it is no Sacrilege to sell or buy them To make this out take notice of these Propositions 1. Under the Law in the Old Testament God was so far from commanding owning or accepting of lands to be given to the Priests or Levites especially to Aaron the chief Priest excepting a definite number of Cities for the habitations of the Levites that were to be spread over the whole Land of Canaan and the parts without Jordan and a set quantity of Pasture for their Cattle that he absolutely forbad them to have any inheritance among their brethren And this was to be a Statute for ever throughout their generations The reason was given before unto Aaron in behalf of himself and the rest of the Levites to whom God thus I am thy part and thine inheritance among the Children of Israel That is his portion in Tythes and Offerings due from Israel unto God should be theirs For of those to wit Tythes he there expresly speaketh and upon that ground denieth them a portion in Lands I have given them namely Tythes to the Levites to inherit therefore I have said unto them Among the Children of Israel they shall have no inheritance Should not he then blush who so confidently affirmeth that to say God in the New Testament accepteth of money and not of lands is so contrary to all reason c. so contrary to what God himself has expressed in the Old Testament and no where recalled in the New that he that can quiet his conscience with such conceits as these may be doubts not attain to the discovery of some Quirks which in his conceit may palliate either murders or adulteries For admit God should in the Old Testament accept of some Lands upon such and such Terms as in Leviticus or elsewhere yet then God expresly giveth all Rules about the nature of the Land and of the redeeming or not redeeming it to be consecrated to him will this prove his acceptance of Lands in the New Testament of any kind quantity or quality by any man given upon any other account whatsoever until a Cathedral man shall say Hold your hands Levi was one of the twelve Tribes of Israel therefore as considerable a part as any other Nevertheless God was so careful to prevent their claim to Lands among their brethren by Divine Lot that when the rest of Israel were numbred in order to their several Lots in Land God expresly forbad Moses to number the Tribe of Levi or to take the sum of them and commanded him to appoint them over the Tabernacle of Testimony c. Whereby is more then implyed that the Office of Priesthood especially of the High-Priests who were always in person to attend the Tabernacle was then a bar to their inheriting of lands proportionable to their Brethren The inferiour Priests and Levites from thirty to the fiftieth year of their age were in their courses according to their three great families of Gershom Kohath and Merari put upon the most toylsome work in and about the Tabernacle of the Congregation But being numerous in all 8580. they did not could not all attend the Altar at once but onely in their turns Therefore were they to be dispersed all Israel over to instruct the people in the law of God save onely when their several and respective courses came about to serve at the Tabernacle Which being so there was a necessity of preparing habitations for them in all the Tribes and some ground for their Cattle which they were to use as well for travelling thence to the Tabernacle when their turns came as for their own Domestick Occasions Upon this ground God had Moses to command the Children of Israel to give unto the Levites of the inheritance of their possession Cities to dwell in and suburbs for the Cities round about for their Cattle Goods and Beasts Numb 35. 1 2 3. But of these none were appointed to the High Priest who was always resident about the Tabernacle His house no doubt was also allotted to him His portion and the portions of such as served at the Altar in person consisted in Offerings and in the second Tythes that is in the Tenth of the Tythes gathered by all the Levites which Tenths they were to pay to Aaron and the rest that Waited at the Altar before they might share the rest among themselves or partake of it in common It is true that the Levites had forty eight Cities in all set out unto them and some Lands but God first gave the Word for the giving of them and also limited both the number of Cities among which were six Cities of Refuge and the quantity of the ground that the Israelites should give unto them The several names of the Cities and how and where situated are set down in the 21th of Joshua Their Suburbs were also bounded by a set number of Cubits Nor might the Israelites give nor the Levites accept one Cubit more Nor were they lords or sole proprietors or inhabitants of those Cities Others dwelt therein and shared also in the residue of the Lands adjacent as well as they onely care was to be taken that in every of those Cities so many Levites as were assigned to each City should be well accommodated and the remainder should still continue to the former Owners Hence Lyra on those words Cities to dwell in Non dicit ad dominandum vel ad redditus inde accipiendum quiasic erant ipsius Regis vel aliorum Dominorum urbes in quibus habitabant Levitae He saith not Cities for them to lord over or to receive the whole profits of them for so they were either the Kings or Cities of other lords in which the Levites dwelt That this was so is manifest by the City of Hebron or Kiriah-Arba the City of Arba Father of Anak and a Great man that first founded it That Citie being given to the Kohathites who were Levites and had the first Lot was yet the City of Caleb to whom Joshua had before given it for an inheritance Therefore after mention of disposing Hebron to the Kohathites by the free Lot of the Israelites it is said But the fields of the City and the Villages thereof gave they to Caleb the son of Jephunneh for his possession Out of which fields it is clear by the next verse that the Suburbs were excepted for these were given to the sons of Aaron the Priest Here by the way a few words to him whether he were a Bishop or not that hath taken much pains to demonstrate that Church-lands are not to be sold. 1. He is much mistaken in the greatness of those Cities and Suburbs so also are others building upon St. Hierome's report who say That those forty eight Cities had Suburbs of so large circuit that they exceeded the portion of any other Tribe in Israel Which cannot be For the circuit of the Suburbs given to the Levites were
But 1000 Cubits to be measured from the wall of each City outward round about which cannot contain 8000 Acres English measure in the whole were each City two miles in compass which is not probable And in every of those Cities there must be placed neer 200 Levites and their families so as the Land could not extend to four Acres apiece to each Levite For of such as were fit for service there were as was noted before 8580. All the Males were 22000 besides women and servants Now divide 8580 into 48 parts according to the number of the Cities and you will find almost 200 Levites that were in their turns for actual service in each City And these served for all the other Cities and Countries throughout Israel As for that conceit of some Rabbins upon the 35th of Numb and fifth verse where 2000 Cubits are allowed for Suburbs to each City that the first 1000 were onely for walks and recreations and another 1000 Cubits for Fruit Vines Corn c. this is a meer dream and contrary to Scripture For 1. the Suburbs given to the Levites are plainly declared to be but 1000 Cubits and that not for walks and recreation but for their Cattle their goods and beasts 2. the other thousand Cubits vers 5. which were added are said to be Suburbs of the City but not of the Levites This thousand Cubits were for the Owners and other Inhabitants of those Cities beside the Levites as appears by what hath been before alleged in the case of Caleb Josh. 21. 12. the Levites then had their Suburbs next to the Walls and the Owners of the Cities had theirs without the Levites and so theirs must be of far greater Longitude and Latitude than the Lands of the Levites For as in all Cities there is a Tract of ground measured from the Walls which belongs to each City as Suburbs so here 2000 Cubits in the whole of which 1000 was for the Levites 2. What and how large soever the Lands of those Levites were yet had they none but only Pastures for feeding of their Cattle as Abulensis upon good grounds affirmeth They did neither sow nor reap but yet had store of Cattle brought in by the rest of the Tribes unto them as being the Lords And this is clear from the Text for the Lands assigned them were for their Cattle and for their goods and for all their beasts Therefore they had only pasturage And this could not extend to such a proportion as should exceed the Lands of the least of the other Tribes 3. There is a great mistake in the Computation of the Land of Canaan given unto Israel and by Lot cast out for the several Tribes It is said by the Author of Church-lands not to be sold that the whole land was hardly 160 miles in length from Dan to Beersheba and but 46 miles in breadth from Joppa to Bethlehem as if this were the whole length and breadth of Canaan given of God to Israel and by them enjoyed And for proof hereof Saint Hierome who lived long there is produced as a witness But is not longitude usually reckoned from East to West and breadth from North to South Now Beersheba is almost South from Dan and Dan almost North from Beersheba on which account there is hardly 160 miles between them But what is this to the whole longitude of Canaan divided among the Tribes from East to West according to the latest Maps and particularly that appointed by Authority to be prefixed to the last Translation of the holy Bible Anno 1611 It is hardly a fourth part of the true Longitude And as for the space between Joppa and Bethlehem where St. Hierome dwelt which is said to be 46 miles it is not the one half of the breadth of the whole Land from South to North nor is it said by Hierome that it is the breadth of the whole but of the space between Joppa and Bethlehem the place of his habitation which was almost in the middle And here take notice that Hierome in that Epistle endeavours to prove that much of the Land of Canaan promised to Abrahams posterity is to be understood in an allegorical sense as if God did not verifie all that he promised to them in the Letter which under favour of so great a Clerk is a mistake For can we think God would be worse than his word in kind Read the several distributions by Lot to the Tribes in the book of Joshua and elsewhere and then it will clearly appear that St. Hierome in this was out But whatever the length and breadth of that Land was this is clear that the Levites enjoyed not one foot more than God had appointed the Israelites to set out by Lot unto them Therefore the Lands sold by Christians Act. 4. or by that Hypocrite Ananias Act. 5. can be no warrant for Christians to set out what Lands they please or any Lands at all upon this setting out of Suburbical Lands for the Levites until they can shew the like warrant from God under the New Testament both for kinde and dimensions for the Lands given to Cathedrals Now then if Bishops take upon them as of late they did to be above Presbyters or Ministers of particular Congregations as Aaron was above the ordinary Priests and Levites it is as clear as Analogy can make it that there is no colour for nor shew of warrant out of the Old Testament to enable Bishops to hold whatever Lands the blind Devotions or Commutations of Penances of the people conferred on them but rather that there was an express Law against it It is true that after the Temple was built there was no doubt conveniency of habitation and perhaps some Lands for the beasts and Cattle of the High-Priest in or about Hierusalem as there perhaps was while the Ark remained in the Tabernacle And if Bishops answerable thereunto had made it out that they were as Aaron above the rest of their brethren in the Ministry there had been some reason for the allowance of some Lands to them if they labour in the Word and Doctrine while they continue Howheit although Bishops could not by Scripture make out their Title to the Lands they held those 48 Cities alotted to the Levites with the Suburbs pertaining to them which lands were not to be alienated while the Levitical Priesthood was in force may by Analogy be a good Argument for the setling of Glebe-lands upon faithful and painful Ministers of each particular or Parochial Congregation for their habitation and necessary provision of Cattle for their use and for the acknowledging of them as sacred or holy to the Lord. Because himself commanded the like for the Priests of the Law who had then sundry other obventions and incomes which Ministers now cannot enjoy Nor can it be thought that God is more wanting to the Ministers of Christ when more grace is given to those to whom they preach than he
upon all that should aliene them This is soon answered There is no warrant or example hereof in Scripture but rather of the contrary Sure we are there is no warrant for it in the place alleaged Lev. 27. 21 28. But of this more in the next Chapter Secondly proceed we from voluntary Consecrations to things set apart by the people at Gods own command for the Priests and Levites which will further clear this Point It hath been already shewed that there were by Gods injunction 48 Cities with Suburbs of lands for the Priests and Levites set out by the several Tribes of Israel Here the Levites had houses to dwell in and lands for their Cattle Howbeit I. The Levites might sell their houses without sin For when God made a Law for confining a man that sold a dwelling house in a walled City to redeem it within a year after the sale or else it might not be redeemed till the Jubilee Lev. 25.29 He gave further liberty to the Levites if any of them sold an house he might redeem it at any time vers 32. And if a man purchased of the Levites then the house that was sold should go out in the year of Jubilee for the houses of the Levites are their possession among the children of Israel saith the Lord vers 33. This plainly implies and proves the lawfulness of buying and detaining without sin even the house of a Levite until it were either redeemed or returned at the Jubilee Therefore it is not Sacrilege to buy Church-Houses of Bishops and other Cathedral men no more then it was in a Levite to sell and in an ordinary person to buy a Levites house for private use 2. As for the lands of the Levites those I mean which were annexed to those Cities for other they had none they might not sell them so long as their Priesthood lasted For so God expresly The field of the Suburbs of their Cities may not be sold for it is their perpetual possession vers 34. Their houses were their possession but the Lands their perpetual possession that is to remain unalienated so long as their office remained Those Lands were the same in effect with our Parochial Glebes The Levites could not be without them for their cattle and goods no more can faithful Ministers of the Gospel be without these And if it were expresly forbidden to aliene those while the Levites officiated in their places it will nearly concern all who have aliened or shall aliene any of these to consider his warrant from God and not from man onely to exempt him from the guilt of Sacrilege or at least of a very great sin Howbeit when the Levitical Priesthood ended the Levites might as lawfully sell their lands as their houses Else Joses sirnamed Barnabas a Levite of the country of Cyprus had in the common opinion of the most committed Sacrilege for that he after that Priesthood was changed by Christ having land sold it and brought the money and laid it at the Apostles feet Had this been Sacrilege the Apostles would never have suffered such money so near them nor would they have accepted of such a gift although given for supply of the then persecuted Church of Believers It was therefore no sin in him but is recorded by the Spirit of God as an eminent act of his Faith Piety and Charity If any shall say That the Land sold by Joses was not Levitical or Church-land but a temporal Estate 1. This appears not from the Text nor 2. is it asserted by any Expositor in terminis Indeed Lyra seems to incline somewhat this way when he saith It was land that he had in Cyprus where he was born the Levites as he saith being then dispersed but not by reason of persecutions at home as he conceiteth and that he was to have none in Judea save what is before mentioned which was wholly Levitical But this is but his own single opinion to which we may oppose Tostatus who plainly proveth that neither in one place or other might the Levites enjoy any lands but those about their Cities And be it that Joses had lands at Cyprus He was now at Hierusalem which was distant from Cyprus 160 miles saith Strabo Little likelyhood therefore he should make a journey to Cyprus to make a sale there and less that he at such a time should get so large a revenue in a strange Country Wherefore more probable is that of Gualter that Joses being a Levite at that time and converted unto Christ then so much hated of that order eo quod Christus illorum quaestui honori plurimus derogaret upon this very point that Christ did much derogate from their gain and honour did show so much charity and bounty to the Saints at Heirusalem as to sell his Land and bestow it on them Which Land saith Alexander the Monk lay in Judea not in Cyprus nor could he in the opinion even of Cornelius à Lapide have any in Judea unless pascuales duntaxat ad alenda pecora ut patet Num. 35.3 onely pastures for feeding cattle as appears Num. 35. 3. which a Jesuite would hardly be perswaded to acknowledge were there any colour of probability to the contrary But let this Land be where and what it would it is a clear case that it was a Levites patrimony and a Levite sold it yet he that bought it sinned not Yes saith one he that bought it might sin although he that sold it might therein not sin by reason of the necessity of the times So Hezekiah did lawfully in delivering the Treasure and Ornaments of the Temple to the King of Assyria to redeem himself and Gods people from his violence but who can suppose the Assyrian less than sacrilegious in accepting and detaining them To which I answer If the one might lawfully give the other could not sin in receiving what was given At best it was but doing evil in giving way to another to sin that good may come of it Hezekiah cannot be excused from sin if he do that which makes another to sin Therefore if Joses might lawfully sell it could not be sinful in the Purchaser to buy Moreover the Shew-bread in case of extremity was given to David and his Company by Abimelech which Bread was not common but hallowed nor was it lawful for any but the Priests to eat of it Yet who will say that David sinned therein In extremities if God will have mercy and not sacrifice how can it be unlawful to buy and possess what others are forced to sell If there were no Buyers there can be no Sellers And if there cannot be buying without sin how can he escape guilt that maketh the sale In cases of this nature buying and selling are relatives one cannot be without the other therefore they must both share alike in guilt if either be faulty unless the Buyer compel the Seller by violence to do out of fear what he would
to be such a consecration as it should be in no wise lawful to recal redeem or imploy them to any secular use again Yet this is the main thing for which this Scripture is so much urged 2. Although that Text implies some voluntary Dedications of some Lands to the Lord for the benefit of his Priests that did him and the people real and constant service either at the Altar or in teaching the Law yet this is no Warrant for the Donation or continuation of Lands to idle c. Lords over the people of God and such as can never make it out that ever they were truly called of God to those pretended Offices and Dignities for which they claim such large Revenues 3. Albeit some fields might sometimes be given to the Lord and his Priests enjoy the benefit of them yet He appointed upon what terms they should be given and continued but no such matter for Lands given to Cathedrals They being many of them given to the dishonour of God and Christ as afterwards shall appear which God hath no where given order for their converting to a better use nor given any rules about them Nor were those Lands consecrated to the Lord under the Law the hundreth part of what Cathedralifts have by wiles not voluntary Donations heaped up to consume upon their lusts Which boundless grasping of Lands by Bishops Monks Deans and Chapters c. laying not only field to field but Mannour to Mannour to the impoverishing of particular families and the Commonwealth too upon the account of the Church and Gods acceptance thereof as sacred hath ever been so far from being accounted lawful that even an Archbishop himself having deserted the Romish Church hath proclaimed it Sacrilegium rapinam injustissimam direct Sacrilege and most wicked robbery This saith he is not to enable men to labour in the Gospel but to supply them with fewel for Riot and Excess and to pervert what was given for the benefit of the Church and for necessary provisions to the shame scandal and ruine of the Church it is not to take off but to multiply impediments of saving souls 4. Those consecrations of Lands were to be no longer in the Priesthood than their Priesthood continued Afterwards it was lawful for any to buy them as well as any other Lands Therefore if that instance be of force to prove the lawfulness of giving such Lands it must be of like weight to prove the lawfulness of aliening those Lands when the authority and jurisdiction and by consequence the Offices of all Cathedral men are wholly determined and taken away by Act of Parliament 5. Albeit those Priests might have such Lands given them yet Tastatus largely and strongly makes it out that it was not lawful for the Priests to keep them in their possession but must sell them at every Jubilee even after they were devoted to the Lord by leaving them to the Lord till the Jubilee For first he urgeth that place in Numb 18. forbidding them Lands among their brethren 2. He saith they were confined to those Cities and Suburbs which by Gods Order were set out for them by the other Tribes Numb 35. so that it was unlawful for them to have either Lands or Houses in any other places or place whatsoever 3. He urgeth the great inconvenience of keeping any such Lands in their own possession because it would much distract and hinder them in the execution of their Offices Therefore if even such Lands did fall to them they were not to keep them but presently to value them and if he that sanctified them would not redeem them they must sell them to some others And even when at the year of Jubilee the Lands came to be theirs they must instantly sell them and put them into money and so from Jubilee to Jubilee Now what is this to the holding of Cathedral Lands wherein they who plead for them use all arguments and means first to get then to keep them for ever whereas on the contrary God allowed not his Priests to use Arts to get them much less to keep them but to use all means to get them off again until they who consecrated them had neglected the redeeming of them and none else would buy them and so they came devoted not by their first consecration but by neglect of the people who first gave them unto God nor will those sharp Masters take notice of the difference between sanctifying that is vowing or giving of Lands unto God and the devoting of them which last makes them most holy to the Lord uncapable of redeeming or of being sold yet not in the nature of the thing but as having slipt the time limited by God for redeeming or selling of them If any think as one doth that the setting out of the holy portion of Land about the Sanctuary shewed to Ezekiel in a Vision as a Prophesie of the spiritual state of the Churches of Christ under the Gospel is both a Warrant and Command to set out Lands for Cathedralists to be holy to the Lord for ever under the New Testament this can be no other but a manifest perverting of the sense and mind of God throughout that Vision For although it be on all hands agreed that from the 40th Chapter of Ezekiel to the end of that book the main scope is to decipher and describe the flourishing estate of the Church under the Gospel yet it was never affirmed by any Author that the Temple there intended and Gods command for setting out so many 1000 reeds of Land for the Temple and the Priests are to be understood positively and properly according to the Grammatical Construction of the Words as if God meant to erect another new material Temple at Hierusalem or in Judea and to revive and establish the same Levitical Offerings and Sacrifices formerly offered by Aaron and his sons to be again offered by Zadok and others of Aarons Order But that all is spoken in a figure and to be understood of the spiritual endowments of the Church better than with all the Lands in the World Howbeit this is set forth under Legal expressions and by way of allusion to the material Temple of Solomon as being the most lively and most taking instance or resemblance that was then known or could be found in the whole World to illustrate and set forth to life the far more glorious estate and spiritual privileges and provisions of the Evangelical Church the New Hierusalem which should so far exceed in glory that in Judea as the Heavenly Hierusalem doth the earthly and as the spiritual Temples of the living God do exceed that of Solomon Wherefore to draw an Argument thence for the consecrating of Lands in a proper sense for the maintenance and state of Bishops and other Cathedral-men is not only to proclaim the weakness of him that doth it but to publish to the world that there is no firme ground in Scripture as
allowance than Christ or his Apostles were pleased to take when they were first to plant the Gospel until men were better instructed and satisfied touching the Ministers dues but that God hath provided better for them which they might lawfully receive and enjoy when once his people are throughly convinced of their duty All that is inferred hence is but this that it cannot be thought that either Christ or his Apostles ever thought of allowing or owning the Lands given to Cathedral Bishops Deans and Chapters c. when neither he nor his Apostles ever accepted of Houses or Lands for themselves and when the enjoyned and the other observed the injuction that neither Silver nor Gold should be provided for supplying their wants beforehand in those times of the first plantation of the Gospel wherein it nearly concerned those that were imployed in the planting of it rather to suffer want of things necessary than to give offence in the unseasonable demanding of supply 2. As to the matter of Ordinance and Institution for the maintenance of labouring not loytering Gospel-Ministers it is not necessary here to say much I have in the second Edition of this Treatise made it out that Tythes are the most proper and setled maintenance set out by Christ himself for all his Ministers although for brevity it be here omitted Onely take notice that seeing Christ hath been pleased to own this rational proposition that the labourer is worthy of his meat or hire Surely he intended such hire as might be suitable to the state and condition of the Church in the several ages and vicissitudes thereof wherein his labourers took pains in his Church With this nevertheless that whatever the maintenance should be it must not be urged from his assertion that Bishops and Cathedral men should have Lands till they can shew better Title to such Lands than either the Priests and Levites had over and above their definite Cities and Suburbs to keep Lands in their possession for ever or than any rule or hint in the New Testament will undoubtedly warrant them to do Not that it is unlawful for Ministers of the Gospel to possess Lands falling to them by inheritance or purchased with their money for such Lands they hold not as Ministers in right of the Church but as Civil Proprietors of an estate of which it is without question lawful for them to dispose as they please But that which is here spoken is in reference to the particular Texts produced to prove that the New Testament affordeth Commands for giving Lands to Cathedrals which to aliene is Sacrilege But if none of all this satisfie to warrant Cathedralists to hold Lands and to prove Gods Charter for it yet it is hoped that of our most blessed Saviour will do it fully where he saith Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own where the Interrogation hath the force of an undoubted Affirmation as if he had said Questionless it is Ergo he hopes Lands may be given to the Church No doubt they may as the forty eight Cities and Suburbs were to the Priests and Levites But not by force of that Text now produced For that is not spoken of mens giving unto God but of Gods free gifts unto men Besides it is to labourers not loyterers in his Vineyard not to such labourers as would work where when and how they list but as the Lord or his Steward should direct and command not for beating their fellow-servants but for giving them their meat in due season Briefly you may observe in all the places quoted by the Advocates for Cathedral Lands that nothing is precisely and positively vouched which in terms or equivalency imports the giving to God and his accepting of Lands for Cathedrals but long fetcht and hard strained Interrogations or inferences rather forced upon the Text then naturally flowing from it which in the issue comes to no more but a bare begging of the question and of an admitting what they say upon such begging discourses to be an unquestionable truth But especially great use is made by the same Champion for Cathedral Lands that he doubts not and if he doubt not who dares to do other but that this which he undertook to prove viz. that lands may be given to the Church is the opinion of the Assembly of Divines lately sitting at Westminster and of all learned Orthodox Divines in Christendom Confidently spoken but not for want of ignorance of what he so speaketh Touching his so often vouching the Assembly of Divines whom he afterwards unchristianly revileth know all men by these presents that either he knoweth not what he saith or wilfully imposeth upon them what they never held out It is very true that some Members of that Assembly joyning with some others did compile some Annotations upon the Bible which many take to be the work of the Assembly But take this for an undoubted truth those Annotations were never made by the Assembly nor by any Order from it nor after they were made ever had the Approhation of the Assembly or were so much as offered to the Assembly at all for that purpose or any other Therefore whatever is alleaged by that Author of Church-lands not to be sold he must go look somewhere else for the Compilers of those Notes and forbear to charge them upon the Assembly which never took the least notice of them And when he hath found the right Authors he may if he please send to them to own what he alleageth out of them and thank them whom he scorneth for helping him to Arguments which as he thinks make against themselves Touching all the learned Orthodox Divines in Christendom which he laies claim unto to be of his side it moveth not beyond a vapouring flourish till he produce them And were they all of his opinion yet what is that to what he undertook to prove out of Scripture Indeed he makes use of some bits snatcht out of Calvin Beza Deodat and sundry others whose words he either wresteth or alleageth to no purpose But let him make what advantage he can of them yet they are but men subject to the same infirmities with others of which an appeal may safely be made to his own Conscience Therefore however they may be made use of in some cases especially against themselves and their own party as by that Author they are yet it cannot be thought needful or equal to answer to every passage alleaged out of them unless it be quoted to stop their mouths who seem to allow them dominion over their faith This is spoken not to wave any thing materially alleaged out of them but that there is nothing produced that comes up to the proof of that for which that Author undertook to alleage them and so no Answer can be given to them Here might we stay if men would be perswaded to rest in the Scriptures But because much is produced out of Antiquity for the proof