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
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
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
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
to as Intercessors and Mediators which is Christ's Office which having mentioned before c. 4. S. 18. I omit here But in the Charter it self the Grant is made to God and St. Mary and all Saints together and Ingulf who relates it sayes it was made for the honour of Mary the glorious Virgin and Mother of God and of St. Michael the Arch-Angel and of the Prince of the Apostles St. Peter as also of our holy Father Poâ—e Gregory of whose Saintship let the Reader judge But sayes the Priest pag. 177. If we suppose Ethelwolf as much a Papist as King Stephen yet his Donations to pious uses must stand good even though the Opinion of merit it had been the motive to him to make them or else sayes he T. E revokes all the Charters and Donations made in those really Popish times to never so good and pious uses The donation of Tythes was not to a pious use unless he will call it a pious use to uphold Impiety for it was given to maintain and uphold a corrupt and false Worship and Ministry For not to run over again all the Errors Corruptions Superstitions and Idolatries that were then crept into and received in the Church were not saying Masses for the Souls of the dead one of the uses he calls pious For Ethelwolf â—o give two Hundred Marks a Year to burn Day-light at Rome and one Hundred Marks more to the Pâ—pe were not these pious uses indeed Tâ—ou mayst judge Reader by these of what kind and nature his pious uses were which he so often talks of But this is an old Popish trick to cry out Holy Church Holy Church and pious uses to keep simple People in awe that the matter might not be inquired into Thus no doubt all the rest of the likâ—kind of donations given in old time to the Popish Priests to pray for the Souls of the Donors and deliver them out oâ— Purgatory were set off by the Priests with the specious Titles of Donations to pious uses and endowments to Holy Church But as many of them notwithstanding their specious pretences have been long â—ince alienated from those uses and yet other donations that were made to uses truly good and pious although by Papists were no way thereby hurt or impaired so likewise may this Donation of Tythes given to an evil use be rightâ—y and justly made void and yet other Grants Donations and Charters made by Papists also to uses truly good and pious not thereby be revokâ—d or any way infringed § 8. The foul stains of Popish Corruption and Superstition which stick upon this Donation and Charter of Tythes are so visible and obvious to every Eye that the Priest is greatly troubled at them and fain would he wipe them off if he could He rubs and scrapes hard to get them out but still the Spots remain And indeed as well might he undertake to wash a Brick white or change the Colour of an Ethiopian's Skin as hope to clear the Donation of Tythes from the just imputation of Popish Corruption Fain he would perswade his Reader that Ethelwolf's Clergy was not Popish But Popery is writ upon them in such Capital Letters by Historians of all sorts that speak of those times that if he expects to gain belief he must first perswade men to shut their Eyes and utterly abandon the use of their understandings The gradual creeping in of those false Doctrines and superstitious Practices in almost every Century after the Apostles dayes which afterward obtained the Name Popery is so particularly set down and plainly proved by Protestant Writers of no mean credit that there is no room left to doubt it Nay the other Priest in his Vindicatioâ— of the Friendly Conference pag. 277. forgetting perhaps that Ethelwolf's Donation bares date in the Year 855. has unluckily dated the entrance of Popery in the Year 700. no less then 155. 〈◊〉 before Ethelwolf's Charter of Tythes was made His words are these We may observe sayes he that when by the furious inundation of the barbarous Nations into the Roman Empire learning fell into decay and wheâ— Arts and Sciences were discouraged and neglected at the same time all manner of Corruptions crept into the Church and as ignorance increased Errors multiplied So that most of the present evil Opinions of the Church of Rome had their Original in those unlearned Ages from about the Year of Christ 700. till about the Year 1400. about the mid-night of which Darkness there was scarce any Learning left in the World These were sayes he the unhappy times which bâ—â—d and nursed up Invocation of Saints Worship of Images Purgatory with all the fanaâ—ical Visions and Revelations Miracles c. Then began Shrines Pilgrimages Relicks purchasing of Pardons and the Popes attempts for an universal Monarchy Thus he Wherein though he mention but few of the many particular Errors and Corruptions which in those times were grown up in the Church and though he mistake in point of time in saying these which he hath mention'd were bred and nursed up about or after the Year 700. most of them if not all being of older standing as I have already shewed yet he hath said enough to disprove all his Brother Priest hath said or can say towards clearing Ethelwolf's Clergy from being Popish For if these Errors and Corruptions had sprung up no earlier thâ—n the Year 700. yet consider I pray to what a height such weeds were like to grow in the fruitfull Soyl of superstitious Devotion and cherished with the warmth of a blind and mis-guided Zeal in the space of an Hundred and Fifty Years Yet the Author of the Right of Tythes pag. 178. denyes again that Tythes were given to the Popish Priests and says King Ethelwolf's Clergy agreed with the Protestant Church of England in more points tâ—an with the modern corrupt Church of Rome If this were true it were more to the discredit of the Protestant Clergy than to tâ—e credit of Ethelwolf'â— Câ—ergy But I deny his Assertion unâ—ess he mean it of those who as his Brother says Friendly Conference pag. â—1 for a corrupt Interest intrude themselves into the Ministry of which number himself is very likely to be one But he that diligently shâ—ll observe the accounts these Priestâ— themselves give of those times will see they writâ— not plainly and â—airly but strive to colour over a corrupt Interest and that 's the Reason they neither agree one with another nor with themselves The Author of the Friâ—ndly Conference pag. 148. sayes Tythes were settled upon the Church before Popery had made her 〈◊〉 in it for Popery is not of that Antiquity c. And he refers to Ethelwolf's Donation for the settlement pag. 146. which was made in the year 855. Yet the same man if he be the same that writ the Vindication as is pretended makes Popery as antient as the year 700. above one hundred fifty years older then Ethelwolf's Charter Most sayes he of the present
Evil Opinions of the Church of Rome had their Original in those unlearned Ages from about the year 700. till about the year 1400. Vind. pag. 277. Thus he one whiâ—e makes the sâ—ttlement of Tythes older than Popery another while Popery older than the settlement of Tythes In like manner the other Priest in his Right of Tythes pag. 102. says The Clergy of that Age were God's only publick Ministers And pag. 112. The Donors intended Tythes to the Right Ministers of God and I make no doubt they were such to whom they garâ— them Again pag. 178. King Ethelwolf ' s Clâ—â—gy â—greed with the Protestant-Church of England in more points than with the modern corrupt Church of Rome And yet the saâ—e Priest sayes pag. 99. The benefit of this Donâ—tiâ—n of Tythes hath been enjoyed for eight hundred years by those to whom the Donation was made Now certain it is that the benefit of this Donation was enjoyed by the Popish Clergy all the time of Popery till the very latter-end of Hen. 8. or the beginning of Edw. 6. and afterward again in Queen Mary's time and if all this while Tythes were enjoyed by them to whom the Donation was made then it must needs be made to a Popish Clergy or eâ—se there never was such a thing as a Popish Clergy in England Now though it be thus plainly proved from his own words that Tythes were given to a Popish Câ—ergy yet so daringly confident is he to say they were God's only publick Ministers and that he makes no doubt they were the Right Ministers of God Were they God 's own publick Ministers were theâ— the Right Ministers of God who enjâ—yed the benâ—fit of this Donation of Tythes all along from Ethelwolf's time to the Reformation If so then the Popish Clergy all that while even in the most idolatrous times yea Bonner Gardner and their Associates who drunk so deep of Protestant Blood were in his account Right Ministers of God But if they who eâ—joyed the Benefit of this Donation of Tythes all along from Ethelwolf's time until the Reformation were not the Right Ministers of God but a corrupt popish Clergy then were not they even by his own Argument the Right Ministers of God but a corrupt popish Clergy to whom this Donâ—tion of Tythâ—s was made for he sayes expresly the Benefit of if was enjoyed for eight hundred years by those to whom the Donation was made This is unavoidable and therefore his saying King Ethelwolf's Clergy agreed with the Protestant-Church of England in more points than with the modern corrupt Church of Rome may cast an imputation on him and his Brethren but cannot clear Ethelwolf his Clergy from Popery But what he cannot prove he is very forward to take for granted and therefore says pag. 178. 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 settled them on the true Protestant Ministry did observe therein the Intention of the Donors and did apply Tythes to the Right Vse for which God intended them He talks idly God never intended Tythes to any such use in the times of the Gospel let him prove it if he can And for observing the Intention of the Donors it is manifest the Donors intended their Tythes to such a Clergy as would SAY MASS for their Souls when they were DEAD Is he one of them or are his Brethren such or was that one of the Points in which he brags King Ethelwâ—lf's Clergy â—greed more with the Protestant-Church of England than with the modern corrupt Church of Rome However by his own confession here that Clergy from whom Tythes were taken was corrupt and fallen into Popery Seeing then Tythes were taken from the same Clergy to which they were given for the benefit he sayes was enjoyed eight hundrâ—d years by those to whom the Donation was made pag. 99. was not Ethelwolf's Clergy corrupt and fallen into Popery too Again he sayes pag. 178. Since the first Donors did not settle them on the Popish Clergy and the present Laws have given them to the Protestant Clergy I know not whâ—t Title the Popish Priests can justly have to them Nor I neither not that the first Donors did not settle them on them as he begs but because that settlement was not just and with what either Iustice or Credit a Protestant-Minister can thus creep in and plead a Right to Tythes by a Donation Fraudulently obtained by a popish Clergy I leave the Reader to judge To supply his defect of Argument he betakes himself here again to his usual course of Railing and because he cannot fairly answer he sets himself fâ—ully to bespatter me and the Quakers pag. 179. calling us the very Darlings of the great â—gents for Rome saying we learn our Lesson from the Papists and are doing their Work for them calling me a Iourney-man to the Popish Priests and much more of the same bran All which savouring so strong of Ignorance and Envy and being as far from Truth as from all manner of likelihood and probability I will not give so much Countenance to his Charge as to think it worth an Answer And whereas he sayes Their Doctrine of Perfection despising the Letter of Scripture pleading for Ignorance relying on the merit of following the Light within c. are Popery in disguize I shall only tell him at this time that his so saying is down-right Falshood and open Slander withouâ— disguise a further account of which he may expect in Reply to his Brother's Vindication § 9. He is offended at my saying That if Tythes were a suitable Maintenance for a Protestant-Ministry yet the Clergy now do nothing for the People nor indeed have any to do which can deserve so great a Compensation This was spoken upon occasion of the other Priest's saying Friendly Conference pag. 86. Their only work is to explain the written Word of God and apply the same and yet a little after p. 92 93. acknowledged that whatsoever is necessary to Salvation either to be believed or done are in some place or other in holy Scripture fitted to the most vulgar capacity and â—hallowest understanding c. But this Priest not willing to take notice of this which he knew would be an hard knot to untye looks over it as if he had not seen it and says pag. 180. Certainly we do 〈◊〉 much for the People as ever was done by any Clergy in the World We pray for them preach to them administer the Sacraments duly among them we marry and bury we visit the Sick relieve the Poor comfort the Sad reprove Sinners confute Herâ—ticks and shew the Folly of Ellwood c. If they perform the rest no betteâ— then this last they little deserve the Wages they receive But do they perform these particular Services for thâ— Tythes which they receive If not it is but a false pretence to
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.
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