draw them on to such Donations Yea sozealously bent were the Prelates of those times to augment the Churches Patrimony that by a Provincial Constitution made by Richard Withershead alias Wctherhead Archbishop of Canterbury in the reign of Hen. 3. it was forbidden to all Physicians to administer any Physick to any Patient be his extremity and danger never so great under pain of suspension ab ingressu Ecclesae till the Patient were shrived by a Priest The pretence was to visit and physick his Soul first But the meaning was to get a collop out of his Estate to some Church Chappel or Monastery to increase their own Revenues Upon which the Priest absolved him but not before And this was that which occasioned the multiplying of Chaunteries Obiits c. and afterwards the abrogating of them in the reign of Edw. 6. to whom they were given by Parliament I. Edw. 6. 14. Nor were the Kings and Parliaments especially after King John so hood-winkt or cowed as not to see and take notice of and provide against those excessive gifts of Lands to the Church that is to the Clergy whereby they greatly robbed the Commonwealth and ruined many particular families Therefore the same Henry the third when he first granted the Great Charter and therein confirmed the Right and Liberties which doth not necessarily if at all import Lands of holy Church as that Idolized Crew was then termed did in the same Charter enact That it should not be lawful from thenceforth to any to give his Lands to any Religious house and to take the same again to hold of the same house Nor shall it be lawful to any house of Religion to take the Lands of any and to Lease the same to him of whom he received it And that if any from thenceforth gave his Lands to any religious houses and thereupon be convict the gift shall be utterly void and the land accrew to the Lord of the fee. Here then was a Law against voluntary gifts of Lands and a liberty granted to others to recover them back notwithstanding their pretended giving them unto God whereby it appears that some sorts of giving and accepting and receiving Lands for the Church is not a duty but a fault which deserves punishment not a reward Next after Hen. 3. succeeded his son Edw. I. who in the 25th of his reign confirmed the Great Charter and in it the clause or Chapter last mentioned But before he did that even in the seventh of his reign he made a strict Law against Mortmain by advice of the Prelates as well as others to make all gifts and purchases of Lands without special License from the King to be null and void and the Lands to be forfeited to the chief Lord if he took the advantage within one year and an half or else to the King in case the chief Lord neglected the time therein appointed and limitted It is true that Edward 3. a popular Prince at the importunity of the Clergy of whom he was necessitated to make much use in his wars did somewhat mitigate the rigour of former Statutes of Mortmain who in case of breach thereof enacted that instead of forfeitures parties offending should onely pay a Fine Howbeit in 15 Rich. 2. that Statute De Religiosis 7. Edw. I. was not onely revived and set on foot again but made to extend to all Lands privately given for Church-yards or Glebes of Vicars c. or to Guilds Fraternities and Corporations without special License from the King And that if any before this last Statute had bought procured or received such Lands without License they should either procure his License or sell those Lands away for other uses by the next Michaelmas following else the Lands to be forfeited and seisure to be made of them as in the aforesaid Statute of 7. Edw. I. de Religiosis was provided This indeed was the main quarrel which Thomas A undel then Archbishop of Canterbury had against that King for which he conspired with Henry of Bullingbrook afterwards Henry 4. to depose and ruine him By all which it is manifest that neither Kings nor Parliament no not Bishops themselves in Parliament ever took all Lands given to Churches upon mens private devotions and liberality to be sacred or holy to the Lord and thereby to become his propriety or so much as lawful for the Church to hold them without special License from the King and other chief Lord or Lords of the see Yea these Acts of Parliament declare plainly that such voluntary giving of Lands was in it self against Law For there being required a special License for legitimating thereof it is manifest that the thing could not be done without dispensing with the Laws made against it The unlawfulness whereof is declared to be that the King and Kingdom was thereby defrauded of such taxes and payments when the Lands once were in Mortmain or a dead hand to wit the Church as formerly had been raised out of them for defence of the Realm and the chief Lords of the Fee were deprived of their chiefRents Services Reliefs Fines of Alienation Eschetes c. which being an apparent wrong to all occasioned the making of those Laws against that lawless Liberty And yet our Advocates for church-Church-Lands will needs contend that every thing voluntarily given to Holy Church be it for what use it will Superstitious or not must needs by that very Donation instantly become so sacred that it may by no means be alienated and that God accepts it for his own although given contrary to the Laws of those men to whose Ordinances even to every one of them not contrary to Gods we are commanded to submit for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as Supreme or unto Governours as unto them that are sent by him c. Thus we see what in truth the Title of the Lands of Bishops and other Cathedral men in England was whence derived upon what grounds and in what manner procued and enjoyed which sufficiently argues them even in construction of Scripture as well as of humane Laws to be far from being sacred or Holy to the Lord so as upon any account whatsoever to intitle him unto them CHAP. III. It is neither Sacrilege nor other sin to aliene or purchase such Lands to any common use especially since the Statutes of 17. Car. I. cap. II. and cap. 28. THis is evident from the premises and is here added by way of Antithesis to obviate those Two confident Assertions of the Letter Answerer before mentioned viz. That to invade those things given to the Church be they moveable or immoveable is expresly the sin of Sacrilege And That this sin is not onely against Gods positive Law but plainly against his Moral Law To charge a man with Sacrilege is the highest accusation for the greatest crime next to the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost for it is ranged with Idolatry it self Rom. 2.22 yea
No Sacrilege nor Sin TO ALIENATE or PURCHASE Cathedral Lands As SUCH Or A VINDICATION Of not onely the Late Purchasers but of the Antient Nobility and Gentry yea of the Crown it self all deeply wounded by the false Charge of SACRILEGE upon New Purchasers The third Edition Revised and Abbreviated for the Service of the PARLIAMENT With a Post-script to Dr. PEARSON By C. Burges D. D. Rom. 14. 4. Who art thou that judgest another mans servant London Printed by James Cottrel 1660. TO The Right Honourable THE Lords and Commons in Parliament Most Noble Lords and Gentlemen HE that will take notice of the incessant yet groundless clamours dayly emitted in a Rhetorical Dress out of Pulpits and Pamphlets against the pretended Sacrilege of the late Purchasers of Cathedral Lands cannot but see that through their sides those Pungent Verbalists endeavour to gore more deeply most of the ancient Nobility and Gentry of England not sparing Majesty it self who hold more of such Revenues then all other Purchasers set together Did any of these Accusers solidly set forth the true nature of Sacrilege and make it out that those Purchasers are guilty thereof they would deserve regard But that is none of their work It is enough for them Calumniari fortiter that somewhat may stick To which end they passionately take on as Michah against the Danites Judg. 8.22 for spoiling him of his Ephod Teraphim and Graven Image and labour to raise as he did what company they can against all engaged herein to expose them to the rage and fury of the abused-ignorant mutinous Rabble which may put all into new confusions and flames if not carefully prevented by your Wisdom and Care for which you have a Noble President in that Parliament of 1.2 Phil. Mar. 8. most seasonable and necessary to be now again put in ure unless that part of it which concerns the Papal Confirmation by all that seriously intend the Publick Peace If any Purchasers soberly ask those obstreperous Declaimers What aileth you all their Answers are instead of Arguments but a parcel of high words no more in effect than those of the same man to such as had stript him of his Idols vers 24. Ye have taken away my Gods which I have made and the Priest and what have I more To lay open the emptiness of their unjust charge I have revised and abreviated for your better service a late Treatise often threatned but never Answered to let all men see how much those Censurers abuse not You alone but the Kings of England themselves as well as new Purchasers If it should be deemed piacular for a Minister to undertake the defence of this Cause it is humbly answered that he doth it not to patronize evil but to detect their Errour who being Ministers of high rank boldly affirm without proof this to be a Sin and that of the deepest Dye How dare then any Minister that finds this be silent And should I petition or plead for Confirmation of those Sales now under Debate according to the Declaration of You the Honourable House of Commons dated the 8th of May last which cannot be forgotten it were no more than was prayed by all Bishops themselves in the Parliament before cited Yea by all the Representative Clergy of England in Convocation Assembled in 1.2 Phil. and Mar. who of all others were most concerned in a Revocation Yet they in their Instrument and Petition to the then King and Queen recorded in that Act before mentioned say that mature consilio deliberatione and bonum quietem publicam privatis commoditatibus anteponentes c. they most earnestly prayed the Confirmation of all Alienations of Church-Lands even of Bishops Deans and Chapters as well as of others made by King Hen. 8. and Edw. 6. in his non-age All which they did propter multiplices pene inextricabiles super his habitos Contractus Dispositiones Et quod si ea recuperatio scilicet tentaretur quies tranquilitas regni facile perturbaretur c. By this means a Confirmation of the whole was granted in Parliament whereby many Nobles and Gentlemen of the Romish as well as Protestant Religion possess a large portion of not onely Cathedral but Hospital-Lands unto this day This therefore in the behalf of all Purchasers I humbly lay before You according to the bounden duty of Your most humbly Servant C. Burges TO ALL Impartial Readers HAving heretofore been forced hastily to present to a Convention in Parliament a Case touching Sacrilege falsly so called that fell into some bands who threatened to confute it This put me upon the Revising enlarging and digesting thereof into a Treatise which was published before I could see any Answer to the former Case But immediately after came forth Dr. Gauden's huge Bulk of Words in Folio called The Tears Sighs Complaints and Prayers of the Church of England In which Book he is pleased to bespatter me with so much virulency and false calumnies as take up five whole Sheets in all which he hath not bestowed one line in a solid Scholarly Confutation of or distinct Answer to any one part of that Case Indeed in the Front of his 667. pag. he makes this flourish Of the sin of Sacrilege with the nature of it But neither in that page nor in any other which concerneth me doth he afford so much as a word to set forth the Definition of it instead whereof he only spins out more like a School-boy then a Doctor a sharp Declaration full of personal Invectives and gross untruths as namely the charging my defence of Tithes to have proceeded from my desire to uphold two fat Benefices whereas I have had none at all either fat or lean for above these sixteen years his taking up and publishing a false Report that I should offer 1000 Marks to procure me a richer Benefice whereas my witness is in heaven never any such base profer was made by me nor came into my thoughts It is true that a Person of Honour came several times to my house and offered me in the year 1640 a fat Bishoprick which when I refused he then propounded another offer of 1000 Marks per annum for preaching if I would then have done what he would have put me upon This is true and the Lord who knoweth all things knows that Ilye not Then he thinks to pay me to purpose for that I being a Minister c. should plead for such Alienations as he calleth Sacrilege as if this were more improper for me than for him since that to revile and cast dirt upon the Solemn League and Covenant of God which both Houses of Parliament yea himself and which is more his present Majesty had also religiously taken Of which I resolve God assisting to let him ere long hear more he being the Ring-leader of all those foul Pamphlets against the Covenant to intice and tempt those that have taken it to renounce it and so to bring Zedekiah's
punishment upon both King and Kingdom Mean while I am confident that whoever seriously and judiciously readeth that Declaration will find that rather than this Doctor would not make me his Dung-cart be would himself be content to become a Scavenger to rake up and cast all the filth and dirt he could upon me and that this is the All of that his undertaking against me On the first of September last I wrote to him and with my Letter sent him one of my Books of the second Edition intituled No Sacrilege nor Sin to aliene or purchase the Lands of Bishops c. that so if be thought fit be might answer it otherwise than he had done my Case promising to wait for his Answer till the end of Michaelmas Term then next following He was pleased on the fourth of that same moneth to acknowledge the receit of my said Letter and Book thanking me for it on the 15 day of that moneth he promised to Answer it Allwhich I have under his hand But in stead of Answering thereof he still declaimeth against Sacrilege at Pauls the Temple Westminster c. but never setteth forth what it is nor one Argument to prove the late Purchases to be a sin Nor can be hold in his Pen from blotting more and more paper with heaps of words without matter nor keep it from being as extravagant as his tongue This is one occasion of publishing this third Edition which because it was to be presented to the High Court of Parliament I have as much as I well could contracted it that it might be more willingly perused by those Honourable Persons whose weighty Affairs will not permit them to read copious Volumes Yet have I left out nothing material or pertinent but only pared off such pieces as might best be spared without obscuring or weakning the main subject here undertaken If any have a mind to answer it I desire them to do it soberly and solidly and if they will confute it let them be sure to refute my Definition of Sacrilege contained in the first Chapter of this Edition which is the foundation of the whole Fabrick else it will be to little purpose to batter the Superstructives I know it to be too usual where things cannot be clearly confuted to make the loudest noyse upon a wrong sent and by personal reflections quibbles or by-confutations of some occasional passages of History Chronology Criticisms or the like wherein by following other Authors there may possibly be some mistakes or differences upon which the stress of the cause is not laid to eek out what they want in substantial Answers to the main Points they undertook to refute Of which I have bad some experience and shall neglect them But if ought be offered in a substantial manner against the chief matters herein asserted I shall carefully miud it and either ingenuously acknowledge my Error or civilly Reply where I find my Antagonist mistaken If any shall thunder out Vollies of eminent Protestant Divines against what I have here undertaken I resolve to strike sail to nothing but Scripture or unto Arguments taken thence and rather imitate one Athanasius who chose to go alone with the truth when all the world was turn'd Arrian and one Paphnutius when the generality of that first Grand Council of Nice inclined another way than to run with the stream or to joyn with the loudest out-cries of interessed parties to admit that to be Sacrilege which upon due examination appears not to be any sin at all It were to be wished that such of the old imperious Prelatical Party who yet remain and such as now joyn with them to cry up all to as great an height as ever and in order thercunto to poyson all from the highest to the lowest with a false and dangerous opinion of Sacrilege in hope thereby to exasperate them against all Purchasers which are many thousands till they have brought all into new Combustions would seriously and religiously reflect upon the former Calamities they have brought upon themselves a pious King abused and the whole Nation almost destroyed and sadly to lay to heart the occasions and means of all our Confusions and thereupon to say and conclude with devout Ezra even after deliverance Ezra 9.14 15. After all this is come upon us for our evil deeds and for our great trespass seeing thou our God hast punished us less then our iniquities deserve and hast given us such deliverance as this should we again break thy Commandments and joyn in affinity with the people of these abominations that is not onely in strange marriages but any other corrupt conversation savouring more of Heathenism then of Christianity which too palpably begins to break out again wouldst thou not be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us so that there should be no remnant nor escaping The good Lord set on this upon all their and our hearts before the Decree bring forth before the day pass as chaff before the fierce anger of the Lord come upon us before the day of the Lords anger come upon us and overturn overturn overturn I tremble to say what and shall humbly and cordially pray for the preventing of it as becometh the Loyalty and real endeavours of Aug. 25. 1660. Your faithful Friend and Servant in the Lord Jesus C. Burges THE Contents of this Book 1. OF the mistakes in and about Sacrilege and what it truely and properly is Chapt. 1. 2. That Cathedral Lands as such were never owned or accepted of God as Holy to the Lord nor were either his or theirs by Divine Right Chap. 2. 3 It is neither Sacrilege nor other Sin to aliene or purchase such Lands especially since 17. Car. I. Chap. 3. 4. Answers to Objections brought to prove the Purchase of such Lands to be Sacrilege Chap. 4. Errors of the Press Correct thus PAg. 7. lin I0 r. Consecrations P. 21. l. 2. r. 800. p. 44. l. I7 r. procured p. 48. l. 33. r. plurimum P. 50 l 43 blotyea l 44. r. yea all the Clergy then in Convocation prayed CHAP. I. Of the mistakes in and about the Nature of Sacrilege and what it truely and properly is according to the sense of Scripture SOme deny that there is or can be any such sin as Sacrilege under the Gospel being confident that nothing is now due to Gospel-Ministers but by humane Laws Prescription or Custom But this being a palpable error deserves to be exploded with contempt rather then seriously confuted Others in another extreme stretch Sacrilege so far as to involve every man in that sin that deviates from their constitutions or any way offendeth about persons places or things Consecrated by men and by them called Holy although never made such by Gods Ordination Thus the Roman Emperors declare the violation of their Imperial Laws to be Sacrilege and fasten that Crime on all that wilfully neglect or knowingly break them Now albeit this be not admitted as a truth yet their
this Text Christs acceptance of Lands given to Cathedral-men as holding a propriety in them himself for a constant pompous provision beyond necessary maintenance even unto excess and faring deliciously every day whether they labour in the Gospel or not That Christ hath taken care for his Ministers that serve him in the Gospel and did so even long before they were in being is manifest by that in Deut. 25.4 Thou shalt not muzzle the Ox when he treadeth out the Corn that is when the Owner puts him into a floor and drives him up and down upon the sheaves there laid out for him to tread the Corn out of the Ears thereof to make bread he shall allow him liberty to eat part of the same sheaves of corn while he is so imployed without muzzling his mouth to hinder such eating This Law was made partly to require men to shew equity and mercy to a working beast in tendring the life thereof p but it was principally intended to instruct all how to carry themselves toward his servants in the Ministry of the Gospel not grudging them their eating the milk of the flock which they feed Hence that of Paul 1 Cor. 9. 9 10. Doth God take care for Oxen that is did he make this Law with reference onely or chiefly for Oxen Or saith he it altogether for our sakes For our sakes no doubt this is written that he that ploweth should plow in hope and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope But to prove from Mat. 10.40 that Christ owneth all their Cathedral Lands as given to himself whether they who enjoyed them did work or not work or what use soever they made of them will require time till the Greek Kalends or the thirtieth of February His next proof is that known passage of Ananias and Saphira Act. 5. whose sin saith he was he kept back part of the price of those Lands he had given to God for the publick use of the Cburch That his fin was keeping back part of the Price and his lying unto God in saying that which he brought was the whole price when it was but a part is acknowledged but that he gave his Lands to God is false for then by this mans Doctrine he might not sell them He gave or pretended to give the price not the Land it self as is clear by the Text. And even the price after the Land was sold was in his own power to give or keep it But here was his wickedness That 1. he pretended and professed to give all yet kept back a part 2. When questioned for it whether that he laid at the Apostles feet were the whole money for which he sold his Land he lyed not unto man onely but even to the Holy Ghost to whom he pretended to give the whole for the use of the then persecuted Church and for relief of those Converts who had then received the Gospel For this both Ananias and his wife joyning in the same sins were sadly and suddenly smitten with death to the terror of all that beheld it or heard of it And whereas he saith that this was given to God for the publick use of the Church there is an equivocation and fallacy in this also For by Church the Text means not an appropriation of it onely to Ministers or at all to such Bishops and Cathedral-men as he pleads for whose Government must not be changed nor their Lands alienated but it is meant of the whole body of the then Believers according to the language of the Pen-man of those Acts and the money was to be distributed unto every man according as he had need But to what end that flourish that the Fathers both of the Greek and Latine Church generally affirm the crime to be robbing of God of that Wealth which by vow or promise was now become Gods propriety It is true that some of the Fathers make the sin to be Sacrilege yet the main charge for which they are condemned is lying to the Holy Ghost Nor doth any one of the Fathers understand it of Sacrilege by defrauding the Apostles or Ministers of what was given to God in relation to their Office and Ministry which is the thing for which he alledgeth it but for defrauding the whole Community of believers of what for supply of their present necessities they pretended and falsly professed to bestow upon them even when the giving of the whole was not required had they not of themselves given it out to the world to the Apostles and Church and to God himself that they would give all But whereas he pag. 26. alledgeth Calvin and Beza as concurring with the Fathers observe how corruptly he translateth the words of them both Calvin saith he speaking of that fact of Ananias Sacrum esse Deo profitebatur which he translateth thus He professeth that his Land should be a sacred thing unto God And there Beza too Praedium Deo consecrassent the man and his wife they consecrated this Land unto God Still he would fain be harping upon Land but to little purpose And here he doth it without all colour or shew abusing both the Text it self and these Authors quoted by him by a false Translation unworthy of a Dean at least of a Doctor of Laws Calvin saith not that Ananias professed his Land should be sacred to the Lord but the money hemade of it Nor can Beza's expression of Praedium signifie Lands for that were to contradict the Text which speaks of detaining part of the price not of the land it self And let it be meant of land or price it is nothing to his purpose that hence would prove the unlawfulness of alienating the Lands of the Church quod erat demonstrandum If he think from hence to prove voluntary gifts without command from God to be holy to the Lord he is mistaken For in cases of this nature when the whole Church is concerned or the poverty of Gods people is sore and pressing upon them as now it was there ought to be so much self-denial as that he who hath two Coats must impart to him that hath none and he that hath meat must do likewise yea sell that he hath and give Alms which are all commands of Christ which cannot be shewed for giving of Lands to Cathedrals Yet this man is so confident that the Texts alledged by him are by such an universal consent so interpreted as to prove his Proposition in relation to the unlawfulness of selling Church-lands that they may as well doubt whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies God c. who make question of what he undertook to Prove from them His fourth Scripture is Rom. 2.22 Thou that abborrest Idols committest thou Sacrilege Whence he seeks to prove that God accepts of things given him and holds a propriety in them in the New Testament as well as in the Old Else there can be no Logick in Pauls words For if they be
of God as the worshipping of Idols themselves Yea God doth so abominate such things that he forbad his people so much as to enquire after the Gods of the Nations how those Nations worshipped their Gods Now then Sacrilege being committed in retaining what is accursed as well as in perverting what is by God accepted and sanctified for his worship and service it can be no less than Sacrilege to introduce or continue any thing in his service which himself hath not appointed and therefore forbidden They therefore that are for adoration of the Host or of material Altars for Christians bowing towards the East for the use of Copes brought in by Antichrist into the Church or of any other Popish or superstitious Rites and Ceremonies in the service of God never appointed by Christ or his Apostles and therefore accursed as Will-worship being a Prophanation of the Divine Majesty may do well to consider and lay it to heart whether they lie not under the guilt of that great sin and whether God hath not justly yet mercifully punished them with casting them out of their places and dispossessing them of their Church-Revenues for using yea preaching up the lawfulness of those accursed Trinkets and persecuting all such as bore testimony against them If any shall plead that what God hath accursed belongs to formal Idols and Idolatry and reacheth not to any thing brought in as relating to the true God 't is a meer evasion and delusion For the Golden Calf made by Aaron to go before the Israelites was not intended either by them or him to be an Idol or false god such as the Nations worshipped but onely to be a visible representation of Jehovah to go before them in stead of Moses whom they now apprehended through his long absence in the Mount to have forsaken them For even the Feast which they hereupon held is called a Feast unto Jehovah in their purpose and intention and though they called the Calf Elohim Gods as the true God is often stiled yet not with intent to multiply Gods or to deviate from the true if they might be permitted to give the sense of their own action which God would not suffer therefore Nehemiah expressing their meaning renders the same speech of theirs in the singular number This is thy God that brought thee out of Egypt c. Neh. 9. 18. Yet even this in Gods account was a worshipping of a molten Image and the changing their glory into the similitude of an Ox that eateth grass for which the Lord would have destroyed them utterly bad not Moses stood in the gap And yet for the same offence Moses himself gave order for the killing of about 3000 men in one day and the Lord otherwise plagued the people that remained because THEY had made the Calf which Aaron made It is then no good Plea to excuse from Sacrilege that what is done is intended to the true God and not to Heathen Idols For when men make an Idol of God it cannot but be an high provocation of the Divine Majesty and a contempt of his Law To such therefore who so do may that of Paul whether spoken by him to Jews or Gentiles be most aptly applyed Thou that abhorrest Idols committest thou Sacrilege It is not thy protestations against Idolatry or Popery that will excuse thee so long as thou borrowest from either what God hath forbidden because he hath not prescribed in his worship If Moses must see that he make every thing according to the pattern shewed him in the Mount who art thou that shalt presume to follow the pattern of thine own brain or the traditions of men 3. Coroll Those Magistrates who are not as careful to destroy accursed things that is all humane inventions in the worship of God do thereby suffer God to be profaned and so are as guilty of Sacrilege as those that aliene or give way to the aliening of what is truely the Lords It is recorded to the honour of the Religious Kings of Judah that they destroyed all such things as in their days provoked the Lord. For so had the Lord commanded to all Israel when they should enter Canaan not onely to drive out the Natives for their Idolatry but to destroy all their Pictures and all their molten Images and quite pluck down all their high places Hence it is that Hezekiah removed the high places and brake the images and cut down the groves and brake in pieces also the brazen Serpent it self that Moses had made when he found that the Children of Israel did burn incense unto it He not onely destroyed the inventions of men in reference to Idols but even the institution of God himself when abused by men to the dishonour of God And how zealous Josiab was also in prosecuting the same work may be seen at large in 2 King 23. from the fourth verse to the 21. On the contrary it is noted as a great blot even to those Kings who had done much for God that the high places were not removed this is laid to the charge of Asa Jehishaphat and Amaziah Which is worth their notice who laboured so much to hold up the late King against the aliening of Church-Lands but never endeavoured to divert him from but rather infused into him strong conceits of the great usefulness and holiness of many humane Inventions and Superstitions in the Worship of God and to put him above all that had gone before him since Queen Mary upon the compelling of all others to practise the same as if it had been a great duty in him whereas David a man after Gods own heart hated all those that held of superstitious vanties and after died in peace But these making Formalities and Superstitious Ceremonies taken from Popery the All of their Devotions and taking their Lesson out of Adam de Contzen the Jesuite for retroducing the very body of Popery notwithstanding the Laws against it ruined themselves and the King CHAP. II. The Lands of Bishops and other Cathedral men as such were never owned or accepted as holy to the Lord nor were either his or theirs by Divine Right THe chief and indeed onely Argument by which many endeavour to prove it to be Sacrilege to sell or purchase Cathedral Lands is this that those Lands were given voluntarily by men unto God and the Church and are accepted and owned by him as holy to the Lord therefore they commit Sacrilege who sell or buy them for private uses as being against not onely Gods positive but Moral Law If this be not onely denied to be true but proved out of the holy Scripture to be false the whole Controversie will soon be at an end In order whereunto take notice that there is not onely no command but no direction or allowance in the Scriptures of the Old or New Testament for the endowing the Church with such lands but rather enough against it therefore
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
was of old to the Levites And as God then forbad the sale of those Lands while that Priesthood lasted so it will accordingly follow that Parochial Glebes are not to be sold from the Church so long as they be imployed for maintenance of such Ministers as truely and faithfully preach Christ to the people of those places where such Lands are given For the very Churches to which they are annexed were built by men of Quality and Piety for the good of the Souls of the living And those Glebes were bestowed for the encouragement of such godly Pastors as there officiated and ministred the bread of life to the people so far as the Founders of those Churches Donations and Endowments were able to judge and to endow the Churches which they built If since Sacrilege hath been committed by aliening or applying some of those Glebes to private uses the Popes were first in this sin and led the way For they first appropriated 3845 of the fattest and largest Benefices in England either to their Italian Harpies or other their Creatures of whom nothing could be sure but that they would feed themselves and starve the peoples Souls Afterwards they gave them to those Augaean stables of Templars and Monks in the heighth of Popery who never took care of the Churches of Christ but to pamper their own bellies like Epicures and to maintain the pomp and state of Atheists under the name and habit of the Church And since the times that Bishops Deans and Chapters c. were possessed of such Appropriations they grew worse than their predecessours in Leasing out some for many scores of years and passing away other for ever And whereas those that first enjoyed them were to make competent allowance to the Minister that officiated so do not these but rather starve him They then of all others have least cause or colour to blame the late Parliament for aliening or selling of those Glebes to supply the necessities of the State occasioned by themselves which Glebes it were to be wished might be redeemed again and restored for the maintenance of such able and faithful Mainisters in those places as look more at the Work than the Wages which is now if God give a blessing in a good way to be done But that which is most insisted upon and which bears most shew of voluntary donations of Lands to the Priests in the Old Testament which may be called sacred or holy to the Lord and may not be afterwards aliened or redeemed is that in Levit. 27. 10. If a man shall sanctifie unto the Lord a part of a field c. which sanctifying was say some a voluntary act not commanded yet allowed and accepted of God else he would never have put the case so often nor have given so many directions in it as there he doth Therefore they conclude voluntary offerings or gifts of Lands to the Church without command or warrant from God makes them to be sacred and holy to the Lord and gives him a propriety in them not to be revoked or aliened To understand this aright take notice that divers distinctions are made in that Chapter all which must be heeded 1. The Lord distinguisheth of fields said to be consecrated to him For the fields are either fields of a mans possession vers 16. that is his inheritance which he may retain for ever or fields which he hath bought which are not of his Hereditary possession vers 22. The first he might sanctifie of by vow give unto God yet so that he had his liberty to redeem it according to the value not of the Land it self but of the seed and profits adding a fifth part to it which done he might as safely take it back and use it as if he had never consecrated it But. if he did not before the year of Jubilee redeem it but let it go out in the Jubilee that is let it lie unredeemed till that year came about he might neither then nor at all redeem it that field was to be holy to the Lord as a field devoted the possession that is the inheritance thereof should be the Priests vers 21. so was it also in case it could be proved that he that had sanctified it to the Lord instead of redeeming would underhand sell it to another man that sale was void and at the next Jubilee the inheritance thereof was vested in the Priests vers 20 21. 2. The Lord distinguisheth between redeeming and buying or selling Redeeming is the act of him that vowed the field of his own possession buying is the purchasing of the field of another for years not for ever because all Lands bought were to return to the first Owner at the Jubilee vers 23 24. so also is the selling of Lands which could not be for longer time than the next Jubilee Now if the Owner who vowed a field would not redeem it any other might buy it of the Priests and they not only might but ought to sell it to him saith Abulensis for so many years as lasted to the Jubilee but no longer After such a man had bought it he might sanctifie it to the Lord for so much time as he had in it but the Inheritance was to be in the Priest So if he had bought a field not before consecrated or vowed to God he might sanctifie that till the next Jubilee after which it was to revert to the first Owner that sold it vers 22 23 24. 3. The Lord distinguisheth between a thing sanctified and a thing devoted The sactifying of it is the first vowing or giving it to God notwithstanding which Act he might lawfully redeem and enjoy it as fully to his own use as ever he did before the sanctifying of it provided he do it in time that is before the next Jubilee The devoting of it to the Lord is a constant setling of it upon God for the Priests without power of revocation or redemption after once the first Jubilee is over if before it were not redeemed upon pain of Gods Curse so vers 21. The field to wit which is sanctified and not redeemed before the Jubilee when it goeth out in the jubilee shall be holy unto the Lord as a field DEVOTED the possession thereof shall be the Priests as before was alleaged in reference to the first distinction Thus also vers 28. No devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the Lord c. shall be sold or redeemed every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord. To the same effect Tostatus To apply this to the matter in hand First it is clear that no Land sanctified to the Lord whether it were Land of Inheritance or bought for a time did settle such a propriety in God that it was not lawful to redeem it for ever or to buy it for a time and convert it to any private use before the next Jubilee therefore this is of it self no argument to prove the giving Lands to Cathedrals
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
indeed there is not to found any Title of such Lands upon But one hath found out a gallant passage of Moses to prove that very Heathens by light of natural reason found and held it requisite that their Priests should have a setled maintenance in Lands The place is in Gen. 47. 22. where it is said that when Joseph in the extremity of the seven years famine bought all the Lands of the people of Egypt for bread to keep them alive Onely the Land of the Priests bought he not which shews they had Lands and that oseph would not meddle with the buying of them But why what because they were hallowed or consecrated to the Egyptian Gods and therefore Holy No such matter but because Pharaoh provided a portion of meat for them and they did eat the portion which Pharaoh gave them Wherefore they sold not their Lands Indeed Nature may teach that God is to be worshipped that he is to have Priests for his worship and that they are to be maintained but out of Lands where did Nature ever teach that If the Heathens that were most civilized made any standing provisions for their Priests it was in Tithes and Offerings This the Reverend Dr. Carlton hath industriously noted out of Plutarch Herodotus Macrobius Diodorous Siculus Xenophon and others But for making such provisions of Lands none of those Authors are alleged And whereas the Apostle saith that the things which the Gentiles sacrificed they sacrifice unto Devils it ill becomes a Bishop to urge that Act of the Kings of Egypt in setting out Lands for such Priests as done by the light of nature which was done out of ignorance and corruption of nature as a warrant for Christians to give Lands to Cathedrals 2. Come we from the Law to the Gospel from the Old Testament to the New Neither here can we finde one silhable that countenanceth much less requireth the endowment of Cathedrals with Lands as holy to the Lord. It is true that the Learned Knight Sir Henry Spelman in his Treatise de non temer andis Ecclesiis hath Learnedly proved it to be Sacrilege to rob Churches of the maintenance by Divine right due unto them but that is not spoken of Lands given by men but of Tithes setled by God as the standing maintenance of Ministers of the Gospel as is obvious to every eye that carefully heedeth the body of that Book There are indeed some wyre-drawn Arguments produced by a great D. in his Answer to the Letter to Dr. Turner to make out Gods acceptance of and propriety in such lands But these have been examined before and therefore shall be here passed over In the New Testament there is recorded 1. Matter of fact 2. Matter of Ordinance for the providing of maintenance for Ministers so soon as that Ordinance could be put in execution 1. The matter of fact will appear by what Christ himself and afterwards his Apostles had for their maintenance in those times As for Christ himself although he were of the bloud Royal of the lineage of David both by his mothers side and his supposed fathers side too he prosesseth that very foxes and birds of the air were better provided for then himself for the one had holes theother nests but he had not so much as whereon to lay his head neither room nor pillow It is true there was a common purse or bag with which Judas was trusted and thereupon tempted to become a thief And it is manifest that out of that Cash contributed by well-disposed Converts both he and his Disciples furnished themselves with necessary food and gave to the poor besides But as for any House or Land for a standing or setled maintenance or abode it is clear he had none although Heir of all things Nor was that provision which he had any dainty or costly fare but only some loaves of bread and a few fishes not above five barley loaves and two stshes at a time which a boy might carry for Christ and his twelve Apostles And whatever Judas did in purloyning for himself the rest of the Apostles were content to observe their Masters Injunctions not onely when he first sent them out at what time he charged them to provide neither gold nor silver nor brass in their purses nor scrip for their journey neither two coats c. but even long after when he had left the earth and ascended heaven and the multitude of believers dayly encreased Even then Peter professed to the lame man that lay at the Gate of the Temple and asked an Alms of him Silver and Gold have I none Yea a good while after that blessed Paul laboured working with his own hands as a Tent-maker and that night and day not for recreation or out of covetousness but to minister to the necessities not onely of himself but of those that were with him not as having no right to maintenance but that he might not be chargeable unto such as being yet unconverted or not fully satisfied touching this matter might take offence at his requiring of present maintenance Therefore sometimes he would take maintenance of one Church convinced of their duty in administring to him to supply his wants while he preached to another more disaffected unsatisfied covetous or quarrelsome Thus he preached the Gospel of God freely to the rich voluptuous and quarrelling Corimbians robbing other Churches by taking wages of them to do service to the Corinthians Where by the way take notice that he that taketh wages where he doth not or hath not done service is a Church-robber It is true if he work faithfully elsewhere and no maintenance is there without scandal to be had and another place where he hath industriously laboured is willing to afford contribution upon that account it is not such a robbery as is sin in him but rather in them who put him upon it as Quakers and others would now do the Ministers of the Gospel for they refusing to maintain him do what in them lies to put him upon robbing others Let no man hence conclude I. That Christ meant to starve his Apostles when he sent them out to preach or took not sufficient care for their provision For by their Ministry He so wrought upon those to whom he preached if sons of peace that his Apostles wanted nothing and that upon this account That the labourer is worthy of his meat saith Matthew of his hire saith Luke This is then allowed to those who are commissionated by Christ to preach the Gospel but not to usurpers and false Prophets that run before they be sent supposing gain to be godliness Unto such Priests that so teach for hire and to such Prophets as so divine for money a wo is due which will be accomplished on them Nor Secondly That it is hereby intended that it is unlawful now for Ministers of the Gospel to have more or better
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
in the judgement of some quoted by this Answerers Second and Repetitioner it is a worse sin a sin that is not onely a breach of the Positive written Law but against the Law of nature also The very Heathens have made it death and such a death as is due to a Parricide or murderer of his father This goes very high indeed The evidence to prove it had need therefore to be very clear full impregnable and manifest by express Scripture not by strained consequences drawn thence by wit or by the authority or suffrage of men as thinking to make good by number of voyces what cannot be made out by strength of Scripture This were no better then the banishing of Aristides from Athens by the Law of Ostracismon as being very likely to be guilty of Tyranny which in stead of proving they made good by the Votes of 6000 Citizens Now it will concern these Accusers to make out their charge upon pain of incurring the same punishment which is due to a Sacrilegist If any man unjustly accuse another the Lord once made a Law touching False witness bearing against ones neighbour which was this The judges were to make diligent inquisition and if the witness were a false witness and bad testified falsly against his brother then should they do unto him as he had thought to have done unto his brother no eye might pity him but life should go for life eye for eye tooth for tooth band for band foot for foot It is well for these bold Censurers that this Judicial obtains not in England Yet let them know that the Equity of it is perpetual and the Justice of God will without repentance finde them out To prove this to be expresly Sacrilege one of them tells you a fair tale out of the Schools and Casuists Aquinas c. which is all the Argument he brings unless the Etymology of the word and Nebucbadnezzar's abusing the holy Vessels and the burning of the Temple but out of an express text of Scripture declaring and dooming the Buyers of Cathedral Lands expresly to be Sacrilege 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem not one syllable And can there be such a sin unless he produce some Scripture that forbids and condemns it Is notthis to become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Accuser of the Brothren Nor are proofs of the other as to this point any better but Quotations of such Scriptures of which none do mention lands but he seeks by Circumlocutions Interrogations confident Assertions to fasten such a sense upon them sometime contrary to always incongruous and aliene from the genuine sense of them As by occasion hath been in great partalready demonstrated and further may be in this or the next Chapter In his other Proposition he affirms that this aliening of such lands is against the Positive and Moral Law of God because all Nations even Pagans hold Sacrilege for a sin and for his better grace he voucheth but cites not the place whereby it might be examined Lactantius to prove that in all Religions God ever avenged this sin But doth he tell us out of Lactantius or Scripture that selling or buying Cathedral Lands is that sin Yes he voucheth Mal. 3. 8. Will a man rob God yet ye have robbed me But wherein Here he is silent for it makes not for his purpose but rather against him What was it indeed God himself tells them not in Lands but in Tythes and Offerings And this is granted him And what gets he by it but the countenance of some Scripture-words against the sense But that notwithstanding all objected or alleaged to sell or buy such Lands because once voluntarily dedicated to God is no Sacrilege appears thus First by that very Scripture Levit. 27. alleaged to the contrary if rightly understood For if it were lawful to make a singular vow of a person a beast an bouse or some part of the field of his possessions and after such sanctifying of it to the Lord to redeem or buy it back again for common uses then the bare Dedication giving or consecrating of a thing unto God doth not eo ipso make the redeeming selling or buying thereof for any use to be Sacrilege unless where God himself hath expresly forbidden such redemption sale or purchase But in divers cases and particularly in the cases of Houses and Lands God allowed a redemption and sale so as the buying of them back for private uses after the sanctifying of them to the Lord were done within the time allotted by God for the doing of it as hath been before more largely opened Therefore to sell or buy Cathedral Lands is no Sacrilege nor any way sinful in the case before propounded because once dedicated to God It is true that where God hath laid an express prohibition against redeeming or buying it is Sacrilege to redeem or buy As for example Ifa man voluntarily offer a beast which God hath allowed for Sacrifice he may not redeem buy or exchange it no not for a better vers 10. no more may he redeem or buy nor so much as sanctifie the firstlings of beasts whether ox or sheep because that is so the Lords that a man cannot make of that a free-will offering vers 26. but if it be any other beast he may redeem it and employ it to what use he pleaseth vers 11 12 13. and vers 27. So in sanctifying an bouse to be holy to the Lord it might be redeemed for private use without sin yea with Gods allowance vers 14 15. And the like allowance was given for redeeming of fields and lands so sanctified also vers 16 17 18 19. therefore no sin or Sacrilege to buy it for common use onely in two cases it was not lawful 1. If he redeemed it not before the Jubilee as was before noted 2. If he had sold it unto another man vers 20. If either of these were the case then it was holy to the Lord as a field DEVOTED that is with Anathema or a Curse denounced by God This God after repeateth with some enlargements vers 28. to let us see that nothing devoted under his curse might be bought or sold. Howbeit all things confecrated are not so devoted Nothing could be devoted but in the cases above mentioned and this was done by God himself not by the men that gave it For the fields were not to be given with an Anathema denounced by the Donors But this was added by God long after the Lands were out of their possession and not redeemed And had the Donors first given it with a curse they had made themselves for ever uncapable of redeeming it before the Jubilee which God himself not onely allowed but in a manner required them to do that so there might not be an utter alienation of it from the Tribe and Family to which it belonged by Divine lo against which God made a Law Num. 36.7 If it be now objected But Church-Lands were given with a curse
not do without force Nor need this seem strange Doctrine if we consider either first the Canon-Law whence the whole troop of Declaimers against such Sacrilege fetch their Arguments or secondly the practise of Bishops c. in this Kingdome or thirdly the Judgement of the Pope himself declared to Queen Mary touching those Lands which had been aliened from the Church by her Father and Brother 1. The Canon-law hath sundry strict restraints upon Bishops and other Ecclesiastical Persons not to give exchange or sell and aliene the revenues of the Church Yet withal in one of the strictest of those Canons beginning thus Sine exceptione it is allowed to be done by a Bishop if for the profit of the Church and with advice and consent of his whole Clergy without which they make such giving exchanging or selling to be Sacrilege Hence many not taking notice of the Exceptions run away with the former part as if it were Sacrilege simply and absolutely though for the profit of the Church and with consent as that famous Martin de Aspilcueta Dr. of Navarre sheweth Therefore he distinguisheth of Ecclesiastical Goods of which some are more solemnly consecrated with a special Benediction and serve immediately for Divine Worship These cannot be profaned that is converted to common use no not by the Pope himself while they continue in the form in and use for which they were consecrated Other goods are consecrated by a sole Donation and disposal of them for the sustentation and maintaining either of men or things imployed in and about Divine Worship without such a solemn Benediction These last may be alienated even by inferiour Prelates as saith he not onely moveables but immoveables dayly are so often as upon just cause and with due solemnity venduntur laicis vel aliàs commutantur cum eis they be sold to or exchanged with Laymen referring to the Canon last mentioned But whitherto tends this To shew that in the judgement even of those from whom our sharpest Censurers draw most of their water to drive their Mill all alienation of Church-lands is not Sacrilege upon this simple account that they are voluntarily consecrated and given by men as holy to God or Christ for if any thing may in the judgement of the parties interessed in the profit be gained by it it is no Sacrilege nor Sin but lawful and dayly practised by the greatest sticklers against what they please to call Sacrilege Yea hence may be inferred further that whether the alienation be advantageous or not to the Church it is no Sacrilege for if such dedication and consecration or hallowing of a thing afterwards stollen purloyned or aliened makes such stealth sale or purchase to be Sacrilege as all seem to confess then the profit by and consent to such a sale cannot extenuate or take off the sinfulness of it Therefore however the alienating thereof to disadvantage and without consent be an injury if not done by lawful authority yet it can be no Sacrilege unless men wilifreely acknowledge that they do indeed judge such sales by their own damage not by the Dedications of the Lands unto God 2. If it be considered what the Bishops have counselled and joyned in with the King Lords and Commons in Parliament it will appear that the aliening of such Lands is in their judgements no Sacrilege Witness 1. the Acts of Parliament formerly mentioned made and enacted with consent of the Lords Spiritual as they were called In one of which before cited they make all Lands given to the Church without Licence to be forfeited and to be seized by the chief Lord or the King unless they procure a License or sell away those Lands within a short time therein prefixed limited which could not be if it were Sacrilege after they be dedicated and hallowed to sell or aliene them This shews plainly that it was not lawful to receive or enjoy such lands without licence but lawful enough to sell them if any such they had therefore no sin but a lawful Act to buy purchase them for common uses although in their language given to God by men and so no Sacrilege And 2. in 1.2 Phil. Mariae The Bishops themselves then in Parliament yea as well as the rest of the Lords and Commons prayed all the Clergy then in Convocation Confirmation of all sales and alienations of church-Church-lands as well of Bishopricks as of Monasteries c. before that time made as appears by that very Act of Confirmation it self cap. 8. To which may be added that Bishops Lands especially were as before is shewed declared in open Parliament the Bishops being present to be given to maintain their State and Magnificence as Lords with special reference to State-employments For thus saith the Statute was this Church founded in the State of Prelacy for that the Kings were wont to have the greatest part of their Counsel for the safeguard of the Realm when they had need of the said Prelates and Clerks so advanced All which Civil Employment in State-affairs for which they were advanced so high is wholly taken off by special Act of Parliament with the Royal Assent Yea their very Functions and Offices as to all Jurisdiction are by the same King and Parliament pluckt up the roots 17. Car. I. cap. II. Their Lands then must needs Eschete and revert to the Commonwealth the proper Heirs of the first Founders and Donors being dead many ages agone and their memory perished from off the earth and therefore now as lawfully sold as heretofore in the case of Mortmain Lands not by licence received might be seised and alienated by the chief Lord of the Fee or by the King and converted to what uses they pleased Of which before 3. If we look into the judgement and resolution of the Pope himself in this case we shall find that he durst not to damn those of the Laity of the last age as guilty of Sacrilege that were possessed of Church-lands after the dissolutions made by Hen. 8. and his Son Edward the sixth For Queen Mary one of the Popes great Zealots after she was possessed of the English Crown desired the resolution of the Pope whether she were not bound in Conscience to do her utmost that those Revenues might be restored to the Church To this the Pope returned an answer in writing 2º Mariae the Original whereof saith Dr. Hackwel was among other remarkable remembrances of that time preserved in the Office of the Kings Papers to let her know that there was no cause for restoring those Lands to the Church again and giveth sundry reasons of that his resolution which will ask some time to transcribe Howbeit because this is not vulgarly known yet of use I shall as Dr. Haclwel hath led the way set down the Popes own words first in Latine and afterwards in English that it may appear that there is not in the judgment of the Pope himself any Sacrilege in the alienation
his Nephew or Bastard to be a Prebend of Lincoln as the Pope had commanded finding him unfit to preach but tells the Pope to his head Post peccatum Luciferi c. there is not cannot be a sin so repugnant to the Doctrine of the Apostles and holy Scriptures nor to Christ himself more hateful and abominable than to set over his flock ignorant or idol Shepherds to kill and destroy the Souls of Christs sheep by defrauding them of the Pastoral Office and Ministry And as our late Bishops grew not onely negligent in the proper and chief work of the Ministry I mean Preacbing here and there one or two black Swans excepted so did they as much overlash and become eccentrick in the other extreme by being too far engaged in Civils And if at any time they were excluded the Parliament or not honoured in it to their mindes both Parliament and King and all should hear of it on both ears For so had their Predecessors done before One of their zealous sticklers remembers them out of Mr. Selden that at a Parliament at Northhampton under Hen. 2. the Bishops thus challenged their Peerage of the Lords temporal Non sedemus hic Episcopi sed Barones Nos Barones Vos Barones Pares hic fumus We sit not here as Bishops but as Barons We are Barons and You are Barons here we are Peers or equal with you And so saith the same Author did John Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury as he remembreth having fallen into the displeasure of King Edward 3. and being denied entrance into the House of Peers made his protest that he was Primus Par regni the first or chief Peer of the Realm and therefore not to be excluded c. But if for this high perking their Lordships together with all jurisdiction be as it is legally taken from them and they refuse or neglect the chiefpart of their Office namely Preaching they may thank themselves if the double Honour of maintenance be withdrawn also 2. It is objected further That admitting they were justly ejected yet so many direful curses have been denounced against all such as should aliene sell purchase or imploy those Lands to other uses that it may justly make any man afraid to meddle with them To this a short answer may sussice Where God bids curse as in Deut. 27. there is cause to fear cursing But here it will be replied Grant this and I warrant you we shall reach you Doth not one of those curses run thus Cursed be he that removeth his Neighbours Land-mark and all the people shall say Amen Here God and man joyn together in cursing him that shall remove but a Land-mark how heavy then will the curse be upon him that removeth or taketh away the Land it self To this it is answered that the Lord speaks of Land set out by himself by Divine Lot and so he never set out any to the Levites themselves as he did to the other Tribes much less to Bishops whom he never so endowed of which so much hath been said before as no more shall be added here To return therefore If an Elijah an Elisha a David a Peter acted by Gods Spirit shall denounce a curse yea if a Darius an Heathen shall curse all Kings people that destroy Gods own Temple at Hierusalem while God was pleased to place his Name there wo to such as fall under it All that were so cursed became accordingly the people of Gods curse because such curses shall surely take effect God himself owns them and will accomplish them But as the bird by wandring and the swallow by flying escape the Nets and Snares set by the Fowler to take them so the causeless curse shall not come That Providence that preserveth the Sparrow from falling to the ground till God will have it fall let the Fowler do what he can doth likewise so over-rule a causeless curse that it shall never reach him against whom it is denounced Yea God blesseth the more where wicked men belch out most curses Let them then be afraid of such curses who finde a warrant from God for such cursing The curses that these men seek to fright us withal are like that of Goliah who cursed David by his Gods yet was slain by David notwithstanding his cursing A cursed people is ever a cursing generation and a cursing generation is ever an accursed people or children of the curse Who set them on work or gave them warrant to curse Even he who set on Sbimei to curse David not God as David feared but the Devil by his Imp Ahitophel as David afterwards plainly discovered that 109th Psalm being chiefly bent against Ahitophel of whose cursing we never read but that by the mouth of Shimei when David was in greatest distress and Ahitophel his chief Counsellour joyned to Absalom now Davids enemy David nevertheless fared not the worse for their cursing because his Prayer to God was Let them curse but bless thou and in the issue the Lord requited good for that cursing For however in Davids time Shimei felt not the curse yet it came home to him with a witness under Solomon And as for Ahitophel as he loved cursing so it came unto him As he cloathed himself with cursing like as with a Garment which covereth him so it came into his bowels like water and like oyl into his bones c. witness his hanging of himself almost immediately after And verily those busie Cursers among the Prelacy have drawn the effect of their cursing upon themselves and their successors even upon the Bishops and the rest of the Cathedral Prelacy many hundred years after those first Anathemists mouths were so full of cursing and bitterness Let therefore such as now again please themselves in frighting others with those curses beware they meet not with some further share thereof themselves and that the tail of that storm light not upon their heads who now so groundlesly apply them to their Brethren it being no other so used but an Engine of Antichrist forged in Hell But the most generally taking Objection is this Be it that Bishops be justly cashiered their-lands forfeited and justly taken from them by the Parliament yet generally all sound Divines hold that those lands although at first superfluously or superstitiously given being once given and dedicated to God may not be aliened sold or diverted to any secular or private use but continued for the maintenance of the true worship of God and for their better encouragement who are employed in the Ministry or for some other publick use This Objection taking with many of note and eminency in the Church is thought to be unanswerable yet is it capable of a satisfactory answer to prudent and impartial men For 1. This opinion is not founded on any Scripture but upon that commonly received Maxime transferr'd from hand to hand without due examination which
was first cast in the Popes Mint Semel Dicatum Deo non est ad humanos usus ulterius transferendum Which wherein and how far it holds hath been above declared and needs not to be repeated Things once given to God by his command warrant or approbation may not be aliened to other uses while the use appointed of God continueth But this holds not in ought else that men pretend or say they give to God As in persons so in things such onely as the Lord chuseth are accepted and holy let them say or think what they will to the contrary The vilest wretch that is saith He gives his Soul to God at least in his last Will. Doth this make him accepted or holy No of things in themselves good God will not accept every thing from every man David was an holy man had an honourable and holy designe to build God an house and Nathan thought he did very well in it and therefore said unto him Go and do all that is in thy hea t for the Lord is with thee Yet David and Nathan were both mistaken herein Wherefore to pin Lands upon God and to proclaim this because once pretendedly given to him perhaps by an Adulterer a Murtherer a Parricide c. that is made to believe he is damned if he give not largely to the Church and so gives rather out of fear than of a willing minde is as the Proverb saith to reckon without the Host and to put that upon God which he will not own It is no better then those gifts of the Israelites in the absence of Moses pretended to be offered to God although in a carnal way as most of the gifts now spoken of by all the Deeds and Instruments of the Donors appear to be when they brake off the golden ear-rings which were on their ears and brought them unto Aaron to make them gods to go before them They pretended they were for God and what Aaron made was but to please their eye by some visible representation of the invisible God expresly against the second Commandment but newly given them yet how far these gifts were from acceptance or made holy because as they thought they had given them to God or from being reserved for holy uses was manifest by the sad punishment of that their great folly and wickedness And what Lawyers say of gifts to the Church Quod Ecclefae datur Deo datur what is given to the Church is given to God is not spoken in a Theological sense but onely to shew the sense and construction of our municipal Laws and what such are in the account of the Law of the Nation or rather of some Levites not of Gods Law 2. It is apparent that those gifts to Bishops and other Cathedral men were to be no longer continued had they been theirs by Divine Right then the Offices for and to which they were given remained useful If Levi might hold his no longer why should Bishops and others of the same association Datur beneficium propter officium Office and Benefice are relatives like Hippocrates Twins they live and die together The Suburbs of the forty eight Cities were no longer continued by God to holy uses yet Tythes were and given by God to his Ministers of the Gospel No reason therefore to conclude against employing holy things to common uses when God himself reserved not the Levites Lands to godly Ministers but onely his own inheritance the Tythes There is a wo to those that call good evil as well as to those that call evil good Indeed if these Lands had still continued as a common Revenue to all the Clergy or Ministers as one intire Corporation there had been some colour for the continuation of them to the rest when Bishops and Cathedral men were laid aside But when at the instance and by the labouring of the Bishops themselves and their partners every Order had their several shares apportioned and laid out unto them so as the other could no longer make the least claim thereto without coveting what was their neighbours the Lands of Cathedral men cannot be in Law or Equity justly required to go to Parochial Ministers but it is in the free dispose of those to whom by Law they do eschete by the total laying aside of their former owners and offices to do what they will with them as their own 3. When the vastness of the revenue or unlawful procuring of it is a wrong to the Commonwealth or to any particular Family which God requireth not especially in times of peace and plenty to be ruined to enrich him or his MInisters this is not a Dedication that God will own but rather a robbing of others of what is more properly their right and an abusing of God by fathering upon him the acceptance of that which the Donors ought not so to have given to him who hateth robbery for burni-offerings and a profaning of his Name by teaching men to take that for a warrant to give that which is not theirs so to give That position therefore now urged if taken in the full Latitude without bounds would be of dangerous consequence to such as swallow it and act upon it 4. Things voluntarily given according to Gods own Rules and Directions to warrant the gift cannot be aliened from the use to which he hath appointed them so long as the use continueth If such things have by the corruptions of men been abused the abuse must be removed and the things employed to such holy uses as the Lord himself hath directed not what man shall think fit to apply them to without Gods warrant Thus the Censers abused by Korah and his Companions were no more used for the burning of Incense yet because they mere hallowed they were by Gods appointment converted into broad plates for covering of the Altar But in things not appointed by God from the beginning this Tenet holdeth not For to give unto God upon wrong grounds and for superstitious ends most derogatory to God and Christ to maintain and feed a company of Harpies that heretofore lay in wait as he that setteth snares and traps to catch men thereby to fool them out of their Estates upon fair but false pretences is no better accepted then the hire of a whore or the price of a dog that is then money gotten by whoredom or by the sale of a dog brought into the house of the Lord which he abborreth Such are all those gifts of Lands to Cathedrals pretended to be thereby given unto God many of them being first gotten by rapine and spoile whereby Christ is put out of Office or at least declared an insufficient Saviour as if men could not be saved by his merits alone but they must eek them out by some works of their own which they are taught to believe to be the Saviours which they must trust unto God looks no otherwise upon such offerings then upon she offering of Swines blood
But so long as we have not falsified the matter which you dare not to justifie but acknowledge not to be proper and which we affirm to be absurd and false we leave it to all to judge whether that be a godly and wholsome Doctrine necessary for these times And if it be not then whether there be not a a necessity of Reforming that 35th Article as to that point of the Homilies 7. As touching the Regal Supremacy we own and will assert it as far as you do or dare Onely we had reason to take notice of the improper Expression in the 37 Article that the Queens Majesty hath the Supreme Power For if the Declaration fathered on the late King and prefixed to the Articles had so much power with his Printer that he durst not to alter the word Queen into King even in the year 1642. and those Articles must be read verbatim without alteration or explanation then we say again there is a necessity of reforming that Article in the expression of it and not to talk at randome what was indeed the meaning unless we may have leave when we read it Regia Declaratione non obstante to declare the sense which the Declaration alloweth us not to do 8. As concerning the Law-part though you strain hard yet I hold it not worth one line of Reply till you have answered the four Queries propounded in pag. 61. 62. of our Book Not that I would wave ought which deserveth Answer but to spare labour where it would be in the judgement of wise men ridiculous to bestow it This is spoken in love to the truth and to yourself also by Your Servant and Brother if you please C. BURGES FINIS * Zeph. 2.6 k L. un c. de Crim. Sacril l. 6 de Appel C Thendos l Rom. 13. I. m Decreti pars 2. caus 12 q. 2. c. 3. Nidli liceat ignorare n Mart. ab Aspilq Dr. Navarr to I. Tract de Reddit Eccles pag. 264. monit 18. o 2 2 q. 99. p Part. 2. q. 168. q Lib. 5. c. de Crim. Sacril l. 1. de Offic. r Archipresb C. Ignor. Sacerd verb. Sacril s To 6. Cea tiloq Sect. 30. t Moral 1. 9. c. 29. u Ubi supra mcm. 1. w Par 2. q. 168. m. 1. x 2. 2 q. 99 in Axiom y Ar. 1. Ibid. z Ibid. 2. m. * Ibid. co p. a l. 6. l. 9. F ad L. Jul. pecul b Origin seu Etym. l. 10. c 18. c in 9. Eolog Virg. d Ibid. q. 99. m. 2. e H. S. Thesaur f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 g Lib. Disserent lit s. h Alex. Hal. Aquin aliique i Pro. 20. 25 k Mr. Will. Walker sermon against Sacrilege l ubi supra m Pro. 3. 9. n Mat. 15 9 o Mic. 6. 7. p Isa. 1. 11 12. Slat Ministers Portion pag 15. q in Pro. 20. 25. r ubi supra So Lyra in Josh 7. s Josh 7. t Vers. 21. u in Lev. 27. w Luk. 21. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 x Deut. 7. 2. cap. 20. 17. y Josh. 6. 17 18. compared with 1 Sam. 15 3 z Josh. 6. 19 a Ethic. chri l. 2. c. 15. Sacrilege describ'd b Mal. 3. 8. d 1 Cor. 9. 9 e 1 Sam. 15. 9. f Vers. 3. 1 Corollary g Pag. 25. h 2 Pet. 3. 16. * See Hierome on the place i Luke 10.16 k Luke 22. 35. l Mat. 10. 9 10. m Luke 10.7 n 2 Thes. 3. 10. o Gal. 6. 6. y Prov. 12.10 q Act. 5. 4. r Act. 2.47 5. 11. 8 1 c. s Act. 4.35 t Luk. 3.11 u Luk. 12.33 Pag. 29. * Act. 25. 8. w 1 Chron. 28. 3. x Vers. 6. 2. Corollary y Josh. 7. 11 z Deut. 7. 5 6. a Deut. 27. 15. b Deut. 12 30. c Exo. 32. 1. d Vers. 5. e Exod. 32. 28. f Vers. 35. 3. Corollary g Num 33. 52. h 2 King 18 4. i 1 King 15. 14. k 1 King 22. 43. l 2 King 14. 4. m Psal. 31. 6. * Politic. 12. c. 17 18. o Ans. to a Letter to Dr. Turner pag. 25. g Num. 18 20. h Vers. 23. i Vers 24. k Ans. to a Letter to Dr. Turner pag. 29. l Lev. 27. m Num. 1 49. 50 l Num. 3. 17. m Num. 9. n Deut. 33 10. o Neh. 10. 38. p Num. 35 4. q Josh. 15. 13. r Josh. 21. 10 11. s Josh. 14. 13 14. t Josh. 21. 12. u Epist. ad Dordan w Num. 35 4. * Num. 3. 39. x Vers. 4. y Vers. 3. z In Num. 35. q. 2. a Levit. 25. 34. b Jam 4. 6. * Church-Lands not to be sold pag. 31. * See the Apology for Purchases c. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c In Levit. 27. q. 67. * Spalat de Rep. Eccles 1. 9. c. 7 n. 36. d In Levit. 27. q. 36. e Levit. 27. 28. f Ezek 45. and c. 48. See Jun. in Ezek. 40 g Heb. 12. 22. g Heb. 12. 22. h Church-Lands not to be sold pag. 1 2. i Tithes examined Cap. 2. k 1 Cor. 10. 20. l Luk. 2. 4. m Mat. 8. 20. n Joh. 12. 6. o Luk. 8. 3. p Joh. 4. 8. q Joh 13. 29. r Mat. 14. 17. Mar. 6. 38. Luk. 9. 13. Joh. 6. 9. s Mat. 10. 9 10. t Act. 2. 47. u Act. 3. 6. w 1 Cor. 4. 12. x Act. 20. 34. y 1 Cor. 9. 4 5 c. z 1 Thes. 2. 9. a 2 Cor. 11. S. b Luk. 22. 35. c Mat. 10. 10 d Luk. 10. 8 e Mic. 3. 11 f Church-Lands c. pa. 4. g Mat. 20. 15. Pag. 5. Pag. 18 35 alibi * Pag. 71 h Platina in Urban I. i Ibid. * Sr. Hen. Sp Int p. 6. k Euseb. l 10. c. 5. l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * 〈◊〉 S. R. I. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n Church Lands 〈◊〉 pag. 〈◊〉 o Fox Act 〈◊〉 part fol. 〈◊〉 Edit 1610. p Cent. 2. cap. 2. q Flor. Histor ad ann 186. c. r 2 Pet. 2.1 3. s Amos 8. 6. t Rev. 18. 13. u Psal. 10.4 w Decrct par 2. Caus. 12. 4 3. c Pontisices x Job 2. 4. y Psal. 49.8 z Act. 3.12 a Godwin of Bishops pag 357. b Monastic Anglican d Ad Ann. 280. e Historiar li. 4. f Annal. par 1. g Li. c 18 h Hist. 1.5 Magna Charta i Nomenclat l. G. k De Hist. Latin 1.2 cap. 21. l In Ecclesiast Ordin acr Corrept * Lindw 1.5 tit de poenit remiss cap. cum anima * See Cook Instit. 2. C. I. m Cap. 36. * Because Lands so held were freed from all Tithes Taxes and Eschetes Therefore many did so convey Lands to couzen the King and other chief Lords n I Pet. 2.13 14. o Pag 25. his 3. and 4. Propositions p church-church-Lands not to be sold pag 14 15. q Plato de Legib. dial 9. r Leg. 12. Tabul s Plutarch in Arist. t Deut. 19. 16 co w Act. 4.36 37. * In loc a In Lev. 27.4 36. b Com. Geog. 1.14 c In Act. 4. d In Vit. Barnab e 2 King 18.15 16. f 1 Sam. 21 6. g Decret 2. Caus. 12. q. 2. c. 52 sine except h Tom. 1. Com. in Cap. non lic a. 12 q. 〈…〉 7. 8. i 15. Ric. 2. 6..5 k 25. Ed. 3. Stat. dc Provis 17. car 1. cap. 28. m Answ. to Dr. Carriers Letter p. 248. See Doctor Hackwel's Answ to Carrier cap. 2. pag. 249 250 c. * Mark this well Object n May 11. 1641. * Hist of the Church Cent 17. Lib. 11. P. 179. * Minut. Foelix o An. 1625. * Or rather to christ her Lord and thereby to her object Answ. p Numb 4. 12. q Lev. 10.1 r 1 Kin. 7. 50. * Hicron in Ezek. 3. vulg Glosse aliique s Ezek. S. 1 1. t Interlin Gloss. x Exod. 25. 40. y 1 King 8. 3 4. z Vers. 6 7 8. a 1 King 7. 48 c. b De Re rustic lib. 2. c Lib. 3. in Prooem Object 1. Answ. Anno 1635. w Church-Lands not to be sold pag. 32. x 1 Tim 5. 17 18. y De nices reform Eccl. z Pag. 16. e 1 Tim. 32 passin f 2 Tim. 4. 1 2. g Philem. 9 h 1 Cor. 9. 16. i 2 Cor. 11 28. k Mat. 13. 52. * Matth. Paris ad Ann. 1353. Dr. Heylin Animadv on Hist. of Church pag. 70. l seld Tit. Hon. part 2. c. 5. m Deut. 27. 17. o 1 King 1. 10 and 12. p 2 King 2. 23. q Psa. 109. r Act. 8. 20. s Nch. 6.2 t Isa. 34.5 u Pro. 26.27 w Mar. 10.25 x Psa. 109.28 y 1 Sam. 17.43 z Rom. 3.17 a Gen. 27.29 b 2 Pet. 2.14 c 2 Sam. 16.13 d 1 King 〈◊〉 .44 Object 3. Answ. e Numb 16.7 f Sam. 7. 3. g Exod. 23. 3. h Isay 5.20 i Isay 1.8 k Jer. 5.26 l Deut. 23.17 m Mar. 7.8 n Vers 9. o Vers. 13. p Vers 11. q Vers. 128 t 2d Command u Rom. 2.1