THe barbarous Massacre of English Protestants in Ireland, by the Bloody-Popish Rebels of that Na­tion, in the yeer 1641. moved the Parliament then sitting here, to pass an Act, both for a Con­tribution for relief of the remaining persecuted Bre­thren there, who (forced to leave all they had in Ireland) fled into England and Wales for shelter; and for a Voluntary Loan, for bringing their Per­secutors to just punishment Upon this, Dr. Burges (after his duty performed in the former) voluntarily lent 300 l. to that last Service, which he accordingly paid in. But, that Loan not sufficing, another Act passed the same yeer, for Subscriptions of moneys to be ad­ventured for the Lands of those Rebels upon certain Propositions, for more speedy subduing of them. To this Dr. Burges subscribed, and ac­cordingly paid in 700 l. more.

The next yeer after, that Unhappy Difference between the late King and his Parliament, brake out also. And, the Parliament Declaring that the King (seduced by evil Counsel) had deserted them, raised an Army against them, and erected his Standard of War at Nottingham, whereby he had put both Parliament and Kingdom out of his Protection; the said Parliament published the Necessity of an Advance of Money, [Page 2] Horses and Plate, by a voluntary Loan, upon the Publike Faith, for de­fence of the King and Parliament, and for bringing to condign Punish­ment those evil Counsellours about the King, which had engaged him in that destructive Design. Dr. Burges taking notice of this Declaration, out of the integrity of his heart to the King and Parliament, lent seve­ral sums of Money, for defence of both; being resolved to have suffered any death, rather than to have lent one peny, or to have spoken one word in that Cause, upon any other account: as he after expresly pro­fessed and protested to a Committee of that Parliament sitting to exa­mine him (among others) touching a Printed Vindication of the Ministers in and about London, that had been unjustly charged with having some hand in promoting the late Kings Death.

And whereas by that Dismal Division, sharp and bitter Wars had been, for some yeers waged, and vast sums of Money (raised on the Publike Faith) exhausted, the Parliament held themselves bound in honour and justice to pay those debts, contracted by that War, mainly promoted against the Parliament and Kingdom (if not by, yet) in favour of the Arch-bishops and Bishops (one of them having called the fore-runner of it, Bellum Episcopale, or the Bishops War:) therefore the Parliament passed an Ordinance, Octob. 9. 1646. for an absolute taking away, and abolishing the Name, Title, Dignity, and Office of Arch-bishops and Bi­shops, who (having before incurred a Praemunire) were thenceforth ut­terly disabled to hold or exercise the place or function of Arch-bishops or Bishops within England or Wales. And their Lands, and Possessions held in right of their Bishopricks (being by that abolition escheted) were vested in certain Trustees; subject to such Trusts as both Houses of Parliament should appoint and declare.

Which Parliament, by another Ordinance, of Novemb. 16. 1646. ap­pointed and ordained all those Lands and Revenues to be sold, for raising of 200000 l. for the then present use of the State. In which Ordinance they invited all that had before lent Money, Horses, Plate, &c. for the Service of the King and Parliament, upon the Publike Faith, to double the same: and so, to take the whole so doubled, out of Bishops Lands, either in Money or Lands. For which purpose, they engaged the Grand Excise, and Bishops Lands: not without intimation, that such as doubled not, must exspect no other security for what they had lent, but the then-despised Publike Faith; nor to be paid, till all Doublers were satisfyed.

Dr. Burges seeing this necessity of doubling, to prevent hazzarding of all, doubled all his Bils, which (upon doubling) amounted to 3400 l. beside his Loan and adventures for Ireland. All which, he endeavoured to receive back in Money, but was therein hindred by such as laboured all they could to engage him in the taking of it out in Bishops Lands. He therefore, having a wife, and ten children to provide for, that must all be undone, if that money miscarryed; and finding the Divisions of Parties that now managed the Publike, and pursued several Interests, to [Page 3] be daily encreased, and more heightened, and himself ill requited for all his faithful Service, was put upon this strait, to take out his Moneys in Bishops Lands. This was the only reason of his purchasing of Bi­shops Lands.

Since which purchase, it hath pleased the Wise God to exercise him with many sharpe afflictions; among which the scourge of tongues hath not been least. And he hath fallen under so much prejudice with such as never heard, or scarce ever saw him, that not only sundry Suites at Law have been commenced against him, and Verdicts given for his Ad­versaries, even when their own Witnesses and Counsel yeelded the Cause; but his Ministry also, (although acknowledged by his very Ene­mies to be useful) hath been of small use. Most of which hath befallen him by sundry false aspersions of virulent foul-mouthed Mercenaries, that stick not to transgress for a good meal, albeit he hath (as it is very well known) deserved far better at their hands who have so tra­duced him.

Nor is it unusual with Satan and his Instruments, to cast most dirt in the faces of such as oppose his Kingdom, that he may sully and disparage their persons by whose doctrine he suffereth. For this cause, that eminent Light and glorious Martyr Cyprian thus wrote to Antoni­anus, touching Cornelius (a good Bishop of Rome, and an holy man) greatly defamed by Novatianus and his fellow Schismaticks and Here­ticks; Epist. ad An­tonian. Quod quaedam de illo inhonesta & maligna jactantur, nolo mi­reris; cum scias hoc esse semper opus Diaboli, ut servos Dei mendacio laceret, & opinionibus falsis gloriosum nomen infamet, ut qui conscientiae suae Luce cla­rescunt, in alienis rumoribus sordidentur. I would not have thee strange at it, that sundry foul and malignant reports are thrown abroad touch­ing him; seeing thou knowest this to be ever the Devils work, by lying to revile and make odious the glorious name of the servants of God, that they who by the light and testimony of their own consciences appear brightest, may by false rumors be rendred most sordid and vile.

Hence many, not knowing, nor caring to know the true state of the Doctors Case and Cause, but resolved (not for want of ignorance, envie or malice) to blast him; are ready to hunt after all the base and false re­ports they can against him; and (as Jeremiah's enemies served him Jer. 20.10. to encourage all to speak the worst they can of him, [Report, say they, and we will report it,] how false soever. Yea, so far have they proceeded in this hellish lawlesness of their tongues Jam 3.6., as to impute all the troubles that have befallen him, to the just hand of God upon him for buying of Bi­shops Lands, pronouncing him guilty of that odious sin of Sacriledge for so doing.

Now albeit he resolve to suffer much, rather than to take notice of every false report; and to wait Gods time for the clearing up of his innocencie in other mattets; yet this is of so foul a nature, re­flecting so deeply upon not only his person, but the very Ministry it self, that there is a necessity of some Vindication, and of endeavouring the [Page 4] satisfaction, if not of all, yet of such as are rational and sober men, by a brief Discourse of the nature of that sin of Sacriledge, properly so called; and of the Lawfulness of buying Bishops Lands.

Of Sacri­ledge. 1. What it is not.There are, who deny that there is, or can be any such thing as Sacri­ledge, now under the Gospel: they being confident, that nothing is now due by Divine Right, to Ministers of the Gospel. But this being (as shall after appear) a palpable Errour, deserves to be with contempt ex­ploded, rather then seriously confuted. Others, in another Extream stretch Sacriledge so far, as to involve every man in that sin, that devia­teth from their Constitutions and Laws, or offendeth in any thing which they please to call Sacred, or Holy; although never made such by Gods Ordination.

Thus the Roman Emperors stigmatize the Violation of their Civil Laws, L. 11 c. de Crim Sacril. l 6 de appel. in C. Theodos. Vide Lexic. Ju­rid. Calv. and fasten that Crime on all who wilfully neglect, or know­ingly break their Commands. L. 1. c. ut dig­ni. The Canonists extend it to the alien­ing, invading, wasting, stealing, purloyning, or perverting of any thing, and to the abusing of any Person, Place, or Thing once dedicated and by them called Holy, although without Word or Warrant from God, or the Municipal Laws of Men: and hereupon they require restitution, and full satisfaction, upon pain of Excommunication. Decret. par. 2. q. 12. Caus. 12. c. 13. Nulli li­ceat.

Upon this sandy Foundation, most of the School-Men, Summists, and Casuists, build their Discourses of Sacriledge; Aquin. 22. q. 99. ar. 1. Alex. Alens. par. 1. q. 168. m. 2. Hostien. l. 5. c. de Crim. Sacril. Lindw. l. 1. C. Ignor. Sacerd. verbo Sacrileg. Bonavent. to 6. Centiloq. Sect. 30. Azor. Moral. l. 9. c. 27. and (according to the Interest of their Party) bring within the compass of that sin, the pro­fanation, violation, or any abuse of any thing, place, or person which they call Holy. The striking of a Priest, Deacon, Nun, or other Votary, upon any occasion whatsoever: The defiling of them by Uncleanness, &c. the renouncing of their Orders, Vows, or Votary States: The a­busing and prophaning of Churches, Chappels, Oratories, Church-Yards, and other consecrated places, by buying, selling, stealing, even ought that is common; the committing of Whoredome, acting of any Civil Affairs, &c. in them; the polluting of Sacraments, by unworthy re­ceiving, or not adoring of their Host; the abusing, or denying of any of those additional Sacraments, which are but their own Fancies, is, with them Sacriledge. The alienating, converting to common Use, or o­therwise detaining of any Lands, Goods, Bequests, Vestments, Utensils of Churches, Altars, &c. devoted and given by Men upon any account whatsoever, to Churches, or Religious Houses (as they call them) although never so superstitiously, fraudulently and superfluously, or any other way unwarrantably conferred, and which God never required at their hands, is all, by them, pronounced and declared to be Sacriledge. In a word, what ever crosseth, prejudiceth, disgraceth or hindreth the Profit of the Pope, or any of his Clergy, or Creatures, that bear but the Name of the Church, or ought pertaining to it, is proclaimed and thundered against as Sacriledge, which no satisfaction can expiate; unless it be to the great ad­vantage and gain of those that call themselves the Church.

That many (although not all) of the before-named particulars are great [Page 5] sins, is willingly granted. But that they are all Sacriledge, is denyed: For, if we consider the Etymology of the Word, or the proper Nature of the Thing, in holy Scripture, we shall soon discover the unsoundness of that Assertion.

As for the Etymon of the Word, whether [...], or Sacrilegium, 2. VVhat Sa­criledge is. it denotes the lurching, or stealing of somewhat that is sacred. Hence Civi­lians l. 6. & l. 9. ff. ad. L. Jul. pecul. term him Sacrilegus, qui publica Sacra compilavit. So Basil Orat. de pece. calls an Hypocrite, [...], a Sacrilegious Person, because he robs God of his heart, which, at God's Command, Prov. 23.26. he pretendeth to give unto him. The Latine word Sacrilegium, is a Compound of Sacrum & Legere: and he is Sacrilegious qui Sacra legit, id est, furatur; Brisson. who gathereth, that is, stealeth sacred things. And here, it may not unbeseem men preten­ding to School-Learning, and to Antiquity, to take with them that of the Learned and Acute Isidore of Sivil, Isid. Hispal. li. Differentiar. lit. S. touching the difference between Sacrum, Religiosum, & Sanctum. That (saith he) is Sacred, which is Gods due; that, Religious, which pertains to Religious Men; and that, Holy, which is devoted or dedicated by Men. To which he adds, Sacrum verò, & Sanctum est: Sanctum verò, non continuò Sacrum est. Whatever is Sacred, is also Holy: but all that is Holy, is not Sacred. This gives light into the nature of the thing or sin of Sacriledge, according to the use of the Word in holy Writ, and the Language of the best Antiquity.

For, all Sacriledge must needs refer to somewhat properly sacred, in sense of Scripture. Hence Hales, Aquinas, Ubi supra. and other ancient School­men, describe Sacriledge to be rei sacrae violatio, the violation of somewhat that is sacred: That is, Which God hath ordained to be set apart for his Service and Worship. Of this Solomon, or rather, God himself by Solo­mon; Prov. 20.25. It is a snare to the man that devoureth that thing which is holy; and after the Vow to inquire (or, to recal it.) VVhere Tremellius renders [...] by Sacrum. And Junius, in his Annotations keeps to the same word; understanding thereby (as the Text intends it) the things of God, or His just due.

Great Use is made by a great Zealot Mr. Will. Wal­ker Ser. against Sacriledge. against Sacriledge, of some sharp passages of Mr. Cartwright, in his Commentary upon that of Prov. 20.25. who is said to have been forced, by evidence of truth, to confess, That now, in the time of the Gospel, whatsoever is either established by Law, or conferred by mans Liberality for the Ʋses of Gods service, is all to be accoun­ted sacred, or holy: And for this cause both the taking away of the whole, or the diminishing of any part of such holy things, is Sacriledge, condemned in Deut. 23.21, 22, 23. And it is true, that Mr. Cartwright (with too much confidence, following, in this point, the Popish Doctors) in his first ex­pressions, speaks to that effect. But yet, not as if it vvere in mans pow­er, by a voluntary Vow or Dedication, to make a thing sacred, whether God hath given all the Rules or Directions about it, (as he did in all the Voluntary Offerings, in the time of the Levitical Law) or not. For he never meant it of Gifts made of mens own accord, wherein God had not prescribed all the Rules and Laws touching both Matter and Manner of their voluntary Gifts unto God.

Wherefore, how heavily soever he falleth upon the sin of Sacriledge, yet he concludeth all with this Explication and Limitation. Quod tamen non ita accipi debet, ac si vota nulla cujuscun (que) generis rescindenda sint, cum haec de legitimis Votis & ex prescripto Verbi factis, sint intelligenda. Which Expression (of mine, saith he) is not so to be taken, as if no Vows of what kinde soever, were to be rescinded or recalled; Seeing these things are to be understood of lawful Vows made by the prescript of the VVord.

That place, in Deut. 23. although it leave a man free, in a Free-Will-Of­fering; yet it ties him in case of a Vow made: But withal, he is to per­form his Vow according to the prescript of God. VVhatever is vowed or devoted to God, for a divine use, or for his service and worship, is Wor­ship. But whatever is so offered, if not prescribed by God, is Will-Worship, which he abhorreth. Mat. 15.9. They might not offer what they listed; no, nor so much as they pleased, even of what he had prescribed: not thousands of Rams, or ten thousand rivers of Oyl, Mic 6.7. (although Elies sons, and Pa­palins too, would have found room enough for all;) but, what and how many Rams, and how much Oyl, God, in his Law, had appointed. This is so clear in the Levitical Law, that he that runs may read it.

If therefore the devoting of Free-VVill-Offerings could not then legi­timate and make them sacred, unless God himself had given the rule therein: how can it be seriously affirmed, That any thing given by men under the Gospel can be sacred, unless it be such as they have received VVarrant and Rules from God, for the giving of it? And, if not sacred, how can it be Sacriledge to alien it to common Uses? VVill God own a­ny thing as Holy, for which Himself hath not given Order?

More Orthodox and clear is the Exposition In Pro. 20.25. of that holy (and now blessed Saint in heaven) Mr. John Dod: To devour that which is holy, is (saith he) to pervert those things which are by God's Ordinance appointed for His service, from the right Ʋse of them to a mans own private gain and commodity. Thus the learned Danaeus gives almost the same description of things properly called Sacred, which to purloyn, or alienate, makes guil­ty of Sacriledge. Res Divinae appellantur quae sunt ad sacrum Dei cultum destinatae, quasve sibi interdicto prolato Dominus reservavit, & in usu com­mercio (que) hominum esse vetat. Quarum rerum furtum, dicitur Sacrilegium. They are termed divine things, which are destinated to the sacred Worship of God, or which by some interdict or prohibition of God, he hath reserved for Himself, and forbidden to be imployed for the use or commerce of men. The stealing of which things is called Sacriledge.

So then, Sacriledge Sacriledge de­scribed. (according to Scripture) is the robbing of God, by ali­enating, detaining, purloyning or perverting that which is Gods own, by Divine Right, and thereupon due to the Ministers of the Gospel; whether the things be set apart by express Command, or voluntarily given by men, by vertue of some special Warrant and Direction from God.

That Sacriledge is a robbing of God, we have His own Word for it both in the Old Testament Mal. [...].8. and in the New Rom. 2.22.. It is opposed to offering to an Idol; therefore it must needs be a taking from God. And that this is [Page 7] committed by aliening, detaining, purloyning or perverting of things due to Ministers by Divine Right, is clear by that of the same Apostle; 1 Cor. 9.9. Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox, &c. applied to prove the Divne Right which Gospel-Ministers have to maintenance from those to whom they preach. Of which, Bishops Lands were never any part, being no where commanded or directed by God. So that the buying of them now, can­not be Sacriledge.

It hath been indeed confidently affirmed, that Dr. Burges himself, open­ly acknowledged at the Bar of the House of Commons in Parliament, in May 11. 1641. his Answer to Dr. Hackets speech there made, in the names of all the Deans and Chapters in England (for preventing the alienations of their Lands and Revenues) that To take away those things from the Church, was Sacriledge. But this is an unjust Aspersion: Dr. Burges did indeed de­clare a concurrence with Dr. Hacket, in admitting that the alienating from the Church any thing settled upon it by Divine Right is Sacriledge: but, nothing else. It was far from him to include all that Cathedral men enjoyed, to be theirs by Divine Right, or to admit that it was Sacriledge to alien any thing that was theirs not by Divine Right; as that flashy jeering Author of the late published History of the Church (upon hear­say onely, and out of Resolution, calumniari fortiter) hath falsly repor­ted him.

He intended no more in that speech, then what he had long before An 1625. published, in a Preface to a little Tract of Personal Tythes: where he useth these words: To that Tenet ( viz. that Tythes are due jure Di­vino) I subscribe Affirmatively, ex animo. But, with Cautions. 1. Tythes (I say not ought else) are due by Divine Right to Ministers of the Gospel. 2. I never was, nor (I think) ever shall be of that Opinion, that all Tythes within such or such a Circuit of ground, now by positive Law made but one Parish, are absolutely and without all Exception, due by Divine Right, to the Person of one single Incumbent there: But to the Church Or rather unto Christ her Lord; and thereby to her., in whose name he receiveth them.

Had he granted more, he had deviated from Truth: And should it be proved by an hundred Witnesses, that he fully concurred with Dr. Hacket in that Point, this could not make Sacriledge of larger extent then what it is indeed. What he then spake was on the sudden, not ha­ving an hours time to ponder his Expressions. That is to be taken for his Judgement, which upon serious study, he had published so many years be­fore. And if any such thing as is charged upon him, fell from him in the House of Commons, he doth renounce it as an Error.

If any man shall upon this occasion, A Digression for further clearing of what is here undertaken. and for more full clearing of this Point, demand some further Scripture Grounds, to make it out, that nei­ther the late selling nor buying of Bishops Lands is Sacriledge; let him without prejudice or passion, ponder these two things. First, That Tythes are the proper maintenance set out by God for the Ministers of the Gospel, and cannot be alienated without Sacriledge. 2. That there is no Warrant in [Page 8] Scripture for the giving of Lands to Bishops, nor argument to prove God's acceptance of them, as holy to the Lord. And therefore it cannot be Sa­criledge now to alieu them, or purchase them from the Church.

The first thing undertaken is this, That all yearly tythes of the Ground, Cattle, Fruits, and of all things else, are still due by Divine Right unto Christ, and by him are given to his Servants in the Ministry of the Gospel, and may not be alienated.

For proof hereof, consider these six Particulars:

1. Tythes are Jure Divino.1. Tythes are called by God himself, his Inheritance, Deut. 18.1. where he gave to the Levites, two things, the Offerings and Tythes, for their maintenance. They shall eat the Offerings of the Lord made by fire, and his Inheritance; that is, the Tythes. For these only were his Inhe­tance, which is there distinguished from the Offerings made by fire. So he declared himself unto the Levites, Num. 18.24. When ye take of the children of Israel the Tythes, which I have given you from them for your Inheritance. He that gives them as their Inheritance, must first have a propriety himself in them as his own Inheritance. Hence he chargeth with sacriledge such as detained either of these from the Priests and Levites, as robbing of himself. Ye have robbed me in Tythes and Of­ferings Mal 3.8..

2. Nor was this a new Title, raised only for maintainance of the Le­vites, with reference to the Levitical Service only; But Tythes were Gods due long before, and paid as God appointed, where ever he set up a Priest and publike Priesthood, Evangelical as well as Legal. In so much as Levi himself, before he was born, is said to have paid Tythes in Abra­ham Heb 7.9.. For, he was yet in the loyns of his Father when Melchisedeck met him Vers. 10.. To whom the Patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the very Spoyl he had taken in War Vers 4.. Melchisedeck was (no Legal, but Evangelical) Priest of the High God, at least in type. For Christ him­self is a Priest for ever of the same Order, and so hath the same right to Tythes, that Melchisedeck had. Of which, more by and by.

3. If we consult Gospel-times, it will appear that albeit Gospel Mini­sters were not in actual Possession of Tythes, at the first preaching of the Gospel, nor during the Ten grand Persecutions, no more than were the Levites in the Wilderness: yet Gods right was still the same, and he by Ordinance setled them upon the Ministers of Christ, even from the first calling them to preach. For, as of old, They that ministred about holy things, lived of the things of the Temple; and they which waited at the Altar, were partakers with the Altar: even so hath the Lord ORDAINED, that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel, 1 Cor. 9.13, 14.

Hence the same Apostle who wrote this to the Corinthians, gives it in charge to the Galatians, (and in them, to all) that had received the Gospel, that every one that is taught in the Word, see that he communicate unto him that teacheth, in all good things, Gal. 6.6. At that time, Christs proprie­ty [Page 9] in Tythes, could not be available to Ministers, there being no Laws among them, to recover them. Therefore He requires them for that pre­sent to lay out such maintenance as they could well raise; yet so, as they should communicate [...], in, or of all their goods, (as some not improperly translate the Original:) as the Israelites did to the Levites at­tending the Ark, in the Wilderness.

4. Neither that last mentioned Ordinance of God, nor the Charge gi­ven to the Galatians, could extend to any Offerings made by Fire, or of a­ny other Levitical Profits, all which ceased, when Christ (our High Priest) had once offered Himself up to God, and thereby accomplished all which those Offerings typified, and changed the Priest-hood. Therefore it must be meant of Maintenance by Tythes, so soon at least, as the Gospel should be received by their Covernours, and Laws could be made for putting Gods Ordinance in Execution for that standing Maintenance by Tythes; not in Levi's right, as Successors to him, but as Servants to Christ.

5. That this was the Apostles meaning, is evident, because Tythes be­ing first paid (long before Levi) to Melchisedech, a Priest of Christs own Order; and, Abraham the Father of the Faithful, (and in him Levi) paid Tythes unto Melchisedech, as the fore-runner of Christ, in respect of Priesthood; it necessarily followeth, that Tythes are still due to Christ, in whose name and right, his Servants the Ministers ought to take, and en­joy them. For the Apostle, upon this very ground, proves Christ to be a Priest after the Order of Melchisedech, not onely because he liveth, but because also he receiveth tythes. Here, saith he, (meaning in Judea, during Aarons Priesthood) men that die receive tythes: but there (that is, where Melchisedech's Priesthood is exercised) He receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth Heb. 7.8.. Which he there applieth to Christ, and to no other.

6. Therefore all yearly tythes (by some called Dr. Tbo God­win, in Mos. & Aaron lib. 6. cap. 3. of Tythes. the first tythes) are the proper standing Maintenance set out by God, for Ministers of the Gospel, in all settled and well-governed Christian Commonwealths, which in obedience to God make Laws for the due payment of them: for that they still belong to Christ as His inheritance and portion, payable to his Ministers, by way of homage unto him, as his right, from all his peo­ple. And therefore to alien or imploy them to any other use (under any pretence whatsoever) is plain Sacriledge, not onely in those who so alien them, but in them also who so possess and imploy them, if they be not Ministers of Christ; or being Ministers, preach not the Gospel, or procure not others, (if themselves be disabled by age or sickness) to do it: it being no other but a robbing of Christ, of what is his proper due, and by God made holy to himself.

The Second Point here undertaken, is, That there is no Warrant in Scri­pture for the giving of Land to Bishops, nor Argument to prove Gods ac­ceptance of them as holy to the Lord, and that it can be no Sacriledge now to alien them.

This Point hath two branches to be prosecuted distinctly.

1. That there is no Warrant in Scripture, for the giving of Lands to Bi­shops, nor Argument to prove Christs acceptance of them, as holy to the Lord. Which appeareth thus.

1. There is no word in the New-Testament that requireth, or counte­nanceth such endowments.

The Ordinance for Ministers Maintenance, recorded by St. Paul 1 Cor. 9. ex­tends no further then to what was allowed to Levites, while they conti­nued: nor, to all that neither. Offerings made by Fire, are by Christ extinct. It reache [...] indeed to all good things: that is, to Goods, (not Lands) in the judgement of all Expositors, ancient and modern, Popish as well as Protestant. It extends therefore to Tythes onely, as the constant standing Livelyhood of Ministers of the New Testament, where Tythes may be had; and, in the mean time, to such other competent allowance, in Goods or Money, as could be raised for them.

There are some Wyre-drawn Arguments (or rather futilous Fancies) for Proof of the extent of God's Ordinance, for Evangelical Ministers Maintenance, even unto Lands also, produced by the confident Author of a printed Answer to a Letter said to be written at Oxford, Anno 1647. superscribed to Dr. Samuel Turner, touching the change of Church Govern­ment by Bishops, and the alienating of their Lands. Which the said Au­thor undertakes to prove to be impossible to be done with a good Conscience. His Arguments are taken from sundry Scriptures, viz. from Mat. 25. [ I was hungry, and ye fed me, &c.] as also from Mat. 10.40. [He that re­ceiveth you, receiveth me.] and from Act. 5. [touching Ananias and Sap­phira] and from Rom. 2.22. [Committest thou Sacriledge?] But his Argu­ments from those Scriptures to prove what he undertakes, are so je june and frigid, that they deserve no answer. Howbeit, lest he should be wise in his own conceit, let him take what followeth. That Author undertakes to prove the alienating of Church-Lands of Bishops to be Sacriledge. To make way hereunto, he premiseth these things; 1. That God accepts of things given him, and hath a Propriety in them, as well in the New as in the Old Testament. 2. That God gets this Propriety as well by accepta­tion of voluntary gifts, as by his command for the giving of them, &c. Now unless he make it out, that Gods Acceptation and Propriety, (as he phraseth it) reach to Church Lands of Bishops, his labour is in vain: and his Arguments from those Texts, are no other then a gross abusing of the Scriptures, like that of those unlearned and unstable ones, who wrest them to their own destruction 2 Pet. 3.16..

His first Text out of Mat. 25. neither doth nor can extend to Christs Acceptation of, or Propriety in Church-Lands, voluntarily given to Bi­shops for their Maintenance. It speaks onely of Alms, whereby the Hungry, Naked, Sick or Persecuted Members of Christ are Christianly relieved: Not the accepting Lands for Bishops, (such especially, as that Author declareth for) who Lord it over God's Heritage, by appropria­ting the sole power of Ordination, and Jurisdiction to themselves; [Page 11] two of the most senseless Dreams that can be fathered upon those Scri­ptures, which the same Authour abuseth Page 20. to that purpose. Nor is there the least hint of Christs Acceptation of Lands, for any Uses whatsoever; but onely of present supplies of Food, Rayment, and other Necessaries, suitable to the instant wants of his distressed Members.

But, saith he; Doth Christ thus accept of meat, and cloathing; and not of those Endowments that bring these to perpetuity? Will he take meat, and refuse Revenues? and he concludes it of both: adding, that it were a strange thing, Christ should take those Gifts so kindly, for provisions of all called His, and that onely His Apostles and His seventy Disciples should be excepted from sharing therein.

This would not seem strange to him, were he not a stranger to the Scri­ptures. He might by further search, know, That though Christ accepted of Gifts for the Poor, yet when they were more then there was present use of, they were abused, even under Christs own Nose, by that thief Judas, who bore the Bag Joh. 12.6.. And would it were a slander to say, That most of those that since have been trusted with that Bag, and with the large Re­venues given to that Use, are too near of Kin to that first Treasurer.

Under the Old Testament God made many provisions for the Poor; but none in Land it self: And how much the Poor get by the gift of Lands (especially after one Age or two) under the Gospel, is too obvious and lamentable to behold. That Author therefore begs the Question by way of a confident Interrogation [Will He take Meat, and refuse Revenues?] which should the Authour be kept from, till he prove it, he might, per­haps, starve to Death.

But as for Christs accepting of and having a Propriety in Lands given to the Church, for Bishops, &c. he is out, toto Coelo, as far as the East is from the West. That Christ took care for the Poor, is evident; and that his care was no less for his Ministers, is no less a Truth. For he that of old made that a Law, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox, that treadeth out the Corn Deut. 25.4.; did he it as taking care (onely or chiefly) for Oxen? nay, for our sakes no doubt is it written; yea, altogether for our sakes, saith St. Paul 1 Cor. 9.10. in behalf of all Ministers that labour in the Word and Doctrine. Howbeit, from hence to make it good, that that Text in Mat. 25. exten­deth or is extendable to Christs acceptance of the gift of Lands for Him­self, or for His Apostles, or His seventy Disciples, or any of their Suc­cessors, will require time till the thirtieth day of February, or the Greek Kalends come about.

As for Christ himself, (although he were of the Blood-Royal, of the Li­neage of David, both by his Mothers side, and by his supposed Fathers too) Luk. 2.4. He professeth that very Foxes and Birds were better provided then He; for the one had Holes, the other Nests, but he had not so much as a Room or Pillow on which He might lay His Head Mat. 8.20.: And when He sent out the Twelve, His charge was Mat. 10.9.10., Provide neither Gold, nor Sil­ver, nor Brass in your Purses, nor Scrip for your journey, neither two Coats, &c. Not, that He meant to starve them: for He took care that provi­sion [Page 12] should be made for their present supply, by those to whom they prea­ched, so as they wanted nothing Luk 22.35.: and that upon this account, That the labourer is worthy of his hire Mat. 10.10.. May it not then, upon better grounds, be retorted, Christ would accept of no Lands or House for Himself, and for­bad even Gold and Silver to His Apostles, therefore he will not accept, own, or hold the Lands of Bishops, especially of such as he never owned? Not that it is unlawful now, for Ministers that preach the Gospel, to receive allow­ance, but that those words of our Lord, in Mat. 25. had no relation there­unto.

And albeit (if we give credit to Platina, Petrus de Natalibus, and others) Pope Ʋrban 1. about the year of Christ 233. by an Epistle Decretal, or­dained, That the Church might enjoy praedia, quorum proventibus alendos statuit Ecclesiae Ministros, &c. Possessions, out of which Profits, he appoin­ted the Ministers of the Church to be maintained; and forbad the aliena­ting thereof, under pain of Excommunication: which Pope Lucius 1. after­wards An. 255. seconded; and Pius 2. long after him An. 1459. confirmed as a Law. Yet he that shall trace the best Ecclesiastical Histories, shall finde, that the Church was endowed with no Lands, even in the greatest advancement of Bishops by Constantine the Great. It is true, that in the suppositious Donation of Constantine, it is said, That upon the Churches which he ere­cted to the honour of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, possessionum praedia contulit, he conferred the spoils of Possessions (gotten by War:) Yet this, in the Language of those times, and of the Civil Law, did not extend to the Lands themselves, but onely to the Profits of them.

Before Constantine, Bishops could enjoy no Lands: for even in the be­ginning of his raign, the Bishop of Rome himself, Sylvester, and his As­sociates in the Ministry, were fain to hide for safety of their Lives, in the Hill Saracte, about twenty miles distant from Rome, since called, Monte di Sylvestro; as by that very Donation appeareth. Nor did that Empe­rour endow the Bishops with Lands, but onely gave them large Allowan­ces out of Lands: for which a voice is said to be uttered from Heaven, Hodie seminatur Virus in Ecclesia.

But be it as the Papalins, and this Author perhaps, would have it; that such Decrees were made by Ʋrban 1. Lucius 1. and others, for enjoying of Lands; yet the very best Original Title of Bishops to Church-Lands, is not from Christ himself, by vertue of what he spake Mat. 25. but onely from some Popes of Rome, His pretended Vicars.

Touching the second Text, Mat. 10.40. it is so clearly meant of the A­postles Ministry (not Bishops Lands) and of their entertainment for pre­sent supply of Necessaries (not for Pomp and State, and of giving them Gold and Silver enough to maintain it) that it may well be wondered (e­ven by a wise man) with what forehead that Authour could apply that Scripture to Christs accepting and owning the Gifts of Bishops Lands, which in those times, were not so much as dream'd of by any Bishop or A­postle of Christs Ordination.

All which that Text can imply, is but this, That he that receiveth His [Page 13] Apostles, receiveth Himself, and His Father also; by vertue whereof, He and His Father will effectually move the hearts of the Receivers, to see that His Apostles shall want nothing, while they are imployed in preaching to them. Which what it can conduce to prove Christs acceptante of Lands for a perpetual Maintenance (which by no Story appeareth to be enjoyed) of His Apostles, must be left onely to Impudence to make forth.

Nor was Ananias and his wife smitten, or so much as questioned, Act. 5. for selling of Lands devoted to God and the Church; but for their dis­sembling, and lying unto God. For whereas in the first receiving of the Gospel by the preaching of Peter, many thousands were likely upon that very account (at that time) to starve, being hated and persecuted for be­lieving in Christ; such as were rich sold their Estates, and put all into one common Banck or Purse, for Relief of the whole Community of Believ­ers. Ananias and Sapphira pretended to do the like; they sold their Lands, yet brought but part of the price to the Apostles, and pretended, that what they so brought was the whole. And being questioned by Peter, whether this were All, they sold their Lands for; they both with impu­dence, stood to their first Lye; and, for that, were condemned, and smit­ten with death: not for Sacriledge by selling Lands; but for Hypocrisie, in making the world believe more then was true; and by defrauding the Church of part of that which he pretended to dedicate unto God, for the Relief of (not Ministers, but) the poor Brethren, that then held all things in Common: There being then no Lands or Revenues sold, or set forth for Ministers, nor did these Hypocrites pretend unto it. Howbeit, in as much as they pretended to give all, and yet kept back part of the price, which they professed to devote to that publick Service of God and his People, they are not to be excused of Sacriledge; Not because they voluntarily devoted it, without a Command (for Christ himself, in such cases of Extremity had commanded the imparting of what might be spa­red Luk. 3.11.;) but because they had defrauded the Church, and abused the world, the Apostles, and God himself, of what they had with great shew of piety and charity, professed freely to give, even when the giving of the whole was not required.

But that great ruffling flourish which this Author makes thereupon, That generally all the Fathers both of the Greek and Latine Church, make his crime to be a robbing of God of that wealth, which by Vow or Promise was now become Gods propriety; is nothing, as to the aliening the Lands of Bishops, or of the Church, (which is the point he undertook to prove;) for his crime in lying, and defrauding, lay not in selling or alienating of Lands, but in the price of them. And so all Expositors Ancient and Modern agree: which comes not up to our Authors purpose.

But, whereas he, pag. 26. alledgeth Calvin and Beza, as being of the same judgment with the Fathers herein: it is worth the noting to observe how corruptly he translateth their words which he produceth. Calvin, saith he, speaking of that fact of Ananias, Sacrum [Page 14] esse Deo profitebatur; which this man thus translateth, He professeth that his Land should be a sacred thing unto God. And Beza too, Praedium Deo consecrassent: the man and his wife had consecrated their Land unto God. This he doth, to wiredraw that Text, to make it reach to the unlawfulness of selling of Church-Lands of Bishops: whereas he abuseth both these Authors, and the Text it self, by such a false Translation. Calvin saith not, that Ananias professeth his Land should be sacred unto God; but the money he made of it, should be all sacred unto the Lord. Nor can Beza's expression of praedium, signifie Lands; for that were ex­pressly to contradict the Text, which speaks it of the price, not of the Land. Nor is he blamed for selling Land devoted to God; but, for being false in his account of the sale, which he pretended to make unto Peter; yea, unto God the Holy Ghost himself. Oh, what Fig-leaves is Error forced to cover its nakedness withal, when called out by Truth to shew it self in the open light!

And, as touching that of the Apostle, Rom. 2.22. [committest thou sa­criledge?] It is not denyed, but that there is now such a sin as sacriledge, under the Gospel in the New Testament; that it is as odious in a Chri­stian, as ever it was in a Jew; and is more immediately a transgression against God, than other sins against the second Table. But still this Au­thor begs the question in extending this to Lands, while he produceth no proof or instance at all for such an Interpretation. Yea, those very instances which he alledgeth out of Iraeneus and Origen, refer to goods, not to Lands. And, what he adds, [viz. So, the Fathers generally] must, by his own instances last mentioned, be limitted to what himself hath al­ledged out of Irenaeus and Origen. Else, it were ridiculous to say, So the Fathers generally, if they speak in another sense. How Kings have, long after the reign of Constantine the Great, given Lands, &c. to the Church, shall after be shewed in due place.

But whereas this Author, to prove Gods propriety by voluntary gifts, not commanded, gives instance in the Temple, as a thing accepted and owned, but not commanded of God; he was surely asleep when he did it. Did not God fore-tell, and fore-Ordain a Place which himself should chuse to cause his name to dwell there? Deut. 12.11. And if our Authour do not take upon him to be wiser then Solomon, he must con­fess this to be meant of that very Temple. For so Solomon himself calls it the place of which God had said, My name shall be there, 1 Kin. 8.29. And albeit David, for that he had been a man of war, and had shed blood, 1 Chro. 28.3. was forbidden to build that house: yet Solomon, by Gods express appointment (which hath the force of a Command) was chosen to build that House, ver. 6. Who could imagine such frothy stuff to prove his second Proposition, of Gods propriety in things voluntarily given, without a command, could fall from the bold pen of such an high-flown Author?

He also confidently affirmeth, Pag. 29. that to say, That God accepts of money that Land was sold for, and not of the Land it self (and instanceth in the [Page 15] very case of Ananias) is contrary not only to all reason, and practise of all the world; but, to what God himself hath expressed in the Old Testament: this (in his sense) is so false, that it cannot but astonish a modest Reader that knoweth the truth, to finde him so boldly to af­firm what there is no foot-step for in all the Old Testament: As shall now appear in the ensuing Discourse, wherein that Authors Imperti­nencies shall take up no more room. To return therefore to the proof of the first branch of the point before undertaken, That there is no war­rant in Scripture, for giving Lands to Bishops, nor proof of Christs accep­tance of them; take notice,

2. The Priests and Levites, especially Aaron himself, were prohibited to have any Inheritance in Lands by divine Lot, among their Brethren Num. 18.20.. And this was to be a Statute throughout their generations for ever ver. 23.. The Reason was given before unto Aaron, I am thy part and thine inheri­tance, &c. That is, his portion in Tythes and Offerings, due from Israel unto him, should be theirs. For, of these, to wit, Tythes, he there expresly speak­eth, ver. 24. I have given them to the Levites to inherit, therefore I have said unto them, Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance.

Levi was a Tribe that made up a twelfth part of Israel: yet so care­ful was God to prevent their claim to any Lands, by divine Lot, that, when the rest of the Tribes were numbred, in order to their several Lots in Land, God gave express order to Moses, not to number the Tribe of Levi, nor to take the sum of them; but, to appoint them over the Taber­nacle of the Testimony, &c. Whereby, is more then implyed, that their Office of Priesthood was then a bar to their inheriting of Lands; to such especially as were chief among them, and were always to attend the Tabernacle; as did the High Priest.

Indeed the inferiour Priests and Levites, being numerous, did not, could not all attend the Altar at once; but had their several courses and orders for waiting there. Therefore were they appointed by God, to spread all over Israel (when their courses at the Altar were over) to instruct the people in the Law of God Deut. 33.10., in their turns. Which being so, there was a necessity of preparing some places for their own habitation, and some ground for their Cattle, which they were to make use of, as well for their domestick provision, as for travelling between those habitations and the Altar, when their turns came about.

Upon this ground, God by Moses, layd his Command upon the children of Israel, that they should give unto the Levites, of the inheritance of their Possessions, Cities to dwell in— and Suburbs for the Cities round about, for their Cattle, Goods and Beasts, Num. 35.1, 2, 3. But of these none were appointed to the High Priest, who was always to reside about the Tabernacle and Altar. His portion, and such as served at the Altar in Person, consisted in Offerings, and in a Tenth of the Tythes, which the Levites were to pay, before they shared the rest among themselves Neh. 10.38. But Lands he had none.

And, as for Levites, dispersed over Israel, although they had Cities [Page 16] and some Lands: yet God limited both. For the Israelites might not give what they would; but, so many Cities and no more; so much Land about them, and no more. The number of Cities were in all 48. Num. 35.2, 3. &c. (among which, six were to be Cities of Refuge:) the names of all which, and the allotment of them to the several Families of the Levites, are set down in the 21 of Joshuah. Their Suburbs also were bounded by a set number of Cubites. For so God commanded the Israelites, say­ing Num. 35.4., The Suburbs of the Cities, which ye shall give unto the Levites, shall reach from the Wall of the City, and outward, a thousand Cubites round about. The Israelites might not give, nor would God accept one Cubite more; although the Levites were (as is before said) a twelfth part of Israel.

But here take notice, that those Cities were not inhabited by Levites only. Others dwelt therein, and had shares also in the residue of the Lands adjacent as well as they: Only care was to be taken, that in every one of those Cities and Suburbs, so many of the Levites as were designed to each City, should be first accommodated and well provi­ded for: and the remainder, if any were, should still be inhabited by the Owners of those Cities now allotted to the Levites.

That this was so, is evident by the City of Hebron (or Kiriath-Arba, the City of Arba The Father of Anak. Josh 15.13., a Great man, that first founded it:) for that City being given to the Kohathites, who (among the Levites) had the first Lot Josh. 21.10, 11., was yet inhabited also by Caleb, to whom Joshuah had before given it for an in­heritance Josh. 14.13, 14.. 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 Jephun­neth for his possession Josh. 21.12.. Out of which Fields, it is manifest by the next verse, that the Suburbs were excepted: for these were given to the Sons of Aaron the Priest ver. 13..

Now then, if Bishops take upon them (as of late they did) to be above ordinary Priests, Presbyters, or Ministers, as Aaron, above the ordinary Priests and Levites; it is as clear as Analogie can make it, that there is no colour or shew for a warrant out of the Old Testament to inable Bishops to hold any Lands; or, for others, to give them: but an express Law against it. It is true, that after the Temple was built, there was (no doubt) conveniency of habitation, and perhaps of some Lands for the Cattle of the High Priest, who is not to be thought worse pro­vided for, than his inferiours. And when Bishops can make it out, that they are as Aaron, above the rest of Christs Ministers, the like ought be allowed to them, while they continued.

Nevertheless, those Cities of Refuge, and the rest, set out for the Levites, with the Suburbs pertaining to them, for the Cattle of those Levites that were imployed in the several parts of Israel to be teaching Priests 2 Chr. 15.3. of the Law of God to the people, (which Lands, by Gods command were not to be alienated Lev. 25.34.;) may, by analogie, be a good ar­gument to prove that Lands setled upon the faithful and painful Mini­sters [Page 17] of each particular Congregation, or Parish Church, as Glebes, for their habitation, and necessary provision of Cattle for their use, are accepted of God, as sacred; because Himself commanded the like for the Priests of the Law, who had sundry other obventions and in-comes by the Levitical Offerings and Sacrifices, which Ministers now cannot enjoy: and, it cannot be thought that God or Christ will be more want­ing to Ministers of the Gospel, than to the Priests of the Law. And as God forbad the sale of those Lands vvhile that Priesthood continued; so it vvill accordingly follow, that parochial Glebes are not to be sold from the Church, so long as they be imployed for the maintenance of such Ministers as truly and faithfully preach the Gospel to the people of those places, where such Lands are given. For the very Churches to which they are annexed, vvere built by men of quality and piety, for the good of the souls of the living: and those Glebes vvere bestowed, for the incou­ragement of such Godly Pastors as ministred unto them the bread of life, so far as the Founders vvere able to judge.

Indeed, vvhere Popes have appropriated them to his Italian tools and Creatures, or unto those Augaean Stables, the Monasteries erected in height of Popery, vvho never took care to feed the Flocks of God in those places; there, they that called themselves the Church, first led the vvay to Sacriledge, in the point of Glebes, by perverting and aliening them from their true use, to pamper the bellies of Epicures, and to maintain the State and Pomp of Atheists, under the name and habit of the Pre­latical Clergie. Let none therefore vvho are of the Prelatical Party, and cry out so much against Sacriledge, blame the late Parliament for selling some Glebes that had been so appropriated, and impropriated; for they did but therein follow the same path vvhich those carnal Pre­lates had trodden out unto them. Which, if it be Sacriledge, it is no­thing but vvhat the Papal Church had taught them to commit.

If any should dream, that the setting out of the holy portion of Land about the Sanctuary Ezek. 45. & cap. 48., shewed to Ezekiel in a Vision, (as a type and prophecie of the state of the Churches of Christ under the Gospel,) is both a vvarrant, and command to set out Lands to be holy unto God, un­der the New Testament: that would be no other but a manifest per­verting and overthrowing of the genuine sense of those Scriptures.

For, although it be on all hands agreed, that from the 40 chapter of Ezekiel to the end of that Book, the main scope is to decipher and describe the state of the Church under Christ and his Gospel; yet it is not affirmed by any one Author, that the Temple there intended, and Gods command there given touching the setting out of Lands for the same, are to be understood properly according to the Grammatical con­struction of the vvords, as if God meant to erect another new material Temple at Hierusalem 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 Zadock and others of Aarons Order. But, See Jun. in Ezek. 40. that all is spoken in a figure, and in a spiritual sense; yet, under legal [Page 18] expressions, and by vvay of allusion to the material Temple of Solomon, as being the most glorious instance that could then be found, to illustrate and most lively to set forth the far more glorious estate, and spiritual endowments of the Evangelical Church of Christ, the New Hierusalem, vvhich should so far exceed that in Judea, as the Heavenly Hierusalem Heb. 12.22. doth the earthly; and, as the spiritual Temples of the living God do ex­cel that of Solomon. Wherefore, to dravv an argument thence, for the consecrating of Lands in a proper sense for the maintenance and state of Bishops, is not only to proclaim him to be a weak man that doth it, but to publish to all the vvorld that there is no ground in Scripture (as in­deed there is not) to found any Title of Bishops Lands upon.

The Original of Bishops Lands in Eng­land.The Original then (and by consequent, the Title) of Bishops Lands, in this Kingdom, can derive no further or higher than the abused magni­ficence and bounty of Princes and others, nuzzelled in ignorance and superstion, both before and since the Conquest, in the height of Popery; vvhereby Monasteries and Cathedrals have been endowed vvith large portions of Land and other Revenues, under the specious pretence of giving them to God, and Holy Church: even to the impoverishing not of private Families alone, but of the Kingdom also. Nor vvere they given indeed to maintain a Preaching Ministry, to instruct the people in the true knowledge of Christ and his Gospel (for this, most of those men that held those Lands ever persecuted;) but, for Superstitious ends and uses; and imployed (for the most part) to maintain the Riots, Pomp and State, and other excesses and lusts of Abby-Lubbers, and other belly-gods and drones, to the great dishonour of God, and scandal of the Gospel.

Therefore it is to be observed, that the greatest and richest indow­ments of Cathedrals and Monasteries with Lands in England, were made when Satans Throne was most exalted, and his Kingdom in greatest peace, even in times of thickest Popish darkness; when even Kings themselves, and Nobles scarce knew a letter, nor the rest understood any thing of Christ or Religion; no, nor of the very Laws of the Nation, but what the Prelatical Popish Clergie (whose policy and interest it vvas to keep all in grossest ignorance) thought fit at some special times, for their own gain and advantage, to communicate. The Clergie being the sole Masters of the times, and holding all the chief Offices and Places of Power and Judicature even in the State, as vvell as in the Church, did vvhat they list both with King and People. And with their familiar spi­rit of Excommunication (the great Mormo and scare-crow of the Laity) they could and did conjure in to their own and other Churches, what quantities of Lands, or of ought else that was beneficial, they pleased.

But in nothing did they exercise so much tyrannie, as over the con­sciences of men, according to what was prophecied by their greatly pre­tended Patron and Pillar, St. Peter 2 Pet. 2, 1, 3., who gave warning long before of their wiles and tricks, whereby, through covetousness, with fained words, they would make merchandise of the people. This they did, not [Page 19] only as they of old, that swallowed up the needy, first by making them poor; and then buying them for silver, and the needy for shooes Amo. 8.6.; but as those Merchants of Babylon, whose Merchandise was not of beasts and sheep, of Horses and Charets, of Slaves and bodies alone, but of Souls of men Rev. 18.13..

And as they kept the people in ignorance, the more easily to prey upon them: so they purposely winked at all their wickedness, their adul­teries, rapes, murders and other villanies which they committed against others of the Laity, till they saw it most seasonable to carve large gobbets out of their Estates, vvhen they had them sure vvithin their Nets. Then, they would (to this end) fall foul upon them, terrifying them with unsufferable torments, first in Purgatory, and afterwards in Hell it self; unless they speedily gave such large portions of their best Lands as these Harpies pleased, to expiate their sins, and to prevent those miseries. Which if they did, they were presently absolved, and pro­claimed meritorious; especially, if they could be drawn to give so much, as might redeem the souls of their deceased Ancestors too, out of Pur­gatory tortures. By this, they merited Heaven; but, without this, they must expect Hell for their portion. Strong Arguments to weak and silly Souls abused by blind Guides.

All which Donations, they were made to believe were given unto God, and to some Saint: whereupon they needed not to doubt of their own pardons, and the release of their Ancestors out of Purgatory fire, which kept the Kitchins of those soul-killing Prelates so warm.

All those Charters must (for the better grace of the business) begin with the Name of God, as if all were given to him, and that he accep­ted thereof; meaning, to themselves, to cramb their purses and panches, to the use of the Devil. Therefore when he or his imps had any mis­chief to act, they usually made In Dei nomine Amen [In the name of God Amen] the Preface to it. Whence that old Proverb, In nomine Domini incipit omne malum. When they had a minde to fleece any man, God himself must be made a party, to countenance their avarice; even when God was not truly and indeed in all their thoughts Psal. 10.4.; and their eyes and their thoughts were not but for their covetousness Jer. 22.17..

Nor would the Donors have parted vvith such ample Territories, but as being made to believe by those Merchants to whom they gave them, or by their Agents and Factors, that thereby they satisfyed God for their sins, and expiated the guilt of some hideous and hainous wickedness which they had before committed: or, as hiring the Priests and Monks that were to enjoy those Lands to redeem the Souls of their Ancestors out of Purgatoty, or to curse their Enemies with Bell, Book and Candle, as the manner then was, the more to please (or rather fool) the igno­rant Founders, whom by such means they cheated of such large do­nations; as any indifferent man vers'd in the Histories of those times, cannot but know.

And lest this should be thought a slander, take but these few instances [Page 20] for proof thereof. First, in the very Body of the Popes Canon-Law, (which is enough to silence for ever all such as plead for such Popish Do­nations) it is declared as a Maxime not to be denyed, Ille qui donat, pro redemptione Animae suae, non pro commodo Sacerdotis offerre probatur Decret. par. 2. caus. 12. q. 3. C. Pontifices.. He that gives ought to the Church, doth it for the Redemption of his Soul, not for the gain of the Priest. And this Shooing-Horn was held out, the more easily to draw on other mens Revenues, upon their Feet, who gave out this for a Law, that all such Gifts redeemed the Souls of the Donors and of all others that they pleased to mention in their Donations: which was, indeed, to give to the Devil, not unto God: because it makes man his own Saviour, and denieth the satisfaction made by Christ; which is a Doctrine of Devils.

How the Bishops Lands at Wells, were first givenIn this manner did Kenulph, King of the West Saxons, about the year of Christ 766. endow the Church of St. Andrew in Wells (then a Monastery) with a large Patrimony in Lands, in and about Wells, Mendip, and other places adjacent; some of which Dr. Burges hath now bought. For in his Charter Godw. of Bps, pag. 358. Mo­nast. Anglic. he declareth that he did it, pro expiatione delictorum suo­rum, nec non (quod verbo dolendum est) pro vexatione inimicorum suorum Cornubiae gentis: For the expiation of his sins, and (which he was sorry for) for the vexation of the Cornish People. That is, to hire the Monks of Wells, to curse the Cornish Men, which he could not subdue by his Sword. And verily he had need to do somewhat for expiating his sins, as the Doctrine of those times, (wherein the sufficiency of Christs satis­faction for true Penitents was concealed) ran. For he was so much given to Adultery, that even after that great gift, he could not leave that sin, but rather grew more bold to continue it: as appears by his going in that Errand to one of his Concubines which he kept at Merton Sim Danel. ci­ted by Speed & Isaakson. (or Marton) in Devon, where he was discovered, surrounded by Enemies, (in all proba­bility the Cornish, who knew his haunt) and there slain. So Divine was the gift of the Mannor of Wells. And so highly did God accept and own it as His Propriety, that the Curse which the King intended to fall upon his Enemies, fell upon his own head, by those very Enemies whom he had hired the Monks of Wells to curse.

And that this was the High-Way wherein the Popish Clergy of Eng­land, long before (as well as since) the Conquest, constantly travailed: Take one Testimony more of that famous Gildas the Elder, (surnamed Sapiens) who being a Britain Presbyter, within the Sixth Century, or hun­dred of yeers after Christ, thus chargeth the Popish Clergy of his time, who had suck'd their Principles from Augustine the Monk, sent from Rome on purpose to advance the State and Pomp of the Clergy, under colour of planting the Christian Faith in England: For thus he Eccles. Ordin. Corrept. Bibl. Patr to 5. par. 3.: Britania habet Sacerdotes, sed nonnullos insipientes; quamplurimos Ministros, sed multos impudentes; Clericos, sed quosdam raptores, subdoles; Pastores ut dicun­tur, sed occisioni animarum lupos parates: quippe non commodo plebis providen­tis, sed proprii plenitudinem ventris quaerentes. Ecclesiae domos habentes, sed eas turpis lucri gratia adeuntes, &c. Britain (saith he) hath Priests, but [Page 21] some of them very Dolts: very many Ministers, but many of them im­pudent ones: Clergy-men, but very Thieves and Cheaters: Pastors, as they are termed, but in truth Wolves, standing ready to slay and flay the Souls of the Sheep; for that they seek not the good of the People, but the crambing of their own Bellies: they have Church-Houses, but never repair to them, unless for their own filthy Lucre. Again, that he might let all men see that he involved the Bishops of those times, yea even the Pope himself within this Charge, he addeth, Sedem Petri Apostoli im­mundis pedibus Ʋsurpantes, sed merito cupiditatis in Judae Traditoris Pesti­lentiae Cathedram desidentes. With unclean feet, they Usurp the Seat of the Apostle Peter; but through Covetousness, they rather sit indeed in Judas his Chair of Pestilence. This, with much more, that highly esteemed Author, writes of the Clergy of his time: which future ages did not make better.

For, since the Conquest, the Prelates and Monks have been more high-flown, & grasped more Lands (upon the same account with the former) into their Possession, then their Predecessors; in so much as the Clergie, Monks and Nuns of England, being not a fortieth (nay not a hundredth) part of the Kingdom, had by these wiles and devices gotten (as some intelligent men have computed) a third part of all the prime Lands in the Nation, into their clutches, at what time King Henry the Eighth began to seize the lesser Monasteries: and all upon the same ground of meriting Salva­tion for themselves and their Relations, dead, or unborn.

Thus Henry the Third, in the ninth of his Reign (himself being then but eighteen years of age) was hook'd into that Great Charter, Magna Chartae. (so much cryed up by the Prelatical Clergy) to which he thus prefaceth: Henry, by the Grace of God, King of England, &c. to all Archbishops Bishops, &c. Know ye that We, unto the Honour of God, and for the Salvation of the Souls of Our Progenitors and Successors, Kings of England, &c. have given and granted, &c. to which all the Bishops and Abbots, as well as others, were of Counsel, and Witnesses: by which it appears, that this Charter was grant­ed to merit Salvation: so as however the honour of God be mentioned, yet the dishonour of God and Christ lay at the bottom of that Grant, in reference to the Foundation laid in his heart by the Prelates.

The same is after declared in the Statute De Provisorib. Beneficior. in the 25 of Edw. 3. where it is expresly said: That the Church of Eng­land, was founded in the State of Prelacy within the Realm of England, by his Grandfather, (which was Edw. 1.) and his Progenitors, and by the Earles, Barons, and other Nobles of the said Realm, and their An­cestors, to inform them and the People of the Law of God This was e­ver pretended, but never per­formed, unless by some few, ve­ry rarely; as the stories of those Times plainly testifie. See Mat. Paris ad ann. 1253. Fox his Mar­tyrol. of the same times.; and to make Hospitality, Alms, and other Works of Charity, in the places where the Churches were founded for the SOULS of the Founders, their heires, and all Christians, &c. In which Act, the Bishops, as well as o­thers, joyned, thereby proclaiming to the world, the superstitious Foun­dations of getting so many Lands to the Church.

Yea, so zealously bent were the Prelates of those times to augment the [Page 22] Churches Patrimony, that a Constitution Lindw. l. 5. tit. de poenit. & re­miss. ca. Cum a­nima. was made in a Provincial Sy­nod under Richard Withershed (alias Weather-head) in the Reign of Hen. 3. not to suffer any Physitian to administer any Physick to any Patient whatsoever (be he in never so great Extremity and Danger) till the Pati­ent were first shrived by a Priest, under pain of Suspension ab ingressu Ec­clesiae. The pretence was, to physick his Soul first: but the meaning was, to get a collop to some Chantery, or Monastery to pray for his Soul in Purgatory: upon which the Priest absolved him; and not before. And this was that which occasioned so many Chanteries, justly vacated and seized by Edw. 6. being given to him by Parliament, 1 Edw. 6.14.

Nor were the Kings and Parliaments (especially after King John) so hood-wink'd and cow'd, as not to take notice of, and provide against those excessive gifts of Lands to the Church (as they call'd it) which so greatly rob'd the Commonwealth. For the same Hen. 3. who first granted the Great Charter, Cap. 36. wherein he confirmed the Rights and Liberties of Holy Church (as that Idolized Crew was then termed) did in the same Chapter, enact (a) 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 Because Lands so held were free from all Tythes, Taxes and Es­chetes. There­fore many did so convey Lands, to co­zen the King, and other chief Lords.. 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 should be utterly void, and the Land accrew to the Lord of the Fee. Here then was a Liberty of resuming Lands dedicated to the Church, and an imploying of them to such secular uses as the Lord of the Fee should appoint, with­out incurring the guilt of Sacriledge.

Next after Henry the Third, succeeded his Son, Edward the First, who confirmed Magna Charta, in the 25 of his Reign (and with 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 Mort-main (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 forfeited to the chief Lord, if he took the advantage within a year and half; or else to the King, in case the chief Lord neglected the seizure within the said time therein limited and appointed for his seizing there­of, for his own use.

Which Law however it were mitigated at the importunity of the Cler­gy, by Edward the Third, who in such Cases enacted the taking of Fines in stead of Forfeitures; Yet afterwards, in 15 Rich. 2. that first Sta­tute of 7 Edw. 1. was not onely set on foot again, but extended to all Guilds, Fraternities and Corporations, yea, to all Donations of Lands for Church-yards, or for any other Church Use. And that if, contrary there­unto, any should presume to give, or to receive any Lands upon a Church account, or otherwise, without the Kings special License, they should ei­ther procure his License, or sell away those Lands by the then next Mi­chaelmas.

By all which it is manifest, that neither the Kings, nor Parliaments, nor Bishops themselves in Parliament, ever took all Lands given to Churches to be Sacred, and Gods Propriety Jure Divino, or so much as lawful for the Church to hold them, without License from the King or other chief Lord of the Fee, of whom such Lands were before holden. Witness the many Statutes against Mort-Main (or against the falling of Lands into a dead hand, that is, the Church;) whereby neither King nor Kingdom could receive any thing out of them, for Defence of the Realm; nor the chief Lords enjoy the benefit of chief Rents, Services, Fines of Alienation, or Eschetes; which being an apparent wrong to all, occasioned those Sta­tutes.

Not that it is unlawful to endow particular Parochial Churches with Glebes or Lands necessary for building of Churches upon, and for the ac­commodation and provision of faithful Ministers of Christ, that faithfully dispense his Ordinances to their Flocks, so it be with leave from Authori­ty, and all interessed in them; and that it be done moderately, for neces­sary sustentation of them and their Families. The Levites that might have no large Territories, answerable to the rest of their Tribes, had yet several Cities set out for their habitation, and Suburbs for their Cattle. But withal, they might not grasp all that the People would give, but were con [...]ed and limitted to such a quantity, a thousand Cubits outright from the wall, round about their several Cities, and no more, as was before shewed. And so far hath it ever been accounted from being lawful for Bishops to lay Field unto Field, Mannor to Mannor, to impoverish many to inrich one, upon the account of the Church, and Gods acceptance thereof, as sacred and holy, that even an Archbishop Spalat. de Repuo. Ecclesiast l. 9. c. 7. n. 36. (having deser­ted the Romish Church) hath proclaimed it Sacriledge, & rapinam inju­stissimam, and most unjust rapine. This is not (saith he) to inable 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 the impediments of the saving of Souls.

Thus we see the Title of Bishops Lands, what it was; and upon what grounds, and in what manner, procured, and enjoyed; vvhich argues them to be (in the construction of Scripture) far from being sacred and holy unto God, by such corrupt Dedications; and particularly, of those very Lands purchased by Doctor Burges.

It remaineth now to make out, That the aliening, diverting, No Sacri­ledge or sin, to buy or sell Bi­shops Lands. or pur­chasing such Lands for common use (notwithstanding their first dedication) neither is, or can be Sacriledge, or otherwise sinful or unlawful. This is in great part evident, by what hath been before set forth; yet, for more full satisfaction, somewhat more shall be added.

To begin with the Cities and Suburbs of the Levites, will be a good step to the clearing hereof. First, their Houses might be sold, even [Page 24] by themselves without sin. For that Law which was made for the redeeming of it at any time (which others might not do, that sold Houses in a walled City, unless they redeemed them within the compass of the first yeer after sale;) and for the return of it, at the next Ju­bilee Lev. 25.32, 33. in case it were not redeemed before, plainly implies a lawful­ness for any man to buy an House that pertained to a Levite, if it were to be sold; and that it vvas no sin to detain it, till it vvere either re­deemed, or returned at the Jubilee, as all other Lands sold by others were to be. This might be done without the least branding of the seller or buyer; Yet those Cities were by Gods own appointment, set out for the dwelling of the Levites.

Indeed God forbad the Levites to sell their Lands; to wit, the Fields of the Suburbs of their Cities; for it was their perpetual possession Ibid. ver. 34. It was the same in effect vvith our Parochial Glebes: and so, might not be aliened, or sold, so long as their service and Priesthood continued. Howbeit, afterwards, vvhen their service vvas ended, and the Priestood removed, they might as lawfully sell their Lands as their Houses. Else Joses sirnamed Barnabas, a Levite, had committed Sacriledge, for that he (after Christ changed that Priesthood) having Land sold it, and laid down the money at the Apostles feet; which is recorded by the Spirit of God as an eminent act of exemplary piety and charity, and of the sou [...]lness of his faith and conversion.

Now, if it were no sin in him then to sell, it could not be a sin in others to buy such Lands, (and other Lands the Levites might then have none) albeit those Lands, by God's own Edict, were to be continued in the Priests while their Priesthood lasted. Can it then be so haynously sinful to sell, or purchase Bishops Lands (which no Law of God ever settled upon them) after their Office and Function is wholly taken away?

But it is happened to some of those rash Censurers, as it did to those Oxen, of whom Columella (that famous Husbandry-Writer, in the dayes of Claudius Caesar) noteth De re Rust. lib. 2., that feeding upon some rank grounds, ran wild with the fatness of their Food.

And vvhatever some think now, that it is Sacriledge to aliene any thing once pretendedly dedicated unto God; yet even the Bishops themselves in Parliament have thought and determined otherwise, as well as Kings and the rest of the Parliament, in the Acts formerly mentioned; vvherein, especially in one of them 15 Ric. 2.5. they make all Lands given vvith­out License, to be forfeited, and to be seised, unless they procure a License to amortise them, or sell or alien them (to some other Use) before Michael­mas then next coming. This shews plainly, that albeit it was not held law­ful for Bishops, Monks, or others, to receive or purchase Lands in Mort-Main: yet it was lawful (if they had so done) to sell them (for the Parlia­ment directed the sale) and therefore lawful for others to purchase them for common uses, when once it should be discovered that those Lands were so given and dedicated as therein was forbbidden.

To which may be added, 1. That Bishops Lands especially, were at first [Page 25] given to maintain their State and Magnificence, as Lords, with special re­ference to State-Imployments; For that the Kings were wont to have the greatest part of their Counsel, for the safegard of the Realm, when they had need, of the said Prelates and Clerks so advanced Stat. de Pro­vis. Benefic. 25 Edw. 3.. 2. That nei­ther in those times, nor since, did many of them (yea scarce any) take paines to teach the Law of God to the People, which was one end for which Bishops were endowed with such large Revenues, as the Statute De Pro­visoribus Benefic. before cited, expresly declareth. So that this being neglected, they lived in so great a sin, as (in the judgement of those few of them, who made more conscience of their Duty in this kind) next to the sin of Lucifer, there could not be a greater. Witness that Learned and Zealous Bishop Robert Grosthead, Bishop of Lincolne, in the reign of Hen. 3. who having received a Command from Pope Innocent the Fourth, Mat. Paris. ad Ann. 1353. to admit one Frederick de Lavania, that Popes Nephew (that is, his Ba­stard) to be a Canon and Prebend of Lincolne, that Bishop wrote back to the Pope a flat refusal of that his command: telling him moreover, Post peccatum Luciferi, &c. That next to the sin of Lucifer (which shall be in the latter time, to wit, Antichrist, the Child of Perdition, whom the Lord shall destroy with the breath of His Mouth) there is not, nor can be any kind of sin, so repugnant and contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles and holy Scriptures; and to our Saviour Christ himself more hateful, detestable and abominable, then to destroy and kill mens Souls, by defrauding them of the Ministry of the Pastoral Office. Which sin, by most evident places of the Scripture, such men are known to commit, who being put into the Pastoral Office, provide for themselves of the milk and wool of Christs sheep, that by his appointment were to be vivi­fied and saved, but do not administer to them their due: for, the not ad­ministring of the Pastoral Ministration, is by the Testimony of Scripture the slaying and perdition of the Sheep. 3. That not onely all their Civil Imployment in State-Affairs (for which they were exalted so high,) is wholly taken off by special Act of Parliament, with the Royal As­sent 17 Car. c. 28.; but their very Function and Office, (as Archbishops and Bi­shops, as themselves and theirs were pleased to distinguish them from, and to set them above the rest of their Brethren in the Ministry) hath been since by the same Parliament pluck'd up by the roots. Therefore their Lands must needs Eschete and revert to the Commonwealth, the proper Heires of the first Founders and Donors, being long (yea, many Ages) since dead, and their own particular Heires, and Memory perished from off the Earth.

The Parliament therefore had as good right to sell or alien them to any other use, as the first Donors had to give them to those uses expressed in their several Donations; or as that Parliament in 15 Ric. 2. (which had the consent of the then Bishops in Parliament) had to appoint or permit all such as had gotten any Lands, without License, to sell or alien them to private uses; or, as any particular Lord in chief (by the same Act of Parliament, Ric. 2.) had to seize and sell any such Lands so given, if fallen [Page 26] unto him by such Forfeiture and Eschete. So that now, it is no more Sa­criledge or sin, to buy and enjoy Bishops Lands, after the final and total abolition of Bishops, then it was for Joses (or Barnabas) the Levite, to sell his Lands; or for any man at this day to buy any of those Suburbical Lands of those forty eight Cities, heretofore set out for the Le­vites.

This might suffice, if it were not ever too true of some, non persuadebis, etiamsi persuaseris, Thou shalt never perswade me to be of thy Opinion, although by Reason thou sufficiently convince me. Therefore Answers must now be given to such plausible Objections, as seem to carry most strength of Reason in them.

Object. 1 First, it is said by some, That Bishops (as such) are of Divine Right, or, (which is Equivalent) of Apostolical Constitution: and therefore could not by any law of man be taken away, as the Levites might, and ought to be, when Christ himself had put a period to their Service and Office.

Answ. To this it is Answered: 1. That if a Parliament (the Representative of the whole Nation) shall enact an Abolition, no private person or party (out of Parliament) may gainsay or oppose it, without making himself li­able to punishment. 2. That if by Bishops, be meant onely Ministers of the Gospel, faithfully feeding the particular Flocks committed to their Charge, not as Lords over Gods heritage 1 Pet. 5.3.; they could not be taken a­way; for such are of Divine Institution, not to be abrogated by man. But 3. Our Bishops would none of this. Nothing sounded so harsh in their Ears, as a Parity. This was not onely Schisme, but Heresie, in their Construction. They claimed a Power and Dignity (even by Di­vine Right) above other Presbyters or Ministers, as a distinct Order from, and superiour to that of Presbyters: And that in the two greatest points of Authority. For, they appropriated Ordination and Jurisdiction solely to themselves, and to their Officers in their Right; which is ex­presly contrary to the Testimony of Scripture, both touching Ordination, 1 Tim. 4.14. Act. 13.1, 2, 3. and Jurisdiction, 1 Cor. 5.3, 4, 5. 2 Cor. 2.6, 7, 8. & vers. 10. And as upon this Account, they looked upon themselves (e­ven in the beginning of that Parliament, which after threw them out; witness that Book of Episcopacy by Divine Right, written by Jos. Exon; and published, Anno 1640.) and had their Lands vested in them, as ap­pears by that Statute of 25 Edw. 3. before mentioned: So the Parlia­ment taking them at their own words, look'd upon them too; and upon that very ground threw them out. Since which time, none of them have vouchsafed to assert their Title to be Jure Divino. If therefore the Levites, who had a clear plea for their Divine Institution, justly lost their Lands, and other Revenues, with their Offices; there can be no scruple of conscience to buy or enjoy Bishops Lands (whose Title was never so good as that of the Levites) after the Bishops themselves be laid aside for ever, as Usurpers over the Ministry, as well as over the rest of Gods Heritage. [Page 27] They are no otherwise cast out of their Office, then Diotrephes who loved to have the pre-eminence 3 Joh. 9, 10., was by St. John himself, cast out of the Church, whom that proud Prelate persecuted, by his prating and malitious Words.

Object. 2 But it is pleaded, That the Bishops were Ministers too (although aliquid amplius, somewhat more) and preached as well as others; and were moreover, of great Ʋse for the good Government of the Church, and support of the Truth, which since their ejection hath extreamly suffered. Therefore at least, as Ministers, they and their Means should have been continued.

Answ. Admitting (but not granting) all this to be true: yet what they really did, might have been and still may be done as Ministers, al­though not as such Bishops. It is their Episcopal Dignity, not their Mi­nistry that is taken from them. And their Lands were fixed (as hath been shewn) to their Episcopacy, not to their Ministry: to their State of Pre­lacy, not to the Presbytery. If any of them (as very very few of them had) had a mind to preach the Gospel (as that Archbishop, Dr. Ʋsher did, so long as he was able, and was therefore honoured and incouraged both li­ving and dying) they might have had liberty so to do, notwithstanding the abolishing of their Episcopal Usurpation. But the generality of them were so far from it, that they did their utmost against it, while their Power continued.

Was it not by their procurement, that preaching was prohibited, espe­cially in the After-noons of the Lords Dayes, and the Book of Sports, com­piled and published with Authority, and countenanced by them? was not strict inquiry made in their Visitations, whether every Minister had pub­lished that Book, in his Church: and they severely punished, that refused it? was it not their great study and contrivance to put down Lectures, not onely on those dayes, but on week-dayes also? was it not fully proved (not by Puritans, but by such as after turned head against them) that one of those Bishops thanked God, that he had put down all the Lectures (even Mr. Crookes also, which was preached gratis, and at his great Cost) with­in his Diocess? were not even conformable Ministers (how able soever) scorned and persecuted as Praters (not Preachers) if they took so much paines in preaching as might justly shame the laziness and idleness of Drones and Prelatical Pluralists, who held it to be an Evidence of their great Parts and deep Learning, to preach but seldom? was it not piacular for any Animalculum praedicabile, or Preaching-Coxcomb (as Dr. Lindsey stiled Bishop Ʋsher himself, for his often preaching) that is, for any faithful Minister to preach twice a day; being by another Bishop, com­pared in a scoff, to a bruit Animal, Virgil's Cow, that (bis venit ad mul­ctram) came twice a day to the Payl?

And as for the Bishops own preaching, (especially at last, when they designed to gain all those Places and Offices of Trust, Power and Judi­cature of the Commonwealth, which the Popish Bishops in former Ages aspired unto) it became an Offence unpardonable, to mind them of their Duty in preaching, when many of them had laid it aside, as too mean and low a thing for their Greatness, and as a thing unnecessary and in­competent [Page 28] with their greater and more weighty Affairs. Among other Instances, take this for one.

Anno 1635.Doctor Burges, preaching a Latine Sermon to the London-Ministers, in Alphage Church, neer Sion Colledge, pressed all possible sedulity in preach­ing: to drive which nail to the head, among other Arguments, he urged what was antiently required herein, even of Bishops themselves. For which purpose, he first minded them of the Third part of the Publick Ho­mily against the Peril of Idolatry: wherein it is said of the Primitive Bi­shops, That they were preaching Bishops, more often seen in Pulpits, then in Princes Palaces; more often occupied in His Legacy, who said, Go ye, into all the World, and preach the Gospel, then in the Embassages and Affairs of Princes. After which, he recited an old Canon, of the sixth General Council in Trullo, with Zonaras his Note upon it: which Ca­non enjoyned Bishops To preach often; at least, every Lords day; or to be Canonically admonished, for their neglect: whereupon, if they refor­med not, they were to be excommunicated or deposed.

For this, some of his Prelatical and dronish Auditors informed the Archbishop of Canterbury against him, who forthwith complained of the Doctor to the King himself. Shortly after, he was by Letters Missive sum­moned into the High Commission Court, (then, little better then the Spanish Inquisition) to answer this haynous Crime. Upon his appearance, Articles were exhibited against him, as being dis-affected to the Book of Common Prayer, the Ceremonies, and Government of the Church; as also for charging the Bishops with conniving at the then too palpable growth of Arminianism and Popery, Act. 12. and their too much conforming thereunto, &c. But chiefly, For that he seemed to tax and accuse divers Prelates and Reverend Bishops of this Kingdom, for neglecting to preach often: and for alledging to that purpose, that the ancient Bi­shops were frequent and diligent Preachers; quoting an old Canon, that every Bishop should preach every Sunday; and if negligent here­in, he should be admonished; upon which, if he reformed not, he was to be excommunicated or deposed: without considering their many and weighty Affairs.

This, made them spurn so furiously against him, that their Party every­where gave it out, that he should be both Deprived and Degraded. And doubtless it had been so, had he not given them enough in his Answers to their cavilling Articles, and in his Protestation annexed to the Copy of that his Sermon delivered to Archbishop Land, who after perusal thereof, never troubled him further, he having professed to stand to what he had said in that Sermon, against all Opposers to the Death.

This was the third time wherein the Doctor was called into that Court. Once An. 1622. he was brought thither by a potent Adversary (who had made a strong Party against him) for being dis-affected to Episcopal Government, & for permitting some, to sit, at receiving the Lords Supper. Another time An. 1629. he was questioned there, for refusing upon a Thursday (he being then re­quested to preach the Lecture at St. Mary Overies for the then Lecturer [Page 29] there) to read Common Prayer in his Surplice and Hood, before the Ser­mon: On purpose to deter Godly Ministers from preaching Lectures.

And as they thus grew incorrigibly negligent in the duty of the Mini­stry (here and there one or two black Swans excepted) so did they as much over-lash in another extrem; being too pragmatical and conver­sant in Civils. Insomuch as by reason of some affronts put upon one or two of them as they were going to the House of Peers assembled in Parlia­ment, many of them privately drew up a Protestation, which they after delivered, (contrary to the Priviledge of Parliament) to the King, not to the Parliament it self, against all Acts and Proceedings in Parliament, in their absence, as null and voyd. This high Act of theirs drew upon them the hatred and scorn not only of their supposed enemies (who as yet had done them no harm,) but of their friends also; yea, so did it incense all against them, it that occasioned the throwing them, first, out of the Parlia­ment; and then, out of their Episcopal Office and dignity for ever.

Object. 3 But, 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.

Answ. To this, a short Answer may suffice. Where God bids Curse (as in Deut. 27.) there is cause to fear Cursing. If an Elijah King. 1.10. & & 12., an Elisha 2 Kin. 2.23., a David Psal. 109., a Peter Act. 8.20.; (acted by Gods Spirit) shall denounce a Curse; wo to such as fall under it. Such Curses shall surely take effect. God himself will own them, and requireth all his people to say Amen to them Deut. 27.15 &c.. But, as the bird by wandring, and the swallow by flying, (esca­peth the Nets and Snares set by the Fowler for them) so the causless Curse shall not come Prov. 26.2.. That Providence that preserveth the sparow from falling to the ground Mar. 10.25., till God will have it so (let the Fowler do what he can to take him;) doth likewise so order the matter in a causless Curse, that it shall never reach him against whom it is intended; yea, God blesseth most, where wicked men, or others, belch out the most bitter curses. Let them then be afraid of those Curses, who finde a warrant from God for such cursing. A cursed people is ever a cursing generation Rom. 3.14..

Who set them on work to Curse? Even the same who indeed set on Shimei to curse David Sam. 17.23., not God, as David feared; but the Devil and Ahitophel, as David afterwards plainly found; that 109 Psalm, being chiefly bent against Ahitophel, of whose cursing vve never read, but that, by the mouth of Shimei: David fared never the worse for their cursing. But themselves that cursed, fell under their own curse. For however in Davids time, Shimei felt not the Curse; yet it came home to him vvith a witness by Solomon 1 Kin. 2.44.. And as for Ahitophel, he drew a Curse from David, that reached his very neck and life. For, as he loved cursing (by setting Shimei on vvork) so it came unto him. As he clothed 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. when he hang'd himself. Those busie Cursers of the Prelacie have found this effect [Page 30] upon themselves and Successors; their curses being come home to the Bishops and the rest of the Prelates, many hundreds yeers after their mouths were so full of cursing and bitterness. Let therefore such as please themselves vvith frighting others vvith curses, beware they meet not vvith some share in those very curses, vvhich now they so groundlesly seek to scare their brethren vvithal, it being no other but an engine of Antichrist forged in Hell.

Object. 4 The last and most generally-taking Objection is this: Be it that Bi­shops are justly cashiered, their Lands forfeited, and rightly taken from them by the Parliament: Yet it is generally held by all sound Divines, that those Lands and Revenues (although at first superstitiously, or superfluously given) being once dedicated unto God, may not be aliened, sold, or diverted to any secular or common use; but ever continued for the maintenance of the true worship of God,

This objection is plausibly received among honest Godly men; Yet is capable of Answer, thus:

Answ. 1. This opinion is not in the case of Bishops Lands, founded on the Scripture; but upon that commonly received maxime cast in the Popes mint; Semel dicatum Deo non est ad humanos usus ulteriùs transferen­dum. Which wherein, and how far forth it holds good, hath been above declared, and need not to be repeated. Things once given to God, by his command, warrant, or approbation, may not be aliened to other uses, vvhile the use of Gods appointment doth continue: But, not all that men pretend, or say, they give unto God. As in Persons, so in things, such only as the Lord chuseth, or accepteth (and none else) are holy Num. 16.7., let men say and think vvhat they vvill to the contrary. To pin therefore Bishops Lands upon God, because once pretendedly given to him, is like those gifts of the Israelites in the absence of Moses, pretended to be gi­ven unto God, vvhen 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 Exod. 32.3.. They intended them as gifts to the true God, as they thought; yet were those gifts far from acceptance with him; or reserved for holy uses, after the folly and wickedness of the Givers vvas discove­red, and punished.

2. It is apparent that those gifts to Bishops were to be no longer continued, than the function of those to vvhom they vvere given, re­mained: Datur Beneficium propter Officium; Office and Benefice are relatives; like twins, they live and die together. The Bishops share in the goods and Lands of the Church, hath been for many hundred yeers severed, and known from the rest of the Churches Patrimony that vvas to maintain others; and so cannot be claimed by others, vvhen the Bi­shops Order and Office is taken away.

3. When the vastness of the Revenue, or unlawful procuring of it, is a vvrong to the Common-wealth, or to any particular Family; this is not a dedication to God, which he will own; but an abusing of him, by fathering upon him the acceptance of that, vvhich is a vvrong to others; [Page 31] and a profaning of his name, by teaching all to take that for a vvarrant, to deny to others their due. That position therefore now urged, vvould be of dangerous consequence, if taken universally and vvithout due bounds.

4. Things voluntarily dedicated, by Gods own appointment, cannot be aliened. If it hath been abused, that must be rectified, and the things continued, for some other holy use, although not at first intended by the Donors. Thus, the Censers abused by Korah and his Companions, were no more used for incense; yet, because they were hallowed, they were converted into broad Plates to cover the Altar Num. 16.37. But in things not appointed by God from the beginning, this Tenet holdeth not. For, being dedicated upon false grounds, & for superstitious ends (most derogatory to God and Christ) to maintain, feed, and encrease the pomp and pride of Harpies that lay in wait as he that setteth snares and traps to catch men Jer. 5.26., there­by to fool them out of their estates upon false pretences, for ends of their own; this dedication is no vvhit better, than 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, and dedicated to him; both which, he abhorreth Deut. 23.17. Such are all those gifts of Lands dedicated to God, first gotten by rapine and spoyl; or, to put Christ out of office of saving souls, and to do it by such gifts. He looks no otherwise upon them, then as the offering of swines blood, the cutting off of a dogs neck, or the blessing of an Idol Isay 66.3.. When it can be proved that God accepted of such offerings in time of the Law, then also it may be granted that he vvill own such mongrel Dedications in the days of the Gospel.

5. Things dedicated to God, vvithout his order and allowance, is a laying aside Mar. 7.8., and a rejecting the Commandment of God ver. 9., and a making the Word of God of none effect ver. 13.. It is the Pharisees Corban ver. 11., which they (for filthy lucres sake) taught children to plead, and thereby to break the fifth Commandment) when required to relieve aged and needy Parents. If a father demanded ought of his son, and his son answered, This is Corban, a gift devoted to God, therefore you must excuse me; Vows must be paid, and things once dedicated must not be recalled or aliened: This, by the Pharisees Doctrine, vvas so sacred unto God, that (if the child should be willing to pleasure his parent with some part of it) they would suffer him no more to do ought for his father or mother ver. 12.. Did Christ take this for a dedication that might not be aliened? nay, he ab­horred it, and them that taught it. Such are all dedications of mens in­ventions and fancies, vvithout a Rule from him: And therefore to be alie­ned to other uses, that God may no longer be abused and provoked by them.

6. The same thing hath been for many yeers, and still is done every day by the greatest Censurers of the present Purchasers of Bishops Lands. Even they who now cry loudest against buying Church-Lands (because once dedicated to God) and make it high Sacriledge in others, can yet be content and quiet to hold things of the same kind (in respect of de­dication) heretofore aliened from the Church. They can digest Abby-Lands, Canonical Houses, yea (which is worst) Appropriations of Tythes [Page 32] first made by that Arch-Thief the Pope, in favour of Monasteries, and other his Creatures, who neither would nor could do service to their souls that paid them; and after their dissolution, devolved to private hands and common uses, as Bishops Lands now be.

How many Nobles and Gentlemen who now cry Sacriledge against present purchasers, do possess many Lands and Mannors of Bishops, alie­nated since Henry the Eighth began to destroy Monasteries? Many of those Lands being by secret (I say not Symoniacal) compact between Petitioners for Bishopricks, and their friends at Court, exchanged, or otherwise aliened from the Church, upon condition to get such a Bi­shoprick for them. If any doubt hereof, it is his ignorance; let him but inquire into that one Bishoprick of Bath and Wells, and he will finde, that since the 30th of Hen. 8. the Mannots of Wokey, Blackford, Compton­dando, Congersbury, Yaton, Chew, Wike, Puckle-Church, Wester-Leighe, Hampton, Claverton, Cranmore, Ever-Chritch, Kigsbury, Chard, Welling­ton, Lidford, Compton Parva, and Chedder (to omit many Appropriati­ons, Hundreds, Burroughes, Farmes, &c.) have been alienated from that Church, before ever the late Parliament seised the rest; and are to this day held by Lay-men, to their own private uses, without scruple or blame. Yea, this is not the first time that the Mannor of Wells hath been alienated from the Church; for in Hen. 8. it was aliened by the Bishop himself to him that was afterwards Earl of Hertford and Duke of Somer­set; and by him held without clamor, until by his attainder it escheted to the Crown, and thence returned to the Bishop again.

Nor is there any scruple made of purchasing those many Canonical Houses in Wells, which formerly belonged to the Church; yet, were a part of the Bishops Land and Mannors of Wells, and are held of the same Mannor unto this day; yet none of the Possessors hold it to be any fault in them, while some yet condemn the same thing as Sacri­ledge in Doctor Burges, albeit he performeth more service in that Church than any Bishop that ever sate there.

Let not such think to wash all off, by saying these were things done before their times, which they could not help; for, they can without scruple enjoy, yea purchase them. An accessory in sin long before committed, must share with the principal in punishment 2 Command­ment.. And this all acknowledge to be a truth; Non firmatur tractu temporis, quod de jure ab initio non subsistit. No house will grow strong by long continuance, whose foundation is on the sand. Time will never make that to be no sin, which from the beginning was sinful. They therefore that thus cen­sure him, Rom. 2.1. are themselves inexcusable: for wherein they judge him, they condemn themselves, because they that judge, do the same things (g). If this satisfie not, yet it behoves such Censurers to be quiet; and to let him that is without sin, cast the next stone at the Doctor.

DOctor Burges is not (in common repute) so weak, as not to apprehend the great disadvantage which a single man hath in encountring a Corporation, wherein there are ever some Spirits that pretend to see further into, and to be more zealous of the good of that Community, than the rest, thereby to engage them in Controversies; and that others of them, gaining thereby, will not fail to add fewel to the fire, when once the coles are kindled between a vvhole Body, and any one particular man that shall be so hardy as to oppose them, (although ne­ver so justly) concerning any thing unjustly done by them. Insomuch as it is taken for a maxime among such, (if they have a minde to trans­gress) that many subtle heads combined, a common Purse (to make great Friends, and to impoverish and weary a single Adversary;) and the diffi­culty of obtaining Justice against them, is enough (in their conceit) to justifie their greatest frauds and oppressions; and to proclaim and doom him the only Offender, that dares to seek Justice against them. This hardens them in their wickedness, and draws into common obloquy and reproach, any one that (being necessitated to maintain his own rights) shall presume to question their foulest encroachments.

This, the Doctor hath found, in prosecuting the Differences here after related. Wherein, he first appeared, in behalf of the Parliament, ha­ving discovered sundry gross vvrongs done to the State by some Agents for the Corporation of Wells. Afterwards, he vvas enforced to pursue the same contest, in behalf of himself, being by the Contractors for sale of Bishops Lands, and by the then Committee of Parliament for removing Obstructions in sale thereof, drawn to purchase the Mannor of Wells, and what else there then remained unsold; vvhich they promised he should quietly enjoy.

Hence sprang all the Differences between him and that Corporation, vvhich (to his great grief) have been sadly ventilated almost ten yeers, [Page 34] notwithstanding his utmost endeavours to compose them in vvays of love and peace. The first Rise and Sum of all vvhich, is now exposed to publike view, that they vvho have been abused by false and scurrilous clamors against him, may now be better able to judge vvhich Party hath indeed been in fault, in causing or occasioning the beginning and con­tinuance of those unhappy Contentions.

In publishing vvhereof, it vvill be requisite to advertise, that it is not here intended to rip up all the particular affronts and injuries done to the Doctor; but only to set forth: 1. What vvas the Original of all the Differences between them; and how that hath been since pro­secuted. 2. That what is after alledged in reference to any former Mayors of Wells, is not imputed to their own personal aversness from peace, but as they have been the mouth of the rest that have put them upon vvhat they have spoken or acted herein. 3. That albeit this Narrative often mentioneth the vvhole Corporation, yet it is not meant to involve all alike in the same Charge; some of them being better inclined to reason and peace. 4. That the Contractors vvere the first Plaintiffs in this Cause; not the Doctor. He vvas only forced afterwards to undertake the same business, upon the same grounds and evidence vvhich the Con­tractors had done before: for that the Corporation refused to make good the engagement of their Agents made not only to the said Contra­ctors and Committee of Parliament; but, to the Doctor himself, under their Hands and Seals, after he had been drawn to be a Purchaser at Wells.

For the better understanding of the whole business, take notice, That an Agent for the Corporation contracted for certain Royalties, in Decemb. 1647. but perfected not the Conveyance until the 22 of March then next following; and that Dr Burges did not purchase un­til March 16. 1648. and that then he bought many things (some of them being of great value) which the Corporation by general words, and by surprise and fraud had before gotten into their Conveyance, without contracting for them at all. How, and by what meanes they did it, is first to be laid open; and then the course used to right the Common-Wealth, and the Doctor therein.

After the Surveyors had made a return of their Survey of the Man­nour, Burrough, and Hundred of Wells, one John Casebeard, a Burgess of Wells, took upon him at first (without Order) to treat with the Con­tractors for sale of those Lands, in the name of the Corporation of Wells, for the purchase of certain Royalties of the late Bishop of Bath and Wells; upon which the said Contractors granted this Warrant following.

This was the only Warrant granted for a particular. Two days after which, the Corporation of Wells wrote a Letter to Casebeard: of which this is a true Copy.

This Letter, John Casebeard, being by the Contractors Ann. 1648. complained against to the Committee of Parliament for removing of obstru­ctions; produced to that Committee. Besides which Letter, the Corpo­ration sent up to London this Letter of Atturny following.

This Letter of Attorny, which inabled any two of the therein named Attornies, to Contract, being received; one of them adventured single upon the work, and Contracted as followeth.

This Contract, so refers to the first Particular, that without sight of that, no man can say punctually what was purchased: but rather what not was purchased, till that particular be produced. And whereas the Contract mentions the Bayliff-wick to be but 5 l. 13 s. 4 d. improvement, after three Lives in being, it agreeth not with the Survey, which saith it is 40 l. per annum.

This Contract lay (as the Contractors thought) sleeping, from the 15 of December, till the 15 of March following. In which time, the A­gents of Wells slept not; for they being told by somebody, that if they could but get the first Particular out of the Registers hands, and draw up and return another in the room, they might get much more into their Pur­chase and Conveyance, then they had indeed Contracted for. Which some, imployed in this Purchase, accordingly did. And in room of the first Par­ticular, the Particular here following (without any new Contract or war­rant from the Contractors) was thrust in, and brought to the Contra­ctors ( March 15.) to signe. The Contractors, being by Ordinance of Parliament to look no further then to the Registers hand affixed to the Particular, for their Warrant to signe the Contract made thereupon, they then used not to have the whole read again, but onely the sums for the Purchase to be paid; how much in Possession, and how much in Re­version, and how many yeers Purchase for both. Which done, they sign­ed it, and gave their Warrant to the Trustees, for passing a Conveyance accordingly.

The last Particular, which the Contractors signed in March 1647. ran thus:

According to which Warrants, the Trustees sealed a Conveyance of all the Premises to the Mayor, Masters and Burgesses of Wells aforesaid, word for word as the same is above expressed in the said forged Parti­cular. Which Conveyance bears date, Mar. 22. 1647. and being en­rolled in Chancery, needs not here to be recited. By vertue whereof the Corporation have seised and enjoyed all and every the premises, and sundry particulars belonging to the Mannor of Wells, and of Westbury too, because within the Hundred of Wells. How Dr. Burges fell into these bryars, and espoused the States quarrel with that Corporation.

About July 1648. Doctor Burges (having no hope to get his money (lent to the Parliament) in kinde) resolved to take it out in Bishops Lands. This being made known, some Parliament-men and others used all importunity to draw him on thereunto. Whereupon several Purchases were propounded to him; as Witney in Oxfordshire; Muncton-Farly in Wilts. Thornton-le more in Lincoln-shire; Another place in Warwick­shire, Paddington in Middlesex, Banwel in Somersetshire, &c. In every of which, some persons of note got before him.

At length, the same Parties that had propounded those other par­ticulars, put him upon buying the Mannor of Wells; to vvhich he vvas very hardly drawn, partly because many peeces thereof had been be­fore sold by parcels to others, which might occasion differences to an after Purchaser, and partly by reason of other great disadvantages that accrew to him that should purchase a Bishops Seat; but chiefly, because he saw it would cost much more than all his moneys lent to the Par­liament. Howbeit, through the incessant perswasions of friends, he did yeeld to make that purchase. The manner of his Proceeding in it, is here first briefly set down upon Oath made by a then Parliament man, that vvas very active for the State in discovering the frauds of the Agents of the Corporation of Wells, as he vvas a Member of that Com­mittee of Parliament for removing Obstructions, who ordered him so to do; And then followeth a more full Narration of the vvhole.

This contains a Brief of the Business from the yeer 1648. to the end of the yeer 1652. and therefore is here inserted, that the Readers may be satisfied both with the matter, and manner of proceeding, so far forth as that Affidavit extendeth.

Now that it may appear he hath deposed nothing but truth, here­unto is added a more full and distinct relation of the several steps of [Page 44] proceedings of the said Contractors and Committee of Parliament, con­cerning this business: as well as what after happened between the Cor­poration and the Doctor, when he coped with them upon the account of a Purchaser. Where first, take notice that the Doctor, having been at Wells to take view of what was there to be sold, had some conference with the then Maior, who refused to part with any thing comprised in their Conveyance. The Doctor therefore at his return to London, told the Contractors that he had no hope to recover any thing back which by words the Town had gotten into their Conveyance. The Contractors there­upon wrote this ensuing Letter.

This Letter being delivered, and taking none effect, the Contractors Certified to the Committee of Parliament for removing of Obstructions, as followeth:

Upon consideration had of this Certificate, the said Committee of Parliament issued an Order of Summons, Decemb. 28. 1648. Requiring the said Maior, Masters, and Burgesses to attend the Committee, by them­selves or by some others sufficiently instructed herein, within ten days after notice thereof, &c. to answer the premises: and hereof they were not to fail.

Order of Feb. 16 1648. Feb. 16. 1648. they appeared by some of their members and Coun­sel; and being heard, a Sub-Committee was appointed to examine the whole business at Gurny-House, and to State and report the same upon VVednesday following. Order of Feb. 27 1648. But this being not done, The Committee resu­med the matter upon the 27 of the same Month, and then it was Ordered that the Contractors should forthwith more particularly certifie what Royal­ties, Hereditaments, Liberties and appurtenances of the possessions of the late Bishop of Bath and Wells they intended to sell unto the Town of Wells, and for what sum. And likewise whether they did intend by any general words af­ter the first Contract Signed by the Agent for VVells, to sell unto the said Town any thing more then was comprehended in their Order of Contract and first Particular and Contract Signed by the said Agent? And whether any thing so sold unto the said Town, be any part or parcel of the Mannor of Wells, or of other the Possessions, Hereditaments, or Royalties belonging to the said Mannor? And, if any; what Possessions, Hereditaments or Roy­alties belonging to the said Mannor, they so sold.

This Order being transmitted to the Contractors, they certified as fol­loweth:

This being certified, It was Ordered that a Sub-Committee should draw up a Report of the whole business, to be by that Committee Re­ported to the Parliament, in case the Town of Wells, (some of them confessing the truth of that Certificate) should not forthwith relin­quish and reconvey the residue unduly thrust into their Conveyance. And then the said Contractors, and Committee of Parliament pressed Dr Burges to go on with the purchase of the Mannor of Wells; vvhich he accordingly did. For on the 16 of March then instant, he contracted for the Mannor of Wells, and for whatever else was then unsold that belonged to the late Bishop of Bath and VVells in or about VVells, in right of his said Bishoprick.

But before the Contract was signed, Colonel Web came to the Con­tractors with a Message from the Trustees, to des re them to beware what they did in selling the Mannor of Wells, and what else was the Bi­shops there; for that those Trustees were informed that there were divers things belonging to the said Bishop in and about Wells, that were not surveyed. Doctor Burges then desired him to instance what those things were; but none could be given. Whereupon the Doctor, ha­ving before met with some, &c. that, so soon as they heard he was about that purchase, sought to deter him from it, he took it to be some Artifice of theirs, to hinder his present proceeding. Therefore he first appealed to the Contractors and Register, whether they could upon a bare suggestion, refuse to sign a Contract made according to Ordinance of Parliament? They answered, No.

Doctor Burges then offered, that, whereas divers purchases of several things in and about Wells, had been made before his, if the Contractors [Page 49] would engage to allow him a Reprise for whatever should appear to be sold before, or not to be part of the premises for which he now Con­tracted, he would enter an engagement to them to pay for whatever more than was then Surveyed, should be after (within a fixed time then to be agreed upon) discovered, according to the rates at the Contract agreed upon. Provided he might have his Conveyance in such compre­hensive words, as might take in all, without a new Deed of purchase. The Contractors consented, and set six Moneths for the time of discovery. Dr Burges then signed the Contract, with this clause in it. On the 19 of that Moneth, the Contractors signed the Contract, which was to be ab­solute, according to the Particular, therefore they took no notice there­in of this Agreement. Yet, for discharge of their Trust, they after certified it to the Trustees, and gave the Doctor a Duplicate thereof, subscribed with their own hands, in these words:

This Certificate being transmitted to the Trustees, the next day the Trustees sealed unto Doctor Burges a Conveyance of the Mannor of Wells, with the Rights, Members and Appurtenances thereof in the Coun­ty of Somerset. And also all Rents of Assise, free Rents, customary Rents, or Copy-hold Rents, Rents seek, Rents service, Fee-Farm Rents and other Rents and yeerly sums of money whatsoever, to the said Mannor and Burough of Wells or either of them belonging or appertaining, &c. And also all and singular, the Messuages, Cottages, Tofts, Croffs, Mills, Houses, Edifices, buildings Orchards, Gardens, &c. to the said Mannor and premises, or any of them, or to any part or parcel of them or any of them belonging or appertaining. OR VVHICH the late Bishop of Bath and VVells, or any his Predecessors in right of the said Bishoprick at [Page 50] any time within Ten yeers before the beginning of this Parliament, or si­thence, had, held, or enjoyed, or ought to have held or enjoyed WITHIN the said Mannor and premises, or any of them.

And this they might very well do (authorized thereunto by the Contractors Warrant of March 19. 1648.) for that the Doctor had vo­luntarily entred into the engagement abovesaid, never put upon any other Purchaser, albeit their Conveyances ran in General words, as his did.

While this was a doing, Colonel Harvie by Order (as aforesaid) drew up the State of the whole business between the Corporation and the Contractors, to be after Reported to the Parliament (if need re­required) as followeth:

That he had Warrant for this Endorsement, (beside the Command of the present Commissioners) further appears by the Books of that Com­mittee of Parliament kept by the said Mr Noel, wherein is entred this following Remembrance.

On which day, this Order also was made, and after sent to Wells.

By this it is evident how unwilling the Committee of Parliament vvas to use extremity, in hastning a Report to the House; in that they vvould not so much as then Order the Report to be made to the Parli­ament, but only summoned two Agents of the Town to appear before themselves, to give Account of their miscarriages, thereby intending to awaken the Town to make satisfaction by a Reconveyance vvithout further trouble.

John Casebeard and Thomas Salmon being served vvith the Order of Summons, Mr Salmon procured a Letter of Attorney from the Corpora­tion, vvhich ran thus:

Upon this, Mr Salmon and Mr Morgan came to London. But, both the Contractors and the Committee of Parliament then told them, that now they must apply themselves to Doctor Burges Purchaser of the Mannor of Wells, and reconvey to him vvhat they had so unduly gotten into their Conveyance, and which he had now both bought and paid for. And here began the first business between the Doctor, and that Cor­poration.

For Mr Salmon hereupon came to Dr Burges, and made agreement [Page 57] with him according to what had been agitated in, and declared by the said Committee of Parliament, and desired it might be put into vvri­ting, promising that he and Mr Morgan would sign it. When the Agreement was drawn up, Mr Salmon, and Mr Morgan came again to the Doctor, who read over the whole unto them, and no exception was taken to it. Only Mr Morgan desired that, whereas the Paper then read, mentioned a Deed to be afterwards sealed by the Corporation to Dr Burges, as it should be advised and prepared by his Counsel ac­cording to that present Agreement; that, before sealing, it might be perused by Lislibone Long then Esquire (now Knight and Recorder of London:) not, to alter the Agreement, but to satisfie the Corporation that the Deed was according to their then present Agreement. To this, the Doctor innocently (but improvidently) yeelded; and so in the issue all came to Nothing. The Agreement was this:

According hereunto a Deed was drawn up, which being first perused by Robert Woolrich of Greys-Inn, and Matthew Hale of Lincolns-Inn Es­quires, [Page 60] and by them both attested under their hands to be agreeable to the foregoing Agreement, it was after tendred to several Maiors succes­sive to each other at Wells to seal. But they waved the Agreement, re­solving to hold what they had gotten; denying that they knew of any thing granted to them but what was really intended to be bought by them, (and they are confident was really intended by the Honorable Contractors to be sold unto them, and therefore conceived it lawful for to improve their best endea­vours for the enjoyment thereof. This, with much more, was sent in a Let­ter to the Doctor, in the name, and by the Order of the whole Society, Jan. 5. 1649. Signed by the Maior.

Mean while the said Committee of Parliament, minding their promise, and finding the business to be so foul, and that the Town would not Seal any Reconveyance, Order of Aug. 11. 1649. made an Order the 11 of August 1649, to the Ser­geant at Arms attending the Parliament, or his Deputy or Deputies, forth­with to apprehend the Body of John Casebeard, and to bring him up in safe custody, and him to keep in safe custody, until the said (first) Particular be brought in to the (Contractors) Registry, or that the said Casebeard do clear himself from any concealment or imbezelling of the same.

He was apprehended accordingly, but had a friend that first got him loose, not by Order but connivence, till the 14 of September 1651. Then he got his Liberty till the 15 of November following. Upon the 21 of which moneth, he alledging that the Town and Dr. Burges were agreed, he got an Order for his dismission that day seven-night, if nothing were further alledged to continue his restraint. Howbeit he was not dismis­sed till the 12 of December following, witness this Order.

But long before that, the same Committee of Parliament, finding the Corporation so pertinacious in holding what they had so unduly gotten, Ordered the former Report to be offered to the Parliament. The Order was this.

All this notwithstanding, nothing was offered nor done herein by the Corporation. Sundry Overtures and Letters were addressed to them by the Doctor, for an end. Divers References were made, wherein, two several times, all businesses were agreed. But the Corporation resol­ved to part with nothing: for having made friends, who understood not the case, to stand by them therein, they encroached dayly upon the Do­ctors Wasts, Commons, Pounds, Estrays, &c. threatning more. Especial­ly since they so strongly engaged sundry of the Souldiery (who were set to keep peace, not to intermeddle in differences, or to become par­ties in them) by sweating three Officers of one Troop (who had not any foot of Land, or other Estate within that Corporation) Burgesses of their Town. Then, Belly-gods, and every rayling Shimei gladly made it their business to run up and down to Gentlemens Houses; yea, any­whither, where any good chear was to be had, to make the Doctor odi­ous by false reports, where they supposed they could command belief of their confident tales. Yea, so far did some proud Wiselings of their Fa­ction proceed, that if any friend were but in any neighbourly manner familiar with the Doctor, or invited any of his to their Houses, they would take occasion to quarrel them for entertaining their enemies: in­somuch, that scarce any person of quality durst to own the Doctor, or to come near his house, much more to own his cause. All which, the Do­ctor bore, with what patience he could; knowing, that nothing but Net­tles and Bryers can be expected from Dung-hills.

That which remaineth, is a brief account of prosecuting that Report which was to have been made to the Parliament: but never could find opportunity to be reported there.

An Act passed, Octob. 12. 1652. to enable the present Commissioners for removing of Obstructions (among other things) to hear and determine all such reports of particular Cases, as by the late Committees of Parlia­ment for Obstructions were ordered to be made to the then Parliament. Which Act, gives them that power that never was in the Committee of Parlia­ment for Obstructions, or in any Court of Judicature, but onely in the Parliament it self, to redress those abuses that otherwise, in an ordinary course of Justice, were not to be cured.

This Act, the Doctor for two or three years made no use of; in hope the Corporation would at length be drawn to do him right; because such as were discreet and moderate among them, on all occasions professed themselves very inclinable to peace. But they frustrated his expectati­on: for the more he bore, the more was laid on him; which opened his eyes to see that they who began upon trifles, would (when they saw their time) proceed to seise upon more; yea, upon all that their [Page 62] general words might include. And this was no less, then all he had; ex­cept the soyl of the Mannor. For, they might on the same ground carry all his Rents, Fines for Copyholds, and Leases, Forfeitures, Lot-Lead, all his Courts of the Mannor; and, in a word, whatever else he could make one penny profit of. And all this, because it was within the Hun­dred of Wells, and late the possession of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, in right of his said Bishoprick.

The first difference began on their side, upon a small business: name­ly, their setting up Pens for Sheep at a Fair, against his Walls, in a place called South-over, which belonged always to him that kept the Bishops Park, purchased by Dr. Burges. Of this, when he had complained, the Corporation sent up a Certificate that they had made little of it, and that it should be restored, if it appeared to be the Doctors right. This being but a trifle, the Doctor passed it by, without farther contest.

After this, the Corporation claymed, and took fifty couple of wild Fowls due to the Bishop from the Decoy-pool near Westbury, because, within the Hundred of Wells. Which Fowls had been rated and sold to the Doctor, at 25 s. per annum. He being made acquainted therewith, forbad payment of any more to that Corporation: So also did, one Captain Bagnal, that after bought the Mannor of Westbury. The Corpo­ration, or their Agent, hereupon complained to the Committee of Parli­ament for Obstructions, for wrong done to them in denying these Fowls. Their Petition was preferred in the year 1651. as followeth.

By this it appeareth, that however the Corporation had bought onely [Page 63] the Royalties of the Burrough and Hundred of Wells, they meant to grasp all within the Hundred, that had been the Bishops. This also the Doctor then passed over, without much struggling, albeit the Con­tractors Certified to that Committee of Parliament; and afterwards, to the Commissioners for Obstructions, that they had sold those Wild fowls to Doctor Burges.

Not long after, they began to claim some Chambers over the Prison parcel of the Bishops House, (and never used with the Guild-Hall or Prison) upon pretence of their purchase of the Guild-Hall and Prison: which in the Report before cited, is denyed; and, by the said Committee of Parliament, Feb. 11. 1649. declared to be within the Doctors Purchase, of which they ordered him possession.

After this, they seised his Pound in Southover, discharged his Hey­ward, set another in the room, and have ever since detained it, and all Waives and Estrays at any time brought thither; resolving to keep it, although it be upon part of the Wast of his Mannor, and was ne­ver possessed or used by the Bayliff of the Burrough, but by the Reeve of the Mannor, till they so seised it; as appears by many Depositions of record in the High Court of Chancery, which make it parcel of the Mannor.

Nay, they wanted not some, who gave our that the Lot-Lead up­on Minedeep, which was rated and sold to the Doctor at 80 l. per annum, belonged to that Corporation. Yea, one of the most moderate among them told the Doctor, that it was conceived that all Fines also imposed by his Mineral Juries on Offenders upon Mendip, that were awarded to him as Lord of that Liberty and Mannor, belonged to the Corpora­tion, by vertue of their said Purchase. By all which it is evident, that they began with trifles, in hope the Doctor would not stand upon such poor things, which if they carryed, the way was open (when they saw opportunity) to proceed further, and to carry all the rest; which some among them did not forbear to threaten, and that loudly enough, as many persons of credit yet alive can testifie. And wherein soever he did but question them (not by Suites at Law, but by Discourse onely) they proclaimed him covetous, contentious, and one that claimed what was theirs, not his.

The Doctor now found it high time once more to endeavor to bring things to some issue and Conclusion in his life time, to prevent the un­avoydable Oppressions, which otherwise would after his decease, in all probability light on his Family, who knew little of the Difference, and less, how to defend their Right against such Adversaries. He therefore resolved before he began any Suite at Law against the Corporation, to write once more to a Leader among them (and a chief instrument at first of all these differences) Mr Thomas Salmon, in hope that he be­ing a Magistrate of the Town, and (in common repute) an honest man, would do his endeavour to put an end to all Controversies; the rather, because he was one of their Atturneys and Deputies to make and seal the [Page 64] Agreement with the Doctor above recited. For the non-performance whereof, the Doctor had before called him and the rest into the Chan­cery; where, in their Answer, the Corporation denyed their Letter of Attorney, as to ending any differences with the Doctor; and Morgan and Salmon, in their Answers, pleaded they were surprised; which is a gross untruth. The Letter which the Doctor wrote, was this:

They answered the 27. of that Moneth by their Town-Clerk John Stan­dish (as scorning, or ashamed to give it themselves) That the Doctors Let­ter had been offered and read to the Maior and the rest at their Chequer, to which they commanded him to give this Answer.

This was Declaration enough of their purposes to hold all that they had so fraudulently gotten into their Deed of Purchase. What will not such men speak of the Dr. to others, that can have the forehead to write thus to himself, to justifie themselves in seizing upon what they never bought; and, to charge him with intruding on their proper Rights and Interests, for demanding his own, as both the Contractors and Committee of Parliament had expresly declared long before?

They confess several References, and justifie the Referrees; and tax the Doctor as not satisfied with what the Referrees had done: whereas the Agreements made, were sent down to themselves, and there stifled and buried: their Referree, Sir Lislibone Long having told the Doctors Re­ferree, that the Corporation did not like those Agreements, as is before at­tested upon Oath. Let any man judge where those restless humors, that will not once receive satisfaction, are lodged.

And is it not a peece of great honesty and gallantry (well becoming such a Corporation that would by no means be undervalued) to charge the Doctor, to be their Common Enemy, and to put him to bear the whole charge of the Referrees meetings; and then, to tell him, that if any promise were made for repayment, he might look after it: that is, where he could get it. Whereas the promise was made by one of themselves in behalf of all, in their own business; and, by their own appointment, Referred.

They indeed, in the close, deal plainly. For, in this answer of theirs, [Page 66] Sect. 6. They tell him, That they intend NOTHING LESS then really to perform what Conclusion either the joint Counsel, or Referrees shall indiffe­rently consider of, or adjudge between them and him. And verily, this only he hath found to be true all along. Therefore finding a necessity of it, he did commence a suit against some of their Officers and Agents, in Hillary Term 1655. in which he and the Defendants joyn­ed issue: but he forbore the Trial, to see if by any fairer way he might at length reduce them to Reason.

But, before that time, even in the end of the yeer 1654. after he had received that answer last mentioned from the Town, he Petitioned the Honorable Committee for removing Obstructions, to Hear and Determine the Report that was to have been made to the Parliament in this Cause, accord­ing to the Power given them by that Act of Parliament, Octob. 12. 1652. Summons being granted the 9 of May 1655. they appeared, and were heard June 20. then next following. The said Report being read, was Referred to Mr. Jukes, of Counsel for the Commonwealth with the Trustees for the sale of the said Lands, to peruse the said Report, and all such papers, Orders, Affidavits, and Writings as should be offered un­to him by parties concerned on either side, and to state the whole Case in diffe­rence, and make Report therein by the 4 of July then next. And for bet­ter stating of the Case, that Edward Noel their Clerk, should transmit unto the said Counsel, all such Papers, Orders, Affidavits, and Writings remaining with him touching the premises, as should be thought meet by the said parties concerned, or either of them.

But the Agents for the Corporation who were present at the making of this Order (perceiving that this course would not be for their advan­tage) went the very next day (unknown to the Doctor) to the Con­tractors for the sale of Bishops Lands, and delivered in these Lines:

Upon the 30 of that month of June, both sides appeared. All papers and writings were brought in. Mr. Jewkes examined all: and afterwards Certified as followeth.

And underneath this Copy is written thus:

This is attested by Mr Noel to be a true Copy.

This Report being read the fourth of July 1655. before the said Com­missioners for Obstructions, in presence of both parties; and afterwards fully debated, this following Order was made.

On the sixth of July then instant, the Contractors sitting, Doctor Bur­ges delivered to them the Order last foregoing. But the whole being now under a Reference, Doctor Burges first desired the Contractors to ask the Agents of Wells then present, if they had any Letter of Attorney impow­ring them to submit to a Reference? they answered, No. The Doctor then told them, it was in vain to proceed till they were impowred here­unto, for that the Town would stand to no Reference, if they liked not the Conclusion.

It was answered, That they would no doubt ere long obtain power to submit to it. The Doctor then desired all might be respited till that time. Only he gave in a Writing to testifie his submission, so far as the business was before the said Commissioners for Obstructions; saving to himself, the rest. This was not accepted. Upon this, both parties were dismissed sine die. No word was then spoken of the Towns intention to make a new purchase, nor of the Warrant made for a Particular, wherein it was [Page 70] ordered, that the Doctor should be heard; which he was not, until they had made their second purchase.

In August 1655. the Town desired Mr. Dodington, their then Recorder, to treat with the Doctor about their differences. This Mr. Doddington accordingly did. The Doctor freely yeilded to the Town (for he had never questioned it) All Royalties of VVells, and Wells Hundred, the two fairs of Priddy and Bineger, the collecting of all Post-fines, and amerce­ments issuing out of the Exchequer, the Leets or Law-days, and three weeken Courts, and Courts of Record, the four Fairs in VVells after three lives in being, the Markets and Bayliffwick.

The things he stood upon to have, were, All their claim to, and title and interest in any part of the Mannor of Wells, with the Rights, Members and Appurtenances; and himself and Tenants to be vvholy freed from all Jurisdiction of the Corporation: also the Guild Hall and Prison, vvhich ever belonged to the Lord of the Mannor, and vvas not really purchased by them, nor could be, it being not returned till after their Contract: all hawking, hunting, fishing, fowling, vvithing his Mannor: all Pounds, Waives and Strayes there, all Deodands, Felons Goods, &c. happening on his Mannor, the Ways and Streets, and soyle thereof, &c. all Courts Baron, and Minery Courts within his Mannor.

Mr. Doddington asked if this were all? the Doctor answered, Yea: then said Mr. Doddington, We will have an end of these to your content: I will come again to Wells this Summer, and put a Conclusion to it. But he came not. Whereupon Doctor Burges waited upon him at Lincolns-Inn, about the midst of October following; and it was there agreed, that on Friday seven-night after, Mr. Doddington should come to the Doctors lodging, and make a full end of all.

But before that day, the Town sent up by Mr. Standish and David Bar­ret a Letter of Atturny dated Octob. 22. 1655. to Authorize him, them and some others to answer all the Doctors complaints, and Objections: to buy the Burrough rents, Baylywick and whatever was then unsold: but not one word of submitting to the Co [...]tractors: taxing the Do­ctor with causless contests, &c. and justifying themselves in all that they had claimed and usurped.

Being come to London, they forthwith acquainted Mr. Doddington here­with; and no perswasions of his for ending of the Controversies in the way wherein he and the Doctor agreed, could prevail; but, before the Doctor knew any thing of their intentions of a new purchase, they Contracted, upon the 26 of October then instant (which was but the fourth day after the date of the Letter of Attorney) for the Bayliffwick, the Guild Hall and Prison, the Burrough Rents, and seven Canonical Houses in Wells (com­prised within the Doctors first purchase; and which he often offered to pay for, had it been accepted on the terms contained in his first Contract) ne­ver giving him notice that he might have been heard, as they had been ordered to do, June 21. 1655.

This now began more Broyles and sharp Contentions on their parts, [Page 71] which were after tryed at the Common Plea's Bar, where the Doctor had fair Justice done him by the honourable Court, and Jurors. Howbeit, by the failer of some Witnesses who came not; but especially, by means of a desperate Oath made by one that was a party, who knew what he sware to be false, a Verdict and Judgment passed against the Doctor, and he was thereupon outed of those Houses, &c. But the Narration of the foul carriage of the Agents of that Corporation in that whole business, is not here intended. Onely this may be taken notice of, that whereas they were referred to a Trial at Law, by the Commissioners for Obstructions, June 23. 1655. upon the account of their said second purchase alone; they, at the Trial, produced onely their first Conveyance dated in March 1647. to prove their Title to the Chambers over the Prison; and, upon that, carried them (even after those rooms had been adjudged to the Doctor by the Committee of Parliament for Obstructions, in the year 1649.) albeit they had not, till seven years after, indeed purchased the Prison under those Chambers.

With this Conquest, the Corporation, their Agents, Officers and Te­nants vvere so flesht, that now they supposed they might do any thing against the Doctor; insomuch as it grew to a common speech, that who­ever hath any trial vvith him, may be sure to carry it, be the Cause what it vvill. And upon this account, their Agents came upon his Land, took away a Mare (vvhich they might, vvith as good vvarrant, have robbed him of) upon an illegal Presentment, touching the repair of a Bridge (of vvhich he never heard word, till the time set for re­pairing, vvas expired:) for vvhich Mare he took a Replevin, granted by their own Steward; but Mr Mead (the arch-incendiary between them and him) denyed the execution of it, and caused the Mare to be kept in a secret place vvhere the Doctor might not come at her, nor know where she vvas.

Doctor Burges vvaited a while, to see if the Corporation vvould right him. But they owned all; for having kept her from him, from July 1657. till April 1658. they then sold her. And, vvhen the Buyer (fearing belike, he might be questioned) craved a Certificate of his buying of her, This Certificate was given him.

Not content with this, they endeavoured to draw in one Amur, a young fellow of very mean condition, that newly set up the Trade of a Carpenter, or mungrel-Joyner, to buy not onely the Guild-Hall and [Page 72] Prison, but the Chambers or Rooms over the Prison. The Doctor hearing of it, sent for him, and let him know, it would not be safe for him to purchase things in Controversie: and that, albeit they had gotten it by a Trial at Law, yet he meant not so to give it over.

Amur thank't the Doctor for this friendly premonition, and promised not to purchase it. But afterwards he vvas so far drawn in, that he did purchase the said Guild-hall, Prison and Chambers over it (as he hath since said) of the said Corporation, (who had forfeited that, and all the rest of their second purchase, above two yeers before.) And vvhen he had got Possession of it, he did so affront the Doctor, both in vvords and deeds, as (it is doubted) vvill in the issue fall too heavie upon himself. And for all, he pretends the Order and Warrant of the Cor­poration.

These affronts, seconded with perpetual scorns, derisions, and ray­lings, (especially by one Bridger,) inforced him upon mature advice, to commence some Suites at Law against their Agents; yet not one half so many, as their bold Town-Clerk, and Mr Mead, more suo (it being af­ternoon) averred to the Commissioners for Obstructions, in June 1658.

But the Doctor, remembring how much it still concerns him to seek peace and to pursue it, even vvhen it flies most from him, forbore a Tryal at Law for that present, and petitioned the honourable Commis­sioners for removing of Obstructions, to hear and determine all differences between him and that Corporation. Summons thereupon issuing, in May last, The Corporation, by their Agents and Counsel appeared be­fore the said Commissioners, the 23 of June last, and were heard.

See the Order June 23. 1658.AT vvhich hearing, the Counsel for the Town alledged, That there had been a Tryal in the Case, at the Common Plea's Bar by consent; and upon that Tryal, the Town of Wells obtained a Verdict, Judgment, and Execution; and that the said Tryal was (by like consent) to be final, as to the Tenements in question between them; and produced a Rule of the said Court, to that purpose and effect; and that the Peti­tioner hath divers Actions depending at Law; and therefore moved that the whole matter might be left to Law.

But, Doctor Burges being present, alledged that he was vvilling to stand to the judgements of the said Commissioners upon the vvhole matters in Difference, and to vvave proceedings at Law. And that his present Addresses to them, vvere, for Hearing and Determining of a Report Ordered by the Committee for removing Obstructions to have been Reported to the Parliament; and, by the Parliament Referred to their determination. That he insisted not upon the Title of those Houses vvhich by their Order vvas referred to Law, and there tryed; unless of those Canonical Houses and Burrough Rents adjudged to him by former Orders of the said late Committee. And prayed a Confir­mation of the Orders of the said late Committee of Parliament for preventing of further Suites, &c. Upon consideration of all which, and of what vvas further offered on both sides, It vvas Ordered, that the [Page 73] (said) Cause between the said Doctor Burges, and the Mayor, Masters, and Burgesses of Wells, their Agents and Tenants (should) be taken in­to Consideration on Friday, the 12 of November (then) next, in the forenoon, the said Dr Burges having given his Consent that all pro­ceedings at Law, concerning any matter to be heard by them (the Com­missioners) should be stayed in the mean time, Mr White of Counsel for the Defendants being present taking notice of this Order.

But vvhen this was Ordered, the Commissioners, at the same time advised, that all Differences might in the mean time, be, by some reference, ended by friends; Doctor Burges taking hint from thence, held it his duty to at­tempt this, yet once more, as well knowing that the determining of Controversies by consent, ever produceth a more firm and lasting peace, than a forced Conclusion. Therefore he made his Addresses to their greatest friend, the Lord Disbrow; and obtained of his Lordship, first a perusal of most of the Orders and Papers before recited, by which he might be fully enformed of the true State of the Cause; and then, a recommendation of it to friends in these words:

This, by his Lordships direction was brought to him Jul. 1. of which he desired a Copy to be given by himself to the other side; which was done, and delivered to them ere he Signed the Paper before set down: for he did not Sign it until July 5. So soon as the Doctor got home to Wells, he gave notice thereof to the Maior; and shortly after, attended the Maior at his house for prosecuting of this course. Their Recorder and Town-Clerk, then present, said, that they told the Lord Dis­brow when they received the Paper from him, that as touching the Hou­ses by them recovered at Law (the trial being to be final, by consent) the Corporation could not refer them, because there was now no diffe­rence between them and the Doctor; and therefore no Reason they should be referred: and that his Lordship thought so too.

To this the Doctor answered, that his Lordship spoke nothing to him of such an exception, when he Signed the Reference, after they had so spoken unto him. But he must insist upon those, as now the chief diffe­rence: because albeit the Trial was by consent, to be final; yet this was only to assure the Court in which it was tried, that they should be no more troubled therewith: nor did he ever consent upon such an account, that if the Cause were carried by a false Oath (as that was) he should never seek justice elsewhere: it being very well known, that no con­sent or Order in one Court, can bind up any man from seeking remedy in another.

The Maior promised to acquaint his Brethren with it at a Chequer, which he accordingly did; and having read the Paper of Reference to them Signed by the Lord Disbrow, they thereupon made this following Order.

Upon this, Mr. Maior and Dr. Burges agreed upon a Letter to be drawn up, and Signed by them both, and after sent to each of the four Gentlemen before named in the Reference (together with a Copy thereof) which was sent by one of the Corporation and one of the Do­ctor's sons (going together) to every one of them, as followeth.

On Thursd. Aug. 5. Mr. Roll, Mr. Buckland and Mr. Harrington met accor­dingly; the Maior, Recorder, Town-Clerk, and Mr. Thomas Mead (A­gents for the Town) were present. These Agents first pressed Dr. Bur­ges to give in a Paper in writing, of the differences between him and the Town, before Bonds (which the Town-Clerk had drawn) were sealed, or the Umpire chosen: which the Dr. for a while refused, because the first thing to be done was the chusing of an Umpire, and Sealing the Bonds: but they still insisting upon giving in the Heads of the differen­ces, the Dr. gave in these:

In the draught of the Bond that was to be sealed by the Corporation, no particular persons were named in it; but it runs thus: We the Maior, Masters and Burgesses, &c. Doctor Burges excepted against this, and de­sired their several names might be expressed in the Bond: for that a Bond being a personal security, could not after be put in suit against any person or persons, but such as are here named in it. This spent some time in [Page 76] Dispute. But upon the motion of one of the Referrees, it was at length resolved, That the Bonds then drawn up should be sealed, de bene esse, till the Doctor should be satisfied by Counsel. And, if Counsel should de­clare such Bond to be invalid, the Town should seal another. Then Mr. Harrington was requested by the other two Gentlemen (who intended to return to their homes that night) to receive and keep the Bonds on both sides till the Doctor had at the approaching Assizes, or elsewhere, received satisfaction from his Counsel. The Bonds were to be sealed the next morning, and Mr. Harrington agreed to receive them.

On the same fifth of August, the Agents for the Town, when they had read the Differences given in by the Doctor, they excepted against the second, as being now no Difference, seeing it had been concluded by a Trial at Law, which by consent was to be final. The Doctor repeated what he had before spoken in private to the Maior in answer thereunto; adding this, That so soon as the Umpire was chosen, and the Bonds sealed, they might, if they pleased, urge this to the Referrees, without prejudice: for when these Gentlemen had heard the reasons on both sides, they would easily judge whether that were now a difference or not. And if they found cause to adjudge it to be none, they knew the Doctor would be fast enough bound to stand to that Declaration as part of the Award.

This at the present seemed to satisfie: but these things were so long in debate, that nothing more could be done that day, but onely to order the preparing of the Bonds against the next morning.

Friday being come, August 6. Mr. Buckland (who went not home on Thursday night as he had intended) and Mr. Harrington met again in the same place, expecting the sealing of the Bonds. But insteed thereof, the Maior, the Town-Clerk, and two Gentlemen more of the Town, told the Referrees, That the Corporation had that morning met, and resolved, That neither now, nor hereafter would they become bound to the Doctor by their personal named: and that they were now also re­solved, That their second purchase should not be referred as a Difference, but be excepted out of the Reference, in the Condition of the Bonds.

Dr. Burges then pressed the Agreement made the day before, for altering the Bond, if by Counsel it should be found to be of no force. And next, that the putting such an exception in the condition of the Bond, was not at all mentioned on the Thursday. And if they excepted that difference, it must needs argue their dissidence in the Gentlemen joyntly chosen to arbitrate the whole; yea, that if before Bonds were sealed, the Corporation would thus limit and bind up their own Agents, there could not be any hope of their standing to any thing debated and determined by those Gentlemen.

Hereupon the Doctor drew up and delivered a second paper, at the same time, to the said Mr. Buckland and Mr. Harrington, in the presence of the other side; which Paper contained the same Heads of Differences he had given in the day before: whereunto he added the following Lines, viz.

The Agents for the Town pleaded that their hands were bound up, so that they could not yeild hereunto. Presently after, the Gentlemen brake up that meeting, and never more met about it. Whereupon the Doctor having drawn up the short Narrative foregoing in Writing of the Proceedings at that time, the Gentlemen were pleased to certifie the truth thereof thus.

Mr. Roll did the like for so much as passed on the Thursday, Aug. 5.

This Reference (as all other before had done) coming to nothing, the Doctor was now necessitated to attend the honourable Commissioners for removing of Obstructions, for an Hearing at Worcester House, Nov. 12. according to their last Order. But some of the Commissioners be­ing then absent, the Hearing was put off until the 25 of November, which was no ordinary sitting day, but assigned on purpose for that only business, that nothing might intervene to interrupt them in the full hearing of it.

That day being come, both sides, with their Counsel, attended. The honourable Commissioners entered upon the Cause a little after three of clock, which held until past eight at night. And having fully heard both sides, and after debated the whole alone by themselves, they made this following Order.

On the same 25 of Nov. the said Commissioners made another Order, in another Difference between the Doctor and that Corporation: (in confirmation of a former Order of May 8. 1650. made therein by the forecited Committee of Parliament, upon a full hearing of that Case, in presence of both parties, and upon examination of the said Do­ctors conveyance) after hearing of both parties again, and of what could be alleadged by Counsel on behalf of the said Maior, Masters and Burgesses, That the said Maior, Masters and Burgesses do pay unto the said Dr. Burges, the Arrears of the said Rent be­hind and unpaid, and continue the payment of the said yeerly Rent to the said Doctor Burges, according to the said former Order. And the said Dr. Burges be allowed Costs upon a Bill to be brought in upon Oath.

Since which time, Oath hath been made of serving these Orders upon the present Maior of Wells; and of sending to him a Deed ingrossed and attested by Mr. Jewks to have been drawn by his Advice, for the said Corporation to Seal; and of a demand made of the said Rents and Arrears, on the 11 of Dec. last. All which the said Maior promised to impart to the rest of his Brethren, who thereupon appointed some of their Members to treat with the Dr. with whom a Treaty was had in a friendly manner, and great hope was conceived of a fair end of all. But when ( Jan. 1.) the Dr. sent a second time for the said Rent and Arrears, the Maior answered, that he was commanded by the House (that is, the Corporation) to return this Answer, That the Corporation would pay neither rent, nor arrears: nor did they think fit to seal the said Conveyance.

The Dr. sent again to him, to tell him that he would not take that for a final answer, for that they had yet a full week more allowed by the Order for sealing the Deed: and therefore out of his earnest desire of peace, he prayed the Maior to call one Chequer more, and to con­sider better of that matter, before they returned their last Answer by which they meant to stand. The Maior did so. After which, several of them treated with the said Dr. again. But then, they insisted upon his Sealing of a Deed to them to confirm their second purchase of the Burrough Rents, Baylywick, Guild-Hall and Prison, and the 7 Canonical Houses, by them purchased, Ann. 1655.

All vvhich, the Doctor had before petitioned the honourable Com [...]missioners for Obstructions to hear and determine; and after, desired [...] Refer that whole business to four Gentlemen, chosen by both Parties [...] decide all Differences: they refused both, as being before dete [...]mined by Law, as before is set forth. Nor were these things now b [...]fore the said Commissioners; but, Referred to the Law. The Doct [...] further made it evident, that he should be very greatly damnified, if b [...] any Act of his (after he had sold those Houses) he should confirm an a [...]ter purchase thereof to them; which the Town had unduly procured a clancular way, without acquainting him therewith before their Con [...]tract, as they were Ordered to do. And so they refuse to obey bo the said Orders.

Which contempt they are animated unto, by their Agents Mr Thom [...] Mead, and John Standish, as also by their present Mayor, and su [...] others of that Corporation, as they could draw to side with them. [...] may appear thus: Mr Mead and Standish, have had an allowance of 6 apeece per diem, for following this business against the Doctor; an [...] upon that account, gotten Grants of most things purchased by th [...] said Corporation, to satisfie that salary; (albeit it be too well known, t [...] at the same time, they came up to London in businesses of their ow [...] vvhich vvould have forced them to keep Terms here, although the Co [...]poration had not imployed them.) Now, they seeing that if the Tow had submitted to those Orders, that submission would not only have p [...] an end to their gaining by these Contentions, but perhaps outed them several things granted to them by the Town: Therefore on the sa [...] 25 of Novemb. last, so soon as the honorable Commissioners had declar [...] themselves, and Ordered what is before recited, the said Agents, befo [...] they went out of the Room where this Cause was heard and Ordere [...] were over-heard to say, that they would warrant, That the Corporati [...] of Wells should never obey those Orders.

And the said Mead, after the first Treaty had with the Doctor in Wel [...] said further, in the hearing of divers persons, that the Doctor hoped th [...] Town vvould do what the said Orders injoyned; but he would be d [...]ceived. And being then told, that if the Town obeyed not the Order course would be taken to send Messengers for such as refused; Me [...] replyed, That before the Doctor could procure that, they would brin [...] it into the Parliament, and there they would have men that should de [...] well enough with him; or words to that effect. And when the sai [...] Mead was again chosen at another Chequer to treat a second time wit [...] the Doctor, be refused, as displeased at any more Treaties for peace.

And the Mayor (upon an old grugdge) while he made fair shews of de [...]siring several Treaties, to make a peaceable Conclusion, dealt under hand with John Casebeard (often before mentioned) (to undertake th [...] business again, as he had formerly done) against the Doctor, before he re [...]turned the Answer of the Corporation to the Doctor, as the Doctor hat [...] been credibly told by one that will make Oath of it, if need require.