First I quote this Text I hangred and ye gave me Meat I thirsted c. Mat. 25. If Christ do not Accept of these things He might say indeed That you offered Me Meat but He cannot say that you gave it for a Present is then only to be called a Gift when it is Accepted as his own that takes it And doth He thus accept of Meat and Cloathing and doth he not accept of those kind of Endowments that bring both those to Perpetuity Will He take Meat and refuse Revenues Doth He like can you imagine to be Fed and Cloathed to day and in danger to be Starved to morrow The Men thus provided for He calls no less than His Brethren In as much as you have done it c. Whether those were of those Brethren which He enjoyned to Teach others or of those He would have instructed the Text then doth not decide Without doubt it must be meant of both for 't were a strange thing to Affirm That Christ likes it extream well to be Fed and Cloathed in all those He calleth His but only in the Twelve and Seventy But to put it out of doubt That what is done to these is done to Him too His own words are very clear He that receiveth you receiveth Me you Teaching Disciples in the work of the Gospel when He sends them forth to Preach and that Reception implys all such kind of Provision as is apparent throughout the whole Tenour of that Chapter And again I quote that so well known passage of Ananias and Saphira his Wife Acts 5. His Sin was he kept part of the Price of those Lands he had given to God for the publick use of Christ's Church they were given to God and 't is as plain God did accept them For St. Peter you know thus reproves him why hast thou Lyed or why hast thou deceived the Holy Ghost For so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth properly import why dost thou so cheat him of what is now his proper Right And again Thou hast not Lyed unto Men but unto God ver 4. And is this so strange a thing Are our Lyes to be accounted Sins before God Yes All against God as a Witness and a Judge but not all as a Party And so this is a more remarkable a more signal Lye Thou hast not Lyed to Man a Negative of Comparison not so much to Man as to God what 's done to them is scarce worth the naming But thou hast Lyed to God as a Witness and a Judge and a Party too Thou hast Lyed and robbed God by Lying and so run thy self into a most horrible Sin and it shall appear in God's judgment So the Fathers generally expound the place both of the Greek and Latine Church and affirm his Crime was a robbing of God of that Wealth which by Vow or Promise was now become God's Propriety so the modern interpreters so Calvin Sacrum esse Deo profitebatur and Beza Praedium Dco consecrassent and he that will not believe so universal Consent in the Interpreting of a place of Scripture should do well to consider whether on the same Ground as I told you before he may not be brought to doubt of his Dictionary for that 's but universal Consent he may as well almost doubt whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify God and altogether as well whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify the Gospel The New-Testament will afford more places for that purpose Rom. 2. 22. Thou that abhorrest Idols committest thou Sacriledge 'T is true these words are spoken as to the Person of an unconverted Iew and may be therefore thought to Aim only at those Sins which were against the Law of Moses But do but view St. Paul's way of Arguing and you shall find quickly they come home to us too He there tells the Iew that he Taught others those things which yet he would not do himself and he strives to make this good by three several Instances First Thou that Preachest a Man should not steal dost thou steal Secondly Not commit Adultery dost thou commit Adultery In both which 't is plain that the Iew he dealt with did the same thing he reprehended and straitway the Third comes Thou that abhorrest Idols dost thou commit Sacriledge So that hence will follow if St. Paul's words have any Logick in them that these two Sins are of the self-same nature too and that to commit Sacriledge is a breach of the same Law as to commit Idolatry So that this Crime will appear without all doubt a plain Robbing of God For he that Steals from Men yea though a whole Community of Men yet he Sins but against his Neighbour 't is but an offence against the second Table of the Law But Sacriledge layes hold on those things which the Latine Laws call Bona nullius it strikes down right immediately at God and in that regard no Idolatry can can do it 't is a breach of the first Table of the Law and both these Crimes are equally built on the self-same contempt of God The Offender in both kinds the Idolater and the Sacrilegious Person both think meanly of Him The first conceives He will Patiently look on while His Honour is shared to an Idol the other imagines He will be as unconcerned though His Goods be stolen to His Face This was without doubt the Sence of all the ancient Church for upon what Grounds could they profess they gave Gifts to God but only that they presumed That God was pleased to Accept them So saith Irenaeus We offer unto God our Goods in token of Thankfulness So Origen By Gifts to God we acknowledge him Lord of All. So the Fathers generally So Emperors and Kings So CHARLES the Great To God we offer which we deliver to his Church in his well known Capitulary and our own Kings have still spoken in this good Old Christian Language We have Granted to God for us and our Heirs for ever that the Church of England shall be free and have Her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable They are the first words of our Magna Charta Her whole Rights and Liberties words of a very large Extent that imply far more than Her Substance and yet these and all these Lands Honours and Jurisdictions all these have been given to God yea and frequently confirmed by the publick Acts of this Kingdom And if Ananias might thus promise yet Rob God I beseech you Sir consider whether England may not do so too For the Second 't is plain in the Text That God did as much take the Temple to be His as He did the Iews Tythes and Offerings these last indeed were His by special and express Law and Command 2 Sam. 7. but the Temple was the voluntary design of King David and the voluntary work of King Solomon Nay God expresly tells David That He had been so far from Commanding that House that He had not so much as asked this Service And therefore St. Paul
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.
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
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-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
Law than can the Sins of the Layety yet I could name you Churchmen of great Note who totally refused to be preferred by that Queen to any Bishoprick at all because they would by no means submit their Conscience to the base Act of such Alienations and one of them was Bishop Andrews I could tell you too that those long Leases he speaks of had one cause more than the Marriage of the Clergy for when they saw a Stool of Wickedness set up of sacrilegious Wickedness that imagined Mischief by a Law some not the most Men thought it fit to make those long Leases that the Estate of the Church might appear more poor and so the less subject unto Harpies and then their hope was that at the length at least after many Years spent it might return whole unto the Successors He goes on But to deal clearly with you Sir I do not 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 Vse a Communion Cup for instance or the like and Theft you know must be of things moveable even by the Civil Law and how Theft can be of Lands or Sacriledge by alienating Church-Lands I pray ask your Friend Holborne and his Fellow-Lawyers for ours here deride us for the Question It seems they are very merry at London or at least this Epistler thinks so for being Winners he might perhaps conceive they make themselves pleasant with a Feather and that this Argument is as light a thing appear'd before by my 3 d Answer For can any man think in earnest that 't is Sacriledge and so a Sin to take away a Cup from a Church but 't is none to take away a Mannor As if Ahab had been indeed a Thief had he robbed Naboth of his Grapes But Elijah was too harsh when he talked to that good King because he only took away his Vineyards Indeed there is such a Nicety in the Civil Law that Actio Facti lies only against him that hath stolen Rem Mobilem for Iustinian it seems in the Composition of his Digests which he took from the writing of the old Iuris Prudentis thought it fit to follow Vlpian's judgment and yet Sabinus in his Book de Furtis a Man of Note amongst those Men was known to be of another Opinion Non tantùm rerum moventium Sed fundi aedium fieri Furtum I would gladly know of this Epistler whether he thinks all Men both Divines and others bound to frame all the Phrases of their Speech according to the Criticisms of the Civil Law as it is now put out by Iustinian If not why may not some use the word Furtum in Sabinus's sense as well as others may in Vlpian's and then Sacriledge may be properly a Theft and as properly in immoveables or if we must needs speak in your sense whom Iustinian hath approved I do not well see how a Man can spoil the Church of her Lands and at the Civil Law 'scape an Action of Theft for it lies against him that takes the Trees Fruits and Stones And I am confident there 's no Church-Robber but he intends to make use of those kind of Moveables otherwise what good will his Church-Land do him And if he make this use a Thief he is in the Civil Law Phrase and then in the sense of this Epistler himself he is without doubt a sacrilegious Person But where I wonder did the Londoner learn that Furtum strictè Sumptum was that genus of Sacriledge So that where there is no Theft in the Civil Law sense there is none of this kind of Sin I am sure 't is neither intimated by the Greek nor Latine word nor I believe delivered by any learned Author on this Subject So that I must set down an Assertion and I conceive well grounded too point blank against this Londoner and affirm there may be a Sacriledge properly so called whch is not a Theft in the Civil Law sense which has been proved in the 3 d Affertion and need not trouble Sir R. Holborne that learned Gentleman may have other business nor his Fellow-Lawyers For I doubt not there are enough besides who will here smile at this passage and will think that this Epistler hath met with a Civil Law Quirk which he knew not well how to wield But to say truth he deals clearly with the Doctor and tells him that for his particular he doth not yet understand which for my part I do believe and do only wonder that he would laugh at another in a Point he could no better satisfie him in He goes on The hyre of a Labourer at most as sitting maintenance is all that can be challenged But the Maintenance must be honourable or else we Christians use God like no other Men far worse I am sure than do Pagans And when such a Maintenance hath been once given in Lands the Acceptation of it will soon make the Gift immoveable so that it signifies little to say the Apostle had no Lands for they who had the Money for Lands sold might no Man will doubt have still kept the Lands had they liked them But the Church being in Her Persecution the Disciples were to flie and Lands we know are no moveables And 't were very strange if not ridiculous to affirm that Ananias and his Wife sinned in taking back what they had promised but if in Specie they had given those Lands they might have revoked that Gift without Sacriledge He proceeds Which I mention to avoid the groundless Arguments upon the Lands and Portions allotted to the Tribe of Levi by God's appointment to whom our Ministers have no Succession Our Ministers challenge nothing which belonged to the Tribe by Levitical Right but where things are once given to God for the use of his Ministers they there get a moral interest and what we read of this kind in the Old Testament doth as much oblige Christians as if it were in the New And then 't will follow that they enjoy your Lands by the same Law of the State as others do and must be subject to that Law which alone gives strength to their Title Out toto Coelo Have Churchmen no Title to those Possessions they enjoy but by the Law of this Land alone Yes besides these they have Christ's Acceptation and so they are become theirs by Law Evangelical their Lands are God's own Propriety and so they hold them from him by the Law moral too And therefore though by the new Constitution of the Laws of the Land they hold Estates in Fee simply and so may alienate without punishment from the Law of England yet they cannot do it without guilt of Sin as being a breach of the Law Evangelical and Moral except then only when they better themselves by some gainful at least not hurtful Permutation Besides were this Argument good it would only follow that the Clergy by their own
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