CHURCH-LANDS NOT TO BE SOLD OR A necessary and plaine 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 Gods 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 Land-mark 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 Pupill or Fatherlesse and that it is not agreeable to Law or Right that such should be dis-inherited Printed in the Yeare 1648. The Heads or Points briefly touched in this Answer 1. THat Lands may be given to the Church for Gods 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 beene 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 Kingdome in general and of the Tenents to such lands in special 7. That it is against the Lawes of this Kingdome of England which the two Houses of Parliament and Kingdom by their several Declarations Protestations and Covenants are bound to maintaine 8. That it is against the Prudence and Justice of the King and against his lawfull 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 downe and executed in Holy Writ against Sacrilegious Alienations are held forth and opened CHAP. I. That Lands may be given to the Church for Gods Service and Servants therein DId I conceive it proper to this Discourse and that it would move you it were easie to shew out of very good Histories that the Heathen who knew not the true God and Infidels not beleeving 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 owne Land wherein then Heathenish were Idol Priests Antiqu. Brit. Armicaâ— whom Lucius King in some part of Britain being converted to the knowledge and faith of Christ about the yeare 176. rooted out and taking away their possessions and territories he gave them to the Churches of the beleeving 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 bin pleased to expresse that the Egyptian Priests had lands for so we read Gen. 47.22 Onely 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 Greekes and Romans honoured their chiefe Priests as Princes Baren ad An. 383. yea Constantine the Great being Emperour and a Christian yet retained the title of Pontifex maximous The great or high Priest But to returne to our purpose for we argue not for title but maintenance out of that Text of Gen. 47. it appeares that the people who were as the Apostle speakes 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 setled maintenance and that in lands Give mee leave here to adde 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 Historie and tell you that so soone as God had raised himselfe a Church by the Ministery of his servant Moses Acts 7.22 who was learned in all the Wisdome Lawes and Policies of the Egyptians he gave to his servants in his Church besides 1. The first-borne of all men and caâ—â—â— 2. Besides the first fruits of the earth 3. Besides a part in all their severall Offerings 4. Besides all the Tithes both of their Goods Weems Synagog and of the encrease of their Lands so that if an Husband-man had 6000. bushels of graine or corne growing in a yeare after that he had paid all his Tithes he had left to himselfe 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 corporall abouring Levite which was but a shadow of the glorious Sun-shine of the Gospel and the Royal Priest-hood which we enjoy And yet as though nothing could then under the Law be done too much for the Servants in Gods Temple King Solomon a Type of Christ not only suffered them to enjoy what before had bin given them immediately from God but to shew the high esteeme which ought to be had to the Priest whereas the King had a Coine estamped with the Sword and Scepter which was the Royal Coine the Priests had their Coine too bearing the pot of Manna and Aarons Rod to shew it a Royal Priest-hood 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 untill 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 lesse 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
The Prophet Ezekul speakes this plainly And Lev. 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 Gospell by mans dedication and Gods acceptation the propriety as by Liverie 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 Christs and then and thereby who will denie it to be holy The Prophet tells the Jewes that they had robbed God Mal. 3. the Jewes aske how and wherein to which Saint Hierom expounding the Prophet saith Ye have robbed 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 onely have the Primitive Fathers and Councels spoken thus but both Law and Gospell 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 cals Church lands divine Tenements according to which K. Ethelred long before Anno 998. giving lands to the Church of Canterbury stiles 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 Bishops 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 easie to prove though first I shall plainly confesse that as God held not himselfe 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 yeares agoe to give them after the manner of a Norman or a later invented forme 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 finde so plaine and formal grants of any gifts or offerings in the Booke of God unlesse you mention those of the Temple as these of the Bishops 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 Lev. 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 Christians dedicating and selling their lands yet because the Israelites and Christians intended them to God God so accepted them as given to himselfe and according Marlorat the Collector of the Comments of the late Reformed Divines termes 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 Gods interest So that although much lands heretofore in England were by the Donors entituled 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 againe 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 hee gives it to the Lord who wil accept it as a gift to himselfe But if we shal give credit to the best Records and Histories we want not plaine proofes that much of the lands held by Bishops and Church-men were in expresse words given to God and Christ Spelm. Cone p. 119. Sumner p. 47. About the yeare 605. Ethelbert the first Christian King of our English Nation giving lands to the Church saith Dene concedo has terras Deo and as hee was the first English Christian King that gave lands to God so was hee the first that I finde who gave them with this curse Si quis de hac donatione aliquid minuere rentaverit aut irrirum facere sit in praesenti sepvratus à sancta Communione Corporis Sanguinis Christi P. 350. in die Judicii à consortio sanctorum K. Ethelnulph Anno 855. dat terras Deo as Spelman cites 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 cites 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 hee now grieved in conscience for that wicked act Regist Roff. f. 8. B. restores them Omnipotenti Christo I could adde many more the like of the Saxon Kings After whom William the Conquerour in the fourth yeare of his reigne in England chooseth and sweareth twelve the best and most learned men in the Lawes of the Kingdome diligently to search and truely to set downe the Lawes and Customes thereof Spelm. Cone p. 619. as they were in use in the time of K. Edward the Confessour among which Lawes 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 termes 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
But why in Gods name are not the Assembly of Divines at Westminster consulted with in this point Or why doe 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 mens 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 Tenents to such Lands in special BUt were there not so much said in Gods Book and by learned Orthodox Divines shall neither our owne Lawes nor Prudence nor Justice prevaile in this case to keep us from selling of Church Lands For what Justice is it to sell that which is not our owne And that these lands are 1. Gods I hope it is proved sufficiently by Gods words the verdict of allowed Divines and shall be further proved anon by the Lawes of our Land 2. They are the Bishops who are Gods Assignes and Usufructuaries and these lands are theirs by as good title in Law as any man can hold any land in this Kingdome 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 lawfull and rightfull 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 knowne and what is desired not that the Bishops Lands should be sold but that they may not be leased out by the Bishops for longer terms of time then for 21. yeares or three lives no not to the Crowne And is this Justice so soone forgotten or so soone changed in so short a time that without the consent of God the Proprietary of the King the Patron and of the Bishops the Assignes 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 Bishops Lands I pray examine by that rule and touch-stone of true Moral Justice which our Lord Christ hath expressed in two short Precepts the one Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe The other Mat. 19.9 Mat. 7.12 Whatsoever ye would that men should doe unto you doe you even so unto them for this is the Law and the Prophets Now by the first rule examine your selves whether in this act of selling the Bishops Lands you love the Bishops as your selves And trie this by the other whether you would yeeld 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 speake the truth I feare they would denie this to be just in the Bishops against you and if so then be assured that in this act of selling the Bishops lands you doe not that which by the verdict of your owne conscience is just And if you will as Law-makers should look forward and provide for future times stands it with civil Prudence to sell those Lands away which doe and will yeeld so much for maintenance of the King and Kingdome in Tenths First-fruits Subsidies and Taxes which for the most part will bee swallowed up when fallen into Lay-hands 2. Stands it with civil Prudence to robb Tenents of so good penniworths as they now hold from Bishops and Church-men which they must not expect when in Lay-hands whereby they have beene enabled the better to serve the King and Kingdome in time of need 3. Stands it with Prudence and Charitr to cast so many into a state of beggery and danger of theeving who by Bishops and Church-men 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 Wee grieve for the suppression of so many Religious Houses whereby the Pooralty of your Realme is unrelieved and many put off their livings which is a dammage to the Common-wealth Soone after another Rebellion arose in Yorkeshire where 40000. with Horse Armes and Artillery rose 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 evill Counsellers 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 robb Learning and Religion of that profit and preferment which encouraged the study and encrease both of Learning and Religion Prov. 14.4 Where no oxen are the crib is cleane 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 then Dioclesian for this tooke away the able men but that Apostate their maintenance I shall close this point with that memorable passage of Sr Edward Coke in Winchesters Case The decay of the Revenues of the Church will draw after it the downe-fall of Gods Service and Religion which God in mercy avert CHAP. VII That it is against the Lawes of this Kingdome of England which the two Houses of Parliament and Kingdome by their severall Declarations Protestations and Covenants are bound to maintaine BUt if neither Gods Word nor the Verdict of best Divines nor Justice nor Prudence can be heard yet I pray heare what our Lawes 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 Maxime in our Law That no Statute Law or Custome which are against Gods Law or Principles of Nature can be of any validity but are all null which if granted it will save me the paines to cite our Lawes as having before proved that it is against Gods Law to sell away the lands of Bishops Yet let me adde 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 dammage 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 theeving bloudy decried Souldiers had their Lands taken from them yet were not those lands then divided among Parliament men nor sold for the Common-wealth although the Kingdome at that time was in distresse and want enough I beleeve more then now no the then Parliament surely conceived they might doe neither of these they therefore translated those lands and settled them on the Priorie of St John of Jerusalem and in the same Statute it is inserted that the Parliament then 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 sinne 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 Lay-men 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 confesse I finde 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 Parke nor fish in any Pond of a Prelate or other Religious person without the leave or will of the Lord or of his Bayliffe In those times sure the Parliaments found not that they had power to sell away the Bishops 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 Kings father which Charter Sr Edward Coke calls the Bulwarke of the Subjects Tenures in England and therefore upon this give me leave a little longer to insist as being a maine part and foundation of our Lawes 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 heare what this Charter speakes concerning the Lands of the Church and of Bishops and then say truely 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 expresly said Wee have granted to God and by this our Charter have confirmed for us and our heires 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 Lawes 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 exprest in the entrance viz. 1. The honour of God 2. The health of the Kings soul 3. The advancement of the Church 4. The amendment of the Kingdome And now heare this Law speake which is almost the same which was granted by K. John in the nineteenth yeare 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 begins 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 heare the Charter and Interpreter goe on Wee 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 hee 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 Church-men 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 Bishops Lands from sale Moreover these Grants are not alone for that or any set time but for ever Heare the Charter This we have granted to the Church i.e. Church-men for our selves and our heires 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 breake this great Charter And now if you grant which I think you will not denie that this Charter is a part of our Law then 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 seene what the Charter hath granted the Bishops as Church-men Chap. 19. now consider what the same Charter grants them as free-borne Subjects of the Kingdome 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 free-man 2. What disseising is 3. What is the Law of the Land To the first he saith That every free-born Subject is meant here to be a free-man To the second to be disseised saith he is to be put out of his seisin or dispossessed of his free-hold 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 Custome of England And for further explanation adds by the Law of the Land is understood by processe 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 onely declaratory of the Law of England And this saith he should admonish Parliaments that in stead of this pretious 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 Lawes which the two Houses and Kingdome by their severall Declarations Protestations and Covenants have solemnly bound themselves to maintain so it is against the Kings Prudence against his Justice and against his lawfull and just Oath It is against the Kings Prudence to devest 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 Bishopricks First-fruits and Tenths It is against the Kings Justice to take or make that away from his Heires and Successours which by our Lawes are justly and rightly granted unto them and these Rights the two Kingdomes of England and Scotland have sworn to maintain It is against his Justice to doe or suffer it to be done in respect of the Bishops to whom the King as the fountaine 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 maintaine 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 losse or disinheritance I pray well weigh whether it wil not amount even to a crying sinne in the King to doe or suffer such an injustice to be done to his Pupil the Church destitute of all help on earth save onely 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 Fatherlesse for their Redeemer is mighty and he shal plead their cause with thee Prov. 23.10 11 And when you wel consider and weigh what an Oath the King hath taken at his Coronation you cannot I beleeve acquit the King of a flat perjury if hee shall assent to the selling away of the Bishops Lands But what I shal urge in this point is not so much to inform the King who I am verily perswaded by the illumination of Gods 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 deterr 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 askes the King Sir will you grant and keep and by your Oath confirm the Lawes Customes and Franchises granted to the Clergy according to the Lawes of God The King answers I grant and promise to keep them Then the Bishop speakes 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 Lawes 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 maintaine to you and the Churches committed to your charge all Canonical Privileges and due Law and Justice and that I wil be your Protector and Defender to my power by the assistance of God as every good King in his Kingdome by right ought 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 Booke Now I beseech you all good Christians judge whether this be not an Oath able with feare and reverence to bind the King to the performance For 1. it is taken by the King Gods Anointed 2. In Gods House the holy Church 3. At Gods holy Table 4. Upon Gods holy Book 5. Tendered by Gods Ministers the Bishops 6. In the presence sight and hearing of Gods people 7. To defend Gods servants the Bishops and the Church 8. With the imprecation of Gods curses and forfeiture of Gods blessings in case of not performance so that if ever Oath could truely 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 lawfull 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 onely God and the Bishops I have cast mine eye upon a Treatise touching the Kings Oath published by Order and written by Mr Geree Preacher of Gods Word at Saint Albans wherein hee goes about to perswade 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 appeare 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 wayes of change but against invasion of the Rights of the Clergy So that if selling the Lands of the Church be such an invasion then he professeth that the King by his Oath is bound from it and whether it be so or no in his sense and judgement heare himselfe speake in the same Treatise where he expresly saith To abolish Prelacy and to seize the lands of Prelates to any private or civil interest undoubtedly could neither want staine nor guilt So that by the plaine expresse verdict of this Preacher of Gods 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
Rights of the Church in special cannot may not by any power be violated or taken away doe they yet grant such a power to Parliaments to take those Rights away and so expresly 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 himselfe 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 Bishops Lands for so it is said that the Kings of England gave them and that with such curses on their Successours 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 learne where ever good and lawful Parliament did ever take away any single mans whole estate though it were to pay the Publike debt or for Publike use except it were in a legal course And can you conceive that the two Houses may doe 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 yeelded up his assent by giving his Vote to his Proxie 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 Publike trust are not to the prejudice of any mans particular interest Argum. 8 And if it be yet urged that Parliaments may change the municipal Lawes of this Kingdom and therefore much more this of the Title or Tenure of Bishops 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 concerne the good of some in speciall I conceive with humble submission may not justly be changed except it be by the assent personal Vote or Proxie of those interessed none of which can here be said of the Church or Bishops or unlesse 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 Hebrewes Romans and all Religious good and Civil Nations and which is the Law of this Kingdome Ch. 14. 29. as is expressed in the great Charter But I feare these two last Arguments and many more such are built on sands which washed or driven away with a little wind all the building fals 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 consirming or witnessing Laws seldome is there any mention but of the King and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal except the Kings Servants Aldermen Spelm. Concil some wise men c. 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 Proâ—m 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 Kingdome yet there were only mentioned the King and the whole Nobility of the Kingdome viz. the Bishops Prelates Earles 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 Kingdome 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 formes of Acts in Parliament ran The King willeth provideth ordaineth granteth In the 31 Henry 6.1 The King ordaines 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 ordaine 1. Eliz. 3. We the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons representing the three Estates of the Realme of England make our humble petition to your Highnesse 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 Bishops vote for themselves and all the Church-men in England And thereupon if they have no Votes in Parliament then either they are the onely slaves and no Free-men or else those Church-men are not bound by these Lawes it being a Maxime in our Law that no man is bound to that Law wherein he had no Vote in person or by Proxie which no Bishop and I think no Church-man 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 Kings 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 c. which if your Majesty shall be pleased to adorne with your Majesties Royal assent without which it can neither be complete and perfect In answer to Judge Jenkin nor remaine to posterity And 1. Câ—r 7. the two Houses beseech the King to give his Royal assent to such Bils 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 Kings â—â—ent And so Mr Prynne affirmes Power of Parl. f. 47. Ib. fol. 104. In his Vindication p. 6. that the Kings assent is generally requisite to passe Lawes and ratifie them And Judge Jenkins that undanted Champion of our
received thanks and two thousand pounds per annum bestowed upon him for his later service Doe Protestants think you maintain the Popish Tenent remissâ culpâ remanet poâ—â—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 Bishops Lands which did proclaim it selfe 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 lesse 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 ought 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 shal 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 Bishops greater then that vast damning original sin in Adam to condemn all not onely 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 prophaned and let the pretended Delinquent the Bishop goe 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 murtherer escape the while The Charter saith 〈…〉 Nullus liber homo c. 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 then some Bishop in this Land should not have had not onely 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 houshold-stuffe and goods yea and all his books not leaving him one nor all or any of these taken by the plunder of rude Souldiers 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 practiced by this Ordinance â—â—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 victualed 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 doe 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 grosse 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 Jewes 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 Countrey-men contrary to all Law then 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 amisse in the Kingdom we are made the cause and must bear the blame of it Christianos adignem what publike 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 witnesse 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 Gods judgement thereupon and I shall leave it to your judgment and conscience to make the Application the case is set down Numb 16. where three ringleaders and
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 Governours of the Church and sure it cannot be conceiued 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 wildernesse but in swadling clouts and under grievous tyranny and persecution and therefore not capable of lands 2. As yet it had beene 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 Gods mercy obtaine some settlement and this was the course which Moses observed who untill by vanquishing the enemy he had obtained peace in the Land settled not lands and a perpetual maintenance for the Priests and Levites in Gods service Object But some may happily object that those lands were not dedicated or sold onely for the Apostles behoofe 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 ought can be proved to the contrary at their dispose alone for wee read that it was laid downe at the feet of none but the Apostles and this laying at the feet gives the power of interest and dispose of that which was so laid which might be confirmed by severall places both in Holy and Prophane Writ The case then I suppose is cleare 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 joynt consent of Calvin Beza Deedaâ— and other reformed Divines although by reason of the persecution they were constrained for present use and necessity to turne those lands into money 2. It is as cleare 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 beene 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 Gods Vicegerents as Mr Calvin judiciously observes on that place Which interest or title is not a whit diminished by objecting that other Christians and Lay-men 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 possessours but to be erogated by the grants or Lawes of the land to the reliefe of the poore for hospitality in pious uses and for the behoofe of the King and Kingdome both in time of peace and warre If nothing hitherto satisfie yet I hope that of our most blessed Saviour will doe it fully where he saith Is it not lawfull for out to doe what I will with mine owne Mat. 20.25 Where the Interrogation hath the force of an undoubted affirmation as if he had said questionlesse in a just right lawful way it is lawful for me or any man to doe what I or hee wil with mine or his owne and this I hope comes home to the Proposition or Assertion premised that lands may be given to the Church for Gods service and servants Hitherto I have but barely kept word with you that wee have from Gods word a Charter whereby we are enabled to hold lands if any wil give them now wil 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 counsell or strong perswasion 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 Prieste and Servants of the Lord God And when our Saviour tells it to the worlds end Mat. 25.40 that what ever good any Christian or other shall shew to his Apostles and Disciples he takes it as done unto himselfe and he will reward them doth he not herein vehemently perswade all true Beleevers at least to be good and bountifull unto them And can we conceive that Christ straitened the Christians bounty onely to a competent maintenance because he there speakes but of feeding and cloathing No surely this were too narrow it can intend no lesse then this that who shall in my name give unto my Disciples and Apostles my servants and Ministers present or perpetuall maintenance in diet lands or otherwise hee shall not loose his reward And if Christians be counselled or perswaded by Christ thus to give to his Apostles Disciples and their Successours in his Name and as for him sure it cannot be denied but that those Apostles Disciples and Successours 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 Gods 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 Christendome 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 Gods acceptation become Gods and therefore holy for there are in holy Writ foure kinds of holy things 1. Holy manners 2. Holy meanes leading thereunto as the holy Word holy Sacraments holy Prayer Deut. 33.8 Lev. 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 Lev. 27.22 If a man sanctifie 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 devoure holy things
Patron of the Bishops Lands and our Common Law makes him the Churches 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 mans Law his own Oath and conscience he is bound to defend and maintaine The Bishop doing fealty the King holds the Bishops hands betwixt his owne which saith Sr Edward Coke from Bracton Britton and others shewes that the King promiseth him protectionem Instit 1. p. 1. Sect. 85. defensionem warrantiam And addes 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 cals Foedus from Fides and termes it Sacramentum Fidelitatis which therefore the King may not upon other mens judgements and consciences breake 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 deferre not to pay it for he hath no pleasure in fooles pay that which thou hast vowed And which comes home to the vow and thing vowed It is a snare to devoure holy things Prov. 25.20 and after the vow to make enquiry i.e. how to breake it Argum. 5 But the King hath assented to as much in Scotland thereby to gratifie his people there and why not then to doe 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 againe 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 onely this I say if through passion ill counsel or the like he did that once there which should not have been done it followes not that hee may or should doe the like againe or here But 3. we are to understand whether the Bishops stood so enstated in their lands in that Kingdome as the Bishops doe 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 Oathes Charters as he stands in England wherein if there be a difference as I verily perswade my self there is then it will not follow the King did it in Scotland therefore he may or should doe it in England Argum. 6 Yet Parliaments have alienated Bishops Lands whereby they may plead it as a Privilege to doe 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 then à factoad jus non sequitur Argumentum it hath been unjustly done therefore it may be lawfully done a Plough-man will say holds not Now to affix or conceive an inerrability in a Parliament is I hope more then the Parliament will assume to themselves we Protestants have denied it to the Church of Rome Ball. Catoples nay their own greatest Jesuits disclaime it in matter of fact But if a hundred years sithence the King in Parliament used this power to alienate Church Lands yet not much above forty years agoe 1 Jac. 3. in King James his time the Parliament without the King waved the having any such power or privilege For that Act shewes that the two Houses in Parliament had not power to hinder Bishops from making Leases to the Crown for above one and twenty yeares or three lives and how in this short time the Power and Privilege is so vastly encreased 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 liv'd or I am sure not ever peacefull 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 Successour And did not the rebellious Israelites seem to plead the like Mal. 3. We doe but deteine 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 dayes of your Fathers ye have departed from mine Ordinance Ver. 7. Dan. 5. Mal. 3.11 and therefore heare Gods sentence on both Belshazzar and Israel where the King is punished with losse 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 mans lands in the Kingdome 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 doe Now if it be as before I proved against Gods and mans Law and Justice to sell away Bishops Lands then the Parliament may not doe it For the Parliament this Parliament often hath declared and sworn to maintain the Lawes of this Kingdom which are utterly against such Alienation The Jewes are told 1 Sam. 8. the King shall take their sons their fields c. 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 doe all that is spoken of him in that Chapter because it is said Ver. 10. this will be the manner and custome of the King so to doe 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 joyntly 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 Gods 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 exprest that the Rights of the Church shall be ever inviolable Now if that Charter and those Parliaments say the
or selling those possessions as belonging to God A grant of the Conquerour expounds this wherein he saith Lamb. Archaiol f. 125. Teneant terras possessiones suas in pace Dei ab omni exactione injustâ libiras His sonne 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 confirmes that grant in the same words K. Henry the First concedit terras pro Deo Ecclesiae Roffensi which is a cleare exposition of other grants which runne as many of the Saxon Kings did Sancto Petro Ecclesiae c. K. John as divers other Kings dat terras Episcopo Roffensi Ib. p. 14. successoribus suis in liberam puram perpetuam Eleemosynam And what is given in Almes is intended as given to God according to which the Jewes 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 Almes 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 addes Our old Law Bookes 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 Gods sake is done to God P. 96. and withall cites and allowes 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 breake 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 remaine for ever inviolable and sure their lands must be comprised here for Sr Edward Coke in his Institut on that Charter addes 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 adde what I finde 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. IIII. That such Alienation or Selling is forbidden in the Old and New Testament NOw me thinkes that which hath hitherto been said might terrifie any professour of Gods truth from the selling buying or alienating such lands so given but because nothing but expresse words in Scripture wil now a dayes serve the turn and would to God that might serve I pray consider the word of God by his Prophet Ezek. 48.14 expresly 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 Yee shall not sell nor exchange nor alienate Object Where if any will prove so wittie 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 marke I pray whether this be not a cavill for the force of Gods 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 speakes Ye shall not sel 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 Gods judgement Act. 5. the prohibition should hold more strong under the Gospel then 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 deteining but a part of this so lately his own hee is suddenly strooke dead and for ought we know without repentance Believest thou the Scriptures Then believe and know God will not be mocked with cavils or Law-termes or distinctions but as he is a God that knoweth the heart and searcheth the reins so where he findes Christians as Ananias to goe about to deceive or cheate him he will finde this man out and though he strike him not suddenly dead yet shall Gods wrath come like water into his bowels and like oyle into his bones or it shall be as a fire to consume his house But I feare too many there be who as they denie all relative holinesse 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 sinne for to profane Gods House and Ornaments is with them no Sacrilege to contemne and abuse Gods Ministers is as Christ prophesied in their account to doe God service and no Sacrilege Yea it is almost published that it is no Sacrilege to deteine or utterly to take away the maintenance of Ministers which are Tithes and yet if we beleeve Saint Paul there is such a sinne 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 aire neither reproves or forbids he that which is not sinne And it will appeare that the Sacrilegious person in alienating the Church lands breaks two Commandements in the first Table two in the second The sixt 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
understood his Disciples and Apostles read Chap. 10. 1. where he cals 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 unlesse God were the Proprietarie and owner of them but of such disputers I may say as Christ did of those Jewes Mark 12.24 Do you not erre because you know not the Scriptures nor the power of God What need we plainer proofe then our owne Law when as the great Charter speaking now in the name of King and people in Parliament saith We have granted to God c. Argum. 2 But the great Charter on which the Bishops so much relie was probably penned or gained by Bishops and it was granted in time of Poperie 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 Englands garden and I presume it savours not of Poperie but to such as have their senses stopped or themselves ill affected But if there be any Poperie proved in the Grant take that away in Gods name but let the Rights and the Lands continue for I know not how these can be capable of Poperie But wil all others who receive benefit by that Charter hold it null because granted in time of Poperie 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 Kingdome and therefore ought to hold and bind and then let me adde the first Impropriations in England were in time of Poperie 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 Poperie committest thou Sacrilege For we say the Receiver is worse then the Thiefe 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 Bishops lands Are they Preaching keeping Hospitality doing acts of Piety Justice Charity paying the King his due and serving the Publike For I finde 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 wayes taken away And Mr Geree before mentioned pag. 19. saith it What was Antichristian and contrariant to the Lawes of this Land was taken from the Church in the reigne of King Henry the Eighth And though the impulsive cause of giving some lands might be ill as to pray for the soules 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 Gods 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 confesse which have and retaine the matter forme 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 Londons Armes or some great mens Coates they have not so much as a Crosse 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 peece of Gods 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 owne 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 confirme what the two Houses have decreed and they have ordained the selling of the Bishops Lands Resp I shall passe by that so often fully answered Elegerint and shall confidently say that the King is no more bound to assent to what they decree then they are bound to decree and to sell the Bishops 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 doe evil againe if that which appeares 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 joyne with the two Houses for Protestants as they rightly hold no salvation by implicite faith so neither that one mans conscience should ride upon the backe 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 sinne whereupon further it may become a fearfull sinne by any tentation of promises threats restraints to draw or drive the King to assent to what his conscience forbids him to doe Againe the case betwixt the King and the two Houses in selling the Bishops Lands is very different for the King is bound by Oath to the Bishops to maintaine 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 followes 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 stiles him is the
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 plaine and easie 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 cloathing 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 appeare 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 Chrysostoâ—e gives that in the first planting of the Gospel the Jewes or Gentiles might perchance have supposed that the Apostles had preached rather for the gaine of their wealth then for the salvation of their soules and who knowes but that Saint Paul to that end spake that sentence 2 Cor. 12.14 I seeke not yours but you But because the Fathers of the Primitive Church are not heard in these times I desire you to heare Saint Paul who for himselfe 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 â—â—â—â—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 Neverthelesse we have not used this power but suffer all things lest we should hinder the Gospel of Christ In which words the Apostle evidently sheweth 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 Almes but morally as the seventh Verse of that Chapter shewes 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 onely no continuing city or certaine place of abode but wandred about Heb. 11.37 being afflicted and tormented Againe 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 aire 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 Gods 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 publikely known Congregations and therefore it being under bloudy 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 Church-men 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 doe 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 doe 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 enjoyes plenty which the two Houses have found both in City and Countrey Argum. 12 But other Reformed Churches have not such Lands and why this in England rather then they Resp Neither have they perchance Bels or Chancels c. what then Must these downe in England therefore 2. Perchance they had lands but as they complaine 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 Turkie 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 owne Laws and Customes 1 Cor. 11.16 and hitherto God be praised We have no such Custome 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 Historie and Records Gâ—â—ssar ad
verbum Baâ—on Sr Henry Spelman informe me right then it cannot hold that all Bishops in England hold their lands by or in the right of their Baronies for he affirmes that the title of Baron was not known in England till the time of William the Conqueror whereas most I dare say of some Bishops lands were given some one some two some three some foure hundred years before the Conquerors time and then judg whether those lands were given to hold per Baroniam Againe the same Author sayes that in England there were three sorts of Barons the first who were made by William the Conqueror and these hold their Honors and Places in all Courts by Prescription rather then 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 Kings Courts The third sort called Diplomatici who by the Kings 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 then 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 Custome 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 antient Dignity of Bishops in England and may have changed some of their Lands to be held per Baroâ—iam which at first were granted in puram perpâ—tuam Elâ—emosynam Whereupon Sr Henry Spelman cals the now Bishops Barones Elâ—emosynaries 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 Sauls 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 Bishops 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 Gods Almes-men and Servants and this continued to King Edward the Confessor after which time some Kings how justly judg 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 antient 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 antient just Rights for his Charter could intend no lesse 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 affirmes this later and further saith By the great Charter all the Rights are confirmed to the Church and Church-men 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 Freedomes 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 then by that imposition of a Conqueror And why the same judgment should not be given on Bishope Lands as on the Lands of other Free-men of England I see not Argum. 14 But some to take a shorter course will perswade that to take and sell these Lands of the Bishops is not Sacrilege because theft is onely in things moveable in which condition or acceptation Lands cannot be understood Resp Sr Edward Coke cites the Canon Law and approves of this as agreeable to our Law which saith Whâ—â— things are giâ—â—â— to the Church 2 Instit. p. 489. are holy Offerings whether they beres solide or mobiles whether they be moveable or immoveable Now doth our law say there is no theft in things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only saith it theft is in moveables If this and not that then why for the honor of our Law that it may not appeare to cross Gods may we not say that our Law hath onely 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 stoln But because Sacrilege or taking things immoveable is not by our Law punishable doth it therefore follow that it is no sin or punishable by Gods Law Suppose we have no Law to punish an Atheist an Idoater one that takes Gods Name in vaine who prophanes the Lords day who dishonoureth his Parents who tels or makes lies are therefore these no sins punishable by the Law of God And that by Gods Law defrauding God or man of immoveables be it of Lands is a sin be pleased first to bethink your self 1 King 21. whether King Ahah sinned in taking away Naboths Vineyard an immoveable I conceive in your sense and acceptation and if he sinned in this then what Commandement brake he Was it not the eighth which saith Thou shalt not steale And then doth it not plainly follow that theft may be in immoveables And that God may be robbed of immoveables 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 shale not sell nor alienate them which to doe is Sacrilege Argum. 15 But now followes the Argument which will admit no Answer There is a necessity lies upon the State to sell the Bishops Lands for without it the publike debts cannot be paid and without yeelding 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 Debters to discharge the debt rather then the Bishops 3. If
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 setled 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 doe and cannot but confesse 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 judgment 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 sayes 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 hainous a sin 2. to admonish allo after him For had not Saint Peter thus severely punisht this sin many saith Mr Calvin under colour of Religion would have been forward to have robbed the Church And now for close of all will you be pleased to compare the Sacrilege now intended and begun in selling the Bishops Lands with that of Ananias Where 1. he sold onely 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 Assignes 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 joyn land unto land and Gods 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 then probable that he being a New Convert from Judaism 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 adde one circumstance more which doth heighten this fin as much if not more then 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 onely have you sworn this your selves 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 Gods 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 Cov. 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 Gods 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 setled by Law and confirmed by the bloud of many holy Martyrs against which nothing is brought in proof that it is repugnant to Gods 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 Doomesday or never I have proved that alienating of these Lands in Gods Law is Theft and I have shewed Gods threats and judgments against this sin we have a proverb what need a rich man be a Theef for few but such cast in their lots for Christs 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 Gods inheritance it so came to passe 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 Churches inheritance and others as pious as wise never in Parliament to give assent to any Bils for the Alienation of Church-Lands It is conceived by many holy and learned Divines that the 74. Psalm 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 honor to God and that we may escape the dreadful curses and punishments threatned 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 rejoyce with trembling Ver. 11. Kisse 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. dele Lev. 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