AN ANSVVER TO A LETTER VVritten at OXFORD And superscribed to Dr. SAMVEL TVRNER Concerning the CHURCH and the Revenues thereof Wherein is shewed how impossible it is for the King with a good conscience to yeeld to the change of Church-Government by Bishops or to the alienating the Lands of the Church Printed in the Yeere MDCXI VII Faults escaped correct thus Page 5. line 30. for Lawes read Lands p. 7. l. 30. r. preserving p. 9. l. 8. r. this in the Postscript p. 12. l. 20. r. visum p. 17. l. 15. r. and elsewhere part p. 18. l. 27. for then r. that p. 19. l. 11. for since r. sure p. 19. l. 15. r. aliquid p. 20. l. 20. for this r. the p. 21. l. ult. r. that error ibid. l. ult. r. that consent p. 24. l. 8. r. Creet ibid. l. 27. r. Apostolicall p. 31. l. 14. r. vindicta p. 35. l. 26. dele not p. 39. l. 1 r. must not p. 44. l. 5. for there r. other p. 47. l. ult. r. preserve p. 50. l. 3. r. the Commons p. 51. l. 22. for 〈◊〉 r. are p. 52. l. 19. dele that A Letter written to D. SAMUEL TURNER concerning the Church and the Revenues thereof Noble Doctor I Expected when you had seen the Kings last Messages your reason would have prompted you to have look'd this way which caused a delay in sending unto you untill the difficulty of the passage made me suspect whether this may come safe to you and by the preparations and designes here I feare I shall not have another oportunity take this therefore as a farwell-truth that the moderate party here are at their Ne plus ultra the presbyterians Independants will agree and the Scots and we shall not fall out and it must now be the wisdome of your selfe and such as have power and interest with the King to save him your selves and Country from ruine Your visible strength to hold out much lesse to prevaile is too well known here and your hopes from France and Ireland will soon vanish which if successefull by a victorious Army which I beleeve you shall never see would but make you and us slaves to a forraign Nation and extirpate that Religion both sides pretend to maintaine To be plaine I know no way left you but to accept such conditions of peace as may be had you are too much a souldier to thinke a retreate upon so many disadvantages dishonourable to a Generall or acceptance of hard conditions by a starved beleagured Garrison to the Governour In short of evils choose the least and I must tell you it is expected from you and the more wise and honest party with you that they should make use of their reason and advise the King to save what is left wherein it is believed you may prevaile considering what hath already passed in so many free offers to give satisfaction in the Militia Ireland paiment of the publique Debts choice of Judges Lord Admirall Officers of State and others with an Act of oblivion and free Pardon free exercise of Religion to Presbyterians and Independants their own way and a promise to endeavour in all particulars that none shall have cause to complaine for want of security things so farre beyond our former hopes that I cannot doubt but the same reason which moved the offer of these will obtaine to concession of such others as the Parliament shall require in order to peace which as neere as I can guesse will be either the removall and punishment of evill Counsellors and Ministers who have drawn the King into these troubles or the busines of the Church all other materiall things to my apprehension being already offered For the first of these I know not how you can with reason gain-say the bringing offenders to Justice and if the Parliament Prerogative streine justice in the tryall and punishment beyond example of better times it were wisdome for such as may therein be concerned to withdraw Dum furer in cursu for if it must come to suffering Melius unus quam unitas for the busines of the Church I wish it could be prevented there are who can witnesse the labour and hazards I have undergone for that end conceiving no government equall to a well ordered Episcopall for the well-being of this Church and State But when the necessity of times hath proposed this sad question for resolution whether consent to alter Episcopall government in the Church or let both Church and State ruine together my reason assents to the former I beleeve the doctrine of the place where you are would perswade the contrary and it hath been from thence transmitted hither as an orthodox truth that the altering that government being as they say jure divino is sinfull and the taking away the Church-lands sacriledge at least unlawfull which if I could believe would change my opinion for I cannot give way for the committing a sin for a good end what ever the Romanist or Jesuited Puritan pretend in defence of it but if I mistake not and if I doe I pray reforme me the opinion that the government by Bishops is jure divino hath but lately been countenanced in England and that but by some few of the more Lordly Clergy for we alwayes acknowledge the Protestants of Germany the Low Countryes and elsewhere part of the reformed Protestant Catholique Church though they had no Bishops and I am certaine the King would never have given way for the extirpation of Bishops in Scotland had he conceived them to be jure divino nor to the Presbyterians and Independants here to exercise their Religion their own way as by his late Messages when such a tolleration in the face of such a divine Law must needs be sinfull and for the latter opinion against taking away of Church Lands I am lesse satisfyed being so farre from conceiving it sacriledge that I do not conceive it unlawfull but may be done without breach of any Law which must be the rule for tryal of the lawfulnes or unlawfulnes of every action nay though there be never so many curses or imprecations added to the donation nor do I herein ground my opinion barely upon the frequent practise of former times not only by Acts of Parliament in the times of Queen Eliz and King James and King Charles if you have not forgotten the exchange of Durham house aswell as Henry the eighth but even by the Bishops themselves and Deanes and Chapters insomuch that if the wisdome of the State after Clergy men were permitted to marry had not prohibited their alienations and restrained their Leases to 21. yeares or 3. lives their Revenues at this day would not have been subject to envy But to deale clearely with you Doctor I do not yet understand how there can be any Sacriledge properly so called which is not a theft and more viz. a theft of something dedicated to holy use a Communion-Cup for instance or the like theft you know must
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-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-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
be of things moveable even by the Civil Law and how theft can be of Lands or sacriledge committed by aliening Church-Lands I pray aske your friend Holbourne and his fellow Lawyers for ours here deride us for the question As for the main quere touching the lawfulnes of aliening Church-lands I use the expression for the lands of Bishops Deanes and Chapters good Doctor give me your patience to heare my reasons And first I lay this as a foundation that there is no divine command that Ministers under the Gospell should have any lands the hire of a labourer at most a fitting maintenance is all to be challenged nor do we read that the Apostles had any Lands which I mention to avoid the groundlesse arguments upon the lands and portions allotted to the Tribe of Levi by Gods appointment to whom our Ministers have no succession and then it will follow that they enjoy their lands by the same Law of the State as others doe and must be subject to that Law which alone gives strength to their title which being granted I am sure it will not be denyed that by the Law of the Nation he that hath an estate in Lands in Fee-simple by an implyed power may lawfully alien though there be an expression in his Deed of purchase or donation to the contrary which being so makes the alienation of Bishops Lands even without any Act of Parliament to be lawfull being done by those who have an estate in Fee simple as the Bishop with the Deane and Chapter hath Then further I am sure it will be granted that by the Law of this Nation whosoever hath Lands or goods hath them with this inseparable implyed condition or limitation viz. That the Parliament may dispose of them or any part of them at pleasure Hence it is they sometimes dispose some part in Subsidies and other Taxes enable a Tenant for life to sell an estate in Fee-simple and not at all unlawfull because of that limitation or condition before mentioned and who ever will be owner must take them according to this Law Now hence comes the mistake by reason there is not such an expresse condition or limitation in the Deed of Donation which would silence all disputes whereas it is as cleare a truth that where any thing is necessarily by Law implied it is as much as if in plaine words expressed of which your Lawyers if Reason need a helpe from them can easily resolve Besides it were somewhat strange that the Donor of the Lawes should preserve them in the hands of the Bishops from the power of the Parliament which he could not doe in his owne and give them a greater and surer right then he had himselfe Nor doe I understand their meaning who terme God the Proprieter of the Bishops Lands and the Bishop the Usufructuary For I know not how in propriety of speech God is more entituled to their Lands then to his whole Creation and were Clergie-men but Usufructuaries how come they to change dispose or alter the property of any thing which an Usufructuary cannot doe and yet is by them done daily Aske them by what Divine Law S. Maries Church in Oxford may not be equally imployed for temporall uses as for holding the Vice-chancellours Court the University Convocation or their yearly acts And for the Curses those bug-beare words I could yet never learne that an unlawfull curse was any prejudice but to the Author of which sort those curses must needs be which restraine the Parliament or any other from exercising a lawfull and undenyable power which in instances would shew very ridiculous if any curse should prejudice anothers lawfull right I am sure such curses have no warrant from the Law of God or this Nation If this doth not satisfie the former doubts in your Bishops for I know you to be too great a Master of Reason to be unsatisfied aske them whether Church-lands may not lawfully the Law of the State not prohibiting be transferred from one Church to another upon emergent occasions which I think they will not deny If so who knowes that the Parliament will transferre them to Lay-hands they professe no such thing and I hope they will not but continue them for the maintenance of the Ministery which prevents all disputes upon the last question but if they shall hereafter do otherwise you know my opinion Onely mistake me not in this free discourse as if I did countenance or commend the Parliaments proceedings in their new Reformation but as a caution to you in the exigencies of times what is fittest to be done when I take it Mistresse Necessity in all things indifferent or not unlawfull must be obeyed in which cases the most constant men must be contented to change their resolutions with the alteration of time Your party have been resolute enough to preserve the rights of the Church and further peradventure then wise men would have done but at an ultra posse you and we must give over especially for an imaginary right And think seriously with your selfe whether after all other things granted it will be fit to run the hazard of the very being of this Church and State the King and his posterity and Monarchy it selfe onely upon the point of Church-government by Bishops or aliening the church-Church-lands or rather whether the Kings Councell in duty ought not to advise him the contrary who should be wise as well as pious yet herein may be both for I doe not thinke Conveniencie or Necessity will excuse Conscience in a thing in it selfe unlawfull what ever States-men maintain to the contrary your interest with the King is not small and your power with the Lords who are guided by reason very considerable you cannot doe better then make use of both at this time If they have a desire to preserve the Church it were wel their thoughts were fixed upon some course for setling a Superintendencie in the Presbyteriall Government which no way crosseth the Nationall Covenant and preserve the Revenues in the Church which I beleeve at Uxbridge Treaty would have been granted what ever it will be now I have given you my sense upon the whole businesse Si quid novisti rectius Candidus imperti si non his utere J. T. So farewell Doctor I give you commission to shew this to my Lord Dorset who by and something else can guesse my name and to as many more as owne Reason and Honesty An Answer to the foregoing Letter superscribed to D. Samuel Turner c. Sir YOu have put an odde taske upon me in commanding my judgement on a Letter lately sent to a Doctor in Oxford with a commission to shew it to the Lord of Dorset and to as many more as own reason and honesty for this is the Postscript and many the like passages in the Letter as that the more wise and honest party would make use of their reason and I know you too great a master of reason to be unsatisfyed makes me
3. 8. A man any man though an Ammonite or a meere Philistine no Pagan that must be the sense will doe it to his God which you Jewes doe to me for the Law written in his heart and he can goe by no other that law controlls this offence and so plainly tells him that because his God may be robb'd he may therefore have a Propriety And if Sacriledge be a sin against the Law Morall it will follow that what wee read in the Old Testament against that sinne must be as morall and that whereby we Christians are as much obliged as by what we read against theft or against adultery save onely in those passages which are particularly proper unto the policie of the Jews and we may let them goe for Judiciall These Assertions being premised I returne to the Epistler who conceives it to be no sacriledge to take away the Church Lands Nor do I saith he herein ground my opinion barely upon the frequent practise of former times not onely by acts of Parliament in the times of Queen Elizabeth King James and so King Charles if you have not forgotten the exchange of Durham house as well as H. 8. but even by the Bishops themselves c. He will not ground his opinion upon the practise and indeed he hath little reason for it For if from a frequent practise of sinne we might conclude it were no sinne we might take our leaves of the Decalogue and as our new Masters do put it out of our Directory because our intent is to sinne it downe and therefore I shall say no more of such Lawes of Hen. 8. then I would of Davids adultery a that t is no ground at all to make men bold with their neighbours Wives Queene Elizabeth made a Law so you have told me Sir for I do speake nothing in this kind but from you that Bishops might not alienate their Mannors Castles c. but only to the Crowne but if she sometimes tooke order that Church men should not be Bishops untill they had first made such alienations as I have heard you say they did I know not how to defend it but must withall tell you that if Princes or Subjects resolve to sell the Church preferments t is great odds but that in a Clergy consisting of above 16000. Persons they shall not want Chapmen for them For King James I must highly commend that most Christian Prince who you say amongst his first Lawes tooke away that of Queen Elizabeth not can I well tell why this Epistler here doth quote that King for his purpose unlesse it were only for the alienation of York House but I must informe him that that Act was lawfull because 't was for the advantage of the Archiepiscopall See there being cleare Text for it That the Levits themselves might change what was theirs by a Divine Law so they gained by the permutation and this answer will serve for what King Charles did about Durham House But he thinks it an Argument That even by Bishops themselves Deanes and Chapters c. such things were done Alienations made and long Leases granted True Sir for those Clergymen were but men and their sinnes can at all no more abrogate Gods Law then can the sinnes of the Laity yet I could name you Church-men of great note who totally refused to be preferred by that Queene to any Bishopricke at all because they would by no meanes submit their conscience unto the base acts of such Alienations and one of them was Bishop Andrews I could tell you too that those long Leases he speakes of might have one cause more then the Marriage of the Clergy for when they saw men so sharply set upon the inheritance of the Church when they saw a Stoole of wickednesse set up of sacrilegious wickednes that imagined mischiefe by a Law some not the worst of men thought it fit to make those long Leases that the estate of the Church might appeare the more poore and so lesse subject unto Harpies and then their hope was at the length at least after many yeares spent it might returne whole unto their successours He goes on But to deale clearely with you Doctor I do not understand how there can be any sacriledge properly so called which is not a theft and more viz. a theft of some thing dedicated to holy use a Coâ—â—munion Cup for instance or the like and thâ—se you know must be of things moveable 〈…〉 civil Law and how theft can be of Lands or 〈…〉 by alienating Church Lands I pray aske your friend Holborne and his fellow Lawyers for ours here deride us for the question It seemes Sir they are very merry at London or at least this Epistler thinks so for being winners he might perhaps conceive they make themselves pleasant at a Feather And that this Argument is as light a thing appeares before from my third Assertion for can any man thinke in earnest that t is Sacriledge and so a sinne to take a Cup from the Church and t is none to take away a Mannour as if Ahab had been indeed a thiefe had he rob'd Naboth of his Grapes but Eliah was too harsh to that good King because he only tooke away his Vineyard Indeed there is such a nicety in the Civill Law that actio furti lyes only against him who has stolne Rem mobilem for Justinian it seemes in the composition of his Digests which he tooke from the writings of the old Jurisprudentes thought it fit to follow Ulpians judgement and yet Sabinus in his booke De Furtis a man of note amongst those men was known to be of another opinion Non tantum sayes he rerum moventium sed fundi quoque et aedium fieri furtum a theft properly so call'd may be of things immoveable I would gladly know of the Epistler whether he thinks all men both Divines and others bound to frame all the phrases of their speech according to the criticismes of the Civill Law as it s now put out by Justinian If not why may not some use the word furtum in Sabinus his sense as well as others may in Ulpians and then sacriledge may be properly called a theft and as properly in immoveables or if we will needs speake according to his sense whom Justinian hath approved I do not well see how men can spoile the Church of her Lands and at the Civil Law escape an action of theft for it lyeth against him that takes the trees the fruits and the stones and I am confident there is no Church-robber but he intends to make use of these kinds of moveables otherwise what good wil the Church-land do him And if he does make this use a thiefe he is in the Civill Law phrase then in the very sense of this Epistler himself he is without doubt a sacrilegious person but where I wonder did that Londoner learne that Furtum strictè sumptum was the genus of sacriledge so that where there
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
Hierusalem Alexandria Antioch and Rome Ephesus at Creece at Athens and Colosse divers others it being easie to draw a Catalogue of them out of several Ecclesiasticall Writers And here it will be plain that its a foule corruption nay how flat a sinne is brought into the Church of Christ where Episcopacy is thrown down and so where Ordination is performed by any hands without theirs t is as grosse as if Lay-men should be allowed to baptize when a Presbyter doth stand by nay more it is as bad as if the Order of Presbyters should therefore be thrown downe that Lay-men might Baptize and what 's this but willingly to runne into a Necessity it selfe that wee might thence create an Apology T is a corruption farre worse then if a Church should audaciously attempt to pull down the Lords Day since the observation of that Time is neither built on so cleare a Text nor on the helpe of so Universall a Consent as is the Order of Episcopacy So that if men can thinke it sinfull to part with the Lords Day though the institution of it be meerly Apocryphall they must needs confesse there is at least so much sinne nay indeed more in parting with their Bishops and then the Oxford Doctrine which the Epistler gybes at and talkes of as transmitted for an orthodox truth will it seemes prove no lesse in earnest Secondly for the point of Sacriledge the better to clâ—â—â—e this I must premise these Assertions 1. That God accepts of things given him and so holds a Propriety as well in the New as in the Old Testament 2. That God gets this Propriety in those things he holds as well by an acceptation of what is voluntarily given as by a command that such things should be presented to him 3. That to invade those things be they moveable or immoveable is expresly the sinne of Sacriledge 4. That this sinne is not only against Gods positive Law but plainly against his Morall Law 1. Proposition God accepts of things given c. For proofe of this first I quote that Text I hungred and ye gave me meat I thirsted and ye gave me drinke c. Mat. 25. If Christ do not accept of these things he may say indeed yee offered me meat but he cannot say that yee gave it for a Present is then only to be called a Gift when it is accepted as his own that takes it And do's he thus accept of Meat and Clothing and do's he not accept of those kind of endowments that bring both these to perpetuity Will He take Meat and refuse Revenues Doth He like can you imagine to be Fed and Clothed to day and in danger to be Starved to morrow The men thus provided for He calles no lesse then His Brethren In as much as you have done it unto the least of these my Brethren yee have done it unto me Whether these were of those Brethren which he had enjoyned to teach others or of those which he would have instructed the Text there doth not decide without doubt it must be meant of both for it were a strange thing to affirme that Christ liked it extreame well to be Fed and to be Clothed in all those He called His but only in His Seventy and His Apostles but to put it out of doubt that what is done to them is done to Him too His owne words are very plain He that receiveth you teaching Disciples receiveth me in the Tenth of that Gospell where He sends all forth to preach and that reception implyes all such kind of provisions as is apparently plaine throughout the whole Tenour of the Chapter And againe I quote that so well known passage of Ananias and Saphyra his wife Act. 5. his sin was he kept back part of the price of those Lands he had given to God for the publique use of the Church yea given to God and t is as plaine that he did accept it for S. Peter you know thus reprooves him Why hast thou lyed or why hast thou deceived the Holy Ghost for so {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} do's properly import why doest thou cheat him of what is now his own proper right And againe Thou hast not lyed unto men but unto God and is this so strange a thing Are not all our lyes to be accounted sinnes before God yes all against God as a Witnesse and a Judge but yet not all against God as a Party and therefore t is a more remarkeable a more signall lye Thou hast not lyed unto men a negative of comparison not so much to men as to God what 's done to them is scarce worth the naming but thou hast lyed unto God as a Witnesse and a Judge yea and a party too Thou hast lyed rob'd God by lying and so runne thy selfe into an eminent sinne and that shall appeare in Gods judgement so the Fathers generally expound that place both of the Greek and Latine Church and affirme his crime was a robbing God of that wealth which by Vow or by promise was now become Gods propriety So the Modern Interpreters yea so Calvin Sacrum esse Deo profitebatur He professed that his Land should be a sacred thing unto God sayes he on that place and there Beza too Pradium Deo consecrassent the the man and his wife they consecrated this Land to God And he that will not believe so Universall a consent in the interpreting a place of Scripture should do well to consider whether upon the same ground as I told you before he may not be brought to doubt of his Dictionary for that is but Universal consent he may almost as well doubt whether {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifyes God and altogether as well whether {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifyes the Gospell The New Testament will afford more places for this purpose Thou that abhorrest Idols committest thou Sacriledge Rom. 2. 22. T is true these words are spoken as to the person of an unconverted Jew and may be therefore thought to aime only at those sinnes which were descryed in the Law of Moses but do but view S. Pauls way of arguing and you will quickly find they come home to us Christians too he there tells the Jew that he taught others those things which yet he would not do himselfe and he strives to make this good by three severall instances first Thou that Preachest a man should not steale doest thou steale Secondly Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery dost thou commit adultery In both these t is plain that the Jew he dealt with did the same things he reprehended and straightway the third comes Thou that abhorrest Idols dost thou commit Sacriledge So that hence 't will follow if S. Pauls words have Logique in them that these two sinnes are of the selfe same nature too And that to commit a sacriledge is a breach of the same Law as to commit an Idolatry so that crime will
appeare without all doubt a plain robbery of God for he that steales from men yea though a whole community of men though bona universitatis yet he sinnes but against his Neighbour t is but an offence against the second Table of the Law in these words Thou shalt not steale but Sacriledge layes hold on those things which the Latine Lawes call Bona nullius it strikes downright immediately at God and in that regard no Idolatry can out doe-it as this is t is a breach of the first Table of the Law and both these crimes are equally built upon the self-same contempt of God the offenders in both kinds the Idolater and sacrilegious person both thinke him a dull sluggish thing the first thinkes he will patiently looke on while his honour is shared to an Idol the other imagines he 'l be as sottishly tame though his goods be stoln to his face This was without doubt the sense of all ancient churches for upon what ground could they professe they gave gifts to God but only upon this that they presumed God did stil accept them So S. Iraeneus We offer unto our God our Goods in token of thankefullnesse So Origen By gifts to God we acknowledge him Lord of all So the Fathers generally so Emperours and Kings so Charles the Great To God we offer what we deliver to the Church in his well known Capitulars And our own Kings have still spoken in this good old Christian language We have granted to God for Us and Our Heires for ever that the Church of England shall be free and have her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable they are all the first words of our Magna Chart. Her whole Rights Liberties words of a very large extent and imply farre more then Her Substance and yet these and all these Lands and Honours and Jurisdictions all these have beene given to God yea and frequently confirmed by the publique Acts of the Kingdome and yet if Ananias might thus promise and yet rob God consider I beseech you whether England may not do so too 2. Proposition God gets this Propriety as well by an acceptation of what is voluntarily given as by a command that such things should be presented to him For the second t is plaine in the Text that God did as much take the Temple to be his as he did the Jewes Tithes and Offerings These last indeed were his by expresse law command but the Temple was the voluntary designe of good David and the voluntary work of King Solomon Nay God expresly tels David that he had been so far from commanding that house that he had not so much as once asked this service And therefore in his Apologie Saint Paul tels the Jewes Neither sayes he against the Law of the Jewes nor against the Temple have I offended any thing For he might in some case offend against the Temple and yet not against the Law Notwithstanding all this God pleads as much for his Temple in the Prophet Haggai as he doth in Malachi for his tithes In this his words are Ye have robbed we in tithes and offerings in the other Is it time for you O ye to dwell in sieled houses and this house lie waste therefore ye have sowne much and bring in little ye eate but have not enough so Hag. 1. 4. And to affirme that God in the New Testament doth accept of meat and drink and cloathing as it is plaine Mat. 25. he doth accept of money land was sold for as in the case of Ananias and yet that he doth not accept Land it selfe is so contrary to all reason so contrary to the practice not onely of the Christian but humane world so contrary to what God himselfe has expressed in the Old Testament and no where â—â—called it in the New that he that can quiet his conscience with such concepts as these may I doubt not attaine to the discovery of some Quirkes which in his conceipt may either palliate murthers or adulteries For to think that those possessions are indeed Gods which he doth command but not those which he doth accept is to use God so as we would neither use our selves nor our neighbours for no man doubts but that 's as properly mine which I accept as a gift from others as what I attaine to by mine owne personall acquisition be it by a just war by study by merchandice or the like 3. Proposition That to invade those things consecrated be they moveable or immoveable is expresly the sin of Sacriledge Sacriledge is then committed say the Schooles and the Casuists and they speak in their owne profession quando reverentia rei sacrae debita violatur When we violate that reverence due to a thing sacred by turning it into a thing profane so as the violation may be committed either per furtum by theft strictly so taken by stealing a thing moveable or per Plagium which is the stealing of a man or per invasionem which is a spoiling men of lands or of things immoveable for as any one of these done against our neighbour is no doubt in Scripture phrase a theft a sin against the 8. Commandment Thou shalt not steale So done against God t is no doubt a Sacriledge and a breach of the first Table be it either against the first or the second Commandement I stand not now to dispute for the word used in the New Test to expresse this sin is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Praeda or spolium So that Sacriledge is not to be defined onely by theft strictly taken but t is a depredation a spoliation of things consecrated and so the word extends it selfe as properly if not more to Lands as it doth to things moveable And hence Aquinas is plaine that Sacriledge reaches out its proper sense ad ea quae deputata sunt ad sustentationem ministrorum sive sint mobilia sive immobilia For it would be very strange to affirme that in the sacking of Jerusalem Nebuchadnezzar was sacrilegious when he transported the holy vessels but not at all when he burnt the Temple 4. Proposition That this sinne is not onely against Gods positive Law but plainly against the Morall Law For this common reason hath taught all even Pagan nations to hold Sacriledge a sinne So that Lactantius observes and he was well read in humane learning which made him to be chose Tutor to a sonne of Constantine the Great Inomni Religione nihil tale sine vindicto God did still remarkably revenge this sinne not onely in the true but amongst men of the most false Religions And 't were easie to shew that never any Nation did yet adore a God but they thought he did accept and did possesse himselfe of some substance I omit those proofs that would be thought far too tedious t is enough to quote the Prophets words Will a man rob God yet ye have robbed me Mal.
and must now think to beginne to tell him of implyed conditions or limitations For it were a strange scorne put upon God if men should make this grand promise to their Maker and then tell him after so many hundreds of yeares that their meaning was to take it back at their pleasure I believe there is no good Pagan that would not blush at this dealing and conclude that if Christians may thus use their God without doubt he is no God at all He goes on Hence is it they sometimes dispose some part in Subsidies and other Taxes The Parliament disposeth part of mens estates in Subsidies and Taxes and with their consents ergo It may dispose of all the Church Lands though Church-men themselves should in down right termes contradict it Truly Sir this Argument is neither worth an answere nor a smile For I am sure you have often told me that the Parliament in justice can destroy no private mans estate Or if upon necessity it may need this or that Subjects Land for some publique use yet that Court is in justice bound to make that private man an amends Subsidies you said were supposed to be laid on Salvo contenemento so that a Duke might still live like a Duke and a Gentleman like a Gentleman Is it not so with the Clergy too By their own consent indeed and not otherwise they are often imposed and they are paid by them but yet they are burthens which they may beare Salvo contenemento and they are paid not out of Gods propriety by alienating of his Lands but out of that usus fructus they receive from God and so the maine doth still go on to their successors So that to inferre from any of these usages that the 〈◊〉 of Bishops and Deanes and Chapters may be wholly alienated from the Church is an inference that will prevaile with none but those who being led by strong passions that it should be so make very little use of their reason to oppose that passion He proceeds Now hence comes the mistake by reason there is not such an expresse condition or limitation in the Deeds of Donation which would silence all dispute whereas it is as cleare a truth that where any thing is necessarily by Law implyed It is as much as in plain termes expressed No marvell if such conditions be not expressed in Benefactors Deeds of Donation because it would make pious deeds most impiously ridiculous For who would not blush to tell God that indeed he gives him such Lands but with a very clear intent to revoke them And what Christian will say that such an intent is tacitely there which it were impiety to expresse Nay t is apparantly cleare in the curses added by such Donors upon those who shall attempt to make void their gifts that their meaning was plaine such lands should remaine Gods for ever By Magna Charta these gifts are confirmed unto the Church for ever She shall have her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable and yet is there a tacite condition in the selfe-same Law that they may be violated No marvell if with us men cannot trust men if God himselfe cannot trust our lawes And if that Charter or any else made by succeeding Princes do indeed confirme such Donations as without all doubt they do sure they must confirme such Donations in that same sence wherein the Donors made them for so do all other confirmations nay in this case of a totall dis-inhaerison there cannot be in law any such tacite conditions or limitations as the Epistler speakes of For I have shewed such to be unjust and tyrannicall in a private Subjects estate and therefore in Gods they are much more unjust because they are sure he cannot offend and an unjust and tyrannicall meaning must not be called the meaning of the Law The Letter goes on Besides it were somewhat strange that the Donors of the Lands should preserve them in the hands of the Bishops from the power of Parliament which he could not doe in his owne and give them a greater and surer right then he had himselfe The Lay-Donee might preserve them thus in his owne hands suppose him but an honest person for though a Parliament may Impunè disinherit such an innocent man yet they cannot doe it Justè and so in this regard both the Donor and the Donee are in the same condition Besides t is no such strange thing for the self-same right as a right suppose of Fee-simple to become more sure in his hands that takes then it ever was in his hands that gave it For though the right it self be still the same right for Nemo dat quod non habet yet by gift it may now come into a more strong hand and by this meanes that selfe-same right may become the stronger And sure with us Gods hand should be more strong then mans Nay hence as some think Lands given to the Church were said to come in manum mortuam as it were into a dead hand which parts with nothing it hath once closed upon And why the Epistler should call this a strange thing I doe not yet see the reason because t is alwayes so when any one Benefactor doth by vertue of a Mortmaine convey his Lands to any kind of Corporation Againe Nor doe I understand their meaning who terme God the Proprietor of the Bishops Lands and the Bishop the Usufructuary I conceive I have made this plaine because such Lands were first offered to God and became his owne Property by his owne divine acceptation And if the Dominium directum of these things doe once rest in God the Dominium utile the usus fructus alone is the onely thing left to be the patrimony of his Clergie But he addes a reason For I know not how in propriety of speech God is more entitled to their Lands then to his whole Creation Here the Epistler speaks out For truly Sir I feare the Lawyer your friend is little better then an Independent How hath God no more Title in propriety of speech to one piece of ground then another No more to a place where a Church is built then where men have now placed a Stable Our English Homilies which are confirmed by Law cry downe this crosse piece of Anabaptisme T is true God made all things and so the whole world is most justly his by that great right of Creation But yet the Psalmists words are as true The earth hath he given to the children of men So as that great God is now wel content to receive back what men will give him And this acceptance of his must needs in all reason make those things his more peculiarly Thus Christ calls the Temple his Fathers house 'T was God's and God's more peculiarly not onely by right of Creation but by gift Thus Lands given unto God are his and his more peculiarly His because he made them and his againe because having once given them to the children of men upon their gift
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-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