No Sacrilege or Sin to Alienate or Purchase Cathedral Lands, Chapter 3
CHAP. III.
It is neither Sacrilege, nor other sin, to aliene, or purchase such Lands to any common use, especially since the Statutes of 17. Car. I. cap. II. and cap. 28.
THis is evident from the premises, and is here added by way of Antithesis, to obviate those Two confident Assertions of the Letter Answerer oPag 25. his 3. and 4. Propositions.before mentioned, viz. That to invade those things (given to the Church) be they moveable, or immoveable, is expresly the sin of Sacrilege. And, That this sin is not onelyonly against Gods positive Law, but plainly against his Moral Law. To charge a man with Sacrilege, is the highest accusation for the greatest crime, next to the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost: for, it is ranged with Idolatry it self, Rom. 2.22. yea, in the judgement of some (quoted by this Answerers Second, and Repetitioner) pchurch-Lands not to be sold, pag 14, 15.; it is a worse sin: a sin that is not onelyonly a breach of the Positive written Law, but against the Law of nature also. The very Heathens have made it death qPlato de Legib. dial. 9.and, such a death as is due to a Parricide, or murderer of his fatherrLeg. 12. Tabul.
This goes very high indeed. The evidence to prove it, had need therefore to be very clear, full, impregnable, and manifest by express Scripture; not by strained consequences drawn thence by wit, or by the authority or suffrage of men; as thinking to make good by number of voyces, what cannot be made out by strength of Scripture. This were no better then the banishing of Aristides from Athens, by the Law of Ostracismon, as being very likely to be guilty of Tyranny; which in stead of proving, they made good by the Votes of 6000 CitizenssPlutarch in Arist.
Now, it will concern these Accusers to make out their charge, upon pain of incurring the same punishment which is due to a Sacrilegist. If any man unjustly accuse another, the Lord once made a Law touching False witness bearing against ones neighbour, which was this tDeut. 19. 16, & co.; The judges were to make diligent inquisition; and, if the witness were a false witness, and bad testified falsly against his brother, then should they do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: no eye might pity him: but life should go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, band for band, foot for foot. It is well for these bold Censurers, that this Judicial obtains not in England. Yet let them know, that the Equity of it is perpetual, and the Justice of God will (without repentance) finde them out.
To prove this to be expresly Sacrilege, one of them tells you a fair tale out of the Schools and Casuists, Aquinas, &c. which is all the Argument he brings (unless the Etymology of the word, and Nebucbadnezzar's abusing the holy Vessels, and the burning of the Temple:) but, out of an express text of Scripture, declaring and dooming the Buyers of Cathedral Lands, expresly to be Sacrilege, foreign quidem, not one syllable. And can there be such a sin, unless he produce some Scripture that forbids and condemns it? Is notthis to become foreign the Accuser of the Brothren? Nor, are proofs of the other as to this point, any better, but Quotations of such Scriptures, of which none do mention lands; but, he seeks by Circumlocutions, Interrogations, confident Assertions, to fasten such a sense upon them; sometime contrary to, always incongruous and aliene from the genuine sense of them. As by occasion hath been in great partalready demonstrated; and, further may be, in this or the next Chapter.
In his other Proposition, he affirms, that this aliening of such lands, is against the Positive and Moral Law of God; because all Nations, even Pagans, hold Sacrilege for a sin: and, for his better grace, he voucheth (but cites not the place, whereby it might be examined) Lactantius, to prove that, in all Religions, God ever avenged this sin. But doth he tell us out of Lactantius, or Scripture, that selling or buying Cathedral Lands is that sin? Yes: he voucheth Mal. 3. 8. Will a man rob God? yet ye have robbed me. But, wherein? Here he is silent: for it makes not for his purpose. but rather against him. What was it indeed? God himself tells them; (not, in Lands, but) in Tythes and Offerings. And this is granted him. And what gets he by it? but, the countenance of some Scripture-words against the sense. But, that (notwithstanding all objected, or alleaged) to sell, or buy such Lands, because once voluntarily dedicated to God, is no Sacrilege, appears thus.
First, by that very Scripture, Levit. 27. (alleaged to the contrary) if rightly understood. For, if it were lawful to make a singular vow, of a person, a beast, an bouse, or some part of the field of his possessions; and, (after such sanctifying of it to the Lord) to redeem or buy it back again for common uses: then, the bare Dedication, giving, or consecrating of a thing unto God, doth not, eo ipso, make the redeeming, selling or buying thereof, for any use, to be Sacrilege; unless, where God himself hath expresly forbidden such redemption, sale or purchase. But, in divers cases, and particularly in the cases of Houses and Lands, God allowed a redemption and sale: so as, the buying of them back, for private uses, after the sanctifying of them to the Lord, were done within the time allotted by God for the doing of it, as hath been before more largely opened. Therefore, to sell, or buy Cathedral Lands, is no Sacrilege, nor any way sinful, in the case before propounded, because once dedicated to God.
It is true, that where God hath laid an express prohibition against redeeming or buying, it is Sacrilege to redeem or buy. As for example: Ifa man voluntarily offer, a beast, which God hath allowed for Sacrifice, he may not redeem, buy or exchange it; no, not for a better, vers. 10. no more may he redeem or buy, nor so much as sanctifie the firstlings of beasts, whether ox or sheep; because that is so the Lords, that a man cannot make of that a free-will offering, vers. 26. but, if it be any other beast, he may redeem it, and employ it to what use he pleaseth, vers. 11, 12, 13. and vers. 27. So in sanctifying an bouse to be holy to the Lord, it might be redeemed for private use without sin; yea, with Gods allowance, vers. 14, 15. And the like allowance was given for redeeming of fields and lands so sanctified also: vers. 16, 17, 18, 19. therefore no sin or Sacrilege to buy it for common use: onelyonly, in two cases, it was not lawful;
1. If he redeemed it not before the Jubilee, as was before noted.
2. If he had sold it unto another man, vers. 20. If either of these were the case, then, it was holy to the Lord as a field DEVOTED; that is, with Anathema, or a Curse denounced by God.
This, God after repeateth, with some enlargements, vers. 28. to let us see, that nothing devoted, under his curse, might be bought or sold. Howbeit, all things confecrated, are not so devoted. Nothing could be devoted, but in the cases above mentioned: and this was done, by God himself, not by the men that gave it. For the fields were not to be given with an Anathema, denounced by the Donors. But this was added by God, long after the Lands were out of their possession, and not redeemed. And had the Donors first given it, with a curse, they had made themselves for ever uncapable of redeeming it; before the Jubilee, which God himself not onelyonly allowed, but, in a manner, required them to do; that so there might not be an utter alienation of it from the Tribe and Family, to which it belonged by Divine lo:; against which God made a Law, Num. 36.7.
If it be now objected: But, Church-Lands were given with a curse upon all that should aliene them: This is soon answered. There is no warrant or example hereof in Scripture: but, rather of the contrary. Sure we are, there is no warrant for it in the place alleaged, Lev. 27. 21 & 28. But, of this more, in the next Chapter.
Secondly, proceed we from voluntary Consecrations, to things set apart by the people, at Gods own command, for the Priests and Levites; which will further clear this Point. It hath been already shewed, that there were by Gods injunction 48 Cities with Suburbs of lands for the Priests and Levites set out by the several Tribes of Israel. Here the Levites had houses to dwell in; and lands for their Cattle.
Howbeit, I. The Levites might sell their houses, without sin: For, when God made a Law for confining a man that sold a dwelling house in a walled City, to redeem it within a year, after the sale; or else, it might not be redeemed till the Jubilee, Lev. 25.29. He gave further liberty to the Levites, if any of them sold an house, he might redeem it at any time, vers. 32. And if a man purchased of the Levites, then the house that was sold should go out in the year of Jubilee: for the houses of the Levites are their possession among the children of Israel, saith the Lord, vers. 33. This plainly implies and proves the lawfulness of buying, and detaining, without sin, even the house of a Levite, until it were either redeemed, or returned at the Jubilee. Therefore, it is not Sacrilege to buy Church-Houses of Bishops and other Cathedral men; no more then it was, in a Levite to sell; and in an ordinary person to buy a Levites house, for private use.
2. As for the lands of the Levites: those I mean, which were annexed to those Cities (for other they had none) they might not sell them, so long as their Priesthood lasted. For so, God expresly, The field of the Suburbs of their Cities, may not be sold, for it is their perpetual possession, vers. 34. Their houses were their possession; but the Lands, their perpetual possession: that is, to remain unalienated, so long as their office remained. Those Lands were the same in effect, with our Parochial Glebes. The Levites could not be without them for their cattle and goods; no more can faithful Ministers of the Gospel be without these. And if it were expresly forbidden to aliene those, while the Levites officiated in their places; it will nearly concern all who have aliened. or shall aliene any of these, to consider his warrant from God (and not from man onelyonly) to exempt him from the guilt of Sacrilege; or, at least, of a very great sin.
Howbeit, when the Levitical Priesthood ended, the Levites might as lawfully sell their lands, as their houses. Else, Joses (sirnamed Barnabas) a Levite, of the country of Cyprus, had (in the common opinion of the most) committed Sacrilege; for that he (after that Priesthood was changed by Christ) having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the Apostles feet wAct. 4.36, 37.. Had this been Sacrilege, the Apostles would never have suffered such money so near them, nor would they have accepted of such a gift, although given for supply of the then persecuted Church of Believers. It was therefore no sin in him: but is recorded by the Spirit of God as an eminent act of his Faith, Piety, and Charity.
If any shall say, That the Land sold by Joses, was not Levitical, or Church-land, but a temporal Estate: 1. This appears not from the Text: nor, 2. is it asserted by any Expositor, in terminis. Indeed, Lyra *In loc.seems to incline somewhat this way, when he saith, It was land that he had in Cyprus, where he was born: the Levites, as he saith, being then dispersed (but not by reason of persecutions at home, as he conceiteth) and that he was to have none in Judea, save what is before mentioned, which was wholly Levitical. But this is but his own single opinion, to which we may oppose Tostatus aIn Lev. 27.4, 36., who plainly proveth that neither in one place or other, might the Levites enjoy any lands, but those about their Cities. And be it, that Joses had lands at Cyprus. He was now at Hierusalem, which was distant from Cyprus 160 miles, saith Strabo bCom. Geog. 1.14.. Little likelyhood therefore he should make a journey to Cyprus, to make a sale there: and less, that he, at such a time, should get so large a revenue in a strange Country. Wherefore, more probable is that of Gualter cIn Act. 4.; that Joses, being a Levite at that time, and converted unto Christ, then so much hated of that order, (eo quod Christus illorum quaestui & honori plurimus derogaret, upon this very point, that Christ did much derogate from their gain and honour) did show so much charity and bounty to the Saints at Heirusalem, as to sell his Land, and bestow it on them. Which Land, saith Alexander the Monk dIn Vit. Barnab., lay in Judea, not in Cyprus: nor could he, in the opinion even of Cornelius à Lapide, have any in Judea, unless pascuales duntaxat ad alenda pecora, ut patet Num. 35.3. onelyonly pastures for feeding cattle, as appears Num. 35. 3. which a Jesuite would hardly be perswaded to acknowledge, were there any colour of probability to the contrary.
But let this Land be where and what it would, it is a clear case that it was a Levites patrimony, and a Levite sold it; yet he that bought it, sinned not. Yes, saith one, he that bought it, might sin, although he that sold it, might therein not sin, by reason of the necessity of the times. So Hezekiah did lawfully in delivering the Treasure and Ornaments of the Temple to the King of Assyria e2 King. 18.15, 16., to redeem himself and Gods people from his violence; but, who can suppose the Assyrian less than sacrilegious in accepting and detaining them? To which, I answer: If the one might lawfully give, the other could not sin in receiving what was given. At best, it was but doing evil, in giving way to another to sin, that good may come of it. Hezekiah cannot be excused from sin, if he do that which makes another to sin. Therefore if Joses might lawfully sell, it could not be sinful in the Purchaser to buy. Moreover, the Shew-bread, in case of extremity, was given to David and his Company, by Abimelech f1 Sam. 21 6.; which Bread was not common, but hallowed; nor was it lawful for any but the Priests to eat of it. Yet who will say, that David sinned therein? In extremities, if God will have mercy. and not sacrifice; how can it be unlawful to buy and possess what others are forced to sell? If there were no Buyers, there can be no Sellers. And if there cannot be buying without sin, how can he escape guilt that maketh the sale? In cases of this nature, buying and selling are relatives; one cannot be without the other: therefore they must both share alike in guilt, if either be faulty; unless the Buyer compel the Seller by violence to do out of fear, what he would not do without force.
Nor need this seem strange Doctrine, if we consider, either, first, the Canon-Law, whence the whole troop of Declaimers against such Sacrilege fetch their Arguments: or, secondly, the practise of Bishops, &c. in this Kingdome: or, thirdly, the Judgement of the Pope himself declared to Queen Mary, touching those Lands which had been aliened from the Church by her Father and Brother.
1. The Canon-law hath sundry strict restraints upon Bishops, and other Ecclesiastical Persons, not to give, exchange, or sell, and aliene the revenues of the Church. Yet withal, in one of the strictest of those Canons, beginning thus, Sine exceptione gDecret. 2. Caus. 12. q. 2. c. 52 sine except., it is allowed to be done by a Bishop; if, for the profit of the Church; and, with advice and consent of his whole Clergy: without which, they make such giving, exchanging, or selling, to be Sacrilege. Hence many, not taking notice of the Exceptions, run away with the former part; as if it were Sacrilege simply and absolutely; though for the profit of the Church, and with consent; as that famous Martin. de Aspilcueta Dr. of Navarre hTom. 1. Com. in Cap. non lic. a. 12 q. … 7. & 8., sheweth.
Therefore, he distinguisheth of Ecclesiastical Goods, of which some are more solemnly consecrated with a special Benediction, and serve immediately for Divine Worship. These cannot be profaned (that is, converted to common use) no not by the Pope himself, while they continue in the form in, and use for which they were consecrated. Other goods are consecrated by a sole Donation, and disposal of them for the sustentation and maintaining either of men, or things imployed in, and about Divine Worship; without such a solemn Benediction. These last may be alienated even by inferiour Prelates; as, saith he, not onelyonly moveables, but immoveables, dayly are, so often as upon just cause, and with due solemnity, venduntur laicis, vel aliàs commutantur cum eis; they be sold to, or exchanged with Laymen: referring to the Canon last mentioned.
But, whitherto tends this? To shew that, in the judgement even of those from whom our sharpest Censurers draw most of their water to drive their Mill, all alienation of Church-lands is not Sacrilege, upon this simple account, that they are voluntarily consecrated, and given by men, as holy to God, or Christ: for, if any thing may, in the judgement of the parties interessed in the profit, be gained by it, it is no Sacrilege nor Sin, but lawful; and, dayly practised by the greatest sticklers against what they please to call Sacrilege. Yea, hence may be inferred further, that whether the alienation be advantageous, or not, to the Church, it is no Sacrilege: for, if such dedication and consecration, or hallowing of a thing afterwards stollen, purloyned, or aliened, makes such stealth, sale, or purchase to be Sacrilege, as all seem to confess: then, the profit by, and consent to such a sale, cannot extenuate, or take off the sinfulness of it. Therefore, however the alienating thereof to disadvantage, and without consent, be an injury, (if not done by lawful authority) yet it can be no Sacrilege: unless, men wilifreely acknowledge that they do indeed judge such sales by their own damage, not by the Dedications of the Lands unto God.
2. If it be considered what the Bishops have counselled, and joyned in, with the King, Lords and Commons in Parliament, it will appear that the aliening of such Lands is, in their judgements no Sacrilege. Witness, (1.)the Acts of Parliament formerly mentioned i15. Ric. 2. 6..5, made and enacted with consent of the Lords Spiritual, as they were called. In one of which before cited, they make all Lands given to the Church without Licence, to be forfeited, and to be seized by the chief Lord, or the King, unless they procure a License, or sell away those Lands within a short time therein prefixed & limited; which could not be, if it were Sacrilege, after they be dedicated and hallowed, to sell, or aliene them. This shews plainly that it was not lawful to receive or enjoy such lands without licence; but, lawful enough to sell them, if any such they had: therefore no sin, but a lawful Act, to buy & purchase them for common uses, although (in their language) given to God by men; and so, no Sacrilege. And, (2.) in 1.2. Phil. & Mariae. The Bishops themselves then in Parliament, yea as well as the rest of the Lords and Commons, prayed all the Clergy, then in Convocation, Confirmation of all sales and alienations of Church-lands (as well of Bishopricks as of Monasteries, &c.) before that time made, as appears by that very Act of Confirmation it self, cap. 8.
To which may be added, that Bishops Lands especially, were (as before is shewed) declared in open Parliament (the Bishops being present) k25. Ed. 3. Stat. dc Provis., to be given to maintain their State and Magnificence, as Lords, with special reference to State-employments. For thus, saith the Statute, was this Church founded in the State of Prelacy, for that the Kings were wont to have the greatest part of their Counsel, for the safeguard of the Realm, when they had need of the said Prelates and Clerks so advanced. All which Civil Employment in State-affairs (for which they were advanced so high) is wholly taken off, by special Act of Parliament, with the Royal Assent. Yea, their very Functions and Offices, 17. car. 1. cap. 28.as to all. Jurisdiction, are by the same King and Parliament, pluckt up the roots, 17. Car. I. cap. II. Their Lands then, must needs Eschete and revert to the Commonwealth; (the proper Heirs of the first Founders and Donors, being dead many ages agone, and their memory perished from off the earth) and therefore now as lawfully sold, as heretofore in the case of Mortmain, Lands (not by licence received) might be seised and alienated by the chief Lord of the Fee, or by the King; and, converted to what uses they pleased. Of which, before.
3. If we look into the judgement and resolution of the Pope himself in this case, we shall find that he durst not to damn those of the Laity of the last age, as guilty of Sacrilege, that were possessed of Church-lands after the dissolutions made by Hen. 8. and his Son, Edward the sixth. For Queen Mary (one of the Popes great Zealots) after she was possessed of the English Crown, desired the resolution of the Pope, whether she were not bound in Conscience, to do her utmost that those Revenues might be restored to the Church?
To this, the Pope returned an answer in writing (2o Mariae) the Original whereof (saith Dr. Hackwel) mAnsw. to Dr. Carriers Letter, p. 248., was among other remarkable remembrances of that time, preserved in the Office of the Kings Papers; to let her know, that there was no cause for restoring those Lands to the Church again; and giveth sundry reasons of that his resolution, which will ask some time to transcribe. Howbeit, because this is not vulgarly known, yet of use, I shall (as Dr. Haclwel hath led the way) set down the Popes own words, first in Latine, and afterwards in English: that it may appear that there is not, in the judgment of the Pope himself, any Sacrilege in the alienation of those Revenues. Which, I here mention, not as placing confidence in the Popes opinions; but as retorting upon the late Writers against Sacrilege, the opinion of them, who were the first Founders of the Doctrines delivered by these: whereby they may yet further see on what sandy foundations their Discourses of Sacrilege, are built.
The Judgement of Julius 3. sent in Writing to Queen Mary, in the year 1554.
ANNO DOMINI, 1554.
Quod omnes qui justo titulo juxt a Leges hujus Regni pro tempore existentes, See Doctor Hackwel's Answ to Carrier, cap. 2. pag. 249, 250, &c.habent aliquas possessiones, terras, sive tenementa Monasteriorum, Priortuum, Episcopatuum, Collegiorum, Cantariarum, Obituum, &c. sive eadem pecumis suis perquisiverunt, sive per Donationem, vel per mutationem, sive alio modo legitimo quocunque, in sua possessione hujusmodi remanere possint, & valeant, & easdem suas possessiones ratas & confirmatas sibi habere, ex confirmatione & dispensatione sedis Apostolicae.
Causae & Rationes quare hujusmodi dispensationes, cum honore & conscientia recte concedi possint.
1. Status Coronae hujus Regni benè sustineri non potest, ut cum honore regat & gubernet, si hujusmodi possessiones ab illa separentur, quod hodie maxima pars possessionum Coronae, sit ex hujusmodi terris & possessionibus.
2. Complurimi homines pecuniis suis acquisiverunt ingentes hujusmodi terrarum portiones, a Serenissimis Regibus Henrico VIII, & Edwardo VI. qui per suas Literas Patentes easdem Terras warrantizarunt, quibus terris & possessionibus, si possessores bujusmodi nunc privarentur, Rexteneretur rependere pecunias omnes in hac parte expositas, quae in tantarum summarum vim & molem sese extenderent, ut à Coronâ difficillimè restitai possent.
3. Magnates & Nobiles hujus Regni, quorum plerique vendiderunt & alienaverunt antiquas suas haereditarias possessiones, ut has novas obtinerent, &, in suo statu vivere non possunt, si hujusmodi possessiones abillis auferantur.
4. Acquisitores vel possessores hujusmodi terrarum & possessionum, propterea quod easdem habuerunt ex justo titulo, juxta ordinem Regum hujus Regni, habebant, & etiamnum habent bonam fidem in illis obtinendis.
5. Possessio hujusmodi terrarum adeo est communis cuique statui, & ordini hominum, Civitatibusque, Collegiis, Incorporationibus, ut si ab illis tollantur, & auferantur, subitam quandam metamorphosin singulorum statuum, & magnam Ordinis confusionem in universo regno hinc inde sequi necesse sit.
6. Cum bona & possessiones Ecclesiae ex authoritare Canonum, pro redemptione Captivorum alienari possint, Idque per illam Ecclesiam solam, ad quam illae possessiones pertinebant, aequum est dispensari pro continuatione possessionis jam acquisitae, propter tantum bonum publicae concordiae & unitatis Ecclesiae, ac preservatione istius status, tam in corpore quam in anima.
In English, thus:
That all such as by just Title according to the Laws or Statutes of this Realm, for the time being, have any posseisions, Lands, or Tenements lately belonging to Monasteries, Priories, Bishopricks, Colleges, Chantries, Obits, &c. whether they have purchased them for their money, or are come to possess them by gift, grant, exchange, or by any other legal means whatsoever, may retain and keep the same in their possessions, and have the same ratified and established unto them by the confirmation and dispensation of the Sea Apostolick.
Causes and Reasons why such Dispensations may be justly granted with honour, and conscience.
1. The State of the Crown of this Kingdom cannot well be sustained to govern and rule with honour, if such possessions be taken from it: for, at this day, the greatest part of the possessions of the Crown, consisteth of such Lands and possessions.
2. Very many men have with their monies bought and purchased great portions of those Lands, from the most excellent Kings, Henry the VIII. and Edward the VI. who, by their Letters Patents have warranted the same: of which Lands and possessions, if the Owners should now be dispossessed, the King should be bound to repay unto them all their money; which would arise to such an huge Mass, that it would be a very hard matter for the Crown to restore it.
3. The Nobles and Gentry of this Realm, most of whom have sold and alienated their antient inheritances, to buy these new, cannot live according to their degrees, if these possessions should be taken from them.
4. The purchasers, or Owners of such Lands and possessions, inasmuch as they came to them by just Title, according to the Ordinance of the Kings of this Kingdom, have held and do still hold a good and justifiable course in obtaining of them.
5. The enjoying of such Lands and possessions, is so common unto every state and condition of men, Cities, Colleges, and Incorporations, that if the same be taken from them, there will necessarily follow thereupon throughout the Kingdom, a sudden change and confusion of all Orders and Degrees.
6. Seeing the goods and possessions of the Church, even by the authority of the Canon Laws, may be aliened for the redemption of Captives, and that the same may be done by that Church onelyonly, to whom such possessions do belong: It is fit and reasonable that such dispensations should be granted for continuing of possession already gotten, for so great a good of publick concord *Mark this well., and unity of the Church, and preservation of this State, as well in body as in soul.
Lo, here a Pope (more concerned in such alienations from the Church by others, than our sowre Masters) is so far from making the selling, or purchasing of such Lands to be Sacrilege, that he gives many weighty reasons against the restoring of them, and for warranting the holding of them. As for his addition, that men should take his confirmation and dispensation for it, (less than which a Pope could not propose,) we leave to them, that hold that needful.
But, it is considently affirmed that Dr. Burges (before he was engaged Object.in buying Bishops Lands) openly acknowledged at the Bar of the House of Commons in Parliament, in his Answer nMay 11. 1641.to Dr. Hackets Speech, then and there (in the Names of all Deans and Chapters) made for preventing the alienation of Cathedral Lands; That, to take away those from the Church, is Sacrilege; or words to that effect: concluding with the utter unlawfulness to convert such endowments to any private persons profit *Hist of the Church. Cent 17. Lib. 11. P. 179..
So indeed the novel flashy Church-Historian, upon hear-say onelyonly, hath reported him; of whom Dr. Heylin in his Animadvers. on that Hist. p. 225. thus:
If it once be made a fame, it shall pass for a truth, and as a truth find place with our Authors History, though the greatest falshood.
Tam facilis in mendaciis fides, ut quicquid fama liceat fingere, illi esset libenter audire *Minut. Foelix.. But this is an unjust Aspersion: Indeed Dr. Burges did declare a concurrence with Dr. Hacket, in admitting the alienation of any thing, settled by Divine Right upon the Church, to be Sacrilege: but, nothing else. It was far from him to grant, that all which Cathedral men enjoyed, was theirs by Divine Right; or, to admit, that it was Sacrilege, to aliene any other thing that was theirs, not by Divine Right.
He intended no more in that Answer, than what he had long before oAn. 1625.published, in a Preface to a little Tract of Personal Tithes, where he thus expresseth himself:
To that Tenet (viz. that Tithes are due, jure divino) I subscribe affirmatively, ex animo. But, with Cautions. 1. Tithes (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 Tithes 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 to christ, her Lord, and, thereby to her., in whose Name he receiveth them.
Had he granted more, he had deviated from the truth. And could it be proved by an hundred witnesses, that he fully concurred with Dr. Hacket, in this point: and, that sundry who then heard him, so understood him; yet, this cannot make Sacrilege to be, in the true nature of it, of larger extent then it is indeed: and therefore if he did so speak, he must, and doth renounce it, as an errour.
But, is it not said, Numb. 16. after Korah and his associates were so object.dreadfully destroyed, for making & using Censers to burn incense withall; that God commanded Moses to speak to Eleazer the son of Aaron the Priest, that he take up the Censers out of the burning, (and scatter thou the fire yonder) for they are hallowed. The Censers of these sinners, against their own souls, let them make them broad plates for a covering of the Altar: for they offered them before the Lord, therefore they are hallowed? vers. 37, 38.
Out of which text, many things may be observed, viz.Answ.
First, that men may offer some things before the Lord, and to him, which he hath not commanded.
Secondly, that such things, so offered, are hallowed; how wicked soever they be that offer them.
Thirdly, that upon such offering, and hallowing of them, they may not be imployed to any use, but what is holy and sacred.
Fourthly, that therefore to imploy them otherwise, is Sacrilege.
This carries in it a shew at least of greater weight than all that is urged by most of those that would make Sacrilege as wide as the Canonists and School-men do. But it is yet capable of an Answer sufficient to satisfie impartial men. For,
1. What here is first observed from that text, is denyed: because, the text holds out no such thing. For, albeit Korah and his company sinned greatly in taking on them to oppose Moses and Aaron; yet their Offering of Incense at that time, was not without some command: for Moses thus spake unto them, before they attempted any such matter: This do, take you Censers, Korah, and all his company, and put fire therein, and put incense in them before the Lord to morrow, vers. 6, 7. And, as if this were not enough, he doubleth the same injunction, vers. 16, 17. whereupon it is said, vers. 18. And they took every man his Censer, and put fire in them, and laid incense thereon, and stood in the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, with Moses and Aaron.
This, Moses enjoyned; not, as approving what they were to do; but as bringing them to the tryal, whether they had not sinned very hainously against God, in charging Moses and Aaron, with taking too much upon them; upon pretence that all the congregation were every one of them holy; that is, as fit as Aaron to do that service which he did before the Lord. They therefore were to offer incense, Aaron also should offer too: and then the Lord, by the issue, would shew who were his, and who was holy; and would cause him whom be chose, to come neer to him, as approving of him and his service, and rejecting and punishing the rest, who were but usurpers, Therefore, there was a command, for that act, at that time, for that end.
Again, these Censers were not of Korah's own making or dedicating, but belonged to the Tabernacle. For, it cannot be imagined they could be made in such a sudden; and, in such a seditious hurry: for they were to use them, the very next day after the command given; which was, not to make; but, to take every man his Censer. There were many Censers belonging to the Altar pNumb. 4. 12.The sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abibu, took either of them his Censer, when they offered strange fire qLev. 10.1.. Soloman, when he built the Temple, and made many Vessels and Instruments; amoug them, he made Censers of pure gold r1 Kin. 7. 50., which before were of brass how many, is not certain; but, in probability, for every Priest, one. This may appear by the abuse of 70 of them at once by the antients of Israel (which were all Priests *Hicron. in Ezek. 3. vulg. Glosse, alii que) and by Jaazaniab sEzek. S. 1 1.(the chief Priest tInterlin. Gloss.who is supposed to be the Ring-leader of the rest. Therefore every Priest had his Censer to offer in, when his turn came about.
So that, these Censers were not Vessels offered to the Lord by Korah and the rest of those Conspirators, as a free-will Offering, without a command; but, made and hallowed by Moses, for the use of the Altar, according to the patern shewed to him in the Mount xExod. 25. 40..
Therefore, that Collection, that men may offer, and God accept, some things not commanded, hath no sooting here.
2. The next inference from the same text, that such things so offered, are hallowed, how wicked soever the Offerers be, will also now fall to the ground. For, if those Censers were of Gods own appointment, then it follows not, that they were hallowed upon the account of a freeOffering without a command. Those Censers were hallowed before that time wherein they thus mutined: so the text, vers. 38. They offered them before the Lord, therefore they are hallowed. All the Priests offered incense in their turns; which they could not do, without their Censers. Here then, is no argument to make good the second Observation or Collection from the text in hand. That which misled that great Tostaius herein, was the Addition of the vulgar Latine Translation at the end of vers. 37. where it is said, the Censers were hallowed in mortibus peccatorum, in the death of those sinners: which Addition is a gross corruption of the Text.
3. As to the third, viz. that which is once offered, and thereby hallowed, may not be imployed to common, but onelyonly to holy uses, will be more proper for the next Chapter; therefore it shall be but briefly touched here. We must distinguish both of things offered, and of their hallowing thereupon. 1. Some things are offered voluntarily, some by command: some are offered to be made use of in the very worship of God at the Altar; as, the tongs, the snuffers, censers, &c. others were to be imployed in more remote service; as the hangings for the Court of the Tabernacle, &c. the Curtains of Goats hair for the Tent over the Tabernacle; &c. The offerings of the first sort are so hallowed, that they must not be profaned by sale, or purchase to a common use: but those of the later, may, when there is an end of their use. We see this in not only the bangings of the Court, and the Curtains, but in all the holy vessels, together with the Tabernacle it self.
For, so soon as Solomon had finished the Temple at Hierusalem, the Priests took up the Ark, and brought it up out of the City of David; and, with it, the Tabernacle, of the Congregation, and all the holy vessels that were in the Tabernacle, even those did the Priests and the Levites bring up y1 King. 8. 3, 4.. But, when the Priests brought in the Ark of the Covenant unto his place, into the Oracle of the house to the most holy place, even under the wings of the Cherubims, within the Temple; neither the Tabernacle, nor vessels, nor ought else, was brought into the Temple, save onelyonly the staves of the Ark; which staves they drew out, so as the ends of them might be seen within the Holy place, but not without it zVers. 6, 7, 8.. The Tabernacle, and most of the things belonging to it, were now of no longer use: no more were the old vessels: for Solomon had made all new a1 King. 7. 48, &c.. Now let some of our severe Censurers inquire, and tell us what uses the Tabernacle, the Curtains, the Vessels, were put unto: (for, to the use of the Temple they were no longer imployed) and then we shall be able to say more to the fourth deduction, viz.
4. That, to imploy to common uses, things once offered and hallowed, is Sacrilege. This inference is no way deduceable from Num. 16. for that there, the Text speaks of hallowed things, which were of use to cover the Altar from the rain and storms, while that Altar was used: and, of such things as originally were of Gods own appointment, and his own goods (the Censers) abused by Korah. To have diverted these to other uses, before the building of the Temple, had been Sacrilege. But, after the Temple was built, the Ark put into his place in the Temple; the Tabernacle, old Altar, and vessels were of no longer use, nor longer imployed in the worship of God; let them that can, prove the laying them aside and imploying them to other uses, to be Sacrilege in Solomon. And, could this be demonstrated, yet were it nothing, to prove the alienating of Cathedral Lands to be Sacrilege, they being not (as those last spoken of) appointed and commanded of God, nor ever so hallowed: but, the offerings and gifts of men without warrant from God, or acceptance with him. If Antagonists allege Luther, Calvin, Knox, Sir Edward Coke, &c. to prove that such Church-Lands cannot be aliened from the Church without Sacrilege; this will be no concluding argument, unless they prove it by Scripture; which they have not done. They, being but men, we may not swear in verba Magistri: Truth is the friend we must own before, yea, against all other. They that urge these worthy Authors against us, can, and do despise and scorn them in other things: they alleage them to serve their own turns, not to honour the Authors: nor will be concluded by what those men say against them.
But, it is happened to some of our rash Censurers, as once to those Oxen, of whom Columella bDe Re rustic. lib. 2.noteth, that, feeding upon some rank grounds, they ran mad with the fatness of their Pasture.
This might suffice, were it not ever too true of too many, Non persuadebis etiam si persuaseris. Thou shalt never bring me over to thine opinion, although by reason thou sufficiently convince me. Therefore, some Answers must now be given to such plausible Objections as seem to carry any strength, or colour of reason in them, against the former Positions, and not before obviated, or prevented.