CHURCH-LANDS NOT TO BE SOLD. OR, A necessary and plain Answer to the Question of a conscientious PROTESTANT; Whether the Lands of the BISHOPS, and CHURCHES in England and Wales may be sold?  Prov. 20.25. 
It is a snare to the man who devoureth that which is holy.  Sr Edward Coke, Instit. 2. c. 1. 
What ever is granted to God's Church, i.e. to Churchmen, for his honour and maintenance of his Religion and Service, is granted for and to God: and what is given to God, is holy. Ezek. 48.  Prov. 23.10, 11. 
Remove not the old Landmark, and enter not into the field of the Fatherless, for their Redeemer is mighty, and he shall plead their cause with thee.  Coke, Ibid. 
Our Law-Books teach us, that the Church is ever understood to be under age, and to be as a Pupil or Fatherless: and that it is not agreeable to Law or Right that such should be disinherited.  
Printed in the Year, 1648.   

The Heads or Points briefly touched in this Answer.  

1. THat Lands may be given to the Church, for God's Service, and Servants therein.  
2. That Lands so given, and accepted, become holy to the Lord.  
3. That the Lands of Bishops, and the Churches in England were so given, and therefore may not be alienated or sold.  
4. That such Alienation, or Selling is forbidden in the Old, and New Testament.  
5. That it hath been so judged by the most strict Reformers in the Protestant Churches.  
6. That this kind of Alienation is against Prudence, Justice, the good of the Kingdom in general, and of the Tenants to such lands in special.  
7. That it is against the Laws of this Kingdom of England, which the two Houses of Parliament, and Kingdom, by their several Declarations, Protestations, and Covenants, are bound to maintain.  
8. That it is against the Prudence, and Justice of the King; and against his lawful Oath.  
9 One and twenty Arguments, which are brought in defence of, or colour for such Alienation, are answered.  
10. The Curses, and punishments, which are set down, and executed in Holy Writ against Sacrilegious Alienations, are held forth and opened.    


CHAP. I. That Lands may be given to the Church, for God's Service and Servants therein.  
DId I conceive it proper to this Discourse, and that it would move you, it were easy to show out of very good Histories, that the Heathen (who knew not the true God) and Infidels, (not believing in our Lord Christ) have set forth lands and possessions for the perpetual maintenance of their Priests. I shall therefore give you but a touch of this, and that in our own Land; wherein (than Heathenish) were Idol Priests, 
Antiqu. Brit. Armica●.  whom Lucius (King in some part of Britain) being converted to the knowledge and faith of Christ, (about the year 176.) rooted out; and taking away their possessions and territories, he gave them to the Churches of the believing Christians; which he endowed with addition of more lands, and larger immunities. And that this may not seem any new or strange thing, I pray, consider, that God by his Prophet Moses hath been pleased to express, that the Egyptian Priests had lands; for so we read, Gen. 47.22. Only the lands of the Priests he sold not: in the margin of which Text it is added, or of the Princes: not as doubting whether they were Princes and not Priests, but intimating that, as the original word signifies both; so, they were, or might be, both Priests and Princes. And not only the Egyptians, but the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Medes, Persians, Greeks', and Romans, honoured their chief Priests, as Princes: 
Baren ad An. 383.  yea, Constantine the Great being Emperor, and a Christian, yet retained the title of Pontifex maximous. The great, or high, Priest. But to return to our purpose, (for we argue not for title, but maintenance) out of that Text of Gen. 47. it appears that the people, who were (as the Apostle speaks) without God in the world, 
Ephes. 2.12.  yet by the light of natural reason, found and held it requisite, that their Priests should have a settled maintenance, and that in lands. Give me leave here to add what Mr Selden, a man of great reading, hath observed, that in some parts of Europe, the maintenance of Priests lieth wholly in lands. But I must to the holy History, and tell you, that so soon as God had raised himself a Church by the Ministry of his servant Moses, 
Acts 7.22.  (who was learned in all the Wisdom, Laws, and Policies of the Egyptians,) he gave to his servants in his Church, besides 1. The firstborn of all men and ca●●●; 2. Besides the first fruits of the earth; 3. Besides a part in all their several Offerings; 4. Besides all the Tithes, both of their Goods, 
Weems Synagog.  and of the increase of their Lands: (so that if an Husbandman had 6000. bushels of grain or corn growing in a year, after that he had paid all his Tithes, he had left to himself but 4779.) I say besides all this, (though the whole land was hardly 160. miles in length from Dan to Beer-sheba, and but 46. 
Ep. ad Dardan.  miles in breadth from Joppa to Bethlehem, (as Saint Jerome, who lived long there testifieth,) God gave them 18. Cities with the Lands, and Suburbs round about. And although the Tribe of Love, at that time of division of the Land, were but 23000. and the Tribe of Asher was 53000. of Nepthali, 45000. of Zebulun, 57400. of Issachar, 64000. of Dau, 64000. yet the most of the Lands allotted to any of these Tribes, exceeded not 19 Cities; so bountiful was God under the Law to a corporal abouring Levite, which was but a shadow of the glorious Sunshine of the Gospel, and the Royal Priesthood which we enjoy.  
And yet, as though nothing could then under the Law be done too much for the Servants in God's Temple, King Solomon (a Type of Christ) not only suffered them to enjoy what before had been given them immediately from God, but, to show the high esteem which ought to be had to the Priest, whereas the King had a Coin estamped with the Sword and Sceptre, (which was the Royal Coin,) the Priests had their Coin too, bearing the pot of Manna, and Aaron's Rod, to show it a Royal Priesthood; when as yet (as before is said) it was but a shadow of that Royalty, which after appeared under the Gospel, whereof Bishops, and Presbyters, are the Ministers.  
And so long as this honour, and honourable maintenance was continued to the Priests, the Church of God, and the whole land flourished, until the time of Jeroboam, who by his Rebellion, Idolatry, and Sacrilege, begat that confusion, which by degrees brought all to utter destruction.  
Neither did the Convert Christians, with Judaisme, renounce this kind of Dedicating Lands to God, and his servants; for what was that act of the Christians less, which the Apostle mentions, Acts 4. and 5? Whereupon Beza, and other learned Divines hold, that the Christians then and there dedicated the lands themselves, but because the times were such, wherein they lived under the spoilers and nobbers of the Church, therefore they sold the lands, and brought the whole price thereof to the Apostles, (the then Governors of the Church) and sure it cannot be conceived in right reason, but that those Christians would as willingly and readily have given their lands, which might have continued for a perpetual standing maintenance and revenne, as to have sold the land for money in present to be expended.  
And that I give but this one instance in the New Testament, you will not wonder, when you consider, 1. that the Church, so long as the Apostles dived and wrote, was yet in the wilderness, but in swaddling clouts, and under grievous tyranny, and persecution, and therefore not capable of lands. 2. As yet it had been improper to have given command or counsel herein, for fenre of a greater persecution to the Christians: and therefore they left both the advice, and the thing then to be done, when the Church should by God's mercy obtain some settlement; and this was the course, which Moses observed; who, until, by vanquishing the enemy, he had obtained peace in the Land, settled not lands, and a perpetual maintenance for the Priests and Levites in God's service.  
Object. But some may happily object, that those lands were not dedicated, or sold only for the Apostles behoof and use, but for other Christians likewise.  
Resp. 1 Which is as readily granted as objected; yet it cannot be denied, but that all was at the dispose of the Apostles, and for aught can be proved to the contrary, at their dispose alone: for we read that it was laid down at the feet of none but the Apostles, and this laying at the feet, giveth the power of interest, and dispose of that which was so laid; which might be confirmed by several places both in Holy and Profane Writ. The case than I suppose is clear, that the Primitive Christians (spoken of in the Acts of the Apostles) dedicated their lands to God for his servants in the Church, which is the joint consent of Calvin, Beza, Deeda●, and other reformed Divines: although by reason of the persecution, they were constrained for present use and necessity, to turn those lands into money. 2. It is as clear that the right, title, or interest of that money, being laid at the Apostles feet, was in the Apostles. 3. That as the money (the price of the lands,) so should the lands likewise have been in the Apostles power, if they had been held in kind. 4. From all summed up, I conceive it cannot be denied, but that if in a settled time the lands had continued unsold, the lands themselves being dedicated to God, the title and interest thereof had been in those Apostles, who were God's Vicegerents, as Mr Calvin judiciously observes on that place.  
Which interest or title is not a whit diminished by objecting, that other Christians and Laymen should have had a profit, or benefit by them, as well as by the money; for so it is in the lands given to Church men now; who, although they have a title to them in fee, yet they are not to be swallowed up whole, or wholly by the possessors, but to be erogated by the grants, or Laws of the land, to the relief of the poor, for hospitality, in pious uses, and for the behoof of the King and Kingdom, both in time of peace and war.  
If nothing hitherto satisfy, yet I hope that of our most blessed Saviour will do it fully, where he saith, Is it not lawful for out to do what I will with mine own? 
Mat. 20.25.  Where the Interrogation hath the force of an undoubted affirmation; as if he had said, questionless, in a just, right, lawful way, it is lawful for me, or any man, to do what I, or he will with mine, or his own; and this I hope comes home to the Proposition or Assertion premised, that lands may be given, to the Church for God's service and servants.  
Hitherto I have but barely kept word with you, that we have from God's word a Charter, whereby we are enabled to hold lands, if any will give them; now will you be pleased to consider whether God in the Old, or Christ in the New Testament have not given, if not a command, yet a counsel or strong persuasion so to dedicate or give? That in the Old Testament, which sure hath the power of a Precept, is, 
Prov. 3.9.  Honour the Lord with thy substance, whereby substance, is more especially meant our temporal and worldly substance, (and why not lands here included?) and by the Lord, there is meant the immediate honour and maintenance of the Priest and Servants of the Lord God.  
And when our Saviour tells it, to the world's end, 
Mat. 25.40.  that what ever good any Christian, or other shall show to his Apostles and Disciples, he takes it as done unto himself, and he will reward them; doth he not herein vehemently persuade all true Believers (at least) to be good and bountiful unto them? And can we conceive that Christ straitened the Christians bounty only to a competent maintenance, because he there speaks but of feeding and clothing? No surely, this were too narrow; it can intent no less than this, that who shall in my name give unto my Disciples and Apostles, my servants and Ministers present, or perpetual maintenance, in diet, lands, or otherwise, he shall not lose his reward. And if Christians be counselled or persuaded by Christ thus to give to his Apostles, Disciples, and their Successors in his Name, and as for him, sure it cannot be denied, but that those Apostles, Disciples, and Successors, may receive, and hold such gifts, as in the right of their Lord Christ. And that this proposition (the Ministers of the Gospel, may have lands for their maintenance in God's service,) may be rightly asserted from the Old and New Testament, I doubt not but to be the opinion of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, and of all learned Orthodox Divine in Christendom.   

CHAP. II. That Lands so given and accepted, become holy to the Lord.  
THe next point is, that lands so given for the service and to the servants of God, change their common quality or nature; and are by dedication and God's acceptation become Gods, and therefore holy: for there are in holy Writ, four kinds of holy things. 1. Holy manners. 2. Holy means leading thereunto; as the holy Word, holy Sacraments, holy Prayer, 
Deut. 33.8. Leu. 27.9. Jer. 2.3.  and holy Censures. 3. Holy men, as the Priest is called Gods holy One: For there is sanctitas vitae, or conversationals, for all men; and sanctitas Officii, or Functionis, for the Priests. 4. Holy maintenance; all that any man giveth unto the Lord, shall be holy. And Leu. 27.22. If a man sanctify to the Lord a field, which he hath bought, Ver. 23. it shall be an holy thing unto the Lord. 
Prov. 20.25. Ezek. 48.15. V 10. V 12.  And of such Solomon speaks, It is a snare to devour holy things: The Prophet Ezekul speaks this plainly, And Leu. 27.32. the Tithe is called Holy, the rest of the land is termed a profane place, for the city, for dwelling, and for the suburbs: whereas before, the oblation of the land mentioned for the Priests is called holy; 
Deut. 18.1.  and this oblation of that land that is offered, shall be a thing most holy; and the Priests and Levites maintenance is called the Lords inheritance: for then, as now under the Gospel, by man's dedication and God's acceptation, the propriety, as by Livery and Seisin in other lands, is altered and become the Donees, Gods, and therefore is holy; which is plainly and fully confirmed by that of our most blessed Saviour, in that ye gave it to my Brethren or Disciples, 
Mat. 25.40.  ye gave it unto me: where when they gave, and Christ received, it became fully Christ's; and then and thereby, who will deny it to be holy? The Prophet tells the Jews that they had rob God; 
Mal. 3.  the Jews ask how, and wherein? to which Saint Hierom expounding the Prophet, saith, Ye have rob me in taking that away which was given to my Priests. The Primitive Fathers therefore, call Temples and Churches dedicated to God, (though under the names of Saints) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Temples or Houses of the Lord. And Optatus saith, Res est Dei, 
Lib. 6.  ubi Deo aliquid à quocunque oblatum est: And not only have the Primitive Fathers and Counsels spoken thus, but both Law and Gospel prove it; and Mr Calvin calls Patrimonium Ecclesiae, Deo consecratum: (De neces. reform. Ecclesiae.) And Beza on Acts 5. saith, That now under the Gospel there is a consecration of things to God is and now what is given to the Church, is given to God. And Sr. Edward Coke, (from the most ancient learned Sages of the Law) calls Church lands divine Tenements, according to which K. Ethelred, long before, Anno 998. giving lands to the Church of Canterbury, styles them Patrimonium Christi. Yea, 
Spelm. Conc. p. 506.  the Comment on Littleton saith, That the King in our Law is Persona mixta cum Sacerdote; and thereby his lands are called and held by our Lawyers to be Patrimonium sacrum; how then can it be denied, that in our Law the Bishop's lands are such?   

CHAP. III. That the Lands of Bishops, and the Churches in England were so given; and therefore may not be alienated, or sold.  
ANd that the Lands of Bishops, and of the Church in England were so dedicated, is easy to prove; though first I shall plainly confess, that as God held not himself tied in the acceptation of lands offered, nor yet the ancient Kings held themselves bound, when they gave their lands, some five, some six, some seven, some eight, some nine hundred years ago, to give them after the manner of a Norman, or a later invented form of conveyance: so indeed can there not be found in the dedication of those lands such formalities as the Lawyers of our time would now require: yet I am confident, that on the Donors' part, you shall not find so plain and formal grants of any gifts, or offerings in the Book of God, (unless you mention those of the Temple) as these of the Bishop's lands; and yet those God accepted, took, and held as his. The Tithes and Offerings brought and delivered to the Priests and Levites, God calls them in divers places his Inheritance, his Offerings, his Tithes, 
Deut. 8.1. Leu. 27.10. Numb. 18.28. Eze. 48. Mel. 3. Acts 4.  yet where find we the dedication of them by the Donors to God? And the like we may say of the Christian's dedicating and selling their lands; yet because the Israelites and Christians intended them to God, God so accepted them as given to himself; and according, Marlorat, the Collector of the Comments of the late Reformed Divines, terms that act of Ananias, Sacrilega fraudatio, quia subduxerat quod sacrum fuit Deo, although there is no mention in the dedication thereof to God. 
Annot. on Act. 5  The Assembly of Divines following Beza, translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to deceive, and say that when Ananias had dedicated the possession to God for his servants, the fraud concerned God's interest. So that although much lands heretofore in England, were by the Donors entitled to the Church, to such an Apostle or Saint; yet it cannot be denied that they were intended and primarily given to the honour of God; and so Sr. Edward Coke ingenuously confesses, 
Instit. 2. cap. 1.  quod datur Ecclesiae, Dee datur: and again, what is given for God, is given to God. For who can doubt but he that gives any thing to a servant in relation to the honour and service of the Lord, that he gives it to the Lord, who will accept it as a gift to himself?  
But if we shall give credit to the best Records and Histories, we want not plain proofs, that much of the lands held by Bishops and Churchmen, were in express words given to God and Christ. 
Spelm. Cone. p. 119. Sumner. p. 47.  About the year 605. Ethelbert (the first Christian King of our English Nation) giving lands to the Church, saith, Dene, & concedo has terras Deo: and as he was the first English Christian King that gave lands to God, so was he the first (that I find) who gave them with this curse, Si quis de hac donatione aliquid minuere rentaverit, aut irrirum facere, sit in praesenti sepuratus à sancta Communione Corporis, & Sanguinis Christi, 
P. 350.  & in die Judicii à consortio sanctorum. K. Ethelnulph Anno 855. dat terras Deo, (as Spelman citys divers Historians and Records for the proof thereof) and before him K. Offa Anno 790. giving lands to the See of Canterbury, 
Sum. Appendix of Cant. p. 377.  faith, Hanc Eleamosynam offero Deo omnipotenti pro pignore Christianae Fidei: for which Sumner citys the original grant: and K. Ethelred Anno 998. confessing that by ill counsel he having taken away lands from the Bishop of Rochester (in Brumleigh,) he now grieved in conscience for that wicked act, 
Regist. Roff. f. 8. B.  restores them Omnipotenti Christo: I could add many more the like of the Saxon Kings.  
After whom William the Conqueror (in the fourth year of his reign in England) chooseth and sweareth twelve, the best and most learned men in the Laws of the Kingdom, diligently to search, and truly to set down the Laws and Customs thereof, 
Spelm. Cone. p. 619.  as they were in use in the time of K. Edward the Confessor: among which Laws, this is set as the first, Omnis Clericus & Scholaris, (and I hope Bishops then as now, might and may be understood under one of those terms) & omnes corum possessiones, ubicunque fuerint, pacem Dei, & sancta Ecclesiae habeant: and can any deny, but by the peace of God there is understood an immunity from rapine, alienation, or selling those possessions, as belonging to God? A grant of the Conqueror expounds this, wherein he saith, 
Lamb. Archaiol. f. 125.  Teneant terras & possessiones suas in pace Dei, ab omni exactione injustâ libiras. His son K. William the Second, giving lands to the Bishop of Rochester, 
Regist. Roff. f. 11 Ib fol. 13. Ib. fol. 14.  saith, Hoc Regium donum facio Deo. And K. Henry the First, in his Inspeximus confirms that grant in the same words, K. Henry the First, concedit terras pro Deo Ecclesiae Roffensi: which is a clear exposition of other grants, which run as many of the Saxon Kings did, Sancto Petro, Ecclesiae, etc. K. John, as divers other Kings, that terras Episcopo Roffensi, 
Ib. p. 14.  & successoribus suis, in liberam, puram, & perpetuam Eleemosynam: And what is given in Alms, is intended as given to God; according to which, the Jews Corban is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Luke 21.4.  the offering of God. And the Bishop of Rochester pleaded long since, 
Ib. p. 53.  that he held his lands in puram Eleemosynam. Sr Edward Coke (that generally accounted, and so by most called, Oracle of our Law) speaking of Frank Almoigne, or free Alms, saith, 
Instit. 1. part. p. 94. B.  This grant of Frank Almoigne is an ancient grant, and shall be allowed as the Law was, when such grants were made: and adds, Our old Law Books describe it to be when Lands or Tonements are given to God, i. e. saith he, to such as are consecrated for his service: For saith he, What is done for God's sake, is done to God; 
P. 96.  and withal citys and allows of that in the Canon Law, where it saith, Offerings are described to be what ever things are given by Christians to God, 
Instit. 2. part. p. 489.  and to the Church.  
But to break off this long discourse, consider I pray, in stead of all, the great Charter, which speaking of the Rights, Privileges, and Franchises of Bishops and their Churches, saith, Concessimus Deo, we have granted to God, that their Rights, Privileges, Liberties, remain for ever inviolable; and sure their lands must be comprised here, for Sr Edward Coke in his Institut. on that Charter, adds, that the words there, are now to be construed, and that in as large a sense, for the benefit of the Church, as they were then intended when first written: and by what is before spoken, it cannot be doubted that they understood the words, 
Part. 1. f. 86.  as of other things, so of lands too. Let me add what I find in Sr Edward Coke, The Bishop, saith he, Non facit homagium Regi, dicens, ego sum homo tuns, doth not homage to the King, saying, I am your man; sed fidelitatem (but Fealty) quia homo est solius Dei, because he is the man only of God. 
Ib. Sect. 133.  And then what is given to the man of God, in our Law is given to God.   

CHAP. FOUR That such Alienation or Selling, is forbidden in the Old and New Testament.  
NOw me thinks that which hath hitherto been said, might terrify any professor of God's truth, from the selling, buying, or alienating such lands so given; but, because nothing but express words in Scripture will now a days serve the turn, (and would to God that might serve) I pray consider the word of God by his Prophet, 
Ezek. 48.14.  expressly saying, Ye shall not sell, nor exchange, nor alienate, what is offered to the Lord. Where God, to stop the mouth of all cavillers, doth, as our Lawyers, put in words enough; Ye shall not sell, nor exchange, nor alienate. Object. Where if any will prove so witty against God and his Word, as to say, the Prophet there speaks not of Lands, but of Tithes and Offerings, which were not to be sold, because that were against the Law established by God: Resp. Yet mark I pray, whether this be not a cavil; for the force of God's prohibition lies not in this, that they were Tithes; nor in this, because he had forbidden them to be sold; but because they were offered to the Lord: for so the Text speaks, Ye shall not sell, nor exchange, nor alienate, for it is holy to the Lord, and so were become his; and such (as I have proved) were the lands of Bishops in England; and the same being the ground and reason of the prohibition now, as then, because offered, given, or holy to the Lord, I cannot see but the prohibition hath the same force against selling lands given to God under the Gospel, as it had under the Law.  
And, if we well weigh the punishment of Ananias and his wife, it will appear that in God's judgement, 
Act. 5.  the prohibition should hold more strong under the Gospel, than it did under the Law; for there Ananias but intended, or promised his lands, or price thereof to the Church; and they were his own, and so much his own, that Saint Peter tells him, 
V 5.  that is was in his power, not to have promised them: and yet for detaining but a part of this so lately his own, he is suddenly strooke dead, and for aught we know without repentance. Believest thou the Scriptures? Then believe and know God will not be mocked with cavils, or Law-terms, or distinctions; but, as he is a God that knoweth the heart, and searcheth the reins, so where he finds Christians, as Ananias, to go about to deceive or cheat him, he will find this man out, and though he strike him not suddenly dead, yet shall God's wrath come like water into his bowels, and like oil into his bones, or it shall be as a fire to consume his house. But I fear too many there be, who, as they deny all relative holiness to the Churches, the utensils, and the Ministers of God under the Gospel; so upon the point, they would that an Index expurgatorius should pass upon all Sacrilege, as though under the Gospel, there were now no such sin: for to profane God's House and Ornaments, is with them no Sacrilege; to contemn and abuse God's Ministers, is (as Christ prophesied) in their account, to do God service, and no Sacrilege. Yea, it is almost published, that it is no Sacrilege to detain, or utterly to take away the maintenance of Ministers, which are Tithes; and yet if we believe Saint Paul, there is such a sin now, which if it be not materially in the Houses, the Tithes or the Ministers of God, then sure it must be in the patrimony of the Church: 
Rom. 2.22.  for Saint Paul fights not with the air, neither reproves or forbids he that which is not sin.  
And it will appear, that the Sacrilegious person in alienating the Church lands, breaks two Commandments in the first Table, & two in the second. The sixth Precept, saying, Thou shalt not kill, 
Exed. 20.  is not bounded alone in depriving a man of his life, but in taking away his livelihood, the maintenance of life. Whose robbeth his father, 
Prov. 28.24.  (God,) his mother, (the Church) homicidae particeps, is a companion (so our Bible) in sin, and sentence with the destroyer; 
Psal 74.10. de Leg. 10.  and this kil-man, is said to blaspheme God too, and therein to break the third Commandment. Plate speaks it, who dares do this, saith (in his heart at least) either there is no God, or which is all one, thinks him not just, or not omnipotent, and therefore, per se, as actor, per aliot, as author, blasphemeth God. 
D. Fulk Aretix. in Act. 5  Yea, some late Divines, of no mean rank, stick not to say, that Ananias committed the sin, not to be prayed for, against the Holy Ghost, and therefore was suddenly strooke dead without repentance. But holy Writ will directly indict the Sacrilegious person for breach of the eighth and of the second Precept: to the first, this alienating and selling Gods, and the Church's lands, is the sin, which by the Primitive and best reformed Divines, 
Diodat. in Act. 5  is called Sacrilege. After consecration, the thing is no more thine but Gods, and in taking or detaining it, thou hast committed Sacrilege: which in Scripture language, 
Prov. 20.25. Ezek. 48.14. Mal. 3.8. Rom. 2.22. Act. 19.37.  is expressed by devouring: in Ezekiel, by selling, exchanging, alienating: in Malachi, by robbing God: in Saint Paul by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which from the derivation of the word, is to steal that which is holy: and so we translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Church-robbers; by all, if not by every of which Texts, it is plain, that to alienate, or sell, lands or goods of the Church, is a sin against the eighth Commandment, which forbids all manner of taking away that from any other, which is his, and not thine.  
Some learned, not only ancient, but modern Divines go further, & say that it is Sacrilege to invert or turn those things to other uses, which were primarily dedicated to God and his service; and thus much Mr Calvin plainly affirms, saying, It is Sacrilege, facultates Ecclesiae in alienos usus convertere: 
Tract. De neces. reform. Eccles. Aunot. in Prov. 20.25.  to employ the revenues or goods of the Church to any other uses, then for the Church. And the Assembly of Divines at Westminster say, That to take that which was appointed to God's use, yea to go about to do it by enquiring how the Vow may be avoided, 
On Mal. 3.8.  is to devour holy things. And they say, No Heathen is so barbarous, as to defraud his God, and to deal deceitfully with him: And they add, To keep those things bacl, which belong to God, 
On Ver. 9  and are to furnish out his service, and for the maintenance of his Officers, is to rob God. Some ancient, 
S. Chrys. M. Calo.  and later choice Divines have thought that the words of Saint Paul, Rom. 2.22. were spoken of some convert Jews, new Christians, who thought they might without offence, rob and spoil the Temples of the Idols; and yet the Apostle condemns this as a sin in them, saying, Thou that abhorrest Idols, committest thou Sacrilege? Which if it hold so, then how much more surmounts the Sacrilege of our times that of the first convert Christians? When as we stick not to nickname it to be pure Religion, when we take away, or spoil that which was offered to the true God, and his Servants. And may I not here take up the words of the Apostle, O thou that abhorrest Idols! Yea, the very shadow and word Idolatry, art thou become so abominable in thy hypocrisy, as to rob thy God? and yet wouldst be held a Reform Protestarit, and lover of God? Be not deceived, if Saint Paul judge right, (which none doubts but an infidel) thou art a thief and a robber. And I could wish that Saint Paul from this Text, could doom thee no further than a thief, and transgressor of the second Table; for I fear upon a review of the Text, it will be found, that thou hast sinned against the first Table too. St Augustine affirmaes it directly, which Mr Zanchie, the best Reformed School Divine shows thus; He grubs up the root, the maintenance, which gives life to the branches, the Ministers; which failing, the fruit, God's honour, must needs fall to the ground. But without straying from the Text, observe Saint Paul, Thou that preachest a man should not steal. dost thou steal? 
Ver. 21, 22.  And thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? In both which, the sins are of the same nature, and against the same Precept: as stealing, and stealing; adultery, and adultery; and presently he subjoins, Thou that abhorrest Idols, commatest thou Sacrilege? Which shows, that as the two former, so these are the breach of the same Commandment. And so Mr Calvin upon the place saith, The Apostle here opposeth Sacrilege to Idolatry, as a sin of the same kind: and rightly so, for as God, where he forbids the worship of Idols, there he forbids the offering, or giving lands, or goods to them, or to their Priests: so, when he commands to worship God, he commands to add what we may, but in no sort to take away what is given or offered for his Honour or Service: for this is a breach of his divine Precept in the first Table. And I cannot readily say, whether or no Saint Paul in this comparative speech, Thou that abhorrest Idols, committest thou Sacrilege? makes not Sacrilege a greater sin than Idolatry; for, before in the two former comparates, he reasons from the lesser sin to the greater; as, Thou that preachest a man should not steal, or commit adultery, which are sins in another man, dost thou commit those things, which must needs be a greater sin in thee, who actest what thou preachest against, and condemnest? And so, thou that abhorrest Idols, dost thou rob God of that which is given to his Honour and Service, which must needs be a greater sin in thee? For, if to give God more worship than he requires, or otherwise then he commands, (though it be done with a good intention) be Idolatry, (as Reformed Divines say) why then may it not reasonably be conceived to be a greater sin, utterly to take away that from him which is given for his Honour, then to give him some more Honour than he requireth? But I leave the determination of this point to the Assembly of Divines, 
Annot. on Rom. 2.22.  who upon the words, move the Question, Why the Apostle changeth the word? And whereas he said before, steal, and steal, commit adultery, and commit adultery; Why, say they, doth he vary and say, Why thou that abhorrest Idols, committest thou Sacrilege? To which Question, they, in their Notes, thus answer: The Apostle useth have an aggravation, as if he should say, Thou that abhorrest Idose, dost thou commit a worse sin? to wit, Sacrilege, which robbeth God of his Honour? Thus they. Let me add, that it is a sin, not against the positive written Law alone, but against the very Law of nature; for so the Prophet argues, Will a man? any man? 
Mal. 3.  any Pagan, Heathen, natural man? will he rob his God? i. e. He will not; for it is against the Law of nature. How great then is this sin in a Christian, who hath not only the Moral Law of Nature, and the positive Moral written Law of Moses, but the Law of grace to restrain him?   

CHAP. V That it hath been so judged by the most strict Reformers in the Protestant Churches.  
IT were easy to give you the say of many Primitive Orthodox Fathers in this case; but conceiving that the later Divines relish better with you, I shall therefore set down the judgement of the three Oracles, (as they are held by many) of the first, best, and strictest Reformed Churches, in Germany, France, and Scotland: And for Germany, Dr Luther, 
On Gal. 6.6.  when he saw the Clergy despised, and their lands taken away, Preached and Printed these words; [The Apostle] here closely toucheth the manners of our Countrymen, who most securely contemn our Ministry; and especially the Nobles, who make their Pasters, as their base and obnoxious servants; in so much, that if we had not so godly a Prince, (as God be thanked we have) and so great a lover of the truth, they had, ere now, driven us out of the land; and yet these would be accounted Gospelers. After this, he meets with a tacit Objection: viz. That these Revenues of the Church were given in the time of Popery; to which he answers in these words, Gram it that these goods were, by moor imposture, heaped up for Papists, yet God, spoiling the Egyptians, i. e. Papists, of their goods, transtated them to good uses in our Land.  
He goes on, The Devil hath but two ordinary ways to destrey Religion, the one is by the errors of Heretics, (against which we had by Ordinance a day of Humiliation,) 
●a●t. 10. 1646.  the other by depriving of God's Ministers of their Rights; and this saith he, is the Devil's masterpiece, hereby to destroy Religion, without either the force of Tyrants, or the subtle work of Heretics. But know (saith he) that although God for a time defers to punish, yet in his own time he will find you out, and plague your doglike scorn and hate to God's Ministers: For saith he, The highest of the Gentry, and most covetous of the City, and the basest in the Country, when they draw near to death, shall find that God will not be mocked: but as they have sown, so shall they reap for ever. Thus fare the first great public Reformer of the Protestants Church in Germany.  
Next to him, 
De neces. reform. Eccles.  hear Mr Calvin thus speaking; I profess, saith he, that I am much displeased that the Revenues of the Church are not employed for those uses alone, for which they were dedicated: and that it is not so, I and all good men hearty grieve. For, saith he, it is an inexpiable Sacrilege to take the patrimony of the Church, and to waste the same on profane uses: and what he means by profane uses and wasting, he explains in these words, when he saith, I assent to this as a truth, that it is Sacrilege to convert or change the goods or revenues of the Church to any other use, then for the Church: And adds, Seldom have I found but that such Alienations of Church lands, have drawn some mischief after them: and he not only determines this kind of Sacrilege to be such a grievous sin and dangerous to the State, but even to the persons plotting and acting in the same; for so he concludes, I confess, saith he, that in Scripture grievous punishments are pronounced against such men, as shall spoil the Church of her goods and Revenues. And when you shall consider that Mr Calvin wrote this Treatise to the Emperor and Princes of Germany, assembled at that time in a Diet (or Parliament) for the Reformation of the Church; then well weigh how at this time, his judgement and sentence should prevail with you in this case, who, for holiness, learning, and judgement, is so extolled by the Protestant Churches. Will you hear but one passage for many, from Mr Beza successor to Mr Calvin in Geneva, and it shall be that which he wrote in his answer to Dr Saravia? who touching upon the dissolution, and passing away the Lands of the Religious Houses in the time of K. Henry the Eighth, saith, We and all good men hearty bewail that scattering of the Church Lands, accompanied with a most wicked, and detestable Sacrilege.  
And from Germany and France, let us to our Polestarre in Scotland, and here Mr Knox the prime principal Reformer of that Kirk, who, with his brethren Ministers, 
In Book of Disc. 1560.  desires the Lords of the Council, for fear of the loss of their souls, to make restitution of the Lands of the Church, and of the Friars: and in his Letter on his deathbed, 
In the year, 1572.  he commands his Brethren to withstand the devourers of the Church Patrimony, wherein if they (the devourers) shall persist, yet communicate ye not with them by consent, or by silence. And in the Book of Discipline, 
1569.  The Patrimony of the Church is declared to be all things doted to the Church: and it pronounces them to be thiefs, who have taken them from the Church; and affirms, 
In second Book of Policy, c. 9  to take away any thing which was given to the Church, to be detestable Sacrilege before God.  
Moreover, the whole Church of Scotland in their Assembly, enjoins a public Fast throughout all the whole Kingdom, 
At Edinburgh, 1582.  To appease God's wrathon the Land, for that crying sin of Sacrilege therein committed. Now can any, who have sworn to maintain the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of Scotland, know this, and yet Vote the selling of Church Lands? If so, why may we not pray, Lord have mercy on them? For did ever any Protestant Church maintain, that Church lands might be taken or sold from the Church? If not, (which I persuade myself they have not) then why do you not fear that you are not in the right way, or not right Protestants, but rather in this point, that you are Papists? For that these only of all Christian Churches have allowed the practice of it? and yet these do it not but under the colourable and falsely pretended power, which the Pope usurps, as being Christ's Vicar on earth; Whereby, he saith, he may dispense with the Church lands as he pleaseth: which title or power, I hope our Parliament doth not assume or challenge to themselves, although K. Henry the Eighth in the dissolution of the Abbeys, thus argued, If the Pope and his Legate the Cardinal do it, then why not I? And yet I pray note by the way, that K. Henry the Eighth, so decried for a notorious Sacrilegist, yet never did he take away the lands of Bishops, nor Cathedrals: but on the contrary, he founded some, and enlarged others. But why in God's name are not the Assembly of Divines at Westminster consulted with in this point? Or why do not our conscientious Brethren read the Annotations of the Assembly, who note, that Egypt (which would not in the greatest extremity of famine, 
On Gen. 47.  when all other men's lands were sold, yet then that they would not sell the lands of the Priests) shall rise up in judgement against the alienators or sellors of lands, which have been dedicated to God or his Servants.   

CHAP. VI That this kind of Alienation, is against Prudence, Justice, the good of the Kingdom in general, and of the Tenants to such Lands in special.  
BUt were there not so much said in God's Book, and by learned Orthodox Divines, shall neither our own Laws, nor Prudence, nor Justice prevail in this case, to keep us from selling of Church Lands? For what Justice is it to sell that, which is not our own? And that these lands are 1. Gods, I hope it is proved sufficiently by God's words, the verdict of allowed Divines, and shall be further proved anon by the Laws of our Land. 2. They are the Bishops, who are Gods Assigns and Usufructuaries; and these lands are theirs by as good title in Law, as any man can hold any land in this Kingdom. 3. They are by Patronage, the Kings; for this is very lately professed in a good Parliament, 
1 Jacob. 3.3  in these words, Whereas all the Lands of the Bishops in England, and Dominion of Wales, were given by Kings of England, (the full truth whereof I will not dispute) whereby the King is become the lawful and rightful Patron of all those Lands; therefore it is desired that the King would enact. (not that they without the King would or could, no such power then known) and what is desired? not that the Bishop's Lands should be sold, but that they may not be leased out by the Bishops, for longer terms of time, then for 21. years, or three lives, no not to the Crown? And is this Justice so soon forgotten, or so soon changed, in so short a time, that without the consent of God the Proprietary, of the King the Patron, and of the Bishops the Assigns, the lands shall be utterly sold away? And yet must we call this Justice? I pray God this Justice call not for judgement from heaven.  
And whether it can be just to sell the Bishop's Lands, I pray, examine by that rule and touchstone of true Moral Justice, which our Lord Christ hath expressed in two short Precepts; the one, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: The other, 
Mat. 19.9. Mat. 7.12.  Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do you even so unto them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. Now by the first rule, examine yourselves, whether in this act of selling the Bishop's Lands, you love the Bishops as yourselves? And try this by the other, whether you would yield your consent, as to a thing just, that if the Bishops had your power, they might and should preserve to themselves their own lands and expose yours to sale? If your hearts speak the truth, I fear they would deny this to be just in the Bishops against you: and if so, then be assured, that in this act of selling the Bishop's lands, you do not that, which by the verdict of your own conscience, is just. And if you will (as Lawmakers should) look forward, and provide for future times; stands it with civil Prudence to sell those Lands away, which do and will yield so much for maintenance of the King and Kingdom, in Tenths, First-fruits, Subsidies and Taxes, which for the most part will be swallowed up, when fallen into Lay-hands? 2. Stands it with civil Prudence to rob Tenants of so good pennyworths, as they now hold from Bishops and Churchmen; which they must not expect, when in Lay-hands, whereby they have been enabled the better to serve the King and Kingdom in time of need? 3. Stands it with Prudence and Charitr, to cast so many into a state of beggary, and danger of thieving, who by Bishops and Churchmen have been reasonably relieved by under Offices, and places in the Church? Upon the dissolution of the Religious Houses, in the Reign of K. Henry the Eighth, 
Chron. f. 773.  Mr Speed saith, that a great Rebellion was raised in Lincolnshire; and the Rebels expressing the cause thereof to the King, they say, We grieve for the suppression of so many Religious Houses, whereby the Pooralty of your Realm is unrelieved, and many put off their live, which is a damage to the Commonwealth. Soon after another Rebellion arose in Yorkshire, where 40000. with Horse, Arms, and Artillery, risen for Religion, who had upon their sleeves the Name of the Lord; the ground of their rising was (saith the same Author) That the King by his evil Counsellors, will destroy the Ministers of the Church, 
f. 775.  which makes against the Common good. 4. Stands it with a Religious, and civil Prudence to rob Learning and Religion of that profit and preferment, which encouraged the study and increase both of Learning and Religion? 
Prov. 14.4.  Where no oxen are, the crib is clean: And the Land, soon after K. Solomon, found this true: 
1 King. 13.33.  for, when Jeroboam had taken away the best maintenance of the Priests, what followed? but that the Priests were chosen out of the lowest of the people? (Which I would it were not too true now in our Land,) and in after times, the Church suffered more under Julian, than Dioclesian: for this took away the able men; but that Apostate their maintenance. I shall close this point with that memorable passage of Sr Edward Coke in Winchester's Case, The decay of the Revenues of the Church, will draw after it the downfall of God's Service and Religion: which God in mercy avert.   

CHAP. VII. That it is against the Laws of this Kingdom of England, which the two Houses of Parliament, and Kingdom, by their several Declarations, Protestations, and Covenants, are bound to maintain.  
BUt if neither God's Word, nor the Verdict of best Divines, nor Justice, nor Prudence, can be heard; yet I pray hear what our Laws say in this case; and yet before I urge these, (to which I am as much a stranger as to the Profession) let me remember you with that, which I have heard to be a Maxim in our Law, That no Statute, Law, or Custom, which are against God's Law, or Principles of Nature, can be of any validity, but are all null: which if granted, it will save me the pains to cite our Laws, as having before proved, that it is against God's Law, to sell away the lands of Bishops.  
Yet let me add, that one Statute saith, 
1 Edw. 3. c. 2.  That the King by evil Counsellors, caused the Temporalties of Bishops to be seized into his hands, for a time, to the great damage of the said Bishops, which from henceforth shall not be done: and this Statute is not repealed, and therefore is in its full force at this day, as all other Statutes unrepealed are.  
I might add another Statute, 
17 Edw. 2.  that when the Templars (thieving, bloody, decried Soldiers) had their Lands taken from them; yet were not those lands then divided among Parliament men, nor sold for the Commonwealth, (although the Kingdom at that time was in distress and want enough, I believe more than now) no, the then Parliament, surely, conceived, they might do neither of these; they therefore translated those lands, and settled them on the Priory of St John of Jerusalem: and in the same Statute it is inserted, that the Parliament than did not alienate the Lands of those Templars: 1. Because they were given to God, though possessed by men. 2. Because they held it a sin to rob the Donors of their gift. 3. Because they held it would prove mortal to the Alienators: and these causes were then held sufficient to keep a Parliament from selling or alienating Church Lands. And it is in the same Statute provided, that if in after times, the said Hospitalers, or their successors, shall be put out of any of those lands, they shall have power to recover the same according to the Law of the Realm.  
I have likewise read, that in the 25 Edw. 1. it is declared, 
In the Review of the Covenant, Printed 1644.  That Laymen have no authority to dispose of the Lands or Goods of the Church, for they are only committed to the Priests to be disposed of. I confess, I find it not in the printed Statutes; but this I find and read there, That none, high nor low, by any occasion, 
3 Edw. 1. c. 1.  shall course in any Park, nor fish in any Pond of a Prelate, or other Religious person, without the leave or will of the Lord, or of his Bailiff. In those times, sure the Parliaments found not that they had power to sell away the Bishop's Lands; and I conceive that the Parliament deemed not then, that they had any such power, by reason of the great Charter, granted by this King's father, (which Charter Sr Edward Coke calls the Bulwark of the Subject's Tenors in England,) and therefore upon this, give me leave a little longer to insist, as being a main part, and foundation of our Laws.  
One Statute enacts, 
42 Edw. 3. c. 1.  That if any Statute be made contrary to the great Charter, it shall be void; which Statute is still in force: and now hear, what this Charter speaks concerning the Lands of the Church, and of Bishops, and then say truly, whether it be not against the Law of England, to sell these Lands. In this Charter (confirmed two and thirty times by our best Parliaments) it is expressly said, We have granted to God, and by this our Charter have confirmed for us, and our heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights, 
2 part Institut. in Procemio.  and Liberties inviolable. The great Charter, saith Sr Edward Coke, is no new Law, but it is declaratory of the principal fundamental Laws of England. 
25. Edw. 1.  And he saith, The Nobles and great Officers were to be sworn to the observation of it: and by a Parliament, it was judged to be taken as the Common Law of England: and well may, considering the four causes or ends of that Charter, as is expressed in the entrance: viz. 1. The honour of God. 2. The health of the King's soul. 3. The advancement of the Church. 4. The amendment of the Kingdom.  
And now hear this Law speak (which is almost the same which was granted by K. John in the nineteenth year of his Reign) with the interpretation of the Oracle of our Law; 
Paris. p. 255. Sir Edward Coke on the Charter.  and first (as all best Grants have) it gins with God, and saith, Concessimus Deo; where the Interpreter saith, What is given to the Church (as Bishops lands were) is given to God: and what hath this Law granted to God? Why, that the Church shall be free: where the Interpreter tells you, that by the Church is meant all Ecclesiastical persons, their possessions and goods: And these shall be free, saith he, from all exactions and oppressions. and to sell away their lands, is it neither oppression nor exaction? If not, hear the Charter and Interpreter go on. We have granted to God that the Church shall have all her Rights entire, i.e. saith the Interpreter, That all Ecclesiastical persons shall enjoy all their Rights wholly, without diminution or substraction whatsoever: Whereby, saith he, all their Rights are confirmed, as they had them before, or as at the first grant; and then they had them not to be sold. It goes on, and that the Church, or Churchmen have, and hold all their liberties; Which liberties, saith he, grants them the liberty of the Law of England, the Privilege of Parliaments, and all Grants by Charter or Prescription: and shall none of these keep the Bishop's Lands from sale? Moreover these Grants are not alone for that, or any set time, but for ever; Hear the Charter, This we have granted to the Church, i.e. Churchmen, for ourselves, and our heirs for ever: Which, saith the Interpreter, is added, to take away all scruple, that this Charter or Grant should live, and take effect for ever. And which is not unworthy your observation, 
12 Hen. 3. p. 23.  in our printed Statutes, there is an heavy Curse denounced against all those, who shall break this great Charter.  
And now if you grant (which I think you will not deny) that this Charter is a part of our Law, than I hope, it will follow, that by our Law, the Lands of the Church or of Bishops, may not be sold or alienated.  
You have seen what the Charter hath granted the Bishops, as Churchmen; 
Chap. 19  now consider what the same Charter grants them as freeborn Subjects of the Kingdom: Nullus liber homo, saith it, capiatur, vel imprisonetur, vel disseisiatur de libero Tenemento suo, vel libertatibus, vel liberis consuetudinibus suis, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terrae. Where the Interpreter expounds, 1. Who is a freeman: 2. What disseising is: 3. What is the Law of the Land. To the first he saith, That every freeborn Subject is meant here to be a freeman. To the second, to be disseised, saith he, is to be put out of his seisin, or dispossessed of his freehold, that is, lands or livelihood. To the third, by the Law of the Land, saith he, that is, either by the Common Law, or the Statute Law, or the Custom of England. And for further explanation adds, by the Law of the Land, is understood by process of Law, by indictment or presentment of good and lawful men: And all this, saith he, is no new Law or grant, but it is only declaratory of the Law of England. And this, saith he, should admonish Parliaments, that in stead of this precious trial by the Law of the Land, they bring not in absolute, and partial trials by discretion.   

CHAP. VIII. That it is against the Prudence, and Justice of the King; and against his lawful Oath.  
AS the selling Bishops Lands is against our Laws, which the two Houses, and Kingdom, by their several Declarations, Protestations, and Covenants, have solemnly bound themselves to maintain; so it is against the King's Prudence, against his Justice, and against his lawful and just Oath.  
It is against the King's Prudence to divest, and rob himself of those Immunities, 
25 Hen. 8.20. 26 Hen. 8.3. and 1 Eliz. 4. 14 Ed. 3.4. & 5  Rights, Profits, and Revenues, which the Law of this Land hath settled in the Crown: as, Collation of Bishoprics, First-fruits, and Tenths.  
It is against the King's Justice, to take or make that away from his Heirs and Successors, which by our Laws are justly and rightly granted unto them; and these Rights the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland have sworn to maintain.  
It is against his Justice, to do, or suffer it to be done, in respect of the Bishops, to whom the King, as the fountain of Justice, is bound to see Justice done, (as to his Subjects in general;) 
2. Institut. 1.  but then, considering, from Sr Edward Coke, that by our old Law-books, the Church is ever under age, and in the custody or guardian-ship of the King, who is bound to maintain and defend the Rights and Inheritances of the Church, and that it cannot be agreeable to Right and Justice, that Pupils under age, through the negligence, or default of the Guardians should suffer loss, or disinheritance, I pray, well weigh, whether it will not amount even to a crying sin in the King, to do, or suffer such an injustice to be done to his Pupil, the Church, destitute of all help on earth, save only what she may justly expect from the King? Solomon the wisest King on earth, from the Spirit of God hath spoken it; Enter not into the fields of the Fatherless, for their Redeemer is mighty, and he shall plead their cause with thee. 
Prov. 23.10, 11  And when you well consider and weigh, what an Oath the King hath taken at his Coronation, you cannot, I believe, acquit the King of a flat perjury, if he shall assent to the selling away of the Bishop's Lands.  
But what I shall urge in this point, is not so much to inform the King, (who I am verily persuaded by the illumination of God's Spirit, his frequent reading the holy Scriptures, and by the Principles received from his most religious and learned Father, of ever blessed memory, is so fully satisfied and resolved, that neither height nor depth, nor any creature, shall be able to separate or deter him, from the just defence of the Church;) as to let the world see, that it was not (as some ignorantly, and uncharitably may term it) pertinacity in the King, not to assent to the destruction of the Church established, but the dictate of a good conscience rightly informed. And that it may well be so, be pleased to hear and consider what, how, to whom, where, when, the King swears. For being to be Crowned King of England, in the convention or presence of his Nobles, Clergy, and People in the Church, the Bishop asks the King; Sir, will you grant, and keep, and by your Oath confirm the Laws, Customs, and Franchises granted to the Clergy, according to the Laws of God? The King answers, I grant and promise to keep them. Then the Bishop speaks to the King; Our Lord and King, we beseech you to grant and preserve to us, and to the Churches committed to our charge, all Canonical Privileges, and due Laws, and Justice; and that you would protect, and defend us, as every good King ought to be a Protector and Defender of the Bishops, and Churches under his Government. The King answers, with a willing and devout heart, I promise, and grant, that I will preserve, and maintain to you, and the Churches committed to your charge, all Canonical Privileges, and due Law, and Justice; and that I will be your Protector, and Defender, to my power, by the assistance of God, as every good King in his Kingdom, by right aught to protect and defend the Bishops, and Churches under his government.  
Then the King at the Communion Table, makes a solemn Oath, in the sight of all the people, laying his hand upon the holy Book, and saith: The things that I have before promised, I shall perform, and keep: So help me God, and the contents of this Book.  
Now, I beseech you all good Christians, judge whether this be not an Oath, able, with fear and reverence, to bind the King to the performance? For 1. it is taken by the King, God's Anointed. 2. In God's House, the holy Church. 3. At God's holy Table. 4. Upon God's holy Book. 5. Tendered by God's Ministers, the Bishops. 6. In the presence, sight and hearing of God's people. 7. To defend God's servants the Bishops, and the Church. 8. With the imprecation of God's curses, and forfeiture of God's blessings, in case of not performance: so that, if ever Oath could truly be called the Oath of God, this is it.  
And yet, if I mistake not, there is somewhat more that adds strength to the Obligation of this Oath; and that is, That it is upon a contract betwixt the King and the Bishops; for so the Oath is tendered to the King, by, and for the Bishops: and from such a Contract and Oath, if just and lawful, (as this is) who can absolve, but he alone, who is concerned, and to, and for whom the Oath and Contract is made, which are only God, and the Bishops?  
I have cast mine eye upon a Treatise touching the King's Oath, published by Order, and written by Mr Geree, Preacher of God's Word at Saint Alban: wherein he goes about to persuade, that the King, without impeachment of his Oath at his Coronation, may assent to the abolishing of Episcopacy. I cannot, without a great digression, answer his Arguments, which might easily be done from his own words and grounds: but in stead thereof, I shall set down his own words, whence I hope it will appear clearly, that the King cannot, saving that his Oath, assent to the selling away the Church Lands.  
His words are these, The intention of that Oath is not against Legal ways of change, but against invasion of the Rights of the Clergy. So that, if selling the Lands of the Church be such an invasion, than he professeth, that the King by his Oath, is bound from it: and whether it be so or no in his sense and judgement, hear himself speak in the same Treatise, where he expressly saith; To abolish Prelacy, and to seize the lands of Prelates to any private, or civil interest, undoubtedly, could neither want stain, nor guilt. So that by the plain express verdict of this Preacher of God's Word, the King is proclaimed before hand, to be a man of a stained and guilty conscience, if he assent to the selling Church-Lands, according to the Ordinance: And I am confident, by the discourse I have had with the most able of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, that at the least three parts, if not all of them, are of the same judgement with this Preacher; and that they would openly profess as much, if they were put to answer the question.  
Object. But some perchance will say, that the King swears all this but to his power; and therefore, his power to defend Bishops being taken away, he is absolved from perjury.  
Answer. Too too many, I fear, there are, who by false lights have and will misled the best of Princes and men; and that this is a light of that kind, you will easily discern, when you consider, that the defence of the Bishops in this case, is only that the King give not his assent to the selling of Bishop's Lands: And who can say, but that this is in the King's power? For who can force him to speak? or to speak what another will? or that which is against his own will to speak? And therefore, if he do assent to the selling their lands, he defends them not to his power, and thereby falls into an irreparable perjury, and becomes liable to the punishments, due and threatened in God's Law: one place for many, 
Zach. 5.4.  Perjury shall remain in the midst of the house of him that sweareth falsely, and shall consume it; by which house is not only meant the material house of timber and stone, but (as often in Scripture) his wife, children, and posterity; it shall consume them. Yea, Mr Geree, above mentioned, confesseth, That the King by his Oath is bound to protect the Church, so far as he can, without sinning and being injurious: now in not assenting, against whom sins he, being not bound by any Law to assent? Whereas, if he do assent, he is palpably injurious to the Church; and therefore this Author concludes thus, Then the King, at the worst, is to get the Clergies assent: Wherein he seems to imply, that without that, the King justly may not give his assent; and he gives his reason for it in the same place; where he saith, The King may not engage himself against the Laws, and legal Rights of others: For that were (saith he) not cedere jure suo but alieno, to give away another man's right, which is unjust.  
Will you give me leave to put you a Scripture case? The Gibeonites, (by Nation, Heathen; by Religion, Idolatrous,) by fraud and a lie, gain from Joshua, and the Princes of Israel, a promise to protect them; 
Josh. 9  Now observe, although this promise was fraudulently obtained, and rashly made, without ask God's counsel, or the consent of the people; yea, although it was against that which was enjoined Israel, (which was to destroy all the Nations,) how zealous God is, that an Oath be kept, which is made in his Name, for his honour, and whereof he is a witness; That, because Saul broke this League or Covenant with the Gibeonites, above three hundred years after, when a man would hardly have conceived that King Saul had been bound to performance of it; 
2 Sam. 21.  I say, for the breach of that fraudulently got, and rashly made Covenant, God puisheth the whole land with a famine for three years, year after year; and yet would not be pacified, without the hanging up of almost all saul's posterity. And if God be so severe a Judge, in such a case as this; what can the King, or this Land expect from heaven, if he should, after much consultation, long deliberation, and the many protestations, (as I am informed) that it is against his conscience, violate so just, so holy an Oath as this?  
But, I trust, the King, though he had never taken such an Oath, will in his frequent reading Gods holy Word, consider that act (before mentioned) of King Pharaoh, who, 
Gen. 47.  in that greatest case of extremity, famine, would not then suffer the Priests lands to be sold; and the rather I hope the King will remember and consider that act of Pharaoh, 
1 King. 2.26.  because the Bishops (as K. Solomon spoke of Abiathar the high Priest) have bean afflicted in all as the King.  
Faith, saith our old Protestant Religion, s to be kept with Idolaters and Heretics, whom we hold the worst of men; and must a pious Protestant King be forced to break it with the best of his Subjects? O how will the enemies of our Religion blaspheme for this! and what King, or Nation, will hereafter trust our King, who in breaking so just, and solemn an Oath, as that at his Coronation, will rob his God, lose his faith, forfeit his soul, destroy agoodly flourishing Church, and utterly undo them, who have hazarded all, thereby to keep loyalty, and a good conscience? I close this point with this wish, that all they who press the King, contrary to his Oath, to assent to the alienation of Bishop's Lands, would remember that Justice Trisilian was hanged for causing, 
Speed Chron. in Rich. 2.  or procuring the King to break his Oath; as it hath been often urged in this Parliament.   

CHAP. IX. One and twenty Arguments, which are brought in defence of or colour for such Alienation, are answered.  
BUt avarice, pride, ill affections, or finister ends, I fear (notwithstanding what hath, or may further be alleged) will urge, what I shall here endeavour to answer.  
Argum. 1 God is not the proprietary of Bishop's Lands, more than he is of the whole Creation; and therefore, we may as well sell those, as any other lands in the Kingdom.  
'tis true, The earth is the Lords, and the fullness thereof; 
Resp. Psa. 24.11.  all are Gods by Creation, Providence, and Preservation; yet when God hath given them to man, they are the man's, and he in our Law language is become the Proprietary; which is no more than Sir Edward Coke saith, What is given to Churchmen, is given to God, and it is then Gods. Yea, in God's word, 
Instit. 2. c. 1.  Saint Peter saith of Ananias his land, While it was thine own, was it not in thine own power? 
Acts 5.4.  But when men shall give this again to God and that God accepts it, than it is as plainly Gods again, and God is the Proprietary of it, as of his own. Proved likewise from the same Text, where after Ananias his dedication, Saint Peter saith, that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with a lie deceive God, 
Ver. 3.  in that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, purloin or cheat God of that which was now become Gods. Yea, and Christ accepting as his, what was given to his Disciples and Apostles, makes himself, by the acceptation thereof, a Proprietary of that too; 
Mat. 25.40.  so he professeth, In that ye have given meat and drink to these my Brethren, ye have given it to me; and what is given to me, is mine, as well as what I might have purchased, or might come to me by descent; 
Mat. 10.1.  and that by these Brothren, may rightly be understood his Disciples and Apostles, read Chap. 10. 1. where he calls his twelve Disciples, whom he sends to preach; and then in the close, speaking of them, he saith, Who receiveth you, 
Ver. 40.  receiveth me. And accordingly, Saint Paul, as I before proved, maketh Sacrilege, or taking away holy things, a breach of the first Table, which concerneth God: which could not be, unless God were the Proprietary, and owner of them; but of such disputers, I may say as Christ did of those Jews, 
Mark 12.24.  Do you not err, because you know not the Scriptures, nor the power of God? What need we plainer proof than our own Law, when as the great Charter speaking now in the name of King and people in Parliament saith, We have granted to God, etc.  
Argum. 2 But the great Charter, on which the Bishops so much rely, was probably penned, or gained by Bishops, and it was granted in time of Popery, and savours too much of it.  
Resp. If the great Charter were obtained or penned by Bishops, I know not but all Englishmen should rather commend, then blame them for it; for it is the best flower in England's garden: and I presume, it savours not of Popery, but to such as have their senses stopped, or themselves ill affected. But if there be any Popery proved in the Grant, take that away in God's name, but let the Rights and the Lands continue; for I know not how these can be capable of Popery: But will all others who receive benefit by that Charter, hold it null, because granted in time of Popery? I trow not. That which silences all such cavils, is that, as before it is proved, this Charter was, and is but the declaration, and confirmation of the ancient Law of this Kingdom, and therefore aught to hold and bind. and then let me add, the first Impropriations in England were in time of Popery, and by Popes, who of 9284. Parishes, impropriated the Tithes of 3845. of the best of them; which Tithes now for the most part, are in Lay hands. And thou that abhorrest Popery, committest thou Sacrilege? For we say, the Receiver is worse than the Thief: Or why rather abhorrest not thou that act? And why restorest not thou the Tithes being Sacrilegiously taken?  
Argum. 3 But these, or many of these Lands of the Bishops, were given as by superstitious men, and in superstitious times, so to superstitious uses.  
Resp. Who doubts not but many good, lawful, and religious acts, may have been performed in superstitious times, and by superstitious persons? Time or person do not, I am sure should not, denominate the act simply good or ill. But was King Lucius, who An. 176. gave the Church in England Lands, was he superstitious? Or those times such? Who can prove it? But which are the superstitious uses in Bishop's lands? Are they Preaching, keeping Hospitality, doing acts of Piety, Justice, Charity, paying the King his due, and serving the Public? For I find no worse. But grant there were some superstitious uses in the first Grant, yet why shall the lands be taken and sold, if the abuses be by the Bishops, or other ways taken away? And Mr Geree before mentioned, pag. 19 saith it, What was Antichristian, and contrariant to the Laws of this Land, was taken from the Church in the reign of King Henry the Eighth. And though the impulsive cause of giving some lands might be ill, (as to pray for the souls of the dead, or the like) yet the final cause being good, as given to God, why not separate the ill, (take away praying for the dead and the like) all which is done, and yet continue the good, the keeping the Lands for God's Honour and Service? For read you not that the bullock which was set apart for the Sacrifice of Baal, 
Judg. 6.26.  yet Gideon sacrificed it to the Lord, because it was not then in state Idolatrous? Things, I confess, which have and retain the matter, form, and dependence on Idols, (as having the badge of Idolatry) these are not to be offered or continued to God and his Service; which Bishops Lands neither had, nor have, no not so much as is continued in the City of London's Arms, or some great men's Coats; they have not so much as a Cross on them. But if all should be taken away, that hath been given to superstitious uses, what would become of our Churches? and if all abolished that hath been abused, what would become of our Pulpits, Communion Tables, Sacraments? yea, of Parliaments, or that most adored piece of God's Service, Preaching? 
Exod. 23.2.  In a word, the censers are by wicked persons, to as wicked ends, abused by Korah, and his complices; what then? are they therefore sold, or turned into pots, kettles, or the like? (the like whereof hath been done in our times) no, but they were by Gods own ordinance, preserved in their holy kind: 
Ver. 18.  and that because, as it is expressed in the Text, They were hallowed to the Lord.  
Argum. 4 But the King, it is said, is bound to confirm what the two Houses have decreed; and they have ordained the selling of the Bishop's Lands.  
Resp. I shall pass by that so often fully answered, (Elegerint,) and shall confidently say, that the King is no more bound to assent to what they decree, than they are bound to decree, and to sell the Bishop's Lands, to which they are not bound, if the thing be not just and agreeable to the Law of God and man: which whether so or no, 
Chap. 4, 5, 6.  I desire you consider what is before expressed. The Precept of God, I hope, in your judgements holds, 
Exod. 23.2.  Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil: again, if that, which appears good and just to the two Houses, be evil in the conscience of the King, the King is not bound, nay he ought not to join with the two Houses: for Protestants, as they rightly hold no salvation by implicit faith; so neither that one man's conscience should ride upon the back of another: so that, although some in Parliament may in part be excused in doing that which is not just, through the false guidance of an erring conscience; yet the King in doing the same thing, against the light of his conscience, may sin; whereupon further it may become a fearful sin by any tentation of promises, threats, restraints, to draw or drive the King to assent to what his conscience forbids him to do.  
Again, the case betwixt the King and the two Houses, in selling the Bishop's Lands, is very different; for the King is bound by Oath to the Bishops to maintain them, and their Rights, in their lands and possessions, according to Law and Justice: to which the two Houses stand not alike, and so deeply obliged; whereupon it follows, I conceive, that though the two Houses might, (the contrary whereof is before proved) yet the King ought not to give his assent.  
Lastly, 
1 Jac. 3. Coke Instit. 4.  the King (as the Act of Parliament styles him) is the Patron of the Bishop's Lands; and our Common Law makes him the Church's Guardian; and is the King bound to follow others, who have not the like charge or duty on them? and so defraud a Pupil, whom by Gods and man's Law, his own Oath, and conscience, he is bound to defend and maintain? The Bishop doing fealty, the King holds the Bishop's hands betwixt his own; which, saith Sr Edward Coke from Bracton, Britton, and others, shows, that the King promiseth him protectionem, 
Instit. 1. p. 1. Sect. 85.  defensionem, & warrantiam: And adds, that this the King promiseth to him, not as to a Subject, but as to a Bishop; and not to his person alone, but to his possessions. And this Sr Edward Coke calls Foedus from Fides, and terms it Sacramentum Fidelitatis: which therefore the King may not, upon other men's judgements and consciences, break. Consider, I pray, what the wisest King on earth counselled all Kings, and others; Be not rash with thy mouth, 
Eccles. 5.2, 4.  and let not thy heart be hasty to utter any thing or word before God: but when thou vowost a vow to God, defer not to pay it, for he hath no pleasure in fools, pay that which thou hast vowed. And which comes home to the vow and thing vowed, It is a snare to devour holy things, 
Prov. 25.20.  and after the vow to make enquiry, i.e. how to break it.  
Argum. 5 But the King hath assented to as much in Scotland, thereby to gratify his people there; and why not then to do as much for his Parliament in England?  
Resp. It cannot be denied, but that the best of Kings, as of other men, have had their lapses; but they are so far from being bound, after the sight and sense of an error, to fall into the same again; that on the contrary, they are obliged to repent, and eschew the like for ever. 2. What the King, in that case, there hath done, whether it were voluntary or compulsory, suddenly or deliberately, I cannot tell; only this I say, if through passion, ill counsel, or the like, he did that once there, which should not have been done: it follows not that he may or should do the like again, or here. But 3. we are to understand whether the Bishops stood so enstated in their lands in that Kingdom, as the Bishops do in England. 4. But especially to know, whether the King stood bound to God, the Bishops, the Kirk of Scotland, by the same, or such Contracts, Oaths, Charters, as he stands in England; wherein if there be a difference, as I verily persuade myself there is, than it will not follow, the King did it in Scotland, therefore he may or should do it in England.  
Argum. 6 Yet Parliaments have alienated Bishops Lands, whereby they may plead it as a Privilege to do the like.  
Resp. I cannot say that one Act, (scarce an hundred years old) can make or warrant a Privilege; for no just Privilege can be induced, but upon acts rightly and lawfully grounded: And Mr Calvin from Saint Gregory saith, 
De neces. refor. Eccles. Chap. 4, 5, 6.  Privilegium meretur amittere, qui Privilegio abutitur. So that if it be true (which I laid down before,) that it is a sin to alienate such Lands, than à factoad jus non sequitur Argumentum: it hath been unjustly done, therefore it may be lawfully done, a Ploughman will say holds not. Now to affix, or conceive an inerrability in a Parliament, is, I hope, more than the Parliament will assume to themselves; we Protestants have denied it to the Church of Rome; 
Ball. Catoples.  nay, their own greatest Jesuits disclaim it in matter of fact. But if a hundred years since, the King in Parliament used this power to alienate Church Lands, yet not much above forty years ago, 
1 Jac. 3.  in King James his time, the Parliament, without the King, waved the having any such power or privilege; For that Act shows, that the two Houses in Parliament, had not power to hinder Bishops from making Leases to the Crown, for above one and twenty years, or three lives; and how in this short time, the Power and Privilege is so vastly increased, I know not, except it be by the Sword, which kind of Power, as it was never held the best, so it hath not ever proved long lived, or, I am sure, not ever peaceful. Belshazzar might have argued thus, I use but those holy vessels, which my father in a lawful war, hath gained from a common enemy, and left them so to me his Heir and Successor. And did not the rebellious Israelites seem to plead the like? 
Mal. 3.  We do but detain the Offerings as our Fathers have done before us. And doth God admit of these? No, their Prescription he useth as an aggravation of their offence, saying, From the days of your Fathers ye have departed from mine Ordinance: 
Ver. 7. Dan. 5. Mal. 3.11.  and therefore, hear God's sentence on both Belshazzar and Israel; where the King is punished with loss of the Empire, and a sudden fearful death; and Israel is strooke with a lamentable destroying famine; and such are Gods just rewards upon unjust Privileges, and unlawful Prescriptions.  
Argum. 7 But a Parliament may take away any man's lands in the Kingdom; for this is an inherent, and inseparable power of Parliaments.  
Resp. The Rule is good, Id possumus, quod jure & justè possumus: We are not truly said, to may, or can do any thing, but that which we can, or may justly do: Now, if it be, (as before I proved) against Gods, and man's Law, and Justice, to sell away Bishop's Lands, than the Parliament may not do it. For the Parliament, this Parliament often hath declared, and sworn to maintain the Laws of this Kingdom, which are utterly against such Alienation. The Jews are told, 
1 Sam. 8.  the King shall take their sons, their fields, etc. and they shall find no help: What, I pray, is the sense and extent of that power in the King? Is it, that by his just Right he might do all that is spoken of him in that Chapter; because it is said, 
Ver. 10.  this will be the manner and custom of the King so to do? Ask the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, and I doubt not but they will tell you, that if that, King, and Sanedrin, and all Israel, jointly go beyond the Word of God, and the Laws prescribed to them, all their power could not save them from the guilt of sin, nor reprieve them from God's severe wrath.  
When the lands were given, as most were, in the Saxon Kings times, I dare say, it cannot be proved, that there was such power in the Nobility and people, as to sell away the Church-Lands: for the first large Grant or power of Parliaments, was in Henry the Third's time; and the same King it was, that granted the Charter, wherein is expressed, that the Rights of the Church shall be ever inviolable: Now if that Charter, and those Parliaments say, the Rights of the Church in special, cannot, may not, by any power, be violated or taken away; do they yet grant such a power to Parliaments to take those Rights away, and so expressly contradict themselves? And can you conceive that King Henry the Third, who first granted that Charter, and gave the right Power to Parliaments, would have suffered the two Houses, yea, or that himself, would after that Grant, made to the Church, have decreed, that he might justly use the power of Parliament to sell those Lands? Or can you conceive, that those Kings who gave the Bishop's Lands, (for so it is said, that the Kings of England gave them,) and that with such curses on their Successors, or any who should dare to alienate, or sell them, ever meant they should be sold? And tell me, I pray, for I am to learn, where ever good and lawful Parliament, did ever take away any single man's whole estate, though it were to pay the Public debt, or for Public use, except it were in a legal course? And can you conceive, that the two Houses may do that to the inheritance of God, the Patronage of the King, and the Rights of the Church, which they cannot do to him, who hath yielded up his assent, by giving his Vote to his Proxy in Parliament; which neither God, the King, nor the Church hath done, 
Pag. 700.  in this Parliament? I pray you consider, that in the Book of your Declarations, it is said, That the Rights of Public trust, are not to the prejudice of any man's particular interest.  
Argum. 8 And if it be yet urged, that Parliaments may change the municipal Laws of this Kingdom; and therefore, much more, this of the Title, or Tenure of Bishop's Lands.  
Resp. I think, I may rightly answer, that the King, and all the people of England, by a mutual assent, may change the general Laws, or such Laws, as they hold sitting and convenient to be altered, for their better good; for here is neither injury, nor injustice to any; but yet special Laws, which concern the good of some in special, (I conceive with humble submission) may not justly be changed, except it be by the assent, personal Vote, or Proxy, of those interessed: none of which can here be said of the Church, or Bishops; or unless some offence liable to such a penalty hath demerited such a sentence or change of that special Law; and that no such offence hath been committed deserving such a penalty, I presume to be true, for that the Bishops have not been legally accused, heard and tried, which was ever the ordinary and right course used by the Hebrews, Romans, and all Religious, good, and Civil Nations; and which is the Law of this Kingdom, 
Ch. 14. & 29.  as is expressed in the great Charter. But, I fear, these two last Arguments, and many more such, are built on sands, which washed, or driven away with a little wind, all the building falls to the ground: for they take it for granted, that the two Houses, or rather that some Lords Temporal and Commons make the Parliament; for the discovery whereof, I pray consider, 1. The conception: 2. The birth: 3. The growth and strength of Parliaments.  
In the Saxon times, when the seed or conception of Parliaments was, at the making, confirming, or witnessing Laws, seldom is there any mention, but of the King, and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, (except the King's Servants, aldermans, 
Spelm. Concil.  some wise men, etc.) Nay, when our Parliaments first were borne, in the nineth and twentieth of Henry the Third, there is no mention then, but of the King, and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal. Yea, at the Grant of the great Charter, there is only mention of one and thirty Lords Spiritual, and two and thirty Lords Temporal, 
Coke Proem. to 2 Instit. Mat. Par. p. 435 Id. pag. 580. & 581. Id. p. 636.  in the one and twentieth of King Henry the Third, in Parliament at Westminster. And in the one and thirtieth of Henry the Third at London, which were for the relief of the distressed Kingdom, yet there were only mentioned, the King, and the whole Nobility of the Kingdom: viz. the Bishops, Prelates, Earls and Barons. But in the two and fiftieth of Henry the Third, say our printed Statutes, The King providing for the Estate of this Realm, the more discreet men of the Kingdom being called, as well of the higher, as the lower estate, the King hath made these Acts, Ordinances, and Statutes, which he willeth to be observed of all for ever: And so the forms of Acts in Parliament ran, The King willeth, provideth, ordaineth, granteth. In the 31 Henry 6.1. The King ordains, by the advice and assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons being in the said Parliament. In 1 Rich. 3.6. The Commons prayeth, that it may please the King to ordain. 1. Eliz. 3. We the Lords Spiritual, and Temporal, and Commons, representing the three Estates of the Realm of England, make our humble petition to your Highness: 
Ch. of Parl. fol. 1  Whereupon, saith Sr Edward Coke, Without these three, Lords Spiritual, and Temporal, and Commons, no Act of Parliament can be good; and rightly, for as all the Freemen in England have Votes, so the Bishop's vote for themselves, and all the Churchmen in England. And thereupon, if they have no Votes in Parliament, then either they are the only slaves, and no Freemen; or else those Churchmen are not bound by these Laws: it being a Maxim in our Law, that no man is bound to that Law, wherein he had no Vote in person, or by Proxy; which no Bishop, and I think no Churchman, hath now in this Parliament.  
But, not to dispute this, though agreeable to all Law, Justice, and Reason; yet sure it cannot be rightly called a Parliament, or any Act therein binding, without the King's Royal assent: for as in a natural body, so in this, no life, nor motion without a Head, which is the King; yea, therefore he is called Principium, 
4 Part Instit. s. 3, 4.  Caput, Finis Parliamenti: because, without the King, or his Royal assent, it is no binding Act. See but one Act for many, 1 Jac. 1. where it is thus said, We the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, beseech your Majesty, etc. which if your Majesty shall be pleased to adorn with your Majesty's Royal assent, without which it can neither be complete and perfect, 
In answer to Judge Jenkin.  nor remain to posterity. And 1. C●r. 7. the two Houses beseech the King, to give his Royal assent to such Bills as they then passed; and H. P. confesses, (which was never denied till of late, and that but by some) that no Acts of Parliament can be complete, or formally binding, without the King's ●●ent. And so Mr Prynne affirms, 
Power of Parl. f. 47. Ib. fol. 104. In his Vindication. p. 6.  that the King's assent is generally requisite to pass Laws, and ratify them. And Judge Jenkins, that undaunted Champion of our Laws, affirms, that in all ages, without any controversy, this hath held so, that no Act of Parliament binds the Subject of this Land, without the assent of the King, either for person, lands, goods, or same; and refers you to Sir Edward Coke, where many Law-books are cited to that purpose. 
1 part Ins●it. sect. 234.   
The ignorant or wilful mistake of divers, holding the two Houses, and their Ordinances, to be truly called Parliaments, and Acts of Parliaments; as it hath deceived many in their consciences, and of their lives, so may it in this of their moneys, if not timely foreseen, and prevented.  
Argum. 9 But, though the King, in his natural capacity and power, be personally absent from the two Houses, yet his Politic power and capacity, is virtually in them; and therefore, what the two Houses ordain, must as necessarily bind, as if the King were personally present with them.  
Resp. In answer to this, I pray consider, what that great Lawyer Mr Plowden, and Sir Edward Coke, have determined for Law; 
Comment. f. 21●. & 242. In Calv. Case.  and they say, that the Natural, and the Politic body of the King, make but one body; for as long as the Natural body lives, the Politic is inherent in it, this being a thing imaginary, and invisible. And, I pray, consider how well our Law may be called Holy, in that it agrees so well with Gods own holy Law; 
Rom. 13.1, 2.  for so Saint Paul speaking of the Politic power not to be resisted, settles this power in the person of the King, to whom it belongeth, when he saith, 
Ver. 3. Ver. 4.  Wilt thou not fear the power? then do that which is good, for He, not they, is the Ruler, and He, not they, it the Minister of God. And Saint Peter differs not, but rather declares the same, when he thus speaks; 
1 Pet. 2.13, 14.  Submit yourselves to the King as supreme; and, honour the King: and what can hence be less inferred than this, that the power, whereby he is a King, and his Supremacy, whereby he is above all, naturally resteth in the person of the King? and therefore, he is to be honoured for his power, and he to be submitted unto, because he is King and Supreme.  
Now, can any man reasonably conceive, that this power being an essential accident inhering in the King, shoul● without the King's consent and will, vanish from its own proper subject, and be of itself truly inherent in another subject, which is not capable of such an accident? I say not capable, for the two Houses being and remaining Subjects, witness their own usual stile, We Your Majesty's humble Subjects, are not a subject capable of Supremacy, in that Supremacy and Subjection are opposite Relatives; and therefore cannot be, at one and the same time, in one and the same subject.  
The King, I grant, though bodily absent, yet may be present representatively, in the two Houses, speaking either by his great Seal, or by his Commissioners, by himself appointed, which hath been often used in our Parliaments: but to say, that his power is in the two Houses, without his will, or grant, is all one, as if we should say, the influence of the Sun should be inherent in the earth, without the natural inclination or motion of the Sun: seeing that as no body can be the proper subject wherein that influence doth naturally inhere, but the Sun; so no body, nor persons, can be the proper subject to contain, and hold Royal Power and Supremacy, but the person of the King, or they to whom he will, as the Sun, dispense the rays or influence thereof.  
And if it hath been, or now may otherwise be, why, I pray, both now, as heretofore, have, and do the two Houses supplicate, desire, crave, and beseech the King, to give his Royal assent, which naturally ariseth from that his Politic capacity and power, thereby to make that Law, without which Royal assent, no man worthy the name of a Lawyer, ever held that any Bill, Decree, or Ordinance, was of force to bind the Subject, as to a standing and continuing Law? which is plainly showed in Answer to the Argument next before. But, notwithstanding that an Act made by the King, Lords, and Commons, doth bind; yet if that Act be (as I before have proved this Ordinance of selling the Church-Lands to be) against Gods and man's Laws, it is to be repealed, because it is unlawful and unjust, so to ordain or enact; and the Parliament should do nothing against Law and Justice.  
Argum. 10 I have read this Argument in print, that God no where commands such Lands to be given, or Bishops to hold them; and therefore, where no breach of a Commandment is, there is no sin.  
Resp. It appears, that King David intended to build an house to the Lord, but the Lord would not that David should build it; and yet the Lord said, David did well, 
1 Reg 8.17, 18, 19  that it was in his heart to do it: God commended, and accepted of David's act, although that act were not where commanded to King David. And in Ezra, mention is made of the free-will-offerings of those, who offered willingly for the House of the Lord: 
Ezra 1.3. & 7.  whereas elsewhere, under the Law, the general precept for Free-will-offerings to God, his House, and Servants, is avowed to be a part of God's Service, although the particular offerings, of what, how much, is left, un-commanded, to every man's liberty, to give this or that, more or less, as God shall put into his heart. And although there be no particular command to this or that man, to give this or that to God's Service, and Honour, yet under the general Precepts, 
Prov. 3.9. Luke 6.38.  Honour the Lord with thy substance; and, Give, and it shall be given unto you; there is warrant enough, if not Precept, according to every man's ability, freely to give, and offer to God for his Honour and Service, whether by money, lands, or other goods. Let me a●● Where doth Christ command the Jews and Gentiles, to feed and cloth his Disciples and Apostles? What then? Were they not to do it? And Saint Paul calls the Corinthians Offerings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
1 Cor. 16.3. Luke 22.1.  liberality; and the Corban of the Jews, as before cited, was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, gifts; now gifts and liberalities are free-offerings, and not duties of command. And saith not Christ, 
Luke 17.9, 10.  Doth he thank that servant that did the things commanded? I trow not. He who will allow God no more than what commanded, shall in this rob God of his offerings, the Donors of their reward, and his servants of their relief: and it would prove a pestilent Jewish opinion, and too great an enemy to Christianity; which consists, as in voluntary sufferings, so in voluntary offerings, above that which is in special commanded. To conclude, the Ministers under the Gospel hold not their lands by any special command or Precept from God, but by free-gift of the Donor, man, and by the divine acceptation of God in Christ, which is sufficient in this case.  
Argum. 11 But why then had not the Apostles, or their immediate successors, such lands, as well as these Bishops?  
Resp. The answer is plain and easy; the reason why the Apostles had not such lands, was not because the Apostles, or that God would not have accepted them: for sure, that God, that accepted of the feeding and clothing them, would not have denied them a perpetual certain maintenance: nor was it, because the Christians to their abilities, 
Act. 4. Gal. 1.15.  would not have given them lands, as it may appear by that story in the Acts, and by that of Saint Paul, I bear you record, that you would have plucked out your eyes to have given them to me. But one reason Saint Chrysosto●e gives, that in the first planting of the Gospel, the Jews or Gentiles might perchance have supposed, that the Apostles had preached rather for the gain of their wealth, then for the salvation of their souls: and who knows, but that Saint Paul to that end spoke that sentence, 
2 Cor. 12.14.  I seek not yours but you.  
But, because the Fathers of the Primitive Church are not heard in these times, I desire you to hear Saint Paul, who for himself, and the other Apostles, gives a more full answer hereunto, 
1 Cor. 9.11. Ver. 12.  when he thus speaks; If we have sewen unto you spiritual ●●●●gs, is it a great thing, if we shall reap your carnal things? And then, If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless, we have not used this power, but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the Gospel of Christ. In which words, the Apostle evidently showeth, that the reaping, or maintenance, out of their carnal things, should be according to that which was sowed, viz. spiritual things: and what proportion of carnal things can compensate for things spiritual, let the spiritual, and not the carnal man judge. Now the full Answer to this Objection, (which S. Chrysestome might happily collect out of this Text) is this; though we the Apostles have power to require all this as due, (not of Alms, but morally, as the seventh Verse of that Chapter shows it) yet we use it not, lest we should hinder the Gospel of Christ thereby.  
And yet a second reason, that the Apostles had not lands for their maintenance, lay in the time, wherein the Apostles lived; who, at that time, had not only no continuing city, or certain place of abode, but wandered about, 
Heb. 11.37.  being afflicted and tormented. Again, the Romans, the chief lords of all, were so far from letting them enjoy any lands at that time, that they hardly afforded them the air, wherein to breath and live: distinguish therefore of times, for it holds both in Church and State, aliter in constitutâ vivitur, aliter in constituendâ. At first planting of either Church or State, there is neither the same Privilege, nor the same wealth, but each grow by God's blessing in time.  
And what is here spoken of the maintenance, may in part hold for the Government of the Church; that is, that when Saint Paul wrote (from whom the most is gathered, both for the Presbyterian and Independent) the Church was not then divided into Parishes and Provinces, no, nor into publicly known Congregations: and therefore, it being under bloody Persecution, it could not have the face of a visible Church: Whereupon, though then the Apostle, and Apostolical men, ordained by him, exercised Episcopal authority, yet it could not, nor indeed ought it to have been in that height of visible power; as no doubt Saint Paul himself would, and those Apostolical men did use it, so soon as God had added greater numbers to the Church, and given them favour with the Civil Magistrate: the Apostle, both for that, and all succeeding times, leaving this one general Rule, 
1 Cor. 14.40.  Let all things be done decently, and in order. And, can any indifferent man hold it just and reasonable, that, when all other men grow in state and wealth, the Churchmen alone should decrease, and be abused? What if I should urge to any Gentleman or others: Your Predecessors, two or three hundred years since, had not such estates, therefore, neither should you, but be content with that which your Forefathers enjoyed? would you hold this Argument to be of force? I do not in your cases and, I pray, be you as just to us. But, that I be not too tedious, and irksome in this arguing, let me make an indifferent motion, (which may well serve for this Objection) be you now Christians, as they were in the times of the Apostles, and the Bishops will be very well content with such maintenance, as the Apostles had in the times of those Christians; for then the Christians sold their lands, and goods, and laid the price thereof at the Apostles feet: which if you hold unfit now to be done, as I do; then, I pray, conceive it as unreasonable to reduce them now to the indigency of the Apostles, when all the land besides, God be praised, enjoys plenty; which the two Houses have found, both in City and Country.  
Argum. 12 But other Reformed Churches have not such Lands, and why this in England, rather than they?  
Resp. Neither have they perchance Bells, or Chancels, etc. what then? Must these down in England therefore? 2. Perchance they had lands, but, as they complain, they are taken away by Church-robbers. 3. The time and state wherein they live, haply, will not so well bear it. But, 4. would not those Churches accept of Lands, if time, the State, and Benefactors would afford it? And is thine eye evil in Scotland, because God is good to us in England? The Commons in Germany and France, live like Boors and Peasants; and the Nobles in Russia and Turkey, like slaves, and vassals. Hold you this a good Argument, therefore it should be no otherwise in England? We are no more bound in England to live without Lands, because other Churches have none; then other Churches are bound to live upon lands, because we have them: every Church or State, are in these cases to be governed, and live by their own Laws and Customs; 
1 Cor. 11.16.  and hitherto, God be praised, We have no such Custom, no, nor all the Churches of God.  
Argum. 13 Some have argued, that the Lands given to Bishops in England, are held per Baroniam: which Baronies, with their Votes in Parliament, being taken away by an Act, the lands are, or may likewise be taken away.  
Resp. That they may likewise be taken away, as their Votes were in Parliament, or that by power they can be taken away, is not my dispute; but, whether they may justly, and lawfully be taken and sold: and then to your Argument, (though it be out of my sphere, so far as it is a title in Law) I submit this Answer. First, if that learned Antiquary, and diligent searcher of History and Records, 
G●●ssar. ad verbum, Ba●on.  Sir Henry Spelman, inform me right, than it cannot hold, that all Bishops in England hold their lands by, or in the right of their Baronies; for he affirms, that the title of Baron was not known in England, till the time of William the Conqueror; whereas most, I dare say of some Bishop's lands, were given, some one, some two, some three, some four hundred years before the Conqueror's time; and then judge, whether those lands were given to hold per Baroniam!  
Again, the same Author says, that in England there were three sorts of Barons; the first, who were made by William the Conqueror, and these hold their Honours and Places in all Courts, by Prescription, rather than by Tenure; and were therefore called, Barones Praescriptitii. The second sort were called Rescriptitii, who, in the time of Henry the Third, were called by Writ to the King's Courts. The third sort called Diplomatici, who by the King's Patents, were first created in the time of Henry the Second, and in that right had their places. Now, can any say, but, that ever since there have been great Councils in England, the Bishops had their places there, and so were to hold them by Prescription, rather than by Tenure? And if by the great Charter, the Rights and Liberties of the Church be inviolable, i. e. such as rightly cannot be broken; then this Right, Custom, or Privilege, cannot justly be taken away. I conceive this true, that the two Kings, Williams, Father and Son, and after them King Henry the Second, out of spleen, ambition, or avarice, have impaired the first ancient Dignity of Bishops in England; and may have changed some of their Lands, to be held per Baro●iam, which at first were granted in puram & perp●tuam El●emosynam: Whereupon, Sir Henry Spelman calls the now Bishops, Barones Eleemosynaries: yet doth it follow, that, if some have unjustly changed their Tenure, therefore, others more unjustly, may take away their Lands? Had it been ill in David to have cut off the lap of saul's garment, might he therefore have killed the King?  
The case then, as I conceive it, is briefly this; The Saxon Kings, first chief Donors of much, if not of the most of the Bishop's Lands in England, gave, and confirmed them to be held, either in Franc-Almoigue, free from all Service, or for Divine Service, and they to hold them as God's Almes-men and Servants; and this continued to King Edward the Confessor: after which time, some Kings, (how justly judge you) as Conquerors of this Land, altered the Tenure; making some, or most of their Lands (yet not all, for two are excepted, Carble and Rochoster, so an ancient Register) to hold per Baroniam. After which, King Henry the Third, whether moved in conscience, or upon some other good causes, restored the Lands to their ancient just Rights, for his Charter could intent no less to the Church, it looking back to the time of Edward the Confessor at least. So that the Question is, whether the Lands of Bishops in England should now hold per Baroniam, as changed by the Conqueror, or his Successors, or as at first they were granted, and after restored by the great Charter, to their first Rights and Liberties, 
1 Part Instit. p. 94. 2. Instit. c. 1. Ibid.  which was either in Franc-Almeigne, or for Divine Service. Sr Edward Coke affirms this later; and further saith, By the great Charter, all the Rights are confirmed to the Church, and Churchmen, which they had before, or at their first Grant. And in the same place more fully saith, The Church shall be fres, i. e. freed: By which, saith he, a restitution is graved of all such Immunities, and Freedoms, as they enjoyed before, and to free them from all such changes, as have been usurped, and encroached upon, by any power whatsoever.  
And, I believe, that if the case were put concerning your own Lands, you would soon resolve, that they shouldhold as by the first Donors grant, and after by the great Charter confirmed, rather than by that imposition of a Conqueror. And why the same judgement should not be given on Bishope Lands, as on the Lands of other Freemen of England, I see not.  
Argum. 14 But some, to take a shorter course, will persuade, that to take and sell these Lands of the Bishops, is not Sacrilege; because theft is only in things movable, in which condition or acceptation, Lands cannot be understood.  
Resp. Sr Edward Coke citys the Canon Law, and approves of this, as agreeable to our Law, which saith, Wh●● things are gi●●● to the Church, 
2 Instit. p. 489.  are holy Offerings, whether they bears , or mobiles, whether they be movable or . Now doth our law say, there is no theft in things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only saith it, theft is in moveables? If this, and not that, than why (for the honour of our Law, that it may not appear to cross Gods) may we not say, that our Law hath only made theft in moveables punishable, because it doth not conceive, how land, in the proper and strict sense of robbing, can be taken away and stolen? But, because Sacrilege, or taking things , is not by our Law punishable, doth it therefore follow, that it is no sin or punishable by God's Law? Suppose we have no Law to punish an Atheist, an Idoater, one that takes God's Name in vain, who profanes the Lord's day, who dishonoureth his Parents, who tells or makes lies; are therefore, these no sins, punishable by the Law of God? And that by God's Law, defrauding God or man of immovables, (be it of Lands) is a sin; be pleased first to bethink yourself, 
1 King. 21.  whether King Ahah sinned in taking away Naboth's Vineyard, (an , I conceive, in your sense and acceptation) and if he sinned in this, than what Commandment broke he? Was it not the eighth, which saith, Thou shalt not steal? And then doth it not plainly follow, that theft may be in immovables? And that God may be rob of immovables, which is Sacrilege? And doth not God by his Prophet Ezekiel, speaking, not only of Tithes and Offerings, but of the holy Lands, say, 
Ezek. 48.14.  Thou shalt not sell, nor alienate them? which to do, is Sacrilege.  
Argum. 15 But, now follows the Argument, which will admit no Answer: There is a necessity lies upon the State to sell the Bishop's Lands; for, without it, the public debts cannot be paid: and without yielding to this, the Church and State are in hazard to be utterly ruined; for till this be done, there will be no peace in the Land.  
Resp. Indeed, we say, necessity hath no law; and it is a sad oase, that without, or against Law, divine, or humane, nedessity must sweep all before it; but, before I answer fully, will you give me leave to ask you a Question or two? 1. How, and by whom is this necessity brought on? 2. If not by Bishops, but others, why not the Trespassers (in stricter language the Debtors) to discharge the debt, rather than the Bishops. 3. If this you will not yield to, yet why not some other way to be found, (which lawfully may be taken) rather than run this course, which (as proved) is against Gods, and man's Law? I remember, 
Mat. Paris.  it is storied, that the Pope requiring great sums of money from the Clergy, at which they repined, the Pope answered, that there was a necessity for it: Yet upon examination in a Council in France, it was discovered, that the Pope had made, or brought on the necessity, and partly to that end, that he might fleece the Clergy; which that just Council well weighing, put the holy Pope besides his plot, and made him find some other tricksom way, to salve his necessity. To answer therefore, if there be such a just real debt, just it is, that it should be satisfied; and as just, that they should pay, who have caused the debt: if this be not liked, yet that the debt should be discharged by a just and legal way, which I cannot see how it is, by selling the Bishop's lands, who were not the causes; but if they were, yet it cannot be just to take from God, what is his, for his Servants offence: 
In answer to last Argument.  (of which, more anon.)  
That it will prove an hazard to the Church and State, unless these Lands be sold, I conceive is an Argument, that lies either in the opinions, or wills of them, who other ways may remedy it, if they will; partly by finding the true proper causes of this mischief, and necessity; or by levying the money by some general Tax on the whole Land, who so much groan under the present calamity, and oppression, that, I persuade myself, they would rather pay that debt, then longer bear this burden.  
But suppose you cannot, or will not find out any course, whereby to discharge the Public debt, but this; then consider, how just and agreeable to God's Word, this course is: and unless you can show, by God's Law, that you may sell these Lands, then, I dare affirm, that, be the necessity never so real, never so great, you may not sell them to any end: In which case, Saint Paul is bold and peremptory, when he saith, Some affirm, 
Rom. 3.8.  that we say, Let us do evil that good may come whose damnation is just: just to them that say or teach so; and just to them who follow and practise so. Let me for your memory repeat that acts of Pharaoh, 
Gen. 57  (the Heathen King, and a Tyrant) who would not in the greatest necessity, which was of famine, yet in that necessity he would not sell the Priests Lands; 
Annot, on the place.  and may we not fear a famine, or some other great plague to fall on those Christians, who shall dare do contrary?  
And will you give me leave to add, and close this with the Note of Mr Calvin? What bowels, 
On Acts 4.35.  What souls have we Christians now a days? For the Primitive Christians sold their own lands, and laid the price at the Apostles feet, to relieve in time, and case of necessity; whereas we are not content alone malign, like Malignants, (this was the sense of the word then) to keep close our own, but cruelly and unjustly we take away that which is other men's: they sincerely, in faith, and a good conscience, offered their own for the Public necessity; but we use a thousand pretexts, arts, and tricks fraudulently, and falsely, on all hands, and from all sorts of men, to rake and draw to ourselves other men's goods and estates. I beseech you lay this to heart, and considering the too much truth of it at this time, what in you is, labour to correct and amend it.  
Argum. 16 The Bishops have too much, which makes them proud, whereas, if they prove humble, they shall have portions or pensions for life; and this is as much as they can challenge by God's Word.  
Resp. Just thus did some plead in the hurling times of K. Richard the Second, 
Speed in R. 2.  (for so those times were called) when many Peers and Commons, (not Ordained, it was not then come to this, but) Petitioned the King, that the Temporalties of the Church might be taken from the Ecclesiastical persons, adding, that it were charity thereby to humble them. Whereupon, saith he, divers Parliament men designed among themselves, out of which Religious Houses each of them would have his share. The King heard them, saith the story, as I hope our King will, but yielded not to their wicked projects. But if the Bishops be not yet humbled enough, prove who those proud ones be, in what, or how, and let those proud suffer according to Law; for is it enough to say, such an one is a Felon, and without more ado, condemn him, and forfeit his estate?  
And if it be said, they have too much, have they any more, or have they so much as their first Donors, and Benefactors gave them? and hold they it not by the same Law, by which all other Subjects hold their estates? I before told you, what the Levites held under the Law; and that God, who gave it them, thought not that too much, no not for them, who were but bodily labourers, as it were, in the Temple. And, if it may not offend to ask the question, why in God's name, may not a Scholar, as well born, as well descended, and as well, if not better bred, than others, who hath spent all his life time in the study of Humane and Divine knowledge, whereby to teach the people, and govern the Church; why may not he, I say, without envy, have and hold as much as a Lawyer, a Merchant, a mechanic Trades-man? and leave for his wise and children thereby to live after him? For God held it just to apportion the opulency of his Priests under the Law, to the wealth of the times, and the Land wherein they lived: yea, and that, if there were any exceeding, it was on the Priest's behalf. I would you would be pleased to read two places of Saint Paul, 
1 Cor. 9.9, 10. Gal. 6.6.  with the Notes of Mr Calvin, Bucer, and others; who observe, that Saint Paul, in those two places, made not a simple and bare comparison, that, as the ox, and the husbandman, lived by their labour, and had no more, so it should be with the Minister. But, they say, there should be a proportionable equity and equality in their maintenance; and this to be according to the dignity of their Function, and the quality of their work: and all this may be rightly evinced from those Words of God himself, 
Luke 10.7.  The labourer is worthy of his bire. And who but an irreligious Atheist, or an ignorant Mechanic will say, but, that the Study, the Function, the Work of a Bishop, or Minister of the Gospel, is sequal to the best Lawyer, Merchant, or Tradesmen? God forbidden, that we should be fallen into the times of Sylla, who banished or sold the best of the Romans, if they were rich?  
But, to return, if some one of that Order be rich and proud shall the Function be rooted out for the offence of the person? or, was this ever held agreeable to Religion, Law, Justice, or right Reason? There was a Judas, a Traitor, who carried the bag among the twelve Apostles of Christ, did Christ therefore take away the Apostleship? Some Angels rebelled against God, did God therefore destroy all the Angels, as Rebels? James and John, would sit one at the right, the other at the left hand of their Lord Christ; must all the Apostles therefore be despised, as proud, and usurpers?  
And, to take away the Bishop's Lands, and give them a portion, is it not to take away their meat, and make them feed all on pottage? Or to deal with them, as some Idolaters, or Eli's sons did, who took the flesh, or best part of the Sacrifices to themselves, and sacrificed the bones or worst to God? Or comes not this too near our English Proverb, to steal a goose, and stick in place of it the feathers?  
And when it is said, they shall have a sitting maintenance, for that is all can be challenged from the Scripture; remember what Christ replied to those, that murmured at the lord of the vineyards bounty, to some of the labourers more than others, Is thine eye evil, because I am good? 
Mat. 20.15.  Or repinest thou at that which I have given to those labourers, being it is lawful for me to do with mine, what I will? which holds right, both in the several Kings giving the Lands, and Gods accepting, and allowing them to his Ministers.  
But, if we be to be pittanced by a competency, (as it is called) who, I pray, shall be the Steward, or Distributor? Shall he that robs the true man of his purse, give back, what he thinks competent? And shall this be held just? If we understand, and believe the Prophet, it is God that is rob, and who shall judge but God? Or what competency is fitting to be allowed to him? Is it one or two hundred pounds per Annum? If the best Interpreters, even of our modern Divines, may be heard, they will tell you from Gal. 6. and 1 Cor. 16. that this maintenance must be honourable; and hath this been performed, when for two, three, four years, you have taken all from them, and, yet not so much, as charging them with any offence against Law, or your own Ordinances? And is this Justice, or an honourable maintenance? Or would your Honours be content with the like?  
Argum. 17 I have heard that, which I would rather truly call a Project then an Argument; that the Bishops in England anciently had the First-fruite, and Tenths of all the Spiritual live in every Diocese, which were the proper maintenance of those Bishops, and that therefore these might be restored to the Bishops in lieu of the Lands, which by the Ordinance should be taken from them.  
Resp. To which, I must desire you to know, that this Project or Device, is grounded upon a double mistake: for, 1. the maintenance of Bishops, ever since they were in England, was by lands, such as were given them by their Royal Benefactors, and others. 2. The Bishops in England held, or had not those First-fruits and Tenths, but the Bishop of Rome, who under the false pretended Title of Universal Bishop, 
Mat. Paris. in H. 3. p. 849.  usurped, and took the same in England, (as he did almost, in most parts of Christendom besides,) witness that Grant of the Pope, who, De potestate sibi à Deo concessâ, 
Pol. Virg. Hist. Angl. lib. 20.  gave those Tenths for three years to K. Henry the Third. And the like of Pope Vrban, who gave the Tenths in this Kingdom to K. Richard the Second, to aid him against Charles the French King, and those that upheld Clement the Seventh against him: after which, they were paid to the Pope again, until they were restored to the Crown by K. Henry the Eighth, 
2 K. H. 8. c. 3.  for that the King (as in that Statute he was styled the Head of the Church, or) rightly is the Defender of the Faith, and Supreme Governor, in all causes, and over all persons Ecclesiastical.  
Now then, if it might be just to grant the Bishops these First-fruits, and Tenths, in lieu of their Lands, yet what Justice can it be to rob (as we say) Peter, to pay Paul? to take that which is the King's just right from him, thereby to satisfy for that, which is unjustly taken from God, and the Church? So, that as this Project fails in the ground, so in the superstructure too, it tends to a double Injustice; the one against the King, and the other against the Church: and yet, if this could be done without Injustice to either, I know not how to clear the act from impiety, or Sacrilege; when God by his Prophet (as I before urged the Text) saith, Thou shalt not exchange that, which is holy to the Lord: 
Ezek. 48. Leu. 27.13.  Except (as it is excepted) for the Levite, and Priest, it may clearly appear, that the exchange be for the better, which this cannot be. Again, if by an Act these Lands, on these conditions, be now taken from the Church, then, by another Act of Resumption or Restitution, those First-fruits and Tenths may be taken away from the Church again, and restored, as of right belonging to the Crown; and wherein then shall there be a maintenance for Bishops in the Church?  
Argum 18 It hath been urged, (thereby to root out Episcopacy) that the King gives those Bishoprics, and so their Lands; and by these means, he holds the Bishops at his beck, to say or do what he will.  
Resp. 'Tis true, that this was urged in Parliament, for taking away the Bishop's Votes there; which being done, why yet to take away their lands? for these have no Vote in Parliament. Or, why not to take away, as well, the lands of all those, who hold by Office, Tenure, or Honour from the King? Yea, or from all those, who make conscience to keep Faith and Loyalty? Or why not rather, on the other side, may ye not enact, that all Bishops, who shall hereafter act, or assist against the Parliament, shall lose their estates? which is as much as in Justice can be done. For, will you forbidden all Wine, Knives, Swords, and the like? for these have, and may again do mischief; and so have Parliaments too. But, God forbidden, all these should be taken away upon these grounds. I confess, I have heard, that Mr Knox in Scotland, counselled after this manner, Pull down the Crow's nests, said he, (for such homely, or slovenly Similes they mostly use, as best becoming them, and sitting the palates of their Auditors) for else the black Birds will build again: but of this counsel, ere he died, he repent, (though too late) for when the steed was stolen, he advised the Clergy, by word and pen, to gain-stand this black Sacrilegious act, of taking away the patrimony, and possessions of the Church.  
Argum. 19 But, we have bound ourselves by an Oath, utterly to extirpate Episcopacy, root and branch; and to settle the right Government, according to God's Word, and the best reformed Churches, which cannot be performed, without taking away the Bishop's foundation, on which they stand, their lands.  
Resp. If this Covenant were just and lawful, wherein they bind themselves to extirpate Episcopacy; yet, it follows not, that they have sworn thereby, to sell away the Bishop's Lands: for that these may better, and more justly, (as in the times of Edward the Second, Henry the Fifth, and Henry the Eighth,) be converted to other uses and services in the Church. But grant, that they had expressly, and directly sworn, to have sold these Lands, are they therefore, or thereby bound to do it? unless they can first prove, that by the Law of God and man, they might so do? For otherwise, by the same reason or rule, Herod had been bound to have beheaded John Baptist, and the Jews to have slain Paul, for each had sworn and vowed those bloody acts. I doubt not, but your Assembly of Divines will teach you, that rather you should repent, then prosecute the performance of an unjust or unrighteous Oath.  
And, what is urged, that after, and upon this Act, they have sworn to settle a new Government, most agreeable to God's Word, etc. I verily believe, that thousands, who have sworn, neither did, nor yet do understand, what in this they swore: 
Jer. 4.  and how such swearing agrees with that of the Prophet, Thou shult swear in judgement, I cannot see; Lord have mercy upon them. For, 1. they swear positively to maintain the Doctrine, Worship, and Discipline, of the Church of Scotland: and how many in England understand what the Doctrine, Worship, and Discipline, of the Church of Scotland are?  
But, perchance, it will be answered, that they swear to defend them against our common enemies, for, so it is changed from the Scotish Copy, by our Assembly at Westminster: but, who are those our enemies, against whom we are to maintain the Doctrine, Worship, and Discipline, of the Church of Scotland? Are they the Infidel, and Turk? for these are the Common enemies to Christ and his Gospel. Or, be they the arch-enemy of mankind, the Devil? For who can be more properly our common enemy, than he, whom in our Baptism we all covenant to forsake, as our enemy? But, this common enemy in the Covenant, thus being left at large, for every man to interpret or mean whom he will; is it not as much against judgement, or worse, then that late decried [&c.] in the last Canons? But, if some Oedipus will take upon him to expound these common enemies to be Papists, as some of the Assembly do, 1. Who gives any one, or more, power to put a sense upon a National Covenant, as this is called and pretended to be? 2. How can Papists, in common sense, be called our common enemies, rather than the Devil, yea, or then Turk or Insidel? For the Papists agree with us in the main fundamental points of our Creed; whereas the other three, the Turk, the Insidel, the Devil, accord with us in none: and he is not so much our common enemy, who agrees in the main, as he who differs in all.  
And, is the Presbyterian Government proved by the Word of God? then, I pray, from what Text of Scripture, do they confirm their Parochial, Classical, Provincial, National Assemblies, which are the pillars, upon which, some say, Wisdom hath placed her house? It is not, I hope, that Prov. 9.1. for there is mention of seven pillars. And, is this Government (as now settled or set forth) agreeable to the best Reformed Churches? But who must tell us, which these best Reformed Churches be? or must we pin our judgements and consciences on other men's souls, who tell us, that the Scotish and French are those best Reformed Churches? And were these the best, yet how can we settle our Government with these two, which differ one from another? Yea, and neither of them allow of any Appeal from their National Synod, in Ecclesiastical or Spiritual things; which this new Covenant, now held forth in England, doth? And yet, that Government of the Church, which hath continued in England, ever since Christianity professed, (which is almost 1500. years) and wherein-nothing hath justly, or can be proved, to be in the essence and being of it, against the Word of God, must be abolished, to bring that in, which neither agrees with the best Reformed Churches, nor can at all be proved by God's Word.  
I pray, take this Note by the way, that the settling of the Presbyterian Government in Scotland, was the seditious, factious, tumultuous work, of four and twenty years; viz. from 1572. to 1596. And think on that of the Prophet, 
Hos. 10.4. De neces. reform. Eccles.  They have spoken words, swearing falsty, in making a Covenant: and at parting, hear Mr Calvin, writing to the Emperor, and Princes, in the Diet, or Parliament in Germany, and complaining of the Tyranny of the Bishops of Rome, where of other Bishops he speaks thus, and in these very words; Talem nobis Hierarchiam si exhibeant, in quâ sic emineant Episcopi, ut Christo subesse non recusent, & tum verò nullo non Anathemate dignos fatear, si qui erunt, qui non cam reverenter, summâque obedientiâ observent. From which words it is plain, that Mr Calvin allows, and approves of an Hierarchy, and Government in the Church by Bishops; and not only so, but, that he further professeth, that all they, who do not with all obedience reverence and observe such Bishops, who subject themselves to Christ, are worthy of the greatest censure in the Church.  
Argum. 20 But, the successes, and marvellous victories, which have attended this Parliament, are great, and manifest declarations, that God hath gone with, and guided the two Houses in all their great Counsels, and Ordinances, whereof this is one, to abolish Episcopacy, and to sell their Lands.  
Resp. Give me leave to answer by a Question, or rather answer yourself in this Question: because Jehu thrived by killing his King, and rooting out his posterity, doth God allow Rebellion, and Murder, and deposing of Kings? Or shall we conclude, that the Pope, Mahomet, or the Turk, have been in the right, because of their wonderful victories, and enlarging their Dominions? O the wretched, and most deceitful guile of the Devil! for who knows not, both in Sacred, Ecclesiastical, and Profane Histories, that, as God often suffers his best and dearest servants, to be troubled, persecuted, and cast down in this world; so he as often lets the tyrannous, proud, and ungodly, to exalt themselves, that being left the more without excuse, their condemnation might be the more just, and their punishment more grievous. And may it not be, that God may have a controversy with you, and call you to an account for all your do? And who knows, whether this sentence may not follow: I never knew you, depart from me, 
Mat. 7.23.  ye that work iniquity, notwithstanding all your victories?  
You may, perchance, blame my needless pains, in answering so many frivolous Arguments, and you may wonder too, who they be, who have framed such simple Objections; but, you will cease to wonder at this last, when you consider, that, in these later times, the man hath been accounted without zeal, or to want wit, that hath not something to say against Bishops; whom to vilify, and slander, hath passed for an evidence of holiness: and, if you blame me in the former, I contesse, I had rather answer too much, thereby (if I could) to satisfy you in all, then to leave you unresolved in any thing, though it be not material, nor worth the answering.  
Argum. 21 Which this last Argument, I know, you will not hold to be, because it rests upon an Ordinance of the two Houses; and therefore, I have kept it, as the Reserve, and strength of the whole host of Arguments, for the last. Now the Ordinance thus speaketh,  
For the abolishing of Archbishops, and Bishops, and providing for the payment of the just and necessary debts of the Kingdom, into which, the same hath been drawn by a War, mainly promoted by, and in favour of the said Archbishops, and Bishops, and other their adherents, and dependants, Be it Ordained, that all their Lands be sold, etc.  
Resp. In which Ordinance, the ends wherefore these Lands must be sold, are two, 1. For the abolishing of Episcopacy, a Government, which whether it be by Divine Right, besides what hath been wrote by divers godly, reverend, and learned men, I desire you to hear from a Treatise, in defence of Paedobaptism, which Mr Charles Herle, Precedent of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, by authority granted him by the two Houses of Parliament, hath licenced, and which is accordingly printed and published, 1645. where it thus speaks. 
Pag. 7.  Christ, Mat. 28. gives a charge to the Apostles, which hath special reference to matters of Discipline, for the right Ordering and Government of the Churches: And it is evident, saith he, by some passages in the New Testament, that some things were delivered to the Churches, and particularly to the Ministers thereof, which were not then committed to writing, but were delivered from hand to hand, called therefore Traditions. And these Ordinances, saith he, 
1 Cor. 11.2. 2 Thes. 2.15. 2 Tim. 2.2.  set up and practised by the appointment of the Apostles, are equivalent in authority, to what Christ himself hath immediately ordained. Hence therefore, is that, 1 Cor. 14.37. and hereupon, saith he, the custom of the Church, which is established, must stand for a Law, to quiet the conscience of him, that is willing to be satisfied: as is proved, 1 Cor. 11.16.  
What may appear to have been ordained by the Apostles, 
Pag 8.  and used by the Churches, even from the days of the Apostles, why should it not be acknowledged, to be the commandment of Christ? But, you will say, saith he, how may it appear to have been the custom of the Churches ordained by the Apostles? to which himself answers, It is worth our observation, that the pattern and precedent, from whence most, if not all the customs in the Churches were taken, was the custom of Israel in the Old Testament. And this, saith he, may be one special reason, why the providence of God did not take so much care, for the writing of every custom and ordinance, for the Government of the Church in the New Testament; because the precedent from whence they were taken, being at hand, if any alteration did creep in, it might easily be amended by reducing it to the pattern. Yea, who, saith he, can tell, whether the wisdom of God, did not hereby provide to uphold the credit of the Church of Israel, against the frowardness of some to disesteem it. And that the Institutions, saith he, of God by Moses, for the Church of Israel, were the pattern for the Apostolical Traditions, which were appointed for the Discipline, and Order to be observed, it will appear by divers particulars.  
1. 
Pag. 9  In the Old Testament, there was one day of seven set apart for holy rest; in imitation whereof, the Apostles, saith he, by direction of our blessed Saviour, consecrated the first day of the week, called the Lords day.  
2. Israel had Synagogues besides their Temple; and in the Apostles times, saith he, there were places set apart called Churches.  
3. The directions, saith he, for Censures, were received from Israel; and that, not only by the appointment of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 5. Tit. 3. but of Christ, Mat. 18.15.  
4. The liberty, saith he, which women take, to come to the Table of the Lord, must be acknowledged a Tradition of the Apostles, taken from the pattern of the Passeover.  
5. The custom of the Apostles, to baptise the whole households of them that believed, whence, saith he, should they have it but from the pattern in the Old Testament?  
6. The maintenance of Ministere, saith he, Saint Paul affirms to be ordained of the Lord, 
1 Cor. 9.13, 14.  in conformity to the Ordinance of the Old Testament.  
7. So for Persons, Israel had those, who were set apart to the service of the Altar and Temple; and accordingly, saith he, the Apostles ordained in several Churches, Elders.  
And whether, saith he, the Subordination of some in the Ministry, were not likewise an Apostolical Institution appointed by Christ, and this also fetched from the pattern of Moses, I dispute not.  
He saith, he disputes not, for what needs it any dispute, considering what he had proved before, and what he allegeth from Saint Hierom? the Father thus speaks, That we may know, 
Ep. 85. ad Evag.  that the Traditions of the Apostles were taken from the Old Testament, appears by this, that what Aaron, the Priests, and Levites, were in the Jewish Temple, the same, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, do rightly challenge in the Christian Church. And that there was a Superiority, and Subordination among the Priests in the Old Testament, is so well known to all, that it needs no dispute.  
The Author having laid down these grounds, concludes in these words: viz. Why this Rule should hold in so many particulars, and only fail in this point, I leave for them to give a reason, who know what difference is, betwixt reason and absurdity; especially, since it is plain by the testimony of the Ancients, who lived in the next Ages after the Apostles, that this was a custom established by the Apostles.  
The Author, answering an Argument, 
Pag. 11  drawn from Heb. 3.26. saith, The office of Moses was to settle the Commonwealth, and National Church of Israel, by particular Laws and Ordinances; where as the office of Christ was the reconciliation betwixt God and man, and the Redemption of mankind: and therefore, Christ loft it to his Apostles, and their successors, in several ages, to provide for the welfare, and good of the Church in the New Testament; and thereupon, concludes all thus, What was instituted in the Old Testament, and is not repealed in the New, nor is incompatible with the state of the Church in the New, that is understood, to be continued, and commanded to the practice of the Christian Church. Now, that an Hierarchy, or Superiority, and Subordination of the Priests was instituted in the Old Testament, I think is denied by none, that understands the Government of that Church: and, that this kind of Government is repealed in the New Testament, appears not; for the words of Christ forbidden only an Heathenish Tyranny, and not a Christianly Superiority, or an over-lording, and not an orderly ruling. 
Luke 22.25, 26 1 Pet. 5.3.  2. When in that place our Saviour explicitly forbids such Dominion, or Lordship, as the Kings and Gentiles exercised, not one's mentioning, alluding to, or touching that Government, instituted and practised in the Old Testament; me thinks it stands to reason, that this kind of Government by Superior and Inferior, is rather confirmed then weakened by our Saviour's prohibition: for, had be intended the abolition of such a Government, is it not probable, being now as it were upon the theme, that be would in some glance at least, have struck at that Superiority, and Subordination among the Jews? Especially, when you consider what before was spoken, that the Apostles and their Successors did, and were to order the Discipline, and Government of the Christian Church, by the pattern of the Jewish: and, whether the like kind of Hierarchy was, or is likely to be incompatible for the Christian Church, which was instituted for the Jewish Church, we may judge by the first, and after continued practice of the Christian Church from the Apostles, and succeeding times.  
And here I shall cite, (whom you may as well credit, as you are willing to hear) Mr Calvin, 
Instit. 4.4.  who confesseth in the Primitive Christian times, they chose one called a Bishop, who was as Consul in Rome; and the Consuls in Rome were above the Senators, in place, and power. And Mr Beza, and Mr Moulin come nearer to us and truth, who confess, that either in, or very near after the Apostles times, Bishops ruled in the Christian Church; where they deny not Bishops, to have been in the Apostles times, only they will not, lest they should offend or lose by the truth, say what they did generally read, and I am persuaded did believe, that Bishops were in the Apostles times: yet in the other, they are plain and peremptory, saying, Bishops were soon after the Apostles; and could they have proved it, they would as readily, and as plainly have said, the Bishops were not in the Apostles times but soon after; but by an artificial blinding or hood-winking the truth, they chose rather to express it as they do. Whereas Bucer, Professor of Divinity in Cambridge, in K. Edward the Sixth's time, speaks as plainly, as truly, saying, From the first Ordination, and perpetual Institution of Christian Churches by the Apostles, it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, to have in them Bishops: and in the Book of Consecration of Bishops, made, and set forth in the fifth and sixth of K. Edward the Sixth, and confirmed by Parliament, 8 Eliz. 1. it is thus said, It is evident to all men, reading the Scriptures and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles times, there have been these Orders of Ministers in the Church of Christ: viz. Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. And, if it were as evident, that the Apostles either instituted, or commended a Presbyterian Government, and not Episcopal, may it not be as a wonder and astonishment, that so soon as ever the Apostles were deceased, or the most of them, the whole Christian Church, dispersed through the whole world, would suddenly conspire, and convene to change that Government, instituted or commended by the Apostles, into Episcopacy? And that Episcopacy, and not Presbytery, was the Government, generally, I may say universally, used in the Christian Churches, from the times of the Apostles, besides the authorities above mentioned, I appeal to all the best Histories.  
Moreover, it cannot be denied, but that this Government came into this Kingdom, with the first planting of the Gospel here, which was almost 1500. years ago, and hath been ever since established by our best Laws, but hath been confessed by the best learned of the Assembly, not to be repugnant to God's Word, and by the most learned and strict Presbyterians, Calvin, Beza, Monlin, acknowledged to be, either in, or soon after the Apostles times; and by the full consent of the best Historians, proved to be instituted, if not by Christ, yet by his holy Apostles, and by, and from them, spread over all the Christian world: and yet, to the end this holy Government may be abolished, this detestable sin of Sacrilege must be committed. The end and the means we see meet, but then well weigh and consider, that if it be damnation to him that doth ill to a good end, as the Apostle testifieth, than what damnation shall attend them, who to such an end, as the abolishing so holy, or divine a Government as Episcopacy, shall wilfully commit so detestable a sin as Sacrilege.  
But the second end, perchance, is better; which is (as professed) to pay necessary debts; a good end, I confess, I would it were practised by all, yea, or in this case. But would not the Excise, and Compositions have discharged that debt, had the money been rightly employed, as it was pretended? I pray, remember, that Charles Martell of France, under pretence of pay for the Holy War, seized on the Church Revenues, and though he promised restitution, yet was proclaimed by the best Historians, to be a notorious, and a damnable Sacrilegist.  
But, how ever the ends meet, perchance, there is some great cause, that moved or provoked the two Houses to this selling; yes, and the cause is expressed; for this late War was promoted by the Archbishops and Bishops, and in favour of them, or their adherents, and dependants. I confess, it seems strange to me, that their Lands should be sold for what was done in favour of them, who know not by whom this favour is done, neither are their favourers once impeached for the favourable act; for suppose one do an evil act in favour of, or for Mr Speakers sake, who never desired, nor acknowledged the favour; shall Mr Speakers lands be sold away for this? And yet more strange it is, that their lands should be sold, because the War was in favour of their adherents, and dependants.  
But, it is said, that the Bishops promoted this War; and yet not said, who, nor when, nor how; but may not that more truly be said, (which I would not add, were it not visible and apparently known to all) that some one at the least of the Bishops, have stood with, and by the two Houses in this War? For, hath there been wanting one, who hath sought, and received dangerous wounds, (as it is reported and proclaimed) and that in the War for the two Houses against the King? For which, he hath not only by suit, obtained a pardon for his former disservice, (so called) but bath received thanks, and two thousand pounds per annum, bestowed upon him for his later service? Do Protestants, think you, maintain the Popish Tenent, remissâ culpâ remanet po●●a, to punish after pardon? Yea, which is more, to punish after pardon, and reward? Or may not Gods example work somewhat for preserving the Bishop's Lands, which did proclaim itself for the saving of all Sodom, that if but ten of so many thousands, could be found for God, he would spare all those thousands grievous sinners, for the sakes of those ten? Or did God, when ten could not be found, involve Lot, and his family in the general judgement of Sodom? And shall the Lands of that Bishop, who hath deserved so well of the two Houses, be sold with the rest? for the Ordinance concludes the sale of all.  
If it be yet said, (as what hath not been said, no matter how untruly) that the late Archbishop of Canterbury promoted this last War; yet was it any part of the charge at his trial? And saith not our Law, for Treason of dead persons not attainted or judged in their lives time, 
34 Ed. 3.12.  their Lands shall not be impeached nor challenged? And if not their own, then, as I conceive, much less shall the Lands be impeached which they held of the Church.  
But, I proceed, have all the Bishops promoted this War? (which none yet with any shadow of truth hath said, for aught I ever could hear) and if not, why, I pray, shall Robert be punished for Richard? And if any of the Bishops have promoted the War, have they been called, or suffered to answer the charge? And was it ever found agreeable to Justice, Law, or Reason, to give sentence, before the party was heard, if he may be found? Sr Edward Coke saith, it is against the Charter; nay, 
2 Instit. c. 29.  was the late Impeachment of the eleven Members, though by a special charge written, and professed to be proved, I say, was this Impeachment Voted and Declared illegal, and unjustifiable, as to the suspending their Votes, but for a time? And shall such a general charge as this against the Bishops, be held legal and sufficient, for the selling away the Lands of all Bishops in England, born and unborn, without summoning, hearing, or giving the charge against any? And, if upon trial, some Bishop shall be found guilty according to Law, (which I presume never shall be) yet shall the punishment of one, or more personal Delinquents, extend to others, who are innocent? Yea, to Successors, which are not heirs at Law? Or shall the Lord of the Land, which is God, lose his interest for the offence of his Assign or Tenent, which is the Bishop? Or is this sin in the Bishop's greater, than that vast damning original sin in Adam, to condemn all, not only that come of his seed and race, but all his Successors, who are as little kin to his body or his soul, as to his offence? Nay yet, shall the insensate thing, that is, the Land, be profaned, and let the pretended Delinquent, the Bishop, go unquestioned? which is, as if a Judge should take away the Sword, and break it in pieces, because it killed the man, but let the murderer escape the while.  
The Charter saith, 
〈…〉  (Nullus liber homo, etc.) that no Free man shall be amerced or punished, but according to the quality of the offence: and yet so, as with a salvo sibi contenemento: where the Interpreter saith, this Free man extends to Bishops, and expounding contenementum to be his countenance, saith, That, as the Bishop is a Scholar, his books are his countenance; and as he is a man of holy Function, an honourable maintenance should be his countenance: which if it might have held, than some Bishop in this Land should not have had, (not only all his maintenance, Spiritual and Temporal, for these four years, utterly taken away, not allowing him in all this time one shilling, but not) his bedding, all householdstuff, and goods, yea, and all his books, not leaving him one; nor all, or any of these taken by the plunder of rude Soldiers, but by the Warrant of an honourable Committee, although without any Ordinance.  
The Charter goes on, and saith, That no Ecclesiastical person shall be amerced, or punished, according to his Ecclesiastical, but to his Lay fee: whereas, here the clean contrary is published, and practised by this Ordinance; 
●●od. 32.  Aaron the high Priest made a golden Calf, 
Ver. 28.  and built an Altar before it, and proclaimed a Feast for it, and said, To morrow is a Feast to the Lord: for which abominable act, 
1 Sam. 21.  Moses caused three thousand men to be slain. Abiwelech the Priest, victualled and armed David against his King, for which act, Saul (the furious King) caused fourscore and five of the Priests to be slain. 
2 Reg. 1.7. 1 Reg. 2.26.  And K. Solomon said to Abiathar the Priest, who had helped Adonijah to be King against Solomon, Thou art worthy of death. I could instance in many more acts of these Priests, most displeasing to their Kings, and some really sinful before God; yet do we find that any went about for all these acts, to deprive the Priests of their Lands, and maintenance for ever? Might I not put you in mind, that we have had in the time of Popery, a Becket, a Langton a Wolsey, and other Bishops, who instigated by the blind false Principles of their Religion, have fallen into gross treasonable acts? yet did the King, and the two Houses for their offences, sell away the Lands of the Church which they held? I read, in the Reign of King Henry the Third, that the Jews in England were forced to pay the third part of their estates, 
Mat. Par. p. 489  that they might enjoy their peace; but must Bishops be worse used by Christians, and their Countrymen (contrary to all Law) than Jews?  
And may not the Bishops truly say, what the eleven Members give for their Answer in their printed Papers: viz. We must be removed, and that we may so be, we must be represented to be what we are not; and what ever is amiss in the Kingdom, we are made the cause, and must bear the blame of it. Christianos adignem: what public calamity soever befell in the Primitive Persecutions, the poor Christians were said to be the cause, and must be made the expiatory Sacrifice for all. But let men say what they will, Elijah the Prophet of God, was never the more the troubler of the Kingdom, because he was called so; and therefore, we will say as Job, Our witness is in heaven, and our record is on high. Thus far they, and so the Bishops.  
But, for the close of all, supposing the Bishops were, what is here or elsewhere unjustly charged upon them; yet give me leave to put you a Scripture case, and God's judgement thereupon, and I shall leave it to your judgement and conscience to make the Application: the case is set down, Numb. 16. where three ringleaders, and a hundred and fifty chosen men, Princes, and seducers of the people, (malignant's these indeed, for they) rebelled against the Prince, whom God had set over them, and raised a destructive Schisin against the high Priest, and his Successors, utterly to extirpate them; in this case, God will not suddenly condemn, without examination of cause and persons, though he knew both, (as, neither would Christ cast out Judas, a thief, and a traitor, because, as Saint Augustine notes, he was not so convict, according to the Law) but God, to let the malignants have a fair, open, and just trial, bids them bring their censers before him, and there to have the cause fully examined: whereupon, God found those maliguants to be the offenders; and, although the censers were used by them in the maintenance of this Rebellion and Schism, yet, what doth God? Doth he let the persons go free, and sentence only the censers to be sold, and turned to pots and the like, for the service of the Commonwealth and State? No, quite contrary, he punished the malignants with an unheard of fearful kind of death; but the censers of these sinners, Make them plates for the Altar, 
Ver. 38.  for, saith God, they were offered before the Lord, therefore, they are hallowed. What then shall we say to this? Is God's judgement unrighteous, to punish the malignants, and spare the thing offered before the Lord? Or, is yours just, to sentence and sell the thing offered before the Lord, and let the malignants (so called) go free? Or, why judge ye not according to God's judgement, O ye sons of men?  
A wise, and great Peer of this Realm, spoke truly well in this Parliament, when he said, That a Law, or Ordinance, when it is made, (according to the just power of it) binds to obedience: But, saith he, it follows not therefore, that this Law or Ordinance is good, and just, for that the best, and wisest Lawmakers of men, have been found to blame in this kind; for so I read, Solon made one Law to abolish all debts, whereby the honest creditors lost, and the false debtors gained. Another Law he made to punish all Neutrals in time of Sedition; which Plutarch condemned, For, saith he, this is to infect the sound party, which might otherwise strengthen the weak. Lycurgus, without respect to Religion, Justice, or Temperance, (a Policy too much used now adays) made Laws only to breed and encourage Soldiers, whereby the Lacedæmonians continued so long, as their Wars held, and no longer. I could give instance in Laws and Ordinances nearer home; but I forbear, and close with that counsel of St Paul, Prove all things, hold fast that which is good: 
1 Thes. 5.21.  for all things are not good, and just, only on this ground, because they are Laws and Ordinances.  
Some more there are to be found in the common Pamphlets, which I know not what to call; Objections, if you will; for they do not deserve the name of Arguments: yet this, in regard that it seems so plausible, and is so much cried up by the back friends of the Church, and her Revenues, I could not but take notice of, and labour to satisfy the judicious and reasonable. This, what you will, runs thus,  
The Lands were given to the Bishops for their Preaching; and therefore they, not performing this service, aught to lose the benefit, i. e. the Lands.  
Although, I cannot but approve of that, as prudent, (and the rather, because observed and practised by all best States, until within these last hundred years, it hath been altered by Factious and Rebellious people) that, among all Religions, true and false, they have made, and held a distinction of Priests; giving to some more honour and maintenance, then to the rest: Yet, I must, and do, with all reverence, submit to that of Saint Bernard, saying, That a man dignified without merit, is like smoke in an high candlestick; and that a man in high place, not able to govern, is like an ape on the top of an house: and therefore, as the Labourer is worthy of his hire, so an honourable maintenance doth require a worthy Labourer. Now, in this case, what is the labour of the Bishop, becomes the Question.  
To which, the Arguers against Bishops, (or rather against their Lands) seem to say; Preaching is that their work or labour.  
But, then let me propound three other Questions, 1. What is meant by Preaching. 2. Whether Preaching alone be the Bishop's work. 3. Whether, not withal, (or not more rather) the well ordering, or governing the Church be his work.  
And, that I may clear the last Question first; consider, I pray, when Saint Paul in two places: viz. 1 Cor, 12.28. and Ephes. 4.11. had set down both the extraordinary, temporary, and perpetual ordinary Officers of the Church; that, of the later sort, he mentions only two, Governments and Teachers, 1 Cor. 12. and Pastors and Teachers, Ephes. 4.  
Now, if the Governor and Pastor, in these places be distinct from Teacher, then, I hope, it is evident, that Preaching alone is not the office, or work of a Bishop, as some would have it.  
And, that they are distinct, it may be conceived, for, that the other Officers mentioned in those places; as, Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, are distinguished one from the other; and therefore, probably, these two, Governors or Pastors, and Teachers, aught, or may likewise mean two several works.  
And, when Saint Paul in each place, saith, God gave, and God set these in the Church; in that he gives them several names and titles? why may we not conceive, that under the distinct names, the works likewise are to be distinguished?  
And, that Pastor, in Saint Paul to the Ephesians, may be the same with Governor, I appeal to Saint Paul himself, who Acts 20.28. sending for, (not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as he terms them to the Corinthians, and to the Ephesians, but) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Elders of the Church, in his charge to them, useth not the metaphor of a Schoolmaster, or Teacher, but of a Shepherd; and therefore gins, Take care to the flock. And what is he to do in that care? why, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to feed the Church: And may not he be rightly said, to take care of, and to feed a flock, that so oversees them, as that they may be well ordered and fed? And for this, the Apostle calls not these Elders, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Teachers, but, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Overseers, or truly Bishops.  
And doth not the same Apostle, Tit. 1.7. call this Bishop or Governor in the Church, by an other like name, when he terms him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Steward? And in what consists the duty or office of a Steward, but in this, that, as a Bishop, a Shepherd, a Governor, he take care, and so order it, that the family may have their several allowances; and be wisely, and rightly governed, by exhortation, admonition, and if need be, by casting out?  
And from these Texts, or (if you please more plainly, without any borrowed speech) from that Rom. 12. verse 6. Saint Paul having premised, that in the Ministry there are divers gifts; he subjoins, Let him that teacheth, wait on teaching, Ver. 7. and he that ruleth, let him do it with diligence. And from that, 1 Tim. 3. in the 1. Verse, having spoke of the office of a Bishop, he adds Ver. 4. He must be one that ruleth well: For, saith he, Ver. 5. If he know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God? Which phrase, [taking care of the Church] both in this place, and that Acts 20.28. must signify a ruling, or governing of the Church, and flock of God. I say, from these several Texts, it will plainly appear, that the office of the Bishop consists not alone in preaching to, but in governing the Church.  
And, here I may conceive, that the office, or work of a Bishop in this, differs not much from that which is practised among Soldiers, Sea men, and others, who, after much time and pains spent in the inferior places, at last, partly as a reward of their former service, but especially, for their great experience, and authority gained, are advanced to higher places; wherein they rather stand, sit, or ride, to direct, guide, and govern others under them, then to work and labour, as they did before. And seeing the Levites, Soldiers, and almost all professions have a time, when, having spent their best strength, and arriving to the age of fifty or fixty years, they are emeriti, and freed from their former kind of labour; yet must the Bishop only of all others, be deprived of this so just a grace and benefit?  
But since that no compassion can be showed to the Bishops, from men, let us see whether from the holy Text some indulgence may not be found; and to this purpose, let us examine what it is, in Scripture-understanding, to Preach. Now, the word in the holy Gospel, which we translate to preach, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which is spoken of Christ himself, Jesus began 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach. 
Mat. 4.7. Mat. 10.7.  And when Jesus had sent abroad his twelve Apostles, his Commission is in the same word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, preach; and the same word Saint Paul useth most frequently, and seldom any other, to this sense. And, that Teaching, and Preaching are, and signify the same thing, see Mat. 11.1. where it is said, that Jesus departed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to teach and to preach; and from the several Texts, where this word is found, it will easily appear, that to preach the Word, in the Gospels and Epistles sense, is to declare, and make known the Doctrine, the means, and the way to faith and salvation, whether by word, or by writing; whether privately, or publicly; though the Preacher never go up into a pulpit, or desk, there to expound some place of Scripture: for, if Preaching consisted in this, and not in that, how can we prove that Christ or the Apostles did so frequently preach?  
And, now that the Bishops in England, since the Reformation, have, according to the right sense of the word, been Preachers, I appeal to a learned Judge, and unpartial witness, Doctor Moulin, (the famous Presbyterian in the Church of France) who, in his third Epistle to that pious, and most learned Bishop Andrew's, thus writes, I very well know that the Reformation of the Church in England, and the ejection of Popery, next to God and your princes, is chief to be ascribed to the learning and industry of your Bishops. And, have we not beside our own knowledge, (if envy or malice will suffer us to speak what we know) the testimony of foreign, godly, and learned men, who have openly avouched the Sermons, and writings of our late and present Bishops in England, to be answerable, in worth, if not preferred before the most of any in other Countries?  
And, can it be denied, that the most of the present living Bishops in England, did often preach, (even in that sense as you take Preaching) until they were, as of late, either directly hindered, or else not suffered to preach, unless they would take the new Covenant? which if they should do, they might truly use the words of Saint Paul, 
1 Cor. 9.27.  While we preach unto others, we ourselves are become castaways, i. e. doubt of our salvation, or to be rejected.  
But, if the Bishop's case be such, that they must be cast away, because they do not write or preach, (as is objected) then, I pray, let me ask how many Sermons have some of the Assembly of Divines (in England) preached, within these four or five years' last passed? And I dare affirm, they are not so many, as most of the Bishops usually did preach before the time of their suspension, or persecution. And, though the number of the Assembly of those Divines, three times exceeds this of the Bishops living; yet have there so many of them wrote, and confuted him, whom in their Covenant they style the common Enemy, as there be of the Bishops yet living who have?  
Lastly, have these Divines (in the Assembly) preached or wrote much, except it were to destroy, what was lawfully established, and thereby to raise themselves into power, maintenance, and authority?  
But, to end this Answer, If the Bishop's Lands must be sold, because they preach not, then, either this is but a pretence and excuse of iniquity, or else none but Preachers must have and enjoy them: and, if none but Preachers must have them, and yet they must be sold for a great price, then, I faith, either the Presbyterian Preacher, is grown very rich in these later times, or else none but the Lay-Independent can purchase and have them. For the Independent in Orders, professeth himself, like some Orders of Friars, to live on alms, or the charity of others, and therefore he is not able to make such a purchase; whereby it must come to pass, that the Lay-Independent must prove the Chapman, being that he alone hath money enough, and hath withal obtained the Grace to be a Preacher. And, if these can gain so much by their preaching, I cannot but commend their wit, while in the mean time I smile at the Presbyterians folly, who hath so many years been beating the bush, till another, as it were out of a bush, doth catch the bird.  
For a close, I pray, keep this in mind, that if the Bishops must lose their Lands, because they are not constant Preachers, then, by the same reason, none but constant Preachers ought to hold those Lands.   

CHAP. X. The Curses, and punishments, which are set down, and executed in Holy Writ against Sacrilegious Alienations, are held forth and opened.  
IF your patience would suffer it, I could, by way of an additional, fill much paper with the direful curses, and sad consequents, if not effects thereof, upon the several Invaders of Church-Lands within this Kingdom; who might have used the like Escutchion and Motto, which Julian, that Apostate Persecutor, and Enemy of our Lord Christ had; which was an Eagle struck with an arrow, feathered from the Eagles own wings, 
Hos. 13.9.  and had this word, Propriis configimur alis: which in the Prophet's words is, Perditio tua ex●te, Thou hast destroyed thyself. But other better pens have saved me this labour.  
Therefore, that Curses may be used and in this case, consult, I pray, 
Deut. 17.17.  with that of Moses, Cursed be he that removes his neighbours Landmark, and all the people shall say Amen. Now, if a curse may be pronounced against him that removes the mark of any neighbour's Lands, then much more against him who removes the mark of God, or his Ministers. 2. If, for removing the mark, whereby the bounds might be known, then, why not for taking and selling them away, that they be no more seen to be the Ministers?  
And, though we are apt to translate the deaths, and punishments of Sacrilegious persons, to other causes then to Sacrilege; yet it is a general certain Rule, Innatum est sceleri supplicium sceleris: 
Hos. 5.12.  and therefore it is said, God will be as a moth and rottenness, i. e. the punishment that God inflicts on sin, shall be as a moth to cloth, and rottenness to the tree, or body of man. Now, whence comes the moth that destroys the cloth, but out of dust and filth that lay hid in the cloth? And whence rottenness to destroy the plant, or body of man or beast, but out of the moisture and corrupt humours in the same body, which is by it destroyed? The Sacrilegious man in himself, or posterity perisheth. Say not then, it was his want of providence, it was his suretyship, or the like; no, Sacrilege was the moth, or rottenness: for, as Solomon, 
Pro. 20.25.  It is a snare. Yea, but say some, the snare doth not overtake, or not presently; so neither doth the moth, nor rottenness: but know, that as the moth, so the snare, it makes no noise, that men may hear and take warning; and so divine Justice winks when it sleeps not, and kills while we sleep, or little think of it. But be sure that the snare, which God sets as a trap to catch the Sacrilegious person, he so sets it, that first or last it shall take hold; and, as the man devoured holy things, so shall this snare destroy the devourer. And, that we may fear to fall into this snare, hear, I pray, what God hath threatened, and executed upon transgressors in this kind; and I think before hand, I may say, and say truly, that more, and more heavy curses and plagues, have not been recorded in holy Writ, to have been inflicted upon any sin, then on this of Sacrilege.  
I shall orderly proceed, as I find them laid down in God's Word, yet omitting many instances, and examples, though pertinent to my purpose, only for brevity sake. And first, when Moses, in God's stead, blessed the Tribe of Levi, 
Deut. 33.  (Gods Ministers in his holy Service) he did it in these words, Lord bless his substance, and accept of the work of his hands: and then immediately follows the curse upon all that shall attempt to spoil or hurt them; 
Ver. 11.  And Lord smite through the laynes of all that rise against him, and of them that hate him, that they rise not again. This was first denounced by Moses their first Prince, and see how soon this gins to work; for in the next Prince's time, when Achan, in war, had gained, and privately kept that wedge of gold, which was due to have been dedicated to God, all Israel smarts for it: 
Josh 7.  for this they were discomfited by their enemies, until the Sacrilegious person Achan was put to death, and an atonement made by all to pacify God's wrath.  
The Jews are carried away captives by the Chaldeans, 
2 Chron. 26.14, 17.  as a punishment of their profanation of the Temple, and contempt of the Priests; each of them being branches of Sacrilege.  
Solomon, the wisest earthly King, being counselled (as the most learned conjecture) to make use of what his Father had laid up toward the building of the Temple, answers, No; for says he, 
Pro. 20.25.  It is a snare to devour holy things: in which metaphor, the possessions of the Church seem to be the corn or bait, and the Devil to be the hunter who holds the snare, wherewith he entangleth the Church-robber to destroy him.  
Neither did Solomon, the Type of Christ, alone pronounce this sentence; but Darius, an Heathen King, when, in favour of the Jews, he dedicated the building of a Temple to their God, sets this curse upon the invaders, spoilers, or robbers thereof: 
Ezra 6.12.  The Lord destroy all Kings, and people, (not any one or other, but both) who shall put their hands to alter, and to destroy this House of God, which is at Jerusalem: and whether God said Amen to this Prayer of Darius, judge ye, by what happened to Antiochus, Nicanor, Crassus, all whom, as they were robbers, and prophaners of that Temple, so the goods thereof became snares for their destruction.  
And this accords with that of the Prophet Jeremy, Who devour things holy to the Lord, 
Jer. 2.3.  shall offend, and evil shall come upon them, saith the Lord: and see how soon this Prophecy was fulfilled, for Jehoiakim the King takes the Cedar out of God's House, 
Jer. 12.  (he takes not all the Lands, and perpetual maintenance of all the Priests, but) he takes only the Cedar out of God's House, wherewith he sieled his own windows, (he sold it not) but sieled his own windows with it; hear the judgement, Jehoiakim shall be buried like an Ass, 
Ver. 19  and shall be cast out beyond the gates of Jerusalem. 
Dan. c 1. & 4.  After this, Nabuchadnezzar robs God's House of the gold and silver vessels therein; what follows? He lives with, 
Dan. 5.  and lives a Beast seven years; and Belshazzor his son, for profaning those vessels which Nabuchadnezzar his Father had taken away, came to a sudden end; the Empire is taken from him, his race, and posterity for ever.  
Neither doth this Curse and Snare reach and destroy individuals alone, but it lights on the whole Land, where the sin is committed; we found it before in the punishment of Achans Sacrilege, 
Mal. 3.  and now we may see as much expressed by the Prophet Malachi, who tells the people, that, for robbing God of what was offered to him, 
Ver. 9  Ye are cursed with a curse, i. e. ye are certainly and heavily cursed. And ye are cursed, even ye, the whole land; and that curse no less, than the most dreadful to nature, with the curse of a general, and great famine. And see how God proportions his punishment, even to the nature of the sin; for in Joshua's time, the people for Sacrilege committed in war, is punished in war by the sword of the enemy: and here in Malachi, they have rob the Priests of their maintenance and bread, and themselves are therefore punished, and ready to starve for want of bread; where me thinks the Prophet tacitly gives a reason for this severity, when he saith, Will a man rob his God? God his Maker, his Preserver, his Redeemer? Will he be so ungracious? so unnatural? Yea, and will he rob that God, who we believe is coming to be our Judge? Will he be so audacious? For if this Judge will cast the unmerciful into hell, because they relieved not the poor; what torments shall be prepared for them, who so ungraciously, so unnaturally, so audaciously have rob God their Father, their Saviour, and their Judge?  
Will you have a more full view together of God's anger and wrath against this sin? You shall find it in two several Psalms, in one, 
Psal. 74. & 83. Psal. 74. v. 4, 5, 12, 19, 20, 25.  Psal. 74. you shall hear God six times call Sacrilegious men his open, and professed enemies, and adversaries; and that he called them so for this sin, read Ver. 4. of that Psalm, where the cause of those terms is couched, 
Ver. 5.  For thine enemies roar in the midst of the Congregation, and have set up their Banners for signs: and what the fuller sense of those words are, see anon after, They have defiled, or profaned, 
Ver. 8.  the dwelling place of thy Name, i. e. the Temple or Church: and yet they stick not here, who begin here, and therefore go on, and see further, They have said in their hearts, Let us destroy them, 
Ver. 9  i.e. the Prophets. And, will you know how they will destroy the Prophets? then cast your eye on the other forecited Psalm 83.3. where it is said, They have taken crafty counsel; 
Psal. 83.3. Ver. 9 & Ver. 5  and they have said, Come, let us cut them off from being any more: (here is root and branch) yea, they have consulted together with one consent, yet more, they are confederate, or covenanted, with whom? Assur also (out of the North) is joined with them. 
Ver. 8.  But, by what means shall these Prophets of God be rooted out, after all consulting and covenanting? 
Ver. 1●.  That is also expressed, Let us take the Houses and Inheritances of God in possession.  
You have heard the first part of this Psalm, which our last Translators call God's complaint against the conspirators against his Church; and the second part of the Psalm, they term a Prayer, Imprecation, or Curse, if you will, against those conspirators and enemies; where the Prophet speaks thus, Arise, 
Psal. 74.22.  O Godplead, thou thine own cause: as though God had forgot his Church, and had been too long silent in his own cause; and, in pleading, Remember, how the foolish man blasphemeth thee. The Sacrilegious man, in Gods and the Prophet's sense, is but a Fool, first or last he will prove so; and such a Fool, who, by robbing God, whom the world may hereby think (as Plato called God on this occasion) a tame idle God, to see himself rob, and not right himself; by this, saith the Psalmist here, causeth God to be blasphemed, and ill spoken of, and is therein himself the Fool. 
Ver. 23.  The Prophet goes on, O Lord, forget not the voice, i.e. the counsels and votes, of thine enemies: for the tumult of those that rise up against thee increaseth, or ascendeth up to heaven, more and more. Again, remember: which remembrance in this place imports, 1. to punish, 2. with an eternal punishment, never forget it, O Lord; 3. In this 74. Psalms, being of little more than three times seven Verses, yet in these, the Prophet calls to God seven times, to remember, and not forget to punish those enemies; the like to which I do not remember, in any the like scantling of Scripture. And, 4. he hastens, 
Ver. 3. Ver. 10, & 11. V 20. V 12.13 Psal. 73.12.  or spurs up God; Life up thy feet, and then, usque que? and again, quousque? 5. He adjures God to it, by putting him in mind of his Covenant, and whathe had done. 6. Will you be pleased to take one Note more, as Psal. 74. the Prophet calls to God seven times, not to forget to punish these sinners; so Psal. 79. Ver. 12. he prays God to render sevenfold into the bosoms of such sinners: and then Psal. 83. see accordingly a sevenfold punishment inflicted upon them. 1. O Lord, do unto these thine enemies, as thou didst unto the Midianites, 
V 9 & 10. V 11. V 13. & 15.  which pevished, and became as the dung of the earth. 2. Make their Nobles like Oreb and Zeb, (both slain) who said, Let us take to ourselves the Houses and Inheritances of God in possession. 3. Make them, O Lord, as a wheel, and as the stubble before the wind. 4. As the fire burneth a wood, persecute them with thy tempests, and make them afraid with thy storm. 6. Fill their faces with shame. 
Ver. 16. & 17. Ver. 18.  7. Let them be confounded and troubled for ever, yea, let them be put to shame and perish; that men may know, that thou art the most High over all the earth, (and over all counsels, powers, and potentates therein.) Tell me now, whether in any like compass of words, you find the like jealousy, wrath, and indignation from God, against any sin, as against this here of Sacrilege? I will not except Idolatry.  
And these are the Originals, from which our Christian Benefactors have copied out their several Curses upon the Invaders of Church-Lands; holding it just to pray for a separation of them from God, who separate, and take that from God, which is his, and is given to the Church.  
I fear, some with a strong breath, will seem to drive all this away, by saying, These threats and curses indeed we find in the Old Testament, where God had given the Jews laws, and commands against this sin; but, in the New Testament, as you find not any Tithes or Lands appointed; so, neither have you any laws or punishments herein, whereby to keep them untouched.  
But, to stop such mouths, hear our Saviour, 
Luke 16.29.  Ye have Moses and the Prophets, hear ye them: where Christ sends us, though not from, yet in the Gospel to the Old Testament: and, as a Comment thereon, Saint Paul saith, 
1 Cor. 10.11.  Now all these things happened unto them, (as before you read) for ensample, and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. So, that not a tittle of what hath been alleged against Sacrilege in the Old Testament, but may, and ought rightly to serve for the instruction and terror of all Sacrilegious persons, who live now, and profess the Gospel. And justly, for, as I proved before, from Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Proverbs, and the Prophet Malachi, this is a sin against God's Moral Law, both natural, and positive. And, yet we want not dehortation enough, and severe punishment enough of this sin, in the New Testament: I shall cite but two Texts; and wonder not that I cite no more, but, rather wonder, that the Holy Ghost there had left so much; considering, 1. that he had been so plentiful, and large against it in the Old Testament. 2. Considering that, whilst the Apostles lived, they were so far from having Lands, or Tithes, or settled maintenance, that they had not houses, nor holes to put their heads in, except they were in prisons; and therefore, then to write against taking away the Lands, and goods of the Church, when they had neither, would have been accounted but a labour in vain: and notwithstanding all this, Saint Peter and Saint Paul, the one by his sound Doctrine, the other by his miraculous power, have taught and admonished every good Christian enough, whereby to avoid, and beware of Sacrilege.  
I will begin with the Doctrinal part, Rom. 2.22. which is so plainly set down, (as before I made appear) that all the best Divines do, and cannot but confess from that Text, that alienating the Church-Lands, is a sin of an high nature, and therefore utterly to be abhorred. 
Acts 5.  And, what judgement hath passed upon this sin, is as plain in the story and case of Ananias, who, for detaining but part of that which he had promised to God for the Church, was suddenly struck dead: which visible death, says Mr Calvin on the place, was Symbolum, the fore-reckoning, or fore-shot of the death eternal; which, saith he, was just, 1. to punish Ananias for so heinous a sin: 2. to admonish allo after him. For, had not Saint Peter thus severely punished this sin, many, saith Mr Calvin, under colour of Religion, would have been forward to have rob the Church.  
And, now for close of all, will you be pleased to compare the Sacrilege now intended, and begun, in selling the Bishop's Lands, with that of Ananias? Where, 1. he sold only the lands, which were his own; but here that is taken away, and sold, that is Gods. 2. He had but promised those lands to God, but here in these lands, God, and his Assigns and Servants, have for his use, been in real and actual possession many hundreds of years. 3. He there kept back but a part; but here, all must be taken away, both root and branch. 4. There, probably, he might think to keep back a part, whereby to maintain himself, his wife, and family alive, in the great persecution: but, here the rich and wealthy take them away, thereby to join land unto land, and God's inheritance to their own possessions. 5. It may well be conceived, that, as this Ananias was but one private man of no great note, so that he might be of no extraordinary knowledge, and understanding; but more than probable, that he being a New Convert from Judaisme, or Paganism, was but a novioe in the Law of God, or at least of Christ: whereas they, who take and sell these Lands, are many, selected, and chosen, as the wisest, ablest, most just in this great Kingdom; and then, how far this Sacrilege doth exceed that of Ananias, in respect of the persons, the matter, the manner, and almost all circumstances, judge you.  
And, yet I may add one circumstance more, which doth heighten this fin, as much, if not more than any other; for, in the late Covenant, you have sworn to extirpate Episcopacy, which is the main and leading cause in the Ordinance, wherefore the Lands of Bishops must be sold; and not only have you sworn this yourselves, but, by threats, and forfeits, have urged, even the Bishops themselves to take the same: so, that they, who are to be spoiled and undone, are urged, contrary to Law, Justice, and Nature, to swear their own extirpation. O heavens! O earth! I had almost said, O hell! Did you ever hear the like?  
In the Preface to the Covenant it is said, that this Covenant is made according to the commendable practice of this Kingdom, and the example of God's people; and, I doubt not, but it hath been Preached, (as it hath been Printed) that this Covenant is warranted, as agreeable to the Covenants in holy Writ, and in the best Reformed Churches: how truly this is spoken and printed, I refer to that which Mr Nye, 
Cou. with narrative. p. 12.  one of the Assembly, hath printed; where he saith, It is such an Oath, the like hath not been in any age, or Oath we read of in sacred, or humane Stories. And, I say, that when this shall be proved by the Word of God, by the example of God's people, and the commendable practice of this Kingdom, that a few of the people, without their Head, did first covenant themselves; and then by threats, fears, and punishments, did compel all, both head and tail, to extirpate the Religion long settled by Law, and confirmed by the blood of many holy Martyrs; against which, nothing is brought in proof, that it is repugnant to God's Word:) and thereupon, to take and sell away, what was lawfully given to God for the maintenance of his Servants in the Church; I say, when this shall be proved, I will take the Covenant; both which will be ad Graecas Calendas, that is, as we say, the morrow after Doomsday, or never.  
I have proved, that alienating of these Lands, in God's Law is Theft; and I have showed God's threats and judgements against this sin; we have a proverb, what need a rich man be a Thief? (for few but such cast in their lots for Christ's garment) and thereby to hazard the wrath of God, and their own fatal execution? The Philistims, a people out of the Covenant of God, 
1 Chron. 6.  yet for detaining, but a while, the Ark, wherein the Law was kept, were shamefully punished in their hinder parts, and some with death; which caused the living to restore what was unjustly taken, with interest of much gold. And when Moab and Ammon had consulted, covenanted, and voted, utterly to take away God's inheritance; it so came to pass, 
Psal. 83.  that after all the Church flourished and kept her own, when Moab and Ammon were utterly extinct, and laid in the dust: which like consideration, hath moved some, as wise, as pious, never to mingle their other lands wlth the Church's inheritance; and others, as pious, as wise, never in Parliament, to give assent to any Bills, for the Alienation of Church-Lands.  
It is conceived by many holy, and learned Divines, that the 74. Psalms was penned, upon the robbing of the Temple at Jerusalem, by Antiochus Epiphanes; which if so, then read and consider the sorrow, confession, and death of that Antiochus: Now, saith he, 
1 Macc. 6.12.  I remember the evils that I did at Jerusalem, that I took away all the vessels of gold and silver, that were therein: I perceive therefore, that for this cause, troubles are come upon me, and behold, I perish through great grief.  
It is time you will say to conclude, and I pray, let it be with Prayer, and such as Mr Calvin used in his Comment on Acts 5. Lord grant, that, as, upon the sudden fearful punishment of Ananias his Sacrilege, 
Acts 5.11.  Fear came upon all the Church, and upon as many as heard these things, so the same, or the like fear, may strike all our hearts, that so, (out of a true love, and due honour to God, and that we may escape the dreadful curses and punishments, threatened and inflicted on this sin) we may in time, while it is called to day, repent us of this, and all other our sins, and so obtain mercy, and eternal life in Christ Jesus our only Lord, and Saviour.  
Be wise now therefore, O ye Kings, 
Psal. 2.10.  be instructed ye Judges of the earth.  
Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. 
Ver. 11.   
Kiss the Son lest he be angry, and ye perish. 
Ver. 12.    
The end.   

Errata.  
TItle Pag. [And what is given to God is holy, Ezek. 48.] add in the Margin p. 5. l. 19 Matth. 10.1, 40, 41, 42. Mark 9.41. John 13.20. p. 6. l. 17. deal & Leu. 27.32. p. 9 l. 29. d. Ibid. p. 53. in mar. p. 17. l. 7. for here. r. hear. p. 19 l. 14. Mat. 19.19. p. 32. l. 30. d. Exod. 23.2. r. Num. 16.38. p. 33. l. 33. Pro. for 25.20. r. 20.25. in mar. p. 34. l. 31. for Ball. Catoples. r. Bell. Staplet. in marg. p. 41. l. 11. for 3. r. 4. in mar. p. 42.12. r. Gal. 4.15. p. 43. l. 29. r. abased. p. 48. l. penul. r. 47. in mar. p. 52. l. 20. r. 25 Hen. 8. c. 20. in mar. p. 55. l. 25. for Covenant r. Government. p. 60. l. 4. r. Christ and S. Peter. p. 61. l. penult. r. Rom. 3.8 in marg. p. 64. l. 33. r. 1 Sam. 22.18. p. 69. l. 33. r. Mat. 4.17. in mar. p. 75. l. 26. for 5. r. 4. l. 29. for 8. r. 7. l. 32. for 9 r. 8. l. 36. for 9 r. 4. p. 76. l. 4. for. 11. r. 12. p. 80 for 1 Chro. 6 r. 1 Sam. 6. n mar.