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
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
to teach them all things they have not the Spirit at all These are not my words as he that will consult the place may see but an inference of his own made on purpose to abust me And the other Priest in his Vindication pag. 284. though he nibbles at the same passage yet neither doth he quote it as this Priest doth nor charge me with affirming that If the Saints have not the Spirit in them so as to teach them all things they have not the Spirit at all But sayes The Quaker seems to fancy that if the Spirit be not with Believers in this immediate manner his is not with them at all Observe now Reader how I am dealt with between these two Priests One of them sayes positively that I affirm The other sayes The Quaker seems to fancy The one sayes I affirm if the Saints have not the Spirit in them so as to teach them all things they have not the Spirit at all The otheâ— sayes The Quaker seems to fancy that if the Spirit â—e not with believers in this immediate manner he is not with them at all And yet these Priests both one and t'other pretend to repeat the self-same sâ—ntence out of my Book and that in my own words Is this faiâ— dealing Yet upon this and his former mistake of immediate teaching he sayes pag. 137. All that T. E. allows for Saints got their knowledge in an Instant as the Apostles did This also I reject for a slander Nor do I believe that the Apostles got their knowledge as he says in an instant But that they grew in Grace by the Grace in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ as the Apostle Peter exhorted the Saints 2 Pet. 4. 18. and as Paul did the Colossians chap. 1. ver 10. But from these false Premises he draws this lame Conclusion Either therefore he must deny these Holy men were taught immediately and then by his Rule they could have no knowledge in divine things or else he must confess Truths were not revealed to them by degrees But there is no necessity for this For I will suppose those Holy men were taught immediately in respect of the manner of teaching not in respect of time They might be taught by the Spirit of God in their own Hearts without the help of outward means and yet those Truths which they were thus taught might be revealed to them by degrees The Wind that bloweth where it liâ—teth bloweth also when it lifteth and â—e that turns the Key of David opens and shuts at his own pleasure Upon my saying Those good men Godly Martyrs lived at the very dawning of the Day of Reformation He thus sports himself Very pleâ—sant sayes he Let 〈◊〉 then ask the Quaker what Hour of the Morning it was when his other Martyrs as he falsly calls them Thorp Swinderby Brute and Wickliffe lived If it was but Day-break in Cranmer's time it was dark as mid-night in Wickliffe's if Cranmer and Bradford had but little Light Wickliffe and Thorp had none at all and therefore unless they had Cats Eyes they could not see then pag. 138. Surely his flouting humour was up when he writ this and he was resolved to indulge his Genius whom soever he spatter'd But letting his unhandsome expression pass which is obvious enough to every Reader that has not Cats Eyes I reply to his question that what ever Hour Thorp Swinderby Brute and Wicâ—liâ—â—e lived in or how dark soever it then was they had light enough given them to discover that Tythes were but an human Institution ought not to be paid And though they lived before Cranmer in times of greater Darkness and not see so many of the Corruptions of the Church of Rome as Cranmer and his Associates did yet they saw some and what they did see was as really a Corruption and their Testimonies against it ought as â—ell to be received as the Testimonies of those other Martyrâ— against other Corruptions afterwards Nor ought those earlier Testimonies to be weakned much â—ess rejected by the example or practice of later Martyrs since both the former and later are by the same Historian recorded to be good and godly men stout Champians and valiant Souldiers for the Truth of Jesus Christ all bearing Testimony against the Corruptions and Superstitions of the Church of Rome though not all against the self-same particular Corruption For Wickliffe inveighed against the Pride Pomp Luxury and temporal Possessions of the Clergy Brute denyed all Swearing and Thorp denyed to Swear upon the Bible the evil of which was not seen by many of the Martyrs that came after And even among those of greatest note and eminency in point of Learning who were not only contemporaries but Co-sufferers as I may say with respect both to cause and time there was not in all things an equal discovery and sight of Corruptions and Romish Superstitions For â—ooper being elected Bishop of Glouster in King Edward the sixth dayes when Cranmer himself was Arch-Bishop of Canterbury refused to be consecrated in the Episcopal vestiments or habit and to take the Oath used in the Consecration of Bishops both which he complained were against his Conscience and therefore petitioned the King either to discharge him of his Bishoprick or to dispence with him in those things which were offensive and burdensom to his Conscience And although he thereupon obtained Letters from the King and the Earl of Warwick to the Arch-Bishop in his behalf yet so little did Cranmer anâ— the other Bishops discern the Superstition and Evil of those things that as Fox observes they stood earnestly in defence of the aâ—oresaid Ceremonies saying It was but a small matter that the fault was in the abuse of the things not in the things themselves that he ought not to be so stubborn in so light a matter and that his wilfulness therein was not to be suffered Nor would they yield to his consecration but upon condition that sometimes he should in his Sermon shew himself Apparrelled as the other Bishops were which Fox in plain terms calls a Popish attire and sayes that Notwithstanding that godly Reformation of Religion that began in the Church of England besides other Ceremonies more ambitious then profitable or tending to Edification they used to wear such Garments and Apparel as the Popish Bishops were wont to do which he sayes tended more to â—â—perstition then otherwise and sayes he when Hooper was appointed to Preach before the King he came forth as a new Playeâ— in a strange Apparel on the Stage having for his upper Garment a long Scarlet Chymere down to the Feet and under that a white Linnen Rochet that covered all his Shoulders upon his Head he had a Geometrial that is a foursquared Cap albeit that his Head was round What cause of shame says Fox the strangeness hereof was that day to that good Preacher every man may easily judge Martyr Vol. 2. pag. 1366. Thus seest thou Reader that what
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
Boniface he sayes pag. 92. If I desire to have the name of Tythes as well as the thing among the Antient Saxons I may find in the Epistle of Boniface to Cuthbert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Anno. 745. That the English Priests in those dayes were maintained by the taking the daily Oblations and Tythes of the faithful Hitherto he has found neither the thing nor the name among his Saxon Evidences but has given only some ill grounded Conjectures that Church-esset and Ciric-sceat might signifie a kind of Tythes And what he has now found in the Epistle of this Arch-Bishop Boniface comes much too late to clear Tythes from the blemish of Popish Institution For if he could prove an Institution of Tythes in this Nation a general Dedication of Tythes or any positive Law commanding the payment of Tythes here as early as this Epistle of Boniface which yet is far from early in comparison of the earliest dayes of Christianity yet unless he could also wipe away for covering will not seâ—ve those foul Spots and filthy Stains those gross Corruptions and Superstitions wherewith the Church was 〈◊〉 that time and before miserably polluted and deformed all he can say will not acquit Tythes from a Popish Institution even according to the Notion his Brother Priest has given of Popery But though through the blind devotion of that Age some of the most superstitiously Zealous might not improbably give Tythes yet hath not he given or met with any Law Constitution or Synodal Decree of that time of undoubted Credit injoyning the payment of Tythes This very Cuthbâ—rt to whom the fore-cited Epistle of Boniface was written being then Arch-Bishop of Canterbury called together the Bishops and Prelates and held a great Synod near a place called Clomeshâ— the Decrees of which Synod Iohn Fox hath set down particularly in his Acts and Monuments of the Church upon the Year 747. in which Year that Synod was held But in all those Decrees there is not the least mention of Tythes No Constitution yet appears Civil or Ecclesiastical for the payment of Tythes And as for Boniface himself from whose Epistle the Priest would prove the settlement of Tythes in England before Popery take but the Character that Fox gives of him in the place fore-quoted and then think as thou canst of him the Religion and times he lived in First he taxes him with maintaining superstitious Orders of lascivious Nunâ— and other Religioâ—s and restraining the same from lawful Marriage Then he adds For so we find of him in Stories that he was a great setter up and upholder of such blind Superstition and all Popery Who being admitted by Pope Gregory the second Arch-Bishop of Magunce and indued with full Authority legantine over the Germans builded Monasteries Canonized Saints commanded Relicks to be worshipped c. Item sayes he by the Authority of the said Arch-Bishop Boniface which he received from Pope Zachary Childerious King of France was deposed from the right of his Crown and Pipinus betrayer of his Master was confirmed c. From this Boniface adds he proceeded that detestable Doctrine which now standeth Registred in the Popes Decrees Dist. 40. Cap. Si papa which in a certain Epistle of his is this That in case the Pope were of most filthy living and forgetful or negligent of himself and of the whole Christianity in such sort that he led innumerable Souls with him to Hâ—ll yet ought there no man to rebuke him in so doing for he hath Power to judge all men and ought of no man to be judged again Now Reader weigh and consider with thy self what manner of Bishop this Boniface was what a Religion he profest what times he lived in and then tell me whether or no Popery had not made her encroachments in the Church in the time of this Bishop Boniface Next to the Epistle of Boniface before mentioned the Priest offers a Collection made by Egbert Arch-Bishop of York in the Year as he says 750. of all the Canoâ—s that were made in the Councils before his time and whâ—ch were in force in England among which Canons he sayes pag. 93. there is frequent mention of Tythes as particularly in the 4. 5. 99. and 100. The words of the fourth Canon he gives thus That the People be 〈◊〉 in the right manner of Offering them to Gods Church The words of the fifth Canon he sets down thus That the Priest shall take them and set down the names of those who gave them There he stops omitting the rest of that Canon which in the Latine thus follows et secundum Autoritatem Canonicam coram testibus diviâ—ant et ad ornamentum ecclesiae primam eligant partem secundam autem ad usum pauperum atque peregrinorum per â—orâ—â— manus misericorditer cum omni humilitate dispensent tertiâ—â— vero sibimet ipsis Sacerdotes reservent i. e. and according to Canonical Authority shall divide them before Witnesses and shall chuse the first part for the Ornament of the Church The second part they shall with all humility most mercifully distribute with their own hands to the use of the Poor aâ—d of Strangers but the third part the Priests shall keep for themselves I have Transcribed this only to shew the Priest's Craft in concealing it He would have the benefit of this Canon he would use the Authority of it to prove his Claim to Tythes but he would not have the People understand how and to what uses Tythes were appointed by this Canon to be imployed How great a charge are the People now at in maintaining the Poor and in repairing and adorning those Houses which they call Churches over and above their Tythes to the Priests whereas this Canon which the Priest urges for the proof of his Claim to Tythes commands expresly that the Tythes being divided into three parts two parts of the three should be bestowed upon those publique uses and the Priests to have but the one third part that remained But now alas the Priests swollow the whole tenths the two parts as well as the third and the People are fain to make New-Levies to defray those publique charges from which by this Canon they were to be freed But be this spoken by the way only Now to the Canons themselves He sayes they were collected by Egbert about the Year 750. but by whom and when were they made Doubtless that had been very material but he has not a Syllable of it but delivers it in the gross for a Collection made by Egbert of all the Canons that were made in the Councils before his time c. But by what Art did Egbert collect Canons that were not made till after his death For that some such are â—n that Collection which bare his name Selden gives more then probable reasons First he sayes The Authority of the Title must undergo a Censure Then he adds Who ever made it supposed that Egbert gathered that Law and the rest joyn'd with it out of some
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-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
and all their Charters and Doâ—ations be void meerly because made and done by Papists c. For I do not say that all the good Acts of Papists in the true sense are void but I say that thâ—s Act the Donation of Tythes was not a good Act being given to maintain that Ministry which was not the true Ministry of Christ but a false Mâ—nistry and to upholâ— that Worship which was not the true Worship of God but a false Worship Nor were all their Charters and Donations void meerly becauâ—e made and done by Papist but this Charter of Tythes is therefore void because made to support and sustain a Religion and Worship by which God was dishonoured So that I impugne not all the good Acts of Papists meerly because done by Papists nor indeed any good Act of theirs in the true sense neither seek I to evacuate all their Charters and Donations or indeed any of them meerly because made by Papists but I impugne this Donation and Charter of Tythes as an evil Act proceeding from the erroneous unsound and corrupt judgment of Papists and tending to uphold and maintain an erroneoâ—â— unsound and corrupt Religion and Worship Safe then and sound may all the good acts of Papists in the true sense all their civil and political Acts Laws Charters Grants and Donations the maintenance of the Poor the Priviledgeâ— of Cities and the Freedom of all English Subjects stand and remain inviolate and untoucht notwithstanding the enervation of this Charter for Tythes § 13. The second Objection which he offers in my Namâ— is this That Tythes were given to maintain thâ— Popish Clergy This he sayes is a mistake pag. 102. for sayes he 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 professing any Canonical obedience to the Pope and therefore they cannot justly be called a Popish Clergy That Tythes were given to maintain the English Clergy is not doubted But what then Does their being an English Clergy acquit them from being a Popish Clergy Cannot an English Clergy be Popish I wish with all my Heart it could not But what I pray was that Clergy that drank such great Draughts of Protestant Blood in Q. Mary's time was it not both English and Popish Since then an English Clergy has been Popish now vain a shift is it in him to say Tythes were not given to maintain the Popish Clergy because they were given to maintain the English Clergy But this English Clergy had he sayes in those dayes of Ethelwolf a Patriarch of their own Had they so How much was Ethelwolf then overseen in sending to Pope Gregory for absolution from his Vows when he might as well have had it from his own Patriarch at home What was the matter was the Patriarch busie or out of the way or did not Ethelwolf know there was one But who I pray was Patriarch in his time what was his Name When began the Patriarcâ— at of England and how long stood it Out of what Legend I wonder did the Priest take this Fable that he quotes no Authority for it This Patriarch doubtless must be a man of a very soft and easie temper to let the Pope send over his 〈◊〉 hither to be Arch-Bishops of canterbury the chief Seâ—t of his Patriarchat and send his â—egats hither to call and govern Councils And when Thâ—odorâ—s the Italian Arch-Bishop of Canterbury took upon him to displace Wilfride Arch-Bishop of York was not Wilfride very much to blame to neglect his own Patriarch and go to Rome to complain to the Pope What Patrâ—arch alive but a very good natured Man would haâ—e endured all this But I am partly of the Opinioâ— when it comes to the upshot we shall find no other Patriarch of England but the Pope or some Deputy of his who being in the time of the Council at Nice one of the four Patriarchs of the Christian World as it was then called took in these Western parts into his Patriarchat And when Gregory Bishop of Rome dispenced with the English in the case of Degrees prohibited he did it sayes Perkins as Patriarch Problem pag. 204. Whence it appears that England was then subject to the Patriarch of Rome which it would not have been if it had had a Patriarch of its own He adds They were a Church of themselves not holding all the Opinions of the Roman Church nor professing any Canonical obedience to the Pope What he means by their being a Church of themselves I understand not They were such a Church of themselves as the Pope sent his Creatures to be Arch-Bishops in They were such a Church of themselves as whose Councils the Pope sent his Legats to govern They were such a Church of themselves as in case of grievance had recourse to the Pope for redress And for the Opinions of the Roman Church that they held them all I will not say but I dare affirm they held enough to justly denominate them a Popish Clergy Whateveâ— the Opinions of the Church of Rome then were that thâ—se were in Communion with that Church is notorious and that some time before Ethâ—lwolf Pope Vitellianus sent Theodorus over into England and divers Monks of Italy with him to set up here in England Latine Service Masses Ceremonies Letanies and such other Romish Ware c. if Fox and his Testimony may be taken whose very words these are Martyrol vol. 1. pag. 112. And what Observance they paid to the Pope may be not only gathered from that passage in Arch-Bishop Wilfride's address to the Pope wherein speaking of Thâ—odore by whom he was turned out he sayes Quem quidem pro eo quod abhac Apostolicae sedis summitate directus est accusare non audeâ— i. e. Whom in as much as he hath been directed by this high Apostolical See I dare not accuse And from Rainolds De Rom. Eccles. Idolatria Where in his Epistle pag. 13. He tells the English Semiâ—aries that about the Year 800. the King of England Revereâ—cing the Pope as St. Peters Vicar gave him Yearly a Penny out of every Family c. But also most plainly concluded from the words of Florilegus cited by Camden in his Brittania pag. 411. where mentioning divers Priviledges of the Monastery of St. Albanes founded by K. Offa and endowed by him and his Successors he giveth this for one that The Abbat or Monk appointed Arch-Deacon under him hath pontifical Jurisdiction over the Priests and Lay-men of all the Possessions belonging to this Church so as he yieldeth subjection to no Arch-Bishop Bishop or Legate save only to the Pope of Rome To the Pope of Rome then it appears this Abbat notwithstanding all hiâ— Priviledges did yield subjâ—ction How much more then did the rest of the Clergy who were not priviledged as he was yield obedience to the Pope The same Author there likewise adds
the property depends not on the Office but on the person's Life that bears the Office And the Remainder of this property which the Priest sayes is to his Successors forever can take no place till the death of the present person who sustains the Office So that when he who sustains the Office comes to be turned out of his Office his Successor in the Office can have no property at all untill he that is so turned out be dead because he hath the property vested in him during his Life Thus stands the case according to this Priest wherein how consistent he is to himself the Reader may observe Now let us hear what the other Priest sayes to this matter in his Vindication of the Conference pag. 317. This property sayes he doth not belong to either of them apart but the property belongs to the person as quaâ—ified by holy Orders and put into actual possession by Insâ—itution and Induction This quite contradicts the other Priest for if the property doth not belong to either of them apart then the present person who sustains the Office cannot have the property vested in him during his Life but during his Office only For if he might have it during his Life he might then have it apart from his Office which this Priest denyes in saying This property doth not belong to either of them apart But if the property doth not belong to either of them a part what becomes of the property when they are parted The Priest it seems according to this Priest has no property any longer than he is in Office though according to the other Priest he hath it vested in him during hiâ— Life turn him out of Office and his property is gone because this property doth not belong to either the person or Office apart On the other hand The Office has no property any longer than it hath a Priest in it because the property doth not belong to either of them apart Where then resteth the property when the Office is void Doth the property cease They had best have a care of that for that will shrewdly endanger the Title Thus Reader thou seest after all their blustring big words for a property in Tythes they cannot agree where to fix it A property they would fain have and nothing less sayes one of the Priests will serve my turn Vindication pag. 317. but where to place it they do not know To leave it in the Office they know is dangerous because the Office was notoriously Popish when Tythes were first settled on it To fix it to the persons sustaining the Office is no less hazardous because some at least of tâ—ose persons are acknowledged by the Priest to be Intruders for a corâ—upt interest But leaving the Priests to consult anew about the settlement of their conceited property since Tythes have so great a dependence on the Office let us again consider the nature of that Office when Tythes were settled on it The Priest sayes Right of Tythes pag. 190. I make my self sure of that which none but a wild Quaker would ever so much as once suppose viz. To be sure the office of Priest-hood was Popish and the Office it self being nâ—w laid aside the property vested in it must be gone along with it Thus he quotes my words but as his usual manner is very defectively that he may thereby find means either to abuse me or avoid an Answer My words are these p. 336. It was to be surâ— a Popish Office when Tythes were first paid to it in this Nation an office set up by the Pope and that not as a secular â—rince but as a â—ope as a spiritual Father for such he pretends to be but if their had been a property in the office yet seeing the office it self is laid aside and the Pope who was the author â—f it â—ast off surely whatever property was in the office must â—eeds be gone along with it This has it seems put him so out of patience that he returns this Answer Hâ— must be under some degree of frensie who can perswadâ— himself that there are no Priests now or that the Reformation laid the office aside That had been a reformation as wild as a Quaker could project Doth he think that any body will grant thesâ— doting falshoods No Protestants that ever I knew held the office of Priesthood to be Popish And truly T. E. thy suppositions will not be granted by any but those who are as senseless as thy self pag. 191. This is his full Answer in which I think no sensible man can find any thing argumentative reasonable or civil Wherefore waving this I will first inquire somewhat more particularly into that Office on which it is pretended Tythes were settled and then take notice of his Answer First then for the Office It was I said to be sure a popish Office when Tythes were first paid to it in thiâ— Nation an Office set up by the Pope c. Austin the Monk coming over hither from Rome by Authority wâ—ich he received from Pope Gregory ordaâ—ned Bishops and Priests here And this was long beforâ— Tythes were paid in England After Austin's death his Successors were câ—nsecrated Arch-Bishops of Canterbury bâ— the succeeding Popes or by their Authority by vertue of which pâ—pish Consecâ—ation reâ—eived themselves they took upon them to orâ—ain new Priests as occasion seemed to them to require Thuâ— was that Prieâ—â—â—ood in its Ordination entirely popish A Priestly Office set up and held up by the Poweâ— and Authority of the Popes of Rome And as its institution so its work and service the End and Intention of it was popish and so much worse was it in its progress then in its institution as the latter times were worse then the former and as the Church of Rome grew daily more depraved and corrupt out of which it sprang by which it was nursed up and to which it was subservient And at the time when Tythes were settled on this Office and before the Work and Service of it was to say Mâ—sses for the Soulâ— of the Dead thus did the Clergy engage to do even in that very Charter of Ethelwolf to pray for the Dead that their Souls might be delivered out of Purgatory to receive Auricular Confession to absolve the people from their Sins c. These things are too certain and known to be doubted much less denyed and too plain and evident to leave any question whether this Office was at that time popish or no. Now though this Office continued long yet at length it came to an end in this Nation The Pope who set this Office up was cast off the Service of this Office viz. the Masses and popish Prayers ceased the Opinions of Purgatory Auricular Confession c. were disowned and the Office it self was laid aside Now let us take notice of the Priests Answer H◠〈◊〉 be sayes he under some degree of Frensie who can perswadâ— himself that there are no Priests now