SOme deny that there is, or can be any such sin, as Sacrilege, under the Gospel; being confident that nothing is now due to Gospel-Ministers, but by humane Laws, Prescription, or Custom. But this, being a palpable error, deserves to be exploded with contempt, rather then seriously confuted. Others, in another extreme, stretch Sacrilege so far, as to involve every man in that sin, that deviates from their constitutions; or any way offendeth about persons, places, or things Consecrated by men, and by them called Holy, although never made such by Gods Ordination.

Thus, the Roman Emperors declare the violation of their Imperial Laws to be Sacrilege; and fasten that Crime on all that wilfully neg­lect, or knowingly break them L. un. c. de Crim. Sacril. l.6. de Appel. C Thendos. Now albeit this be not admitted as a truth; yet, their Power of making Laws, giving sanction to them, being from God Rom. 13. I. they had more colour for such stigmatizing the breach of their Constitutions, than He, who cannot justly pretend to any such Commission. I mean, the Pope, who delivereth for Do­ctrines of God, his own Commandments, making them binding Laws even to the consciences of men, in this very particular. Hence, most of the commonly received opinions and assertions touching Sacrilege, have taken rise; and he is accounted a man of no reading, or learning, that shall dare to contradict, or confute them.

The Canon-Law and Canonists extend it to the taking away, wasting, invading, or purloining of any thing consecrated or given by men un­to God; whether it be man, beast, field, or ought else once consecra­ted [Page 2] by man: which consecration (in their account) makes it to be San­ctum Sanctorum Domino, most Holy to the Lord Decreti. pars 2. caus. 12 q. 2. c. 3. Nidli liceat ignorare.; Whether there be, or be not any Word, or Warrant from God, or the Magistrate, for such Dedications: of which Law, it is not lawful for any man to be ignorant.

Upon this sandy foundation, the School-men, Summists, and Ca­suists, erect their Definitions and Discourses of Sacrilege: and (ac­cording to the interest of their several parties) they draw all their lines: making the Canon Law their Circle; and the profit and ad­vancement of the Pope-holy Church, their Center.

He that, in his time was the greatest Gamaliel of the Civil and Ca­non-Law Mart. ab Aspilq. Dr. Navarr. to. I. Tract. de Reddit. Ec­cles. pag. 264. monit. 18., hath succinctly extracted the Quintessence of most of those Writers, who make three sorts or kinds of things to be Sacred or Holy; against each of which, Sacrilege may be committed: sacred Persons, sacred Places, and sacred Things; which last is subdivided in­to four species, or sorts: holy Sacraments, holy Vessels, holy Orna­ments, and holy Goods, for maintenance of all the former persons, places, and things.

Thus, Aquinas 2 2 q. 99., Alexander of Hales Part. 2. q. 168., Hostiensis Lib. 5. c. de Crim. Sacril. l. 1. de Offic., Linwood Archipresb. C. Ignor. Sa­cerd. verb. Sacril., Bo­naventure To 6. Cea tiloq. Sect. 30., Azorius Moral. 1. 9. c. 29., and sundry others, do all deliver themselves in the main, (although with some differences in some particulars) and all, or most, out of the Canon Law, or Civil; alledging few Scriptures, but what they find quoted in the Canon Law. Out of all which toge­ther, it will appear, that any violation by irreverence, done to Sacred Persons, is generally held by them to be the greatest Sacrilege; whe­ther it be striking, defiling by fornication, or otherwise slighting, or a­busing of their Priests, Nuns, or other Votaries, or Church-Officers; the casting off of holy Orders, the recalling of any Vows what­soever.

In the next place, the profanation, or irreverence done to holy Places, whether Churches, Chappels, or Church-yards; by commit­ting fornication, or adultery in them; by stealing ought out of them, although the things so stolen be not consecrated, or holy, but onely common; the carnal knowledge that a man may have of his wife, in any of those places; the taking thence of any Malefactors, fled thi­ther for sanctuary; unless in some very few cases, with consent of the Priest or Ordinary; the negotiating of any Civil affairs in them; buy­ing, selling, acting of Enterludes, and other common exercises (such as, Logical, or Philosophical Disputations, &c.) the bringing of a mans goods, and eating and drinking there, unless in case of invasion, or sudden fires; the alienating, or applying of them to Common, Ci­vil, or private uses, upon any reason whatsoever; Yea, although they be no longer used for Divine Worship, but wholly deserted, ruined, and no more repaired.

[Page 3] From persons and places, they proceed to Things, among which, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, is chief; by them called the Sacra­ment of the Altar, Propitiatory Sacrifice, &c. the polluting whereof, by not adoring their Host, by irreverent and unworthy receiving, &c. is, with them, Sacrilege (although they account it no Sacrilege, to rob the people of the Cup;) the not admitting of their Additional Sacra­ments; The alienating, detaining, converting to common uses, any Vessels, Vestments, Relicks, Images, Goods, or Lands, upon any account given to the Church, or to Religious houses (as they call them) which God never required at their hands, nor gave them warrant, or di­rection for the donation of them, is by them pronounced and de­clared to be Sacrilege, which hardly any satisfaction can expiate, un­less it be to the great gain of such as teach men so, and reap the whole profit thereof.

That sundry of these, are great sins, is willingly granted: but, that they are all Sacrilege; or, that some of them are any sins at all, is deni­ed. Hence, Hales Ubi su­pra, mcm. 1. and others of the acuter School-men, are for­ced to distinguish of Sacrilege, that it is taken sometimes properly; sometimes according to common (and improper) use of the Word. What sin is it, to beat a quarrelling Priest, when he is drunk, or other­wise taken abusing his neighbours wife, &c. to recal an unwarrantable and rash Vow, such as that of Jephte? the not worshipping of their breaden Idol, the not admitting of more than two Sacraments? the a­cting of some Civil, or Scholastick businesses, in Church-yards, or Churches, when the publick Worship or service of God is not thereby hindred, or prejudiced? the imploying of the stones, or other mate­rials of desolated, ruined, and deserted Fabricks of Churches, to pri­vate uses, &c. to pass by other particulars.

To make the mistakes of the Canonists, School-men, and of all that follow them in their Definitions or Descriptions, and Discourses of Sa­crilege, yet more Demonstrative and conspicuous; Consider, 1. the Etymology of the word, and the use of it in holy Writ: 2. the nature of Sacrilege properly so called.

1. Touching the Etymon, or true signification of the word, Sacri­lege is borrowed immediately from the Latine, Sacrilegium, as all a­gree. But, this being a compound, there is some difference among the Learned, touching the simple words of which it is compounded. That Great Irrefragable Dr. Alexander of Hales Par 2. q. 168. m. 1., Etymologizeth it thus: Dicitur Sacrilegium, quasi Sacriledium, eò quod laedit sacrum. Sacrilege is so called, as if one should say, Sacrilaede, because it doth wrong or hurt somewhat that is sacred..

Hence perhaps, his famous Scholar and Pupil, Thomas Aquinas, de­scribes Sacrilege to be a vice whereby reverentia rei sacrae debita viola­tur 2. 2 q. 99 in Axiom.. The violating of that reverence which is due to a thing sacred: [Page 4] as if the word signified rather an affronting of it, in point of reverence and honour, than an usurping or stealing of the thing it self. But see­ing the same Angelical Doctor (as he is stiled) presently after, in laying down his first conclusion Ar. 1. Ibid., (grounded upon an Etymology of Isidore, of which, more by and by) defines Sacrilege to be sacrae rei violatio, a violating of something which is sacred; taking violation in a large sense Ibid. 2. m.; and, by sacred, meaning that which ad divinum cultum or­dinatur Ibid. co. p., is ordained, appointed, or disposed to, or for Divine Wor­ship: I shall pass by that first Description of Aquinas, and that Etymo­logy of Hales, as being more witty, than sound.

Others, more rightly take the word Sacrilege to be compounded of Sacrum and Lego, which signifies unduly to grasp to a mans private use a thing that is sacred, by way of Vsurpation, or Robbery. Thus, the Civil Law terms him Sacrilegious, a Sacrilegious Person, qui publica sacra compilavit l. 6. & l. 9. F ad L. Jul. pecul., that hath heaped up (for his own use) sacred things by stealth. So Isidore of Sivil: Sacrilegus dicitur ab eò quod sacra le­git, id est, furatur Origin. seu Etym. l. 10. c 18.: he is said to be Sacrilegious, who gathereth, that is, stealeth things sacred. To the same effect, Brissonius, Servius in 9. E­olog. Virg., and many more.

Here, by the way, take notice, that, according to the Genuine and Original signification of the word, all Sacrilege is theft, or thievish V­surpation; yet, all theft is not Sacrilege: for Sacrilege is a thieving, or stealing of things that are sacred; but theft is of common things not at all consecrated. Hence, Hales Ibid. q. 99. m. 2. stateth the difference between furium, peculatum, & Sacrilegium. The robbing of a private person, of any common (that is, unconsecrated) commodity, is properly fur­tum, or thievery: the robbing of the publick Treasury of a City; or the sophisticating or imbasing the Publick Coyn, is (according to the Civil Law) termed Peculatus, or more publick wrong by robbery: onely the purloyning, imbezelling, or taking away of things truly and rightly sacred, makes the theft to be Sacrilege, in the construction of all exact Etymologists.

And as this is the proper signification of the Latine word; so is it also, of the Greek words; [...], by all translated Sacrilege; that is, active Sacrilege, or the act it self. So is it, of the Verb [...], to commit Sacrilege: hinc, [...], which signifies a thing gotten by Sacrilege; or, Sacrilege committed: and [...], a Sacrilegist, or Sacrilegious person H. S. The­saur.: that is, who stealeth from God somewhat that was sacred, wherein God had a special propriety. Thus, Basil the Great [...] makes him [...], a Sacrilegious person, [...] that hath once devoted himself to God, (suppose, as a Minister, or the like) and afterwards by a kind of petulancy, recoiles, or betakes himself to another course of life, withdrawing himself as it [Page 5] were by theft, and taking from God what was before by himself given to God; and thereby, become his.

Thus, having seen the Etymologie of the word Sacrilege, as it is a compound word; before we leave it, some further and more peniti­ous enquiry must yet be made into the proper, strict, and genuine signi­fication of the word sacrum, or sacred, unto which the theft of Sacri­lege is properly limited and confined. Herein the learned and acute Isidore, Bishop of Sivil in Spain, (above a thousand years sithence) will give us good help. For he distinguisheth, and sheweth the difference between Sacrum, Religiosum, and Sanctum Lib. Dis­serent. lit. s.. That is sacred, which is truly Gods own: that Religious, which pertains to Religious men: and that Holy, which is consecrated 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, (to wit, so called by men) is not sacred. Not that these two words are not sometimes promis­cuously used: but, that there is a difference between them, in pro­priety of speech, which must be observed by such as would be exact in the use of them in a Definition. This, to Lovers of Antiquity, and Philology, hangs out a good light, to lead them to the more exact dis­quisition and search into the nature of the sin of Sacrilege, according to the sense and acceptation of the holy Scriptures, and the best Antiqui­ty; which is the thing here intended to be held forth.

For, all Sacrilege must needs refer to somewhat truly sacred, in sense of Scripture. Hence even those School-men that were out, in ex­tending the Sin of Sacrilege beyond Scripture-bounds, do yet concur in this, that Sacrilegium is sacrae rei violatio, aut usurpatio Alex. Hal. A­quin. alii­que., the vio­lation or usurpation of something that is sacred: that is, which is made so by Gods Ordination; or, at least by his direction and warrant to be freely given and set apart for his service and worship. Of this, Solo­mon himself speaketh, when he treateth of Sacrilege: It is a snare to the man that devoureth that thing which is holy; and, after the vow, to en­quire (or, to recal it) Pro. 20. 25. Where Tremelius renders [...] by sacrum. And Junius, in his Annotations, keeps to the same word: understand­ing thereby (as the Text intends) the things of God; or, his just due by command, or warrant from himself.

Upon which Text, Mr. Catwright hath, in his Commentary, some sharp passages; of which one Mr. Will. Walker ser­mon a­gainst Sa­crilege. makes use beyond and beside the intention of that Expositor. For, he saith, That Mr. Cartwright was forced, by evidence of truth, to confess, (asif he would gladly have con­cealed it, if he durst; which is an uncharitable intimation) that now, in the time of the Gospel, whatsoever is either established by Law, or conferred by mans liberality for the uses 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 Sacrilege, condemned in [Page 6] Dent. 23. 21, 22, 23. It is true, that Mr. Cartwright useth words to this effect: Howbeit, he never intended to aver it to be in mans power, by a voluntary vow, or dedication alone, to make a thing sacred; un­less God himself had given Rules and Directions about it, as he did in all the voluntary Offerings in time of the Levitical Law, both for mat­ter and manner. Wherefore Mr. Cartwright concludeth all with this limitation; Quod tamen non ita accipi debet, ac si vot a nulia cujuscun (que) generis rescindenda sint, cum haec de legitimis votis & [...] praescripto verbi factis, sint intelligenda:

But it pleased not Mr. W. W. to take notice of this passage, lest it should make against his not duly­bounded Assertion, for which he produced that Author. Nor is it a­ny wonder, he should comprise all gifts of mans liberality, without that following limitation; because he therein follows the common Opini­on too often taken upon trust by many modern, grave, learned Authors, from the School-men, &c. without just ground.

That place in Deut. 23. although it leave a man at liberty to make, or not to make a free-will Offering; yet, if he once make a vow to give such an Offering, it strongly binds to performance; not, in his own way, but according to the Prescript of God. This must needs be so; because whatever is vowed, or devoted to God, for a Divine Use; or, in order to Divine Worship (as Aquinas ubi supra. speaks) is Worship. For, this is to honour God with thy substance Pro. 3. 9.. But, whatsoever is so de­voted and offered to God, if not prescribed by him, is Will-Worship, which he abhorreth Mat. 15 9. The people of God might not offer what things they listed; no, nor so much as they thought fit in their own eyes, even of what things God himself had given them warrant to give: not thousand of Rams, nor ten thousand rivers of Oyl Mic. 6. 7., (al­though perhaps Eli's sons, Papalines, &c. would have found room for so much, and more, if offered;) but, what, and how many Rams; and, how much Oyl, God, in his Law, had appointed, to such as should freely offer the same. This is so clear in the Levitical Rules, that he that runs, may read it. Yea, the free-will Offerings for the Tabernacle, were all prescribed what they should be, Exod, 25. 2. 3. &c. and when the peo­ple offer'd more then enough for that work, Moses, by Command and Proclamation restrained them, Exod. 36. 5, 6. And, when the Taber­nacle was made, not a Beesom, Pin, or Ash-pan was to be made for it, but according to Gods own pattern shewed to Moses in the Mount, Exod. 25. 40. Heb. 8. 5.

If then, free-will Offerings could not make them sacred, or holy to the Lord, in his account and acceptation, further than Himself had gi­ven (and his people had observed) his rules therein; how can it be se­riously [Page 7] affirmed, and made good, That any thing given by men, un­der the Gospel, can be truly sacred unto God, unless it be such, as for which they have received warrant and direction from his Word, to devote and consecrate it to him? And, if not sacred, how can it be Sacrilege to aliene, or employ it to common Uses? Will God own any thing, as sacred, and as having a special propriety in it, (when, even where onely the manner by him appointed in offe­ring, is neglected, albeit the matter be commanded or prescri­bed Isa. 1. 11, 12. Slat Mini­sters Porti­on, pag 15.) for which himself hath given no order, but rather against it? Erroneous Considerations, give not God a seisure in things devoted by men.

Apposite therefore is the Exposition in Pro. 20. 25. of that holy man, Mr. John Dod, (a man, mighty in the Scriptures;) To devour that which is ho­ly, is (saith he) to pervert those things which are by Gods Ordinance appointed for his Service, from the right use of them, to a mans own pri­vate gain and commodity. And verily, this is so proper a Definition of Sacrilege, so far as it extendeth, that hardly can a better be given; were it not that, in the judgement of some learned men, there needeth somewhat more, to set forth the full nature of Sacrilege.

There are, who bring within the compass of Sacrilege, not onely the purloyning, stealing or perverting to private use or benefit, of things consecrated to Gods worship; but, of things appointed of God, to be destroyed; as being under his curse, and prohibition, to spare; or to take them for a mans own use and commodity.

Hence Basil ubi supra. So Lyra in Josh 7., [...] [...] (that is, Achan) committed Sacrilege, in taking of the accursed thing Josh 7. , that is, the Babylonish Gar­ment, 200 shekels of silver, and a wedge of Gold, and hid it in the earth, in the midst of his Tent Vers. 21., for his own use.

Now the word [...] Cherem, (which Lyra, or rather, his Printers, reads [...], or Herem in Lev. 27.) is in Greek usually expressed by Anathema, &c. implying such a devoting of things to God, as is followed with a curse denounced by God upon all that shall steal, use, or pervert them to any other employment or end, than what God himself hath ap­pointed. Hence, not onely gifts consecrated to his worship and ser­vice according to his Will; but, things by him commanded to be de­stroyed, are comprehended under the word Cherem: and, taken in the former sense, they are called consecrated or sanctified things, as gifts gi­ven to God Luk. 21. 5. [...]; in the latter sense, they are called, the devoted, or accursed thing: not, as being to be preserved; but, to be destroy­ed (z), in such wise and manner as God himself hath commanded: and they are under his curse, that shall presume to do otherwise. x Deut. 7. 2. cap. 20. 17.

Achan therefore, by that Act of his, was guilty of double Sacrilege, in taking of that one Cherem, or accursed thing: for, by taking the Ba­bylonish Garment, he was guilty of Sacrilege, in stealing and keeping [Page 8] that for himself, which God had commanded to be destroyed upon pain of his curse Josh. 6. 17, 18. compa­red with 1 Sam. 15, 3. And he committed Sacrilege likewise, in taking of the silver and of the gold for his own use; all which God had before consecrated as holy to himself, and commanded to be brought into his Treasury Josh. 6. 19; not to be destroyed, or employed to private uses, but for his own service.

Upon this Consideration, the learned and accurate Lambertus Da­neus, thus describeth things sacred; which, to abuse, is Sacrilege: Ethic. chri. l. 2. c. 15. Res Divinae appellantur, quae sunt ad sacrum Dei cultum destinatae, quasve sibi interdicto prolato Dominus reservavit, & in usu commercioque homi­num esse vetat. Quarum rerum furtum dicitur sacrilegium.

the stealth whereof is called Sacrilege.

From all which premises, this appeareth to be a proper and full De­scription of Sacrilege, according to the Scriptures, as the result and conclusion of what is before laid down in reference to Gospel-times, in which we live, viz.

That Sacrilege is a robbing of God, we have Mal. 3. 8. his own Word for it: It is a muzzling of the mouth of the Ox that treadeth out the corn 1 Cor. 9. 9: that is, a robbing of Christ and his Ministers of what by Divine right is due to them from those to whom they preach the Gospel. Nor can it be any other than Sacrilege, to preserve or make use of what superstitious or idolatrous custom and practise hath set up against God and his true and pure worship; or which he hath commanded to be destroyed: as, not only the things secretly taken and reserved by Achan (of which before;) but those things spared by Saul 1 Sam. 15. 9. contrary to the com­mand of God Vers. 3., do sufficiently shew. So Chrysostome interprets that in Rom. 2. 22. Of which, hereafter.

What hath been before said, shall suffice for proof of the Descripti­on of Sacrilege here laid down, and for setting forth the true and full [Page 9] nature of it. Take now some Corollaries. For, hence it follow­eth, that

1. Nothing bestowed by the voluntary, and free gifts of men upon 1 Corol­lary. the Church, that is, upon our late Cathedral men, either under the Old or New Testament, is owned, or accepted of God, as his special propriety, and as Holy to the Lord, farther than himself hath given warrant and rules for the consecrating, and devoting of it.

This is inserted, to obviate those two first Assertions, which the An­swerer to a Letter, superscribed, To Doctor Samuel Turner, and printed Anno 1647. concerning the Church and the Revenues thereof Pag. 25.: viz. That God accepts of things given him, and so holds a propriety as well in the New, as in the Old Testament. 2. That God gets this propriety in those things be holds, as well by an acceptation of what is voluntarily given, as by a command that such things should be presented to him. To which Pro­positions he addeth two more: Namely, 1. That to invade those things, be they moveable, or immoveable, is expresly the sin of Sacrilege. 2. That this sin is not onely against Gods positive Law, but plainly against his mo­ral Law.

These he lays as a ground-work of shewing the impossibility for the late King with a good conscience to yield to the alienating of the Lands of the Church taken in his sense, that is to say, of the Lands given to Cathe­drals. So that, if it appear that this foundation is but sandy, there will be no need to take down the whole Fabrick stone by stone, (that is, to answer him particularly in all his out-leaps, or superstructives) but leave them to fall of themselves: And it will, by good consequence, fol­low, that he, and such as he is, that instilled into the Kings mind such Propositions as these, thereby to put him upon, or to strengthen him in such resolutions, as rather to part with his Kingdoms, and life, than to give his Royal Assent to the alienating of such Church-Lands; or, to the change of Government by Bishops, be truely guilty of his death, by them and their party laid upon others.

To prove his first Proposition, he allegeth four Scriptures. But, unless he could (which he doth not) make it out that Gods acceptation therein mentioned, reacheth to the Lands of such Bishops as he descri­beth, and other Cathedralists, he laboureth in vain, and puts himself into the number of those unlearned and unstable ones, that wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction 2 Pet. 3. 16..

His first Text is, Mat. 25. 35. I was hungry, and ye gave me meat, &c. This is spoken not of Church-Lands, but of necessary and occasional supply by Alms, administred to the hungry, naked, sick, and persecuted Members of Christ See Hie­rome on the place.: not of feeding Lordly Bishops, or others fed to [Page 10] the full, and lying in the wind for the like Domination. And whereas he should demonstrate from the Text, that Christ hereby accepted of the gifts of Lands to our Cathedral Masters, he confesseth that the Text doth not decide, that Christ extends this to gifts bestowed on such as he had enjoyned to teach others; to wit, to the Apostles, and seventy Disci­ples; yet he (begging the question) confidently affirmeth, that with­out doubt it must be meant of both Ministers and poor. It is true in­deed, that Chrysost. saith, Hoc potest intelligi & de Doctoribus; this may be understood of Doctors or Teachers: but how? not of other mens giving Lands to them; but, oftheir feeding others with the food of Do­ctrine, whereby they might be nourished and grow fat in good works, &c.

Nor doth that Scripture relate at all to Lands given so much as to the poor; but, onely to present supplies of food, rayment, and other necessaries suitable to the instant wants of Christs distressed Members. And however he seems to wonder, that Christ should accept of meat and cloathing, and not of those endowments that bring both these to perpetuity; yet this would not seem so strange unto him, were he not a stranger to the Scriptures. For, let him search them duly, and he shall soon find, that though God made many provisions for the poor, yet none in Lands. And how much the poor gain by gifts of Lands (especially after an age or two) even under the Gospel, is too lamentable to be­hold. Nor can he be ignorant, that though Christ accepted of gifts for the poor, yet when they were more than served for present neces­sity, they were abused, and the poor robbed of them, under Christs own Nose, by one of his own company, even by that thief Judas. And happy were it for many, that it were a slander, to say, that too many of those that have been since trusted with that Bag, and with the large revenues given to that use, are too neer of Kin, in qualities at least, to that first Treasurer of Christ. Thus we see that the Text, which he wyredraweth, to prove Christs acceptance of Church-Lands, cannot in truth be extended to his acceptance of any Lands at all.

Howbeit, to put it out of doubt, that Christ in that text intended to declare, that he included his Apostles and Ministers, and accepts of the gifts of Cathedral Church-Lands, in that very acceptation of gifts to the poor, and of both, as done to himself; he produceth a se­cond Scripture, as being very plain to that purpose: He that receiveth you (meaning his Disciples) receiveth me, Matth. 10. 40.

But, Mr. D. herein deceiveth his Readers, as much as he had deluded them before. For, this Text is clearly meant of receiving Christs Apo­stles, First, in respect of their Doctrine and Ministry, which in the name of Christ they preached; (Therefore, he saith elsewhere, He that heareth you, heareth me) Luke. 10.16.: Secondly, in respect of entertainment for present supply of necessaries, which Christ and his Father would effectu­ally [Page 11] move the hearts of such as received their Doctrine, to impart unto them, so that they should want nothing Luke 22. 35., while they were imployed in the work of Christ. But what is this to mans conferring, and Gods accepting of Lands to maintain the Pomp and State of Lord Bishops, Deans, Deans and Chapters, &c. in a perpetual State of Honour and Dignity above their brethren, albeit they seldom or never (some of them) preach Christ to his flock?

It is palpably evident, that, in that very Chapter, Christ charged his Apostles to provide neither Gold, nor Silver, nor Brass in their purses, &c. and that upon this very account, that, the Labourer is worthy of his MEAT Mat. 10. 9, 10., or Hire Luke 10.7.; thereby encouraging to labour, without taking care beforehand for provision: and, withall implying too, a necessity of labouring, if they expected meat (for it is his command, that if any will not work, none should give him to eat) 2 Thes. 3. 10.. Therefore, he would take order against provisions beforehand, that they might more industriously labour in the Word and Doctrine, whereby God might more effectually stir up the hearts of those whom they taught in the Word, to Communicate unto them that did so Teach, in all good things Gal. 6. 6.. Where then will Mr. D. find, in this Text, Christs accep­tance of Lands given to Cathedral-men, as holding a propriety in them himself, for a constant pompous provision (beyond necessary mainte­nance) even unto excess, and faring deliciously every day, whether they labour in the Gospel, or not?

That Christ hath taken care for his Ministers that serve him in the Gospel; and did so even long before they were in being, is manifest by that in Deut. 25.4. Thou shalt not muzzle the Ox when he treadeth out the Corn: that is, when the Owner puts him into a floor, and drives him up and down upon the sheaves there laid out for him, to tread the Corn out of the Ears, thereof to make bread, he shall allow him liberty to eat part of the same sheaves of corn, while he is so imployed, without muzzling his mouth to hinder such eating. This Law was made, partly to require men to shew equity Note: y Prov. 12.10. and mercy to a working beast, in tendring the life thereof (p) : but, it was principally intended to instruct all, how to carry themselves to­ward his servants in the Ministry of the Gospel; not grudging them their eating the milk of the flock, which they feed. Hence that of Paul, 1 Cor. 9. 9, 10. Doth God take care for Oxen? (that is, did he make this Law with reference onely, or chiefly for Oxen?) Or, saith he it al­together for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope, should be partaker of his hope. But, to prove from Mat. 10.40. that Christ owneth all their Cathedral Lands as given to himself, whether they who enjoyed them, did work, or not work; or, what use soever they made of them, will require time till the Greek Kalends, or the thirtieth of February.

[Page 12] His next proof is that known passage of Ananias and Saphira, Act. 5. whose sin, saith he, was, he kept back part of the price of those Lands he had given to God, for the publick use of the Cburch. That his fin was keeping back part of the Price, and his lying unto God, in saying, that which he brought, was the whole price, when it was but a part, is acknow­ledged: but, that he gave his Lands to God, is false: for then, by this mans Doctrine, he might not sell them. He gave or pretended to give the price, not the Land it self, as is clear by the Text. And even the price, after the Land was sold, was in his own power Act. 5. 4. to give, or keep it. But here was his wickedness, That 1. he pretended and professed to give all, yet kept back a part. 2. When questioned for it, whether that he laid at the Apostles feet, were the whole money for which he sold his Land, he lyed, not unto man onely, but even to the Holy Ghost, to whom he pretended to give the whole, for the use of the then persecu­ted Church, and for relief of those Converts who had then received the Gospel. For this, both Ananias and his wife (joyning in the same sins) were sadly and suddenly smitten with death, to the terror of all that beheld it, or heard of it.

And, whereas he saith, that this was given to God for the publick use of the Church, there is an equivocation and fallacy in this also. For by Church, the Text means not, an appropriation of it onely to Ministers; or, at all to such Bishops and Cathedral-men, as he pleads for (whose Government must not be changed, nor their Lands alienated) but it is meant of the whole body of the then Believers, according to the language of the Pen-man of those Acts Act. 2.47. 5. 11. 8 1, &c.: and the money was to be distributed unto every man, according as he had need Act. 4.35..

But, to what end, that flourish, that the Fathers both of the Greek and Latine Church generally affirm the crime to be robbing of God of that Wealth which by vow or promise was now become Gods propriety? It is true, that some of the Fathers make the sin to be Sacrilege: yet the main charge for which they are condemned, is lying to the Holy Ghost. Nor doth any one of the Fathers understand it of Sacrilege by defrauding the Apostles or Ministers of what was given to God in relation to their Office and Ministry (which is the thing for which he alledgeth it) but for defrauding the whole Community of believers of what for supply of their present necessities they pretended, and falsly professed to be­stow upon them, even when the giving of the whole was not required, had they not of themselves given it out to the world, to the Apostles, and Church, and to God himself, that they would give all.

But whereas he, pag. 26. alledgeth Calvin and Beza, as concurring with the Fathers; observe how corruptly he translateth the words of them both. Calvin, saith he, speaking of that fact of Ananias, Sacrum esse Deo profitebatur: which he translateth: thus, He professeth that his Land should be a sacred thing unto God. And there, Beza too, Praedium [Page 13] Deo consecrassent, the man and his wife they consecrated this Land unto God. Still he would fain be harping upon Land, but to little purpose. And here, he doth it without all colour or shew; abusing both the Text it self, and these Authors quoted by him, by a false Translation unwor­thy of a Dean, at least of a Doctor of Laws. Calvin saith not, that A­nanias professed his Land should be sacred to the Lord; but, the money hemade of it. Nor can Beza's expression of Praedium signifie Lands; for, that were to contradict the Text, which speaks of detaining part of the price; not, ofthe land it self. And, let it be meant of land, or price, it is nothing to his purpose, that hence would prove the unlaw­fulness of alienating the Lands of the Church; quod erat demonstrandum.

If he think from hence, to prove voluntary gifts, without command from God, to be holy to the Lord, he is mistaken. For, in cases of this nature, when the whole Church is concerned, or the poverty of Gods people is sore and pressing upon them (as now it was) there ought to be so much self-denial, as that he who hath two Coats, must impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, must do likewise Luk. 3.11: yea, sell that he hath, and give Alms Luk. 12.33., which are all commands of Christ: which cannot be shewed, for giving of Lands to Cathedrals. Yet this man is so confident that the Texts alledged by him are by such an universal consent so interpreted as to prove his Proposition, in relation to the unlawfulness of selling Church-lands, that they may as well doubt whether [...] signifies God, &c. who make question of what he undertook to Prove from them.

His fourth Scripture, is, Rom. 2.22. Thou that abborrest Idols, com­mittest thou Sacrilege? Whence he seeks to prove, that God accepts of things given him, and holds a propriety in them, in the New Testament, as well as in the Old. Else, there can be no Logick in Pauls words. For, if they be not Gods Goods, it is no Sacrilege to steal them: but Paul, charging men with Sacrilege, plainly implies that the things taken from the Church, are Gods own proper Goods.

But, the Gentleman may do well to make it out, that Paul speaks here of lurching away, or perverting of things, or of robbing the Church of Lands given to God for his service and worship: which will be an hard matter for him to do. He that pretends to so much acquaintance with the Greek and Latine Fathers of the Church, may know, if he please, that not onely the Fathers, but Modern Expositors differ about the meaning of that Text. For, some understand here, by Sacrilege, the irreligious liberty which some, out of covetousness, then took, in buying, and using those meats which had been sacrificed to Idols, and after sold in the Shambles by the Priests, at a lower price then other meat was sold for: which meats, Christians might not so much as touch. And so, Sacrilege here meant, is like that of Achan and Saul, the taking of the accursed thing. Thus Chrysostome, Theophylact, and sundry others.

[Page 14] And seeing Calvin was but even now so great a man with Mr. D. it will not, I hope, offend him, to quote Calvin upon this Text, as he did upon the former. His words are these: Sacrilegium est profana­tio Divinae Majestatis: sed quum Gentes Deorum suorum Majestatem Ido­lis affigerent, vocarunt duntaxat sacrilegium, si quis subripuisset quod tem­plis dicatum esset, in quibus putabant sitam esse totam Religionem. Sic hodie ubi pro verbo Dei regnat superstitio, non aliud sacrilegii genus ag­noscunt, quam Templorum opulentiae suppilasse. Quando nullus est Deus nisi in Idolis, nulla religio nisi in luxu & pompa. Sunt tamen qui hic sa­crilegii nomine intelligant contrectationem, usumque rerum, quae Idolis'erant dicatae, quas ne contingere quidem debebant.

Which of these Mr. D. best likes, is left to him to chuse.

This is not alleaged, as denying that there may be such a sin as Sa­crilege, under the Gospel in the New Testament; or, that it is less o­dious in a Christian, then ever it was in a Jew, as being more immedi­ately a transgression of the first Table. But still this Author begs the question, by extending this to Lands, while he produced no ground or instance of such an interpretation. Yea, those very allegations, which he produceth (without citing the particular places) out of Irenaeus, and Origen, do (as he alleageth them) refer to Goods, not to Lands. And, what he adds, ( so the Fathers generally) must be limited to what he last alleaged out of Irenaeus, and Origen. Else, it were incongruous to say, So the Fathers, &c. if they speak in another sense. How Emperors and Kings have given Lands to the Church, shall after be shewed, in due place.

His second Proposition is this: God gets this propriety as well by an ac­ceptation Pag. 29. of what is voluntarily given, as by a command, that such things should be presented to him.

For proof whereof, he instanceth in the Temple at Hierusalem, which God owns as much as he did the Jews tythes and offerings. These last were his by express command; but, the Temple was (if you will believe him) the voluntary designe of good David, and the voluntary work of King [Page 15] Solomon: Yea, God expresly tells David, that he had been so far from commanding that house, that he had not so much as once asked that service: whence Paul tells the Jews, that neither against the Law, nor Temple, he had offended any thing Act. 25. 8.: implying, that in some case he might of­fend against the Temple, yet not against the Law.

But, was not this man asleep when he wrote this? It is true, that for the time, & persons whom he would have to build it, he had given no ex­press command: these being but circumstances. Howbeit, he must needs confess, that the Temple it self was to be built by Gods own appoint­ment. Did not God, long before, tell Moses and his people of a place which himself would chuse, to cause his Name to dwell there? Deut. 12. 11. Now, what is this less then a Command? And if our Author take not upon him to be wiser then Solomon, he must confess this to be meant of that very Temple. For so, Solomon himself understood it, My Name shall be there, I King. 8. 29. Now, although David was not admitted to build that House, for that he had been a man of war, and had shed blood 1 Chron. 28. 3. Yet Solomon, by Gods express appointment and ordination, was chosen by God to build that House Vers. 6. Who could imagine such stuff should stick to the Pen of such an Author, for proof of a Proposition of so great Concernment to him that drew it; That the Temple was a voluntary Offering, not built by Command of God; without which, no man might worship there?

He also no less confidently affirmeth, that to say, God accepts of meat, drink, and cloathing, and of money for which Land was sold, yet not of Land it self, is so contrary to all reason and practise, not onely of the Chri­stian, but humane (or Heathenish) world; and, to what God himself hath expressed in the Old Testament, and no where recalled in the New; that he that can quiet his Conscience with such conceits as these, may (he doubts not) attain the discovery of some Quirks, which, in his conceit, may palli­ate Murders or Adulteries.

But, this is so false, that it cannot but astonish a modest Reader ac­quainted with the Word of God, and knowing the truth, to find him so boldly to affirm that, for which there is no footstep in the Scriptures, as shall hereafter be made out in the third Chapter, where it will be more proper (according to the method before proposed) to speak to this futilous and absurd Assertion.

2. Coroll. The retaining or using of any thing in Gods Worship, 2. Corol­lary. which he hath not prescribed, but forbidden, is no less Sacrilege, than the robbing of Churches.

It is all one with the taking of the accursed thing, and Putting it a­mongst their own stuff Josh. 7. 11 All monuments of Idolatry, as well as Ido­latry [Page 16] it self, wereto be by Gods command destroyed Deut. 7. 5, 6.: because they are as much accursed of God, as the worshipping of Idols them­selves Deut. 27. 15.. Yea, God doth so abominate such things, that he forbad his people, so much as to enquire after the Gods of the Nations, how those Nations worshipped their Gods Deut. 12, 30.. Now then, Sacrilege being com­mitted in retaining what is accursed, as well as in perverting what is by God accepted and sanctified for his worship and service, it can be no less than Sacrilege to introduce or continue any thing in his service which himself hath not appointed, and therefore forbidden.

They therefore that are for adoration of the Host, or of material Al­tars; for Christians bowing towards the East, for the use of Copes, (brought in by Antichrist into the Church) or of any other Popish or superstitious Rites and Ceremonies in the service of God, never ap­pointed by Christ, or his Apostles, and therefore accursed, as Will-wor­ship (being a Prophanation of the Divine Majesty) may do well to consi­der, and lay it to heart, whether they lie not under the guilt of that great sin; and, whether God hath not justly (yet mercifully) punished them with casting them out of their places, and dispossessing them of their Church-Revenues, for using, yea, preaching up the lawfulness of those accursed Trinkets, and persecuting all such as bore testimony a­gainst them.

If any shall plead, that what God hath accursed, belongs to formal Idols and Idolatry, and reacheth not to any thing brought in, as relating to the true God, 'tis a meer evasion and delusion. For, the Golden Calf made by Aaron, to go before the Israelites Exo. 32. 1., was not intended ei­ther by them, or him, to be an Idol, or false god, such as the Nations worshipped; but onely to be a visible representation of Jehovah, to go before them, in stead of Moses whom they now apprehended (through his long absence in the Mount) to have forsaken them. For, even the Feast which they hereupon held, is called a Feast unto Jehovah Vers. 5., in their purpose and intention; and, though they called the Calf Elohim, Gods, (as the true God is often stiled) yet not with intent to multiply Gods, or to deviate from the true (if they might be permitted to give the sense of their own action, which God would not suffer:) there­fore Nehemiah, expressing their meaning, renders the same speech of theirs in the singular number, This is thy God that brought thee out of E­gypt, &c. Neh. 9. 18. Yet, even this in Gods account, was a worship­ping of a molten Image; and the changing their glory into the similitude of an Ox that eateth grass, for which the Lord would have destroyed them utterly, bad not Moses stood in the gap. And yet, for the same of­fence, Moses himself gave order for the killing of about 3000 men in one day Exod. 32. 28., and the Lord otherwise plagued the people that remained, because THEY had made the Calf which Aaron made Vers. 35..

It is then no good Plea to excuse from Sacrilege, that what is done, [Page 17] is intended to the true God, and not to Heathen Idols. For, when men make an Idol of God, it cannot but be an high provocation of the Divine Majesty, and a contempt of his Law. To such therefore who so do, may that of Paul (whether spoken by him to Jews, or Gentiles) be most aptly applyed; Thou that abhorrest Idols, committest thou Sacri­lege? It is not thy protestations against Idolatry, or Popery, that will excuse thee, so long as thou borrowest from either what God hath for­bidden (because he hath not prescribed) in his worship. If Moses must see that he make every thing according to the pattern shewed him in the Mount; who art thou, that shalt presume to follow the pattern of thine own brain, or the traditions of men?

3. Coroll. Those Magistrates who are not as careful to destroy 3. Corol­lary. accursed things, that is, all humane inventions in the worship of God, do thereby suffer God to be profaned; and so are as guilty of Sacrilege, as those that aliene, or give way to the aliening of what is truely the Lords.

It is recorded to the honour of the Religious Kings of Judah, that they destroyed all such things, as in their days provoked the Lord. For so had the Lord commanded to all Israel when they should enter Canaan, not onely to drive out the Natives (for their Idolatry) but to destroy all their Pictures, and all their molten Images, and quite pluck down all their high places Num 33. 52.. Hence it is, that Hezekiah removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces (also) the brazen Serpent (it self) that Moses had made, when he found that the Children of Israel did burn incense unto it 2 King. 18 4.. He not onely destroyed the inventions of men in reference to Idols; but even the institution of God himself, when abused by men to the dishonour of God. And how zealous Josiab was also in prosecuting the same work, may be seen at large in 2 King. 23. from the fourth verse to the 21.

On the contrary, it is noted as a great blot even to those Kings who had done much for God, that the high places were not removed: this is laid to the charge of Asa 1 King. 15. 14., Jehishaphat 1 King. 22. 43., and Amaziah 2 King. 14. 4.. Which is worth their notice, who laboured so much to hold up the late King against the aliening of Church-Lands, but never endea­voured to divert him from, but rather infused into him strong conceits of the great usefulness and holiness of many humane Inven­tions and Superstitions in the Worship of God, and to put him a­bove all that had gone before him, since Queen Mary, upon the com­pelling of all others to practise the same, as if it had been a great duty in him; whereas David (a man after Gods own heart) hated all those that held of superstitious vanties Psal. 31. 6.; and after, died in peace. But, these [Page 18] making Formalities and Superstitious Ceremonies taken from Pope­ry, the All of their Devotions, and taking their Lesson out of Adam de Contzen the Jesuite Politic. 12. c. 17, 18., for retroducing the very body of Popery, notwithstanding the Laws against it, ruined themselves, and the King.

THe chief and (indeed) onely Argument by which many endeavour to prove it to be Sacrilege Ans. to a Letter to Dr. Turner, pag. 25., to sell, or purchase Cathedral Lands, is this; that those Lands were given voluntarily by men unto God and the Church; and are accepted and owned by him as holy to the Lord; therefore they commit Sacrilege, who sell, or buy them for private uses: as being against not onely Gods positive, but Moral Law. If this be not onely denied to be true, but proved, out of the holy Scripture to be false, the whole Controversie will soon be at an end. In order whereunto, take notice, that there is not onely no command, but no direction or allowance in the Scriptures of the Old, or New Testa­ment, for the endowing the Church with such lands; but rather, e­nough against it: therefore it is no Sacrilege to sell, or buy them.

1. Under the Law, in the Old Testament, God was so far from commanding, owning, or accepting of lands to be given to the Priests, or Levites, especially to Aaron the chief Priest, (excepting a definite num­ber of Cities for the habitations of the Levites that were to be spread over the whole Land of Canaan, and the parts without Jordan; and, a set quantity of Pasture for their Cattle) that he absolutely forbad them to have any inheritance among their brethren Num. 18 20.. And this was to be a Statute for ever, throughout their generations Vers. 23.: The reason was gi­ven before unto Aaron, in behalf of himself and the rest of the Levites, to whom God, thus; I am thy part, and thine inheritance among the Children of Israel. That is, his portion in Tythes and Offerings due from Israel unto God, should be theirs. For, of those, to wit, Tythes, he there expresly speaketh; and, upon that ground, denieth them a [Page 19] portion in Lands: I have given them (namely, Tythes) to the Levites to inherit; therefore I have said unto them, Among the Children of Israel they shall have no inheritance Vers 24..

Should not he Ans. to a Letter, to Dr. Turner. pag. 29. then blush, who so confidently affirmeth, that to say, God in the New Testament accepteth of money, and not of lands, is so contrary to all reason, &c. so contrary to what God himself has expres­sed in the Old Testament, and no where recalled in the New; that he that can quiet his conscience with such conceits as these, may, be doubts not, at­tain to the discovery of some Quirks, which in his conceit, may palliate ei­ther murders, or adulteries? For, admit God should, in the Old Te­stament accept of some Lands (upon such and such Terms, as in Levi­ticus Lev. 27., or elsewhere; yet then, God expresly giveth all Rules about the nature of the Land; and of the redeeming, or not redeeming it) to be consecrated to him; will this prove his acceptance of Lands, in the New Testament, of any kind, quantity, or quality, by any man given, upon any other account whatsoever; until a Cathedral man shall say, Hold your hands?

Levi was one of the twelve Tribes of Israel, (therefore as consi­derable a part as any other:) Nevertheless, God was so careful to prevent their claim to Lands, among their brethren, by Divine Lot, that, when the rest of Israel were numbred, in order to their several Lots in Land, God expresly forbad Moses to number the Tribe of Levi, or to take the sum of them; and commanded him to appoint them over the Tabernacle of Testimony, &c. Num. 1 49. 50. Whereby is more then implyed, that the Office of Priesthood; especially, of the High-Priests, (who were always in person to attend the Tabernacle) was then a bar to their inheriting of lands proportionable to their Brethren.

The inferiour Priests and Levites, from thirty to the fiftieth year of their age, were, in their courses, according to their three great families of Gershom, Kohath, and Merari Num. 3. 17., put upon the most toylsome work in, and about the Tabernacle of the Congregation. But being nume­rous (in all, 8580.) Num. 9., they did not, could not all attend the Al­tar at once; but onely in their turns. Therefore, were they to be dispersed all Israel over, to instruct the people in the law of God Deut. 33 10., save onely when their several and respective courses came about, to serve at the Tabernacle. Which being so, there was a necessity of prepa­ring habitations for them in all the Tribes, and some ground for their Cattle, which they were to use as well for travelling thence to the Tabernacle, when their turns came, as for their own Domestick Occa­sions.

Upon this ground, God had Moses to command the Children of Is­rael, to give unto the Levites, of the inheritance of their possession, Cities to dwell in — and suburbs for the Cities round about, for their Cattle, Goods, and Beasts, Numb. 35. 1, 2, 3. But of these, none were appointed to [Page 20] the High Priest, who was always resident about the Tabernacle. His house, no doubt, was also allotted to him. His portion, and the porti­ons of such as served at the Altar in person, consisted in Offerings, and in the second Tythes, that is, in the Tenth of the Tythes gathered by all the Levites; which Tenths they were to pay to Aaron and the rest that Waited at the Altar, before they might share the rest among them­selves, or partake of it in common Neh. 10. 38..

It is true, that the Levites had forty eight Cities in all, set out unto them; and, some Lands: but God first gave the Word for the giving of them, and also limited both the number of Cities, (among which, were six Cities of Refuge) and the quantity of the ground that the Israelites should give unto them. The several names of the Cities, and how, and where situated, are set down in the 21th of Joshua. Their Suburbs were also bounded by a set number of Cubits Num. 35 4.. Nor might the Israelites give, nor the Levites accept one Cubit more. Nor were they lords, or sole proprietors or inhabitants of those Cities. O­thers dwelt therein, and shared also in the residue of the Lands adja­cent, as well as they: onely, care was to be taken, that in every of those Cities, so many Levites as were assigned to each City, should be well accommodated; and the remainder should still continue to the former Owners. Hence Lyra, on those words, Cities to dwell in, Non dicit ad dominandum, vel ad redditus inde accipiendum, quiasic erant ip­sius Regis, vel aliorum Dominorum urbes in quibus habitabant Levitae.

That this was so, is manifest by the City of Hebron, (or Kiriah-Arba, the City of Arba, Father of Anak Josh. 15. 13., and a Great man, that first foun­ded it.) That Citie, being given to the Kohathites, who were Levites, and had the first Lot Josh. 21. 10, 11., was yet the City of Caleb, to whom Joshua 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 Jephunneh for his possession Josh. 21. 12.. Out of which fields, it is clear by the next verse, that the Suburbs were excepted; for these were given to the sons of Aaron the Priest.

Here, by the way, a few words to him, (whether he were a Bishop, or not) that hath taken much pains to demonstrate, that Church-lands are not to be sold.

1. He is much mistaken in the greatness of those Cities and Suburbs; so also are others, (building upon St. Hierome's report.) Epist. ad Dordan., who say That those forty eight Cities, had Suburbs of so large circuit, that they exceeded the portion of any other Tribe in Israel: Which can­not be. For, the circuit of the Suburbs, given to the Levites, were [Page 21] But 1000 Cubits, to be measured from the wall of each City. outward, round about Num. 35 4.; which cannot contain 8000 Acres, English measure, in the whole, were each City two miles in compass, which is not probable. And, in every of those Cities, there must be placed neer 200 Levites and their families: so as, the Land could not extend to four Acres a­piece to each Levite. For of such as were fit for service, there were (as was noted before) 8580. All the Males were 22000 Num. 3. 39., besides women and servants. Now, divide 8580 into 48 parts, (according to the number of the Cities) and you will find almost 200 Levites, that were in their turns, for actual service, in each City. And these ser­ved for all the other Cities and Countries throughout Israel.

As for that conceit of some Rabbins, upon the 35th of Numb. and fifth verse, where 2000 Cubits are allowed for Suburbs to each City; that the first 1000 were onely for walks, and recreations; and, ano­ther 1000 Cubits, for Fruit, Vines, Corn, &c. this is a meer dream, and contrary to Scripture. For, 1. the Suburbs given to the Levites are plainly declared to be but 1000 Cubits Vers. 4.: and that, not for walks and recreation, but for their Cattle, their goods and beasts Vers. 3.. 2. the other thousand Cubits (vers. 5.) which were added, are said to be Suburbs of the City, but not of the Levites. This thousand Cu­bits were for the Owners, and other Inhabitants of those Cities, beside the Levites; as appears by what hath been before alleged in the case of Caleb, Josh. 21. 12. the Levites then had their Suburbs next to the Walls: and the Owners of the Cities had theirs, without the Levites; and so theirs must be of far greater Longitude and Latitude, than the Lands of the Levites. For, as in all Cities there is a Tract of ground measured from the Walls, which belongs to each City, as Suburbs: so here 2000 Cubits in the whole; of which 1000 was for the Levites.

2. What, and how large soever the Lands of those Levites were, yet had they none, but only Pastures for feeding of their Cattle, as Abu­lensis (upon good grounds,) affirmeth In Num. 35. q. 2.. They did neither sow, nor reap: but yet, had store of Cattle brought in by the rest of the Tribes unto them, as being the Lords. And this is clear from the Text; for, the Lands assigned them, were, for their Cattle, and for their goods, and for all their beasts. Therefore they had only pasturage. And this could not extend to such a proportion, as should exceed the Lands of the least of the other Tribes.

3. There is a great mistake in the Computation of the Land of Ca­naan given unto Israel; and, by Lot, cast out for the several Tribes. It is said by the Author of Church-lands not to be sold, that the whole land was hardly 160 miles in length from Dan to Beersheba; and, but 46 miles in breadth, from Joppa to Bethlehem; as if this were the whole length and breadth of Canaan given of God to Israel, and by them en­joyed. [Page 22] And, for proof hereof, Saint Hierome, who lived long there, is produced as a witness. But, is not longitude usually reckoned from East to West? and breadth from North to South? Now, Beersheba is almost South from Dan; and Dan, almost North from Beersheba: on which account, there is hardly 160 miles between them. But, what is this to the whole longitude of Canaan, divided among the Tribes, from East to West, according to the latest Maps; and, particularly that, appointed by Authority to be prefixed to the last Translation of the holy Bible, Anno 1611? It is hardly a fourth part of the true Lon­gitude. And, as for the space between Joppa, and Bethlehem, where St. Hierome dwelt, which is said to be 46 miles, it is not the one half of the breadth of the whole Land from South to North; nor is it said by Hierome, that it is the breadth of the whole; but, of the space be­tween Joppa and Bethlehem, the place of his habitation, which was al­most in the middle. And here take notice, that Hierome in that Epi­stle endeavours to prove, that much of the Land of Canaan promised to Abrahams posterity, is to be understood in an allegorical sense, as if God did not verifie all that he promised to them in the Letter; which, under favour of so great a Clerk, is a mistake. For can we think God would be worse than his word, in kind? Read the several distributi­ons by Lot to the Tribes, in the book of Joshua, and elsewhere, and then it will clearly appear that St. Hierome, in this, was out. But, whatever the length and breadth of that Land was, this is clear, that the Levites enjoyed not one foot more than God had appointed the Israelites to set out by Lot unto them. Therefore, the Lands sold by Christians, Act. 4. or by that Hypocrite Ananias, Act. 5. can be no warrant for Christians to set out what Lands they please; or, any Lands at all, upon this setting out of Suburbical Lands for the Levites, until they can shew the like warrant from God (under the New Testament) both for kinde, and dimensions, for the Lands given to Ca­thedrals.

Now then, if Bishops take upon them (as of late they did) to be a­bove Presbyters, or Ministers of particular Congregations, as Aaron was above the ordinary Priests and Levites; it is as clear as Analogy can make it, that there is no colour for, nor shew of warrant out of the Old Testament, to enable Bishops to hold whatever Lands the blind Devotions, or Commutations of Penances of the people, con­ferred on them: but rather, that there was an express Law against it. It is true, that after the Temple was built, there was (no doubt) con­veniency of habitation, and perhaps some Lands for the beasts and Cat­tle of the High-Priest, in, or about Hierusalem; as there, perhaps, was, while the Ark remained in the Tabernacle. And, if Bishops (an­swerable thereunto) had made it out that they were, as Aaron, above the rest of their brethren in the Ministry, there had been some reason [Page 23] for the allowance of some Lands to them (if they labour in the Word and Doctrine) while they continue.

Howheit, (although Bishops could not by Scripture, make out their Title to the Lands they held,) those 48 Cities alotted to the Le­vites, with the Suburbs pertaining to them, (which lands were not to be alienated while the Levitical Priesthood was in force) Levit. 25. 34., may, by Analogy, be a good Argument for the setling of Glebe-lands, upon faithful and painful Ministers of each particular or Parochial Congre­gation, for their habitation, and necessary provision of Cattle for their use; and, for the acknowledging of them as sacred, or holy to the Lord. Because himself commanded the like for the Priests of the Law, who had then, sundry other obventions and incomes, which Ministers now cannot enjoy. Nor, can it be thought that God is more wanting to the Ministers of Christ, when more grace is given Jam 4. 6. to those to whom they preach, than he was of old to the Levites.

And, as God then forbad the sale of those Lands while that Priest­hood lasted; so, it will accordingly follow, that Parochial Glebes, are not to be sold from the Church, so long as they be imployed for main­tenance of such Ministers as truely and faithfully preach Christ to the people of those places where such Lands are given. For the very Churches to which they are annexed, were built by men of Quality, and Piety, for the good of the Souls of the living. And, those Glebes were bestowed for the encouragement of such godly Pastors, as there officiated, and ministred the bread of life to the people; so far as the Founders of those Churches, Donations, and Endowments, were able to judge; and, to endow the Churches which they built.

If since, Sacrilege hath been committed, by aliening, or applying some of those Glebes to private uses, the Popes were first in this sin, and led the way. For they, first appropriated 3845 of the fattest and largest Benefices in England Church-Lands not to be sold, pag. 31. either to their Italian Harpies, or o­ther their Creatures, of whom nothing could be sure, but that they would feed themselves, and starve the peoples Souls. Afterwards, they gave them to those Augaean stables of Templars and Monks, in the heighth of Popery, who never took care of the Churches of Christ; but, to pamper their own bellies like Epicures; and, to maintain the pomp and state of Atheists, under the name and habit of the Church. And since the times that Bishops, Deans, and Chapters, &c. were posses­sed of such Appropriations, they grew worse than their predeces­sours, in Leasing out some, for many scores of years; and, pas­sing away, other for ever See the Apology for Purchases, &c.. And whereas those that first enjoyed them, were to make competent allowance to the Minister that offici­ated: so do not these, but rather starve him. They then, of all o­thers, have least cause or colour to blame the late Parliament, for a­liening or selling of those Glebes, to supply the necessities of the State, [Page 24] occasioned by themselves: which Glebes, it were to be wished, might be redeemed again, and restored, for the maintenance of such able and faithful Mainisters in those places, as look more at the Work than the Wages; which is now (if God give a blessing) in a good way to be done.

But, that which is most insisted upon, and which bears most shew of voluntary donations of Lands to the Priests, in the Old Testament, which may be called sacred, or holy to the Lord, and may not be after­wards aliened, or redeemed, is that in Levit. 27. 10. If a man shall san­ctifie unto the Lord a part of a field, &c. which sanctifying, was, say some, a voluntary act, not commanded; yet allowed, and accepted of God; else he would never have put the case, so often, nor have gi­ven so many directions in it as there he doth. Therefore they con­clude, voluntary offerings, or gifts of Lands to the Church, without command, or warrant from God, makes them to be sacred and holy to the Lord, and gives him a propriety in them, not to be revoked, or aliened.

To understand this aright, take notice, that divers distinctions are made in that Chapter, all which must be heeded. 1. The Lord di­stinguisheth of fields, said to be consecrated to him. For the fields are either fields of a mans possession, vers. 16. that is, his inheritance, which he may retain for ever; or fields which he hath bought, which are not of his Hereditary possession, vers. 22. The first he might sancti­fie, of by vow, give unto God; yet so, that he had his liberty to re­deem it, according to the value, not of the Land it self, but of the seed and profits, adding a fifth part to it: which done, he might as safely take it back, and use it, as if he had never consecrated it. But. if he did not before the year of Jubilee redeem it, but let it go out in the Ju­bilee, that is, let it lie unredeemed till that year came about, he might neither then, nor at all redeem it; that field was to be holy to the Lord, as a field devoted, the possession (that is, the inheritance) thereof should be the Priests, vers. 21. so was it also, in case it could be proved, that he that had sanctified it to the Lord, instead of redeeming, would, under­hand, sell it to another man: that sale was void, and at the next Jubilee the inheritance thereof was vested in the Priests, (vers. 20, 21.)

2. The Lord distinguisheth between redeeming, and buying, or sel­ling. Redeeming, is the act of him that vowed the field of his own possession; buying, is the purchasing of the field of another, for years, not for ever, because all Lands bought, were to return to the first Owner at the Jubilee, vers. 23, 24. so also is the selling of Lands, which could not be for longer time than the next Jubilee. Now, if the Owner who vowed a field, would not redeem it, any other might buy it of the Priests; and they not only might, but ought to sell it to him, saith A­bulensis, for so many years as lasted to the Jubilee, but no longer. Af­ter [Page 25] such a man had bought it, he might sanctifie it to the Lord for so much time as he had in it: but the Inheritance was to be in the Priest. So, if he had bought a field, not before consecrated or vowed to God, he might sanctifie that till the next Jubilee; after which, it was to re­vert to the first Owner that sold it, vers. 22, 23, 24.

3. The Lord distinguisheth, between a thing sanctified, and a thing devoted. The sactifying of it, is the first vowing or giving it to God; notwithstanding which Act, he might lawfully redeem, and enjoy it as fully to his own use, as ever he did before the sanctifying of it; provi­ded he do it in time, that is, before the next Jubilee. The devoting of it to the Lord, is a constant setling of it, upon God, for the Priests, with­out power of revocation or redemption after once the first Jubilee is over, if before, it were not redeemed, upon pain of Gods Curse [...], so vers. 21. The field, (to wit, which is sanctified, and not redeemed be­fore the Jubilee) when it goeth out in the jubilee, shall be holy unto the Lord, as a field DEVOTED, the possession thereof shall be the Priests, as before was alleaged in reference to the first distinction. Thus also, vers. 28. No devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the Lord, &c. shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord. To the same effect Tostatus In Levit. 27. q. 67..

To apply this to the matter in hand: First, it is clear that no Land sanctified to the Lord, whether it were Land of Inheritance, or bought for a time, did settle such a propriety in God, that it was not lawful to redeem it for ever, or to buy it for a time, and convert it to any private use, before the next Jubilee: therefore this is of it self no argument to prove the giving Lands to Cathedrals to be such a consecration as it should be in no wise lawful to recal, redeem, or imploy them to any secular use again. Yet this is the main thing for which this Scripture is so much urged.

2. Although that Text implies some voluntary Dedications of some Lands to the Lord, for the benefit of his Priests that did him, and the people real and constant service, either at the Altar, or in teaching the Law; yet this is no Warrant for the Donation, or continuation of Lands to idle, &c. Lords over the people of God; and such, as can never make it out, that ever they were truly called of God to those pretended Offices and Dignities for which they claim such large Revenues.

3. Albeit, some fields might sometimes be given to the Lord; and, his Priests, enjoy the benefit of them; yet, He appointed upon what terms they should be given, and continued: but, no such matter, for Lands given to Cathedrals. They being many of them given to the dishonour of God and Christ, as afterwards shall appear, which God hath no where given order for their converting to a better use, nor given any rules about them. Nor were those Lands consecrated to the Lord, under the Law, the hundreth part of what Cathedralifts [Page 26] have, by wiles, not voluntary Donations, heaped up, to consume upon their lusts: Which boundless grasping of Lands, by Bishops, Monks, Deans and Chapters, &c. laying not only field to field, but Mannour to Mannour, to the impoverishing of particular families, and the Com­monwealth too, upon the account of the Church, and Gods accep­tance thereof, as sacred; hath ever been so far from being accounted lawful, that even an Archbishop himself (having deserted the Romish Church) hath proclaimed it Sacrilegium, & rapinam injustissimam; direct Sacrilege, and most wicked robbery. This, saith he, is not to enable men to labour in the Gospel: but to supply them with fewel for Riot and Excess; and, to pervert what was given for the benefit of the Church, and for necessary provisions; to the shame, scandal, and ruine of the Church: it is not to take off, but to multiply impe­diments of saving souls Spalat. de Rep. Ec­cles. 1. 9. c. 7 n. 36..

4. Those consecrations of Lands were to be no longer in the Priest­hood than their Priesthood continued. Afterwards, it was lawful for any to buy them, as well as any other Lands. Therefore, if that in­stance be of force to prove the lawfulness of giving such Lands, it must be of like weight to prove the lawfulness of aliening those Lands, when the authority and jurisdiction, and by consequence the Offices of all Cathedral men are wholly determined and taken away by Act of Par­liament.

5. Albeit, those Priests might have such Lands given them, yet Tastatus In Levit. 27. q. 36. largely and strongly makes it out, that it was not lawful for the Priests to keep them in their possession, but must sell them at every Jubilee, even after they were devoted to the Lord, by leaving them to the Lord till the Jubilee. For, first he urgeth that place in Numb. 18. forbidding them Lands among their brethren. 2. He saith they were confined to those Cities and Suburbs which by Gods Order, were set out for them by the other Tribes, Numb. 35. so that it was unlawful for them to have either Lands, or Houses in any other places, or place whatsoever. 3. He urgeth the great inconvenience of keep­ing any such Lands in their own possession, because it would much di­stract and hinder them in the execution of their Offices. Therefore if even such Lands did fall to them, they were not to keep them, but pre­sently to value them; and if he that sanctified them would not redeem them, they must sell them to some others. And, even when at the year of Jubilee the Lands came to be theirs, they must instantly sell them, and put them into money: and, so, from Jubilee to Jubilee. Now, what is this to the holding of Cathedral Lands, wherein they who plead for them, use all arguments and means first to get; then, to keep them for ever: whereas on the contrary, God allowed not his Priests to use Arts to get them, much less to keep them: but, to use all means to get them off again; until they who consecrated them had [Page 27] neglected the redeeming of them, and none else would buy them; and so they came devoted, not by their first consecration, but by neglect of the people who first gave them unto God? nor will those sharp Masters take notice of the difference between sanctifying, that is, vow­ing or giving of Lands unto God, and the devoting of them; which last makes them most holy to the Lord Levit. 27. 28., uncapable of redeeming, or of being sold: yet not, in the nature of the thing; but, as having slipt the time limited by God for redeeming, or selling of them.

If any think (as one doth) that the setting out of the holy portion of Land, about the Sanctuary Ezek 45. and c. 48., shewed to Ezekiel in a Vision (as a Prophesie of the spiritual state of the Churches of Christ under the Gospel) is both a Warrant and Command to set out Lands for Cathe­dralists, to be holy to the Lord for ever, under the New Testament; this can be no other but a manifest perverting of the sense and mind of God throughout that Vision.

For, although it be on all hands agreed, that, from the 40th Chap­ter of Ezekiel, to the end of that book, the main scope is to decipher and describe the flourishing estate of the Church, under the Gospel; yet it was never affirmed by any Author, that the Temple there inten­ded, and Gods command for setting out so many 1000 reeds of Land for the Temple, and the Priests, are to be understood positively and properly according to the Grammatical Construction of the Words, as if God meant to erect another new material Temple at Hierusalem, or in Judea; and to revive and establish the same Levitical Offerings and Sacrifices, formerly offered by Aaron and his sons, to be again of­fered by Zadok and others of Aarons Order. But that all is spoken in See Jun. in Ezek. 40 a figure, and to be understood of the spiritual endowments of the Church, better than with all the Lands in the World.

Howbeit, this is set forth under Legal expressions, and by way of al­lusion to the material Temple of Solomon, as being the most live­ly and most taking instance, or resemblance that was then known, or could be found in the whole World, to illustrate and set forth to life, the far more glorious estate, and spiritual privileges and provisions of the Evangelical Church, the New Hierusalem Heb. 12. 22., which should so far exceed in glory that in Judea, as the Heavenly Hierusalem Heb. 12. 22., doth the earthly; and, as the spiritual Temples of the living God do exceed that of Solomon. Wherefore, to draw an Argument thence, for the consecrating of Lands in a proper sense, for the maintenance and state of Bishops and other Cathedral-men, is not only to proclaim the weakness of him that doth it, but to publish to the world that there is no firme ground in Scripture (as indeed, there is not) to found any Title of such Lands upon.

But, one Church-Lands not to be sold, pag. 1, 2. hath found out a gallant passage of Moses, to prove, that very Heathens, by light of natural reason, found, and held it requisite that [Page 28] their Priests should have a setled maintenance in Lands. The place is in Gen. 47. 22. where it is said, that when Joseph, in the extremity of the seven years famine, bought all the Lands of the people of Egypt, for bread, to keep them alive; Onely the Land of the Priests bought he not: which shews they had Lands, and that oseph would not meddle with the buying of them. But why? what, because they were hallow­ed, or consecrated to the Egyptian Gods, and therefore Holy? No such matter: but, because Pharaoh provided a portion of meat for them, and they did eat the portion which Pharaoh gave them. Wherefore they sold not their Lands. Indeed, Nature may teach that God is to be worshipped, that he is to have Priests for his worship, and that they are to be maintained; but, out of Lands, where did Nature ever teach that? If the Heathens that were most civilized made any stand­ing provisions for their Priests, it was in Tithes and Offerings. This the Reverend Dr. Carlton Tithes ex­amined, Cap. 2. hath industriously noted out of Plutarch, Herodotus, Macrobius, Diodorous Siculus, Xenophon and others. But, for making such provisions of Lands, none of those Authors are alle­ged. And, whereas the Apostle saith, that the things which the Gentiles sacrificed, they sacrifice unto Devils 1 Cor. 10. 20., it ill becomes a Bishop to urge that Act of the Kings of Egypt, in setting out Lands for such Priests, as done by the light of nature, which was done out of ignorance and cor­ruption of nature, as a warrant for Christians to give Lands to Ca­thedrals.

2. Come we from the Law, to the Gospel; from the Old Testa­ment, to the New. Neither here can we finde one silhable that coun­tenanceth, much less requireth the endowment of Cathedrals with Lands, as holy to the Lord. It is true, that the Learned Knight, Sir Henry Spelman in his Treatise de non temer andis Ecclesiis, hath Learnedly proved it to be Sacrilege to rob Churches of the maintenance by Di­vine right due unto them: but, that is not spoken of Lands given by men, but of Tithes setled by God as the standing maintenance of Mini­sters of the Gospel: as is obvious to every eye that carefully heedeth the body of that Book.

There are indeed some wyre-drawn Arguments produced by a great D. in his Answer to the Letter to Dr. Turner, to make out Gods acceptance of, and propriety in such lands. But, these have been exa­mined before, and therefore shall be here passed over. In the New Testament there is recorded: 1. Matter of fact. 2. Matter of Or­dinance, for the providing of maintenance for Ministers, so soon as that Ordinance could be put in execution.

1. The matter of fact will appear, by what Christ himself; and afterwards, his Apostles had for their maintenance in those times.

As for Christ himself (although he were of the bloud Royal, of the lineage of David, both by his mothers side, and his supposed fathers [Page 29] side too) Luk. 2. 4., he prosesseth, that very foxes, and birds of the air, were better provided for then himself: for, the one had holes; theother, nests; but he had not so much as whereon to lay his head Mat. 8. 20., neither room, nor pillow. It is true, there was a common purse, or bag, with which Judas was trusted; and, thereupon tempted to become a thief Joh. 12. 6.. And it is manifest, that out of that Cash, (contributed by well-dispo­sed Converts) Luk. 8. 3., both he and his Disciples furnished themselves with necessary food Joh. 4. 8.; and, gave to the poor besides Joh 13. 29.. But, as for any House, or Land, for a standing or setled maintenance, or abode, it is clear, he had none; although Heir of all things. Nor was that provision which he had, any dainty, or costly fare: but only some loaves of bread, and a few fishes; not above five barley loaves, and two stshes Mat. 14. 17. Mar. 6. 38. Luk. 9. 13. Joh. 6. 9., at a time, (which a boy might carry) for Christ, and his twelve Apostles.

And, whatever Judas did in purloyning for himself, the rest of the Apostles were content to observe their Masters Injunctions; not onely when he first sent them out, at what time he charged them to provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in their purses, nor scrip for their journey, neither two coats Mat. 10. 9, 10., &c. but even long after, when he had left the earth, and ascended heaven, and the multitude of believers dayly en­creased Act. 2. 47.: Even then, Peter professed to the lame man that lay at the Gate of the Temple, and asked an Alms of him; Silver and Gold have I none Act. 3. 6.. Yea, a good while after that, blessed Paul laboured, working with his own hands 1 Cor. 4. 12., as a Tent-maker: and that, night and day; not for recreation, or out of covetousness; but, to minister to the necessities not onely of himself, but, of those that were with him Act. 20. 34.: not as having no right to maintenance 1 Cor. 9. 4, 5, &c.; but, that he might not be chargeable unto such, as being yet unconverted, or not fully satisfied touching this matter, might take offence at his requiring of present maintenance 1 Thes. 2. 9.. Therefore, sometimes he would take maintenance of one Church, convinced of their duty in administring to him, to supply his wants while he preached to another, more disaffected, unsa­tisfied, covetous or quarrelsome. Thus, he preached the Gospel of God freely to the rich, voluptuous, and quarrelling Corimbians: robbing o­ther Churches, by taking wages of them, to do service to the Corinthi­ans 2 Cor. 11. S.. Where, by the way, take notice, that he that taketh wages where he doth not, or hath not done service, is a Church-robber. It is true, if he work faithfully elsewhere, and no maintenance is there, without scandal, to be had; and another place where he hath industri­ously laboured, is willing to afford contribution upon that account: it is not such a robbery as is sin in him; but rather in them, who put him upon it, (as Quakers and others would now do, the Ministers of the Gospel:) for they refusing to maintain him, do what in them lies, to put him upon robbing others.

[Page 30] Let no man hence conclude, I. That Christ meant to starve his A­postles when he sent them out to preach; or, took not sufficient care for their provision. For, by their Ministry, He so wrought upon those to whom he preached, (if sons of peace) that his Apostles wanted no­thing Luk. 22. 35.: and that upon this account, That the labourer is worthy of his meat, (saith Matthew) Mat. 10. 10, of his hire (saith Luke) Luk. 10. 8. This is then, allowed to those who are commissionated by Christ to preach the Gospel; but not to usurpers and false Prophets that run before they be sent, supposing gain to be godliness. Unto such Priests that so teach for hire, and to such Prophets as so divine for money Mic. 3. 11, a wo is due, which will be accomplished on them.

Nor, Secondly, That it is hereby intended, that it is unlawful now for Ministers of the Gospel, to have more or better allowance than Christ, or his Apostles were pleased to take (when they were first to plant the Gospel) until men were better instructed and satisfied tou­ching the Ministers dues: but, that God hath provided better for them, which they might lawfully receive and enjoy, when once his peo­ple are throughly convinced of their duty.

All that is inferred hence, is but this: that it cannot be thought, that either Christ or his Apostles ever thought of allowing, or owning the Lands given to Cathedral Bishops, Deans and Chapters, &c. when neither he, nor his Apostles ever accepted of Houses or Lands for themselves; and when the enjoyned, and the other observed the injuction, that neither Silver nor Gold should be provided, for supply­ing their wants beforehand, in those times of the first plantation of the Gospel, wherein it nearly concerned those that were imployed in the planting of it, rather to suffer want of things necessary, than to give offence in the unseasonable demanding of supply.

2. As to the matter of Ordinance and Institution for the maintenance of labouring (not loytering) Gospel-Ministers, it is not necessary here to say much. I have, in the second Edition of this Treatise, made it out, that Tythes are the most proper and setled maintenance, set out by Christ himself for all his Ministers; although for brevity, it be here o­mitted. Onely take notice, that seeing Christ hath been pleased to own this rational proposition, that the labourer is worthy of his meat, or hire: Surely, he intended such hire as might be suitable to the state and condition of the Church, in the several ages and vicissitudes there­of, wherein his labourers took pains in his Church. With this never­theless, that (whatever the maintenance should be) it must not be ur­ged from his assertion, that Bishops and Cathedral men should have Lands; till they can shew better Title to such Lands, than either the Priests and Levites had (over and above their definite Cities and Sub­urbs) to keep Lands in their possession for ever: or, than any rule, or hint in the New Testament will undoubtedly warrant them to do. Not [Page 31] that it is unlawful for Ministers of the Gospel to possess Lands falling to them by inheritance, or purchased with their money: for such Lands they hold, not as Ministers in right of the Church, but as Civil Proprietors of an estate, of which it is, without question, lawful for them to dispose, as they please. But that which is here spoken, is in re­ference to the particular Texts produced to prove that the New Te­stament affordeth Commands for giving Lands to Cathedrals, which to aliene, is Sacrilege.

Ergo, he hopes, Lands may be given to the Church. No doubt they may, as the forty eight Cities and Suburbs, were to the Priests and Levites. But, not by force of that Text now produced. For, that is not spoken of mens giving unto God; but, of Gods free gifts unto men. Besides, it is to labourers, not loyterers, in his Vine­yard: not to such labourers as would work where, when, and how they list; but, as the Lord, or his Steward should direct, and command: not, for beating their fellow-servants; but, for giving them their meat, in due season. Briefly, you may observe in all the places quoted by the Advocates for Cathedral Lands, that nothing is precisely and posi­tively vouched, which in terms, or equivalency, imports the giving to God, and his accepting of Lands for Cathedrals; but, long fetcht, and hard strained Interrogations, or inferences rather forced upon the Text, then naturally flowing from it; which, in the issue, comes to no more but a bare begging of the question, and of an admitting what they say upon such begging discourses, to be an unquestionable truth.

But especially, great use is made by the same Champion for Cathe­dral Pag. 5. Pag.18, 35 & alibi. Lands, that he doubts not (and, if he doubt not, who dares to do other?) but that this (which he undertook to prove, viz. that lands may be given to the Church) is the opinion of the Assembly of Divines late­ly sitting at Westminster, and of all learned Orthodox Divines in Christen­dom. Confidently spoken; but not, for want of ignorance of what he so speaketh.

Touching his so often vouching the Assembly of Divines (whom he afterwards Pag.71. unchristianly revileth;) know all men by these pre­sents, that either he knoweth not what he saith, or wilfully imposeth upon them what they never held out. It is very true, that some Mem­bers of that Assembly, joyning with some others, did compile some An­notations upon the Bible; which many take to be the work of the As­sembly. But take this for an undoubted truth; those Annotations were [Page 32] never made by the Assembly, nor by any Order from it; nor after they were made, ever had the Approhation of the Assembly; or were so much as offered to the Assembly at all, for that purpose, or any o­ther. Therefore, whatever is alleaged by that Author of Church-lands not to be sold, he must go look somewhere else for the Compilers of those Notes; and, forbear to charge them upon the Assembly, which never took the least notice of them. And when he hath found the right Authors, he may, if he please, send to them to own what he alleageth out of them, and thank them (whom he scorneth) for helping him to Arguments, which (as he thinks) make against them­selves.

Touching all the learned Orthodox Divines in Christendom, which he, laies claim unto, to be of his side; it moveth not, beyond a vapouring flourish, till he produce them. And, were they all of his opinion, yet what is that to what he undertook to prove out of Scripture? Indeed he makes use of some bits snatcht out of Calvin, Beza, Deodat, and sundry others, whose words he either wresteth, or alleageth to no pur­pose. But let him make what advantage he can of them: yet, they are but men, subject to the same infirmities with others; of which, an appeal may safely be made to his own Conscience. Therefore, how­ever they may be made use of in some cases, especially against them­selves, and their own party (as by that Author they are) yet it cannot be thought needful, or equal, to answer to every passage alleaged out of them; unless it be quoted, to stop their mouths who seem to allow them dominion over their faith. This is spoken, not to wave any thing materially alleaged out of them; but that there is nothing produced, that comes up to the proof of that, for which that Author undertook to alleage them: and so no Answer can be given to them.

Here might we stay, if men would be perswaded to rest in the Scri­ptures. But, because much is produced out of Antiquity for the proof of mens giving, and Gods accepting of Church-Lands, we must go on further; and see what use is made of Antiquity herein, and upon what grounds. And this, the rather, because it may be better known, when, and upon what terms, the maintenance by Lands began to take place in the Church.

The first news we hear of any lands conferred on the Church, was in the time of Pope Urbane the first, about the year 228. who institu­ted Platina in Urban I., Ut Ecclesias, praedia ac fundos, fidelibus oblatos reciperet, par­tireturque proventus Clericis omnibus viritim, nihilque cujuspiam priva­tum esset, sed in commune bonum.

For, that is the mean­ing of our Author. Indeed, Gratian, and the rest of that Drove of Romish Canonists, tell us of a Decretal Epistle of Urbane directed to all Bishops; wherein, under pain of Excommunication, he decreeth, That none should presume to alienate ought of the Churches Reve­nues, &c. But this, more suo, they have invented for ends of their own; the very phrase, stile and matter of that Epistle being altogether incongruous and unsuitable to the language and state of the Church, or the Authority assumed by the Bishops of Rome, at that time. And, be it that Urbane did write such an Epistle, it appears not when those Lands were given: and, whatever Lands were given to other Churches, they at Rome had none, in a good while after, as shall pre­sently be shewed.

But, if all this be admitted, that the Church, in those times, had some Lands, what is this to their purpose, who plead for Church-lands now? There was none then given in particular to Bishops, Cannos, or to any of the Clergy, to be for their own particular use, or personal propriety; those Lands were given to the Church in common: but, that is long since laid aside, and every one pulls, and hales what he can into his own purse, tanta est hominum rapacitas & libido, so great is the rapacity and lust of men, faith Platina Ibid. Now, this rapacity, this lust of covetousness, is that indeed which is pleaded for, by the stick­lers for the continuation of such Lands to the Church, that is, to them­selves.

And as for Pope Lucius I. who sate Bishop of Rome abont twenty three years after Urbane, (but continued not in the Sea above eight moneths, saith Eusebius; Marianus Scotus, saith, but five moneths) there is not one word in Platina, touching his taking notice of Church-lands. All that is to be found, is in the Canonists, and Compilers of the Councils, steered by the interest of Rome. So, Crab, and others, found out a Decretal Epistle of Lucius, directed to the Bishops of France and Spain, to the same purpose with that of Urbane. It is in­deed fathered upon Lucius I. but there are so many expressions in it, of Benefices, &c. (Names and Titles never heard of in those ages) as plainly discover it to be a false imposing of it upon that Lucius; for that it better agrees with, and may more fitly be imputed to Lucius 2. or to Lucius 3. above 900 yeears after the first. And, what likelyhood there is, that he, that in the time of the first Schism, caused by Nova­tianus, had work enough, could in so short a space as he sate Pope, do his duty against that Schism, and be at leasure to make such decrees as are fathered upon him touching Church-lands; let the impartial Rea­ders judge.

But be it as it will, and let it be granted that such Decrees were made by Urbane I. and Lucius I. take in also Pius 2. (as some do) who [Page 34] sate Pope 1200 years after; and, let all be admitted which they have decreed, for enjoying of Lands by Bishops, &c. yet the very best Title to Lands derived thence, is onely from Popes of Rome. If it be said, those Decrees are not produced to prove the Title, but onely to shew, de facto, that there were then such Lands belonging to the Church, which, those Popes took care, should not be alienated: It is answered, That if any such Lands belonged to the Church, and it cannot be shewed who gave them, the Title can be derived no higher than from those that first make mention of them. As for the Apostles times, the Scripture declares plainly what then was done with Lands; they were sold, and the money given to the Church. This was consonant to the Levitical Rules given by God, touching Lands sanctified to the Lord; which were not to be kept by the Priests, but sold, and put into mo­ney, at every Jubilee. But, the Popes taking upon them to be wiser than God, were of another opinion; and so are, it seems, too many a­mong our selves, upon the same account.

Howbeit, he that shall trace the best Ecclesiastical Histories, shall find that the Clergy of the Church were endowed with no Lands be­fore Constantine the Great; nor then, especially in his beginning, (un­less, with some Houses and Gardens:) nor afterwards, in his greatest advancements of Bishops, save onely with the profits of Lands. In­deed, in the supposititious Donation of Constantine, (forged in some Po­pish shop) it is said, That upon the Churches which Constantine built to the honour of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, possessionum praedia contulit, he conferred the spoiles of Possessions, or Lands, (gotten per­haps in war, for praedium refers properly to such:) yet this, in the lan­guage of Civilians, especially of those times, did not extend to the Lands themselves, but onely to the profits raised out of them.

By some Sr. Hen. Sp Int p. 6. Eusebius is quoted Euseb. l 10. c. 5., as setting down the Imperial Edicts of Constantine, and Licinius, by which they would prove, that the Church of Rome had begun to retain Lands, &c. even before Con­stantine was sole Emperour; because they made a Decree for resto­ring such things and possessions as had been taken from the Church in former times. But, let it be consideted, that in the Edicts quoted by Eusebius, no Lands are mentioned, unless Gardens and Houses [...], which will not suffice them, who are so zealous for Church-lands, appropri­ated to Cathedral Clergy-men: The Edict speaks onely of things per­taining to the whole Catholick-Church of Christians in common: which must be meant of the whole Society of believers. But, to let all men see how unprobable it is, that the Clergy should possess lands before Constantine, it is to be noted, that he was the first Christian Em­perour, before whose reign the Church was under fiery Persecutions. Therefore not in case for their Clergy-men to enjoy setled mainte­nance by Lands, or Tythes.

[Page 35] And even in the beginning of his reign, (he having been born, and, for the most part, bred in England; and so, unknown at Rome) not onely inferiour Christians there, but even that Bishop, or Pope Silve­ster himself, and his Associates in the Ministry, when Conftantine first came to Rome, and took on him the Empire, (not knowing his temper) were so much afraid of him, that they, for safety of their lives, hid themselves in the Hill Soracte, (afterwards, upon that occasion, called Monte di Sylvestro) about twenty miles from Rome, until they were better satisfied touching Constantines affection to the Christian Religion; if that Donation of Constantine be worthy of any credit.

But, to leave what was done at Rome, and, in other Countries [...] S. R. I. [...]; it behoves us to enquire how things of this nature were carried in England. And, as to this, it is pleaded Church Lands [...] pag. [...], that Lucius (King in same part of Britain) being converted to the knowledge and faith of Christ, about the year 176. (which is a mistake) rooted out the Idol-Priests; and, taking away their Possessions and Territories, he gave them to the Churches of the believing Christians, which be endowed with addition of more lands, and larger Revenues. For this, two learned Authors, Antiq. Brit. and Ar­mican: perhaps he meant Armacanus; that is, Matthew Parker, after, Archbishop of Cant. and, Dr. Usher, Archbishop of Armagh in Ireland, are alleaged: But, he that voucheth them, was so wise as not to reser his Readers to the particular places in those Authors, wherein they may finde what he alleageth out of them. So that this (without of­fence to his Lordship) might be passed over without answer.

Nevertheless, that it may not be thought unanswerable, he may be pleased to know, that however Antiquit. Britan. be a very good book, (not now to be had, because out of print) yet what is quoted out of him, is not clearly, (if at all) to be found in our ancient Authors. It is indeed acknowledged, that Eleutherius, then Bishop of Rome (at the request of Lucius) sent him two godly Ministers, Faganus and Damia­nus (as some call them) who converted the Britains to the faith Fox. Act; & [...] part. fol. [...] Edit. 1610., although Lucius himself was before a Christian, as appears by his Let­ter to Eleutherius. Then, were the Idol-Temples, and all other Mo­numents of Gentilism destroyed; and the people brought to serve one God, who before served many. There were then in Britan 28 Head-Priests, called Flanines; and three Arch-Priests over them, called Arch-Flamines. Instead of the former, they made 28 Bishops; and, in room of the other three, they made three Archhishops, who had their seats in London, York, and Glamorgan. But, not one word, of en­dowing them, or their Churches with the Lands of the Flamines or Arch-Flamines, either in Baronius himself, our own Bede, or any other Classical Author yet occurring.

Wherefore, until he that tells this Story, of setling those Lands on [Page 36] the Church, shall make it more punctually, let it not be offensive, to pass over that Tale, with the words of the Magdiburgenses Cent. 2. cap. 2., Cele­bratur autem imprimis Propagatio in Britania sub Eleutberio facta: de qua tamen plerague tam dub è & obscurè recitantur, ut propemodum tota haec historia de fide sua laboret.

And albeit, it be said that Britain continued in the faith above 200 years after Lucius, even until the Saxons (then, Heathens and Infidels) came in: and, by their power destroyed the Christian Religion, until Augustine the Monk converted sundry of the Kings of the then Heptar­chy, and reduced their people to the Faith again: yet in all that time, no mention is made in any History of credit, of lands given to, and set­led upon Bishops and Cathedral men, in this Nation.

I consess, Matthew of Westminster Flor. Hi­stor. ad. ann. 186. &c., tells us, That Lucius confer­red upon, and, by Charters, confirmed to Churches and Ecclesiastical men, sundry Possessions and Territeries, and granted such Priviledges to Churches and Church-yards, that whoever, having offendect, and fled to them, was to freed from punishment. But, what Churches, Clergy-men, and Territories they were, is not set down: and it is strange, that a Monk should know more of Lucius his endowment, than Bede, or others that had written of Lucius long before. I therefore think, this to be one of those corruptions of which he that printed his Flores, Anno 1570. gives warning in his Preface; and touching him, and Matthew Paris too, he there passeth this censure: Barbaros esse satcor, nec renuo si di­cas, varie corruptos:

And, give what credit you will to that Story, yet 'tis plain the counsel came from Rome for the doing of it. Lucius did, as the Romish Instructors taught.

The Original then (and by consequent, the Title) of the Lands of Bishops, and therest of the Cathedral men in England, cannot, of certainty, derive higher then the abused Magnificence of Princes, and other great men, nuzled in Ignorance and Superstition, both be­fore and since the Conquest, in the heighth of Popery: whereby Monasteries first, and afterwards Cathedrals, have been endowed with large Portions of Lands, and other Revenues, under the specious (but cheating) pretence of giving them to God, and Holy Church; e­ven to the impoverishing not onely of particular Families, but of the Kingdome.

Nor were they given indeed to maintain a preaching-Ministry, (for [Page 37] which, all Church-maintenance was at first appointed by God, even when the daily Sacrifices were on foot,) to instruct the people in the true knowledge of Christ and his Gospel, and to quicken them to the power of godliness, (for, these, most of those men who held those Lands, ever persecuted;) but, for superstitious ends and uses: and imployed (for the most part) to maintain the Luxury, Pomp, State, and other Excesses and Lusts of Abby-Lubbers, and other Cathedral Drones and Belly-gods, to the great dishonour of God, and scandal of the Gospel.

And it is to be observed, that (if any credit be given to Histories) the greatest and richest endowments of Cathedrals and Monasteries with Lands, in this Nation, 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 their Nobles, scarce knew one letter in a Book, nor the rest understood any thing of Christ or Religion, otherwise than so many Parrets; no, nor of the very Mu­nicipai Laws of the Nation, further than what the Prelatical Clergy (whose interest it was to keep all in grossest ignorance) though fit, for their own gain and advantage to communicate.

The Clergy, being sole Masters of the times, and holding all the chief Offices and Places of Power and Judicature in the State, as well as in the Church, did what they list both with King and People. And with their familiar spirit of Excommunication (the great Mormo and Scare-crow of the Laity, with which they daily frighted them) they could, and did conjure into their own Churches, to fill their own cof­fers, what quantities of Lands, or ought else they pleased.

But in nothing did they exercise so much Tyranny, as in the mat­ters of the Souls and Consciences of men, which they made perfect Vassals to their Lusts, according to what was prophesed by their greatly pretended Patron Saint Peter 2 Pet. 2.1, 3., who abhorred their wicked­ness, and therefore gave warning of their wiles and tricks, whereby, through covetousuess, with feigned words, they would make merchandise of the people. This they did, not only as they of old, who swallowed up the needy, in regard of their outward estates; and then, buying them for silver, and the needy for shooes Amos 8. 6.; but, as being the Merchants of Babylon, whose Me chandise is not of beasts, sheep, horses and chariots, or of the bodies of slaves alone, but of the souls of men Rev. 18. 13..

And as they held the people in ignorance, the more easily to prey upon them; so they purposely winked at the wickedness of Princes, great ones, and rich men, their adulteries, rapes, murders, and other villanies (so they did not fall upon the Clergy) till they had, by these means, got them most sure within their nets, and found it most seasonable to cut large gobbets out of their Estates. Then indeed, they would fall foul upon them, with a witness; [Page 38] terrifying them with unsufferable torments; first in Purgatory, and afterwards in Hell, unless they redeemed themselves, and expiated their sins, and that speedily, by giving such large portions of their best Lands, as those Harpies pleased. Which if they did, they were not only presently absolved, but declared meritorious: especially, if they could be drawn to give so large a portion to the Church, as might also maintain Masses, &c. for delivering the Souls of their Ancestors, and others out of their imaginary Purgatory fire. By this they were told they merited Heaven; but, without this, they must exspect nothing but Hell for their portion. Strong Arguments to weak and silly Souls, when they are fallen into the pit and pangs of the King of Terrors, and abused by blind guides.

Which Donations they were made to believe were now vested in God himself, and in such tutelary Saint, or Saints, as they taught them to devote them unto: that they were sacred, and highly accepted of God, (because indeed they kept the Kitchins of those Cheaters warm) whereupon they needed not to doubt of the pardon of all their sins, and the release of the Souls of their Ancestors, and of whom else they pleased to nominate, out of Purgatory.

All which Charters so granted to Pope-Holy Church, (for the better grace of the business) must begin with the sign of the Cross, and In nomine Domini; but indeed, to the use of the Devil. There­fore when those his Imps had any mischief of this kind to act, their u­sual introduction was, In the Name of God, Amen. This, in Benedicti­ons of such deluded Vassals; in Execrations, when they angred those hellish ghostly Fathers; and, in all Donations made unto them, was so common and constant, that it grew to a Proverb, In nomine Domini incipit omne malum. When they had a mind to fleece, or abuse any man, God himself must be invocated to become a party to own their wickedness, and to countenance their avarice, and cursed practises: even when God was not, otherwise, in all their thoughts Psal. 10.4., who were not but for their coveiousness.

Nor can it be imagained that the Donours of those large gifts, would ever have parted with them, but as being made to believe by those Merchants (the Devil's Brokers) to whom they gave them, that thereby they made full amends to God for all their sins, and expiated the guilt of some hainous and outragious wickedness by them before committed; the guilt of which, the very bloud of Christ was not suf­ficient alone to wash off. And, that hereby the Priests and Monks who were to enjoy those Lands, would take pains by their Popish De­votions, to deliver out of Purgatory the Souls of their Ancestors and Friends; 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 of such Endowments, as any intelligent man vers'd in the Hi­stories of those times, cannot but know.

[Page 39] And lest this should be thought a slander, take some short proof thereof, both in the Doctrines and Decrees of Rome, and in the Practise thereof accordingly.

First, the very body of the Canon-Law, (which is enough to silence for ever all such as shall allege any of those Popish Canons or Laws touching this subject, to make good their out-cries against sale of those Lands) thus declareth and decreeth, Ille qui donat, pro redemptione A­nime suae, non pro commodo sacerdotis offerre probatur Decrct. par. 2. Caus. 12. 4 3. c Pon­tisices.. He that gives ought to the Church, doth it for the redemption of his Soul, not for the Priests gain. And this shooing-horn was held out, the more easily to draw on mens Estates upon their own Churches; which be­ing published as a Law, or Truth to be believed upon pain of Damna­tion, who durst to make doubt of the truth of it, or to scruple the be­stowing of the greatest gifts he could possibly reach unto? For, if a man will give skin for skin, and all that he hath for his life, (as once the Devil teld God Job 2. 4.) much more will he stretch himself for his Soul, be­cause it costeth more to redeem Souls Psal. 49.8. And yet when all this is done, this is not given unto God, but to their greatest Enemy Satan, be­cause it takes a man off from relying wholly upon the death and satisfa­ction of Christ, (albeit there is no salvation in any other Act. 3.12 and to trust in his own merits; yea, in that work which God neither requireth nor will accept; and so, in his conceit, to become his own Saviour; which is a Doctrine of Devils. And it had been all one, to have given the same gifts to any of the gods of the Heathens, which are Devils.

Secondly, take also some instances answerable to the former Do­ctrine, which are extant in several Authors of credit.

First, in the Saxons times, after Ina, King of the West-Saxons, had built St. Andrews a Church in Wells, about the year 704 Godwin of Bishops, pag 357., and de­dicated the same unto St. Andrew, not to be a Cathedral, but Collegi­ate Church for Monks. There was no Bishop there till about 200 years after. Howbeit, in the year 766, Kenulphe, succeeding Ina, and others in that Kingdom of the West-Saxons, gave to the Monks of that Church all the Lands adjacent, in and about Wells and Mendip, as by his Charter appeareth. In which, he setteth down the Grounds and Motives which induced him to it, in these words Monastic. Anglican.: Quapropter Ego Cyenulphus Occi Saxonum Rex, aliquam terrae partem, pro amore Dei, & pro expiatione delictorum meorum, nec non (quod verbo dolendum est) pro aliqua vexatione inimicorum nostrorum Cornubiae gentis:

That is, to hire the Monks of Wells to curse the Cornish men, which he could not (it seems) subdue by his sword.

[Page 40] And verily he had need to do somewhat more than ordinary for expiating his sins, according as the Doctrine of those times (where­in the all-sufficiency of Christs full satisfaction was concealed) ran. For, albeit in his younger times he carried himself fairly as to the matter of his Government of his subjects, (for want whereof his Pre­decessour Sigebert, was deposed, and he taken into his room;) yet, as for his more private conversation, he was a man so addicted to A­dultery, that his wife, not able to bear it, left him, and betook her self to a Nunnery, where she ended her days: and he, after this large Donation, could not be drawn off from that sin of uncleanness, but rather grew more bold to continue it, which in the end cost him his life.

For whereas in the 26 of his reign, he bestowed that Charter upon the Monks of Wells, yet he still haunted a Concubine or Strumpet (some call her a Noble Person) at a place called by some Meriton, by other Merton, or Marton, or Mariton, within his own Dominions; and there, in the 30 year of his reign, was slain: not by the Cornish that were in rebellion, (as was lately conjectured, upon the account of Simon Dunelmensis, quoted by Speed and Isaacson; which Simon being consulted, setteth not down the names of the Murderers) but, as Jo­hannes de Brompton, Matthew of Westminster Ad Ann. 280., Henry of Hunting­ton Historiar. li. 4., Roger de Hoveden Annal. par 1., Ethelwerd Li. c 18, Polydore Virgil Hist. 1.5., and sundry others do all affirm, by one Kineard, brother to the deposed King Sigebert.

This is the truth of that sad accident which befel Kenulph, and this was his end. Thus we see how divine the endowment of the Church of Wells was, which was not made a Cathedral until in the year 905. Plegmund, Archbishop of Canterbury, (who, by command from King Edward, sirnamed the Elder, consecrated seven Bishops in one day, where none had sate before) among which, he consecrated Adelme Abbot of Glanstenbury, the first Bishop of Wells: by which it became a Bishops Sea. But it is remarkable, that he who gave Lands partly for cursing of others, fell himself under the saddest curse, to be butchered in that very place where he had so often formerly, and then also, com­mitted adultery, by the hand of him whom he thought he had made sure enough.

Take another instance in Henry the Third. He being pressed by his Nobles, Bishops, and others to pass the Great Charter, so highly mag­nified Magna Charta. and cryed up, especially by the prelatical Clergy, in the ninth year of his reign, (himself being then but eighteen years old) he was hookt in, to grant it thus: Henry by the Grace of God, King of England, &c. To all Archbishops, Bishops, &c. Know ye, that we, to 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 Bishops [Page 41] and many Abbots, as well as others, were of Counsel, and Witnesses. Hereby it appears, that this Charter was granted chiefly to merit salva­tion. So as, however the honour of God be mentioned, yet the disho­nour of God and of Christ lay at the bottom of that grant, in refe­rence to the foundation laid in the heart of that King by the Prelates. The like instance may be given in Edward the third, and many more: but because there will be occasion to mention some of them, upon an­other account, they are forborn here.

That this was the High-way wherein the degenerate Clergy of Eng­land, long before (as well as since) the Conquest, constantly travailed, take one proof (for all) out of Gildas (sirnamed Sapiens) who being a Britain Presbyter, sharply declaimeth against the ignorance, covertous­ness, idleness, voracity, thievery of the Clergy of his time, which were said to be continued from the time of King Lucius, in Britain, now England; for which God had brought many sad judgements upon the Britains by the Saxons, who, (at their first coming especially) be­ing Idolaters, continually oppressed, and tyrannized over the Britains. Yet nothing would prevail to reduce the Clergy to duty. Whether he continued till Austin the Monk came into England, some doubt, o­thers deny. Yet Oraeus Nomen­clat. l. G., and others affirm it; of which, see more in Vossius De Hist. Latin. 1.2. cap. 21..

But, it is on all hands agreed, that he sharply rebuked the great exorbitancies and abuses of the Clergy of his time. Those abuses were, some of them, such as concern the business in hand; which, he thus reproveth In Eccle­siast. Ordin. acr. Corrept.. Britania habet sacerdotes, sed non nullos insipientes; guamplurimos ministros, sed multos impudentes: Clericos, sed quosdam raptores, subdoles: Pastores, ut dicuntur, sed occisioni animarum lupos paratos; quippe non commodo plebis providentes, sed proprii plenitudinem ventris quaerentes: Ecclesiae Domos habentes, sed eas turpis lucri gratia adeuntes, &c.

And, that he might let all men see, that he excepted not the Bishops of those times, nor such as sate chief among the Clergy; nay, not the Pope himself; he addeth, Sedem Petri Apostoli, immundis pedibus usur­pantes, sed merito cupiditatis in Judae Traditoris Pestilentiae Cathedram desidentes. They usurp the Apostle Peters seat with unclean feet; but, through their covetousness, they rather sit indeed in Judas his Chair of Pestilence. This, with much more, that old Britain, so highly ac­counted [Page 42] of, layeth to the charge of the British Clergy of those times, which future ages did not make better.

For, since the Norman Conquest, the Prelates and Monks have been higher than before, and grasped more Lands into their hands (upon the same account of redeeming Souls) than all their predeces­sors. Insomuch as the Cathedral Clergy, Chauntries, Monks, and Nuns, being not a fortieth (nay, not an hundreth) part of the people, had, by these wi es and devices, gotten (as some intelligent men have computed) a third part (if not two) of all the best Lands in the Nati­on, at what time Henry the eighth began to seize the lesser Monaste­ries. All which estates were obtained upon that rotten ground, of meriting salvation by giving such large gifts to the Church: which false Doctrine they continually inculcated upon the people, to draw them on to such Donations.

Yea, sozealously bent were the Prelates of those times to augment the Churches Patrimony; that, by a Provincial Constitution Lindw. 1.5 tit. de poenit & remiss. cap. cum anima., made by Richard Withershead (alias Wctherhead) Archbishop of Canterbury, in the reign of Hen. 3. it was forbidden to all Physicians to administer any Physick to any Patient (be his extremity and danger never so great) under pain of suspension ab ingressu Ecclesae, till the Patient were shrived by a Priest. The pretence was, to visit and physick his Soul first. But, the meaning was, to get a collop out of his Estate to some Church, Chappel, or Monastery, to increase their own Reve­nues: Upon which, the Priest absolved him; but, not before. And this was that which occasioned the multiplying of Chaunteries, Obiits, &c. and afterwards, the abrogating of them, in the reign of Edw. 6. to whom they were given by Parliament, I. Edw. 6. 14.

Nor were the Kings and Parliaments (especially after King John) so hood-winkt or cowed, as not to see and take notice of, and provide against those excessive gifts of Lands to the Church; that is, to the Clergy, whereby they greatly robbed the Commonwealth, and ruined many particular families.

Therefore, the same Henry the third, when he first granted the Great Charter, and therein confirmed the Right and Liberties (which doth not necessarily, if at all, import Lands See Cook. Instit. 2. C. I.) of holy Church (as that Idolized Crew was then termed) did, in the same Charter, enact Cap. 36.;

Here then [Page 43] was a Law against voluntary gifts of Lands, and a liberty granted to others, to recover them back, notwithstanding their pretended giving them unto God: whereby it appears, that some sorts of giving, and accepting and receiving Lands for the Church, is not a duty, but a fault, which deserves punishment, not a reward.

Next after Hen. 3. succeeded his son, Edw. I. who, in the 25th of his reign, confirmed the Great Charter; and, in it, the clause, or Chap­ter, last mentioned. But, before he did that, even in the seventh of his reign, he made a strict Law against Mortmain (by advice of the Pre­lates as well as others,) to make all gifts and purchases of Lands with­out special License from the King) to be null and void; and the Lands to be forfeited to the chief Lord, if he took the advantage within one year and an half; or else to the King, in case the chief Lord neglected the time therein appointed and limitted.

It is true, that Edward 3. a popular Prince, at the importunity of the Clergy (of whom he was necessitated to make much use in his wars) did somewhat mitigate the rigour of former Statutes of Mort­main; who, in case of breach thereof, enacted, that instead of forfei­tures, parties offending should onely pay a Fine. Howbeit, in 15 Rich. 2. that Statute De Religiosis, 7. Edw. I. was not onely revived, and set on foot again; but, made to extend to all Lands privately gi­ven for Church-yards, or Glebes of Vicars, &c. or to Guilds, Frater­nities, and Corporations, without special License from the King. And that if any, before this last Statute, had bought, procured, or received such Lands, without License, they should either procure his License, or sell those Lands away for other uses, by the next Michaelmas follow­ing; else the Lands to be forfeited, and seisure to be made of them, as in the aforesaid Statute of 7. Edw. I. de Religiosis was provided. This indeed was the main quarrel which Thomas A undel then Arch­bishop of Canterbury had against that King, for which he conspired with Henry of Bullingbrook (afterwards, Henry 4.) to depose, and ruine him.

By all which it is manifest, that neither Kings nor Parliament, no not Bishops themselves in Parliament, ever took all Lands given to Churches upon mens private devotions and liberality, to be sacred, or, holy to the Lord, and thereby to become his propriety; or, so much as lawful for the Church to hold them, without special License from the King, and other chief Lord, or Lords of the see. Yea, these Acts of Parliament declare plainly, that such voluntary giving of Lands, was in it selfagainst Law. For there being required a special License for legitimating thereof, it is manifest that the thing could not be done, without dispensing with the Laws made against it. The unlawfulness whereof is declared to be, that the King and Kingdom was thereby defrauded of such taxes and payments (when the Lands once were in [Page 44] Mortmain, or a dead hand, to wit, the Church) as formerly had been raised out of them, for defence of the Realm; and the chief Lords of the Fee, were deprived of their chiefRents, Services, Reliefs, Fines of Alienation, Eschetes, &c. which being an apparent wrong to all, oc­casioned the making of those Laws against that lawless Liberty.

And yet our Advocates for Church-Lands, will needs contend, that every thing voluntarily given to Holy Church (be it for what use it will, Superstitious, or not) must needs by that very Donation instant­ly become so sacred, that it may by no means be alienated; and, that God accepts it for his own, although given contrary to the Laws of those men, to whose Ordinances (even to every one of them, not con­trary to Gods) we are commanded to submit, for the Lords sake; whe­ther it be to the King, as Supreme; or unto Governours, as unto them that are sent by him, &c. I Pet. 2.13, 14.

Thus we see what, in truth, the Title of the Lands of Bishops and o­ther Cathedral men in England, was; whence, derived; upon what grounds; and, in what manner procued, and enjoyed: which suffici­ently argues them (even in construction of Scripture, as well as of hu­mane Laws) to be far from being sacred, or Holy to the Lord, so as, upon any account whatsoever to intitle him unto them.

THis is evident from the premises, and is here added by way of An­tithesis, to obviate those Two confident Assertions of the Letter Answerer Pag 25. his 3. and 4. Proposi­tions. before mentioned, viz. That to invade those things (given to the Church) be they moveable, or immoveable, is expresly the sin of Sa­crilege. And, That this sin is not onely against Gods positive Law, but plainly against his Moral Law. To charge a man with Sacrilege, is the highest accusation for the greatest crime, next to the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost: for, it is ranged with Idolatry it self, Rom. 2.22. yea, in the judgement of some (quoted by this Answerers Se­cond, and Repetitioner) church-Lands not to be sold, pag 14, 15.; it is a worse sin: a sin that is not onely a breach of the Positive written Law, but against the Law of nature also. The very Heathens have made it death Plato de Legib. dial. 9. and, such a death as is due to a Parricide, or murderer of his father Leg. 12. Tabul.

This goes very high indeed. The evidence to prove it, had need [Page 45] therefore to be very clear, full, impregnable, and manifest by express Scripture; not by strained consequences drawn thence by wit, or by the authority or suffrage of men; as thinking to make good by number of voyces, what cannot be made out by strength of Scripture. This were no better then the banishing of Aristides from Athens, by the Law of Ostracismon, as being very likely to be guilty of Tyranny; which in stead of proving, they made good by the Votes of 6000 Citi­zens Plutarch in Arist.

Now, it will concern these Accusers to make out their charge, upon pain of incurring the same punishment which is due to a Sacrilegist. If any man unjustly accuse another, the Lord once made a Law touching False witness bearing against ones neighbour, which was this Deut. 19. 16, & co.; The judges were to make diligent inquisition; and, if the witness were a false witness, and bad testified falsly against his brother, then should they do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: no eye might pity him: but life should go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, band for band, foot for foot. It is well for these bold Censurers, that this Judicial obtains not in England. Yet let them know, that the Equity of it is perpe­tual, and the Justice of God will (without repentance) finde them out.

To prove this to be expresly Sacrilege, one of them tells you a fair tale out of the Schools and Casuists, Aquinas, &c. which is all the Ar­gument he brings (unless the Etymology of the word, and Nebucbad­nezzar's abusing the holy Vessels, and the burning of the Temple:) but, out of an express text of Scripture, declaring and dooming the Buyers of Cathedral Lands, expresly to be Sacrilege, [...] quidem, not one sylla­ble. And can there be such a sin, unless he produce some Scripture that forbids and condemns it? Is notthis to become [...] the Accuser of the Brothren? Nor, are proofs of the other as to this point, any better, but Quotations of such Scriptures, of which none do mention lands; but, he seeks by Circumlocutions, In­terrogations, confident Assertions, to fasten such a sense upon them; sometime contrary to, always incongruous and aliene from the genu­ine sense of them. As by occasion hath been in great partalready de­monstrated; and, further may be, in this or the next Chapter.

In his other Proposition, he affirms, that this aliening of such lands, is against the Positive and Moral Law of God; because all Nations, even Pagans, hold Sacrilege for a sin: and, for his better grace, he vouch­eth (but cites not the place, whereby it might be examined) Lactan­tius, to prove that, in all Religions, God ever avenged this sin. But doth he tell us out of Lactantius, or Scripture, that selling or buying Cathedral Lands is that sin? Yes: he voucheth Mal. 3. 8. Will a man rob God? yet ye have robbed me. But, wherein? Here he is silent: for it makes not for his purpose. but rather against him. What was [Page 46] it indeed? God himself tells them; (not, in Lands, but) in Tythes and Offerings. And this is granted him. And what gets he by it? but, the countenance of some Scripture-words against the sense. But, that (notwithstanding all objected, or alleaged) to sell, or buy such Lands, because once voluntarily dedicated to God, is no Sacrilege, appears thus.

First, by that very Scripture, Levit. 27. (alleaged to the contrary) if rightly understood. For, if it were lawful to make a singular vow, of a person, a beast, an bouse, or some part of the field of his possessions; and, (after such sanctifying of it to the Lord) to redeem or buy it back again for common uses: then, the bare Dedication, giving, or consecrating of a thing unto God, doth not, eo ipso, make the redeeming, selling or buying thereof, for any use, to be Sacrilege; unless, where God him­self hath expresly forbidden such redemption, sale or purchase. But, in divers cases, and particularly in the cases of Houses and Lands, God allowed a redemption and sale: so as, the buying of them back, for pri­vate uses, after the sanctifying of them to the Lord, were done within the time allotted by God for the doing of it, as hath been before more largely opened. Therefore, to sell, or buy Cathedral Lands, is no Sa­crilege, nor any way sinful, in the case before propounded, because once dedicated to God.

It is true, that where God hath laid an express prohibition against redeeming or buying, it is Sacrilege to redeem or buy. As for example: Ifa man voluntarily offer, a beast, which God hath allowed for Sacri­fice, he may not redeem, buy or exchange it; no, not for a better, vers. 10. no more may he redeem or buy, nor so much as sanctifie the firstlings of beasts, whether ox or sheep; because that is so the Lords, that a man cannot make of that a free-will offering, vers. 26. but, if it be any o­ther beast, he may redeem it, and employ it to what use he pleaseth, vers. 11, 12, 13. and vers. 27. So in sanctifying an bouse to be holy to the Lord, it might be redeemed for private use without sin; yea, with Gods allowance, vers. 14, 15. And the like allowance was given for redeeming of fields and lands so sanctified also: vers. 16, 17, 18, 19. therefore no sin or Sacrilege to buy it for common use: onely, in two cases, it was not lawful;

1. If he redeemed it not before the Jubilee, as was before noted.

2. If he had sold it unto another man, vers. 20. If either of these were the case, then, it was holy to the Lord as a field DEVOTED; that is, with Anathema, or a Curse denounced by God.

This, God after repeateth, with some enlargements, vers. 28. to let us see, that nothing devoted, under his curse, might be bought or sold. Howbeit, all things confecrated, are not so devoted. Nothing could be devoted, but in the cases above mentioned: and this was done, by God himself, not by the men that gave it. For the fields were not to be given [Page 47] with an Anathema, denounced by the Donors. But this was added by God, long after the Lands were out of their possession, and not re­deemed. And had the Donors first given it, with a curse, they had made themselves for ever uncapable of redeeming it; before the Jubi­lee, which God himself not onely allowed, but, in a manner, required them to do; that so there might not be an utter alienation of it from the Tribe and Family, to which it belonged by Divine lo:; against which God made a Law, Num. 36.7.

If it be now objected: But, Church-Lands were given with a curse upon all that should aliene them: This is soon answered. There is no warrant or example hereof in Scripture: but, rather of the contrary. Sure we are, there is no warrant for it in the place alleaged, Lev. 27. 21 & 28. But, of this more, in the next Chapter.

Secondly, proceed we from voluntary Consecrations, to things set apart by the people, at Gods own command, for the Priests and Le­vites; which will further clear this Point. It hath been already shew­ed, that there were by Gods injunction 48 Cities with Suburbs of lands for the Priests and Levites set out by the several Tribes of Is­rael. Here the Levites had houses to dwell in; and lands for their Cattle.

Howbeit, I. The Levites might sell their houses, without sin: For, when God made a Law for confining a man that sold a dwelling house in a walled City, to redeem it within a year, after the sale; or else, it might not be redeemed till the Jubilee, Lev. 25.29. He gave further liberty to the Levites, if any of them sold an house, he might redeem it at any time, vers. 32. And if a man purchased of the Levites, then the house that was sold should go out in the year of Jubilee: for the houses of the Levites are their possession among the children of Israel, saith the Lord, vers. 33. This plainly implies and proves the lawfulness of buying, and detaining, without sin, even the house of a Levite, until it were ei­ther redeemed, or returned at the Jubilee. Therefore, it is not Sacri­lege to buy Church-Houses of Bishops and other Cathedral men; no more then it was, in a Levite to sell; and in an ordinary person to buy a Levites house, for private use.

2. As for the lands of the Levites: those I mean, which were an­nexed to those Cities (for other they had none) they might not sell them, so long as their Priesthood lasted. For so, God expresly, The field of the Suburbs of their Cities, may not be sold, for it is their perpetual possession, vers. 34. Their houses were their possession; but the Lands, their perpetual possession: that is, to remain unalienated, so long as their office remained. Those Lands were the same in effect, with our Paro­chial Glebes. The Levites could not be without them for their cattle and goods; no more can faithful Ministers of the Gospel be without these. And if it were expresly forbidden to aliene those, while the [Page 48] Levites officiated in their places; it will nearly concern all who have aliened. or shall aliene any of these, to consider his warrant from God (and not from man onely) to exempt him from the guilt of Sacrilege; or, at least, of a very great sin.

Howbeit, when the Levitical Priesthood ended, the Levites might as lawfully sell their lands, as their houses. Else, Joses (sirnamed Barnabas) a Levite, of the country of Cyprus, had (in the common opinion of the most) committed Sacrilege; for that he (after that Priesthood was changed by Christ) having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the Apostles feet Act. 4.36, 37.. Had this been Sacrilege, the Apostles would never have suffered such money so near them, nor would they have ac­cepted of such a gift, although given for supply of the then persecuted Church of Believers. It was therefore no sin in him: but is recor­ded by the Spirit of God as an eminent act of his Faith, Piety, and Charity.

If any shall say, That the Land sold by Joses, was not Levitical, or Church-land, but a temporal Estate: 1. This appears not from the Text: nor, 2. is it asserted by any Expositor, in terminis. Indeed, Lyra In loc. seems to incline somewhat this way, when he saith, It was land that he had in Cyprus, where he was born: the Levites, as he saith, being then dispersed (but not by reason of persecutions at home, as he conceiteth) and that he was to have none in Judea, save what is before mentioned, which was wholly Levitical. But this is but his own sin­gle opinion, to which we may oppose Tostatus In Lev. 27.4, 36., who plainly proveth that neither in one place or other, might the Levites enjoy any lands, but those about their Cities. And be it, that Joses had lands at Cy­prus. He was now at Hierusalem, which was distant from Cyprus 160 miles, saith Strabo Com. Geog. 1.14.. Little likelyhood therefore he should make a journey to Cyprus, to make a sale there: and less, that he, at such a time, should get so large a revenue in a strange Country. Where­fore, more probable is that of Gualter In Act. 4.; that Joses, being a Levite at that time, and converted unto Christ, then so much hated of that or­der, ( eo quod Christus illorum quaestui & honori plurimus derogaret, up­on this very point, that Christ did much derogate from their gain and honour) did show so much charity and bounty to the Saints at Hei­rusalem, as to sell his Land, and bestow it on them. Which Land, saith Alexander the Monk In Vit. Barnab., lay in Judea, not in Cyprus: nor could he, in the opinion even of Cornelius à Lapide, have any in Judea, unless pascua­les duntaxat ad alenda pecora, ut patet Num. 35.3. onely pastures for fee­ding cattle, as appears Num. 35. 3. which a Jesuite would hardly be perswaded to acknowledge, were there any colour of probability to the contrary.

But let this Land be where and what it would, it is a clear case that it was a Levites patrimony, and a Levite sold it; yet he that bought [Page 49] it, sinned not. Yes, saith one, he that bought it, might sin, although he that sold it, might therein not sin, by reason of the necessity of the times. So Hezekiah did lawfully in delivering the Treasure and Orna­ments of the Temple to the King of Assyria 2 King. 18.15, 16., to redeem himself and Gods people from his violence; but, who can suppose the Assyrian less than sacrilegious in accepting and detaining them? To which, I answer: If the one might lawfully give, the other could not sin in receiving what was given. At best, it was but doing evil, in giving way to ano­ther to sin, that good may come of it. Hezekiah cannot be excused from sin, if he do that which makes another to sin. Therefore if Joses might lawfully sell, it could not be sinful in the Purchaser to buy. Moreover, the Shew-bread, in case of extremity, was given to David and his Company, by Abimelech 1 Sam. 21 6.; which Bread was not common, but hallowed; nor was it lawful for any but the Priests to eat of it. Yet who will say, that David sinned therein? In extremities, if God will have mercy. and not sacrifice; how can it be unlawful to buy and possess what others are forced to sell? If there were no Buyers, there can be no Sellers. And if there cannot be buying without sin, how can he escape guilt that maketh the sale? In cases of this nature, buying and selling are relatives; one cannot be without the other: therefore they must both share alike in guilt, if either be faulty; unless the Buyer compel the Seller by violence to do out of fear, what he would not do without force.

Nor need this seem strange Doctrine, if we consider, either, first, the Canon-Law, whence the whole troop of Declaimers against such Sacrilege fetch their Arguments: or, secondly, the practise of Bi­shops, &c. in this Kingdome: or, thirdly, the Judgement of the Pope himself declared to Queen Mary, touching those Lands which had been aliened from the Church by her Father and Brother.

1. The Canon-law hath sundry strict restraints upon Bishops, and other Ecclesiastical Persons, not to give, exchange, or sell, and aliene the revenues of the Church. Yet withal, in one of the strictest of those Canons, beginning thus, Sine exceptione Decret. 2. Caus. 12. q. 2. c. 52 sine except., it is allowed to be done by a Bishop; if, for the profit of the Church; and, with advice and consent of his whole Clergy: without which, they make such giving, exchanging, or selling, to be Sacrilege. Hence many, not taking no­tice of the Exceptions, run away with the former part; as if it were Sacrilege simply and absolutely; though for the profit of the Church, and with consent; as that famous Martin. de Aspilcueta Dr. of Na­varre Tom. 1. Com. in Cap. non li­c. a. 12 q. [...] 7. & 8., sheweth.

Therefore, he distinguisheth of Ecclesiastical Goods, of which some are more solemnly consecrated with a special Benediction, and serve immediately for Divine Worship. These cannot be profaned (that is, converted to common use) no not by the Pope himself, while they [Page 50] continue in the form in, and use for which they were consecrated. O­ther goods are consecrated by a sole Donation, and disposal of them for the sustentation and maintaining either of men, or things imployed in, and about Divine Worship; without such a solemn Benediction. These last may be alienated even by inferiour Prelates; as, saith he, not onely moveables, but immoveables, dayly are, so often as upon just cause, and with due solemnity, venduntur laicis, vel aliàs commu­tantur cum eis; they be sold to, or exchanged with Laymen: referring to the Canon last mentioned.

But, whitherto tends this? To shew that, in the judgement even of those from whom our sharpest Censurers draw most of their water to drive their Mill, all alienation of Church-lands is not Sacrilege, up­on this simple account, that they are voluntarily consecrated, and given by men, as holy to God, or Christ: for, if any thing may, in the judge­ment of the parties interessed in the profit, be gained by it, it is no Sa­crilege nor Sin, but lawful; and, dayly practised by the greatest sticklers against what they please to call Sacrilege. Yea, hence may be inferred further, that whether the alienation be advantageous, or not, to the Church, it is no Sacrilege: for, if such dedication and con­secration, or hallowing of a thing afterwards stollen, purloyned, or alie­ned, makes such stealth, sale, or purchase to be Sacrilege, as all seem to confess: then, the profit by, and consent to such a sale, cannot ex­tenuate, or take off the sinfulness of it. Therefore, however the ali­enating thereof to disadvantage, and without consent, be an injury, (if not done by lawful authority) yet it can be no Sacrilege: unless, men wilifreely acknowledge that they do indeed judge such sales by their own damage, not by the Dedications of the Lands unto God.

2. If it be considered what the Bishops have counselled, and joyned in, with the King, Lords and Commons in Parliament, it will appear that the aliening of such Lands is, in their judgements no Sacrilege. Witness, (1.)the Acts of Parliament formerly mentioned 15. Ric. 2. 6..5, made and enacted with consent of the Lords Spiritual, as they were called. In one of which before cited, they make all Lands given to the Church without Licence, to be forfeited, and to be seized by the chief Lord, or the King, unless they procure a License, or sell away those Lands within a short time therein prefixed & limited; which could not be, if it were Sacrilege, after they be dedicated and hallowed, to sell, or aliene them. This shews plainly that it was not lawful to receive or enjoy such lands without licence; but, lawful enough to sell them, if any such they had: therefore no sin, but a lawful Act, to buy & purchase them for common uses, although (in their language) given to God by men; and so, no Sacrilege. And, (2.) in 1.2. Phil. & Mariae. The Bishops themselves then in Parliament, yea as well as the rest of the Lords and Commons, prayed all the Clergy, then in Convocation, Confirmation of all sales and [Page 51] alienations of Church-lands (as well of Bishopricks as of Monasteries, &c.) before that time made, as appears by that very Act of Confirma­tion it self, cap. 8.

To which may be added, that Bishops Lands especially, were (as be­fore is shewed) declared in open Parliament (the Bishops being pre­sent) 25. Ed. 3. Stat. dc Provis., to be given to maintain their State and Magnificence, as Lords, with special reference to State-employments. For thus, saith the Statute, was this Church founded in the State of Prelacy, for that the Kings were wont to have the greatest part of their Counsel, for the safe­guard of the Realm, when they had need of the said Prelates and Clerks so advanced. All which Civil Employment in State-affairs (for which they were advanced so high) is wholly taken off, by special Act of Par­liament, with the Royal Assent. Yea, their very Functions and Offi­ces, 17. car. 1. cap. 28. as to all. Jurisdiction, are by the same King and Parliament, pluckt up the roots, 17. Car. I. cap. II. Their Lands then, must needs Es­chete and revert to the Commonwealth; (the proper Heirs of the first Founders and Donors, being dead many ages agone, and their memo­ry perished from off the earth) and therefore now as lawfully sold, as heretofore in the case of Mortmain, Lands (not by licence received) might be seised and alienated by the chief Lord of the Fee, or by the King; and, converted to what uses they pleased. Of which, before.

3. If we look into the judgement and resolution of the Pope him­self in this case, we shall find that he durst not to damn those of the Laity of the last age, as guilty of Sacrilege, that were possessed of Church-lands after the dissolutions made by Hen. 8. and his Son, Edward the sixth. For Queen Mary (one of the Popes great Zealots) after she was possessed of the English Crown, desired the resolution of the Pope, whether she were not bound in Conscience, to do her utmost that those Revenues might be restored to the Church?

To this, the Pope returned an answer in writing (2 ^o Mariae) the O­riginal whereof (saith Dr. Hackwel) Answ. to Dr. Car­riers Letter, p. 248., was among other remarka­ble remembrances of that time, preserved in the Office of the Kings Papers; to let her know, that there was no cause for restoring those Lands to the Church again; and giveth sundry reasons of that his re­solution, which will ask some time to transcribe. Howbeit, because this is not vulgarly known, yet of use, I shall (as Dr. Haclwel hath led the way) set down the Popes own words, first in Latine, and afterwards in English: that it may appear that there is not, in the judgment of the Pope himself, any Sacrilege in the alienation of those Revenues. Which, I here mention, not as placing confidence in the Popes opinions; but as retorting upon the late Writers against Sacrilege, the opinion of them, who were the first Founders of the Doctrines delivered by these: whereby they may yet further see on what sandy foundations their Discourses of Sacrilege, are built.

[Page 52] The Judgement of Julius 3. sent in Writing to Queen Ma­ry, in the year 1554.

In English, thus:

Lo, here a Pope (more concerned in such alienations from the Church by others, than our sowre Masters) is so far from making the selling, or purchasing of such Lands to be Sacrilege, that he gives many weighty reasons against the restoring of them, and for warranting the holding of them. As for his addition, that men should take his con­firmation and dispensation for it, (less than which a Pope could not propose,) we leave to them, that hold that needful.

But, it is considently affirmed that Dr. Burges (before he was enga­ged Object. in buying Bishops Lands) openly acknowledged at the Bar of the House of Commons in Parliament, in his Answer May 11. 1641. to Dr. Hackets Speech, then and there (in the Names of all Deans and Chapters) made for preventing the alienation of Cathedral Lands; That, to take away those from the Church, is Sacrilege; or words to that effect: con­cluding with the utter unlawfulness to convert such endowments to any pri­vate persons profit Hist of the Church. Cent 17. Lib. 11. P. 179..

So indeed the novel flashy Church-Historian, upon hear-say onely, hath reported him; of whom Dr. Heylin in his Animadvers. on that Hist. p. 225. thus:

Tam facilis in mendaciis fides, ut quicquid fama liceat fingere, illi esset libenter audire Minut. Foelix.. But this is an unjust Aspersion: In­deed Dr. Burges did declare a concurrence with Dr. Hacket, in admit­ting the alienation of any thing, settled by Divine Right upon the Church, to be Sacrilege: but, nothing else. It was far from him to grant, that all which Cathedral men enjoyed, was theirs by Divine Right; or, to admit, that it was Sacrilege, to aliene any other thing that was theirs, not by Divine Right.

He intended no more in that Answer, than what he had long before An. 1625. published, in a Preface to a little Tract of Personal Tithes, where he thus expresseth himself:

[Page 55] Had he granted more, he had deviated from the truth. And could it be proved by an hundred witnesses, that he fully concurred with Dr. Hacket, in this point: and, that sundry who then heard him, so understood him; yet, this cannot make Sacrilege to be, in the true na­ture of it, of larger extent then it is indeed: and therefore if he did so speak, he must, and doth renounce it, as an errour.

But, is it not said, Numb. 16. after Korah and his associates were so object. dreadfully destroyed, for making & using Censers to burn incense with­all; that God commanded Moses to speak to Eleazer the son of Aaron the Priest, that he take up the Censers out of the burning, (and scatter thou the fire yonder) for they are hallowed. The Censers of these sinners, against their own souls, let them make them broad plates for a covering of the Al­tar: for they offered them before the Lord, therefore they are hallowed? vers. 37, 38.

Out of which text, many things may be observed, viz. Answ.

First, that men may offer some things before the Lord, and to him, which he hath not commanded.

Secondly, that such things, so offered, are hallowed; how wicked soever they be that offer them.

Thirdly, that upon such offering, and hallowing of them, they may not be imployed to any use, but what is holy and sacred.

Fourthly, that therefore to imploy them otherwise, is Sacrilege.

This carries in it a shew at least of greater weight than all that is ur­ged by most of those that would make Sacrilege as wide as the Cano­nists and School-men do. But it is yet capable of an Answer sufficient to satisfie impartial men. For,

1. What here is first observed from that text, is denyed: because, the text holds out no such thing. For, albeit Korah and his company sinned greatly in taking on them to oppose Moses and Aaron; yet their Offering of Incense at that time, was not without some command: for Moses thus spake unto them, before they attempted any such matter: This do, take you Censers, Korah, and all his company, and put fire therein, and put incense in them before the Lord to morrow, vers. 6, 7. And, as if this were not enough, he doubleth the same injunction, vers. 16, 17. whereupon it is said, vers. 18. And they took every man his Censer, and put fire in them, and laid incense thereon, and stood in the door of the Taber­nacle of the Congregation, with Moses and Aaron.

This, Moses enjoyned; not, as approving what they were to do; but as bringing them to the tryal, whether they had not sinned very hainously against God, in charging Moses and Aaron, with taking too much upon them; upon pretence that all the congregation were every one of them holy; that is, as fit as Aaron to do that service which he did be­fore the Lord. They therefore were to offer incense, Aaron also should offer too: and then the Lord, by the issue, would shew who were his, [Page 56] and who was holy; and would cause him whom be chose, to come neer to him, as approving of him and his service, and rejecting and punishing the rest, who were but usurpers, Therefore, there was a command, for that act, at that time, for that end.

Again, these Censers were not of Korah's own making or dedica­ting, but belonged to the Tabernacle. For, it cannot be imagined they could be made in such a sudden; and, in such a seditious hurry: for they were to use them, the very next day after the command gi­ven; which was, not to make; but, to take every man his Censer. There were many Censers belonging to the Altar Numb. 4. 12. The sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abibu, took either of them his Censer, when they of­fered strange fire Lev. 10.1.. Soloman, when he built the Temple, and made many Vessels and Instruments; amoug them, he made Censers of pure gold 1 Kin. 7. 50., which before were of brass how many, is not certain; but, in probability, for every Priest, one. This may appear by the abuse of 70 of them at once by the antients of Israel (which were all Priests Hicron. in Ezek. 3. vulg. Glos­se, alii (que)) and by Jaazaniab Ezek. S. 1 1. (the chief Priest Interlin. Gloss. who is supposed to be the Ring-leader of the rest. Therefore every Priest had his Censer to of­fer in, when his turn came about.

So that, these Censers were not Vessels offered to the Lord by Ko­rah and the rest of those Conspirators, as a free-will Offering, without a command; but, made and hallowed by Moses, for the use of the Al­tar, according to the patern shewed to him in the Mount Exod. 25. 40..

Therefore, that Collection, that men may offer, and God accept, some things not commanded, hath no sooting here.

2. The next inference from the same text, that such things so offer­ed, are hallowed, how wicked soever the Offerers be, will also now fall to the ground. For, if those Censers were of Gods own appointment, then it follows not, that they were hallowed upon the account of a free­Offering without a command. Those Censers were hallowed before that time wherein they thus mutined: so the text, vers. 38. They of­fered them before the Lord, therefore they are hallowed. All the Priests offered incense in their turns; which they could not do, without their Censers. Here then, is no argument to make good the second Ob­servation or Collection from the text in hand. That which misled that great Tostaius herein, was the Addition of the vulgar Latine Tran­slation at the end of vers. 37. where it is said, the Censers were hal­lowed in mortibus peccatorum, in the death of those sinners: which Ad­dition is a gross corruption of the Text.

3. As to the third, viz. that which is once offered, and thereby hal­lowed, may not be imployed to common, but onely to holy uses, will be more proper for the next Chapter; therefore it shall be but briefly touched here. We must distinguish both of things offered, and of their hallowing thereupon. 1. Some things are offered voluntarily, [Page 57] some by command: some are offered to be made use of in the very worship of God at the Altar; as, the tongs, the snuffers, censers, &c. others were to be imployed in more remote service; as the hangings for the Court of the Tabernacle, &c. the Curtains of Goats hair for the Tent over the Tabernacle; &c. The offerings of the first sort are so hal­lowed, that they must not be profaned by sale, or purchase to a com­mon use: but those of the later, may, when there is an end of their use. We see this in not only the bangings of the Court, and the Cur­tains, but in all the holy vessels, together with the Tabernacle it self.

For, so soon as Solomon had finished the Temple at Hierusalem, the Priests took up the Ark, and brought it up out of the City of David; and, with it, the Tabernacle, of the Congregation, and all the holy vessels that were in the Tabernacle, even those did the Priests and the Levites bring up 1 King. 8. 3, 4.. But, when the Priests brought in the Ark of the Covenant unto his place, into the Oracle of the house to the most holy place, even under the wings of the Cherubims, within the Temple; neither the Tabernacle, nor vessels, nor ought else, was brought into the Temple, save onely the staves of the Ark; which staves they drew out, so as the ends of them might be seen within the Holy place, but not without it Vers. 6, 7, 8.. The Tabernacle, and most of the things belonging to it, were now of no longer use: no more were the old vessels: for Solomon had made all new 1 King. 7. 48, &c.. Now let some of our severe Censurers inquire, and tell us what uses the Tabernacle, the Curtains, the Vessels, were put unto: (for, to the use of the Temple they were no longer imployed) and then we shall be a­ble to say more to the fourth deduction, viz.

4. That, to imploy to common uses, things once offered and hallowed, is Sacrilege. This inference is no way deduceable from Num. 16. for that there, the Text speaks of hallowed things, which were of use to co­ver the Altar from the rain and storms, while that Altar was used: and, of such things as originally were of Gods own appointment, and his own goods (the Censers) abused by Korah. To have diverted these to other uses, before the building of the Temple, had been Sacrilege. But, after the Temple was built, the Ark put into his place in the Temple; the Tabernacle, old Altar, and vessels were of no longer use, nor longer imployed in the worship of God; let them that can, prove the laying them aside and imploying them to other uses, to be Sacrilege in Solomon. And, could this be demonstrated, yet were it no­thing, to prove the alienating of Cathedral Lands to be Sacrilege, they being not (as those last spoken of) appointed and commanded of God, nor ever so hallowed: but, the offerings and gifts of men without warrant from God, or acceptance with him. If Antagonists allege Luther, Calvin, Knox, Sir Edward Coke, &c. to prove that such Church-Lands cannot be aliened from the Church without Sacrilege; this will be no concluding argument, unless they prove it by Scripture; [Page 58] which they have not done. They, being but men, we may not swear in verba Magistri: Truth is the friend we must own before, yea, against all other. They that urge these worthy Authors against us, can, and do despise and scorn them in other things: they alleage them to serve their own turns, not to honour the Authors: nor will be concluded by what those men say against them.

But, it is happened to some of our rash Censurers, as once to those Oxen, of whom Columella De Re rustic. lib. 2. noteth, that, feeding upon some rank grounds, they ran mad with the fatness of their Pasture.

This might suffice, were it not ever too true of too many, Non per­suadebis etiam si persuaseris. Thou shalt never bring me over to thine opinion, although by reason thou sufficiently convince me. Therefore, some Answers must now be given to such plausible Objections as seem to carry any strength, or colour of reason in them, against the former Positions, and not before obviated, or prevented.

ANd here, exspect not Answers to any bare Magistral Assertions of men of highest rank and esteem, whether Fathers, School-men, or Protestant Divines of greatest note in the Church; be the allega­tions out of them never so many, plausible, or peremptory; unless they bring Scripture, or sound Arguments thence, to back, and con­firm them. Nor shall it move, if others please to decry this Treatise, with, and by the multitude and noise of great Names that have decla­red to the contrary: or to censure it as they please upon such a weak foundation. Let every such Opponent take that to themselves, which sometimes Austin wrote to those that read his Books de Trinitate Lib. 3. in Prooem., Noli meas literas ex tua opinione, vel contentione, sed ex Divina Lectione vel in concussa ratione corrigere.

1. It is objected, That Bishops were Ministers too, and preached, as well Object. 1. as others; and were moreover of great use, for the good Government of the Church, and support of the truth, which since their Ejections, hath ex­treamly suffered. Therefore, as Ministers (at least) they and their means should be continued.

Answ. Admitting (but not granting) all this to betrue: yet what Answ. they really did as Ministers, they might have done still. It was their [Page 59] usurped Dignity, not their Evangalical Ministry, that is taken from them. Now, their Lands were given and fixed (as is before shewed) to their elated Episcopacy, as Barons and Peers in Parliament; not to their Ministry: to their state of Prelacy, not to their Presbytery, as them­selves diftinguish this from the other. If any of them had (as very few of them had) a minde to preach the Gospel, (as that learned Archbi­shop Usher did, so long as he was able, and was therefore encouraged while he lived, and honoured being dead) they had their liberty so to do; notwithstanding the abolishing of their Episcopal Authority. Perhaps they cannot stoop so low as to ascend a Pulpit, as ordinary Parsons or Vicars: let this lie upon their own account, and not be charged on the State. Others, as good, have done otherwise. Miles Coverdale, made Bishop of Exeter by Edw. 6. and after condemned to the fire, saith Isaacson, (from which he was saved by mediation of the King of Denmark, yet banished) in Queen Maries time; after his re­turn, in Queen Elizabeths reign, was content to accept of the Parso­nage of St. Magnus London, (not clearly worth 100 l. per annum, when it was at the best) and to spend the rest of his days in preaching there.

But too many of our late Bishops were so far from preaching, while their authority lasted, that they did their utmost not onely to decry Preaching, but to advance Profanation of the Lords Day, which they should have spent in Preaching, and other Divine Offices of the Day. No wonder, therefore, if now they refuse to preach.

Was not King James his authority abused, to tolerate sports upon the Lords Day; to which purpose, a Book was compiled by a Bishop (now nameless, because dead) to justifie that Profanation; and all Mi­nisters commanded to publish it, to make them thereby to eat their own Preaching? And did not the succeeding Bishops in King Charles I. his reign, move, and procure the reviving of that Book, causing it, by his Authority, to be reprinted, with a stricter command for the publishing of it? Yea, some of them would needs have those sports acted in their own sight, and rewarded the grace-less Actors. After­wards, strict enquiries were made in their Visitations, whether every Minister had read and published it to their Congregations in their se­veral Churches, as was then enjoyned: and, such as had not done it, were either punished, or severely threatned with Suspension.

Some of them also can tell by whose means preaching was prohibi­ted in the afternoons of the Lords Days, and the Minister, in room thereof, was to ask the Children a few Questions (if he would) in the common Catechism: but, if he expounded them, this was interpre­ted to be preaching, and an affront to Authority. Why? but be­cause such Expositions held the people too long from their sports.

Not content with this, it was the great industry and contrivance of some of them yet alive, to put down all Lectures on week-days also. For effecting whereof, an Order was procured from his late Majesty, [Page 60] that whosoever would preach a Lecture on the week-day, he must first, read the Book of Common-Prayer in his Surplice and Hood of his De­gree, (although he then preached not in his own Church, but else­where casually at the request of a friend:) and, not none have been brought into the High Commission-court, and there canonically admo­nished, for refusing so to do.

Moreover, how were conformable Ministers (how able, pious and peaceable soever) scorned and jeered as Praters, (not Preachers) for their often preaching! Was it not piacular for any Animalculum prae­dicabile, or Preaching Cox-comb, (as Dr. L. stiled Bishop Usher himself, for his frequent preaching) that is, for any saithful Minister to preach twice a day? which, by another Bishop, was in scgff, therefore liken­ed to Virgils Cow, that ( bis venit ad mulctram) came twice a day to the Pail.

And as for the Bishops own preaching (especially at last, after Arch­bishop Land designed to re-gain all those places and offices of Trust, Power, & Judicature in the Commonwealth, which the Popish Bishops in former ages held) it became an unpardonable offence to mind them (publickly, at least) of their duty in preaching, which many of them had laid aside, as too mean for their greatness, or at least as a thing un­necessary, and inconsistent with their more weighty Affairs, as they pleased to call those avocations.

For this, Dr. Burges preaching a Sermon in Latine, to the London-Ministers, Anno 1635. in Alphage Church, neer Sion College, (by appointment of the Governours thereof) was brought into the High Commission­court, and threatned with both Deprivation, and Degradation, beside fine and imprisonment. The main quarrel was, his over-pressing (as it was then interpreted) of all, to diligence in preaching. And among other Arguments, his urging what had been antiently required even of Bishops themselves. For, after minding them of the Third part of the H mily against the peril of ldolatry, wherein it is said, of the Primi­tive Bishops,

herecited an old Canon of the sixth general Council in Trulle, with Zonaras his Note upon it; which Canon enjoy­ned Bishops to preach often; at least every Lords Day, or to be Cano­nonically admonished: whereupon, if they reformed not, it was fur­ther ordained that they should be excommunicated, or deposed.

Hereupon Articles were exhibited against him, chiefly, for that he seemed to tax and accuse divers Prelates, and Reverend Bishops of this Kingdom, for neglecting to preach often: and for alleging to that purpose, that the autient bishops were frequent and diligent Preachers; quoting an old [Page 61] 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.

Whether he were not a Bishop (yet living) that, in scorn, calleth Christs Ordinance of Preaching, that most adored piece of Gods ser­vice Church-Lands not to be sold, pag. 32., (which he intimate; thereby to be idolized by all, that press, use, or frequent it) himself can best tell. But be he who he will, God will one day make him know, (what now he pretends to be ignorant of) That preaching is the chief work of a Bishop; and, that this is the chiefreason why he is to receive Double honour 1 Tim 5. 17, 18..

Yea, his own great witness, Calvin, in the same Book De nices. reform. Eccl., quoted by that Concic-Mastix Pag. 16., will tell him thus much: Nemo ex Christi praescripto, Episcopi aut Pastoris nomen vendicare sibi potest, qui gregem suum non pascat verbo Domini: No man, by the prescript of Christ, can challenge to himself the name of a Bishop or Pastor, who feedeth not his flock with the Word of the Lord.

What need many words? was Timothy a Bishop? had not he charge to govern 1 Tim. 32 & passin.? Yet Paul conjureth this Bishop to preach: I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his Kingdom, Preach the word, be instant in season, and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exho t, with all long suffering and Doctrine 2 Tim. 4. 1, 2..

But perhaps Timothy was a young man: and so might better do it: ours are old, and so, unable to persorm it; why then not discharged, as well as the Levites, at fifty years of age? Answ. St. Paul was an old man too, even Paul the aged Philem. 9: yet, saith he, of himself, A neces­sity is laid upon me; yea, wo is unto me if I preach not the Gospel 1 Cor. 9. 16., even when he had the care of more Churches upon him, as an Apostle, than all our Bishops set together 2 Cor. 11 28.. And as for the Levites, their service required more bodily strength, in killing and laying upon the Altar, and there, burning so many fat bullocks every day, beside other duties of bearing the Ark, &c. none of which is laid upon our Bi­shops, who, if they have been good Stewards, are well stored with an old stock, and, can bring forth out of their Trcasury things both new and old, as becomes wise Scribes instructed unto the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 13. 52., with much more ease, gravity, authority than when younger men. Therefore the case of the Levites, and theirs is not alike. That good old Robert Grosthead, sometimes Bishop of Lincoln, in the days of Henry 3. was far from such opinion, when in a Letter to Pope Inno­cent 4. he not only refused to admit his Nephew (or Bastard) to be a Prebend of Lincoln, as the Pope had commanded, (finding him unfit to preach) but tells the Pope to his head, Post peccatum Luciferi, &c. there is not, cannot be a sin so repugnant to the Doctrine of the Apo­stles [Page 62] and holy Scriptures, nor to Christ himself more hateful and abo­minable, than to set over his flock ignorant or idol Shepherds, to kill and destroy the Souls of Christs sheep, by defrauding them of the Pa­storal Office and Ministry Matth. Paris ad Ann. 1353.

And as our late Bishops grew not onely negligent in the proper and chief work of the Ministry, I mean Preacbing, (here and there, one or two black Swans excepted:) so did they as much over­lash and be­come eccentrick in the other extreme, by being too far engaged in Ci­vils. And, if at any time they were excluded the Parliament, or not honoured in it to their mindes, both Parliament and King, and all should hear of it on both ears. For so had their Predecessors done before.

One of their zealous sticklers remembers them out of Mr. Selden, Dr. Heylin Animadv. on Hist. of Church, pag. 70. that at a Parliament at Northhampton, under Hen. 2. the Bishops thus challenged their Peerage (of the Lords temporal.) Non sedemus hic E­piscopi, sed Barones: Nos Barones, Vos Barones:

And so, saith the same Author, did John Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury (as he remembreth) having fallen into the displeasure of King Edward 3. and being denied entrance into the House of Peers, made his protest, that he was Primus Par regni, the first or chief Peer of the Realm, and therefore not to be excluded, &c. But, if for this high perking, their Lordships, together with all jurisdiction, be (as it is) legally taken from them; and they refuse or neglect the chiefpart of their Office, name­ly, Preaching: they may thank themselves, if the double Honour of maintenance be withdrawn also.

2. It is objected further, That admitting they were justly ejected, yet so many direful curses have been denounced against all such as should aliene, sell, purchase, or imploy those Lands to other uses, that it may justly make any man afraid to meddle with them.

To this a short answer may sussice. Where God bids curse, (as in Deut. 27.) there is cause to fear cursing. But here it will be replied: Grant this, and I warrant you we shall reach you. Doth not one of those curses run thus Deut. 27. 17.; Cursed be he that removeth his Neighbours Land-mark: and all the people shall say, Amen? Here God and man joyn together in cursing him that shall remove but a Land-mark: how heavy then, will the curse be upon him that removeth, or taketh away the Land it self! To this, it is answered, that the Lord speaks of Land set out by himself, by Divine Lot; and so, he never set out any to the Levites themselves (as he did to the other Tribes,) much less to Bi­shops, whom he never so endowed; of which so much hath been said before, as no more shall be added here. To return, therefore. If an Elijah 1 King. 1. 10, and 12., an Elisha 2 King. 2. 23., a David Psa. 109., a Peter Act. 8. 20., acted by Gods [Page 63] Spirit, shall denounce a curse; yea, if a Darius, an Heathen, shall curse all Kings & people that destroy Gods own Temple at Hierusalem Nch. 6.2., while God was pleased to place his Name there, wo to such as fall under it. All that were so cursed, became accordingly the people of Gods curse Isa. 34.5., because such curses shall surely take effect: God himself owns them, and will accomplish them.

But, as the bird by wandring, and the swallow by flying, (escape the Nets and Snares, set by the Fowler to take them) so the causeless curse shall not come Pro. 26.27 That Providence that preserveth the Sparrow from falling to the ground Mar. 10.25., till God will have it fall; let the Fowler do what he can: doth likewise so over-rule a causeless curse, that it shall ne­ver reach him against whom it is denounced. Yea, God blesseth the more, where wicked men belch out most curses Psa. 109.28.. Let them then be afraid of such curses, who finde a warrant from God for such cur­sing. The curses that these men seek to fright us withal, are like that of Goliah, who cursed David by his Gods 1 Sam. 17.43., yet was slain by David notwithstanding his cursing. A cursed people is ever a cursing generati­on Rom. 3.17.: and, a cursing generation is ever an accursed people Gen. 27.29. or chil­dren of the curse 2 Pet. 2.14..

Who set them on work, or gave them warrant, to curse? Even he who set on Sbimei to curse David: not God, as David feared; but the Devil, by his Imp Ahitophel, as David afterwards plainly discovered: that 109th Psalm being chiefly bent against Ahitophel, of whose cursing we never read, but that, by the mouth of Shimei, when David was in greatest distress, and Ahitophel, his chief Counsellour, joyned to Absalom now Davids enemy. David nevertheless fared not the worse for their cursing, because his Prayer to God was, Let them curse, but bless thou: and, in the issue, the Lord requited good for that cursing 2 Sam. 16.13.. For, however in Davids time Shimei felt not the curse: yet, it came home to him with a witness, under Solomon 1 King. [...].44.. And as for Ahitophel, as he loved cur­sing, so it came unto him. As he cloathed himself with cursing, like as with a Garment which covereth him, so it came into his bowels like water, and like oyl into his bones, &c. witness his hanging of himself almost immedi­ately after.

And verily, those busie Cursers among the Prelacy, have drawn the effect of their cursing upon themselves and their successors; even up­on the Bishops, and the rest of the Cathedral Prelacy, many hundred years after those first Anathemists mouths were so full of cursing and bit­terness. Let therefore such as now again please themselves in frighting others with those curses, beware they meet not with some further share thereof themselves; and, that the tail of that storm, light not upon their heads, who now so groundlesly apply them to their Bre­thren, it being no other (so used) but an Engine of Antichrist, forged in Hell.

[Page 64] But, the most generally taking Objection is this: Be it that Bishops be justly cashiered, their-lands forfeited, and justly taken from them by the Object. 3. Parliament: yet generally all sound Divines hold that those lands (although at first superfluously, or superstitiously given) being once given and dedica­ted to God, may not be aliened, sold, or diverted to any secular, or private use; but, continued for the maintenance of the true worship of God, and for their better encouragement who are employed in the Ministry: or for some other publick use.

This Objection, taking with many of note and eminency in the Church, Answ. is thought to be unanswerable: yet is it capable of a satisfactory an­swer, to prudent and impartial men. For,

1. This opinion is not founded on any Scripture, but upon that commonly received Maxime transferr'd from hand to hand, without due examination, which was first cast in the Popes Mint; Semel Dica­tum Deo, non est ad humanos usus ulterius transferendum. Which, wherein, and how far it holds, hath been above declared, and needs not to be repeated. Things once given to God by his command, war­rant, or approbation, may not be aliened to other uses, while the use appointed of God continueth: But, this holds not in ought else that men pretend, or say they give to God. As in persons, so in things, such onely as the Lord chuseth, are accepted, and holy Numb. 16.7., let them say, or think what they will to the contrary. The vilest wretch that is, saith, He gives his Soul to God, at least in his last Will. Doth this make him accepted, or holy? No, of things in themselves good, God will not accept every thing, from every man. David was an holy man, had an honourable and holy designe to build God an house: and Nathan thought he did very well in it, and therefore said unto him, Go and do all that is in thy hea t, for the Lord is with thee Sam. 7. 3.. Yet David and Na­than were both mistaken herein.

Wherefore, to pin Lands upon God, and to proclaim this, because once pretendedly given to him, perhaps by an Adulterer, a Murtherer, a Parricide, &c. that is made to believe he is damned, if he give not largely to the Church; and so, gives rather out of fear, than of a wil­ling minde, is, as the Proverb saith, to reckon without the Host: and to put that upon God which he will not own. It is no better then those gifts of the Israelites in the absence of Moses, pretended to be of­fered to God, although in a carnal way (as most of the gifts now spo­ken of, by all the Deeds and Instruments of the Donors, appear to be) when they brake off the golden ear-rings which were on their ears, and brought them unto Aaron to make them gods to go before them Exod. 23. 3. . They pretended they were for God, and what Aaron made, was but to please their eye by some visible representation of the invisible God, (expresly against the second Commandment but newly given them:) yet how far these gifts were from acceptance, or made holy because (as [Page 65] they thought) they had given them to God; or, from being reserved for holy uses, was manifest by the sad punishment of that their great folly and wickedness. And what Lawyers say of gifts to the Church: Quod Ecclefae datur, Deo datur; what is given to the Church, is given to God, is not spoken in a Theological sense; but onely to shew the sense and construction of our municipal Laws; and what such are, in the account of the Law of the Nation; or rather, of some Levites: not, of Gods Law.

2. It is apparent that those gifts to Bishops, and other Cathedral men, were to be no longer continued (had they been theirs by Divine Right) then the Offices for, and to which they were given, remained useful. If Levi might hold his no longer, why should Bishops and o­thers, of the same association? Datur beneficium propter officium. Of­fice and Benefice are relatives; like Hippocrates Twins, they live and die together. The Suburbs of the forty eight Cities, were no longer continued by God to holy uses: yet, Tythes were: and given by God to his Ministers of the Gospel. No reason therefore to conclude a­gainst employing holy things to common uses, when God himself reser­ved not the Levites Lands to godly Ministers; but onely his own inhe­ritance, the Tythes. There is a wo to those that call good evil, as well as to those, that call evil good Isay 5.20.. Indeed, if these Lands had still con­tinued as a common Revenue to all the Clergy, or Ministers, as one intire Corporation, there had been some colour for the continuation of them to the rest, when Bishops and Cathedral men were laid aside. But when (at the instance, and by the labouring of the Bishops them­selves, and their partners) every Order had their several shares ap­portioned and laid out unto them, (so as the other could no longer make the least claim thereto, without coveting what was their neigh­bours;) the Lands of Cathedral men cannot be in Law, or Equity, justly required to go to Parochial Ministers: but, it is in the free dis­pose of those to whom by Law they do eschete, by the total laying a­side of their former owners and offices, to do what they will with them, as their own.

3. When the vastness of the revenue, or unlawful procuring of it, is a wrong to the Commonwealth, or to any particular Family, which God requireth not, especially in times of peace and plenty, to be rui­ned to enrich him, or his MInisters: this is not a Dedication that God will own, but rather a robbing of others of what is more properly their right: and, an abusing of God, by fathering upon him the acceptance of that, which the Donors ought not so to have given to him (who ha­teth robbery for burni-offerings Isay 1.8;) and, a profaning of his Name, by teaching men to take that for a warrant, to give that, which is not [Page 66] theirs so to give. That position therefore now urged, if taken in the full Latitude without bounds, would be of dangerous consequence to such as swallow it, and act upon it.

4. Things voluntarily given, according to Gods own Rules and Di­rections, to warrant the gift, cannot be aliened from the use to which he hath appointed them, so long as the use continueth. If such things have, by the corruptions of men been abused, the abuse must be re­moved, and the things employed to such holy uses as the Lord himself hath directed; not what man shall think fit to apply them to, without Gods warrant. Thus the Censers abused by Korah and his Compani­ons, were no more used for the burning of Incense: yet, because they mere hallowed, they were (by Gods appointment) converted into broad plates, for covering of the Altar.

But in things not appointed by God from the beginning, this Tenet holdeth not. For, to give unto God upon wrong grounds, and for superstitious ends, most derogatory to God and Christ, to maintain and feed a company of Harpies that heretofore lay in wait, as he that setteth snares and traps to catch men Jer. 5.26., thereby to fool them out of their Estates upon fair (but false) pretences, is no better accepted then the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, (that is, then money gotten by whoredom, or by the sale of a dog) brought into the house of the Lord; which he abborreth Deut. 23.17..

Such are all those gifts of Lands to Cathedrals, pretended to be thereby given unto God, (many of them being first gotten by rapine and spoile:) whereby Christ is put out of Office, or at least declared an insufficient Saviour; as if men could not be saved by his merits a­lone, but they must eek them out by some works of their own, which they are taught to believe, to be the Saviours which they must trust unto. God looks no otherwise upon such offerings, then upon she offering of Swines blood, the cutting off a Dogs neck, or the blessing of an Idol. When it can be proved that God accepted of such Oblati­ons in the time of the Law, then also it may be granted that he will ac­cept such mongrel Dedications in the days of the Gospel.

5. Things dedicated unto God, without his Order and Direction, is a laying as de Mar. 7.8, and a rejecting of the Commandment of God Vers 9.: and a making the word of God of none effect Vers. 13.. It is the Pharisees Corban Vers 11., which they (for filthy lucres sake) taught Children to plead against their Parents, contrary to the fifth Commandment, when required to relieve them in age and necessity. If a father, in time of need, demanded this or that thing, of his son; the son was taught to answer onely this, It is Corban, a gift which I have devoted to God, therefore you must excuse me, I cannot let you have it: Vows Must be paid, and things once dedicated, must not be recalled, nor the thing vowed aliened. This, by the Pharisees Doctrine, was a gift irrevo­cable, [Page 67] and so sacred unto God, that, if the Childe should perhaps be willing to pleasure his Parents with some part of it, they would not give way. It is holy to God, it must not be profaned by applying it to common uses: so that, they would suffer him no more to do ought for his Father or Mother Vers. 128.

Did Christ allow this for a Dedication, that might not be recalled; and, that what was so given, might not be any more imployed to pri­vate uses, without Sacrilege? Nay, he abhorred it as a sacrilegious abuse of Scripture; and, those Hypocrites also, who taught such Do­ctrines. Such are all Dedications proceeding from mens own fancies and ends, without a rule from God: and therefore, gifts so given not onely may, but ought to be aliened to other uses, that God may no longer be abused and provoked by them.

6. It is a mistake and error to think, and say, those Lands now pur­chased by private men are perverted from publick use. For, they were sold for the publick use of the Commonwealth. Now, if by the Canon-Law, it be allowed that the goods and possessions of the Church may be alienated to redeem Captives, as the Pope himself hath confessed; much more then, may such Lands be sold for the service of the State and Church, in a time of such expence, and danger. Who ever taxed Hezekiah of Sacrilege, when he gave the King of Assyria (that came up against the fenced Cities of Judah, and took them) all the silver that was found in the House of the Lord, and cut off the gold from the doors of the Temple, and from the pillars, and gave it to the King of Assyria, that he might depart from Judah, 2 Kings 18. 15, 16? The Parliament then, being so much necessitated, chiefly for satisfying the vast charge of the Scottish Army, (and that by occasion of the Owners of those Lands) had a Royal and Pious Patern and Warrant for so doing.

Nor is it a perverting of those Lands by Purchasers, to imploy them (after paying for them, upon such an occasion) to their own use, no more than it was for the Tenants of Bishops, Deans and Chapters, &c. when they had with their money bought those Lands for lives, or years; yea, in Fee-simple. For, the granting and imploying them for years or lives (and that upon no such necessity as the Parliament sold) makes no real difference (as to private use) between that and the sale of them for ever, in a case of such importa it necessity. For, if it be no sin in a Bishop, or Dean and Chapter to sell a Mannour, yea, an Impropriation for three lives, or for 21 years (heretofore, for 100. 200. years, yea, for ever) and to put the whole Fine into their own private purses; not out of necessity, but for gain, and to enrich them­selves, to the prejudice and impoverishing of their Successours, who must get some other maintenance (that is, some Benefices with Cure on which they never reside; but, at their Cathedrals, and starve the Souls of those people in the mean time, with 10 l. Curats) or [Page 68] else they could not bear up the pomp and port of Cathedral-men. And, if it were lawful for their Tenants, upon such terms to hold those Mannours and Impropriations, for so long time to their own pri­vate use; then surely, it cannot be unlawful in it self, for the Parlia­ment, (who never put the money into their own purses) to sell those Lands; nor for purchasers, to buy, and enjoy them for ever; having paid accordingly for them.

7. The same things now pronounced Sacrilege in modern Pur­chasers, have been often done many years past, and still are done eve­ry day by the greatest Censurers of the present alienation of those Lands. For, to say nothing of the Appropriations and Impropriati­ons made by Popes to Templars, Monasteries, and other (nick-named) Religious Houses; nor, of those huge alienations made in Henry the eighth's time, Edward the sixth, Queen Elizabeth, and not none in King James his days: Even they, who now cry loudest against buying of Bishops and Deans and Chapters Lands (because in their opinions, once given to God) and make it high Sacrilege in all that now do it, can yet be well enough content to hold things of the same kinde (in respect of Dedication) heretofore aliened from the Church. They can well digest Abby-Lands, Canonical Houses; yea, (which is worst) impropriated Tithes themselves, first made by that Arch-Sacrilegist the Pope, in favour not onely of Covents and Societies, but of his own particular single favorites and Minions, who neither would, nor could do any service to their Souls who paid them: and; after their dissolution, devolved to private hands and common uses, as Cathedral Lands now do.

Here to omit how much of the Revenues of the Crown it self, con­sisteth in Church Lands and Rents; how many Noble-men, and Gen­tle-men are there in England (as well as in forain Nations) who now cry out of the supposed Sacrilege of others, do yet possess many Lord­ships, Mannours, and Royalties, even of Bishops themselves, alienated since Henry the eighth began to destroy Monasteries? Are there not many of those Lands aliened by secret (not to say, Symoniacal) com­pact and bargain between Petitioners for Bishopricks and their friends at Court, to procure such a Bishoprick for them?

If any doubt hereof, it is his ignorance. If he desire proof, let him but inquire into the mutilation of that one Bishoprick of Bath and Wells, and he shall find that since the thirtieth of Henry the eighth, the Mannors of Wookey, Black ford Compton-Dando, Congersbury, Yaton, Cbew, Wike, Puckle-Church, Wester-Leigh, Hampton, Claverton, Cran­more, Ever-cretch, Kingsbury, Chard, Wellington, Lidford, Compton Parva, and Chedder; (to omit many Appropriations, Hundreds, Bur­roughs, Farmes, &c.) have been all alienated from that Church, and are to this day held by Lay-men, to their own private uses, without [Page 69] scruple, or blame, before ever the late Parliament seised the rest. Yea, this is not the first time, that the Bishops Mannor of Wells was aliena­ted from that Church. For, in Henry 8. it was by Bishop Clerk him­self aliened to him, that was afterwards Earl of Hertford; then, Duke of Somerset: and, by him held (without clamor of Sacrilege,) untill by some violent and sharp proceedings against him, it Escheted to the Crown: whence, Bishop Barlow procured a grant of it again, upon some terms yet extant, but never confirmed by Parliament. And the last Bishop was not thrust out of it, but voluntarily forsook it.

Nor is there any scruple made of late purchasing of several Canoni­cal Houses in Wells, which formerly belonged to the Canons, and Pre­bends of that Church: yet were part of the Bishops Lands, and of the Mannor of Wells, of which they are holden in chief, unto this day. Yet none of the Possessors of Purchasers thereof, hold it to be any fault in them, to purchase and enjoy those Houses: while some of them with great confidence and virulency condemn the same thing in others. I pass the many and vast alienations ofthe Bishopricks of Durham, Ex­ceter, and sundry moe, made by Bishops themselves; the particular enumeration whereof would take up a Volume.

Let none 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 those Houses built on the Lands of the Church. But an Accessory in sin long before committed, must share with the Principal, or first Actor, in the punishment 2d. Com­mand.. No house built upon the sand will become stronger, or better by long continuance on that foundation. It is a known Maxime, Non firmatur tractu tem­poris, quod de jure ab initio non subsistit. Time will never make that to be no sin, which from the beginning was sinful: nor that lawful, which originally was unlawful, and inconsistent with the Law. They therefore that thus Censure others, are themselves inexcusable: for wherein they judge another, they condemn themselves, because they that judge do the same things Rom. 2.1.. If this satisfie not, yet it behoves such Cen­surers to be quiet: and, to leave it to others, who are without that sup­posed sin, to cast the next stone at the Doctor.

Zech. 8. 19.

Therefore love the truth, and peace.