all the scattered Laws about Tythes and confirm them for the whole Kingdom of England till he who was the first Hereditary Monarch of the Saxon Blood He therefore guided by these forreign Authorities and Examples and led by the Custom Canons and Laws of the several petty Kingdoms and Kings doth now make this most famous Charter to oblige the whole Kingdom to this Religious Payment whose rise and original we have thus far seen § 14. 2ly As to the Donation it self the immediate occasion of it was the Compassion of this Religious and mild Prince towards his Subjects sorely infested and harrased with the Danish Invasions Whereupon he summons a General Council of all England at Winchester Anno 855. wherein were present Beorred King of Mercia and Edmund King of the East-Angles his Tributaries with the arch-Arch-Bishops of Canterbury and York and all the Bishops and the Nobles of England with whom King Ethelwolph consulted by what means they might best avert the anger of God and obtain a removal of the sore Judgements with which the Nation was scourged at that time Whereupon it was by general consent there determined That the Tythes throughout all England should be granted to God and the Church as this Charter of K. Ethelwolph yet extant in Ancient Historians doth testifie which was subscribed by the two Tributary Kings the Bishops Abbots Dukes Earles and Noble-Men and consented unto by an infinite Multitude of other faithful People saith Ingulphus § 15. 3ly But lest there should be any defect in this Charter we will shew how it hath been confirmed since in all Ages First it was confirmed in that famous League between the Danes and Saxons by Alfred or Alured the Great Son of Ethelwolph and Guthum the first Baptized King of the Danes An. 887. and a Penalty added for such as should detain their Tythes (e) Leg Eccles Alured Guth c. 9. And again by Edward the Elder who was Son of Alured An. 906. And again by Athelstan Son of the said Edward in the Council of Gratelane An. 928. Tythes also by the Name of Decimas seminum Primitias are again enjoined by Edmund Brother of Athelstane in a great Council of the Clergy and Laity at London An. 944. King Edgar in open Senate renewed the Law for Tythes and made it a forfeiture of Nine parts to detain the Tenth An. 967. And in his Canons he calls Tythes Things which by Right are to be paid to God As they are also by Ethelred The Rights due to God when he confirmed the Donation of Tythes in the General Council at Aenham An. 1009. The same ratified also by Canutus and King Edgar's Penalty revived An. 1032. And lastly by King Edward the Confessor in those Laws of his which were collected and confirmed by King William the Conqueror at his Entring upon the English Crown as all other Kings of England since have done The particulars are too many to mention and the Thing is sufficiently known Wherefore we will only add that the very first words of Magna Charta the foundation of the English Liberties confirms all that had been given to the Church And Sir Hen. Spelman affirms these Grants had been ratified in thirty nine several great Councils and Parliaments before the Reformation And we all know that our Protestant Princes have confirmed the Right of Tythes as fully as any of their Predecessors and with their Protestant Parliaments have given greater strength and security to the Clergy in possession of them than ever they had before and made better Laws for punishing those who do detain them Now if all this added to the antecedent Divine Right will not amount to make a valid Deed of Gift then no Man can secure any thing to his Posterity For this Donation hath been advised by Fathers enjoyned by Councils practised by forreign Princes solemny made by the general Consent of the three Estates with the King frequently confirmed by as general Consent in every Age and the benefit thereof enjoyed for 800 Years by those to whom the Donation was made And thus the Clergy have a second Title to the Tythes They were originally due to God and afterwards freely given by the right Owners and that Gift confirmed by their Posterity Due by the Laws of God due by the Gift of the Owners and allowed by the Laws of Man which being thus far proved I hope our Quaker's trifling Objections will now easily be dispelled § 16. Three general Exceptions T. E. takes at this Charter First In respect of the Author of it pag. 289. And here he affirms King Ethelwolph was a Papist If T. E. had known what gives a Man the just denomination of a Papist he would not have discoursed so absurdly For it is not every one that agrees in some opinions with the Roman Church who is a Papist since then all Christians in the World would be Papists but he is a Papist who professes himself a Member of the Roman Church and acknowledges the Pope's Supremacy believing all the Articles of the Roman Churches Faith Now K. Ethelwolph did never profess himself a Member of the Roman Church but he and his Successors were Vicarios Christi (f) Leg. Hydens cap. 8. owning no Supreme in their Kingdoms but Christ as is learnedly made out against the Papists in Dr. Basire's Liberty of the Britain Church and Sir Roger Twisden's Histor Vindication and we shall fully prove on pag. 300. that he did not hold all the opinions of the Church of Rome and therefore was no Papist But if we should grant so much to the Quaker That Ethelwolph 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 And if all the good Acts of Papists in the true sense and all their Charters and Donations be void meerly because made and done by Papists then all the Charters of our Kings all the Endowments of Hospitals and Schools Magna Charta and all Publick Acts for some hundreds of years before K. Henry VIII would be void Which Principle would destroy the Maintenance of the Poor the Priviledges of Cities and the Freedom of all English Subjects But this Quaker must be more wary than thus to unhinge all Establishments and let him note That if Ethelwolph had been a Papist in other things yet in this Act he was none unless Abraham were a Papist before Christ's time and Origen with the Fathers afterwards yea unless our Protestant Princes and Parliaments be Papists also § 17. Secondly he objects p. 290. That Tythes were given to maintain the Popish Clergy This is a mistake also for Ingulphus saith Vniversam dotaverat Ecclesiam Anglicanam it was for the Maintenance of the English Clergy who had a Patriarch of their own in those dayes and were a Church of themselves not holding all the opinions of the Roman Church nor
Ethelwolph did this alone since he confessed pag. 285. that his Nobles consented to the Gift and if he have read the Charter as he pretends he must know that Ingulph saith it was made All the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of England being present and subscribing to it as also Beorred King of Mercia and Edmund King of the East-Angles before the Abbots Abbesses Dukes Earls and Nobles of the whole Land and an infinite multitude of other Faithful People who all consented to the Kings Charter and the Men of Dignity subscribed their Names (z) Ingulph apud Spelm. p. 350. We have also noted before how often this Donation hath been confirmed by the whole Nations Representative since that time which T. E. could not be ignorant of but to serve his ends he conceals all this meerly to get an occasion to Indite good King Ethelwolph of Invading his Subjects Properties § 30. But his Conscience accusing him for this Slander in pag. 323. he supposes that Ethelwolph did it by general consent and then says If it were so yet neither could he single nor they all conjoyned give any more than belonged to themselves viz the Tenth part of their Land or of the Yearly Profits for their own Lives but to make a Grant of the Tenth part of the Profits of the Land for ever is to my understanding saith he utterly repugnant to Reason It may be repugnant to his Understanding so sadly corrupted by Prejudice but it is agreeable enough to the Reason and the Practice of all other Men for the Lords in Fee to give what part of the Profits of their Estate they please for ever Is it not usual for such as settle their Estates to oblige their Heirs for ever to pay out of it a Sixth Eighth or Tenth part of the Rents of that Estate which the Heirs many hundred years after are obliged to pay to the Uses appointed by the first Donor Are not all perpetual Rent-charges and Grants with reservation of Free-Rents with many Donations of certain yearly Sums to Colleges Schools and Hospitals c. are not these Grants of such a part of the Profits of a Mans Estate for ever The Lawyers will deride T. E's Understanding in the Law as much as we do his skill in the Gospel and they will inform him That a Man is not absolute Master of his Estate unless he can make such Grants as these But that which stumbles T.E. is That In the Profits of the Land rightly computed the Labour Sweat Care Charge Skill Industry Diligence c. of the Husbandman are included and that inseparably for these are the Instrumental Causes of Production To admit then a Power in any Man to give the Tythes of the Profit beyond his own Life were to suppose a Power in that Man to give away the Labour Care Skill Charge Diligence and Industry of another which Reason gainsays And a little after It is most ridiculous This is his main Argument which he glories in much and repeats often but there is nothing at all in it but Mistake Falshood and Impiety For if T. E. will grant That it is lawful for a Lord to lay a perpetual Rent-charge upon his Estate to be paid in Money than which nothing is more common or more legal he must grant it is as lawful for this Lord to charge his Estate with paying the Tenth part of the Profits in specie For doth not the raising the Sum of Money setled by Rent-charge suppose 10 l. or 20 l. per Annum include the Labour Sweat Care Charge Skill and Industry of the Husbandman as well as the preparing the Tythe Nay the paying a Rent-charge in Money requires more Labour Charge and Pains than paying Tythes in specie for the Husbandman must not onely get his Profits together but carry suppose his Corn into the Barn thresh it winnow it and carry it out again and sell it and after all this he must pay this Money for which such a proportion of his Profits were sold Whereas Tythe being paid in specie needs onely be got together and the Husbandman hath no more charge nor trouble with it And besides Tythe is a more equitable Payment by far than a certain Sum of Money setled by Rent-charge for if the Land yield little Profit the Priest hath but little Tythes but Rent-charges must be paid in full even when the worst Years come without any Consideration If the whole Profits of the Land do not yield twice as much the utmost Farthing of the Rent-charge must be paid Now let any rational Man judge whether the granting of a perpetual Rent-charge be not to give away the Labour Charge and Industry of another as well as the granting of Tythes And yet I think T. E. is not so bereft of all sense that he will say such Rent-charges are ridiculous or unreasonable Besides we see that all Landlords who let long Leases and settle the Rents on their younger Children or more distant Relations do give away the Profits of the Husbandmans Labour Charge and Industry not onely the Tenth but the Third part of them at least But T. E. will reply A Man may charge his Tenants successively with such a Payment of the Part of the Profits of their Labour because he affords them Land to work upon but he cannot charge his Heirs successively I answer That the Lord also doth afford his Heirs Land to raise this Payment out of Pray how came this present Possessor to have any Right to this Land Doth he not derive his Right from his Forefathers T. E. grants they might have sold off what part of the Land they pleased and since they transmit it intire may they not leave a Charge upon it And if the Heir will not pay the Charge he must renounce the Land also For it is a Maxim in all Laws That the Burthen discends with the Inheritance And he that will not have the Incumbrance must not have the Benefit And in point of Reason why hath not the Father as good Right to oblige his Posterity as they have to possess his Lands Why should not the Father be obeyed by the Sons as well as the Sons provided for by the Father He might have charged his Posterity with the Tenth part of the best Years Profits in Money but now the Charge is onely the bare Tenth of the Years Profits be it less or more which all Men but Quakers will grant is an easie Charge If T. E. shall say The Land hath gone through many Hands since I answer Whoever bought this Land or howsoever it was conveyed no following Owner can sell that part of the Profits which he never had conveyed to him of which more hereafter At present it shall suffice to note this Argument of the Quakers is Protestatio contra factum and so signifies nothing at all It is an attempt to prove That cannot be done which is done as well in this as in other like Cases and That ought not to be
done which hath been done a thousand times and that by the approbation of all Christian Laws And the Quaker in saying these things are ridiculous and unreasonable doth call all the Christian World Fools and pass his Censure upon Kings and Nobles Parliaments and Judges who have allowed such Grants to be just and reasonable and either made them or confirmed and approved them divers times It seems all these were a company of ridiculous and unreasonable Men or else T. E. is such an one himself and whether be the more likely let the Reader judge But it is no great wonder he should call all Men Fools whenas this blasphemous Argument flies in the face of God himself who even by the Quakers own confession in the Levitical Law did assume a Power to enjoyn all the Owners of Canaan to pay to the Priests the Tenth part of those Profits which did arise from their Sweat Pains Charge Care and that from one generation to another God did make over to his Priests these Tenths of the Profits of many Mens Sweat and Labour c. many hundred years before they were born Now this the Quaker saith is a ridiculous and unreasonable thing O bold Blasphemer If he saith the thing be ridiculous and unreasonable in it self then this Quaker chargeth God with Folly and Injustice who doth enjoyn it Nor can he be excused by saying God hath more power than Men for in evil foolish and unjust things God hath no power at all God cannot lie He cannot do any thing ridiculous or unjust And because God once made this Grant we dare be confident the Act is lawful and wise and just and that T. E. is a blasphemous Wretch to censure it by this wicked and silly way of reasoning which condemns Almighty God as much as it doth King Ehtelwolph I will not insist now upon the Atheistical denial of Providence which is couched in this Argument also for I shall shortly have occasion to shew how the Quaker supposes his Husbandman deserves all the Profits for his Labour and as if God contributed nothing he excludes him from any share of them when they are produced But this false and impious Argument is sufficiently exposed already to make any Man recant it that hath any spark of Grace or Understanding in him § 31. In the next place he affirms pag. 326. The Consideration on which Tythes were given is taken away for Ethelwolph gave them for the Health of his Soul and the Remission of his Sins which he believed might be obtained in that Church by the help of that Ministry to whom he gave his Tythes and the Mediation of those Saints in honour of whom he granted the Charter I have already proved That T. E. falsly supposes King Ethelwolph to have held all the Opinions of the present Church of Rome and particularly That he did not expect Pardon of his Sins by the Merits of his Good Works Alcuinus gives us the sense of the English Church in those days who saith He onely can deliver us from sin who came without sin and was made a Sacrifice for sin (a) Alcuin l. 4. in Joh. 8. The Saxons believed that Pardon was merited onely by Christ's Death onely they did esteem Good Works a good evidence of their Repentance and a Motive to God to accept them to that Pardon which was merited onely by Christ's Death which Opinion is much favoured by those Scriptures Prov. xvi 6. Dan. iv 27. Mat. iii. 8. Luke xi 41. and maintained by the most Orthodox Fathers For instance Lactantius no Papist for certain as living An. 310. saith Great is the reward of Mercy to which God hath promised the Remission of all sins (b) Lactant. Inst l. 6. And for obtaining this Remission by the help of that Ministry viz. the Saxon-Ministry to which he gave his Tythes no wise Man will deny but that there was a True Church in England in those days and if in that Church and by that Ministry no Pardon could be had from God then there was no Salvation to be had in this Nation at all in that Age no nor in any Nation in Christendom which is a strange Assertion As for the Saints we have shewed T. E. is mistaken in thinking they then did believe the Saints usurped Christs Office Ethelwolph honoured the Saints and so do we now but neither he nor we worship them or expect Pardon by them But we need not plead thus since T. E. falsly makes this a Consideration for which he gave Tythes Did that good King covenant with God or his Priests that they should give him Remission or else this Gift to be of no effect Was it inserted as a Condition or Proviso He hoped indeed Remission of Sins might follow through Christs Merits Gods Mercy and the Churches Prayers but he did not Indent with God for it And indeed the main Consideration was That the Clergy might pray for the whole Kingdom without the hinderances of Want and Worldly Care as the words of the Charter shew And this Consideration is not taken away but observed to this day Again If the King did fail of his Hope and could not finally get Remission in that Church which is a malicious Supposition this will not make his Charter void For if a Father in consideration of his affection to his Son and for his Provision settle part of his Estate on him being inwardly moved thereto by the hopes he will be dutiful the Sons undutifulness may disappoint the fathers hopes but doth not vacate his Settlement unless it were expressed and provided That the Deed should be void upon the Sons disobedience Finally If we suppose Ethelwolph as much a Papist as King Stephen mentioned by T. E. pag. 332. yet his Donations to Pious Uses must stand good even though the Opinion of Merit had been the Motive to him to make them or else T. E. revokes all the Charters and Donations made in those really Popish Times to never so good and pious Uses which all Men will confess is most absurd So that let us grant the Quaker all his own asking and still his malicious Conclusions will not follow § 32. I hope by this time the Reader will see how little truth is in that Saying pa. 327. If Tythes were ever due to any by vertue of this Gift it must be to the Popish Priests for to them they were given This we have shewed to be a gross mistake before § 17. and we will onely note That King Ethelwolph's Clergy agreed with the Protestant Church of England in more Points than with the modern corrupt Church of Rome And since the Donors gave them not to a Popish Clergy but to God and his true Ministers our Kings and Parliaments that took them away from the corrupt Clergy who were fallen into Popery and setled them on the true Protestant Ministry did observe therein the Intention of the Donors and did apply Tythes to the right use for which
against his Judgement Thus our Saviour submitted to pay Tribute which ought not to have been exacted of him Mat. xvii 24. And S. Paul commands the Christians to pay Tribute and Custom to the Heathen Emperours though they used it to Idolatrous and wicked purposes The Christians liked not the use they put their Tributes unto but yet they submitted to the Payment Thus the poor Greeks pay great Contributibutions to the Grand Signior and if I mistake not the Protestants of France pay Tythes to the Popish Clergie and the late oppressed Royalists paid Assessments to the Parliament and paid Tythes to Men invested in Livings according to the Laws then in being though they did not esteem all of them Lawful Ministers If the Payment imposed be never so unjust I do not sin in paying it he sins that imposeth it but if he be my Governour I will submit for Conscience-sake and suffer this Payment as I am obliged to do other Penalties and unjust Impositions laid on by just Authority So that doubtless the Quakers are in a great mistake in fancying they shall sin in the paying Tythes in obedience to Humane Laws and chusing rather to go to Prison since they may as well submit I think to what they account an unjust Payment as to what they call an unjust Imprisonment If I were in their case I could pay my Tythes in obedience to the Laws of the Nation though I did believe the Law never so unjust because this Payment to one so opinionated is a Penalty and his Obedience therein meerly passive And truly I cannot remember ever to have read of any sort of People in the World before who counted it a Sin to pay an Imposition supposed unjust which is no more a Sin than to be Stockt or Whipt to be Fined or Imprisoned all which we may submit to without sin Which Point I have been the larger in because the not understanding of this hath brought much trouble on these deluded People This may shew them it is no sin to pay Tythes though it were a sin in the Law to command them and in us to take them But I hope I have now sufficiently shewed it is none and I wish I might rectifie their Opinion and then they might pay them freely § 47. The Quaker hath nothing to say against the First-fruits and Tenths which are a Revenue to the Crown paid by the Clergie out of the Tythes but onely that pag. 355. This Flower once stuck in the Triple Crown But His Majesty will not so easily be wheadled out of so great a part of His Revenue and so clear an Acknowledgment of Hi◠Clergies Subjection to him And that the Quakers may know what Injury they do to His Majesty in attempting to take away the Maintenance of the Clergie let them know That the First-fruits of the Bishopricks of England paid to the King are above 23000 l. and the Tenths of them paid yearly are 2300 l. But the inferiour Clergies Tenths arising meerly out of Tythes do pay to the Exchequer yearly 1376. l. their First-fruits being 137610 l. besides all the Tenths and First-fruits of Prebendaries and other Dignities And though it cannot be exactly told how much this Revenue is yearly yet as nigh as we can compute His Majesty receives near 30000 l. per Annum out of the Revenues of the Clergie And supposing all the Livings in England to be void but once in Twenty years by that rate His Majesty receives from the inferiour Clergie alone out of the Tythes above 20000 l. per Annum All which these inconsiderate Men would deprive His Majesty of so that they wound the King through our sides but no doubt He will defend both us and Himself from all their Attempts § 48. I shall not need now to confute that frequent and unjust reproch of the Quakers calling Ministers Hirelings pag. 356 c. since I have shewed the onely Revenues they have are no other than what they have a three-fold Title to first By the Laws of God and Nature secondly By the Donation of the right Owners thirdly By the Laws of this Land The People do not hire them they set them not on work nor do they out of their own give them any Wages They are imployed by God and he hath provided for them and will one day requite all the malicious Slanders that are cast upon them and particularly that foul Calumny wherewith T. E. hath loaded the Loyal and Suffering Clergie of the Church of England who lost their Lives or their Fortunes for their Fidelity to the Church and Allegiance to their Prince the Glorious Martyr King CHARLES I. These noble Sufferers who attended their Flocks till they were Sequestred Imprisoned Silenced and by Armed Soldiers violently torn from their Cures These he most wickedly accuses of flying and leaving their Flocks to the Wolves and brands them with the name of Hirelings But this black-mouthed Slanderer may publish his own venomous Impieties by blaspheming God reviling our Fore-fathers speaking evil of Kings despising Laws and reproching the best of Men but his Dirt will never stick upon such Illustrious Names and therefore if he do not repent from a sense of the wickedness of these Crimes yet he ought in common Prudence to desist from so vain an Attempt considering he doth blast his own Name with unsuccessful endeavours to reproch those whom all the World admires and venerates § 49. T. E. once more attempts to justifie the Quakers in detaining Tythes although their separation be voluntary but this is sufficiently confuted before § 9. And I desire the Reader onely to remember the Instance of the Truant Boys wilful absence from an Endowed Free-School But saith T. E. pag. 358. Some Ministers are vicious and such as the Apostle hath exhorted us to withdraw our selves from But do not Quakers separate from good Ministers as much and as well as from bad A vicious Minister may be a pretence to them who resolved to separate however but his Vice is not the true cause of their Separation Besides He belies S. Paul in saying he exhorts the People to withdraw from a bad Minister he bids them not withdraw from a Father but a Brother walking disorderly 2 Thess iii. 6. The People may do that to one another which they may not do to their Governors Spiritual or Temporal Secondly He runs again into his old mistake applying Christs Directions to his Disciples on a private Mission to Unbelievers as if it were a standing Rule for Ministers among Believers Mat. x. 14. Thirdly He compares the Quakers in rejecting our Ministry to the Jews who rejected the Apostles and judged themselves unworthy of Eternal Life Acts xiii 46. Fourthly He saith Christ gave his Apostles no Authorito compel any to hear them Yes surely he bid them go into the High-ways and Hedges and compel those whom they found there to come in Luke xiv 23. And these among the High-ways and Hedges are such as are in Heresies