A Case Concerning the Buying of Bishops Land, Part 1

A Case Concerning the Buying of Bishops Land · Part 1

p. 1THE FIRST PART, Declaring The Occaſion of D^r. Cornelius Burges his buying of Biſhops Lands. With The Lawfulneſs thereof.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hence many, not knowing, nor caring to know the true ſtate of the Doctors Caſe and Cauſe, but reſolved (not for want of ignorance, envie or malice) to blaſt him; are ready to hunt after all the baſe and falſe reports they can againſt him; and (as Jeremiah's enemies ſerved himbbJer. 20.10.Jer 20:10 to encourage all to ſpeak the worſt they can of him, [Report, ſay they, and we will report it,] how falſe ſoever. Yea, ſo far have they proceeded in this helliſh lawleſneſs of their tonguesccJam 3.6.Jas 3:6, as to impute all the troubles that have befallen him, to the juſt hand of God upon him for buying of Biſhops Lands, pronouncing him guilty of that odious ſin of Sacriledge for ſo doing.

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

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

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

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

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

As for the Etymon of the Word, whether foreign, or Sacrilegium, 2. VVhat Sacriledge is.it denotes the lurching, or ſtealing of ſomewhat that is ſacred. Hence Civilians hhl. 6. & l. 9. ff. ad. L. Jul. pecul.term him Sacrilegus, qui publica Sacra compilavit. So Baſil iiOrat. de pece.calls an Hypocrite, foreign, a Sacrilegious Perſon, becauſe he robs God of his heart, which, at God's Command, kkProv. 23.26.Prov 23:26he pretendeth to give unto him. The Latine word Sacrilegium, is a Compound of Sacrum & Legere: and he is Sacrilegious qui Sacra legit, id eſt, furatur; llBriſſon.who gathereth, that is, ſtealeth ſacred things. And here, it may not unbeſeem men pretending to School-Learning, and to Antiquity, to take with them that of the Learned and Acute Iſidore of Sivil, mmIſid. Hispal. li. Differentiar. lit. S.touching the difference between Sacrum, Religioſum, & Sanctum. That (ſaith he) is Sacred, which is Gods due; that, Religious, which pertains to Religious Men; and that, Holy, which is devoted or dedicated by Men. To which he adds, Sacrum verò, & Sanctum eſt: Sanctum verò, non continuò Sacrum eſt. Whatever is Sacred, is alſo Holy: but all that is Holy, is not Sacred. This gives light into the nature of the thing or ſin of Sacriledge, according to the uſe of the Word in holy Writ, and the Language of the beſt Antiquity.

For, all Sacriledge muſt needs refer to ſomewhat properly ſacred, in ſenſe of Scripture. Hence Hales, Aquinas, **Ubi ſupra.and other ancient Schoolmen, deſcribe Sacriledge to be rei ſacrae violatio, the violation of ſomewhat that is ſacred: That is, Which God hath ordained to be ſet apart for his Service and Worſhip. Of this Solomon, or rather, God himſelf by Solomon; nnProv. 20.25.Prov 20:25It is a ſnare to the man that devoureth that thing which is holy; and after the Vow to inquire (or, to recal it.) VVhere Tremellius renders foreign by Sacrum. And Junius, in his Annotations keeps to the ſame word; underſtanding thereby (as the Text intends it) the things of God, or His juſt due.

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

p. 6Wherefore, how heavily ſoever he falleth upon the ſin of Sacriledge, yet he concludeth all with this Explication and Limitation. Quod tamen non ita accipi debet, ac ſi vota nulla cujuſcun que generis reſcindenda ſint, cum haec de legitimis Votis & ex preſcripto Verbi factis, ſint intelligenda. Which Expreſſion (of mine, ſaith he) is not ſo to be taken, as if no Vows of what kinde ſoever, were to be reſcinded or recalled; Seeing theſe things are to be underſtood of lawful Vows made by the preſcript of the VVord.

That place, in Deut. 23. although it leave a man free, in a Free-Will-Offering; yet it ties him in caſe of a Vow made: But withal, he is to perform his Vow according to the preſcript of God. VVhatever is vowed or devoted to God, for a divine uſe, or for his ſervice and worſhip, is Worſhip. But whatever is ſo offered, if not preſcribed by God, is Will-Worſhip, which he abhorreth.ppMat. 15.9.Matt 15:9 They might not offer what they liſted; no, nor ſo much as they pleaſed, even of what he had preſcribed: not thouſands of Rams, or ten thouſand rivers of Oyl, qqMic 6.7.Mic 6:7(although Elies ſons, and Papalins too, would have found room enough for all;) but, what and how many Rams, and how much Oyl, God, in his Law, had appointed. This is ſo clear in the Levitical Law, that he that runs may read it.

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

More Orthodox and clear is the ExpoſitionrrIn Pro. 20.25.Prov 20:25 of that holy (and now bleſſed Saint in heaven) Mr. John Dod: To devour that which is holy, is (ſaith he) to pervert thoſe things which are by God's Ordinance appointed for His ſervice, from the right Ʋſe of them to a mans own private gain and commodity. Thus the learned Danaeus gives almoſt the ſame deſcription of things properly called Sacred, which to purloyn, or alienate, makes guilty of Sacriledge. Res Divinae appellantur quae ſunt ad ſacrum Dei cultum destinatae, quaſve ſibi interdicto prolato Dominus reſervavit, & in uſu commercio que hominum eſſe vetat. Quarum rerum furtum, dicitur Sacrilegium. They are termed divine things, which are destinated to the ſacred Worſhip of God, or which by ſome interdict or prohibition of God, he hath reſerved for Himſelf, and forbidden to be imployed for the uſe or commerce of men. The ſtealing of which things is called Sacriledge.

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

That Sacriledge is a robbing of God, we have His own Word for it both in the Old TeſtamentſſMal. ….8. and in the NewttRom. 2.22.Rom 2:22. It is oppoſed to offering to an Idol; therefore it muſt needs be a taking from God. And that this is p. 7committed by aliening, detaining, purloyning or perverting of things due to Miniſters by Divine Right, is clear by that of the ſame Apoſtle;uu1 Cor. 9.9.1 Cor 9:9 Thou ſhalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox, &c. applied to prove the Divne Right which Goſpel-Miniſters have to maintenance from thoſe to whom they preach. Of which, Biſhops Lands were never any part, being no where commanded or directed by God. So that the buying of them now, cannot be Sacriledge.

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

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

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

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

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

For proof hereof, conſider theſe ſix Particulars:

1. Tythes are Jure Divino.1. Tythes are called by God himſelf, his Inheritance, Deut. 18.1. where he gave to the Levites, two things, the Offerings and Tythes, for their maintenance. They ſhall eat the Offerings of the Lord made by fire, and his Inheritance; that is, the Tythes. For theſe only were his Inhetance, which is there diſtinguiſhed from the Offerings made by fire. So he declared himſelf unto the Levites, Num. 18.24. When ye take of the children of Iſrael the Tythes, which I have given you from them for your Inheritance. He that gives them as their Inheritance, muſt firſt have a propriety himſelf in them as his own Inheritance. Hence he chargeth with ſacriledge ſuch as detained either of theſe from the Prieſts and Levites, as robbing of himſelf. Ye have robbed me in Tythes and Offerings yyMal 3.8.Mal 3:8.

2. Nor was this a new Title, raiſed only for maintainance of the Levites, with reference to the Levitical Service only; But Tythes were Gods due long before, and paid as God appointed, where ever he ſet up a Prieſt and publike Prieſthood, Evangelical as well as Legal. In ſo much as Levi himſelf, before he was born, is ſaid to have paid Tythes in Abraham zzHeb 7.9.Heb 7:9. For, he was yet in the loyns of his Father when Melchiſedeck met him aaVerſ. 10.. To whom the Patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the very Spoyl he had taken in War bbVerſ 4.. Melchiſedeck was (no Legal, but Evangelical) Prieſt of the High God, at leaſt in type. For Chriſt himſelf is a Priest for ever of the ſame Order, and ſo hath the ſame right to Tythes, that Melchiſedeck had. Of which, more by and by.

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

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

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

5. That this was the Apoſtles meaning, is evident, becauſe Tythes being firſt paid (long before Levi) to Melchiſedech, a Prieſt of Chriſts own Order; and, Abraham the Father of the Faithful, (and in him Levi) paid Tythes unto Melchiſedech, as the fore-runner of Chriſt, in reſpect of Prieſthood; it neceſſarily followeth, that Tythes are ſtill due to Chriſt, in whoſe name and right, his Servants the Miniſters ought to take, and enjoy them. For the Apoſtle, upon this very ground, proves Chriſt to be a Prieſt after the Order of Melchiſedech, not onelyonly becauſe he liveth, but becauſe alſo he receiveth tythes. Here, ſaith he, (meaning in Judea, during Aarons Prieſthood) men that die receive tythes: but there (that is, where Melchiſedech's Prieſthood is exerciſed) He receiveth them, of whom it is witneſſed that he liveth ccHeb. 7.8.Heb 7:8. Which he there applieth to Chriſt, and to no other.

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

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

p. 10This Point hath two branches to be proſecuted diſtinctly.

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

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

The Ordinance for Miniſters Maintenance, recorded by St. Paul **1 Cor. 9.1 Cor 9extends no further then to what was allowed to Levites, while they continued: nor, to all that neither. Offerings made by Fire, are by Chriſt extinct. It reache… indeed to all good things: that is, to Goods, (not Lands) in the judgement of all Expoſitors, ancient and modern, Popiſh as well as Proteſtant. It extends therefore to Tythes onelyonly, as the conſtant ſtanding Livelyhood of Miniſters of the New Teſtament, where Tythes may be had; and, in the mean time, to ſuch other competent allowance, in Goods or Money, as could be raiſed for them.

There are ſome Wyre-drawn Arguments (or rather futilous Fancies) for Proof of the extent of God's Ordinance, for Evangelical Miniſters Maintenance, even unto Lands alſo, produced by the confident Author of a printed Anſwer to a Letter ſaid to be written at Oxford, Anno 1647. ſuperſcribed to Dr. Samuel Turner, touching the change of Church Government by Biſhops, and the alienating of their Lands. Which the ſaid Author undertakes to prove to be impoſſible to be done with a good Conſcience. His Arguments are taken from ſundry Scriptures, viz. from Mat. 25. [I was hungry, and ye fed me, &c.] as alſo from Mat. 10.40. [He that receiveth you, receiveth me.] and from Act. 5. [touching Ananias and Sapphira] and from Rom. 2.22. [Committeſt thou Sacriledge?] But his Arguments from thoſe Scriptures to prove what he undertakes, are ſo je june and frigid, that they deſerve no anſwer. Howbeit, leſt he ſhould be wiſe in his own conceit, let him take what followeth. That Author undertakes to prove the alienating of Church-Lands of Biſhops to be Sacriledge. To make way hereunto, he premiſeth theſe things; 1. That God accepts of things given him, and hath a Propriety in them, as well in the New as in the Old Teſtament. 2. That God gets this Propriety as well by acceptation of voluntary gifts, as by his command for the giving of them, &c. Now unleſs he make it out, that Gods Acceptation and Propriety, (as he phraſeth it) reach to Church Lands of Biſhops, his labour is in vain: and his Arguments from thoſe Texts, are no other then a groſs abuſing of the Scriptures, like that of thoſe unlearned and unstable ones, who wreſt them to their own deſtruction ee2 Pet. 3.16.2 Pet 3:16.

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

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

This would not ſeem ſtrange to him, were he not a ſtranger to the Scriptures. He might by further ſearch, know, That though Chriſt accepted of Gifts for the Poor, yet when they were more then there was preſent uſe of, they were abuſed, even under Chriſts own Noſe, by that thief Judas, who bore the Bag ffJoh. 12.6.John 12:6. And would it were a ſlander to ſay, That moſt of thoſe that ſince have been truſted with that Bag, and with the large Revenues given to that Uſe, are too near of Kin to that firſt Treaſurer.

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

But as for Chriſts accepting of and having a Propriety in Lands given to the Church, for Biſhops, &c. he is out, toto Coelo, as far as the Eaſt is from the Weſt. That Chriſt took care for the Poor, is evident; and that his care was no leſs for his Miniſters, is no leſs a Truth. For he that of old made that a Law, Thou ſhalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox, that treadeth out the Corn ggDeut. 25.4.Deut 25:4; did he it as taking care (onelyonly or chiefly) for Oxen? nay, for our ſakes no doubt is it written; yea, altogether for our ſakes, ſaith St. Paul hh1 Cor. 9.10.1 Cor 9:10in behalf of all Miniſters that labour in the Word and Doctrine. Howbeit, from hence to make it good, that that Text in Mat. 25. extendeth or is extendable to Chriſts acceptance of the gift of Lands for Himſelf, or for His Apoſtles, or His ſeventy Diſciples, or any of their Succeſſors, will require time till the thirtieth day of February, or the Greek Kalends come about.

As for Chriſt himſelf, (although he were of the Blood-Royal, of the Lineage of David, both by his Mothers ſide, and by his ſuppoſed Fathers too)iiLuk. 2.4.Luke 2:4 He profeſſeth that very Foxes and Birds were better provided then He; for the one had Holes, the other Nests, but he had not ſo much as a Room or Pillow on which He might lay His Head kkMat. 8.20.Matt 8:20: And when He ſent out the Twelve, His charge wasllMat. 10.9.10.Matt 10:9Matt 10:10, Provide neither Gold, nor Silver, nor Braſs in your Purſes, nor Scrip for your journey, neither two Coats, &c. Not, that He meant to ſtarve them: for He took care that proviſion p. 12ſhould be made for their preſent ſupply, by thoſe to whom they preached, ſo as they wanted nothingmmLuk 22.35.Luke 22:35: and that upon this account, That the labourer is worthy of his hire nnMat. 10.10.Matt 10:10. May it not then, upon better grounds, be retorted, Chriſt would accept of no Lands or Houſe for Himſelf, and forbad even Gold and Silver to His Apostles, therefore he will not accept, own, or hold the Lands of Biſhops, eſpecially of ſuch as he never owned? Not that it is unlawful now, for Miniſters that preach the Goſpel, to receive allowance, but that thoſe words of our Lord, in Mat. 25. had no relation thereunto.

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

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

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

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

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

Nor was Ananias and his wife ſmitten, or ſo much as queſtioned, Act. 5. for ſelling of Lands devoted to God and the Church; but for their diſſembling, and lying unto God. For whereas in the firſt receiving of the Goſpel by the preaching of Peter, many thouſands were likely upon that very account (at that time) to ſtarve, being hated and perſecuted for believing in Chriſt; ſuch as were rich ſold their Eſtates, and put all into one common Banck or Purſe, for Relief of the whole Community of Believers. Ananias and Sapphira pretended to do the like; they ſold their Lands, yet brought but part of the price to the Apoſtles, and pretended, that what they ſo brought was the whole. And being queſtioned by Peter, whether this were All, they ſold their Lands for; they both with impudence, ſtood to their firſt Lye; and, for that, were condemned, and ſmitten with death: not for Sacriledge by ſelling Lands; but for Hypocriſie, in making the world believe more then was true; and by defrauding the Church of part of that which he pretended to dedicate unto God, for the Relief of (not Miniſters, but) the poor Brethren, that then held all things in Common: There being then no Lands or Revenues ſold, or ſet forth for Miniſters, nor did theſe Hypocrites pretend unto it. Howbeit, in as much as they pretended to give all, and yet kept back part of the price, which they profeſſed to devote to that publick Service of God and his People, they are not to be excuſed of Sacriledge; Not becauſe they voluntarily devoted it, without a Command (for Chriſt himſelf, in ſuch caſes of Extremity had commanded the imparting of what might be ſparedqqLuk. 3.11.Luke 3:11;) but becauſe they had defrauded the Church, and abuſed the world, the Apoſtles, and God himſelf, of what they had with great ſhew of piety and charity, profeſſed freely to give, even when the giving of the whole was not required.

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

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

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

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

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

2. The Prieſts and Levites, eſpecially Aaron himſelf, were prohibited to have any Inheritance in Lands by divine Lot, among their Brethren ssNum. 18.20.Num 18:20. And this was to be a Statute throughout their generations for ever ttver. 23.. The Reaſon was given before unto Aaron, I am thy part and thine inheritance, &c. That is, his portion in Tythes and Offerings, due from Iſrael unto him, ſhould be theirs. For, of theſe, to wit, Tythes, he there expreſly ſpeaketh,uuver. 24. I have given them to the Levites to inherit, therefore I have ſaid unto them, Among the children of Iſrael they ſhall have no inheritance.

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

Indeed the inferiour Prieſts and Levites, being numerous, did not, could not all attend the Altar at once; but had their ſeveral courſes and orders for waiting there. Therefore were they appointed by God, to ſpread all over Iſrael (when their courſes at the Altar were over) to inſtruct the people in the Law of God wwDeut. 33.10.Deut 33:10, in their turns. Which being ſo, there was a neceſſity of preparing ſome places for their own habitation, and ſome ground for their Cattle, which they were to make uſe of, as well for their domeſtick proviſion, as for travelling between thoſe habitations and the Altar, when their turns came about.

Upon this ground, God by Moſes, layd his Command upon the children of Iſrael, that they ſhould give unto the Levites, of the inheritance of their Poſſeſſions, Cities to dwell in— and Suburbs for the Cities round about, for their Cattle, Goods and Beaſts, Num. 35.1, 2, 3. But of theſe none were appointed to the High Prieſt, who was always to reſide about the Tabernacle and Altar. His portion, and ſuch as ſerved at the Altar in Perſon, conſiſted in Offerings, and in a Tenth of the Tythes, which the Levites were to pay, before they ſhared the reſt among themſelvesxxNeh. 10.38.Neh 10:38 But Lands he had none.

And, as for Levites, diſperſed over Iſrael, although they had Cities p. 16and ſome Lands: yet God limited both. For the Iſraelites might not give what they would; but, ſo many Cities and no more; ſo much Land about them, and no more. The number of Cities were in all 48.yyNum. 35.2, 3. &c.Num 35:2Num 35:3 (among which, ſix were to be Cities of Refuge:) the names of all which, and the allotment of them to the ſeveral Families of the Levites, are ſet down in the 21 of Joſhuah. Their Suburbs alſo were bounded by a ſet number of Cubites. For ſo God commanded the Iſraelites, ſayingzzNum. 35.4.Num 35:4, The Suburbs of the Cities, which ye ſhall give unto the Levites, ſhall reach from the Wall of the City, and outward, a thouſand Cubites round about. The Iſraelites might not give, nor would God accept one Cubite more; although the Levites were (as is before ſaid) a twelfth part of Iſrael.

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

That this was ſo, is evident by the City of Hebron (or Kiriath-Arba, the City of Arba aaThe Father of Anak. Joſh 15.13.Josh 15:13, a Great man, that firſt founded it:) for that City being given to the Kohathites, who (among the Levites) had the firſt Lot bbJoſh. 21.10, 11.Josh 21:10Josh 21:11, was yet inhabited alſo by Caleb, to whom Joſhuah had before given it for an inheritance ccJoſh. 14.13, 14.Josh 14:13Josh 14:14. Therefore, after mention of diſpoſing Hebron to the Kohathites by the free Lot of the Iſraelites, it is ſaid, But the Fields of the City, and the Villages thereof, gave they to Caleb the Son of Jephunneth for his poſſeſſion ddJoſh. 21.12.Josh 21:12. Out of which Fields, it is manifeſt by the next verſe, that the Suburbs were excepted: for theſe were given to the Sons of Aaron the Prieſt eever. 13..

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

Nevertheleſs, thoſe Cities of Refuge, and the reſt, ſet out for the Levites, with the Suburbs pertaining to them, for the Cattle of thoſe Levites that were imployed in the ſeveral parts of Iſrael to be teaching Prieſts ff2 Chr. 15.3.2 Chr 15:3of the Law of God to the people, (which Lands, by Gods command were not to be alienated ggLev. 25.34.Lev 25:34;) may, by analogie, be a good argument to prove that Lands ſetled upon the faithful and painful Miniſters p. 17of each particular Congregation, or Pariſh Church, as Glebes, for their habitation, and neceſſary proviſion of Cattle for their uſe, are accepted of God, as ſacred; becauſe Himſelf commanded the like for the Prieſts of the Law, who had ſundry other obventions and in-comes by the Levitical Offerings and Sacrifices, which Miniſters now cannot enjoy: and, it cannot be thought that God or Chriſt will be more wanting to Miniſters of the Goſpel, than to the Prieſts of the Law. And as God forbad the ſale of thoſe Lands vvhile that Prieſthood continued; ſo it vvill accordingly follow, that parochial Glebes are not to be ſold from the Church, ſo long as they be imployed for the maintenance of ſuch Miniſters as truly and faithfully preach the Goſpel to the people of thoſe places, where ſuch Lands are given. For the very Churches to which they are annexed, vvere built by men of quality and piety, for the good of the ſouls of the living: and thoſe Glebes vvere beſtowed, for the incouragement of ſuch Godly Paſtors as miniſtred unto them the bread of life, ſo far as the Founders vvere able to judge.

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

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

For, although it be on all hands agreed, that from the 40 chapter of Ezekiel to the end of that Book, the main ſcope is to decipher and deſcribe the ſtate of the Church under Chriſt and his Goſpel; yet it is not affirmed by any one Author, that the Temple there intended, and Gods command there given touching the ſetting out of Lands for the ſame, are to be underſtood properly according to the Grammatical conſtruction of the vvords, as if God meant to erect another new material Temple at Hieruſalem in Judea; and, to revive and eſtabliſh the ſame Levitical Offerings and Sacrifices formerly offered by Aaron and his Sons, to be again offered by Zadock and others of Aarons Order. But,See Jun. in Ezek. 40.Ezek 40 that all is ſpoken in a figure, and in a ſpiritual ſenſe; yet, under legal p. 18expreſſions, and by vvay of alluſion to the material Temple of Solomon, as being the moſt glorious inſtance that could then be found, to illuſtrate and moſt lively to ſet forth the far more glorious eſtate, and ſpiritual endowments of the Evangelical Church of Chriſt, the New Hieruſalem, vvhichwhich ſhould ſo far exceed that in Judea, as the Heavenly Hieruſalem iiHeb. 12.22.Heb 12:22doth the earthly; and, as the ſpiritual Temples of the living God do excel that of Solomon. Wherefore, to dravv an argument thence, for the conſecrating of Lands in a proper ſenſe for the maintenance and ſtate of Biſhops, is not only to proclaim him to be a weak man that doth it, but to publiſh to all the vvorld that there is no ground in Scripture (as indeed there is not) to found any Title of Biſhops Lands upon.

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

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

But in nothing did they exerciſe ſo much tyrannie, as over the conſciences of men, according to what was prophecied by their greatly pretended Patron and Pillar, St. Peter kk2 Pet. 2, 1, 3.2 Pet 2:12 Pet 2:3, who gave warning long before of their wiles and tricks, whereby, through covetouſneſs, with fained words, they would make merchandiſe of the people. This they did, not p. 19only as they of old, that ſwallowed up the needy, firſt by making them poor; and then buying them for ſilver, and the needy for ſhooes llAmo. 8.6.; but as thoſe Merchants of Babylon, whoſe Merchandiſe was not of beaſts and ſheep, of Horſes and Charets, of Slaves and bodies alone, but of Souls of men mmRev. 18.13.Rev 18:13.

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

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

All thoſe Charters muſt (for the better grace of the buſineſs) begin with the Name of God, as if all were given to him, and that he accepted thereof; meaning, to themſelves, to cramb their purſes and panches, to the uſe of the Devil. Therefore when he or his imps had any miſchief to act, they uſually made In Dei nomine Amen [In the name of God Amen] the Preface to it. Whence that old Proverb, In nomine Domini incipit omne malum. When they had a minde to fleece any man, God himſelf muſt be made a party, to countenance their avarice; even when God was not truly and indeed in all their thoughts nnPſal. 10.4.Ps 10:4; and their eyes and their thoughts were not but for their covetouſneſs ooJer. 22.17.Jer 22:17.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next after Henry the Third, ſucceeded his Son, Edward the Firſt, who confirmed Magna Charta, in the 25 of his Reign (and with it the Clauſe or Chapter laſt mentioned:) but before he did that, even in the ſeventh of his Reign, he made a ſtrict Law againſt Mort-main (by advice of the Prelates, as well as others) to make all gifts and Purchaſes of Lands (without ſpecial Licenſe from the King) to be null and void, and the Lands forfeited to the chief Lord, if he took the advantage within a year and half; or elſe to the King, in caſe the chief Lord neglected the ſeizure within the ſaid time therein limited and appointed for his ſeizing thereof, for his own uſe.

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

p. 23By all which it is manifeſt, that neither the Kings, nor Parliaments, nor Biſhops themſelves in Parliament, ever took all Lands given to Churches to be Sacred, and Gods Propriety Jure Divino, or ſo much as lawful for the Church to hold them, without Licenſe from the King or other chief Lord of the Fee, of whom ſuch Lands were before holden. Witneſs the many Statutes againſt Mort-Main (or againſt the falling of Lands into a dead hand, that is, the Church;) whereby neither King nor Kingdom could receive any thing out of them, for Defence of the Realm; nor the chief Lords enjoy the benefit of chief Rents, Services, Fines of Alienation, or Eſchetes; which being an apparent wrong to all, occaſioned thoſe Statutes.

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

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

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

To begin with the Cities and Suburbs of the Levites, will be a good ſtep to the clearing hereof. Firſt, their Houſes might be ſold, even p. 24by themſelves without ſin. For that Law which was made for the redeeming of it at any time (which others might not do, that ſold Houſes in a walled City, unleſs they redeemed them within the compaſs of the firſt yeer after ſale;) and for the return of it, at the next Jubilee xxLev. 25.32, 33.Lev 25:32Lev 25:33in caſe it were not redeemed before, plainly implies a lawfulneſs for any man to buy an Houſe that pertained to a Levite, if it were to be ſold; and that it vvas no ſin to detain it, till it vvere either redeemed, or returned at the Jubilee, as all other Lands ſold by others were to be. This might be done without the leaſt branding of the ſeller or buyer; Yet thoſe Cities were by Gods own appointment, ſet out for the dwelling of the Levites.

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

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

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

And vvhatever ſome think now, that it is Sacriledge to aliene any thing once pretendedly dedicated unto God; yet even the Biſhops themſelves in Parliament have thought and determined otherwiſe, as well as Kings and the reſt of the Parliament, in the Acts formerly mentioned; vvherein, eſpecially in one of themaa15 Ric. 2.5. they make all Lands given vvithout Licenſe, to be forfeited, and to be ſeiſed, unleſs they procure a Licenſe to amortiſe them, or ſell or alien them (to ſome other Uſe) before Michaelmas then next coming. This ſhews plainly, that albeit it was not held lawful for Biſhops, Monks, or others, to receive or purchaſe Lands in Mort-Main: yet it was lawful (if they had ſo done) to ſell them (for the Parliament directed the ſale) and therefore lawful for others to purchaſe them for common uſes, when once it ſhould be diſcovered that thoſe Lands were ſo given and dedicated as therein was forbbidden.

To which may be added, 1. That Biſhops Lands eſpecially, were at firſt p. 25given to maintain their State and Magnificence, as Lords, with ſpecial reference to State-Imployments; For that the Kings were wont to have the greateſt part of their Counſel, for the ſafegard of the Realm, when they had need, of the ſaid Prelates and Clerks ſo advanced bbStat. de Proviſ. Benefic. 25 Edw. 3.. 2. That neither in thoſe times, nor ſince, did many of them (yea ſcarce any) take paines to teach the Law of God to the People, which was one end for which Biſhops were endowed with ſuch large Revenues, as the Statute De Proviſoribus Benefic. before cited, expreſly declareth. So that this being neglected, they lived in ſo great a ſin, as (in the judgement of thoſe few of them, who made more conſcience of their Duty in this kind) next to the ſin of Lucifer, there could not be a greater. Witneſs that Learned and Zealous Biſhop Robert Grosthead, Biſhop of Lincolne, in the reign of Hen. 3. who having received a Command from Pope Innocent the Fourth,Mat. Paris. ad Ann. 1353. to admit one Frederick de Lavania, that Popes Nephew (that is, his Baſtard) to be a Canon and Prebend of Lincolne, that Biſhop wrote back to the Pope a flat refuſal of that his command: telling him moreover, Poſt peccatum Luciferi, &c. That next to the ſin of Lucifer (which ſhall be in the latter time, to wit, Antichriſt, the Child of Perdition, whom the Lord ſhall deſtroy with the breath of His Mouth) there is not, nor can be any kind of ſin, ſo repugnant and contrary to the Doctrine of the Apoſtles and holy Scriptures; and to our Saviour Chriſt himſelf more hateful, deteſtable and abominable, then to deſtroy and kill mens Souls, by defrauding them of the Miniſtry of the Paſtoral Office. Which ſin, by moſt evident places of the Scripture, ſuch men are known to commit, who being put into the Paſtoral Office, provide for themſelves of the milk and wool of Chriſts ſheep, that by his appointment were to be vivified and ſaved, but do not adminiſter to them their due: for, the not adminiſtring of the Paſtoral Miniſtration, is by the Teſtimony of Scripture the ſlaying and perdition of the Sheep. 3. That not onelyonly all their Civil Imployment in State-Affairs (for which they were exalted ſo high,) is wholly taken off by ſpecial Act of Parliament, with the Royal Aſſentcc17 Car. c. 28.; but their very Function and Office, (as Archbiſhops and Biſhops, as themſelves and theirs were pleaſed to diſtinguiſh them from, and to ſet them above the reſt of their Brethren in the Miniſtry) hath been ſince by the ſame Parliament pluck'd up by the roots. Therefore their Lands muſt needs Eſchete and revert to the Commonwealth, the proper Heires of the firſt Founders and Donors, being long (yea, many Ages) ſince dead, and their own particular Heires, and Memory periſhed from off the Earth.

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

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

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

Anſw. To this it is Anſwered: 1. That if a Parliament (the Repreſentative of the whole Nation) ſhall enact an Abolition, no private perſon or party (out of Parliament) may gainſay or oppoſe it, without making himſelf liable to puniſhment. 2. That if by Biſhops, be meant onelyonly Miniſters of the Goſpel, faithfully feeding the particular Flocks committed to their Charge, not as Lords over Gods heritage dd1 Pet. 5.3.1 Pet 5:3; they could not be taken away; for ſuch are of Divine Inſtitution, not to be abrogated by man. But 3. Our Biſhops would none of this. Nothing ſounded ſo harſh in their Ears, as a Parity. This was not onelyonly Schiſme, but Hereſie, in their Conſtruction. They claimed a Power and Dignity (even by Divine Right) above other Presbyters or Ministers, as a diſtinct Order from, and ſuperiour to that of Presbyters: And that in the two greateſt points of Authority. For, they appropriated Ordination and Juriſdiction ſolely to themſelves, and to their Officers in their Right; which is expreſly contrary to the Teſtimony of Scripture, both touching Ordination, 1 Tim. 4.14. Act. 13.1, 2, 3. and Juriſdiction, 1 Cor. 5.3, 4, 5. 2 Cor. 2.6, 7, 8. & verſ. 10. And as upon this Account, they looked upon themſelves (even in the beginning of that Parliament, which after threw them out; witneſs that Book of Epiſcopacy by Divine Right, written by Joſ. Exon; and publiſhed, Anno 1640.) and had their Lands veſted in them, as appears by that Statute of 25 Edw. 3. before mentioned: So the Parliament taking them at their own words, look'd upon them too; and upon that very ground threw them out. Since which time, none of them have vouchſafed to aſſert their Title to be Jure Divino. If therefore the Levites, who had a clear plea for their Divine Inſtitution, juſtly loſt their Lands, and other Revenues, with their Offices; there can be no ſcruple of conſcience to buy or enjoy Biſhops Lands (whoſe Title was never ſo good as that of the Levites) after the Biſhops themſelves be laid aſide for ever, as Uſurpers over the Miniſtry, as well as over the reſt of Gods Heritage. p. 27They are no otherwiſe caſt out of their Office, then Diotrephes who loved to have the pre-eminence ee3 Joh. 9, 10., was by St. John himſelf, caſt out of the Church, whom that proud Prelate perſecuted, by his prating and malitious Words.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Object. 3 But, admitting they were juſtly ejected, yet ſo many direful Curſes have been denounced againſt all ſuch as ſhould aliene, ſell, purchaſe, or imploy thoſe Lands to other uſes, that it may juſtly make any man afraid to meddle with them.

Anſw. To this, a ſhort Anſwer may ſuffice. Where God bids Curſe (as in Deut. 27.) there is cauſe to fear Curſing. If an Elijah iiKing. 1.10. & & 12., an Eliſha kk2 Kin. 2.23.2 Kgs 2:23, a David llPſal. 109.Ps 109, a Peter mmAct. 8.20.Acts 8:20; (acted by Gods Spirit) ſhall denounce a Curſe; wo to ſuch as fall under it. Such Curſes ſhall ſurely take effect. God himſelf will own them, and requireth all his people to ſay Amen to themnnDeut. 27.15 &c.Deut 27:15. But, as the bird by wandring, and the ſwallow by flying, (eſcapeth the Nets and Snares ſet by the Fowler for them) ſo the cauſleſs Curſe ſhall not come ooProv. 26.2.Prov 26:2. That Providence that preſerveth the ſparow from falling to the ground ppMar. 10.25.Mark 10:25, till God will have it ſo (let the Fowler do what he can to take him;) doth likewiſe ſo order the matter in a cauſleſs Curſe, that it ſhall never reach him againſt whom it is intended; yea, God bleſſeth moſt, where wicked men, or others, belch out the moſt bitter curſes. Let them then be afraid of thoſe Curſes, who finde a warrant from God for ſuch curſing. A curſed people is ever a curſing generation qqRom. 3.14.Rom 3:14.

Who ſet them on work to Curſe? Even the ſame who indeed ſet on Shimei to curſe David rrSam. 17.23., not God, as David feared; but the Devil and Ahitophel, as David afterwards plainly found; that 109 Pſalm, being chiefly bent againſt Ahitophel, of whoſe curſing vve never read, but that, by the mouth of Shimei: David fared never the worſe for their curſing. But themſelves that curſed, fell under their own curſe. For however in Davids time, Shimei felt not the Curſe; yet it came home to him vvith a witneſs by Solomon ss1 Kin. 2.44.1 Kgs 2:44. And as for Ahitophel, he drew a Curſe from David, that reached his very neck and life. For, as he loved curſing (by ſetting Shimei on vvork) ſo it came unto him. As he clothed himſelf with curſing, like as with a garment which covereth him, ſo it came into his bowels like water, and like oyl into his bones, &c. when he hang'd himſelf. Thoſe buſie Curſers of the Prelacie have found this effect p. 30upon themſelves and Succeſſors; their curſes being come home to the Biſhops and the reſt of the Prelates, many hundreds yeers after their mouths were ſo full of curſing and bitterneſs. Let therefore ſuch as pleaſe themſelves vvith frighting others vvith curſes, beware they meet not vvith ſome ſhare in thoſe very curſes, vvhichwhich now they ſo groundleſly ſeek to ſcare their brethren vvithal, it being no other but an engine of Antichriſt forged in Hell.

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

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

Anſw. 1. This opinion is not in the caſe of Biſhops Lands, founded on the Scripture; but upon that commonly received maxime caſt in the Popes mint; Semel dicatum Deo non est ad humanos uſus ulteriùs transferendum. Which wherein, and how far forth it holds good, hath been above declared, and need not to be repeated. Things once given to God, by his command, warrant, or approbation, may not be aliened to other uſes, vvhile the uſe of Gods appointment doth continue: But, not all that men pretend, or ſay, they give unto God. As in Perſons, ſo in things, ſuch only as the Lord chuſeth, or accepteth (and none elſe) are holy ttNum. 16.7.Num 16:7, let men ſay and think vvhat they vvill to the contrary. To pin therefore Biſhops Lands upon God, becauſe once pretendedly given to him, is like thoſe gifts of the Iſraelites in the abſence of Moſes, pretended to be given unto God, vvhen they brake off the golden ear-rings which were on their ears, and brought them unto Aaron, to make them Gods to go before them uuExod. 32.3.Exod 32:3. They intended them as gifts to the true God, as they thought; yet were thoſe gifts far from acceptance with him; or reſerved for holy uſes, after the folly and wickedneſs of the Givers vvas diſcovered, and puniſhed.

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

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

4. Things voluntarily dedicated, by Gods own appointment, cannot be aliened. If it hath been abuſed, that muſt be rectified, and the things continued, for ſome other holy uſe, although not at firſt intended by the Donors. Thus, the Cenſers abuſed by Korah and his Companions, were no more uſed for incenſe; yet, becauſe they were hallowed, they were converted into broad Plates to cover the Altar wwNum. 16.37Num 16:37. But in things not appointed by God from the beginning, this Tenet holdeth not. For, being dedicated upon falſe grounds, & for ſuperſtitious ends (moſt derogatory to God and Chriſt) to maintain, feed, and encreaſe the pomp and pride of Harpies that lay in wait as he that ſetteth ſnares and traps to catch men xxJer. 5.26.Jer 5:26, thereby to fool them out of their eſtates upon falſe pretences, for ends of their own; this dedication is no vvhit better, than the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, (that is, then money gotten by whoredom, or by the ſale of a dog,) brought into the Houſe of the Lord, and dedicated to him; both which, he abhorreth yyDeut. 23.17Deut 23:17. Such are all thoſe gifts of Lands dedicated to God, firſt gotten by rapine and ſpoyl; or, to put Chriſt out of office of ſaving ſouls, and to do it by ſuch gifts. He looks no otherwiſe upon them, then as the offering of ſwines blood, the cutting off of a dogs neck, or the bleſſing of an Idol zzIſay 66.3.Isa 66:3. When it can be proved that God accepted of ſuch offerings in time of the Law, then alſo it may be granted that he vvill own ſuch mongrel Dedications in the days of the Goſpel.

5. Things dedicated to God, vvithout his order and allowance, is a laying aſide aaMar. 7.8.Mark 7:8, and a rejecting the Commandment of God bbver. 9., and a making the Word of God of none effect ccver. 13.. It is the Phariſees Corban ddver. 11., which they (for filthy lucres ſake) taught children to plead, and thereby to break the fifth Commandment) when required to relieve aged and needy Parents. If a father demanded ought of his ſon, and his ſon anſwered, This is Corban, a gift devoted to God, therefore you muſt excuſe me; Vows muſt be paid, and things once dedicated muſt not be recalled or aliened: This, by the Phariſees Doctrine, vvas ſo ſacred unto God, that (if the child ſhould be willing to pleaſure his parent with ſome part of it) they would ſuffer him no more to do ought for his father or mother eever. 12.. Did Chriſt take this for a dedication that might not be aliened? nay, he abhorred it, and them that taught it. Such are all dedications of mens inventions and fancies, vvithout a Rule from him: And therefore to be aliened to other uſes, that God may no longer be abuſed and provoked by them.

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

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

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

Let not ſuch think to waſh all off, by ſaying theſe were things done before their times, which they could not help; for, they can without ſcruple enjoy, yea purchaſe them. An acceſſory in ſin long before committed, muſt ſhare with the principal in puniſhmentff2 Commandment.. And this all acknowledge to be a truth; Non firmatur tractu temporis, quod de jure ab initio non ſubſiſtit. No houſe will grow ſtrong by long continuance, whoſe foundation is on the ſand. Time will never make that to be no ſin, which from the beginning was ſinful. They therefore that thus cenſure him,Rom. 2.1.Rom 2:1 are themſelves inexcuſable: for wherein they judge him, they condemn themſelves, becauſe they that judge, do the ſame things (g). If this ſatisfie not, yet it behoves ſuch Cenſurers to be quiet; and to let him that is without ſin, caſt the next ſtone at the Doctor.

Rom. 14.4.

Who art thou that judgeſt another mans ſervant? to his own Maſter he ſtandeth or falleth.