No Sacrilege or Sin to Alienate or Purchase Cathedral Lands, Chapter 1
CHAP. I.
Of the mistakes, in, and about the Nature of Sacrilege: and, what it truely, and properly is, according to the sense of Scripture.
SOme deny that there is, or can be any such sin, as Sacrilege, under the Gospel; being confident that nothing is now due to Gospel-Ministers, but by humane Laws, Prescription, or Custom. But this, being a palpable error, deserves to be exploded with contempt, rather then seriously confuted. Others, in another extreme, stretch Sacrilege so far, as to involve every man in that sin, that deviates from their constitutions; or any way offendeth about persons, places, or things Consecrated by men, and by them called Holy, although never made such by Gods Ordination.
Thus, the Roman Emperors declare the violation of their Imperial Laws to be Sacrilege; and fasten that Crime on all that wilfully neglect, or knowingly break them kL. un. c. de Crim. Sacril. l.6. de Appel. C Thendos.Now albeit this be not admitted as a truth; yet, their Power of making Laws, giving sanction to them, being from God lRom. 13. I.they had more colour for such stigmatizing the breach of their Constitutions, than He, who cannot justly pretend to any such Commission. I mean, the Pope, who delivereth for Doctrines of God, his own Commandments, making them binding Laws even to the consciences of men, in this very particular. Hence, most of the commonly received opinions and assertions touching Sacrilege, have taken rise; and he is accounted a man of no reading, or learning, that shall dare to contradict, or confute them.
The Canon-Law and Canonists extend it to the taking away, wasting, invading, or purloining of any thing consecrated or given by men unto God; whether it be man, beast, field, or ought else once consecrated by man: which consecration (in their account) makes it to be Sanctum Sanctorum Domino, most Holy to the Lord mDecreti. pars 2. caus. 12 q. 2. c. 3. Nidli liceat ignorare.; Whether there be, or be not any Word, or Warrant from God, or the Magistrate, for such Dedications: of which Law, it is not lawful for any man to be ignorant.
Upon this sandy foundation, the School-men, Summists, and Casuists, erect their Definitions and Discourses of Sacrilege: and (according to the interest of their several parties) they draw all their lines: making the Canon Law their Circle; and the profit and advancement of the Pope-holy Church, their Center.
He that, in his time was the greatest Gamaliel of the Civil and Canon-Law nMart. ab Aspilq. Dr. Navarr. to. I. Tract. de Reddit. Eccles. pag. 264. monit. 18., hath succinctly extracted the Quintessence of most of those Writers, who make three sorts or kinds of things to be Sacred or Holy; against each of which, Sacrilege may be committed: sacred Persons, sacred Places, and sacred Things; which last is subdivided into four species, or sorts: holy Sacraments, holy Vessels, holy Ornaments, and holy Goods, for maintenance of all the former persons, places, and things.
Thus, Aquinas o2 2 q. 99., Alexander of Hales pPart. 2. q. 168., Hostiensis qLib. 5. c. de Crim. Sacril. l. 1. de Offic., Linwood rArchipresb. C. Ignor. Sacerd. verb. Sacril., Bonaventure sTo 6. Cea tiloq. Sect. 30., Azorius tMoral. 1. 9. c. 29., and sundry others, do all deliver themselves in the main, (although with some differences in some particulars) and all, or most, out of the Canon Law, or Civil; alledging few Scriptures, but what they find quoted in the Canon Law. Out of all which together, it will appear, that any violation by irreverence, done to Sacred Persons, is generally held by them to be the greatest Sacrilege; whether it be striking, defiling by fornication, or otherwise slighting, or abusing of their Priests, Nuns, or other Votaries, or Church-Officers; the casting off of holy Orders, the recalling of any Vows whatsoever.
In the next place, the profanation, or irreverence done to holy Places, whether Churches, Chappels, or Church-yards; by committing fornication, or adultery in them; by stealing ought out of them, although the things so stolen be not consecrated, or holy, but onelyonly common; the carnal knowledge that a man may have of his wife, in any of those places; the taking thence of any Malefactors, fled thither for sanctuary; unless in some very few cases, with consent of the Priest or Ordinary; the negotiating of any Civil affairs in them; buying, selling, acting of Enterludes, and other common exercises (such as, Logical, or Philosophical Disputations, &c.) the bringing of a mans goods, and eating and drinking there, unless in case of invasion, or sudden fires; the alienating, or applying of them to Common, Civil, or private uses, upon any reason whatsoever; Yea, although they be no longer used for Divine Worship, but wholly deserted, ruined, and no more repaired.
From persons and places, they proceed to Things, among which, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, is chief; by them called the Sacrament of the Altar, Propitiatory Sacrifice, &c. the polluting whereof, by not adoring their Host, by irreverent and unworthy receiving, &c. is, with them, Sacrilege (although they account it no Sacrilege, to rob the people of the Cup;) the not admitting of their Additional Sacraments; The alienating, detaining, converting to common uses, any Vessels, Vestments, Relicks, Images, Goods, or Lands, upon any account given to the Church, or to Religious houses (as they call them) which God never required at their hands, nor gave them warrant, or direction for the donation of them, is by them pronounced and declared to be Sacrilege, which hardly any satisfaction can expiate, unless it be to the great gain of such as teach men so, and reap the whole profit thereof.
That sundry of these, are great sins, is willingly granted: but, that they are all Sacrilege; or, that some of them are any sins at all, is denied. Hence, Hales uUbi supra, mcm. 1.and others of the acuter School-men, are forced to distinguish of Sacrilege, that it is taken sometimes properly; sometimes according to common (and improper) use of the Word. What sin is it, to beat a quarrelling Priest, when he is drunk, or otherwise taken abusing his neighbours wife, &c. to recal an unwarrantable and rash Vow, such as that of Jephte? the not worshipping of their breaden Idol, the not admitting of more than two Sacraments? the acting of some Civil, or Scholastick businesses, in Church-yards, or Churches, when the publick Worship or service of God is not thereby hindred, or prejudiced? the imploying of the stones, or other materials of desolated, ruined, and deserted Fabricks of Churches, to private uses, &c. to pass by other particulars.
To make the mistakes of the Canonists, School-men, and of all that follow them in their Definitions or Descriptions, and Discourses of Sacrilege, yet more Demonstrative and conspicuous; Consider, 1. the Etymology of the word, and the use of it in holy Writ: 2. the nature of Sacrilege properly so called.
1. Touching the Etymon, or true signification of the word, Sacrilege is borrowed immediately from the Latine, Sacrilegium, as all agree. But, this being a compound, there is some difference among the Learned, touching the simple words of which it is compounded. That Great Irrefragable Dr. Alexander of Hales wPar 2. q. 168. m. 1., Etymologizeth it thus: Dicitur Sacrilegium, quasi Sacriledium, eò quod laedit sacrum. Sacrilege is so called, as if one should say, Sacrilaede, because it doth wrong or hurt somewhat that is sacred..
Hence perhaps, his famous Scholar and Pupil, Thomas Aquinas, describes Sacrilege to be a vice whereby reverentia rei sacrae debita violatur x2. 2 q. 99 in Axiom.. The violating of that reverence which is due to a thing sacred: as if the word signified rather an affronting of it, in point of reverence and honour, than an usurping or stealing of the thing it self. But seeing the same Angelical Doctor (as he is stiled) presently after, in laying down his first conclusion yAr. 1. Ibid., (grounded upon an Etymology of Isidore, of which, more by and by) defines Sacrilege to be sacrae rei violatio, a violating of something which is sacred; taking violation in a large sense zIbid. 2. m.; and, by sacred, meaning that which ad divinum cultum ordinatur *Ibid. co. p., is ordained, appointed, or disposed to, or for Divine Worship: I shall pass by that first Description of Aquinas, and that Etymology of Hales, as being more witty, than sound.
Others, more rightly take the word Sacrilege to be compounded of Sacrum and Lego, which signifies unduly to grasp to a mans private use a thing that is sacred, by way of Vsurpation, or Robbery. Thus, the Civil Law terms him Sacrilegious, a Sacrilegious Person, qui publica sacra compilavit al. 6. & l. 9. F ad L. Jul. pecul., that hath heaped up (for his own use) sacred things by stealth. So Isidore of Sivil: Sacrilegus dicitur ab eò quod sacra legit, id est, furatur bOrigin. seu Etym. l. 10. c 18.: he is said to be Sacrilegious, who gathereth, that is, stealeth things sacred. To the same effect, Brissonius, Servius cin 9. Eolog. Virg., and many more.
Here, by the way, take notice, that, according to the Genuine and Original signification of the word, all Sacrilege is theft, or thievish Vsurpation; yet, all theft is not Sacrilege: for Sacrilege is a thieving, or stealing of things that are sacred; but theft is of common things not at all consecrated. Hence, Hales dIbid. q. 99. m. 2.stateth the difference between furium, peculatum, & Sacrilegium. The robbing of a private person, of any common (that is, unconsecrated) commodity, is properly furtum, or thievery: the robbing of the publick Treasury of a City; or the sophisticating or imbasing the Publick Coyn, is (according to the Civil Law) termed Peculatus, or more publick wrong by robbery: onelyonly the purloyning, imbezelling, or taking away of things truly and rightly sacred, makes the theft to be Sacrilege, in the construction of all exact Etymologists.
And as this is the proper signification of the Latine word; so is it also, of the Greek words; foreign, by all translated Sacrilege; that is, active Sacrilege, or the act it self. So is it, of the Verb foreign, to commit Sacrilege: hinc, foreign, which signifies a thing gotten by Sacrilege; or, Sacrilege committed: and foreign, a Sacrilegist, or Sacrilegious person eH. S. Thesaur.: that is, who stealeth from God somewhat that was sacred, wherein God had a special propriety. Thus, Basil the Great fforeignmakes him foreign, a Sacrilegious person, foreign that hath once devoted himself to God, (suppose, as a Minister, or the like) and afterwards by a kind of petulancy, recoiles, or betakes himself to another course of life, withdrawing himself as it were by theft, and taking from God what was before by himself given to God; and thereby, become his.
Thus, having seen the Etymologie of the word Sacrilege, as it is a compound word; before we leave it, some further and more penitious enquiry must yet be made into the proper, strict, and genuine signification of the word sacrum, or sacred, unto which the theft of Sacrilege is properly limited and confined. Herein the learned and acute Isidore, Bishop of Sivil in Spain, (above a thousand years sithence) will give us good help. For he distinguisheth, and sheweth the difference between Sacrum, Religiosum, and Sanctum gLib. Disserent. lit. s.. That is sacred, which is truly Gods own: that Religious, which pertains to Religious men: and that Holy, which is consecrated by men. To which he adds, Sacrum verò & Sanctum est; Sanctum verò, non continuò Sacrum est. Whatever is sacred, is also holy: but all that is holy, (to wit, so called by men) is not sacred. Not that these two words are not sometimes promiscuously used: but, that there is a difference between them, in propriety of speech, which must be observed by such as would be exact in the use of them in a Definition. This, to Lovers of Antiquity, and Philology, hangs out a good light, to lead them to the more exact disquisition and search into the nature of the sin of Sacrilege, according to the sense and acceptation of the holy Scriptures, and the best Antiquity; which is the thing here intended to be held forth.
For, all Sacrilege must needs refer to somewhat truly sacred, in sense of Scripture. Hence even those School-men that were out, in extending the Sin of Sacrilege beyond Scripture-bounds, do yet concur in this, that Sacrilegium is sacrae rei violatio, aut usurpatio hAlex. Hal. Aquin. aliique., the violation or usurpation of something that is sacred: that is, which is made so by Gods Ordination; or, at least by his direction and warrant to be freely given and set apart for his service and worship. Of this, Solomon himself speaketh, when he treateth of Sacrilege: It is a snare to the man that devoureth that thing which is holy; and, after the vow, to enquire (or, to recal it) iPro. 20. 25. Where Tremelius renders foreign by sacrum. And Junius, in his Annotations, keeps to the same word: understanding thereby (as the Text intends) the things of God; or, his just due by command, or warrant from himself.
Upon which Text, Mr. Catwright hath, in his Commentary, some sharp passages; of which one kMr. Will. Walker sermon against Sacrilege.makes use beyond and beside the intention of that Expositor. For, he saith, That Mr. Cartwright was forced, by evidence of truth, to confess, (asif he would gladly have concealed it, if he durst; which is an uncharitable intimation) that now, in the time of the Gospel, whatsoever is either established by Law, or conferred by mans liberality for the uses of Gods service, is all to be accounted sacred, or holy. And for this cause, both the taking away of the whole, or the diminishing of any part of such holy things, is Sacrilege, condemned in Dent. 23. 21, 22, 23. It is true, that Mr. Cartwright useth words to this effect: Howbeit, he never intended to aver it to be in mans power, by a voluntary vow, or dedication alone, to make a thing sacred; unless God himself had given Rules and Directions about it, as he did in all the voluntary Offerings in time of the Levitical Law, both for matter and manner. Wherefore Mr. Cartwright concludeth all with this limitation; Quod tamen non ita accipi debet, ac si vot a nulia cujuscun que generis rescindenda sint, cum haec de legitimis votis & … praescripto verbi factis, sint intelligenda:
Which expression (saith he) is not so to be taken, as if no vows, of what kind soever, were to be rescinded or revers'd, seeing these things are to be understood of lawful vows made by the Prescript of the Word.
But it pleased not Mr. W. W. to take notice of this passage, lest it should make against his not dulybounded Assertion, for which he produced that Author. Nor is it any wonder, he should comprise all gifts of mans liberality, without that following limitation; because he therein follows the common Opinion too often taken upon trust by many modern, grave, learned Authors, from the School-men, &c. without just ground.
That place in Deut. 23. although it leave a man at liberty to make, or not to make a free-will Offering; yet, if he once make a vow to give such an Offering, it strongly binds to performance; not, in his own way, but according to the Prescript of God. This must needs be so; because whatever is vowed, or devoted to God, for a Divine Use; or, in order to Divine Worship (as Aquinas lubi supra.speaks) is Worship. For, this is to honour God with thy substance mPro. 3. 9.. But, whatsoever is so devoted and offered to God, if not prescribed by him, is Will-Worship, which he abhorreth nMat. 15 9. The people of God might not offer what things they listed; no, nor so much as they thought fit in their own eyes, even of what things God himself had given them warrant to give: not thousand of Rams, nor ten thousand rivers of Oyl oMic. 6. 7., (although perhaps Eli's sons, Papalines, &c. would have found room for so much, and more, if offered;) but, what, and how many Rams; and, how much Oyl, God, in his Law, had appointed, to such as should freely offer the same. This is so clear in the Levitical Rules, that he that runs, may read it. Yea, the free-will Offerings for the Tabernacle, were all prescribed what they should be, Exod, 25. 2. 3. &c. and when the people offer'd more then enough for that work, Moses, by Command and Proclamation restrained them, Exod. 36. 5, 6. And, when the Tabernacle was made, not a Beesom, Pin, or Ash-pan was to be made for it, but according to Gods own pattern shewed to Moses in the Mount, Exod. 25. 40. Heb. 8. 5.
If then, free-will Offerings could not make them sacred, or holy to the Lord, in his account and acceptation, further than Himself had given (and his people had observed) his rules therein; how can it be seriously affirmed, and made good, That any thing given by men, under the Gospel, can be truly sacred unto God, unless it be such, as for which they have received warrant and direction from his Word, to devote and consecrate it to him? And, if not sacred, how can it be Sacrilege to aliene, or employ it to common Uses? Will God own any thing, as sacred, and as having a special propriety in it, (when, even where onelyonly the manner by him appointed in offering, is neglected, albeit the matter be commanded or prescribed pIsa. 1. 11, 12. Slat Ministers Portion, pag 15.) for which himself hath given no order, but rather against it? Erroneous Considerations, give not God a seisure in things devoted by men.
Apposite therefore is the Exposition qin Pro. 20. 25.of that holy man, Mr. John Dod, (a man, mighty in the Scriptures;) To devour that which is holy, is (saith he) to pervert those things which are by Gods Ordinance appointed for his Service, from the right use of them, to a mans own private gain and commodity. And verily, this is so proper a Definition of Sacrilege, so far as it extendeth, that hardly can a better be given; were it not that, in the judgement of some learned men, there needeth somewhat more, to set forth the full nature of Sacrilege.
There are, who bring within the compass of Sacrilege, not onelyonly the purloyning, stealing or perverting to private use or benefit, of things consecrated to Gods worship; but, of things appointed of God, to be destroyed; as being under his curse, and prohibition, to spare; or to take them for a mans own use and commodity.
Hence Basil rubi supra. So Lyra in Josh 7., foreign … (that is, Achan) committed Sacrilege, in taking of the accursed thing sJosh 7., that is, the Babylonish Garment, 200 shekels of silver, and a wedge of Gold, and hid it in the earth, in the midst of his Tent tVers. 21., for his own use.
Now the word foreign Cherem, (which Lyra, or rather, his Printers, reads foreign, or Herem uin Lev. 27.) is in Greek usually expressed by Anathema, &c. implying such a devoting of things to God, as is followed with a curse denounced by God upon all that shall steal, use, or pervert them to any other employment or end, than what God himself hath appointed. Hence, not onelyonly gifts consecrated to his worship and service according to his Will; but, things by him commanded to be destroyed, are comprehended under the word Cherem: and, taken in the former sense, they are called consecrated or sanctified things, as gifts given to God wLuk. 21. 5. foreign; in the latter sense, they are called, the devoted, or accursed thing: not, as being to be preserved; but, to be destroyed (z), in such wise and manner as God himself hath commanded: and they are under his curse, that shall presume to do otherwise.x Deut. 7. 2. cap. 20. 17.
Achan therefore, by that Act of his, was guilty of double Sacrilege, in taking of that one Cherem, or accursed thing: for, by taking the Babylonish Garment, he was guilty of Sacrilege, in stealing and keeping that for himself, which God had commanded to be destroyed upon pain of his curse yJosh. 6. 17, 18. compared with 1 Sam. 15, 3. And he committed Sacrilege likewise, in taking of the silver and of the gold for his own use; all which God had before consecrated as holy to himself, and commanded to be brought into his Treasury zJosh. 6. 19; not to be destroyed, or employed to private uses, but for his own service.
Upon this Consideration, the learned and accurate Lambertus Daneus, thus describeth things sacred; which, to abuse, is Sacrilege: aEthic. chri. l. 2. c. 15.Res Divinae appellantur, quae sunt ad sacrum Dei cultum destinatae, quasve sibi interdicto prolato Dominus reservavit, & in usu commercioque hominum esse vetat. Quarum rerum furtum dicitur sacrilegium.
Those are termed things Divine, which are destinated to the sacred worship of God; or which by some declared interdict, or prohibition, the Lord hath reserved to himself, and forbidden to be employed for the use or commerce of men:
the stealth whereof is called Sacrilege.
From all which premises, this appeareth to be a proper and full Description of Sacrilege, according to the Scriptures, as the result and conclusion of what is before laid down in reference to Gospel-times, in which we live, viz.
Sacrilege is the robbing of God, either by alienating, detaining, Sacrilege describ'dpurloining, diverting, or perverting that which is Gods own by Divine Right; and therefore due to Christ; and thereby, to his Ministers; whether the things be set apart by express command, or voluntarily given according to Gods special warrant and direction; or, by retaining and converting to mans use what God hath ordered to be destroyed, as a service to himself, upon pain of his curse, denounced (not by man, but) by God himself.
That Sacrilege is a robbing of God, we have bMal. 3. 8.his own Word for it: It is a muzzling of the mouth of the Ox that treadeth out the corn d1 Cor. 9. 9: that is, a robbing of Christ and his Ministers of what by Divine right is due to them from those to whom they preach the Gospel. Nor can it be any other than Sacrilege, to preserve or make use of what superstitious or idolatrous custom and practise hath set up against God and his true and pure worship; or which he hath commanded to be destroyed: as, not only the things secretly taken and reserved by Achan (of which before;) but those things spared by Saul e1 Sam. 15. 9.contrary to the command of God fVers. 3., do sufficiently shew. So Chrysostome interprets that in Rom. 2. 22. Of which, hereafter.
What hath been before said, shall suffice for proof of the Description of Sacrilege here laid down, and for setting forth the true and full nature of it. Take now some Corollaries. For, hence it followeth, that
1. Nothing bestowed by the voluntary, and free gifts of men upon 1 Corollary.the Church, that is, upon our late Cathedral men, either under the Old or New Testament, is owned, or accepted of God, as his special propriety, and as Holy to the Lord, farther than himself hath given warrant and rules for the consecrating, and devoting of it.
This is inserted, to obviate those two first Assertions, which the Answerer to a Letter, superscribed, To Doctor Samuel Turner, and printed Anno 1647. concerning the Church and the Revenues thereof gPag. 25.: viz. That God accepts of things given him, and so holds a propriety as well in the New, as in the Old Testament. 2. That God gets this propriety in those things be holds, as well by an acceptation of what is voluntarily given, as by a command that such things should be presented to him. To which Propositions he addeth two more: Namely, 1. That to invade those things, be they moveable, or immoveable, is expresly the sin of Sacrilege. 2. That this sin is not onelyonly against Gods positive Law, but plainly against his moral Law.
These he lays as a ground-work of shewing the impossibility for the late King with a good conscience to yield to the alienating of the Lands of the Church taken in his sense, that is to say, of the Lands given to Cathedrals. So that, if it appear that this foundation is but sandy, there will be no need to take down the whole Fabrick stone by stone, (that is, to answer him particularly in all his out-leaps, or superstructives) but leave them to fall of themselves: And it will, by good consequence, follow, that he, and such as he is, that instilled into the Kings mind such Propositions as these, thereby to put him upon, or to strengthen him in such resolutions, as rather to part with his Kingdoms, and life, than to give his Royal Assent to the alienating of such Church-Lands; or, to the change of Government by Bishops, be truely guilty of his death, by them and their party laid upon others.
To prove his first Proposition, he allegeth four Scriptures. But, unless he could (which he doth not) make it out that Gods acceptation therein mentioned, reacheth to the Lands of such Bishops as he describeth, and other Cathedralists, he laboureth in vain, and puts himself into the number of those unlearned and unstable ones, that wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction h2 Pet. 3. 16..
His first Text is, Mat. 25. 35. I was hungry, and ye gave me meat, &c. This is spoken not of Church-Lands, but of necessary and occasional supply by Alms, administred to the hungry, naked, sick, and persecuted Members of Christ *See Hierome on the place.: not of feeding Lordly Bishops, or others fed to the full, and lying in the wind for the like Domination. And whereas he should demonstrate from the Text, that Christ hereby accepted of the gifts of Lands to our Cathedral Masters, he confesseth that the Text doth not decide, that Christ extends this to gifts bestowed on such as he had enjoyned to teach others; to wit, to the Apostles, and seventy Disciples; yet he (begging the question) confidently affirmeth, that without doubt it must be meant of both Ministers and poor. It is true indeed, that Chrysost. saith, Hoc potest intelligi & de Doctoribus; this may be understood of Doctors or Teachers: but how? not of other mens giving Lands to them; but, oftheir feeding others with the food of Doctrine, whereby they might be nourished and grow fat in good works, &c.
Nor doth that Scripture relate at all to Lands given so much as to the poor; but, onelyonly to present supplies of food, rayment, and other necessaries suitable to the instant wants of Christs distressed Members. And however he seems to wonder, that Christ should accept of meat and cloathing, and not of those endowments that bring both these to perpetuity; yet this would not seem so strange unto him, were he not a stranger to the Scriptures. For, let him search them duly, and he shall soon find, that though God made many provisions for the poor, yet none in Lands. And how much the poor gain by gifts of Lands (especially after an age or two) even under the Gospel, is too lamentable to behold. Nor can he be ignorant, that though Christ accepted of gifts for the poor, yet when they were more than served for present necessity, they were abused, and the poor robbed of them, under Christs own Nose, by one of his own company, even by that thief Judas. And happy were it for many, that it were a slander, to say, that too many of those that have been since trusted with that Bag, and with the large revenues given to that use, are too neer of Kin, in qualities at least, to that first Treasurer of Christ. Thus we see that the Text, which he wyredraweth, to prove Christs acceptance of Church-Lands, cannot in truth be extended to his acceptance of any Lands at all.
Howbeit, to put it out of doubt, that Christ in that text intended to declare, that he included his Apostles and Ministers, and accepts of the gifts of Cathedral Church-Lands, in that very acceptation of gifts to the poor, and of both, as done to himself; he produceth a second Scripture, as being very plain to that purpose: He that receiveth you (meaning his Disciples) receiveth me, Matth. 10. 40.
But, Mr. D. herein deceiveth his Readers, as much as he had deluded them before. For, this Text is clearly meant of receiving Christs Apostles, First, in respect of their Doctrine and Ministry, which in the name of Christ they preached; (Therefore, he saith elsewhere, He that heareth you, heareth me) iLuke. 10.16.: Secondly, in respect of entertainment for present supply of necessaries, which Christ and his Father would effectually move the hearts of such as received their Doctrine, to impart unto them, so that they should want nothing kLuke 22. 35., while they were imployed in the work of Christ. But what is this to mans conferring, and Gods accepting of Lands to maintain the Pomp and State of Lord Bishops, Deans, Deans and Chapters, &c. in a perpetual State of Honour and Dignity above their brethren, albeit they seldom or never (some of them) preach Christ to his flock?
It is palpably evident, that, in that very Chapter, Christ charged his Apostles to provide neither Gold, nor Silver, nor Brass in their purses, &c. and that upon this very account, that, the Labourer is worthy of his MEAT lMat. 10. 9, 10., or Hire mLuke 10.7.; thereby encouraging to labour, without taking care beforehand for provision: and, withall implying too, a necessity of labouring, if they expected meat (for it is his command, that if any will not work, none should give him to eat) n2 Thes. 3. 10.. Therefore, he would take order against provisions beforehand, that they might more industriously labour in the Word and Doctrine, whereby God might more effectually stir up the hearts of those whom they taught in the Word, to Communicate unto them that did so Teach, in all good things oGal. 6. 6.. Where then will Mr. D. find, in this Text, Christs acceptance of Lands given to Cathedral-men, as holding a propriety in them himself, for a constant pompous provision (beyond necessary maintenance) even unto excess, and faring deliciously every day, whether they labour in the Gospel, or not?
That Christ hath taken care for his Ministers that serve him in the Gospel; and did so even long before they were in being, is manifest by that in Deut. 25.4. Thou shalt not muzzle the Ox when he treadeth out the Corn: that is, when the Owner puts him into a floor, and drives him up and down upon the sheaves there laid out for him, to tread the Corn out of the Ears, thereof to make bread, he shall allow him liberty to eat part of the same sheaves of corn, while he is so imployed, without muzzling his mouth to hinder such eating. This Law was made, partly to require men to shew equity y Prov. 12.10.and mercy to a working beast, in tendring the life thereof (p) : but, it was principally intended to instruct all, how to carry themselves toward his servants in the Ministry of the Gospel; not grudging them their eating the milk of the flock, which they feed. Hence that of Paul, 1 Cor. 9. 9, 10. Doth God take care for Oxen? (that is, did he make this Law with reference onelyonly, or chiefly for Oxen?) Or, saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope, should be partaker of his hope. But, to prove from Mat. 10.40. that Christ owneth all their Cathedral Lands as given to himself, whether they who enjoyed them, did work, or not work; or, what use soever they made of them, will require time till the Greek Kalends, or the thirtieth of February.
His next proof is that known passage of Ananias and Saphira, Act. 5. whose sin, saith he, was, he kept back part of the price of those Lands he had given to God, for the publick use of the Cburch. That his fin was keeping back part of the Price, and his lying unto God, in saying, that which he brought, was the whole price, when it was but a part, is acknowledged: but, that he gave his Lands to God, is false: for then, by this mans Doctrine, he might not sell them. He gave or pretended to give the price, not the Land it self, as is clear by the Text. And even the price, after the Land was sold, was in his own power qAct. 5. 4.to give, or keep it. But here was his wickedness, That 1. he pretended and professed to give all, yet kept back a part. 2. When questioned for it, whether that he laid at the Apostles feet, were the whole money for which he sold his Land, he lyed, not unto man onelyonly, but even to the Holy Ghost, to whom he pretended to give the whole, for the use of the then persecuted Church, and for relief of those Converts who had then received the Gospel. For this, both Ananias and his wife (joyning in the same sins) were sadly and suddenly smitten with death, to the terror of all that beheld it, or heard of it.
And, whereas he saith, that this was given to God for the publick use of the Church, there is an equivocation and fallacy in this also. For by Church, the Text means not, an appropriation of it onelyonly to Ministers; or, at all to such Bishops and Cathedral-men, as he pleads for (whose Government must not be changed, nor their Lands alienated) but it is meant of the whole body of the then Believers, according to the language of the Pen-man of those Acts rAct. 2.47. 5. 11. 8 1, &c.: and the money was to be distributed unto every man, according as he had need sAct. 4.35..
But, to what end, that flourish, that the Fathers both of the Greek and Latine Church generally affirm the crime to be robbing of God of that Wealth which by vow or promise was now become Gods propriety? It is true, that some of the Fathers make the sin to be Sacrilege: yet the main charge for which they are condemned, is lying to the Holy Ghost. Nor doth any one of the Fathers understand it of Sacrilege by defrauding the Apostles or Ministers of what was given to God in relation to their Office and Ministry (which is the thing for which he alledgeth it) but for defrauding the whole Community of believers of what for supply of their present necessities they pretended, and falsly professed to bestow upon them, even when the giving of the whole was not required, had they not of themselves given it out to the world, to the Apostles, and Church, and to God himself, that they would give all.
But whereas he, pag. 26. alledgeth Calvin and Beza, as concurring with the Fathers; observe how corruptly he translateth the words of them both. Calvin, saith he, speaking of that fact of Ananias, Sacrum esse Deo profitebatur: which he translateth: thus, He professeth that his Land should be a sacred thing unto God. And there, Beza too, Praedium Deo consecrassent, the man and his wife they consecrated this Land unto God. Still he would fain be harping upon Land, but to little purpose. And here, he doth it without all colour or shew; abusing both the Text it self, and these Authors quoted by him, by a false Translation unworthy of a Dean, at least of a Doctor of Laws. Calvin saith not, that Ananias professed his Land should be sacred to the Lord; but, the money hemade of it. Nor can Beza's expression of Praedium signifie Lands; for, that were to contradict the Text, which speaks of detaining part of the price; not, ofthe land it self. And, let it be meant of land, or price, it is nothing to his purpose, that hence would prove the unlawfulness of alienating the Lands of the Church; quod erat demonstrandum.
If he think from hence, to prove voluntary gifts, without command from God, to be holy to the Lord, he is mistaken. For, in cases of this nature, when the whole Church is concerned, or the poverty of Gods people is sore and pressing upon them (as now it was) there ought to be so much self-denial, as that he who hath two Coats, must impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, must do likewise tLuk. 3.11: yea, sell that he hath, and give Alms uLuk. 12.33., which are all commands of Christ: which cannot be shewed, for giving of Lands to Cathedrals. Yet this man is so confident that the Texts alledged by him are by such an universal consent so interpreted as to prove his Proposition, in relation to the unlawfulness of selling Church-lands, that they may as well doubt whether foreign signifies God, &c. who make question of what he undertook to Prove from them.
His fourth Scripture, is, Rom. 2.22. Thou that abborrest Idols, committest thou Sacrilege? Whence he seeks to prove, that God accepts of things given him, and holds a propriety in them, in the New Testament, as well as in the Old. Else, there can be no Logick in Pauls words. For, if they be not Gods Goods, it is no Sacrilege to steal them: but Paul, charging men with Sacrilege, plainly implies that the things taken from the Church, are Gods own proper Goods.
But, the Gentleman may do well to make it out, that Paul speaks here of lurching away, or perverting of things, or of robbing the Church of Lands given to God for his service and worship: which will be an hard matter for him to do. He that pretends to so much acquaintance with the Greek and Latine Fathers of the Church, may know, if he please, that not onelyonly the Fathers, but Modern Expositors differ about the meaning of that Text. For, some understand here, by Sacrilege, the irreligious liberty which some, out of covetousness, then took, in buying, and using those meats which had been sacrificed to Idols, and after sold in the Shambles by the Priests, at a lower price then other meat was sold for: which meats, Christians might not so much as touch. And so, Sacrilege here meant, is like that of Achan and Saul, the taking of the accursed thing. Thus Chrysostome, Theophylact, and sundry others.
And seeing Calvin was but even now so great a man with Mr. D. it will not, I hope, offend him, to quote Calvin upon this Text, as he did upon the former. His words are these: Sacrilegium est profanatio Divinae Majestatis: sed quum Gentes Deorum suorum Majestatem Idolis affigerent, vocarunt duntaxat sacrilegium, si quis subripuisset quod templis dicatum esset, in quibus putabant sitam esse totam Religionem. Sic hodie ubi pro verbo Dei regnat superstitio, non aliud sacrilegii genus agnoscunt, quam Templorum opulentiae suppilasse. Quando nullus est Deus nisi in Idolis, nulla religio nisi in luxu & pompa. Sunt tamen qui hic sacrilegii nomine intelligant contrectationem, usumque rerum, quae Idolis'erant dicatae, quas ne contingere quidem debebant.
Sacrilege is the profanation of the Divine Majesty. But, whereas the Gentiles fixed the Majesty of their Gods upon Idols, they onelyonly called that Sacrilege, viz. If any man had taken away that which had been dedicated to their Temples, in which they thought all Religion did consist. So at this day, where, in stead of the Word of God, Superstition reigneth, men acknowledge no other kind of Sacrilege, then the pilfering or stealing of the riches, or wealth of their Temples. When as (with them) there is no God, but in Idols (of their own framing) no Religion, but in Luxury and Pomp. There are, nevertheless, who under the name of Sacrilege, understand the contrectation, or medling, and use of things dedicated to Idols, which they ought not at all to touch.
Which of these Mr. D. best likes, is left to him to chuse.
This is not alleaged, as denying that there may be such a sin as Sacrilege, under the Gospel in the New Testament; or, that it is less odious in a Christian, then ever it was in a Jew, as being more immediately a transgression of the first Table. But still this Author begs the question, by extending this to Lands, while he produced no ground or instance of such an interpretation. Yea, those very allegations, which he produceth (without citing the particular places) out of Irenaeus, and Origen, do (as he alleageth them) refer to Goods, not to Lands. And, what he adds, (so the Fathers generally) must be limited to what he last alleaged out of Irenaeus, and Origen. Else, it were incongruous to say, So the Fathers, &c. if they speak in another sense. How Emperors and Kings have given Lands to the Church, shall after be shewed, in due place.
His second Proposition is this: God gets this propriety as well by an acceptation Pag. 29.of what is voluntarily given, as by a command, that such things should be presented to him.
For proof whereof, he instanceth in the Temple at Hierusalem, which God owns as much as he did the Jews tythes and offerings. These last were his by express command; but, the Temple was (if you will believe him) the voluntary designe of good David, and the voluntary work of King Solomon: Yea, God expresly tells David, that he had been so far from commanding that house, that he had not so much as once asked that service: whence Paul tells the Jews, that neither against the Law, nor Temple, he had offended any thing *Act. 25. 8.: implying, that in some case he might offend against the Temple, yet not against the Law.
But, was not this man asleep when he wrote this? It is true, that for the time, & persons whom he would have to build it, he had given no express command: these being but circumstances. Howbeit, he must needs confess, that the Temple it self was to be built by Gods own appointment. Did not God, long before, tell Moses and his people of a place which himself would chuse, to cause his Name to dwell there? Deut. 12. 11. Now, what is this less then a Command? And if our Author take not upon him to be wiser then Solomon, he must confess this to be meant of that very Temple. For so, Solomon himself understood it, My Name shall be there, I King. 8. 29. Now, although David was not admitted to build that House, for that he had been a man of war, and had shed blood w1 Chron. 28. 3.Yet Solomon, by Gods express appointment and ordination, was chosen by God to build that House xVers. 6.Who could imagine such stuff should stick to the Pen of such an Author, for proof of a Proposition of so great Concernment to him that drew it; That the Temple was a voluntary Offering, not built by Command of God; without which, no man might worship there?
He also no less confidently affirmeth, that to say, God accepts of meat, drink, and cloathing, and of money for which Land was sold, yet not of Land it self, is so contrary to all reason and practise, not onelyonly of the Christian, but humane (or Heathenish) world; and, to what God himself hath expressed in the Old Testament, and no where recalled in the New; that he that can quiet his Conscience with such conceits as these, may (he doubts not) attain the discovery of some Quirks, which, in his conceit, may palliate Murders or Adulteries.
But, this is so false, that it cannot but astonish a modest Reader acquainted with the Word of God, and knowing the truth, to find him so boldly to affirm that, for which there is no footstep in the Scriptures, as shall hereafter be made out in the third Chapter, where it will be more proper (according to the method before proposed) to speak to this futilous and absurd Assertion.
2. Coroll. The retaining or using of any thing in Gods Worship, 2. Corollary.which he hath not prescribed, but forbidden, is no less Sacrilege, than the robbing of Churches.
It is all one with the taking of the accursed thing, and Putting it amongst their own stuff yJosh. 7. 11All monuments of Idolatry, as well as Idolatry it self, wereto be by Gods command destroyed zDeut. 7. 5, 6.: because they are as much accursed of God, as the worshipping of Idols themselves aDeut. 27. 15.. Yea, God doth so abominate such things, that he forbad his people, so much as to enquire after the Gods of the Nations, how those Nations worshipped their Gods bDeut. 12, 30.. Now then, Sacrilege being committed in retaining what is accursed, as well as in perverting what is by God accepted and sanctified for his worship and service, it can be no less than Sacrilege to introduce or continue any thing in his service which himself hath not appointed, and therefore forbidden.
They therefore that are for adoration of the Host, or of material Altars; for Christians bowing towards the East, for the use of Copes, (brought in by Antichrist into the Church) or of any other Popish or superstitious Rites and Ceremonies in the service of God, never appointed by Christ, or his Apostles, and therefore accursed, as Will-worship (being a Prophanation of the Divine Majesty) may do well to consider, and lay it to heart, whether they lie not under the guilt of that great sin; and, whether God hath not justly (yet mercifully) punished them with casting them out of their places, and dispossessing them of their Church-Revenues, for using, yea, preaching up the lawfulness of those accursed Trinkets, and persecuting all such as bore testimony against them.
If any shall plead, that what God hath accursed, belongs to formal Idols and Idolatry, and reacheth not to any thing brought in, as relating to the true God, 'tis a meer evasion and delusion. For, the Golden Calf made by Aaron, to go before the Israelites cExo. 32. 1., was not intended either by them, or him, to be an Idol, or false god, such as the Nations worshipped; but onelyonly to be a visible representation of Jehovah, to go before them, in stead of Moses whom they now apprehended (through his long absence in the Mount) to have forsaken them. For, even the Feast which they hereupon held, is called a Feast unto Jehovah dVers. 5., in their purpose and intention; and, though they called the Calf Elohim, Gods, (as the true God is often stiled) yet not with intent to multiply Gods, or to deviate from the true (if they might be permitted to give the sense of their own action, which God would not suffer:) therefore Nehemiah, expressing their meaning, renders the same speech of theirs in the singular number, This is thy God that brought thee out of Egypt, &c. Neh. 9. 18. Yet, even this in Gods account, was a worshipping of a molten Image; and the changing their glory into the similitude of an Ox that eateth grass, for which the Lord would have destroyed them utterly, bad not Moses stood in the gap. And yet, for the same offence, Moses himself gave order for the killing of about 3000 men in one day eExod. 32. 28., and the Lord otherwise plagued the people that remained, because THEY had made the Calf which Aaron made fVers. 35..
It is then no good Plea to excuse from Sacrilege, that what is done, is intended to the true God, and not to Heathen Idols. For, when men make an Idol of God, it cannot but be an high provocation of the Divine Majesty, and a contempt of his Law. To such therefore who so do, may that of Paul (whether spoken by him to Jews, or Gentiles) be most aptly applyed; Thou that abhorrest Idols, committest thou Sacrilege? It is not thy protestations against Idolatry, or Popery, that will excuse thee, so long as thou borrowest from either what God hath forbidden (because he hath not prescribed) in his worship. If Moses must see that he make every thing according to the pattern shewed him in the Mount; who art thou, that shalt presume to follow the pattern of thine own brain, or the traditions of men?
3. Coroll. Those Magistrates who are not as careful to destroy 3. Corollary.accursed things, that is, all humane inventions in the worship of God, do thereby suffer God to be profaned; and so are as guilty of Sacrilege, as those that aliene, or give way to the aliening of what is truely the Lords.
It is recorded to the honour of the Religious Kings of Judah, that they destroyed all such things, as in their days provoked the Lord. For so had the Lord commanded to all Israel when they should enter Canaan, not onelyonly to drive out the Natives (for their Idolatry) but to destroy all their Pictures, and all their molten Images, and quite pluck down all their high places gNum 33. 52.. Hence it is, that Hezekiah removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces (also) the brazen Serpent (it self) that Moses had made, when he found that the Children of Israel did burn incense unto it h2 King. 18 4.. He not onelyonly destroyed the inventions of men in reference to Idols; but even the institution of God himself, when abused by men to the dishonour of God. And how zealous Josiab was also in prosecuting the same work, may be seen at large in 2 King. 23. from the fourth verse to the 21.
On the contrary, it is noted as a great blot even to those Kings who had done much for God, that the high places were not removed: this is laid to the charge of Asa i1 King. 15. 14., Jehishaphat k1 King. 22. 43., and Amaziah l2 King. 14. 4.. Which is worth their notice, who laboured so much to hold up the late King against the aliening of Church-Lands, but never endeavoured to divert him from, but rather infused into him strong conceits of the great usefulness and holiness of many humane Inventions and Superstitions in the Worship of God, and to put him above all that had gone before him, since Queen Mary, upon the compelling of all others to practise the same, as if it had been a great duty in him; whereas David (a man after Gods own heart) hated all those that held of superstitious vanties mPsal. 31. 6.; and after, died in peace. But, these making Formalities and Superstitious Ceremonies taken from Popery, the All of their Devotions, and taking their Lesson out of Adam de Contzen the Jesuite *Politic. 12. c. 17, 18., for retroducing the very body of Popery, notwithstanding the Laws against it, ruined themselves, and the King.