Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	according_a	sense_n	word_n	4,231	5	4.2547	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30253	A case concerning the buying of bishops lands with, the lawfulness thereof and the difference between the contractors for sale of those lands, and the corporation of VVells, ordered, Anno. 1650, to be reported to the then Parliament / with the necessity thereof, since fallen upon Dr. Burges.	Burges, Cornelius, 1589?-1665.	1659 (1659)	Wing B5670; ESTC R11486	85,757	85

by them called Holy although without Word or Warrant from God or the Municipal Laws of Men and hereupon they require restitution and full satisfaction upon pain of Excommunication f Decret par 2. q. 12. Caus 12. c. 13. Nulli liceat Upon this sandy Foundation most of the School-Men Summists and Casuists build their Discourses of Sacriledge g Aquin. 22. q. 99. ar 1. Alex. Alens par 1. q. 168. m. 2. Hostien l. 5. c. de Crim. Sacril Lindw l. 1. C. Ignor. Sacerd. verbo Sacrileg Bonavent to 6. Centiloq Sect. 30. Azor. Moral l. 9. c. 27. and according to the Interest of their Party bring within the compass of that sin the profanation violation or any abuse of any thing place or person which they call Holy The striking of a Priest Deacon Nun or other Votary upon any occasion whatsoever The defiling of them by Uncleanness c. the renouncing of their Orders Vows or Votary States The abusing and prophaning of Churches Chappels Oratories Church-Yards and other consecrated places by buying selling stealing even ought that is common the committing of Whoredome acting of any Civil Affairs c. in them the polluting of Sacraments by unworthy receiving or not adoring of their Host the abusing or denying of any of those additional Sacraments which are but their own Fancies is with them Sacriledge The alienating converting to common Use or otherwise detaining of any Lands Goods Bequests Vestments Utensils of Churches Altars c. devoted and given by Men upon any account whatsoever to Churches or Religious Houses as they call them although never so superstitiously fraudulently and superfluously or any other way unwarrantably conferred and which God never required at their hands is all by them pronounced and declared to be Sacriledge In a word what ever crosseth prejudiceth disgraceth or hindreth the Profit of the Pope or any of his Clergy or Creatures that bear but the Name of the Church or ought pertaining to it is proclaimed and thundered against as Sacriledge which no satisfaction can expiate unless it be to the great advantage and gain of those that call themselves the Church That many although not all of the before-named particulars are great sins is willingly granted But that they are all Sacriledge is denyed For if we consider the Etymology of the Word or the proper Nature of the Thing in holy Scripture we shall soon discover the unsoundness of that Assertion As for the Etymon of the Word whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sacrilegium 2. VVhat Sacriledge is it denotes the lurching or stealing of somewhat that is sacred Hence Civilians h l. 6. l. 9. ff ad L. Jul. pecul term him Sacrilegus qui publica Sacra compilavit So Basil i Orat. de pece calls an Hypocrite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Sacrilegious Person because he robs God of his heart which at God's Command k Prov. 23.26 he pretendeth to give unto him The Latine word Sacrilegium is a Compound of Sacrum Legere and he is Sacrilegious qui Sacra legit id est furatur l Brisson who gathereth that is stealeth sacred things And here it may not unbeseem men pretending to School-Learning and to Antiquity to take with them that of the Learned and Acute Isidore of Sivil m Isid Hispal li. Differentiar lit S. touching the difference between Sacrum Religiosum Sanctum That saith he is Sacred which is Gods due that Religious which pertains to Religious Men and that Holy which is devoted or dedicated by Men. To which he adds Sacrum verò Sanctum est Sanctum verò non continuò Sacrum est Whatever is Sacred is also Holy but all that is Holy is not Sacred This gives light into the nature of the thing or sin of Sacriledge according to the use of the Word in holy Writ and the Language of the best Antiquity For all Sacriledge must needs refer to somewhat properly sacred in sense of Scripture Hence Hales Aquinas * Ubi supra and other ancient Schoolmen describe Sacriledge to be rei sacrae violatio the violation of somewhat that is sacred That is Which God hath ordained to be set apart for his Service and Worship Of this Solomon or rather God himself by Solomon n Prov. 20.25 It is a snare to the man that devoureth that thing which is holy and after the Vow to inquire or to recal it VVhere Tremellius renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Sacrum And Junius in his Annotations keeps to the same word understanding thereby as the Text intends it the things of God or His just due Great Use is made by a great Zealot o Mr. Will. Walker Ser. against Sacriledge against Sacriledge of some sharp passages of Mr. Cartwright in his Commentary upon that of Prov. 20.25 who is said to have been forced by evidence of truth to confess That now in the time of the Gospel whatsoever is either established by Law or conferred by mans Liberality for the Vses of Gods service is all to be accounted sacred or holy And for this cause both the taking away of the whole or the diminishing of any part of such holy things is Sacriledge condemned in Deut. 23.21 22 23. And it is true that Mr. Cartwright with too much confidence following in this point the Popish Doctors in his first expressions speaks to that effect But yet not as if it vvere in mans power by a voluntary Vow or Dedication to make a thing sacred whether God hath given all the Rules or Directions about it as he did in all the Voluntary Offerings in the time of the Levitical Law or not For he never meant it of Gifts made of mens own accord wherein God had not prescribed all the Rules and Laws touching both Matter and Manner of their voluntary Gifts unto God Wherefore how heavily soever he falleth upon the sin of Sacriledge yet he concludeth all with this Explication and Limitation Quod tamen non ita accipi debet ac si vota nulla cujuscunque generis rescindenda sint cum haec de legitimis Votis ex prescripto Verbi factis sint intelligenda Which Expression of mine saith he is not so to be taken as if no Vows of what kinde soever were to be rescinded or recalled Seeing these things are to be understood of lawful Vows made by the prescript of the VVord That place in Deut. 23. although it leave a man free in a Free-Will-Offering yet it ties him in case of a Vow made But withal he is to perform his Vow according to the prescript of God VVhatever is vowed or devoted to God for a divine use or for his service and worship is Worship But whatever is so offered if not prescribed by God is Will-Worship which he abhorreth p Mat. 15.9 They might not offer what they listed no nor so much as they pleased even of what he had prescribed not thousands of Rams or ten

thousand rivers of Oyl q Mic 6.7 although Elies sons and Papalins too would have found room enough for all but what and how many Rams and how much Oyl God in his Law had appointed This is so clear in the Levitical Law that he that runs may read it If therefore the devoting of Free-VVill-Offerings could not then legitimate and make them sacred unless God himself had given the rule therein how can it be seriously affirmed That any thing given by men under the Gospel can be sacred unless it be such as they have received VVarrant and Rules from God for the giving of it And if not sacred how can it be Sacriledge to alien it to common Uses VVill God own any thing as Holy for which Himself hath not given Order More Orthodox and clear is the Exposition r In Pro. 20.25 of that holy and now blessed Saint in heaven Mr. John Dod To devour that which is holy is saith he to pervert those things which are by God's Ordinance appointed for His service from the right Vse of them to a mans own private gain and commodity Thus the learned Danaeus gives almost the same description of things properly called Sacred which to purloyn or alienate makes guilty of Sacriledge Res Divinae appellantur quae sunt ad sacrum Dei cultum destinatae quasve sibi interdicto prolato Dominus reservavit in usu commercioque hominum esse vetat Quarum rerum furtum dicitur Sacrilegium They are termed divine things which are destinated to the sacred Worship of God or which by some interdict or prohibition of God he hath reserved for Himself and forbidden to be imployed for the use or commerce of men The stealing of which things is called Sacriledge So then Sacriledge Sacriledge described according to Scripture is the robbing of God by alienating detaining purloyning or perverting that which is Gods own by Divine Right and thereupon due to the Ministers of the Gospel whether the things be set apart by express Command or voluntarily given by men by vertue of some special Warrant and Direction from God That Sacriledge is a robbing of God we have His own Word for it both in the Old Testament ſ Mal. ● 8 and in the New t Rom. 2.22 It is opposed to offering to an Idol therefore it must needs be a taking from God And that this is committed by aliening detaining purloyning or perverting of things due to Ministers by Divine Right is clear by that of the same Apostle u 1 Cor. 9.9 Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox c. applied to prove the Divne Right which Gospel-Ministers have to maintenance from those to whom they preach Of which Bishops Lands were never any part being no where commanded or directed by God So that the buying of them now cannot be Sacriledge It hath been indeed confidently affirmed that Dr. Burges himself openly acknowledged at the Bar of the House of Commons in Parliament in w May 11. 1641. his Answer to Dr. Hackets speech there made in the names of all the Deans and Chapters in England for preventing the alienations of their Lands and Revenues that To take away those things from the Church was Sacriledge But this is an unjust Aspersion Dr. Burges did indeed declare a concurrence with Dr. Hacket in admitting that the alienating from the Church any thing settled upon it by Divine Right is Sacriledge but nothing else It was far from him to include all that Cathedral men enjoyed to be theirs by Divine Right or to admit that it was Sacriledge to alien any thing that was theirs not by Divine Right as that flashy jeering Author of the late published History of the Church upon hear-say onely and out of Resolution calumniari fortiter hath falsly reported him He intended no more in that speech then what he had long before x An 1625. published in a Preface to a little Tract of Personal Tythes where he useth these words To that Tenet viz. that Tythes are due jure Divino I subscribe Affirmatively ex animo But with Cautions 1. Tythes I say not ought else are due by Divine Right to Ministers of the Gospel 2. I never was nor I think ever shall be of that Opinion that all Tythes within such or such a Circuit of ground now by positive Law made but one Parish are absolutely and without all Exception due by Divine Right to the Person of one single Incumbent there But to the Church * Or rather unto Christ her Lord and thereby to her in whose name he receiveth them Had he granted more he had deviated from Truth And should it be proved by an hundred Witnesses that he fully concurred with Dr. Hacket in that Point this could not make Sacriledge of larger extent then what it is indeed What he then spake was on the sudden not having an hours time to ponder his Expressions That is to be taken for his Judgement which upon serious study he had published so many years before And if any such thing as is charged upon him fell from him in the House of Commons he doth renounce it as an Error If any man shall upon this occasion A Digression for further clearing of what is here undertaken and for more full clearing of this Point demand some further Scripture Grounds to make it out that neither the late selling nor buying of Bishops Lands is Sacriledge let him without prejudice or passion ponder these two things First That Tythes are the proper maintenance set out by God for the Ministers of the Gospel and cannot be alienated without Sacriledge 2. That there is no Warrant in Scripture for the giving of Lands to Bishops nor argument to prove God's acceptance of them as holy to the Lord. And therefore it cannot be Sacriledge now to alieu them or purchase them from the Church The first thing undertaken is this That all yearly tythes of the Ground Cattle Fruits and of all things else are still due by Divine Right unto Christ and by him are given to his Servants in the Ministry of the Gospel and may not be alienated For proof hereof consider these six Particulars 1. Tythes are Jure Divino 1. Tythes are called by God himself his Inheritance Deut. 18.1 where he gave to the Levites two things the Offerings and Tythes for their maintenance They shall eat the Offerings of the Lord made by fire and his Inheritance that is the Tythes For these only were his Inhetance which is there distinguished from the Offerings made by fire So he declared himself unto the Levites Num. 18.24 When ye take of the children of Israel the Tythes which I have given you from them for your Inheritance He that gives them as their Inheritance must first have a propriety himself in them as his own Inheritance Hence he chargeth with sacriledge such as detained either of these from the Priests and Levites as robbing of himself Ye

have robbed me in Tythes and Offerings y Mal 3.8 2. Nor was this a new Title raised only for maintainance of the Levites with reference to the Levitical Service only But Tythes were Gods due long before and paid as God appointed where ever he set up a Priest and publike Priesthood Evangelical as well as Legal In so much as Levi himself before he was born is said to have paid Tythes in Abraham z Heb 7.9 For he was yet in the loyns of his Father when Melchisedeck met him a Vers 10. To whom the Patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the very Spoyl he had taken in War b Vers 4. Melchisedeck was no Legal but Evangelical Priest of the High God at least in type For Christ himself is a Priest for ever of the same Order and so hath the same right to Tythes that Melchisedeck had Of which more by and by 3. If we consult Gospel-times it will appear that albeit Gospel Ministers were not in actual Possession of Tythes at the first preaching of the Gospel nor during the Ten grand Persecutions no more than were the Levites in the Wilderness yet Gods right was still the same and he by Ordinance setled them upon the Ministers of Christ even from the first calling them to preach For as of old They that ministred about holy things lived of the things of the Temple and they which waited at the Altar were partakers with the Altar even so hath the Lord ORDAINED that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel 1 Cor. 9.13 14. Hence the same Apostle who wrote this to the Corinthians gives it in charge to the Galatians and in them to all that had received the Gospel that every one that is taught in the Word see that he communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things Gal. 6.6 At that time Christs propriety in Tythes could not be available to Ministers there being no Laws among them to recover them Therefore He requires them for that present to lay out such maintenance as they could well raise yet so as they should communicate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in or of all their goods as some not improperly translate the Original as the Israelites did to the Levites attending the Ark in the Wilderness 4. Neither that last mentioned Ordinance of God nor the Charge given to the Galatians could extend to any Offerings made by Fire or of any other Levitical Profits all which ceased when Christ our High Priest had once offered Himself up to God and thereby accomplished all which those Offerings typified and changed the Priest-hood Therefore it must be meant of Maintenance by Tythes so soon at least as the Gospel should be received by their Covernours and Laws could be made for putting Gods Ordinance in Execution for that standing Maintenance by Tythes not in Levi's right as Successors to him but as Servants to Christ 5. That this was the Apostles meaning is evident because Tythes being first paid long before Levi to Melchisedech a Priest of Christs own Order and Abraham the Father of the Faithful and in him Levi paid Tythes unto Melchisedech as the fore-runner of Christ in respect of Priesthood it necessarily followeth that Tythes are still due to Christ in whose name and right his Servants the Ministers ought to take and enjoy them For the Apostle upon this very ground proves Christ to be a Priest after the Order of Melchisedech not onely because he liveth but because also he receiveth tythes Here saith he meaning in Judea during Aarons Priesthood men that die receive tythes but there that is where Melchisedech's Priesthood is exercised He receiveth them of whom it is witnessed that he liveth c Heb. 7.8 Which he there applieth to Christ and to no other 6. Therefore all yearly tythes by some called d Dr. Tbo Godwin in Mos Aaron lib. 6. cap. 3. of Tythes the first tythes are the proper standing Maintenance set out by God for Ministers of the Gospel in all settled and well-governed Christian Commonwealths which in obedience to God make Laws for the due payment of them for that they still belong to Christ as His inheritance and portion payable to his Ministers by way of homage unto him as his right from all his people And therefore to alien or imploy them to any other use under any pretence whatsoever is plain Sacriledge not onely in those who so alien them but in them also who so possess and imploy them if they be not Ministers of Christ or being Ministers preach not the Gospel or procure not others if themselves be disabled by age or sickness to do it it being no other but a robbing of Christ of what is his proper due and by God made holy to himself The Second Point here undertaken is That there is no Warrant in Scripture for the giving of Land to Bishops nor Argument to prove Gods acceptance of them as holy to the Lord and that it can be no Sacriledge now to alien them This Point hath two branches to be prosecuted distinctly 1. That there is no Warrant in Scripture for the giving of Lands to Bishops nor Argument to prove Christs acceptance of them as holy to the Lord. Which appeareth thus 1. There is no word in the New-Testament that requireth or countenanceth such endowments The Ordinance for Ministers Maintenance recorded by St. Paul * 1 Cor. 9. extends no further then to what was allowed to Levites while they continued nor to all that neither Offerings made by Fire are by Christ extinct It reache●● indeed to all good things that is to Goods not Lands in the judgement of all Expositors ancient and modern Popish as well as Protestant It extends therefore to Tythes onely as the constant standing Livelyhood of Ministers of the New Testament where Tythes may be had and in the mean time to such other competent allowance in Goods or Money as could be raised for them There are some Wyre-drawn Arguments or rather futilous Fancies for Proof of the extent of God's Ordinance for Evangelical Ministers Maintenance even unto Lands also produced by the confident Author of a printed Answer to a Letter said to be written at Oxford Anno 1647. superscribed to Dr. Samuel Turner touching the change of Church Government by Bishops and the alienating of their Lands Which the said Author undertakes to prove to be impossible to be done with a good Conscience His Arguments are taken from sundry Scriptures viz. from Mat. 25. I was hungry and ye fed me c. as also from Mat. 10.40 He that receiveth you receiveth me and from Act. 5. touching Ananias and Sapphira and from Rom. 2.22 Committest thou Sacriledge But his Arguments from those Scriptures to prove what he undertakes are so je june and frigid that they deserve no answer Howbeit lest he should be wise in his own conceit let him take what followeth That Author undertakes to prove the alienating of Church-Lands