Five disputations of church-government and worship

Mr. Richard Vines his Letters before mentioned as a Testimony that the Presbyterian Ministers are not against a fixed President, or that Episcopacy which Bishop Hall, &c. would have been satisfied with.

Reverend Friend, I Received your two last; and as for a Schoolmaster I shall do the best I can to propound one to you, &c. As for your Question about Sacrilege, I am very near you in present opinion. The point was never stated nor debated in the Isle of Wight. I did for my part decline the dispute: for I could not maintain the cause as on the Parliaments side: and because both I and others were unwilling, it was never brought to any open debate: The Commissioners did argue it with the King: but they went upon grounds of Law and Policy; and it was only about Bishops Lands: for they then averred the continuance of D. and Chapters Lands to the use of the Church. Some deny that there is any sin of Sacrilege under the Gospel: and if there be any, they agree not in the definition: Some hold an alienation of Church goods in case of Necessity; and then make the Necessity what and as extensive as they please. The most are of opinion that whiles the Church lies so unprovided for, the donations are not alienable sine Sacrilegio. If there were a surplusage above the competent maintenance, it were another matter. Its clear enough that the Donors wills are frustrated, and that their General intention and the General use, viz. the maintenance of Gods worship and Ministers, should stand, though the particular use might be superstitious. I cited in my last Sermon before the Parliament (unprinted) a place touching Sacrilege out of Mr. Hildersham on Psal. 51. It did not please. You may find the words in his book by the Index. If his description of it be true, then you will still be of your own mind. I dare encourage no purchasers; but do desire to have some more of your thoughts about it, and I shall return you mine: as I do my thanks for your excellent and worthily esteemed Treatise which you vouchsafed to prefix my name before: Sir, I have no more time or paper but to subscribe my self Your truly loving Friend R. Vines. London, July 20.

Reverend Friend, I Received your two last; and as for a Schoolmaster I shall do the best I can to propound one to you, &c. As for your Question about Sacriledge, I am very near you in present opinion. The point was never stated nor debated in the Isle of Wight. I did for my part decline the dispute: for I could not maintain the cause as on the Parliaments side: and because both I and others were unwilling, it was never brought to any open debate: The Commissioners did argue it with the King: but they went upon grounds of Law and Policy; and it was only about Bishops Lands: for they then averred the continuance of D. and Chapiters Lands to the use of the Church. Some deny that there is any sin of Sacriledge under the Gospel: and if there be any, they agree not in the definition: Some hold an alienation of Church goods in case of Necessity; and then make the Necessity what and as extensive as they please. The most are of opinion that whiles the Church lies so unprovided for, the donations are not alienable sine Sacrilegio. If there were a surplusage above the competent maintenance, it were another matter. Its cleer enough that the Dnors wills are frustrated, and that their General intention and the General use, viz. the maintenance of Gods worship and Ministers, should stand, though the particular use might be superstitious. I cited in my last Sermon before the Parliament (unprinted) a place touching Sacriledge out of Mr. Hildersham on