No Sacrilege or Sin to Alienate or Purchase Cathedral Lands, Chapter 2
CHAP. II.
The Lands of Bishops and other Cathedral men, as such, were never owned or accepted as holy to the Lord; nor were either his, or theirs, by Divine Right.
THe chief and (indeed) onelyonly Argument by which many endeavour to prove it to be Sacrilege oAns. to a Letter to Dr. Turner, pag. 25., to sell, or purchase Cathedral Lands, is this; that those Lands were given voluntarily by men unto God and the Church; and are accepted and owned by him as holy to the Lord; therefore they commit Sacrilege, who sell, or buy them for private uses: as being against not onelyonly Gods positive, but Moral Law. If this be not onelyonly denied to be true, but proved, out of the holy Scripture to be false, the whole Controversie will soon be at an end. In order whereunto, take notice, that there is not onelyonly no command, but no direction or allowance in the Scriptures of the Old, or New Testament, for the endowing the Church with such lands; but rather, enough against it: therefore it is no Sacrilege to sell, or buy them.
To make this out, take notice of these Propositions.
1. Under the Law, in the Old Testament, God was so far from commanding, owning, or accepting of lands to be given to the Priests, or Levites, especially to Aaron the chief Priest, (excepting a definite number of Cities for the habitations of the Levites that were to be spread over the whole Land of Canaan, and the parts without Jordan; and, a set quantity of Pasture for their Cattle) that he absolutely forbad them to have any inheritance among their brethren gNum. 18 20.. And this was to be a Statute for ever, throughout their generations hVers. 23.: The reason was given before unto Aaron, in behalf of himself and the rest of the Levites, to whom God, thus; I am thy part, and thine inheritance among the Children of Israel. That is, his portion in Tythes and Offerings due from Israel unto God, should be theirs. For, of those, to wit, Tythes, he there expresly speaketh; and, upon that ground, denieth them a portion in Lands: I have given them (namely, Tythes) to the Levites to inherit; therefore I have said unto them, Among the Children of Israel they shall have no inheritance iVers 24..
Should not he kAns. to a Letter, to Dr. Turner. pag. 29.then blush, who so confidently affirmeth, that to say, God in the New Testament accepteth of money, and not of lands, is so contrary to all reason, &c. so contrary to what God himself has expressed in the Old Testament, and no where recalled in the New; that he that can quiet his conscience with such conceits as these, may, be doubts not, attain to the discovery of some Quirks, which in his conceit, may palliate either murders, or adulteries? For, admit God should, in the Old Testament accept of some Lands (upon such and such Terms, as in Leviticus lLev. 27., or elsewhere; yet then, God expresly giveth all Rules about the nature of the Land; and of the redeeming, or not redeeming it) to be consecrated to him; will this prove his acceptance of Lands, in the New Testament, of any kind, quantity, or quality, by any man given, upon any other account whatsoever; until a Cathedral man shall say, Hold your hands?
Levi was one of the twelve Tribes of Israel, (therefore as considerable a part as any other:) Nevertheless, God was so careful to prevent their claim to Lands, among their brethren, by Divine Lot, that, when the rest of Israel were numbred, in order to their several Lots in Land, God expresly forbad Moses to number the Tribe of Levi, or to take the sum of them; and commanded him to appoint them over the Tabernacle of Testimony, &c. mNum. 1 49. 50. Whereby is more then implyed, that the Office of Priesthood; especially, of the High-Priests, (who were always in person to attend the Tabernacle) was then a bar to their inheriting of lands proportionable to their Brethren.
The inferiour Priests and Levites, from thirty to the fiftieth year of their age, were, in their courses, according to their three great families of Gershom, Kohath, and Merari lNum. 3. 17., put upon the most toylsome work in, and about the Tabernacle of the Congregation. But being numerous (in all, 8580.) mNum. 9., they did not, could not all attend the Altar at once; but onelyonly in their turns. Therefore, were they to be dispersed all Israel over, to instruct the people in the law of God nDeut. 33 10., save onelyonly when their several and respective courses came about, to serve at the Tabernacle. Which being so, there was a necessity of preparing habitations for them in all the Tribes, and some ground for their Cattle, which they were to use as well for travelling thence to the Tabernacle, when their turns came, as for their own Domestick Occasions.
Upon this ground, God had Moses to command the Children of Israel, to give unto the Levites, of the inheritance of their possession, Cities to dwell in — and suburbs for the Cities round about, for their Cattle, Goods, and Beasts, Numb. 35. 1, 2, 3. But of these, none were appointed to the High Priest, who was always resident about the Tabernacle. His house, no doubt, was also allotted to him. His portion, and the portions of such as served at the Altar in person, consisted in Offerings, and in the second Tythes, that is, in the Tenth of the Tythes gathered by all the Levites; which Tenths they were to pay to Aaron and the rest that Waited at the Altar, before they might share the rest among themselves, or partake of it in common oNeh. 10. 38..
It is true, that the Levites had forty eight Cities in all, set out unto them; and, some Lands: but God first gave the Word for the giving of them, and also limited both the number of Cities, (among which, were six Cities of Refuge) and the quantity of the ground that the Israelites should give unto them. The several names of the Cities, and how, and where situated, are set down in the 21th of Joshua. Their Suburbs were also bounded by a set number of Cubits pNum. 35 4.. Nor might the Israelites give, nor the Levites accept one Cubit more. Nor were they lords, or sole proprietors or inhabitants of those Cities. Others dwelt therein, and shared also in the residue of the Lands adjacent, as well as they: onelyonly, care was to be taken, that in every of those Cities, so many Levites as were assigned to each City, should be well accommodated; and the remainder should still continue to the former Owners. Hence Lyra, on those words, Cities to dwell in, Non dicit ad dominandum, vel ad redditus inde accipiendum, quiasic erant ipsius Regis, vel aliorum Dominorum urbes in quibus habitabant Levitae.
He saith not, Cities for them to lord over, or to receive the whole profits of them; for so, they were either the Kings, or Cities of other lords, in which the Levites dwelt.
That this was so, is manifest by the City of Hebron, (or Kiriah-Arba, the City of Arba, Father of Anak qJosh. 15. 13., and a Great man, that first founded it.) That Citie, being given to the Kohathites, who were Levites, and had the first Lot rJosh. 21. 10, 11., was yet the City of Caleb, to whom Joshua had before given it for an inheritance sJosh. 14. 13, 14.. Therefore, after mention of disposing Hebron to the Kohathites, by the free Lot of the Israelites, it is said, But the fields of the City, and the Villages thereof, gave they to Caleb the son of Jephunneh for his possession tJosh. 21. 12.. Out of which fields, it is clear by the next verse, that the Suburbs were excepted; for these were given to the sons of Aaron the Priest.
Here, by the way, a few words to him, (whether he were a Bishop, or not) that hath taken much pains to demonstrate, that Church-lands are not to be sold.
1. He is much mistaken in the greatness of those Cities and Suburbs; so also are others, (building upon St. Hierome's report.) uEpist. ad Dordan., who say That those forty eight Cities, had Suburbs of so large circuit, that they exceeded the portion of any other Tribe in Israel: Which cannot be. For, the circuit of the Suburbs, given to the Levites, were But 1000 Cubits, to be measured from the wall of each City. outward, round about wNum. 35 4.; which cannot contain 8000 Acres, English measure, in the whole, were each City two miles in compass, which is not probable. And, in every of those Cities, there must be placed neer 200 Levites and their families: so as, the Land could not extend to four Acres apiece to each Levite. For of such as were fit for service, there were (as was noted before) 8580. All the Males were 22000 *Num. 3. 39., besides women and servants. Now, divide 8580 into 48 parts, (according to the number of the Cities) and you will find almost 200 Levites, that were in their turns, for actual service, in each City. And these served for all the other Cities and Countries throughout Israel.
As for that conceit of some Rabbins, upon the 35th of Numb. and fifth verse, where 2000 Cubits are allowed for Suburbs to each City; that the first 1000 were onelyonly for walks, and recreations; and, another 1000 Cubits, for Fruit, Vines, Corn, &c. this is a meer dream, and contrary to Scripture. For, 1. the Suburbs given to the Levites are plainly declared to be but 1000 Cubits xVers. 4.: and that, not for walks and recreation, but for their Cattle, their goods and beasts yVers. 3.. 2. the other thousand Cubits (vers. 5.) which were added, are said to be Suburbs of the City, but not of the Levites. This thousand Cubits were for the Owners, and other Inhabitants of those Cities, beside the Levites; as appears by what hath been before alleged in the case of Caleb, Josh. 21. 12. the Levites then had their Suburbs next to the Walls: and the Owners of the Cities had theirs, without the Levites; and so theirs must be of far greater Longitude and Latitude, than the Lands of the Levites. For, as in all Cities there is a Tract of ground measured from the Walls, which belongs to each City, as Suburbs: so here 2000 Cubits in the whole; of which 1000 was for the Levites.
2. What, and how large soever the Lands of those Levites were, yet had they none, but only Pastures for feeding of their Cattle, as Abulensis (upon good grounds,) affirmeth zIn Num. 35. q. 2.. They did neither sow, nor reap: but yet, had store of Cattle brought in by the rest of the Tribes unto them, as being the Lords. And this is clear from the Text; for, the Lands assigned them, were, for their Cattle, and for their goods, and for all their beasts. Therefore they had only pasturage. And this could not extend to such a proportion, as should exceed the Lands of the least of the other Tribes.
3. There is a great mistake in the Computation of the Land of Canaan given unto Israel; and, by Lot, cast out for the several Tribes. It is said by the Author of Church-lands not to be sold, that the whole land was hardly 160 miles in length from Dan to Beersheba; and, but 46 miles in breadth, from Joppa to Bethlehem; as if this were the whole length and breadth of Canaan given of God to Israel, and by them enjoyed. And, for proof hereof, Saint Hierome, who lived long there, is produced as a witness. But, is not longitude usually reckoned from East to West? and breadth from North to South? Now, Beersheba is almost South from Dan; and Dan, almost North from Beersheba: on which account, there is hardly 160 miles between them. But, what is this to the whole longitude of Canaan, divided among the Tribes, from East to West, according to the latest Maps; and, particularly that, appointed by Authority to be prefixed to the last Translation of the holy Bible, Anno 1611? It is hardly a fourth part of the true Longitude. And, as for the space between Joppa, and Bethlehem, where St. Hierome dwelt, which is said to be 46 miles, it is not the one half of the breadth of the whole Land from South to North; nor is it said by Hierome, that it is the breadth of the whole; but, of the space between Joppa and Bethlehem, the place of his habitation, which was almost in the middle. And here take notice, that Hierome in that Epistle endeavours to prove, that much of the Land of Canaan promised to Abrahams posterity, is to be understood in an allegorical sense, as if God did not verifie all that he promised to them in the Letter; which, under favour of so great a Clerk, is a mistake. For can we think God would be worse than his word, in kind? Read the several distributions by Lot to the Tribes, in the book of Joshua, and elsewhere, and then it will clearly appear that St. Hierome, in this, was out. But, whatever the length and breadth of that Land was, this is clear, that the Levites enjoyed not one foot more than God had appointed the Israelites to set out by Lot unto them. Therefore, the Lands sold by Christians, Act. 4. or by that Hypocrite Ananias, Act. 5. can be no warrant for Christians to set out what Lands they please; or, any Lands at all, upon this setting out of Suburbical Lands for the Levites, until they can shew the like warrant from God (under the New Testament) both for kinde, and dimensions, for the Lands given to Cathedrals.
Now then, if Bishops take upon them (as of late they did) to be above Presbyters, or Ministers of particular Congregations, as Aaron was above the ordinary Priests and Levites; it is as clear as Analogy can make it, that there is no colour for, nor shew of warrant out of the Old Testament, to enable Bishops to hold whatever Lands the blind Devotions, or Commutations of Penances of the people, conferred on them: but rather, that there was an express Law against it. It is true, that after the Temple was built, there was (no doubt) conveniency of habitation, and perhaps some Lands for the beasts and Cattle of the High-Priest, in, or about Hierusalem; as there, perhaps, was, while the Ark remained in the Tabernacle. And, if Bishops (answerable thereunto) had made it out that they were, as Aaron, above the rest of their brethren in the Ministry, there had been some reason for the allowance of some Lands to them (if they labour in the Word and Doctrine) while they continue.
Howheit, (although Bishops could not by Scripture, make out their Title to the Lands they held,) those 48 Cities alotted to the Levites, with the Suburbs pertaining to them, (which lands were not to be alienated while the Levitical Priesthood was in force) aLevit. 25. 34., may, by Analogy, be a good Argument for the setling of Glebe-lands, upon faithful and painful Ministers of each particular or Parochial Congregation, for their habitation, and necessary provision of Cattle for their use; and, for the acknowledging of them as sacred, or holy to the Lord. Because himself commanded the like for the Priests of the Law, who had then, sundry other obventions and incomes, which Ministers now cannot enjoy. Nor, can it be thought that God is more wanting to the Ministers of Christ, when more grace is given bJam 4. 6.to those to whom they preach, than he was of old to the Levites.
And, as God then forbad the sale of those Lands while that Priesthood lasted; so, it will accordingly follow, that Parochial Glebes, are not to be sold from the Church, so long as they be imployed for maintenance of such Ministers as truely and faithfully preach Christ to the people of those places where such Lands are given. For the very Churches to which they are annexed, were built by men of Quality, and Piety, for the good of the Souls of the living. And, those Glebes were bestowed for the encouragement of such godly Pastors, as there officiated, and ministred the bread of life to the people; so far as the Founders of those Churches, Donations, and Endowments, were able to judge; and, to endow the Churches which they built.
If since, Sacrilege hath been committed, by aliening, or applying some of those Glebes to private uses, the Popes were first in this sin, and led the way. For they, first appropriated 3845 of the fattest and largest Benefices in England *Church-Lands not to be sold, pag. 31.either to their Italian Harpies, or other their Creatures, of whom nothing could be sure, but that they would feed themselves, and starve the peoples Souls. Afterwards, they gave them to those Augaean stables of Templars and Monks, in the heighth of Popery, who never took care of the Churches of Christ; but, to pamper their own bellies like Epicures; and, to maintain the pomp and state of Atheists, under the name and habit of the Church. And since the times that Bishops, Deans, and Chapters, &c. were possessed of such Appropriations, they grew worse than their predecessours, in Leasing out some, for many scores of years; and, passing away, other for ever *See the Apology for Purchases, &c.. And whereas those that first enjoyed them, were to make competent allowance to the Minister that officiated: so do not these, but rather starve him. They then, of all others, have least cause or colour to blame the late Parliament, for aliening or selling of those Glebes, to supply the necessities of the State, occasioned by themselves: which Glebes, it were to be wished, might be redeemed again, and restored, for the maintenance of such able and faithful Mainisters in those places, as look more at the Work than the Wages; which is now (if God give a blessing) in a good way to be done.
But, that which is most insisted upon, and which bears most shew of voluntary donations of Lands to the Priests, in the Old Testament, which may be called sacred, or holy to the Lord, and may not be afterwards aliened, or redeemed, is that in Levit. 27. 10. If a man shall sanctifie unto the Lord a part of a field, &c. which sanctifying, was, say some, a voluntary act, not commanded; yet allowed, and accepted of God; else he would never have put the case, so often, nor have given so many directions in it as there he doth. Therefore they conclude, voluntary offerings, or gifts of Lands to the Church, without command, or warrant from God, makes them to be sacred and holy to the Lord, and gives him a propriety in them, not to be revoked, or aliened.
To understand this aright, take notice, that divers distinctions are made in that Chapter, all which must be heeded. 1. The Lord distinguisheth of fields, said to be consecrated to him. For the fields are either fields of a mans possession, vers. 16. that is, his inheritance, which he may retain for ever; or fields which he hath bought, which are not of his Hereditary possession, vers. 22. The first he might sanctifie, of by vow, give unto God; yet so, that he had his liberty to redeem it, according to the value, not of the Land it self, but of the seed and profits, adding a fifth part to it: which done, he might as safely take it back, and use it, as if he had never consecrated it. But. if he did not before the year of Jubilee redeem it, but let it go out in the Jubilee, that is, let it lie unredeemed till that year came about, he might neither then, nor at all redeem it; that field was to be holy to the Lord, as a field devoted, the possession (that is, the inheritance) thereof should be the Priests, vers. 21. so was it also, in case it could be proved, that he that had sanctified it to the Lord, instead of redeeming, would, underhand, sell it to another man: that sale was void, and at the next Jubilee the inheritance thereof was vested in the Priests, (vers. 20, 21.)
2. The Lord distinguisheth between redeeming, and buying, or selling. Redeeming, is the act of him that vowed the field of his own possession; buying, is the purchasing of the field of another, for years, not for ever, because all Lands bought, were to return to the first Owner at the Jubilee, vers. 23, 24. so also is the selling of Lands, which could not be for longer time than the next Jubilee. Now, if the Owner who vowed a field, would not redeem it, any other might buy it of the Priests; and they not only might, but ought to sell it to him, saith Abulensis, for so many years as lasted to the Jubilee, but no longer. After such a man had bought it, he might sanctifie it to the Lord for so much time as he had in it: but the Inheritance was to be in the Priest. So, if he had bought a field, not before consecrated or vowed to God, he might sanctifie that till the next Jubilee; after which, it was to revert to the first Owner that sold it, vers. 22, 23, 24.
3. The Lord distinguisheth, between a thing sanctified, and a thing devoted. The sactifying of it, is the first vowing or giving it to God; notwithstanding which Act, he might lawfully redeem, and enjoy it as fully to his own use, as ever he did before the sanctifying of it; provided he do it in time, that is, before the next Jubilee. The devoting of it to the Lord, is a constant setling of it, upon God, for the Priests, without power of revocation or redemption after once the first Jubilee is over, if before, it were not redeemed, upon pain of Gods Curse *foreign, so vers. 21. The field, (to wit, which is sanctified, and not redeemed before the Jubilee) when it goeth out in the jubilee, shall be holy unto the Lord, as a field DEVOTED, the possession thereof shall be the Priests, as before was alleaged in reference to the first distinction. Thus also, vers. 28. No devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the Lord, &c. shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord. To the same effect Tostatus cIn Levit. 27. q. 67..
To apply this to the matter in hand: First, it is clear that no Land sanctified to the Lord, whether it were Land of Inheritance, or bought for a time, did settle such a propriety in God, that it was not lawful to redeem it for ever, or to buy it for a time, and convert it to any private use, before the next Jubilee: therefore this is of it self no argument to prove the giving Lands to Cathedrals to be such a consecration as it should be in no wise lawful to recal, redeem, or imploy them to any secular use again. Yet this is the main thing for which this Scripture is so much urged.
2. Although that Text implies some voluntary Dedications of some Lands to the Lord, for the benefit of his Priests that did him, and the people real and constant service, either at the Altar, or in teaching the Law; yet this is no Warrant for the Donation, or continuation of Lands to idle, &c. Lords over the people of God; and such, as can never make it out, that ever they were truly called of God to those pretended Offices and Dignities for which they claim such large Revenues.
3. Albeit, some fields might sometimes be given to the Lord; and, his Priests, enjoy the benefit of them; yet, He appointed upon what terms they should be given, and continued: but, no such matter, for Lands given to Cathedrals. They being many of them given to the dishonour of God and Christ, as afterwards shall appear, which God hath no where given order for their converting to a better use, nor given any rules about them. Nor were those Lands consecrated to the Lord, under the Law, the hundreth part of what Cathedralifts have, by wiles, not voluntary Donations, heaped up, to consume upon their lusts: Which boundless grasping of Lands, by Bishops, Monks, Deans and Chapters, &c. laying not only field to field, but Mannour to Mannour, to the impoverishing of particular families, and the Commonwealth too, upon the account of the Church, and Gods acceptance thereof, as sacred; hath ever been so far from being accounted lawful, that even an Archbishop himself (having deserted the Romish Church) hath proclaimed it Sacrilegium, & rapinam injustissimam; direct Sacrilege, and most wicked robbery. This, saith he, is not to enable men to labour in the Gospel: but to supply them with fewel for Riot and Excess; and, to pervert what was given for the benefit of the Church, and for necessary provisions; to the shame, scandal, and ruine of the Church: it is not to take off, but to multiply impediments of saving souls *Spalat. de Rep. Eccles. 1. 9. c. 7 n. 36..
4. Those consecrations of Lands were to be no longer in the Priesthood than their Priesthood continued. Afterwards, it was lawful for any to buy them, as well as any other Lands. Therefore, if that instance be of force to prove the lawfulness of giving such Lands, it must be of like weight to prove the lawfulness of aliening those Lands, when the authority and jurisdiction, and by consequence the Offices of all Cathedral men are wholly determined and taken away by Act of Parliament.
5. Albeit, those Priests might have such Lands given them, yet Tastatus dIn Levit. 27. q. 36.largely and strongly makes it out, that it was not lawful for the Priests to keep them in their possession, but must sell them at every Jubilee, even after they were devoted to the Lord, by leaving them to the Lord till the Jubilee. For, first he urgeth that place in Numb. 18. forbidding them Lands among their brethren. 2. He saith they were confined to those Cities and Suburbs which by Gods Order, were set out for them by the other Tribes, Numb. 35. so that it was unlawful for them to have either Lands, or Houses in any other places, or place whatsoever. 3. He urgeth the great inconvenience of keeping any such Lands in their own possession, because it would much distract and hinder them in the execution of their Offices. Therefore if even such Lands did fall to them, they were not to keep them, but presently to value them; and if he that sanctified them would not redeem them, they must sell them to some others. And, even when at the year of Jubilee the Lands came to be theirs, they must instantly sell them, and put them into money: and, so, from Jubilee to Jubilee. Now, what is this to the holding of Cathedral Lands, wherein they who plead for them, use all arguments and means first to get; then, to keep them for ever: whereas on the contrary, God allowed not his Priests to use Arts to get them, much less to keep them: but, to use all means to get them off again; until they who consecrated them had neglected the redeeming of them, and none else would buy them; and so they came devoted, not by their first consecration, but by neglect of the people who first gave them unto God? nor will those sharp Masters take notice of the difference between sanctifying, that is, vowing or giving of Lands unto God, and the devoting of them; which last makes them most holy to the Lord eLevit. 27. 28., uncapable of redeeming, or of being sold: yet not, in the nature of the thing; but, as having slipt the time limited by God for redeeming, or selling of them.
If any think (as one doth) that the setting out of the holy portion of Land, about the Sanctuary fEzek 45. and c. 48., shewed to Ezekiel in a Vision (as a Prophesie of the spiritual state of the Churches of Christ under the Gospel) is both a Warrant and Command to set out Lands for Cathedralists, to be holy to the Lord for ever, under the New Testament; this can be no other but a manifest perverting of the sense and mind of God throughout that Vision.
For, although it be on all hands agreed, that, from the 40th Chapter of Ezekiel, to the end of that book, the main scope is to decipher and describe the flourishing estate of the Church, under the Gospel; yet it was never affirmed by any Author, that the Temple there intended, and Gods command for setting out so many 1000 reeds of Land for the Temple, and the Priests, are to be understood positively and properly according to the Grammatical Construction of the Words, as if God meant to erect another new material Temple at Hierusalem, or in Judea; and to revive and establish the same Levitical Offerings and Sacrifices, formerly offered by Aaron and his sons, to be again offered by Zadok and others of Aarons Order. But that all is spoken in See Jun. in Ezek. 40a figure, and to be understood of the spiritual endowments of the Church, better than with all the Lands in the World.
Howbeit, this is set forth under Legal expressions, and by way of allusion to the material Temple of Solomon, as being the most lively and most taking instance, or resemblance that was then known, or could be found in the whole World, to illustrate and set forth to life, the far more glorious estate, and spiritual privileges and provisions of the Evangelical Church, the New Hierusalem gHeb. 12. 22., which should so far exceed in glory that in Judea, as the Heavenly Hierusalem gHeb. 12. 22., doth the earthly; and, as the spiritual Temples of the living God do exceed that of Solomon. Wherefore, to draw an Argument thence, for the consecrating of Lands in a proper sense, for the maintenance and state of Bishops and other Cathedral-men, is not only to proclaim the weakness of him that doth it, but to publish to the world that there is no firme ground in Scripture (as indeed, there is not) to found any Title of such Lands upon.
But, one hChurch-Lands not to be sold, pag. 1, 2.hath found out a gallant passage of Moses, to prove, that very Heathens, by light of natural reason, found, and held it requisite that their Priests should have a setled maintenance in Lands. The place is in Gen. 47. 22. where it is said, that when Joseph, in the extremity of the seven years famine, bought all the Lands of the people of Egypt, for bread, to keep them alive; OnelyOnly the Land of the Priests bought he not: which shews they had Lands, and that oseph would not meddle with the buying of them. But why? what, because they were hallowed, or consecrated to the Egyptian Gods, and therefore Holy? No such matter: but, because Pharaoh provided a portion of meat for them, and they did eat the portion which Pharaoh gave them. Wherefore they sold not their Lands. Indeed, Nature may teach that God is to be worshipped, that he is to have Priests for his worship, and that they are to be maintained; but, out of Lands, where did Nature ever teach that? If the Heathens that were most civilized made any standing provisions for their Priests, it was in Tithes and Offerings. This the Reverend Dr. Carlton iTithes examined, Cap. 2.hath industriously noted out of Plutarch, Herodotus, Macrobius, Diodorous Siculus, Xenophon and others. But, for making such provisions of Lands, none of those Authors are alleged. And, whereas the Apostle saith, that the things which the Gentiles sacrificed, they sacrifice unto Devils k1 Cor. 10. 20., it ill becomes a Bishop to urge that Act of the Kings of Egypt, in setting out Lands for such Priests, as done by the light of nature, which was done out of ignorance and corruption of nature, as a warrant for Christians to give Lands to Cathedrals.
2. Come we from the Law, to the Gospel; from the Old Testament, to the New. Neither here can we finde one silhable that countenanceth, much less requireth the endowment of Cathedrals with Lands, as holy to the Lord. It is true, that the Learned Knight, Sir Henry Spelman in his Treatise de non temer andis Ecclesiis, hath Learnedly proved it to be Sacrilege to rob Churches of the maintenance by Divine right due unto them: but, that is not spoken of Lands given by men, but of Tithes setled by God as the standing maintenance of Ministers of the Gospel: as is obvious to every eye that carefully heedeth the body of that Book.
There are indeed some wyre-drawn Arguments produced by a great D. in his Answer to the Letter to Dr. Turner, to make out Gods acceptance of, and propriety in such lands. But, these have been examined before, and therefore shall be here passed over. In the New Testament there is recorded: 1. Matter of fact. 2. Matter of Ordinance, for the providing of maintenance for Ministers, so soon as that Ordinance could be put in execution.
1. The matter of fact will appear, by what Christ himself; and afterwards, his Apostles had for their maintenance in those times.
As for Christ himself (although he were of the bloud Royal, of the lineage of David, both by his mothers side, and his supposed fathers side too) lLuk. 2. 4., he prosesseth, that very foxes, and birds of the air, were better provided for then himself: for, the one had holes; theother, nests; but he had not so much as whereon to lay his head mMat. 8. 20., neither room, nor pillow. It is true, there was a common purse, or bag, with which Judas was trusted; and, thereupon tempted to become a thief nJoh. 12. 6.. And it is manifest, that out of that Cash, (contributed by well-disposed Converts) oLuk. 8. 3., both he and his Disciples furnished themselves with necessary food pJoh. 4. 8.; and, gave to the poor besides qJoh 13. 29.. But, as for any House, or Land, for a standing or setled maintenance, or abode, it is clear, he had none; although Heir of all things. Nor was that provision which he had, any dainty, or costly fare: but only some loaves of bread, and a few fishes; not above five barley loaves, and two stshes rMat. 14. 17. Mar. 6. 38. Luk. 9. 13. Joh. 6. 9., at a time, (which a boy might carry) for Christ, and his twelve Apostles.
And, whatever Judas did in purloyning for himself, the rest of the Apostles were content to observe their Masters Injunctions; not onelyonly when he first sent them out, at what time he charged them to provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in their purses, nor scrip for their journey, neither two coats sMat. 10. 9, 10., &c. but even long after, when he had left the earth, and ascended heaven, and the multitude of believers dayly encreased tAct. 2. 47.: Even then, Peter professed to the lame man that lay at the Gate of the Temple, and asked an Alms of him; Silver and Gold have I none uAct. 3. 6.. Yea, a good while after that, blessed Paul laboured, working with his own hands w1 Cor. 4. 12., as a Tent-maker: and that, night and day; not for recreation, or out of covetousness; but, to minister to the necessities not onelyonly of himself, but, of those that were with him xAct. 20. 34.: not as having no right to maintenance y1 Cor. 9. 4, 5, &c.; but, that he might not be chargeable unto such, as being yet unconverted, or not fully satisfied touching this matter, might take offence at his requiring of present maintenance z1 Thes. 2. 9.. Therefore, sometimes he would take maintenance of one Church, convinced of their duty in administring to him, to supply his wants while he preached to another, more disaffected, unsatisfied, covetous or quarrelsome. Thus, he preached the Gospel of God freely to the rich, voluptuous, and quarrelling Corimbians: robbing other Churches, by taking wages of them, to do service to the Corinthians a2 Cor. 11. S.. Where, by the way, take notice, that he that taketh wages where he doth not, or hath not done service, is a Church-robber. It is true, if he work faithfully elsewhere, and no maintenance is there, without scandal, to be had; and another place where he hath industriously laboured, is willing to afford contribution upon that account: it is not such a robbery as is sin in him; but rather in them, who put him upon it, (as Quakers and others would now do, the Ministers of the Gospel:) for they refusing to maintain him, do what in them lies, to put him upon robbing others.
Let no man hence conclude, I. That Christ meant to starve his Apostles when he sent them out to preach; or, took not sufficient care for their provision. For, by their Ministry, He so wrought upon those to whom he preached, (if sons of peace) that his Apostles wanted nothing bLuk. 22. 35.: and that upon this account, That the labourer is worthy of his meat, (saith Matthew) cMat. 10. 10, of his hire (saith Luke) dLuk. 10. 8. This is then, allowed to those who are commissionated by Christ to preach the Gospel; but not to usurpers and false Prophets that run before they be sent, supposing gain to be godliness. Unto such Priests that so teach for hire, and to such Prophets as so divine for money eMic. 3. 11, a wo is due, which will be accomplished on them.
Nor, Secondly, That it is hereby intended, that it is unlawful now for Ministers of the Gospel, to have more or better allowance than Christ, or his Apostles were pleased to take (when they were first to plant the Gospel) until men were better instructed and satisfied touching the Ministers dues: but, that God hath provided better for them, which they might lawfully receive and enjoy, when once his people are throughly convinced of their duty.
All that is inferred hence, is but this: that it cannot be thought, that either Christ or his Apostles ever thought of allowing, or owning the Lands given to Cathedral Bishops, Deans and Chapters, &c. when neither he, nor his Apostles ever accepted of Houses or Lands for themselves; and when the enjoyned, and the other observed the injuction, that neither Silver nor Gold should be provided, for supplying their wants beforehand, in those times of the first plantation of the Gospel, wherein it nearly concerned those that were imployed in the planting of it, rather to suffer want of things necessary, than to give offence in the unseasonable demanding of supply.
2. As to the matter of Ordinance and Institution for the maintenance of labouring (not loytering) Gospel-Ministers, it is not necessary here to say much. I have, in the second Edition of this Treatise, made it out, that Tythes are the most proper and setled maintenance, set out by Christ himself for all his Ministers; although for brevity, it be here omitted. OnelyOnly take notice, that seeing Christ hath been pleased to own this rational proposition, that the labourer is worthy of his meat, or hire: Surely, he intended such hire as might be suitable to the state and condition of the Church, in the several ages and vicissitudes thereof, wherein his labourers took pains in his Church. With this nevertheless, that (whatever the maintenance should be) it must not be urged from his assertion, that Bishops and Cathedral men should have Lands; till they can shew better Title to such Lands, than either the Priests and Levites had (over and above their definite Cities and Suburbs) to keep Lands in their possession for ever: or, than any rule, or hint in the New Testament will undoubtedly warrant them to do. Not that it is unlawful for Ministers of the Gospel to possess Lands falling to them by inheritance, or purchased with their money: for such Lands they hold, not as Ministers in right of the Church, but as Civil Proprietors of an estate, of which it is, without question, lawful for them to dispose, as they please. But that which is here spoken, is in reference to the particular Texts produced to prove that the New Testament affordeth Commands for giving Lands to Cathedrals, which to aliene, is Sacrilege.
But, if none of all this satisfie, to warrant Cathedralists to hold Lands, and to prove Gods Charter for it, yet it is hoped fChurch-Lands, &c. pa. 4., that of our most blessed Saviour will do it fully, where he saith, Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own gMat. 20. 15.? where the Interrogation hath the force of an undoubted Affirmation; as if he had said, Questionless, it is.
Ergo, he hopes, Lands may be given to the Church. No doubt they may, as the forty eight Cities and Suburbs, were to the Priests and Levites. But, not by force of that Text now produced. For, that is not spoken of mens giving unto God; but, of Gods free gifts unto men. Besides, it is to labourers, not loyterers, in his Vineyard: not to such labourers as would work where, when, and how they list; but, as the Lord, or his Steward should direct, and command: not, for beating their fellow-servants; but, for giving them their meat, in due season. Briefly, you may observe in all the places quoted by the Advocates for Cathedral Lands, that nothing is precisely and positively vouched, which in terms, or equivalency, imports the giving to God, and his accepting of Lands for Cathedrals; but, long fetcht, and hard strained Interrogations, or inferences rather forced upon the Text, then naturally flowing from it; which, in the issue, comes to no more but a bare begging of the question, and of an admitting what they say upon such begging discourses, to be an unquestionable truth.
But especially, great use is made by the same Champion for Cathedral Pag. 5. Pag.18, 35 & alibi.Lands, that he doubts not (and, if he doubt not, who dares to do other?) but that this (which he undertook to prove, viz. that lands may be given to the Church) is the opinion of the Assembly of Divines lately sitting at Westminster, and of all learned Orthodox Divines in Christendom. Confidently spoken; but not, for want of ignorance of what he so speaketh.
Touching his so often vouching the Assembly of Divines (whom he afterwards *Pag.71.unchristianly revileth;) know all men by these presents, that either he knoweth not what he saith, or wilfully imposeth upon them what they never held out. It is very true, that some Members of that Assembly, joyning with some others, did compile some Annotations upon the Bible; which many take to be the work of the Assembly. But take this for an undoubted truth; those Annotations were never made by the Assembly, nor by any Order from it; nor after they were made, ever had the Approhation of the Assembly; or were so much as offered to the Assembly at all, for that purpose, or any other. Therefore, whatever is alleaged by that Author of Church-lands not to be sold, he must go look somewhere else for the Compilers of those Notes; and, forbear to charge them upon the Assembly, which never took the least notice of them. And when he hath found the right Authors, he may, if he please, send to them to own what he alleageth out of them, and thank them (whom he scorneth) for helping him to Arguments, which (as he thinks) make against themselves.
Touching all the learned Orthodox Divines in Christendom, which he, laies claim unto, to be of his side; it moveth not, beyond a vapouring flourish, till he produce them. And, were they all of his opinion, yet what is that to what he undertook to prove out of Scripture? Indeed he makes use of some bits snatcht out of Calvin, Beza, Deodat, and sundry others, whose words he either wresteth, or alleageth to no purpose. But let him make what advantage he can of them: yet, they are but men, subject to the same infirmities with others; of which, an appeal may safely be made to his own Conscience. Therefore, however they may be made use of in some cases, especially against themselves, and their own party (as by that Author they are) yet it cannot be thought needful, or equal, to answer to every passage alleaged out of them; unless it be quoted, to stop their mouths who seem to allow them dominion over their faith. This is spoken, not to wave any thing materially alleaged out of them; but that there is nothing produced, that comes up to the proof of that, for which that Author undertook to alleage them: and so no Answer can be given to them.
Here might we stay, if men would be perswaded to rest in the Scriptures. But, because much is produced out of Antiquity for the proof of mens giving, and Gods accepting of Church-Lands, we must go on further; and see what use is made of Antiquity herein, and upon what grounds. And this, the rather, because it may be better known, when, and upon what terms, the maintenance by Lands began to take place in the Church.
The first news we hear of any lands conferred on the Church, was in the time of Pope Urbane the first, about the year 228. who instituted hPlatina in Urban I., Ut Ecclesias, praedia ac fundos, fidelibus oblatos reciperet, partireturque proventus Clericis omnibus viritim, nihilque cujuspiam privatum esset, sed in commune bonum.
That he (meaning the Bishop, as we have it in Gratian, and Peter Crab) should receive the Churches, possessions, and grounds, offered by the faithful; and, that the profit thereof should be divided to the Clergy, man by man; and, that nothing should be of private propriety to any, but all cast into one common Bank for the good of the whole.
For, that is the meaning of our Author. Indeed, Gratian, and the rest of that Drove of Romish Canonists, tell us of a Decretal Epistle of Urbane directed to all Bishops; wherein, under pain of Excommunication, he decreeth, That none should presume to alienate ought of the Churches Revenues, &c. But this, more suo, they have invented for ends of their own; the very phrase, stile and matter of that Epistle being altogether incongruous and unsuitable to the language and state of the Church, or the Authority assumed by the Bishops of Rome, at that time. And, be it that Urbane did write such an Epistle, it appears not when those Lands were given: and, whatever Lands were given to other Churches, they at Rome had none, in a good while after, as shall presently be shewed.
But, if all this be admitted, that the Church, in those times, had some Lands, what is this to their purpose, who plead for Church-lands now? There was none then given in particular to Bishops, Cannos, or to any of the Clergy, to be for their own particular use, or personal propriety; those Lands were given to the Church in common: but, that is long since laid aside, and every one pulls, and hales what he can into his own purse, tanta est hominum rapacitas & libido, so great is the rapacity and lust of men, faith Platina iIbid.Now, this rapacity, this lust of covetousness, is that indeed which is pleaded for, by the sticklers for the continuation of such Lands to the Church, that is, to themselves.
And as for Pope Lucius I. who sate Bishop of Rome abont twenty three years after Urbane, (but continued not in the Sea above eight moneths, saith Eusebius; Marianus Scotus, saith, but five moneths) there is not one word in Platina, touching his taking notice of Church-lands. All that is to be found, is in the Canonists, and Compilers of the Councils, steered by the interest of Rome. So, Crab, and others, found out a Decretal Epistle of Lucius, directed to the Bishops of France and Spain, to the same purpose with that of Urbane. It is indeed fathered upon Lucius I. but there are so many expressions in it, of Benefices, &c. (Names and Titles never heard of in those ages) as plainly discover it to be a false imposing of it upon that Lucius; for that it better agrees with, and may more fitly be imputed to Lucius 2. or to Lucius 3. above 900 yeears after the first. And, what likelyhood there is, that he, that in the time of the first Schism, caused by Novatianus, had work enough, could in so short a space as he sate Pope, do his duty against that Schism, and be at leasure to make such decrees as are fathered upon him touching Church-lands; let the impartial Readers judge.
But be it as it will, and let it be granted that such Decrees were made by Urbane I. and Lucius I. take in also Pius 2. (as some do) who sate Pope 1200 years after; and, let all be admitted which they have decreed, for enjoying of Lands by Bishops, &c. yet the very best Title to Lands derived thence, is onelyonly from Popes of Rome. If it be said, those Decrees are not produced to prove the Title, but onelyonly to shew, de facto, that there were then such Lands belonging to the Church, which, those Popes took care, should not be alienated: It is answered, That if any such Lands belonged to the Church, and it cannot be shewed who gave them, the Title can be derived no higher than from those that first make mention of them. As for the Apostles times, the Scripture declares plainly what then was done with Lands; they were sold, and the money given to the Church. This was consonant to the Levitical Rules given by God, touching Lands sanctified to the Lord; which were not to be kept by the Priests, but sold, and put into money, at every Jubilee. But, the Popes taking upon them to be wiser than God, were of another opinion; and so are, it seems, too many among our selves, upon the same account.
Howbeit, he that shall trace the best Ecclesiastical Histories, shall find that the Clergy of the Church were endowed with no Lands before Constantine the Great; nor then, especially in his beginning, (unless, with some Houses and Gardens:) nor afterwards, in his greatest advancements of Bishops, save onelyonly with the profits of Lands. Indeed, in the supposititious Donation of Constantine, (forged in some Popish shop) it is said, That upon the Churches which Constantine built to the honour of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, possessionum praedia contulit, he conferred the spoiles of Possessions, or Lands, (gotten perhaps in war, for praedium refers properly to such:) yet this, in the language of Civilians, especially of those times, did not extend to the Lands themselves, but onelyonly to the profits raised out of them.
By some *Sr. Hen. Sp Int p. 6.Eusebius is quoted kEuseb. l 10. c. 5., as setting down the Imperial Edicts of Constantine, and Licinius, by which they would prove, that the Church of Rome had begun to retain Lands, &c. even before Constantine was sole Emperour; because they made a Decree for restoring such things and possessions as had been taken from the Church in former times. But, let it be consideted, that in the Edicts quoted by Eusebius, no Lands are mentioned, unless Gardens and Houses lforeign, which will not suffice them, who are so zealous for Church-lands, appropriated to Cathedral Clergy-men: The Edict speaks onelyonly of things pertaining to the whole Catholick-Church of Christians in common: which must be meant of the whole Society of believers. But, to let all men see how unprobable it is, that the Clergy should possess lands before Constantine, it is to be noted, that he was the first Christian Emperour, before whose reign the Church was under fiery Persecutions. Therefore not in case for their Clergy-men to enjoy setled maintenance by Lands, or Tythes.
And even in the beginning of his reign, (he having been born, and, for the most part, bred in England; and so, unknown at Rome) not onelyonly inferiour Christians there, but even that Bishop, or Pope Silvester himself, and his Associates in the Ministry, when Conftantine first came to Rome, and took on him the Empire, (not knowing his temper) were so much afraid of him, that they, for safety of their lives, hid themselves in the Hill Soracte, (afterwards, upon that occasion, called Monte di Sylvestro) about twenty miles from Rome, until they were better satisfied touching Constantines affection to the Christian Religion; if that Donation of Constantine be worthy of any credit.
But, to leave what was done at Rome, and, in other Countries *… S. R. I. …; it behoves us to enquire how things of this nature were carried in England. And, as to this, it is pleaded nChurch Lands … pag. …, that Lucius (King in same part of Britain) being converted to the knowledge and faith of Christ, about the year 176. (which is a mistake) rooted out the Idol-Priests; and, taking away their Possessions and Territories, he gave them to the Churches of the believing Christians, which be endowed with addition of more lands, and larger Revenues. For this, two learned Authors, Antiq. Brit. and Armican: perhaps he meant Armacanus; that is, Matthew Parker, after, Archbishop of Cant. and, Dr. Usher, Archbishop of Armagh in Ireland, are alleaged: But, he that voucheth them, was so wise as not to reser his Readers to the particular places in those Authors, wherein they may finde what he alleageth out of them. So that this (without offence to his Lordship) might be passed over without answer.
Nevertheless, that it may not be thought unanswerable, he may be pleased to know, that however Antiquit. Britan. be a very good book, (not now to be had, because out of print) yet what is quoted out of him, is not clearly, (if at all) to be found in our ancient Authors. It is indeed acknowledged, that Eleutherius, then Bishop of Rome (at the request of Lucius) sent him two godly Ministers, Faganus and Damianus (as some call them) who converted the Britains to the faith oFox. Act; & … part. fol. … Edit. 1610., although Lucius himself was before a Christian, as appears by his Letter to Eleutherius. Then, were the Idol-Temples, and all other Monuments of Gentilism destroyed; and the people brought to serve one God, who before served many. There were then in Britan 28 Head-Priests, called Flanines; and three Arch-Priests over them, called Arch-Flamines. Instead of the former, they made 28 Bishops; and, in room of the other three, they made three Archhishops, who had their seats in London, York, and Glamorgan. But, not one word, of endowing them, or their Churches with the Lands of the Flamines or Arch-Flamines, either in Baronius himself, our own Bede, or any other Classical Author yet occurring.
Wherefore, until he that tells this Story, of setling those Lands on the Church, shall make it more punctually, let it not be offensive, to pass over that Tale, with the words of the Magdiburgenses pCent. 2. cap. 2., Celebratur autem imprimis Propagatio in Britania sub Eleutberio facta: de qua tamen plerague tam dub è & obscurè recitantur, ut propemodum tota haec historia de fide sua laboret.
The Propagation of the Christian Religion in Britain under Eleutberius, is much applauded and cried up. Concerning which notwithstanding, things are for the most part so doubt doubtfully and obscurely related, that almost the whole History thereof labours under much uncertainty of the truth of it.
And albeit, it be said that Britain continued in the faith above 200 years after Lucius, even until the Saxons (then, Heathens and Infidels) came in: and, by their power destroyed the Christian Religion, until Augustine the Monk converted sundry of the Kings of the then Heptarchy, and reduced their people to the Faith again: yet in all that time, no mention is made in any History of credit, of lands given to, and setled upon Bishops and Cathedral men, in this Nation.
I consess, Matthew of Westminster qFlor. Histor. ad. ann. 186. &c., tells us, That Lucius conferred upon, and, by Charters, confirmed to Churches and Ecclesiastical men, sundry Possessions and Territeries, and granted such Priviledges to Churches and Church-yards, that whoever, having offendect, and fled to them, was to freed from punishment. But, what Churches, Clergy-men, and Territories they were, is not set down: and it is strange, that a Monk should know more of Lucius his endowment, than Bede, or others that had written of Lucius long before. I therefore think, this to be one of those corruptions of which he that printed his Flores, Anno 1570. gives warning in his Preface; and touching him, and Matthew Paris too, he there passeth this censure: Barbaros esse satcor, nec renuo si dicas, varie corruptos:
They are barbarous (in language) I confess, saith he: nor will I oppose, if you say, They are variously corrupted (in matter.)
And, give what credit you will to that Story, yet 'tis plain the counsel came from Rome for the doing of it. Lucius did, as the Romish Instructors taught.
The Original then (and by consequent, the Title) of the Lands of Bishops, and therest of the Cathedral men in England, cannot, of certainty, derive higher then the abused Magnificence of Princes, and other great men, nuzled in Ignorance and Superstition, both before and since the Conquest, in the heighth of Popery: whereby Monasteries first, and afterwards Cathedrals, have been endowed with large Portions of Lands, and other Revenues, under the specious (but cheating) pretence of giving them to God, and Holy Church; even to the impoverishing not onelyonly of particular Families, but of the Kingdome.
Nor were they given indeed to maintain a preaching-Ministry, (for which, all Church-maintenance was at first appointed by God, even when the daily Sacrifices were on foot,) to instruct the people in the true knowledge of Christ and his Gospel, and to quicken them to the power of godliness, (for, these, most of those men who held those Lands, ever persecuted;) but, for superstitious ends and uses: and imployed (for the most part) to maintain the Luxury, Pomp, State, and other Excesses and Lusts of Abby-Lubbers, and other Cathedral Drones and Belly-gods, to the great dishonour of God, and scandal of the Gospel.
And it is to be observed, that (if any credit be given to Histories) the greatest and richest endowments of Cathedrals and Monasteries with Lands, in this Nation, were made when Satans Throne was most exalted, and his Kingdom in greatest peace, even in times of thickest Popish darkness; when even Kings themselves, and their Nobles, scarce knew one letter in a Book, nor the rest understood any thing of Christ or Religion, otherwise than so many Parrets; no, nor of the very Municipai Laws of the Nation, further than what the Prelatical Clergy (whose interest it was to keep all in grossest ignorance) though fit, for their own gain and advantage to communicate.
The Clergy, being sole Masters of the times, and holding all the chief Offices and Places of Power and Judicature in the State, as well as in the Church, did what they list both with King and People. And with their familiar spirit of Excommunication (the great Mormo and Scare-crow of the Laity, with which they daily frighted them) they could, and did conjure into their own Churches, to fill their own coffers, what quantities of Lands, or ought else they pleased.
But in nothing did they exercise so much Tyranny, as in the matters of the Souls and Consciences of men, which they made perfect Vassals to their Lusts, according to what was prophesed by their greatly pretended Patron Saint Peter r2 Pet. 2.1, 3., who abhorred their wickedness, and therefore gave warning of their wiles and tricks, whereby, through covetousuess, with feigned words, they would make merchandise of the people. This they did, not only as they of old, who swallowed up the needy, in regard of their outward estates; and then, buying them for silver, and the needy for shooes sAmos 8. 6.; but, as being the Merchants of Babylon, whose Me chandise is not of beasts, sheep, horses and chariots, or of the bodies of slaves alone, but of the souls of men tRev. 18. 13..
And as they held the people in ignorance, the more easily to prey upon them; so they purposely winked at the wickedness of Princes, great ones, and rich men, their adulteries, rapes, murders, and other villanies (so they did not fall upon the Clergy) till they had, by these means, got them most sure within their nets, and found it most seasonable to cut large gobbets out of their Estates. Then indeed, they would fall foul upon them, with a witness; terrifying them with unsufferable torments; first in Purgatory, and afterwards in Hell, unless they redeemed themselves, and expiated their sins, and that speedily, by giving such large portions of their best Lands, as those Harpies pleased. Which if they did, they were not only presently absolved, but declared meritorious: especially, if they could be drawn to give so large a portion to the Church, as might also maintain Masses, &c. for delivering the Souls of their Ancestors, and others out of their imaginary Purgatory fire. By this they were told they merited Heaven; but, without this, they must exspect nothing but Hell for their portion. Strong Arguments to weak and silly Souls, when they are fallen into the pit and pangs of the King of Terrors, and abused by blind guides.
Which Donations they were made to believe were now vested in God himself, and in such tutelary Saint, or Saints, as they taught them to devote them unto: that they were sacred, and highly accepted of God, (because indeed they kept the Kitchins of those Cheaters warm) whereupon they needed not to doubt of the pardon of all their sins, and the release of the Souls of their Ancestors, and of whom else they pleased to nominate, out of Purgatory.
All which Charters so granted to Pope-Holy Church, (for the better grace of the business) must begin with the sign of the Cross, and In nomine Domini; but indeed, to the use of the Devil. Therefore when those his Imps had any mischief of this kind to act, their usual introduction was, In the Name of God, Amen. This, in Benedictions of such deluded Vassals; in Execrations, when they angred those hellish ghostly Fathers; and, in all Donations made unto them, was so common and constant, that it grew to a Proverb, In nomine Domini incipit omne malum. When they had a mind to fleece, or abuse any man, God himself must be invocated to become a party to own their wickedness, and to countenance their avarice, and cursed practises: even when God was not, otherwise, in all their thoughts uPsal. 10.4., who were not but for their coveiousness.
Nor can it be imagained that the Donours of those large gifts, would ever have parted with them, but as being made to believe by those Merchants (the Devil's Brokers) to whom they gave them, that thereby they made full amends to God for all their sins, and expiated the guilt of some hainous and outragious wickedness by them before committed; the guilt of which, the very bloud of Christ was not sufficient alone to wash off. And, that hereby the Priests and Monks who were to enjoy those Lands, would take pains by their Popish Devotions, to deliver out of Purgatory the Souls of their Ancestors and Friends; or, to curse their Enemies with Bell, Book and Candle, as the manner then was, the more to please (or rather fool) the ignorant Founders of such Endowments, as any intelligent man vers'd in the Histories of those times, cannot but know.
And lest this should be thought a slander, take some short proof thereof, both in the Doctrines and Decrees of Rome, and in the Practise thereof accordingly.
First, the very body of the Canon-Law, (which is enough to silence for ever all such as shall allege any of those Popish Canons or Laws touching this subject, to make good their out-cries against sale of those Lands) thus declareth and decreeth, Ille qui donat, pro redemptione Anime suae, non pro commodo sacerdotis offerre probatur wDecrct. par. 2. Caus. 12. 4 3. c Pontisices.. He that gives ought to the Church, doth it for the redemption of his Soul, not for the Priests gain. And this shooing-horn was held out, the more easily to draw on mens Estates upon their own Churches; which being published as a Law, or Truth to be believed upon pain of Damnation, who durst to make doubt of the truth of it, or to scruple the bestowing of the greatest gifts he could possibly reach unto? For, if a man will give skin for skin, and all that he hath for his life, (as once the Devil teld God xJob 2. 4.) much more will he stretch himself for his Soul, because it costeth more to redeem Souls yPsal. 49.8. And yet when all this is done, this is not given unto God, but to their greatest Enemy Satan, because it takes a man off from relying wholly upon the death and satisfaction of Christ, (albeit there is no salvation in any other zAct. 3.12and to trust in his own merits; yea, in that work which God neither requireth nor will accept; and so, in his conceit, to become his own Saviour; which is a Doctrine of Devils. And it had been all one, to have given the same gifts to any of the gods of the Heathens, which are Devils.
Secondly, take also some instances answerable to the former Doctrine, which are extant in several Authors of credit.
First, in the Saxons times, after Ina, King of the West-Saxons, had built St. Andrews a Church in Wells, about the year 704 aGodwin of Bishops, pag 357., and dedicated the same unto St. Andrew, not to be a Cathedral, but Collegiate Church for Monks. There was no Bishop there till about 200 years after. Howbeit, in the year 766, Kenulphe, succeeding Ina, and others in that Kingdom of the West-Saxons, gave to the Monks of that Church all the Lands adjacent, in and about Wells and Mendip, as by his Charter appeareth. In which, he setteth down the Grounds and Motives which induced him to it, in these words bMonastic. Anglican.: Quapropter Ego Cyenulphus Occi Saxonum Rex, aliquam terrae partem, pro amore Dei, & pro expiatione delictorum meorum, nec non (quod verbo dolendum est) pro aliqua vexatione inimicorum nostrorum Cornubiae gentis:
Wherefore, saith he, I Kenulph, of the West-Saxons King, for the love I bear to God, and for the expiation of my sins, and also (which is to be lamented) for some vexation of my enemies of the Cornish people, do give, &c.
That is, to hire the Monks of Wells to curse the Cornish men, which he could not (it seems) subdue by his sword.
And verily he had need to do somewhat more than ordinary for expiating his sins, according as the Doctrine of those times (wherein the all-sufficiency of Christs full satisfaction was concealed) ran. For, albeit in his younger times he carried himself fairly as to the matter of his Government of his subjects, (for want whereof his Predecessour Sigebert, was deposed, and he taken into his room;) yet, as for his more private conversation, he was a man so addicted to Adultery, that his wife, not able to bear it, left him, and betook her self to a Nunnery, where she ended her days: and he, after this large Donation, could not be drawn off from that sin of uncleanness, but rather grew more bold to continue it, which in the end cost him his life.
For whereas in the 26 of his reign, he bestowed that Charter upon the Monks of Wells, yet he still haunted a Concubine or Strumpet (some call her a Noble Person) at a place called by some Meriton, by other Merton, or Marton, or Mariton, within his own Dominions; and there, in the 30 year of his reign, was slain: not by the Cornish that were in rebellion, (as was lately conjectured, upon the account of Simon Dunelmensis, quoted by Speed and Isaacson; which Simon being consulted, setteth not down the names of the Murderers) but, as Johannes de Brompton, Matthew of Westminster dAd Ann. 280., Henry of Huntington eHistoriar. li. 4., Roger de Hoveden fAnnal. par 1., Ethelwerd gLi. c 18, Polydore Virgil hHist. 1.5., and sundry others do all affirm, by one Kineard, brother to the deposed King Sigebert.
This is the truth of that sad accident which befel Kenulph, and this was his end. Thus we see how divine the endowment of the Church of Wells was, which was not made a Cathedral until in the year 905. Plegmund, Archbishop of Canterbury, (who, by command from King Edward, sirnamed the Elder, consecrated seven Bishops in one day, where none had sate before) among which, he consecrated Adelme Abbot of Glanstenbury, the first Bishop of Wells: by which it became a Bishops Sea. But it is remarkable, that he who gave Lands partly for cursing of others, fell himself under the saddest curse, to be butchered in that very place where he had so often formerly, and then also, committed adultery, by the hand of him whom he thought he had made sure enough.
Take another instance in Henry the Third. He being pressed by his Nobles, Bishops, and others to pass the Great Charter, so highly magnified Magna Charta.and cryed up, especially by the prelatical Clergy, in the ninth year of his reign, (himself being then but eighteen years old) he was hookt in, to grant it thus: Henry by the Grace of God, King of England, &c. To all Archbishops, Bishops, &c. Know ye, that we, to the honour of God, and for the salvation of the souls of our Progenitors and Successors, Kings of England, &c. have given and granted, &c. To which all Bishops and many Abbots, as well as others, were of Counsel, and Witnesses. Hereby it appears, that this Charter was granted chiefly to merit salvation. So as, however the honour of God be mentioned, yet the dishonour of God and of Christ lay at the bottom of that grant, in reference to the foundation laid in the heart of that King by the Prelates. The like instance may be given in Edward the third, and many more: but because there will be occasion to mention some of them, upon another account, they are forborn here.
That this was the High-way wherein the degenerate Clergy of England, long before (as well as since) the Conquest, constantly travailed, take one proof (for all) out of Gildas (sirnamed Sapiens) who being a Britain Presbyter, sharply declaimeth against the ignorance, covertousness, idleness, voracity, thievery of the Clergy of his time, which were said to be continued from the time of King Lucius, in Britain, now England; for which God had brought many sad judgements upon the Britains by the Saxons, who, (at their first coming especially) being Idolaters, continually oppressed, and tyrannized over the Britains. Yet nothing would prevail to reduce the Clergy to duty. Whether he continued till Austin the Monk came into England, some doubt, others deny. Yet Oraeus iNomenclat. l. G., and others affirm it; of which, see more in Vossius kDe Hist. Latin. 1.2. cap. 21..
But, it is on all hands agreed, that he sharply rebuked the great exorbitancies and abuses of the Clergy of his time. Those abuses were, some of them, such as concern the business in hand; which, he thus reproveth lIn Ecclesiast. Ordin. acr. Corrept.. Britania habet sacerdotes, sed non nullos insipientes; guamplurimos ministros, sed multos impudentes: Clericos, sed quosdam raptores, subdoles: Pastores, ut dicuntur, sed occisioni animarum lupos paratos; quippe non commodo plebis providentes, sed proprii plenitudinem ventris quaerentes: Ecclesiae Domos habentes, sed eas turpis lucri gratia adeuntes, &c.
Britain, saith he, hath Priests; but, some of them fools: very many Ministers; but many of them, impudent: Clergy-men; but, Thieves and Cheaters: Pastors, as they are called; but, in truth, Wolves, 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 gutts: they have the houses of the Church (that is, where the Church met for worship) but, resort to them for filthy Lucres sake onelyonly.
And, that he might let all men see, that he excepted not the Bishops of those times, nor such as sate chief among the Clergy; nay, not the Pope himself; he addeth, Sedem Petri Apostoli, immundis pedibus usurpantes, sed merito cupiditatis in Judae Traditoris Pestilentiae Cathedram desidentes. They usurp the Apostle Peters seat with unclean feet; but, through their covetousness, they rather sit indeed in Judas his Chair of Pestilence. This, with much more, that old Britain, so highly accounted of, layeth to the charge of the British Clergy of those times, which future ages did not make better.
For, since the Norman Conquest, the Prelates and Monks have been higher than before, and grasped more Lands into their hands (upon the same account of redeeming Souls) than all their predecessors. Insomuch as the Cathedral Clergy, Chauntries, Monks, and Nuns, being not a fortieth (nay, not an hundreth) part of the people, had, by these wi es and devices, gotten (as some intelligent men have computed) a third part (if not two) of all the best Lands in the Nation, at what time Henry the eighth began to seize the lesser Monasteries. All which estates were obtained upon that rotten ground, of meriting salvation by giving such large gifts to the Church: which false Doctrine they continually inculcated upon the people, to draw them on to such Donations.
Yea, sozealously bent were the Prelates of those times to augment the Churches Patrimony; that, by a Provincial Constitution *Lindw. 1.5 tit. de poenit & remiss. cap. cum anima., made by Richard Withershead (alias Wctherhead) Archbishop of Canterbury, in the reign of Hen. 3. it was forbidden to all Physicians to administer any Physick to any Patient (be his extremity and danger never so great) under pain of suspension ab ingressu Ecclesae, till the Patient were shrived by a Priest. The pretence was, to visit and physick his Soul first. But, the meaning was, to get a collop out of his Estate to some Church, Chappel, or Monastery, to increase their own Revenues: Upon which, the Priest absolved him; but, not before. And this was that which occasioned the multiplying of Chaunteries, Obiits, &c. and afterwards, the abrogating of them, in the reign of Edw. 6. to whom they were given by Parliament, I. Edw. 6. 14.
Nor were the Kings and Parliaments (especially after King John) so hood-winkt or cowed, as not to see and take notice of, and provide against those excessive gifts of Lands to the Church; that is, to the Clergy, whereby they greatly robbed the Commonwealth, and ruined many particular families.
Therefore, the same Henry the third, when he first granted the Great Charter, and therein confirmed the Right and Liberties (which doth not necessarily, if at all, import Lands *See Cook. Instit. 2. C. I.) of holy Church (as that Idolized Crew was then termed) did, in the same Charter, enact mCap. 36.;
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 freed from all Tithes, Taxes, and Eschetes; Therefore many did so convey Lands, to couzen 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 shall be utterly void, and the land accrew to the Lord of the fee.
Here then was a Law against voluntary gifts of Lands, and a liberty granted to others, to recover them back, notwithstanding their pretended giving them unto God: whereby it appears, that some sorts of giving, and accepting and receiving Lands for the Church, is not a duty, but a fault, which deserves punishment, not a reward.
Next after Hen. 3. succeeded his son, Edw. I. who, in the 25th of his reign, confirmed the Great Charter; and, in it, the clause, or Chapter, last mentioned. But, before he did that, even in the seventh of his reign, he made a strict Law against Mortmain (by advice of the Prelates as well as others,) to make all gifts and purchases of Lands without special License from the King) to be null and void; and the Lands to be forfeited to the chief Lord, if he took the advantage within one year and an half; or else to the King, in case the chief Lord neglected the time therein appointed and limitted.
It is true, that Edward 3. a popular Prince, at the importunity of the Clergy (of whom he was necessitated to make much use in his wars) did somewhat mitigate the rigour of former Statutes of Mortmain; who, in case of breach thereof, enacted, that instead of forfeitures, parties offending should onelyonly pay a Fine. Howbeit, in 15 Rich. 2. that Statute De Religiosis, 7. Edw. I. was not onelyonly revived, and set on foot again; but, made to extend to all Lands privately given for Church-yards, or Glebes of Vicars, &c. or to Guilds, Fraternities, and Corporations, without special License from the King. And that if any, before this last Statute, had bought, procured, or received such Lands, without License, they should either procure his License, or sell those Lands away for other uses, by the next Michaelmas following; else the Lands to be forfeited, and seisure to be made of them, as in the aforesaid Statute of 7. Edw. I. de Religiosis was provided. This indeed was the main quarrel which Thomas A undel then Archbishop of Canterbury had against that King, for which he conspired with Henry of Bullingbrook (afterwards, Henry 4.) to depose, and ruine him.
By all which it is manifest, that neither Kings nor Parliament, no not Bishops themselves in Parliament, ever took all Lands given to Churches upon mens private devotions and liberality, to be sacred, or, holy to the Lord, and thereby to become his propriety; or, so much as lawful for the Church to hold them, without special License from the King, and other chief Lord, or Lords of the see. Yea, these Acts of Parliament declare plainly, that such voluntary giving of Lands, was in it selfagainst Law. For there being required a special License for legitimating thereof, it is manifest that the thing could not be done, without dispensing with the Laws made against it. The unlawfulness whereof is declared to be, that the King and Kingdom was thereby defrauded of such taxes and payments (when the Lands once were in Mortmain, or a dead hand, to wit, the Church) as formerly had been raised out of them, for defence of the Realm; and the chief Lords of the Fee, were deprived of their chiefRents, Services, Reliefs, Fines of Alienation, Eschetes, &c. which being an apparent wrong to all, occasioned the making of those Laws against that lawless Liberty.
And yet our Advocates for Church-Lands, will needs contend, that every thing voluntarily given to Holy Church (be it for what use it will, Superstitious, or not) must needs by that very Donation instantly become so sacred, that it may by no means be alienated; and, that God accepts it for his own, although given contrary to the Laws of those men, to whose Ordinances (even to every one of them, not contrary to Gods) we are commanded to submit, for the Lords sake; whether it be to the King, as Supreme; or unto Governours, as unto them that are sent by him, &c.nI Pet. 2.13, 14.
Thus we see what, in truth, the Title of the Lands of Bishops and other Cathedral men in England, was; whence, derived; upon what grounds; and, in what manner procued, and enjoyed: which sufficiently argues them (even in construction of Scripture, as well as of humane Laws) to be far from being sacred, or Holy to the Lord, so as, upon any account whatsoever to intitle him unto them.