Intercession of the Saints and consequently the custom of praying to the Saints the private Belief and Practice only of some but the same Perkins pag. 94. tells us that the Invocation which in former Ages was of private devotion began to be publick about the Year 500. for then sayes he Petrus Gnaphâ—us mixed the Invocation of Saintâ— with the publick Prayers of the Church for he is said to have invented this that in every Prayer the Mother of God should be named and her divine 〈◊〉 called upon and Gregory the great adds he about the Year 600. commanded that a Letany of Prayers to Saints should be sung publickly This is spoken of the Church in general Now concerning the Church in this Nation it is to be noted that this is that Gregory who sent over Austin the â—onk to Plant the Romish Religion here and whose Successors for many Years after had the ordering of the English Church and making Bishops in it and for the space of one Hundred and Fifty Years at least the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury were Italians or other Forreigners of the Popes placing How those Italian Prelates that came out of the Bosom of the Roman Church did form the Church here I leave to the Readers judicious consideration adding only to shew the devotion of the English then to the Roman Church that Beda in his Eccles. Hist. l. 4. c. 5. sayes Oswi King of Northumberland was so greatly in love with the Roman and Apostolical Institution that had he recovered of an Infirmity whereof he died he intended himself to have gone to Rome and there to have ended his dayes as Iâ—a Offa Kâ—nredus with other of the Kings of this Land afterward did in Monkish Orders as â—ox reports And that Stow in his Annals pag. 157. speaking of the English Monks unwillingness to change their manner of singing which they had reâ—eived from Rome sayes As they that had been â—ver used not only in this but in other sâ—rvice of the Church to follow the manner of the Roman Church Now inasmuch as the Church of Rome did pray to Saints as their Intercessors with God and the then Church of England was in subjection to the Church of Rome and had thâ— Roman Church in so great veneration and esteem since the same Pope Gregory that sent Austin to set up the Popish Worship here did appoint a Let any of Prayers to â—aints to bâ— sung publickly and since it appears by Bede and others that the Opinion and Belief of the Saints Intercession was received and held by the Saxons in those times what reason can there be to doubt of the Saxons praying to Saints as their Intercessors with God If they believed them Intercessors at all with whom could they think they interceded but with God And if they believed they interceded with God for them what should hinder their praying to them as their Intercessors with God especially seeing that Church from which they received both Doctrine and Discipline did so But a passage there is in Bede's Eccles. Hist. l. 5. c. 22. from which the judgment of the Saxon Church in the point of Intercession and Mediation of Saints may pretty well be guessed at Adamnan a Scotch-Abbat coming Ambassadour into England about the Year 720. visited the Abbey of Wire in the Bishoprick of Durham of which Ceolfride was then Abbat The Scot it seems had the wrong cut on his Crown not after the Mode of St. Pâ—ter but after the fashion of Simon Magus which the English Abbat observed and reproved the Scot for He excused it by the custom of his Country protesting that although he was Shorn like Simon Magus yet in his Heart he abhorred Simon 's Infidelity and desired to follow the steps of the blessed Princâ— of the Apostles St. Peter To which the English Abbat replied That as he desired to follow St. Peter's Deeds or Admonitions so it became him to imitate his manner of Habit whom he desired to have for his Advocate with God the Father quem apud Deum patreâ— habere Patronum quaeris or as Fox renders it Whom you desire to have a Mediator between God and you On which word Mediator Fox in his Margin vol. 1. pag. 114. gives this Note There is but one Mediator between God and Man Christ Iesus plainly shewing he understood by this Sentence the Saxons made other Mediators between God and Man besides Christ Jesus But leaving this to the Reader 's censure I proceed The Priest sayes pag. 132. 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 sayes he were the Saxons guilty for they did not believe Transubstantiation no not in K. Edgar's dayes An. 9â—5 He said before pag. 123. the Doctriâ—e of Transubstantiation was not received for a point of Faith till the Lateran Council above one Thousand two Hundred Years after Christ No wonder then if it were not believed by the Saxons But that will not â—cquit the English-Sâ—xon Church from the charge of Idolatry any more then it will the Church of Rome which hath been by many sufficiently convicted of Idolatry long before that â—aâ—eran Council in the Year 1215. wherein Transubstantiation was made a point of Faith And though the Priest sayes This is the only thing more wherein the present Church of Rome is charged with Idolatry yet doubtless he must be very forgetful or much too favourable to the Roman Church For Rainolds de Romane Ecclesia Idolatria against Bellarmine and others of the Popish Patrons doth charge the Church of Rome downright with Idolatry not only in the worshipping of Saints Images and the Sacrament of the Euâ—harist but of Relicks also and of Water Salt Oyl and other Consecrated things which out of the Papists own Books he proves in the assumption of his â—rgument l. 2. c. 1. And that the Saxons followed the Church of Rome in these things is too well known to be denyed §22 More Instances he sayes he could give to prove that the Saxons were like the Protestants in the most fundamental matters but that two shall suffice at present 1. of the merit of good Works 2. of the Canon of Scripture For the first of these he offerâ— some sentences out of Bede and Alcuin against the merit of Works which if faithfully given may serve to shew the judgment of those particular Men but are not sufficient to prove the general received Opinion of those times much less of the after times wherein Ethelwolf lived and gave Tythes for Bedâ— dyed in the Year 735. 120. Years before Ethelwolf's Donation as the Epitome of his Ecclesiastical History shews and Alcuin was one of Bede's Hearers as Burdegalensis testifies And if the private judgment of some particular Men be made the measure of the general Opinion he may thereby excuse the Church of Rome all along â—rom this and
People the Farmers the Husband-men who lived not in the Cities but in the Country-Towns and Villages were by this Donation obliged to pay the Tythes of the Increase of the Lands which they manâ—red and occupied What need had there been then of such a Tribute out of the Cities This instance of Constantin's Donation if it be allowed to prove any thing will rather prove that Tythes were not then paid then that they were But the Truth of the Donation is questioned Cusanus sayes thus of it Sunt mâ—o judicio illa de Constantino Apocrypha i. e. Those things concerning Constantine are in my judgment Apocryphal that is obscure and doubtful Many other Authorites Perkins produces to prove the Donation of Constantine false Problem pag. 15. But whether it be false or true it speaks nothing of Tythes and therefore is the less to be regarded The Priest goes on thus It were endles's to relate all the Constitutions of pious Emperours either to enlarge the Revenues of the Church to preserve its Liberties or to secure the Donations made by others Let that one Law which is so full for the Divine Right of Tythes serve instead of many instances pag. 89. I cannot but take notice how short-winded this Priest is when he comes in earnest to produce his Authorities He talks big before-hands and gives great expectation of what he will do but when he comes to the Point how mean Alas is his performance in respect of the preparation he makes What a noise did he make of Councils ere now Who that heard him would not have almost thought that All the Antient Councils had been called on purpose to settle Tythes upon the Clergy And yet after all this heaving and swelâ—ing the great Mountain hath brought forth but one Mouse and that a little one too I mean his high talk and great preparation hath produced at last but one Authentick Council that mentions Tythes if that one be Authentick and that but a Provinâ—ial neither And now that he is slipt from Councils to the Laws of Kings and Emperours he instances one of Constantine the Great of suspected Credit that has no mention of nor relation to Tythes and then immediately sayes It were endless to relate ALL the Constitutions of Pious Emperours c. as if he had almost wearied himself with relating so many before whenas indeed this was the first and only one that he had so much as named And how poorly afterwards doth he come off when he sayes Lâ—t that ONE Law which is so full for the Divine Right of Tythes serve instead of MANY instances Can any one doubt who observes his manner of writing that this is only a Flourish to hide his penury It had been worth his while though he had taken a little the more time for it to have given us some of the most material of those MANY Constitutions of Pious Emperours which he sayes it were ENDLESS to relate and it is not to be questioned but so he would could he have found amongst them All any that had spoken but favourable of Tythes But since no more are to be had let us look the more intently on this he doth give and see whether it deserves to serve instead of Many instances He words it thus pag. 89. The Tythes by God's Command are separated for the Priests that they which are of Gods Family may be sustained by his Portion and therefore they cannot by any human Priviledge be given to Lay-men lest the Supream Authority should therein prejudice the Divine Commandment I see no reason for his calling this a Law which is rather a Declaration by Doctrine then a Constitution by Precept If it be a Law he might have done well to have acquainted his Reader who was the Law-maker He neither tells us who was the Author of it nor in what Age 't was made but sets it down bare and naked as I have here Transcribed it only in the Margin he hath this reference Cod. l. 7. Tit. de prâ—scrip But though he conceals the date of it yet that Passage in it therefore they cannot by any Human â—iviledge be given to Lay-men speaks it to be of mucâ— later Birth then he would willingly have it pass for However let the Age and Author of it be as they are it deserves not the name of a Law much less of such a Law as in the Case of Tythes may serve instead of many instances for it injoyns nothing but only supposes Tythes separated for the Priests by God's Command and declares they therefore cannot by any Human Priviledge be given to Lay-men This peradventure may some-what concern the Civil Magistrate and the Impropriators but not the Case in hand In the same place he sayes A parallel Law to this we find in Authenticis ti eod It may be so But where he found it there it seems he thought fit to leave it for he sayes not a word more of it But going on nearer to King Ethelwolf's time he sayes K. Ethelwolf might know how the Religious K. Riccaredus had confirmed the Decrees of the first Council of Hispaâ—is about paying Tythes Anno. 5â—0 Nor could he be ignorant what Charles the great had done in settling Tythes on the Church about 100. years before K. Ethelwolf's Donâ—tion pag. 90. The Story of Riccaredus I am a stranger to and like to be for him for he has not been so fair as to acquaint his Reader whence he took it That of Charles the great was about the year 780. far enough short of his boasted Antiquity and of the earliest dayes of Christianity falling indeed in a time when the Church was miserably depraved and corrupted and growing every day worse and worse as I shall have occasion more particularly to shew when I come to Ethelwolf's time And though the Priest sayes This Emperour who gave Tythes was so far from Idolatry that he called a Council to condemn the use of Images and write against them himself Yet Corruptions enâ—ugh were there then in the Church beside the use of Images to prove the Religion he profest to be Popish according to the definition of Popery given by the other Priest in his Friendly Conference pag. 149. where he sayes I cannot give you a more brief and true Account of Popery then this That it is such Doctrines and Supperstitious Practices which by the Corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome contrary to the True Antient Catholick and Apostolic Church Now that the Doctrine of Purgatory of the Intercession of Saints deceased of Monkish life and the Calibate or unmarried life of Priests and that the Practice of Praying for the Dead of Sacrificing for the Dead of Praying to Saints of Going Religiously on Pilgrimage as a part of Divine Worship that the use of Chrism and of Exteam Vnction were received in the Church long before this Charles his time I have already shewed That these Doctrines and Practices by the corruption of time have
prevailed in the Church of Rome I have proved before by the unquestionable evidence of Protestant Authors and whether these Doctrines be true or false whether these Practices be Superstitious or no whether or no both the Doctrines and Practices be contrary to the True Antient Catholick and Apostolick Church let the true Protestant judge If these Doctrines and Practices are not Superstitious if they have not prevailed by the corruption of time if they are not contrary to the True Antient Catholick and Apostolick Church then am I under a mistake But if they are Superstitious if they have prevailed through the corruption of time if they are contrary to the True Antient Catholick and Apostlick Church then are they Popish according to the Priests own definition 〈…〉 and consequently Tythes so far as he derives their institution from those who were in the belief and use of these Superstitiouâ— Doctrines 〈◊〉 Practices had their institution from Popery But 〈◊〉 this more when I come to Ethelwolfs time What hath been said in this place with relation to Charles the Great may opportunâ—ly also giveâ— check to the Priest's over-bold Assertion in his following words when he saith that Before the time of King Ethelwolf Tythes were settled on the Church in most parts of the Christian World eveâ— by Civil and Ecclesiastical Constitutions as well as Voluntary Donations c. pag. 90. I call this an over-bold Assertion because First I know he herein affirms more by a great deal then he is able to prove and Secondly If he could make such a general settlement appear yet would not that acquit Tythes from the blemish of a Popish Institution iâ— as much as I have proved before even by the Priests own definition of Popery that Popery had made her encroachments in the Church before the time of Charles the Great § 9. Hitherto he has travelled Forraign Countries to seck a Right to Tythes and has taken mucâ— pains to little purpose Now he begins to look Homeward where I am of Opinion he will speed no better He had a mind in his way to brand me with ignorance but he wanted an occasion for it Where therefore he could not find a way he resolved like the Carthaginian Captain to make one Hereupon he sayes pag. 91. He perceives all along I 〈◊〉 the very Birth of Tythes in the Year 855. For this Suggestion he has not the least colour of reason For if the Birth of Tythes were dated as he sayes in that Year it was 〈…〉 but 〈…〉 but his Brother 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 them that date by fixing on Ethelwolf's Câ—arter for the ground of his Claim to Tythes which was made in that Year The Argument was his own the Method and order of his Discourse was at his oâ—n choice Had he designed an elder Birth to Tythes he might have given them an elder Date if he could But he thought fit to Date his Claim to Tythes from Ethelwolf's Donation which out of Spâ—lman I shewed was made in the Year 855. and thereupon I said pag. 2â—9 If he had any Charter or Settlement of Tythes of older Date then that of Ethelwolf which was about the Year 855. he should have produced it and probably so he would However since he did not I have no reason to think he 〈◊〉 any â—lder I took the oldest he thought fit to give and did not take upon my self to Date the Birth of Tythes but shewed the Reader in what year my Opponent had dated his Claâ—m â— But having liberally bestowed his Brothers ignorance upon me and thereby got an occasion to insinuate that I am miserably mistaken he goes about to set forth a more anâ—ient date of the Birth of Tythes then that of Ethelwolf's Charter And fiâ—st he brings in Fletâ— the Lawyer expounding the word Church-esset to signifie a certain measure of Corn which every one of Old gave to the holy Church about the time of St. Marâ—â—n ' s Feast as well in the time of the Brittains as the English adding that it was after called first Fruits From hence he infers That by this account there was a kind of Tythes paid by the Brittains before the coâ—â—ing of Austin Pray mark his word a kind of Tythes he himself it seems for all his usual confidence would not adventure to call it simply Tythes but a kind of Tythes What mâ—ans he by that Was this certain measure of Corn the tenth part of the Crop he sayes Every one of Old gave this certain measure of Corn but doubtless every one had not a Crop of Corn growing But waving this and his other Conceits of the Saxoâ— words Ciric-sceat or Ciric-set signifying the Tribute of the Church or the Church Seed with what else he urges out of Malmsbury Spelman and Lindenbrogius concerning first Fruits of Seed Tribute of Corn together with the Law he cites of K. Ina commanding the payment of the Caric-sceat on the Feast of St. Martin under a severe penalty all which are nothing to the present purpose unless he could prove that this Church-esset and Caric-sceat were really and properly Tythes which I deny I go on to his next quotation the Epistle of Boniface to Cuthbert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in which he tells me I shall find Tythes by name Only by the way seeing he hath mentioned K. Ina for a Patron of Church Revenues I desire the Reader to take a little notice of thâ— corruption and superstition of that Age and Church in which K. Ina lived and for whose sake he made that Law He built sayes Speed the Abbey of Glasenbury and garnished the Chappâ—l thereof with Gold and Silver and gave rich Ornaments thereto as Altar Chalice Censer Candlesticks Bason and holy Water Bucket Images and Pale for the Altar He instituted also a certain Yearly payment to the See of Rome known afterwards and challenged by the name of Peter Pence and casting off at last his Regal Authority he went to Rome where in the habit of a Religious man he spent the remainder of his Life By this the Reader may perceive what Religion K. Ina was of who besides his other Superstitioâ—s was a sâ—tter up of Images in the Church and declared his Communion with the Church of Rome not only by his Donation to it but by entring and leading a Monkish life in it And what the Church of Rome at that time was in point of Idolatry is notorious to all that have conversed in the Histories of those times and observed the great 〈◊〉 occasioned about Images and Image-worship between the Emperors Philippicus Leo the third on the one hand and the Popes Constantine Gregory the second and Gregory the third under one of whose 〈◊〉 Ina went to Rome on the other hand the Emperors endeavouring the destruction of Images the Popes with the Clergy cls stoutly maintaining and defending them And under two of these Popes were two Councils called in Rome on purpose to establish Image-worship Now to his quotation out of
to the profâ—ssion of that Order was aftâ—rward â—â—de Deacon and Bishop in the then Clergy but upon the Death of his Father was in order to thâ— Civil Government absolved of his Vows by Pope Gregory the fourth went himself in great Devotion to Rome confirmed his former grant of Peter-pence to the 〈◊〉 obliged himself further to the Yearly payment of three Hundred Marks to Rome whâ—reof two Hundred were appointed by him to buy Oyl to keep all the Lamps burning in St. Peters and St. Pauls Churches at Rome and the other Hundred Marks was a Yearly present to the Pope and that he was the Pope's Creature All this spoken of Ethelwolf particularly the Priest passes silently over without the least touch or note and as one that is ashamed to confess and afraid to deny he puts me off with this sorry shift pag. 100. If T. E. had known what gives a man the just denomination of a Papist he would not have discoursed so absurdly What a pittiful come off is this Is this like a Disputant Wâ—y did he not take up the discourse and lay open the absurdity of it Would a man of his scantling of understanding and discretion let slip so fair an advanâ—age Who could have thought it Well that discourse however absurd or not remains unaâ—swered and the instances there gâ—ven to prove Ethelwolf a Papist are not disproved or any way removed by the Priest He tells us it is not every one that agrees in some Opinions with the Roman Church whâ— is a Papist since then all Christians in the World would be Papists ibid. But what 's this to the purpoâ—e is not this another device to avoid the matter Are the Instances I gave of Ethelwolf's being a Papist common to all Christians as well as Papists 'T is true indeed there are some Tenents common to Papists and all Christians as that there is a God that Christ is come and hath suffered for Mankind c. But are those things mentioned before of Ethelwolf of the Nature of these are they received in common by all Christian as well as by Papists Let me come a little nearer him He reckons himself not only a Christian but a Minister of Christ also Is what is related before of Ethelwolf consistent with his Christianity If not why does he thus abuse both his Reader and me by suggesting that what I there spake of Ethelwolf is agreeable to all Christian as well as Papists But if what is spoken before of Etheâ—wolf be not agreeable to all Christians but to Papists only I hope it will be sufficient proof that Ethâ—lwolf was a Papist Having said who is not a Papist he now gives us the definition of a Papist thus He is a Papist who professes himself a Member of the Roman Church and acknowledges the â—opes Supremaâ—y believing all the Articles of the Roman Church ' s Faith p. 101. This definition would exclude a great number of profest Papists from being Papists for many that have lived and dyed in the profession of that Religion and in communion with the Roman Church did not believe all the Articles of the Roman Church's Faith Most notorious are the Controversies which for many Ages have been maintained amongst the Religious Orders of that Church one sort most hotly and violently impugning the Faith and Opinions of the other yet all Papists So that to the constituting a Papist it is not of absolute necessity that he believes all the Articles of the Roman Church's Faith But if he profess himself a Member of that Church and be in communion with it that 's enough to denote him a Papist The other Priest in his Friendly Conference pag. 149. gave his Parishioner a Definition of Popery his words are these I cannot give you a more brief and true account of Popery then this That it is such Doctrines and superstitious Practices which by the corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome contrary to the true ancieâ—t catholick and apostolick Church Now if this be a true account of Popery and so true an one that he cannot as he sayes give a more true what truer account then can be given of a Papist then to say he is a Papist that holds such Doctrines and suâ—erstitious Practices c. Or he is a Papist that holds Popery But Popery is such Doctrines and superstitious Practices which by the Corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome contrary to the true ancient catholick and apostolick Church Therefore he that holds such Doctrines and superstitious Practices which by the corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome contrary to the true ancient catholick and apostolick Church is a Papist Now let us measure Ethelwolf by the Priests definition of Popery and see how far Ethelwolf will fall short of being a Papist That Ethelwolf held the Doctrine of the Caelibate or single life of Priests is clear from his taking upon him the Vow of Single Life when he entred his Monkish Order He held the Doctrine that the Pope had poâ—er to absolve and release him from his Vows and accordingly received an Absolution from the Pope He held the practice of burning Lamps continually day and night in the houses they called Churches and accordingly gave two hundred Marks a year to buy Oyl to feed the Lamps in two of those Churches and that in Rome Now if these Doctrines and Practices were superstitious if they were such as by the corruption of time prevailed in the Church of Rome if they were contrary to the true ancient catholick and apostolick Church which none I think but a Papist will deny then according to the Priest's Definition they are Popery and consequently Ethelwolf in holding them was a Papist But the Priest sayes King Ethelwolf did never profess himself a Member of the Roman Church ibid. Is not this strange What made him then seek Absolution of his Vows from the Pope What caused him to go in such great Devotion to Rome What moved him to give two hundred Marks a year to maintain the Lamp-Religion of the Roâ—an Church What induced him to settle a hundred 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 upon the Pope What led him to re-build the English School â—n Rome â—ounded at first by 〈◊〉 for a Seminary to train up the English Youth in the â—eligion of the Râ—man Câ—urch And how I wonder â—as he the â—opes Creature as in History iâ— recorded of him if he never profest himself a Mâ—mber of the Roman Church He adds that Ethelwolf and his Succâ—ssors were Vicarius Christ oâ—ning no Supreâ—m in their Kâ—ngdomâ— but Christ ibid. Certain it is that the Popes Supremacy was received long before Ethelwolf's time Perkins against 〈◊〉 acknowledges it begun openly and 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 Anno â—â—7 which was near two hunâ—â—ed and fiâ—â—y years before the Charter of 〈◊〉 for Tythes and â—e quotâ—s Sâ—gebert upon the year â—07 thus Boniface obtained of the Emperor 〈…〉 tâ—e Church of Rome should be the Hâ—ad
of all Churches Tâ—is was within a few years after Austin's coming from Rome hither and planting the â—oman Religion here From which time for the space of well-â—igh a hundred years all the Arch-Bishops of Câ—nterbury seven in number succâ—ssivâ—ly were Italians and Forreigners as Fox notes in his Martyrology vol. 1. pag. 121. shewing â—articularly in one of them Theodorus by Name that he was sent into England by Vitellianus the Pope to be Arch-Bishop of Canterbury whereupon this Theodorus took upon him the placing and displacing the Bishops at his Pleasure He turned out Cedda and Wilfride the Arch-Bishops of York under Pretence they were not lawfully consecrated notwithstanding says Fox they were sufficiently authorized by their Kings Wilfride hereupon went to Rome to complain but without redress Why did he not complain to his King if he was accounted Viâ—arius Christi Why made he his application to the Pope if the Pope's Supremacy was not then owned Besides if Ethelwolf and his Successors were Vicarij Christi owning no Supream in their Kingdoms but Christ how came it that they subjected themselves and their Kingdoms to the See of Rome making them tributary to the Pope by the yearly payment of Rome scot or Peter 〈◊〉 which was a 〈◊〉 Tax laid upon every House in England and paid to the Popes Treasury at Rome Hâ— adds further Tâ—at Ethelwolf did not hold all the Opinions of the Church of Rome and therefore was no Papist p. 101. That Ethelwolf was a Papist according to the account which the other Priest gives of Popery which he says is the tâ—uest Account he can give of it I have proved before That the holding every Opinion of the Church of Rome is absolutely necessary to the denominating a Papist I deny A great part of the professed Papists do not hold all the Opinions of the Church of Rome His Consequence therefore is false although he should prove his Proposition Suppose a man hold Purgatory Indulgences praying to Saints worshipping of Saints praying for the Dead sacrificing for the Dead worshipping of Relicks Auricular Confession â—ennance Absolution Pilgrimages Single Life of Priests Latin Services Masses Merits and abundance more of such like Romish Ware shall this man be denyed to be a Papist because he holds not every particular of the Church of Rome How absuâ—d were that Verily I cannot see what should induce this Priest thus to argue unless he should have apprehension that the account which his Brother Priest has given of Popery will take in him and his Brethren too as holding such Doctrines and superstitious Practices which by the corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome contrary to the true ancient catholick and apostolick Church and has therefore to secure himself from the Imputation of Popery invented this new Definition of a Papist But when he cannot clear Ethelwolf from being a Papist he atttempts to justifie his Donation of Tythes though a Papist and therefore sayes pag. 101. If we should grant that Ethelwolf was a Papist yet neither would that make his Donation of Tythes void for an erroneous Opinion in the person who doth a thing good in it self as we have proved Tythes to be doth not make the Act void How lightly doth he speak of Popery how willing he is to extenuate it An erroneous Opiâ—ion It seems then Popery in his Opinion is but an erroneous Opinion I alwayes thought Popery had been at least one degree worse then a bare Erroneous Opinion But suppose it for the present to be but an erroneous Opinion yet may not an erroneous Opinion be sufficient to make void an Act which flows from that Erroneous Opinion and is designed to uphold that Erroneous Opinion as this Donation of Tythes did The Opinion which was the cause of this Donation was this That this Gift would be a means to appease the Anger of God obtain remission of Sins and Salvation of his Soul This was to say on more of it a very erroneous Opinion and from this erroneous Opinion did spring the Donation of Tythes Now this Opinion which was the cause being thrown aside and rejected the Donation which was the Effect is void of it self according to that known Maxim Sublata Causâ tollitur effectus i. e. When the Cause is taken away the Effect is taken away also Nor was this Donation Erroneously grounded in respect only of the Remission and Salvation expected by it but also in respect of the Personâ— to whom and the Service for which it was given They to whom Tythes were then given were not the Ministers of Christ but his Eâ—emies and that Religion which Tythes wâ—â—e given to support was not the true undefiled Religion and uncorrupted Worship of God but the false corrupted Religion and Worship of the degenerate Church of Rome Whaâ— he sayes of the Act or thing being good in it self hath no place here unless he could as really prove as readily say that Tythes are good in themselves How Tythes or Tenths are good in themselves any more then Ninths Eights Sevenths or any other number I confess I do not understand But sayes he pag. 101. If all the good acts of Papists in the true sense and all their Charters and Donations be void meerly because â—ade and done by Papists then all the Charters of our Kings all the endowments of Hospâ—â—als and Schools Magna Charta and all publick Acts for some Hundreds of Years before K. Henry the eighth would be void Which Principle sayes he would destroy the Maintenance of the Poor the Priviledges of Cities and the Freedom of all English Subjects With him in this part agrees the other Priest in his Vindication pag. 303. urging for instance Magna Charta to both which one and the same Answer may serve This is all grounded upon a mistake â—nd I doubt a wilfull one too His interest diswades him from distinguishing as he ought between Religious and Civil Acts. What the Papists did as men as Members of a Body Politick is one thing what they did as Christians as Members of a Religious Society is another Though in their Religious capacity they were wrong yet in their civil capacity they were right they were really men they were truly Members of the Political Body though they were not truly Members of the Body of Christ their Kings were true Kings their Parliaments were true Parliaments their Civil Government a true Government though their Church was not the true Church The making void therefore this Charter of Tythes which had direct Relation to their Religion and was designed to suâ—port their Church and Worship which was false doth not at all shake much less overthrow those civil Acts Laws Charters and Priviledges which in a civil capacity as Members of the Body politick and with relation to the civil Government which was true were made or enacted by them He grounds his Thesis on a false Hypothesiâ— when he sayes If all the good Acts of Papists in the true sense
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.
the Church of Rome Gods Ministers which says hâ— is a malicious and false Inference since the Priesthood to whose Maintenance Tythes were given was neither Idolatrous nor the Priesthood of the Church of Rome pag. 111. The Inference is neither malicious not false but plain and true These Priests both one and t'other affirm that Priesthood to whose Maintenance Ethelwolf gave Tythes to be God's Ministry I have proved they were a Popish Priesthood by the Testimonies of divers approved Authors by the tenour of the Charter it self and by the Definition the former Priest gave of Popery viz. That it is such Doctrines and superstitious Practices which by the corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome contrary to the true antient catholick and apostolick Church I have shewed at large that those Priests to whose Maintenance Ethelwolf granted Tythes did hold and use such Doctrine and superstitious Practices as by the corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome contrary to the true antient catholick and apostolick Church of which I have given maâ—y instances I have also proved that Priesthood Popish by the assertion of this latter Priest my present Opponent who in his Right of Tythes pag. 99. sayeâ— The Benefit of this Donation hath been enjoyed for eight hundred years by those to whom the Donation was made which must of necessity be understood of popish Priests otherwise the Assertion is utterly false For he is a meer Stranger to History who doth not know that from Ethelwolf's time until the Reformation which in this Nation began little more then a hundred years ago Romish Superstitions Corruptions and Idolatries encreased daily and prevailed and the English Clergy in every Age grew more devoted to the Observance of the Sea of Rome Now when I have so fully proved that that was a popish Priesthood to whose Maintenance King Ethelwolf gave Tythes and yet these Priests plainly affirm that that Priestâ— hood was God's Ministry what inference can be more plain and true then that they call that idolatrous Priesthood of the Church of Rome God's Ministers This Priest sayes pag. 102. The Clergy of that Agâ— was God's only publick Ministers and pag. 99. The benefit of the Donation had been enjoyed for eight hundred years by those to whom the Donation was made The Donation was made in the year eight hundred fifty five to which 800 years of enjoyment being added brings to the year one thousand six hundred fifty five I desire thee Reader to compare these two sayings of this Priest together and to examin well the account of time and then judge whether this very Priest who cryes out so vehemently against me for inferring that the other Priest call'd thâ— idolatrous Priesthood of the Church of Rome God's Ministers calling it a malicious and false inference doth not himself call that idolatrous Priesthood of the Church of Rome God's own publick Ministers When he sayes The Clergy of that Age to whom this Donation of Tythes was made was God's only publick Ministers and that the Benefit of this Donation was enjoyed for eight hundred years by those to whom the Donation was made doth it not clearly follow that he accounts all the popish Clergy in England in the blackest and bloodiest times of Popery even Bonner himself and his â—rethren God's only publick Ministers who were indeed the publick Ministers of Antichrist and the greatest Enemies of God Nay he adds pag. 112. It is certain the Donors intended them viz. Tythes to the right Ministers of God and I make no doubt sayes he they were such to whom they gave them and they to whom they were given enjoyed sayes he pag. 99. the benefit thereof for eight hundred years What 's the Consequent That he makes no doubt they were the right Ministers of Christ who enjoyed the Tythes for eight hundred years after Ethelwolf which comprehends the Popish Priesthood in its most filthy and poluted state Can any one believe this Priest to be himself a Minister of Christ Let him clear himself hereof if he can and shew how the Benefit of this Donation of Tythes was enjoyed for eight hundred years by any Priesthood that was not Popish and Idolatrous § 17. In his next Section he falls foully upon me and he that was so fine-mouthed that he would nâ—t meddle with Scurrility because Railing is not Reasoning p. 12. bestows here again on me his usual Rhetorick of Dishonesty Ignorance and Impudence The Occasion he takes from hence The former Priest had said in his Friendly Conference pag. 146. Tythes being given to God for the Maintenance of his Ministry nâ— blemish in the Dedication of them can alter their prâ—perty Hereupon in my Answer pag. 294. I observed he was for having all he could get be it dedicated by whom it will or how it will and that he wanted nothing but power to revive all the old Donations of the Papists given in the mid-night darkness of Popery to redeem thâ—ir Souls out of a supposed Purgatory then I added Nay so general is his Assertion no Blemish c. that nothing once dedicated by whomsoever would seem to come amiss to â—im not the Offerings of the Gentiles to their Heathenish Deities not the Endowments of the Turks to their Mahâ—metan Priests nor yet the thirty pieces of Silver the price of Innocent Blood had Judaâ— chanced to have dedicated it would upon this Position have been unwelcome tâ— this man could he once but have got them into possession To this the latter Priest sayes pag. 113. Were these given to the true God or were these Offerings Tythes If they were not both of these why doth this Quaker mention them here To justifie Ethelwolf's Donation of Tythes to the Popish Clergy the Priest often urges the Intention of the Donors as pag. 103. The Donors supposed them a good Ministry and as such endowed them for they esteemed them to be God's Receivers Again pag. 112. It is certain the Donors intended them to the right Ministers of God And pag. 104. They gave Tythes to maintain that which they believed to be a good Ministry and the true Worship of God and therefore the Donation remains good Here its evident he makes the validity of the Donation to depend upon the Intention of the Donors But when the Gentiles offered to their Heathenish Deities did they not suppose and believe those Deities to be true Gods and the Priests of those Deities to be a good and a right Priesthood and did not some of them offer Tythes also as the Priest has takâ—n some needless pains to prove Now if as he argues pag. 104. The Donation therefore remains good because the Donors gave Tythes to maintain that which they believed to be a good Ministry and the true Worship of God although in very deed it was a bad Ministry and a false Worship I appeal to the judicious Reader whether the same Argument doth not serve and the same Reason reach to fetch in the Gentiles
that the Mystery of Iniquity which began to work in their dayes hath continued working ever since and in every Age successively hath brought forth more and more of its work So that Popery was not All brought forth in a Day nor in an Age but was introduced gradually And as the true Religion of Christ was instituted prosessed and practised some time before it was distinguished by the Name Christian. So the false Religion was received also before it was denominated Popish yet this false Religion was really in its Nâ—ture Popish before it obtained to be called Popish as the true Religion was really in its Nature Christian before it received the Name Christian. He therefore that will receive whatsoever he finds practised or commended in the Church before the Name of Popery prevailed may be very likely to receive something which was brought forth by the working of the mystery of Iniquity and is really and truly of the Nature of Popery But the Priest sayes as he has said before more then once If the Saxons in K. Ethelwolf's tiâ—e were Papists it will not follow that all their Donations are void I say so too Some of their Donations were meerly civil made by them as men and Members of a civil Society but this of Tythes was the product of their Religion and of that part of it wherein they were most corrupt So that although All their Donations are not void yet if any at all of their Donations are void there is none which with more reason should be so then this of Tythes Again he sayes 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 But I have proved that the giving of Tythes was a Popish Act proceeding from such Motives and attended with such Circumstances as are repugnant to true Protestant Principles But sayes he pag. 121. The Protestants have disputed as much and as well for Tythes as ever the Papists did If by Protestants he means his Brethren the Priests I wonder not at all at it Tythes are their Diana the Oyl that nourishes their Lamp pag. 13. No wonder then if they dispute foâ— Tythes and that much too but how well let others judge Yet commonly the Dispute ends on their parts with Club-Law and in the case of Tythes an Imprisonment and trebble dammages are Ratio ultima Cleri the Clergy's last Argument and many times their first too but alwayes the strongest and that they most rely on He adds It is a Popish Opinion That the Bishop of Rome can exempt men from paying Tythes 'T is so indeed but it is the subsequent of another Popish Opinion That the Bishop of Rome can injoyn men to pay Tythes So that the particular exemption from Tythes and the institution of Tythes are deâ—ived from one and the same Power And if the payment of Tythes had not been settled and established by the Authority of the Bishop of Rome the Opinion of his power to exempt men from paying Tythes had not prevailed as it did But do not these Popish exemptions remain still among the Protestants Those Lands which the Pope made Tythe free are they not Tythe free still What signifies that I pray Is that an argument of the divine Right of Tythes and that Tythes are due by the moral eternal Law Or is it not rather a fair intimation that Tythes are indeed but of human Institution and that from the Bishops of Rome too whose exemptions are in force and observed here even to this day Then he sayes I begun too low by far for if Popery came not into the Church till about seven Hundred Years after Christ according to T. E's proof then Tythes were much ancienter then Popery for they were paid sayes he and declared to be due to the Church at least five Hundred Years before In all this he is wrong For first I have proved Popery did come into the Church before seven Hundred Years after Christ before any settled payment of Tythes Next he neither hath proved nor can prove by any Testimony of credit in this case that Tythes were paid and declared to be due to the Christian Church at least five Hundred Years before He may talk of the Apostles Canons and Clement's Constitutions and be laugh't at for his pains but no Authentick evidence of those times can be produced to prove the payment of Tythes The oldest of his Authors that mentions Tythes is Origen who grounded his judgment on the Lâ—vitical Law and thought it necessary that that Law should stand in force according to the Letter which could not be consistent with Christianity But although Origen was a learned man yet Perkins says he was Errorum plenus full of Errors and Hierom calls his Writings Venâ—nata Venemous and among the rest of his Errors Purgatory was one as witnesseth the same Perkins against Coâ—â—ius Probl. pag. 175. So that if he will fetch Tythes from Origen he may take Purgatory along with them if he please However he shall find that some of those Opinions which afterwards were most rightly denominated Popish were by the Mystery of Iniquity brought into the Church as early as his earliest mention of Tythes let him climb as high as he can § 20. But to clear Tythes from a Popish Institution he sayes pag. 122. 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 〈◊〉 noâ— in the Church of Rome it self at the time of this Donation Anno 855. Of this he gives several Instances pag. 123. the first is this The Marriage of Priests was not forbidden till the time of Gregory the 7th above two hundred years after For this he cites Polid. Virgill de ver invent l. 5. c. 4. But how unfairly he has quoted his Author and how foully he hath abused his Reader let Polydore's own words shew in the place cited where having declared how it fared with the Eastern Priests in that case he adds At occidentalibus paulatim est Connubium abrogatum Syricius enim priums â—acerdotibus et diaconis ut ait Gratianus distinctione 82. â—onjugio interdicit qui circiter annum salutis humane 387. federe caepit i. e. But Marriage was taken from the Priests in the West by degrees For Syricius who began to sit in the Roman Chair about the year of man's Salvaâ—ion 387. was the first that forbad Marriage to Priests and Deacons as Gratian says in his 82 Distinction Idem instituit says Polydore ut quicunque aut viduam aut secundam duxisset uxorem ab ordine sacerdotali pelleretuâ— sic per hoc voluit ut deinceps Digamus ad officium facerdotis non admittertur i. e. The same Syricius ordained that whatsoever Priest had married a Widow or a Second Wife should be put out of his Priesthood so by this he would not have any one that
not defined till Peter â—ombard's dayes yet were there so many other Popish Doctrines and Opinions received in the Church long before as sufficiently prove those times to be Popish from which he fetches his Donation of Tythes Next he says The Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not received for a point of Faith till the Lateran Council above one thousand two hundred years after Christ. Although Transubstantiation was not by publick Decree imposed as an Article of Faith until the Council of Lateran yet was it received and believed by many some hundreds of years before Perkins says Problem pag 145. Disputations began concerning Transubstantiation about the year 840. So that Transubstantiation it seems was a hatching before Ethelwolf's Charter for Tythes was granted And as the Council of Lateran somewhat after the year 1200. was the first that made Transubstantiation an Article of Faith so the same Council of Lateran was the first general Council that decreed â—â—rochial Right to Tythes as Selden proves in his History of Tythes ch 6. § 7. and ch 10. § 2. towards the end So that the general parochial payment of Tythes and the general belief of Transubstantiation were decreed and established at one and the same time in one and the same General Council Purgatory it self he sayes was but a private Opinion and affirmed only by some Anno 1146. and Indulgâ—â—ces can be no older yea their application to Souls in Purgatory was first brought in he says by Boniface the eighth Purgatory saith Perkins pag. 175. was first received in the Church by Tertullian and Origen who both lived about two hundred years after Christ. That it was held by Augustin also and others of the Fathers though in somewhat a different Notion from what it afterward obtained he shews p. 176 and 178. and concludes pag. 180. Ergo Purgatorium quod est inter Mortem et ultimum judicium quodq tantum inservit expurgandis peccatis venialibus paenis temperalibus non â—uit receptum apud â—eteres nisi sorte post annum 600. i. e. Therefore Puâ—gatory which is between Death and the last Iudgment and which serves only to purge venial sins and take away temporal punishments was not received among the Antients unless happily after the year 600. Whence by implication is granted that after the year 600. which was two hundred and fifty years before Ethelwolf's Donation of Tythes Purgatory was received even in this sense among the Antients 'T is true Indulgences can be no older then Purgatory nor need they for that is old enough to prove those times Popish wherein Tythes were granted Polydore Vergil de Invent. Reâ— l. 8. c. 1. searching the Original of them sayes Non reperio ante fuisse quod sciam quam D. Gregorius ad suas stationes id praemij proposuerit i. e. I do not find so far as I know that Indulgences were before St. Gregory proposed that Reward to his Stations which was about the Year 600. Then using the Testimony of the Bishop of Rochester to the same purpose he adds Atque hoc pacto post Gregorium veniarum Seges paulatim crevit cujus messem non exiguam permulti interdum colligerunt c. i. e. And by this means after Gregories time the Crop of Pardons or Indulgences grew up by little and little of which very many have sometimes reapt a large Harvest and whence it appears Indulgences were in use much earlier then the Priest delivers But to proceed the Priest says that the half Communion began but a little before the Council of Constance and was never decreed till then That the putting the Apocripha into the Canon of Scripture and divers other points were never decreed till the Council-of Trent And that if it were not to avoid prolixity he could make it evident That the Pope's universal Supremacy and Infallibility Iuâ—â—ification by the Merit of Good Works Auricular Confession Formal Invocation of Saints and other Corruptions of the modern Papists wâ—re not determined as Articles of Faith no not in Rome it self in Ethelwolf ' s time That many if not most of these were believed and publickly held in the Church of Rome long before Ethelwolf's time is undoubted Concerning the â—ope's Supremacy Perkins sayes Problem pag. 202. Primatus Dominij vel authoritationis in Romano Pontifice ante 600. an ignotus publice et manifeste caepit in Bonifacio anno 607. i. e. The Primacy of Dominion or Authority in the Pope of Rome which was not known before the year 600. began publickly and manifestly in Boniface in the year 607. about two hundred and fifty years before Ethelwolf's Charter And of Confession he sayes pag. 180. Confessio aurâ—cularis id est confessio specialis omnium mortalium peccatorum ad eorundem remissionem necessaria et sacerdoti occulte facta cepit in Ecclesia urgeri et praecipi circa annos a Christo octingentos i. e. Auricular Confession that is particular Confession of all mortal sins held necessary for the obtaining Remission of them and which is made in private to the Priest began to be enforced commanded in the Church about eight hundred years after Christ which was about fifty years before Ethelwolf's Charter And of Invocation of Saints he sayes pag. 89. No Invocation of the Dead can be shewed in the Church for three hundred and fifty years after Christ. Then p. 90. he says This Invocation began to be brought into the use of the Catholick Church about the year 380. by common Custome and private Devotion And pag. 91. he affirms that After the year 400. the antients did commit Sin yea and were guilty of Sacriledge in the Invocation of Saints of which he gives many Instances full of gross Impiety and then adds pag. 94. The Invocation which in former Ages was of private Devotion began to be publick about the year 500. for then Petrus Gnaphaeus mingled the Invocation of Saints with the publick Prayers of the Church For he is said to have invented this that in every Prayer the Mother of God should be named and her divine Name called upon And about the year 600. Pope Gregory the great commanded a Letany which was made for the Invocation of Saints to be sung publickly Thus we see that these Doctrines which he sayes are properly called Popery were received held believed and publickly professed many a year before Ethelwolf was born And were it not to avoid prolixity I could make it evident that the greatest part of the Errors Corruptions Superstitions and Idolatries of the Church of Rome were received believed and openly maintained long before Ethelwolf made his Donation of Tythes But suppose the particulars he has instanced were not determined as Articles of Faith in Ethelwolf's time but without any such formal Determination were received and commonly believed are they therefore not popish Doth Popery lie only in the Determination of them If they are Errors if they are Corruptions if they are Superstitions if they are Idolatries after they are determined as
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
Christian Temples but also advanced their Veneration commanding them most ethuically to be increased c. This was about One Hundred Years before Ethelwolf's Donation of Tythes and if the Church of Rome which was then the Mother Church to England was so Idolatrous then what may we think she was in Ethelwolf's time one Hundred Years after and what may we suppose that King himself to be who was so great an Admirer of her and bountiful Benefactor to her He sayes Thirdly I instance in Miracles and Intercession of Saints taxing Bede with these points of Popery and the Saxons of his time To this sayes he pag. 131. I reply That if the belief 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 Miraclâ— then any they can find in all Bede's History What a miserable shift is this Is this Reasoning or Railing would any man that had either a good Cause or good parts have shewed so much weaknesâ— to give a meer Quibble instead of a solid Reply In his 28 Sect. pag. 161. He charges me though very unjustly as in its place c. 5. S. 4. I have shewed with evading all serious Answers by some petty Cavil Judge now Reader if himself be not here guilty of what he there charges upon me Hath he not in this very place evaded a serious Answer by a petty Cavil But this is an usual way with him when he is hard set and willing to avoid the matter I alledged that long before Ethelwolf was Born Popery had made her encroachments in the Church among many instances whereof that I brought one was the belief of strange kind of Miracles wrought by the Relicks of Popish Saints nor only so but by thâ— Wood of the Cross and by Holy Water also This I proved by divers quotations out of the Ecclesiastical History of Beda the Saxon. To which after his prophane Iest he replyes 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 human learning in that Age might occasion the credulous reception of more then was true and yet we must not condemn them presently for Papists ibid. He that will take the pains to read Bede's History particularly his third Book 2 11 13 and 15. Chap. and his fifth Book 4. Chap. may there find relation of Miracles as palpably Popish as any in the Roman Legend And if it should be granted that Miracles were then wrought to Convince that People it must be supposed that those Miracleâ— if wrought by the Power of God were wrought to Convince them of the true Faith and Worship of God and to establish them in it But the Miracles mentioned in those Chapterâ— of Bede's History to which I have above refer'd tend not to the setting up of the true Worship of God but a false Worship even the Worship of the Church of Rome in the veneration and adoration of Relicks of Popish Saints of the Wood of the Cross of Holy Water and of consecrated Oyl which all men know to be a part and a corrupt part too of the present Romish Religion So that in these things the Saxon Church then appears to have been in the same condition in which the Church of Rome both then was and now is He sayes They might be credulous and apt to be imposed upon but that was their infirmity and amountâ— but to Superstition not to Popery ibid. He forgets his Brother's Definition of Popery Friendly Confer pag. 149. That it is such Doctrines and SUPERSTITIOUS Practices which by the corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome contrary to the true ancient Catholick and Apostolick Church So that if those things recorded by Bede to be wrought and believed by and among the Saxons were such superstitious practices as by the corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome contrary to the true ancient Catholick and Apostolick Church then they are Popery and they by and amongst whom they were so wrought believed and received were Papists but no Protestant I hope will deny the instances above given to be superstitious Practices to have prevailed in the Church of Româ— through the corruption of time and to be contrary to the true ancient Catholick and Apostolick Church Besides if as he sayes they might be credulous and apt to be imposed upon and so could be excused as he would have them upon the score of their Infirmity yet who I pray were they that took the advantage of their credulity and did impose upon them were they not their Priests their Clergy and what were they mean while If the People werâ— credulous and easie to be beguiled and imposed upon the Priests were not less crafty and ready to imposâ— upon them and beguil them But was not this the same Priest-hood to which Tythes were afterwardâ— given who thus imposed upon the credulous People and deluded them with lying Wonders As for Intercession of Saints he sayes If I mean that the Saxons prayed to the Saints as their Intercâ—ssors with God I do egrâ—giously wrong them pag. 132. About what time the Opinion of the Intercâ—ssion of Saints was received in the Church and how understood Perkins in his Problem of the Church of Rome pag. 87. c. shews First he sayes it was altogether unknown in the Church of God for the space of two Hundred Years after Christ. After which time Origen he sayes and other Fathers disputed concerning the Saints Intercession for us but very diversly and doubtfully untill the Year 400. From that time it seems to have been a received Opinion For the Ancients he sayes pag. 89. teach that the Saints do interceed not only openly by Praying but interprâ—tatively also by meriting or deserving of which he there gives many instances and concludes that among the Anâ—ients the Saints are made immediate Intercessors to God for us From this belief of the Saints Intercession sprang the custom of Invocation or Praying to Saints which Perkins shews was not in the Church for three Hundred and Fiâ—ty Years after Christ but began to creep in about the Year 380. and after the Year 400. he sayes the Ancients sinâ—ed and were guilty of Sacriledge in praying to the Saints of which he gives many Instances some whereof shew that the Saints were prayed to as Intercessors to God yea as Mediators between God and Man For Paulinus in natali 3. in Faelicem sayes Exora ut precibus plenis Meritisque redonet Debita nostra tuis i. e. Pray O Faelix that he would forgive us our Sins for the sake of thy full Prayers and Merits And Fortunatus in vita Martini lib. 2. thus intreats Martâ—n Inter me et Dominum Mediator ad esto benigne i. e. Be thou O Martin afavourablâ— Mediator between the Lord and me Noâ— was this Opinion of the
of the Church of Rome yea some of the Cardinals have done the like as Perkins shews â—rob pag. 48. And if it be true that he himself sayes pag. 123. that the putting the Apocrypha into the Canon of Scripture was never decreed till the Council of Trenâ— about a Hundred and Ten Years ago then before that time the Church of Rome it self had not the Apocrypha in the Canon of Scripture any more then the Saxons had and yet I think he will not say the Church of Rome was not Popish oâ— Idoâ—atrous before the Council of Trent In the close of this Section he sayes Finally 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 But if T. E. will not Recant I shall leave it to the Reader to judge of his ignorance and impudence pag. 135. Because there is nothing in this but Scurrility and Railing instead of Reason I intend no Reply to it but will take notice of another passage or two in the same page §23 First he sayes The Saxons were more Orthodox in SOME points then ROME it self then was A goodly commendation Was Rome it self so Orthodox then in his account that he makes her the â—tandard to measure others by Rome it self no doubt was somewhat less corrupt then then in after Ages she grew to be yet he that with an impartial Eye shall view the state of the Romish Church in those times will find her far enough from being Orthodox And if the Saxon Church was not in ALL points so depraved as Rome it self then was yet was she also too unsound in Faith to be reputed Orthodox But secondly the Saxons sayes he differed from the present Papists in all the most material Articles of Faith being nearer in Opinion to the Protâ—stant Church of England It seems then they are not one with the Protestant Church of England but only nearer in Opinion to it then to the present Papists Yet in pag. 102. he sayâ—â— The Clergy of that Age were Gods only publick Ministers and pag. 112. he makes no doubt but they were the right Ministers of God which if they were how comes it that they were not positively one with the Protestant Church of England but only nearer to it then to the present Papists But wherein were they nearer to the Protestant Church of England then to the present Papists Not I hope in their shaven Crowns not in their Monkish Life not iâ— their Vows of continency not in their going on Pilgrimages not in their belief of Purgatory not in thâ—ir praying for the Dead not in their sacrificing for the Dead not in the worshipping of Relicks not in the praying to Saints not in saying Mass not in Latine service not in auricular Confession not in extream Vnction not in the use of Chrism not in the use of Holy Water to drive away Devils or of â—onsecrated Oyl to allay Storms and Tempests In these I â—row and such like things as these they were nearer the present Papists then the Protestant Church of England But thirdly He charges me with ignorance and impudence in supposing the Church so much corupted with Popery then that their very Donations were not fit to stand good or be enjoyed no not by a Protestant Ministry No sure not by a Protestant Ministry of all other for since it is denominated Protestant from protesting against Popery what can be more unsuitable to it then to subsist by a Donatioâ— which was made to uphold that which it hath protested against By a Protestant Ministry he means no doubt a true Gospel Ministry the nature and qualifications whereof if he rightly understood he would not think that such a Ministry hath a greater liberty to enjoy a Popish Donation then another but a less in as much as such a Ministry ought more especially to abstain not only from known and certain Evil but even from every appearance of Evil and not only to avoid the works of the Flesh but to hate even the Garment spotted with the Flesh. So that I account the Church so corrupted with Popery then that their Donations of Tythes are not fit to be enjoyed by any Ministry at all much less by a Protestant Ministry That the Church then was indeed greatly corrupted with Popery is evident by the many instances given of Doctrines and Practices received and held therein which beyond all contradiction have through the corruption of time prevailed in the Church of Rome contrary to the true ancient Catholick and Apostolick Church Nor is it likely it should be otherwise if we consider the Constitution of the Church here in those times For when Austin the Monk came hither from Rome and â—ound some reception here he sent to the Pope for advice and direction how to form settle govern that Church which he then was gathering and from the Pope he received Instructions in all particulars he desired to be informed in From the Pope he received the Power he here exercised and the Pall of his Arch-Bishoprick as his Successors generally did And the Religion and Worship which he brought with him from Rome grew by degrees to be the general Religion and Worship of the Nation For although the Profession of Christianity had been in this Island long before Austin came hither yet had it been much deprest by Heathenism and the remains of it shortly after extinguished by Austin and his Sectators Austin being dead his Successors for a long time after were such as the succeding Popes sent over hither Fox reckons them in this order Laurentius Mellitus Iustus Honorius Deusdedit which last being dead Oswi and Egbert Kings of Northumberland and Canterbury sent Wighard a Presbyter to Rome with great Gifts and Presents of Silver and Golden Vessels to Pope Vitalianus to be by him ordained Arch-Bishop but he delivering his Message and Presents to the Pope died at Rome before he could be consecrated whereupon the Pope writes a Letter to King Oswi commending his zeal and care and sends him some Relicks of the Apostles Peter Paul of other Saints as he calls them and to the Queen his Wiâ—e the Pope sent a Cross with a golden Nail in it withal he acquaints the King that so soon as he could find a Man fit for the place he would not fail to send him an Arch-Bishop Accordingly after much inquiry Theodorus at length was found but he being Born at Tharsus of Cilicia had his Crown clipt after the Eastern manner in imitation as they pretended of St. Paul so that he was fain to wait four Moneths till his Hair was grown that he might have the right cut as they accounted it that done he was ordained Arch-Bishop of Canterbury by Pope Vitalianus and soon after he set forward for England accompanied with Adrian and other Monks about the Year 668. This is that Theodorus who Fox sayes was sent into England by
metâ—inks the Modesty and Wariness of my Expression might have won upon him to have pardoned such an Omission and thereby have oblieged me to have done him the like Kindness another time But since he stands so upon it let us see what other Statute he has brought and whether I am guilty indeed of a Mistake in this case or no. He says The very first Law in the Statute-Book is a Grant for the Church's injoying her Rights inviolable What then Is there any mention of Tythes in that Grant or was it a Law made for the payment of Tythes Not a Tittle of Tythes is in it How then was this a Parliamentary Law made for the payment of Tythes when neither Tythes nor Payment are so much as mentioned in it This was a Confirmation of Liberties to the Church but not a Law made for the payment of Tythes nor do I yet think the Priest will find though he turn the Statute Book over again any Law made directly for the payment of Tythes before that which I have quoted which if he do not instead of fastning a Mistake in this case â—pon me hee 'l find a Charge of a woâ—e nature return upon himself The next Mistake he charges me with is that I say This Statute of 27 Hen. 8. was made by a popish King and Parliament Whereas says he that very Statute declares the King Supream 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 Pope's Authority I cannot well understand sayes he ibid. He needed not have taken the pains to inform me that Hen. 8. had assum'd the Supremacy before the making of that Statute since I had advertised him of that in the same page out of which he pretends to pick these mistakes pag. 333. where I say Henry 8. being more Papist then Protestant though he had transfer'd the Supremacy from the Pope to himself and believing as most of the other Doctrines of the Church of Rome so that of Tythes being due to God and Holy Church in the twenty seventh Year of his Reign made a Law for the payment of Tythes c. But that which he either cannot or will not understand is how they can be Papiâ—tâ— that have renounced the Popes Authority Truly though he has not deserved much kindness of me yet I will take a little pains to inform him how this may be and in order thereunto I will begin with the definition of Popery which his Brotheâ— gives in his Conference pag. 149. Popery is sucâ—â— Doctrines and superstitious Praâ—tices which by the Corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome contrary to the Trâ—e Ancient Catholick anâ— Apostolick Church As this is Popery so â—e thaâ— holds believes and uses such Doctrines and Pâ—acticeâ— is a Papist but so did Hen. 8. after he had renoâ—nced the Pope's Authority and assum'd the Supremacy to himself And if Herbert who writ his Life may find credit with the Priest he will tell him pag. 369. that though he separated from the obedience oâ— the Roman Church yet not from the Religion thereof some few Articles excepted Of which more full Teâ—â—imonies we may find in Fox's Acts and Mâ—numents and in Speed's Chronicle The six Articles were â—naâ—ted after the Popes authority was â—eâ—ounced and after this Law for the payment of Tythes was made also which Articles were for the establishing of Doctrines grosly Popisâ— viz. Transuâ—stantiation the half Communion the single Life of Priestâ— Vows of perpetual Chastity private Masses and auricular Confession and stood in force all his time And many suffered Maâ—tyrdâ—m under him after he had renounced the Pope's Supremacy as Laubert Barns Askew and many others who to be sure were no Renegadoes but such as certainly sealed their Testimony with their Blood Besides he might have learnt from his Brother Priest that Hen. 8. did establish the six bloody Aâ—ticles to shew himself as ill a friend to Protestants as to Tythes Vindication pag. 305. which if he had considered might perhaps have helped to open his understanding a little in this dark and difficult point However by that time he has read and weighed what has now been offered concerning it I hope he may begin to understand how they could be Papists that had renounced the Popes authority and then I expect he should withdraw his action and not charge me with a mistake in saying the Statute of 27 Hen. 8. for the payment of Tythes was made by a Popish King and Parliament But he sayes I mistake a Statute made in 32 Hen. 8. c. 7. for a Statute made in 37. Hen. 8. Who but would take this man to have been Domitian's Schollar he is so ready-handed at catching Flies What a grand mistake was this to set 37 foâ— 32 A mistake it was however But common ingenuity would rather have imputed it to the Printer than the Aâ—thor especially considering how ill the Book is Printed throughout He knows well enough that till he had made a second Correction of Errors his own Book was not free from such mistakes if it be yet And if I could have taken the same Course 〈◊〉 had not had this Straw to stumble at He adds that I bring in Protestant King Edw. 6. for a Popish confirmer of Tythes He wrongs me in that My words are these pag. 334. In pursuance of these Laws of Hen. 8. â—is Son and Successor Edward 6. made another grounding is upon those which his Father had made before This is not calling Edw. 6. a Popish confirmer of Tythes § 11. But he takes great pains to prove Tythes a Free-hold and spends several pages about it using great earnestness therein and calling me Heretick for but so much as questioning it I do not profess my self a Lawyer and therefore will not take upon me to Answer all his Law-quotations lest I should need the same Excuse that he at last is fain to make pag. 188. Ne sutor ultra crepidaâ— But I observe he sayes pag. 185. that In the very Statute of 32. Hen. 8. There is mention made of an Estate of Inhâ—ritance or Free-hold in Tythes By this I perceive he confounds the Claiâ—s of Priest and Impropriator for that Clause in the Statute hath plain relation to the Impropriators a directing how and where Lay-men possessing Tythes and being thereof disseized may have their Remedy The words of the Statute run thus And be it further enacted c. that all cases where any Person or Persons which now have or which hereafter shall have any Estate of Inheritance Free-hold term Right or Interest of in or to any Parsonage Vicarage Portion Pension Tythes Oblations or other Ecclesiastical or Spiritual profit which now be 〈◊〉 which hereafter shall be made temporal or admitted to be abide and go to or in temporal Hands and lay uses and profits by the Law and Statutes of this Realm shall hereafter fortune to be disseised c.
It is plain that by an Estate of Inheritance or Free-hold the Statute here intends those Tythes that then were or after should come to be in the possession of Lay-men and appropriated to Temporal or Lay uses which implies it did not account Tythes an Estate of Inheritance or Free-hold to the Priests for then this distinction had been needless Besides the Statute sayes The Person or Persons so diâ—â—eised c. their Heirs Wives c. shall have remedy in the King 's temporal Courts c. and amongst other Writs by which they may proceed directs Writs of Dower All which have manifest Relation to the Impropriator's Titâ—e not to the Priest's for what Priest as a Priest can make his Wife a Dower of Tythes Or what hath a Priest's Heir or Wife to do with Tythes when he is dead But this Priest would gladly strengthen his Claim by twisting in the Impropriator's with it Therefore he sayes pag. 186. Those very Laws which made the Aâ—â—enation did not give the Laiâ—y any other Estate in Tythes than such as the Clergy had before and such â—s the rest of the Clergy had then to the Tythes remaining in Ecclesiastical Hands This is disproved by an Instance which himself gives pag. 185. which is â—f a Writ of Dower of praediâ—l Tythes brought in the Countess of Oxford ' s case 5. Iacob By which it appears that Tythes were settled in Dower upon that Countess as he stiles her which they could not have been if her Husband had not had another Estate in Tytheâ— than such as the Clergy then had or now have For no body I suppose â—â—magins that the Clergy have such an Estate in Tythes as by vertue of which they can settle Tythes in 〈◊〉 upon their Wives He that will take the pains to consult that Statute 32 H. 8. 7. will find that what it speaks of Estates of Inheritance Free-hâ—ld c. hath respect to Lay-men not to the Clergy For although in the second and last Paragrapâ—s where it directs the remedy for recovery of Tythes in case of substraction or detention thereof it expresly mentions Ecclesiastical as well as Lay Persons restraining the remedy for both to Ecclesiastical Courts and Laws yet in the seventh Paragraph where an Estate of Inheritance or Free-hold in Tythes is spoken of there is no mention made or notice taken of the Clergy not a word of any Ecclesiastical person but those Terms Estate of Inheritance Free-hold c. are expresly there applied to such Tythes c. as then were or should afterward be made temporal or admitted to be abide and go to or in temporal Hands and lay uses and profits c. And in case of diâ—â—elsure of such Estate of Inheritance Free-hold c. the Remedy was not restrained to the Eccesiastical Courts as in the other case wherein Ecclesiastical persons were concerned but left to the King 's temporal Courts From all which I gather that those words in the Statute Estate of Inheritance Frâ—â—hold c. have no relation at all to the Clergy noâ— do any way concern Ecclesiastical persons but were inserted purposely for the sakes of those â—ay-persons into whose Hands such Estates were then already come or likely to come And that the Law-makers then did understand the Laity to have another Estate in Tythes then the Clergy had The Author of the Conference in his Vindication pag. 316. hath another trick to prove Tythes a â—ree-hold and that is this He asks his Parishioner Who elect the Parliament-men that serve for the Counâ—y The Parishoner answers The Free-holders And did you never sayes he see Clergy mens Votes entred at one of those Elections Yes many a time quoth the Parishioner That very thing replies he proves them Free-holders But by his leave the proving some Priests Free-holders doth not prove Tythes a Free-hold Many of the Priests have temporal Estates Lands of Inheritance or purchase which gives them a Right of suffraâ—e in such Elections But then it must be considered that in such cases though they are Clergy Men they do not Vote as Clergy men but as men possest of such temporal Estates or Free-holds Beâ—ides most of the Priests have Gâ—ebe-Lands which may with less â—epugnancy to reason be called a Fâ—ee-hold than Tythes And this Priest hath not expressed upon which of these considerations it is that his Clergy-mens Votes are entred Now if he intendâ—d to have proveâ— by this Medium that Tythes are a Free-hold to the Clergy he should have demonstrated that every Priest that takes Tythes is thereby inabled to give a Voice in the Election of Parliament Men Which if they are not it is ratheâ— an Argument against him then for him and shews that Tythes are not a Freeâ—hold to the Clergy But of that let Lawyers â—udge I only add That as the Priests are unlike the Ministers of the Gospel in taking Tythes at all so they are much more unlike them in claiming a legal property and Free-hold therein And if Tythes may in any Notion of Law be called a Free-hold they are as I said in my former Book pag. 331. such a Free-hold as holdâ— the greatest part of the Nation in bondage â—ut he is angry that I say These Statutes foâ— Tythes were grounded on a false supposition That Tythes were due to God and Holy Church This he calls a repeating of old baffled falshoods pag. 188. and sayes he has proved this was a true supposition and maintained by the Primitive Orthodox Fathers adding that nothing is more false than my saying This was a Doctrine purely Popish and hatch'd at Rome he leaves out and here preach't up with thundring Excommunications by the l ope's Emmissaries and Agents which he knew could not be denyed and woâ—ld hâ—lp to discover where the Doctrine was hatch'd However he makes the validity and force oâ— the Statutes to depend on the Truth of this supposition That Tythes are due to God and Holy â—hurch for he sayes Since thesâ— Statutes were grounded on a Primitive and Protestant Doctrine thâ— Statutes are therefore good pag. 89. But by the rule of contraries If these Statutes were not grounded on a Primitive and Protestant Doctrine the Statutes are not therefore good Now that this Doctrine of Tythes being due to God and Holy Church was not a Primitive Doctrine appears in that therâ— is no mention of this Doctrine in any of the Writings of the New-Testament wherein the primitive Doctrines of Christianity are delivered This Doctrine is no where there to be found Nor iâ— the more simple and leâ—s corrupted Ages of the Church and nearest to the Apostles times was this Doctrine received But in the more distant Ages from the Aâ—â—stles when the Church became greatly corrupted both in doctrine and practice sprung up this Doctrine of Tythes being due to God and Holy Church and may truly be reckoned amongst those Doctrines and superstitious Practices which by the corruption of time have pâ—evailed in the Church of Rome contrâ—ry
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 Bee's and Honey Lambs c. And he that payes not Tythes of all these is a Thief to God himself pag. 88. His observation on this is That they all declare Tythes to be due jure divino But whence fetcht they their Opinâ—on of the Divine Right of Tythes Do they not deduce it from the Words of the Prophet and ground their Decree thereupon And had not those Words of the Prophet a direct reference to the Câ—remonial Law And is not the Ceremonial Law ended and abrogated by Christ And do not these Priests disown any claim from it Friendly Coâ—ference pag. 133. Right of Tythes pag. 4â— What trifling then is it thus to Argue Besides there is great ground to susâ—ect the credit of his quotation Selden Nothing the falshood which some câ—mmit who out of Iuo attributed an express Canon for the payment of first Fruits and Tenths to the provincial Synod of Sivil and giving the words of that Canon little different from these quoted by the Priest sayes The old Manuscript Copy of Iuo hath it ex conciliâ— Spanensi and the Printed Book ex concilio Hispalensi Then sticking a little at the word Spanensi he adds Whatever he meant by it clearly the whole Canon is of much later time the first words of it also being nothing but the Syllables of one of Charlemains Laws that was not made till 780. years from Christ. He observes also that Gratian warily abstained from using these Canons and a little after concludes positively That among the known and certain Monuments of Truth till about the end 800 years no Law Pontificial of or Synodal saving that of Mascon Determins or Commands any thing concerning Tenths although very many are which speaking purposely and largely of Church Revenues Oblations and such like could not have been silent of them if that quantity had been then established for a certain duty He then shews that the Canonists and others in later Ages compiling their Decrees have made those words by which the Offerings of the Christians were expressed to serve as if they had expresly named Tythes in which Observation he seems to take this very Priest by the Nose and concludes thus He that reads those old Canons only as they are so applied in late Authority to Tythes might perhaps soon think that at first they were made specially and by name for them The matters sayes he is plainly otherwise What was ordained in them about Tythes is out of them in later times Tythes Oblatio â—s being then supposed of equal right expresly extended also to Tythes And to this purpose he cites Frier 〈◊〉 in Prolegom ad Toâ—â— 1. Conâ—il thus Licet forsan falsâ— tâ—li sint Pontifici vel certâ— tali Coâ—cilio per scriptorum incâ—rian ad scripti i. e. Although perhaps speaking of such Canons they are falsly ascribed to such a Pope or to such a Council by the carelesness of Writers Thus far Selden Hist. Tytheâ— c. 5. § 5. And in his sixth Section of the same Chapter mentioning again the Decree of Masoon which was but Provincial he sayes No Canon as yet was received in the Church generally as a binding Law for payment of any certain quantity which not only appears sayes he in that we find none such now remaining but also is confirmed by the Testimony of a great and learned French Bishop in whose Province also Mascon was that could not be ignorant of the received Law of his time He lived and wrote very near the end of this four Hundred Years I think sayes he in the very beginning of the next which according to Sâ—lden's division must be the Year 900. And in a Treatise abouâ— the dispensation of Church Revenues expresly denyes that befoâ—e his time any Synod or general Doctrine of the Church had determined or ordained any thing touching the quantity that should be given either for Maintenance or building of Churches He gives the Testimony of this Bishop in his own words thus Jaâ— vero de donandis rebus etordinandis Ecclesijs nihil unquam in Synodis constitutum est nihil a Sanctis Patribus publice praedicatum Nulla enim compulit necessitas fervente ubique religiosa devotione et amore illustrandi Ecclesias ultro â—estruante c. i. e. But now concerning endowing â—nd ordaining Churches there has never been any thing decreed in Synods nor publickly preached by the holy Fathers For there has not been any necessity for that religious Devotion being every where warm and the desire of adorning Churches burning of its own accord And then adds This Author is Agobard Bishop of Lyons very learned and of great judgment and had not so confidently denyed what you see he doth if any Decree Canon or Council generally received had before his time commanded the payment or offering of any certain part And to confirm the Truth of this Bishop's Testimony herein he adds that Neither in the Codex Ecclâ—siâ—â—niverculis or the Codex Ecclesiâ— Romane or Africane Fulgentius Ferrandus Cresconius or Isidore's Collection all which in those elder Ages were as parts of the Body of the Canon Law is once any mention of the name of Tenths Thus far Selden By which it may appear that Tythes had not so early a settlement in the Church as the Priest would perswade his Reader The Priest seems now to have done for the present with Councils and betakes himself to the Laws of Kings and Emperors To which before I pass I desire the Reader to take notice to what a nothing his great talk of Councils is come and that after all his great Brags he hath produced but one Council that expresly names Tythes and that but a Provincial one neitheâ— and falling so much short of that Antiquity that Antient Date the Beginning and earliest dayes of Christianity which he so frequently and vauntingly repeats that it was not much less then 600. yeaâ—â— after Christ before it was made and then too in probability little regarded § 8. Now let us observe the Laws he offers made by Kings and Emperours concerning Tythes The first he instances is of Constantine the Great Who he sayes pag. 89. being settled in his Empire in the Lands under his Dominion out of every City gave a certain Tribute to be distributed among the Church and Clergy of the Provinces and confirmed this Donation to stand forever If this be true yet what relation hath this to Tythes If Constantine gave a Tribute out of every City doth it thence follow that that Tribute was Tythes or the Tenth part of the Revenue of those Cities Or if that should be supposed would the Priest thence infer that the Country
That Offa the magnificent King granted out of his Kingdom a set Rent or Imposition called Rome-scot to St. Peter's Vicar the Bishop of Rome and himself obtained of the said Bishop of Rome that the Church of St. Albane the Protomartyr of the English Nation might faithfully collect and reserve to their own use the same Rome-scot throughout all the Province of Hertford c. We sâ—e now what respect what regard what obsâ—rvance what veneration what subjâ—ction and obedience was used towards the Popes of Rome by the Kings and Clergy of England even before Ethelwolf's time much more was it increased afterwards as times grew worse and Popes higher That the Church of Rome was then idolatrous and that grosly too in the Worship of Images I have shewed before as also that divers Monks were sent into England by the Pope to set up their Latin Service Masses Letanies Ceremonies and other Romish Ware here That this Romish Ware was set up here cannot be doubted since Theodore one of those Monks which the Pope thus sent was made Arch-Bishop of Canterbury From all which let the Reader judge whether the Clergy of those times was Popish or no. But if they were 't is much alike for ought I seâ— to the Priest For he says pag. 102. Suppose again the Saxon Priests had been Papists that would not have made the Donation of Tythes invalid because Tythes are God's Right and the Grant was intended to God So that how bad soever the Clergy was to whom Tythes were given 't is all one the Donation if he may have his will must stand But why Because says he Tythes are God's Right But how come Tythes or Tenths to be Gods Right more then Nineths or Eighths He begs the Question on and gives it for proof He adds The Grant was intended to God He said himself but a few Lines before It was for the Maintenance of the English Clergy using the words of Ingulf Universam dotaverat Ecclesiam Anglicanam i. e. He endowed the whole Church of England But suppose the Grant intended to God must all Grants stand then that were intended to God A notable way indeed to revive all the old Grants and Donations which in the thickest Darkness of Popish Ignorance were by blind Zeal and superstitious Devotion given to Holy Church as they called it and intended to God But what thinkest thou Reader makes this Priest play the Advocate thus for God and stickle so hard for God's part is it his Care for God or his Love to himself thou shalt see anon the Reason He intends to make himself God's Receiver and therefore no wonder if he talk so much of God's part But he sayes The Clergy of that Agâ— were God's only publick Ministers It seems then he can be content to call the Popish Clergy God's publick Ministers but I hope he sees the consequent that then thâ— popish Church was God's publick Church and the popish Worship Gods publick Worship also and where then was the Church Worship and Ministry of Antichrist so much cry'd out against by God's Confessors and holy Witnesses in almost every Age Were they the publick Ministers of God who believed and held the Doctrine of Purgatory of praying for the Dead of sacrificing for the Dead of praying to Saints of worshipping Relicks of Auricular Confession of Pilgrimages of Consecrations of Water Oyl Salt Crism of Latin Servicâ— Masses Letanies and other Ceremonies of the Church of Rome By this Reader thou mayst guess what a kind of Minister he himself is He adds The Donors supposed them a good Ministry and as such endowed them for they esteemed them to be God's Receivers p. 103. There 's no doubt but the Donors supposed them a good Ministry but that Supposition doth neither make nor prove them so And seeing they were not what the Donors supposed them to be there is no reason why that Donation should stand which was made upon such a mistake and without which it had not been made For it cannot be supposed the Donâ—â—s would have made such a Donation had they not by Mistake supposed that Ministry to which they made it to be what it was not and Reason would that what was done upon a mistaken Supposition should when the Mistake appears be â—oid But if all that has been given upon wrong Suppositions must stand his Office of Receiver may in time grow very considerable for not here to mention all other popish Gifts what does he imagine the Turks think of their Priests Do not they suppose them to be a good Ministry and as such endow them Do not they esteem them to be God's Receivers Whatever Donations then amongst them have been made or shall be upon this Supposition shall be valid and in force according to his Argument in succeeding Ages and if ever the Turks should be prevailed upon to assume the Name and Profession of Christianity though otherwise sufficiently erroneous and corrupt this Priest stands ready to be the Receiver of what was given to the Turkish Priests up on the same Reasons by which he claims what was given to the popish Priest viz That the Donâ—rs supposed them to be a good Ministry and as such endowed them that they esteemed them to be God's Receivers that the Grant was intended to God that if there had been a Fault in the least that would not prejudice the Masters Title and that if they had been a Turkish Clergy and forfeited their own Right they could not forfeit his The other Priest one may see has the Office in his Eye already for he says Suppose the Turkish Empire through God's Mercy should be converted to Christianity may not the Muffti himself and those whom T. E. calls Emaums which are the Turkish Priests together with all the Mosche which are their Temples and Revenâ—es now belonging to them be reconsecrated to Christianity Vindic. pag. 314. Judge now Reader whether with these men all be not Fish that come to Net and whether it is likely they would stick at any thing that is like to be gainful who have already contrived a Reconsecration of the Turkish Priests Revenues But to go on The Author of the Right of Tythes pursues his Argument to the same purpose again pag. 104. sayes he of Ethelwolf 's Clergy If they were erroneous neither Prince nor People knew it and they did not give these to maintain their Errors but to maintain that which they believed to be a good Ministry and the true Worship of God and therefore the Donation remains good May not all this be said of the worst state of the Roman Church nay may it not be said of the very Turk whom I mention not for comparison but illustration sake Does either Prince or People know that their Priests are erroneous or do they endow them to maintain their Errors nay do they not give their Endowments to maintain that which they believe to be a good Ministry and the true Worship of God But must those
Masses sayes Bede it happened that no maâ— had power to bind him but presently his Bonds were loosed And he reports the Yoâ—ng man himself to give this Answer to the Earl that had him in custody inquiring the reason why he could not be kept bound I have said he a Brother a Priest in my Country and I know that he supposing me to be slain doth often say Masâ— for me and if I were now in the other World there my Soul through his intercessions would be released from punishments Afterwards when this Young man being Ransomed returned home and recounted what had befallen him many sayes the Historian by the report hereof were stirred up in Faith and Devotion to Pray or to give Alms or to offer the Sacrifices of an holy Oblation to the Lord for the REDEMPTION of their Relations who were departed out of this World For they understood sayes Bede that the healthful Sacrifice was available to the EVERLASTING REDEMPTION both of SOUL and BODY Thus hast thou Reader a brief discovery both what sort of Masses were then in use and what they attributed to them no less then the Redemption of Souls for which Christ died Now for a close take withal the Account which Perkins in his Problem against Cocâ—ius pag. 145. gives of the Rise of the Mass thus First sayes he The Lord's Supper was celebrated in a most plain manner 2 dly It was increased with Ceremonies and first with Oblations for the Dead which was a gratulation or thanksgiving for them and this was two Hundred Years after Christ. 3 dly Prayers for the Dead were added about the Year 400. Then Purgatory and Redemption of Souls out of Purgatory by Masses Then about the Year 780. Gregoryes Mass began to be used in the Churches of Italy where before the Liturgy of Ambrose had been more in use 4 thly They began to dispute of Transubstantiation about the Year 840. So that it seems not only saying of Masses for the Redemption of Souls out of Purgatory was in use but Transubstantiation also was on Foot before this famous Charter of Ethelwolf for Tythes was granted Judge now Râ—ader if thou art a Protestant whether Popery had not made her incroachments in the Church before Ethelwolf's time whether the Clâ—rgy to whom he gave Tythes were not Popish who undertook to say these Masses for him and his Nobles both Living and Dead and whether the Priest has not grosly abused his Reader in suggesting that these Masses were only innocent Prayers and in affirming they were far different from the Missal of the Church of Rome § 16. Next he says pag. 110. I quarrel with the Charter for the Names of the Saints annext to it in whose Honour it s said to have been made I gave the words of Ingulf thus for the Honour of Mary the glorious Virgin and Mother of God and of Saint Michael the Arch-Angel and of the Prince of the Apostles Saint Peter as also of our holy Father Pope Gregory To take off this Note of Popery the Priest sayes pag. 110. T. E. may â—ote that there is not one of the three Mentioners of this Clause that agree in it so that it is very probable the Historians living some Ages after might as their manner is put in this less matâ—rial passage in the phrase of their own times of which dealing in other Cases I could give many instances To let pass his Solecism or Incongruity of Speech that there is not one of the three Mentioners of this Clause that agree in it more tollerable in one so illiterate as my self then in such a profound Rabbi I desire him and the Reader also to take notice that the same Objection upon the same Reason lies as forcibly against the Extent of the Charter it self there being as great variety and little agreement in that part amongst the mentioners of the Charter as there is in the mention of the Saints for whose Honour the Charter is said to be made so that up on that sâ—ore it may as well be questioned whetheâ— the Grant was general of All England or not for some of the Historians give it in such words as seem to speak only of his Demeasne Lands some of his Kingdom of West-Saâ—ony only so that it is as probable that the Historians that extend this Donation to All England might therein follow the Humouâ— of their own times of which dealing in other cases I could give somâ— instances also In the mean time the Priest had best have a care how he adventures to raâ—e the Images of the Saints carved upon his beloved Charter lest before he be aware he shake and weaken the Foundation of the Charter it self But he says However it was given to God in the first plaâ—e and no mention of the Saints in all the body of the Charter But sure he had forgotten that Matthew of Westminster hath in the very body of the Charter Deo et beatae Mariae et omnibus Sanctis i. e. To God and blessed Mary and to all Saints In his next page he says I quarrel with the other Priest because he will not grant they gave Tythes in a blind and superstitious Zeal and he takes upon him to defend it misapplying the words of the Apoâ—tle It is good to be Zealous alwayes in a good thing But the Priest has not prov'd their giving of Tythes a good thing and I have proved they were blind and superstitious in this as well as in other things and therefore their Zeal therein was not commendable but condemnable But his Brother Priest seems to be now of another Mind and to understand the Case better for in hiâ— Vindication pag. â—03 acknowledging there might be some Corruptions and great Defects in Ethelwolf's Charter yet withal endeavouring to excuse him as having no idolatrous Design but an honest Zeal that those whom â—e esteemed Ministers of Christ might be provided for he adds What can be more uncharitable theâ— to make a damnable Idolater of him for doing something though it were in an ill manner through invincible â—gnorance Thus he who in his Conferrence pag. 147. would by no means admit that Tythes were given in an ignorant Zeal doth here in Contradiction both to his Brother Priest and to himself acknowledge this Doâ—ation of Tythes was made in an ill manner and through invincible ignorance Nor doth he attempt to wipe off those stains which I had discovered in his Charter but rather endeavours to cover them again by drawing tâ—e Curtain of Ignorance before them This however he is forced to grant That this Donation of Tythes proceeded from Ignorance yea from inâ—incible Ignorance so that ignorance at least to say no worse was in this particular the Mother of Ethelwolf's Devotion Again sayes the Author of the Right of Tythes to his Brother Priest Whereas you had said Tythes were given to God for the Maintenace of his Ministry T. E. interprets this to be a calling the idolatrous Priesthood of
other unsound Doctrines since there is scarce a Century wherein somâ— or other have not delivered themselves contrary to the common received Opinions of that Church Stephen Gardiner himself in Q. Mary's dayes discovered to Dr. Day Bishop of Winchester how he understood the Doctrine of free Iustification by Christ as out of the Book of Martyrs is noted before yet no man I think will question whether the Church was then Popiâ—h or no oâ— whether the Popish Doctrine of merits was not then commonly and generally received That very Pope Leo the fourth whom Ethelwolf went in such devotion to see towards whom he was so liberal and to whom he committed his Son Alfred to be brought up being ready to joyn Battel with the Saracens at Ostia thus prayed O God whose right Hand lifted up St. Peter that he was not droâ—ned when he walked upon the Waves and delivered the Apostle Paul from the bottom of the Sea in his third Shipwrack hear us favourably and for the MERITS OF THEM BOTH grant c. Plat. in vita Leon. 4. li. But what the common Opinion was of the merit of good Works among the Saxons may be collected from the Tenour of the Charters of their â—eligious endowments which as they often sprang from some flagitious Wickedness so they usually declare the intendment of the gift to be for the Salvation or Redemption of the Donors Soul or for the Remission of his and his Ancestors sins or some such-like Expression as plainly imports an expiation or satisfaction for Sin And that this is not my judgment only but that they were thus understood by men of note in former times hear the judicioâ—s Camden who in his Brittania pag. 262. speaking of a Monastery founded by Q. Aelfrith saith Q. Aelfrith Built a Monastery to EXPIATE and make SATISFACTION for that most foul and hainous Fact wherewith so wickedly she had charged her Soul by making away K. Edward her Husbands Son as also to wash out the Murthering of her former Husband Aethelâ—old c. And elsewhere pag. 254. speaking of Ambresbury in Wiltshire he saith In that place afterward Alfritha K. Edgar's Wife by Repentance and some good deed to EXPIATE and make SATISFACTION for Muthering of K. Edward her Son in Law built a stately Nunnery c. And Fox in his Acts of the Church Vol 1. pag. 120. enumerating the many Religious Houses that were built in England in the sixth seventh and eighth Centuries hath these words thereupon Thus ye see what Monasteries and in what time begun to be founded by the Saxon Kings newly converted to the Christian Faith within the space of two Hundred Years who as they seemed then to have a certain zeal and devotion to Godward according to the leading and teaching that then was so it seemeth again to me two things to be wished in these foresaid Kings first that they whâ—ch begun to erect these Monasteries had foreseen the danger c. secondly that unto this their Zeal and Devotion had been joyned like Knowledge and Doctrine in Christ's Gospel especially in the Article of our free Justification by the Faith of Jesus Christ because of the LACK whereof as well the Builders and Founders thereof as they that were professed in the same seem both to have run the WRONG way and to have been DECEIVED For albeit in them there was a Devotion and Zeal of mind yet the end and cause of their Deedâ— and Buildings cannot be excused being contrary to the Rule of Christ's Gospel for so much as they did these things seeking MERITS with God and for REMEDY of their Souls and REMISSION of their Sins as may appear testified in their own Records c. Thus he Whence its plain that he who undertook to write an History of the Acts and Monuments of the Church and may well be thought to understand something of those times as well as this Priest concluded that although the Saxons in those dayes whom the Priest so often calls his pious Ancestors and famous Tytâ—eâ— givers were Zealous according to the teaching that then was yet they had not the true knowledge and Doctrine of Christ's Gospel especially in the point of justifiâ—ation but for lack thereof were deceived and ran the wrong way seeking remedy of their Souls and remission of their Sins by the merits of their works And for proof that they so did Fox there sets down the very same Charter of Ethelbald which this Priest brings to prove the Right of Tythes pag. 94. which Charter being by Fox set down in the place fore-cited toward the end of his second Book he there adds as followeth By the contents hereof sayes he may well be understood as where he saith Pro amore calestis partie proremedio animae pro liberatione animae et absolutione delictorum c. i. e. For the love of the Heavenly Country for the remedy of my Soul for the delivering of my Soul and for the pardon of my Sins c. how great the IGNORANCE and BLINDNESS of these men was who lacking no Zeal only LACKED KNOWLEDGE to rule it withal seeking their Salvation NOT BY CHRIST ONLY but by their OWN DESERVINGS and MERITORIOUS deeds And the same Fox but two pages further entring upon the Reign of King Ethelwolf sayes This Ethelwolf as being himself once muzled in that order was alwayes good and devout to Holy and Religious orders insomuch that he gave to them the Tythe of all his Goods and Lands in West-Saxony with liberty and freedom from all servage and civil charges Whereof this Charter instrument beareth Testimony after this tenor proceeding much like to tâ—e Deâ—aâ—ion of Ethelbald above mentioned Then râ—citing the Câ—arter even that vâ—ry Charter so hug'd and so exâ—ol'd by these Priests and therein finâ—ing these words Pro remissione animarum et peccatorum nostrorum i. e. For the deliverance of our Soulâ— and the remission of our Sins he adds Hereby it may appear how and when the Churches of England began first to be indued with Temporalities and Lands also with Priviledges and Exemptionâ— enlarged moreover and that which specially iâ— to be considered and LAMENTED what PERNICIOUS Doctâ—inâ— was this wherewith tâ—ey were led tâ—us to set REMISSION of their SINS REMEDY of their Souls in this Donation and such other deeds of their Donation CONTRARY to the information of God's word and no small derogation to the Crosâ— of Christ. Thus far Fox which I have set down the more largly that the Reader may see what his judgment was of the Religion of those times wherein this Donation of Tythes was made and may himself be the better able to judge whether I here wronged the People and Clergy of those times in calling them Papists The Priest's next and last instance of the Saxons not being Papists is their keeping the Canon of Scripture entire and rejecting the Apocrypha from being of divine Authority But this if they did so will not clear them from being Papists since many
to the true antient Catholick and Apostolick Church which the Priest calls Popery Conference pag. 149. And as this Doctrine sprang up in corrupt times so it grew up together with the Corruptions of those times and the more corrupt the Church grew and farthest off from the purity and truth of the Gospel the more credit and belief this Doctriâ—e obtained and was the more generally received And when thâ—ough the prevalency of Popery the Church was most of all defiled and polluted with Idolatry and Superstition and in its worst estate then was this Doctrine in greatest repute and in fullest force and strength By all which let the Reader judge whether this was a primitive Doctrine And as this was not a primitive Doctrine so neither was it a protestant Doctrine for the Bohemians whom Fox calls Protestants when they renounced the Popes Yoke took away Tythes from the Clergy and reduced them to certain Stipends as Selden out of Io. Major notes Hist. Tythes pag. 167. which they would not have done if they had believed that Tythes were due to God and Holy Church Thus it appears that this Doctrine of Tythes being due to God and Holy Church is neither a primitive nor Protestant Doctrine and that the Statutes grounded thereon are built upon a false supposition He excepts against my saying For a man to claim that by a temporal Right from a temporal Law which the Law he claims by commands to be paid as due by a divine Right is 〈◊〉 juggling To whicâ— he replies pag. 189. All the World knows two Titles to the same thing being subordinate to one another do strengthen each other This is a meer shift for it is evident those Statutes do not intend to make the Priests another Title then what they claimed by before but only to appoint the payment of Tythes upon the old Title of being due to God So that these Statutes do not make the Priests a temporal right nor was it the design of them so to do for the Statute of 32 H. 8. 7. speaking of Tythes impropriated sayes Which now be or which hereafter shall be made temporal which implies plainly They understood all Tythes before such Impropriations in no other Notion then Ecclesiastical or Spiritual and that they accounted all other Tythes which were not so impropriated but remained in the hands of the Clergy Ecclesiastical or spiritual profits still not temporal Now for the Priests to claim a temporal right to Tythes by those Laws which declare the Right they have to be spiritual this is the Juggle If they will claim Tythes by these Statutes they should claim them in that notion wherein the Statutes suppose them due which is as a spiritual Right not as a temporal The Priest sayes A Father having a maintenance reserved 〈◊〉 of his Sons Estate mentioned in those deeds which settle the said Estate on the Son though he had a right to be maintained by his Son jure divino may claim a maintenance by vertue of these deeds jure humano and the second Title strengthens but doth not destroy the first This is quite beside the case for besides that the comparison will not hold between a Father a Priest unless any in the darkness of their ignorance should so far mistake as to own the Priests for their spiritual Father nor in that case neither with respect to Tythes but to a Maintenance only here are in the case of a Father two distinct Titleâ— independent one of the other and the Deed of settlement in which such maintenance is reserved doth not express the reserved maintenance to be due jure divinâ— but declares it to be a temporal Right settled upon civil and temporal considerations But how remote is this from the Priest's case The Statutes mention no temporal Right of Tythes to the Priests but supposâ— a divine Right and upon that supposition command the payment of them as so due This Deed of settlement mentions nothing of a divine Right but acknowledges a civil and temporal Right to the maintenance therein reserved As well then may the Father claim a divine Right to this maintenance by vertue of this Deed as the Priest claim a temporal Right to Tythes by vertue of these Statutes and both alike unreasonable §12 In my former Book I inquired two things pag. 335 336. first What it is the Priest claims a property in secondly Where this property is vested in the person of the Priest or in the Office To the first the Priest gives no Answâ—r here only in another place pag. 196. he sayes We grant Tythes are due out of the profits only and with this answer he contents himself overlooking the Arguments I offered in pag. 335 336 338 339. to prove the unreasonableness of such a claim particularly That if Tythes be the tenth of the profit or increase of the Land and they that settled Tythes as he saith were actually seiâ—ed of them in Law then surely they could settle 〈◊〉 more than they were so seized of and they could be actually seized of no other profits or increase than what did grow increase or renew upon the Land while they were actually seized of it So that such settlement how valid soever while they lived must needs expire with them This and much more such plain anâ— serious argumentation tending to prove the emptiness and unreasonables of their plea to Tythes from the Donation of Ethelwolf and others the Priests both one and t'other pass by unanswered The Reader may guess why The second thing inquired was Where this property is vested in the person of the Priest or in the Office This I perceive they are wonderful wary how they answer One Priest sayes An Office is capable of being vested in a property and the present person who sustains that Office hath this property vested in him during his Life with remainder to his Successors forever Right of Tythes pag. 190. This as doubtfully and darkly delivered as might be seems in the first part to affix the property to the Office but in the latter part to the person that sustains the Office For he sayes The present person who sustains that Office hath this property vested in him not during his Office only but during hiâ— Life which may extend far beyond his Office For if the present person who sustains the Office be an ignorant vicious debauched scandalous Priest as alas too many of them are if he be one of them who the Author of the Conference sayes pag. 11. will for a corrupt interest intrude themselves into thesâ— sacred Offices he not only may but ought to be ejected They that for coâ—rupt Interest thrust themselves in should for their Corruption be thâ—ust out again But what mean while becomes of the property If as this Priest sayes the present person who sustains the Office hath this property vested in him during his Life the divesting him of the Office doth not divest him of the property because according to this Priest
paying Tythe nor forfeits â—e the Land for not paying it neither is Tythe charged upon the Land as the payment to the Poor is of which see before Chap. 5. Sect. 5. and Sect. 13. Then secondly The Tenant is liable to the payment of the Tythe not out of his Rent but out of his Stock over and above his Rent and the Land-lord is not concerned about it unless any private agreement antecede Thus it appears his Instance of a Rent charge to the Poor is quite beside the business and his Answer is no Answer to the Reason I offered But he seems to have another Again saith he The Tenant receives as much from God as he doth from his Landlord for we think that Land is not more necessary to the increase than God's blessing ibid. Nor so necessary neither say I since increase may be without Land but not without God's blessing The Tenant therefore receives more from God than he doth from his Landlord for from his Landlord he receives Land only and that upon a Rent but from God he receives All he hath his Stock his Crop his Health his Strength c. and that freely As therefore he receives All from God so unto God ought All to be returned God's wisdom counsel and holy fear ought to be waited for and regarded in disposing and imploying those things which God hath been pleased to give But what is this to the Priest or to Tythes Why says he upon that consideration our pious Aâ—câ—stors obliged their Hâ—irs forever to give God his part of the Prâ—fits because both they and their Heirs were Yearly to receive all their Increase from his Blessing ibid. What is God's part of the Profits If all the Increase be received from his blessing how comes he to have but a part of the Profits Where hath God under the Gospel declared the tenth part partiâ—ularly to be his or who had power to assign that pâ—rt to him that is Lord of all He urges for a Law the saying of King Edward the Confessor Of all things which God gives the tenth part is to be restored to him who gave us the nine parts together with the tenth pag. 202. Whence â—dward the Confessor learnt that Doâ—trine may easily be guessed if we consider in what time he lived Speed says he was Crowned King of England in the Year 1042. And says the Author of the Conference in his Vindication pag. 277. Moâ—â— of the present evil Opinions of the Church of Rome had their Original in those unlearned Ages from about the Year 700. to about the Year 1400. About the mid-night of which darkness there was scarce any Learning left in the World These says he were the unhappy times which bred and nursed up Invocation of Saints Worship of Images Purgatory 〈◊〉 all the Fanatical Visions and Revelations Miracles c. Then began Shrines Pilgrimages Reliques purchasing of Pardons and the Popes attempts for aâ— universal Monarchy And though he here mentions some particulars yet he said but a few Lines before At the same time that Learning fell into decay all manner of Corruptions crept into the Church c. Now according to his computation of time for the Rise and growth of Popery and of all manner of Corruptions from about the Year 700. to about the Year 1400. his mid-night of Darkness must fall about the Year 1050. and this K. Edward the Confessor entring his Reign in the Year 1042. it is manifest that this Law of his for Tythes was made in the very mid-night of Darkness Hence the Reader may observe that although this K. Edward to whom as Camden observes Brittania pag. 377. our Ancestors and the Popes vouchsafed the Name of St. Edward the Confessor was a man of great justice temperance and vertue but especially Continency for which it seems in that incontinent Age he was Sainted yet that he learnt this Opinion of the tenth part being due to God in the mid-night of Darkness when there was scarce any learningâ— est in the World when all manner of Corruptions were either crept or creeping into the Church and wherein most of the present â—vil Opinions of the Church of Rome had their Original which makes the quotation not much for the Priest's credit And truly if it had been as he intimates an act of Piety in our Ancestors to give Tythes and that upon that consideration that both they and their Heirs were Yearly to receive all their Increase from God's blessing they had done I think but equally to have left their Poâ—â—erity at liberty to have acted in like manner from the Impressions of Piety rather than for the necessity of Paternal Obligations supposing their Injunctions in this case obligatory As for what the Priest here takes for granted that the tenth is God's peculiar part it is but an old Popish Opinion by which the World hath been too long gulled which never was nor ever can be proved with respect to Gospel-times And to be sure when ever he pleads God's Right he makes himself God's Steward and Receiver He says here Now the Priest is but God's Steward and Receiver and if it were true that the Tenant did receive nothing from the Steward of God yet he might justly pay him Tythes for his Masters sake from whom he receives all There were some of Old who with as much conâ—idence and little Truth affirmed themselves to be the Children of God as this Priest doth that he and his Brethren are God's Stewards and Receivers But the Answer which Christ gave unto them Iohn 8. 44. is very observable and no less applicable The Tenant says the Priest receives nothing from his Landlords Steward and yet he pays his Rent to him or to any other whom his Landlord assigns to reâ—eive it True but two things first he makes himself sure of One that the sum demanded is indeed his Landlords due The other that the person demanding is indeed his Landlord's Steward or by him assigned to receive it The Tenant though he pays his Rent to the Steward contracts with the Landlord and if at any time any doubt arises about the Rent they recâ—â—â— to the Lease for Decision Now if the Priest would make any advantage of his Sâ—mile he should prove if he could that God hath any where declared under the Gospel the tenth to be his peculiar part which the Priest hath often bâ—g'd a Concession of but has no way to prove for if we have recourse to the holy Records the Scriptures of the New Testament from thence to be sure he can fetch no proof that Tythes are God's peculiar part since by his own confession pag. 67. Tythes are not mentioned in the Gospel or Epistles to be the very part Besides the Tenant though the Rent be certain and acknowledged is not forward if wiâ—e to part with his Money to every one that calls himself a Steward and takes upon him to be his Landlord's Receiver But he expects a plain and satisfactory proof that
me indeed and which is worse false News too How chance he quoted no Author of his News Is not that a sign 't is News of his 〈◊〉 making I confess I never heard before that in the very beginnings of Christianity there were any such Canons made or any such Diocesses as he dreams of It behoves him therefore to set forth his Author left himself be repuâ—ed and that deservedly a Raiser and Spreader oâ— falsâ— News But in the mean time let us â—ift his News a little and see how well it hangs together He told us but now that Tmothy and Titus werâ— fixed at Ephesus and in Crete and that by the Apostles themselves though he does not know by whom yet we find not only the Apostle Paul sendâ—ng Tychicus a dear Brother and faithful Minister in the Lord Ephes. 6. 21. to the Ephesians 2 Tim. 4. 12. But Timothy also at Corinth at Athens at Thessâ—lonica at Philippi at Rome c. So likewise for Titus whom he fixes in Crete Doth not the Apostle speak of sending Artemas and Tychicus thither and of sending for Titus to Nicoâ—â—lis Tit. 3. 12 Doth he not intimate that Zenas and Apollo one of whom was an Expounder of the Law the other an eloquent Preacher of the Gospel were at Crete ver 13 â—nd did not Titus himself travel up and down into divers Cities and Countries in the labour of the Gospel Was he not at Corinth once and again anâ— went he not also unto Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4 10 Now if Timothy and Titus had been fixt as he fancies at Ephesus and in Crete if Bishops and Pastors had been fixt by the Apostles in all eminent Churches in the several Cities they had converted and if in those times in which fell the very beginnings of Christianity there had been any such Diocesses as he dreams of or any such strict Canons as he conjectures made against the Clergy of one Diocess going into another to officiate Pray how did Tychicus Apollo and otherâ— observe those Canons when they went as they did to Ephesus and Crete On how well did Timothy and Titus obey them when they went to officiate at Corinth Thessolonica Philippi Româ— and other places which according to this Priest were distinct Diocesses belonging to otheâ— men into which by the Canon they were strictly forbidden to go to officiate Doth not this discover the emptiness of his story and manifest the falness of his News But we may guess at his date of Christianity by the after-Instance he gives of a Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon the date of which he willingly leaves out but that Council was held according to Genebrard under Pope Leo the first in the Yeaâ— 454. Was this in the very beginnings of Christianity No nor of the Apostacy from Christianity neither for much Corruption both of Doctrine and Practice was in the Church before that time Thus Reader thou mayst see what his confident talk of strict Canons and Diocesses in the very beginnings of Christianity is come to Would any man of honesty ingenuity or modesty impose such falshoods upon ignorant Readers or expose such folly to judicious Eyeâ— He talks also pag. 225. of a Synod among the Britains held by S. Patrick anno 456. but without any mention of Parisâ—es and very confidently takes for granted that long before the Popes of Rome so much as directed any thing hâ—re the Brittains had fixed Arch-Bishops Bishops and Priests by which if he means those Priests were fixâ—d to Parishes as now they are which I observe he doth not expresly say but only that they were fixed they may believe it that dare take his word for it but prove it he never can Selden in his History of Tythes Chap. 9. Sect. 1. shews the contrary But the division of Parishes aâ—ong the Saxons the Priest ascribes to Honorius the fifth Arch-Bishop of Canterbury about the Year â—4â— or to Theodorâ—s the next bâ—t one in that Sea 〈◊〉 tâ—enty or thirty Years after Hence I perceivâ— he thinks he hath sufficient ground to deride me for asking If it was not a Pope that divided Provinces into Parishes and set up Parish-Priests Whether Parishes were divided by Honorius Theodorus or some other of later time I think not worth Inquiery I know the common Opinion attributes this work to Honoriâ—s which yet is doubted by many and some of great judgment It sufficeth my purpose that whether Parishes were set out and Parish-Priests fixt thereto by Honorius or Theodorus it was done by the Pope's power for either of these received his Archiepiscopal Authority from Rome Honorius says Bede Eccles. Hist. l. 2. c. 18. received the Pall of his Arch-Bishoprick from Honorius at that time Pope of Rome and withal a Letter in which the Pope grants to this Honorius Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and to Paulinus then Arch-Bishop of York to whom also he sent a Pall this power at thâ—ir request that which soever of them should die first the surviver might by the authority of the Pope's Command make such an Ordination of another in his room as should be pleasing to God This shews they received their authority from the Pope and what they acted by that authority was done by the Pope's power If therefore Honorius as Arch-Bishop of Canterbury divided that Province into Parishes and set up Parish Priests therein it cannot be denyed but those Parishes were divided and Priests set up by the Pope whose Instrument Honorius was therein and by whose power it was done And thus seems Caâ—den to understand it in his Brittania pag. 100. wherâ— he says When the Bishops of Rome had assigned several Churches to several Priests and 〈…〉 unto them Honorius Arch-Bishop of Canterbury about the Year of our Redemption â—36 began 〈◊〉 to divide England into Parishes as we read in the History of Canterbury So that he refers this Act of Honorius to the Bishop of Rome not oâ—ly in point of power but of example also In imitation then of what the Popes had donâ— and by vertue of Authority received from the Pope were these Parishes set out and were Parish-Priests at first set up whoever was the Pâ—pe's Agent therein The Priest conâ—ludes this Section thus And now says he we see T. E. hath neither Learniâ—g nor Truth in him who attributes our fixing to a â—ope when the Apostles themselves shewed the way in this Practice not intending that any â—agabond Speakers should be allowed after once the Christian Church was settled pag. 22â— I am better acquainted with my self than to pretend to any great store of Learning and with his manner of writing than to regard his Râ—flection on the Truth of what I have written With great readiness I submit both to the Censure of the judicious and impartial Reader But as little Learning as he is pleased to allow me I have enough at least to let him see that for all his great stock of Learning wiâ—h the conceit of which he is so over-blown