God intended them And 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 what Title the Popish Priests can justly have to them And now one would think T. E. were some great Enemy to the Popish Priests and one that was concerned for the Protestant Religion but he and his Quakers are renounced by all sound Protestants and are the very Darlings of the great Agents for Rome Their Doctrine of Perfection despising the Letter of Scripture pleading for Ignorance relying on the Merit of following the Light within them c. are Popery in disguise they learn their Lesson from the Papists and are doing their work for them while they dig up the very Foundations of the Protestant Religion and set Protestants one against another since this is the way to give Rome an easie Victory So that though T. E. use the Name of Popish Priests to gull the People yet he is one of their Journey-men and with his Party are the most desperate Foes of the Protestant Interest next to their Popish Masters who set them on And truly he deserves a Fee from the Popish Priests for pleading so earnestly that the Tythes are due to them but since like the rest of his Arguings it proceeds upon a mistake it will do us no harm Proceed we therefore to his Charge against us § 33. However he will by no means allow the Protestant Clergie have any Right to them since pag. 329. The Clergie now do nothing for the People nor indeed have nothing to do which can deserve such compensation The Quaker-Speakers have nothing to do indeed for their People because they are all taught of God immediately but our People profess they need outward and mediate teaching so that we have enough to do and certainly we do as much for the People as ever was done by any Clergie in the World We pray for them preach to them administer the Sacraments duely among them we Marry and Bury we visit the Sick relieve the Poor comfort the Sad reprove Sinners confute Hereticks and shew the folly of Elwoods c. We do all that the Laws of God of the Church or of the Land require of us and as Foreign Protestants have said are generally as laborious a Clergie as ever was in any Age since the Settlement of Christianity being always ready to perform any Divine Office which our People need or require And if a Quaker say All this is nothing at all or worth nothing to him I reply That the Jewel was worth a great deal in it self which yet Aesop's Cock counted worth nothing and preferred a Barley-corn before it And Divine Administrations are not less worth in themselves because such Cocks prefer a Tythe-sheaf before them all § 34. To revile those things which are established by Law is to reproch the Law it self and accuse as well the Makers as the Executors of that Law wherefore T. E. in calling Tythes a great Oppression and a foul Abuse pag. 331. insinuates to his seditious Followers That our Laws are Oppression and our Law-makers Oppressors and Abusers of the People And to make it still more evident that he is one of those Hereticks which S. Peter and S. Jude prophesie of he that is not afraid to despise Dominions and speak evil of Dignities in the very next words shews he speaks evil of the things he understands not 2 Pet. ii 10 12. Jude ver 8. 10. For being ignorant under what Notion our Laws do establish Tythes he asks ibid. What Laws are they that have made Tythes a Free-hold Methinks if he doth not know the sense of our Laws and Lawyers in this Point he is scarce fit to dipute this matter but the Lawyers must consider he is an Inspirado and knows all things by immediate Teaching and therefore thinks his Revelations will enable him to expound the Laws of Man as well as the Laws of God so that he is a Councellor as well as a Divine Yet alas this unlucky way of Teaching cannot secure him from gross mistakes for pag. 333. he saith The Statute of 27 Hen. 8. is the first Parliament-Law for Payment of Tythes whereas the very first Law in the Statute-Book is a Grant for the Churches enjoying her Rights inviolable which Law was repeated and confirmed in very many Parliaments after as the Statute-Book declareth Again He saith That Law of 27 Hen. 8. was made by a Popish King and Parliament whenas that very Statute declares the King Supreme 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 Popes Authority I cannot well understand Again pag. 333 334. he mistakes a Statute made in 32 H. 8. cap. 7. for a Statute made in 37 H. 8. and after a while he brings in Protestant King Edward VI. for a Popish Confirmer of Tythes But still he knows not that our Laws do make Tythes a Free-hold Wherefore I shall first tell him what a Free-hold is in the sense of our Law and then I shall examine whether Tythes be not such an Estate A Free-hold according to the Definition of our famous and ancient Lawyer Britton is a Possession of the Soil or Services issuing out of the Soil which a Free-man holdeth in Fee to him and his Heirs or at least for term of his Life (c) Brit. c. 33. Cowel's Interpr verb. Free-hold Exposition of Law-Terms saith the same Now Tythes are a Possession of a Service issuing out of the Soil which a Free man holdeth for term of his life Ergo Tythes are a Free-hold Again Another later Author saith Frank-tenement or Free-hold is an Estate that a Man hath in Lands or Tenements or other Profits to be taken in Fee-simple Tayl for Term of his own Life or for Term of anothers Life in Dower or by the Courtesie of England and under that there is no Free-hold for he that hath an Estate for Years or holdeth at will hath no Free-hold of those Estates (d) Sheph. Grand Abridgm tit Frank ten §. 1. Now Tythes are an Estate that a Man hath in certain Profits issuing out of the Land to to be taken for term of his own life and are not an Estate holden for years nor at will Ergo They are a Free-hold Besides I shall prove § 40. That they are an Ecclesiastical Inheritance collateral to the Estate of the Land out of which they come See also Shepheard's Abridgment tit Tythes pag. 99. 100. Now an Inheritance is generally taken for a Free-hold And that the Practice of our Laws do manifest the same thing may be seen in that famous Case in Dyer fol. 83. n. 77. of 7 Edw. 6. where upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. c. 7. an Assise was brought De libero tenemento de quadam portione deeimarum of a Free-hold for a certain portion of Tythes And in the very
it be not brought to him and tender'd Now will the Quaker say This shews That the Lords Title to this Free-Rent lies in the Gift of him that is bound to pay it and that the Property of it is vested in him who incurs a Penalty if he do not make it ready and come and tender it T. E. is a rare Lawyer and can make the worst Tenures to seem the best and the Badges of having no Right at all to a thing to be the Marks of Property If I delighted to talk like T. E. I might pretend it to be a Sign that the Husbandman had no Property in the Nine parts but by the Gift of the Parson because the Law forbids him to lead away any of the Nine parts till the Parson have notice to come and take his Tenth But I scorn such fooling § 37. And now he is forced pag. 338. to supply his emptiness of Matter by repeating his old silly and blasphemous Argument That it is ridiculous and unreasonable for any to pretend a Power to dispose of those Profits or any part of them which arise from the Labour Stock and Care of another especially after their own Decease which I have sufficiently baffled before § 30. And here I will onely remark how that this Argument if it were good doth utterly take away all the Impropriators Right to their Estates in Tythes how much soever he flatter'd them before pag. 299. For are not their Tythes granted to their Ancestors long ago and by them setled on their Children a part of the Profits of another Mans Labour Stock Care c. and do they not claim a Property in them And doth not Elwood tell them they are ridiculous and unreasonable Men to think any could grant such a Property to them or that they have any Right to them at present or can convey them to their Posterity T. E's own words will serve to set out this matter Let any Impropriators read his Book pag. 225 335 336 338 339. and then let me bespeak them in T. E's own phrase Look to your selves you whose Ancestors first did buy these Tythes of the Crown or into whose Possession they are come now by Descent or Purchase Are you satisfied with the Quaker 's Plea and willing to resign You hear what he says And do you not think if T. E. had Power you should not hear of this after another manner He that tells you Tythes cannot be granted or conveyed if opportunity served would force you to restore them to his painful Husbandman See Elwood p. 297 298. And now you may discern the Genius of this double-tongued and false-hearted Man who talks backward or forward as may best serve his turn clawing the Impropriators to engage them to take his part against the Clergie and again laying down Assertions that make the Levites of old the Clergie and Impropriators now to be a company of ridiculous and unreasonable Men to pretend a Right to Tythes to which none could ever grant them any Right at all As for Artificers paying Tythes of their Gains it is no more than what they are obliged to by S. Paul's Rule Galat. vi 6. to give their Pastor a share of all good things and it is enjoyned by S. Augustine and by S. Ambrose and by divers Saxon Laws cited before And since they have Souls to save as well as others they seem obliged to it in Reason and Conscience But this is seldom demanded except in great Cities where the Laws of the Land enjoyn it Finally We grant to T. E. Tythes are due out of the Profits onely and therefore if God give no Increase or the Husbandman have nothing grow we expect no Tythe at all And how is this unreasonable § 38. The Quaker will not grant that his Arguments for taking away Tythes tend to destroy Hospitals and Donations to the Poor for this Reason sorsooth pag. 542. Because in that of the Poor there is saith he a Settlement of certain Lands in which the Donor had a Legal Property at the time of the Gift but in the Increase of the Occupiers Stock he that gave Tythes neither had nor never could have a Property and therefore no power to give We have noted before That by his Rules framed against Tythes all Donations made by Papists on consideration of meriting and expiating their Sins thereby are void And this will destroy a great many of these Hospitals and Gifts to the Poor Again By his own confession all Hospitals endowed out of Tythes and all Gifts to the Poor granted out of Tythes for perpetuity are void And since in King Henry the Eighth's time there are several such Instances and the famous Hospital of Sutton called the Charterhouse hath one part of its Revenue in Tythes now if T. E's Argument be good these Hospitals and Gifts also must necessarily be destroyed or much impaired A third sort of these Charitable Donations consist of perpetual Rent-charges and certain Sum of Money to be paid yearly for ever out of the Profits of some certain Estate I my self know an Estate of 40 l. per Annum the Heirs whereof for ever are charged to pay 10 l. per Annum out of the Profits of that Estate to the Poor of three Parishes by the Grant of a pious Person deceased And there are hundreds of such Instances in England Now the Occupiers of the Lands thus charged must sell the Fourth or other part of the Profits produced by their Labour Sweat Stock Skill and Industry and when it is turned into Money must pay it intirely to the Poor of those Parishes and Hospitals who never did any thing for this Occupant onely because he inherits or is possessed of the Land formerly thus charged by its ancient pious Owner he must pay such a part of the said Profits Now T. E. overthrows all these Donations also in affirming That no Man can charge his Heirs for ever with such a part of the Profits arising out of their or their Tenants Charge Stock Care Skill many years after the death of the Donor The Money for these Payments are raised out of the Increase of the Occupiers Stock wherein according to T. E. no Man now deceased ever had or could have a Property and therefore no power to give That these Donations also are made void by T. E's wicked and sophistical Arguings So that however the Quaker destroys all Charitable Donations excepting such as are made in Lands given wholly to the Hospitals or other Poor And truly these will not stand long neither for all other Men believe the ancient Donors had not more or better Right to give away the Land it self than they have to dispose of such a part of the Profits thereof T. E. who question 's the one may question the other also And thus that he may starve the Clergie he attempts to starve all the Poor in England also in their company § 39. His next Position pag. 343. is That Tythes are a
greater Burden than Rents It would seem a Paradox That Two shillings is a greater Burden than Twenty but onely that Nothing is so easie but it seems difficult when it is done unwillingly as S. Ambrose speaks (f) Hexam lib. 5. The Quakers pay Tythes grudgingly and of necessity and therefore they are a Burden to them for the same Reason that Alms are a Burden to the Covetous and Tribute to the Disloyal Subject But T. E. not content to discover his own base Humour measures all Mens Corn by his own Bushel and as it is the manner of such as are evil themselves he fancies all Men pay their Tythes with as ill will as the Quakers and impudently slanders the whole Nation saying He doubts not but if every Englishman durst speak his mind Nine parts of the Nation would cry Tythes are a great Oppression Wherein common Experience proclaims him a Liar there being very few Parishes where Nineteen parts of Twenty do not pay their Tythes freely as any other Dues and those who are refractory are onely such as this Seditious Libeller and his Party have stirred up There are some indeed who cry out against all Publick Payments and these do call not onely Tythes but the Landlords Rents and Assessments to the King and Relief to the Poor great Oppressions But such Persons Clamours are no Argument since the best and wisest part of the Nation pay their Tythes freely But T. E. alledges he hath Reasons to prove his Assertion by viz. 1. The Tenant hath the worth of his Rent of the Landlord but of the Priest he receiveth nothing at all I answer The Heir of an Estate charged with a perpetual Payment to the Poor receives nothing from the Poor to whom he pays the Money yet this is no Oppression Again 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 and upon that Consideration our pious Ancestors obliged their Heirs for ever to give God his part of the Profits because both they and their Heirs were yearly to receive all their Increase from his Blessing Of all things which God gives saith King Edward the Confessor the Tenth part is to be restored to him who gave us the Nine parts together with the Tenth (g) Leg. c. 9. Now the Priest is but God's Steward and Receiver and if it were true that the Tenant did recive nothing from the Steward of God yet he might justly pay him Tythes for his Masters sake from whom he receives all The Tenant receives nothing from his Landlords Steward and yet he pays his Rent to him or to any other whom his Landlord assigns to receive it But after all this the Quaker is a notorious Falsifyer in saying The Tenant receives nothing from the Priest for he receives his Prayers and his Blessing his Preaching and other Administrations which in S. Paul's account are worth more than ever can be compensated for on Earth 1 Cor. ix 11.2 But saith T. E. Rent is a voluntary Contract and Volenti non fit injuria but Tythe is not voluntary now but taken by force Very good By this Rule then it appears That Tythes are not as he falsly affirmed but now they were a general Oppression for the generality pay them willingly and many thousands contract with their Landlord and their Parson to pay them as voluntarily as they do to pay their Rents To all these therefore Tythes are no Oppression by T. E's own Rule Nor are they indeed any Oppression in themselves onely they seem so to such as pay them unwillingly to Quakers Atheists and Covetous Persons Yet all things are not Oppressions that are paid involuntarily for some Knaves will pay no just Dues to any without compulsion and yet such Payments are just though we be necessitated to take them by force Nor are all Payment Oppressions which we do not voluntarily contract for T. E. must beware of that Assertion for he never contracted with the King to pay him Hearth-money Custom Tribute c. and yet these are no Oppression But not to destroy his Rule Will T. E. be content with his Quakers to pay Tythes if I can prove they did voluntarily contract to pay them If so I thus make it appear Whoever takes a Farm either Tythes are mentioned in the Contract or they are not If they be mentioned then care is taken expresly that either the Landlord or the Tenant shall pay them If Tythes be not mentioned then the Laws of England suppose that the Tenant consents to pay them For Tythes are so known a Charge upon all Land the Laws have setled them so firmly and the Nation paid them so long that none can be supposed ignorant there is such a Charge upon the Land he takes to Farm and therefore if he take the Land liable to this known Charge and doth not expresly covenant his Landlord shall pay the Tythes both Law and Reason will interpret this a Consent and Contract to pay them it being to be presumed if he had not consented to this Charge he would have left the Land and it together The Quakers therefore must either take no Farms or if they voluntarily contract for the Land they voluntarily make themselves liable to Tythes and so they are no Oppression no not to them who had rather there were none to be paid For no doubt the Quakers could wish rather there were no Rent to be paid neither and they voluntarily covenant to pay Rent because they cannot enjoy the Farm without that Charge no more can they enjoy it without this of Tythes neither which like the very Rent is a kind of forced voluntary Contract also even to the very Quakers § 40. T. E. comes pag. 344. to his last Reserve viz. That Tythes were really purchased by the Owners of Estates Which if he can make out that alone will do his business and he thus proves it They purchased saith he all that was not excepted out of the Purchase but Tythes were not excepted therefore the Purchasers bought them and may sell them again This is the Quakers Law but if our greatest Lawyers have any skill this is a notorious falshood for they say Tythes are an Ecclesiastical Inheritance collateral to the Estate of the Lands (h) C. 2. par 13 b. in Priddle Napper's Case And more plainly Tythes are not extinguished by a Feoffment made of the Lands by a Demise of the Lands with all Profits belonging unto or out of the same they will not pass (i) 7 Ed. 6. Dy. 84.31 Eliz. in C. B. Parkins case adjudged Now what insolence is it for this Novice to make his Quakers believe that for Law which is contrary to the best Opinions and to plain adjudged Cases But his mistake will more fully appear by this Case A purchases an Estate in B of C the Tythes whereof are Impropriate and belong to D Now will the Quaker say
but being made into broad plates for the covering of the Altar the property of them was altered before they were allowed to be used The property altered hath not his immediate Teaching learned him to speak sense the form of the Censers was altered indeed but the property was not altered at all The Lord had the property of them when they were Censers and he had the same property in them when they are made into Plates The property of a a thing is not altered unless it change its Master If I have a property in a piece of Gold by a Friend's Gift and after see fit to melt it into a Ring for my own use the form is changed but the property is the same But to the Case before us As the Censers being once given to God must remain to be his still and though they might be used to another holy use yet they could not be alienated to a prophane or common use so we may learn it ought to be in other sacred Dedications If the things were offered to maintain an evil way of Worship they may be applied to maintain a right way of Worship but still they must remain sacred God's property in them should not be altered § 20. The poor Quaker finding his Arguments will not be able to wrest Tythes out of the Clergys hands attempts to get more forces on his side and pag. 297. makes a fine Speech to exasperate the Impropriators against the Priests perswading them that we are about to take their Estates from them but I shall make it evident very shortly § 37. That this very flattering Quaker that seems so tender of their Rights here doth labour to his utmost skill to prove they neither have nor can have any Right to or Estate in Tythes at all and that it is ridiculous unjust and unreasonable in them to pretend to have any such Estate so that I hope the Impropriators and all others will see the falseness of his dealing and observe that he will say any thing to serve a present turn and make the Priests odious For our parts we do not like the Quakers take upon us to censure the Actions of our Princes and Parliaments nor yet where Priests have temporal Estates the Tythes whereof belong to Lay-Impropriators do we refuse to pay those Tythes as the Laws of the Land appoint we do not pretend Conscience to save Charges as the Quakers manner is Whatever opinions therefore the Priests hold in this matter they do not oppose the Laws nor go about to perswade any to take away the Impropriators Estates from them There are some indeed not only of the Clergy but the Laity also who have been of opinion That in point of Conscience and as far as concerns the Divine Laws these Alienations were not allowable and they have perswaded such as can spare them freely to return them to pious uses or however to make provision for a Minister out of them sufficient to instruct the People where the profits do arise but none of us ever used the Impropriators as the Quakers have done us we know the present Laws give them a legal Title to them and where we are lyable we pay chearfully to them if their own Consciences be satisfied to keep them we do not molest them but if we do say It is more pious and more Christian freely to restore them I hope this is no just cause of offence But for this matter see Dr. Basier's Sacriledge arraigned and that excellent Book called The larger Work about Tythes written by Sir Henry Spelman whose Example answered his Instructions for he gave an Impropriation back to the Church out of his own Estate and perswaded divers Great Men to do the like and many other excellent Men since that time have followed the same Pattern § 21. T.E. is pag. 300. again harping upon the old string of Popery and now he falls to work for the Jesuits in good earnest labouring to make out the Pope's Title to England by a Prescription of eight or nine hundred years and all this meerly to perswade the World that the Saxons were Papists when Tythes were given and consequently that they are Popish and ought to be abolished But how impertinent and untrue all this is I will examine For first if the Saxons in K. Ethelwolph's time were Papists it will not follow that all their Donations are void so that if he could make this out it would not prove his Position viz. That this Donation of Tythes is invalid Secondly and suppose they were Papists in some things yet it follows not that giving Tythes was a Popish Act for all the Acts of Papists are not Popish The Saxons of those dayes observed the Lords Day and made good Laws for its observation enjoyned all Persons to learn the Creed and the Lords Prayer they gave Alms to the poor protested against Adoration of Images c. and in these they were no Papists yea those of the present Roman Church do many Acts of Piety and Charity but sure those Acts are not Popish The Protestants have disputed as much and as well for Tythes as ever the Papists did and T. E. must know it is a Popish opinion That the Bishop of Rome can exempt Men from paying Tythes And therefore if our Ancestors who gave Tythes had been Papists in this Act they had been good Christians and differed not from the opinion of the Reformed Church Thirdly he begins too low by far for if Popery came not into the Church till about seven hundred years after Christ according to T. E.'s proofs then Tythes were much ancienter than Popery for they were paid and declared to be due to the Christian Church at least five hundred years before and T. E. must prove Origen Cyprian S. Ambrose Chrysostom Hierome and Augustine to have been Papists if he will make out that Tythes came into the Church with Popery Or if he pretend he meant it only of this Church of England we have shewed Tythes were paid generally and specially granted in some parts of this Kingdom long before Ethelwolph's time so that he may twattle thus to please his ignorant Quakers but we discern the emptiness and impertinence of these Allegations which are so nothing to the purpose that they deserve not to be considered at all Yet because the poor Man hath taken so much pains we will give him the hearing But it is rather to clear our Pious Ancestors from the Reproaches of this ungracious Cham than out of any necessity in order to the Case of Tythes First therefore let us note That most of those Doctrines which are properly called Popery and which first caused and still justifie the Protestants Separation from Rome were not maintained as Articles of Faith no not in the Church of Rome it self at the time of this Donation Anno 855. The Marriage of Priests was not forbidden till the time of Greg. VII above 200 years after (l) Polyd. Virgil derer invent l. 5. c.
a Man for all his talking since many wiser and better Men than T. E. have no Estate at all nor no Right to any Every Man hath a Natural Capacity but that alone gives no Title to an Estate it is therefore as a Man so Qualified that T. E. claims that is as a Purchaser or one to whom an Estate hath been given or as being descended from some so Qualified or else as invested with some Civil Office or Employment to which such an Estate is annexed Well the Priest hath a Natural capacity also as well as T. E. is as much and as good a Man as he but this alone gives him no Title to Tythes he claims them in a Spiritual capacity as T. E. claims his Estate in a Civil capacity And now why is not a Spiritual capacity as good a ground of claim to an Estate legally settled upon it as a Civil capacity Men in this Spiritual capacity are Men and need provisions as much as those in Civil capacities They are Subjects as well as the other and as useful Members of the Common-wealth as any and so deserve protection and defence by the Laws as well as others And all the Law-givers under Heaven have believed Men in Spiritual capacity were as capable of Temporal Rites and Priviledges as those in Civil capacities were and accordingly they have been endow'd and their Endowments confirmed by the Laws of all Nations so that I wonder what Crotchet came in the Quaker's head to fancy a Minister of Christ could not have the benefit of the Temporal Laws as well as the Mayor of a Corporation An Estate in Land Rent-charge or Tolls and Customs may be setled on the Mayor of such a City and on his Successors for ever and then whoso sustains that Charge and bears that Office hath as good a Claim by Law to that Income as T. E. hath to the Estate he is born to They claim under different Qualifications but one hath as good a Temporal Right for his Time as the other Now why is not a Minister in as good a capacity as either of these Why is not a Religious Office as Endowable as a Civil Office Sure his being a Minister of Christ makes him not uncapable of a Temporal Right for S. Paul saith the King is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. xiii 4. the Minister of God And by vertue of that Ministerial Function His Majesty claims many Temporal Rights besides the ancient Patrimony of His Family And will this saucy Quaker say he hath a better Title to his Estate than the King hath to the Rights and Revenues of His Crown But as to the Claim of a Priest it will be made evident by this Parallel Suppose some Prince or Great Man did out of his own Inheritance make a Donation of some certain Lands or Rents to an Elwood and entail it on the Family of Elwoods for ever if T. E. be the Heir of that Family he will say he hath as good a Right to this as if he purchased it And why may not the Priest claim his Tythes as justly as T. E. claims this Donative Was his Estate given by the Right Owners So were Tythes Was his given to the Family of Elwoods So were Tythes to the Order of Priests Was his given for Valuable Considerations That may be some question for who knows some hundred years after but it might be for doing some evil deed to please the grâ—â—t Donor such as that Donation to P. de Mawley was (Å¿) Dugd. Baronage of Engl. vol. 1. p. 733. However the Law finds him in possession and presumes the Considerations were good and so secures his Title But the Priests can and have made it appear that the Tythes were setled upon them by vertue of the best Considerations imaginable and therefore the Priests Claim is better than the Elwoods on this account that we can be sure we came well to our Right at first Now the Law finding a Priest and an Elwood both claiming by vertue of several ancient Donations and both in possession of their several Estates and looking on them as both Subjects and both Persons whose Rights the Government and Laws should defend the Law I say confirms both their Estates and Rights to them and their Successors Now if T. E. be descended from the Elwoods in a natural way of sucession so are we from the Priests in a spiritual succession and though this bold Quaker do often say we are no Priests I must tell him there is more fear he is no Elwood than we no Priests and our Ordination is easier to prove than T. E's Mothers Honesty But however the Law takes him for an Elwood and us for Priests and equally confirms our Claims So that I think all rational Men must say the Priests Claim and Temporal Right is as good as the Elwoods it differs not at all as to strength and validity unless the Priest have the better Temporal Right of the two § 24. He goes on in his folly and saith pag. 314. If the Case of the Priest and of T. E. as to Temporal Right be equal then the Priest must acknowledge he is no more a Minister of Christ than T. E. at least that he doth not claim them as a Minister of Christ any more than T. E. doth his Temporal Estate otherwise the Parallel will not hold The Maxim on which this Inference is grounded is this wretched absurdity That none can have equal Temporal Rights by the Laws unless they be equal in all Capacities Whenas all the World sees the same Laws do give equal Temporal Rights to Persons of all kind of Capacities for the same Estate may be enjoyed by a Judge first then by a Soldier then by a Merchant then by a Woman and all these in their several turns may have an equal Temporal right to this Estate though they be every one of different Capacities And if it be several Estates and the Persons enjoying them as different as can be in their Capacities the same Laws may give an equal Right to them all without altering their various Capacities Suppose the King have by the Law a Temporal Right to one Estate and some of His Subjects an equal Right to another Estate you shall hear T. E's wise way of arguing The King claims a Temporal thing so doth the Subject The King claims by a Temporal Right so doth the Subject The King hath no need of Scripture to prove his Right no more hath the Subject Yet for all this their Claim is not one and the same they must stay there the King must acknowledge himself no more a King than the Subject or else the Cases are not parallel Thus he takes his Quakers by the nose and would cokes them into a conceit That all Priests must be Elwoods or all Elwoods Priests before they can have equal Temporal Rights This is the inspired Oracle of Law and Gospel who doth not know how a Judge and a Plowman a Man
and a Woman a Priest and an Elwood can have equal Rights and Claims unless the Judge be no more a Judge than the Plowman or the Manno more a Man than the Woman or the Priest no more a Priest than the Elwood This is the rare Logician who can distinguish so nicely between the Man and the Capacity that one would think he had learned of the Jesuits or been educated among the Murderers of our late Blessed King who fought against the Man and put him to death but yet did not oppose the King all the while which our Laws call a Traiterous Position At this rate one might strip T. E. of his Elwoodship and require him to divest himself of that Capacity and to claim meerly as a Man or else he could have no good Temporal Right as well as to strip the Priest of his Spiritual Capacity whenever he claims a Temporal Right And yet for ought I see the Quakers will not pay us our Dues neither as Priests nor as Men. But why should this Puisne talk of Law whenas pag. 315 316. it appears he never heard of a Lay-fee but twice together lest we should think it was the Printers mistake he talks of holding in a Laity and that Impropriators hold in a Laity which is such a gross piece of Ignorance that a Clerk of a weeks standing would hiss at it § 25. Ignorance is the Mother of Admiration and therefore it is not strange to find T. E. wondring at the following Particulars pag. 316. First Why Spiritual Preferments should be held by a Temporal Right unless it be because we have no Spiritual Right to them The Clergy had a Spiritual Right to Tythes before any Humane Laws gave them a Temporal Right to them or else S. Hierom and other Primitive Fathers who lived on Tythes did live upon that which they had no Right to at all Now the Humane Laws finding the Clergy had a Spiritual Right to Tythes did confirm that first Title by adding a second for when they give the Clergy a Temporal Right to Tythes the Law-givers and Laws suppose their antecedent Right which T. E. confesses pag. 333. And our Elwood hath an equitable Right to his Estate antecedent to the Legal Right which the Laws of the Land give him to it now the addition of this Legal Right doth suppose and confirm not deny or destroy his Equitable Right If he ask what moved our Temporal Governors more especially to add this Legal Right to the Priests antecedent Spiritual and Divine Right it may be it was on purpose to prevent the knavery of such who will pay nothing for Conscience-sake and of such as would pervert the Scripture by Inspired Expositions and call the Fathers Councils and Princes who gave or approved Tythes Papists and Idolaters and the Ministers of God to whom Tythes were given Idolatrous Popish c. meerly under this pretence to defraud them of their Dues Hence they made Laws that Spiritual Donations should be held also by Temporal Right that Humane Penalties might compel those to be honest who neither valued nor feared other things And this is the Reason given by Hen. VIII in T. E. pag. 333. yea by S. Paul when he saith The Law is not made for a Righteous man 1 Tim. i. 9. To his second Question Why the Priests are called Spiritual who bid such defiance to the Inspiration of the Spirit I answer We do unfeignedly reverence the true Inspirations of the Spirit and that very esteem we have for so divine a thing makes us bid defiance to such wretched Pretenders to it as T. E. and his Crew who boast of a false Gift and belie the Holy-Ghost To his third Quaery Why all Priests are called Spiritual Persons when some answer not their Profession I reply He had best examine the Evangelists why they call all the Twelve by the name of Apostles when one of them was a Devil and ask S. Paul why he styles the Corinthians sanctified and called Saints 1 Cor. i. 2. when many of them were carnal T. E. it seems hath not yet learned that Names are given according to Mens Profession and Duty shewing rather what they ought to be than proving what they are It is enough to justifie our Name if not all or not the most contradict it for Names are so instituted as to suppose a distance between the Title and the Qualification How many are called Philosophers which fulfil not the Rules of Philosphy All may bear Names according to their Professions So Tertullian sets out the folly of this Cavil (t) Tertul. l. ad Nation 1. c. 5. § 26. T. E's Head swiming with repeated Revelations he fancies all that are about him reel and stagger which occasions him to say pag. 317. That you reel from Creating a Right to Establishing it Whenas you never affirm'd that any Temporal Authority did Create the Original Right of the Priests to Tythes only that they did establish that Right which the Clergy had to Tythes before by Creating a Temporal Right and superadding it to their former Title and thus by both Claims Tythes are ours and not his who pays them Which when you offer to prove (u) Confer p. 142. the Quaker leaving out all the intermediate Arguments skips three pages together and then bringing in onely your Conclusion from those Premises which he hath omitted Confer pag. 145. he most dishonestly insults Is not this notably argued saith the Quaker when he had suppressed all your Arguments and not suffered you to argue at all But when we have observed the injustice of this dealing we may proceed to new Instances of his audacious Ignorance § 27. Pag. 319 320. affords us three notable Passages First That Christ who appointed Maintenance in general doth describe what it shall be in particular viz. Meat and Drink Luke x. 7 8. Mat. x. 10. Unless T. E. have some new Revelation concerning this Commission of Christ to his Disciples the old words of Scripture will not bear this sense For as we read the place this was a particular Direction for that private and particular Message on which the Apostles were to be sent to the Cities of Judea and if this Order of taking Meat and Drink then were a perpetual and general Rule to all Ministers to the Worlds end so must also all the rest of the Rules there mentioned be and if so then it will follow 1. That Ministers may not preach to any Gentiles or Samaritans Mat. x. 5. 2. That they must still heal the Sick cleanse the Lepers raise the Dead cast out Devils v. 8. 3. That they must not have two Coats nor walk with Staves in their Hands nor Shoes on their Feet nor have any Money in their Purses ver 9 10. which are Rules that the most superstitious Speakers do scarce now observe But these are the Consequences of pretended Inspirations which make Men expound Scripture at such a rate as to make the Apostles break their
Ethelwolph did this alone since he confessed pag. 285. that his Nobles consented to the Gift and if he have read the Charter as he pretends he must know that Ingulph saith it was made All the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of England being present and subscribing to it as also Beorred King of Mercia and Edmund King of the East-Angles before the Abbots Abbesses Dukes Earls and Nobles of the whole Land and an infinite multitude of other Faithful People who all consented to the Kings Charter and the Men of Dignity subscribed their Names (z) Ingulph apud Spelm. p. 350. We have also noted before how often this Donation hath been confirmed by the whole Nations Representative since that time which T. E. could not be ignorant of but to serve his ends he conceals all this meerly to get an occasion to Indite good King Ethelwolph of Invading his Subjects Properties § 30. But his Conscience accusing him for this Slander in pag. 323. he supposes that Ethelwolph did it by general consent and then says If it were so yet neither could he single nor they all conjoyned give any more than belonged to themselves viz the Tenth part of their Land or of the Yearly Profits for their own Lives but to make a Grant of the Tenth part of the Profits of the Land for ever is to my understanding saith he utterly repugnant to Reason It may be repugnant to his Understanding so sadly corrupted by Prejudice but it is agreeable enough to the Reason and the Practice of all other Men for the Lords in Fee to give what part of the Profits of their Estate they please for ever Is it not usual for such as settle their Estates to oblige their Heirs for ever to pay out of it a Sixth Eighth or Tenth part of the Rents of that Estate which the Heirs many hundred years after are obliged to pay to the Uses appointed by the first Donor Are not all perpetual Rent-charges and Grants with reservation of Free-Rents with many Donations of certain yearly Sums to Colleges Schools and Hospitals c. are not these Grants of such a part of the Profits of a Mans Estate for ever The Lawyers will deride T. E's Understanding in the Law as much as we do his skill in the Gospel and they will inform him That a Man is not absolute Master of his Estate unless he can make such Grants as these But that which stumbles T.E. is That In the Profits of the Land rightly computed the Labour Sweat Care Charge Skill Industry Diligence c. of the Husbandman are included and that inseparably for these are the Instrumental Causes of Production To admit then a Power in any Man to give the Tythes of the Profit beyond his own Life were to suppose a Power in that Man to give away the Labour Care Skill Charge Diligence and Industry of another which Reason gainsays And a little after It is most ridiculous This is his main Argument which he glories in much and repeats often but there is nothing at all in it but Mistake Falshood and Impiety For if T. E. will grant That it is lawful for a Lord to lay a perpetual Rent-charge upon his Estate to be paid in Money than which nothing is more common or more legal he must grant it is as lawful for this Lord to charge his Estate with paying the Tenth part of the Profits in specie For doth not the raising the Sum of Money setled by Rent-charge suppose 10 l. or 20 l. per Annum include the Labour Sweat Care Charge Skill and Industry of the Husbandman as well as the preparing the Tythe Nay the paying a Rent-charge in Money requires more Labour Charge and Pains than paying Tythes in specie for the Husbandman must not onely get his Profits together but carry suppose his Corn into the Barn thresh it winnow it and carry it out again and sell it and after all this he must pay this Money for which such a proportion of his Profits were sold Whereas Tythe being paid in specie needs onely be got together and the Husbandman hath no more charge nor trouble with it And besides Tythe is a more equitable Payment by far than a certain Sum of Money setled by Rent-charge for if the Land yield little Profit the Priest hath but little Tythes but Rent-charges must be paid in full even when the worst Years come without any Consideration If the whole Profits of the Land do not yield twice as much the utmost Farthing of the Rent-charge must be paid Now let any rational Man judge whether the granting of a perpetual Rent-charge be not to give away the Labour Charge and Industry of another as well as the granting of Tythes And yet I think T. E. is not so bereft of all sense that he will say such Rent-charges are ridiculous or unreasonable Besides we see that all Landlords who let long Leases and settle the Rents on their younger Children or more distant Relations do give away the Profits of the Husbandmans Labour Charge and Industry not onely the Tenth but the Third part of them at least But T. E. will reply A Man may charge his Tenants successively with such a Payment of the Part of the Profits of their Labour because he affords them Land to work upon but he cannot charge his Heirs successively I answer That the Lord also doth afford his Heirs Land to raise this Payment out of Pray how came this present Possessor to have any Right to this Land Doth he not derive his Right from his Forefathers T. E. grants they might have sold off what part of the Land they pleased and since they transmit it intire may they not leave a Charge upon it And if the Heir will not pay the Charge he must renounce the Land also For it is a Maxim in all Laws That the Burthen discends with the Inheritance And he that will not have the Incumbrance must not have the Benefit And in point of Reason why hath not the Father as good Right to oblige his Posterity as they have to possess his Lands Why should not the Father be obeyed by the Sons as well as the Sons provided for by the Father He might have charged his Posterity with the Tenth part of the best Years Profits in Money but now the Charge is onely the bare Tenth of the Years Profits be it less or more which all Men but Quakers will grant is an easie Charge If T. E. shall say The Land hath gone through many Hands since I answer Whoever bought this Land or howsoever it was conveyed no following Owner can sell that part of the Profits which he never had conveyed to him of which more hereafter At present it shall suffice to note this Argument of the Quakers is Protestatio contra factum and so signifies nothing at all It is an attempt to prove That cannot be done which is done as well in this as in other like Cases and That ought not to be
That A purchases D's Estate in the Tythes without his knowledge or consent by vertue of the general Words in the Conveyance from C If so the poor Impropriator hath an ill Bargain for then C may sell D's Estate in Tythes and A buy it and he receive nothing for it Now if the Impropriators Estate in Tythes do not pass by the general Words in the Conveyance from the Seller of the Land no more doth the Clergie-mans Estate in Tythes so pass Yea T. E. is so far mistaken in thinking general Words include Tythes that if the Lord of a Mannor whose Tythes belonged to the Clergie should expresly declare in his Deed of Sale That he did sell the Tythes such a Clause would not give the Buyer the least Right to them For private Contracts can make no alteration in things determined by the publick Laws Ex solenni Jure privatorum conventione nihil quicquam immutandum est (k) Reg. Jur. 27. But this matter is so plain that the Quaker fraudulently leaves out those Words of the Conveyance which would have discovered his Knavery in this false Assertion for thus he cites the words of the Deed to prove that the Purchaser buys the Tythes with the Land The said A grants bargains sells c. all that c. with its Appurtenances and every Part and Parcel thereof and also all the Estate Right Title Interest Property Claim and Demand whatsoever c. There he stops with an c. because his shallow Reader should not see what follows in the Deed viz. Estate Right which I the said A have or ought to have in the Premises Which Words do manifest that the Purchaser buys no more Estate or Right than the Seller had to or in the Premises And indeed he could purchase no more for Nemo plus Juris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse haberet (l) Vlp. l. 46. ad Edict The Seller did not purchase the Tythes himself nor did they discend to him from his Ancestors but have been a distinct collateral Estate this many hundred Years which never passed between Father and Son Buyers and Sellers but remained in statu quo prius how many times soever the Land changed its Owners They were not capable of being sold nor alienated no not by the consent of the Incumbent himself since they are an Intailed Estate and The Church saith my Lord Coke is always a Minor and in the State of one under Age (m) In Mag. Chart. p. 3. And none can alienate a Minors Land And if T. E. would know the Reason why they are not excepted in the Purchase by name as Free-Rents and Rent-charges sometimes are I answer Free-Rents and Rent-charges c. are laid upon Land by private Contracts and could not be known unless they were by name excepted to be due out of such an Estate whereas Tythes were a publick Donation and are sufficiently known to the whole Nation and confirmed by the consent of Kings and Parliaments and so need not be excepted by name as private Charges are And yet T. E. must know That if an Owner should sell an Estate in general words and not except nor mention a Free-Rent or Rent charge this would not discharge the Buyer from paying it nor destroy his Right to whom the said Rent was due Caveat Emptor Much less can the not excepting Tythes prejudice the Churches Right And thus T. E's Law comes to nothing § 41. In the next place he presents us pag. 346. with a Demonstration to prove That though the Tenant be abated by his Landlord in consideration of his Tythe yet the Abatements saith T. E. made in the Rents in respect of Tythes are not so great as the Tythes I answer That is none of the Priests fault who is not a Party to their Bargain But if there be not an Abatement proportionable to so known a Payment it is either the fault of the Landlord who will abate no more or the folly of the Tenant who consents to pay so much The Tythes are the known Interest of a third person so that the Landlord cannot justly demand any thing for them nor the Tenant prudently yield to pay any thing on account of them But let us hear his Demonstration or rather Supposition Suppose a Farm of the value of 100 l. per Annum if Tythe-free the Landlord abating 10 l. in consideration of the Tythe lets it for 90 l. per Annum Now the whole Profits of this Farm he supposes worth three times 90 l. that is 270 l. per Annum the full Tythe whereof is 27 l. per Annum so that the Tenant being onely abated 10 l. in consideratton of Tythes pays 27 l. for them Now all this is a meer Chymaera as I will shew when I have asked T. E. two Questions First Why did not his wise Tenant knowing such a Payment as 27 l. must go out of his Farm expect and stand upon more Abatement He should have yielded to pay onely 73 l. per Annum and then all had been right Secondly If the Landlord abates the Quaker 10 l. per Annum in consideration of Tythe to be paid Whether is not the Quaker a Knave who puts this 10 l. per Ann. in his own Pocket and will pay no Tythe at all I believe all the Parsons in England would compound with the Quakers after this rate that the Landlord allows But to examine his Device we find three faults with this Supposition of T. E.'s First He supposes the Landlords to be better than usually they are for I fear there are few Landlords who will or do let a Farm for 90 l. per Annum out of which they know may be made 270 l. Secondly He supposes the Tenants to get more Profit than any of them actually gain or than indeed it is reasonable they should For if the Landlord receive onely one 90 l. the Tenant hath another 90 l. to repay him for his Charge Care and Pains in Managing and a third 90 l. the Tenant hath remaining clear Profit to himself which is as much Profit as the Landlord himself gets by his own Estate which he purchased so that the Tenant hath as much benefit by another Mans Estate as the right Owner Thirdly And both these Suppositions are meerly to accuse the Parson of taking more for Tythe than ever he is likely to receive for what Parson did ever receive 27 l. per Annum for a 90 l. Farm Experience teacheth us that considering the small profit of Pasture-grounds together with Customs ill Payments and Concealment c. we scarce ever get so much as 20 s. for 10 l. Rent unless where there is very much Corn but take the Church-Livings one with another and there is not above 9 l. a Year made of a Farm upon the improved Rent of 90 l. per Annum Now if the Landlord abates 10 l. a year in respect of Tythes and the Tenant pays but 9 l. a year then Tythes are