No Sacrilege or Sin to Alienate or Purchase Cathedral Lands, Chapter 4
CHAP. IV.
Answers to such Objections and Arguments as are brought to prove the Sale of Cathedral Lands to be Sacrilege, not before answered.
ANd here, exspect not Answers to any bare Magistral Assertions of men of highest rank and esteem, whether Fathers, School-men, or Protestant Divines of greatest note in the Church; be the allegations out of them never so many, plausible, or peremptory; unless they bring Scripture, or sound Arguments thence, to back, and confirm them. Nor shall it move, if others please to decry this Treatise, with, and by the multitude and noise of great Names that have declared to the contrary: or to censure it as they please upon such a weak foundation. Let every such Opponent take that to themselves, which sometimes Austin wrote to those that read his Books de Trinitate cLib. 3. in Prooem., Noli meas literas ex tua opinione, vel contentione, sed ex Divina Lectione vel in concussa ratione corrigere.
1. It is objected, That Bishops were Ministers too, and preached, as well Object. 1.as others; and were moreover of great use, for the good Government of the Church, and support of the truth, which since their Ejections, hath extreamly suffered. Therefore, as Ministers (at least) they and their means should be continued.
Answ. Admitting (but not granting) all this to betrue: yet what Answ.they really did as Ministers, they might have done still. It was their usurped Dignity, not their Evangalical Ministry, that is taken from them. Now, their Lands were given and fixed (as is before shewed) to their elated Episcopacy, as Barons and Peers in Parliament; not to their Ministry: to their state of Prelacy, not to their Presbytery, as themselves diftinguish this from the other. If any of them had (as very few of them had) a minde to preach the Gospel, (as that learned Archbishop Usher did, so long as he was able, and was therefore encouraged while he lived, and honoured being dead) they had their liberty so to do; notwithstanding the abolishing of their Episcopal Authority. Perhaps they cannot stoop so low as to ascend a Pulpit, as ordinary Parsons or Vicars: let this lie upon their own account, and not be charged on the State. Others, as good, have done otherwise. Miles Coverdale, made Bishop of Exeter by Edw. 6. and after condemned to the fire, saith Isaacson, (from which he was saved by mediation of the King of Denmark, yet banished) in Queen Maries time; after his return, in Queen Elizabeths reign, was content to accept of the Parsonage of St. Magnus London, (not clearly worth 100 l. per annum, when it was at the best) and to spend the rest of his days in preaching there.
But too many of our late Bishops were so far from preaching, while their authority lasted, that they did their utmost not onelyonly to decry Preaching, but to advance Profanation of the Lords Day, which they should have spent in Preaching, and other Divine Offices of the Day. No wonder, therefore, if now they refuse to preach.
Was not King James his authority abused, to tolerate sports upon the Lords Day; to which purpose, a Book was compiled by a Bishop (now nameless, because dead) to justifie that Profanation; and all Ministers commanded to publish it, to make them thereby to eat their own Preaching? And did not the succeeding Bishops in King Charles I. his reign, move, and procure the reviving of that Book, causing it, by his Authority, to be reprinted, with a stricter command for the publishing of it? Yea, some of them would needs have those sports acted in their own sight, and rewarded the grace-less Actors. Afterwards, strict enquiries were made in their Visitations, whether every Minister had read and published it to their Congregations in their several Churches, as was then enjoyned: and, such as had not done it, were either punished, or severely threatned with Suspension.
Some of them also can tell by whose means preaching was prohibited in the afternoons of the Lords Days, and the Minister, in room thereof, was to ask the Children a few Questions (if he would) in the common Catechism: but, if he expounded them, this was interpreted to be preaching, and an affront to Authority. Why? but because such Expositions held the people too long from their sports.
Not content with this, it was the great industry and contrivance of some of them yet alive, to put down all Lectures on week-days also. For effecting whereof, an Order was procured from his late Majesty, that whosoever would preach a Lecture on the week-day, he must first, read the Book of Common-Prayer in his Surplice and Hood of his Degree, (although he then preached not in his own Church, but elsewhere casually at the request of a friend:) and, not none have been brought into the High Commission-court, and there canonically admonished, for refusing so to do.
Moreover, how were conformable Ministers (how able, pious and peaceable soever) scorned and jeered as Praters, (not Preachers) for their often preaching! Was it not piacular for any Animalculum praedicabile, or Preaching Cox-comb, (as Dr. L. stiled Bishop Usher himself, for his frequent preaching) that is, for any saithful Minister to preach twice a day? which, by another Bishop, was in scgff, therefore likened to Virgils Cow, that (bis venit ad mulctram) came twice a day to the Pail.
And as for the Bishops own preaching (especially at last, after Archbishop Land designed to re-gain all those places and offices of Trust, Power, & Judicature in the Commonwealth, which the Popish Bishops in former ages held) it became an unpardonable offence to mind them (publickly, at least) of their duty in preaching, which many of them had laid aside, as too mean for their greatness, or at least as a thing unnecessary, and inconsistent with their more weighty Affairs, as they pleased to call those avocations.
For this, Dr. Burges preaching a Sermon in Latine, to the London-Ministers, Anno 1635.in Alphage Church, neer Sion College, (by appointment of the Governours thereof) was brought into the High Commissioncourt, and threatned with both Deprivation, and Degradation, beside fine and imprisonment. The main quarrel was, his over-pressing (as it was then interpreted) of all, to diligence in preaching. And among other Arguments, his urging what had been antiently required even of Bishops themselves. For, after minding them of the Third part of the H mily against the peril of ldolatry, wherein it is said, of the Primitive Bishops,
That they were preaching Bishops, more often seen in Pulpits, than in Princes Palaces; more often occupied in his Legacy, who said, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel, than in the Ambassages of Princes:
herecited an old Canon of the sixth general Council in Trulle, with Zonaras his Note upon it; which Canon enjoyned Bishops to preach often; at least every Lords Day, or to be Canononically admonished: whereupon, if they reformed not, it was further ordained that they should be excommunicated, or deposed.
Hereupon Articles were exhibited against him, chiefly, for that he seemed to tax and accuse divers Prelates, and Reverend Bishops of this Kingdom, for neglecting to preach often: and for alleging to that purpose, that the autient bishops were frequent and diligent Preachers; quoting an old Canon, that every Bishop should preach every Sunday; and, if negligent herein, he should be admonished: upon which, if he reformed not, he was to be excommunicated, or deposed: without considering their many and weighty Affairs.
Whether he were not a Bishop (yet living) that, in scorn, calleth Christs Ordinance of Preaching, that most adored piece of Gods service wChurch-Lands not to be sold, pag. 32., (which he intimate; thereby to be idolized by all, that press, use, or frequent it) himself can best tell. But be he who he will, God will one day make him know, (what now he pretends to be ignorant of) That preaching is the chief work of a Bishop; and, that this is the chiefreason why he is to receive Double honour x1 Tim 5. 17, 18..
Yea, his own great witness, Calvin, in the same Book yDe nices. reform. Eccl., quoted by that Concic-Mastix zPag. 16., will tell him thus much: Nemo ex Christi praescripto, Episcopi aut Pastoris nomen vendicare sibi potest, qui gregem suum non pascat verbo Domini: No man, by the prescript of Christ, can challenge to himself the name of a Bishop or Pastor, who feedeth not his flock with the Word of the Lord.
What need many words? was Timothy a Bishop? had not he charge to govern e1 Tim. 32 & passin.? Yet Paul conjureth this Bishop to preach: I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his Kingdom, Preach the word, be instant in season, and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exho t, with all long suffering and Doctrine f2 Tim. 4. 1, 2..
But perhaps Timothy was a young man: and so might better do it: ours are old, and so, unable to persorm it; why then not discharged, as well as the Levites, at fifty years of age? Answ. St. Paul was an old man too, even Paul the aged gPhilem. 9: yet, saith he, of himself, A necessity is laid upon me; yea, wo is unto me if I preach not the Gospel h1 Cor. 9. 16., even when he had the care of more Churches upon him, as an Apostle, than all our Bishops set together i2 Cor. 11 28.. And as for the Levites, their service required more bodily strength, in killing and laying upon the Altar, and there, burning so many fat bullocks every day, beside other duties of bearing the Ark, &c. none of which is laid upon our Bishops, who, if they have been good Stewards, are well stored with an old stock, and, can bring forth out of their Trcasury things both new and old, as becomes wise Scribes instructed unto the Kingdom of Heaven kMat. 13. 52., with much more ease, gravity, authority than when younger men. Therefore the case of the Levites, and theirs is not alike. That good old Robert Grosthead, sometimes Bishop of Lincoln, in the days of Henry 3. was far from such opinion, when in a Letter to Pope Innocent 4. he not only refused to admit his Nephew (or Bastard) to be a Prebend of Lincoln, as the Pope had commanded, (finding him unfit to preach) but tells the Pope to his head, Post peccatum Luciferi, &c. there is not, cannot be a sin so repugnant to the Doctrine of the Apostles and holy Scriptures, nor to Christ himself more hateful and abominable, than to set over his flock ignorant or idol Shepherds, to kill and destroy the Souls of Christs sheep, by defrauding them of the Pastoral Office and Ministry*Matth. Paris ad Ann. 1353.
And as our late Bishops grew not onelyonly negligent in the proper and chief work of the Ministry, I mean Preacbing, (here and there, one or two black Swans excepted:) so did they as much overlash and become eccentrick in the other extreme, by being too far engaged in Civils. And, if at any time they were excluded the Parliament, or not honoured in it to their mindes, both Parliament and King, and all should hear of it on both ears. For so had their Predecessors done before.
One of their zealous sticklers remembers them out of Mr. Selden, Dr. Heylin Animadv. on Hist. of Church, pag. 70.that at a Parliament at Northhampton, under Hen. 2. the Bishops thus challenged their Peerage (of the Lords temporal.) Non sedemus hic Episcopi, sed Barones: Nos Barones, Vos Barones:
Pares hic fumus lseld. Tit. Hon. part. 2. c. 5.. We sit not here as Bishops, but as Barons: We are Barons, and You are Barons; here we are Peers, or equal with you.
And so, saith the same Author, did John Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury (as he remembreth) having fallen into the displeasure of King Edward 3. and being denied entrance into the House of Peers, made his protest, that he was Primus Par regni, the first or chief Peer of the Realm, and therefore not to be excluded, &c. But, if for this high perking, their Lordships, together with all jurisdiction, be (as it is) legally taken from them; and they refuse or neglect the chiefpart of their Office, namely, Preaching: they may thank themselves, if the double Honour of maintenance be withdrawn also.
2. It is objected further, That admitting they were justly ejected, yet so many direful curses have been denounced against all such as should aliene, sell, purchase, or imploy those Lands to other uses, that it may justly make any man afraid to meddle with them.
To this a short answer may sussice. Where God bids curse, (as in Deut. 27.) there is cause to fear cursing. But here it will be replied: Grant this, and I warrant you we shall reach you. Doth not one of those curses run thus mDeut. 27. 17.; Cursed be he that removeth his Neighbours Land-mark: and all the people shall say, Amen? Here God and man joyn together in cursing him that shall remove but a Land-mark: how heavy then, will the curse be upon him that removeth, or taketh away the Land it self! To this, it is answered, that the Lord speaks of Land set out by himself, by Divine Lot; and so, he never set out any to the Levites themselves (as he did to the other Tribes,) much less to Bishops, whom he never so endowed; of which so much hath been said before, as no more shall be added here. To return, therefore. If an Elijah o1 King. 1. 10, and 12., an Elisha p2 King. 2. 23., a David qPsa. 109., a Peter rAct. 8. 20., acted by Gods Spirit, shall denounce a curse; yea, if a Darius, an Heathen, shall curse all Kings & people that destroy Gods own Temple at Hierusalem sNch. 6.2., while God was pleased to place his Name there, wo to such as fall under it. All that were so cursed, became accordingly the people of Gods curse tIsa. 34.5., because such curses shall surely take effect: God himself owns them, and will accomplish them.
But, as the bird by wandring, and the swallow by flying, (escape the Nets and Snares, set by the Fowler to take them) so the causeless curse shall not come uPro. 26.27That Providence that preserveth the Sparrow from falling to the ground wMar. 10.25., till God will have it fall; let the Fowler do what he can: doth likewise so over-rule a causeless curse, that it shall never reach him against whom it is denounced. Yea, God blesseth the more, where wicked men belch out most curses xPsa. 109.28.. Let them then be afraid of such curses, who finde a warrant from God for such cursing. The curses that these men seek to fright us withal, are like that of Goliah, who cursed David by his Gods y1 Sam. 17.43., yet was slain by David notwithstanding his cursing. A cursed people is ever a cursing generation zRom. 3.17.: and, a cursing generation is ever an accursed people aGen. 27.29.or children of the curse b2 Pet. 2.14..
Who set them on work, or gave them warrant, to curse? Even he who set on Sbimei to curse David: not God, as David feared; but the Devil, by his Imp Ahitophel, as David afterwards plainly discovered: that 109th Psalm being chiefly bent against Ahitophel, of whose cursing we never read, but that, by the mouth of Shimei, when David was in greatest distress, and Ahitophel, his chief Counsellour, joyned to Absalom now Davids enemy. David nevertheless fared not the worse for their cursing, because his Prayer to God was, Let them curse, but bless thou: and, in the issue, the Lord requited good for that cursing c2 Sam. 16.13.. For, however in Davids time Shimei felt not the curse: yet, it came home to him with a witness, under Solomon d1 King. ….44.. And as for Ahitophel, as he loved cursing, so it came unto him. As he cloathed himself with cursing, like as with a Garment which covereth him, so it came into his bowels like water, and like oyl into his bones, &c. witness his hanging of himself almost immediately after.
And verily, those busie Cursers among the Prelacy, have drawn the effect of their cursing upon themselves and their successors; even upon the Bishops, and the rest of the Cathedral Prelacy, many hundred years after those first Anathemists mouths were so full of cursing and bitterness. Let therefore such as now again please themselves in frighting others with those curses, beware they meet not with some further share thereof themselves; and, that the tail of that storm, light not upon their heads, who now so groundlesly apply them to their Brethren, it being no other (so used) but an Engine of Antichrist, forged in Hell.
But, the most generally taking Objection is this: Be it that Bishops be justly cashiered, their-lands forfeited, and justly taken from them by the Object. 3.Parliament: yet generally all sound Divines hold that those lands (although at first superfluously, or superstitiously given) being once given and dedicated to God, may not be aliened, sold, or diverted to any secular, or private use; but, continued for the maintenance of the true worship of God, and for their better encouragement who are employed in the Ministry: or for some other publick use.
This Objection, taking with many of note and eminency in the Church, Answ.is thought to be unanswerable: yet is it capable of a satisfactory answer, to prudent and impartial men. For,
1. This opinion is not founded on any Scripture, but upon that commonly received Maxime transferr'd from hand to hand, without due examination, which was first cast in the Popes Mint; Semel Dicatum Deo, non est ad humanos usus ulterius transferendum. Which, wherein, and how far it holds, hath been above declared, and needs not to be repeated. Things once given to God by his command, warrant, or approbation, may not be aliened to other uses, while the use appointed of God continueth: But, this holds not in ought else that men pretend, or say they give to God. As in persons, so in things, such onelyonly as the Lord chuseth, are accepted, and holy eNumb. 16.7., let them say, or think what they will to the contrary. The vilest wretch that is, saith, He gives his Soul to God, at least in his last Will. Doth this make him accepted, or holy? No, of things in themselves good, God will not accept every thing, from every man. David was an holy man, had an honourable and holy designe to build God an house: and Nathan thought he did very well in it, and therefore said unto him, Go and do all that is in thy hea t, for the Lord is with thee fSam. 7. 3.. Yet David and Nathan were both mistaken herein.
Wherefore, to pin Lands upon God, and to proclaim this, because once pretendedly given to him, perhaps by an Adulterer, a Murtherer, a Parricide, &c. that is made to believe he is damned, if he give not largely to the Church; and so, gives rather out of fear, than of a willing minde, is, as the Proverb saith, to reckon without the Host: and to put that upon God which he will not own. It is no better then those gifts of the Israelites in the absence of Moses, pretended to be offered to God, although in a carnal way (as most of the gifts now spoken of, by all the Deeds and Instruments of the Donors, appear to be) when they brake off the golden ear-rings which were on their ears, and brought them unto Aaron to make them gods to go before them gExod. 23. 3.. They pretended they were for God, and what Aaron made, was but to please their eye by some visible representation of the invisible God, (expresly against the second Commandment but newly given them:) yet how far these gifts were from acceptance, or made holy because (as they thought) they had given them to God; or, from being reserved for holy uses, was manifest by the sad punishment of that their great folly and wickedness. And what Lawyers say of gifts to the Church: Quod Ecclefae datur, Deo datur; what is given to the Church, is given to God, is not spoken in a Theological sense; but onelyonly to shew the sense and construction of our municipal Laws; and what such are, in the account of the Law of the Nation; or rather, of some Levites: not, of Gods Law.
2. It is apparent that those gifts to Bishops, and other Cathedral men, were to be no longer continued (had they been theirs by Divine Right) then the Offices for, and to which they were given, remained useful. If Levi might hold his no longer, why should Bishops and others, of the same association? Datur beneficium propter officium. Office and Benefice are relatives; like Hippocrates Twins, they live and die together. The Suburbs of the forty eight Cities, were no longer continued by God to holy uses: yet, Tythes were: and given by God to his Ministers of the Gospel. No reason therefore to conclude against employing holy things to common uses, when God himself reserved not the Levites Lands to godly Ministers; but onelyonly his own inheritance, the Tythes. There is a wo to those that call good evil, as well as to those, that call evil good hIsay 5.20.. Indeed, if these Lands had still continued as a common Revenue to all the Clergy, or Ministers, as one intire Corporation, there had been some colour for the continuation of them to the rest, when Bishops and Cathedral men were laid aside. But when (at the instance, and by the labouring of the Bishops themselves, and their partners) every Order had their several shares apportioned and laid out unto them, (so as the other could no longer make the least claim thereto, without coveting what was their neighbours;) the Lands of Cathedral men cannot be in Law, or Equity, justly required to go to Parochial Ministers: but, it is in the free dispose of those to whom by Law they do eschete, by the total laying aside of their former owners and offices, to do what they will with them, as their own.
3. When the vastness of the revenue, or unlawful procuring of it, is a wrong to the Commonwealth, or to any particular Family, which God requireth not, especially in times of peace and plenty, to be ruined to enrich him, or his MInisters: this is not a Dedication that God will own, but rather a robbing of others of what is more properly their right: and, an abusing of God, by fathering upon him the acceptance of that, which the Donors ought not so to have given to him (who hateth robbery for burni-offerings iIsay 1.8;) and, a profaning of his Name, by teaching men to take that for a warrant, to give that, which is not theirs so to give. That position therefore now urged, if taken in the full Latitude without bounds, would be of dangerous consequence to such as swallow it, and act upon it.
4. Things voluntarily given, according to Gods own Rules and Directions, to warrant the gift, cannot be aliened from the use to which he hath appointed them, so long as the use continueth. If such things have, by the corruptions of men been abused, the abuse must be removed, and the things employed to such holy uses as the Lord himself hath directed; not what man shall think fit to apply them to, without Gods warrant. Thus the Censers abused by Korah and his Companions, were no more used for the burning of Incense: yet, because they mere hallowed, they were (by Gods appointment) converted into broad plates, for covering of the Altar.
But in things not appointed by God from the beginning, this Tenet holdeth not. For, to give unto God upon wrong grounds, and for superstitious ends, most derogatory to God and Christ, to maintain and feed a company of Harpies that heretofore lay in wait, as he that setteth snares and traps to catch men kJer. 5.26., thereby to fool them out of their Estates upon fair (but false) pretences, is no better accepted then the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, (that is, then money gotten by whoredom, or by the sale of a dog) brought into the house of the Lord; which he abborreth lDeut. 23.17..
Such are all those gifts of Lands to Cathedrals, pretended to be thereby given unto God, (many of them being first gotten by rapine and spoile:) whereby Christ is put out of Office, or at least declared an insufficient Saviour; as if men could not be saved by his merits alone, but they must eek them out by some works of their own, which they are taught to believe, to be the Saviours which they must trust unto. God looks no otherwise upon such offerings, then upon she offering of Swines blood, the cutting off a Dogs neck, or the blessing of an Idol. When it can be proved that God accepted of such Oblations in the time of the Law, then also it may be granted that he will accept such mongrel Dedications in the days of the Gospel.
5. Things dedicated unto God, without his Order and Direction, is a laying as de mMar. 7.8, and a rejecting of the Commandment of God nVers 9.: and a making the word of God of none effect oVers. 13.. It is the Pharisees Corban pVers 11., which they (for filthy lucres sake) taught Children to plead against their Parents, contrary to the fifth Commandment, when required to relieve them in age and necessity. If a father, in time of need, demanded this or that thing, of his son; the son was taught to answer onelyonly this, It is Corban, a gift which I have devoted to God, therefore you must excuse me, I cannot let you have it: Vows Must be paid, and things once dedicated, must not be recalled, nor the thing vowed aliened. This, by the Pharisees Doctrine, was a gift irrevocable, and so sacred unto God, that, if the Childe should perhaps be willing to pleasure his Parents with some part of it, they would not give way. It is holy to God, it must not be profaned by applying it to common uses: so that, they would suffer him no more to do ought for his Father or Mother qVers. 128.
Did Christ allow this for a Dedication, that might not be recalled; and, that what was so given, might not be any more imployed to private uses, without Sacrilege? Nay, he abhorred it as a sacrilegious abuse of Scripture; and, those Hypocrites also, who taught such Doctrines. Such are all Dedications proceeding from mens own fancies and ends, without a rule from God: and therefore, gifts so given not onelyonly may, but ought to be aliened to other uses, that God may no longer be abused and provoked by them.
6. It is a mistake and error to think, and say, those Lands now purchased by private men are perverted from publick use. For, they were sold for the publick use of the Commonwealth. Now, if by the Canon-Law, it be allowed that the goods and possessions of the Church may be alienated to redeem Captives, as the Pope himself hath confessed; much more then, may such Lands be sold for the service of the State and Church, in a time of such expence, and danger. Who ever taxed Hezekiah of Sacrilege, when he gave the King of Assyria (that came up against the fenced Cities of Judah, and took them) all the silver that was found in the House of the Lord, and cut off the gold from the doors of the Temple, and from the pillars, and gave it to the King of Assyria, that he might depart from Judah, 2 Kings 18. 15, 16? The Parliament then, being so much necessitated, chiefly for satisfying the vast charge of the Scottish Army, (and that by occasion of the Owners of those Lands) had a Royal and Pious Patern and Warrant for so doing.
Nor is it a perverting of those Lands by Purchasers, to imploy them (after paying for them, upon such an occasion) to their own use, no more than it was for the Tenants of Bishops, Deans and Chapters, &c. when they had with their money bought those Lands for lives, or years; yea, in Fee-simple. For, the granting and imploying them for years or lives (and that upon no such necessity as the Parliament sold) makes no real difference (as to private use) between that and the sale of them for ever, in a case of such importa it necessity. For, if it be no sin in a Bishop, or Dean and Chapter to sell a Mannour, yea, an Impropriation for three lives, or for 21 years (heretofore, for 100. 200. years, yea, for ever) and to put the whole Fine into their own private purses; not out of necessity, but for gain, and to enrich themselves, to the prejudice and impoverishing of their Successours, who must get some other maintenance (that is, some Benefices with Cure on which they never reside; but, at their Cathedrals, and starve the Souls of those people in the mean time, with 10 l. Curats) or else they could not bear up the pomp and port of Cathedral-men. And, if it were lawful for their Tenants, upon such terms to hold those Mannours and Impropriations, for so long time to their own private use; then surely, it cannot be unlawful in it self, for the Parliament, (who never put the money into their own purses) to sell those Lands; nor for purchasers, to buy, and enjoy them for ever; having paid accordingly for them.
7. The same things now pronounced Sacrilege in modern Purchasers, have been often done many years past, and still are done every day by the greatest Censurers of the present alienation of those Lands. For, to say nothing of the Appropriations and Impropriations made by Popes to Templars, Monasteries, and other (nick-named) Religious Houses; nor, of those huge alienations made in Henry the eighth's time, Edward the sixth, Queen Elizabeth, and not none in King James his days: Even they, who now cry loudest against buying of Bishops and Deans and Chapters Lands (because in their opinions, once given to God) and make it high Sacrilege in all that now do it, can yet be well enough content to hold things of the same kinde (in respect of Dedication) heretofore aliened from the Church. They can well digest Abby-Lands, Canonical Houses; yea, (which is worst) impropriated Tithes themselves, first made by that Arch-Sacrilegist the Pope, in favour not onelyonly of Covents and Societies, but of his own particular single favorites and Minions, who neither would, nor could do any service to their Souls who paid them: and; after their dissolution, devolved to private hands and common uses, as Cathedral Lands now do.
Here to omit how much of the Revenues of the Crown it self, consisteth in Church Lands and Rents; how many Noble-men, and Gentle-men are there in England (as well as in forain Nations) who now cry out of the supposed Sacrilege of others, do yet possess many Lordships, Mannours, and Royalties, even of Bishops themselves, alienated since Henry the eighth began to destroy Monasteries? Are there not many of those Lands aliened by secret (not to say, Symoniacal) compact and bargain between Petitioners for Bishopricks and their friends at Court, to procure such a Bishoprick for them?
If any doubt hereof, it is his ignorance. If he desire proof, let him but inquire into the mutilation of that one Bishoprick of Bath and Wells, and he shall find that since the thirtieth of Henry the eighth, the Mannors of Wookey, Black ford Compton-Dando, Congersbury, Yaton, Cbew, Wike, Puckle-Church, Wester-Leigh, Hampton, Claverton, Cranmore, Ever-cretch, Kingsbury, Chard, Wellington, Lidford, Compton Parva, and Chedder; (to omit many Appropriations, Hundreds, Burroughs, Farmes, &c.) have been all alienated from that Church, and are to this day held by Lay-men, to their own private uses, without scruple, or blame, before ever the late Parliament seised the rest. Yea, this is not the first time, that the Bishops Mannor of Wells was alienated from that Church. For, in Henry 8. it was by Bishop Clerk himself aliened to him, that was afterwards Earl of Hertford; then, Duke of Somerset: and, by him held (without clamor of Sacrilege,) untill by some violent and sharp proceedings against him, it Escheted to the Crown: whence, Bishop Barlow procured a grant of it again, upon some terms yet extant, but never confirmed by Parliament. And the last Bishop was not thrust out of it, but voluntarily forsook it.
Nor is there any scruple made of late purchasing of several Canonical Houses in Wells, which formerly belonged to the Canons, and Prebends of that Church: yet were part of the Bishops Lands, and of the Mannor of Wells, of which they are holden in chief, unto this day. Yet none of the Possessors of Purchasers thereof, hold it to be any fault in them, to purchase and enjoy those Houses: while some of them with great confidence and virulency condemn the same thing in others. I pass the many and vast alienations ofthe Bishopricks of Durham, Exceter, and sundry moe, made by Bishops themselves; the particular enumeration whereof would take up a Volume.
Let none think to wash all off, by saying, these were things done before their times, which they could not help. For they can, without scruple enjoy, yea, purchase those Houses built on the Lands of the Church. But an Accessory in sin long before committed, must share with the Principal, or first Actor, in the punishment t2d. Command.. No house built upon the sand will become stronger, or better by long continuance on that foundation. It is a known Maxime, Non firmatur tractu temporis, quod de jure ab initio non subsistit. Time will never make that to be no sin, which from the beginning was sinful: nor that lawful, which originally was unlawful, and inconsistent with the Law. They therefore that thus Censure others, are themselves inexcusable: for wherein they judge another, they condemn themselves, because they that judge do the same things uRom. 2.1.. If this satisfie not, yet it behoves such Censurers to be quiet: and, to leave it to others, who are without that supposed sin, to cast the next stone at the Doctor.
Zech. 8. 19.
Therefore love the truth, and peace.