so though they hypocritically cry out that they may abuse the People against the pride of the Lordly Bishops yet in the meane time the wiser sort must needs see that they intend to make themselves no lesse then indeed Kingly Presbyters We acknowledge the Protestants of Germany the Low countryes and part of the reformed Catholique Protestant Church though they had no Bishops c. Though we maintain Episcopacy to be of divine right i. e. of divine institution yet hence it doth not follow that Germany are no Protestant Churces No it must be a crime of a most horrid taint that makes a Church run into non ecclesiam For though that of the Jewes was bad and Idolatrously bad yet God seriously protests he had not sent her a bill of divorce Nay no learned man of judgement durst ever yet affirm that the Roman Church her selfe was become no true part of the Church Catholique and yet she breakes a flat Precept of Christ drinke yee all of this and shall we be thought to deny the same right to christians without Bishops when they breake but Christs institution No Churches they are true parts of the Catholique Church but in point of ordination and of government Apostolicall they are not I am certaine the King would never have given way to the extirpation of Bishops in Scotland had he conceived them to be jure divino c. Grant it were so yet of all mankind are Kings onely bound that they must not change their opinions or if perhaps they have done ill must they for their repentance be more lyable to reproach then Subjects are for their crimes The King would not have given way to the Presbyterians and Independents to exercise their Religion here their own way as by his Messages when such a tolleration in the face of such a divine Law must needs be sinfull There is a great mistake in this Argument for to tollerate doth not at all signifie either to approve or commend their factions neither of which the King could at all do to those Schismatiques without sinne But it meerely implies not to punish which Kings may forbeare upon just reason of State as David forbore to punish the murtherers of Joab and we our selves in our English State have no punishment for all sorts of Lyars and yet their sinne is against a flat Law divine We affirme then Episcopacy to be of divine right that is of divine institution and that must needs tacitly 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 And to what end should some men be appointed to teach and to govern but that its clearely implyed then there are other men too that ought both to heare and obey He that institutes or erects a Bridge over a broad swelling stream needs not you will think adde an expresse command that men should not walke in the water Thus when our Lord and Saviour made his institution of that great Sacrament of the Eucharist he gave command indeed concerning the Bread Do this in remembrance of me and concerning the Cup Drinke yee all of this But he gave no expresse command to do both these together and yet his institution hath been still held to have the nature of a command and so for a thousand yeares the whole Church of Christ 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 ordaine and to govern Churches you need not doubt they received an authority from their Master to do both for since men will not thinke they would breake their own rules No man taketh this upon him but he that is called of God as Aaron was Episcopacy then was instituted in the Apostles who wer Bishops et aliud amplius and distinguished by Christ himself from the Seventy who were the Presbyters So the most ancient Fathers generally or if you will take S. Hierom. opinion who was neither a Bishop nor in his angry mood any great friend to that Order they were instituted by the Apostles who being themselves Episcopi et amplius did in their latter dayes formalize and bound out that power which still we do cal Episcopacy And so their received opinions may stand together for Episcopatus being in Apostolatu tanquam consulatus in dictatura as the lesser and subordinate power is alwayes in the greater we may truly say it was instituted by Christ in his Apostles who had Episcopall Power and more and then t was formalized and bounded by the Apostles themselves in the persons of Timothy and Titus c. So that call the Episcopall order either of Divine right or Apostolicall Institution and I shall not at all quarrell at it For Apostolicall will seeme Divine enough unto Christians I am sure Salmatius thinks so a sharpe enemy to the Episcopall Order if saith he it be from the Apostles t is of Divine right thus we find the power of ordination and of jurisdiction to be given to those men alone For then that power is properly Episcopall when one man alone may execute it so S. Paul to Timothy Lay hands suddenly on no man 1 Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands in the singular number thou thou alone without naming any other Against an Elder receive not an accusation in the singular number too thou receive not thou alone but under two or three witnesses and then the Text is plaine He and he alone might do it So to Titus for this cause and that thou and thou alone shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and ordaine Elders in every City Tit. 1. 5. where plainly those two powers of government and ordination are given unto one man So S. Iohn to the Churches of Asia Rev. 2. 3. when he presumes all the governing power to reside in the Angels of those Churches and only in them alone as all Ancients understand
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
and must now think to beginne to tell him of implyed conditions or limitations For it were a strange scorne put upon God if men should make this grand promise to their Maker and then tell him after so many hundreds of yeares that their meaning was to take it back at their pleasure I believe there is no good Pagan that would not blush at this dealing and conclude that if Christians may thus use their God without doubt he is no God at all He goes on Hence is it they sometimes dispose some part in Subsidies and other Taxes The Parliament disposeth part of mens estates in Subsidies and Taxes and with their consents ergo It may dispose of all the Church Lands though Church-men themselves should in down right termes contradict it Truly Sir this Argument is neither worth an answere nor a smile For I am sure you have often told me that the Parliament in justice can destroy no private mans estate Or if upon necessity it may need this or that Subjects Land for some publique use yet that Court is in justice bound to make that private man an amends Subsidies you said were supposed to be laid on Salvo contenemento so that a Duke might still live like a Duke and a Gentleman like a Gentleman Is it not so with the Clergy too By their own consent indeed and not otherwise they are often imposed and they are paid by them but yet they are burthens which they may beare Salvo contenemento and they are paid not out of Gods propriety by alienating of his Lands but out of that usus fructus they receive from God and so the maine doth still go on to their successors So that to inferre from any of these usages that the 〈◊〉 of Bishops and Deanes and Chapters may be wholly alienated from the Church is an inference that will prevaile with none but those who being led by strong passions that it should be so make very little use of their reason to oppose that passion He proceeds Now hence comes the mistake by reason there is not such an expresse condition or limitation in the Deeds of Donation which would silence all dispute whereas it is as cleare a truth that where any thing is necessarily by Law implyed It is as much as in plain termes expressed No marvell if such conditions be not expressed in Benefactors Deeds of Donation because it would make pious deeds most impiously ridiculous For who would not blush to tell God that indeed he gives him such Lands but with a very clear intent to revoke them And what Christian will say that such an intent is tacitely there which it were impiety to expresse Nay t is apparantly cleare in the curses added by such Donors upon those who shall attempt to make void their gifts that their meaning was plaine such lands should remaine Gods for ever By Magna Charta these gifts are confirmed unto the Church for ever She shall have her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable and yet is there a tacite condition in the selfe-same Law that they may be violated No marvell if with us men cannot trust men if God himselfe cannot trust our lawes And if that Charter or any else made by succeeding Princes do indeed confirme such Donations as without all doubt they do sure they must confirme such Donations in that same sence wherein the Donors made them for so do all other confirmations nay in this case of a totall dis-inhaerison there cannot be in law any such tacite conditions or limitations as the Epistler speakes of For I have shewed such to be unjust and tyrannicall in a private Subjects estate and therefore in Gods they are much more unjust because they are sure he cannot offend and an unjust and tyrannicall meaning must not be called the meaning of the Law The Letter goes on Besides it were somewhat strange that the Donors of the Lands should preserve them in the hands of the Bishops from the power of Parliament which he could not doe in his owne and give them a greater and surer right then he had himselfe The Lay-Donee might preserve them thus in his owne hands suppose him but an honest person for though a Parliament may Impunè disinherit such an innocent man yet they cannot doe it Justè and so in this regard both the Donor and the Donee are in the same condition Besides t is no such strange thing for the self-same right as a right suppose of Fee-simple to become more sure in his hands that takes then it ever was in his hands that gave it For though the right it self be still the same right for Nemo dat quod non habet yet by gift it may now come into a more strong hand and by this meanes that selfe-same right may become the stronger And sure with us Gods hand should be more strong then mans Nay hence as some think Lands given to the Church were said to come in manum mortuam as it were into a dead hand which parts with nothing it hath once closed upon And why the Epistler should call this a strange thing I doe not yet see the reason because t is alwayes so when any one Benefactor doth by vertue of a Mortmaine convey his Lands to any kind of Corporation Againe Nor doe I understand their meaning who terme God the Proprietor of the Bishops Lands and the Bishop the Usufructuary I conceive I have made this plaine because such Lands were first offered to God and became his owne Property by his owne divine acceptation And if the Dominium directum of these things doe once rest in God the Dominium utile the usus fructus alone is the onely thing left to be the patrimony of his Clergie But he addes a reason For I know not how in propriety of speech God is more entitled to their Lands then to his whole Creation Here the Epistler speaks out For truly Sir I feare the Lawyer your friend is little better then an Independent How hath God no more Title in propriety of speech to one piece of ground then another No more to a place where a Church is built then where men have now placed a Stable Our English Homilies which are confirmed by Law cry downe this crosse piece of Anabaptisme T is true God made all things and so the whole world is most justly his by that great right of Creation But yet the Psalmists words are as true The earth hath he given to the children of men So as that great God is now wel content to receive back what men will give him And this acceptance of his must needs in all reason make those things his more peculiarly Thus Christ calls the Temple his Fathers house 'T was God's and God's more peculiarly not onely by right of Creation but by gift Thus Lands given unto God are his and his more peculiarly His because he made them and his againe because having once given them to the children of men upon their gift
he did accept them So that his Priests and his Poore being sustained by them he calls it in a more peculiar manner His meat His drinke and His cloathing And then if in point of acceptance with God there be great difference between feeding his Priests and feeding them that doe him no such service there must needs be as much difference between Lands set out unto that sacred use and Lands of a more common employment He gives a second reason Were Clergie-men but Usufructuaries how come they to change dispose or alter the property of any thing which an Usufructuary cannot doe and yet is done by you daily How come they to change or dispose any thing Yes they may change or dispose or alter many kinds of things for so without doubt any Usufructuary may doe so he wrong not his Lord by an abuse done to his Propriety Thus he may change his Corne into Clothing or if he please his Wool into Books Nay he may alter the property of his possessions too if he have expresse leave of his Lord And God himself did tell Levi That he was well content that men should alter some things that belonged to him so it were for the Tribes advantage Levit. 27. 13 The Letter goes on Aske them by what Divine Law S. Maries Church in Oxford may not be equally imployed for Temporall uses as for holding the Vice chancellors Court the University Convocation or their yeerly acts He might as well have asked Why not as well for temporall uses as for temporall uses For if those he names be not so his argument is naught and if they be so t is not well put downe His meaning sure was for other temporall uses as well as for those And truly Sir to put a Church to any such kind of use is not to be defended and therefore I excuse not the University especially she having had at least for a good time so many large places for those meetings Yet something might be said for the Vice-Chancellours Court because t is partly Episcopal something for the act at least in Comitiis because t is partly Divine but I had rather it should receive an amendment then an excuse Though it follow not neither that because this Church is sometimes for some few houres abused therefore it may be alwayes so as if because sometimes t is made a profane Church t is therefore fit 't were no Church at all He proceeds And as for their curses those Bug-beare words I could never yet learne that an unlawfull curse was any prejudice but to the Author of which sort those curses must needs be which restraine the Parliament or any there from exercising a lawfull and undenyable power which in instances would shew very ridiculous if any curse should prejudice anothers lawfull right I am sure such curses have no warrant from the Law of God or this Nation No warrant from the Word of God I conceive there is a very cleare one our Mother-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