An ansvver to a letter vvritten at Oxford, and superscribed to Dr. Samuel Turner, concerning the Church, and the revenues thereof. Wherein is shewed, how impossible it is for the King with a good conscience to yeeld to the change of church-government by bishops, or to the alienating the lands of the Church.
Steward, Richard, 1593?-1651.
This text is an enriched version of the TCP digital transcription A93888 of text R201455 in the English Short Title Catalog (Thomason E385_4). Textual changes and metadata enrichments aim at making the text more computationally tractable, easier to read, and suitable for network-based collaborative curation by amateur and professional end users from many walks of life. The text has been tokenized and linguistically annotated with MorphAdorner. The annotation includes standard spellings that support the display of a text in a standardized format that preserves archaic forms ('loveth', 'seekest'). Textual changes aim at restoring the text the author or stationer meant to publish. This text has not been fully proofread
Approx. 106 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 28 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images.
EarlyPrint Project
Evanston,IL, Notre Dame, IN, St. Louis, MO
2017
A93888
Wing S5516
Thomason E385_4
ESTC R201455
99861961
99861961
114107
This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of
Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal
. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.
Early English books online.
(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A93888)
Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 114107)
Images scanned from microfilm: (Thomason Tracts ; 61:E385[4])
An ansvver to a letter vvritten at Oxford, and superscribed to Dr. Samuel Turner, concerning the Church, and the revenues thereof. Wherein is shewed, how impossible it is for the King with a good conscience to yeeld to the change of church-government by bishops, or to the alienating the lands of the Church.
Steward, Richard, 1593?-1651.
J. T.
Turner, Samuel, D.D.
[2], 53, [1] p.
s.n.],
[London :
Printed in the yeere, M DC XLVII. [1647]
Attributed to Richard Steward by Wing.
A printing of and reply to: A letter written to D. Samuel Turner, concerning the Church, and the revenues thereof.
The letter is signed "J.T." on B1r.
Place of publication from Wing.
A reissue, with cancel title page, of the edition with "Wherein the point of sacriledge, with some others now in controversie, is handled, and fully stated." in title.
In this edition A2r line 11 begins: plus ultra,.
Annotation on Thomason copy: "Apr: 26".
Reproduction of the original in the British Library.
eng
Church of England -- Government -- Early works to 1800.
Church and state -- England -- Early works to 1800.
Episcopacy -- Early works to 1800.
Church polity -- Early works to 1800.
Great Britain -- History -- Civil War, 1642-1649 -- Religious aspects -- Early works to 1800.
A93888 R201455 (Thomason E385_4). civilwar no An ansvver to a letter vvritten at Oxford, and superscribed to Dr. Samuel Turner, concerning the Church, and the revenues thereof.: Wherein Steward, Richard 1647 19505 24 30 0 0 0 0 28 C The rate of 28 defects per 10,000 words puts this text in the C category of texts with between 10 and 35 defects per 10,000 words.
2007-04 TCP
Assigned for keying and markup
2007-04 Aptara
Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images
2008-09 John Latta
Sampled and proofread
2008-09 John Latta
Text and markup reviewed and edited
2009-02 pfs
Batch review (QC) and XML conversion
AN
ANSVVER
TO
A
LETTER
VVritten
at
OXFORD
,
And
superscribed
to
Dr.
SAMVEL
TVRNER
,
Concerning
the
CHURCH
,
and
the
Revenues
thereof
.
Wherein
is
shewed
,
how
impossible
it
is
for
the
King
with
a
good
conscience
to
yeeld
to
the
change
of
Church-Government
by
Bishops
,
or
to
the
alienating
the
Lands
of
the
Church
.
Printed
in
the
Yeere
,
MDCXI
.
VII
.
Faults
escaped
,
correct
thus
.
Page
5.
line
30.
for
Lawes
read
Lands
.
p.
7.
l.
30.
r.
preserving
.
p.
9.
l.
8.
r.
this
in
the
Postscript
.
p.
12.
l.
20.
r.
visum
.
p.
17.
l.
15.
r.
and
elsewhere
,
part
.
p.
18.
l.
27.
for
then
r.
that
.
p.
19.
l.
11.
for
since
,
r.
sure
.
p.
19.
l.
15.
r.
aliquid
.
p.
20.
l.
20.
for
this
r.
the
.
p.
21.
l.
ult.
r.
that
error
.
ibid.
l.
ult.
r.
that
consent
.
p.
24.
l.
8.
r.
Creet
.
ibid.
l.
27.
r.
Apostolicall
.
p.
31.
l.
14.
r.
vindicta
.
p.
35.
l.
26.
dele
not
.
p.
39.
l.
1
r.
must
not
.
p.
44.
l.
5.
for
there
,
r.
other
.
p.
47.
l.
ult.
r.
preserve
.
p.
50.
l.
3.
r.
the
Commons
.
p.
51.
l.
22.
for
〈◊〉
,
r.
are
.
p.
52.
l.
19.
dele
that
.
A
Letter
written
to
D.
SAMUEL
TURNER
,
concerning
the
Church
,
and
the
Revenues
thereof
.
Noble
Doctor
,
I
Expected
when
you
had
seen
the
Kings
last
Messages
,
your
reason
would
have
prompted
you
to
have
look'd
this
way
,
which
caused
a
delay
in
sending
unto
you
,
untill
the
difficulty
of
the
passage
made
me
suspect
whether
this
may
come
safe
to
you
,
and
by
the
preparations
and
designes
here
,
I
feare
I
shall
not
have
another
oportunity
;
take
this
therefore
as
a
farwell-truth
,
that
the
moderate
party
here
,
are
at
their
Ne
plus
ultra
,
the
presbyterians
&
Independants
will
agree
,
and
the
Scots
and
we
shall
not
fall
out
;
and
it
must
now
be
the
wisdome
of
your selfe
,
and
such
as
have
power
and
interest
with
the
King
,
to
save
him
,
your selves
,
and
Country
from
ruine
:
Your
visible
strength
to
hold
out
,
(
much
lesse
to
prevaile
)
is
too
well
known
here
,
and
your
hopes
from
France
and
Ireland
,
will
soon
vanish
,
which
if
successefull
by
a
victorious
Army
(
which
I
beleeve
you
shall
never
see
)
would
but
make
you
and
us
slaves
to
a
forraign
Nation
,
and
extirpate
that
Religion
,
both
sides
pretend
to
maintaine
.
To
be
plaine
,
I
know
no
way
left
you
,
but
to
accept
such
conditions
of
peace
as
may
be
had
;
you
are
too
much
a
souldier
,
to
thinke
a
retreate
(
upon
so
many
disadvantages
)
dishonourable
to
a
Generall
,
or
acceptance
of
hard
conditions
by
a
starved
beleagured
Garrison
to
the
Governour
.
In
short
,
of
evils
choose
the
least
;
and
I
must
tell
you
,
it
is
expected
from
you
,
(
and
the
more
wise
and
honest
party
with
you
)
that
they
should
make
use
of
their
reason
,
and
advise
the
King
to
save
what
is
left
,
wherein
it
is
believed
you
may
prevaile
;
considering
what
hath
already
passed
in
so
many
free
offers
to
give
satisfaction
in
the
Militia
,
Ireland
,
paiment
of
the
publique
Debts
,
choice
of
Judges
,
Lord
Admirall
,
Officers
of
State
,
and
others
,
with
an
Act
of
oblivion
and
free
Pardon
,
free
exercise
of
Religion
,
to
Presbyterians
,
and
Independants
their
own
way
,
and
a
promise
to
endeavour
in
all
particulars
,
that
none
shall
have
cause
to
complaine
for
want
of
security
:
things
so
farre
beyond
our
former
hopes
,
that
I
cannot
doubt
,
but
the
same
reason
which
moved
the
offer
of
these
,
will
obtaine
to
concession
of
such
others
,
as
the
Parliament
shall
require
in
order
to
peace
,
which
(
as
neere
as
I
can
guesse
)
will
be
either
the
removall
and
punishment
of
evill
Counsellors
,
and
Ministers
,
who
have
drawn
the
King
into
these
troubles
,
or
the
busines
of
the
Church
,
(
all
other
materiall
things
to
my
apprehension
being
already
offered
.
)
For
the
first
of
these
,
I
know
not
how
you
can
with
reason
gain-say
the
bringing
offenders
to
Justice
;
and
if
the
Parliament
Prerogative
streine
justice
in
the
tryall
and
punishment
(
beyond
example
of
better
times
)
it
were
wisdome
for
such
as
may
therein
be
concerned
,
to
withdraw
,
Dum
furer
in
cursu
,
for
if
it
must
come
to
suffering
,
Melius
unus
quam
unitas
:
for
the
busines
of
the
Church
I
wish
it
could
be
prevented
,
(
there
are
who
can
witnesse
the
labour
and
hazards
I
have
undergone
for
that
end
)
conceiving
no
government
equall
to
a
well
ordered
Episcopall
,
for
the
well-being
of
this
Church
and
State
:
But
when
the
necessity
of
times
hath
proposed
this
sad
question
for
resolution
,
whether
consent
to
alter
Episcopall
government
in
the
Church
,
or
let
both
Church
and
State
ruine
together
,
my
reason
assents
to
the
former
.
I
beleeve
the
doctrine
of
the
place
where
you
are
,
would
perswade
the
contrary
,
and
it
hath
been
from
thence
transmitted
hither
as
an
orthodox
truth
,
that
the
altering
that
government
,
being
as
they
say
jure
divino
,
is
sinfull
;
and
the
taking
away
the
Church-lands
,
sacriledge
,
at
least
unlawfull
;
which
if
I
could
believe
,
would
change
my
opinion
,
for
I
cannot
give
way
for
the
committing
a
sin
for
a
good
end
,
(
what
ever
the
Romanist
,
or
Jesuited
Puritan
pretend
in
defence
of
it
)
but
if
I
mistake
not
,
(
and
if
I
doe
,
I
pray
reforme
me
)
the
opinion
that
the
government
by
Bishops
is
jure
divino
,
hath
but
lately
been
countenanced
in
England
,
and
that
but
by
some
few
of
the
more
Lordly
Clergy
;
for
we
alwayes
acknowledge
the
Protestants
of
Germany
,
the
Low
Countryes
,
and
elsewhere
,
part
of
the
reformed
Protestant
Catholique
Church
though
they
had
no
Bishops
;
and
I
am
certaine
the
King
would
never
have
given
way
for
the
extirpation
of
Bishops
in
Scotland
,
had
he
conceived
them
to
be
jure
divino
;
nor
to
the
Presbyterians
,
and
Independants
here
to
exercise
their
Religion
their
own
way
,
(
as
by
his
late
Messages
)
when
such
a
tolleration
in
the
face
of
such
a
divine
Law
,
must
needs
be
sinfull
:
and
for
the
latter
opinion
against
taking
away
of
Church
Lands
,
I
am
lesse
satisfyed
,
being
so
farre
from
conceiving
it
sacriledge
,
that
I
do
not
conceive
it
unlawfull
,
but
may
be
done
without
breach
of
any
Law
,
(
which
must
be
the
rule
for
tryal
of
the
lawfulnes
or
unlawfulnes
of
every
action
)
nay
though
there
be
never
so
many
curses
or
imprecations
added
to
the
donation
:
nor
do
I
herein
ground
my
opinion
barely
upon
the
frequent
practise
of
former
times
,
not
only
by
Acts
of
Parliament
,
(
in
the
times
of
Queen
Eliz
,
and
King
James
,
and
King
Charles
,
if
you
have
not
forgotten
the
exchange
of
Durham
house
)
aswell
as
Henry
the
eighth
)
but
even
by
the
Bishops
themselves
,
and
Deanes
and
Chapters
,
insomuch
,
that
if
the
wisdome
of
the
State
(
after
Clergy
men
were
permitted
to
marry
)
had
not
prohibited
their
alienations
,
and
restrained
their
Leases
to
21.
yeares
,
or
3.
lives
,
their
Revenues
at
this
day
would
not
have
been
subject
to
envy
.
But
to
deale
clearely
with
you
Doctor
,
I
do
not
yet
understand
how
there
can
be
any
Sacriledge
,
properly
so
called
,
which
is
not
a
theft
and
more
:
viz.
a
theft
of
something
dedicated
to
holy
use
,
(
a
Communion-Cup
for
instance
,
or
the
like
)
&
theft
you
know
must
be
of
things
moveable
,
even
by
the
Civil
Law
,
and
how
theft
can
be
of
Lands
,
or
sacriledge
committed
by
aliening
Church-Lands
,
I
pray
aske
your
friend
Holbourne
and
his
fellow
Lawyers
,
for
ours
here
deride
us
for
the
question
.
As
for
the
main
quere
,
touching
the
lawfulnes
of
aliening
Church-lands
,
(
I
use
the
expression
for
the
lands
of
Bishops
,
Deanes
,
and
Chapters
,
)
good
Doctor
give
me
your
patience
to
heare
my
reasons
.
And
first
I
lay
this
as
a
foundation
,
that
there
is
no
divine
command
that
Ministers
under
the
Gospell
should
have
any
lands
,
(
the
hire
of
a
labourer
at
most
,
a
fitting
maintenance
is
all
to
be
challenged
)
nor
do
we
read
that
the
Apostles
had
any
Lands
,
(
which
I
mention
to
avoid
the
groundlesse
arguments
upon
the
lands
and
portions
allotted
to
the
Tribe
of
Levi
by
Gods
appointment
,
to
whom
our
Ministers
have
no
succession
)
and
then
it
will
follow
,
that
they
enjoy
their
lands
by
the
same
Law
of
the
State
as
others
doe
,
and
must
be
subject
to
that
Law
which
alone
gives
strength
to
their
title
;
which
being
granted
,
I
am
sure
it
will
not
be
denyed
,
that
by
the
Law
of
the
Nation
,
he
that
hath
an
estate
in
Lands
in
Fee-simple
,
by
an
implyed
power
,
may
lawfully
alien
,
though
there
be
an
expression
in
his
Deed
of
purchase
or
donation
to
the
contrary
:
which
being
so
,
makes
the
alienation
of
Bishops
Lands
even
without
any
Act
of
Parliament
,
to
be
lawfull
,
being
done
by
those
who
have
an
estate
in
Fee
simple
,
(
as
the
Bishop
,
with
the
Deane
and
Chapter
hath
.
)
Then
further
,
I
am
sure
it
will
be
granted
,
that
by
the
Law
of
this
Nation
,
whosoever
hath
Lands
or
goods
,
hath
them
with
this
inseparable
implyed
condition
or
limitation
,
viz.
That
the
Parliament
may
dispose
of
them
or
any
part
of
them
at
pleasure
.
Hence
it
is
they
sometimes
dispose
some
part
in
Subsidies
and
other
Taxes
;
enable
a
Tenant
for
life
,
to
sell
an
estate
in
Fee-simple
,
and
not
at
all
unlawfull
,
because
of
that
limitation
or
condition
before
mentioned
;
and
who
ever
will
be
owner
must
take
them
according
to
this
Law
:
Now
hence
comes
the
mistake
,
by
reason
there
is
not
such
an
expresse
condition
or
limitation
in
the
Deed
of
Donation
,
(
which
would
silence
all
disputes
)
whereas
it
is
as
cleare
a
truth
,
that
where
any
thing
is
necessarily
by
Law
implied
,
it
is
as
much
as
if
in
plaine
words
expressed
,
of
which
your
Lawyers
(
if
Reason
need
a
helpe
from
them
)
can
easily
resolve
.
Besides
,
it
were
somewhat
strange
,
that
the
Donor
of
the
Lawes
should
preserve
them
in
the
hands
of
the
Bishops
,
from
the
power
of
the
Parliament
;
which
he
could
not
doe
in
his
owne
,
and
give
them
a
greater
and
surer
right
then
he
had
himselfe
:
Nor
doe
I
understand
their
meaning
,
who
terme
God
the
Proprieter
of
the
Bishops
Lands
,
and
the
Bishop
the
Usufructuary
.
For
I
know
not
how
(
in
propriety
of
speech
)
God
is
more
entituled
to
their
Lands
then
to
his
whole
Creation
;
and
were
Clergie-men
but
Usufructuaries
,
how
come
they
to
change
,
dispose
or
alter
the
property
of
any
thing
,
(
which
an
Usufructuary
cannot
doe
)
and
yet
is
by
them
done
daily
?
Aske
them
by
what
Divine
Law
S.
Maries
Church
in
Oxford
,
may
not
be
equally
imployed
for
temporall
uses
,
as
for
holding
the
Vice-chancellours
Court
,
the
University
Convocation
,
or
their
yearly
acts
?
And
for
the
Curses
(
those
bug-beare
words
)
I
could
yet
never
learne
that
an
unlawfull
curse
was
any
prejudice
but
to
the
Author
,
of
which
sort
those
curses
must
needs
be
,
which
restraine
the
Parliament
or
any
other
from
exercising
a
lawfull
and
undenyable
power
,
which
in
instances
would
shew
very
ridiculous
,
if
any
curse
should
prejudice
anothers
lawfull
right
.
I
am
sure
such
curses
have
no
warrant
from
the
Law
of
God
or
this
Nation
.
If
this
doth
not
satisfie
the
former
doubts
in
your
Bishops
,
(
for
I
know
you
to
be
too
great
a
Master
of
Reason
to
be
unsatisfied
)
aske
them
whether
Church-lands
may
not
lawfully
(
the
Law
of
the
State
not
prohibiting
)
be
transferred
from
one
Church
to
another
upon
emergent
occasions
?
which
I
think
they
will
not
deny
.
If
so
,
who
knowes
that
the
Parliament
will
transferre
them
to
Lay-hands
?
they
professe
no
such
thing
,
and
I
hope
they
will
not
,
but
continue
them
for
the
maintenance
of
the
Ministery
,
(
which
prevents
all
disputes
upon
the
last
question
)
but
if
they
shall
hereafter
do
otherwise
,
you
know
my
opinion
:
Onely
mistake
me
not
in
this
free
discourse
,
as
if
I
did
countenance
or
commend
the
Parliaments
proceedings
in
their
new
Reformation
,
but
as
a
caution
to
you
in
the
exigencies
of
times
,
what
is
fittest
to
be
done
,
when
(
I
take
it
)
Mistresse
Necessity
in
all
things
indifferent
,
or
not
unlawfull
,
must
be
obeyed
,
in
which
cases
the
most
constant
men
must
be
contented
to
change
their
resolutions
with
the
alteration
of
time
.
Your
party
have
been
resolute
enough
to
preserve
the
rights
of
the
Church
,
and
further
peradventure
then
wise
men
would
have
done
,
but
at
an
ultra
posse
you
and
we
must
give
over
,
especially
for
an
imaginary
right
.
And
think
seriously
with
your selfe
,
whether
after
all
other
things
granted
,
it
will
be
fit
to
run
the
hazard
of
the
very
being
of
this
Church
and
State
,
the
King
and
his
posterity
,
and
Monarchy
it selfe
,
onely
upon
the
point
of
Church-government
by
Bishops
,
or
aliening
the
Church-lands
,
or
rather
whether
the
Kings
Councell
(
in
duty
)
ought
not
to
advise
him
the
contrary
,
who
should
be
wise
as
well
as
pious
,
yet
herein
may
be
both
,
(
for
I
doe
not
thinke
Conveniencie
or
Necessity
will
excuse
Conscience
in
a
thing
in
it selfe
unlawfull
,
what
ever
States-men
maintain
to
the
contrary
)
your
interest
with
the
King
is
not
small
,
and
your
power
with
the
Lords
(
who
are
guided
by
reason
)
very
considerable
,
you
cannot
doe
better
then
make
use
of
both
at
this
time
.
If
they
have
a
desire
to
preserve
the
Church
,
it
were
wel
their
thoughts
were
fixed
upon
some
course
for
setling
a
Superintendencie
in
the
Presbyteriall
Government
,
(
which
no
way
crosseth
the
Nationall
Covenant
)
and
preserve
the
Revenues
in
the
Church
,
which
I
beleeve
at
Uxbridge
Treaty
would
have
been
granted
,
what
ever
it
will
be
now
.
I
have
given
you
my
sense
upon
the
whole
businesse
.
Si
quid
novisti
rectius
,
Candidus
imperti
,
si
non
his
utere
.
J.
T.
So
farewell
Doctor
.
I
give
you
commission
to
shew
this
to
my
Lord
Dorset
,
(
who
by
+
and
something
else
can
guesse
my
name
)
and
to
as
many
more
as
owne
Reason
and
Honesty
.
An
Answer
to
the
foregoing
Letter
,
superscribed
to
D.
Samuel
Turner
,
&c.
Sir
,
YOu
have
put
an
odde
taske
upon
me
,
in
commanding
my
judgement
on
a
Letter
lately
sent
to
a
Doctor
in
Oxford
,
with
a
commission
to
shew
it
to
the
Lord
of
Dorset
,
and
to
as
many
more
as
own
reason
and
honesty
;
for
this
is
the
Postscript
,
and
many
the
like
passages
in
the
Letter
,
(
as
that
the
more
wise
and
honest
party
would
make
use
of
their
reason
,
and
I
know
you
too
great
a
master
of
reason
,
to
be
unsatisfyed
)
makes
me
feare
,
that
if
I
should
perhaps
dissent
in
opinion
from
this
Epistler
,
I
might
be
thought
,
(
at
least
in
his
conceite
)
to
incurre
a
sharpe
censure
both
in
point
of
reason
and
honesty
:
Which
I
confesse
at
first
somewhat
troubled
me
,
untill
I
remembred
you
were
wont
to
say
,
that
when
vessels
do
once
make
such
noises
as
these
,
t
is
a
very
shrewd
signe
they
are
empty
.
He
who
wrote
the
Letter
seemes
most
desirous
of
Peace
,
and
truly
Sir
so
am
I
;
besides
we
agree
in
this
,
that
we
must
not
commit
sinne
for
a
good
end
;
so
that
if
Peace
it selfe
cannot
be
attained
without
that
guilt
,
we
must
be
content
with
a
worse
estate
.
But
you
very
well
know
,
with
how
many
severall
deceipts
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
commandement
of
the
Lord
,
and
yet
his
sin
remained
still
a
great
sinne
,
and
much
the
worse
because
he
excused
it
:
For
his
guilt
is
lesse
that
commits
a
crime
,
then
his
that
undertakes
to
defend
it
;
because
this
cuts
off
all
repentance
,
nay
,
it
makes
a
sin
to
grow
up
into
that
more
wicked
heighth
of
a
scandall
,
and
so
t
is
not
only
a
snare
to
the
sinner
himselfe
,
but
it
warrants
many
more
to
be
sinfull
.
Whether
this
Oxford
Londoner
,
for
so
I
take
the
Epistler
to
be
,
hath
not
defended
or
made
apologies
for
sinne
,
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
Kings
friends
,
whom
they
above
call
evil
counsellors
.
And
2.
The
businesse
of
the
Church
.
1.
For
the
Kings
friends
.
He
sayes
,
—
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
referre
Delinquents
to
be
judged
by
the
House
of
Peers
,
sitting
in
a
free
Parliament
,
and
judging
according
to
the
known
Lawes
of
the
Realme
,
is
that
at
least
which
in
my
opinion
would
not
be
stucke
at
.
But
the
Parliament
prerogative
,
which
this
Letter
speakes
of
,
being
now
so
extended
,
as
we
have
cause
to
thinke
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
clearely
bound
by
so
many
grand
ties
to
protect
.
But
this
Sir
I
shall
commit
to
you
to
determine
,
and
if
you
returne
me
a
negative
,
I
shall
not
presume
to
question
your
reason
or
honesty
;
nor
shall
I
perswade
the
Kings
friends
that
they
would
banish
themselves
,
unlesse
it
were
only
to
do
that
great
favour
to
the
two
Houses
now
at
Westminster
,
as
to
keep
them
from
some
future
foule
acts
of
oppression
and
bloud
,
because
they
shall
have
none
left
to
act
upon
.
2.
For
the
busines
of
the
Church
,
which
he
againe
divides
into
two
parts
,
first
that
of
Episcopacy
,
&
secondly
of
Sacriledge
.
And
in
these
Sir
I
shall
speake
with
lesse
hesitation
,
I
shall
clearely
tell
you
the
Epistler
is
cleane
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
humane
actions
to
tell
us
what
is
sinne
or
no
sinne
:
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
reforme
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
Cleargy
.
These
last
words
make
me
suspect
some
passion
in
the
Writer
,
as
being
in
scorne
heretofore
taken
up
by
men
,
who
for
a
long
time
were
Schismatiques
,
in
their
hearts
,
and
are
now
Rebels
in
their
actions
:
And
since
the
Lawes
of
this
Land
makes
some
Church
men
Lords
,
I
do
the
more
marvaile
that
the
Epistler
lookes
awry
upon
it
:
so
that
though
his
profession
be
,
that
he
has
undergone
labours
and
hazards
for
the
Episcopall
Government
,
yet
truly
Sir
I
must
thinke
,
that
t
is
then
only
fit
for
the
Church
to
give
him
thankes
,
when
she
has
done
all
her
other
busines
.
But
grant
that
Tenet
to
be
but
of
late
countenanced
,
it
thence
followes
not
,
that
t
is
any
whit
the
lesse
true
.
For
in
respect
of
the
many
hundred
yeares
of
abuse
,
the
reformation
it selfe
was
but
of
late
countenanced
here
,
yet
I
take
it
for
an
unquestionable
truth
that
the
Laity
ought
to
have
the
cuppe
.
And
though
I
was
not
desired
to
reforme
this
Epistlers
errour
,
yet
in
charity
I
shall
tell
him
,
that
he
is
out
,
when
he
affirmes
that
this
opinion
was
but
of
late
countenanced
in
this
Church
,
as
I
could
shew
him
out
of
Archbishop
Whitgift
,
and
Bishop
Bilson
and
others
:
and
since
perhaps
he
may
thinke
these
to
be
but
men
of
the
more
Lordly
Clergy
,
I
shall
name
one
more
who
may
stand
for
many
,
and
who
wrote
forty
yeares
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
dreame
of
a
Rotchet
)
he
averres
in
cleare
tearmes
,
There
are
at
this
day
in
the
Church
of
England
,
no
other
then
the
same
degrees
of
Ecclesiasticall
order
,
namely
Bishops
,
Presbyters
,
and
Deacons
,
which
had
their
beginning
from
Christ
and
his
blessed
Apostles
themselves
,
or
as
he
expounds
himselfe
,
Bishops
and
Presbyters
,
ordained
by
Christ
himselfe
in
the
Apostles
and
the
seventy
,
and
then
Deacons
by
his
Apostles
;
I
may
adde
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
Edwards
time
,
and
he
wrote
and
dyed
in
this
Kingdome
,
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
himselfe
,
they
are
of
divine
institution
.
Nay
what
thinke
you
if
this
Tenet
be
approved
by
a
plaine
act
of
Parliament
?
I
hope
then
it
wants
no
countenance
which
England
can
give
it
,
and
it
needs
not
fly
for
shelter
under
the
wings
of
the
Lordly
Cleargy
;
you
have
these
words
in
the
booke
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
Christs
Church
,
Bishops
,
Presbyters
and
Deacons
.
And
againe
,
the
prayer
in
the
forme
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
worke
and
ministery
of
a
Bishop
;
and
in
questions
to
the
person
to
be
consecrated
a
Bishop
,
Are
you
perswaded
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
professe
that
he
conceives
he
is
called
according
to
the
will
of
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
,
either
all
this
must
be
nothing
else
but
pure
pagentry
,
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
Cleargy
.
And
we
have
the
lesse
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
then
twenty
five
yeares
since
,
that
sitting
at
Dort
,
he
then
protested
in
open
Synod
,
That
Christ
instituted
no
parity
,
but
made
twelve
Apostles
,
the
chiefe
,
and
under
them
seventy
Disciples
:
That
Bishops
succeeded
to
the
twelve
,
and
to
the
seventy
,
Presbyters
of
an
inferiour
ranke
;
he
affirmed
this
order
had
been
still
maintained
in
the
Church
,
and
then
challenged
the
judgement
of
any
learnned
man
,
that
could
speake
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
suppresse
their
then
risen
Schismes
;
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
mercifull
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
sinfull
:
Nay
,
they
thought
their
necessity
it selfe
could
not
totally
excuse
their
sinne
;
for
then
in
that
particular
there
had
been
no
need
to
hope
for
Gods
mercy
:
nor
could
they
well
thinke
otherwise
;
since
being
pressed
,
they
denyed
not
but
that
Episcopacy
was
of
Christs
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
groundlesse
,
for
since
the
Tenents
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
meerely
directive
only
;
that
all
power
co-active
either
in
them
or
in
others
,
is
derived
meerly
from
the
Royal
authority
;
that
they
cannot
legally
make
use
,
no
not
so
much
as
of
this
directive
power
,
but
only
by
the
Kings
leave
:
So
that
if
the
temporall
Lawes
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
Kings
Lawes
,
they
must
submit
to
a
Martyrdome
,
(
though
t
were
sinne
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
clearely
find
,
Kings
and
they
cannot
stand
together
,
for
either
you
consider
that
new
government
in
the
Scotish
sence
,
which
allowes
no
appeale
to
any
other
power
,
and
then
t
is
plaine
,
that
where
men
admit
this
,
they
admit
of
a
supremacy
,
which
doth
not
reside
in
the
King
;
and
by
consequent
,
of
two
severall
supremacies
within
the
bounds
of
the
selfe
same
Kingdome
,
which
can
no
more
stand
with
Monarchy
,
then
it
can
with
Monogamy
to
be
maried
to
two
severall
wives
.
And
though
t
is
said
that
this
Presbyterian
government
meddles
only
with
spirituall
things
,
which
concerne
the
good
of
the
soule
,
and
so
it
cannot
hurt
Regall
power
,
yet
this
is
but
onely
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
ranke
,
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
thinke
,
that
it
will
carry
it selfe
otherwise
.
So
that
King
James
his
maxime
was
undoubtedly
most
true
,
upon
this
same
ground
we
are
on
,
No
Bishop
,
no
King
:
For
that
most
prudent
Prince
did
soone
discerne
,
that
if
a
power
were
once
set
up
,
which
at
least
in
the
legall
execution
of
it
,
did
not
derive
it selfe
from
the
King
,
there
was
no
doubt
to
be
made
,
but
it
would
ere
long
destroy
the
very
King
himselfe
.
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
appeale
to
the
Parliament
,
for
either
by
Parliament
here
they
meane
the
Two
Houses
excluding
the
King
,
and
then
t
is
as
plain
as
before
,
they
set
up
two
supremacies
,
his
Majesties
and
their
owne
:
or
else
by
Parliament
they
meane
the
King
with
both
Houses
,
and
then
it
will
follow
,
that
either
there
must
be
a
perpetuall
Parliament
,
(
which
sure
neither
King
nor
Kingdome
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
appeale
to
;
or
if
it
be
said
the
Parliament
may
leave
a
standing
Committee
to
receive
appeales
in
such
ecclesiasticall
causes
;
then
either
in
this
Committee
the
King
hath
no
negative
;
and
in
that
case
t
is
clear
that
the
ecclesiasticall
supremacy
will
be
not
at
all
in
the
King
;
or
else
the
King
hath
a
negative
,
but
yet
is
joyned
with
persons
whom
he
himself
chooses
not
,
and
so
most
probably
will
be
check'd
and
affronted
in
any
sentence
he
intends
to
give
;
and
this
clearely
overthrowes
that
which
is
already
declared
by
Parliament
,
to
be
a
right
in
the
King
,
as
inherent
in
his
Crowne
,
that
ecclesiasticall
appeales
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
finall
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
forme
,
as
appeares
by
their
quarrels
at
what
the
Houses
have
already
done
in
their
Ordinances
;
so
that
their
aime
is
not
only
to
set
up
a
new
Government
,
but
in
plain
tearmes
,
a
new
supremacy
:
And
hence
,
to
say
truth
,
he
must
see
very
little
who
discernes
not
,
that
though
the
Presbyterian
party
seemes
to
strike
at
the
Bishops
,
yet
their
maine
aime
is
at
the
King
;
whose
supremacy
they
endure
not
,
as
being
a
flower
which
they
intend
for
their
owne
Garland
;
and
so
,
though
they
hypocritically
cry
out
(
that
they
may
abuse
the
People
)
against
the
pride
of
the
Lordly
Bishops
,
yet
in
the
meane
time
,
the
wiser
sort
must
needs
see
,
that
they
intend
to
make
themselves
no
lesse
then
indeed
Kingly
Presbyters
.
We
acknowledge
the
Protestants
of
Germany
,
the
Low
countryes
,
and
part
of
the
reformed
Catholique
Protestant
Church
,
though
they
had
no
Bishops
,
&c.
Though
we
maintain
Episcopacy
to
be
of
divine
right
,
(
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
Jewes
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
her selfe
was
become
no
true
part
of
the
Church
Catholique
;
and
yet
she
breakes
a
flat
Precept
of
Christ
,
[
drinke
yee
all
of
this
]
and
shall
we
be
thought
to
deny
the
same
right
to
christians
without
Bishops
,
when
they
breake
but
Christs
institution
?
No
,
Churches
they
are
,
true
parts
of
the
Catholique
Church
:
but
in
point
of
ordination
and
of
government
Apostolicall
they
are
not
.
I
am
certaine
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
,
yet
of
all
mankind
are
Kings
onely
bound
,
that
they
must
not
change
their
opinions
;
or
if
perhaps
they
have
done
ill
,
must
they
for
their
repentance
be
more
lyable
to
reproach
,
then
Subjects
are
for
their
crimes
?
The
King
would
not
have
given
way
to
the
Presbyterians
,
and
Independents
,
to
exercise
their
Religion
here
their
own
way
,
(
as
by
his
Messages
)
▪
when
such
a
tolleration
in
the
face
of
such
a
divine
Law
must
needs
be
sinfull
.
There
is
a
great
mistake
in
this
Argument
;
for
to
tollerate
,
doth
not
at
all
signifie
either
to
approve
or
commend
their
factions
,
neither
of
which
the
King
could
at
all
do
to
those
Schismatiques
without
sinne
.
But
it
meerely
implies
not
to
punish
,
which
Kings
may
forbeare
upon
just
reason
of
State
,
as
David
forbore
to
punish
the
murtherers
of
Joab
;
and
we
our selves
in
our
English
State
,
have
no
punishment
for
all
sorts
of
Lyars
,
and
yet
their
sinne
is
against
a
flat
Law
divine
.
We
affirme
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
clearely
implyed
,
then
there
are
other
men
too
,
that
ought
both
to
heare
and
obey
?
He
that
institutes
or
erects
a
Bridge
over
a
broad
swelling
stream
,
needs
not
(
you
will
think
)
adde
an
expresse
command
,
that
men
should
not
walke
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
,
Drinke
yee
all
of
this
,
But
he
gave
no
expresse
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
yeares
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
ordaine
and
to
govern
Churches
,
you
need
not
doubt
they
received
an
authority
from
their
Master
to
do
both
;
for
since
men
will
not
thinke
they
would
breake
their
own
rules
:
No
man
taketh
this
upon
him
,
but
he
that
is
called
of
God
,
as
Aaron
was
.
Episcopacy
then
was
instituted
in
the
Apostles
,
who
wer
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
dayes
formalize
and
bound
out
that
power
which
still
we
do
cal
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
alwayes
in
the
greater
:
we
may
truly
say
it
was
instituted
by
Christ
in
his
Apostles
who
had
Episcopall
Power
and
more
,
and
then
t
was
formalized
and
bounded
by
the
Apostles
themselves
,
in
the
persons
of
Timothy
and
Titus
,
&c.
So
that
call
the
Episcopall
order
either
of
Divine
right
,
or
Apostolicall
Institution
,
and
I
shall
not
at
all
quarrell
at
it
:
For
Apostolicall
will
seeme
Divine
enough
,
unto
Christians
;
I
am
sure
Salmatius
thinks
so
,
(
a
sharpe
enemy
to
the
Episcopall
Order
)
if
(
saith
he
)
it
be
from
the
Apostles
,
t
is
of
Divine
right
;
thus
we
find
the
power
of
ordination
and
of
jurisdiction
to
be
given
to
those
men
alone
;
For
then
that
power
is
properly
Episcopall
,
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
then
the
Text
is
plaine
,
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
ordaine
Elders
in
every
City
,
Tit.
1.
5.
where
plainly
those
two
powers
of
government
and
ordination
are
given
unto
one
man
;
So
S.
Iohn
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
t
is
plaine
,
that
though
we
should
yeeld
that
the
Apostles
only
did
institute
Bishops
,
yet
in
this
Revel.
Christ
himselfe
immediately
in
his
own
person
,
and
the
holy
Spirit
withall
,
did
both
approve
and
confirme
them
:
And
the
Learned
observe
,
that
the
Bishops
of
those
Sees
,
are
therefore
called
Angels
by
S.
Iohn
,
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
Churches
Chiefes
:
this
truth
appeares
not
only
from
those
cleare
Texts
,
but
from
the
mutuall
consent
and
pactise
for
more
then
1500.
yeares
space
of
all
the
Christian
Church
;
So
that
neither
S.
Hierome
,
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
administred
,
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
it selfe
:
But
as
t
is
a
Maxime
in
Humane
Lawes
,
Consuetudo
optima
Legum
Interpres
,
Custome
and
Practice
is
the
best
Interpreter
:
So
no
rationall
man
but
will
easily
yeeld
,
it
as
well
holds
in
Lawes
Divine
:
For
I
would
gladly
aske
,
What
better
way
can
there
be
for
the
interpreting
of
Texts
,
then
that
very
same
meanes
whereby
I
know
the
Text
it selfe
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
beleeve
them
to
be
written
by
that
Apostle
,
because
the
Universality
of
the
whole
Christian
Church
has
brought
me
to
that
beliefe
,
(
and
there
's
no
other
rationall
way
of
beleeving
it
)
why
doe
I
not
beleeve
the
same
Christian
sense
,
which
the
universal
consent
assures
me
they
were
written
in
?
Shall
I
beleeve
,
and
yet
disbeleeve
that
selfe-same
consent
which
is
the
best
ground
of
my
beliefe
?
This
is
as
it
were
in
cleare
terms
to
say
,
that
I
beleeve
such
a
tale
for
the
Authors
sake
who
hath
told
it
,
and
yet
I
doe
now
hold
the
selfe-same
man
to
be
a
lyar
.
Men
doe
beleeve
the
testimony
of
universall
consent
,
in
the
sense
it
gives
of
single
termes
,
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
universall
is
the
best
interpretation
of
Texts
;
and
then
I
am
sure
,
it
is
as
cleare
as
true
,
that
Episcopacy
is
of
Divine
or
Apostolicall
Right
;
yea
and
that
proposition
,
There
can
be
no
Ordination
,
without
the
hands
of
a
Bishop
,
will
clearely
appeare
to
be
as
well
grounded
as
this
;
There
can
be
no
Baptisme
without
a
lawfull
Minister
,
which
is
good
Divinity
amongst
our
new
Masters
in
Scotland
:
and
Antiquity
allowed
of
it
,
Extra
casum
necessitatis
:
For
I
aske
upon
what
Text
doe
they
ground
this
Rule
?
I
suppose
they
will
say
upon
our
Saviours
words
,
to
the
Eleven
,
Matth.
28.
Go
teach
all
Nations
,
and
baptize
them
:
But
in
the
institution
of
the
Eucharist
He
spake
those
words
too
;
but
only
to
the
Twelve
,
Drinke
yee
all
of
this
,
Matth.
26.
I
demand
then
how
shall
I
know
that
when
our
Saviour
spake
those
words
unto
the
Eleven
,
he
spake
them
only
as
to
lawfull
Ministers
;
but
when
he
spake
the
other
,
to
the
Twelve
he
spake
at
large
as
unto
them
that
did
represent
all
Christian
men
?
So
that
though
only
Ministers
may
Baptize
,
yet
all
Christians
may
receive
the
Cup
:
Perhaps
they
will
say
,
that
the
generall
practise
of
receiving
the
Cup
,
is
manifest
from
1
Cor.
11.
and
I
thinke
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
seemes
to
chide
the
whole
Church
for
not
excommunicating
the
incestuous
Person
:
yet
t
is
plain
,
he
meanes
none
but
the
men
in
government
(
as
sure
all
Presbyterians
will
allow
me
)
I
know
not
what
could
be
said
but
to
make
it
appeare
out
of
the
Fathers
,
and
others
,
that
the
whole
Christian
Church
never
tooke
the
words
in
that
sense
.
And
if
to
stop
the
mouthes
of
wranglers
,
we
must
at
length
be
constrained
to
quote
the
Authority
of
Universall
consent
,
and
the
Common
practise
of
Christs
Church
,
then
you
will
easily
see
that
those
two
named
Propositions
do
stand
fast
on
the
same
bottome
,
There
can
be
no
Baptisme
without
a
lawfull
Minister
,
extra
casum
necessitatis
,
for
so
the
consent
and
practise
of
the
Universall
Church
hath
still
interpreted
that
Text
:
And
againe
t
is
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.
yeares
together
by
the
consent
of
the
whole
Church
of
Christ
.
T
is
true
that
this
precept
,
Go
ye
teach
,
&c.
runnes
not
in
exclusive
words
,
yee
Apostles
,
or
yee
lawfull
Ministers
,
and
none
but
yee
;
yet
extra
casum
necessitatis
,
no
man
was
allowed
to
baptise
but
a
lawfull
Minister
:
so
though
these
commands
,
[
Lay
hands
suddenly
on
no
man
]
and
[
Do
thou
ordaine
Elders
in
every
City
]
runne
not
in
verbis
exclusivis
,
thou
and
none
but
thou
,
or
men
of
thine
Order
only
:
yet
the
Church
understanding
and
practising
them
in
an
exclvsive
sense
,
no
man
for
1500
yeares
in
any
setled
Church
,
was
held
rightly
ordained
,
without
the
hands
of
a
Bishop
.
Nay
that
there
is
something
Divine
in
the
Episcopall
Order
,
will
appeare
clearely
by
this
,
that
immediately
from
the
times
of
Christ
&
his
Apostles
,
(
yea
within
the
reach
of
those
times
)
t
was
universally
spread
throughout
the
whole
face
of
the
Churches
:
so
that
no
man
can
name
a
Nationthat
was
once
wonne
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
Universall
.
Generall
Councell
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
soone
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
Fountaine
I
shall
leave
it
.
I
say
within
the
reach
of
the
Apostles
times
,
for
before
S.
Iohn
dyed
,
there
are
upon
good
Church
Records
above
20.
Bishops
appointed
to
the
several
Sees
;
as
at
Hierusalem
,
Alexandria
,
Antioch
,
and
Rome
,
&
Ephesus
,
at
Creece
,
at
Athens
,
and
Colosse
,
&
divers
others
,
it
being
easie
to
draw
a
Catalogue
of
them
out
of
several
Ecclesiasticall
Writers
.
And
here
it
will
be
plain
,
that
its
a
foule
corruption
;
nay
,
how
flat
a
sinne
is
brought
into
the
Church
of
Christ
,
where
Episcopacy
is
thrown
down
!
and
so
where
Ordination
is
performed
by
any
hands
without
theirs
,
t
is
as
grosse
,
as
if
Lay-men
should
be
allowed
to
baptize
,
when
a
Presbyter
doth
stand
by
:
nay
more
,
it
is
as
bad
as
if
the
Order
of
Presbyters
should
therefore
be
thrown
downe
,
that
Lay-men
might
Baptize
:
and
what
's
this
,
but
willingly
to
runne
into
a
Necessity
it selfe
,
that
wee
might
thence
create
an
Apology
?
T
is
a
corruption
farre
worse
,
then
if
a
Church
should
audaciously
attempt
to
pull
down
the
Lords
Day
;
since
the
observation
of
that
Time
is
neither
built
on
so
cleare
a
Text
,
nor
on
the
helpe
of
so
Universall
a
Consent
,
as
is
the
Order
of
Episcopacy
:
So
that
if
men
can
thinke
it
sinfull
to
part
with
the
Lords
Day
,
though
the
institution
of
it
be
meerly
Apocryphall
,
they
must
needs
confesse
there
is
at
least
so
much
sinne
,
(
nay
indeed
more
)
in
parting
with
their
Bishops
,
and
then
the
Oxford
Doctrine
which
the
Epistler
gybes
at
,
and
talkes
of
,
as
transmitted
for
an
orthodox
truth
,
will
it
seemes
prove
no
lesse
in
earnest
.
Secondly
,
for
the
point
of
Sacriledge
;
the
better
to
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
moveable
,
or
immoveable
,
is
expresly
the
sinne
of
Sacriledge
.
4.
That
this
sinne
is
not
only
against
Gods
positive
Law
,
but
plainly
against
his
Morall
Law
.
1.
Proposition
.
God
accepts
of
things
given
,
&c.
For
proofe
of
this
,
first
I
quote
that
Text
,
I
hungred
and
ye
gave
me
meat
;
I
thirsted
and
ye
gave
me
drinke
,
&c.
Mat.
25.
If
Christ
do
not
accept
of
these
things
,
he
may
say
indeed
,
yee
offered
me
meat
,
but
he
cannot
say
that
yee
gave
it
:
for
a
Present
is
then
only
to
be
called
a
Gift
,
when
it
is
accepted
as
his
own
that
takes
it
.
And
do's
he
thus
accept
of
Meat
and
Clothing
,
and
do's
he
not
accept
of
those
kind
of
endowments
,
that
bring
both
these
to
perpetuity
?
Will
He
take
Meat
and
refuse
Revenues
?
Doth
He
like
(
can
you
imagine
)
to
be
Fed
and
Clothed
to
day
,
and
in
danger
to
be
Starved
to
morrow
?
The
men
thus
provided
for
,
He
calles
no
lesse
then
His
Brethren
:
In
as
much
as
you
have
done
it
unto
the
least
of
these
my
Brethren
,
yee
have
done
it
unto
me
.
Whether
these
were
of
those
Brethren
which
he
had
enjoyned
to
teach
others
,
or
of
those
which
he
would
have
instructed
,
the
Text
there
doth
not
decide
;
without
doubt
it
must
be
meant
of
both
;
for
it
were
a
strange
thing
to
affirme
that
Christ
liked
it
extreame
well
to
be
Fed
and
to
be
Clothed
,
in
all
those
He
called
His
,
but
only
in
His
Seventy
,
and
His
Apostles
▪
but
to
put
it
out
of
doubt
,
that
what
is
done
to
them
,
is
done
to
Him
too
,
His
owne
words
are
very
plain
,
He
that
receiveth
you
,
teaching
Disciples
,
receiveth
me
;
in
the
Tenth
of
that
Gospell
,
where
He
sends
all
forth
to
preach
,
and
that
reception
implyes
all
such
kind
of
provisions
,
as
is
apparently
plaine
throughout
the
whole
Tenour
of
the
Chapter
.
And
againe
,
I
quote
that
so
well
known
passage
of
Ananias
and
Saphyra
his
wife
,
Act.
5.
his
sin
was
,
he
kept
back
part
of
the
price
of
those
Lands
he
had
given
to
God
,
for
the
publique
use
of
the
Church
,
yea
,
given
to
God
,
and
t
is
as
plaine
that
he
did
accept
it
;
for
S.
Peter
you
know
thus
reprooves
him
,
Why
hast
thou
lyed
,
or
why
hast
thou
deceived
the
Holy
Ghost
?
for
so
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
do's
properly
import
,
why
doest
thou
cheat
him
of
what
is
now
his
own
proper
right
?
And
againe
,
Thou
hast
not
lyed
unto
men
,
but
unto
God
:
and
is
this
so
strange
a
thing
?
Are
not
all
our
lyes
to
be
accounted
sinnes
before
God
?
yes
,
all
against
God
,
as
a
Witnesse
and
a
Judge
;
but
yet
not
all
against
God
as
a
Party
:
and
therefore
t
is
a
more
remarkeable
,
a
more
signall
lye
,
Thou
hast
not
lyed
unto
men
;
a
negative
of
comparison
,
not
so
much
to
men
,
as
to
God
:
what
's
done
to
them
is
scarce
worth
the
naming
,
but
thou
hast
lyed
unto
God
,
as
a
Witnesse
and
a
Judge
;
yea
and
a
party
too
.
Thou
hast
lyed
,
&
rob'd
God
by
lying
,
and
so
runne
thy selfe
into
an
eminent
sinne
:
and
that
shall
appeare
in
Gods
judgement
,
so
the
Fathers
generally
expound
that
place
;
both
of
the
Greek
and
Latine
Church
,
and
affirme
his
crime
was
a
robbing
God
of
that
wealth
,
which
by
Vow
or
by
promise
was
now
become
Gods
propriety
:
So
the
Modern
Interpreters
,
yea
,
so
Calvin
,
Sacrum
esse
Deo
profitebatur
,
He
professed
that
his
Land
should
be
a
sacred
thing
unto
God
,
(
sayes
he
)
on
that
place
;
and
there
Beza
too
,
Pradium
Deo
consecrassent
;
the
the
man
and
his
wife
,
they
consecrated
this
Land
to
God
,
And
he
that
will
not
believe
so
Universall
a
consent
in
the
interpreting
a
place
of
Scripture
,
should
do
well
to
consider
,
whether
upon
the
same
ground
(
as
I
told
you
before
)
he
may
not
be
brought
to
doubt
of
his
Dictionary
,
for
that
is
but
Universal
consent
;
he
may
almost
as
well
doubt
whether
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
signifyes
God
,
and
altogether
as
well
,
whether
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
signifyes
the
Gospell
.
The
New
Testament
will
afford
more
places
for
this
purpose
;
Thou
that
abhorrest
Idols
,
committest
thou
Sacriledge
?
Rom.
2.
22.
T
is
true
,
these
words
are
spoken
as
to
the
person
of
an
unconverted
Jew
,
and
may
be
therefore
thought
to
aime
only
at
those
sinnes
,
which
were
descryed
in
the
Law
of
Moses
:
but
do
but
view
S.
Pauls
way
of
arguing
,
and
you
will
quickly
find
they
come
home
to
us
Christians
too
:
he
there
tells
the
Jew
that
he
taught
others
those
things
,
which
yet
he
would
not
do
himselfe
:
and
he
strives
to
make
this
good
by
three
severall
instances
,
first
,
Thou
that
Preachest
a
man
should
not
steale
,
doest
thou
steale
?
Secondly
,
Thou
that
sayest
a
man
should
not
commit
adultery
,
dost
thou
commit
adultery
?
In
both
these
,
t
is
plain
,
that
the
Jew
he
dealt
with
did
the
same
things
he
reprehended
:
and
straightway
the
third
comes
,
Thou
that
abhorrest
Idols
,
dost
thou
commit
Sacriledge
?
So
that
hence
't
will
follow
(
if
S.
Pauls
words
have
Logique
in
them
)
that
these
two
sinnes
are
of
the
selfe
same
nature
too
:
And
that
to
commit
a
sacriledge
is
a
breach
of
the
same
Law
,
as
to
commit
an
Idolatry
:
so
that
crime
will
appeare
without
all
doubt
a
plain
robbery
of
God
;
for
he
that
steales
from
men
,
yea
though
a
whole
community
of
men
,
though
bona
universitatis
,
yet
he
sinnes
but
against
his
Neighbour
,
t
is
but
an
offence
against
the
second
Table
of
the
Law
,
in
these
words
,
Thou
shalt
not
steale
:
but
Sacriledge
layes
hold
on
those
things
which
the
Latine
Lawes
call
Bona
nullius
,
it
strikes
downright
immediately
at
God
,
and
in
that
regard
no
Idolatry
can
out
doe-it
:
as
this
is
,
t
is
a
breach
of
the
first
Table
of
the
Law
,
and
both
these
crimes
are
equally
built
upon
the
self-same
contempt
of
God
;
the
offenders
in
both
kinds
,
the
Idolater
and
sacrilegious
person
both
thinke
him
a
dull
sluggish
thing
;
the
first
thinkes
he
will
patiently
looke
on
,
while
his
honour
is
shared
to
an
Idol
;
the
other
imagines
he
'l
be
as
sottishly
tame
,
though
his
goods
be
stoln
to
his
face
.
This
was
without
doubt
the
sense
of
all
ancient
churches
;
for
upon
what
ground
could
they
professe
they
gave
gifts
to
God
,
but
only
upon
this
,
that
they
presumed
God
did
stil
accept
them
?
So
S.
Iraeneus
,
We
offer
unto
our
God
our
Goods
in
token
of
thankefullnesse
.
So
Origen
,
By
gifts
to
God
we
acknowledge
him
Lord
of
all
:
So
the
Fathers
generally
;
so
Emperours
and
Kings
;
so
Charles
the
Great
,
To
God
we
offer
what
we
deliver
to
the
Church
,
in
his
well
known
Capitulars
:
And
our
own
Kings
have
still
spoken
in
this
good
old
Christian
language
;
We
have
granted
to
God
,
for
Us
and
Our
Heires
for
ever
,
that
the
Church
of
England
shall
be
free
,
and
have
her
whole
Rights
and
Liberties
inviolable
;
they
are
all
the
first
words
of
our
Magna
Chart.
Her
whole
Rights
&
Liberties
,
words
of
a
very
large
extent
,
and
imply
farre
more
then
Her
Substance
:
and
yet
these
,
and
all
these
Lands
,
and
Honours
,
and
Jurisdictions
;
all
these
have
beene
given
to
God
;
yea
,
and
frequently
confirmed
by
the
publique
Acts
of
the
Kingdome
:
and
yet
if
Ananias
might
thus
promise
,
and
yet
rob
God
,
consider
I
beseech
you
,
whether
England
may
not
do
so
too
.
2.
Proposition
,
God
gets
this
Propriety
as
well
by
an
acceptation
of
what
is
voluntarily
given
,
as
by
a
command
,
that
such
things
should
be
presented
to
him
.
For
the
second
,
t
is
plaine
in
the
Text
,
that
God
did
as
much
take
the
Temple
to
be
his
,
as
he
did
the
Jewes
Tithes
and
Offerings
.
These
last
indeed
were
his
by
expresse
law
&
command
,
but
the
Temple
was
the
voluntary
designe
of
good
David
,
and
the
voluntary
work
of
King
Solomon
.
Nay
God
expresly
tels
David
,
that
he
had
been
so
far
from
commanding
that
house
,
that
he
had
not
so
much
as
once
asked
this
service
.
And
therefore
in
his
Apologie
Saint
Paul
tels
the
Jewes
,
Neither
(
sayes
he
)
against
the
Law
of
the
Jewes
,
nor
against
the
Temple
,
have
I
offended
any
thing
:
For
he
might
in
some
case
offend
against
the
Temple
,
and
yet
not
against
the
Law
:
Notwithstanding
all
this
,
God
pleads
as
much
for
his
Temple
in
the
Prophet
Haggai
,
as
he
doth
in
Malachi
for
his
tithes
,
In
this
his
words
are
,
Ye
have
robbed
we
in
tithes
and
offerings
;
in
the
other
,
Is
it
time
for
you
,
O
ye
,
to
dwell
in
sieled
houses
,
and
this
house
lie
waste
?
therefore
ye
have
sowne
much
,
and
bring
in
little
,
ye
eate
,
but
have
not
enough
,
so
Hag.
1.
4.
And
to
affirme
,
that
God
in
the
New
Testament
doth
accept
of
meat
,
and
drink
,
and
cloathing
,
as
it
is
plaine
,
Mat.
25.
he
doth
accept
of
money
land
was
sold
for
,
as
in
the
case
of
Ananias
,
and
yet
that
he
doth
not
accept
Land
it selfe
,
is
so
contrary
to
all
reason
,
so
contrary
to
the
practice
not
onely
of
the
Christian
,
but
humane
world
,
so
contrary
to
what
God
himselfe
has
expressed
in
the
Old
Testament
,
and
no where
●●called
it
in
the
New
,
that
he
▪
that
can
quiet
his
conscience
with
such
concepts
as
these
,
may
I
doubt
not
attaine
to
the
discovery
of
some
Quirkes
,
which
in
his
conceipt
may
either
palliate
murthers
or
adulteries
:
For
to
think
that
those
possessions
are
indeed
Gods
which
he
doth
command
,
but
not
those
which
he
doth
accept
,
is
to
use
God
so
as
we
would
neither
use
our selves
nor
our
neighbours
:
for
no
man
doubts
but
that
's
as
properly
mine
which
I
accept
as
a
gift
from
others
,
as
what
I
attaine
to
by
mine
owne
personall
acquisition
,
be
it
by
a
just
war
,
by
study
,
by
merchandice
,
or
the
like
.
3.
Proposition
.
That
to
invade
those
things
consecrated
,
be
they
moveable
or
immoveable
,
is
expresly
the
sin
of
Sacriledge
.
Sacriledge
is
then
committed
,
say
the
Schooles
and
the
Casuists
,
(
and
they
speak
in
their
owne
profession
)
quando
reverentia
rei
sacrae
debita
violatur
:
When
we
violate
that
reverence
due
to
a
thing
sacred
,
by
turning
it
into
a
thing
profane
:
so
as
the
violation
may
be
committed
either
per
furtum
,
by
theft
,
strictly
so
taken
,
by
stealing
a
thing
moveable
;
or
per
Plagium
,
which
is
the
stealing
of
a
man
;
or
per
invasionem
,
which
is
a
spoiling
men
of
lands
,
or
of
things
immoveable
:
for
as
any
one
of
these
done
against
our
neighbour
is
no
doubt
in
Scripture
phrase
a
theft
,
a
sin
against
the
8.
Commandment
,
Thou
shalt
not
steale
:
So
done
against
God
,
t
is
no
doubt
a
Sacriledge
,
and
a
breach
of
the
first
Table
,
be
it
either
against
the
first
or
the
second
Commandement
,
I
stand
not
now
to
dispute
:
for
the
word
used
in
the
New
Test
.
to
expresse
this
sin
,
is
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
,
from
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
{non-Roman}
,
Praeda
,
or
spolium
:
So
that
Sacriledge
is
not
to
be
defined
onely
by
theft
strictly
taken
,
but
t
is
a
depredation
,
a
spoliation
of
things
consecrated
,
and
so
the
word
extends
it selfe
as
properly
(
if
not
more
)
to
Lands
,
as
it
doth
to
things
moveable
.
And
hence
Aquinas
is
plaine
,
that
Sacriledge
reaches
out
its
proper
sense
ad
ea
quae
deputata
sunt
ad
sustentationem
ministrorum
,
sive
sint
mobilia
,
sive
immobilia
:
For
it
would
be
very
strange
to
affirme
,
that
in
the
sacking
of
Jerusalem
,
Nebuchadnezzar
was
sacrilegious
,
when
he
transported
the
holy
vessels
,
but
not
at
all
when
he
burnt
the
Temple
.
4.
Proposition
,
That
this
sinne
is
not
onely
against
Gods
positive
Law
,
but
plainly
against
the
Morall
Law
.
For
this
common
reason
hath
taught
all
,
even
Pagan
nations
to
hold
Sacriledge
a
sinne
:
So
that
Lactantius
observes
,
(
and
he
was
well
read
in
humane
learning
,
which
made
him
to
be
chose
Tutor
to
a
sonne
of
Constantine
the
Great
)
Inomni
Religione
nihil
tale
sine
vindicto
:
God
did
still
remarkably
revenge
this
sinne
,
not
onely
in
the
true
,
but
amongst
men
of
the
most
false
Religions
:
And
't
were
easie
to
shew
,
that
never
any
Nation
did
yet
adore
a
God
,
but
they
thought
he
did
accept
,
and
did
possesse
himselfe
of
some
substance
.
I
omit
those
proofs
that
would
be
thought
far
too
tedious
,
t
is
enough
to
quote
the
Prophets
words
,
Will
a
man
rob
God
?
yet
ye
have
robbed
me
,
Mal.
3.
8.
A
man
,
any
man
,
though
an
Ammonite
,
or
a
meere
Philistine
,
no
Pagan
(
that
must
be
the
sense
)
will
doe
it
to
his
God
,
which
you
Jewes
doe
to
me
;
for
the
Law
written
in
his
heart
(
and
he
can
goe
by
no
other
)
that
law
controlls
this
offence
,
and
so
plainly
tells
him
,
that
because
his
God
may
be
robb'd
,
he
may
therefore
have
a
Propriety
;
And
if
Sacriledge
be
a
sin
against
the
Law
Morall
,
it
will
follow
,
that
what
wee
read
in
the
Old
Testament
against
that
sinne
,
must
be
as
morall
,
and
that
whereby
we
Christians
are
as
much
obliged
,
as
by
what
we
read
against
theft
,
or
against
adultery
;
save
onely
in
those
passages
which
are
particularly
proper
unto
the
policie
of
the
Jews
,
and
we
may
let
them
goe
for
Judiciall
.
These
Assertions
being
premised
,
I
returne
to
the
Epistler
,
who
conceives
it
to
be
no
sacriledge
to
take
away
the
Church
Lands
;
[
Nor
do
I
(
saith
he
)
herein
ground
my
opinion
barely
upon
the
frequent
practise
of
former
times
,
not
onely
by
acts
of
Parliament
in
the
times
of
Queen
Elizabeth
,
King
James
,
and
so
King
Charles
,
if
you
have
not
forgotten
the
exchange
of
Durham
house
,
as
well
as
H.
8.
but
even
by
the
Bishops
themselves
,
&c.
]
He
will
not
ground
his
opinion
upon
the
practise
;
and
indeed
he
hath
little
reason
for
it
:
For
if
from
a
frequent
practise
of
sinne
,
we
might
conclude
it
were
no
sinne
,
we
might
take
our
leaves
of
the
Decalogue
;
and
as
our
new
Masters
do
,
put
it
out
of
our
Directory
,
because
our
intent
is
to
sinne
it
downe
:
and
therefore
I
shall
say
no
more
of
such
Lawes
of
Hen.
8.
then
I
would
of
Davids
adultery
a
that
t
is
no
ground
at
all
to
make
men
bold
with
their
neighbours
Wives
.
Queene
Elizabeth
made
a
Law
(
so
you
have
told
me
Sir
,
for
I
do
speake
nothing
in
this
kind
but
from
you
)
that
Bishops
might
not
alienate
their
Mannors
,
Castles
,
&c.
but
only
to
the
Crowne
,
but
if
she
sometimes
tooke
order
that
Church
,
men
should
not
be
Bishops
,
untill
they
had
first
made
such
alienations
(
as
I
have
heard
you
say
they
did
)
I
know
not
how
to
defend
it
,
but
must
withall
tell
you
,
that
if
Princes
or
Subjects
resolve
to
sell
the
Church
preferments
,
t
is
great
odds
but
that
in
a
Clergy
consisting
of
above
16000.
Persons
,
they
shall
not
want
Chapmen
for
them
:
For
King
James
,
I
must
highly
commend
that
most
Christian
Prince
,
who
(
you
say
)
amongst
his
first
Lawes
,
tooke
away
that
of
Queen
Elizabeth
:
not
can
I
well
tell
why
this
Epistler
here
doth
quote
that
King
for
his
purpose
,
unlesse
it
were
only
for
the
alienation
of
York
▪
House
;
but
I
must
informe
him
that
that
Act
was
lawfull
,
because
't
was
for
the
advantage
of
the
Archiepiscopall
See
,
there
being
cleare
Text
for
it
,
That
the
Levits
themselves
might
change
what
was
theirs
by
a
Divine
Law
,
so
they
gained
by
the
permutation
;
and
this
answer
will
serve
for
what
King
Charles
did
about
Durham
House
.
But
he
thinks
it
an
Argument
,
That
even
by
Bishops
themselves
,
Deanes
,
and
Chapters
,
&c.
such
things
were
done
,
Alienations
made
,
and
long
Leases
granted
:
True
Sir
,
for
those
Clergymen
were
but
men
,
and
their
sinnes
can
at
all
no
more
abrogate
Gods
Law
,
then
can
the
sinnes
of
the
Laity
:
yet
I
could
name
you
Church-men
of
great
note
,
who
totally
refused
to
be
preferred
by
that
Queene
to
any
Bishopricke
at
all
,
because
they
would
by
no
meanes
submit
their
conscience
unto
the
base
acts
of
such
Alienations
,
and
one
of
them
was
Bishop
Andrews
:
I
could
tell
you
too
that
those
long
Leases
he
speakes
of
,
might
have
one
cause
more
then
the
Marriage
of
the
Clergy
;
for
when
they
saw
men
so
sharply
set
upon
the
inheritance
of
the
Church
;
when
they
saw
a
Stoole
of
wickednesse
set
up
,
of
sacrilegious
wickednes
,
that
imagined
mischiefe
by
a
Law
,
some
,
not
the
worst
of
men
,
thought
it
fit
to
make
those
long
Leases
,
that
the
estate
of
the
Church
might
appeare
the
more
poore
,
and
so
lesse
subject
unto
Harpies
,
and
then
their
hope
was
,
at
the
length
▪
at
least
after
many
yeares
spent
,
it
might
returne
whole
unto
their
successours
.
He
goes
on
,
But
to
deale
clearely
with
you
Doctor
,
I
do
not
understand
how
there
can
be
any
sacriledge
(
properly
so
called
)
which
is
not
a
theft
and
more
,
viz.
a
theft
of
some
thing
dedicated
to
holy
use
,
(
a
Co●●munion
Cup
for
instance
or
the
like
)
and
th●se
you
know
must
be
of
things
moveable
,
〈…〉
civil
Law
,
and
how
theft
can
be
of
Lands
,
or
〈…〉
by
alienating
Church
Lands
;
I
pray
aske
your
friend
Holborne
,
and
his
fellow
Lawyers
,
for
ours
here
deride
us
for
the
question
.
)
It
seemes
Sir
they
are
very
merry
at
London
,
or
at
least
this
Epistler
thinks
so
;
for
being
winners
he
might
perhaps
conceive
they
make
themselves
pleasant
at
a
Feather
.
And
that
this
Argument
is
as
light
a
thing
,
appeares
before
from
my
third
Assertion
:
for
can
any
man
thinke
in
earnest
,
that
t
is
Sacriledge
,
and
so
a
sinne
,
to
take
a
Cup
from
the
Church
,
and
t
is
none
to
take
away
a
Mannour
?
as
if
Ahab
had
been
indeed
a
thiefe
,
had
he
rob'd
Naboth
of
his
Grapes
,
but
Eliah
was
too
harsh
to
that
good
King
,
because
he
only
tooke
away
his
Vineyard
:
Indeed
there
is
such
a
nicety
in
the
Civill
Law
,
that
actio
furti
lyes
only
against
him
,
who
has
stolne
Rem
mobilem
:
for
Justinian
it
seemes
in
the
composition
of
his
Digests
(
which
he
tooke
from
the
writings
of
the
old
Jurisprudentes
)
thought
it
fit
to
follow
Ulpians
judgement
,
and
yet
Sabinus
in
his
booke
De
Furtis
,
a
man
of
note
amongst
those
men
,
was
known
to
be
of
another
opinion
:
Non
tantum
(
sayes
he
)
rerum
moventium
,
sed
fundi
quoque
,
et
aedium
fieri
furtum
:
a
theft
properly
so
call'd
may
be
of
things
immoveable
:
I
would
gladly
know
of
the
Epistler
whether
he
thinks
all
men
both
Divines
and
others
,
bound
to
frame
all
the
phrases
of
their
speech
according
to
the
criticismes
of
the
Civill
Law
,
as
it
s
now
put
out
by
Justinian
?
If
not
,
why
may
not
some
use
the
word
furtum
in
Sabinus
his
sense
,
as
well
as
others
may
in
Ulpians
?
and
then
sacriledge
may
be
properly
called
a
theft
,
and
as
properly
in
immoveables
;
or
if
we
will
needs
speake
according
to
his
sense
whom
Justinian
hath
approved
,
I
do
not
well
see
how
men
can
spoile
the
Church
of
her
Lands
,
and
at
the
Civil
Law
escape
an
action
of
theft
:
for
it
lyeth
against
him
that
takes
the
trees
,
&
the
fruits
,
and
the
stones
,
and
I
am
confident
there
is
no
Church-robber
,
but
he
intends
to
make
use
of
these
kinds
of
moveables
;
otherwise
what
good
wil
the
Church-land
do
him
?
And
if
he
does
make
this
use
,
a
thiefe
he
is
in
the
Civill
Law
phrase
,
&
then
in
the
very
sense
of
this
Epistler
himself
,
he
is
without
doubt
a
sacrilegious
person
:
but
where
I
wonder
did
that
Londoner
learne
,
that
Furtum
strictè
sumptum
,
was
the
genus
of
sacriledge
?
so
that
where
there
is
no
theft
in
the
Civill
Law
sense
there
is
none
of
this
kind
of
Sin
:
I
am
sure
t
is
neither
intimated
by
the
Greek
,
nor
the
Latine
word
:
nor
I
believe
delivered
by
any
learned
Authors
on
the
Subject
:
so
that
I
must
set
down
an
assertion
,
(
I
conceive
well
grounded
too
)
point
blanck
against
this
Londoner
,
and
affirme
there
may
be
a
sacriledge
properly
so
call'd
,
which
is
not
a
theft
in
the
Civill
law-sense
(
which
has
been
grounded
in
the
third
Assertion
)
and
then
we
need
not
trouble
Sir
Robert
Holborne
(
that
learned
Gentleman
may
have
other
busines
)
nor
his
fellow
Lawyers
,
for
I
doubt
not
there
are
enough
besides
,
who
will
here
smile
at
this
passage
,
and
will
thinke
that
this
Epistler
hath
met
with
a
Civill
Law
quirke
,
which
he
knew
not
well
how
to
weild
:
But
to
say
truth
he
deales
clearely
with
the
Doctor
,
and
tels
him
that
for
his
particular
,
he
doth
not
yet
understand
;
which
for
my
part
I
believe
;
and
do
not
only
wonder
,
he
would
gibe
at
another
man
,
in
a
point
he
could
no
better
Master
.
But
these
Arguments
it
seemes
are
but
only
the
forlorne-hope
,
the
main
Battell
is
yet
to
come
.
He
calls
this
the
main
quere
,
and
desires
patience
from
the
Doctor
,
First
(
saith
he
)
I
lay
this
as
a
foundation
,
that
there
is
no
divine
command
that
Ministers
under
the
Gospell
should
have
any
Lands
.
True
,
the
Clergy
under
the
Gospell
hold
not
their
lands
by
a
Divine
command
,
but
they
do
by
a
Divine
acceptation
by
Christs
most
gracious
acceptance
of
such
goods
and
possessions
which
have
been
given
him
by
good
Christians
:
and
this
title
you
now
heare
will
go
as
farre
as
a
law
,
and
that
is
we
conceive
farre
enough
,
for
it
gives
God
a
propriety
in
such
lands
,
and
so
keeps
men
from
a
re-assumption
.
He
goes
on
,
The
hire
of
a
Labourer
at
most
,
as
fitting
maintenance
,
is
all
that
can
be
challenged
:
I
but
that
maintenance
must
be
honourable
,
or
else
we
Christians
shall
use
God
like
no
other
men
;
farre
worse
I
am
sure
then
do
Pagans
:
And
when
such
a
maintenance
hath
been
once
given
in
lands
,
the
acceptation
of
Christ
will
soone
make
it
irrevocable
:
so
that
it
signifyes
little
to
say
the
Apostles
had
no
Lands
;
for
they
who
had
the
money
for
lands
fold
,
might
(
no
man
can
well
doubt
)
have
still
kept
the
lands
had
they
liked
it
:
but
the
Church
was
straight
to
be
in
hot
persecution
,
the
Disciples
were
to
fly
,
and
Lands
we
know
are
no
moveables
,
and
it
were
very
strange
if
not
ridiculous
to
affirme
that
Ananias
and
his
wife
sinned
in
taking
back●
that
money
which
they
promised
,
but
if
in
specie
they
had
given
their
Lands
,
they
might
have
revoked
that
gift
without
sacriledge
.
He
proceeds
,
Which
I
mention
to
avoid
the
groundlesse
argument
upon
the
Lands
and
portions
allotted
to
the
tribe
of
Levi
by
Gods
appointment
▪
to
whom
our
Ministere
have
no
succession
.
Our
Ministers
challenge
nothing
which
belongs
to
that
Tribe
,
by
Leviticall
right
:
but
where
things
are
once
given
to
God
for
the
use
of
his
Ministers
,
they
there
get
a
morall
interest
;
and
what
wee
read
of
this
kind
in
the
Old
Testament
,
doth
as
much
obli●ge
Christians
,
as
if
it
were
found
in
the
Now
.
[
And
〈…〉
that
they
enjoy
their
〈◊〉
by
the
〈…〉
others
do
,
and
must
be
subject
to
that
Law
which
alone
gives
strength
to
their
title
.
]
Out
into
〈◊〉
:
Have
Church-men
no
title
to
those
possessions
they
enjoy
,
but
by
the
law
of
this
Land
alone
?
Yes
,
besides
these
,
they
have
Christs
acceptation
,
and
so
they
are
become
theirs
by
Law
evangelicall
:
their
Lands
are
Gods
own
propriety
,
and
so
they
hold
from
him
by
the
Law
morall
too
;
and
therefore
though
by
the
lawes
of
the
land
they
hold
estates
in
Fee-simple
,
and
so
may
alienate
without
punishment
from
the
law
of
England
:
yet
they
cannot
do
it
without
the
guilt
of
sinne
,
as
being
a
breach
of
the
law
evangelicall
and
morall
:
except
then
only
when
they
better
themselves
by
some
gainfull
,
or
at
least
by
some
not
hurtfull
permutation
.
Besides
,
were
the
argument
good
,
it
would
only
follow
,
that
the
Clergy
by
their
owne
act
might
alienate
their
lands
,
but
no
man
else
without
their
consent
.
And
I
conceive
it
would
not
now
prove
so
easie
a
taske
to
bring
Church-men
to
such
an
alienation
.
But
the
Parliament
may
do
it
▪
for
(
sayes
he
)
I
am
sure
it
will
be
granted
,
that
(
by
the
Lawes
of
this
Nation
)
whosoever
hath
Lands
or
Goods
,
hath
them
with
this
inseparable
limitation
and
condition
:
viz.
that
the
Parliament
may
dispose
of
them
or
any
part
of
them
at
pleasure
.
This
you
have
oft
told
me
Sir
is
strange
Doctrine
;
for
either
the
Parliament
,
(
I
hope
he
meanes
the
King
in
Parliament
)
doth
this
,
as
being
the
supreame
power
,
or
as
being
representative
,
and
so
including
the
consent
of
the
whole
People
of
England
.
If
as
being
the
supreame
power
,
it
will
follow
,
that
any
absolute
Prince
may
as
lawfully
do
the
like
▪
and
yet
this
hath
been
ever
held
tyrannicall
in
the
Great
Turk
,
as
being
against
the
rules
of
justice
and
humanity
.
Indeed
Samuel
〈◊〉
the
Israelites
,
that
since
they
would
needs
change
their
Theocracy
,
the
immediate
government
of
God
himselfe
,
though
it
were
into
Monarchy
,
the
best
of
all
humane
Governments
,
the
King
should
take
their
sons
and
their
daughters
,
their
fields
,
and
their
vineyards
,
&c.
and
they
should
cry
,
and
should
find
no
help
:
Yet
the
best
Divines
think
,
that
this
would
be
most
unjust
,
most
sinful
in
their
King
,
and
expresly
against
the
law
of
Moses
,
who
leaves
every
man
his
propriety
,
onely
the
Prophet
there
averres
it
should
be
not
punishable
in
him
,
they
should
have
no
remedy
,
since
being
the
supreame
power
,
't
was
in
no
Subjects
hands
to
judge
him
:
So
if
the
King
in
Parliament
should
take
away
Church-lands
,
there
is
(
I
confesse
)
no
resistance
to
be
made
,
though
the
act
were
inhumanely
sinfull
.
Or
secondly
,
the
Parliament
does
this
as
representing
the
whole
people
▪
and
so
including
their
consent
(
for
they
who
consent
can
receive
no
injury
)
and
then
I
understand
not
which
way
it
can
at
all
touch
the
Clergy
,
who
are
neither
to
be
there
by
themselves
,
nor
yet
(
God
knowes
)
by
representation
:
Or
if
againe
they
were
there
,
I
would
gladly
know
what
Burgesse
,
or
what
Knight
of
a
shire
,
nay
what
Clerke
,
or
what
Bishop
doth
represent
Christ
(
whose
Lands
these
are
)
and
by
vertue
of
what
deputation
?
Nor
doe
I
beleeve
that
any
Subject
intends
to
give
that
power
to
him
that
represents
him
in
Parliament
,
as
to
destroy
his
whole
estate
,
except
then
onely
,
when
the
known
Laws
of
the
Land
make
him
lyable
to
so
high
a
censure
.
But
grant
that
this
were
true
in
Mens
lands
,
yet
sure
it
will
not
hold
in
God's
.
For
since
in
Magna
Charta
(
that
hath
received
by
Parliament
at
least
30.
Confirmations
)
the
Lands
we
speak
of
are
now
given
to
God
,
and
promise
there
made
,
That
the
Church
shall
hold
her
whole
Rights
and
Liberties
inviolable
.
Sure
the
Kingdome
must
keep
what
she
hath
thus
promised
to
God
,
and
must
now
think
to
beginne
to
tell
him
of
implyed
conditions
,
or
limitations
:
For
it
were
a
strange
scorne
put
upon
God
,
if
men
should
make
this
grand
promise
to
their
Maker
,
and
then
tell
him
after
so
many
hundreds
of
yeares
,
that
their
meaning
was
to
take
it
back
at
their
pleasure
:
I
believe
there
is
no
good
Pagan
that
would
not
blush
at
this
dealing
,
and
conclude
,
that
if
Christians
may
thus
use
their
God
,
without
doubt
he
is
no
God
at
all
.
He
goes
on
,
[
Hence
is
it
they
sometimes
dispose
some
part
in
Subsidies
,
and
other
Taxes
.
]
The
Parliament
disposeth
part
of
mens
estates
in
Subsidies
,
and
Taxes
,
and
with
their
consents
,
ergo
,
It
may
dispose
of
all
the
Church
Lands
,
though
Church-men
themselves
should
in
down
right
termes
contradict
it
:
Truly
Sir
,
this
Argument
is
neither
worth
an
answere
nor
a
smile
:
For
I
am
sure
you
have
often
told
me
that
the
Parliament
in
justice
can
destroy
no
private
mans
estate
:
Or
if
upon
necessity
it
may
need
this
or
that
Subjects
Land
for
some
publique
use
,
yet
that
Court
is
in
justice
bound
to
make
that
private
man
an
amends
.
Subsidies
you
said
were
supposed
to
be
laid
on
Salvo
contenemento
,
so
that
a
Duke
might
still
live
like
a
Duke
,
and
a
Gentleman
like
a
Gentleman
:
Is
it
not
so
with
the
Clergy
too
?
By
their
own
consent
indeed
,
and
not
otherwise
;
they
are
often
imposed
,
and
they
are
paid
by
them
;
but
yet
they
are
burthens
which
they
may
beare
Salvo
contenemento
:
and
they
are
paid
not
out
of
Gods
propriety
,
by
alienating
of
his
Lands
,
but
out
of
that
usus
fructus
they
receive
from
God
:
and
so
the
maine
doth
still
go
on
to
their
successors
.
So
that
to
inferre
from
any
of
these
usages
,
that
the
〈◊〉
of
Bishops
,
and
Deanes
,
and
Chapters
,
may
be
wholly
alienated
from
the
Church
,
is
an
inference
that
will
prevaile
with
none
but
those
,
who
being
led
by
strong
passions
that
it
should
be
so
,
make
very
little
use
of
their
reason
to
oppose
that
passion
.
He
proceeds
,
[
Now
hence
comes
the
mistake
,
by
reason
there
is
not
such
an
expresse
condition
or
limitation
in
the
Deeds
of
Donation
,
(
which
would
silence
all
dispute
)
whereas
it
is
as
cleare
a
truth
,
that
where
any
thing
is
necessarily
by
Law
implyed
,
It
is
as
much
as
in
plain
termes
expressed
.
]
No
marvell
if
such
conditions
be
not
expressed
in
Benefactors
Deeds
of
Donation
,
because
it
would
make
pious
deeds
most
impiously
ridiculous
:
For
who
would
not
blush
to
tell
God
,
that
indeed
he
gives
him
such
Lands
,
but
with
a
very
clear
intent
to
revoke
them
;
And
what
Christian
will
say
that
such
an
intent
is
tacitely
there
,
which
it
were
impiety
to
expresse
?
Nay
t
is
apparantly
cleare
,
in
the
curses
added
by
such
Donors
,
upon
those
who
shall
attempt
to
make
void
their
gifts
,
that
their
meaning
was
plaine
,
such
lands
should
remaine
Gods
for
ever
:
By
Magna
Charta
these
gifts
are
confirmed
unto
the
Church
for
ever
,
(
She
shall
have
her
whole
Rights
and
Liberties
inviolable
)
and
yet
is
there
a
tacite
condition
in
the
selfe-same
Law
that
they
may
be
violated
.
No
marvell
if
with
us
men
cannot
trust
men
,
if
God
himselfe
cannot
trust
our
lawes
.
And
if
that
Charter
,
or
any
else
made
by
succeeding
Princes
,
do
indeed
confirme
such
Donations
(
as
without
all
doubt
they
do
)
sure
they
must
confirme
such
Donations
in
that
same
sence
wherein
the
Donors
made
them
;
for
so
do
all
other
confirmations
;
nay
in
this
case
of
a
totall
dis-inhaerison
,
there
cannot
be
in
law
any
such
tacite
conditions
or
limitations
as
the
Epistler
speakes
of
:
For
I
have
shewed
such
to
be
unjust
▪
and
tyrannicall
in
a
private
Subjects
estate
,
and
therefore
in
Gods
they
are
much
more
unjust
;
because
they
are
sure
he
cannot
offend
;
and
an
unjust
and
tyrannicall
meaning
must
not
be
called
the
meaning
of
the
Law
.
The
Letter
goes
on
.
[
Besides
,
it
were
somewhat
strange
,
that
the
Donors
of
the
Lands
should
preserve
them
in
the
hands
of
the
Bishops
from
the
power
of
Parliament
,
which
he
could
not
doe
in
his
owne
,
and
give
them
a
greater
and
surer
right
then
he
had
himselfe
.
]
The
Lay-Donee
might
preserve
them
thus
in
his
owne
hands
,
suppose
him
but
an
honest
person
:
for
though
a
Parliament
may
Impunè
disinherit
such
an
innocent
man
,
yet
they
cannot
doe
it
Justè
;
and
so
in
this
regard
both
the
Donor
and
the
Donee
are
in
the
same
condition
.
Besides
,
t
is
no
such
strange
thing
,
for
the
self-same
right
(
as
a
right
suppose
of
Fee-simple
)
to
become
more
sure
in
his
hands
that
takes
,
then
it
ever
was
in
his
hands
that
gave
it
.
For
though
the
right
it self
be
still
the
same
right
,
(
for
Nemo
dat
quod
non
habet
)
yet
by
gift
it
may
now
come
into
a
more
strong
hand
,
and
by
this
meanes
that
selfe-same
right
may
become
the
stronger
.
And
sure
with
us
Gods
hand
should
be
more
strong
then
mans
:
Nay
hence
,
as
some
think
,
Lands
given
to
the
Church
,
were
said
to
come
in
manum
mortuam
,
as
it
were
into
a
dead
hand
,
which
parts
with
nothing
it
hath
once
closed
upon
.
And
why
the
Epistler
should
call
this
a
strange
thing
,
I
doe
not
yet
see
the
reason
,
because
t
is
alwayes
so
,
when
any
one
Benefactor
doth
by
vertue
of
a
Mortmaine
convey
his
Lands
to
any
kind
of
Corporation
.
Againe
,
[
Nor
doe
I
understand
their
meaning
,
who
terme
God
the
Proprietor
of
the
Bishops
Lands
,
and
the
Bishop
the
Usufructuary
.
]
I
conceive
I
have
made
this
plaine
,
because
such
Lands
were
first
offered
to
God
,
and
became
his
owne
Property
by
his
owne
divine
acceptation
:
And
if
the
Dominium
directum
of
these
things
doe
once
rest
in
God
,
the
Dominium
utile
,
the
usus
fructus
alone
is
the
onely
thing
left
to
be
the
patrimony
of
his
Clergie
.
But
he
addes
a
reason
,
[
For
I
know
not
how
(
in
propriety
of
speech
)
God
is
more
entitled
to
their
Lands
,
then
to
his
whole
Creation
.
]
Here
the
Epistler
speaks
out
:
For
truly
,
Sir
,
I
feare
the
Lawyer
your
friend
is
little
better
then
an
Independent
.
How
?
hath
God
no
more
Title
in
propriety
of
speech
to
one
piece
of
ground
then
another
?
No
more
to
a
place
where
a
Church
is
built
,
then
where
men
have
now
placed
a
Stable
?
Our
English
Homilies
,
which
are
confirmed
by
Law
,
cry
downe
this
crosse
piece
of
Anabaptisme
.
T
is
true
,
God
made
all
things
,
and
so
the
whole
world
is
most
justly
his
by
that
great
right
of
Creation
:
But
yet
the
Psalmists
words
are
as
true
,
The
earth
hath
he
given
to
the
children
of
men
.
So
as
that
great
God
is
now
wel
content
to
receive
back
what
men
will
give
him
:
And
this
acceptance
of
his
must
needs
in
all
reason
make
those
things
his
more
peculiarly
.
Thus
Christ
calls
the
Temple
his
Fathers
house
:
'T
was
God's
,
and
God's
more
peculiarly
,
not
onely
by
right
of
Creation
,
but
by
gift
.
Thus
Lands
given
unto
God
are
his
,
and
his
more
peculiarly
;
His
,
because
he
made
them
,
and
his
againe
,
because
having
once
given
them
to
the
children
of
men
,
upon
their
gift
he
did
accept
them
:
So
that
his
Priests
,
and
his
Poore
being
sustained
by
them
,
he
calls
it
in
a
more
peculiar
manner
,
His
meat
,
His
drinke
,
and
His
cloathing
:
And
then
if
in
point
of
acceptance
with
God
,
there
be
great
difference
between
feeding
his
Priests
,
and
feeding
them
that
doe
him
no
such
service
,
there
must
needs
be
as
much
difference
between
Lands
set
out
unto
that
sacred
use
,
and
Lands
of
a
more
common
employment
.
He
gives
a
second
reason
,
[
Were
Clergie-men
but
Usufructuaries
,
how
come
they
to
change
,
dispose
,
or
alter
the
property
of
any
thing
,
(
which
an
Usufructuary
cannot
doe
)
and
yet
is
done
by
you
daily
?
]
How
come
they
to
change
or
dispose
any
thing
?
Yes
,
they
may
change
,
or
dispose
,
or
alter
many
kinds
of
things
,
for
so
without
doubt
any
Usufructuary
may
doe
,
so
he
wrong
not
his
Lord
by
an
abuse
done
to
his
Propriety
.
Thus
he
may
change
his
Corne
into
Clothing
,
or
,
if
he
please
,
his
Wool
into
Books
:
Nay
he
may
alter
the
property
of
his
possessions
too
,
if
he
have
expresse
leave
of
his
Lord
:
And
God
himself
did
tell
Levi
,
That
he
was
well
content
that
men
should
alter
some
things
that
belonged
to
him
,
so
it
were
for
the
Tribes
advantage
,
Levit.
27.
13
:
The
Letter
goes
on
.
[
Aske
them
by
what
Divine
Law
S.
Maries
Church
in
Oxford
may
not
be
equally
imployed
for
Temporall
uses
,
as
for
holding
the
Vice
chancellors
Court
,
the
University
Convocation
,
or
their
yeerly
acts
?
]
He
might
as
well
have
asked
,
Why
not
as
well
for
temporall
uses
,
as
for
temporall
uses
?
For
if
those
he
names
be
not
so
,
his
argument
is
naught
;
and
if
they
be
so
,
t
is
not
well
put
downe
.
His
meaning
sure
was
for
other
temporall
uses
,
as
well
as
for
those
.
And
truly
Sir
,
to
put
a
Church
to
any
such
kind
of
use
,
is
not
to
be
defended
;
and
therefore
I
excuse
not
the
University
:
especially
she
having
had
(
at
least
for
a
good
time
)
so
many
large
places
for
those
meetings
.
Yet
something
might
be
said
for
the
Vice-Chancellours
Court
,
because
t
is
partly
Episcopal
,
something
for
the
act
at
least
in
Comitiis
,
because
t
is
partly
Divine
;
but
I
had
rather
it
should
receive
an
amendment
then
an
excuse
.
Though
it
follow
not
neither
,
that
because
this
Church
is
sometimes
for
some
few
houres
abused
,
therefore
it
may
be
alwayes
so
;
as
if
because
sometimes
t
is
made
a
profane
Church
,
t
is
therefore
fit
't
were
no
Church
at
all
.
He
proceeds
.
[
And
as
for
their
curses
(
those
Bug-beare
words
)
I
could
never
yet
learne
that
an
unlawfull
curse
was
any
prejudice
but
to
the
Author
:
of
which
sort
those
curses
must
needs
be
,
which
restraine
the
Parliament
,
or
any
there
from
exercising
a
lawfull
and
undenyable
power
,
which
in
instances
would
shew
very
ridiculous
,
if
any
curse
should
prejudice
anothers
lawfull
right
.
I
am
sure
such
curses
have
no
warrant
from
the
Law
of
God
,
or
this
Nation
.
]
No
warrant
from
the
Word
of
God
?
I
conceive
there
is
a
very
cleare
one
:
&
our
Mother-Church
commends
it
to
the
use
of
her
sons
in
the
expresse
words
of
her
Commination
,
Cursed
be
he
that
removeth
away
the
mark
of
his
neighbours
lands
:
and
all
the
people
shall
say
,
Amen
.
Deut.
27.
17.
If
he
be
accursed
that
wrongs
his
neighbour
in
his
Lands
,
what
shall
he
be
that
injures
God
?
If
a
curse
light
upon
him
(
and
a
publique
curse
confirmed
by
an
Amen
made
by
all
the
people
)
who
removes
but
the
mark
whereby
his
neighbours
Lands
are
distinguisht
;
sure
a
private
curse
may
be
annexed
by
a
Benefactor
unto
his
Deed
of
Donation
,
in
case
men
should
rob
the
very
lands
themselves
that
have
been
once
given
to
their
mother
.
That
such
curses
restraine
the
Parliament
in
its
lawfull
undenyable
Rights
,
is
(
you
have
told
me
)
but
a
great
mistake
:
For
though
the
Parliament
may
Impunè
(
which
in
some
sense
is
called
lawfully
)
take
away
the
Church
Lands
,
(
though
it
may
doe
it
without
punishment
,
because
(
the
King
being
there
)
it
is
the
highest
power
)
yet
that
Court
it selfe
cannot
do
it
Justè
,
cannot
doe
it
without
sinne
,
and
that
a
fouler
sinne
then
the
removing
a
Land-marke
,
and
then
a
fouler
curse
may
follow
it
.
Let
the
Epistler
then
take
heed
of
these
more
then
bug-beare
words
;
For
believe
it
,
Sir
,
in
such
curses
as
these
there
is
much
more
then
Showes
and
Vizards
:
And
if
you
will
give
trust
to
any
Stories
at
all
,
many
great
Families
and
Men
have
felt
it
.
His
last
Argument
is
(
for
all
the
rest
is
but
declamation
)
[
Aske
your
Bishops
whether
Church
Lands
may
not
lawfully
(
the
Law
of
the
State
not
prohibiting
)
be
transferred
from
one
Church
to
another
upon
emergent
occasions
,
which
I
thinke
they
will
not
deny
:
if
so
,
who
knowes
that
the
Parliament
will
transferre
them
to
Layhands
?
they-professe
no
such
thing
,
and
I
hope
they
will
not
,
but
continue
them
for
the
maintenance
of
the
Ministery
.
]
I
conceive
the
Bishops
answer
would
be
,
that
t
is
no
sacriledge
to
transferre
lands
from
one
Church
to
another
:
but
yet
there
may
be
much
rapine
and
injustice
,
the
Will
of
the
Dead
may
be
violated
,
and
so
sinne
enough
in
that
Action
;
many
may
be
injuriously
put
from
their
estates
,
in
which
they
have
as
good
Title
by
the
lawes
of
the
land
,
as
those
same
men
that
put
them
out
.
To
say
then
the
Church
lands
may
be
totally
given
up
,
because
the
Epistler
hopes
the
Parliament
will
commit
no
sacriledge
,
is
a
pretty
way
of
perswasion
,
and
may
equally
worke
on
him
to
give
up
his
own
lands
,
because
he
may
as
well
hope
to
be
re-estated
again
,
in
that
the
Parliament
will
do
no
injustice
.
And
now
Sir
,
having
thus
observed
your
commands
,
I
should
have
ceased
to
trouble
you
;
yet
one
thing
more
I
shall
adventure
to
crave
your
patience
in
:
and
t
is
to
let
you
know
,
that
if
this
Epistler
had
been
right
in
both
his
Conclusions
,
That
Episcopacy
is
not
of
Divine
institution
,
&
that
Sacriledge
is
no
sinne
;
yet
if
you
cast
your
Eyes
upon
His
Majesties
Coronation
Oath
,
wherein
he
is
so
strictly
sworne
to
defend
both
the
Episcopall
Order
,
and
the
Church-lands
and
possessions
,
you
would
easily
acknowledge
that
the
King
cannot
yeeld
to
what
this
Letter
aims
at
,
though
he
were
in
danger
of
no
other
sinne
then
that
of
Perjury
▪
And
though
I
must
needs
guesse
that
the
Epistler
knew
well
of
this
juratory
tye
,
yet
you
will
the
lesse
blame
him
for
a
concealment
of
this
kind
,
because
he
was
not
retained
of
the
Churches
Counsell
.
His
Majesties
Oath
you
may
read
published
by
himselfe
in
an
Answer
to
the
Lords
and
Commons
in
Parliament
.
26.
May
,
1642.
It
runnes
thus
:
Episcopus
.
Sir
,
Will
you
grant
and
keepe
,
and
by
your
Oath
confirme
to
the
People
of
England
,
the
Lawes
and
Customes
to
them
granted
by
the
Kings
of
England
,
your
lawfull
and
religious
Predecessors
,
and
namely
the
Lawes
,
Customes
,
and
Franchizes
granted
to
the
Clergy
by
the
glorious
King
S.
Edward
,
your
Predecessour
,
according
to
the
Lawes
of
God
,
the
true
profession
of
the
Gospell
established
in
this
Kingdome
,
and
agreeable
to
the
Prerogative
of
the
Kings
thereof
,
and
the
ancient
Customes
of
this
Realme
?
Rex
.
I
grant
and
promise
to
keepe
them
.
Episc.
Sir
,
will
you
keepe
Peace
and
godly
agreement
entirely
(
according
to
your
power
)
both
to
God
,
the
holy
Church
,
the
Clergy
,
and
the
People
?
Rex
.
I
will
keepe
it
.
Episc.
Sir
,
will
you
(
to
your
power
)
cause
Law
,
Justice
,
and
Discretion
in
mercy
and
truth
to
be
executed
in
all
your
judgements
?
Rex
.
I
will
.
Episc.
Will
you
grant
to
hold
and
keep
the
Lawes
and
rightfull
Customes
which
the
Commonalty
of
this
your
Kingdome
have
,
and
will
you
defend
and
uphold
them
,
to
the
honour
of
God
,
so
much
as
in
you
lyeth
?
Rex
.
I
grant
and
promise
so
to
do
.
Then
one
of
the
Bishops
reads
this
Admonition
to
the
King
,
before
the
People
,
with
a
loud
voice
.
Our
Lord
and
King
,
Wee
beseech
you
to
pardon
and
grant
,
&
to
preserve
unto
us
,
&
to
the
Churches
committed
to
our
charge
,
all
Canonicall
priviledges
,
and
due
Law
and
Justice
:
and
that
you
would
protect
and
defend
us
,
as
every
good
King
ought
to
be
a
Protector
and
Defender
of
the
Bishops
and
Churches
under
his
government
.
The
King
answereth
,
With
a
willing
and
devout
heart
I
promise
and
grant
my
part
,
and
that
I
will
preserve
and
maintaine
to
you
and
the
Churches
committed
to
your
charge
,
all
Canonicall
priviledges
,
and
due
Law
and
Justice
:
and
that
I
will
be
your
Protector
and
Defender
to
my
power
,
by
the
assistance
of
God
,
as
every
good
King
in
his
Kingdome
by
right
ought
to
protect
and
defend
the
Bishops
and
Churches
under
his
government
.
Then
the
King
ariseth
,
and
is
led
to
the
Communion
table
,
where
he
makes
a
solemne
Oath
in
sight
of
all
the
People
to
observe
the
promises
,
and
laying
his
hand
upon
the
Booke
,
saith
,
The
Oath
.
The
Things
that
I
have
before
promised
,
I
shall
performe
,
and
keep
;
So
helpe
me
God
,
and
the
contents
of
this
Booke
.
In
the
First
Clause
t
is
plaine
,
he
makes
a
promissory
Oath
unto
the
whole
People
of
England
,
(
a
word
that
includes
both
Nobility
,
and
Clergy
,
and
Commons
)
that
he
will
confirme
their
Lawes
and
Customes
:
And
in
the
second
Paragraph
thereof
he
sweares
peculiarly
to
the
Clergy
,
that
he
will
keepe
the
Lawes
,
Customes
,
and
Franchises
granted
to
the
Clergy
by
the
glorious
King
S.
Edward
:
And
more
plainly
in
the
fift
clause
,
he
makes
like
promissory
Oath
unto
the
Bishops
alone
in
the
behalfe
of
themselves
and
their
Churches
:
that
he
will
reserve
and
maintaine
to
them
all
Canonicall
Priviledges
,
and
due
Law
and
Justice
,
and
that
he
will
be
their
Protector
and
Defender
.
Where
first
,
since
he
sweares
defence
unto
the
Bishops
by
name
,
t
is
plaine
,
he
sweares
to
maintain
their
order
:
For
he
that
Sweares
he
will
take
care
the
Bishops
shall
be
protected
in
such
and
such
Rights
,
must
needs
sweare
to
take
care
that
Bishops
must
first
be
:
For
their
Rights
must
needs
suppose
their
Essence
.
And
where
a
King
sweares
defence
,
what
can
it
imply
but
defence
in
a
Royall
Kingly
way
?
Tu
defende
me
gladio
,
&
ego
defendam
te
calamo
,
is
the
well
known
speech
of
an
old
Church-man
to
a
Prince
:
For
sure
where
Kings
sweare
defence
to
Bishops
,
I
do
not
thinke
they
sweare
to
write
Bookes
in
their
behalfe
,
or
attempt
to
make
it
clear
to
the
People
that
Episcopacy
is
jure
divino
:
But
a
King
,
whose
propriety
it
is
to
beare
the
Sword
,
sweares
to
weare
it
in
the
defence
of
Bishops
;
for
though
t
is
against
the
very
Principles
of
the
Christian
Faith
,
that
Religion
should
be
planted
or
reformed
by
bloud
,
yet
when
Christian
Kings
have
by
Law
setled
Christian
Religion
,
and
sworne
to
defend
those
persons
that
should
preach
it
,
he
ought
sure
to
beare
his
Sword
to
defend
his
Lawes
,
and
to
keepe
his
soule
free
from
perjury
.
And
by
Canonicall
priviledges
that
belong
to
them
and
their
Churches
,
there
must
needs
be
implyed
the
honour
of
their
severall
Orders
,
as
that
Bishops
should
be
above
Presbyters
,
&c.
together
with
all
their
due
Rights
and
Jurisdictions
.
The
words
,
Due
Law
and
Justice
,
cannot
but
import
that
His
Majesty
binds
himselfe
to
see
that
justice
be
done
to
them
and
the
Churches
,
according
to
the
Law
then
in
force
when
he
tooke
that
Oath
.
And
when
the
King
sweares
Protection
and
Defence
,
that
Clause
must
needs
reach
not
only
to
their
persons
,
but
to
their
rights
and
estates
;
for
he
sweares
not
onely
to
men
,
but
to
men
in
such
a
condition
,
to
Bishops
and
their
Churches
;
and
those
conditions
of
men
grow
little
lesse
then
ridiculous
,
if
their
estates
be
brought
to
ruine
;
so
that
such
a
protection
were
neither
at
all
worth
the
asking
,
nor
the
swearing
,
if
the
King
should
protect
a
Bishop
in
his
life
,
and
yet
suffer
him
to
be
made
a
begger
,
since
to
see
himselfe
in
scorne
and
contempt
,
might
more
trouble
him
then
to
dye
.
And
whereas
He
sweares
to
be
their
Protector
and
Defender
to
his
power
by
the
assistance
of
God
,
these
words
(
to
his
power
)
may
seem
to
acquit
him
of
all
the
rest
,
if
he
fall
into
a
condition
wherein
all
power
seemes
taken
from
him
:
But
that
Sir
will
prove
a
mistake
;
for
one
of
the
greatest
Powers
of
the
King
of
England
is
in
the
Negative
in
Parliament
;
So
that
without
him
no
Law
can
be
enacted
there
,
since
t
is
only
the
power-royall
that
can
make
a
Law
to
be
a
Law
;
so
that
if
the
King
should
passe
a
Statute
to
take
away
the
Church-lands
,
he
protects
it
not
to
his
power
:
since
t
is
plaine
,
that
so
long
as
a
man
lives
and
speakes
,
he
hath
still
power
to
say
,
No
:
For
it
cannot
be
said
that
the
Church
in
this
case
may
be
as
it
were
ravished
from
the
King
,
and
that
then
he
may
be
no
more
guilty
of
that
sinne
then
Lucrece
was
in
her
rape
,
for
though
a
chaste
body
may
suffer
ravishment
,
yet
the
strength
of
a
Tarquin
cannot
possibly
reach
unto
a
mans
will
or
his
assent
.
Now
in
all
promissory
Oathes
made
for
the
benefit
of
that
Party
to
whom
we
sweare
;
t
is
a
rule
with
Divines
,
that
they
of
all
others
do
more
strictly
bind
,
except
then
alone
when
remission
is
made
,
Consensu
illius
cui
facta
est
promissio
.
So
although
the
King
sweare
unto
the
People
of
England
,
that
he
will
keepe
and
confirme
their
Lawes
,
yet
if
you
their
Commons
desire
these
said
Lawes
,
be
either
abrogated
or
altered
,
t
is
cleare
that
Oath
binds
no
further
,
because
remission
is
made
by
their
own
consent
who
desired
that
promise
from
him
:
and
upon
this
very
ground
t
is
true
,
that
the
King
sweares
to
observe
the
lawes
only
in
sensu
composito
,
so
long
as
they
are
Lawes
.
But
should
the
desire
either
to
alter
or
abrogate
either
Law
or
Priviledges
,
proceed
from
any
other
,
but
from
them
alone
to
whose
benefit
he
was
sworne
,
t
is
cleerely
plaine
by
the
rules
of
all
justice
,
that
by
such
an
act
or
desire
his
Oath
receives
no
remission
:
For
the
foundation
of
this
promissory
Oath
is
their
interest
he
was
sworn
to
And
it
cannot
therefore
be
remitted
but
by
them
alone
for
whose
sake
the
Oath
was
taken
.
So
that
when
(
in
the
second
Paragraph
of
the
first
clause
,
and
more
plainly
in
the
fift
)
he
sweares
a
benefit
to
the
Bishops
alone
,
in
the
behalfe
of
them
and
their
Churches
,
t
is
apparent
that
this
Oath
must
perpetually
bind
,
except
a
remission
can
be
obtained
from
the
Bishops
themselves
,
and
their
Churches
he
was
sworne
to
.
This
then
must
be
confessed
to
be
the
sense
of
the
oath
,
that
when
the
King
hath
first
sworn
in
generall
to
grant
,
keepe
and
confirme
the
Lawes
and
Customes
of
the
people
of
England
,
he
farther
yet
particularly
sweares
unto
the
Clergy
,
to
preserve
their
Lawes
and
Priviledges
,
and
Customes
;
because
since
they
are
not
able
to
make
a
negative
in
Parliament
,
so
that
the
Clergy
may
easily
be
swallowed
up
by
the
People
and
the
Lords
:
Therefore
in
a
more
particular
manner
they
have
obtained
an
oath
to
be
made
unto
them
by
the
King
,
which
being
for
their
particular
benefit
,
it
cannot
be
remitted
without
their
expresse
consent
,
so
that
although
an
Act
of
Parliament
being
once
passed
by
the
Votes
of
the
King
and
both
Houses
,
it
doth
Sir
(
as
you
have
told
me
)
bind
the
whole
People
of
England
:
yea
the
whole
People
as
it
includes
the
Clergy
too
;
yet
it
concernes
the
King
by
vertue
of
his
Oath
to
give
his
Vote
unto
no
such
Act
as
shall
prejudice
what
he
hath
formerly
sworne
unto
them
,
except
he
can
first
obtain
their
expresse
consent
,
that
he
may
be
thereby
freed
from
his
juratory
obligation
.
It
may
be
said
perhaps
that
in
the
consent
given
by
both
Houses
of
Parliament
,
the
consent
of
the
Clergy
is
tacitely
implyed
,
and
so
it
is
,
(
say
our
Lawyers
as
you
have
told
me
Sir
)
in
respect
of
the
power
obligatory
,
which
an
Act
so
passed
obtaines
upon
them
,
for
they
affirme
that
it
shall
as
strongly
bind
the
Clergy
,
as
if
they
themselves
had
in
expresse
termes
consented
to
it
.
Although
Bishops
being
men
barred
from
their
Votes
in
Parliament
,
And
neither
they
nor
their
inferiour
Clergy
having
made
choice
of
any
to
represent
them
in
that
great
Councell
,
their
consents
can
in
no
faire
sense
be
said
to
be
involved
in
such
Acts
as
are
done
as
well
without
their
representative
presence
,
as
they
once
without
their
personall
.
But
the
Question
is
,
whether
a
tacite
consent
,
(
though
it
be
indeed
against
their
expresse
wils
)
can
have
a
power
remissory
to
absolve
the
King
from
his
Oath
;
he
that
affirmes
it
hath
,
must
resolve
to
meet
with
this
great
absurdity
,
that
although
(
besides
his
Generall
Oath
unto
the
whole
People
of
England
)
His
Majesty
be
in
particular
sworne
unto
the
Rights
.
of
the
Clergy
,
yet
they
obtaine
no
more
benefit
by
this
,
then
if
he
had
sworn
onely
in
generall
;
which
is
as
much
as
to
say
,
that
in
this
little
draught
Oathes
are
multiplyed
without
necessity
,
nay
without
signification
at
all
,
and
that
the
greater
part
of
the
first
,
and
the
whole
fourth
clause
,
are
nothing
else
but
a
meere
painfull
draught
of
superfluous
tautologies
.
For
his
yeelding
to
the
two
first
lines
swears
him
to
keep
and
confirme
the
Lawes
and
customes
of
the
whole
people
of
England
;
which
word
(
People
)
includes
those
of
the
Clergy
too
,
and
therefore
in
generall
their
Lawes
and
Customes
are
confirmed
no
doubt
in
those
words
,
and
so
confirmed
that
they
cannot
be
shaken
but
at
least
by
their
tacite
consent
in
a
Parliamentary
way
.
But
since
the
King
condescends
to
afford
to
their
Rights
,
a
more
particular
juratory
tye
,
there
is
no
doubt
but
it
binds
in
a
way
too
,
that
is
more
particular
;
so
that
His
Majesty
cannot
expect
a
remission
of
this
oath
,
without
their
consents
clearely
expressed
:
For
as
when
the
King
sweares
to
keep
the
Lawes
of
the
People
in
general
,
he
cannot
be
acquitted
but
by
the
expresse
consent
of
the
people
,
or
by
a
body
that
represents
the
People
,
quatenus
the
people
▪
so
that
when
in
particular
he
sweares
unto
the
Lawes
and
Customes
of
the
Clergy
,
this
Oath
must
needs
bind
until
it
be
remitted
in
an
expresse
forme
,
either
by
the
whole
Clergy
,
themselves
,
or
by
some
Body
of
men
at
least
,
that
represents
the
Clergy
,
quatenus
the
Clergy
,
and
not
only
as
they
are
involved
in
the
great
body
of
the
People
,
so
that
he
that
shall
presume
to
perswade
His
Majesty
to
passe
an
Act
in
prejudice
of
this
ecclesiastical
Body
(
to
whom
he
is
thus
sworn
)
without
their
expresse
consent
first
obtained
,
councels
him
to
that
which
is
both
grosly
injurious
unto
his
fellow
Subjects
,
nay
which
is
indeed
a
most
damnable
wickednesse
against
the
very
soule
of
the
King
.
Sir
,
as
I
conceive
t
is
now
plaine
enough
,
that
if
the
Parliament
should
destroy
the
Episcopall
Order
,
and
take
away
the
Lands
of
the
Church
;
the
Houses
in
that
Act
would
runne
themselves
into
two
sinnes
,
and
His
Majesty
into
three
;
and
upon
this
supposition
the
Epistler
and
I
are
agreed
:
[
I
do
not
thinke
(
saith
he
)
Conveniency
or
Necessity
will
excuse
Conscience
in
a
thing
in
it selfe
unlawfull
]
and
before
that
,
he
calls
the
contrary
the
Tenet
of
the
Romanist
,
or
Jesuited
Puritan
:
Onely
I
would
beseech
him
for
his
own
soules
sake
to
consider
how
great
a
scandall
he
hath
given
to
mankind
,
in
defence
of
such
sinnes
as
these
.
For
I
conceive
that
Durand
offended
more
in
holding
Fornication
was
no
sinne
against
the
Law
naturall
,
then
Shechem
did
(
who
was
onely
under
that
Law
)
in
his
Lust
upon
old
Jacobs
Daughter
,
Fraudem
legi
facere
,
(
saith
the
Civilian
)
is
worse
then
Legem
violare
,
it
argues
a
more
un-Subject-like
disposition
for
a
man
to
put
tricks
and
quirks
upon
his
Prince
his
Lawes
,
then
to
runne
himselfe
into
a
down-right
violation
:
And
God
we
know
is
King
,
I
am
a
great
King
(
saith
the
Lord
of
Hosts
)
and
a
King
in
whose
hand
is
vengeance
,
Malach.
1.
14.
T
is
true
Sir
,
we
are
thus
put
into
a
very
sad
condition
,
when
the
only
Option
that
seemes
left
us
now
,
is
either
to
choose
sinne
or
ruine
;
but
yet
(
if
well
used
)
t
is
a
condition
glorious
;
a
condition
wherein
all
that
noble
Army
of
Martyrs
stood
,
before
they
could
come
at
Martyrdome
,
and
if
in
preparation
of
mind
we
thus
lay
our
lives
downe
at
the
feet
of
Christ
,
I
am
undoubtedly
perswaded
t
is
our
only
way
to
preserve
them
.
FINIS
.
Notes, typically marginal, from the original text
Notes for div A93888e-940
25.
H.
8.
c.
19.
Epist.
Ans.
Epist
▪
Ans.
Epist.
Ans.
2
Sam.
7.
Act.
27.
8.
Mal.
3.
8.
Aquin.
2.
2.
qu.
39.
Art.
1.
Ibid.
Art.
3.
〈◊〉
verum
de
Furto
.
Gel.
l.
11.
c.
●lt
.
L.
verum
.