the worke and ministery of a Bishop and in questions to the person to be consecrated a Bishop Are you perswaded that you be truly called to this Ministration according to the will of our Lord Jesus c. I beseech you Sir consider whether these words or this prayer could fall from any man not possessed with this Tenet that Episcopacy was of divine right For if the three orders may be found by reading the holy Scriptures together with ancient Authors if men are taught to pray that God by his Spirit has appointed divers orders in his Church and this made the ground of praying for the present Bishop if the person to be consecrated must professe that he conceives he is called according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ either all this must be nothing else but pure pagentry and then the Parliament mocked God by their Confirmation or else Episcopacy is grounded in Scripture is appointed by the Spirit of God is according to the will of our Lord Jesus and all this hath not been said of late nor countenanced only by some few of the more Lordly Cleargy And we have the lesse reason to doubt that this Tenet was countenanced in this Church of ours because we find it in those parts that have lost Episcopacy for we are told by Doctor Carlton after Bishop of Chichester and that wrote against the Arminians more then twenty five yeares since that sitting at Dort he then protested in open Synod That Christ instituted no parity but made twelve Apostles the chiefe and under them seventy Disciples That Bishops succeeded to the twelve and to the seventy Presbyters of an inferiour ranke he affirmed this order had been still maintained in the Church and then challenged the judgement of any learnned man that could speake to the contrary Their answer was silence which was approbation enough but after saith he discoursing with diverse of the best learned in the Synod he told them how necessary Bishops were to suppresse their then risen Schismes their answer was That they did much honour and reverence the good order and Discipline of the Church of England and with all their hearts would be glad to have it established among them but that could not be hoped for in their State Their hope was that seeing they could not do what they desired God would be mercifull unto them if they did but what they could If they hoped for mercy that might pardon what they did sure they must suppose that what they then did was sinfull Nay they thought their necessity it selfe could not totally excuse their sinne for then in that particular there had been no need to hope for Gods mercy nor could they well thinke otherwise since being pressed they denyed not but that Episcopacy was of Christs own institution and yet they were no Lordly Clergy nor do I well see how either by charitable or civil men they can at all be taxed either for want of reason or honesty 1. Indeed some seem to startle at this Tenet that Episcopacy is of Divine right as if because Divine it might therefore seem to endanger Monarchal power But under favour I conceive this fear to be among us very groundlesse for since the Tenents of our Church are in this particular the very self same with the ancient times as that the Bishops have no power but what is meerely directive only that all power co-active either in them or in others is derived meerly from the Royal authority that they cannot legally make use no not so much as of this directive power but only by the Kings leave So that if the temporall Lawes should forbid them to preach that which in point of salvation is necessary to be spoken yet they cannot preach but upon the forfeiture of their Heads and those being demanded by the Kings Lawes they must submit to a Martyrdome though t were sinne in them that demand it so that in the execution of all ecclesiastical power the supremacy is in the King alone these I say being so much the Tenets of our Church that I conceive there is no learned man amongst us who would not readily subscribe to them I cannot see at all where in the opinion we defend any danger lies to this Monarchy But examine the Presbyterian principles and you will clearely find Kings and they cannot stand together for either you consider that new government in the Scotish sence which allowes no appeale to any other power and then t is plaine that where men admit this they admit of a supremacy which doth not reside in the King and by consequent of two severall supremacies within the bounds of the selfe same Kingdome which can no more stand with Monarchy then it can with Monogamy to be maried to two severall wives And though t is said that this Presbyterian government meddles only with spirituall things which concerne the good of the soule and so it cannot hurt Regall power yet this is but onely said and no more for it is well known that in ordine ad spiritualia and all things may by an ordinary wit be drawn into this ranke as they have been by the Church of Rome this government intrudes upon what things it pleaseth and indeed where a supremacy is once acknowledged no wise man can thinke that it will carry it selfe otherwise So that King James his maxime was undoubtedly most true upon this same ground we are on No Bishop no King For that most prudent Prince did soone discerne that if a power were once set up which at least in the legall execution of it did not derive it selfe from the King there was no doubt to be made but it would ere long destroy the very King himselfe Or consider Presbyterian government in the English sense as it is now set up by the Two Houses at Westminster which is a government limited by an appeale to the Parliament for either by Parliament here they meane the Two Houses excluding the King and then t is as plain as before they set up two supremacies his Majesties and their owne or else by Parliament they meane the King with both Houses and then it will follow that either there must be a perpetuall Parliament which sure neither King nor Kingdome can have cause to like or else the supremacy will be for the most part in the Presbytery because when ever a Parliament sits not there will be no Judge to appeale to or if it be said the Parliament may leave a standing Committee to receive appeales in such ecclesiasticall causes then either in this Committee the King hath no negative and in that case t is clear that the ecclesiasticall supremacy will be not at all in the King or else the King hath a negative but yet is joyned with persons whom he himself chooses not and so most probably will be check'd and affronted in any sentence he intends to give and this clearely overthrowes that which is already declared by Parliament to
it And hence t is plaine that though we should yeeld that the Apostles only did institute Bishops yet in this Revel. Christ himselfe immediately in his own person and the holy Spirit withall did both approve and confirme them And the Learned observe that the Bishops of those Sees are therefore called Angels by S. Iohn who was born a Jew because in Palestina their chief Priests were then called their Angels and so this appellation was taken up by the Apostle in that place because the Bishops were those Churches Chiefes this truth appeares not only from those cleare Texts but from the mutuall consent and pactise for more then 1500. yeares space of all the Christian Church So that neither S. Hierome nor any other Ancient did ever hold orders to be lawfully given which were not given by a Bishop nor any Church jurisdiction to be lawfully administred which was not either done by their hands or at least by their deputation I know there are men lately risen up especially in this last Century which have collected and spread abroad far other Conclusions and that from the authority of the Text it selfe But as t is a Maxime in Humane Lawes Consuetudo optima Legum Interpres Custome and Practice is the best Interpreter So no rationall man but will easily yeeld it as well holds in Lawes Divine For I would gladly aske What better way can there be for the interpreting of Texts then that very same meanes whereby I know the Text it selfe to be Text Sure the same course whereby I know the Epistles to Timothy and Titus to have been written by S. Paul must needs be the best course to understand the sense of those Epistles and if I therefore beleeve them to be written by that Apostle because the Universality of the whole Christian Church has brought me to that beliefe and there 's no other rationall way of beleeving it why doe I not beleeve the same Christian sense which the universal consent assures me they were written in Shall I beleeve and yet disbeleeve that selfe-same consent which is the best ground of my beliefe This is as it were in cleare terms to say that I beleeve such a tale for the Authors sake who hath told it and yet I doe now hold the selfe-same man to be a lyar Men doe beleeve the testimony of universall consent in the sense it gives of single termes and why not in the sense it gives of sentences or Propositions without the help of this Consent which is indeed the ground of our Dictionaries how shall we know that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifies the Resurrection of the body which the Socinians at this day deny And I know no such way to confute your error as by the authority of your consent Admit then of that Rule that consent universall is the best interpretation of Texts and then I am sure it is as cleare as true that Episcopacy is of Divine or Apostolicall Right yea and that proposition There can be no Ordination without the hands of a Bishop will clearely appeare to be as well grounded as this There can be no Baptisme without a lawfull Minister which is good Divinity amongst our new Masters in Scotland and Antiquity allowed of it Extra casum necessitatis For I aske upon what Text doe they ground this Rule I suppose they will say upon our Saviours words to the Eleven Matth. 28. Go teach all Nations and baptize them But in the institution of the Eucharist He spake those words too but only to the Twelve Drinke yee all of this Matth. 26. I demand then how shall I know that when our Saviour spake those words unto the Eleven he spake them only as to lawfull Ministers but when he spake the other to the Twelve he spake at large as unto them that did represent all Christian men So that though only Ministers may Baptize yet all Christians may receive the Cup Perhaps they will say that the generall practise of receiving the Cup is manifest from 1 Cor. 11. and I thinke so too where S. Paul seems to chide the whole Church for their irreverence at that great Sacrament But if a quarreler should reply that he there speaks but of the Presbyters alone whereof many were at that time at Corinth As when in the 5. Chap. he seemes to chide the whole Church for not excommunicating the incestuous Person yet t is plain he meanes none but the men in government as sure all Presbyterians will allow me I know not what could be said but to make it appeare out of the Fathers and others that the whole Christian Church never tooke the words in that sense And if to stop the mouthes of wranglers we must at length be constrained to quote the Authority of Universall consent and the Common practise of Christs Church then you will easily see that those two named Propositions do stand fast on the same bottome There can be no Baptisme without a lawfull Minister extra casum necessitatis for so the consent and practise of the Universall Church hath still interpreted that Text And againe t is true There can be no Ordination without the Hands of a Bishop for so those Texts both out of Timothy and Titus have been understood and practised for 1500. yeares together by the consent of the whole Church of Christ T is true that this precept Go ye teach c. runnes not in exclusive words yee Apostles or yee lawfull Ministers and none but yee yet extra casum necessitatis no man was allowed to baptise but a lawfull Minister so though these commands Lay hands suddenly on no man and Do thou ordaine Elders in every City runne not in verbis exclusivis thou and none but thou or men of thine Order only yet the Church understanding and practising them in an exclvsive sense no man for 1500 yeares in any setled Church was held rightly ordained without the hands of a Bishop Nay that there is something Divine in the Episcopall Order will appeare clearely by this that immediately from the times of Christ his Apostles yea within the reach of those times t was universally spread throughout the whole face of the Churches so that no man can name a Nationthat was once wonne unto the Christian Faith but he shall soon find that there were Bishops so that there must needs be an Uunversall Cause for an Effect that was so Universall Generall Councell there was none about it at which all Christians might have met and might have thence obeyed her directions Nor can any name a Power to which all Christians should submit for they were soone fallen into Factions but only the authority of Christ or of his Apostles from them then must needs flow the Episcopal Order and at that Fountaine I shall leave it I say within the reach of the Apostles times for before S. Iohn dyed there are upon good Church Records above 20. Bishops appointed to the several Sees as at
be a right in the King as inherent in his Crowne that ecclesiasticall appeales may be made to him alone in Chancery for the Statute names no other and that his Majesty alone may appoint what Commissioners he please for their finall decision I say consider the Presbyterian government in the English Parliament sense and in the sense of the English Assembly for the Presbyterians there are wholly for the Scotish forme as appeares by their quarrels at what the Houses have already done in their Ordinances so that their aime is not only to set up a new Government but in plain tearmes a new supremacy And hence to say truth he must see very little who discernes not that though the Presbyterian party seemes to strike at the Bishops yet their maine aime is at the King whose supremacy they endure not as being a flower which they intend for their owne Garland and so though they hypocritically cry out that they may abuse the People against the pride of the Lordly Bishops yet in the meane time the wiser sort must needs see that they intend to make themselves no lesse then indeed Kingly Presbyters We acknowledge the Protestants of Germany the Low countryes and part of the reformed Catholique Protestant Church though they had no Bishops c. Though we maintain Episcopacy to be of divine right i. e. of divine institution yet hence it doth not follow that Germany are no Protestant Churces No it must be a crime of a most horrid taint that makes a Church run into non ecclesiam For though that of the Jewes was bad and Idolatrously bad yet God seriously protests he had not sent her a bill of divorce Nay no learned man of judgement durst ever yet affirm that the Roman Church her selfe was become no true part of the Church Catholique and yet she breakes a flat Precept of Christ drinke yee all of this and shall we be thought to deny the same right to christians without Bishops when they breake but Christs institution No Churches they are true parts of the Catholique Church but in point of ordination and of government Apostolicall they are not I am certaine the King would never have given way to the extirpation of Bishops in Scotland had he conceived them to be jure divino c. Grant it were so yet of all mankind are Kings onely bound that they must not change their opinions or if perhaps they have done ill must they for their repentance be more lyable to reproach then Subjects are for their crimes The King would not have given way to the Presbyterians and Independents to exercise their Religion here their own way as by his Messages when such a tolleration in the face of such a divine Law must needs be sinfull There is a great mistake in this Argument for to tollerate doth not at all signifie either to approve or commend their factions neither of which the King could at all do to those Schismatiques without sinne But it meerely implies not to punish which Kings may forbeare upon just reason of State as David forbore to punish the murtherers of Joab and we our selves in our English State have no punishment for all sorts of Lyars and yet their sinne is against a flat Law divine We affirme then Episcopacy to be of divine right that is of divine institution and that must needs tacitly imply a divine Precept too for to what end are things instituted by God but that it is presumed it is our part to use them And to what end should some men be appointed to teach and to govern but that its clearely implyed then there are other men too that ought both to heare and obey He that institutes or erects a Bridge over a broad swelling stream needs not you will think adde an expresse command that men should not walke in the water Thus when our Lord and Saviour made his institution of that great Sacrament of the Eucharist he gave command indeed concerning the Bread Do this in remembrance of me and concerning the Cup Drinke yee all of this But he gave no expresse command to do both these together and yet his institution hath been still held to have the nature of a command and so for a thousand yeares the whole Church of Christ did ever practise it save only in some few cases in which men supposed a kind of necessity I say then Episcopacy is of divine right instituted by Christ in his Apostles who since they took upon them to ordaine and to govern Churches you need not doubt they received an authority from their Master to do both for since men will not thinke they would breake their own rules No man taketh this upon him but he that is called of God as Aaron was Episcopacy then was instituted in the Apostles who wer Bishops et aliud amplius and distinguished by Christ himself from the Seventy who were the Presbyters So the most ancient Fathers generally or if you will take S. Hierom. opinion who was neither a Bishop nor in his angry mood any great friend to that Order they were instituted by the Apostles who being themselves Episcopi et amplius did in their latter dayes formalize and bound out that power which still we do cal Episcopacy And so their received opinions may stand together for Episcopatus being in Apostolatu tanquam consulatus in dictatura as the lesser and subordinate power is alwayes in the greater we may truly say it was instituted by Christ in his Apostles who had Episcopall Power and more and then t was formalized and bounded by the Apostles themselves in the persons of Timothy and Titus c. So that call the Episcopall order either of Divine right or Apostolicall Institution and I shall not at all quarrell at it For Apostolicall will seeme Divine enough unto Christians I am sure Salmatius thinks so a sharpe enemy to the Episcopall Order if saith he it be from the Apostles t is of Divine right thus we find the power of ordination and of jurisdiction to be given to those men alone For then that power is properly Episcopall when one man alone may execute it so S. Paul to Timothy Lay hands suddenly on no man 1 Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands in the singular number thou thou alone without naming any other Against an Elder receive not an accusation in the singular number too thou receive not thou alone but under two or three witnesses and then the Text is plaine He and he alone might do it So to Titus for this cause and that thou and thou alone shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and ordaine Elders in every City Tit. 1. 5. where plainly those two powers of government and ordination are given unto one man So S. Iohn to the Churches of Asia Rev. 2. 3. when he presumes all the governing power to reside in the Angels of those Churches and only in them alone as all Ancients understand
feare that if I should perhaps dissent in opinion from this Epistler I might be thought at least in his conceite to incurre a sharpe censure both in point of reason and honesty Which I confesse at first somewhat troubled me untill I remembred you were wont to say that when vessels do once make such noises as these t is a very shrewd signe they are empty He who wrote the Letter seemes most desirous of Peace and truly Sir so am I besides we agree in this that we must not commit sinne for a good end so that if Peace it selfe cannot be attained without that guilt we must be content with a worse estate But you very well know with how many severall deceipts our affections can mislead our reason you remember who it was that said it unto the very face of a Prophet I have kept the commandement of the Lord and yet his sin remained still a great sinne and much the worse because he excused it For his guilt is lesse that commits a crime then his that undertakes to defend it because this cuts off all repentance nay it makes a sin to grow up into that more wicked heighth of a scandall and so t is not only a snare to the sinner himselfe but it warrants many more to be sinfull Whether this Oxford Londoner for so I take the Epistler to be hath not defended or made apologies for sinne and hath not in that sense done evil that good may come thereof I am now to make an enquiry and I shall follow him in his two generals 1. The delivering up the Kings friends whom they above call evil counsellors And 2. The businesse of the Church 1. For the Kings friends He sayes I know not how you can with reason gainsay the bringing offenders to justice indeed nor I neither but what if they be not offenders What if they must be brought to injustice I know no man that will refuse to be judged by a Parliament whose undoubted Head is the King and the King sitting there with an unquestioned Negative nay for his Majesty to referre Delinquents to be judged by the House of Peers sitting in a free Parliament and judging according to the known Lawes of the Realme is that at least which in my opinion would not be stucke at But the Parliament prerogative which this Letter speakes of being now so extended as we have cause to thinke it is I doubt in this case whether not only in point of honour but in point of justice and conscience the King for his own Peace can leave his friends to such men whom he is clearely bound by so many grand ties to protect But this Sir I shall commit to you to determine and if you returne me a negative I shall not presume to question your reason or honesty nor shall I perswade the Kings friends that they would banish themselves unlesse it were only to do that great favour to the two Houses now at Westminster as to keep them from some future foule acts of oppression and bloud because they shall have none left to act upon 2. For the busines of the Church which he againe divides into two parts first that of Episcopacy secondly of Sacriledge And in these Sir I shall speake with lesse hesitation I shall clearely tell you the Epistler is cleane out and though you very well know me a great honourer of your profession yet I cannot hold it fit to decide cases of conscience or in humane actions to tell us what is sinne or no sinne and I am confident Sir you will not take this ill at my hands First for Episcopacy his words are if I mistake not and if I do I pray reforme me The opinion that the government by Bishops is jure divino hath but lately been countenanced in England and that by some few of the more Lordly Cleargy These last words make me suspect some passion in the Writer as being in scorne heretofore taken up by men who for a long time were Schismatiques in their hearts and are now Rebels in their actions And since the Lawes of this Land makes some Church men Lords I do the more marvaile that the Epistler lookes awry upon it so that though his profession be that he has undergone labours and hazards for the Episcopall Government yet truly Sir I must thinke that t is then only fit for the Church to give him thankes when she has done all her other busines But grant that Tenet to be but of late countenanced it thence followes not that t is any whit the lesse true For in respect of the many hundred yeares of abuse the reformation it selfe was but of late countenanced here yet I take it for an unquestionable truth that the Laity ought to have the cuppe And though I was not desired to reforme this Epistlers errour yet in charity I shall tell him that he is out when he affirmes that this opinion was but of late countenanced in this Church as I could shew him out of Archbishop Whitgift and Bishop Bilson and others and since perhaps he may thinke these to be but men of the more Lordly Clergy I shall name one more who may stand for many and who wrote forty yeares since that most excellent man M. Hooker a person of most incomparable learning and of as much modesty who I dare be bold to say did not once dreame of a Rotchet he averres in cleare tearmes There are at this day in the Church of England no other then the same degrees of Ecclesiasticall order namely Bishops Presbyters and Deacons which had their beginning from Christ and his blessed Apostles themselves or as he expounds himselfe Bishops and Presbyters ordained by Christ himselfe in the Apostles and the seventy and then Deacons by his Apostles I may adde Bucer too no man I am sure of the Lordly Clergy who though he were not English born yet he was professor here in King Edwards time and he wrote and dyed in this Kingdome Bishops saith he are Ex perpetua ecclesiarum ordinatione ab ipsis jam Apostolis and more Usum hoc est spiritui sancto and sure if Bishops be from the Apostles and from the holy Spirit himselfe they are of divine institution Nay what thinke you if this Tenet be approved by a plaine act of Parliament I hope then it wants no countenance which England can give it and it needs not fly for shelter under the wings of the Lordly Cleargy you have these words in the booke of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops which is confirmed by Parliament It is evident to all men reading holy Scriptures and ancient Authors that from the Apostles times there have been these orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Presbyters and Deacons And againe the prayer in the forme of consecration of Bishops Almighty God giver of all good things which by thy holy Spirit hast appointed divers orders of Ministers in thy Church mercifully behold this thy servant now called to
is no theft in the Civill Law sense there is none of this kind of Sin I am sure t is neither intimated by the Greek nor the Latine word nor I believe delivered by any learned Authors on the Subject so that I must set down an assertion I conceive well grounded too point blanck against this Londoner and affirme there may be a sacriledge properly so call'd which is not a theft in the Civill law-sense which has been grounded in the third Assertion and then we need not trouble Sir Robert Holborne that learned Gentleman may have other busines nor his fellow Lawyers for I doubt not there are enough besides who will here smile at this passage and will thinke that this Epistler hath met with a Civill Law quirke which he knew not well how to weild But to say truth he deales clearely with the Doctor and tels him that for his particular he doth not yet understand which for my part I believe and do not only wonder he would gibe at another man in a point he could no better Master But these Arguments it seemes are but only the forlorne-hope the main Battell is yet to come He calls this the main quere and desires patience from the Doctor First saith he I lay this as a foundation that there is no divine command that Ministers under the Gospell should have any Lands True the Clergy under the Gospell hold not their lands by a Divine command but they do by a Divine acceptation by Christs most gracious acceptance of such goods and possessions which have been given him by good Christians and this title you now heare will go as farre as a law and that is we conceive farre enough for it gives God a propriety in such lands and so keeps men from a re-assumption He goes on The hire of a Labourer at most as fitting maintenance is all that can be challenged I but that maintenance must be honourable or else we Christians shall use God like no other men farre worse I am sure then do Pagans And when such a maintenance hath been once given in lands the acceptation of Christ will soone make it irrevocable so that it signifyes little to say the Apostles had no Lands for they who had the money for lands fold might no man can well doubt have still kept the lands had they liked it but the Church was straight to be in hot persecution the Disciples were to fly and Lands we know are no moveables and it were very strange if not ridiculous to affirme that Ananias and his wife sinned in taking backâ— that money which they promised but if in specie they had given their Lands they might have revoked that gift without sacriledge He proceeds Which I mention to avoid the groundlesse argument upon the Lands and portions allotted to the tribe of Levi by Gods appointment to whom our Ministere have no succession Our Ministers challenge nothing which belongs to that Tribe by Leviticall right but where things are once given to God for the use of his Ministers they there get a morall interest and what wee read of this kind in the Old Testament doth as much obliâ—ge Christians as if it were found in the Now And 〈…〉 that they enjoy their 〈◊〉 by the 〈…〉 others do and must be subject to that Law which alone gives strength to their title Out into 〈◊〉 Have Church-men no title to those possessions they enjoy but by the law of this Land alone Yes besides these they have Christs acceptation and so they are become theirs by Law evangelicall their Lands are Gods own propriety and so they hold from him by the Law morall too and therefore though by the lawes of the land they hold estates in Fee-simple and so may alienate without punishment from the law of England yet they cannot do it without the guilt of sinne as being a breach of the law evangelicall and morall except then only when they better themselves by some gainfull or at least by some not hurtfull permutation Besides were the argument good it would only follow that the Clergy by their owne act might alienate their lands but no man else without their consent And I conceive it would not now prove so easie a taske to bring Church-men to such an alienation But the Parliament may do it for sayes he I am sure it will be granted that by the Lawes of this Nation whosoever hath Lands or Goods hath them with this inseparable limitation and condition viz. that the Parliament may dispose of them or any part of them at pleasure This you have oft told me Sir is strange Doctrine for either the Parliament I hope he meanes the King in Parliament doth this as being the supreame power or as being representative and so including the consent of the whole People of England If as being the supreame power it will follow that any absolute Prince may as lawfully do the like and yet this hath been ever held tyrannicall in the Great Turk as being against the rules of justice and humanity Indeed Samuel 〈◊〉 the Israelites that since they would needs change their Theocracy the immediate government of God himselfe though it were into Monarchy the best of all humane Governments the King should take their sons and their daughters their fields and their vineyards c. and they should cry and should find no help Yet the best Divines think that this would be most unjust most sinful in their King and expresly against the law of Moses who leaves every man his propriety onely the Prophet there averres it should be not punishable in him they should have no remedy since being the supreame power 't was in no Subjects hands to judge him So if the King in Parliament should take away Church-lands there is I confesse no resistance to be made though the act were inhumanely sinfull Or secondly the Parliament does this as representing the whole people and so including their consent for they who consent can receive no injury and then I understand not which way it can at all touch the Clergy who are neither to be there by themselves nor yet God knowes by representation Or if againe they were there I would gladly know what Burgesse or what Knight of a shire nay what Clerke or what Bishop doth represent Christ whose Lands these are and by vertue of what deputation Nor doe I beleeve that any Subject intends to give that power to him that represents him in Parliament as to destroy his whole estate except then onely when the known Laws of the Land make him lyable to so high a censure But grant that this were true in Mens lands yet sure it will not hold in God's For since in Magna Charta that hath received by Parliament at least 30. Confirmations the Lands we speak of are now given to God and promise there made That the Church shall hold her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable Sure the Kingdome must keep what she hath thus promised to God
he did accept them So that his Priests and his Poore being sustained by them he calls it in a more peculiar manner His meat His drinke and His cloathing And then if in point of acceptance with God there be great difference between feeding his Priests and feeding them that doe him no such service there must needs be as much difference between Lands set out unto that sacred use and Lands of a more common employment He gives a second reason Were Clergie-men but Usufructuaries how come they to change dispose or alter the property of any thing which an Usufructuary cannot doe and yet is done by you daily How come they to change or dispose any thing Yes they may change or dispose or alter many kinds of things for so without doubt any Usufructuary may doe so he wrong not his Lord by an abuse done to his Propriety Thus he may change his Corne into Clothing or if he please his Wool into Books Nay he may alter the property of his possessions too if he have expresse leave of his Lord And God himself did tell Levi That he was well content that men should alter some things that belonged to him so it were for the Tribes advantage Levit. 27. 13 The Letter goes on Aske them by what Divine Law S. Maries Church in Oxford may not be equally imployed for Temporall uses as for holding the Vice chancellors Court the University Convocation or their yeerly acts He might as well have asked Why not as well for temporall uses as for temporall uses For if those he names be not so his argument is naught and if they be so t is not well put downe His meaning sure was for other temporall uses as well as for those And truly Sir to put a Church to any such kind of use is not to be defended and therefore I excuse not the University especially she having had at least for a good time so many large places for those meetings Yet something might be said for the Vice-Chancellours Court because t is partly Episcopal something for the act at least in Comitiis because t is partly Divine but I had rather it should receive an amendment then an excuse Though it follow not neither that because this Church is sometimes for some few houres abused therefore it may be alwayes so as if because sometimes t is made a profane Church t is therefore fit 't were no Church at all He proceeds And as for their curses those Bug-beare words I could never yet learne that an unlawfull curse was any prejudice but to the Author of which sort those curses must needs be which restraine the Parliament or any there from exercising a lawfull and undenyable power which in instances would shew very ridiculous if any curse should prejudice anothers lawfull right I am sure such curses have no warrant from the Law of God or this Nation No warrant from the Word of God I conceive there is a very cleare one our Mother-Church commends it to the use of her sons in the expresse words of her Commination Cursed be he that removeth away the mark of his neighbours lands and all the people shall say Amen Deut. 27. 17. If he be accursed that wrongs his neighbour in his Lands what shall he be that injures God If a curse light upon him and a publique curse confirmed by an Amen made by all the people who removes but the mark whereby his neighbours Lands are distinguisht sure a private curse may be annexed by a Benefactor unto his Deed of Donation in case men should rob the very lands themselves that have been once given to their mother That such curses restraine the Parliament in its lawfull undenyable Rights is you have told me but a great mistake For though the Parliament may Impunè which in some sense is called lawfully take away the Church Lands though it may doe it without punishment because the King being there it is the highest power yet that Court it selfe cannot do it Justè cannot doe it without sinne and that a fouler sinne then the removing a Land-marke and then a fouler curse may follow it Let the Epistler then take heed of these more then bug-beare words For believe it Sir in such curses as these there is much more then Showes and Vizards And if you will give trust to any Stories at all many great Families and Men have felt it His last Argument is for all the rest is but declamation Aske your Bishops whether Church Lands may not lawfully the Law of the State not prohibiting be transferred from one Church to another upon emergent occasions which I thinke they will not deny if so who knowes that the Parliament will transferre them to Layhands they-professe no such thing and I hope they will not but continue them for the maintenance of the Ministery I conceive the Bishops answer would be that t is no sacriledge to transferre lands from one Church to another but yet there may be much rapine and injustice the Will of the Dead may be violated and so sinne enough in that Action many may be injuriously put from their estates in which they have as good Title by the lawes of the land as those same men that put them out To say then the Church lands may be totally given up because the Epistler hopes the Parliament will commit no sacriledge is a pretty way of perswasion and may equally worke on him to give up his own lands because he may as well hope to be re-estated again in that the Parliament will do no injustice And now Sir having thus observed your commands I should have ceased to trouble you yet one thing more I shall adventure to crave your patience in and t is to let you know that if this Epistler had been right in both his Conclusions That Episcopacy is not of Divine institution that Sacriledge is no sinne yet if you cast your Eyes upon His Majesties Coronation Oath wherein he is so strictly sworne to defend both the Episcopall Order and the Church-lands and possessions you would easily acknowledge that the King cannot yeeld to what this Letter aims at though he were in danger of no other sinne then that of Perjury And though I must needs guesse that the Epistler knew well of this juratory tye yet you will the lesse blame him for a concealment of this kind because he was not retained of the Churches Counsell His Majesties Oath you may read published by himselfe in an Answer to the Lords and Commons in Parliament 26. May 1642. It runnes thus Episcopus Sir Will you grant and keepe and by your Oath confirme to the People of England the Lawes and Customes to them granted by the Kings of England your lawfull and religious Predecessors and namely the Lawes Customes and Franchizes granted to the Clergy by the glorious King S. Edward your Predecessour according to the Lawes of God the true profession of the Gospell established in this Kingdome and agreeable
to the Prerogative of the Kings thereof and the ancient Customes of this Realme Rex I grant and promise to keepe them Episc. Sir will you keepe Peace and godly agreement entirely according to your power both to God the holy Church the Clergy and the People Rex I will keepe it Episc. Sir will you to your power cause Law Justice and Discretion in mercy and truth to be executed in all your judgements Rex I will Episc. Will you grant to hold and keep the Lawes and rightfull Customes which the Commonalty of this your Kingdome have and will you defend and uphold them to the honour of God so much as in you lyeth Rex I grant and promise so to do Then one of the Bishops reads this Admonition to the King before the People with a loud voice Our Lord and King Wee beseech you to pardon and grant to preserve unto us to the Churches committed to our charge all Canonicall priviledges and due Law and Justice and that you would protect and defend us as every good King ought to be a Protector and Defender of the Bishops and Churches under his government The King answereth With a willing and devout heart I promise and grant my part and that I will preserve and maintaine to you and the Churches committed to your charge all Canonicall priviledges and due Law and Justice and that I will be your Protector and Defender to my power by the assistance of God as every good King in his Kingdome by right ought to protect and defend the Bishops and Churches under his government Then the King ariseth and is led to the Communion table where he makes a solemne Oath in sight of all the People to observe the promises and laying his hand upon the Booke saith The Oath The Things that I have before promised I shall performe and keep So helpe me God and the contents of this Booke In the First Clause t is plaine he makes a promissory Oath unto the whole People of England a word that includes both Nobility and Clergy and Commons that he will confirme their Lawes and Customes And in the second Paragraph thereof he sweares peculiarly to the Clergy that he will keepe the Lawes Customes and Franchises granted to the Clergy by the glorious King S. Edward And more plainly in the fift clause he makes like promissory Oath unto the Bishops alone in the behalfe of themselves and their Churches that he will reserve and maintaine to them all Canonicall Priviledges and due Law and Justice and that he will be their Protector and Defender Where first since he sweares defence unto the Bishops by name t is plaine he sweares to maintain their order For he that Sweares he will take care the Bishops shall be protected in such and such Rights must needs sweare to take care that Bishops must first be For their Rights must needs suppose their Essence And where a King sweares defence what can it imply but defence in a Royall Kingly way Tu defende me gladio ego defendam te calamo is the well known speech of an old Church-man to a Prince For sure where Kings sweare defence to Bishops I do not thinke they sweare to write Bookes in their behalfe or attempt to make it clear to the People that Episcopacy is jure divino But a King whose propriety it is to beare the Sword sweares to weare it in the defence of Bishops for though t is against the very Principles of the Christian Faith that Religion should be planted or reformed by bloud yet when Christian Kings have by Law setled Christian Religion and sworne to defend those persons that should preach it he ought sure to beare his Sword to defend his Lawes and to keepe his soule free from perjury And by Canonicall priviledges that belong to them and their Churches there must needs be implyed the honour of their severall Orders as that Bishops should be above Presbyters c. together with all their due Rights and Jurisdictions The words Due Law and Justice cannot but import that His Majesty binds himselfe to see that justice be done to them and the Churches according to the Law then in force when he tooke that Oath And when the King sweares Protection and Defence that Clause must needs reach not only to their persons but to their rights and estates for he sweares not onely to men but to men in such a condition to Bishops and their Churches and those conditions of men grow little lesse then ridiculous if their estates be brought to ruine so that such a protection were neither at all worth the asking nor the swearing if the King should protect a Bishop in his life and yet suffer him to be made a begger since to see himselfe in scorne and contempt might more trouble him then to dye And whereas He sweares to be their Protector and Defender to his power by the assistance of God these words to his power may seem to acquit him of all the rest if he fall into a condition wherein all power seemes taken from him But that Sir will prove a mistake for one of the greatest Powers of the King of England is in the Negative in Parliament So that without him no Law can be enacted there since t is only the power-royall that can make a Law to be a Law so that if the King should passe a Statute to take away the Church-lands he protects it not to his power since t is plaine that so long as a man lives and speakes he hath still power to say No For it cannot be said that the Church in this case may be as it were ravished from the King and that then he may be no more guilty of that sinne then Lucrece was in her rape for though a chaste body may suffer ravishment yet the strength of a Tarquin cannot possibly reach unto a mans will or his assent Now in all promissory Oathes made for the benefit of that Party to whom we sweare t is a rule with Divines that they of all others do more strictly bind except then alone when remission is made Consensu illius cui facta est promissio So although the King sweare unto the People of England that he will keepe and confirme their Lawes yet if you their Commons desire these said Lawes be either abrogated or altered t is cleare that Oath binds no further because remission is made by their own consent who desired that promise from him and upon this very ground t is true that the King sweares to observe the lawes only in sensu composito so long as they are Lawes But should the desire either to alter or abrogate either Law or Priviledges proceed from any other but from them alone to whose benefit he was sworne t is cleerely plaine by the rules of all justice that by such an act or desire his Oath receives no remission For the foundation of this promissory Oath is their interest he was sworn to