AN answer TO A LETTER written at OXFORD, And superscribed to Dr. SAMVEL Turner, Concerning the CHURCH, and the Revenues thereof.  
Wherein is showed, how impossible it is for the King with a good conscience to yield to the change of Church-Government by Bishops, or to the alienating the Lands of the Church.  
Printed in the year, MDCXI. VII.   

Faults escaped, correct thus.  
Page 5. line 30. for laws read Lands. p. 7. l. 30. r. preserving. p. 9 l. 8. r. this in the Postscript. p. 12. l. 20. r. visum. p. 17. l. 15. r. and elsewhere, part. p. 18. l. 27. for then r. that. p. 19 l. 11. for since, r. sure. p. 19 l. 15. r. aliquid. p. 20. l. 20. for this r. the. p. 21. l. ult. r. that error. ibid. l. ult. r. that consent. p. 24. l. 8. r. Crect. ibid. l. 27. r. apostolical. p. 31. l. 14. r. vindicta. p. 35. l. 26. dele not. p. 39 l. 1 r. must not. p. 44. l. 5. for there, r. other. p. 47. l. ult. r. preserve. p. 50. l. 3. r. the Commons. p. 51. l. 22. for 〈◊〉, r. are. p. 52. l. 19 dele that.   

A Letter written to D. SAMUEL TURNER, concerning the Church, and the Revenues thereof.  
Noble Doctor,  
I Expected when you had seen the Kings last Messages, your reason would have prompted you to have looked this way, which caused a delay in sending unto you, until the difficulty of the passage made me suspect whether this may come safe to you, and by the preparations and designs here, I fear I shall not have another opportunity; take this therefore as a farwell-truth, that the moderate party here, are at their Ne plus ultra, the presbyterians & independents will agree, and the Scots and we shall not fall out; and it must now be the wisdom of yourself, and such as have power and interest with the King, to save him, yourselves, and Country from ruin: Your visible strength to hold out, (much less to prevail) is too well known here, and your hopes from France and Ireland, will soon vanish, which if successful by a victorious Army (which I believe you shall never see) would but make you and us slaves to a foreign Nation, and extirpate that Religion, both sides pretend to maintain.  
To be plain, I know no way left you, but to accept such conditions of peace as may be had; you are too much a soldier, to think a retreat (upon so many disadvantages) dishonourable to a general, or acceptance of hard conditions by a starved beleaguered Garrison to the governor.  
In short, of evils choose the least; and I must tell you, it is expected from you, (and the more wise and honest party with you) that they should make use of their reason, and advise the King to save what is left, wherein it is believed you may prevail; considering what hath already passed in so many free offers to give satisfaction in the Militia, Ireland, payment of the public Debts, choice of Judges, Lord admiral, Officers of State, and others, with an Act of oblivion and free Pardon, free exercise of Religion, to Presbyterians, and independents their own way, and a promise to endeavour in all particulars, that none shall have cause to complain for want of security: things so far beyond our former hopes, that I cannot doubt, but the same reason which moved the offer of these, will obtain to concession of such others, as the Parliament shall require in order to peace, which (as near as I can guess) will be either the removal and punishment of evil Counsellors, and Ministers, who have drawn the King into these troubles, or the business of the Church, (all other material things to my apprehension being already offered.)  
For the first of these, I know not how you can with reason gainsay the bringing offenders to Justice; and if the Parliament Prerogative strain justice in the trial and punishment (beyond example of better times) it were wisdom for such as may therein be concerned, to withdraw, Dum furer in cursu, for if it must come to suffering, Melius unus quam unitas: for the business of the Church I wish it could be prevented, (there are who can witness the labour and hazards I have undergone for that end) conceiving no government equal to a well ordered episcopal, for the well-being of this Church and State: But when the necessity of times hath proposed this sad question for resolution, whether consent to alter episcopal government in the Church, or let both Church and State ruin together, my reason assents to the former. I believe the doctrine of the place where you are, would persuade the contrary, and it hath been from thence transmitted hither as an orthodox truth, that the altering that government, being as they say jure divino, is sinful; and the taking away the Church-lands, sacrilege, at least unlawful; which if I could believe, would change my opinion, for I cannot give way for the committing a sin for a good end, (what ever the Romanist, or Jesuited Puritan pretend in defence of it) but if I mistake not, (and if I do, I pray reform me) the opinion that the government by Bishops is jure divino, hath but lately been countenanced in England, and that but by some few of the more Lordly Clergy; for we always acknowledge the Protestants of Germany, the Low countries, and elsewhere, part of the reformed Protestant Catholic Church though they had no Bishops; and I am certain the King would never have given way for the extirpation of Bishops in Scotland, had he conceived them to be jure divino; nor to the Presbyterians, and independents here to exercise their Religion their own way, (as by his late Messages) when such a toleration in the face of such a divine Law, must needs be sinful: and for the latter opinion against taking away of Church Lands, I am less satisfied, being so far from conceiving it sacrilege, that I do not conceive it unlawful, but may be done without breach of any Law, (which must be the rule for trial of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of every action) nay though there be never so many curses or imprecations added to the donation: nor do I herein ground my opinion barely upon the frequent practice of former times, not only by Acts of Parliament, (in the times of Queen Eliz, and King James, and King Charles, if you have not forgotten the exchange of Durham house) as well as Henry the eighth) but even by the Bishops themselves, and Deans and Chapters, insomuch, that if the wisdom of the State (after Clergy men were permitted to marry) had not prohibited their alienations, and restrained their Leases to 21. years, or 3. lives, their Revenues at this day would not have been subject to envy.  
But to deal clearly with you Doctor, I do not yet understand how there can be any sacrilege, properly so called, which is not a theft and more: viz. a theft of something dedicated to holy use, (a Communion-Cup for instance, or the like) & theft you know must be of things movable, even by the Civil Law, and how theft can be of Lands, or sacrilege committed by aliening Church-Lands, I pray ask your friend Holborn and his fellow Lawyers, for ours here deride us for the question. As for the main quere, touching the lawfulness of aliening Church-lands, (I use the expression for the lands of Bishops, Deans, and Chapters,) good Doctor give me your patience to hear my reasons. And first I lay this as a foundation, that there is no divine command that Ministers under the gospel should have any lands, (the hire of a labourer at most, a fitting maintenance is all to be challenged) nor do we read that the Apostles had any Lands, (which I mention to avoid the groundless arguments upon the lands and portions allotted to the Tribe of Levi by God's appointment, to whom our Ministers have no succession) and then it will follow, that they enjoy their lands by the same Law of the State as others do, and must be subject to that Law which alone gives strength to their title; which being granted, I am sure it will not be denied, that by the Law of the Nation, he that hath an estate in Lands in Fee-simple, by an employed power, may lawfully alien, though there be an expression in his Deed of purchase or donation to the contrary: which being so, makes the alienation of Bishops Lands even without any Act of Parliament, to be lawful, being done by those who have an estate in Fee simple, (as the Bishop, with the Dean and Chapter hath.)  
Then further, I am sure it will be granted, that by the Law of this Nation, whosoever hath Lands or goods, hath them with this inseparable employed condition or limitation, viz. That the Parliament may dispose of them or any part of them at pleasure. Hence it is they sometimes dispose some part in Subsidies and other Taxes; enable a Tenant for life, to sell an estate in Fee-simple, and not at all unlawful, because of that limitation or condition before mentioned; and who ever will be owner must take them according to this Law: Now hence comes the mistake, by reason there is not such an express condition or limitation in the Deed of Donation, (which would silence all disputes) whereas it is as clear a truth, that where any thing is necessarily by Law implied, it is as much as if in plain words expressed, of which your Lawyers (if Reason need a help from them) can easily resolve.  
Besides, it were somewhat strange, that the Donor of the laws should preserve them in the hands of the Bishops, from the power of the Parliament; which he could not do in his own, and give them a greater and surer right than he had himself: Nor do I understand their meaning, who term God the Proprieter of the Bishops Lands, and the Bishop the Usufructuary. For I know not how (in propriety of speech) God is more entitled to their Lands then to his whole Creation; and were clergymen but Usufructuaries, how come they to change, dispose or alter the property of any thing, (which an Usufructuary cannot do) and yet is by them done daily? Ask them by what Divine Law S. Mary's Church in Oxford, may not be equally employed for temporal uses, as for holding the Vice-chancellours Court, the University Convocation, or their yearly acts? And for the Curses (those bugbear words) I could yet never learn that an unlawful curse was any prejudice but to the Author, of which sort those curses must needs be, which restrain the Parliament or any other from exercising a lawful and undeniable power, which in instances would show very ridiculous, if any curse should prejudice another's lawful right. I am sure such curses have no warrant from the Law of God or this Nation. If this doth not satisfy the former doubts in your Bishops, (for I know you to be too great a Master of Reason to be unsatisfied) ask them whether Church-lands may not lawfully (the Law of the State not prohibiting) be transferred from one Church to another upon emergent occasions? which I think they will not deny. If so, who knows that the Parliament will transfer them to Lay-hands? they profess no such thing, and I hope they will not, but continue them for the maintenance of the ministry, (which prevents all disputes upon the last question) but if they shall hereafter do otherwise, you know my opinion: only mistake me not in this free discourse, as if I did countenance or commend the Parliaments proceedings in their new Reformation, but as a caution to you in the exigencies of times, what is fittest to be done, when (I take it) Mistress Necessity in all things indifferent, or not unlawful, must be obeyed, in which cases the most constant men must be contented to change their resolutions with the alteration of time. Your party have been resolute enough to preserve the rights of the Church, and further peradventure then wise men would have done, but at an ultra posse you and we must give over, especially for an imaginary right. And think seriously with yourself, whether after all other things granted, it will be fit to run the hazard of the very being of this Church and State, the King and his posterity, and Monarchy itself, only upon the point of Church-government by Bishops, or aliening the Church-lands, or rather whether the King's council (in duty) ought not to advise him the contrary, who should be wise as well as pious, yet herein may be both, (for I do not think conveniency or Necessity will excuse Conscience in a thing in itself unlawful, what ever statesmen maintain to the contrary) your interest with the King is not small, and your power with the Lords (who are guided by reason) very considerable, you cannot do better than make use of both at this time. If they have a desire to preserve the Church, it were well their thoughts were fixed upon some course for settling a superintendency in the presbyterial Government, (which no way crosseth the national Covenant) and preserve the Revenues in the Church, which I believe at Uxbridge Treaty would have been granted, what ever it will be now. I have given you my sense upon the whole business. Si quid novisti rectius,  
Candidus imperti, si non his utere. 
 J. T. 
 So farewell Doctor.  
I give you commission to show this to my Lord Dorset, (who by+ and something else can guess my name) and to as many more as own Reason and Honesty.   

An Answer to the foregoing Letter, superscribed to D. Samuel Turner, &c.  
Sir,  
YOu have put an odd task upon me, in commanding my judgement on a Letter lately sent to a Doctor in Oxford, with a commission to show it to the Lord of Dorset, and to as many more as own reason and honesty; for this is the Postscript, and many the like passages in the Letter, (as that the more wise and honest party would make use of their reason, and I know you too great a master of reason, to be unsatisfied) makes me fear, that if I should perhaps dissent in opinion from this Epistler, I might be thought, (at least in his conceit) to incur a sharp censure both in point of reason and honesty: Which I confess at first somewhat troubled me, until I remembered you were wont to say, that when vessels do once make such noises as these, 'tis a very shrewd sign they are empty.  
He who wrote the Letter seems most desirous of Peace, and truly Sir so am I; besides we agree in this, that we must not commit sin for a good end; so that if Peace itself cannot be attained without that guilt, we must be content with a worse estate. But you very well know, with how many several deceits our affections can mislead our reason; you remember who it was that said it unto the very face of a Prophet, I have kept the commandment of the Lord, and yet his sin remained still a great sin, and much the worse because he excused it: For his guilt is less that commits a crime, than his that undertakes to defend it; because this cuts off all repentance, nay, it makes a sin to grow up into that more wicked height of a scandal, and so 'tis not only a snare to the sinner himself, but it warrants many more to be sinful.  
Whether this Oxford Londoner, for so I take the Epistler to be, hath not defended or made apologies for sin, and hath not in that sense, done evil that good may come thereof, I am now to make an enquiry, and I shall follow him in his two generals. 1. The delivering up the King's friends, whom they above call evil counsellors. And 2. The business of the Church.  
1. For the King's friends. He says,— I know not how you can with reason gainsay the bringing offenders to justice: indeed nor I neither, but what if they be not offenders? What if they must be brought to injustice? I know no man that will refuse to be judged by a Parliament, whose undoubted Head is the King, and the King sitting there, with an unquestioned Negative, nay for his Majesty to refer Delinquents to be judged by the House of Peers, sitting in a free Parliament, and judging according to the known laws of the realm, is that at lest which in my opinion would not be stuck at. But the Parliament prerogative, which this Letter speaks of, being now so extended, as we have cause to think it is, I doubt in this case, whether not only in point of honour, but in point of justice and conscience, the King for his own Peace, can leave his friends to such men, whom he is clearly bound by so many grand ties to protect. But this Sir I shall commit to you to determine, and if you return me a negative, I shall not presume to question your reason or honesty; nor shall I persuade the King's friends that they would banish themselves, unless it were only to do that great favour to the two Houses now at Westminster, as to keep them from some future foul acts of oppression and blood, because they shall have none left to act upon.  
2. For the business of the Church, which he again divides into two parts, first that of Episcopacy, & secondly of sacrilege. And in these Sir I shall speak with less hesitation, I shall clearly tell you the Epistler is clean out; and though you very well know me a great honourer of your profession, yet I cannot hold it fit to decide cases of conscience, or in human actions to tell us what is sin or no sin: and I am confident, Sir, you will not take this ill at my hands.  
First for Episcopacy, his words are, if I mistake not, (and if I do, I pray reform me) The opinion that the government by Bishops is jure divino, hath but lately been countenanced in England, and that by some few of the more Lordly clergy. These last words make me suspect some passion in the Writer, as being in scorn heretofore taken up by men, who for a long time were schismatics, in their hearts, and are now Rebels in their actions: And since the laws of this Land makes some Church men Lords, I do the more marvel that the Epistler looks awry upon it: so that though his profession be, that he has undergone labours and hazards for the episcopal Government, yet truly Sir I must think, that 'tis then only fit for the Church to give him thanks, when she has done all her other business.  
But grant that Tenet to be but of late countenanced, it thence follows not, that 'tis any whit the less true. For in respect of the many hundred years of abuse, the reformation itself was but of late countenanced here, yet I take it for an unquestionable truth that the Laity ought to have the cup. And though I was not desired to reform this Epistlers error, yet in charity I shall tell him, that he is out, when he affirms that this opinion was but of late countenanced in this Church, as I could show him out of Archbishop Whitgift, and Bishop Bilson and others: and since perhaps he may think these to be but men of the more Lordly Clergy, I shall name one more who may stand for many, and who wrote forty years since, that most excellent man M. Hooker, (a person of most incomparable learning, and of as much modesty, who I dare be bold to say, did not once dream of a Rotchet) he avers in clear terms, There are at this day in the Church of England, no other than the same degrees of ecclesiastical order, namely Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, which had their beginning from Christ and his blessed Apostles themselves, or as he expounds himself, Bishops and Presbyters, ordained by Christ himself in the Apostles and the seventy, and then Deacons by his Apostles; I may add Bucer too, no man I am sure of the Lordly Clergy, who though he were not English born, yet he was professor here in King Edward's time, and he wrote and died in this kingdom, Bishops, saith he, are Ex perpetua ecclesiarum ordinatione ab ipsis jam Apostolis, and more, Usum hoc est spiritui sancto: and sure if Bishops be from the Apostles and from the holy Spirit himself, they are of divine institution. Nay what think you if this Tenet be approved by a plain act of Parliament? I hope than it wants no countenance which England can give it, and it needs not fly for shelter under the wings of the Lordly clergy; you have these words in the book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, which is confirmed by Parliament; It is evident to all men reading holy Scriptures, and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles times there have been these orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons. And again, the prayer in the form of consecration of Bishops, Almighty God giver of all good things, which by thy holy Spirit hast appointed divers orders of Ministers in thy Church, mercifully behold this thy servant now called to the work and ministry of a Bishop; and in questions to the person to be consecrated a Bishop, Are you persuaded that you be truly called to this Ministration, according to the will of our Lord Jesus? &c. I beseech you Sir consider, whether these words, or this prayer could fall from any man, not possessed with this Tenet, that Episcopacy was of divine right: For if the three orders may be found by reading the holy Scriptures together with ancient Authors: if men are taught to pray, that God by his Spirit has appointed divers orders in his Church, and this made the ground of praying for the present Bishop, if the person to be consecrated must profess that he conceives he is called according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, either all this must be nothing else but pure pageantry, and then the Parliament mocked God by their Confirmation, or else Episcopacy is grounded in Scripture, is appointed by the Spirit of God, is according to the will of our Lord Jesus, and all this hath not been said of late, nor countenanced only by some few of the more Lordly clergy. And we have the less reason to doubt that this Tenet was countenanced in this Church of ours, because we find it in those parts that have lost Episcopacy, for we are told by Doctor Carlton, after Bishop of Chichester, and that wrote against the Arminians, more than twenty five years since, that sitting at Dort, he then protested in open Synod, That Christ instituted no parity, but made twelve Apostles, the chief, and under them seventy Disciples: That Bishops succeeded to the twelve, and to the seventy, Presbyters of an inferior rank; he affirmed this order had been still maintained in the Church, and then challenged the judgement of any learnned man, that could speak to the contrary.  
Their answer was silence, which was approbation enough, but after, (saith he) discoursing with diverse of the best learned in the Synod, he told them how necessary Bishops were, to suppress their then risen schisms; their answer was, That they did much honour and reverence the good order and Discipline of the Church of England, and with all their hearts would be glad to have it established among them; but that could not be hoped for in their State: Their hope was, that seeing they could not do what they desired, God would be merciful unto them, if they did but what they could. If they hoped for mercy that might pardon what they did, sure they must suppose that what they then did, was sinful: Nay, they thought their necessity itself could not totally excuse their sin; for then in that particular there had been no need to hope for God's mercy: nor could they well think otherwise; since being pressed, they denied not but that Episcopacy was of Christ's own institution, and yet they were no Lordly Clergy, nor do I well see how either by charitable or civil men, they can at all be taxed either for want of reason or honesty.  
1. Indeed some seem to startle at this Tenet, that Episcopacy is of Divine right: as if, because Divine, it might therefore seem to endanger Monarchal power. But under favour I conceive this fear to be among us very groundless, for since the tenants of our Church are in this particular the very self same with the ancient times: as that the Bishops have no power, but what is merely directive only; that all power coactive either in them or in others, is derived merely from the Royal authority; that they cannot legally make use, no not so much as of this directive power, but only by the King's leave: So that if the temporal laws should forbid them to preach that, which in point of salvation is necessary to be spoken, yet they cannot preach but upon the forfeiture of their Heads, and those being demanded by the King's laws, they must submit to a martyrdom, (though 'twere sin in them that demand it) so that in the execution of all ecclesiastical power, the supremacy is in the King alone; these I say being so much the Tenets of our Church, that I conceive there is no learned man amongst us, who would not readily subscribe to them, I cannot see at all where in the opinion we defend, any danger lies to this Monarchy.  
But examine the Presbyterian principles, and you will clearly find, Kings and they cannot stand together, for either you consider that new government in the Scotish sense, which allows no appeal to any other power, and then 'tis plain, that where men admit this, they admit of a supremacy, which doth not reside in the King; and by consequent, of two several supremacies within the bounds of the self same kingdom, which can no more stand with Monarchy, than it can with Monogamy to be married to two several wives. And though 'tis said that this Presbyterian government meddles only with spiritual things, which concern the good of the soul, and so it cannot hurt regal power, yet this is but only said, and no more: for it is well known, that in ordine ad spiritualia, (and all things may by an ordinary wit be drawn into this rank, as they have been by the Church of Rome) this government intrudes upon what things it pleaseth; and indeed where a supremacy is once acknowledged, no wise man can think, that it will carry itself otherwise. So that King James his maxim was undoubtedly most true, upon this same ground we are on, No Bishop, no King: For that most prudent Prince did soon discern, that if a power were once set up, which at least in the legal execution of it, did not derive itself from the King, there was no doubt to be made, but it would ere long destroy the very King himself.  
Or consider Presbyterian government in the English sense, as it is now set up by the Two Houses at Westminster, which is a government limited by an appeal to the Parliament, for either by Parliament here they mean the Two Houses excluding the King, and then 'tis as plain as before, they set up two supremacies, his Majesties and their own: or else by Parliament they mean the King with both Houses, and then it will follow, that either there must be a perpetual Parliament, (which sure neither King nor kingdom can have cause to like) or else the supremacy will be for the most part in the Presbytery; because when ever a Parliament sits not, there will be no Judge to appeal to; or if it be said the Parliament may leave a standing Committee to receive appeals in such ecclesiastical causes; then either in this Committee the King hath no negative; and in that case 'tis clear that the ecclesiastical supremacy will be not at all in the King; or else the King hath a negative, but yet is joined with persons whom he himself chooses not, and so most probably will be checked and affronted in any sentence he intends to give; and this clearly overthrows that which is already declared by Parliament, 
25. H. 8. c. 19  to be a right in the King, as inherent in his crown, that ecclesiastical appeals may be made to him alone in Chancery, (for the Statute names no other) and that his Majesty alone may appoint what Commissioners he please for their final decision: I say, consider the Presbyterian government in the English Parliament sense, and in the sense of the English Assembly, for the Presbyterians there are wholly for the Scotish form, as appears by their quarrels at what the Houses have already done in their Ordinances; so that their aim is not only to set up a new Government, but in plain terms, a new supremacy: And hence, to say truth, he must see very little who discerns not, that though the Presbyterian party seems to strike at the Bishops, yet their main aim is at the King; whose supremacy they endure not, as being a flower which they intend for their own Garland; and so, though they hypocritically cry out (that they may abuse the People) against the pride of the Lordly Bishops, yet in the mean time, the wiser sort must needs see, that they intend to make themselves no less than indeed Kingly Presbyters.  
We acknowledge the Protestants of Germany, the Low countries, and part of the reformed Catholic Protestant Church, 
Epist.  though they had no Bishops, &c.  
Though we maintain Episcopacy to be of divine right, 
Ans.  (i. e.) of divine institution, yet hence it doth not follow, that Germany are no Protestant Churces; No, it must be a crime of a most horrid taint, that makes a Church run into non ecclesiam; For though that of the Jews was bad, and Idolatrously bad; yet God seriously protests he had not sent her a bill of divorce. Nay no learned man of judgement durst ever yet affirm that the Roman Church herself was become no true part of the Church Catholic; and yet she breaks a flat Precept of Christ, [drink ye all of this] and shall we be thought to deny the same right to christians without Bishops, when they break but Christ's institution? No, Churches they are, true parts of the Catholic Church: but in point of ordination and of government apostolical they are not. 
Epist▪   
I am certain the King would never have given way to the extirpation of Bishops in Scotland, had he conceived them to be jure divino, &c.  
Grant it were so, 
Ans.  yet of all mankind are Kings only bound, that they must not change their opinions; or if perhaps they have done ill, must they for their repentance be more liable to reproach, than Subjects are for their crimes?  
The King would not have given way to the Presbyterians, 
Epist.  and Independents, to exercise their Religion here their own way, (as by his Messages)▪ when such a toleration in the face of such a divine Law must needs be sinful.  
There is a great mistake in this Argument; 
Ans.  for to tolerate, doth not at all signify either to approve or commend their factions, neither of which the King could at all do to those schismatics without sin. But it merely implies not to punish, which Kings may forbear upon just reason of State, as David forbore to punish the murderers of Joab; and we ourselves in our English State, have no punishment for all sorts of liars, and yet their sin is against a flat Law divine.  
We affirm then Episcopacy to be of divine right, that is, of divine institution, and that must needs tacitly imply a divine Precept too; for to what end are things instituted by God, but that it is presumed, it is our part to use them? And to what end should some men be appointed to teach, and to govern, but that its clearly employed, than there are other men too, that aught both to hear and obey? He that institutes or erects a Bridge over a broad swelling stream, needs not (you will think) add an express command, that men should not walk in the water: Thus when our Lord and Saviour made his institution of that great Sacrament of the Eucharist, he gave command indeed concerning the Bread, Do this in remembrance of me; and concerning the Cup, drink ye all of this, But he gave no express command to do both these together, and yet his institution hath been still held to have the nature of a command; and so for a thousand years the whole Church of Christ did ever practise it, save only in some few cases, in which men supposed a kind of necessity: I say then Episcopacy is of divine right, instituted by Christ in his Apostles, who since they took upon them to ordain and to govern Churches, you need not doubt they received an authority from their Master to do both; for since men will not think they would break their own rules: No man taketh this upon him, but he that is called of God, as Aaron was.  
Episcopacy than was instituted in the Apostles, who were Bishops et aliud amplius; and distinguished by Christ himself from the Seventy, who were the Presbyters. So the most ancient Fathers generally, or if you will take S. Hierom. opinion, (who was neither a Bishop, nor in his angry mood any great friend to that Order) they were instituted by the Apostles, who being themselves Episcopi et amplius, did in their latter days formalize and bound out that power which still we do call Episcopacy. And so their received opinions may stand together for Episcopatus, being in Apostolatu tanquam consulatus in dictatura, as the lesser and subordinate power, is always in the greater: we may truly say it was instituted by Christ in his Apostles who had episcopal Power and more, and then 'twas formalized and bounded by the Apostles themselves, in the persons of Timothy and Titus, &c. So that call the episcopal order either of Divine right, or apostolical Institution, and I shall not at all quarrel at it: For apostolical will seem Divine enough, unto Christians; I am sure Salmatius thinks so, (a sharp enemy to the episcopal Order) if (saith he) it be from the Apostles, 'tis of Divine right; thus we find the power of ordination and of jurisdiction to be given to those men alone; For than that power is properly episcopal, when one man alone may execute it, so S. Paul to Timothy, Lay hands suddenly on no man, 1 Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands in the singular number, thou, & thou alone, without naming any other: Against an Elder, receive not an accusation, in the singular number too; thou, receive not, thou alone, but under two or three witnesses; and than the Text is plain, He and he alone might do it. So to Titus for this cause, and that thou, and thou alone, shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders in every City, Tit. 1. 5. where plainly those two powers of government and ordination are given unto one man; So S. John to the Churches of Asia, Rev. 2. 3. when he presumes all the governing power to reside in the Angels of those Churches, and only in them alone, as all Ancients understand it. And hence 'tis plain, that though we should yield that the Apostles only did institute Bishops, yet in this Revel. Christ himself immediately in his own person, and the holy Spirit withal, did both approve and confirm them: And the Learned observe, that the Bishops of those Sees, are therefore called Angels by S. John, who was born a Jew, because in Palestina their chief Priests were then called their Angels; and so this appellation was taken up by the Apostle in that place, because the Bishops were those church's chiefs: this truth appears not only from those clear Texts, but from the mutual consent and pactise for more than 1500. years' space of all the Christian Church; So that neither S. Jerome, nor any other Ancient, did ever hold orders to be lawfully given, which were not given by a Bishop, nor any Church jurisdiction to be lawfully administered, which was not either done by their hands, or at least by their deputation.  
I know there are men lately risen up, especially in this last Century, which have collected and spread abroad far other Conclusions, and that from the authority of the Text itself: But as 'tis a maxim in human laws, Consuetudo optima Legum Interpres, custom and Practice is the best Interpreter: So no rational man but will easily yield, it as well holds in laws Divine: For I would gladly ask, What better way can there be for the interpreting of Texts, then that very same means whereby I know the Text itself to be Text? Sure the same course whereby I know the Epistles to Timothy and Titus to have been written by S. Paul, must needs be the best course to understand the sense of those Epistles; and if I therefore believe them to be written by that Apostle, because the Universality of the whole Christian Church has brought me to that belief, (and there's no other rational way of believing it) why do I not believe the same Christian sense, which the universal consent assures me they were written in? Shall I believe, and yet disbelieve that selfsame consent which is the best ground of my belief? This is as it were in clear terms to say, that I believe such a tale for the author's sake who hath told it, and yet I do now hold the selfsame man to be a liar. Men do believe the testimony of universal consent, in the sense it gives of single terms, and why not in the sense it gives of sentences or Propositions? without the help of this Consent, (which is indeed the ground of our Dictionaries) how shall we know that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifies the Resurrection of the body, which the Socinians at this day deny? And I know no such way to confute your error, as by the authority of your consent.  
Admit then of that Rule, that consent universal is the best interpretation of Texts; and then I am sure, it is as clear as true, that Episcopacy is of Divine or apostolical Right; yea and that proposition, There can be no Ordination, without the hands of a Bishop, will clearly appear to be as well grounded as this; There can be no baptism without a lawful Minister, which is good Divinity amongst our new Masters in Scotland: and Antiquity allowed of it, Extra casum necessitatis: For I ask upon what Text do they ground this Rule? I suppose they will say upon our saviour's words, to the Eleven, Matth. 28. Go teach all Nations, and baptize them: But in the institution of the Eucharist He spoke those words too; but only to the Twelve, drink ye all of this, Matth. 26. I demand then how shall I know that when our Saviour spoke those words unto the Eleven, he spoke them only as to lawful Ministers; but when he spoke the other, to the Twelve he spoke at large as unto them that did represent all Christian men? So that though only Ministers may baptise, yet all Christians may receive the Cup: Perhaps they will say, that the general practice of receiving the Cup, is manifest from 1 Cor. 11. and I think so too, where S. Paul seems to chide the whole Church for their irreverence at that great Sacrament: But if a quarreler should reply, that he there speaks but of the Presbyters alone, whereof many were at that time at Corinth: As when in the 5. Chap. he seems to chide the whole Church for not excommunicating the incestuous Person: yet 'tis plain, he means none but the men in government (as sure all Presbyterians will allow me) I know not what could be said but to make it appear out of the Fathers, and others, that the whole Christian Church never took the words in that sense. And if to stop the mouths of wranglers, we must at length be constrained to quote the Authority of universal consent, and the Common practice of Christ's Church, than you will easily see that those two named Propositions do stand fast on the same bottom, There can be no baptism without a lawful Minister, extra casum necessitatis, for so the consent and practise of the universal Church hath still interpreted that Text: And again 'tis true, There can be no Ordination without the Hands of a Bishop, for so those Texts both out of Timothy and Titus have been understood, and practised for 1500. years together by the consent of the whole Church of Christ. 'tis true that this precept, Go ye teach, &c. runs not in exclusive words, ye Apostles, or ye lawful Ministers, and none but ye; yet extra casum necessitatis, no man was allowed to baptise but a lawful Minister: so though these commands, [Lay hands suddenly on no man] and [Do thou ordain Elders in every City] run not in verbis exclusivis, thou and none but thou, or men of thine Order only: yet the Church understanding and practising them in an exclusive sense, no man for 1500 years in any settled Church, was held rightly ordained, without the hands of a Bishop.  
Nay that there is something Divine in the episcopal Order, will appear clearly by this, that immediately from the times of Christ & his Apostles, (yea within the reach of those times) 'twas universally spread throughout the whole face of the Churches: so that no man can name a Nationthat was once won unto the Christian Faith, but he shall soon find that there were Bishops: so that there must needs be an Uunversall Cause, for an Effect that was so universal. General council there was none about it, at which all Christians might have met, and might have thence obeyed her directions.  
Nor can any name a Power to which all Christians should submit (for they were soon fallen into Factions) but only the authority of Christ or of his Apostles; from them then must needs flow the Episcopal Order, and at that fountain I shall leave it. I say within the reach of the Apostles times, for before S. John died, there are upon good Church Records above 20. Bishops appointed to the several Sees; as at Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome, & Ephesus, at Creece, at Athens, and coloss, & divers others, it being easy to draw a Catalogue of them out of several ecclesiastical Writers.  
And here it will be plain, that its a foul corruption; nay, how flat a sin is brought into the Church of Christ, where Episcopacy is thrown down! and so where Ordination is performed by any hands without theirs, 'tis as gross, as if laymen should be allowed to baptize, when a Presbyter doth stand by: nay more, it is as bad as if the Order of Presbyters should therefore be thrown down, that laymen might baptise: and what's this, but willingly to run into a Necessity itself, that we might thence create an Apology? 'tis a corruption far worse, then if a Church should audaciously attempt to pull down the Lord's Day; since the observation of that Time is neither built on so clear a Text, nor on the help of so universal a Consent, as is the Order of Episcopacy: So that if men can think it sinful to part with the Lord's Day, though the institution of it be merely apocryphal, they must needs confess there is at least so much sin, (nay indeed more) in parting with their Bishops, and then the Oxford Doctrine which the Epistler gybes at, and talks of, as transmitted for an orthodox truth, will it seems prove no less in earnest.  
Secondly, for the point of sacrilege; the better to cl●●●e this, I must premise these Assertions.  

1. That God accepts of things given him, and so holds a Propriety as well in the New, as in the Old Testament.  
2. That God gets this Propriety in those things he holds, as well by an acceptation of what is voluntarily given, as by a command that such things should be presented to him.  
3. That to invade those things, be they movable, or immovable, is expressly the sin of sacrilege.  
4. That this sin is not only against God's positive Law, but plainly against his moral Law.   

1. Proposition.  
God accepts of things given, &c.  
For proof of this, first I quote that Text, I hungered and ye gave me meat; I thirsted and ye gave me drink, &c. Mat. 25. If Christ do not accept of these things, he may say indeed, ye offered me meat, but he cannot say that ye gave it: for a Present is then only to be called a Gift, when it is accepted as his own that takes it. And does he thus accept of Meat and Clothing, and does 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 calls no less than His Brethren: In as much as you have done it unto the least of these my Brethren, ye have done it unto me. Whether these were of those Brethren which he had enjoined 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 affirm that Christ liked it extreme well to be Fed and to be Clothed, in all those He called His, but only in His Seventy, and His Apostles▪ but to put it out of doubt, that what is done to them, is done to Him too, His own words are very plain, He that receiveth you, teaching Disciples, receiveth me; in the Tenth of that gospel, where He sends all forth to preach, and that reception implies all such kind of provisions, as is apparently plain throughout the whole tenor of the Chapter. And again, 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 public use of the Church, yea, given to God, and 'tis as plain that he did accept it; for S. Peter you know thus reproves him, Why hast thou lied, or why hast thou deceived the Holy Ghost? for so {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} does properly import, why dost thou cheat him of what is now his own proper right? And again, Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God: and is this so strange a thing? Are not all our lies to be accounted sins before God? yes, all against God, as a witness and a Judge; but yet not all against God as a Party: and therefore 'tis a more remarkable, a more signal lie, Thou hast not lied unto men; a negative of comparison, not so much to men, as to God: what's done to them is scarce worth the naming, but thou hast lied unto God, as a witness and a Judge; yea and a party too. Thou hast lied, & robbed God by lying, and so run thyself into an eminent sin: and that shall appear in God's judgement, so the Fathers generally expound that place; both of the Greek and Latin Church, and affirm his crime was a robbing God of that wealth, which by Vow or by promise was now become God's propriety: So the Modern Interpreters, yea, so Calvin, Sacrum esse Deo profitebatur, He professed that his Land should be a sacred thing unto God, (Says he) on that place; and there Beza too, Pradium Deo consecrassent; the the man and his wife, they consecrated this Land to God, And he that will not believe so universal a consent in the interpreting a place of Scripture, should do well to consider, whether upon the same ground (as I told you before) he may not be brought to doubt of his Dictionary, for that is but Universal consent; he may almost as well doubt whether {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifies God, and altogether as well, whether {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifies the gospel.  
The New Testament will afford more places for this purpose; Thou that abhorrest Idols, committest thou sacrilege? Rom. 2. 22. 'tis true, these words are spoken as to the person of an unconverted Jew, and may be therefore thought to aim only at those sins, which were descried in the Law of Moses: but do but view S. Paul's 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 himself: and he strives to make this good by three several instances, first, Thou that Preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? 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 sacrilege? So that hence 'twill follow (if S. Paul's words have logic in them) that these two sins are of the self same nature too: And that to commit a sacrilege is a breach of the same Law, as to commit an Idolatry: so that crime will appear without all doubt a plain robbery of God; for he that steals from men, yea though a whole community of men, though bona universitatis, yet he sins but against his Neighbour, 'tis but an offence against the second Table of the Law, in these words, Thou shalt not steal: but sacrilege lays hold on those things which the Latin laws 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 selfsame contempt of God; the offenders in both kinds, the Idolater and sacrilegious person both think him a dull sluggish thing; the first thinks he will patiently look on, while his honour is shared to an Idol; the other imagines he'll be as sottishly tame, though his goods be stolen to his face.  
This was without doubt the sense of all ancient churches; for upon what ground could they profess they gave gifts to God, but only upon this, that they presumed God did still accept them? So S. Iraeneus, We offer unto our God our Goods in token of thankfulness. So Origen, By gifts to God we acknowledge him Lord of all: So the Fathers generally; so Emperors 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 heirs 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 far more than Her Substance: and yet these, and all these Lands, and Honours, and Jurisdictions; all these have been given to God; yea, and frequently confirmed by the public Acts of the kingdom: 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 plain in the Text, that God did as much take the Temple to be his, as he did the Jews Tithes and Offerings. These last indeed were his by express law & command, but the Temple was the voluntary design of good David, and the voluntary work of King Solomon. 
2 Sam. 7.  Nay God expressly tells 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 apology Saint Paul tells the Jews, 
Act. 27. 8.  Neither (Says he) against the Law of the Jews, 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 sealed houses, and this house lie waste? therefore ye have sown much, and bring in little, ye eat, but have not enough, so Hag. 1. 4.  
And to affirm, that God in the New Testament doth accept of meat, and drink, and clothing, as it is plain, 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 itself, is so contrary to all reason, so contrary to the practice not only of the Christian, but human world, so contrary to what God himself has expressed in the Old Testament, and nowhere ●●called it in the New, that he▪ that can quiet his conscience with such concepts as these, may I doubt not attain to the discovery of some quirks, which in his conceit may either palliate murders 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 ourselves nor our neighbours: for no man doubts but that's as properly mine which I accept as a gift from others, as what I attain to by mine own personal acquisition, be it by a just war, by study, by merchandise, or the like.   

3. Proposition.  
That to invade those things consecrated, be they movable or immovable, is expressly the sin of sacrilege.  
Sacrilege is then committed, say the schools and the Casuists, (and they speak in their own 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 movable; or per Plagium, which is the stealing of a man; or per invasionem, which is a spoiling men of lands, or of things immovable: 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 steal: So done against God, 'tis no doubt a sacrilege, and a breach of the first Table, be it either against the first or the second commandment, I stand not now to dispute: for the word used in the New Test. to express this sin, is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Praeda, or spolium: So that sacrilege is not to be defined only by theft strictly taken, but 'tis a depredation, a spoliation of things consecrated, and so the word extends itself as properly (if not more) to Lands, as it doth to things movable. And hence Aquinas is plain, 
Ibid. Art. 3.  that sacrilege reaches out its proper sense ad ea quae deputata sunt ad sustentationem ministrorum, sive sint mobilia, sive immobilia: For it would be very strange to affirm, that in the sacking of Jerusalem, Nabuchadnezzar was sacrilegious, when he transported the holy vessels, but not at all when he burned the Temple.   

4. Proposition,  
That this sin is not only against God's positive Law, but plainly against the moral Law.  
For this common reason hath taught all, even Pagan nations to hold sacrilege a sin: So that Lactantius observes, (and he was well read in human learning, which made him to be chose Tutor to a son of Constantine the Great) Inomni Religione nihil tale sine vindicto: God did still remarkably revenge this sin, not only in the true, but amongst men of the most false Religions: And 'twere easy to show, that never any Nation did yet adore a God, but they thought he did accept, and did possess himself of some substance. I omit those proofs that would be thought far too tedious, 'tis enough to quote the prophet's words, Will a man rob God? yet ye have robbed me, Mal. 3. 8. A man, any man, though an Ammonite, or a mere Philistine, no Pagan (that must be the sense) will do it to his God, which you Jews do to me; for the Law written in his heart (and he can go by no other) that law controls this offence, and so plainly tells him, that because his God may be robbed, he may therefore have a Propriety; And if sacrilege be a sin against the Law moral, it will follow, that what we read in the Old Testament against that sin, must be as moral, and that whereby we Christians are as much obliged, as by what we read against theft, or against adultery; save only in those passages which are particularly proper unto the policy of the Jews, and we may let them go for judicial.  
These Assertions being premised, I return to the Epistler, who conceives it to be no sacrilege to take away the Church Lands; [Nor do I (saith he) herein ground my opinion barely upon the frequent practice of former times, not only 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 practice; and indeed he hath little reason for it: For if from a frequent practice of sin, we might conclude it were no sin, 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 sin it down: and therefore I shall say no more of such laws of Hen. 8. than I would of David's adultery a that 'tis no ground at all to make men bold with their neighbour's Wives. Queen Elizabeth made a Law (so you have told me Sir, for I do speak nothing in this kind but from you) that Bishops might not alienate their manors, Castles, &c. but only to the crown, but if she sometimes took order that Church, men should not be Bishops, until they had first made such alienations (as I have heard you say they did) I know not how to defend it, but must withal 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 laws, took away that of Queen Elizabeth: not can I well tell why this Epistler here doth quote that King for his purpose, unless it were only for the alienation of York▪ House; but I must inform him that that Act was lawful, because 'twas for the advantage of the archiepiscopal See, there being clear Text for it, That the Levites 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, Deans, and Chapters, &c. such things were done, Alienations made, and long Leases granted: True Sir, for those Clergymen were but men, and their sins can at all no more abrogate God's Law, then can the sins of the Laity: yet I could name you churchmen of great note, who totally refused to be preferred by that Queen to any bishopric at all, because they would by no means 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 speaks of, might have one cause more than the Marriage of the Clergy; for when they saw men so sharply set upon the inheritance of the Church; when they saw a stool of wickedness set up, of sacrilegious wickedness, that imagined mischief by a Law, some, not the worst of men, thought it fit to make those long Leases, that the estate of the Church might appear the more poor, and so less subject unto Harpies, and then their hope was, at the length▪ at lest after many years spent, it might return whole unto their successors.  
He goes on, But to deal clearly with you Doctor, I do not understand how there can be any sacrilege (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 movable, 〈…〉 civil Law, and how theft can be of Lands, or 〈…〉 by alienating Church Lands; I pray ask your friend Holborn, and his fellow Lawyers, for ours here deride us for the question.) It seems 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, appears before from my third Assertion: for can any man think in earnest, that 'tis sacrilege, and so a sin, to take a Cup from the Church, and 'tis none to take away a manor? as if Ahab had been indeed a thief, had he robbed Naboth of his Grapes, but Eliah was too harsh to that good King, because he only took away his Vineyard: Indeed there is such a nicety in the civil Law, that actio furti lies only against him, 
〈◊〉 verum de Furto. Gel. l. 11. c. ●lt.  who has stolen Rem mobilem: for Justinian it seems in the composition of his Digests (which he took from the writings of the old Jurisprudentes) thought it fit to follow Ulpians judgement, and yet Sabinus in his book De Furtis, a man of note amongst those men, was known to be of another opinion: Non tantum (Says he) rerum moventium, sed fundi quoque, et aedium fieri furtum: a theft properly so called may be of things immovable: 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 criticisms of the civil Law, as it's now put out by Justinian? If not, why may not some use the word furtum in Sabinus his sense, as well as others may in Ulpians? and then sacrilege may be properly called a theft, and as properly in immovables; or if we will needs speak according to his sense whom Justinian hath approved, I do not well see how men can spoil the Church of her Lands, and at the Civil Law escape an action of theft: for it lieth 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 will the churchland do him? 
L. verum.  And if he does make this use, a thief he is in the civil 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 learn, that Furtum strictè sumptum, was the genus of sacrilege? so that where there is no theft in the civil Law sense there is none of this kind of Sin: I am sure 'tis neither intimated by the Greek, nor the Latin 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 blank against this Londoner, and affirm there may be a sacrilege properly so called, which is not a theft in the civil law-sense (which has been grounded in the third Assertion) and then we need not trouble Sir Robert Holborn (that learned Gentleman may have other business) nor his fellow Lawyers, for I doubt not there are enough besides, who will here smile at this passage, and will think that this Epistler hath met with a civil Law quirk, which he knew not well how to wield: But to say truth he deals clearly with the Doctor, and tells 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 seems are but only the forlorn-hope, the main battle 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 gospel should have any Lands. True, the Clergy under the gospel hold not their lands by a Divine command, but they do by a Divine acceptation by Christ's most gracious acceptance of such goods and possessions which have been given him by good Christians: and this title you now hear will go as far as a law, and that is we conceive far enough, for it gives God a propriety in such lands, and so keeps men from a reassumption.  
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; far worse I am sure then do Pagans: And when such a maintenance hath been once given in lands, the acceptation of Christ will soon make it irrevocable: so that it signifies 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 affirm 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 sacrilege.  
He proceeds, Which I mention to avoid the groundless argument upon the Lands and portions allotted to the tribe of Levi by God's appointment▪ to whom our Ministere have no succession. Our Ministers challenge nothing which belongs to that Tribe, by levitical right: but where things are once given to God for the use of his Ministers, they there get a moral interest; and what we 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 〈…〉 others do, and must be subject to that Law which alone gives strength to their title.] Out into 〈◊〉: Have churchmen no title to those possessions they enjoy, but by the law of this Land alone? Yes, besides these, they have Christ's acceptation, and so they are become theirs by Law evangelical: their Lands are God's own propriety, and so they hold from him by the Law moral too; and therefore though by the laws 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 sin, as being a breach of the law evangelical and moral: except then only when they better themselves by some gainful, or at least by some not hurtful permutation. Besides, were the argument good, it would only follow, that the Clergy by their own act might alienate their lands, but no man else without their consent. And I conceive it would not now prove so easy a task to bring churchmen to such an alienation.  
But the Parliament may do it▪ for (Says he) I am sure it will be granted, that (by the laws 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 means the King in Parliament) doth this, as being the supreme power, or as being representative, and so including the consent of the whole People of England. If as being the supreme power, it will follow, that any absolute Prince may as lawfully do the like▪ and yet this hath been ever held tyrannical in the Great Turk, as being against the rules of justice and humanity.  
Indeed Samuel 〈◊〉 the Israelites, that since they would needs change their Theocracy, the immediate government of God himself, though it were into Monarchy, the best of all human 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 expressly against the law of Moses, who leaves every man his propriety, only the Prophet there avers it should be not punishable in him, they should have no remedy, since being the supreme power, 'twas in no Subjects hands to judge him: So if the King in Parliament should take away Church-lands, there is (I confess) no resistance to be made, though the act were inhumanly sinful. 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 knows) by representation: Or if again they were there, I would gladly know what burgess, or what Knight of a shire, nay what clerk, or what Bishop doth represent Christ (whose Lands these are) and by virtue of what deputation? Nor do I believe that any Subject intends to give that power to him that represents him in Parliament, as to destroy his whole estate, except then only, when the known Laws of the Land make him liable to so high a censure.  
But grant that this were true in men's 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 kingdom must keep what she hath thus promised to God, and must now think to begin to tell him of employed conditions, or limitations: For it were a strange scorn put upon God, if men should make this grand promise to their Maker, and then tell him after so many hundreds of years, 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 men's estates in Subsidies, and Taxes, and with their consents, ergo, It may dispose of all the Church Lands, though churchmen themselves should in down right terms contradict it: Truly Sir, this Argument is neither worth an answer nor a smile: For I am sure you have often told me that the Parliament in justice can destroy no private man's estate: Or if upon necessity it may need this or that Subjects Land for some public 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 burdens which they may bear Salvo contenemento: and they are paid not out of God's 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 infer from any of these usages, that the 〈◊〉 of Bishops, and Deans, and Chapters, may be wholly alienated from the Church, is an inference that will prevail 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 express condition or limitation in the Deeds of Donation, (which would silence all dispute) whereas it is as clear a truth, that where any thing is necessarily by Law employed, It is as much as in plain terms expressed.] No marvel 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 tacitly there, which it were impiety to express? Nay 'tis apparently clear, in the curses added by such Donors, upon those who shall attempt to make void their gifts, that their meaning was plain, such lands should remain 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 tacit condition in the selfsame Law that they may be violated.  
No marvel if with us men cannot trust men, if God himself cannot trust our laws. And if that Charter, or any else made by succeeding Princes, do indeed confirm such Donations (as without all doubt they do) sure they must confirm such Donations in that same sense wherein the Donors made them; for so do all other confirmations; nay in this case of a total disinhaerison, there cannot be in law any such tacit conditions or limitations as the Epistler speaks of: For I have showed such to be unjust▪ and tyrannical in a private Subjects estate, and therefore in Gods they are much more unjust; because they are sure he cannot offend; and an unjust and tyrannical 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 do in his own, and give them a greater and surer right than he had himself.] The Lay-Donee might preserve them thus in his own hands, suppose him but an honest person: for though a Parliament may Impunè disinherit such an innocent man, yet they cannot do 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 selfsame right (as a right suppose of Fee-simple) to become more sure in his hands that takes, than it ever was in his hands that gave it. For though the right itself 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 means that selfsame right may become the stronger. And sure with us God's hand should be more strong than man's: 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 do not yet see the reason, because 'tis always so, when any one Benefactor doth by virtue of a mortmain convey his Lands to any kind of Corporation.  
Again, [Nor do I understand their meaning, who term God the Proprietor of the Bishops Lands, and the Bishop the Usufructuary.] I conceive I have made this plain, because such Lands were first offered to God, and became his own Property by his own divine acceptation: And if the Dominium directum of these things do once rest in God, the Dominium utile, the usus fructus alone is the only thing left to be the patrimony of his clergy. But he adds 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 fear the Lawyer your friend is little better than 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, than where men have now placed a Stable? Our English Homilies, which are confirmed by Law, cry down this cross piece of Anabaptism. '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 well 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 father's house: 'Twas God's, and God's more peculiarly, not only 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 again, because having once given them to the children of men, upon their gift he did accept them: So that his Priests, and his poor being sustained by them, he calls it in a more peculiar manner, His meat, His drink, and His clothing: And then if in point of acceptance with God, there be great difference between feeding his Priests, and feeding them that do 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 clergymen but Usufructuaries, how come they to change, dispose, or alter the property of any thing, (which an Usufructuary cannot do) 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 do, so he wrong not his Lord by an abuse done to his Propriety. Thus he may change his corn into Clothing, or, if he please, his Wool into Books: Nay he may alter the property of his possessions too, if he have express 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. [ask them by what Divine Law S. Mary's Church in Oxford may not be equally employed for temporal uses, as for holding the Vice chancellor's Court, the University Convocation, or their yearly acts?] He might as well have asked, Why not as well for temporal uses, as for temporal uses? For if those he names be not so, his argument is nought; and if they be so, 'tis not well put down. His meaning sure was for other temporal 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 than an excuse. Though it follow not neither, that because this Church is sometimes for some few hours abused, therefore it may be always so; as if because sometimes 'tis made a profane Church, 'tis therefore fit 'twere no Church at all.  
He proceeds. [And as for their curses (those bugbear words) I could never yet learn that an unlawful curse was any prejudice but to the Author: of which sort those curses must needs be, which restrain the Parliament, or any there from exercising a lawful and undeniable power, which in instances would show very ridiculous, if any curse should prejudice another's lawful 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 clear one: & our Mother-Church commends it to the use of her sons in the express words of her Commination, Cursed be he that removeth away the mark of his neighbour's 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 public curse confirmed by an Amen made by all the people) who removes but the mark whereby his neighbour's Lands are distinguished; 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 restrain the Parliament in its lawful undeniable 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 do it without punishment, because (the King being there) it is the highest power) yet that Court itself cannot do it Justè, cannot do it without sin, and that a fouler sin than the removing a landmark, and then a fouler curse may follow it. Let the Epistler then take heed of these more than bugbear words; For believe it, Sir, in such curses as these there is much more than shows and visards: 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) [ask 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 think they will not deny: if so, who knows that the Parliament will transfer them to Layhands? they-profess no such thing, and I hope they will not, but continue them for the maintenance of the ministry.] I conceive the Bishops answer would be, that 'tis no sacrilege to transfer 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 sin enough in that Action; many may be injuriously put from their estates, in which they have as good Title by the laws 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 sacrilege, is a pretty way of persuasion, and may equally work on him to give up his own lands, because he may as well hope to be reestated 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 sacrilege is no sin; yet if you cast your Eyes upon His majesty's Coronation Oath, wherein he is so strictly sworn to defend both the episcopal Order, and the Church-lands and possessions, you would easily acknowledge that the King cannot yield to what this Letter aims at, though he were in danger of no other sin then that of Perjury▪ And though I must needs guess that the Epistler knew well of this juratory tye, yet you will the less blame him for a concealment of this kind, because he was not retained of the church's counsel.  
His majesty's Oath you may read published by himself in an Answer to the Lords and Commons in Parliament. 26. May, 1642. It runs thus:  

Episcopus. Sir, Will you grant and keep, and by your Oath confirm to the People of England, the laws and customs to them granted by the Kings of England, your lawful and religious Predecessors, and namely the laws, customs, and franchises granted to the Clergy by the glorious King S. Edward, your predecessor, according to the laws of God, the true profession of the gospel established in this kingdom, and agreeable to the Prerogative of the Kings thereof, and the ancient customs of this realm?  Rex. 
I grant and promise to keep them.  Episc. 
Sir, will you keep Peace and godly agreement entirely (according to your power) both to God, the holy Church, the Clergy, and the People?  Rex. 
I will keep it.  Episc. 
Sir, will you (to your power) cause Law, Justice, and Discretion in mercy and truth to be executed in all your judgements?  Rex. 
I will.  Episc. 
Will you grant to hold and keep the laws and rightful customs which the Commonalty of this your kingdom have, and will you defend and uphold them, to the honour of God, so much as in you lieth?  Rex. 
I grant and promise so to do.  
Than one of the Bishops reads this Admonition to the King, before the People, with a loud voice.  
Our Lord and King, we beseech you to pardon and grant, & to preserve unto us, & to the Churches committed to our charge, all canonical privileges, and due Law and Justice: and that you would protect and defend us, as every good King ought to be a Protector and Defender of the Bishops and Churches under his government.  
The King answereth,  
With a willing and devout heart I promise and grant my part, and that I will preserve and maintain to you and the Churches committed to your charge, all canonical privileges, and due Law and Justice: and that I will be your Protector and Defender to my power, by the assistance of God, as every good King in his kingdom by right aught to protect and defend the Bishops and Churches under his government.  
Then the King ariseth, and is led to the Communion table, where he makes a solemn Oath in sight of all the People to observe the promises, and laying his hand upon the book, saith,  
The Oath.  
The Things that I have before promised, I shall perform, and keep; So help me God, and the contents of this book.   
In the First Clause 'tis plain, he makes a promissory Oath unto the whole People of England, (a word that includes both Nobility, and Clergy, and Commons) that he will confirm their laws and customs: And in the second Paragraph thereof he swears peculiarly to the Clergy, that he will keep the laws, customs, 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 behalf of themselves and their Churches: that he will reserve and maintain to them all canonical privileges, and due Law and Justice, and that he will be their Protector and Defender. Where first, since he swears defence unto the Bishops by name, 'tis plain, he swears to maintain their order: For he that swears he will take care the Bishops shall be protected in such and such Rights, must needs swear to take care that Bishops must first be: For their Rights must needs suppose their Essence.  
And where a King swears defence, what can it imply but defence in a royal Kingly way? Tu defend me gladio, & ego defendam te calamo, is the well known speech of an old churchman to a Prince: For sure where Kings swear defence to Bishops, I do not think they swear to write books in their behalf, or attempt to make it clear to the People that Episcopacy is jure divino: But a King, whose propriety it is to bear the Sword, swears to wear 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 blood, yet when Christian Kings have by Law settled Christian Religion, and sworn to defend those persons that should preach it, he ought sure to bear his Sword to defend his laws, and to keep his soul free from perjury.  
And by canonical privileges that belong to them and their Churches, there must needs be employed the honour of their several 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 himself to see that justice be done to them and the Churches, according to the Law then in force when he took that Oath. And when the King swears Protection and Defence, that Clause must needs reach not only to their persons, but to their rights and estates; for he swears not only to men, but to men in such a condition, to Bishops and their Churches; and those conditions of men grow little less than ridiculous, if their estates be brought to ruin; 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 beggar, since to see himself in scorn and contempt, might more trouble him then to die.  
And whereas He swears 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 seems 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-royal that can make a Law to be a Law; so that if the King should pass a Statute to take away the Church-lands, he protects it not to his power: since 'tis plain, that so long as a man lives and speaks, 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 sin than Lucrece was in her rape, for though a chaste body may suffer ravishment, yet the strength of a Tarquin cannot possibly reach unto a man's will or his assent.  
Now in all promissory oaths made for the benefit of that Party to whom we swear; '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.  
So although the King swear unto the People of England, that he will keep and confirm their laws, yet if you their Commons desire these said laws, be either abrogated or altered, 'tis clear 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 swears to observe the laws only in sensu composito, so long as they are laws.  
But should the desire either to alter or abrogate either Law or privileges, proceed from any other, but from them alone to whose benefit he was sworn, 'tis clearly plain 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 swears a benefit to the Bishops alone, in the behalf 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 sworn to.  
This then must be confessed to be the sense of the oath, that when the King hath first sworn in general to grant, keep and confirm the laws and customs of the people of England, he farther yet particularly swears unto the Clergy, to preserve their laws and privileges, and customs; 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 express 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 concerns the King by virtue of his Oath to give his Vote unto no such Act as shall prejudice what he hath formerly sworn unto them, except he can first obtain their express 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 tacitly employed, and so it is, (say our Lawyers as you have told me Sir) in respect of the power obligatory, which an Act so passed obtains upon them, for they affirm that it shall as strongly bind the Clergy, as if they themselves had in express terms consented to it. Although Bishops being men barred from their Votes in Parliament, And neither they nor their inferior Clergy having made choice of any to represent them in that great council, their consents can in no fair sense be said to be involved in such Acts as are done as well without their representative presence, as they once without their personal.  
But the Question is, whether a tacit consent, (though it be indeed against their express wills) can have a power remissory to absolve the King from his Oath; he that affirms it hath, must resolve to meet with this great absurdity, that although (besides his general Oath unto the whole People of England) His Majesty be in particular sworn unto the Rights. of the Clergy, yet they obtain no more benefit by this, then if he had sworn only in general; which is as much as to say, that in this little draught oaths are multiplied without necessity, nay without signification at all, and that the greater part of the first, and the whole fourth clause, are nothing else but a mere painful draught of superfluous tautologies.  
For his yielding to the two first lines swears him to keep and confirm the laws and customs of the whole people of England; which word (People) includes those of the Clergy too, and therefore in general their laws and customs are confirmed no doubt in those words, and so confirmed that they cannot be shaken but at least by their tacit consent in a Parliamentary way. But since the King condescends to afford to their Rights, a more particular juratory tie, 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 clearly expressed: For as when the King swears to keep the laws of the People in general, he cannot be acquitted but by the express consent of the people, or by a body that represents the People, quatenus the people▪ so that when in particular he swears unto the laws and customs of the Clergy, this Oath must needs bind until it be remitted in an express form, 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 persuade His Majesty to pass an Act in prejudice of this ecclesiastical Body (to whom he is thus sworn) without their express consent first obtained, counsel him to that which is both grossly injurious unto his fellow Subjects, nay which is indeed a most damnable wickedness against the very soul of the King.  
Sir, as I conceive 'tis now plain enough, that if the Parliament should destroy the episcopal Order, and take away the Lands of the Church; the Houses in that Act would run themselves into two sins, and His Majesty into three; and upon this supposition the Epistler and I are agreed: [I do not think (saith he) Conveniency or Necessity will excuse Conscience in a thing in itself unlawful] and before that, he calls the contrary the Tenet of the Romanist, or Jesuited Puritan: only I would beseech him for his own soul's sake to consider how great a scandal he hath given to mankind, in defence of such sins as these. For I conceive that Durand offended more in holding Fornication was no sin against the Law natural, than Shechem did (who was only under that Law) in his Lust upon old Jacob's Daughter, Fraudem legi facere, (saith the Civilian) is worse than Legem violare, it argues a more un-Subject-like disposition for a man to put tricks and quirks upon his Prince his laws, then to run himself into a downright 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 seems left us now, is either to choose sin or ruin; but yet (if well used) 'tis a condition glorious; a condition wherein all that noble Army of Martyrs stood, before they could come at martyrdom, and if in preparation of mind we thus lay our lives down at the feet of Christ, I am undoubtedly persuaded 'tis our only way to preserve them.  
FINIS.