there had been a Property in the Office yet seeing the Office it sâ—lf is laid aside and the Pope who was the Author of it cast off surely whatsoever property was in the Office must needs be gone along with it But to manifest yet further the Emptiness of this plea of the Priests Property in Tythes let it be considered that the Priâ—st after all his Boasting Talk of property and Prâ—eâ—hold â—ath no power to take One Sheaf or 〈◊〉 of the Husbandman's Corn from off his Groâ—nd until the Owner hath severed it as Tythe from the Remainder and thereby first disseized himself of that Part and by his own Act given the Priest a Title thereunto So that the Priest's Title lies in the Gift of the Owner nor hath he any Propriety there untiâ— the Owner by setting it out for him hath made him one Only the Law supposing Tythe dâ—e to God and holy Church injoyns the Owner to set it out and that under a penalty which if he refuse to do he incurs the penalty but the property remains intire in himself But saith the Priest I told you before that Tythes and other Church-Revenues have been settled by those that were actually seized of them in Law page 154. Answ. I tell you and I told you are his two great Proofs and he speaks it so confidently as if he thought it sufficient Demonstration to say I told you The best on 't is we are not bound to believe all he tells us He might have done well to have told us who those Doners were that were so actually seized and what it was they were seized of What he means by other Church Revenues neither doth he express nor I intend to inquiâ—e Tythe is the present Subject to that let us â—â—ick If Tythes be the Tenth of the profit or increase of the Land and they that setled Tythes as he saith were actually seized of them in Law then surely they could settle no more then they were so seized of and they could be actually seized of no other profits or increase then what did grow increase or renew upon the Land while they were actually seized of it So that such Settlement how valid soever while they lived must needs expire with them Is any one so void of Reason as to imagine that they who were possest of Land an hundred Years ago could then settle and dispose of the profits and increase that shall grow and ariâ—e upon that Land an hundred Years hence which profit cannot arise barely from the Land but from the Labour Industry and Stock of the Occupier Were ever any actually seized of the Labour of the Husbandman's Hands of the Sweat of his Brows of the Iudâ—â—ment Vnderstanding and Skâ—ll that God hath given him of the Stock he imploies the Cost he bestows the Care Pains Industry and Diligence he exercises for the obtaining of a Crop That all these are iâ—cluded in the Crop I have shewed and that without these the Crop comes not He therefore that undertakes to dispose of any Part of the Crop takes upon him so far to dispose of these also but with what Right let the Reader judge Indeed if they who were anciently seizâ—d of the Lands had then set out and setled any Part of the Land it self it had been something to the purpose But let not any man imagine that they had Power to charge their Posterity with that which was no way theirs nor which in any true Sense or Construction they could be said to have any Property in and which is not paid by Reason of that which is derived from them For indeed if the Case be rightly stated Tythe is not paid of Land nor simply by Reason of the Land but of the Profits and Encrease growing and arising and by Reason of the Labour and Stock imploy'd to the production of that Encrease This will more plainly appear if we observe that by the Statute of Edward the sixth Tradesmen and Handycrafts-men who possess no Land are injoined to pay the Tenth of the Profits Encrease or Gain arising by their Trades or Labour as well as the Husbandman the Encrease of the Land Which shews that as they are tythed for the Labour Industry and Stock which they exercise in their Trades and Callings so is he also for the â—ains Care Skill and Stock which he imploies in his Calling of Husbandry If therefore he that hath Land and he that hath no Land are both alikâ— bound to pay Tythe how can it be said that he that hath Land payeth Tythe for the Land If a man hath never so much Land and yet no Encrease no Tythe can be demanded If he hath no Land at all and yet by any other way hath Encrease he is 〈◊〉 by the Law to pay Tythe If a man so husband his Land that the Encrease of it is not to be severed from it as for Instance if he convert it to Pasture and feed Cattel upon it he shall not be accountable for the Tythes of the Grass so eaten but if any thing at all be demanded it can be only a rate Tythe for the Cattel there feeding But if he feed his Land with Horses very little if any thing at all is recoverable for Tythe And if he plant Wood and let it grow for Timber he is not liable to any Tythe at all From these Instances it is manifest both that it is in the Power of the Occupant to make the Tythe much little or nothing at all And also that those Tythes that are paid are paid not purely in Consideration of the Land it self but with Relation to the Stock Personal Estate imployed upon the Land together with the Labour and Industry of him that occupies it But because it cannot be supposed that any man's Ancestors had a Property in or were actually seized of that very Stock and Personal Estate which he now possesseth much less of the Strength Health Ability to labour Wisdom Iudgement and Vnderstanding which he hath received from God out of through and by Reason of which Tythes are now paid it could not justly be in the Power of any man's Ancestors so to settle Tythes or oblige his Posterity to pay them according as they are now demanded and received for that were to charge an Incumberance upon that which himself had never any Property in His Supposition of some charitably disposed Persons giving certain Lands and Tenements to every Parish for the Maintenance of the poor is not at all the same Case with this of Tythâ—s although he saith page 145. it is the same and that it will be evident to every understanding man But I believe no understanding man can see the Cases to be the same For in that of the Poor there is a certain Setlement of Lands and Tenements in which it is to be supposed the Donor had a Legal Property or of which he was actually seized at the time of the Gift But in the Case of Tythes here is no Gift
of Lands and Tenements but of the Increase growing and arising through and by Reason of the Labour Caâ—e Industry an◠〈◊〉 of the Occupier which he that gav◠〈◊〉 Tythe nâ—ither had nor could have an◠〈…〉 nor waâ— or could be actually 〈…〉 and therfore had no Power to 〈…〉 at the Cases are no whit alike 〈◊〉 therefore the Destroying of Tythes hath 〈◊〉 Tendency at all to destroy Hospitals Nor are the Tenants to such Hoâ—pital-Lands thereby discharged from the Payment of their respective Rents No but are under the 〈…〉 was before both as they were 〈◊〉 by themselves and so are a free and voluntary 〈◊〉 of their own and also as the whole Rent they pay is not the fâ—ll Profit and Encrease of the whole Land they hold but such a Proportion only as the Land it self is valâ—e or rated at So that the Encrease of tâ—eir own Labour and Industry and the Improvement of their own Stock is not exacted from them but left to them to dâ—fray Charges and for their own Subsistence and Maintenance But in the Case of Tythes it is faâ— otherwise For the Tythe is the full and â—miâ—e Profiâ—s and Encrease of the whole tenth Part of the Land without any Allowance for Charges or regard to the Subsistence of the Occupier Of which more anon He sayes All Tenants may as reasonably say that the Payment of Rent to their Respective Landlords is a National Burden and Oppression as that Tythes are a great Oppression c. page 155. Answ. No such matter For First The Tenant for his Rent hath of his Landlord the Worth of his Rent But for his Tythes he receives of the Priest it may be nothing at all however that which to him is worth nothing being by the Priest's own Confession page 92 93. not necessary to his Salvation upon which account it is that he payes his Tythes Secondly Rent is a Voluntary Contract and the Maxim is Volenti not fit Injuria i. e. He that willingly undertakes a thing is not injured But Tythe is not Voluntary now but taken by Force and Violence And I doubt not but if every English Man durst Freely speak his own Sense nine Parts of ten of the whole Nation would unanimously cry TYTHES ARE A GREAT OPPRESSION But the main Question he sayes is Whether thâ—y that purchased Lands and Tenements did also purchase the Tythe Answ. They pâ—â—chased all that was not excepted out of the Purchase but Tythes were not excepted out of the Purchase If they who have purchased have no Right to the Tenth Part I seen â—t how they can claim a Right to the Nineth or indeed to any of the nine parts for they purchased them all alike And therefâ—â—e in Deed of Bargain and Sale it is said â—â—at the Seller doth grant Bargain Sell c ALL thaâ— c. with its Appurtenances and EVERY PART and parcel thâ—reof the tenth as well as the Nine and also All the Estate Right Title Interest Propeâ—ty Claim and Demand whatsoever c. Anâ— if there be any Rents or Services reserved they are expresly excepted But no Exception of Tythes did I ever yet see or hear of in any Deed of Purchase But sayes he Will you sâ—ll more then you bought No say 〈◊〉 for I bought all And therefore if I sell all I sell no more then I bought Besides he that buyes Land pays so much Money for the Land only as Matter for him to work upon but when he has this Land if he will have Profit and Increase from it he must purchase that after another manner he payes for that and many 〈◊〉 dear enough too by the Labour and Charge he bestows in tilling dressing and manuring it And if in this Sense he may be said to purchase the Nine Parts of the Crop or Increase in the same sense he purchaseth the Tenth Part also for he bestows 〈◊〉 Charge and Pains on all alike and the Tâ—â—th Part stands him in as much as any one of the Nine But he sayes Though the Tenant payes Tythes yet they are no Inconvenience to him because he payes less Rent in Consideration thereof Answ. There is a Fallacy in this for if it should be granted that the Tenant doth pay less Rent in Consideration of Tythes which yet is questionable yet the Abatement which he is supposed to have in Rent is not proportionable or answerable to the Value of the Tythes he payes I demonstrate it thus Suppose a Landlord leâ—s a Farm for Ninety Pound a Year which if it were Tythe free would yield an Hundred The Tenant to pay his Rent defray all his Charge of Husbandry and have a Comfortable Subsistence and Maintenance for himself and his Family must according to the Computation of skilful Husbandmen by his Care Industry and â—abour together with the Imployment of his Stâ—ck raiâ—e upon his Farm three Rents or three times as mâ—ch as his Rent comes to which will make Two Hundred and Seventy Pound and the tenth part of Two Hundred â—eventy Pounâ—s is Twenty Seven Pâ—unds so that if the â—enant should have Ten Pounds a Year abated in his Rent because of Tythes and he paâ—es Seuâ—n and Twenty Pounds a Year for Tythes then does he pay Seventeen Poâ—nds a Year in Ninety more then he is supposed to be allowed in his Rent Besides observe the Difference between the Landlord's Dealing and the Priest's The Landlord doth not take or desire the whole Increase and Profit that is made upon his Farm he knows it would be unreasonable because the whole Year's Labour and Stock of the Tenant is imployed in it And therefore seeing he finds only Land and the Tenant finds all manner of Workmanship Stock and Charges he is contented by a pretty equal kind of Partition to divide the Profits between them so that he takes no more for the Rent of his Land then it is supposed the Tenant may make double so much to himself for the Improvement of his Stock for his Charge and Labour But when the merciless Priest comes he does not say Neighbour though I claim the Tenth Part yet seeing you have been at the Pains and Charge to get it for me I 'le deal no worse with you then your Landlord dâ—es as he takes One Part and leaves you Two so divide the Tythe into Three Parts I 'le be contented with One of them and do you keep the other Two for the Pains and Charges you have been at in procuring it No no Who ever heard a Priest say so But like the Sabeans and Caldeâ—ns he falls on and sweeps all away together He takes the full Tenth Part of the Increase of the whole Farm and leaves the poor Farmer no Consideration at all for all the Charges and Toyl he has bestowed about it And yet he will wipe his Mouth and say This is no Oppression no Grievance at all whenas indeed there is none greater in the Nation But if the Landlord should have as little Iustice as the
the Hands of the Wicked that he returneth not from his Wicked Way by promising him Life And thus like the Scribes and Pharisees of old against whom our Lord denounced so many and such dreadful Woe Ye shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men neither entering in your selves not suffering others to enter CHAP. VI. Of Swearing FROM the Doctrine of Perfection the Priest passes on to that of Swearing at his very entrance into which he makes a Digression to deliver himself of a Notiâ—n wherewith it seems his Head was pregnant concerning the two Covenants namely of Works and of Grace The Covenant of Works he sayes was madâ— with Adam before he fâ—ll Thus he sayes is called by Divines a Covenant of Works because an exact Obedience was required of him and a Reward promisâ—d him upon that Obedience pag 48. And this Covenant he sayes none lived under but Adâ—m only pag. 50. Answ. Of this he offers no Proof at all which he had great Reason to have done if he had any to offer considering that he treadeth an unbeaten Path. Where doth the Scripture say that Adam was under a Covenant of Works or what were the Works he was under Adam indeed was commanded not to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge Will he say that was a Covenant If of every Command he will make a Covenant he may find more Covenants then Chapters in the Bible And upon the same Reason he may call this a Covenant of Works too under which Believers now live because many things are commanded and forbidden them therein But if Adam had fallen from a Covenant of Works to a Covenant of Grace what had his Loss been what had he suffered He had not then fallen from better to worse which he did but from worse to better for the Covenant of Grace is better then the Covenant of Works was or could be as the Apostle argue Hebr. 8.6 But as this Man would make Adam in his state of Innocency to be under a Covenant of Works without any Scripture-Proof so he would make the Covenant of the Iews or the Covenant of the Law under which the Iews were to be not a Covenant of Works quite contrary to the Scripture That that Covenant that Moses and David lived under was a Covenant of Works I utterly deny sayes he Whereas the Scripture speaking of the Law and the Works thereof which was the Covenant under which Moses and David lived sayes exprâ—sly Ye shall keep my Statutes and my Iudgments which if a man do he shall live in them Was not this a Covenant of Works Was not here an Obedience required yea an exact Obedience too for Cursed is every one that 〈◊〉 not in all things that are written in the Book of the Law to do them and Life promised as a Reward upon that Obedience The same said the Lord by his Prophet complaining of Rebellious Israel They walked noâ— in my Statutes neither kept my Iudgments to do them which if a man do he shall even live in them To the same purpose also speaketh the Apostle Paul And will this man notwithstanding adventure to say that this was not a Covenant of Works When Moses had told the People all the Words of the Lord and all the Judgments then all the People answer'd with one Voice and said All the Words which the Lord hath said wâ—ll we do the same is repeated Deut. 5.27 Here are Works commanded to be done Here 's an undertaking on the Peoples's Part who promise to do them Reward also is propoâ—ed upon Obedience Punishment upon Disobedience If this be not a Covenant of works what is Divines he sayes do therefore call that a Covenant of Works which was made with Adam in his Innocent State because an exact Obedience was required and a Reward thereupon promised But if an exact Obedience was required in this Covenant under which Moses and David were and a Reward thereupon promised as is most clear from Deut. 5.32 33. How can he without conâ—radicting himself and his Divines deny this to be a Covenant of Works Let the Reader judge Again He would make that Covenant under which they lived and the Covenant uâ—der which we now live the Covenant of the Law and the Covenant of the Gospel to be one and the same Whereas the Lord not only calleth this latter a New Covenant but also saith It is not according to that which he made with Israel of old Which Words the Author to the Hebrews referring to argues this latter Covenant to be not only not the same with the former but to be a better Covenant and established also upon better Promises then the former And in his Epistle to the Galatians The Apostle who knew how to deliver himself as well it may be as this Priest does calls them expresly Two Covenants not 2 Forms or Modes only Administration of one and the same Covenant as the Priest does and plainly sheâ—s by the Allegory of Abraham's two Sons that they were distinct and different Covenants For sayes he it is written that Abraham had two Sons the one by a Bond maid the other by a Free-woman But he who was of the Bond woman was born after the Flesh but he of the Frewoman was by Promise Which things sayes he are an Allegory for these are Two Covenants c. the one gendring to Bondage the other free So that the Priest might as well have said that Abraham's two Sons Ishmael and Isaac were not two distinct men but one and the same man differing only in Name Time or Habit or that the two Mountains Sinai and Sion are not indeed distinct and several Mountains but one and the same Moâ—ntain differenced only by divers Names as that these Two Covenants of which those things were the Allegory are not really two distinct Covenants but one and the same differing only in the Forms or Modes of Administration and various Dispensations of it But not to insist over long on that which himself makes but a Digression from his Theam I return with him to the Case of Swearing He takes an Offence at R. Hubberthorn for setting in the Title page of a Book which he writ against Swearing these Scriptures Because of Oaâ—hs the Land mourns Hos. 4. And as said the Prophet Every one that sweareth shall be cut off Zach. 5.3 These he saith are his Proofs though R. H. doth not call them so himself and hereupon he falls foul not only upon R. H. but all the Quakers also calling this the horrible Abuse the Quakers put upon the Scriptures and the Spirit of God by which they were writ and that it discovers a most dishonest Principle in the Quakers c. page 53.55 What 's the Ground of this great Clamour Why saith he they coâ—fess Oaths were lawful in the time of the Law yes do bring in Hosea and Zachary wâ—o lived in the time of the Law speaking against
them to be true Ministers such as are taught by them such as are fed by them such as are planted by them c. This appears in the several Instances The Ox that trod out the Corn in the time of the Law was not to be muzzeled but was to be fed by him whose Corn he trod out but it was not agreeable to the Equity of that Law that while the Ox trod out Corn for one Man another should be bound to keep him that had been unreasonable The Apostle argues from a Souldier a Planter an Herdsman Who saith he goes a Warfare at anytime at his own Charge Who plants a Vineyard and eats not of the Fruit thereof or who feeds a Flock and eats not of the Milk of the Flock Consider now at whose Charge ought the Souldier to go but at his for whose defence he fights He that plants a Vineyard may eat of the Fruit but it must be of the Fruit thereof that is of the Fruit of that Vineyard which he hath planted So he that feeds a Flock may eat of the Milk but it must be the Milk of the Flock which he feeds If saith the Apostle we have sown unto you spiritual things is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things No because he had first sown unto them they had received of him and therefore he might well expect to receive of them This still shews that the Ministers of the Gospel are not to reap carnal things of any but those to whom they have first sowed spiritual things To the same Purpose is that to the Galatians Let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teacheth in all good things hence it is plain that he that teacheth can expect this Communication of good things from none but them that are taught by him All therefore that can be inferred from these Instances will amount to no more then this First That a Gospel-Minister may expect and receive a Gospel-Maintenance from such as receive his Ministry Secondly That a Gospel-Minister ought not to expect any Maintenance from those that do not receive his Ministry But what this Gospel-Maintenance is is expresly set down by Christ himself when he said to his Disciples Eat such things as are set bâ—fore you Eat and drink such â—â—iâ—gs as they give for the Workman is worthy of his Meat c. And this is the very Maintenance which in the Place fore-quoted by the Priest 1 Cor. 9. the Apostle asserts he had Power to receive Have we not Power to eat and to drink c. ver 14. And again Having Food saith he and Raiment let us therewith be content This was thought enough in that Day Thus they who then preacht the Gospel lived of the Gospel and if these men were indeed Ministers of the Gospel they also would be content with this but this will not satisfie my greedy Adversary nothing less then Tythes will serve his turn He saith pag. 146 The Gospel commands a Maintenance be provided for the Ministry and the Civil Powers and Nursing-Fathers of the Church have set out Tythes for that Maintenance so that saith he if Tythes were not due by a divine appointment they are now due by a Voluntary Dedication of them Answ. He doth not seem to regard how he comes by them so he may have them If the Gospel will not give them to him he will try what humane Law will do and if he can get them that way it is all one to him 'T is sufficient saith he that our Tythes are setled by the same Laws that your Lands are page 138. Though Christ deny them yet if Men will grant them it will serve his turn as well which shews him to be a Minister of Man not of Christ. If saith he Tythes were not due by a Divine Appointment they are now due by a Voluntary Dedication of them But how saith the Parishioner doth any such Voluntary Dedication appear O! saith he you need not scruple this Point would you but give your self the Pains of consulting Antiquaries or Church-Histories especially that famous Charter of King Ethelwolfe set down at large by Ingulfe where you will find the whole History of the thing c. I am apt replies the Parishioner to believe what you say without any 〈◊〉 Inquisition into the thing Here 's a Parishioner now Oh if he could but get all his Parishioners to be of this Mind what a petty Pope would he be But Reader that we may not be as fondly Credulous as the Parishioner let us a little examine this Voluntary Dedication of Tythes and see how suitable it will be for a Gospel-Maintenance to a Christian-Ministry He grounds his Claim upon the famous Charter as he calls it of King Ethelwolfe which is so variously reported by Historians that few agree in the Words or Sâ—bstance of it some seeming to restrain it to the Tythes of his own Demeasne Lands only others to the tenth Part of his Land â—ome to his Kingdom of West Saxony only othere extend it to all England But not to insist on things so doubtful let us enquire who this Ethelwolf was what his Education Religion whom he granted this Charter â—o what were the motivâ—s that induced him thereunto Our Countryman Speed tells us That Ethelwolf was the eldest Son of Egbert the Saxon that in his Youth he was committed to the Care of Helmestan Bishop of Winchester and by him to Swithan a learned Monk of that time that he took upon him the Vow and Profession of a Monk was made a Deacon and shortly after Helmestan dying was consecrated at least elected Bishop of Winchester in his stead but that after the Death of his Father by the Intreaty of the Nobles and Constraint of the Clergy he was made King being absolved of his Vows by Pope Gregory the fourth that about the time of this Grant which waâ— about the Year eight hundred fifty five he went himâ—elf in great Dâ—votion to Rome abode there a whole Year coâ—firmed his former grant of Peter Pence covenanted furtâ—er to pay yearly Three Hundred Marks a great Sum in those Days to Rome so be thus imployed One Hundred Marks to St Peter 's Church another hundred to Saint Paul 's Light and the third to the Pope these Two Hundred Marks a Year that were given to St. Peter's Church and St. Paul's Light were to buy Oyl to fill all the Lamps in those Places and keep them burning This may be sufficient to shew what the Education and Religion of this Tythe-giver was The next Question is To whom he granted this Charter of Tythes This must unavoidably be the Popish Clergy that being his own Religion and there being at that time no other publick Ministry or Priesthood for him to give them to and for the Motives inducing him thereunto the very Words of the Charter are Pro remissione Animarum et Peccatorum â—estroruâ— i. e. For the good of
the Ceâ—sers which were so offered which you will find notwithstanding that Dâ—mnable Sin committed in the Consecration of them yet because they were offered to God they were not to be alâ—â—nated to common Vses Numb â—6 37 Answ. There was a particular Reason given why the Censers should be taken up and kept naâ—ely to be as a Sign and Memorial and as a Warning unto the Children of Israel that no Stranger in time to come who was not of the Seed of Aaron should adventure to offer Incense before the Lord lest he should speed as Corah and his Company had done Vers. 40. Yet thought they were thus taken up they were not permitted to be used or imployed in that Service to and for which they were dedicated or consecrated but being wrought out into broad Plates the Property of them was altered before they were allowed to be used But he goes on From hence says he you may learn how dangerous a thing it is to mâ—ddâ— with any thing that hath been given to God Answ. I need not I suppose tell the Impropriators that this concerns them for it is obvious that if because Tythes have been dedicated as he sayes to God it is unlawful to alienate them to Common Uses then it must needs bâ— unlawful for them to hold their Imâ—ro nations beâ—aâ—se they were offered in like manner as the rest of the Tythes were But let them look to themselves Were nâ—t all the â—bbey Lands and the Revenues belonging to the Religious Houses as in the time of Popery they were called offered also to God as well as Tythes And yet have not all or most of these been alienated to Common Vsâ—â— By whom was this Alienation made â—as it not by some or other of his Nâ—â—â—ing-Fathers And will this Priest like a sauâ—y and unthankful Son take upon him to censure the publick Acts of his Nursing-Fathers to whom he owâ—â—he Maintenance he has But ye whose Ancestors did at first buy these Lands from the Crown and into whose Possession they are now come either by Descent or Purchase what think ye of this Are ye satisfied with his Plea and willing to resign Ye hear what he sayes That no Blemish in the Dedication of them can alter their Property and that from the Parallel of the Censers because they were offered to God they were not to be alienated to Common Vses Nay he tells you Hence you may learn how Dangerous a thing it is to meddle with any thing that hath been given to God And do you think that if he had Power you should not hear of this after another Manner 'T is not to be doubted but he that now tells you they should not have been alienated will be as ready if Oportunity serve to let you know that what should not have been Alienated must be Restored But leaving this to your Consideration that which I shall observe is that Tythes and other such like Oblations notwithstanding what â—e sayâ— to the contrary are alienable and in this Nation have been legally alienated to Common Uses In his Margin he sayes Factum valet quod fieri non debuit i e. That which ought not to be done is notwithstanding of force or binding when it is done Answ. 1. I must tell him his Saying will not hold true in all Caâ—es I instance in that of Herod's Oath by which Iohn Baptist lost his Head which as it should not have been taken so neither ought it to have been kept when taken 2. Though by this he would infer that Tythes being offered dedicated ought to be upheld which his Factum valet imports yet he thereby implicitly and unawareâ— acknowledges that they oughâ— not to have been offâ—râ—d or dâ—dicated at all which his fieri non dâ—buâ—t implies But after all this he has the Confidence to say that Tythes had not 〈◊〉 Institution from Popery for sayes he Tythes were setled upon the Church before Popery had made her Incroachments in it p. 148. Answ. If he had any Charter or Settlement of Tythes of oldâ—r date thâ—n that of Ethelwolf which was about the year 855. he should have produced it and probably so he would However since he did â—ut I have no Reason to think he has any elder But if he means that Ethelwolf who gave this Charter was not himself a Papist that the Times he lived in were not Popish or that Popery had not then made her Incroachments upon the Church I must then remind my Reader of that Character which our Country-man Spred out of Hovâ—dâ—n Huntington Malmsbury Mat. Westminster and others gives us of him He sayes expresly Ethelwolf was bred up by Swithin the Monk that he took upon him the Vow and Profession of a Monkish Life that he was absolveâ—â—â—d discharged of his Vows by the Authority of Pope Gregory the fourth whose Creature saith Speed he was in both Professions That he went himself in great Devotion to Rome that being there he confirmed his grant of Peter Pence and further covenanted to pay yearly Three Hundred Marks to Rome whereof One Hundred to St. Peter's Church One Hundred to St. Paul's Light and One Hundred to the Pope And after all this is not Ethelwolf a Papist then it may be Gregory the fourth was not a Pope neither although according to Platina he was the thirty seventh from Gregory the great Or will he say that in the Time of Ethelwolf Popery had not made her Encroachments in the Church What he will call Encroachments I know not but this I find that well near an Hundred Years before that Charter of Ethelwolf was granted Pope Zacharias the first took upon him to absolve the French from their Oath of Allegiance and deposing Childerick King of France set up Pipin in his stead But seeing he saith that Tythes were setled upon the Church before Popery had made her Incroachments in it referring to Ethelwolfe's Charter for the Setlement and withal tells us what he means by Popery namely 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 page 149. Let us a little enquire whether any such Doctrines or Practices had indeed prevailed in the Church at the time of this Grant or before The time of the Grant Spelman in his Brittish Councils sets down to be in the Year Eight Hundred Fifty Five More then Two Hundred and Fifty Years before this came over Austin the Monk with his â—â—rain from Rome That many Corruptions both in Doctrine and Practice were before this time crept into the Church of Rome is clear from History and that Austin brought them over hither with him is not to be doubted The Vse of Holy Water to drive away Devils is said to be instiâ—uted by Alexander the first The Consecration of Chrism once a Year by Fabianus That all should stand up at the reading of the Gospel as they call it by
argued very fallaciously and crafâ—ily endeavouring to beguil his Reader with meer Sophistry And after the same manner he goes on What have you to shew for your Estate saith he to his Parishioner I have a good Died replieth the Parishioner But what have you to shew for your Gleâ—â— and Tythes I have a good Terrier and Endowment cries the Priest Prove that Terrâ—â—r and Eâ—dowment to bâ— right by the Law of God saith the Parishioner 〈◊〉 I will quoth the Priest when your Deâ—d 〈◊〉 made good by the Law of God It iâ— sufficient saith the Parishioner that my Deed wayâ—â—oved by the Law of the Land So it iâ— sufficient replies the Priest that our Tythes are settled by the same Laws Answ. 〈◊〉 where Reader how willing the Priest is for his own Interest to parallel his Case with the Parishioner's as if there were no Difference aâ— all in the 〈…〉 One claims a Temporal Thing and 〈…〉 claims a Temporal Thing One claâ—m bâ— a Temporal Right and the other claim by a Temporal Right One hath no Neâ—â— of a Precept or Example in holy Scripture for what he claims 〈◊〉 hath the other Thus he takes his Parishioner by the Nose and endeavours to câ—kes him into a Conceit that their Cases answer pat to one another that their Right is all one their Claim one and the same their pretensions just alike But then they must not stay there the priest must also acknowledge he is no more a Minister of Christ then the other at least that he doth not claim Tythes as a Minister of Christ any more then the other doth his Temporal Estate otherwise the Parallel wâ—ll not hold For if he claims Tythes as a Minâ—ster of Christ if he demands them in Consideration of a Spiritual Office I am sure thâ—n their Claims will not agree and that which will be sufficient to make good a 〈◊〉 the one will not be so to the other whatever he thinks on 't A good Deed for a Temporal Estate sounds some what like but a Terrier and Endowment for a Minister of Christ is new and strange Language which Christians are not acquainted with And for a Temporal Estate held in a Civil Capacity it is sufficient that the Deed be approved by the Laws of the Land because the Estate it self is claimed and held upon no other Considerations then such as are Temporal But it is otherwise in the case of Tythes A Temporal Settlement of Tythes is not sufficient because Tythes are claimed upon Considerations that are not Temporal but Spiritual But the Parishioner puts the Question If Tythes are Temporal Rights how come you 〈◊〉 call them spiritual Preferments The Priest answers All Tythes are not so called because all Impropriations are held in a Laity c. Answ. By this then it appears that if the Impropriations are held in a Laity Tythes are not so Sacred a thing but that they may be and are alienated to common Uses notwithstanding the Dedication of them and whatever else he saith elsewhere page 146 147. to the contrary But other Tythes the Priest saith are called spiritual Preferments not in respect of the Profits but the Persons who are capable of them and therfore are they vulgarly called spiritual Preferments because enjoyed by spiritual Persons page 137. Answ. So then it seems the Persons injoying Tythes must be Spiritual yea so Spiritual as to communicate to the Tythes themselves the Denomination of Spiritual Preferments and yet they must be held by a Temporal Right and why but because they have no Spiritual Right to them But letting that pass two things I desire to be resolved in First Why these Priests who hid such Defiance to the Inspiration of the Spirit should affect to call themselves Spiritual Persons Secondly Seeing towards the Beginning of his Book page 11. he saith some men for a corrupt Interest will intrude themselves into these Sacred Offices and again near the End of it pag 160. He tells us the Secular Care of some of the Clergy for the Maintenance of their Families hath been excessive I would gladly know whether he reckons these for some of his Spiritual Persons seeing these do injoy the Preferments as well as any He tells us in page 140. That which no-Body doubts viz. That Temporal Authorities have Power to establish Temporal Rights from whence in page 141. he infers That in Temporal Affairs an Argument drawn from Temporal Authority where the thing is equitable and Reasonable is a good and convincing Argument and in the next page taking an Occasion to repeat he saith I do not say in every Case a Temporal Authority can create a Right to a Temporal Interest but in such Cases only as are Equitable and Reasonable Answ. I observe here he reels from establishing a Right to creating a Right I hope he doth not think that to establish create is one and the same thing Let him stick to which he pleaseâ—â— so he will be pleased without confouâ—ding them If he will say that Temporal Authority hath created a right to Tythes he thereby cuts off all Pretensions to any Right antecedent to that Creation If he will say that Temporal Authority hath only established a Temporal Right to Tythes that supposeth a Temporal Right to them before But that will lyeâ—â— his Door to prove which hitherto he hath not in any Degree done unless to say iâ— be a Degree of doing it and then indeed 〈◊〉 hath 〈◊〉 it in many Degrees For he hath said it over and over If Tythes saith he 〈◊〉 anâ—ther man's Estate and Property the Caâ—â— will be clear agaiâ—st me but thiâ— saith he is bâ—gging of the Question therefore I am ready 〈◊〉 prove that Tythes are mine not his from whom I receive them Here he saith he is ready to prove but I wonder when he will do it After a Periphrasis of three pages or more he brings his Discourse to this Issue If you will grant saith he that Maintenance in general is due by the 〈◊〉 of the Gospel you will sufficiently justifie Tythes from all the idle Cavils which are brought against them page 145. Iâ— not this notably argued to prove Tythes his not theirs from whom he receiveth them especially from one that was in such Readiness too Well Iâ—le grant him that Maintenance in general is due by the Gospel to a Gospel Minister and now let us see what he can make on 't Why saith he pag. 146. The Gospel commands a Maintenace be provided for the Ministry and the Civil Powers and Nursing Fathers of the Church have set out Tythes for that Maintenance To prove this he urges a Voluntary Dedication of them and to prove that offers Ethelwolfe's Charter The Dedication and Charter I have already examined and shewed how little they conduce to this Cause Therefore not to repeat the same things let us now inquire what Power those Nursing Fathers had to set 〈◊〉 Tythes for a Maintenance for the Ministry He that appointed a
Maintenance in general described also that Maintenance in particular In the same House saith Christ remain eaâ—ing and drinking 〈◊〉 things as they give Luke 10.7 So again ver 8. Eat such things as are set before you For the Workman is worthy of his Maâ— Mat. 10.10 Here was the Maintenance which Christ appointed for his Ministers which was altogether Free and Voluntary But where hath Christ given Power to any man to alter this Maintenance and set up another in the Room of it Doubtless if any such Authority were given it concerns them that claim thereby to shew it But if Christ hath given no such Power whence then doth man take so much upon him Yet suppose Magistrates had such a Power to appoint Maintenance yet for any Magistrate to set out Tythes for that Maintenance is a diâ—ect Opposition to Christ. For Tythes having been commanded by God in the Mosaical Law to be paid unto the Levitical Priesthood and Christ having disannulled that Law and taken away Priests Tythes and Law altogether Heb. 7. what greater Affront can be offered to Christ what greater Contempt shewed of him then to see up that which he hath thrown down to establish that which he hath abolishâ—d But sayes he pag. 154. â—f the Quakers can prove from the Laws â—f God or right Reason that it is not Lawful for every one to do what he will with his own and consequently that he may not settle Tythes Lands or Monies upon the Clergy then they do something to the Purpose Answ Well then that I may be sure to do something even in his Sense to the purpose I will prove both from the Laws of God and right Reason that it is not Lawful for every Man â—o do what he will with his own The Earth is the Lord's and the Fulnes thereof whatsoever Man injoyes of it he holds but in Stewardship from God and must give an Account thereof unto his Lord. His Eye must be to his Master in the Use and Disposing of what he hath received from him and calls his own He may not imploy it â—o an Evil Vs. He ought to Honour God with all his Substance but he ought not to honour the Devil with one Farthing He may not spend his Substance upon his Lusts nor bestow it among Harlots The Prodigal that wasted his Portion after that manner confessed He had sinned against Heaven Luke 15.21 And the Steward that was accused for wasting his Master's Goods was called to an Account therefore and turned out of his Office Chap. 16. see also Eccles. 11.9 12.14 They mistake greatly that think man so independent and uncontrolable that he may do what he will with the Goods he possesses and imploy them to what Use he pleases He may not make an Idol of them neither may he uphold Idolatry with them In these and very many Cases more it is not lawful for any man either by the Law of God or right Reason to do what he will with his own Will any Protestant be so inconsiderate as to say that it is lawful for a Man to lay out his Money in Beads Crosses Crucifixes Agnus Deâ—'s and such like Trumpery Will he say it is Lawful to buy Masses Prayers Pardons Indulgences c Will he say it was lawful by the Law of God for Ethelwolf at Rome to give Two Hundred Marks a Year to buy Oyl to kâ—ep St. Peters 's Lamps and St. Paul ' s Lamps burning If he thinks this justifiable let him defend it if not he may in this very Instance see both that it is not Lawful for every man to do what he will with his own and also that Ethelwolf his great Donor and Patron did that with his own that was not lawful for him to have done namely uphold Superstition and Idolatry Nâ—r did he transgress in this Inâ—tance only of givâ—ng that Yearly Pension to Rome but in his Donation of Tythes also for it is evident he gave them to maintain a Popish Clergy dâ—generated from Apostolical Purity and fâ—â—lly corrupt both in Doctrine and Practice in upholding of which he did that which was Evil and therefore to be sure Unlawful And if it was not lawful for him to do what he would with his own how much less lawful then was it for him to do what he would with that which was none of his own but other mens If he did not well in giving that which was his own for the Maintenance of a False Ministry surely then he did worse in giving to the same Use that which was not his own but other mens which yet he must needs do if indeed he gave the Tythes of the whole Nation as some alledge and as they are now received For though he were a King yet no man I think will say that he had thereby Power of disposing or giving away other mens Properties If as King he had such a Power then farewel Property to all Subjects If he had not such Power rightfully yet did it that Deed 's unjust and the Chartâ—r therefore void But if he neither had nor used such Power but only decimated his own Demeasn Lands as some understand then cannot any general Claim to Tythes be derived from his Charter But suppose that Ethelwolf had an ample Power of disposing what he pleased or that the People had by Consent joyned with him in the Donation every man according to the Interest he had yet neither could he single nor he and they conjoyned grant any more then belonged to themselves They were possest of the Lands and injoyed the Profits These they might dispose of I do not say to an Evil Vse of these they might have given what part they pleased If they had given the Tenth Part of the Land the tenth Acre in which Sense some understand the words of the Charter aliquam portionem terrarum haereditariam in Ingulf how unrighteous soever it had been in respect of the Use and End to and for which it had been given yet they to whom it had been so given had thereby had a distinct Property and Possession If they had had a mind to have given the tenth part of the yearly Profits which I know is the tâ—ing aimed at that I grant they might have done for thâ—mselves and during their Lives such Gift would have been of force against them being bound by their own Act. Bâ—t for them to make a gâ—ant of the 10th part of the Profits of the Land forever is to my Understanding utterly repugnant to Reason Justice and Equity For it must be consider'd that by the Profits of the Land is not understood the natural only â—ut the artificial Product thereof not what the Earth of her own accord without any Help of Man brings forth which I think would be little and comparatively little worth but what by the painful Labour continual Toyl daily Sweat thoughtful Care and great Charge of the diligent and industrious Husbandman is digged and as it were torn out of
her Bowels So that in the Profits of the Land rightly computed the Labour Sweat Care Charge Skill Industry Diligence c. of the Husbandman are included and that inseparably for these are indeed the Instrumental Causes of Production To admit then a Power in any man to give the Tythes of the Profits of his Land beyond his own Life were to suppose a Power in that Man to give away the Labour Care Skill Charge Diligence Industry of another But that Reason gainsayes For though a man may give away his own Pains Charge c. may make himself a Bondslave if he will and devote himself wholely to labour for others yet can he not impose this Condition upon others For as till it was voluntarily undertaken by him he was under no Obligation to it so in like manner until it be voluntarily undertaken by others they are under no Obligation to it Now for any one to plead that Ethelwolf or any other man hath given him the Tythes of the Profits of that Land that I possess or occupy is all one as if he should tell me that Ethelwolf or some other hath given him my Labour Pains Charges Care Skill Industry Diligence Vnderstanding c. seven or eight Hundred Years it may be before either he or I was born a thing most ridâ—culous and utterly inconsistent with Reason Nor is it more agreeable to Justice and Equity For if Ethelwolf a Papist gave Tythes to the Romish Clergy he did it upon a Consideration for the Health of his Soul and Remission of his Sins which he believed he might obtain in that Church by the Help of that Ministry to whom he gave his Tythes and Mediation of those Saints in Honour of whom he granted this Charter And on the other hand the Clergy undertook that all the Holy Brethren and Sister at every Church as they called it should upon eâ—ery Wednesday in the Year sing Fifty Psalms and say Two Masses one for the King and tâ—other for his Dikes or Nobles Here was a Consideration and such an one as in that day was thought valuable too But all that are true Protestants know full well that this Consideration is of no value now nor indeed ever was though by the ignorance of those Times it was then so reputed Now if the Consideration good or bad be taken away why should the Charge be continued If the End for which Tythes were given neither be nor can be now answered with what Justice or Equity can Tythes be now demanded But how much more unjust and unequal will it then appear that Tythes should be now exacted and extorted by a Protestant Ministry upon a Donation fraudulently obtained by a Popish Clergy If Tythes were ever indeed due to any by virtue of this Gift it must be to the Popish Priests and all the Rabble of their Religious Men and Women for to them were they given and that too upon such Terms and to such Ends as the Protestant Religion disowns and rejects How dishonourable therefore is it for a Protestant Minister to lay hold as it were on the Skirts of a Papist and endeavour to derive a Right to Tythes from that Church which hath long since anathematized them for Herâ—tiâ—ks and which they also were wont formerly to call Antichristian Besides the Reasons urged why Tythes are now due viz. the voluntary Dedication Donation and Charter will be certainly as strong and cogent if not somewhat more for the Payment of Tythes to the Popish Priests if ever they should be suffered to get up again for to them were they dedicated to them were they given to them was the Charter granted Nor has this Priest said any thing in Proof of his Claim to Tythes which might not as reasonably and in this Respect somewhat more colourably be said by one of the Popish Clergy One sayes a Maintenance in general is appointed in the Gospel so sayes t'other One sayes the Civil Powers and Nursing-Fathers of the Church have set out Tythes for that Maintenance so sayes t'other One sayes there was a voluntary Dedication of them a famous Charter given for them Aye so there was indeed sayes the other and which is more that Dedication was made to our Church in Honour of Mary the Glorious Virgin and Mother of God and in Honour of St. Michael the Arch-Angel and of Saint Peter the Prince of the Apostles and also in Honour of our Holy Father Pope Gregory as the words of the Charter in â—â—gâ—â—f are and that Charter was granted to us Thus Reader thou seâ—st that the same Reasons this Man uses to prove Tythes due to him a Popish Priest may as well use to prove Tythes due to him But as the Author to the Hebrews speaking of the Levitical Priesthood saith chap. 7.12 The Priesthood being changed which took Tythes there is made of Necessity a Change also of the Law which commanded Tythes so I say in this Case The Church of Rome and her Priesthood being cast off disowned denied and rejected There is a Necessity if ye will be true Christians and true Protestants that all her Dedâ—cations Oâ—lations Donations Grants Charters of Tythes Glebes Offerings Obventions Collations Terriers Endowments Beneficâ—s and whatsoever else is of the like Nature and crept in under the Corruption of her degenerate State be utterly renounced made void and cancellâ—d to all Intents and Purposes Besides the Injustice and Vnreasonableness of exacting Tythes will yet more plainly appear if it be coâ—sidered that if Tythes were a suitable Main câ—ance for a Protestant Ministry yet the Clergy now do nothing for the People nor indeed have any thing to do which can deâ—erve so great a Compensation For let it not be soon forgotten nay let the Parishioners in every Parish take notice that this Priest speaking of the present Clergy hath said Our only Work is to explain the written Word of God and apply the same page 86. Yet a little after saith page 92 93. Whatsoever is necessary to Salvation either to be believed or done as the History of Christ's Birth Death Resurectiâ—n and Ascension the Duties of the first and second Table the Love of God and our Nâ—ighbour â—ll the Evangelical Precepts and the Essentials of Religion are in some place or other in holy Scripture fitted to the most vulgar Capâ—câ—â—y and shallowest Vndâ—rstanding are mad such plâ—in and easie Doctrines that he that runs may read them being sitted to the Capacity of the most unlearned So that here nothing needs explaining all things necessary to Salvation are so plâ—in already Whatever then they explain and apply is by his own Confession not necessary to Salvation and this he saith is their only Work But is it not a great Injustice and extream Vnrighteousness in the Clergy to exact and tear from the poor Husband-man the Tenth Part of his Crop for only explaining and applying some thing that is no way necessary to the poor man's Salvation nor in that respect can do
Priest and should take away all the Increase of the Nine Parts as the Priest does all the Increase of the Tenth what would become of the poor Farmer He would have nothing left him Nay who should sow the Land again for the unreasonable â—riest does not leave him of the Tythe where 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 the tenth part of the Land against another Year but keeping him in an Egyptian Bondage expects he should make Bricks for him although he allowâ— him â—o Straw And yet this must not be thought hard or gâ—umbled at to 〈◊〉 a pass is this unhappy Nâ—tion brought Nay he reckons the People have an â—asiâ— timâ— on 't now o're they had in the Time of the 〈◊〉 For when he goes about to clear the Clergy from the Charge of Iudâ—â—sm in taking Tythes he sayes Should we challâ—nge and receiue our Tythes as they were due to the Levites our 〈◊〉 would be much fuller then they are 〈…〉 Imposiâ—ions much heavier upon the Peopâ—â— pag. 134. Answ. Noâ— the Charge is much heavier now upon the People then it was under the Levitical Priesthood For 1. The Tribe of Levi had no Inheritance with their Brethren no Share in the Division of the Land but had Tythes assigned them instead of their Proportion of Land Numb 18.20 So thâ—â— the other eleven Tribes had all the Land 〈◊〉 them They had so much the 〈◊〉 Land their Lots were the bigger and this was some Consideration for their Tythes But now adayes the Priests have not only the Tythes but their Share aâ—so of Land so far as they are able to compass in which Respect it is harder now with the People then it was then 2 If the Levitical Priests had offerings so have these What mean all the Easter-Reckonings Midsummer-Dues as they are called Smoak-Money Garden Penny c. Money for Marrying Money for Christening Money for Churching of Women Money for giving the Communion Money for Burying Money for Breaking the Ground Money for Funeral Sermons Money for Lectures and what not All for Money and without Money or Money 's worth nothing will be done So that their Revenues far exceed those of the Levitical Priesthood and the Charge falls heavier on the People 3. Those Tythes and Offerings under the Law maintained all the Officers belonging to that Tabernacle so that the People were at no further Charge But now the Priests alone run away with all this and their under Officers as Clarks Sextons c. are fain to be maintained by the People beside the ringing of the Bell the reading of the Psalm saying Amen and whipping out the Dogs are charged upon the Peoples Account and they are made to pay it which still layes greater and heavier Loads upon the People 4. Out of the Tythes under the Law Provision was made for the Fatherless the Widow and the Stranger Deut. 14.28 29. But now the Clergy take all the Tythes to their own use leaving the Fatherless the Widow c. to shift for themselves as they can So that the Fatherless and Widow c. might notwithstanding the Tythes perish for want did not the People relieve and maintain them at no small Expence besides Thus it appears that the Charge is much greater upon thâ— People now then it was then the Little Fiâ—ger of the English Clergy being heavier then the Loyâ—s of the Levitical Priesthood But to proceed He confesses page 157. That the Apostles had not Tythes in their days and he gives this as one Reason for it because they could not have them if they would the Levites being in Possession of them Answ. But if Tythes ought to have been paid what hindred their receiving them of the Gentiles that were converted some of whom were so zealously affâ—cted that they could have pulled out their Eyes and have given them to the Apostle Gal. 4.15 And can it be thought that if he had demanded Tythes of them or they had understood them to be due unto him they would not readily have paid them Again he sayes We ought to consider that Tythes were an Improper Maintenance for the Apostles because of their Vnfixt State of Life Answ. Oh! were Tythes indeed an Imprâ—pâ—r Maintenance for the Apostles If he and his Brethren who pretend to be the Apostles Successors did so walk as they have them fâ—r an Example they would find Tythes an improper Maintenance for them also But seeing the Apostles State of Life was unfixt who I pray fixed your State of Life who divided Provinces into Parishes set up Parish Priests was it not a Pope Had you not your fixt State of Life and your Maintenance by Tythes from one and the same power But I remember this Priest sayes pag 86. The Apostles and we the Clergy act under Different Circumstances And I do not wonder at it for so did the true Ministers and the false 〈◊〉 all Ages But I wish the Apostles and these differed in Circumstances only He has another Reason yet why the Apostles had not Tythes namely They had no need of them for as they had their Gifts so their Maintenance by a Miraâ—ulous Providence Answ. This is notoriously false They had their Maintenance in an Ordinary Way without any Miracle at all Whatsoever was set before them by such as did receive them that they were to eat and drink Luk. 10 7 8. Where then was the Miracle was it in the Believers setting Food before them or in their eating it when it was so set before them But sayes he pag. 158. If you conclude that we must be in all things as were the Apostles then must you of the Laity do now as the Laity did then who sold their Possessions and laid them down at the Apostles Feet Acts 4. Answ. That does not follow The Apostles and in them all Ministers of Christ were commanded to preach freely Freely ye have received freely give Mat 10.8 and for their Maintenance to receive such things only as by Believers were freely administred to them Luke 10.7 8. But the Believers were not commanded to sell their Possessions that was a voluntary Act in them as is manifest from the Instance of Ananias While it remained saith Peter Acts 5.4 was it not thine own and after it was sold was it not in thine own Power So that he might have chosen whether he would have sold his Land or not and after it was sold he might yet have chosen whether he would have brought the Money or any part of it into that Common Treasury or no. But the Apostles were not at their own choice whether they would preach the Gospel or no. But sayes Paul A Dispensation of the Gospel is committed unto me a Necessity of preaching it is laid upon me yea Wo is unto me if I preach not the Gospel 1 Cor. 9.16 17. And the same Apostle when he took his Leave of the Elders of the Ephesian Church did not exhort them to covet other mens Possessions but told them I have coveted no