Articles of Faith then surely they were such before else the bare determination of them would not have made them such Besides if there were Truth in what he sayes that the particulars he has mentioned had not been determined as Articles of Faith before Ethelwolf's time nor could have been Popish without such a determination yet very many other Instances may be given of Doctrines and Practices properly Popish sufficient to prove not the Church of Rome in general only but the then Church of England also which was a Member of that and for at least seven continued Successions received her Metropolitan Bishop out of the Romish Church to be Popish according to the Definition his Brother Priest has given of Popery in his Friendly Conference pag. 149. § 21. But to clear those times from the imputation of Popery he undertakes to reply to the Instances I had given in my former Book First he sayes Fâ—r those pag. â—01 the Quaker lays not much streâ—â— upon them and there are some of them allowed by the best Protestants and all men that understand Antiquity know those â—ecretal Epistles to be forged which first attributed these Constitutions to those early Popes Is not this a pretty way of replying to say his Opponent lays not much stress on them what may one not answer after this rate Next he sayes there are some of them allow'd by the best Protestants but which are they why did he not distinguish betwixt those he doth allow and those he doth not allow The Instances were The use of Holy Water to drive away Devils said to be Instituted by Alexander the first The Consecration of Chrism once a Year by Fabianus That all should stand up at the Reading of the Gospel by Anastatius That Wax Tapers should be Consecrated on the holy Sabbath by Zozimus That Processions should be made on Sundayes by Agapetus Some of these he sayes are allowed by the best Protestants but which they are he keeps to himself Lastly he sayes All men that understand Antiquity know those Decretal Epistles to be forged which attribute those Consâ—itutions to these early Popes Whether those Epistles be forged or no I will not undertake to determin nor need Iâ— for I delivered not those Instances upon my own Authority but gave the Authors out of whom I gathered them namely Fasâ—ic Temp. Platina and Burdegalensis to which more might be added if need were But suppose what he â—ayes that those Decretal Epistles are forged yet all men that understand Antiquâ—ty know that the things there instanced were in use before Ethelwolf's time and therefore must needs be instituted before So that his exception against the Decretal Epistles is but an idle shift for if it should be granted that those Constitutions were not made by those early Popes to whom they are attributed yet certain it is they were made by Popes earlier then Ethelwolf's Charter for Tythes which is enough to prove that Popery had made her â—ncroâ—chments in the Church before this dear Donation and famous Charter was made Thus we see his tripartitâ— Answer comes to just nothing and doubtless he spake considerately when he said pag. â—â—4 I will content my self to Reply to the Quaker's Instances for it can hardly be supposed he could expect by this Reply to content any boâ—y but himself But perhaps he look't upon those things as too immateriaâ— to deserve his notice and therefore coâ—tentâ—d himself to pass over them as lightly as he could as before he did Ethelwolf's being absolveâ— from his Vows by the Pope going on Pilgrimage to Rome and making such liberal Donations to uphold Superstition there But now that he comes to instances which he accounts more material it is to be hoped he will give a more material Reply First â—aith he concerning deposing of Kings T. E. saith Pope Zachary took upon him to depose K. Chilperick and absolved his Subjects from their allegiance Thus he sayes is a Forgery invented by the Champions of the Pope's Supremacy but denyed by the French who do assure 〈◊〉 that the deposing of K. Chilperick was done by Pipâ—n himself by the consent of the whole Kingdom of France before any notice was given to the Pope about it pag. 125. That the Reader may be the more able to judge of the Truth of this matter I will give him the words of the Authors themselves by whom it is delivered so many of them as I have by me which are but a few in respect of the many by whom this passage is recounted First therefore the Author of Fascic Temp. ad annum 744 sayes thus of Pope Zachaâ—ias Ipse Regem Francorum scilicet Hylderienâ—â— deposuit in locum ejus Pippinum instituit quia utilior fuit Et hic patet potesta Ecclesiae qâ—anta â—uerit hoc tempore qui regnum illud famosissimum transtulit de veris haeredibus ad genus â—ippini propter legitimam cauâ—am i. e. He deposed the King of France namely Hylderick and set Pippin in his place because he was more useful And here sayes he it appears how great the power of the Church was in this time in that he Translated the most famous Kingdom from the true Heirs to the Race of Pippin for a lawful cause platina though he mentions not the deposing of Childerick yet the setting up of Pippin by the Pope he does in these words At Pipinus regnandi cupidus legatos suos ad Pontificem mittit eumque rogat ut Regnum Franciae sibi auctoritate sua confirmet Amuit Pontisex ejas postulatis atque it a ejus auctoritate regnum Franciae Pipino ad judicatur i. e. But Pipin having a desire 〈◊〉 Reign sends his Ambassadors to the Popeâ— and 〈◊〉 him to confirm the Kingdom of France to him BY HIS AUTHORITY â— The Pope grants his requests and so BY HIS AUTHORITY the Kingdom of France was adjudged to Pipin Burdegalensis sayes of Pope Zachary Chronograph l. 2. ad annum 741. 〈◊〉 caepit Francos juramento 〈◊〉 absolvere i. e. This Pope was the first that absolved the French from their Oath of Allegiance For which he quotes Aemil. lib. 2. And a little after of Childâ—rick he hath these words Childerico 〈◊〉 Rege in Monasteriam truso Pipinus concilio Pontiâ—icis a Galliae Proceribus Rex declaratur eta S. Boâ—ifacio Germanorum Apostolo inungitur i. e. Châ—lderick the French King being thrust into a Monastery Pipin is by the counsel of the Pope declared King by the Nobility of France and ancinted by St. Boniface the Apostle of the Germans Iohn Fox in his Book of Martyrs Vol. 1. pag. 116. â—ath it thus By the Authority of the said Arch-Bishop Boniface which be received from Pope Zaehary Childericus King of France was deposed from the right of his Crown and Pipinâ—â— the betrayer of his Master was confirmed or rather intruded â—n Perkins against Coccius prob pag. 223. sayes Depositio Childerici Francorum Regis suit a Proceribus et Popâ—lo
former Church-Constitutions neither doth the name Excerptiones denote otherwise But in that Collection some whole Constitutions occur in the same Syllables as they are in the Capitularies of Charles the Great Of which he instances one and sayes There are some others which could not be known to Egbert that died in the last year of Pipin Father to Charles How sayes he came he then by that And how may we believe that Egbert was the Author of any part of those Excerptions Unless you would excusâ— it with that use of the middle timeâ— which often inserted into one Body and â—â—dâ—r one name Laws of different Ages But that excuse will not help since there would still remain tâ—e same doubt and ground for jealousie that these Canons about Tythes were made in some of the latter Ages not in much less before that which Egbert lived in But admit that sayes Selden yet what is Secundum canonicam autoritatem coram tescibus dividant The Antientest canonica autoritas sayes he for dividing Tythes before Witnesses is an old Imperial attributed in some Editions to the leaveâ—th year of the Reign of Charles the Great being King of France in others to the Emperour Luther the first But refer it to either of them and it will be divers years later then Egbert's death And adds he other mixt Passages there plainly shew that whose soever the Collection was much of it was taken out of the Imperial Capitularies none of which were made in Egbert's time Perhaps sayes he the greatness of Egbert's name was the cause why some later Compiler of those Excerptions might so inscribe it to gain it Authority And a little lower he sayes The heads of a Synod holden in Egbert's time under King Ethelbald and Cuthbert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury are yet extant but not any express mention is found in them of Tythâ—â— although most of the particulars of Church-Government are toucht there Thus far Selden in his History of Tythes c. 8. § 1. whose words I have here set down the more at large that the Reader may see not only his judgment of this Collection but the Reasons also on which his judgment was grounded which I doubt not will satisfie the judicious and disinteressed Reader that neither was that Collection of Canons made by Egbert nor are those Canons themselves of so great Antiquity as the Priest pretends and would gladly have them taken to be To these fore-mentioned Canons he adds another of the Council of Chalcuth which he dates in the Year 787. and gives in these words All men are strictly charged to give Tythes of all that they Posses's because it is the Troprierty of the Lord God or thâ— part that specially belongs to him pag. 93. Whether this Canon be genuine or no is somewhat doubtful Some Objections lie against it as the making Renulph King of West-Saxony to joyn with Offa in calling the Council which seems not well to agree with Renulph's time and some other variation of Names which possibly the mistake of Transcribers might occasion But that which is more material is that the very Syllables of this Canon are found among some Constitutions made by Odo Arch-Bishop of Canterbury about 150. Years â—fter the Date of this Canon See Selden's History of Tythes c. 8. § 8. But not to insist on things doubtful that which I observe is that this Council or Synod rather of Chalcuth was held under two Legates â—ent from Rome by Pope Hadrian the first which plainly shews both that the Popes Primacy and Authority was before that time received and own'd in England that this Council was held in Subjection to him and that the Church of England was then in Communion with the Church of Rome All which is deduceable from that Epistle written by the said Legates to the Pope in which giving him a particular Account of the Transactions of that Synod they have these words Haec Decreta beatissime Papa Hadriane in Concilio publico coram Rege Aelfwaldo Archiepiscopo Eanbaldo et Omnibus Episcopis et Abbatibus Regionis seu senatoribus Oucibus et Populo Terrae proposumus et illi ut superius fati sumus cum omâ—i devotione mentiâ— juxtapossibilitatem virium suarum adjurante superna clementia se in omnibus custodive denovorunt signo Sanctae Crucis in vice vestrâ in manu nostrâ— confirmaverunt c. i. e. These Decrees most blessed Father Hadrian WE PROPOSED in the publique Council before K. Aelfwald and Arch-Bishop Eanbald all the Bishops Abbots of the Country as also the Senators Dukes and People of the Land and they with all devotion of mind as we said before did Solemnly Promise that by the help of God's Mercy they would observe them in all things according to their utmost Ability and they confirmed them in OUR hand in YOUR STEAD with the sign of the Cross c. And a little after acquainting the Pope that the same Decrees were forthwith carried to the Council held the same time under Offa for the Western part for the Legates it seems divided and went one to Aelfwald in the North 'tother to Offa in the West adds that upon the reading thereof Omnes consona voce alacri animo gratiam referentes Apostolatus vestri admonitionibus promiserunt c. i. e. They all with one voice and chearful mind returning thanks for the admonitions of YOUR APOSTLESHIP did Promise c. What the Church of Rome at that time was hath been somewhat declared before and may be more hereafter But of Pope Adrian himself who sent those Legates hither and by whose procurement and Authority that Council was held take a Character from Iohn Fox in his Book of the Acts and Monuments of the Church Vol. 1. pag. 117. Adrian the first likewise following sayes he the steps of his Fore-Fathers the Popes added and attributed to the veneration of Images more then all the other had done before writing a Book for the ADORATION and utility proceeding of them Commanding them to be taken for Lay-mens Kalenders holding moreover a Synod at Rome against Felix and all others that spoke against the setting up of such Stocks and Images Judge now Reader whether this Council of Chalcuth be a fit instance to prove that Tythes were settled on the Church before Popery had made her Incroachments in it and that Tythes had not their institution from Popery when this very Council was held by Legates sent by the Pope on purpose for that end § 10. Having said what he can from Councils and Canons he makes a shew as if he would bring forth sâ—me temporal Laws also for the settlement of Tytheâ— in England before Ethelwolf's time His words are these pag. 94. If it be inquired what Laws our Princes made in this matter Not to mention all those Charters which from the first beginning of Christianity do confirm all the Liberties and all the Revenues of the Church among which were Tyâ—â—â—s we will only
to teach them all things they have not the Spirit at all These are not my words as he that will consult the place may see but an inference of his own made on purpose to abust me And the other Priest in his Vindication pag. 284. though he nibbles at the same passage yet neither doth he quote it as this Priest doth nor charge me with affirming that If the Saints have not the Spirit in them so as to teach them all things they have not the Spirit at all But sayes The Quaker seems to fancy that if the Spirit be not with Believers in this immediate manner his is not with them at all Observe now Reader how I am dealt with between these two Priests One of them sayes positively that I affirm The other sayes The Quaker seems to fancy The one sayes I affirm if the Saints have not the Spirit in them so as to teach them all things they have not the Spirit at all The otheâ— sayes The Quaker seems to fancy that if the Spirit â—e not with believers in this immediate manner he is not with them at all And yet these Priests both one and t'other pretend to repeat the self-same sâ—ntence out of my Book and that in my own words Is this faiâ— dealing Yet upon this and his former mistake of immediate teaching he sayes pag. 137. All that T. E. allows for Saints got their knowledge in an Instant as the Apostles did This also I reject for a slander Nor do I believe that the Apostles got their knowledge as he says in an instant But that they grew in Grace by the Grace in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ as the Apostle Peter exhorted the Saints 2 Pet. 4. 18. and as Paul did the Colossians chap. 1. ver 10. But from these false Premises he draws this lame Conclusion Either therefore he must deny these Holy men were taught immediately and then by his Rule they could have no knowledge in divine things or else he must confess Truths were not revealed to them by degrees But there is no necessity for this For I will suppose those Holy men were taught immediately in respect of the manner of teaching not in respect of time They might be taught by the Spirit of God in their own Hearts without the help of outward means and yet those Truths which they were thus taught might be revealed to them by degrees The Wind that bloweth where it liâ—teth bloweth also when it lifteth and â—e that turns the Key of David opens and shuts at his own pleasure Upon my saying Those good men Godly Martyrs lived at the very dawning of the Day of Reformation He thus sports himself Very pleâ—sant sayes he Let 〈◊〉 then ask the Quaker what Hour of the Morning it was when his other Martyrs as he falsly calls them Thorp Swinderby Brute and Wickliffe lived If it was but Day-break in Cranmer's time it was dark as mid-night in Wickliffe's if Cranmer and Bradford had but little Light Wickliffe and Thorp had none at all and therefore unless they had Cats Eyes they could not see then pag. 138. Surely his flouting humour was up when he writ this and he was resolved to indulge his Genius whom soever he spatter'd But letting his unhandsome expression pass which is obvious enough to every Reader that has not Cats Eyes I reply to his question that what ever Hour Thorp Swinderby Brute and Wicâ—liâ—â—e lived in or how dark soever it then was they had light enough given them to discover that Tythes were but an human Institution ought not to be paid And though they lived before Cranmer in times of greater Darkness and not see so many of the Corruptions of the Church of Rome as Cranmer and his Associates did yet they saw some and what they did see was as really a Corruption and their Testimonies against it ought as â—ell to be received as the Testimonies of those other Martyrâ— against other Corruptions afterwards Nor ought those earlier Testimonies to be weakned much â—ess rejected by the example or practice of later Martyrs since both the former and later are by the same Historian recorded to be good and godly men stout Champians and valiant Souldiers for the Truth of Jesus Christ all bearing Testimony against the Corruptions and Superstitions of the Church of Rome though not all against the self-same particular Corruption For Wickliffe inveighed against the Pride Pomp Luxury and temporal Possessions of the Clergy Brute denyed all Swearing and Thorp denyed to Swear upon the Bible the evil of which was not seen by many of the Martyrs that came after And even among those of greatest note and eminency in point of Learning who were not only contemporaries but Co-sufferers as I may say with respect both to cause and time there was not in all things an equal discovery and sight of Corruptions and Romish Superstitions For â—ooper being elected Bishop of Glouster in King Edward the sixth dayes when Cranmer himself was Arch-Bishop of Canterbury refused to be consecrated in the Episcopal vestiments or habit and to take the Oath used in the Consecration of Bishops both which he complained were against his Conscience and therefore petitioned the King either to discharge him of his Bishoprick or to dispence with him in those things which were offensive and burdensom to his Conscience And although he thereupon obtained Letters from the King and the Earl of Warwick to the Arch-Bishop in his behalf yet so little did Cranmer anâ— the other Bishops discern the Superstition and Evil of those things that as Fox observes they stood earnestly in defence of the aâ—oresaid Ceremonies saying It was but a small matter that the fault was in the abuse of the things not in the things themselves that he ought not to be so stubborn in so light a matter and that his wilfulness therein was not to be suffered Nor would they yield to his consecration but upon condition that sometimes he should in his Sermon shew himself Apparrelled as the other Bishops were which Fox in plain terms calls a Popish attire and sayes that Notwithstanding that godly Reformation of Religion that began in the Church of England besides other Ceremonies more ambitious then profitable or tending to Edification they used to wear such Garments and Apparel as the Popish Bishops were wont to do which he sayes tended more to â—â—perstition then otherwise and sayes he when Hooper was appointed to Preach before the King he came forth as a new Playeâ— in a strange Apparel on the Stage having for his upper Garment a long Scarlet Chymere down to the Feet and under that a white Linnen Rochet that covered all his Shoulders upon his Head he had a Geometrial that is a foursquared Cap albeit that his Head was round What cause of shame says Fox the strangeness hereof was that day to that good Preacher every man may easily judge Martyr Vol. 2. pag. 1366. Thus seest thou Reader that what
But that maintenance may be without Tythes and consequently Tythes not Esseâ—tial to â—aintenance not only the lowest Degree of Reason will teach but experience also of former and the present Age confirm The Apostles of our Lord had Maintenance sufficient yet no man with a name dares say they had it by Tythes And in other Countries at this day among Protestants the Clergy receive their Maintenance by a Standing Salary from the State without any mention of Tythes § 4. From the Levitical Law he sayes they may leave something to cleâ—r that Title which thy have to Tythes from other Laws and onâ— of his Lessons is That the Levitical Law was a Pattern for Christ tâ— iâ—itate in his provision for Gospel Ministers as St. Paul teacheth us where he sayes Know yâ— not that they which Minister about holy things i. e. the Levites livâ— of the things of the Temple i. e. Tythes and they which wait at the Altar i. e. the Iewish Priâ—sts are partakers with the Altar i. e. the Sacrifices and Oblations Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel 1 Cor. 9. 1â— 14. which Words Even so do manifest saith he that Christ hath in the main and for the Essential part made like Provision for Gospel Ministers as God the Father did for the Jewish Priesthood page 46. In thinking Christ took the Lâ—vitical Law as a pattern for himself to imitate in his Provision for Gospel Ministers this man very much mistakes The very contrary appears most plain in Sacred Story Freely ye have recâ—ived freely give was our Lords Command to his Disciples when he sent them forth to preach Mat. 10. 8. and freely receive what is freely given by those that receive you and your Message was the Provision he allowed them Luke 10. 7 8. And a sufficient Provision too it proved even though they went as Lambs amongst Wolves Vers. 3. for when they returned he asked them Lacked ye any thing and their Answers was Nothing Luk. 22. 35. Had Christ intended to follow the Levitical Law and by that Pattern to bestow Tythes on his Gospel Ministers it cannot be doubted but he would by a plain and positive Precept have fixt and settled that Maintenance on his as his Father before had done on the Levitical Priesthood and not have leâ—t it to the uncertain construction of an Even so If the place it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be allowed to be Even so rendered which Baraturus by Itâ— only Hierom Montanus and others by Ita et and Tompson that Englisht Baza's Latiâ—e reads it not Even so from which Word Even the Priest would hook in an Identity of Maintenance but so also But suppose it allowable to read it Even so as the Vulgar Translation hath it yet will the particle Even in that place appear to every judicious and disinteressed Reader to have relation to the matter not the manner livelihood it self not the way or means of livelihood imploying that Christ was not less careful of his Ministers under the Gospel then God had been of his Priests under the Law which I hope it will be granted he might very well be though he did not appoint them the self-same Maintenance And indeed when this Priest sayes pag. 47. These words Even so do manifest that Christ hath in the main and for the essential part made like Provision for Gospel Ministers as God the Father did for the Jewish Priesthood he is not much beside the Mark if he rightly understand the main and essential part which is simply a maintenance without respect to the mode or way by which it should be raised Again he sayes This was also a Pattern for the devout Christians of Old and did intimate to them that they should not do less for their Ministers then would afford them an honourable Maintenance It is not to be doubted the Levitical Law in the Ages succeeding that of the Apostles was but too much imitated by the Christians He that reads the Writings of those Times and observes the bulk of Iewish Ceremonies that have gradually crept into the publick Worship of Professed Christiansâ— will find no cause to question it And though the Christians in those times were very commendable for providing honourably for Christs Ministers yet in recurring to the Levitical Law then abrogated and fetching Examples from thence they did not deserve commendation Nor is there any need for Christians now to look back to the aâ—tiquated Ceremonies of the Law for Example oâ— Incitement to their duty herein since such is the Power and Efficacy of the Gospel that it opens the hearts of those who receive it to Communicate freely of their carâ—als to those from whom they receive Spirituals Thus was it with Lydia the Thyatiress when her heart was opened She was not backward to entertain them who were Instrumental to her Conversion but even constrained them to come to her House and abide there Act. 16. 14 15. These men peradventure may think such a Maintenance not honourable enough But they should remember that it was honourable enough for the holy Apostles and for our Saviour himself also who though he were Lord of all yet did not disdain to be thus provided for but by his own Example laid the Foundation of this Gospel Maintenance as we read in Luk. 8. 2 3. where Mary Magdalen Iâ—anna the Wife of Chuza Herod's Steward and Susanna and many others are remembred to have ministred to him of their Substance Was this accepted by the Master and will it not content them who call themselves his Servants They had need then be put in mind that the Disciple is not above his Master nor the Servant above his Lord. And that It is enough for the Disciple that he is as his Master and the Servant as his Lord Matth. 8. 24 25. And were these men indeed what they pretend to be they would not think slightly of that Maintenance which our blessed Saviour was contented with But verily their despising and rejecting this and creeping to the Magistrate for another is Argument enough that for all their pretences they are not the Servants of humble Jesus § 5. To shew that the Levitical Law for Tythes was a pattern for the Christians of old he gives us a quotation out of Origen thus Our Lord saith in the Gospel speaking of tything Mint c. These things ought ye to have done If you reply He said this to the Pharisees not to his Disciples then hear what be saith to his Disciples Except your Righteousness exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Matth. 5. Therefore that which he would have done by the Pharisees more abundantly would he have it done by his Disciples Now how doth my Righteousness exceed that of the Pharisees if they durst not taste of the Fruits of the Earth before they had separated the Priests and Levites parts and I
having most treacherously and inhumanly murdered Ethelbert King of â—ent did thereupon give the tenth part of his Goods to the Church and founded Monasteries The latter having occasioned the Death of her Husband Earl Ethelwold murdered her Son in Law King Edward did found Religious Houses for Monks Nuns To EXPIATE that I may use the words of a great and learned Antiquary and make SATISFACTION for that most foul and hâ—inous Fact wherewith so wickedly she had charged her Soul by making away King Edward her Husband's Son as also to wash out the murdering of her former Husband Aethelwold a most Noble Earl c. Camden Brittan pag. 262. And that these Acts and such like of those and other Princes of those times have been thus taken and understood by men of Note and Learning appears not only by the last quoted Authority but also by the Testimony of Fâ—x who compiled the Book of Martyrs He in his first Volumn pag. 110. enumerating the many Monasteries and other Religious Houses founded and endowed before Ethelwolf's time says thereupon The End and Cause of these Deeds and Buildings cannot be excused being contrary to the Rule of Christ's Gospel for so much as they did these things seeking thereby MERITS with God and for Remedy of their Souls and REMISSION of their Sins For Proof whereof he produces a Charter of King Ethelbald above fifty years older then that of Ethelwolf granting certain Priviledges to Religious Men in which aâ—ter the Preamble are these words Qua propter ego Ethelbaldus Rex Merciâ—rum pro amore caelestis Patrie et remedio animaâ— mea studendum esse previdi ut eam per bona opera liberam efficeâ—em in omni vinculo delictorum i. e. Wherefore I Ethelbald King of the Mercians for the Love of the Heavenly Country and for the Remedy of my Soul have foreseen it needful to endeavour by good Works to make my Soul free from all bond of Sins â—rom which senteâ—ce Fox observes how great the ignorance and blindness of those men were who lacking no Zeal only lacked Knowledge to rule it withal seeking sayes he Salvation â—ot by Christ only but by their own deservings and MERITORIOUS deeds And in pag. 123. setting down the Charter of Ethelwolf so dear and precious to the Priests upon these words in it Pro remissione animarum peccatorum Nosâ—rorum he hath this Note Hereby sayes he it may appear how when the Churches of England began first to be indued with Temporalities and Lands also with Priviledges and exemptions inlarged moreover and that which specially is to be considered and lamâ—â—ted what PERNICIOUS Doctrine was this wherewith they were led thus to set Remission of their Sins and Remedy of their Souls in this Donation and such other Deeds of their Donation contrary to the information of Gods word and no small derogation to the Cross of Christ. Thus far Fox by which the Reader may at once see both the Opinion and Practice of Ethelwolf's Age in this matter and also the Censure of this Ecclesiastical Writer in thâ— early Age of Protestancy Yet the Priest sayes pag. 106. This Popish Doctrine of Merit and expiation by good works is not so old as that Age which he infers from some directions given by Anselm to those who visited the Sick in which is mention of being saved by the death of Christ as also from the words of Popâ— Adrian who calls as he sayes Merits a broken Reed c. The Popish Doctrine of Merits and Expiation by good works was not on a sudden and at once received in the grossest sense in which it hath since been hâ—lâ— but by degrees and for a while remission of Sins was attributed to the death of Christ and good workâ— joyntly which is the reason that in the writings of those elder times mention is made of the death of Christ and of good works promiscuously and the work of Redemption Salvation Remission indifferently ascribed to each This the Priest seem not ignorant of when he sayes pag. 10â— We may perceive they did not think this good work ALONE could expiate their Sins or merit Salvation wiâ—hout God's Mercy As for the judgment of Anselâ— Adrian or any other such it is not conclusive in this case for we are not so much to regard what was the private judgment of some one or few particular Persons as what was the general Opinion of the theâ— Church We find in Queen Mary's time when Popery was as its height when Dr. Day Bishop of 〈◊〉 came to visit Stephen Gardiner the bloody Bishop of Winchester lying then at point of Death and began as Fox relates to comfort him with words of Gods promiâ—e and with the free justification in the Blood of Christ our Lord repeating the Scriptures to him Winchester hearing that What my Lord quoth he will you open that Gap nâ—w then farewell all together to 〈◊〉 and such other in my case you may speak it but open this Window unto the people then farewel all together Martyrol vol. 2. pag. 1622. None I think can doubt but the Doctrine of meriting Salvation and of Expiating Sins by good works was then generally believed in the grossest sense by the Church of Rome and yet we see by this inâ—tance some of thaâ— Church had a private Judgment otherwise and some of the worst of that Church too For scarce did Bonner himself send more Sheep to the Roman Shambles then did this Buâ—cherly Bishop of Winchester who as Fox observes in the place fore cited on the day that Ridley and Latimer were burnt at Oxford deferr'd his Dinner till about four of the Clock in the afternoon reâ—using to eat till by a Post from Oxforâ— â—e had certain intelligence that the Fire was kindled upon those Godly Martyrs Thus we see some of the worst of the Romanists did not hold all the Opinions of the Church of Rome yet neither doth that prove either that those Romanists were no Papists nor yet that the Church of which they were Members did not hold those Opinions But the Priest as if he hoped to wind himself off from the Objection by criminating the Quakers says To merit Pardon and Salvation by good works is now a Doctrine of the grosser Romanists and I fear of some Quakers also who sleighting merit and necessity of Christ's Death ascribe Salvation to the following the Light within p. 10â— In this he slanders the Quakers I reject his Charge and in the Name of the Quakers deny it Let him name those Quakers that sleight the Merit and Necessity of Christ's Death I solemnly declare I know no such and yet I think if any such there were I might as well pretend to know them as he Nor do the Quakers ascribe Salvation to the following the Light within but they ascribe Salvation to Christ Iesus to whom the Light within doth lead those that truly follow it Herein he hath wronged the Quakers as in his next words he abuses me T.
whose Person as the latter Priest sayes the Master of the Vineyard speaks may do what he will with his own to whom it is impossible to do amiss may every one therefore challenge to himself the same Liberty and Power That 's not to make meâ— Servants and Stewards to the great Housholder but Lords and Masters But aâ— to the Case of Tythes I have proved that Ethelwolf in the settlement of Tythes did that with his own which was evil in upholing a false Religion which it more concerns the Priest to clear him from then thus without cause to cavil § 5. In my Answer to the Friendly Conference I said pag. 323. Suppose that Ethelwolf had an ample Power of disposing what he pleased or that the People had by consent joyned with him in the Dâ—nation every man according to the Interest he had yet neither could he single nor he and they conjoyned grant any more then belonged to themselves This was too plain to be denyed being grounded on a firm Maxim Nemo plus juris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse haberet i. e. No man can transfer more Right to another then he himself hath therefore they seek wayes to evade it The Author of the Conferenâ—e sayes Suppose I grant it whâ—â— then His Parishioner answers in my Name To make â— Grant of the tenth part forever is in his understanding utterly 〈◊〉 to Reason The Priest replieâ— Is it reasonable wholly to pass an Estatâ— from theâ— and their Heirs forever and yet repugnant to 〈…〉 grant but a part of that Estate forever By this I perceive he has taught his Parishioner to use as little Honesty as himself The Parishioner has learnt of the Priest to chop and mangle Sentences and cunningly leave out what he likes not He maketh me here say To make a Grant of the tenth 〈◊〉 forever is in my understanding utterly repugnant to Reason This goes clearer with the Priest as if I had said it was repugnant to Reason to grant the tenth part of an Estate forever and accordingly he argueâ— whereas I say plainly They might have disposed of what part of the Land they pleased they might have given the tenth part of the Land the tenth Acre c. But that which I said is to my understanding repugnant to Reason Iustice and Equity is for theâ— to make a grant of the tenth part of the PROFITS of the Land forever These words of the profits of the Land he leaves out in reciting my words thereby drawing it from the profits of the Land to the Land it self which alters the case for as I shewed the profits of the Land forever could not be said to belong to them because it depended on the stock labour c. of another which they had no interest in noâ— right unto But if the profits of the Land forever did not belong to them and they had no power to grant any more then did belong to themselves it follows that they had no power to grant the Tythes of the profits of the Land forever They endeavour to weaken the force of this Argument by comparing Tythes with a Rent-charge urging That the owners might as well make a grant of Tythes forever as set a Rent-charge upon their Lands forever This the Author of the of Tytth Rhgies talks much of and fills many pages 〈◊〉 in Sect. 30. and 38. shifting the same matter into divers dresses by variety of expressions to make the fairer shew and greater appearance of saying something But he that shall impartially consider the nature of each will find a vast difference between a Rent-charge and Tythes for a Rent-charge is paid by reason of the Land on which it is charged which it is to be supposed â—e that charged it had at that time â— property in but Tythes are not paid by reason of the Land but by reason of the stock and labour c. imploy'd thereon by him that occupies it which appears by this that they who have no Lands are as well charged with the payment of Tythes out of the improvement or increase of their stocks and labours in their Trades and manual Occupations as they are who occupy Lands So that Tythes lie properly on the stock not on the Land but a Rent-charge lies properly on the Land not on the stock and therefore although there should be no increase at all no profit made no Crop plâ—nted nor any thing renewing upon the Land yet the Rent-charge must be paid because it is charged in consideration of the Land it self but it is not so in the case of Tythes If there be no increase no profit made no Crop planted nor any thing renewing upon the Land no Tythe can be demanded because Tythe is charged in consideration of the increase and improvement made of the Stock And for the Non-payment of a Rent-charge he on whom it is settled may enter upon and possess the Land which is charged with the payment of it But in the case of Tythes it is otherwise For non-payment of Tythes he who claims them cannot enter upon or possess the land but is made whole out of the stock of the Occupier All which demonstrates that it is the stock not the land of which the Tythe is paid If a Trades-man hold a â—arm as many dâ— and dividing his 〈◊〉 he 〈◊〉 one part of it in his Farm â—nd the other in hiâ— Trade he is liable to the payment of Tythes out oâ— each But if he should draw his Stock out of 〈◊〉 Farm and imploy it all in his Trade letting his Farm lie unstocked and so receive no profit from it he would not be chargeable with Tythes for his Farm but only for the improvement of his Stock 〈◊〉 his Trade Yet if there be a Rent-charge upon 〈◊〉 Farm he is chargeable with that nevertheless and liable to pay it whether he imploy his Farm or not Whence it is still more evident that a Rent-charge being a charge upon the Land â—ot upon the Stock and Tythes being a charge upon the stock not upon the land though our Ancestors had power to lay a Rent-charge upon their own Lands in which they had a property yet they could not have power to grant Tythes out of other mens Stocks in which they had no property Now since Tythe is not the tenth part of the Land but the tenth part of the increase of the Stock howsoever imployed whether upon Land or otherwise and seeing the labour care skill industry and diligence of the Occupant whether Husband man or Trades-man is involved and necessarily included in the Stock as instrumental means and causes of producing the increase a perpetual grant of Tythes implies a grant not only of other mens Stocks in which the Granters had no property but of other mens labours care skill diligence and industry also long before they were begotten upon which supposition all men but Priests since Ethelwolf's time 〈◊〉 be born Slaves under an obligation to imploy
the Person so pretending is indeed deputed by his Landlord to that service Now then if according to this Simile the Priest would say or do any thing to the purpose let him first prove Tythes or the Tenth part to be Gods peculiar due under the Gospel and when that shall be agreed on we will if he please in the next place examine his Deputation and see how well he can make it appear that God hath appointed him for his Steward and Receiver In the mean time his precarious and petitionary Pleas are neither helpful to him nor creditable to his Cause But he says pag. 202. after all this the Quaker is a notorious Falsifier in saying The Tenant receives nothing from the Priest for he receives his Prayers and his Blessing his Preaching and other Administrations If the Tenant be a Quaker the Priest is a notorious Falsifier for he knows full well the Quaker receives none of all these of the Priest The Quaker doth not beâ—ieve the Priest's Prayers or his Preaching either to be worth receiving And for his Blessing as the Quaker doth not desire it so he is so far from receiving it that he seldom goes without his Curse Then for his other Administrations as he calls them 't is well known they that receive them pay roundly for them over and beside their Tythe He comes now to my second Reason which he thus gives pag. 203. Rent is a voluntary Contract volenti non sit injuria but Tythe is not voluntary now but taken by force To this he thus answers Very good By this Rule then it appears that Tythes are not as he falsly affirm'd but now they were a general Oppression for the generality pay them willingly and many Thousands contract with their Landlord and their Parson to pay them as voluntarily as they do to pay their Rents That the generality pay Tythes willingly is a confident Assertion contradicted by common experience scarce any one thing producing so many Suits at Law and so much strife and contention as Tythes In one sense I confess they may be said to pay willingly that is they are willing to pay the Tenth rather than have three Tenths taken from them So that being under a necessity of bearing one they chuse that which they take to be the lightest Burden and least Suffering And if in this sense he means they pay willingly and contract voluntarily such Contracts and Payments are much-what as voluntary as a Traveller's delivering his Purse to an High-way Man pâ—esenting a Pistol to his Breast Or as some School-Boys putting down their own Breeches not out of any great willingness sure they have to be Whipt but because they had rather by that means come off with three lashes than by refusing so to do suffer three times as many But sayes the Priest ibid All things are not Oppressions that are paid involuntarily for some Knaves will pay no just dues to any without compulsion c. It is not the unwillingness to pay that makes the Oppression but the injustice and inequality of the payment Iust dues are no Oppression but his supposing Tythes a just due is a begging of the Question Rent is a just and equal payment for which the Tenant receives the value of what he pays And tâ—ough the Priest says pag. 205. No doubt the Quakers could â—ish rather there were no Rent to be paid neither and they voluntarily covenant to pay Rent because they cannot enjoy the Farm without that charge Yet no doubt he is conscious to himself that he slanders the Quakers in this also for it is very well known the Quakers are as willing to pay their Rents or any other just dâ—es and are as good Tenants to their Landlords as any others are to say no more The Quakers know Rents to be just and reasonable and they do not desire to reap the benefit of other men's Lands for nothing as they are not willing the Priests should reap the benefit of their Labour for nothing In short the Quakers do Conscientiously pay Rents and all other just dues from a Principle of equity and justice as well as from the same Principle they do Conscientiously refuse to pay Tythes which are against Equity and Iustice. The Priest undertakes to make it appear that the Quakers did voluntarily contract to pay Tythes If says he pag. 204. Tythes be not mentioned in tâ—e contract then the Laws of England suppose that the Tenant consents to pay them This is a supposition of his own supposing which he grounds upon this Reason that Tythes are a known charge upon all Land whereas Tythes as I have proved before are a charge upon the Stock not upon the Land and are paid out of the Profits of the Stock not â—ut of the Rent of the Land But if Tythes were a charge upon the Land as Rent-charges Annuities and other customary Payments are they would then issue out of 〈◊〉 Rents and the Landlords not the Tenants would be 〈◊〉 â—hereto Thus his Reason being removed 〈◊〉 Supposition â—alls together with what was built upoâ— it §18 In his next Section the Priest says T. E. comes â—o his last Reserve I wish be were come to his last Falshood that after that I might expect Truth from him That which he calls my last Reserve he thus gives pag. 205. viz. That Tythes were really purchased by the owners of Estates for which he quotes pag. 344. of my Book gives this for my proof viz. They purchased all that was not excepted out of the Purchase but Tythes were not excepted therefore the Purchasers bought them and may sell them again and says If I can make this out this alone will do my business Although I doubt not this passage in my former Book will give satisfaction to any indifferent Reader yet seeing the matter is proposed anew I will â—ndeavour to open it a little further First therefore I desire the Reader to consider What it is the Purchaser buys 2. What it is Tythes are demanded of The Purcâ—aser buys the Land and that he buys intire no Tythe-Land no tenth Acre is ever excepted expresly or implicity but he buys the whole Field or Farm the tenth part as well as the nine But in this Purchase he buys the Land not the Profits or Increase which by Husbandry and Manuring may arise upon the Land in time to come for they are uncertain and the seller who makes him an Assurance of the Land will not undertake to assure him a future Increase and Profit from the Land nor were it reasonable to expect it Since then this is a Purchase of Lands which the Priest doth not lay any claim to let us next enquire what it is the Priest demands Tythes of The Priest himself shall answer this who in his Right of Tythes pag. 196. says expresly We grant to T. E. Tythes are due out of the Profits only and therefore if God give no Increase or the Husband-man have nothing grow we expect no