to the true antient Catholick and Apostolick Church which the Priest calls Popery Conference pag. 149. And as this Doctrine sprang up in corrupt times so it grew up together with the Corruptions of those times and the more corrupt the Church grew and farthest off from the purity and truth of the Gospel the more credit and belief this Doctriâ—e obtained and was the more generally received And when thâ—ough the prevalency of Popery the Church was most of all defiled and polluted with Idolatry and Superstition and in its worst estate then was this Doctrine in greatest repute and in fullest force and strength By all which let the Reader judge whether this was a primitive Doctrine And as this was not a primitive Doctrine so neither was it a protestant Doctrine for the Bohemians whom Fox calls Protestants when they renounced the Popes Yoke took away Tythes from the Clergy and reduced them to certain Stipends as Selden out of Io. Major notes Hist. Tythes pag. 167. which they would not have done if they had believed that Tythes were due to God and Holy Church Thus it appears that this Doctrine of Tythes being due to God and Holy Church is neither a primitive nor Protestant Doctrine and that the Statutes grounded thereon are built upon a false supposition He excepts against my saying For a man to claim that by a temporal Right from a temporal Law which the Law he claims by commands to be paid as due by a divine Right is 〈◊〉 juggling To whicâ— he replies pag. 189. All the World knows two Titles to the same thing being subordinate to one another do strengthen each other This is a meer shift for it is evident those Statutes do not intend to make the Priests another Title then what they claimed by before but only to appoint the payment of Tythes upon the old Title of being due to God So that these Statutes do not make the Priests a temporal right nor was it the design of them so to do for the Statute of 32 H. 8. 7. speaking of Tythes impropriated sayes Which now be or which hereafter shall be made temporal which implies plainly They understood all Tythes before such Impropriations in no other Notion then Ecclesiastical or Spiritual and that they accounted all other Tythes which were not so impropriated but remained in the hands of the Clergy Ecclesiastical or spiritual profits still not temporal Now for the Priests to claim a temporal right to Tythes by those Laws which declare the Right they have to be spiritual this is the Juggle If they will claim Tythes by these Statutes they should claim them in that notion wherein the Statutes suppose them due which is as a spiritual Right not as a temporal The Priest sayes A Father having a maintenance reserved 〈◊〉 of his Sons Estate mentioned in those deeds which settle the said Estate on the Son though he had a right to be maintained by his Son jure divino may claim a maintenance by vertue of these deeds jure humano and the second Title strengthens but doth not destroy the first This is quite beside the case for besides that the comparison will not hold between a Father a Priest unless any in the darkness of their ignorance should so far mistake as to own the Priests for their spiritual Father nor in that case neither with respect to Tythes but to a Maintenance only here are in the case of a Father two distinct Titleâ— independent one of the other and the Deed of settlement in which such maintenance is reserved doth not express the reserved maintenance to be due jure divinâ— but declares it to be a temporal Right settled upon civil and temporal considerations But how remote is this from the Priest's case The Statutes mention no temporal Right of Tythes to the Priests but supposâ— a divine Right and upon that supposition command the payment of them as so due This Deed of settlement mentions nothing of a divine Right but acknowledges a civil and temporal Right to the maintenance therein reserved As well then may the Father claim a divine Right to this maintenance by vertue of this Deed as the Priest claim a temporal Right to Tythes by vertue of these Statutes and both alike unreasonable §12 In my former Book I inquired two things pag. 335 336. first What it is the Priest claims a property in secondly Where this property is vested in the person of the Priest or in the Office To the first the Priest gives no Answâ—r here only in another place pag. 196. he sayes We grant Tythes are due out of the profits only and with this answer he contents himself overlooking the Arguments I offered in pag. 335 336 338 339. to prove the unreasonableness of such a claim particularly That if Tythes be the tenth of the profit or increase of the Land and they that settled Tythes as he saith were actually seiâ—ed of them in Law then surely they could settle 〈◊〉 more than they were so seized of and they could be actually seized of no other profits or increase than 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 This and much more such plain anâ— serious argumentation tending to prove the emptiness and unreasonables of their plea to Tythes from the Donation of Ethelwolf and others the Priests both one and t'other pass by unanswered The Reader may guess why The second thing inquired was Where this property is vested in the person of the Priest or in the Office This I perceive they are wonderful wary how they answer One Priest sayes An Office is capable of being vested in a property and the present person who sustains that Office hath this property vested in him during his Life with remainder to his Successors forever Right of Tythes pag. 190. This as doubtfully and darkly delivered as might be seems in the first part to affix the property to the Office but in the latter part to the person that sustains the Office For he sayes The present person who sustains that Office hath this property vested in him not during his Office only but during hiâ— Life which may extend far beyond his Office For if the present person who sustains the Office be an ignorant vicious debauched scandalous Priest as alas too many of them are if he be one of them who the Author of the Conference sayes pag. 11. will for a corrupt interest intrude themselves into thesâ— sacred Offices he not only may but ought to be ejected They that for coâ—rupt Interest thrust themselves in should for their Corruption be thâ—ust out again But what mean while becomes of the property If as this Priest sayes the present person who sustains the Office hath this property vested in him during his Life the divesting him of the Office doth not divest him of the property because according to this Priest
Articles of Faith then surely they were such before else the bare determination of them would not have made them such Besides if there were Truth in what he sayes that the particulars he has mentioned had not been determined as Articles of Faith before Ethelwolf's time nor could have been Popish without such a determination yet very many other Instances may be given of Doctrines and Practices properly Popish sufficient to prove not the Church of Rome in general only but the then Church of England also which was a Member of that and for at least seven continued Successions received her Metropolitan Bishop out of the Romish Church to be Popish according to the Definition his Brother Priest has given of Popery in his Friendly Conference pag. 149. § 21. But to clear those times from the imputation of Popery he undertakes to reply to the Instances I had given in my former Book First he sayes Fâ—r those pag. â—01 the Quaker lays not much streâ—â— upon them and there are some of them allowed by the best Protestants and all men that understand Antiquity know those â—ecretal Epistles to be forged which first attributed these Constitutions to those early Popes Is not this a pretty way of replying to say his Opponent lays not much stress on them what may one not answer after this rate Next he sayes there are some of them allow'd by the best Protestants but which are they why did he not distinguish betwixt those he doth allow and those he doth not allow The Instances were The use of Holy Water to drive away Devils said to be Instituted by Alexander the first The Consecration of Chrism once a Year by Fabianus That all should stand up at the Reading of the Gospel by Anastatius That Wax Tapers should be Consecrated on the holy Sabbath by Zozimus That Processions should be made on Sundayes by Agapetus Some of these he sayes are allowed by the best Protestants but which they are he keeps to himself Lastly he sayes All men that understand Antiquity know those Decretal Epistles to be forged which attribute those Consâ—itutions to these early Popes Whether those Epistles be forged or no I will not undertake to determin nor need Iâ— for I delivered not those Instances upon my own Authority but gave the Authors out of whom I gathered them namely Fasâ—ic Temp. Platina and Burdegalensis to which more might be added if need were But suppose what he â—ayes that those Decretal Epistles are forged yet all men that understand Antiquâ—ty know that the things there instanced were in use before Ethelwolf's time and therefore must needs be instituted before So that his exception against the Decretal Epistles is but an idle shift for if it should be granted that those Constitutions were not made by those early Popes to whom they are attributed yet certain it is they were made by Popes earlier then Ethelwolf's Charter for Tythes which is enough to prove that Popery had made her â—ncroâ—chments in the Church before this dear Donation and famous Charter was made Thus we see his tripartitâ— Answer comes to just nothing and doubtless he spake considerately when he said pag. â—â—4 I will content my self to Reply to the Quaker's Instances for it can hardly be supposed he could expect by this Reply to content any boâ—y but himself But perhaps he look't upon those things as too immateriaâ— to deserve his notice and therefore coâ—tentâ—d himself to pass over them as lightly as he could as before he did Ethelwolf's being absolveâ— from his Vows by the Pope going on Pilgrimage to Rome and making such liberal Donations to uphold Superstition there But now that he comes to instances which he accounts more material it is to be hoped he will give a more material Reply First â—aith he concerning deposing of Kings T. E. saith Pope Zachary took upon him to depose K. Chilperick and absolved his Subjects from their allegiance Thus he sayes is a Forgery invented by the Champions of the Pope's Supremacy but denyed by the French who do assure 〈◊〉 that the deposing of K. Chilperick was done by Pipâ—n himself by the consent of the whole Kingdom of France before any notice was given to the Pope about it pag. 125. That the Reader may be the more able to judge of the Truth of this matter I will give him the words of the Authors themselves by whom it is delivered so many of them as I have by me which are but a few in respect of the many by whom this passage is recounted First therefore the Author of Fascic Temp. ad annum 744 sayes thus of Pope Zachaâ—ias Ipse Regem Francorum scilicet Hylderienâ—â— deposuit in locum ejus Pippinum instituit quia utilior fuit Et hic patet potesta Ecclesiae qâ—anta â—uerit hoc tempore qui regnum illud famosissimum transtulit de veris haeredibus ad genus â—ippini propter legitimam cauâ—am i. e. He deposed the King of France namely Hylderick and set Pippin in his place because he was more useful And here sayes he it appears how great the power of the Church was in this time in that he Translated the most famous Kingdom from the true Heirs to the Race of Pippin for a lawful cause platina though he mentions not the deposing of Childerick yet the setting up of Pippin by the Pope he does in these words At Pipinus regnandi cupidus legatos suos ad Pontificem mittit eumque rogat ut Regnum Franciae sibi auctoritate sua confirmet Amuit Pontisex ejas postulatis atque it a ejus auctoritate regnum Franciae Pipino ad judicatur i. e. But Pipin having a desire 〈◊〉 Reign sends his Ambassadors to the Popeâ— and 〈◊〉 him to confirm the Kingdom of France to him BY HIS AUTHORITY â— The Pope grants his requests and so BY HIS AUTHORITY the Kingdom of France was adjudged to Pipin Burdegalensis sayes of Pope Zachary Chronograph l. 2. ad annum 741. 〈◊〉 caepit Francos juramento 〈◊〉 absolvere i. e. This Pope was the first that absolved the French from their Oath of Allegiance For which he quotes Aemil. lib. 2. And a little after of Childâ—rick he hath these words Childerico 〈◊〉 Rege in Monasteriam truso Pipinus concilio Pontiâ—icis a Galliae Proceribus Rex declaratur eta S. Boâ—ifacio Germanorum Apostolo inungitur i. e. Châ—lderick the French King being thrust into a Monastery Pipin is by the counsel of the Pope declared King by the Nobility of France and ancinted by St. Boniface the Apostle of the Germans Iohn Fox in his Book of Martyrs Vol. 1. pag. 116. â—ath it thus By the Authority of the said Arch-Bishop Boniface which be received from Pope Zaehary Childericus King of France was deposed from the right of his Crown and Pipinâ—â— the betrayer of his Master was confirmed or rather intruded â—n Perkins against Coccius prob pag. 223. sayes Depositio Childerici Francorum Regis suit a Proceribus et Popâ—lo
It is plain that by an Estate of Inheritance or Free-hold the Statute here intends those Tythes that then were or after should come to be in the possession of Lay-men and appropriated to Temporal or Lay uses which implies it did not account Tythes an Estate of Inheritance or Free-hold to the Priests for then this distinction had been needless Besides the Statute sayes The Person or Persons so diâ—â—eised c. their Heirs Wives c. shall have remedy in the King 's temporal Courts c. and amongst other Writs by which they may proceed directs Writs of Dower All which have manifest Relation to the Impropriator's Titâ—e not to the Priest's for what Priest as a Priest can make his Wife a Dower of Tythes Or what hath a Priest's Heir or Wife to do with Tythes when he is dead But this Priest would gladly strengthen his Claim by twisting in the Impropriator's with it Therefore he sayes pag. 186. Those very Laws which made the Aâ—â—enation did not give the Laiâ—y any other Estate in Tythes than such as the Clergy had before and such â—s the rest of the Clergy had then to the Tythes remaining in Ecclesiastical Hands This is disproved by an Instance which himself gives pag. 185. which is â—f a Writ of Dower of praediâ—l Tythes brought in the Countess of Oxford ' s case 5. Iacob By which it appears that Tythes were settled in Dower upon that Countess as he stiles her which they could not have been if her Husband had not had another Estate in Tytheâ— than such as the Clergy then had or now have For no body I suppose â—â—magins that the Clergy have such an Estate in Tythes as by vertue of which they can settle Tythes in 〈◊〉 upon their Wives He that will take the pains to consult that Statute 32 H. 8. 7. will find that what it speaks of Estates of Inheritance Free-hâ—ld c. hath respect to Lay-men not to the Clergy For although in the second and last Paragrapâ—s where it directs the remedy for recovery of Tythes in case of substraction or detention thereof it expresly mentions Ecclesiastical as well as Lay Persons restraining the remedy for both to Ecclesiastical Courts and Laws yet in the seventh Paragraph where an Estate of Inheritance or Free-hold in Tythes is spoken of there is no mention made or notice taken of the Clergy not a word of any Ecclesiastical person but those Terms Estate of Inheritance Free-hold c. are expresly there applied to such Tythes c. as then were or should afterward be made temporal or admitted to be abide and go to or in temporal Hands and lay uses and profits c. And in case of diâ—â—elsure of such Estate of Inheritance Free-hold c. the Remedy was not restrained to the Eccesiastical Courts as in the other case wherein Ecclesiastical persons were concerned but left to the King 's temporal Courts From all which I gather that those words in the Statute Estate of Inheritance Frâ—â—hold c. have no relation at all to the Clergy noâ— do any way concern Ecclesiastical persons but were inserted purposely for the sakes of those â—ay-persons into whose Hands such Estates were then already come or likely to come And that the Law-makers then did understand the Laity to have another Estate in Tythes then the Clergy had The Author of the Conference in his Vindication pag. 316. hath another trick to prove Tythes a â—ree-hold and that is this He asks his Parishioner Who elect the Parliament-men that serve for the Counâ—y The Parishoner answers The Free-holders And did you never sayes he see Clergy mens Votes entred at one of those Elections Yes many a time quoth the Parishioner That very thing replies he proves them Free-holders But by his leave the proving some Priests Free-holders doth not prove Tythes a Free-hold Many of the Priests have temporal Estates Lands of Inheritance or purchase which gives them a Right of suffraâ—e in such Elections But then it must be considered that in such cases though they are Clergy Men they do not Vote as Clergy men but as men possest of such temporal Estates or Free-holds Beâ—ides most of the Priests have Gâ—ebe-Lands which may with less â—epugnancy to reason be called a Fâ—ee-hold than Tythes And this Priest hath not expressed upon which of these considerations it is that his Clergy-mens Votes are entred Now if he intendâ—d to have proveâ— by this Medium that Tythes are a Free-hold to the Clergy he should have demonstrated that every Priest that takes Tythes is thereby inabled to give a Voice in the Election of Parliament Men Which if they are not it is ratheâ— an Argument against him then for him and shews that Tythes are not a Freeâ—hold to the Clergy But of that let Lawyers â—udge I only add That as the Priests are unlike the Ministers of the Gospel in taking Tythes at all so they are much more unlike them in claiming a legal property and Free-hold therein And if Tythes may in any Notion of Law be called a Free-hold they are as I said in my former Book pag. 331. such a Free-hold as holdâ— the greatest part of the Nation in bondage â—ut he is angry that I say These Statutes foâ— Tythes were grounded on a false supposition That Tythes were due to God and Holy Church This he calls a repeating of old baffled falshoods pag. 188. and sayes he has proved this was a true supposition and maintained by the Primitive Orthodox Fathers adding that nothing is more false than my saying This was a Doctrine purely Popish and hatch'd at Rome he leaves out and here preach't up with thundring Excommunications by the l ope's Emmissaries and Agents which he knew could not be denyed and woâ—ld hâ—lp to discover where the Doctrine was hatch'd However he makes the validity and force oâ— the Statutes to depend on the Truth of this supposition That Tythes are due to God and Holy â—hurch for he sayes Since thesâ— Statutes were grounded on a Primitive and Protestant Doctrine thâ— Statutes are therefore good pag. 89. But by the rule of contraries If these Statutes were not grounded on a Primitive and Protestant Doctrine the Statutes are not therefore good Now that this Doctrine of Tythes being due to God and Holy Church was not a Primitive Doctrine appears in that therâ— is no mention of this Doctrine in any of the Writings of the New-Testament wherein the primitive Doctrines of Christianity are delivered This Doctrine is no where there to be found Nor iâ— the more simple and leâ—s corrupted Ages of the Church and nearest to the Apostles times was this Doctrine received But in the more distant Ages from the Aâ—â—stles when the Church became greatly corrupted both in doctrine and practice sprung up this Doctrine of Tythes being due to God and Holy Church and may truly be reckoned amongst those Doctrines and superstitious Practices which by the corruption of time have pâ—evailed in the Church of Rome contrâ—ry
by just and lawful means to do And for that Book it self of Cyprians de Vnitâ—te Ecclesiae out of which the Priest makes this quotation for Tythes although it be not wholly rejected yet is it suspected to have been corrupted in more places then oâ—e Perkins against Coccius sayes expresly of it Cypriano liber de unitate Ecclesia corruptus est ad stabiliendum Primatum Petri Problem pag. 14. i. e. Cyprians Book of the Vnity of the Church is corrupted to establish the Primacy of Peter of which he gives divers instances The Priest goes on To this sayes he of Cyprian we may add the Testimony of that antient Book which â—ears the Name of â—lements Constitutions What would not he stick to add how adulterate sâ—evâ—r that might seem to add some fresh colour to his decayed and dying Cause Tâ—ese Constitutions which bear the Name of Clement are less Authentick if less can be then those fore-mentioned Canons which are called Apostolical Perkins in his Problem against Coccius pag. 8. proves from Eusâ—bius â—uffiâ—us and others that There are many things 〈◊〉 under the Name of Clement Romanus of which having given diverâ— instances he adds The eight Books aâ—so of Apostolical Constitutions written by the same Clement desâ—rve no greater credit And for Selden's Opinion of them take it in his own words For Constitutiâ—ns of the Church if you could believe thosâ— supposâ—d to be made by the Apostles and to be Collected by Pope Clement the first you might be sure both of payment in the Apostles times as also of an express Opinion as antient for the right of Tenths But â—o man that willingly and most grosly deceives not himself can believe that this Constitution or divers others there are of any time near the Age of the Apostles but many hundred Years after The little worth and lâ—ss Truth of the whole Volumn is enough discovered by divers of the learned and it was long since branded for a Counterfâ—it in an â—eâ—umenical Couâ—cil Synod 6. in Trullo Thus he in his History of Tythes c. 4. pag. 42. and much more to the same purpose in his Review of that Chapter but this I take to be sufficient to detect the falsness of those Constitutions and my Opponents weakness in urging them His next Author is Ambrose out of whose Sermons 33. and 34. he takes two quotationâ— The first thus It is not sufficient for us to bear the Name of Christians if we do not the works of Christians now the Lord Commands us to pay our Tythes yearly of all our Fruits and Cattel pag. 80. The Particle now in this quotation is not in Ambrosâ— but added by the Priest The other quotation is long but to the same purpose and that which seems most material â—n it is the latter clause that of all the Substance which God gives a man he â—ath reserved the tenth part to himself and therefore it is not lawful for a man to retain it Here he sayes The Lord Commands us to pay Tythes yearly and that he hath reserved the tenth of all to himself but the Text he offers in proof thereof he fetches from the Levitical Law which neither is obliging to Christians nor do the Priests themselves claim by it nay they renounce it as may be seen both in the Conference pag. 133. and in the Right of Tythes pag. 46. What avaâ—â— these Testimonies then to theiâ— Cause which are drawn from that Law which they themselves disclaim were it never so undoubted that the quotationâ— themselves were genuine which yet there is very great cause to question For what likelihood is there that Ambrose or any other of those Ancient Writers could so far forget himself as from a particular Precept given to the People of the Iews to infer that God hath Commâ—nâ—ed Christians to pay Tythes yearly c But that the Writings of those Fathers as they are called have been corrupted in general men coâ—versant in History are not ignorant and in particulary Ambrose his Sermons arâ— by Perkins accounted Spurious or Counterfeit Problemâ— page 20. Next to Ambrose he brings Epiphanius pag. 81. saying The Scripture exhorteth the People that out of their just Labours they should give to the Priests for their Maintenace First Fruits Oblations and other things To this a twofold Answer is to be given 1. That here is no mention of Tythes and though the Priest for want of better proof would fain have first fruits understood for Tythes yet so contrary is it to all reason that no man of Judgment can be in danger to be so misled 2. When he saith the Scripture exhorteth the People to give the Priestâ— First Fruits for their Maintenance since we are certain no Scripture of the New-Testament doth so exhort he must necessarily be understood to speak this with relation to the Levitical Law which as it was designed for and given to so it did particularly concern the Iewish Nation not the Christians And that the Payment of Tythes were not in use in Epiphanius his time nor accounted necessary Selden proves from Epiphanius his own words in Heres 50. The whole Passage as it lies in Selden's History of Tythes Review c. 4. pag. 461. take as followeth When he viz. Epiphaniuâ— tells us sayes Selden of the Tessuresdeâ—atitae or those which thought the holy Easter must be kept on the 14th Moon according to the Law given to the Iews for their Passover and that because they apprehended that the keeping it otherwise was subâ—ect to the course of the Law he sayes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is they do all things or agree generally with the Church saâ—ing that they were too much herein addicted to the Iewish Custom And in his Argument against them he shews that the Course hath not reference only to the Passover but also to Circumcision to Tythes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Offerings Wherefore as he goes on if they escape one curse by keeping their Easter according to the Law of the Passover they thrust themselves into many other For saith he they shall find them also accursed that are not Circumcised and them cursed that pay not Tythes and them cursed that Offer not at Ierusalem Let any man now sayes Selden consider if this Bishop that was least unacquainted with the Customs of the Christian-Church understood not clearly that no necessary or known use of payment was among Christians in his time of Tythes no more then oâ— Circumcision or Offering at Ierusalem Doth he not plainly reckon it as a thing not only not in Christian use but even equals it with what was certainly abrogated Is not his Objection shortly thus Why do you not observe Circumcision and Tything and Offerings also at Ierusalem which are all subject to the like Curse And because some kind of Offerings indeed were in use among Christians therefore in the Objection he providently ties them to Ierusalem But of Tything he speaks as generally as of Circumcision Thus far Seldâ—n of
Evil Opinions of the Church of Rome had their Original in those unlearned Ages from about the year 700. till about the year 1400. Vind. pag. 277. Thus he one whiâ—e makes the sâ—ttlement of Tythes older than Popery another while Popery older than the settlement of Tythes In like manner the other Priest in his Right of Tythes pag. 102. says The Clergy of that Age were God's only publick Ministers And pag. 112. The Donors intended Tythes to the Right Ministers of God and I make no doubt they were such to whom they garâ— them Again pag. 178. King Ethelwolf ' s Clâ—â—gy â—greed with the Protestant-Church of England in more points than with the modern corrupt Church of Rome And yet the saâ—e Priest sayes pag. 99. The benefit of this Donâ—tiâ—n of Tythes hath been enjoyed for eight hundred years by those to whom the Donation was made Now certain it is that the benefit of this Donation was enjoyed by the Popish Clergy all the time of Popery till the very latter-end of Hen. 8. or the beginning of Edw. 6. and afterward again in Queen Mary's time and if all this while Tythes were enjoyed by them to whom the Donation was made then it must needs be made to a Popish Clergy or eâ—se there never was such a thing as a Popish Clergy in England Now though it be thus plainly proved from his own words that Tythes were given to a Popish Câ—ergy yet so daringly confident is he to say they were God's only publick Ministers and that he makes no doubt they were the Right Ministers of God Were they God 's own publick Ministers were theâ— the Right Ministers of God who enjâ—yed the benâ—fit of this Donation of Tythes all along from Ethelwolf's time to the Reformation If so then the Popish Clergy all that while even in the most idolatrous times yea Bonner Gardner and their Associates who drunk so deep of Protestant Blood were in his account Right Ministers of God But if they who eâ—joyed the Benefit of this Donation of Tythes all along from Ethelwolf's time until the Reformation were not the Right Ministers of God but a corrupt popish Clergy then were not they even by his own Argument the Right Ministers of God but a corrupt popish Clergy to whom this Donâ—tion of Tythâ—s was made for he sayes expresly the Benefit of if was enjoyed for eight hundred years by those to whom the Donation was made This is unavoidable and therefore his saying King Ethelwolf's Clergy agreed with the Protestant-Church of England in more points than with the modern corrupt Church of Rome may cast an imputation on him and his Brethren but cannot clear Ethelwolf his Clergy from Popery But what he cannot prove he is very forward to take for granted and therefore says pag. 178. Since the Donors gave them not to a Popish Clergy but to God and his true Ministers our Kings and Parliaments that took them away from the corrupt Clergy who were fallen into Popery and settled them on the true Protestant Ministry did observe therein the Intention of the Donors and did apply Tythes to the Right Vse for which God intended them He talks idly God never intended Tythes to any such use in the times of the Gospel let him prove it if he can And for observing the Intention of the Donors it is manifest the Donors intended their Tythes to such a Clergy as would SAY MASS for their Souls when they were DEAD Is he one of them or are his Brethren such or was that one of the Points in which he brags King Ethelwâ—lf's Clergy â—greed more with the Protestant-Church of England than with the modern corrupt Church of Rome However by his own confession here that Clergy from whom Tythes were taken was corrupt and fallen into Popery Seeing then Tythes were taken from the same Clergy to which they were given for the benefit he sayes was enjoyed eight hundrâ—d years by those to whom the Donation was made pag. 99. was not Ethelwolf's Clergy corrupt and fallen into Popery too Again he sayes pag. 178. Since the first Donors did not settle them on the Popish Clergy and the present Laws have given them to the Protestant Clergy I know not whâ—t Title the Popish Priests can justly have to them Nor I neither not that the first Donors did not settle them on them as he begs but because that settlement was not just and with what either Iustice or Credit a Protestant-Minister can thus creep in and plead a Right to Tythes by a Donation Fraudulently obtained by a popish Clergy I leave the Reader to judge To supply his defect of Argument he betakes himself here again to his usual course of Railing and because he cannot fairly answer he sets himself fâ—ully to bespatter me and the Quakers pag. 179. calling us the very Darlings of the great â—gents for Rome saying we learn our Lesson from the Papists and are doing their Work for them calling me a Iourney-man to the Popish Priests and much more of the same bran All which savouring so strong of Ignorance and Envy and being as far from Truth as from all manner of likelihood and probability I will not give so much Countenance to his Charge as to think it worth an Answer And whereas he sayes Their Doctrine of Perfection despising the Letter of Scripture pleading for Ignorance relying on the merit of following the Light within c. are Popery in disguize I shall only tell him at this time that his so saying is down-right Falshood and open Slander withouâ— disguise a further account of which he may expect in Reply to his Brother's Vindication § 9. He is offended at my saying That if Tythes were a suitable Maintenance for a Protestant-Ministry yet the Clergy now do nothing for the People nor indeed have any to do which can deserve so great a Compensation This was spoken upon occasion of the other Priest's saying Friendly Conference pag. 86. Their only work is to explain the written Word of God and apply the same and yet a little after p. 92 93. acknowledged that whatsoever is necessary to Salvation either to be believed or done are in some place or other in holy Scripture fitted to the most vulgar capacity and â—hallowest understanding c. But this Priest not willing to take notice of this which he knew would be an hard knot to untye looks over it as if he had not seen it and says pag. 180. Certainly we do 〈◊〉 much for the People as ever was done by any Clergy in the World We pray for them preach to them administer the Sacraments duly among them we marry and bury we visit the Sick relieve the Poor comfort the Sad reprove Sinners confute Herâ—ticks and shew the Folly of Ellwood c. If they perform the rest no betteâ— then this last they little deserve the Wages they receive But do they perform these particular Services for thâ— Tythes which they receive If not it is but a false pretence to