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.
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
and Schismaticks saith S. Augustine (r) August 50 Epist ad Bonif. Com. to Bonifacius where he observes the Donatists used this very Objection which our Quakers now use and he learnedly proves That Gentiles were first to be invited in but when the Church is setled whatever straying Sheep wilfully leave the Fold these are to be compelled by Laws and moderate Penalties to return into the Fold alledging That to compel Men to that which is good is very lawful and an act of necessary Charity to their Souls yea a Duty of Christian Princes and a means which had brought many to see their Errors and repent Let T. E. read and answer the excellent Arguments in that Epistle if he can And withal let him observe it is not the Priests compel them but the Laws of the Land The Priests indeed see them in desperate Heresies and most wicked Schism and in pity to their Souls admonish them warn them 1 Thess v. 14. and labour to convince them by Arguments yea at length they use the Censures of the Church and finally as the last remedy complain to the Secular Magistrate to try if any thing will bring them to a better mind knowing that sometimes the rod and reproof give wisdom And this is no more than S. Paul threatned 2 Cor. x. 6. and acted also in delivering the incestuous Corinthian to Satan punshing his outward Man for the health of his Soul 1 Cor. v. 5. 'T is no more than a careful Father doth to his refractory Son Let not them therefore saith S. Augustine who being in Heresie and Schism are compelled to come in reprove us that they are compelled but consider whither we would compel them (ſ) August Epist 50. ut supra to Unity and Peace to a right Faith and to submission to their Governours to the Service of God and the Salvation of their Souls Nor doth our State use any Capital Punishments any Spanish Cruelties or Popish Fire and Faggot toward them but by moderate Penalties labours to reduce them which is no more than the first Christian Emperours did to reduce the Hereticks of those days by Fines Imprisonment banishing them out of eminent Cities burning their Books and prohibiting their Assemblies but still preserving their Lives in hopes of their Repentance And when our Magistrates imitate Holy Constantine and Theodosius herein the Quakers most unjustly call it Persecution § 50. He adds pag. 359. Christ gave us no power to demand a Maintenance from those who do not receive us Nor do we demand of the Quakers to give us one single Penny more than what was given to us and setled on us many hundred years ago we onely ask our own we onely ask that which the Quaker did not take of his Landlord that which was or ought to have been abated in his Rent If a Tenant be to pay an Annuity to a Lord as Free-Rent or to an Hospital or other Person will his saying he doth not receive him or them excuse him from paying the Money Our Lord JESVS owns us for his Ministers and the Laws of the Land own us and declare we are the Persons to whom this Estate belongs and what have the Quakers to do to dispute our Title any more than they do their Lords Title to his Estate The Papists pay us Tythes here in England and we should pay them if we lived in France If the State assign Tythes to a wrong Order of Men it is their fault But I am sure Tythes are not the Country-mans he may not keep them but must pay them as the Laws direct and is innocent in so doing Our Right to Tythes depends not at all upon Mens being willing or unwilling to come and hear us and the Quaker is sadly mistaken to think we come to sell them our Sermons or that Tythes are a Price which is the Quakers own to give The folly of all these Pretences was shewed before § 51. As for Going to Law for Tythes you have fully proved it lawful in the Conference and the Quaker answers not one of your Arguments so that till he reply to that I will onely note That it is much against our will that we are forced to sue for our just Dues and where a Legal Right is demanded the Sin lies at the Defendents door who will maintain an unjust Cause and force the Plaintiff to use this uneasie and ungrateful Method If it would not be too tedious I could shew him Examples of Primitive Gospel-Ministers upon the Churches Settlement requiring Justice of the Emperours against the Sacrilegious Invaders of the Sacred Revenue but it is time enough to produce Examples when he hath answered your Reasons already produced § 52. His Conclusion pag. 363. admonisheth me that 't is time for me to conclude also when I have made a Remark or two upon his pleasant Epilogue which I dare say would afford you as it did me the just occasion for a smile to observe what rare effects the happy conjunction of Ignorance and Folly have produced in your Adversary You said That the Quakers were quite different from the Primitive Christians which he thinks to avoid by calling it an old overworn Objection And truly as an Objection it is as old as the Quakers first appearance in the World but the Answer to it will be an unheard of Novelty And indeed the Quakers may be ashamed to let the Objection grow old and over-worn before they have either confessed the Truth or made some satisfactory Reply thereunto But the merriest passage is that T.E. who knows nothing of Ecclesiastical History and Antiquity and is a perfect Stranger to the Judgment and Practice of the Primitive Christians having scarce heard of the Names of the most Eminent Fathers as he hath abundantly manifested in this Book that he should challenge the poor ignorant Priests and attempt to threaten you into silence by daring you to dispute on this Question Risum teneatis Amici Doubtless if T. E. without going down to the Philistins of Rome should of a sudden become able to dispute well about the Doctrine and Discipline and Rights of the Primitive Church it would be the most famous Instance of immediately inspired Teaching that this Age ever saw And if he can prove that these Ancient Christians had no distinct Order of Men to Officiate in Divine things no Sacrament of the Lords Supper no Baptism with Water no Catechizing no Oblations at the Altar no separate Places for Worship and Set Forms for Sacred Administrations no Festival and Fasting Days no Kneeling at Prayers no singing of Praises nor answering of Amen c. he hath some rare Revelations sure about those Times and is able to confute S. Ignatius Justin Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Cyprian Origen and the rest of those Eldest Fathers in Matters done in their own time A very grand Undertaking which none would have boasted of but T. E. and none but an undiscerning Quaker can be persuaded it is possible to be
name of First-fruits The First-fruits saith he (m) in Ezek. 45. of all our Provisions are offered to the Priests so that we taste nothing of New-fruits till the Priest hath first tasted thereof and this we do that the Priest may lay up our bounty and Oblation in his house so that through his prayers God may bless our houses Hence he affirms the Law for Tythes doth oblige Christians as to the Substance as was noted before And he calls Tythes the things that be God's (n) Id. in Matth. 22. Yea he adviseth the Clergy that are in the Towns to send part of their Tythes to those who served God in desert places which plainly proveth they were paid to the Priests in his dayes S. Augustin who next follows is full in many places of his Works for the proof of this And he intimates it was no new Custom nor Opinion to to pay Tythes as God's due For our Fore-fathers saith he therefore abounded in all plenty because they gave God his Tythes and Caesar his Tribute (o) August Hom. 48. And again Tythes are required as due debt and he that will not give them invades another Mans Right Whatsoever Art sustaineth thee it is God's and he requireth Tythes out of whatsoever thou livest by May not God say The Man that I made is mine the Seed that thou sowest is mine the Cattel that thou weariest in thy work are mine the Showers the Rain and the gentle Winds are mine the heat of the Sun is mine and thou that lendest thy hand deservest only the tenth part but God gives us a liberal reward for our pains reserving only the Tenth part to himself (p) Aug. de Temp. Ser. 219. The whole Sermon is most worthy to be read and is translated into English in Sir Henry Spelman de non Temerandis Ecclesiis being an evident Proof of the Ancients opinion that Tythes were of Divine Right which I might further prove by many more Instances But I will end these Testimonies of single Eminent Fathers with that of Prosper of Aquitain who speaking to the Clergy of his dayes saith We do willingly receive the daily Oblations and Tythes of the Faithful and shall we lay aside the care of the Flock (q) Prosp de Vit. Contempl lib. 1. c. 21. Now I hope the Quaker will not say all these were Papists or that the Church was Popish as early as Irenaeus and Origen and if not then he must recant his false Assertion That Tythes came in with Popery But to go on In the next place we will shew That the Decrees of Councils did confirm our Assertion That Tythes are due jure Divino And first let it be noted That though it be certain Tythes were paid from the earliest dayes of Christianity yet it was not for a long time directly enjoyn'd by any Humane Law either Ecclesiastical or Civil which shews the first Christians believed they were obliged to pay them by the Law of God And according to S. Augustin's Rule viz. That such things as were universally observed and owed not their beginning to any Council were to be thought to have been ordained by the Apostles Tythes and First-fruits must at least be of Apostolical Institution I find indeed many Ancient Councils suppose them to have been paid and ordering how they should be distributed by the Bishops as Can. Apostolic 38 41. Concil Gangrens Can. 7 8. An. 324. where they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiastical Tribute of Fruits And Concil Antiochen Can. 24 25. An. 341. where we read of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Profits of the Church or the Fruits of the Fields And also in the Canonical Epistle of S. Cyril of Alexandr to Domnus where we find mention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Ecclesiastical Revenues c. Among all these Instances that of the fore-mentioned Council of Gangra deserves more largely to be described as containing a full proof of the Ancient Donation of this Tribute of Fruits to the Church For this Synod complaining of the several mischiefs wrought by the Schismaticks of Eustathius his party mention these among the rest That they left the Houses of God and contemned the Church holding private Conventicles and teaching strange Doctrines there as well against the Church as those things that were done in it and despising the usual Garments did put on new and strange Habits And then they add The Ecclesiastical Tribute also of Fruits which of old time was given to the Church they challenge to themselves and those with them as being Saints (r) Bevereg Concil To. 1. p. 416. Conc. Gangrens Bin. ibid. p. 376. For which and other Quaker-like practices the Synod pronounces them to be accursed In this and the fore-cited places it appears That Tythes and First-fruits were given to the Church long before the Year of Christ 324. and paid by the People without any Laws to compel them so to do And the first Law which directly enjoyns them is the Decree of a Roman Council Anno 374. commanding That Tythes and First-fruits should be paid by the Christians and they which with-held them should be anathematized But there is some question whether that Council be genuine or no I shall therefore omit this and all those other Councils (ſ) Concil Tarracon Ann. 516. Cone Aurel. 1. An. 520. Conc. Brita sub S. Patricio c. which suppose them but do not enjoyn them and take notice that the first positive Ecclesiastical Law was made in the Council of Matiscon almost 300 years before K. Ethelwolph's Donation Anno 560. whose words do fully prove our Assertion of their having been paid from the beginning jure Divino For thus that Council speaks (t) Concil Matisc Can. 5. The Divine Laws taking care of the Priests and Ministers of the Churches for their Inheritance have enjoyned all the People to pay the Tythes of their Fruits to Holy Places that being hindered by no labour they may more duly attend Spiritual Ministeries which Laws the whole Company of Christians have for a long time kept inviolate wherefore we decree and ordain That the Ancient Custom be observed still among the Faithful and that all the People bring in the Tythes which maintain the Worship of God And the like Decree was made in Spain about thirty years after in the first Council of Hispalis An. 590. under the Famous Bishop Leander the Reformer of that Nation from Arrianism We ordain say they (u) Concil Hispal ap Ivon p. 2. c. 174. That all the Fruits and Tythes as well of Cattel as of Fruits be rightly offered to their several Churches by Rich and Poor according to the saying of the Lord by the Prophet Bring ye all the Tythes into the Store-house c. For as God hath given us all so of all he requireth Tythe of the profits of the Field and all Provisions of Bees and Honey Lambs c. And he that pays not Tythes of all these is
4. The number of the Seven Sacraments was not defined till Peter Lombard's dayes Anno 1140 (m) Cassand de Sacram. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not received for a point of Faith till the Lateran Council above 1200 years after Christ (n) Scotus in 4. Sent. dist 11. q. 3. Purgatory it self was but a private Opinion and affirmed onely by some An. 1146 (o) Otto Frising l. 8. Chr. c. 26. And Indulgences can be no older (p) Polyd. Virgil. l. 8. cap. 8. Fish Roffens contra Luther Ar. 18. Yea their Application to Souls in Purgatory was first brought in by Boniface VIII (q) Agrip. de Vanit Scien c. 61. The Half Communion began but a little before the Council of Constance and was never decreed till then (r) Gregor de Valent. de Legit. usu Eucha c. 10. An. 1415. Yea the putting the Apocrypha into the Canon of Scripture and divers other Points were never decreed till the Council of Trent about 110 years ago And if it were not to avoid prolixity I could make it evident That the Pope's Vniversal Supremacy and Infallibility Justification by the merit of Good works Auricular Confession Formal Invocation of Saints and other corruptions of the modern Papists were not determined as Articles of Faith no not in Rome it self in Ethelwolph's time and then how can he be called a Papist supposing he had agreed with the then Roman Church in all points But I must not lanch out into this Ocean wherefore I will content my self to reply to the Quaker's Instances 1. For those pag. 301. the Quaker lays not much stress upon them and there are some of them allowed by the best Protestants and all Men that understand Antiquity know those Decretal Epistles to be forged which first attributed these Constitutions to those early Popes Proceed we therefore to his more material Instances And first concerning Deposing of Kings T. E. saith Pope Zachary I. took upon him to depose King Chilperic and absolved his Subjects from their Allegiance This is a Forgery invented by the Champions of the Pope's Supremacy but denied by the French who do assure us That the deposing of King Chilperic was done by Pepin himself by the consent of the whole Kingdom of France before any notice was given to the Pope about it who did not pretend to any such Authority over the French King nor is he allowed it at this day but only approved of the deed after it was done and advised to put him into a Monastery (ſ) Centur. Magdeburg and the ancient Historians words thus describing this matter may be seen in Widrington Apol. pro jure Princip And to let T. E. see how unlikely this feigned Deposition of Chilperic by the Pope's Authority is I will set down the Reply of Hinc-marus Arch Bishop of Rhemes to Pope Adrian the Second who had written to him to Excommunicate the King of France Anno 870. which was less than deposing There was never saith Hinc marus any such precept before sent from Rome to any of my Predecessors And going on he tells the Pope That the French assembled in Council did desire his Holiness according to the Example of his Predecessors to meddle with Ecclesiastical matters which belonged to him and not with the Common-wealth which was the Kings part to dispose of And let him not say they command us Franks to serve him that we will not serve for his Predecessors did never put this yoke upon our Predecessors neither can we endure it (t) Hincmar ap L. Boch Decret Ecc. Gal. l. 2. Tit. 2. p. 317. I cite this the more largely because our Ethelwolph married the Daughter of this very King of France whom the Pope could not so much as Excommunicate much less Depose and no doubt Ethelwolph was as free from the Pope's Authority in this matter as the King of France his Father-in-law Secondly There is as little truth in Gregory the Third's Deposing of Leo Isaurus about Images which Deposition Onuphrius a judicious Historian calls a meer Fable (u) Onuphr in Vit. Greg. VII Indeed no Bishop did ever depose a King or Emperour till Hildebrand's time An. 1074. which is confirmed by the best Historians of that Age (x) Chron. Hirsaug Otto Frising l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 Godfr Viter part 17. Trithemius c. Let Onuphrius speak for all Gregory the Seventh did first of all the Popes of Rome despising the Imperial Authority and power not only Excommunicate but presume to deprive the Emperour of his Kingdom and Empire a thing never heard of in the World before (y) Onuphr Vit. Gregor VII And Sigebertus Chr. An. 1088. calls it A Novelty and a Heresie Yea the whole Church of Liege in their Epistle to Paschal II. tell him to his face That no Pope before this Gregory did ever use the Temporal Sword (z) Epist Leodens Eccles ad Paschal 2. So that this piece of Popery was not crept into any part of the Christian Church much less into England when Tythes were given to the Church nor was the Pope's Supremacy or Infallibility owned here in those dayes as I will undertake to prove against this Quaker and the Jesuits whose part he takes in this matter So that I will only note That if T. E. referre the first Original of Tythes to Ethelwolph's Donation in this Kingdom then he should have produced an Example of the Pope's power to depose the Kings of England which if he can shew to have then been a Doctrine received here it will make somewhat to his purpose but these forreign Instances if they were as true as they are false do not prove the Saxons were Papists in this point Secondly The Quaker Instances in the Worship of Images and upon presumption that our Saxon-Ancestors worshipped them he frequently call them Idolaters which is another manifest slander For though the Saxons had some few Images and Pictures for ornament and memory yet they did not worship them in this Age nor long after and though the second Council of Nice did attempt to establish Image-worship we may see in Dr. Stillingfleet's last Book of the Idolatry of the Roman Church That the greatest part of the Christian World rejected that Council and detested the practice thereof yea that Council was almost by all so much contemned that it was scarce counted worth the Reading by him that translated it (a) Anastas Bibliothec. Praef. ad 7. Synod But to shew what was the opinion of the Saxons and Gallican Churches generally agreeing in their opinions where the most famous Tythe-givers of this Age lived let it be noted that Sir Henry Spelman proves That the Saxons from Augustin's time had Images only for ornament memory reverence and example but not for worship (b) Concil tom 1. not ad Concil Lond. An. 712. And about 60 years before K. Ethelwolph's Donation we read a full Account of the English Churches opinion about Images Anno 792.