verbum Baâ—on Sr Henry Spelman informe me right then it cannot hold that all Bishops in England hold their lands by or in the right of their Baronies for he affirmes that the title of Baron was not known in England till the time of William the Conqueror whereas most I dare say of some Bishops lands were given some one some two some three some foure hundred years before the Conquerors time and then judg whether those lands were given to hold per Baroniam Againe the same Author sayes that in England there were three sorts of Barons the first who were made by William the Conqueror and these hold their Honors and Places in all Courts by Prescription rather then by Tenure and were therefore called Barones Praescriptitii The second sort were called Rescriptitii who in the time of Henry the Third were called by Writ to the Kings Courts The third sort called Diplomatici who by the Kings Patents were first created in the time of Henry the Second and in that right had their places Now can any say but that ever since there have been great Councils in England the Bishops had their places there and so were to hold them by Prescription rather then by Tenure And if by the great Charter the Rights and Liberties of the Church be inviolable i. e. such as rightly cannot be broken then this Right Custome or Privilege cannot justly be taken away I conceive this true that the two Kings Williams Father and Son and after them King Henry the Second out of spleen ambition or avarice have impaired the first antient Dignity of Bishops in England and may have changed some of their Lands to be held per Baroâ—iam which at first were granted in puram perpâ—tuam Elâ—emosynam Whereupon Sr Henry Spelman cals the now Bishops Barones Elâ—emosynaries yet doth it follow that if some have unjustly changed their Tenure therefore others more unjustly may take away their Lands Had it been ill in David to have cut off the lap of Sauls garment might he therefore have killed the King The case then as I conceive it is briefly this The Saxon Kings first chief Donors of much if not of the most of the Bishops Lands in England gave and confirmed them to be held either in Franc-Almoigue free from all Service or for Divine Service and they to hold them as Gods Almes-men and Servants and this continued to King Edward the Confessor after which time some Kings how justly judg you as Conquerors of this Land altered the Tenure making some or most of their Lands yet not all for two are excepted Carble and Rochoster so an antient Register to hold per Baroniam After which King Henry the Third whether moved in conscience or upon some other good causes restored the Lands to their antient just Rights for his Charter could intend no lesse to the Church it looking back to the time of Edward the Confessor at least So that the Question is whether the Lands of Bishops in England should now hold per Baroniam as changed by the Conqueror or his Successors or as at first they were granted and after restored by the great Charter to their first Rights and Liberties 1 Part Instit p. 94. 2. Instit c. 1. Ibid. which was either in Franc-Almeigne or for Divine Service Sr Edward Coke affirmes this later and further saith By the great Charter all the Rights are confirmed to the Church and Church-men which they had before or at their first Grant And in the same place more fully saith The Church shall be fres i. e. freed By which saith he a restitution is graved of all such Immunities and Freedomes as they enjoyed before and to free them from all such changes as have been usurped and encroached upon by any power whatsoever And I believe that if the case were put concerning your own Lands you would soon resolve that they shouldhold as by the first Donors grant and after by the great Charter confirmed rather then by that imposition of a Conqueror And why the same judgment should not be given on Bishope Lands as on the Lands of other Free-men of England I see not Argum. 14 But some to take a shorter course will perswade that to take and sell these Lands of the Bishops is not Sacrilege because theft is onely in things moveable in which condition or acceptation Lands cannot be understood Resp Sr Edward Coke cites the Canon Law and approves of this as agreeable to our Law which saith Whâ—â— things are giâ—â—â— to the Church 2 Instit. p. 489. are holy Offerings whether they beres solide or mobiles whether they be moveable or immoveable Now doth our law say there is no theft in things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only saith it theft is in moveables If this and not that then why for the honor of our Law that it may not appeare to cross Gods may we not say that our Law hath onely made theft in moveables punishable because it doth not conceive how land in the proper and strict sense of robbing can be taken away and stoln But because Sacrilege or taking things immoveable is not by our Law punishable doth it therefore follow that it is no sin or punishable by Gods Law Suppose we have no Law to punish an Atheist an Idoater one that takes Gods Name in vaine who prophanes the Lords day who dishonoureth his Parents who tels or makes lies are therefore these no sins punishable by the Law of God And that by Gods Law defrauding God or man of immoveables be it of Lands is a sin be pleased first to bethink your self 1 King 21. whether King Ahah sinned in taking away Naboths Vineyard an immoveable I conceive in your sense and acceptation and if he sinned in this then what Commandement brake he Was it not the eighth which saith Thou shalt not steale And then doth it not plainly follow that theft may be in immoveables And that God may be robbed of immoveables which is Sacrilege And doth not God by his Prophet Ezekiel speaking not only of Tithes and Offerings but of the holy Lands say Ezek. 48.14 Thou shale not sell nor alienate them which to doe is Sacrilege Argum. 15 But now followes the Argument which will admit no Answer There is a necessity lies upon the State to sell the Bishops Lands for without it the publike debts cannot be paid and without yeelding to this the Church and State are in hazard to be utterly ruined for till this be done there will be no peace in the Land Resp Indeed we say necessity hath no law and it is a sad oase that without or against Law divine or humane nedessity must sweep all before it but before I answer fully will you give me leave to ask you a Question or two 1. How and by whom is this necessity brought on 2. If not by Bishops but others why not the Trespassers in stricter language the Debters to discharge the debt rather then the Bishops 3. If
Order be rich and proud shal the Function be rooted out for the offence of the person or was this ever held agreeable to Religion Law Justice or right Reason There was a Judas a Traytor who carried the bag among the twelve Apostles of Christ did Christ therefore take away the Apostleship Some Angels rebelled against God did God therefore destroy all the Angels as Rebels James and John would sit one at the right the other at the left hand of their Lord Christ must all the Apostles therefore be despised as proud and usurpers And to take away the Bishops Lands and give them a portion is it not to take away their meat and make them feed all on pottage Or to deale with them as some Idolaters or Eli's sons did who took the flesh or best part of the Sacrifices to themselves and sacrificed the bones or worst to God Or comes not this too neer our English Proverb to steal a goose and stick in place of it the feathers And when it is said they shall have a sitting maintenance for that is all can be challenged from the Scripture remember what Christ replied to those that murmured at the lord of the vineyards bounty to some of the labourers more then others Is thine eye evil because I am good Mat. 20.15 Or repinest thou at that which I have given to those labourers being it is lawful for me to doe with mine what I wil which holds right both in the several Kings giving the Lands and Gods accepting and allowing them to his Ministers But if we be to be pittanced by a competency as it is called who I pray shall be the Steward or Distributor Shall he that robs the true man of his purse give back what he thinks competent And shall this be held just If we understand and beleeve the Prophet it is God that is robbed and who shall judge but God Or what competency is fitting to be allowed to him Is it one or two hundred pounds per Annum If the best Interpreters even of our modern Divines may be heard they will tell you from Gal. 6. and 1 Cor. 16. that this maintenance must be honorable and hath this been performed when for two three foure yeares you have taken all from them and yet not so much as charging them with any offence against Law or your own Ordinances And is this Justice or an honorable maintenance Or would your Honors be content with the like Argum. 17 I have heard that which I would rather truly call a Project then an Argument that the Bishops in England antiently had the First-fruite and Tenths of all the Spiritual livings in every Diocese which were the proper maintenance of those Bishops and that therefore these might be restored to the Bishops in lieu of the Lands which by the Ordinance should be taken from them Resp To which I must desire you to know that this Project or Device is grounded upon a double mistake for 1. the maintenance of Bishops ever since they were in England was by lands such as were given them by their Royal Benefactors and others 2. The Bishops in England held or had not those First-fruits and Tenths but the Bishop of Rome who under the false pretended Title of Universal Bishop Mat. Paris in H. 3. p. 849. usurped and took the same in England as he did almost in most parts of Christendome besides witnesse that Grant of the Pope who De potestate sibi à Deo concessâ Pol. Virg. Hist Angl. lib. 20. gave those Tenths for three years to K. Henry the Third And the like of Pope Vrban who gave the Tenths in this Kingdome to K. Richard the Second to aid him against Charles the French King and those that upheld Clement the Seventh against him after which they were paid to the Pope again until they were restored to the Crown by K. Henry the Eighth 2 K. H. 8. c. 3. for that the King as in that Statute he was stiled the Head of the Church or rightly is the Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor in all causes and over all persons Ecclesiastical Now then if it might be just to grant the Bishops these First-fruits and Tenths in lieu of their Lands yet what Justice can it be to rob as we say Peter to pay Paul to take that which is the Kings just right from him thereby to satisfie for that which is unjustly taken from God and the Church So that as this Project failes in the ground so in the superstructure too it tends to a double Injustice the one against the King and the other against the Church and yet if this could be done without Injustice to either I know not how to clear the act from impiety or Sacrilege when God by his Prophet as I before urged the Text saith Thou shalt not exchange that which is holy to the Lord Ezek. 48. Lev. 27.13 Except as it is excepted for the Levite and Priest it may clearly appear that the exchange be for the better which this cannot be Again if by an Act these Lands on these conditions be now taken from the Church then by another Act of Resumption or Restitution those First-fruits and Tenths may be taken away from the Church again and restored as of right belonging to the Crown and wherein then shall there be a maintenance for Bishops in the Church Argum 18 It hath been urged thereby to root out Episcopacy that the King gives those Bishopricks and so their Lands and by these means he holds the Bishops at his beck to say or do what he will Resp 'T is true that this was urged in Parliament for taking away the Bishops Votes there which being done why yet to take away their lands for these have no Vote in Parliament Or why not to take away as well the lands of all those who hold by Office Tenure or Honor from the King Yea or from all those who make conscience to keep Faith and Loyalty Or why not rather on the other side may ye not enact that all Bishops who shall hereafter act or assist against the Parliament shall lose their estates which is as much as in Justice can be done For will you forbid all Wine Knives Swords and the like for these have and may againe doe mischief and so have Parliaments too But God forbid all these should be taken away upon these grounds I confesse I have heard that Mr Knox in Scotland counselled after this manner Pull down the Crows nests said he for such homely or slovenly Similes they mostly use as best becoming them and sitting the palats of their Auditors for else the black Birds will build againe but of this counsel ere he died he repented though too late for when the steed was stollen he advised the Clergy by word and pen to gain-stand this black Sacrilegious act of taking away the patrimony and possessions of the Church Argum. 19 But we have bound our selves by an
CHURCH-LANDS NOT TO BE SOLD OR A necessary and plaine Answer to the Question of a conscientious PROTESTANT Whether the Lands of the BISHOPS and CHURCHES in England and Wales may be sold Prov. 20.25 It is a snare to the man who devoureth that which is holy Sr Edward Coke Instit 2. c. 1. What ever is granted to Gods Church i.e. to Churchmen for his honour and maintenance of his Religion and Service is granted for and to God and what is given to God is holy Ezek. 48. Prov. 23.10 11. Remove not the old Land-mark and enter not into the field of the Fatherless for their Redeemer is mighty and he shall plead their cause with thee Coke Ibid. Our Law-Books teach us that the Church is ever understood to be under age and to be as a Pupill or Fatherlesse and that it is not agreeable to Law or Right that such should be dis-inherited Printed in the Yeare 1648. The Heads or Points briefly touched in this Answer 1. THat Lands may be given to the Church for Gods Service and Servants therein 2. That Lands so given and accepted become holy to the Lord. 3. That the Lands of Bishops and the Churches in England were so given and therefore may not be alienated or sold 4. That such Alienation or Selling is forbidden in the Old and New Testament 5. That it hath beene so judged by the most strict Reformers in the Protestant Churches 6. That this kind of Alienation is against Prudence Justice the good of the Kingdome in general and of the Tenents to such lands in special 7. That it is against the Lawes of this Kingdome of England which the two Houses of Parliament and Kingdom by their several Declarations Protestations and Covenants are bound to maintaine 8. That it is against the Prudence and Justice of the King and against his lawfull Oath 9. One and twenty Arguments which are brought in defence of or colour for such Alienation are answered 10. The Curses and punishments which are set downe and executed in Holy Writ against Sacrilegious Alienations are held forth and opened CHAP. I. That Lands may be given to the Church for Gods Service and Servants therein DId I conceive it proper to this Discourse and that it would move you it were easie to shew out of very good Histories that the Heathen who knew not the true God and Infidels not beleeving in our Lord Christ have set forth lands and possessions for the perpetual maintenance of their Priests I shall therefore give you but a touch of this and that in our owne Land wherein then Heathenish were Idol Priests Antiqu. Brit. Armicaâ— whom Lucius King in some part of Britain being converted to the knowledge and faith of Christ about the yeare 176. rooted out and taking away their possessions and territories he gave them to the Churches of the beleeving Christians which he endowed with addition of more lands and larger immunities And that this may not seem any new or strange thing I pray consider that God by his Prophet Moses hath bin pleased to expresse that the Egyptian Priests had lands for so we read Gen. 47.22 Onely the lands of the Priests he sold not in the margin of which Text it is added or of the Princes not as doubting whether they were Princes and not Priests but intimating that as the original word signifies both so they were or might be both Priests and Princes And not only the Egyptians but the Assyrians Chaldeans Medes Persians Greekes and Romans honoured their chiefe Priests as Princes Baren ad An. 383. yea Constantine the Great being Emperour and a Christian yet retained the title of Pontifex maximous The great or high Priest But to returne to our purpose for we argue not for title but maintenance out of that Text of Gen. 47. it appeares that the people who were as the Apostle speakes without God in the world Ephes 2.12 yet by the light of natural reason found and held it requisite that their Priests should have a setled maintenance and that in lands Give mee leave here to adde what Mr Selden a man of great reading hath observed that in some parts of Europe the maintenance of Priests lieth wholly in lands But I must to the holy Historie and tell you that so soone as God had raised himselfe a Church by the Ministery of his servant Moses Acts 7.22 who was learned in all the Wisdome Lawes and Policies of the Egyptians he gave to his servants in his Church besides 1. The first-borne of all men and caâ—â—â— 2. Besides the first fruits of the earth 3. Besides a part in all their severall Offerings 4. Besides all the Tithes both of their Goods Weems Synagog and of the encrease of their Lands so that if an Husband-man had 6000. bushels of graine or corne growing in a yeare after that he had paid all his Tithes he had left to himselfe but 4779. I say besides all this though the whole land was hardly 160. miles in length from Dan to Beer-sheba and but 46. Ep. ad Dardan miles in breadth from Joppa to Bethlehem as Saint Jerome who lived long there testifieth God gave them 18. Cities with the Lands and Suburbs round about And although the Tribe of Love at that time of division of the Land were but 23000. and the Tribe of Asher was 53000. of Nepthali 45000. of Zebulun 57400. of Issachar 64000. of Dau 64000. yet the most of the Lands allotted to any of these Tribes exceeded not 19. Cities so bountiful was God under the Law to a corporall abouring Levite which was but a shadow of the glorious Sun-shine of the Gospel and the Royal Priest-hood which we enjoy And yet as though nothing could then under the Law be done too much for the Servants in Gods Temple King Solomon a Type of Christ not only suffered them to enjoy what before had bin given them immediately from God but to shew the high esteeme which ought to be had to the Priest whereas the King had a Coine estamped with the Sword and Scepter which was the Royal Coine the Priests had their Coine too bearing the pot of Manna and Aarons Rod to shew it a Royal Priest-hood when as yet as before is said it was but a shadow of that Royalty which after appeared under the Gospel whereof Bishops and Presbyters are the Ministers And so long as this honour and honourable maintenance was continued to the Priests the Church of God and the whole land flourished untill the time of Jeroboam who by his Rebellion Idolatry and Sacrilege begat that confusion which by degrees brought all to utter destruction Neither did the Convert Christians with Judaisme renounce this kind of Dedicating Lands to God and his servants for what was that act of the Christians lesse which the Apostle mentions Acts 4. and 5 Whereupon Beza and other learned Divines hold that the Christians then and there dedicated the lands themselves but because the times were
The Prophet Ezekul speakes this plainly And Lev. 27.32 the Tithe is called Holy the rest of the land is termed a profane place for the city for dwelling and for the suburbs whereas before the oblation of the land mentioned for the Priests is called holy Deut. 18.1 and this oblation of that land that is offered shall be a thing most holy and the Priests and Levites maintenance is called the Lords inheritance for then as now under the Gospell by mans dedication and Gods acceptation the propriety as by Liverie and Seisin in other lands is altered and become the Donees Gods and therefore is holy which is plainly and fully confirmed by that of our most blessed Saviour in that ye gave it to my Brethren or Disciples Mat. 25.40 ye gave it unto me where when they gave and Christ received it became fully Christs and then and thereby who will denie it to be holy The Prophet tells the Jewes that they had robbed God Mal. 3. the Jewes aske how and wherein to which Saint Hierom expounding the Prophet saith Ye have robbed me in taking that away which was given to my Priests The Primitive Fathers therefore call Temples and Churches dedicated to God though under the names of Saints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Temples or Houses of the Lord. And Optatus saith Res est Dei Lib. 6. ubi Deo aliquid à quocunque oblatum est And not onely have the Primitive Fathers and Councels spoken thus but both Law and Gospell prove it and Mr Calvin calls Patrimonium Ecclesiae Deo consecratum De neces reform Ecclesiae And Beza on Acts 5. saith That now under the Gospel there is a consecration of things to God is and now what is given to the Church is given to God And Sr. Edward Coke from the most ancient learned Sages of the Law cals Church lands divine Tenements according to which K. Ethelred long before Anno 998. giving lands to the Church of Canterbury stiles them Patrimonium Christi Yea Spelm. Conc. p. 506. the Comment on Littleton saith That the King in our Law is Persona mixta cum Sacerdote and thereby his lands are called and held by our Lawyers to be Patrimonium sacrum how then can it be denied that in our Law the Bishops lands are such CHAP. III. That the Lands of Bishops and the Churches in England were so given and therefore may not be alienated or sold ANd that the Lands of Bishops and of the Church in England were so dedicated is easie to prove though first I shall plainly confesse that as God held not himselfe tied in the acceptation of lands offered nor yet the ancient Kings held themselves bound when they gave their lands some five some six some seven some eight some nine hundred yeares agoe to give them after the manner of a Norman or a later invented forme of conveyance so indeed can there not be found in the dedication of those lands such formalities as the Lawyers of our time would now require yet I am confident that on the Donors part you shall not finde so plaine and formal grants of any gifts or offerings in the Booke of God unlesse you mention those of the Temple as these of the Bishops lands and yet those God accepted took and held as his The Tithes and Offerings brought and delivered to the Priests and Levites God calls them in divers places his Inheritance his Offerings his Tithes Deut. 8.1 Lev. 27.10 Numb 18.28 Eze. 48. Mel. 3. Acts 4. yet where find we the dedication of them by the Donors to God And the like we may say of the Christians dedicating and selling their lands yet because the Israelites and Christians intended them to God God so accepted them as given to himselfe and according Marlorat the Collector of the Comments of the late Reformed Divines termes that act of Ananias Sacrilega fraudatio quia subduxerat quod sacrum fuit Deo although there is no mention in the dedication thereof to God Annot. on Act. 5 The Assembly of Divines following Beza translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to deceive and say that when Ananias had dedicated the possession to God for his servants the fraud concerned Gods interest So that although much lands heretofore in England were by the Donors entituled to the Church to such an Apostle or Saint yet it cannot be denied that they were intended and primarily given to the honour of God and so Sr. Edward Coke ingenuously confesses Instit 2. cap. 1. quod datur Ecclesiae Dee datur and againe what is given for God is given to God For who can doubt but he that gives any thing to a servant in relation to the honour and service of the Lord that hee gives it to the Lord who wil accept it as a gift to himselfe But if we shal give credit to the best Records and Histories we want not plaine proofes that much of the lands held by Bishops and Church-men were in expresse words given to God and Christ Spelm. Cone p. 119. Sumner p. 47. About the yeare 605. Ethelbert the first Christian King of our English Nation giving lands to the Church saith Dene concedo has terras Deo and as hee was the first English Christian King that gave lands to God so was hee the first that I finde who gave them with this curse Si quis de hac donatione aliquid minuere rentaverit aut irrirum facere sit in praesenti sepvratus à sancta Communione Corporis Sanguinis Christi P. 350. in die Judicii à consortio sanctorum K. Ethelnulph Anno 855. dat terras Deo as Spelman cites divers Historians and Records for the proof thereof and before him K. Offa Anno 790. giving lands to the See of Canterbury Sum. Appendix of Cant. p. 377. faith Hanc Eleamosynam offero Deo omnipotenti pro pignore Christianae Fidei for which Sumner cites the original grant and K. Ethelred Anno 998. confessing that by ill counsel he having taken away lands from the Bishop of Rochester in Brumleigh hee now grieved in conscience for that wicked act Regist Roff. f. 8. B. restores them Omnipotenti Christo I could adde many more the like of the Saxon Kings After whom William the Conquerour in the fourth yeare of his reigne in England chooseth and sweareth twelve the best and most learned men in the Lawes of the Kingdome diligently to search and truely to set downe the Lawes and Customes thereof Spelm. Cone p. 619. as they were in use in the time of K. Edward the Confessour among which Lawes this is set as the first Omnis Clericus Scholaris and I hope Bishops then as now might and may be understood under one of those termes omnes corum possessiones ubicunque fuerint pacem Dei sancta Ecclesiae habeant and can any deny but by the peace of God there is understood an immunity from rapine alienation
But why in Gods name are not the Assembly of Divines at Westminster consulted with in this point Or why doe not our conscientious Brethren read the Annotations of the Assembly who note that Egypt which would not in the greatest extremity of famine On Gen. 47. when all other mens lands were sold yet then that they would not sell the lands of the Priests shall rise up in judgement against the alienators or sellors of lands which have been dedicated to God or his Servants CHAP. VI. That this kind of Alienation is against Prudence Justice the good of the Kingdom in general and of the Tenents to such Lands in special BUt were there not so much said in Gods Book and by learned Orthodox Divines shall neither our owne Lawes nor Prudence nor Justice prevaile in this case to keep us from selling of Church Lands For what Justice is it to sell that which is not our owne And that these lands are 1. Gods I hope it is proved sufficiently by Gods words the verdict of allowed Divines and shall be further proved anon by the Lawes of our Land 2. They are the Bishops who are Gods Assignes and Usufructuaries and these lands are theirs by as good title in Law as any man can hold any land in this Kingdome 3. They are by Patronage the Kings for this is very lately professed in a good Parliament 1 Jacob. 3.3 in these words Whereas all the Lands of the Bishops in England and Dominion of Wales were given by Kings of England the full truth whereof I will not dispute whereby the King is become the lawfull and rightfull Patron of all those Lands therefore it is desired that the King would enact not that they without the King would or could no such power then knowne and what is desired not that the Bishops Lands should be sold but that they may not be leased out by the Bishops for longer terms of time then for 21. yeares or three lives no not to the Crowne And is this Justice so soone forgotten or so soone changed in so short a time that without the consent of God the Proprietary of the King the Patron and of the Bishops the Assignes the lands shall be utterly sold away And yet must we call this Justice I pray God this Justice call not for judgement from heaven And whether it can be just to sell the Bishops Lands I pray examine by that rule and touch-stone of true Moral Justice which our Lord Christ hath expressed in two short Precepts the one Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe The other Mat. 19.9 Mat. 7.12 Whatsoever ye would that men should doe unto you doe you even so unto them for this is the Law and the Prophets Now by the first rule examine your selves whether in this act of selling the Bishops Lands you love the Bishops as your selves And trie this by the other whether you would yeeld your consent as to a thing just that if the Bishops had your power they might and should preserve to themselves their own lands and expose yours to sale If your hearts speake the truth I feare they would denie this to be just in the Bishops against you and if so then be assured that in this act of selling the Bishops lands you doe not that which by the verdict of your owne conscience is just And if you will as Law-makers should look forward and provide for future times stands it with civil Prudence to sell those Lands away which doe and will yeeld so much for maintenance of the King and Kingdome in Tenths First-fruits Subsidies and Taxes which for the most part will bee swallowed up when fallen into Lay-hands 2. Stands it with civil Prudence to robb Tenents of so good penniworths as they now hold from Bishops and Church-men which they must not expect when in Lay-hands whereby they have beene enabled the better to serve the King and Kingdome in time of need 3. Stands it with Prudence and Charitr to cast so many into a state of beggery and danger of theeving who by Bishops and Church-men have been reasonably relieved by under Offices and places in the Church Upon the dissolution of the Religious Houses in the Reign of K. Henry the Eighth Chron. f. 773. Mr Speed saith that a great Rebellion was raised in Lincolnshire and the Rebels expressing the cause thereof to the King they say Wee grieve for the suppression of so many Religious Houses whereby the Pooralty of your Realme is unrelieved and many put off their livings which is a dammage to the Common-wealth Soone after another Rebellion arose in Yorkeshire where 40000. with Horse Armes and Artillery rose for Religion who had upon their sleeves the Name of the Lord the ground of their rising was saith the same Author That the King by his evill Counsellers will destroy the Ministers of the Church f. 775. which makes against the Common good 4. Stands it with a Religious and civil Prudence to robb Learning and Religion of that profit and preferment which encouraged the study and encrease both of Learning and Religion Prov. 14.4 Where no oxen are the crib is cleane And the Land soon after K. Solomon found this true 1 King 13.33 for when Jeroboam had taken away the best maintenance of the Priests what followed but that the Priests were chosen out of the lowest of the people Which I would it were not too true now in our Land and in after times the Church suffered more under Julian then Dioclesian for this tooke away the able men but that Apostate their maintenance I shall close this point with that memorable passage of Sr Edward Coke in Winchesters Case The decay of the Revenues of the Church will draw after it the downe-fall of Gods Service and Religion which God in mercy avert CHAP. VII That it is against the Lawes of this Kingdome of England which the two Houses of Parliament and Kingdome by their severall Declarations Protestations and Covenants are bound to maintaine BUt if neither Gods Word nor the Verdict of best Divines nor Justice nor Prudence can be heard yet I pray heare what our Lawes say in this case and yet before I urge these to which I am as much a stranger as to the Profession let me remember you with that which I have heard to be a Maxime in our Law That no Statute Law or Custome which are against Gods Law or Principles of Nature can be of any validity but are all null which if granted it will save me the paines to cite our Lawes as having before proved that it is against Gods Law to sell away the lands of Bishops Yet let me adde that one Statute saith 1 Edw. 3. c. 2. That the King by evil Counsellors caused the Temporalties of Bishops to be seized into his hands for a time to the great dammage of the said Bishops which from henceforth shall not be done and this Statute is not repealed and therefore
Patron of the Bishops Lands and our Common Law makes him the Churches Guardian and is the King bound to follow others who have not the like charge or duty on them and so defraud a Pupil whom by Gods and mans Law his own Oath and conscience he is bound to defend and maintaine The Bishop doing fealty the King holds the Bishops hands betwixt his owne which saith Sr Edward Coke from Bracton Britton and others shewes that the King promiseth him protectionem Instit 1. p. 1. Sect. 85. defensionem warrantiam And addes that this the King promiseth to him not as to a Subject but as to a Bishop and not to his person alone but to his possessions And this Sr Edward Coke cals Foedus from Fides and termes it Sacramentum Fidelitatis which therefore the King may not upon other mens judgements and consciences breake Consider I pray what the wisest King on earth counselled all Kings and others Be not rash with thy mouth Eccles 5.2 4. and let not thy heart be hasty to utter any thing or word before God but when thou vowost a vow to God deferre not to pay it for he hath no pleasure in fooles pay that which thou hast vowed And which comes home to the vow and thing vowed It is a snare to devoure holy things Prov. 25.20 and after the vow to make enquiry i.e. how to breake it Argum. 5 But the King hath assented to as much in Scotland thereby to gratifie his people there and why not then to doe as much for his Parliament in England Resp It cannot be denied but that the best of Kings as of other men have had their lapses but they are so far from being bound after the sight and sense of an error to fall into the same againe that on the contrary they are obliged to repent and eschew the like for ever 2. What the King in that case there hath done whether it were voluntary or compulsory suddenly or deliberately I cannot tell onely this I say if through passion ill counsel or the like he did that once there which should not have been done it followes not that hee may or should doe the like againe or here But 3. we are to understand whether the Bishops stood so enstated in their lands in that Kingdome as the Bishops doe in England 4. But especially to know whether the King stood bound to God the Bishops the Kirk of Scotland by the same or such Contracts Oathes Charters as he stands in England wherein if there be a difference as I verily perswade my self there is then it will not follow the King did it in Scotland therefore he may or should doe it in England Argum. 6 Yet Parliaments have alienated Bishops Lands whereby they may plead it as a Privilege to doe the like Resp I cannot say that one Act scarce an hundred years old can make or warrant a Privilege for no just Privilege can be induced but upon acts rightly and lawfully grounded And Mr Calvin from Saint Gregory saith De neces refor Eccles Chap. 4 5 6. Privilegium meretur amittere qui Privilegio abutitur So that if it be true which I laid down before that it is a sin to alienate such Lands then à factoad jus non sequitur Argumentum it hath been unjustly done therefore it may be lawfully done a Plough-man will say holds not Now to affix or conceive an inerrability in a Parliament is I hope more then the Parliament will assume to themselves we Protestants have denied it to the Church of Rome Ball. Catoples nay their own greatest Jesuits disclaime it in matter of fact But if a hundred years sithence the King in Parliament used this power to alienate Church Lands yet not much above forty years agoe 1 Jac. 3. in King James his time the Parliament without the King waved the having any such power or privilege For that Act shewes that the two Houses in Parliament had not power to hinder Bishops from making Leases to the Crown for above one and twenty yeares or three lives and how in this short time the Power and Privilege is so vastly encreased I know not except it be by the Sword which kind of Power as it was never held the best so it hath not ever proved long liv'd or I am sure not ever peacefull Belshazzar might have argued thus I use but those holy vessels which my father in a lawful war hath gained from a common enemy and left them so to me his Heir and Successour And did not the rebellious Israelites seem to plead the like Mal. 3. We doe but deteine the Offerings as our Fathers have done before us And doth God admit of these No their Prescription he useth as an aggravation of their offence saying From the dayes of your Fathers ye have departed from mine Ordinance Ver. 7. Dan. 5. Mal. 3.11 and therefore heare Gods sentence on both Belshazzar and Israel where the King is punished with losse of the Empire and a sudden fearful death and Israel is strooke with a lamentable destroying famine and such are Gods just rewards upon unjust Privileges and unlawful Prescriptions Argum. 7 But a Parliament may take away any mans lands in the Kingdome for this is an inherent and inseparable power of Parliaments Resp The Rule is good Id possumus quod jure justè possumus We are not truly said to may or can do any thing but that which we can or may justly doe Now if it be as before I proved against Gods and mans Law and Justice to sell away Bishops Lands then the Parliament may not doe it For the Parliament this Parliament often hath declared and sworn to maintain the Lawes of this Kingdom which are utterly against such Alienation The Jewes are told 1 Sam. 8. the King shall take their sons their fields c. and they shall find no help What I pray is the sense and extent of that power in the King Is it that by his just Right he might doe all that is spoken of him in that Chapter because it is said Ver. 10. this will be the manner and custome of the King so to doe Ask the Assembly of Divines at Westminster and I doubt not but they will tell you that if that King and Sanedrin and all Israel joyntly go beyond the Word of God and the Laws prescribed to them all their power could not save them from the guilt of sin nor reprieve them from Gods severe wrath When the lands were given as most were in the Saxon Kings times I dare say it cannot be proved that there was such power in the Nobility and people as to sell away the Church-Lands for the first large Grant or power of Parliaments was in Henry the Third's time and the same King it was that granted the Charter wherein is exprest that the Rights of the Church shall be ever inviolable Now if that Charter and those Parliaments say the
Lawes affirmes that in all ages without any controversie this hath held so that no Act of Parliament bindes the Subject of this Land without the assent of the King either for person lands goods or same and refers you to Sr Edward Coke where many Law-books are cited to that purpose 1 part Insâ—it sect 234. The ignorant or wilful mistake of divers holding the two Houses and their Ordinances to be truly called Parliaments and Acts of Parliaments as it hath deceived many in their consciences and of their lives so may it in this of their moneys if not timely foreseen and prevented Argum. 9 But though the King in his natural capacity and power be personally absent from the two Houses yet his Politick power and capacity is virtually in them and therefore what the two Houses ordain must as necessarily bind as if the King were personally present with them Resp In answer to this I pray consider what that great Lawyer Mr Plowden and Sr Edward Coke have determined for Law Comment f. 21â— 242. In Calv. Case and they say that the Natural and the Politick body of the King make but one body for as long as the Natural body lives the Politick is inherent in it this being a thing imaginary and invisible And I pray consider how well our Law may be called Holy in that it agrees so well with Gods own holy Law Rom. 13.1 2. for so Saint Paul speaking of the Politick power not to be resisted settles this power in the person of the King to whom it belongeth when he saith Ver. 3. Ver. 4. Wilt thou not feare the power then doe that which is good for He not they is the Ruler and He not they it the Minister of God And Saint Peter differs not but rather declares the same when he thus speakes 1 Pet. 2.13 14. Submit your selves to the King as supreme and honour the King and what can hence be lesse inferred then this that the power whereby he is a King and his Supremacy whereby he is above all naturally resteth in the person of the King and therefore he is to be honoured for his power and he to be submitted unto because he is King and Supreme Now can any man reasonably conceive that this power being an essential accident inhering in the King shoulâ— without the Kings consent and will vanish from its own proper subject and be of it selfe truly inherent in another subject which is not capable of such an accident I say not capable for the two Houses being and remaining Subjects witnesse their owne usual stile We Your Majesties humble Subjects are not a subject capable of Supremacie in that Supremacie and Subjection are opposite Relatives and therefore cannot be at one and the same time in one and the same subject The King I grant though bodily absent yet may be present representatively in the two Houses speaking either by his great Seal or by his Commissioners by himself appointed which hath been often used in our Parliaments but to say that his power is in the two Houses without his will or grant is all one as if we should say the influence of the Sun should be inherent in the earth without the natural inclination or motion of the Sun seeing that as no body can be the proper subject wherein that influence doth naturally inhere but the Sun so no body nor persons can be the proper subject to containe and hold Royal Power and Supremacie but the person of the King or they to whom he will as the Sun dispense the rayes or influence thereof And if it hath been or now may otherwise be why I pray both now as heretofore have and doe the two Houses supplicate desire crave and beseech the King to give his Royal assent which naturally ariseth from that his Politick capacity and power thereby to make that Law without which Royal assent no man worthy the name of a Lawyer ever held that any Bill Decree or Ordinance was of force to bind the Subject as to a standing and continuing Law which is plainly shewed in Answer to the Argument next before But notwithstanding that an Act made by the King Lords and Commons doth bind yet if that Act be as I before have proved this Ordinance of selling the Church-Lands to be against Gods and mans Laws it is to be repealed because it is unlawful and unjust so to ordain or enact and the Parliament should do nothing against Law and Justice Argum. 10 I have read this Argument in print that God no where commands such Lands to be given or Bishops to hold them and therefore where no breach of a Commandement is there is no sin Resp It appears that King David intended to build an house to the Lord but the Lord would not that David should build it and yet the Lord said David did well 1 Reg 8.17 18 19. that it was in his heart to doe it God commended and accepted of Davids act although that act were no where commanded to King David And in Ezra mention is made of the free-will-offerings of those who offered willingly for the House of the Lord Ezra 1.3 7. whereas elsewhere under the Law the general precept for Free-will-offerings to God his House and Servants is avowed to be a part of Gods Service although the particular offerings of what how much is left un-commanded to every mans liberty to give this or that more or lesse as God shall put into his heart And although there be no particular command to this or that man to give this or that to Gods Service and Honour yet under the general Precepts Prov. 3.9 Luke 6.38 Honour the Lord with thy substance and Give and it shall be given unto you there is warrant enough if not Precept according to every mans ability freely to give and offer to God for his Honour and Service whether by money lands or other goods Let me aâ—â— Where doth Christ command the Jewes and Gentiles to feed and clothe his Disciples and Apostles What then Were they not to do it And Saint Paul cals the Corinthians Offerings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 16.3 Luke 22.1 liberality and the Corban of the Jewes as before cited was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gifts now gifts and liberalities are free-offerings and not duties of command And saith not Christ Luke 17.9 10. Doth he thanke that servant that did the things commanded I trow not He who will allow God no more then what commanded shall in this robb God of his offerings the Donors of their reward and his servants of their relief and it would prove a pestilent Jewish opinion and too great an enemy to Christianity which consists as in voluntary sufferings so in voluntary offerings above that which is in special commanded To conclude the Ministers under the Gospel hold not their lands by any special command or Precept from God but by free-gift of the Donor man
such wherein they lived under the spoilers and nobbers of the Church therefore they sold the lands and brought the whole price thereof to the Apostles the then Governours of the Church and sure it cannot be conceiued in right reason but that those Christians would as willingly and readily have given their lands which might have continued for a perpetual standing maintenance and revenne as to have sold the land for money in present to be expended And that I give but this one instance in the New Testament you will not wonder when you consider 1. that the Church so long as the Apostles dived and wrote was yet in the wildernesse but in swadling clouts and under grievous tyranny and persecution and therefore not capable of lands 2. As yet it had beene improper to have given command or counsel herein for fenre of a greater persecution to the Christians and therefore they left both the advice and the thing then to be done when the Church should by Gods mercy obtaine some settlement and this was the course which Moses observed who untill by vanquishing the enemy he had obtained peace in the Land settled not lands and a perpetual maintenance for the Priests and Levites in Gods service Object But some may happily object that those lands were not dedicated or sold onely for the Apostles behoofe and use but for other Christians likewise Resp 1 Which is as readily granted as objected yet it cannot be denied but that all was at the dispose of the Apostles and for ought can be proved to the contrary at their dispose alone for wee read that it was laid downe at the feet of none but the Apostles and this laying at the feet gives the power of interest and dispose of that which was so laid which might be confirmed by severall places both in Holy and Prophane Writ The case then I suppose is cleare that the Primitive Christians spoken of in the Acts of the Apostles dedicated their lands to God for his servants in the Church which is the joynt consent of Calvin Beza Deedaâ— and other reformed Divines although by reason of the persecution they were constrained for present use and necessity to turne those lands into money 2. It is as cleare that the right title or interest of that money being laid at the Apostles feet was in the Apostles 3. That as the money the price of the lands so should the lands likewise have beene in the Apostles power if they had been held in kind 4. From all summed up I conceive it cannot be denied but that if in a settled time the lands had continued unsold the lands themselves being dedicated to God the title and interest thereof had been in those Apostles who were Gods Vicegerents as Mr Calvin judiciously observes on that place Which interest or title is not a whit diminished by objecting that other Christians and Lay-men should have had a profit or benefit by them as well as by the money for so it is in the lands given to Church men now who although they have a title to them in fee yet they are not to be swallowed up whole or wholly by the possessours but to be erogated by the grants or Lawes of the land to the reliefe of the poore for hospitality in pious uses and for the behoofe of the King and Kingdome both in time of peace and warre If nothing hitherto satisfie yet I hope that of our most blessed Saviour will doe it fully where he saith Is it not lawfull for out to doe what I will with mine owne Mat. 20.25 Where the Interrogation hath the force of an undoubted affirmation as if he had said questionlesse in a just right lawful way it is lawful for me or any man to doe what I or hee wil with mine or his owne and this I hope comes home to the Proposition or Assertion premised that lands may be given to the Church for Gods service and servants Hitherto I have but barely kept word with you that wee have from Gods word a Charter whereby we are enabled to hold lands if any wil give them now wil you be pleased to consider whether God in the Old or Christ in the New Testament have not given if not a command yet a counsell or strong perswasion so to dedicate or give That in the Old Testament which sure hath the power of a Precept is Prov. 3.9 Honour the Lord with thy substance whereby substance is more especially meant our temporal and worldly substance and why not lands here included and by the Lord there is meant the immediate honour and maintenance of the Prieste and Servants of the Lord God And when our Saviour tells it to the worlds end Mat. 25.40 that what ever good any Christian or other shall shew to his Apostles and Disciples he takes it as done unto himselfe and he will reward them doth he not herein vehemently perswade all true Beleevers at least to be good and bountifull unto them And can we conceive that Christ straitened the Christians bounty onely to a competent maintenance because he there speakes but of feeding and cloathing No surely this were too narrow it can intend no lesse then this that who shall in my name give unto my Disciples and Apostles my servants and Ministers present or perpetuall maintenance in diet lands or otherwise hee shall not loose his reward And if Christians be counselled or perswaded by Christ thus to give to his Apostles Disciples and their Successours in his Name and as for him sure it cannot be denied but that those Apostles Disciples and Successours may receive and hold such gifts as in the right of their Lord Christ And that this proposition the Ministers of the Gospel may have lands for their maintenance in Gods service may be rightly asserted from the Old and New Testament I doubt not but to be the opinion of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster and of all learned Orthodox Divine in Christendome CHAP. II. That Lands so given and accepted become holy to the Lord. THe next point is that lands so given for the service and to the servants of God change their common quality or nature and are by dedication and Gods acceptation become Gods and therefore holy for there are in holy Writ foure kinds of holy things 1. Holy manners 2. Holy meanes leading thereunto as the holy Word holy Sacraments holy Prayer Deut. 33.8 Lev. 27.9 Jer. 2.3 and holy Censures 3. Holy men as the Priest is called Gods holy One For there is sanctitas vitae or conversationals for all men and sanctitas Officii or Functionis for the Priests 4. Holy maintenance all that any man giveth unto the Lord shall be holy And Lev. 27.22 If a man sanctifie to the Lord a field which he hath bought Ver. 23. it shall be an holy thing unto the Lord. Prov. 20.25 Ezek. 48.15 V. 10. V. 12. And of such Solomon speaks It is a snare to devoure holy things
or selling those possessions as belonging to God A grant of the Conquerour expounds this wherein he saith Lamb. Archaiol f. 125. Teneant terras possessiones suas in pace Dei ab omni exactione injustâ libiras His sonne K. William the Second giving lands to the Bishop of Rochester Regist Roff. f. 11 Ib fol. 13. Ib. fol. 14. saith Hoc Regium donum facio Deo And K. Henry the First in his Inspeximus confirmes that grant in the same words K. Henry the First concedit terras pro Deo Ecclesiae Roffensi which is a cleare exposition of other grants which runne as many of the Saxon Kings did Sancto Petro Ecclesiae c. K. John as divers other Kings dat terras Episcopo Roffensi Ib. p. 14. successoribus suis in liberam puram perpetuam Eleemosynam And what is given in Almes is intended as given to God according to which the Jewes Corban is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 21.4 the offering of God And the Bishop of Rochester pleaded long since Ib. p. 53. that he held his lands in puram Eleemosynam Sr Edward Coke that generally accounted and so by most called Oracle of our Law speaking of Frank Almoigne or free Almes saith Instit 1. part p. 94. B. This grant of Frank Almoigne is an ancient grant and shall be allowed as the Law was when such grants were made and addes Our old Law Bookes describe it to be when Lands or Tonements are given to God i. e. saith he to such as are consecrated for his service For saith he What is done for Gods sake is done to God P. 96. and withall cites and allowes of that in the Canon Law where it saith Offerings are described to be what ever things are given by Christians to God Instit 2. part p. 489. and to the Church But to breake off this long discourse consider I pray in stead of all the great Charter which speaking of the Rights Privileges and Franchises of Bishops and their Churches saith Concessimus Deo we have granted to God that their Rights Privileges Liberties remaine for ever inviolable and sure their lands must be comprised here for Sr Edward Coke in his Institut on that Charter addes that the words there are now to be construed and that in as large a sense for the benefit of the Church as they were then intended when first written and by what is before spoken it cannot be doubted that they understood the words Part. 1. f. 86. as of other things so of lands too Let me adde what I finde in Sr Edward Coke The Bishop saith he Non facit homagium Regi dicens ego sum homo tuns doth not homage to the King saying I am your man sed fidelitatem but Fealty quia homo est solius Dei because he is the man only of God Ib. Sect. 133. And then what is given to the man of God in our Law is given to God CHAP. IIII. That such Alienation or Selling is forbidden in the Old and New Testament NOw me thinkes that which hath hitherto been said might terrifie any professour of Gods truth from the selling buying or alienating such lands so given but because nothing but expresse words in Scripture wil now a dayes serve the turn and would to God that might serve I pray consider the word of God by his Prophet Ezek. 48.14 expresly saying Ye shall not sell nor exchange nor alienate what is offered to the Lord. Where God to stop the mouth of all cavillers doth as our Lawyers put in words enough Yee shall not sell nor exchange nor alienate Object Where if any will prove so wittie against God and his Word as to say the Prophet there speaks not of Lands but of Tithes and Offerings which were not to be sold because that were against the Law established by God Resp Yet marke I pray whether this be not a cavill for the force of Gods prohibition lies not in this that they were Tithes nor in this because he had forbidden them to be sold but because they were offered to the Lord for so the Text speakes Ye shall not sel nor exchange nor alienate for it is holy to the Lord and so were become his and such as I have proved were the lands of Bishops in England and the same being the ground and reason of the prohibition now as then because offered given or holy to the Lord I cannot see but the prohibition hath the same force against selling lands given to God under the Gospel as it had under the Law And if we well weigh the punishment of Ananias and his wife it will appear that in Gods judgement Act. 5. the prohibition should hold more strong under the Gospel then it did under the Law for there Ananias but intended or promised his lands or price thereof to the Church and they were his own and so much his own that Saint Peter tells him V. 5. that is was in his power not to have promised them and yet for deteining but a part of this so lately his own hee is suddenly strooke dead and for ought we know without repentance Believest thou the Scriptures Then believe and know God will not be mocked with cavils or Law-termes or distinctions but as he is a God that knoweth the heart and searcheth the reins so where he findes Christians as Ananias to goe about to deceive or cheate him he will finde this man out and though he strike him not suddenly dead yet shall Gods wrath come like water into his bowels and like oyle into his bones or it shall be as a fire to consume his house But I feare too many there be who as they denie all relative holinesse to the Churches the utensils and the Ministers of God under the Gospel so upon the point they would that an Index expurgatorius should pass upon all Sacrilege as though under the Gospel there were now no such sinne for to profane Gods House and Ornaments is with them no Sacrilege to contemne and abuse Gods Ministers is as Christ prophesied in their account to doe God service and no Sacrilege Yea it is almost published that it is no Sacrilege to deteine or utterly to take away the maintenance of Ministers which are Tithes and yet if we beleeve Saint Paul there is such a sinne now which if it be not materially in the Houses the Tithes or the Ministers of God then sure it must be in the patrimony of the Church Rom. 2.22 for Saint Paul fights not with the aire neither reproves or forbids he that which is not sinne And it will appeare that the Sacrilegious person in alienating the Church lands breaks two Commandements in the first Table two in the second The sixt Precept saying Thou shalt not kill Exed 20. is not bounded alone in depriving a man of his life but in taking away his livelihood the maintenance of life Whose robbeth
very Law of nature for so the Prophet argues Will a man any man Mal. 3. any Pagan Heathen natural man will he robb his God i. e. He will not for it is against the Law of nature How great then is this sinne in a Christian who hath not onely the Moral Law of Nature and the positive Moral written Law of Moses but the Law of grace to restraine him CHAP. V. That it hath been so judged by the most strict Reformers in the Protestant Churches IT were easie to give you the sayings of many Primitive Orthodox Fathers in this case but conceiving that the later Divines relish better with you I shall therefore set downe the judgement of the three Oracles as they are held by many of the first best and strictest Reformed Churches in Germany France and Scotland And for Germany Dr Luther On Gal. 6.6 when hee saw the Clergy despised and their lands taken away Preached and Printed these words The Apostle here closely toucheth the manners of our Countrey-men who most securely contemne our Ministery and especially the Nobles who make their Pasters as their base and obnoxious servants in so much that if we had not so godly a Prince as God be thanked we have and so great a lover of the truth they had ere now driven us out of the land and yet these would be accounted Gospellers After this he meets with a tacit Objection viz. That these Revenues of the Church were given in the time of Popery to which he answers in these words Gram it that these goods were by moore imposture heaped up for Papists yet God spoyling the Egyptians i. e. Papists of their goods transtated them to good uses in our Land He goes on The Devill hath but two ordinary wayes to destrey Religion the one is by the errors of Hereticks against which we had by Ordinance a day of Humiliation â—aâ—t 10. 1646. the other by depriving of Gods Ministers of their Rights and this saith he is the Devils master-piece hereby to destroy Religion without either the force of Tyrants or the subtle worke of Hereticks But know saith he that although God for a time defers to punish yet in his own time he will finde you out and plague your dog-like scorne and hate to Gods Ministers For saith he The highest of the Gentry and most covetous of the City and the basest in the Countrey when they draw neere to death shall finde that God will not be mocked but as they have sowne so shall they reap for ever Thus farre the first great publike Reformer of the Protestants Church in Germany Next to him De neces reform Eccles heare Mr Calvin thus speaking I professe saith he that I am much displeased that the Revenues of the Church are not imployed for those uses alone for which they were dedicated and that it is not so I and all good men heartily grieve For saith he it is an inexpiable Sacrilege to take the patrimony of the Church and to wast the same on profane uses and what hee meanes by profane uses and wasting he explaines in these words when he saith I assent to this as a truth that it is Sacrilege to convert or change the goods or revenues of the Church to any other use then for the Church And adds Seldome have I found but that such Alienations of Church lands have drawne some mischiefe after them and hee not onely determines this kind of Sacriledge to be such a grievous sinne and dangerous to the State but even to the persons plotting and acting in the same for so he concludes I confesse saith he that in Scripture grievous punishments are pronounced against such men as shall spoile the Church of her goods and Revenues And when you shall consider that Mr Calvin wrote this Treatise to the Emperour and Princes of Germany assembled at that time in a Diet or Parliament for the Reformation of the Church then well weigh how at this time his judgement and sentence should prevaile with you in this case who for holinesse learning and judgement is so extolled by the Protestant Churches Will you heare but one passage for many from Mr Beza successour to Mr Calvin in Geneva and it shall be that which hee wrote in his answer to Dr Saravia who touching upon the dissolution and passing away the Lands of the Religious Houses in the time of K. Henry the Eighth saith We and all good men heartily bewaile that scattering of the Church Lands accompanied with a most wicked and detestable Sacrilege And from Germany and France let us to our Polestarre in Scotland and here Mr Knox the prime principal Reformer of that Kirk who with his brethren Ministers In Book of Disc 1560. desires the Lords of the Councel for feare of the losse of their soules to make restitution of the Lands of the Church and of the Friers and in his Letter on his death-bed In the yeare 1572. he commands his Brethren to withstand the devourers of the Church Patrimony wherein if they the devourers shall persist yet communicate ye not with them by consent or by silence And in the Booke of Discipline 1569. The Patrimony of the Church is declared to be all things doted to the Church and it pronounces them to be theeves who have taken them from the Church and affirmes In second Book of Policy c. 9. to take away any thing which was given to the Church to be detestable Sacrilege before God Moreover the whole Church of Scotland in their Assembly enjoynes a publike Fast throughout all the whole Kingdome At Edenburgh 1582. To appease Gods wrathon the Land for that crying sinne of Sacrilege therein committed Now can any who have sworne to maintaine the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of Scotland know this and yet Vote the selling of Church Lands If so why may we not pray Lord have mercy on them For did ever any Protestant Church maintaine that Church lands might be taken or sold from the Church If not which I perswade my selfe they have not then why doe you not feare that you are not in the right way or not right Protestants but rather in this point that you are Papists For that these onely of all Christian Churches have allowed the practice of it and yet these doe it not but under the colourable and falsly pretended power which the Pope usurps as being Christs Vicar on earth Whereby he saith he may dispense with the Church lands as he pleaseth which title or power I hope our Parliament doth not assume or challenge to themselves although K. Henry the Eighth in the dissolution of the Abbies thus argued If the Pope and his Legate the Cardinal doe it then why not I And yet I pray note by the way that K. Henry the Eighth so decryed for a notorious Sacrilegist yet never did he take away the lands of Bishops nor Cathedrals but on the contrary he founded some and enlarged others
is in its full force at this day as all other Statutes unrepealed are I might add another Statute 17 Edw. 2. that when the Templars theeving bloudy decried Souldiers had their Lands taken from them yet were not those lands then divided among Parliament men nor sold for the Common-wealth although the Kingdome at that time was in distresse and want enough I beleeve more then now no the then Parliament surely conceived they might doe neither of these they therefore translated those lands and settled them on the Priorie of St John of Jerusalem and in the same Statute it is inserted that the Parliament then did not alienate the Lands of those Templars 1. Because they were given to God though possessed by men 2. Because they held it a sinne to rob the Donors of their gift 3. Because they held it would prove mortal to the Alienators and these causes were then held sufficient to keep a Parliament from selling or alienating Church Lands And it is in the same Statute provided that if in after times the said Hospitalers or their successors shall be put out of any of those lands they shall have power to recover the same according to the Law of the Realm I have likewise read that in the 25 Edw. 1. it is declared In the Review of the Covenant Printed 1644. That Lay-men have no authority to dispose of the Lands or Goods of the Church for they are only committed to the Priests to be disposed of I confesse I finde it not in the printed Statutes but this I find and read there That none high nor low by any occasion 3 Edw. 1. c. 1. shall course in any Parke nor fish in any Pond of a Prelate or other Religious person without the leave or will of the Lord or of his Bayliffe In those times sure the Parliaments found not that they had power to sell away the Bishops Lands and I conceive that the Parliament deemed not then that they had any such power by reason of the great Charter granted by this Kings father which Charter Sr Edward Coke calls the Bulwarke of the Subjects Tenures in England and therefore upon this give me leave a little longer to insist as being a maine part and foundation of our Lawes One Statute enacts 42 Edw. 3. c. 1. That if any Statute be made contrary to the great Charter it shall be void which Statute is still in force and now heare what this Charter speakes concerning the Lands of the Church and of Bishops and then say truely whether it be not against the Law of England to sell these Lands In this Charter confirmed two and thirty times by our best Parliaments it is expresly said Wee have granted to God and by this our Charter have confirmed for us and our heires for ever that the Church of England shall be free and shall have all her whole Rights 2 part Institut in Procemio and Liberties inviolable The great Charter saith Sr Edward Coke is no new Law but it is declaratory of the principal fundamental Lawes of England 25. Edw. 1. And he saith The Nobles and great Officers were to be sworn to the observation of it and by a Parliament it was judged to be taken as the Common Law of England and well may considering the four causes or ends of that Charter as is exprest in the entrance viz. 1. The honour of God 2. The health of the Kings soul 3. The advancement of the Church 4. The amendment of the Kingdome And now heare this Law speake which is almost the same which was granted by K. John in the nineteenth yeare of his Reign with the interpretation of the Oracle of our Law Paris p. 255. Sir Edward Coke on the Charter and first as all best Grants have it begins with God and saith Concessimus Deo where the Interpreter saith What is given to the Church as Bishops lands were is given to God and what hath this Law granted to God Why that the Church shall be free where the Interpreter tells you that by the Church is meant all Ecclesiastical persons their possessions and goods And these shall be free saith he from all exactions and oppressions and to sell away their lands is it neither oppression nor exaction If not heare the Charter and Interpreter goe on Wee have granted to God that the Church shall have all her Rights entire i.e. saith the Interpreter That all Ecclesiastical persons shall enjoy all their Rights wholly without diminution or substraction whatsoever Whereby saith hee all their Rights are confirmed as they had them before or as at the first grant and then they had them not to be sold It goes on and that the Church or Church-men have and hold all their liberties Which liberties saith he grants them the liberty of the Law of England the Privilege of Parliaments and all Grants by Charter or Prescription and shall none of these keep the Bishops Lands from sale Moreover these Grants are not alone for that or any set time but for ever Heare the Charter This we have granted to the Church i.e. Church-men for our selves and our heires for ever Which saith the Interpreter is added to take away all scruple that this Charter or Grant should live and take effect for ever And which is not unworthy your observation 12 Hen. 3. p. 23. in our printed Statutes there is an heavy Curse denounced against all those who shall breake this great Charter And now if you grant which I think you will not denie that this Charter is a part of our Law then I hope it will follow that by our Law the Lands of the Church or of Bishops may not be sold or alienated You have seene what the Charter hath granted the Bishops as Church-men Chap. 19. now consider what the same Charter grants them as free-borne Subjects of the Kingdome Nullus liber homo saith it capiatur vel imprisonetur vel disseisiatur de libero Tenemento suo vel libertatibus vel liberis consuetudinibus suis nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terrae Where the Interpreter expounds 1. Who is a free-man 2. What disseising is 3. What is the Law of the Land To the first he saith That every free-born Subject is meant here to be a free-man To the second to be disseised saith he is to be put out of his seisin or dispossessed of his free-hold that is lands or livelihood To the third by the Law of the Land saith he that is either by the Common Law or the Statute Law or the Custome of England And for further explanation adds by the Law of the Land is understood by processe of Law by indictment or presentment of good and lawful men And all this saith he is no new Law or grant but it is onely declaratory of the Law of England And this saith he should admonish Parliaments that in stead of this pretious trial by the Law of
and by the divine acceptation of God in Christ which is sufficient in this case Argum. 11 But why then had not the Apostles or their immediate successors such lands as well as these Bishops Resp The answer is plaine and easie the reason why the Apostles had not such lands was not because the Apostles or that God would not have accepted them for sure that God that accepted of the feeding and cloathing them would not have denied them a perpetual certain maintenance nor was it because the Christians to their abilities Act. 4. Gal. 1.15 would not have given them lands as it may appeare by that story in the Acts and by that of Saint Paul I bear you record that you would have plucked out your eyes to have given them to me But one reason Saint Chrysostoâ—e gives that in the first planting of the Gospel the Jewes or Gentiles might perchance have supposed that the Apostles had preached rather for the gaine of their wealth then for the salvation of their soules and who knowes but that Saint Paul to that end spake that sentence 2 Cor. 12.14 I seeke not yours but you But because the Fathers of the Primitive Church are not heard in these times I desire you to heare Saint Paul who for himselfe and the other Apostles gives a more full answer hereunto 1 Cor. 9.11 Ver. 12. when he thus speaks If we have sewen unto you spiritual â—â—â—â—gs is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things And then If others be partakers of this power over you are not we rather Neverthelesse we have not used this power but suffer all things lest we should hinder the Gospel of Christ In which words the Apostle evidently sheweth that the reaping or maintenance out of their carnal things should be according to that which was sowed viz. spiritual things and what proportion of carnal things can compensate for things spiritual let the spiritual and not the carnal man judge Now the full Answer to this Objection which S. Chrysestome might happily collect out of this Text is this though we the Apostles have power to require all this as due not of Almes but morally as the seventh Verse of that Chapter shewes it yet we use it not lest we should hinder the Gospel of Christ thereby And yet a second reason that the Apostles had not lands for their maintenance lay in the time wherein the Apostles lived who at that time had not onely no continuing city or certaine place of abode but wandred about Heb. 11.37 being afflicted and tormented Againe the Romans the chief lords of all were so far from letting them enjoy any lands at that time that they hardly afforded them the aire wherein to breath and live distinguish therefore of times for it holds both in Church and State aliter in constitutâ vivitur aliter in constituendâ At first planting of either Church or State there is neither the same Privilege nor the same wealth but each grow by Gods blessing in time And what is here spoken of the maintenance may in part hold for the Government of the Church that is that when Saint Paul wrote from whom the most is gathered both for the Presbyterian and Independent the Church was not then divided into Parishes and Provinces no nor into publikely known Congregations and therefore it being under bloudy Persecution it could not have the face of a visible Church Whereupon though then the Apostle and Apostolical men ordained by him exercised Episcopal authority yet it could not nor indeed ought it to have been in that height of visible power as no doubt Saint Paul himself would and those Apostolical men did use it so soon as God had added greater numbers to the Church and given them favour with the Civil Magistrate the Apostle both for that and all succeeding times leaving this one general Rule 1 Cor. 14.40 Let all things be done decently and in order And can any indifferent man hold it just and reasonable that when all other men grow in state and wealth the Church-men alone should decrease and be abused What if I should urge to any Gentleman or others Your Predecessors two or three hundred years since had not such estates therefore neither should you but be content with that which your Forefathers enjoyed would you hold this Argument to be of force I doe not in your cases and I pray be you as just to us But that I be not too tedious and irksome in this arguing let me make an indifferent motion which may well serve for this Objection be you now Christians as they were in the times of the Apostles and the Bishops will be very well content with such maintenance as the Apostles had in the times of those Christians for then the Christians sold their lands and goods and laid the price thereof at the Apostles feet which if you hold unfit now to be done as I doe then I pray conceive it as unreasonable to reduce them now to the indigency of the Apostles when all the land besides God be praised enjoyes plenty which the two Houses have found both in City and Countrey Argum. 12 But other Reformed Churches have not such Lands and why this in England rather then they Resp Neither have they perchance Bels or Chancels c. what then Must these downe in England therefore 2. Perchance they had lands but as they complaine they are taken away by Church-robbers 3. The time and state wherein they live haply will not so well bear it But 4. would not those Churches accept of Lands if time the State and Benefactors would afford it And is thine eye evil in Scotland because God is good to us in England The Commons in Germany and France live like Boors and Peasants and the Nobles in Russia and Turkie like slaves and vassals Hold you this a good Argument therefore it should be no otherwise in England We are no more bound in England to live without Lands because other Churches have none then other Churches are bound to live upon lands because we have them every Church or State are in these cases to be governed and live by their owne Laws and Customes 1 Cor. 11.16 and hitherto God be praised We have no such Custome no nor all the Churches of God Argum. 13 Some have argued that the Lands given to Bishops in England are held per Baroniam which Baronies with their Votes in Parliament being taken away by an Act the lands are or may likewise be taken away Resp That they may likewise be taken away as their Votes were in Parliament or that by power they can be taken away is not my dispute but whether they may justly and lawfully be taken and sold and then to your Argument though it be out of my sphere so far as it is a title in Law I submit this Answer First if that learned Antiquary and diligent searcher of Historie and Records Gâ—â—ssar ad
this you will not yeeld to yet why not some other way to be found which lawfully may be taken rather then run this course which as proved is against Gods and mans Law I remember Mat. Paris it is storied that the Pope requiring great sums of money from the Clergy at which they repined the Pope answered that there was a necessity for it Yet upon examination in a Councel in France it was discovered that the Pope had made or brought on the necessity and partly to that end that he might fleece the Clergy which that just Councel well weighing put the holy Pope besides his plot and made him finde some other tricksom way to salve his necessity To answer therefore if there be such a just real debt just it is that it should be satisfied and as just that they should pay who have caused the debt if this be not liked yet that the debt should be discharged by a just and legal way which I cannot see how it is by selling the Bishops lands who were not the causes but if they were yet it cannot be just to take from God what is his for his Servants offence In answer to last Argument of which more anon That it will prove an hazard to the Church and State unlesse these Lands be sold I conceive is an Argument that lies either in the opinions or wils of them who other wayes may remedy it if they wil partly by finding the true proper causes of this mischief and necessity or by levying the money by some general Tax on the whole Land who so much groan under the present calamity and oppression that I perswade my self they would rather pay that debt then longer bear this burden But suppose you cannot or wil not find out any course whereby to discharge the Publike debt but this then confider how just and agreeable to Gods Word this course is and unlesse you can shew by Gods Law that you may sell these Lands then I dare affirme that be the necessity never so real never so great you may not sell them to any end In which case Saint Paul is bold and peremptory when he saith Some affirm Rom. 3.8 that we say Let us do evil that good may come whose damnation is just just to them that say or teach so and just to them who follow and practise so Let me for your memory repeat that acts of Pharaoh Gen. 57 the Heathen King and a Tyrant who would not in the greatest necessity which was of famine yet in that necessity he would not sell the Priests Lands Annot on the place and may we not feare a famine or some other great plague to fall on those Christians who shall dare doe contrary And will you give me leave to add and close this with the Note of Mr Calvin What bowels On Acts 4.35 What soules have we Christians now a dayes For the Primitive Christians sold their own lands and laid the price at the Apostles feet to relieve in time and case of necessity whereas we are not content alone maligne like Malignants this was the sense of the word then to keep close our own but cruelly and unjustly we take away that which is other mens they sincerely in faith and a good conscience offered their own for the Publike necessity but we use a thousand pretexts arts and tricks fraudulently and falsly on all hands and from all sorts of men to rake and draw to our selves other mens goods and estates I beseech you lay this to heart and considering the too much truth of it at this time what in you is labour to correct and amend it Argum. 16 The Bishops have too much which makes them proud whereas if they prove humble they shall have portions or pensions for life and this is as much as they can challenge by Gods Word Resp Just thus did some plead in the hurling times of K. Richard the Second Speed in R. 2. for so those times were called when many Peers and Commons not Ordained it was not then come to this but Petitioned the King that the Temporalties of the Church might be taken from the Ecclesiastical persons adding that it were charity thereby to humble them Whereupon saith he divers Parliament men designed among themselves out of which Religious Houses each of them would have his share The King heard them saith the story as I hope our King will but yeelded not to their wicked projects But if the Bishops be not yet humbled enough prove who those proud ones be in what or how and let those proud suffer according to Law for is it enough to say such an one is a Felon and without more adoe condemn him and forfeit his estate And if it be said they have too much have they any more or have they so much as their first Donors and Benefactors gave them and hold they it not by the same Law by which all other Subjects hold their estates I before told you what the Levites held under the Law and that God who gave it them thought not that too much no not for them who were but bodily labourers as it were in the Temple And if it may not offend to ask the question why in Gods name may not a Scholar as well born as well descended and as well if not better bred then others who hath spent all his life time in the study of Humane and Divine knowledg whereby to teach the people and govern the Church why may not he I say without envy have and hold as much as a Lawyer a Merchant a mechanick Tradesman and leave for his wise and children thereby to live after him For God held it just to apportion the opulency of his Priests under the Law to the wealth of the times and the Land wherein they lived yea and that if there were any exceeding it was on the Priests behalf I would you would be pleased to read two places of Saint Paul 1 Cor. 9.9 10. Gal. 6.6 with the Notes of Mr Calvin Bucer and others who observe that Saint Paul in those two places made not a simple and bare comparison that as the oxe and the husbandman lived by their labour and had no more so it should be with the Minister But they say there should be a proportionable equity and equality in their maintenance and this to be according to the dignity of their Function and the quality of their work and all this may be rightly evinced from those Words of God himself Luke 10.7 The labourer is worthy of his bire And who but an irreligious Atheist or an ignorant Mechanick wil say but that the Study the Function the Work of a Bishop or Minister of the Gospel is sequal to the best Lawyer Merchant or Tradesmen God forbid that we should be fallen into the times of Sylla who banished or sold the best of the Romans if they were rich But to return if some one of that
received thanks and two thousand pounds per annum bestowed upon him for his later service Doe Protestants think you maintain the Popish Tenent remissâ culpâ remanet poâ—â—a to punish after pardon Yea which is more to punish after pardon and reward Or may not Gods example work somewhat for preserving the Bishops Lands which did proclaim it selfe for the saving of all Sodom that if but ten of so many thousands could be found for God he would spare all those thousands grievous sinners for the sakes of those ten Or did God when ten could not be found involve Lot and his family in the general judgement of Sodom And shall the Lands of that Bishop who hath deserved so well of the two Houses be sold with the rest for the Ordinance concludes the sale of all If it be yet said as what hath not been said no matter how untruly that the late Archbishop of Canterbury promoted this last War yet was it any part of the charge at his trial And saith not our Law for Treason of dead persons not attainted or judged in their lives time 34 Ed. 3.12 their Lands shall not be impeached nor challenged And if not their own then as I conceive much lesse shall the Lands be impeached which they held of the Church But I proceed have all the Bishops promoted this War which none yet with any shadow of truth hath said for ought I ever could hear and if not why I pray shall Robert be punished for Richard And if any of the Bishops have promoted the War have they been called or suffered to answer the charge And was it ever found agreeable to Justice Law or Reason to give sentence before the party was heard if he may be found Sr Edward Coke saith it is against the Charter nay 2 Instit c. 29. was the late Impeachment of the eleven Members though by a special charge written and professed to be proved I say was this Impeachment Voted and Declared illegal and unjustifiable as to the suspending their Votes but for a time And shal such a general charge as this against the Bishops be held legal and sufficient for the selling away the Lands of all Bishops in England born and unborn without summoning hearing or giving the charge against any And if upon trial some Bishop shall be found guilty according to Law which I presume never shall be yet shall the punishment of one or more personal Delinquents extend to others who are innocent Yea to Successors which are not heirs at Law Or shall the Lord of the Land which is God lose his interest for the offence of his Assign or Tenent which is the Bishop Or is this sin in the Bishops greater then that vast damning original sin in Adam to condemn all not onely that come of his seed and race but all his Successors who are as little kin to his body or his soul as to his offence Nay yet shall the insensate thing that is the Land be prophaned and let the pretended Delinquent the Bishop goe unquestioned which is as if a Judge should take away the Sword and break it in pieces because it killed the man but let the murtherer escape the while The Charter saith 〈…〉 Nullus liber homo c. that no Free man shall be amerced or punished but according to the quality of the offence and yet so as with a salvo sibi contenemento where the Interpreter saith this Free man extends to Bishops and expounding contenementum to be his countenance saith That as the Bishop is a Scholar his books are his countenance and as he is a man of holy Function an honourable maintenance should be his countenance which if it might have held then some Bishop in this Land should not have had not onely all his maintenance Spiritual and Temporal for these four years utterly taken away not allowing him in all this time one shilling but not his bedding all houshold-stuffe and goods yea and all his books not leaving him one nor all or any of these taken by the plunder of rude Souldiers but by the Warrant of an honourable Committee although without any Ordinance The Charter goes on and saith That no Ecclesiastical person shall be amerced or punished according to his Ecclesiastical but to his Lay fee whereas here the clean contrary is published and practiced by this Ordinance â—â—od 32. Aaron the high Priest made a golden Calf Ver. 28. and built an Altar before it and proclaimed a Feast for it and said To morrow is a Feast to the Lord for which abominable act 1 Sam. 21. Moses caused three thousand men to be slain Abiwelech the Priest victualed and armed David against his King for which act Saul the furious King caused fourscore and five of the Priests to be slain 2 Reg. 1.7 1 Reg. 2.26 And K. Solomon said to Abiathar the Priest who had helped Adonijah to be King against Solomon Thou art worthy of death I could instance in many more acts of these Priests most displeasing to their Kings and some really sinful before God yet doe we find that any went about for all these acts to deprive the Priests of their Lands and maintenance for ever Might I not put you in mind that we have had in the time of Popery a Becket a Langton a Wolsey and other Bishops who instigated by the blind false Principles of their Religion have fallen into grosse treasonable acts yet did the King and the two Houses for their offences sell away the Lands of the Church which they held I read in the Reign of King Henry the Third that the Jewes in England were forced to pay the third part of their estates Mat. Par. p. 489 that they might enjoy their peace but must Bishops be worse used by Christians and their Countrey-men contrary to all Law then Jews And may not the Bishops truly say what the eleven Members give for their Answer in their printed Papers viz. We must be removed and that we may so be we must be represented to be what we are not and what ever is amisse in the Kingdom we are made the cause and must bear the blame of it Christianos adignem what publike calamity soever befell in the Primitive Persecutions the poor Christians were said to be the cause and must be made the expiatory Sacrifice for all But let men say what they will Elijah the Prophet of God was never the more the troubler of the Kingdom because he was called so and therefore we will say as Job Our witnesse is in heaven and our record is on high Thus far they and so the Bishops But for the close of all supposing the Bishops were what is here or elsewhere unjustly charged upon them yet give me leave to put you a Scripture case and Gods judgement thereupon and I shall leave it to your judgment and conscience to make the Application the case is set down Numb 16. where three ringleaders and
verse 6. Saint Paul having premised that in the Ministerie there are divers gifts he subjoyns Let him that teacheth wait on teaching Ver. 7. and he that ruleth let him doe it with diligence And from that 1 Tim. 3. in the 1. Verse having spoke of the office of a Bishop he adds Ver. 4. He must be one that ruleth well For saith he Ver. 5. If he know not how to rule his own house how shall he take care of the Church of God Which phrase taking care of the Church both in this place and that Acts 20.28 must signifie a ruling or governing of the Church and flock of God I say from these several Texts it will plainly appear that the office of the Bishop consists not alone in preaching to but in governing the Church And here I may conceive that the office or work of a Bishop in this differs not much from that which is practised among Souldiers Sea men and others who after much time and pains spent in the inferior places at last partly as a reward of their former service but especially for their great experience and authority gained are advanced to higher places wherein they rather stand sit or ride to direct guide and govern others under them then to work and labour as they did before And seeing the Levites Souldiers and almost all professions have a time when having spent their best strength and arriving to the age of fifty or fixty years they are emeriti and freed from their former kind of labour yet must the Bishop only of all others be deprived of this so just a grace and benefit But sithence that no compassion can be shewed to the Bishops from men let us see whether from the holy Text some indulgence may not be found and to this purpose let us examine what it is in Scripture-understanding to Preach Now the word in the holy Gospel which we translate to preach is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is spoken of Christ himself Jesus began 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach Mat. 4.7 Mat. 10.7 And when Jesus had sent abroad his twelve Apostles his Commission is in the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preach and the same word Saint Paul useth most frequently and seldome any other to this sense And that Teaching and Preaching are and signifie the same thing see Mat. 11.1 where it is said that Jesus departed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to teach and to preach and from the several Texts where this word is found it will easily appear that to preach the Word in the Gospels and Epistles sense is to declare and make known the Doctrine the means and the way to faith and salvation whether by word or by writing whether privately or publikely though the Preacher never goe up into a pulpit or desk there to expound some place of Scripture for if Preaching consisted in this and not in that how can we prove that Christ or the Apostles did so frequently preach And now that the Bishops in England since the Reformation have according to the right sense of the word been Preachers I appeal to a learned Judge and unpartial witnesse Doctor Moulin the famous Presbyterian in the Church of France who in his third Epistle to that pious and most learned Bishop Andrewes thus writes I very well know that the Reformation of the Church in England and the ejection of Popery next to God and your Prinees is chiefly to be ascribed to the learning and industry of your Bishops And have we not beside our own knowledg if envy or malice will suffer us to speak what we know the testimony of forain godly and learned men who have openly avouched the Sermons and writings of our late and present Bishops in England to be answerable in worth if not preferred before the most of any in other Countries And can it be denied that the most of the present living Bishops in England did often preach even in that sense as you take Preaching untill they were as of late either directly hindered or else not suffered to preach unlesse they would take the new Covenant which if they should do they might truly use the words of Saint Paul 1 Cor. 9.27 While we preach unto others we our selves are become cast-awayes i. e. doubt of our salvation or to be rejected But if the Bishops case be such that they must be cast away because they doe not write or preach as is objected then I pray let me ask how many Sermons have some of the Assembly of Divines in England preached within these four or five years last past And I dare affirm they are not so many as most of the Bishops usually did preach before the time of their suspension or persecution And though the number of the Assembly of those Divines three times exceeds this of the Bishops living yet have there so many of them wrote and confuted him whom in their Covenant they stile the common Enemy as there be of the Bishops yet living who have Lastly have these Divines in the Assembly preached or wrote much except it were to destroy what was lawfully established and thereby to raise themselves into power maintenance and authority But to end this Answer If the Bishops Lands must be sold because they preach not then either this is but a pretence and excuse of iniquity or else none but Preachers must have and enjoy them and if none but Preachers must have them and yet they must be sold for a great price then I fay either the Presbyterian Preacher is grown very rich in these later times or else none but the Lay-Independent can purchase and have them For the Independent in Orders professeth himself like some Orders of Friers to live on alms or the charity of others and therefore he is not able to make such a purchase whereby it must come to passe that the Lay-Independent must prove the Chapman being that he alone hath money enough and hath withall obtained the Grace to be a Preacher And if these can gain so much by their preaching I cannot but commend their wit while in the mean time I smile at the Presbyterians folly who hath so many years been beating the bush till another as it were out of a bush doth catch the bird For a close I pray keep this in mind that if the Bishops must lose their Lands because they are not constant Preachers then by the same reason none but constant Preachers ought to hold those Lands CHAP. X. The Curses and punishments which are set down and executed in Holy Writ against Sacrilegious Alienations are held forth and opened IF your patience would suffer it I could by way of an additional fill much paper with the direful curses and sad consequents if not effects thereof upon the several Invaders of church-Church-Lands within this Kingdom who might have used the like Escutchion and Motto which Julian that Apostate Persecutor and Enemy of our Lord Christ had which was an Eagle struck
Rights of the Church in special cannot may not by any power be violated or taken away doe they yet grant such a power to Parliaments to take those Rights away and so expresly contradict themselves And can you conceive that King Henry the Third who first granted that Charter and gave the right Power to Parliaments would have suffered the two Houses yea or that himselfe would after that Grant made to the Church have decreed that he might justly use the power of Parliament to sell those Lands Or can you conceive that those Kings who gave the Bishops Lands for so it is said that the Kings of England gave them and that with such curses on their Successours or any who should dare to alienate or sell them ever meant they should be sold And tell me I pray for I am to learne where ever good and lawful Parliament did ever take away any single mans whole estate though it were to pay the Publike debt or for Publike use except it were in a legal course And can you conceive that the two Houses may doe that to the inheritance of God the Patronage of the King and the Rights of the Church which they cannot do to him who hath yeelded up his assent by giving his Vote to his Proxie in Parliament which neither God the King nor the Church hath done Pag. 700. in this Parliament I pray you consider that in the Book of your Declarations it is said That the Rights of Publike trust are not to the prejudice of any mans particular interest Argum. 8 And if it be yet urged that Parliaments may change the municipal Lawes of this Kingdom and therefore much more this of the Title or Tenure of Bishops Lands Resp I think I may rightly answer that the King and all the people of England by a mutual assent may change the general Laws or such Laws as they hold sitting and convenient to be altered for their better good for here is neither injury nor injustice to any but yet special Laws which concerne the good of some in speciall I conceive with humble submission may not justly be changed except it be by the assent personal Vote or Proxie of those interessed none of which can here be said of the Church or Bishops or unlesse some offence liable to such a penalty hath demerited such a sentence or change of that special Law and that no such offence hath been committed deserving such a penalty I presume to be true for that the Bishops have not been legally accused heard and tried which was ever the ordinary and right course used by the Hebrewes Romans and all Religious good and Civil Nations and which is the Law of this Kingdome Ch. 14. 29. as is expressed in the great Charter But I feare these two last Arguments and many more such are built on sands which washed or driven away with a little wind all the building fals to the ground for they take it for granted that the two Houses or rather that some Lords Temporal and Commons make the Parliament for the discovery whereof I pray consider 1. The conception 2. The birth 3. The growth and strength of Parliaments In the Saxon times when the seed or conception of Parliaments was at the making consirming or witnessing Laws seldome is there any mention but of the King and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal except the Kings Servants Aldermen Spelm. Concil some wise men c. Nay when our Parliaments first were borne in the nineth and twentieth of Henry the Third there is no mention then but of the King and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal Yea at the Grant of the great Charter there is only mention of one and thirty Lords Spiritual and two and thirty Lords Temporal Coke Proâ—m to 2 Instit Mat. Par. p. 435 Id. pag. 580. 581. Id. p. 636. in the one and twentieth of King Henry the Third in Parliament at Westminster And in the one and thirtieth of Henry the Third at London which were for the relief of the distressed Kingdome yet there were only mentioned the King and the whole Nobility of the Kingdome viz. the Bishops Prelates Earles and Barons But in the two and fiftieth of Henry the Third say our printed Statutes The King providing for the Estate of this Realm the more discreet men of the Kingdome being called as well of the higher as the lower estate the King hath made these Acts Ordinances and Statutes which he willeth to be observed of all for ever And so the formes of Acts in Parliament ran The King willeth provideth ordaineth granteth In the 31 Henry 6.1 The King ordaines by the advice and assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons being in the said Parliament In 1 Rich. 3.6 The Commons prayeth that it may please the King to ordaine 1. Eliz. 3. We the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons representing the three Estates of the Realme of England make our humble petition to your Highnesse Ch. of Parl. fol. 1 Whereupon saith Sr Edward Coke Without these three Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons no Act of Parliament can be good and rightly for as all the Freemen in England have Votes so the Bishops vote for themselves and all the Church-men in England And thereupon if they have no Votes in Parliament then either they are the onely slaves and no Free-men or else those Church-men are not bound by these Lawes it being a Maxime in our Law that no man is bound to that Law wherein he had no Vote in person or by Proxie which no Bishop and I think no Church-man hath now in this Parliament But not to dispute this though agreeable to all Law Justice and Reason yet sure it cannot be rightly called a Parliament or any Act therein binding without the Kings Royal assent for as in a natural body so in this no life nor motion without a Head which is the King yea therefore he is called Principium 4 Part Instit. s 3 4. Caput Finis Parliamenti because without the King or his Royal assent it is no binding Act. See but one Act for many 1 Jac. 1. where it is thus said We the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons beseech your Majesty c. which if your Majesty shall be pleased to adorne with your Majesties Royal assent without which it can neither be complete and perfect In answer to Judge Jenkin nor remaine to posterity And 1. Câ—r 7. the two Houses beseech the King to give his Royal assent to such Bils as they then passed and H. P. confesses which was never denied till of late and that but by some that no Acts of Parliament can be complete or formally binding without the Kings â—â—ent And so Mr Prynne affirmes Power of Parl. f. 47. Ib. fol. 104. In his Vindication p. 6. that the Kings assent is generally requisite to passe Lawes and ratifie them And Judge Jenkins that undanted Champion of our