but being made into broad plates for the covering of the Altar the property of them was altered before they were allowed to be used The property altered hath not his immediate Teaching learned him to speak sense the form of the Censers was altered indeed but the property was not altered at all The Lord had the property of them when they were Censers and he had the same property in them when they are made into Plates The property of a a thing is not altered unless it change its Master If I have a property in a piece of Gold by a Friend's Gift and after see fit to melt it into a Ring for my own use the form is changed but the property is the same But to the Case before us As the Censers being once given to God must remain to be his still and though they might be used to another holy use yet they could not be alienated to a prophane or common use so we may learn it ought to be in other sacred Dedications If the things were offered to maintain an evil way of Worship they may be applied to maintain a right way of Worship but still they must remain sacred God's property in them should not be altered § 20. The poor Quaker finding his Arguments will not be able to wrest Tythes out of the Clergys hands attempts to get more forces on his side and pag. 297. makes a fine Speech to exasperate the Impropriators against the Priests perswading them that we are about to take their Estates from them but I shall make it evident very shortly § 37. That this very flattering Quaker that seems so tender of their Rights here doth labour to his utmost skill to prove they neither have nor can have any Right to or Estate in Tythes at all and that it is ridiculous unjust and unreasonable in them to pretend to have any such Estate so that I hope the Impropriators and all others will see the falseness of his dealing and observe that he will say any thing to serve a present turn and make the Priests odious For our parts we do not like the Quakers take upon us to censure the Actions of our Princes and Parliaments nor yet where Priests have temporal Estates the Tythes whereof belong to Lay-Impropriators do we refuse to pay those Tythes as the Laws of the Land appoint we do not pretend Conscience to save Charges as the Quakers manner is Whatever opinions therefore the Priests hold in this matter they do not oppose the Laws nor go about to perswade any to take away the Impropriators Estates from them There are some indeed not only of the Clergy but the Laity also who have been of opinion That in point of Conscience and as far as concerns the Divine Laws these Alienations were not allowable and they have perswaded such as can spare them freely to return them to pious uses or however to make provision for a Minister out of them sufficient to instruct the People where the profits do arise but none of us ever used the Impropriators as the Quakers have done us we know the present Laws give them a legal Title to them and where we are lyable we pay chearfully to them if their own Consciences be satisfied to keep them we do not molest them but if we do say It is more pious and more Christian freely to restore them I hope this is no just cause of offence But for this matter see Dr. Basier's Sacriledge arraigned and that excellent Book called The larger Work about Tythes written by Sir Henry Spelman whose Example answered his Instructions for he gave an Impropriation back to the Church out of his own Estate and perswaded divers Great Men to do the like and many other excellent Men since that time have followed the same Pattern § 21. T.E. is pag. 300. again harping upon the old string of Popery and now he falls to work for the Jesuits in good earnest labouring to make out the Pope's Title to England by a Prescription of eight or nine hundred years and all this meerly to perswade the World that the Saxons were Papists when Tythes were given and consequently that they are Popish and ought to be abolished But how impertinent and untrue all this is I will examine For first if the Saxons in K. Ethelwolph's time were Papists it will not follow that all their Donations are void so that if he could make this out it would not prove his Position viz. That this Donation of Tythes is invalid Secondly and suppose they were Papists in some things yet it follows not that giving Tythes was a Popish Act for all the Acts of Papists are not Popish The Saxons of those dayes observed the Lords Day and made good Laws for its observation enjoyned all Persons to learn the Creed and the Lords Prayer they gave Alms to the poor protested against Adoration of Images c. and in these they were no Papists yea those of the present Roman Church do many Acts of Piety and Charity but sure those Acts are not Popish The Protestants have disputed as much and as well for Tythes as ever the Papists did and T. E. must know it is a Popish opinion That the Bishop of Rome can exempt Men from paying Tythes And therefore if our Ancestors who gave Tythes had been Papists in this Act they had been good Christians and differed not from the opinion of the Reformed Church Thirdly he begins too low by far for if Popery came not into the Church till about seven hundred years after Christ according to T. E.'s proofs then Tythes were much ancienter than Popery for they were paid and declared to be due to the Christian Church at least five hundred years before and T. E. must prove Origen Cyprian S. Ambrose Chrysostom Hierome and Augustine to have been Papists if he will make out that Tythes came into the Church with Popery Or if he pretend he meant it only of this Church of England we have shewed Tythes were paid generally and specially granted in some parts of this Kingdom long before Ethelwolph's time so that he may twattle thus to please his ignorant Quakers but we discern the emptiness and impertinence of these Allegations which are so nothing to the purpose that they deserve not to be considered at all Yet because the poor Man hath taken so much pains we will give him the hearing But it is rather to clear our Pious Ancestors from the Reproaches of this ungracious Cham than out of any necessity in order to the Case of Tythes First therefore let us note That most of those Doctrines which are properly called Popery and which first caused and still justifie the Protestants Separation from Rome were not maintained as Articles of Faith no not in the Church of Rome it self at the time of this Donation Anno 855. The Marriage of Priests was not forbidden till the time of Greg. VII above 200 years after (l) Polyd. Virgil derer invent l. 5. c.
general Account nor divert you from the perusal of the Observations themselves where all these Things are more fully made out THE RIGHT OF TYTHES Asserted Proved § 1. WHEN I first cast my eyes upon Thomas Elwood's Chapter concerning Tythes I could not but take notice that the Subject did so raise his Passion that he throws off the usual Formality of that Patience and Meekness which those of his Party generally pretend to and flies out into ill Language at the entrance into his Discourse upon them for he calls them The Priests Delilah the very Darling and Minion of the Clergy Now since Railing is not Reasoning I will not meddle with his Scurrility but rather inquire into the Causes why he and his Party are so bitter against Tythes The ruder sort it may be are acted by meer Covetousness pretending Conscience to save their Purses supposing this kind of Godliness is great Gain But T. E. and the more Politick Managers of this Sect have higher Designs And as King Philip of Macedon perceiving the Athenian Orators obstructed his Projects to get the Dominion over that City perswaded that People to banish those needless Members as he called them so the leading Quakers perceiving the Clergy of England so able and industrious to discover all their evil Designs use their utmost Art to enrage the People against them railing at their Profession slandering their Persons undervaluing their Sacred Administrations disputing against their Learning and especially seeking to deprive them of their Maintenance which they take to be one main part of their Support They know while the Clergy have these Provisions they will have Books and leisure to Study and Learning enough to baffle all their silly Pretenses which can gain no ground as long as a Priesthood stands And therefore it is one part of Conversion in the Quakers account to make Men hate their Ministers Persons and withhold their Dues Railing at Tythes being the Quakers Delilah the very Darling and Minion of that Sect. They see they cannot quench the Lamp and therefore they would stop the Oyle that nourishes it and because they dare not engage this Army they attempt to force them to disband for want of Pay Hezekiah commanded his People to give the portion of the Priests and Levitâ—s that they might be encouraged in the Law of the Lord 2 Chron. xxxi 4. And the Jews have a Proverb Sine farina non est lex But our Adversaries finding our Study of the Law so destructive of their inspired Nonsense they would gladly stir up the People to take away our Books and Subsistence from us that we might be starved into Ignorance and by our sad Necessities be brought down to their scantling of Understanding and then they hope their Speakers would be an equal Match for us And truly our Quakers find their Harangues against Tythes are very taking with the Covetous and Atheistical with those who care not much for any Religion and therefore like the cheapest best They please such as do not understand the Clergies Right to them nor discern the ground of the Quakers spite against them But wise and pious Men who know what Benefit both Church and State receive by this disposal of Tythes do despise such Railers and look upon them as designing to disturb the Kingdom destroy Learning and ruine the most famous of all Protestant Churches 'T is a Policy of Secular Rebels to complain of Tributes and Publick Payments not so much in pity to the People as malice to the King that his Treasury being empty he may be exposed to their Fury and unable to resist their Force And these Rebels in Religion take the same Method But what Tacitus saith of the State may be applied to the Church in this Case There can be no Quiet to the Nations without Souldiers no Souldiers without Pay nor no Pay without Tribute on which therefore the Common Safety doth depend Even so No Peace in the Church without Ministers no Ministers without Maintenance nor no Maintenance without these publick Contributions on which therefore the Safety of Religion doth depend So that our Changers of Religion mainly seek to overthrow these things and to that end have sent out T. E. as their Champion But I doubt not to shew he is armed with more Malice than Reason and that his Arguments are as weak as his Designs are base § 2. And first Dear Sir I perceive our strutting Quaker looks on you with a scornful eye and says p. 277. Tythes were wont to be claimed as of Divine Right but he finds this Priest is not hardy enough to adventure his Cause upon that Title Sure he takes himself to be very terrible for he believes none but a hardy Man dare set upon him yea he persuades his Quakers that they who were wont to claim Tythes de jure Divino were more bold than wise Let us therefore see who and what they were whom T. E. thus censures Truly no less than Origen Hom. 11. in Num. 18. Cyprian de Vnitate Eccles S. Hierom. in Malac. 3. S. Augustin Hom. 48. divers Christian Councils of old Justinian and the Imperial Roman Laws Charles the Great and the French Capitulars the Saxon Kings and Councils of this Nation and all Monarchs and Parliaments of later times particularly King Henry VIII and Edward VI. as T. E. confesses p. 333 334 335. together with the most famous Common Lawyers agreeing That Dismes sont choses spiritual due de Jure Divino Le Evesq de Winch. Case L. Cook 's Reports part 2. pag. 45. as also the unconcerned and incomparably Learned Sir Henry Spelman with divers other excellent Writers too many to recite All these were so hardy as to adventure this Cause of Tythes on that Title And when this obscure and empty Quaker hath confuted all these he may then have some pretence to boasting but till then he hath no reason to triumph over you who did not decline this Argument wholly but onely said you would not insist upon it pag. 142. So that it is evident you laid aside this Weapon of the Divine Right not out of any distrust of the Argument nor out of any great Opinion of your Adversaries Skill but in very truth you seem to have been loth to cast Pearls before Swine who understand not the value of them and you were hardy enough to have insisted on it if you had been to deal with nobler Antagonists But to treat of things done three or four thousand Years ago to those who know not the History of the last Century to discourse of the difference between Natural and Instituted Religion to inquire how far the Acts of inspired Patriarchs approved by God the Father and not disapproved by God the Son together with the Suffrages of Christians and the Consent of the wisest Gentiles the general Rules of Scripture expounded by the Practise of all Ages How far I say all these will extend to the Constitution of a Jus Divinum I
For Charles the Great of France saith the Historian sent the Constitutions of a Synod which he had received from Constantinople into Britain in which alas were many inconvenient things and contrary to the Catholick Faith especially that Images ought to be worshipped which is altogether accursed by the Church of God against which Alcuinus writ an Epistle wonderfully proved by the Authority of Divine Scripture which in the name of our Princes and Bishops he carried with the Constitutions back to the King of France (c) Hoveden Annal. p. 232 Sim. Dunel Col. 111. Math. West An. 793. And upon this a Synod was called at Frankfort wherein by the Gallican English and German Churches the worship of Images was condemned and a Book written in the Name of Charles the Great against the second Council of Nice (d) Vid. Eiginharti Annal An. 794. and that this opinion continued long after may be seen in Dr. Stillingfleet pag. 832. who instances in Famous Authors that in the name of the Gallican Church opposed all Image-worship such as Jonas Aurelianensis Anno 842. and Agobardus Bishop of Lyens An. 850. Hincmarus Bishop of Rhemes An. 880. c. And that the English remained free from this Idolatry a long time after is shewed by Sir Roger Twysden (e) Histor Vindic. c. 9. p. 184. Thirdly He instances in Miracles and Intercession of Saints taxing Bede with these points of Popery and the Saxons of his time I reply That if the beliefe of Miracles make Men Papists then T. E. and his Quakers are all Papists for they believe they are immediately taught which is a stranger and greater Miracle than any they can find in all Bede's History Again It is not unlikely but some extraordinary Miracles might be wrought at the first Conversion of the Saxons the more easily to convince that rugged People and the want of Humane Learning in that Age might occasion the credulous reception of more than was true and yet we must not condemn them presently for Papists they might be credulous and apt to be imposed upon but that was their infirmity and amounts but to Superstition not to Popery I add That in Eusebius and other old Church-Histories there are many Miracles recorded which yet doth not prove either the Authors relating them or the People believing them to be Papists As for Intercession of Saints if he mean that the Saxons prayed to the Saints as their Intercessors with God he doth egregiously wrong them for the old Saxon Psalters in which are their Private Devotions have no mention of any Saints at all as is attested by Spelman and Twysden who had perused several Originals and Bishop Vsher affirms the like of a Prayer Book which he had seen as old as K. Athelstan's time An. 940. Nor were the Saints Names added in their Litanies with Ora pro nobis till about the time of K. Canutus almost 200 years after K. Ethelwolph's time So that neither in this matter were our Tythe-givers Idolaters nor Papists neither There is but one thing more wherein the present Church of Rome is charged with Idolatry and that is in Adoring the Host or Body of Christ which they say is transubstantiate in the Sacrament but neither in this were the Saxons guilty for they did not believe Transubstantiation no not in King Edgar's dayes An. 975. as appears by the Saxon Paschal Homily which Aelfricus then translated into Saxon being appointed to be publickly read There is saith he much difference between the Body of Christ which suffered for us and that which is consecrated in the Eucharist that was born of the Virgins flesh but his Spiritual Body which we call the Host is composed of many grains without blood or bones or any member or any Soul This Mystery is a pledge and sigure but the Body of Christ is Truth it self (f) Homil◠Pasch Sax. And another Discourse of his to a Saxon Bishop of those Times saith The Host is the Body of Christ not corporally but spiritually (g) B. Ushe◠de Success 〈◊〉 Eccles c. 〈◊〉 §. 21. Which proves they were of the same opinion with Protestants in this main point and could be no Idolaters at all I could give more Instances to prove that the Saxons were like the Protestants in the most fundamental matters but two Instances more shall suffice at present 1. As to the merit of Good works The Lord teacheth us saith V. Bede that no Man is sufficiently able to save himself either by his own Free-will or his own merits (h) Bed in Psal 31. And by the Righteousness of his deeds shall no Man be saved but only by the Righteousness of Faith (i) Id. in Psal 77. By the mercy of God in the Name of our Saviour and not by our merits we obtain Life saith Alcuinus An. 800. (k) In Psal 142. And long after even in Anselm's time this was the opinion of the Church of England as we have proved before so that in this point the Quakers with their Perfection are more Popish than the Saxons were I shall conclude with the Canon of Scripture which the Saxons kept entire as we have it rejecting the Apocrypha from being of Divine Authority even as the present Protestants Church doth see of old Beda (l) Comm in Apoc. c. 4. Alcuinus (m) Advers Elipantum Gislebertus Westmonast (n) Alterc inter Synag Eccl. c. 1. An. 1090. and since that Johannes Sarisburiensis (o) Ep. 172. An. 1180. and Guliel Occam (p) Dial. part 3. tract 1. l. 3. c. 16. An. 1330. to name no more Finally then if T. E. have either shame or grace let him repent of this foul slander which he hath as falsly as maliciously cast upon our Fore-Fathers the pious Saxons who were more Orthodox in some Points than Rome it self then was and differred from the present Papists in all the most material Articles of Faith being nearer in opinion to the Protestant Church of England And although they were in some lesser matter inclining to Superstition yet they were very devout according to their knowledge and may shame the present Age who do not so many good things though they have more Understanding But if T. E. will not recant I shall leave it to the Reader to judge of his Ignorance and Impudence in saying Tythes were given by Papists and Idolaters to Idolaters for Idolatrous uses and in supposing the Church so much corrupted with Popery then that their very Donations were not fit to stand good or be enjoyed no not by a Protestant Ministry § 22. To manifest that the Donation of Tythes is not Popery we have already proved they were given to the Church before Popery came in and now we shall shew they were allowed received and confirmed after Popery was turned out and that as you noted in the Conference even by those who were Martyrs for the Protestant Faith Cranmer Hooper Ridley Latimer Taylor and
God intended them And since the first Donors did not settle them on the Popish Clergy and the present Laws have given them to the Protestant Clergy I know not what Title the Popish Priests can justly have to them And now one would think T. E. were some great Enemy to the Popish Priests and one that was concerned for the Protestant Religion but he and his Quakers are renounced by all sound Protestants and are the very Darlings of the great Agents for Rome Their Doctrine of Perfection despising the Letter of Scripture pleading for Ignorance relying on the Merit of following the Light within them c. are Popery in disguise they learn their Lesson from the Papists and are doing their work for them while they dig up the very Foundations of the Protestant Religion and set Protestants one against another since this is the way to give Rome an easie Victory So that though T. E. use the Name of Popish Priests to gull the People yet he is one of their Journey-men and with his Party are the most desperate Foes of the Protestant Interest next to their Popish Masters who set them on And truly he deserves a Fee from the Popish Priests for pleading so earnestly that the Tythes are due to them but since like the rest of his Arguings it proceeds upon a mistake it will do us no harm Proceed we therefore to his Charge against us § 33. However he will by no means allow the Protestant Clergie have any Right to them since pag. 329. The Clergie now do nothing for the People nor indeed have nothing to do which can deserve such compensation The Quaker-Speakers have nothing to do indeed for their People because they are all taught of God immediately but our People profess they need outward and mediate teaching so that we have enough to do and certainly we do as much for the People as ever was done by any Clergie in the World We pray for them preach to them administer the Sacraments duely among them we Marry and Bury we visit the Sick relieve the Poor comfort the Sad reprove Sinners confute Hereticks and shew the folly of Elwoods c. We do all that the Laws of God of the Church or of the Land require of us and as Foreign Protestants have said are generally as laborious a Clergie as ever was in any Age since the Settlement of Christianity being always ready to perform any Divine Office which our People need or require And if a Quaker say All this is nothing at all or worth nothing to him I reply That the Jewel was worth a great deal in it self which yet Aesop's Cock counted worth nothing and preferred a Barley-corn before it And Divine Administrations are not less worth in themselves because such Cocks prefer a Tythe-sheaf before them all § 34. To revile those things which are established by Law is to reproch the Law it self and accuse as well the Makers as the Executors of that Law wherefore T. E. in calling Tythes a great Oppression and a foul Abuse pag. 331. insinuates to his seditious Followers That our Laws are Oppression and our Law-makers Oppressors and Abusers of the People And to make it still more evident that he is one of those Hereticks which S. Peter and S. Jude prophesie of he that is not afraid to despise Dominions and speak evil of Dignities in the very next words shews he speaks evil of the things he understands not 2 Pet. ii 10 12. Jude ver 8. 10. For being ignorant under what Notion our Laws do establish Tythes he asks ibid. What Laws are they that have made Tythes a Free-hold Methinks if he doth not know the sense of our Laws and Lawyers in this Point he is scarce fit to dipute this matter but the Lawyers must consider he is an Inspirado and knows all things by immediate Teaching and therefore thinks his Revelations will enable him to expound the Laws of Man as well as the Laws of God so that he is a Councellor as well as a Divine Yet alas this unlucky way of Teaching cannot secure him from gross mistakes for pag. 333. he saith The Statute of 27 Hen. 8. is the first parliament-Parliament-Law for Payment of Tythes whereas the very first Law in the statute-Statute-Book is a Grant for the Churches enjoying her Rights inviolable which Law was repeated and confirmed in very many Parliaments after as the statute-Statute-Book declareth Again He saith That Law of 27 Hen. 8. was made by a Popish King and Parliament whenas that very Statute declares the King Supreme Head of the Church of England as T. E. may see if he read it over And how they can be Papists that have renounced the Popes Authority I cannot well understand Again pag. 333 334. he mistakes a Statute made in 32 H. 8. cap. 7. for a Statute made in 37 H. 8. and after a while he brings in Protestant King Edward VI. for a Popish Confirmer of Tythes But still he knows not that our Laws do make Tythes a Free-hold Wherefore I shall first tell him what a Free-hold is in the sense of our Law and then I shall examine whether Tythes be not such an Estate A Free-hold according to the Definition of our famous and ancient Lawyer Britton is a Possession of the Soil or Services issuing out of the Soil which a Free-man holdeth in Fee to him and his Heirs or at least for term of his Life (c) Brit. c. 33. Cowel's Interpr verb. Free-hold Exposition of Law-Terms saith the same Now Tythes are a Possession of a Service issuing out of the Soil which a Free man holdeth for term of his life Ergo Tythes are a Free-hold Again Another later Author saith Frank-tenement or Free-hold is an Estate that a Man hath in Lands or Tenements or other Profits to be taken in Fee-simple Tayl for Term of his own Life or for Term of anothers Life in Dower or by the Courtesie of England and under that there is no Free-hold for he that hath an Estate for Years or holdeth at will hath no Free-hold of those Estates (d) Sheph. Grand Abridgm tit Frank ten §. 1. Now Tythes are an Estate that a Man hath in certain Profits issuing out of the Land to to be taken for term of his own life and are not an Estate holden for years nor at will Ergo They are a Free-hold Besides I shall prove § 40. That they are an Ecclesiastical Inheritance collateral to the Estate of the Land out of which they come See also Shepheard's Abridgment tit Tythes pag. 99. 100. Now an Inheritance is generally taken for a Free-hold And that the Practice of our Laws do manifest the same thing may be seen in that famous Case in Dyer fol. 83. n. 77. of 7 Edw. 6. where upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. c. 7. an Assise was brought De libero tenemento de quadam portione deeimarum of a Free-hold for a certain portion of Tythes And in the very