Rights of the Church in special cannot may not by any power be violated or taken away doe they yet grant such a power to Parliaments to take those Rights away and so expresly contradict themselves And can you conceive that King Henry the Third who first granted that Charter and gave the right Power to Parliaments would have suffered the two Houses yea or that himselfe would after that Grant made to the Church have decreed that he might justly use the power of Parliament to sell those Lands Or can you conceive that those Kings who gave the Bishops Lands for so it is said that the Kings of England gave them and that with such curses on their Successours or any who should dare to alienate or sell them ever meant they should be sold And tell me I pray for I am to learne where ever good and lawful Parliament did ever take away any single mans whole estate though it were to pay the Publike debt or for Publike use except it were in a legal course And can you conceive that the two Houses may doe that to the inheritance of God the Patronage of the King and the Rights of the Church which they cannot do to him who hath yeelded up his assent by giving his Vote to his Proxie in Parliament which neither God the King nor the Church hath done Pag. 700. in this Parliament I pray you consider that in the Book of your Declarations it is said That the Rights of Publike trust are not to the prejudice of any mans particular interest Argum. 8 And if it be yet urged that Parliaments may change the municipal Lawes of this Kingdom and therefore much more this of the Title or Tenure of Bishops Lands Resp I think I may rightly answer that the King and all the people of England by a mutual assent may change the general Laws or such Laws as they hold sitting and convenient to be altered for their better good for here is neither injury nor injustice to any but yet special Laws which concerne the good of some in speciall I conceive with humble submission may not justly be changed except it be by the assent personal Vote or Proxie of those interessed none of which can here be said of the Church or Bishops or unlesse some offence liable to such a penalty hath demerited such a sentence or change of that special Law and that no such offence hath been committed deserving such a penalty I presume to be true for that the Bishops have not been legally accused heard and tried which was ever the ordinary and right course used by the Hebrewes Romans and all Religious good and Civil Nations and which is the Law of this Kingdome Ch. 14. 29. as is expressed in the great Charter But I feare these two last Arguments and many more such are built on sands which washed or driven away with a little wind all the building fals to the ground for they take it for granted that the two Houses or rather that some Lords Temporal and Commons make the Parliament for the discovery whereof I pray consider 1. The conception 2. The birth 3. The growth and strength of Parliaments In the Saxon times when the seed or conception of Parliaments was at the making consirming or witnessing Laws seldome is there any mention but of the King and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal except the Kings Servants Aldermen Spelm. Concil some wise men c. Nay when our Parliaments first were borne in the nineth and twentieth of Henry the Third there is no mention then but of the King and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal Yea at the Grant of the great Charter there is only mention of one and thirty Lords Spiritual and two and thirty Lords Temporal Coke Proâ—m to 2 Instit Mat. Par. p. 435 Id. pag. 580. 581. Id. p. 636. in the one and twentieth of King Henry the Third in Parliament at Westminster And in the one and thirtieth of Henry the Third at London which were for the relief of the distressed Kingdome yet there were only mentioned the King and the whole Nobility of the Kingdome viz. the Bishops Prelates Earles and Barons But in the two and fiftieth of Henry the Third say our printed Statutes The King providing for the Estate of this Realm the more discreet men of the Kingdome being called as well of the higher as the lower estate the King hath made these Acts Ordinances and Statutes which he willeth to be observed of all for ever And so the formes of Acts in Parliament ran The King willeth provideth ordaineth granteth In the 31 Henry 6.1 The King ordaines by the advice and assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons being in the said Parliament In 1 Rich. 3.6 The Commons prayeth that it may please the King to ordaine 1. Eliz. 3. We the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons representing the three Estates of the Realme of England make our humble petition to your Highnesse Ch. of Parl. fol. 1 Whereupon saith Sr Edward Coke Without these three Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons no Act of Parliament can be good and rightly for as all the Freemen in England have Votes so the Bishops vote for themselves and all the Church-men in England And thereupon if they have no Votes in Parliament then either they are the onely slaves and no Free-men or else those Church-men are not bound by these Lawes it being a Maxime in our Law that no man is bound to that Law wherein he had no Vote in person or by Proxie which no Bishop and I think no Church-man hath now in this Parliament But not to dispute this though agreeable to all Law Justice and Reason yet sure it cannot be rightly called a Parliament or any Act therein binding without the Kings Royal assent for as in a natural body so in this no life nor motion without a Head which is the King yea therefore he is called Principium 4 Part Instit. s 3 4. Caput Finis Parliamenti because without the King or his Royal assent it is no binding Act. See but one Act for many 1 Jac. 1. where it is thus said We the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons beseech your Majesty c. which if your Majesty shall be pleased to adorne with your Majesties Royal assent without which it can neither be complete and perfect In answer to Judge Jenkin nor remaine to posterity And 1. Câ—r 7. the two Houses beseech the King to give his Royal assent to such Bils as they then passed and H. P. confesses which was never denied till of late and that but by some that no Acts of Parliament can be complete or formally binding without the Kings â—â—ent And so Mr Prynne affirmes Power of Parl. f. 47. Ib. fol. 104. In his Vindication p. 6. that the Kings assent is generally requisite to passe Lawes and ratifie them And Judge Jenkins that undanted Champion of our
Lawes affirmes that in all ages without any controversie this hath held so that no Act of Parliament bindes the Subject of this Land without the assent of the King either for person lands goods or same and refers you to Sr Edward Coke where many Law-books are cited to that purpose 1 part Insâ—it sect 234. The ignorant or wilful mistake of divers holding the two Houses and their Ordinances to be truly called Parliaments and Acts of Parliaments as it hath deceived many in their consciences and of their lives so may it in this of their moneys if not timely foreseen and prevented Argum. 9 But though the King in his natural capacity and power be personally absent from the two Houses yet his Politick power and capacity is virtually in them and therefore what the two Houses ordain must as necessarily bind as if the King were personally present with them Resp In answer to this I pray consider what that great Lawyer Mr Plowden and Sr Edward Coke have determined for Law Comment f. 21â— 242. In Calv. Case and they say that the Natural and the Politick body of the King make but one body for as long as the Natural body lives the Politick is inherent in it this being a thing imaginary and invisible And I pray consider how well our Law may be called Holy in that it agrees so well with Gods own holy Law Rom. 13.1 2. for so Saint Paul speaking of the Politick power not to be resisted settles this power in the person of the King to whom it belongeth when he saith Ver. 3. Ver. 4. Wilt thou not feare the power then doe that which is good for He not they is the Ruler and He not they it the Minister of God And Saint Peter differs not but rather declares the same when he thus speakes 1 Pet. 2.13 14. Submit your selves to the King as supreme and honour the King and what can hence be lesse inferred then this that the power whereby he is a King and his Supremacy whereby he is above all naturally resteth in the person of the King and therefore he is to be honoured for his power and he to be submitted unto because he is King and Supreme Now can any man reasonably conceive that this power being an essential accident inhering in the King shoulâ— without the Kings consent and will vanish from its own proper subject and be of it selfe truly inherent in another subject which is not capable of such an accident I say not capable for the two Houses being and remaining Subjects witnesse their owne usual stile We Your Majesties humble Subjects are not a subject capable of Supremacie in that Supremacie and Subjection are opposite Relatives and therefore cannot be at one and the same time in one and the same subject The King I grant though bodily absent yet may be present representatively in the two Houses speaking either by his great Seal or by his Commissioners by himself appointed which hath been often used in our Parliaments but to say that his power is in the two Houses without his will or grant is all one as if we should say the influence of the Sun should be inherent in the earth without the natural inclination or motion of the Sun seeing that as no body can be the proper subject wherein that influence doth naturally inhere but the Sun so no body nor persons can be the proper subject to containe and hold Royal Power and Supremacie but the person of the King or they to whom he will as the Sun dispense the rayes or influence thereof And if it hath been or now may otherwise be why I pray both now as heretofore have and doe the two Houses supplicate desire crave and beseech the King to give his Royal assent which naturally ariseth from that his Politick capacity and power thereby to make that Law without which Royal assent no man worthy the name of a Lawyer ever held that any Bill Decree or Ordinance was of force to bind the Subject as to a standing and continuing Law which is plainly shewed in Answer to the Argument next before But notwithstanding that an Act made by the King Lords and Commons doth bind yet if that Act be as I before have proved this Ordinance of selling the Church-Lands to be against Gods and mans Laws it is to be repealed because it is unlawful and unjust so to ordain or enact and the Parliament should do nothing against Law and Justice Argum. 10 I have read this Argument in print that God no where commands such Lands to be given or Bishops to hold them and therefore where no breach of a Commandement is there is no sin Resp It appears that King David intended to build an house to the Lord but the Lord would not that David should build it and yet the Lord said David did well 1 Reg 8.17 18 19. that it was in his heart to doe it God commended and accepted of Davids act although that act were no where commanded to King David And in Ezra mention is made of the free-will-offerings of those who offered willingly for the House of the Lord Ezra 1.3 7. whereas elsewhere under the Law the general precept for Free-will-offerings to God his House and Servants is avowed to be a part of Gods Service although the particular offerings of what how much is left un-commanded to every mans liberty to give this or that more or lesse as God shall put into his heart And although there be no particular command to this or that man to give this or that to Gods Service and Honour yet under the general Precepts Prov. 3.9 Luke 6.38 Honour the Lord with thy substance and Give and it shall be given unto you there is warrant enough if not Precept according to every mans ability freely to give and offer to God for his Honour and Service whether by money lands or other goods Let me aâ—â— Where doth Christ command the Jewes and Gentiles to feed and clothe his Disciples and Apostles What then Were they not to do it And Saint Paul cals the Corinthians Offerings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 16.3 Luke 22.1 liberality and the Corban of the Jewes as before cited was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gifts now gifts and liberalities are free-offerings and not duties of command And saith not Christ Luke 17.9 10. Doth he thanke that servant that did the things commanded I trow not He who will allow God no more then what commanded shall in this robb God of his offerings the Donors of their reward and his servants of their relief and it would prove a pestilent Jewish opinion and too great an enemy to Christianity which consists as in voluntary sufferings so in voluntary offerings above that which is in special commanded To conclude the Ministers under the Gospel hold not their lands by any special command or Precept from God but by free-gift of the Donor man
But why in Gods name are not the Assembly of Divines at Westminster consulted with in this point Or why doe not our conscientious Brethren read the Annotations of the Assembly who note that Egypt which would not in the greatest extremity of famine On Gen. 47. when all other mens lands were sold yet then that they would not sell the lands of the Priests shall rise up in judgement against the alienators or sellors of lands which have been dedicated to God or his Servants CHAP. VI. That this kind of Alienation is against Prudence Justice the good of the Kingdom in general and of the Tenents to such Lands in special BUt were there not so much said in Gods Book and by learned Orthodox Divines shall neither our owne Lawes nor Prudence nor Justice prevaile in this case to keep us from selling of Church Lands For what Justice is it to sell that which is not our owne And that these lands are 1. Gods I hope it is proved sufficiently by Gods words the verdict of allowed Divines and shall be further proved anon by the Lawes of our Land 2. They are the Bishops who are Gods Assignes and Usufructuaries and these lands are theirs by as good title in Law as any man can hold any land in this Kingdome 3. They are by Patronage the Kings for this is very lately professed in a good Parliament 1 Jacob. 3.3 in these words Whereas all the Lands of the Bishops in England and Dominion of Wales were given by Kings of England the full truth whereof I will not dispute whereby the King is become the lawfull and rightfull Patron of all those Lands therefore it is desired that the King would enact not that they without the King would or could no such power then knowne and what is desired not that the Bishops Lands should be sold but that they may not be leased out by the Bishops for longer terms of time then for 21. yeares or three lives no not to the Crowne And is this Justice so soone forgotten or so soone changed in so short a time that without the consent of God the Proprietary of the King the Patron and of the Bishops the Assignes the lands shall be utterly sold away And yet must we call this Justice I pray God this Justice call not for judgement from heaven And whether it can be just to sell the Bishops Lands I pray examine by that rule and touch-stone of true Moral Justice which our Lord Christ hath expressed in two short Precepts the one Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe The other Mat. 19.9 Mat. 7.12 Whatsoever ye would that men should doe unto you doe you even so unto them for this is the Law and the Prophets Now by the first rule examine your selves whether in this act of selling the Bishops Lands you love the Bishops as your selves And trie this by the other whether you would yeeld your consent as to a thing just that if the Bishops had your power they might and should preserve to themselves their own lands and expose yours to sale If your hearts speake the truth I feare they would denie this to be just in the Bishops against you and if so then be assured that in this act of selling the Bishops lands you doe not that which by the verdict of your owne conscience is just And if you will as Law-makers should look forward and provide for future times stands it with civil Prudence to sell those Lands away which doe and will yeeld so much for maintenance of the King and Kingdome in Tenths First-fruits Subsidies and Taxes which for the most part will bee swallowed up when fallen into Lay-hands 2. Stands it with civil Prudence to robb Tenents of so good penniworths as they now hold from Bishops and Church-men which they must not expect when in Lay-hands whereby they have beene enabled the better to serve the King and Kingdome in time of need 3. Stands it with Prudence and Charitr to cast so many into a state of beggery and danger of theeving who by Bishops and Church-men have been reasonably relieved by under Offices and places in the Church Upon the dissolution of the Religious Houses in the Reign of K. Henry the Eighth Chron. f. 773. Mr Speed saith that a great Rebellion was raised in Lincolnshire and the Rebels expressing the cause thereof to the King they say Wee grieve for the suppression of so many Religious Houses whereby the Pooralty of your Realme is unrelieved and many put off their livings which is a dammage to the Common-wealth Soone after another Rebellion arose in Yorkeshire where 40000. with Horse Armes and Artillery rose for Religion who had upon their sleeves the Name of the Lord the ground of their rising was saith the same Author That the King by his evill Counsellers will destroy the Ministers of the Church f. 775. which makes against the Common good 4. Stands it with a Religious and civil Prudence to robb Learning and Religion of that profit and preferment which encouraged the study and encrease both of Learning and Religion Prov. 14.4 Where no oxen are the crib is cleane And the Land soon after K. Solomon found this true 1 King 13.33 for when Jeroboam had taken away the best maintenance of the Priests what followed but that the Priests were chosen out of the lowest of the people Which I would it were not too true now in our Land and in after times the Church suffered more under Julian then Dioclesian for this tooke away the able men but that Apostate their maintenance I shall close this point with that memorable passage of Sr Edward Coke in Winchesters Case The decay of the Revenues of the Church will draw after it the downe-fall of Gods Service and Religion which God in mercy avert CHAP. VII That it is against the Lawes of this Kingdome of England which the two Houses of Parliament and Kingdome by their severall Declarations Protestations and Covenants are bound to maintaine BUt if neither Gods Word nor the Verdict of best Divines nor Justice nor Prudence can be heard yet I pray heare what our Lawes say in this case and yet before I urge these to which I am as much a stranger as to the Profession let me remember you with that which I have heard to be a Maxime in our Law That no Statute Law or Custome which are against Gods Law or Principles of Nature can be of any validity but are all null which if granted it will save me the paines to cite our Lawes as having before proved that it is against Gods Law to sell away the lands of Bishops Yet let me adde that one Statute saith 1 Edw. 3. c. 2. That the King by evil Counsellors caused the Temporalties of Bishops to be seized into his hands for a time to the great dammage of the said Bishops which from henceforth shall not be done and this Statute is not repealed and therefore
is in its full force at this day as all other Statutes unrepealed are I might add another Statute 17 Edw. 2. that when the Templars theeving bloudy decried Souldiers had their Lands taken from them yet were not those lands then divided among Parliament men nor sold for the Common-wealth although the Kingdome at that time was in distresse and want enough I beleeve more then now no the then Parliament surely conceived they might doe neither of these they therefore translated those lands and settled them on the Priorie of St John of Jerusalem and in the same Statute it is inserted that the Parliament then did not alienate the Lands of those Templars 1. Because they were given to God though possessed by men 2. Because they held it a sinne to rob the Donors of their gift 3. Because they held it would prove mortal to the Alienators and these causes were then held sufficient to keep a Parliament from selling or alienating Church Lands And it is in the same Statute provided that if in after times the said Hospitalers or their successors shall be put out of any of those lands they shall have power to recover the same according to the Law of the Realm I have likewise read that in the 25 Edw. 1. it is declared In the Review of the Covenant Printed 1644. That Lay-men have no authority to dispose of the Lands or Goods of the Church for they are only committed to the Priests to be disposed of I confesse I finde it not in the printed Statutes but this I find and read there That none high nor low by any occasion 3 Edw. 1. c. 1. shall course in any Parke nor fish in any Pond of a Prelate or other Religious person without the leave or will of the Lord or of his Bayliffe In those times sure the Parliaments found not that they had power to sell away the Bishops Lands and I conceive that the Parliament deemed not then that they had any such power by reason of the great Charter granted by this Kings father which Charter Sr Edward Coke calls the Bulwarke of the Subjects Tenures in England and therefore upon this give me leave a little longer to insist as being a maine part and foundation of our Lawes One Statute enacts 42 Edw. 3. c. 1. That if any Statute be made contrary to the great Charter it shall be void which Statute is still in force and now heare what this Charter speakes concerning the Lands of the Church and of Bishops and then say truely whether it be not against the Law of England to sell these Lands In this Charter confirmed two and thirty times by our best Parliaments it is expresly said Wee have granted to God and by this our Charter have confirmed for us and our heires for ever that the Church of England shall be free and shall have all her whole Rights 2 part Institut in Procemio and Liberties inviolable The great Charter saith Sr Edward Coke is no new Law but it is declaratory of the principal fundamental Lawes of England 25. Edw. 1. And he saith The Nobles and great Officers were to be sworn to the observation of it and by a Parliament it was judged to be taken as the Common Law of England and well may considering the four causes or ends of that Charter as is exprest in the entrance viz. 1. The honour of God 2. The health of the Kings soul 3. The advancement of the Church 4. The amendment of the Kingdome And now heare this Law speake which is almost the same which was granted by K. John in the nineteenth yeare of his Reign with the interpretation of the Oracle of our Law Paris p. 255. Sir Edward Coke on the Charter and first as all best Grants have it begins with God and saith Concessimus Deo where the Interpreter saith What is given to the Church as Bishops lands were is given to God and what hath this Law granted to God Why that the Church shall be free where the Interpreter tells you that by the Church is meant all Ecclesiastical persons their possessions and goods And these shall be free saith he from all exactions and oppressions and to sell away their lands is it neither oppression nor exaction If not heare the Charter and Interpreter goe on Wee have granted to God that the Church shall have all her Rights entire i.e. saith the Interpreter That all Ecclesiastical persons shall enjoy all their Rights wholly without diminution or substraction whatsoever Whereby saith hee all their Rights are confirmed as they had them before or as at the first grant and then they had them not to be sold It goes on and that the Church or Church-men have and hold all their liberties Which liberties saith he grants them the liberty of the Law of England the Privilege of Parliaments and all Grants by Charter or Prescription and shall none of these keep the Bishops Lands from sale Moreover these Grants are not alone for that or any set time but for ever Heare the Charter This we have granted to the Church i.e. Church-men for our selves and our heires for ever Which saith the Interpreter is added to take away all scruple that this Charter or Grant should live and take effect for ever And which is not unworthy your observation 12 Hen. 3. p. 23. in our printed Statutes there is an heavy Curse denounced against all those who shall breake this great Charter And now if you grant which I think you will not denie that this Charter is a part of our Law then I hope it will follow that by our Law the Lands of the Church or of Bishops may not be sold or alienated You have seene what the Charter hath granted the Bishops as Church-men Chap. 19. now consider what the same Charter grants them as free-borne Subjects of the Kingdome Nullus liber homo saith it capiatur vel imprisonetur vel disseisiatur de libero Tenemento suo vel libertatibus vel liberis consuetudinibus suis nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terrae Where the Interpreter expounds 1. Who is a free-man 2. What disseising is 3. What is the Law of the Land To the first he saith That every free-born Subject is meant here to be a free-man To the second to be disseised saith he is to be put out of his seisin or dispossessed of his free-hold that is lands or livelihood To the third by the Law of the Land saith he that is either by the Common Law or the Statute Law or the Custome of England And for further explanation adds by the Law of the Land is understood by processe of Law by indictment or presentment of good and lawful men And all this saith he is no new Law or grant but it is onely declaratory of the Law of England And this saith he should admonish Parliaments that in stead of this pretious trial by the Law of
to the Ordinance And I am confident by the discourse I have had with the most able of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster that at the least three parts if not all of them are of the same judgement with this Preacher and that they would openly professe as much if they were put to answer the question Object But some perchance will say that the King sweares all this but to his power and therefore his power to defend Bishops being taken away he is absolved from perjury Answer Too too many I feare there are who by false lights have and will mislead the best of Princes and men and that this is a light of that kind you wil easily discerne when you consider that the defence of the Bishops in this case is onely that the King give not his assent to the selling of Bishops Lands And who can say but that this is in the Kings power For who can force him to speake or to speake what another will or that which is against his own will to speake And therefore if he doe assent to the selling their lands he defends them not to his power and thereby falls into an irreparable perjury and becomes liable to the punishments due and threatned in Gods Law one place for many Zach. 5.4 Perjury shal remain in the midst of the house of him that sweareth falsly and shal consume it by which house is not onely meant the material house of timber and stone but as often in Scripture his wife children and posterity it shall consume them Yea Mr Geree above mentioned confesseth That the King by his Oath is bound to protect the Church so far as he can without sinning and being injurious now in not assenting against whom sins he being not bound by any Law to assent Whereas if he doe assent he is palpably injurious to the Church and therefore this Author concludes thus Then the King at the worst is to get the Clergies assent Wherein he seemes to implie that without that the King justly may not give his assent and he gives his reason for it in the same place where he saith The King may not engage himselfe against the Lawes and legal Rights of others For that were saith he not cedere jure suo but alieno to give away another mans right which is unjust Wil you give me leave to put you a Scripture case The Gibeonites by Nation Heathen by Religion Idolatrous by fraud and a lie gain from Joshua and the Princes of Israel a promise to protect them Josh 9. Now observe although this promise was fraudulently obtained and rashly made without asking Gods counsel or the consent of the people yea although it was against that which was enjoyned Israel which was to destroy all the Nations how zealous God is that an Oath be kept which is made in his Name for his honour and whereof he is a witnesse That because Saul brake this League or Covenant with the Gibeonites above three hundred yeares after when a man would hardly have conceived that King Saul had been bound to performance of it 2 Sam. 21. I say for the breach of that fraudulently got and rashly made Covenant God puisheth the whole land with a famine for three yeares yeare after yeare and yet would not be pacified without the hanging up of almost all Sauls posterity And if God be so severe a Judge in such a case as this what can the King or this Land expect from heaven if he should after much consultation long deliberation and the many protestations as I am informed that it is against his conscience violate so just so holy an Oath as this But I trust the King though he had never taken such an Oath will in his frequent reading Gods holy Word consider that act before mentioned of King Pharaoh who Gen. 47. in that greatest case of extremity famine would not then suffer the Priests lands to be sold and the rather I hope the King will remember and consider that act of Pharaoh 1 King 2.26 because the Bishops as K. Solomon spake of Abiathar the high Priest have bean afflicted in all as the King Faith saith our old Protestant Religion s to be kept with Idolaters and Hereticks whom we hold the worst of men and must a pious Protestant King be forced to breake it with the best of his Subjects O how will the enemies of our Religion blaspheme for this and what King or Nation will hereafter trust our King who in breaking so just and solemne an Oath as that at his Coronation wil rob his God lose his faith forfeit his soule destroy agoodly flourishing Church and utterly undo them who have hazarded all thereby to keep loyalty and a good conscience I close this point with this wish that all they who presse the King contrary to his Oath to assent to the alienation of Bishops Lands would remember that Justice Trisilian was hanged for causing Speed Chron. in Rich. 2. or procuring the King to breake his Oath as it hath beene often urged in this Parliament CHAP. IX One and twenty Arguments which are brought in defence of or colour for such Alienation are answered BUt avarice pride ill affections or finister ends I feare notwithstanding what hath or may further be alleged will urge what I shall here endevour to answer Argum. 1 God is not the proprietarie of Bishops Lands more then he is of the whole Creation and therefore we may as well sell those as any other lands in the Kingdom T is true The earth is the Lords and the fulnesse thereof Resp Psa 24.11 all are Gods by Creation Providence and Preservation yet when God hath given them to man they are the mans and he in our Law language is become the Proprietarie which is no more then Sr Edward Coke saith What is given to Church-men is given to God and it is then Gods Yea in Gods word Instit. 2. c. 1. Saint Peter saith of Ananias his land While it was thine owne was it not in thine owne power Acts 5.4 But when men shal give this againe to God and that God accepts it then it is as plainly Gods again and God is the Proprietarie of it as of his own Proved likewise from the same Text where after Ananias his dedication Saint Peter saith that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a lie deceive God Ver. 3. in that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 purloyne or cheat God of that which was now become Gods Yea and Christ accepting as his what was given to his Disciples and Apostles makes himselfe by the acceptation thereof a Proprietarie of that too Mat. 25.40 so he professeth In that ye have given meate and drinke to these my Brethren ye have given it to me and what is given to me is mine as well as what I might have purchased or might come to me by descent Mat. 10.1 and that by these Brothren may rightly be
understood his Disciples and Apostles read Chap. 10. 1. where he cals his twelve Disciples whom he sends to preach and then in the close speaking of them he saith Who receiveth you Ver. 40. receiveth me And accordingly Saint Paul as I before proved maketh Sacrilege or taking away holy things a breach of the first Table which concerneth God which could not be unlesse God were the Proprietarie and owner of them but of such disputers I may say as Christ did of those Jewes Mark 12.24 Do you not erre because you know not the Scriptures nor the power of God What need we plainer proofe then our owne Law when as the great Charter speaking now in the name of King and people in Parliament saith We have granted to God c. Argum. 2 But the great Charter on which the Bishops so much relie was probably penned or gained by Bishops and it was granted in time of Poperie and savours too much of it Resp If the great Charter were obtained or penned by Bishops I know not but all Englishmen should rather commend then blame them for it for it is the best flower in Englands garden and I presume it savours not of Poperie but to such as have their senses stopped or themselves ill affected But if there be any Poperie proved in the Grant take that away in Gods name but let the Rights and the Lands continue for I know not how these can be capable of Poperie But wil all others who receive benefit by that Charter hold it null because granted in time of Poperie I trow not That which silences all such cavils is that as before it is proved this Charter was and is but the declaration and confirmation of the ancient Law of this Kingdome and therefore ought to hold and bind and then let me adde the first Impropriations in England were in time of Poperie and by Popes who of 9284. Parishes impropriated the Tithes of 3845. of the best of them which Tithes now for the most part are in Lay hands And thou that abhorrest Poperie committest thou Sacrilege For we say the Receiver is worse then the Thiefe Or why rather abhorrest not thou that act And why restorest not thou the Tithes being Sacrilegiously taken Argum. 3 But these or many of these Lands of the Bishops were given as by superstitious men and in superstitious times so to superstitious uses Resp Who doubts not but many good lawful and religious acts may have been performed in superstitious times and by superstitious persons Time or person do not I am sure should not denominate the act simply good or ill But was King Lucius who An. 176. gave the Church in England Lands was he superstitious Or those times such Who can prove it But which are the superstitious uses in Bishops lands Are they Preaching keeping Hospitality doing acts of Piety Justice Charity paying the King his due and serving the Publike For I finde no worse But grant there were some superstitious uses in the first Grant yet why shall the lands be taken and sold if the abuses be by the Bishops or other wayes taken away And Mr Geree before mentioned pag. 19. saith it What was Antichristian and contrariant to the Lawes of this Land was taken from the Church in the reigne of King Henry the Eighth And though the impulsive cause of giving some lands might be ill as to pray for the soules of the dead or the like yet the final cause being good as given to God why not separate the ill take away praying for the dead and the like all which is done and yet continue the good the keeping the Lands for Gods Honour and Service For read you not that the bullock which was set apart for the Sacrifice of Baal Judg. 6.26 yet Gideon sacrificed it to the Lord because it was not then in state Idolatrous Things I confesse which have and retaine the matter forme and dependence on Idols as having the badge of Idolatry these are not to be offered or continued to God and his Service which Bishops Lands neither had nor have no not so much as is continued in the City of Londons Armes or some great mens Coates they have not so much as a Crosse on them But if all should be taken away that hath been given to superstitious uses what would become of our Churches and if all abolished that hath been abused what would become of our Pulpits Communion Tables Sacraments yea of Parliaments or that most adored peece of Gods Service Preaching Exod. 23.2 In a word the censers are by wicked persons to as wicked ends abused by Korah and his complices what then are they therefore sold or turned into pots kettles or the like the like whereof hath been done in our times no but they were by Gods owne ordinance preserved in their holy kind Ver. 18. and that because as it is expressed in the Text They were hallowed to the Lord. Argum. 4 But the King it is said is bound to confirme what the two Houses have decreed and they have ordained the selling of the Bishops Lands Resp I shall passe by that so often fully answered Elegerint and shall confidently say that the King is no more bound to assent to what they decree then they are bound to decree and to sell the Bishops Lands to which they are not bound if the thing be not just and agreeable to the Law of God and man which whether so or no Chap. 4 5 6. I desire you consider what is before expressed The Precept of God I hope in your judgements holds Exod. 23.2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to doe evil againe if that which appeares good and just to the two Houses be evil in the conscience of the King the King is not bound nay he ought not to joyne with the two Houses for Protestants as they rightly hold no salvation by implicite faith so neither that one mans conscience should ride upon the backe of another so that although some in Parliament may in part be excused in doing that which is not just through the false guidance of an erring conscience yet the King in doing the same thing against the light of his conscience may sinne whereupon further it may become a fearfull sinne by any tentation of promises threats restraints to draw or drive the King to assent to what his conscience forbids him to doe Againe the case betwixt the King and the two Houses in selling the Bishops Lands is very different for the King is bound by Oath to the Bishops to maintaine them and their Rights in their lands and possessions according to Law and Justice to which the two Houses stand not alike and so deeply obliged whereupon it followes I conceive that though the two Houses might the contrary whereof is before proved yet the King ought not to give his assent Lastly 1 Jac. 3. Coke Instit 4. the King as the Act of Parliament stiles him is the
Patron of the Bishops Lands and our Common Law makes him the Churches Guardian and is the King bound to follow others who have not the like charge or duty on them and so defraud a Pupil whom by Gods and mans Law his own Oath and conscience he is bound to defend and maintaine The Bishop doing fealty the King holds the Bishops hands betwixt his owne which saith Sr Edward Coke from Bracton Britton and others shewes that the King promiseth him protectionem Instit 1. p. 1. Sect. 85. defensionem warrantiam And addes that this the King promiseth to him not as to a Subject but as to a Bishop and not to his person alone but to his possessions And this Sr Edward Coke cals Foedus from Fides and termes it Sacramentum Fidelitatis which therefore the King may not upon other mens judgements and consciences breake Consider I pray what the wisest King on earth counselled all Kings and others Be not rash with thy mouth Eccles 5.2 4. and let not thy heart be hasty to utter any thing or word before God but when thou vowost a vow to God deferre not to pay it for he hath no pleasure in fooles pay that which thou hast vowed And which comes home to the vow and thing vowed It is a snare to devoure holy things Prov. 25.20 and after the vow to make enquiry i.e. how to breake it Argum. 5 But the King hath assented to as much in Scotland thereby to gratifie his people there and why not then to doe as much for his Parliament in England Resp It cannot be denied but that the best of Kings as of other men have had their lapses but they are so far from being bound after the sight and sense of an error to fall into the same againe that on the contrary they are obliged to repent and eschew the like for ever 2. What the King in that case there hath done whether it were voluntary or compulsory suddenly or deliberately I cannot tell onely this I say if through passion ill counsel or the like he did that once there which should not have been done it followes not that hee may or should doe the like againe or here But 3. we are to understand whether the Bishops stood so enstated in their lands in that Kingdome as the Bishops doe in England 4. But especially to know whether the King stood bound to God the Bishops the Kirk of Scotland by the same or such Contracts Oathes Charters as he stands in England wherein if there be a difference as I verily perswade my self there is then it will not follow the King did it in Scotland therefore he may or should doe it in England Argum. 6 Yet Parliaments have alienated Bishops Lands whereby they may plead it as a Privilege to doe the like Resp I cannot say that one Act scarce an hundred years old can make or warrant a Privilege for no just Privilege can be induced but upon acts rightly and lawfully grounded And Mr Calvin from Saint Gregory saith De neces refor Eccles Chap. 4 5 6. Privilegium meretur amittere qui Privilegio abutitur So that if it be true which I laid down before that it is a sin to alienate such Lands then à factoad jus non sequitur Argumentum it hath been unjustly done therefore it may be lawfully done a Plough-man will say holds not Now to affix or conceive an inerrability in a Parliament is I hope more then the Parliament will assume to themselves we Protestants have denied it to the Church of Rome Ball. Catoples nay their own greatest Jesuits disclaime it in matter of fact But if a hundred years sithence the King in Parliament used this power to alienate Church Lands yet not much above forty years agoe 1 Jac. 3. in King James his time the Parliament without the King waved the having any such power or privilege For that Act shewes that the two Houses in Parliament had not power to hinder Bishops from making Leases to the Crown for above one and twenty yeares or three lives and how in this short time the Power and Privilege is so vastly encreased I know not except it be by the Sword which kind of Power as it was never held the best so it hath not ever proved long liv'd or I am sure not ever peacefull Belshazzar might have argued thus I use but those holy vessels which my father in a lawful war hath gained from a common enemy and left them so to me his Heir and Successour And did not the rebellious Israelites seem to plead the like Mal. 3. We doe but deteine the Offerings as our Fathers have done before us And doth God admit of these No their Prescription he useth as an aggravation of their offence saying From the dayes of your Fathers ye have departed from mine Ordinance Ver. 7. Dan. 5. Mal. 3.11 and therefore heare Gods sentence on both Belshazzar and Israel where the King is punished with losse of the Empire and a sudden fearful death and Israel is strooke with a lamentable destroying famine and such are Gods just rewards upon unjust Privileges and unlawful Prescriptions Argum. 7 But a Parliament may take away any mans lands in the Kingdome for this is an inherent and inseparable power of Parliaments Resp The Rule is good Id possumus quod jure justè possumus We are not truly said to may or can do any thing but that which we can or may justly doe Now if it be as before I proved against Gods and mans Law and Justice to sell away Bishops Lands then the Parliament may not doe it For the Parliament this Parliament often hath declared and sworn to maintain the Lawes of this Kingdom which are utterly against such Alienation The Jewes are told 1 Sam. 8. the King shall take their sons their fields c. and they shall find no help What I pray is the sense and extent of that power in the King Is it that by his just Right he might doe all that is spoken of him in that Chapter because it is said Ver. 10. this will be the manner and custome of the King so to doe Ask the Assembly of Divines at Westminster and I doubt not but they will tell you that if that King and Sanedrin and all Israel joyntly go beyond the Word of God and the Laws prescribed to them all their power could not save them from the guilt of sin nor reprieve them from Gods severe wrath When the lands were given as most were in the Saxon Kings times I dare say it cannot be proved that there was such power in the Nobility and people as to sell away the Church-Lands for the first large Grant or power of Parliaments was in Henry the Third's time and the same King it was that granted the Charter wherein is exprest that the Rights of the Church shall be ever inviolable Now if that Charter and those Parliaments say the
Order be rich and proud shal the Function be rooted out for the offence of the person or was this ever held agreeable to Religion Law Justice or right Reason There was a Judas a Traytor who carried the bag among the twelve Apostles of Christ did Christ therefore take away the Apostleship Some Angels rebelled against God did God therefore destroy all the Angels as Rebels James and John would sit one at the right the other at the left hand of their Lord Christ must all the Apostles therefore be despised as proud and usurpers And to take away the Bishops Lands and give them a portion is it not to take away their meat and make them feed all on pottage Or to deale with them as some Idolaters or Eli's sons did who took the flesh or best part of the Sacrifices to themselves and sacrificed the bones or worst to God Or comes not this too neer our English Proverb to steal a goose and stick in place of it the feathers And when it is said they shall have a sitting maintenance for that is all can be challenged from the Scripture remember what Christ replied to those that murmured at the lord of the vineyards bounty to some of the labourers more then others Is thine eye evil because I am good Mat. 20.15 Or repinest thou at that which I have given to those labourers being it is lawful for me to doe with mine what I wil which holds right both in the several Kings giving the Lands and Gods accepting and allowing them to his Ministers But if we be to be pittanced by a competency as it is called who I pray shall be the Steward or Distributor Shall he that robs the true man of his purse give back what he thinks competent And shall this be held just If we understand and beleeve the Prophet it is God that is robbed and who shall judge but God Or what competency is fitting to be allowed to him Is it one or two hundred pounds per Annum If the best Interpreters even of our modern Divines may be heard they will tell you from Gal. 6. and 1 Cor. 16. that this maintenance must be honorable and hath this been performed when for two three foure yeares you have taken all from them and yet not so much as charging them with any offence against Law or your own Ordinances And is this Justice or an honorable maintenance Or would your Honors be content with the like Argum. 17 I have heard that which I would rather truly call a Project then an Argument that the Bishops in England antiently had the First-fruite and Tenths of all the Spiritual livings in every Diocese which were the proper maintenance of those Bishops and that therefore these might be restored to the Bishops in lieu of the Lands which by the Ordinance should be taken from them Resp To which I must desire you to know that this Project or Device is grounded upon a double mistake for 1. the maintenance of Bishops ever since they were in England was by lands such as were given them by their Royal Benefactors and others 2. The Bishops in England held or had not those First-fruits and Tenths but the Bishop of Rome who under the false pretended Title of Universal Bishop Mat. Paris in H. 3. p. 849. usurped and took the same in England as he did almost in most parts of Christendome besides witnesse that Grant of the Pope who De potestate sibi à Deo concessâ Pol. Virg. Hist Angl. lib. 20. gave those Tenths for three years to K. Henry the Third And the like of Pope Vrban who gave the Tenths in this Kingdome to K. Richard the Second to aid him against Charles the French King and those that upheld Clement the Seventh against him after which they were paid to the Pope again until they were restored to the Crown by K. Henry the Eighth 2 K. H. 8. c. 3. for that the King as in that Statute he was stiled the Head of the Church or rightly is the Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor in all causes and over all persons Ecclesiastical Now then if it might be just to grant the Bishops these First-fruits and Tenths in lieu of their Lands yet what Justice can it be to rob as we say Peter to pay Paul to take that which is the Kings just right from him thereby to satisfie for that which is unjustly taken from God and the Church So that as this Project failes in the ground so in the superstructure too it tends to a double Injustice the one against the King and the other against the Church and yet if this could be done without Injustice to either I know not how to clear the act from impiety or Sacrilege when God by his Prophet as I before urged the Text saith Thou shalt not exchange that which is holy to the Lord Ezek. 48. Lev. 27.13 Except as it is excepted for the Levite and Priest it may clearly appear that the exchange be for the better which this cannot be Again if by an Act these Lands on these conditions be now taken from the Church then by another Act of Resumption or Restitution those First-fruits and Tenths may be taken away from the Church again and restored as of right belonging to the Crown and wherein then shall there be a maintenance for Bishops in the Church Argum 18 It hath been urged thereby to root out Episcopacy that the King gives those Bishopricks and so their Lands and by these means he holds the Bishops at his beck to say or do what he will Resp 'T is true that this was urged in Parliament for taking away the Bishops Votes there which being done why yet to take away their lands for these have no Vote in Parliament Or why not to take away as well the lands of all those who hold by Office Tenure or Honor from the King Yea or from all those who make conscience to keep Faith and Loyalty Or why not rather on the other side may ye not enact that all Bishops who shall hereafter act or assist against the Parliament shall lose their estates which is as much as in Justice can be done For will you forbid all Wine Knives Swords and the like for these have and may againe doe mischief and so have Parliaments too But God forbid all these should be taken away upon these grounds I confesse I have heard that Mr Knox in Scotland counselled after this manner Pull down the Crows nests said he for such homely or slovenly Similes they mostly use as best becoming them and sitting the palats of their Auditors for else the black Birds will build againe but of this counsel ere he died he repented though too late for when the steed was stollen he advised the Clergy by word and pen to gain-stand this black Sacrilegious act of taking away the patrimony and possessions of the Church Argum. 19 But we have bound our selves by an