The Sifters Sieve Broken, Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII. Shewing, that abuſes are a forfeiture of ſome priviledges, in anſwer to Doctor Boughen's 14. Chapter.
I Come now to anſwer your 14. Chapter, which you entitle, whether the lands of the Church may be forfeited by the miſdemeanor of the Clergie?
But here I muſt minde you, and the Chriſtian reader, that whereas there are two parts of the Clergie in England;
1. Parochiall Paſtors, which ſtand by the ordinance of God, who appointed the ordaining of Elders in every Church;
2. Dioceſan Biſhops, which I have proved to be but humane creatures, invented and ſet up, as Jerome ſaith, to prevent Schiſmes;
That which I have ſpoken of forfeitures, belongs to the latter, which are not Gods ordinance; though it may be, ſo they would keep within ancient bounds, and expreſs ancient worth, they might not be only tolerable, but uſefull; yet if theſe abuſe their power, and become an inconvenience, inſtead of curing an inconvenience; and any thing indulged to them for the honour of God, be abuſed, to his diſhonour, in the hurt of the Churches, then they make forfeiture.
Now the Caſe thus ſtated; Your inſtance, Parag. 1. of Abiathars being ſucceeded by another, not the office aboliſht, is not a pari, for that was in an office expreſly Gods ordinance; ſo Epiſcopacie is not.
What you ſay, Parag. 2. about juſtice, out of Lactantius, who in that place diſtinguiſheth between Jus civile, quod pro moribus ubique variatur, & vera juſtitia quàm uniformem, ac ſimplicem propoſuit omnibus Deus. I acknowledg the truth of his ſpeech, nor would I, nor do I maintain any thing againſt true juſtice.
But what you infer from thence, that where true juſtice is wanting, there's no law, nor no Common-wealth, &c. It is evidently contrarie to his minde; for though this true and perfect juſtice, was wanting in all heathen ſocieties, (for they had ſome conſtitutions, that ſwerv'd from it:) yet no man will ſay, there were no Common-wealths, but tyrannies, among the heathen, though they were not ſuch compleat Common-wealths as they might have been, had they known the rule of Gods perfect juſtice.
Parag. 3. To that, that there's great difference between an engagement made to perſons on valuable conſiderations, and which is made gratis to an office or ſocietie ſubſervient to publique good; You anſwer, that the ſetling of land upon a Corporation, is more firm, and that gift gives as good propriety as purchaſe; wherein you wilfully miſtake the ſcope of my ſpeech, or ignorantly; for the difference I ſpeak of, is, in regard of the injurie in alteration; and that too, where and when there is miſcarriage.
Now I hope, though I muſt return to a corrupt man what is his own; yet it is no injurie to deny courteſies, which are given gratis to men for their worth. Artaxerxes beſtowed a great largeſs on the Miniſters of the Sanctuarie, and he did excellently wel in it, and in the confirmation of it, (yet you ſimply make that expreſſion, the Law of God and of the King, to relate to that one Decree of Darius, which you will plainly ſee, if you read Ezra 7.24, 25, 26. together:) But the queſtion is, if the following Prieſts had ſet up themſelves with that the Kings benevolence, and neglected the work of God, and had grown inſolent againſt the Monarch; Whether it had been injurious in the ſucceeding Monarchs, to have recalled that gift given to good men, to make them more ſerviceable to God, and devout in their prayers for the King.
But Par. 4. You ſay, theſe lands and immunities were made to the office, and Epiſcopacy is a living office. But I anſwer, its an office that may dye, for the Dioceſan-Biſhop can finde his Regiſter in Gods Book, he is later then the word written, and therefore this plea will not help him.
Parag. 5. To that, what is granted to perſonal worth, of preſent incumbents, and given to promote the uſefulneſs of the office; You ſay, It is fixed till the office be found uſeleſs and aboliſht, but till then it is injuſtice to take it away, without which the uſefulneſs of that office cannot be ſo well promoted.
I allow all this, and in as full words, pag. 4. of Caſe reſolved; but I affirm, this office by its incroachments (excluding Presbyters) and Canonical priviledges, which it challengeth, is grown burthenſom, inſtead of uſeful, and the incumbents for the general much degenerate, both neglecting the main of a Paſtors office, preaching, and abuſing their power to the hindring of it in others: And for that which you add, of the forfeitures of other Corporations, as that of Drapers, or Grocers, or the City of London it ſelf. I believe, if the King had conquer'd, you would have been as ready as any, to have impleaded the Companies of London of forfeiture, for aſſiſting in the War againſt him. And who knows not, that Corporations may, and often do forfeit and loſe their Charters of priviledges, by abuſe and miſdemeanours? For what you ſay, 'of Parliaments power, Parag. 6. I would you would alwaies ſpeak ſo modeſtly: By Parliamentarie power, when I ſpeak ſo largely, I take it, as containing the three eſtates, the King the head, and the Lords and Commons, as the body; yet I abhor, to think of aſcribing to them power, to make that which is unjuſt juſt, as I do diſdain that compariſon, of the witneſs brought by me againſt Epiſcopacie, to that brought againſt Naboth, by ſuborned Knights of the Poſts; for the teſtimonies I brought, were out of the Scripturures of Truth.
But Parag. 7, 8, 9. We have a great out-cry made, but the beſt is, its a great deal of cry, and little wooll. The out-cry is at theſe words; If King and Parliament releaſe the engagement, in the caſe of money, the engagement were gon in law, though not in equity. The Order would be valid in law, though in jurious. Firſt, you queſtion the validity of an Order of Parliament; but you ſhould remember, I ſpeak of an Order paſt by King and Parliament, and that amounts to a law, and later laws over-rule former. Then you bid men take heed of their purſes, for I ſpeak of ſums of money. But this is but to make a noiſe, for you know my Opponent brought in the inſtance of money, and I did but anſwer about it. But the greateſt out-cry is at this, gon in law, not in equity, valid in law, though injurious; behold (ſay you) law without equity: God bleſs me from ſuch law; I ſay ſo too; but the Divinity is good enough, by your leave: For were not the Statutes in Queen Maries time, laws, though injurious? And the Martyrs brought to a legal tryal, by the Statute-laws of the Land, though injurious ones? This is ſo plain, that no rational man can deny it; and all the ſhew you make to the contrary, is but from the word Jus, becauſe, that properly ſignifies ſuch a conſtitution as is juſt. But if an unequal Statute may not be called Jus, properly, may it not be called Lex, or a Statute-law? your own word *Your ſelf ſay pag. 40. Lex non obligat ſubditos in foro conſcientiae, niſi ſit juſte. The law binds not Subjects in the Court of conſcience, unleſs it be juſt; But then this implyes, in foro humano it doth, which agrees to what I ſay, but that you have a minde to quarrel.pag. 94. l. 12. ſhews that you are not ſo ignorant, as not to know it, nor ſo impudent as to deny it. And therefore your accuſations here of Divinity without conſcience, &c. are Sophiſtical and childiſh, or malicious; whereas, you ſay, I ſtretch my conſcience, and juſtifie a power in the Parliament to do injury, and not onelyonly ſo, but a power to make laws to juſtifie this injury; Its a moſt falſe ſlander: I ſay, there is in King and Parliament that Peerleſs power, that their agreement makes a law; but if they ſtretch this to unjuſt things, they abuſe their power, and become injurious, and ſin, yet we have no plea againſt them in law, that is, in foro humano, but in equity and conſcience.
Parag. 10. You quarrel, in like manner, with thoſe words. So if there be no injury, the King and Parliament may cancel any obligation, which your dulneſs or paſſion makes you not underſtand and ſo you play the ape with them. The meaning is this, The King and Houſes being the ſupream power, what they ratifie, ſtands firm; and what they aboliſh, no man can claim by any conſtitution of the Nation; And in matters not injurious, they may lawfully put this power committed to them, into act.
Now Parag. 11. It may appear, that you well underſtood what I meant, in diſtinguiſhing between law & equity, in that you ſay, "What is according to law, true law, is lawful. Why do you ſay true law, but to note a diſtinction of laws? Some are made by lawful authoritie, and ſo valid in foro humano, in mans Court; yet that authoritie obſerves not the right rules of equitie, but abuſeth power to decree unjuſt things, and ſo it is a law, but not a true law, that is, not a law for that intent that laws were ordained, to prevent injury, not decree it. I conclude therefore, that you make theſe rehearſals of law without equity, ad faciendum populum, againſt your own conſcience; but the intelligent, will ſee and deride this beggarly fraud.
Parag. 12. You harp upon the old ſtring, that an office can forfeit nothing. And I grant it, of ſuch an office that is of God, and of ſuch priviledges as are neceſſarie or uſefull; but neither is Epiſcopacie ſuch an office, nor their large juriſdiction, and great pomp, ſuch priviledges.
Parag. 13. Runs on the ſame ſtring, "touching an office inſtituted of God, which Epiſcopacie is not, though Miniſtrie be. And then kindly (as often formerly) grant the queſtion, that of priviledges perchance there may be a forfeiture, where they prove prejudiciall to the publike good; and ſo waves the queſtion from that which is de jure, of right, which he hath been diſputing all this while, to that which is de facto, of the fact of prejudice to the publike: in which queſtion, how confident ſoever he be in the negative, I muſt mind him, that not he, and the Prelates, nor I, that are parties, but the King and Parliament muſt be Judges.
For what you ſay, out of the great Charter, Parag. 14. 'We grant to God, and confirm the Church of England free, &c. I anſwer, but the Biſhops are not the Church; you do not, I hope, approve that popiſh language, they were then but a part, and an unſound part, being vaſſals to the man of ſin. Yet William the Conqueror did ill, to appropriate Churchlands for covetouſneſs, and for it might miſcarry; ſo did they for the ſame cauſe, rob the Temples of the Heathen Deities; whence the proverbe, Aurum Toloſanum, in Aulus Gel. Noct. Attic. lib. 3. c. 9. Yet they did well, that conſcientiouſly aboliſh'd both Idols and Temples. What you add, that in ſtrictneſs of Reformation, Epiſcopacy was continued in England, as moſt uſeful for the Church. How this obſervation is connected, I know not: It is a ſuddain motion; I may alſo juſtly take occaſion to give notice, that our Reformation hath been counted defective, for keeping up Epiſcopacy in its height; and not either aboliſhing it, or at leſt bringing it within the ancient limits with a Presbytery; (which now is offered by the King.) And what other reformed Churches can the Author name, but it was part of their Reformation, to take away Dioceſan Epiſcopacy?
Parag. 15. You expreſs a needleſs grief, to hear from a Preacher of the Word, that the Biſhops muſt lay down wealth, honour, and Mytres, or elſe the Crown muſt run an hazzard. Are you ſorrie to hear a Preacher ſpeak the truth? hath not the Crown run an hazzard in this reſpect, as well as others? But whereas you ſay, I give notice of what hath been the cauſe of my factious preaching, you falſly ſlander; for though I know no cauſe that I ſhould have had to grieve, to ſee the Biſhops ſtript of their greatneſs in a fair way; yet I have as ſeriouſly, and ſincerely grieved for the hazzard of of the Crown, as your ſelf; and have been as far from furthering it. For that you add, that few of the Biſhops have gained ſo much by the Church as their breeding coſt their parents; It will be credible but to a few, except to thoſe that know at what rates they made friends in the Court, to procure them.
Parag. 16. You tell me, I might have done well to have directed this paſſage to the Parliament. Truly you ſay true, and thoſe that know me, know I have not been backward, to preſs, and perſwade a condeſcenſion on their parts, as well as on the Kings; and that in writing too: which on as good an occaſion, as I had to print my Caſe, may ſee the light. But the Biſhops have not been ſo innocent, as you make them; for ſchiſm, they did not prevent it, but partly made it, by caſting out both Miniſters and people for their own inventions, that willingly, and peaceably, would have held communion in all Gods ordinances; partly occaſion'd it by neglect of good Diſcipline, and rigorouſly requiring conformitie to humane ceremonies: for Hereſies, they did foſter them. How did the moſt of them connive at Papiſts? advance Arminians and Socinians, while they pretended againſt Socinianiſm? Blaſphemie in one kinde they hinder'd not, in that they let blaſpemous ſwearers paſs without diſcipline, and enjoy the priviledges of Sacraments. Atheiſm they promoted, by hindring the preaching of the Goſpel, which they were enemies to, for the moſt part, to uphold their dumb Miniſterie, and for fear their idleneſs ſhould be cenſured. They taught rebellion againſt the Lord, in teaching men to prophane his Sabboths: They hindred not, but occaſioned blood-ſhed, in oppreſſing Scotland with illegal impoſitions, ſtirring up the King to war againſt them, and to break his Pacification with them, which was the egg that hath bred this cockatrice that is like to deſtroy all.
This I ſpeak not of all, but ſome of them; nor out of a delight I have to rake in other mens ſores; but to ſhew you, that Biſhops grew not into ſuch odium among the people for nothing; nor were they without miſcarriages, that occaſioned ſuch a violence againſt them; and yet for my part, I grieve, that the peoples diſlike of them had not acted in a more orderly and regular way.
Parag. 17. For Seldens diſtinction between the Abbot and the Abbey; it ſeems, he is better at relating diſtinctions, then practiſing them: And its good to obſerve that diſtinction, where the man is Gods inſtituted Officer; but that neither Abbot was, nor Dioceſan Biſhop is, but both humane creatures.
Parag. 18. Your quarrell is at my expreſſion, of bringing Biſhops to moderation, which you, in a jeering way, ſay, is annihilation; but as wiſe a man, as you, may be deceived; for though that relation or title of Epiſcopacie, be taken away, wherewith man hath exalted them, yet they may retain that place that God hath given them, to ſerve him as Paſtors, in ſome parochiall charge, as they did before their Epiſcopacie; which he that diſdains, or thinks nothing, or that it is too low for him, I dare be bold to ſay, it is too good for him.
Parag. 19. For that you ſay, that the King ſuffers for the Biſhops obſtinacy; the more diſreſpective they, not to yield, that he may be enlarged, if that would do it; you know what Gregory Nazianzen (not inferior to any of them) did for peace; for what you relate here, and elſe-where, in an accuſatorie way, "of what is done to the Biſhops and Clergie; I might object what hath been done to the Clergie of the other ſide, when under oppoſite power; but I have neither furthered nor approved the oppreſſions of neither ſide, but bewail them, and fear Gods judgments for them.
And therefore, in your Parag. 20. is ſlander out of malice or miſtake, that I have preacht for the Biſhops wealth, or Mytre, &c. but your opinion is at laſt, if others be ſo violent to put him to it, the King and his poſterity muſt periſh, e're you will conſent to part with your greatneſs and honour. Sure, if you count thoſe that put the King upon this ſtrait, his enemies, no wiſe man will count you (who will rather let him periſh by the rigour of others, then relieve him by your condeſcenſion) good friends: you love greatneſs ſo, that you will rather loſe it with him, then releaſe it, to contribute to his preſervation.
Is this your boaſted of affection and loyaltie? This ſhews what you pretend love to the King for; to uphold your own greatneſs, not his, further then it upholds yours.
Parag. 21. You conclude, that if the Biſhops knew themſelves guilty of the difference between the King and Parliament, God forbid but they ſhould part with all they may, &c. And if they will remember the beginning of it in Scotland, with the occaſion, they may ſee guilt enough, eſpecially he that called it, Bellum Epiſcopale, who, it is to be feared, ſpake the minde of the reſt. "But yet they cannot give up what is Gods, nor would I have them, but for God, and to God; for his glory, both to promote a bleſſed peace, and to ſet in its proper ſphear Presbyter-Biſhops of his own appointing, and ſupport more able of them to feed the flock of God, that may live divers years without one Sermon, for many a Dioceſan Biſhop.
Caſe of Conſcience Reſolved.
BEſides this argument, there be other inſinuations brought in by the ſame Author, that it would be diſhonourable to the Kings memorie, to be an unfortunate inſtrument to pull down Cathedrals, and impoveriſh them, &c.
Anſw. To aboliſh Prelacie, and ſeize the revenue of Prelates to private or civill intereſt, undoubtedly could neither want ſtain nor guilt; ſuch kinde of impropriation as hapned in the dayes of Henry the 8. was cryed out of, all the Chriſtian world over. Illam bonorum Eccleſiaſticorum diſſipationem cum deteſtando ſacrilegio conjunctam, tecum & cum bonis omnibus deploramus, ſcelus univerſo orbi commune, ſaith Beza, in reſpon. ad Sarav. de grad. Minist. pag. ult. But who knows not the great defect amongſt us of congruous maintenance for Parochiall Paſtors, by whom the work of the Miniſtrie is chiefly to be performed? And if thoſe large revenues of the Prelates, were directed to ſupply with ſufficient maintenance, all the defective Pariſhes in England, there would be no danger of ſacriledg. And this would not be to ruine, but to rectifie the devotion of former ages, and turn pomp into uſe, and impediments into helps. A work, for which following generations ſhould not need to pitie the king, as put upon it by misfortune, but riſe up and call him bleſſed, whoſe many other diſaſters ended in ſo good and uſefull a work. Had the motives of Henry the 8. been as honeſt, to caſt off Papall juriſdiction, as the act was holy; and the improvement of Abbey lands, as conformable to divine law, as the diſſolution of Abbeys, to the rules of Divine wiſdom: He might not only have been honourable in our Annals; but, if I may ſo ſpeak, a Saint in our Calender. It was the circumſtances of actions, in themſelves glorious, which made them a diſhonour to him, though advantagious to the Church; which circumſtances being avoided in the thing in queſtion, God and good men will highly approve it, which is the only reall, and regardable honour: Thus far my firſt opponent.