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 [Page 26] 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 tis 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 [...] 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 tis 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: whats 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, [Page 27] 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 [...] signifyes God, and altogether as well, whether [...] signifyes the Gospell.

The New Testament will afford more places for this purpose; Thou that abhorrest Idols, committest thou Sacriledge? Rom. 2. 22. Tis 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, tis 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 'twill 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, tis 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 [Page 28] Lawes call Bona nullius, it strikes downright immediate­ly at God, and in that regard no Idolatry can out doe-it: as this is, tis 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, tis 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. 2 Sam. 7. 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, Act. 27. 8. 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, Mal. 3. 8. 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 [...]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 [Page 30] 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: Aquin. 2. 2. qu. 39. Art. 1. 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, tis 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 [...], from [...], Praeda, or spolium: So that Sacriledge is not to be defined onely by theft strictly taken, but tis 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, Ibid. Art. 3. that Sacriledge reaches out [Page 31] 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 'twere 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, tis enough to quote the Prophets words, Will a man rob God? yet ye have robbed me, Mal. 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 [Page 32] 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 tis 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, tis 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 [Page 33] York▪ House; but I must informe him that that Act was lawfull, because 'twas 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 Co [...]munion Cup for instance or the like) and th [...]se you know must be of things moveable, [...] ci­vil Law, and how theft can be of Lands, or [...] [Page 34] 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 tis Sacriledge, and so a sinne, to take a Cup from the Church, and tis 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, [...] verum de Furto. Gel. l. 11. c. [...]lt. 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 its 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 [Page 35] 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? L. verum. 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 tis 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 [Page 36] 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 back [...] 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 obli [...]ge Christians, as if it were found in the Now. [And [...] that they enjoy their [...] by the [...] [Page 37] 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 [Page 38] 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, 'twas 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 [Page 39] what she hath thus promised to God, 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 [Page 40] 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 tis 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 [Page 41] 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, tis 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 tis alwayes so, when any one Benefactor doth by vertue of a Mortmaine convey his Lands to any kind of Corpo­ration.

Againe, [Nor doe I underst and 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 [Page 42] 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. Tis 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: 'Twas 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 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, [Page 43] 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, tis 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 tis partly Episcopal, something for the act at least in Comitiis, because tis 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 tis made a profane Church, tis therefore fit [Page 44] 'twere no Church at all.

He proceeds. [And as for their curses (those Bug-beare words) I could never yet learne that an unlawfull curse was any prejudice but to the Author: of which sort those curses must needs be, which restraine the Parliament, or any there from ex­ercising a lawfull and undenyable power, which in instances would shew very ridiculous, if any curse should prejudice ano­thers lawfull right. I am sure such curses have no warrant from the Law of God, or this Nation.] No warrant from the Word of God? I conceive there is a very cleare one: & our Mother-Church commends it to the use of her sons in the expresse words of her Commination, Cursed be he that removeth away the mark of his neighbours lands: and all the people shall say, Amen. Deut. 27. 17. If he be accursed that wrongs his neighbour in his Lands, what shall he be that injures God? If a curse light upon him (and a publique curse confirmed by an Amen made by all the people) who removes but the mark whereby his neigh­bours Lands are distinguisht; sure a private curse may be annexed by a Benefactor unto his Deed of Donation, in case men should rob the very lands themselves that have been once given to their mother.

That such curses restraine the Parliament in its law­full undenyable Rights, is (you have told me) but a great mistake: For though the Parliament may Impunè (which in some sense is called lawfully) take away the Church Lands, (though it may doe it without punish­ment, because (the King being there) it is the highest power) yet that Court it selfe cannot do it Justè, cannot doe it without sinne, and that a fouler sinne then the re­moving a Land-marke, and then a fouler curse may fol­low it. Let the Epistler then take heed of these more then bug-beare words; For believe it, Sir, in such curses [Page 45] 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 tis 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 tis to let you know, that if this Epistler had been right in both his Conclusions, That Episcopacy is not of Divine institution, & that Sacriledge is no sinne; yet if you cast your Eyes upon His Majesties Coronation Oath, wherein he is so strict­ly sworne to defend both the Episcopall Order, and the Church-lands and possessions, you would easily acknow­ledge that the King cannot yeeld to what this Letter aims [Page 46] 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:

In the First Clause tis 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 [Page 48] 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, tis 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 tis 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 [Page 49] 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 tis only the power-roy­all that can make a Law to be a Law; so that if the King should passe a Statute to take away the Church-lands, he protects it not to his power: since tis 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; tis 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.

[Page 50] 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, tis 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 tis 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, tis 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 And it cannot therefore be remitted but by them alone for whose sake the Oath was taken. So that when (in the second Paragraph of the first clause, and more plainly in the fift) he sweares a benefit to the Bishops alone, in the behalfe of them and their Churches, tis apparent that this Oath must perpetually bind, except a remission can be obtained from the Bishops themselves, and their Chur­ches he was sworne to.

This then must be confessed to be the sense of the oath, that when the King hath first sworn in generall to grant, keepe and confirme the Lawes and Customes of the peo­ple of England, he farther yet particularly sweares unto the Clergy, to preserve their Lawes and Priviledges, and Customes; because since they are not able to make a ne­gative in Parliament, so that the Clergy may easily be swallowed up by the People and the Lords: Therefore in a more particular manner they have obtained an oath to be made unto them by the King, which being for their particular benefit, it cannot be remitted without their [Page 51] expresse consent, so that although an Act of Parliament being once passed by the Votes of the King and both Houses, it doth Sir (as you have told me) bind the whole People of England: yea the whole People as it includes the Clergy too; yet it concernes the King by vertue of his Oath to give his Vote unto no such Act as shall pre­judice what he hath formerly sworne unto them, except he can first obtain their expresse consent, that he may be thereby freed from his juratory obligation.

It may be said perhaps that in the consent given by both Houses of Parliament, the consent of the Clergy is ta­citely implyed, and so it is, (say our Lawyers as you have told me Sir) in respect of the power obligatory, which an Act so passed obtaines upon them, for they affirme that it shall as strongly bind the Clergy, as if they them­selves had in expresse termes consented to it. Although Bishops being men barred from their Votes in Parlia­ment, And neither they nor their inferiour Clergy ha­ving made choice of any to represent them in that great Councell, their consents can in no faire sense be said to be involved in such Acts as are done as well without their representative presence, as they once without their personall.

But the Question is, whether a tacite consent, (though it be indeed against their expresse wils) can have a power remissory to absolve the King from his Oath; he that af­firmes it hath, must resolve to meet with this great ab­surdity, that although (besides his Generall Oath unto the whole People of England) His Majesty be in particu­lar sworne unto the Rights. of the Clergy, yet they ob­taine no more benefit by this, then if he had sworn onely in generall; which is as much as to say, that in this little draught Oathes are multiplyed without necessity, nay [Page 52] without signification at all, and that the greater part of the first, and the whole fourth clause, are nothing else but a meere painfull draught of superfluous tautologies.

For his yeelding to the two first lines swears him to keep and confirme the Lawes and customes of the whole peo­ple of England; which word (People) includes those of the Clergy too, and therefore in generall their Lawes and Customes are confirmed no doubt in those words, and so confirmed that they cannot be shaken but at least by their tacite consent in a Parliamentary way. But since the King condescends to afford to their Rights, a more particular juratory tye, there is no doubt but it binds in a way too, that is more particular; so that His Majesty can­not expect a remission of this oath, without their con­sents clearely expressed: For as when the King sweares to keep the Lawes of the People in general, he cannot be acquitted but by the expresse consent of the people, or by a body that represents the People, quatenus the people▪ so that when in particular he sweares unto the Lawes and Customes of the Clergy, this Oath must needs bind un­til it be remitted in an expresse forme, either by the whole Clergy, themselves, or by some Body of men at least, that represents the Clergy, quatenus the Clergy, and not only as they are involved in the great body of the People, so that he that shall presume to perswade His Majesty to passe an Act in prejudice of this ecclesiastical Body (to whom he is thus sworn) without their expresse consent first obtained, councels him to that which is both grosly injurious unto his fellow Subjects, nay which is in­deed a most damnable wickednesse against the very soule of the King.

Sir, as I conceive tis now plaine enough, that if the Par­liament should destroy the Episcopall Order, and take a­way [Page 53] the Lands of the Church; the Houses in that Act would runne themselves into two sinnes, and His Majesty into three; and upon this supposition the Epistler and I are agreed: [I do not thinke (saith he) Conveniency or Neces­sity will excuse Conscience in a thing in it selfe unlawfull] and before that, he calls the contrary the Tenet of the Ro­manist, or Jesuited Puritan: Onely I would beseech him for his own soules sake to consider how great a scandall he hath given to mankind, in defence of such sinnes as these. For I conceive that Durand offended more in hol­ding Fornication was no sinne against the Law naturall, then Shechem did (who was onely under that Law) in his Lust upon old Jacobs Daughter, Fraudem legi facere, (saith the Civilian) is worse then Legem violare, it argues a more un-Subject-like disposition for a man to put tricks and quirks upon his Prince his Lawes, then to runne him­selfe into a down-right violation: And God we know is King, I am a great King (saith the Lord of Hosts) and a King in whose hand is vengeance, Malach. 1. 14. Tis true Sir, we are thus put into a very sad condition, when the only Op­tion that seemes left us now, is either to choose sinne or ruine; but yet (if well used) tis a condition glorious; a condition wherein all that noble Army of Martyrs stood, before they could come at Martyrdome, and if in prepa­ration of mind we thus lay our lives downe at the feet of Christ, I am undoubtedly perswaded tis our only way to preserve them.