well of Cattel as of Fruits be rightly offered to their several Churches by Rich and Poor according to the saying of the Lord by the Prophet Bring ye all the Tythes into the Store-House c. For as God hath given us all so of all he requireth Tythe of the Profits of the Field and all Provisions of Bee's and Honey Lambs c. And he that payes not Tythes of all these is a Thief to God himself pag. 88. His observation on this is That they all declare Tythes to be due jure divino But whence fetcht they their Opinâ—on of the Divine Right of Tythes Do they not deduce it from the Words of the Prophet and ground their Decree thereupon And had not those Words of the Prophet a direct reference to the Câ—remonial Law And is not the Ceremonial Law ended and abrogated by Christ And do not these Priests disown any claim from it Friendly Coâ—ference pag. 133. Right of Tythes pag. 4â— What trifling then is it thus to Argue Besides there is great ground to susâ—ect the credit of his quotation Selden Nothing the falshood which some câ—mmit who out of Iuo attributed an express Canon for the payment of first Fruits and Tenths to the provincial Synod of Sivil and giving the words of that Canon little different from these quoted by the Priest sayes The old Manuscript Copy of Iuo hath it ex conciliâ— Spanensi and the Printed Book ex concilio Hispalensi Then sticking a little at the word Spanensi he adds Whatever he meant by it clearly the whole Canon is of much later time the first words of it also being nothing but the Syllables of one of Charlemains Laws that was not made till 780. years from Christ. He observes also that Gratian warily abstained from using these Canons and a little after concludes positively That among the known and certain Monuments of Truth till about the end 800 years no Law Pontificial of or Synodal saving that of Mascon Determins or Commands any thing concerning Tenths although very many are which speaking purposely and largely of Church Revenues Oblations and such like could not have been silent of them if that quantity had been then established for a certain duty He then shews that the Canonists and others in later Ages compiling their Decrees have made those words by which the Offerings of the Christians were expressed to serve as if they had expresly named Tythes in which Observation he seems to take this very Priest by the Nose and concludes thus He that reads those old Canons only as they are so applied in late Authority to Tythes might perhaps soon think that at first they were made specially and by name for them The matters sayes he is plainly otherwise What was ordained in them about Tythes is out of them in later times Tythes Oblatio â—s being then supposed of equal right expresly extended also to Tythes And to this purpose he cites Frier 〈◊〉 in Prolegom ad Toâ—â— 1. Conâ—il thus Licet forsan falsâ— tâ—li sint Pontifici vel certâ— tali Coâ—cilio per scriptorum incâ—rian ad scripti i. e. Although perhaps speaking of such Canons they are falsly ascribed to such a Pope or to such a Council by the carelesness of Writers Thus far Selden Hist. Tytheâ— c. 5. § 5. And in his sixth Section of the same Chapter mentioning again the Decree of Masoon which was but Provincial he sayes No Canon as yet was received in the Church generally as a binding Law for payment of any certain quantity which not only appears sayes he in that we find none such now remaining but also is confirmed by the Testimony of a great and learned French Bishop in whose Province also Mascon was that could not be ignorant of the received Law of his time He lived and wrote very near the end of this four Hundred Years I think sayes he in the very beginning of the next which according to Sâ—lden's division must be the Year 900. And in a Treatise abouâ— the dispensation of Church Revenues expresly denyes that befoâ—e his time any Synod or general Doctrine of the Church had determined or ordained any thing touching the quantity that should be given either for Maintenance or building of Churches He gives the Testimony of this Bishop in his own words thus Jaâ— vero de donandis rebus etordinandis Ecclesijs nihil unquam in Synodis constitutum est nihil a Sanctis Patribus publice praedicatum Nulla enim compulit necessitas fervente ubique religiosa devotione et amore illustrandi Ecclesias ultro â—estruante c. i. e. But now concerning endowing â—nd ordaining Churches there has never been any thing decreed in Synods nor publickly preached by the holy Fathers For there has not been any necessity for that religious Devotion being every where warm and the desire of adorning Churches burning of its own accord And then adds This Author is Agobard Bishop of Lyons very learned and of great judgment and had not so confidently denyed what you see he doth if any Decree Canon or Council generally received had before his time commanded the payment or offering of any certain part And to confirm the Truth of this Bishop's Testimony herein he adds that Neither in the Codex Ecclâ—siâ—â—niverculis or the Codex Ecclesiâ— Romane or Africane Fulgentius Ferrandus Cresconius or Isidore's Collection all which in those elder Ages were as parts of the Body of the Canon Law is once any mention of the name of Tenths Thus far Selden By which it may appear that Tythes had not so early a settlement in the Church as the Priest would perswade his Reader The Priest seems now to have done for the present with Councils and betakes himself to the Laws of Kings and Emperors To which before I pass I desire the Reader to take notice to what a nothing his great talk of Councils is come and that after all his great Brags he hath produced but one Council that expresly names Tythes and that but a Provincial one neitheâ— and falling so much short of that Antiquity that Antient Date the Beginning and earliest dayes of Christianity which he so frequently and vauntingly repeats that it was not much less then 600. yeaâ—â— after Christ before it was made and then too in probability little regarded § 8. Now let us observe the Laws he offers made by Kings and Emperours concerning Tythes The first he instances is of Constantine the Great Who he sayes pag. 89. being settled in his Empire in the Lands under his Dominion out of every City gave a certain Tribute to be distributed among the Church and Clergy of the Provinces and confirmed this Donation to stand forever If this be true yet what relation hath this to Tythes If Constantine gave a Tribute out of every City doth it thence follow that that Tribute was Tythes or the Tenth part of the Revenue of those Cities Or if that should be supposed would the Priest thence infer that the Country
People the Farmers the Husband-men who lived not in the Cities but in the Country-Towns and Villages were by this Donation obliged to pay the Tythes of the Increase of the Lands which they manâ—red and occupied What need had there been then of such a Tribute out of the Cities This instance of Constantin's Donation if it be allowed to prove any thing will rather prove that Tythes were not then paid then that they were But the Truth of the Donation is questioned Cusanus sayes thus of it Sunt mâ—o judicio illa de Constantino Apocrypha i. e. Those things concerning Constantine are in my judgment Apocryphal that is obscure and doubtful Many other Authorites Perkins produces to prove the Donation of Constantine false Problem pag. 15. But whether it be false or true it speaks nothing of Tythes and therefore is the less to be regarded The Priest goes on thus It were endles's to relate all the Constitutions of pious Emperours either to enlarge the Revenues of the Church to preserve its Liberties or to secure the Donations made by others Let that one Law which is so full for the Divine Right of Tythes serve instead of many instances pag. 89. I cannot but take notice how short-winded this Priest is when he comes in earnest to produce his Authorities He talks big before-hands and gives great expectation of what he will do but when he comes to the Point how mean Alas is his performance in respect of the preparation he makes What a noise did he make of Councils ere now Who that heard him would not have almost thought that All the Antient Councils had been called on purpose to settle Tythes upon the Clergy And yet after all this heaving and swelâ—ing the great Mountain hath brought forth but one Mouse and that a little one too I mean his high talk and great preparation hath produced at last but one Authentick Council that mentions Tythes if that one be Authentick and that but a Provinâ—ial neither And now that he is slipt from Councils to the Laws of Kings and Emperours he instances one of Constantine the Great of suspected Credit that has no mention of nor relation to Tythes and then immediately sayes It were endless to relate ALL the Constitutions of Pious Emperours c. as if he had almost wearied himself with relating so many before whenas indeed this was the first and only one that he had so much as named And how poorly afterwards doth he come off when he sayes Lâ—t that ONE Law which is so full for the Divine Right of Tythes serve instead of MANY instances Can any one doubt who observes his manner of writing that this is only a Flourish to hide his penury It had been worth his while though he had taken a little the more time for it to have given us some of the most material of those MANY Constitutions of Pious Emperours which he sayes it were ENDLESS to relate and it is not to be questioned but so he would could he have found amongst them All any that had spoken but favourable of Tythes But since no more are to be had let us look the more intently on this he doth give and see whether it deserves to serve instead of Many instances He words it thus pag. 89. The Tythes by God's Command are separated for the Priests that they which are of Gods Family may be sustained by his Portion and therefore they cannot by any human Priviledge be given to Lay-men lest the Supream Authority should therein prejudice the Divine Commandment I see no reason for his calling this a Law which is rather a Declaration by Doctrine then a Constitution by Precept If it be a Law he might have done well to have acquainted his Reader who was the Law-maker He neither tells us who was the Author of it nor in what Age 't was made but sets it down bare and naked as I have here Transcribed it only in the Margin he hath this reference Cod. l. 7. Tit. de prâ—scrip But though he conceals the date of it yet that Passage in it therefore they cannot by any Human â—iviledge be given to Lay-men speaks it to be of mucâ— later Birth then he would willingly have it pass for However let the Age and Author of it be as they are it deserves not the name of a Law much less of such a Law as in the Case of Tythes may serve instead of many instances for it injoyns nothing but only supposes Tythes separated for the Priests by God's Command and declares they therefore cannot by any Human Priviledge be given to Lay-men This peradventure may some-what concern the Civil Magistrate and the Impropriators but not the Case in hand In the same place he sayes A parallel Law to this we find in Authenticis ti eod It may be so But where he found it there it seems he thought fit to leave it for he sayes not a word more of it But going on nearer to King Ethelwolf's time he sayes K. Ethelwolf might know how the Religious K. Riccaredus had confirmed the Decrees of the first Council of Hispaâ—is about paying Tythes Anno. 5â—0 Nor could he be ignorant what Charles the great had done in settling Tythes on the Church about 100. years before K. Ethelwolf's Donâ—tion pag. 90. The Story of Riccaredus I am a stranger to and like to be for him for he has not been so fair as to acquaint his Reader whence he took it That of Charles the great was about the year 780. far enough short of his boasted Antiquity and of the earliest dayes of Christianity falling indeed in a time when the Church was miserably depraved and corrupted and growing every day worse and worse as I shall have occasion more particularly to shew when I come to Ethelwolf's time And though the Priest sayes This Emperour who gave Tythes was so far from Idolatry that he called a Council to condemn the use of Images and write against them himself Yet Corruptions enâ—ugh were there then in the Church beside the use of Images to prove the Religion he profest to be Popish according to the definition of Popery given by the other Priest in his Friendly Conference pag. 149. where he sayes I cannot give you a more brief and true Account of Popery then this That it is such Doctrines and Supperstitious Practices which by the Corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome contrary to the True Antient Catholick and Apostolic Church Now that the Doctrine of Purgatory of the Intercession of Saints deceased of Monkish life and the Calibate or unmarried life of Priests and that the Practice of Praying for the Dead of Sacrificing for the Dead of Praying to Saints of Going Religiously on Pilgrimage as a part of Divine Worship that the use of Chrism and of Exteam Vnction were received in the Church long before this Charles his time I have already shewed That these Doctrines and Practices by the corruption of time have
the Pope and with him divers other Monks of Italy to set up here in England Lâ—tine Service Masses Ceremonies Letanies with such other Romish ware c. Vol. 1. pag. 112. And Adrian the chief of those Monks was sent as Bede observes not only to assist Theodore but to have an Eye also over him that he introduced nothing after the Greek manner into the Church contrary to the Truth of the Faith received then from Rome Not long after in the time of this Theodore came over from Rome Iohn the Arch-Chanter or chief Singer sent hither by Pope Agatho to teach them how to sing here after the same manner as they sang in St. Peter's as they called it at Rome besides which he had particular instructions from the Pope to inform himself fully of the Faith of the English Church and at his return to Rome to give the Pope an account thereof Great care we see waâ— taken by the â—opes to frame the Church of England by the Romish square and that the English-Saxons did imitate the Church of Rome Bede shews when he sayes that Naitan King of the Picts having a desire to reform the Church in his own Dominion that he might do it the more easily and with greater Authority sought the assistance of the English Nation who he knew long before had ordered their Religion according to the example of the Holy and Apostolick Church of Rome which was then had in so great veneration with the Saxons that many of the Kings of this Island laid down their Scepters and went in devotion to Rome desiring to sojourn a while as Pilgrims on Earth as near the Holy places as they could that they might afterward be received the more familiarly in Heaven by the Saints And this sayes Bede was so customary in those times that many of the English Nation both Noble and Ignoble Laity and Clergy Men and Women seemed to strive who should get thither first And that it was thus in Ethelwolf's time may appear by his going in great devotion as Speed saith to Rome and there committing his youngest Son Alfred to the Popes bringing up as Fox Records together with his liberal presents made to that Church Thus â—eest thou Reader how devout the Saxons were to the Church of Rome and how solicitous and careful that their own Church might follow its example If thou wouldst further know what the Church of Rome then was which was cried up for the Mother Church she was full of Superstition Idolatry Blasphemy She was a worshipper of Images of Saints and of Râ—licks she prayed to Saints as Intercessors and Mediators between God and Man She prayed and sacrificed for the Dead She held the Doctrines of Purgatory Indulgences Merits Ear-Confession Pilgrimages and single Life of Priests To mention all her Corruptions and Superstitions were to write a Volumn Then for the Popes themselveâ— fit Heads enough they were for such a Body Their own Writers are not able to cover the infamy of their Lives The Author of Fascicul Temp. confesses Constantine the second whom he makes to have sate Anno. 764. to have been the fifth infamous Pope and Pope Ione he reckons for the sixth who so far as I can gather possest the Roman Chair within a Year or two after Ethelwolf was there to the irreparable infamy of the Roman Church And for the other Popes who sate in the latter end of that Century in which Pope Ione fâ—ll and in the beginning of the next nothing but what is scandalous can be said of them as Fascic Temp. confesses If we seek a Character of those times not only Fox in his Acts of the Church dividing the time from Châ—ist's Incarnation into divers Periods or Ages reckons the third Period of time from about 600. to about the Year 900. whicâ— comprehends most of the Saxons Reign and the earliest Tythe Donation the declining time of the Church and of true Religion But even Platina in vitae Steph. 3. well nigh a Hundred Years before Ethelwolf's Donation laments the Wickedness of the times in these words Nunc vero adeo refrixit pietas et religio non dico nudis pedibus c. i. e. But now Devotion and Religion is grown so cold that Men can sâ—arce find in their Hearts to Pray I do not say bare-Footed but even with their Hose and Shoes on They do not now Weep as they go or while they are Sacrificing as did the holy Fathers of Old but they Laugh and that impudently I speak even of those of the Purple Robe they do not sing the Hymns for that they account Servile but they entertain one another with Jests and Stories to stir up Laughter In a word the more prone any one is to Jesting and Wantonness the greater praise he hath in such corrupt manners This Clergy of ours dreads and shuns the company of severe and grave Men. Why so Because they had rather live in so great Licentiousness then be subject to one that counsels or governs well and by that means the Christian Religion grows every day worse and worse Thus Platina of the times before Ethelwolf And of the times a little after another Popish Writer cries out lâ—eu heu heu Domine Deus c. i. e. Alas alas alas O Lord God how is the Gold darkned how is the best Colour changed What Scandals do we read to have happened about these times even in the holy Apostolick seat What â—ontentions Emulations Sects Envyings Ambitions Instrusions Persecutionâ— O worst of times in which Holiness fails and Truth is cut of from the Sons off men â—ascic Temp. ad an 884. Thus hast thoâ— Reader a short view off those times those Popes those Churches by which thou mayst perceive both the degeneration and Apostacy of the Roman Church from the Simplicity and â—urity of the Gospel as also the dependence of the Saxon Church upon the Church of Rome its continual recourse and application to her as to its Mother and Nurse from whose Breasts it sucked that corrupt Milk which filled it with putrefaction and unsoundness ever after And very little if any whit at all did the Saxon Church differ from the Church of Rome but as Superstitions and Idolatries encreased in the Church of Rome so they were brought over hither and received here as fast as the distance of place would well permit Judge then whether the Saxon Church be not rightly called Popish whether Ethelwolf who gave Tythes was not a Papist whether the Clergy to which he gave them was not Popish whether the Religion which Tythes were given to uphold was not the Popish Religion and whether it becomes a Protestant Ministry who are so denominated from protesting against Popery to receive and exact that Maintenance which was given by a Popish Prince to Popish Priests to uphold Popery § 24. In his next Section the Priest urges thaâ— Tythes were not Popish because received by some of the Martyrs pag. 136. Tâ—is being offered
me indeed and which is worse false News too How chance he quoted no Author of his News Is not that a sign 't is News of his 〈◊〉 making I confess I never heard before that in the very beginnings of Christianity there were any such Canons made or any such Diocesses as he dreams of It behoves him therefore to set forth his Author left himself be repuâ—ed and that deservedly a Raiser and Spreader oâ— falsâ— News But in the mean time let us â—ift his News a little and see how well it hangs together He told us but now that Tmothy and Titus werâ— fixed at Ephesus and in Crete and that by the Apostles themselves though he does not know by whom yet we find not only the Apostle Paul sendâ—ng Tychicus a dear Brother and faithful Minister in the Lord Ephes. 6. 21. to the Ephesians 2 Tim. 4. 12. But Timothy also at Corinth at Athens at Thessâ—lonica at Philippi at Rome c. So likewise for Titus whom he fixes in Crete Doth not the Apostle speak of sending Artemas and Tychicus thither and of sending for Titus to Nicoâ—â—lis Tit. 3. 12 Doth he not intimate that Zenas and Apollo one of whom was an Expounder of the Law the other an eloquent Preacher of the Gospel were at Crete ver 13 â—nd did not Titus himself travel up and down into divers Cities and Countries in the labour of the Gospel Was he not at Corinth once and again anâ— went he not also unto Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4 10 Now if Timothy and Titus had been fixt as he fancies at Ephesus and in Crete if Bishops and Pastors had been fixt by the Apostles in all eminent Churches in the several Cities they had converted and if in those times in which fell the very beginnings of Christianity there had been any such Diocesses as he dreams of or any such strict Canons as he conjectures made against the Clergy of one Diocess going into another to officiate Pray how did Tychicus Apollo and otherâ— observe those Canons when they went as they did to Ephesus and Crete On how well did Timothy and Titus obey them when they went to officiate at Corinth Thessolonica Philippi Româ— and other places which according to this Priest were distinct Diocesses belonging to otheâ— men into which by the Canon they were strictly forbidden to go to officiate Doth not this discover the emptiness of his story and manifest the falness of his News But we may guess at his date of Christianity by the after-Instance he gives of a Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon the date of which he willingly leaves out but that Council was held according to Genebrard under Pope Leo the first in the Yeaâ— 454. Was this in the very beginnings of Christianity No nor of the Apostacy from Christianity neither for much Corruption both of Doctrine and Practice was in the Church before that time Thus Reader thou mayst see what his confident talk of strict Canons and Diocesses in the very beginnings of Christianity is come to Would any man of honesty ingenuity or modesty impose such falshoods upon ignorant Readers or expose such folly to judicious Eyeâ— He talks also pag. 225. of a Synod among the Britains held by S. Patrick anno 456. but without any mention of Parisâ—es and very confidently takes for granted that long before the Popes of Rome so much as directed any thing hâ—re the Brittains had fixed Arch-Bishops Bishops and Priests by which if he means those Priests were fixâ—d to Parishes as now they are which I observe he doth not expresly say but only that they were fixed they may believe it that dare take his word for it but prove it he never can Selden in his History of Tythes Chap. 9. Sect. 1. shews the contrary But the division of Parishes aâ—ong the Saxons the Priest ascribes to Honorius the fifth Arch-Bishop of Canterbury about the Year â—4â— or to Theodorâ—s the next bâ—t one in that Sea 〈◊〉 tâ—enty or thirty Years after Hence I perceivâ— he thinks he hath sufficient ground to deride me for asking If it was not a Pope that divided Provinces into Parishes and set up Parish-Priests Whether Parishes were divided by Honorius Theodorus or some other of later time I think not worth Inquiery I know the common Opinion attributes this work to Honoriâ—s which yet is doubted by many and some of great judgment It sufficeth my purpose that whether Parishes were set out and Parish-Priests fixt thereto by Honorius or Theodorus it was done by the Pope's power for either of these received his Archiepiscopal Authority from Rome Honorius says Bede Eccles. Hist. l. 2. c. 18. received the Pall of his Arch-Bishoprick from Honorius at that time Pope of Rome and withal a Letter in which the Pope grants to this Honorius Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and to Paulinus then Arch-Bishop of York to whom also he sent a Pall this power at thâ—ir request that which soever of them should die first the surviver might by the authority of the Pope's Command make such an Ordination of another in his room as should be pleasing to God This shews they received their authority from the Pope and what they acted by that authority was done by the Pope's power If therefore Honorius as Arch-Bishop of Canterbury divided that Province into Parishes and set up Parish Priests therein it cannot be denyed but those Parishes were divided and Priests set up by the Pope whose Instrument Honorius was therein and by whose power it was done And thus seems Caâ—den to understand it in his Brittania pag. 100. wherâ— he says When the Bishops of Rome had assigned several Churches to several Priests and 〈…〉 unto them Honorius Arch-Bishop of Canterbury about the Year of our Redemption â—36 began 〈◊〉 to divide England into Parishes as we read in the History of Canterbury So that he refers this Act of Honorius to the Bishop of Rome not oâ—ly in point of power but of example also In imitation then of what the Popes had donâ— and by vertue of Authority received from the Pope were these Parishes set out and were Parish-Priests at first set up whoever was the Pâ—pe's Agent therein The Priest conâ—ludes this Section thus And now says he we see T. E. hath neither Learniâ—g nor Truth in him who attributes our fixing to a â—ope when the Apostles themselves shewed the way in this Practice not intending that any â—agabond Speakers should be allowed after once the Christian Church was settled pag. 22â— I am better acquainted with my self than to pretend to any great store of Learning and with his manner of writing than to regard his Râ—flection on the Truth of what I have written With great readiness I submit both to the Censure of the judicious and impartial Reader But as little Learning as he is pleased to allow me I have enough at least to let him see that for all his great stock of Learning wiâ—h the conceit of which he is so over-blown
Priest-hood only resteth in Christ and is not translated to any other and that theâ—e is now no Sacrifice leâ—t but Spiritual of Praise and Thanksgiving Heb. 13. â—5 it follows that by reason of any such external Priest-hood â—r Sacrifice Tythes are not now due unto the Church neither in any such regard ought to be challenged Again pag. 316. If there were any such Priest-hood and Tythes in that Right did appertain to the Church it is most like that our Saviour Christ and his Apostles would have challenged them But there is no one precept in the New Testament concerning paying of Tythes but only for a sufficient Maintenance for the Ministers of the Gospel Judge now Reader whether this man thought as the Priest does That our Lord Jesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers That Christ hath assigned Tythes to the Gospel Ministers and that they may be proved out of the New Testament to be due jure divino But leaving these Testimonies to the Reader 's censure I proceed now to examine his Right to Tythes by Donation and voluntary Dedication which in his next Section he makes way for but does not directly enter upon being diverted by a passage or two in my Book which it seems lay in his way § 8. First he falls with great anger upon me for saying in pag. 287. of my Book called Truth Prevailing Though Christ dâ—ny Tythes yâ—t if men will grant them it will serve the Priests turn This he calls a most malicious Inference pag. 72. But who sees not the Truth of it Care they I speak of the generality of them how they come by them so they can get them Regard they whether they have them from God or Man If some among them do yet that this Priest doth not no man that indifferently reads his Book can doubt But he thinks to pinch me closer upon this point I know sayes he to his dear Brother you never said nor thought that Christ denyed Tythes and since the Quaker affirms that Christ doth deny them let him produce the place of Scripture where Christ doth deny Tythes to be given or granted to Gospel Ministers or else he is a manifest Slanderer of Christ in this Suggestion pag. 73. I should not have thought this passage worth Transcribing but to detect his weakness and shew him how severely he jerks himself while he thinks to lash me If I do not produce the place of Scripturâ— where Christ doth deny Tythes to be given to Gospel Ministers he Brands me for a manifest Slanderer of Christ. He himself sayes Our Lord Iesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers pag. 61. yet produces no place of Scripture where our Lord Jesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers but on the contrary confesses Tythes are not mentioned in the Gospel or Epistles to be the very part pag. 67. and that Tythes are not mentioned in the New Testament by name ibid. Nor only so but affirms Our Lord and his Apostles did not make a new determination of the tenth part by name pag. 69. and that Our Lord 〈◊〉 probably on purpose decline determining the prâ—portion too expresly pag. 70. Now after all this 〈◊〉 that can so freely stigmatize me for a manifest Slanderer of Christ what will he think fit to call himself what badge will himself vouchsafe to wear He sayes Christ hath assigned Tythes to the Gospel Ministers pag. 72. but himself hath not assigned any place of Scripture for the proof thereof Shall I take the liberty to say by Retortion Let him produce the place of Scripture where Christ hath assigned Tythes to the Gospel-Ministers or else he is a manifest Slanderer of Christ in this suggestion The next occasion he takes to fall upon me is for taking King Ethelwolf's for the oldest Charter And here according to his usual Incivility he liberally bestows upon me the liveries of folly and falshood You did sayes he to his Brother pag. 73. provâ— this voluntarâ— Dedication with respect to this Nation by King Ethâ—lwolf's Charter Not because that was the first or oldest Donation of Tythes as T. E. foolishly and falsly suggests pag. 299. To the same purpose pag. 74. And because the Quaker dreading all higher antiquity and omitting alâ— inquiry into preceding Church History doth cunningly suppose Tythes no older amongst Christians then thiâ— Charter c. This is his charge how justly grounded will appear by comparing it with that part of my â—ook out of which he seems to draw it My words are these pag. 299. If he had any Charter or settlement of Tythes of Older Date then that of Ethelwolf which was about the Year 855. he should have produced it and probably so he would However since he did â—ot I have no reason to think he has any elder Where now is my folly where my falshood in this 〈◊〉 I foolish in thinking he would have produced an older Charter if he could when his business was to clear the Donation from all suspition of Popâ—ry and his interest led him in order thereto to produce thâ— most antient Charter he could find Or was I false in saying I had no reason to think he had any elder Charter since he whose main concern it was did not bring forth an older Or was it an argument I dreaded all higher Antiquity because I only refuted the highest Antiquity he brought and did not make it my busineâ—s to seek out for him an higher Antiquity then he could find for himself Belong'd it to me to search into preceding Church History to help him to a more authentick Charter What VVeak what Childish what Trifling work is this Let him not lay his Brother's Weakness at my Door but let him take his Brother to Task and teach him to manage his Cause more warily hereafter CHAP IV. HE now purposes a Method in which he promises to proceed in his following Discourse First he sayes He will look back into the Ages before K. Ethelwolf and shew by what Authority and presidents he made this Donation Secondly He will consider the Donation it self and the State of those Times in which it was made Thirdly He will note how it hath been confirmed since And then Fourthly Wipe off T. E's particular blots thrown upon this sacred Maintenance pag. 74. In this Method I intend to follow him with what brevity I can not insisting on every particular which might be spoken to in this part of his Discourse because the human Right necessarily depending on the Dâ—vine and the Divine Right hitherto remaining altogether unproved what can be urged in Defence of the Human Right will have the less weight and need the less Answer § 1. He begins with the Apostles Times and sayes pag. 75. The Apostles having given a general Rule for the Faithful to Communicate unto their Teachers in all good things the
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
Epiphanius By which the Reader may judge Whether Christians paid Tythes in Epiphanius his time or whether Epiphaniuâ— accounted the Payment of Tythes a Christian duty who so plainly equals Tythes with Circumcision and Iewish Offerings which are most certainly abrogated To â—piphanius the Priest joynes Chrysostom whom he reports to speak after this manner It is lawful and fitting for Christians to pay Tythes and that Melchizedec was our Tutor in this matter page 81. Doth this sound at all like Chrysostom Is it likely he would say Melchizedec was our Tutor in paying Tythes Did Melchizedec then pay Tythes To whom I wonder Or did he teach that Tythes are to be paid Whâ—re I pray That Golden-mouthed Doctor as his name imports understood the Text and himself better then to have let fall such an expression But his Writings have run the same fate with others of those earlier timeâ— being in many places partly through inadvertency partly through design corrupted And Perkins out of Sixtus Senensis the Library-keeper reckons above a hundred homilies that bear the name of Chrysostom which yet are reputed Spurious Problem pag. â—4 c. And Selden in his History of Tythes C. 5. pag 56. giving the Opinions of the Fatâ—ers of that Age sayes Chrysostom perswading even Labourers and Artificers to give bouâ—tifully their Offerings to the Church for holy uses according to the Apostolical Ordinance in the Churches of Coâ—inth and Galatia brings the Iewish liberality in the payment of their Tenths for Example beneath which he would not have Christians determin their Charity adding that he speaks these things not as commanding or forbidding that they should give more yet as thinking it fit that they should not give lâ—ss then a tenth part Whence it is plain that Tythes were not yet generally paid nor held duâ— but the Miâ—isters the Poor were alike maintained by the free Gifts and Voluntary Oblation of the Pâ—ople which through the coldness of Devotion falling short of answering the necessary ends as formerly gave occasion to these men to excite their Charity and provoke them to more liberality by the Example of the Iews who paid the tenth of their increase Hence it is that in some of their Writings the word Decimae sometimes occurs And from their frequent Inculcation of this as a Provocation to tâ—e Christians to equal at least if not exceed in charity and bounty the Iews an Opinion about this time Ignorance and Superstition Co-operating theâ—e to began in some places to enter the Church Thaâ— Tythes were due But then they were claimed and received in the name of the Poor and the claim derived from the Mosaical Law as Selden proves at large C. 5. But for the first four hundred years after Christ Selden is positive No use of Tythes occurs till about the end of this four hundred years are his words C. 4. pag. 35. And again Till towards the end of the first four hundred years no payment of them can be proved to have been in use ibid. The Priest's next quotation is of Hierom whom he makes to say That as a Priest or Levite he himself lived upon Tythes and Oblations pag. 81. In this he deals not well with his Reader for he gives not Hierom's own words fairly but taking a piece only represents his sense far otherwise then it is Hierom's words are these Si ego pars Dominâ— sum et faniculus hareditatis ejus nec accipio partem inter caeteras tribus sed QVASI Levita et Sacerdâ—s vivo de decimis et altari serviens altaris oblationâ— sustentâ—r habens victuâ— et vestitum his contentus ere et â—â—â—dam crucemnudus sequâ—r i. e. If I am the Lords parâ— and a cord of his Inheritance and receive nâ— shâ—â—â— amongst the rest of the Tribes but live LIKE AS â— Levite and a Priest of the Tythes and serving at the Altar am sustained by the Offering of the Alâ—ar having Food and Rayment with those will I be content and naked foâ—â—ow the naked Cross. It s plain that Hierâ—m here alludes to the Iewish Priests and their Maintenance and therefore uses the word Tythes as suiting his comparison of a Levite But it doth no more follow from hence that Hierom really lived upon Tythes then it doth that he was really a Levite of a certain Tribe and neither had nor might have any Patrimonial Estate amongst his Brethren all which might with like reason be infer'd from these words by him that would take them literally strictly not comparatively and with allusion And it may be observed that though in the first part of his Sentence pursuing his Simile of a Levite having no part among the other Tribes he mentionâ— Tythes which was the Levites Maintenance yet in the latter part he hath a plain reference to the words of the Apostle Paul 1 Tim. 6. 8. Having Food and Rayment let us therewith be content Another quotation he gives out of Hierom upon Matth. 22. where he sayes Hierom callâ— Tythes the things that be Gods But that Homily upon Matthew is rejected by Perkins in pag. 23. of his Problem and ranked amongst several other Works which he sayes by the common judgment of all men arâ— falsly ascribed to Hierom. His next Author is Augustin who he sayes pag. 82. intimates it was no new Custom nor Opinion to pay Tythes as Gods due His words as he cites them are For our fore-Fathers therefore abounded in all â—lenty 〈…〉 they gave God his Tythe and Caesar his Tribute That Tythes were not paid in the Apostles times is both evident from Scripture and granted by the Priest That Tythes were not paid in the first two Hundred Years after Christ may be fairly Collected from Tertullian who speaking of the Christian Monethly Contributions in his time sayes Modicam unusquisque stipem menstruâ die velcum velit et si modo velit si modo possit appoâ—it Nam nemo compellitur sed sponte confert i. e. Every one layes down a small piece of Money on the Monethly day or when he will and if so be he be willing and if so be he be able For no man is compelled but bestows freely Apol. c. 39. Then for the next fifty Years those words of Cyprian cited but misapplied by the Priest if the place be not depraved shew that Tythes were not then paid For he noting the coldness of their Charity then compared with the liberality of the first Christians sayes They then sold Houses and Lands and brought the Prices to the Apostles to be disposed for the use of the Poor but now we do not give so much as the Tenths which plainly shews that Tenths or Tythes were not paid in his time And about the Year 380. What Epiphaniuâ— writes of the Tessaresdecaticae cited but now out of Selden puts it out of doubt that Tythes were not paid in his time at least in the Greek Eastern Church And if Tythes were not paid in Epiphanius his time certainly the
Boniface he sayes pag. 92. If I desire to have the name of Tythes as well as the thing among the Antient Saxons I may find in the Epistle of Boniface to Cuthbert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Anno. 745. That the English Priests in those dayes were maintained by the taking the daily Oblations and Tythes of the faithful Hitherto he has found neither the thing nor the name among his Saxon Evidences but has given only some ill grounded Conjectures that Church-esset and Ciric-sceat might signifie a kind of Tythes And what he has now found in the Epistle of this Arch-Bishop Boniface comes much too late to clear Tythes from the blemish of Popish Institution For if he could prove an Institution of Tythes in this Nation a general Dedication of Tythes or any positive Law commanding the payment of Tythes here as early as this Epistle of Boniface which yet is far from early in comparison of the earliest dayes of Christianity yet unless he could also wipe away for covering will not seâ—ve those foul Spots and filthy Stains those gross Corruptions and Superstitions wherewith the Church was 〈◊〉 that time and before miserably polluted and deformed all he can say will not acquit Tythes from a Popish Institution even according to the Notion his Brother Priest has given of Popery But though through the blind devotion of that Age some of the most superstitiously Zealous might not improbably give Tythes yet hath not he given or met with any Law Constitution or Synodal Decree of that time of undoubted Credit injoyning the payment of Tythes This very Cuthbâ—rt to whom the fore-cited Epistle of Boniface was written being then Arch-Bishop of Canterbury called together the Bishops and Prelates and held a great Synod near a place called Clomeshâ— the Decrees of which Synod Iohn Fox hath set down particularly in his Acts and Monuments of the Church upon the Year 747. in which Year that Synod was held But in all those Decrees there is not the least mention of Tythes No Constitution yet appears Civil or Ecclesiastical for the payment of Tythes And as for Boniface himself from whose Epistle the Priest would prove the settlement of Tythes in England before Popery take but the Character that Fox gives of him in the place fore-quoted and then think as thou canst of him the Religion and times he lived in First he taxes him with maintaining superstitious Orders of lascivious Nunâ— and other Religioâ—s and restraining the same from lawful Marriage Then he adds For so we find of him in Stories that he was a great setter up and upholder of such blind Superstition and all Popery Who being admitted by Pope Gregory the second Arch-Bishop of Magunce and indued with full Authority legantine over the Germans builded Monasteries Canonized Saints commanded Relicks to be worshipped c. Item sayes he by the Authority of the said Arch-Bishop Boniface which he received from Pope Zachary Childerious King of France was deposed from the right of his Crown and Pipinus betrayer of his Master was confirmed c. From this Boniface adds he proceeded that detestable Doctrine which now standeth Registred in the Popes Decrees Dist. 40. Cap. Si papa which in a certain Epistle of his is this That in case the Pope were of most filthy living and forgetful or negligent of himself and of the whole Christianity in such sort that he led innumerable Souls with him to Hâ—ll yet ought there no man to rebuke him in so doing for he hath Power to judge all men and ought of no man to be judged again Now Reader weigh and consider with thy self what manner of Bishop this Boniface was what a Religion he profest what times he lived in and then tell me whether or no Popery had not made her encroachments in the Church in the time of this Bishop Boniface Next to the Epistle of Boniface before mentioned the Priest offers a Collection made by Egbert Arch-Bishop of York in the Year as he says 750. of all the Canoâ—s that were made in the Councils before his time and whâ—ch were in force in England among which Canons he sayes pag. 93. there is frequent mention of Tythes as particularly in the 4. 5. 99. and 100. The words of the fourth Canon he gives thus That the People be 〈◊〉 in the right manner of Offering them to Gods Church The words of the fifth Canon he sets down thus That the Priest shall take them and set down the names of those who gave them There he stops omitting the rest of that Canon which in the Latine thus follows et secundum Autoritatem Canonicam coram testibus diviâ—ant et ad ornamentum ecclesiae primam eligant partem secundam autem ad usum pauperum atque peregrinorum per â—orâ—â— manus misericorditer cum omni humilitate dispensent tertiâ—â— vero sibimet ipsis Sacerdotes reservent i. e. and according to Canonical Authority shall divide them before Witnesses and shall chuse the first part for the Ornament of the Church The second part they shall with all humility most mercifully distribute with their own hands to the use of the Poor aâ—d of Strangers but the third part the Priests shall keep for themselves I have Transcribed this only to shew the Priest's Craft in concealing it He would have the benefit of this Canon he would use the Authority of it to prove his Claim to Tythes but he would not have the People understand how and to what uses Tythes were appointed by this Canon to be imployed How great a charge are the People now at in maintaining the Poor and in repairing and adorning those Houses which they call Churches over and above their Tythes to the Priests whereas this Canon which the Priest urges for the proof of his Claim to Tythes commands expresly that the Tythes being divided into three parts two parts of the three should be bestowed upon those publique uses and the Priests to have but the one third part that remained But now alas the Priests swollow the whole tenths the two parts as well as the third and the People are fain to make New-Levies to defray those publique charges from which by this Canon they were to be freed But be this spoken by the way only Now to the Canons themselves He sayes they were collected by Egbert about the Year 750. but by whom and when were they made Doubtless that had been very material but he has not a Syllable of it but delivers it in the gross for a Collection made by Egbert of all the Canons that were made in the Councils before his time c. But by what Art did Egbert collect Canons that were not made till after his death For that some such are â—n that Collection which bare his name Selden gives more then probable reasons First he sayes The Authority of the Title must undergo a Censure Then he adds Who ever made it supposed that Egbert gathered that Law and the rest joyn'd with it out of some
to the profâ—ssion of that Order was aftâ—rward â—â—de Deacon and Bishop in the then Clergy but upon the Death of his Father was in order to thâ— Civil Government absolved of his Vows by Pope Gregory the fourth went himself in great Devotion to Rome confirmed his former grant of Peter-pence to the 〈◊〉 obliged himself further to the Yearly payment of three Hundred Marks to Rome whâ—reof two Hundred were appointed by him to buy Oyl to keep all the Lamps burning in St. Peters and St. Pauls Churches at Rome and the other Hundred Marks was a Yearly present to the Pope and that he was the Pope's Creature All this spoken of Ethelwolf particularly the Priest passes silently over without the least touch or note and as one that is ashamed to confess and afraid to deny he puts me off with this sorry shift pag. 100. If T. E. had known what gives a man the just denomination of a Papist he would not have discoursed so absurdly What a pittiful come off is this Is this like a Disputant Wâ—y did he not take up the discourse and lay open the absurdity of it Would a man of his scantling of understanding and discretion let slip so fair an advanâ—age Who could have thought it Well that discourse however absurd or not remains unaâ—swered and the instances there gâ—ven to prove Ethelwolf a Papist are not disproved or any way removed by the Priest He tells us it is not every one that agrees in some Opinions with the Roman Church whâ— is a Papist since then all Christians in the World would be Papists ibid. But what 's this to the purpoâ—e is not this another device to avoid the matter Are the Instances I gave of Ethelwolf's being a Papist common to all Christians as well as Papists 'T is true indeed there are some Tenents common to Papists and all Christians as that there is a God that Christ is come and hath suffered for Mankind c. But are those things mentioned before of Ethelwolf of the Nature of these are they received in common by all Christian as well as by Papists Let me come a little nearer him He reckons himself not only a Christian but a Minister of Christ also Is what is related before of Ethelwolf consistent with his Christianity If not why does he thus abuse both his Reader and me by suggesting that what I there spake of Ethelwolf is agreeable to all Christian as well as Papists But if what is spoken before of Etheâ—wolf be not agreeable to all Christians but to Papists only I hope it will be sufficient proof that Ethâ—lwolf was a Papist Having said who is not a Papist he now gives us the definition of a Papist thus He is a Papist who professes himself a Member of the Roman Church and acknowledges the â—opes Supremaâ—y believing all the Articles of the Roman Church ' s Faith p. 101. This definition would exclude a great number of profest Papists from being Papists for many that have lived and dyed in the profession of that Religion and in communion with the Roman Church did not believe all the Articles of the Roman Church's Faith Most notorious are the Controversies which for many Ages have been maintained amongst the Religious Orders of that Church one sort most hotly and violently impugning the Faith and Opinions of the other yet all Papists So that to the constituting a Papist it is not of absolute necessity that he believes all the Articles of the Roman Church's Faith But if he profess himself a Member of that Church and be in communion with it that 's enough to denote him a Papist The other Priest in his Friendly Conference pag. 149. gave his Parishioner a Definition of Popery his words are these I cannot give you a more brief and true account of Popery then this That it is such Doctrines and superstitious Practices which by the corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome contrary to the true ancieâ—t catholick and apostolick Church Now if this be a true account of Popery and so true an one that he cannot as he sayes give a more true what truer account then can be given of a Papist then to say he is a Papist that holds such Doctrines and suâ—erstitious Practices c. Or he is a Papist that holds Popery But Popery is 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 Therefore he that holds 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 is a Papist Now let us measure Ethelwolf by the Priests definition of Popery and see how far Ethelwolf will fall short of being a Papist That Ethelwolf held the Doctrine of the Caelibate or single life of Priests is clear from his taking upon him the Vow of Single Life when he entred his Monkish Order He held the Doctrine that the Pope had poâ—er to absolve and release him from his Vows and accordingly received an Absolution from the Pope He held the practice of burning Lamps continually day and night in the houses they called Churches and accordingly gave two hundred Marks a year to buy Oyl to feed the Lamps in two of those Churches and that in Rome Now if these Doctrines and Practices were superstitious if they were such as by the corruption of time prevailed in the Church of Rome if they were contrary to the true ancient catholick and apostolick Church which none I think but a Papist will deny then according to the Priest's Definition they are Popery and consequently Ethelwolf in holding them was a Papist But the Priest sayes King Ethelwolf did never profess himself a Member of the Roman Church ibid. Is not this strange What made him then seek Absolution of his Vows from the Pope What caused him to go in such great Devotion to Rome What moved him to give two hundred Marks a year to maintain the Lamp-Religion of the Roâ—an Church What induced him to settle a hundred 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 upon the Pope What led him to re-build the English School â—n Rome â—ounded at first by 〈◊〉 for a Seminary to train up the English Youth in the â—eligion of the Râ—man Câ—urch And how I wonder â—as he the â—opes Creature as in History iâ— recorded of him if he never profest himself a Mâ—mber of the Roman Church He adds that Ethelwolf and his Succâ—ssors were Vicarius Christ oâ—ning no Supreâ—m in their Kâ—ngdomâ— but Christ ibid. Certain it is that the Popes Supremacy was received long before Ethelwolf's time Perkins against 〈◊〉 acknowledges it begun openly and 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 Anno â—â—7 which was near two hunâ—â—ed and fiâ—â—y years before the Charter of 〈◊〉 for Tythes and â—e quotâ—s Sâ—gebert upon the year â—07 thus Boniface obtained of the Emperor 〈…〉 tâ—e Church of Rome should be the Hâ—ad
of all Churches Tâ—is was within a few years after Austin's coming from Rome hither and planting the â—oman Religion here From which time for the space of well-â—igh a hundred years all the Arch-Bishops of Câ—nterbury seven in number succâ—ssivâ—ly were Italians and Forreigners as Fox notes in his Martyrology vol. 1. pag. 121. shewing â—articularly in one of them Theodorus by Name that he was sent into England by Vitellianus the Pope to be Arch-Bishop of Canterbury whereupon this Theodorus took upon him the placing and displacing the Bishops at his Pleasure He turned out Cedda and Wilfride the Arch-Bishops of York under Pretence they were not lawfully consecrated notwithstanding says Fox they were sufficiently authorized by their Kings Wilfride hereupon went to Rome to complain but without redress Why did he not complain to his King if he was accounted Viâ—arius Christi Why made he his application to the Pope if the Pope's Supremacy was not then owned Besides if Ethelwolf and his Successors were Vicarij Christi owning no Supream in their Kingdoms but Christ how came it that they subjected themselves and their Kingdoms to the See of Rome making them tributary to the Pope by the yearly payment of Rome scot or Peter 〈◊〉 which was a 〈◊〉 Tax laid upon every House in England and paid to the Popes Treasury at Rome Hâ— adds further Tâ—at Ethelwolf did not hold all the Opinions of the Church of Rome and therefore was no Papist p. 101. That Ethelwolf was a Papist according to the account which the other Priest gives of Popery which he says is the tâ—uest Account he can give of it I have proved before That the holding every Opinion of the Church of Rome is absolutely necessary to the denominating a Papist I deny A great part of the professed Papists do not hold all the Opinions of the Church of Rome His Consequence therefore is false although he should prove his Proposition Suppose a man hold Purgatory Indulgences praying to Saints worshipping of Saints praying for the Dead sacrificing for the Dead worshipping of Relicks Auricular Confession â—ennance Absolution Pilgrimages Single Life of Priests Latin Services Masses Merits and abundance more of such like Romish Ware shall this man be denyed to be a Papist because he holds not every particular of the Church of Rome How absuâ—d were that Verily I cannot see what should induce this Priest thus to argue unless he should have apprehension that the account which his Brother Priest has given of Popery will take in him and his Brethren too as holding such Doctrines and superstitious Practices which by the corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome contrary to the true ancient catholick and apostolick Church and has therefore to secure himself from the Imputation of Popery invented this new Definition of a Papist But when he cannot clear Ethelwolf from being a Papist he atttempts to justifie his Donation of Tythes though a Papist and therefore sayes pag. 101. If we should grant that Ethelwolf was a Papist yet neither would that make his Donation of Tythes void for an erroneous Opinion in the person who doth a thing good in it self as we have proved Tythes to be doth not make the Act void How lightly doth he speak of Popery how willing he is to extenuate it An erroneous Opiâ—ion It seems then Popery in his Opinion is but an erroneous Opinion I alwayes thought Popery had been at least one degree worse then a bare Erroneous Opinion But suppose it for the present to be but an erroneous Opinion yet may not an erroneous Opinion be sufficient to make void an Act which flows from that Erroneous Opinion and is designed to uphold that Erroneous Opinion as this Donation of Tythes did The Opinion which was the cause of this Donation was this That this Gift would be a means to appease the Anger of God obtain remission of Sins and Salvation of his Soul This was to say on more of it a very erroneous Opinion and from this erroneous Opinion did spring the Donation of Tythes Now this Opinion which was the cause being thrown aside and rejected the Donation which was the Effect is void of it self according to that known Maxim Sublata Causâ tollitur effectus i. e. When the Cause is taken away the Effect is taken away also Nor was this Donation Erroneously grounded in respect only of the Remission and Salvation expected by it but also in respect of the Personâ— to whom and the Service for which it was given They to whom Tythes were then given were not the Ministers of Christ but his Eâ—emies and that Religion which Tythes wâ—â—e given to support was not the true undefiled Religion and uncorrupted Worship of God but the false corrupted Religion and Worship of the degenerate Church of Rome Whaâ— he sayes of the Act or thing being good in it self hath no place here unless he could as really prove as readily say that Tythes are good in themselves How Tythes or Tenths are good in themselves any more then Ninths Eights Sevenths or any other number I confess I do not understand But sayes he pag. 101. If all the good acts of Papists in the true sense and all their Charters and Donations be void meerly because â—ade and done by Papists then all the Charters of our Kings all the endowments of Hospâ—â—als and Schools Magna Charta and all publick Acts for some Hundreds of Years before K. Henry the eighth would be void Which Principle sayes he would destroy the Maintenance of the Poor the Priviledges of Cities and the Freedom of all English Subjects With him in this part agrees the other Priest in his Vindication pag. 303. urging for instance Magna Charta to both which one and the same Answer may serve This is all grounded upon a mistake â—nd I doubt a wilfull one too His interest diswades him from distinguishing as he ought between Religious and Civil Acts. What the Papists did as men as Members of a Body Politick is one thing what they did as Christians as Members of a Religious Society is another Though in their Religious capacity they were wrong yet in their civil capacity they were right they were really men they were truly Members of the Political Body though they were not truly Members of the Body of Christ their Kings were true Kings their Parliaments were true Parliaments their Civil Government a true Government though their Church was not the true Church The making void therefore this Charter of Tythes which had direct Relation to their Religion and was designed to suâ—port their Church and Worship which was false doth not at all shake much less overthrow those civil Acts Laws Charters and Priviledges which in a civil capacity as Members of the Body politick and with relation to the civil Government which was true were made or enacted by them He grounds his Thesis on a false Hypothesiâ— when he sayes If all the good Acts of Papists in the true sense
that the Mystery of Iniquity which began to work in their dayes hath continued working ever since and in every Age successively hath brought forth more and more of its work So that Popery was not All brought forth in a Day nor in an Age but was introduced gradually And as the true Religion of Christ was instituted prosessed and practised some time before it was distinguished by the Name Christian. So the false Religion was received also before it was denominated Popish yet this false Religion was really in its Nâ—ture Popish before it obtained to be called Popish as the true Religion was really in its Nature Christian before it received the Name Christian. He therefore that will receive whatsoever he finds practised or commended in the Church before the Name of Popery prevailed may be very likely to receive something which was brought forth by the working of the mystery of Iniquity and is really and truly of the Nature of Popery But the Priest sayes as he has said before more then once If the Saxons in K. Ethelwolf's tiâ—e were Papists it will not follow that all their Donations are void I say so too Some of their Donations were meerly civil made by them as men and Members of a civil Society but this of Tythes was the product of their Religion and of that part of it wherein they were most corrupt So that although All their Donations are not void yet if any at all of their Donations are void there is none which with more reason should be so then this of Tythes Again he sayes 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 But I have proved that the giving of Tythes was a Popish Act proceeding from such Motives and attended with such Circumstances as are repugnant to true Protestant Principles But sayes he pag. 121. The Protestants have disputed as much and as well for Tythes as ever the Papists did If by Protestants he means his Brethren the Priests I wonder not at all at it Tythes are their Diana the Oyl that nourishes their Lamp pag. 13. No wonder then if they dispute foâ— Tythes and that much too but how well let others judge Yet commonly the Dispute ends on their parts with Club-Law and in the case of Tythes an Imprisonment and trebble dammages are Ratio ultima Cleri the Clergy's last Argument and many times their first too but alwayes the strongest and that they most rely on He adds It is a Popish Opinion That the Bishop of Rome can exempt men from paying Tythes 'T is so indeed but it is the subsequent of another Popish Opinion That the Bishop of Rome can injoyn men to pay Tythes So that the particular exemption from Tythes and the institution of Tythes are deâ—ived from one and the same Power And if the payment of Tythes had not been settled and established by the Authority of the Bishop of Rome the Opinion of his power to exempt men from paying Tythes had not prevailed as it did But do not these Popish exemptions remain still among the Protestants Those Lands which the Pope made Tythe free are they not Tythe free still What signifies that I pray Is that an argument of the divine Right of Tythes and that Tythes are due by the moral eternal Law Or is it not rather a fair intimation that Tythes are indeed but of human Institution and that from the Bishops of Rome too whose exemptions are in force and observed here even to this day Then he sayes I begun too low by far for if Popery came not into the Church till about seven Hundred Years after Christ according to T. E's proof then Tythes were much ancienter then Popery for they were paid sayes he and declared to be due to the Church at least five Hundred Years before In all this he is wrong For first I have proved Popery did come into the Church before seven Hundred Years after Christ before any settled payment of Tythes Next he neither hath proved nor can prove by any Testimony of credit in this case that Tythes were paid and declared to be due to the Christian Church at least five Hundred Years before He may talk of the Apostles Canons and Clement's Constitutions and be laugh't at for his pains but no Authentick evidence of those times can be produced to prove the payment of Tythes The oldest of his Authors that mentions Tythes is Origen who grounded his judgment on the Lâ—vitical Law and thought it necessary that that Law should stand in force according to the Letter which could not be consistent with Christianity But although Origen was a learned man yet Perkins says he was Errorum plenus full of Errors and Hierom calls his Writings Venâ—nata Venemous and among the rest of his Errors Purgatory was one as witnesseth the same Perkins against Coâ—â—ius Probl. pag. 175. So that if he will fetch Tythes from Origen he may take Purgatory along with them if he please However he shall find that some of those Opinions which afterwards were most rightly denominated Popish were by the Mystery of Iniquity brought into the Church as early as his earliest mention of Tythes let him climb as high as he can § 20. But to clear Tythes from a Popish Institution he sayes pag. 122. 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 〈◊〉 noâ— in the Church of Rome it self at the time of this Donation Anno 855. Of this he gives several Instances pag. 123. the first is this The Marriage of Priests was not forbidden till the time of Gregory the 7th above two hundred years after For this he cites Polid. Virgill de ver invent l. 5. c. 4. But how unfairly he has quoted his Author and how foully he hath abused his Reader let Polydore's own words shew in the place cited where having declared how it fared with the Eastern Priests in that case he adds At occidentalibus paulatim est Connubium abrogatum Syricius enim priums â—acerdotibus et diaconis ut ait Gratianus distinctione 82. â—onjugio interdicit qui circiter annum salutis humane 387. federe caepit i. e. But Marriage was taken from the Priests in the West by degrees For Syricius who began to sit in the Roman Chair about the year of man's Salvaâ—ion 387. was the first that forbad Marriage to Priests and Deacons as Gratian says in his 82 Distinction Idem instituit says Polydore ut quicunque aut viduam aut secundam duxisset uxorem ab ordine sacerdotali pelleretuâ— sic per hoc voluit ut deinceps Digamus ad officium facerdotis non admittertur i. e. The same Syricius ordained that whatsoever Priest had married a Widow or a Second Wife should be put out of his Priesthood so by this he would not have any one that
interest as these good men for Martyrs it seems we must not call them plainly did and yet the Author of the Conference in his Vindication pag. 307 309. makes as if they held no other Opinion of Tythes then I represent him to hâ—ld In all which he wrongs both them and me and tells his Reader a great untruth For neither did they hold Tythes to be due in that notion of a temporal Right in which he claims them nor did I represent him to hold that Tythes arâ— pure and meer Alms as they affirmed them to be Wickliffe he confesses denyed the Ius divinuâ— or divine Right of Tythes 'T is true indeed he did so and the human Right too in that sense wherein this Priest claims them and therefore is a very proper witness against him For Wickliffe held Tythes to be pure Alms disposable at the will and pleasure of the giver But this Priest calls Tythes his Free-hold and sayes he looks upoâ— himâ—â—lf to be no more obliged to the People for the payment of them then a Landlord is to his Tenant for the payment of his Rent Conference pag. 161. To the same purpose also 〈◊〉 speaks in his Vindication pag. 315. which is somewhat different I wis from meer Alms. And how contemptibly soever these Priests think of Iohn Wickliffe it appears that the University of Oxford in their publick Testimonial gave high commendation of him not only as a man of profound learning but as a stout and valiant Champion of the Faith Martyrol pag. 412. And that Iohn Hus the Bohemian by publick Disputation in the University of Prague did maintain and defend the Articles of Wickliffe and particularly that Tythes were pure Alms and might be taken from the Clergy pag. 425. And though Wickliffe it sâ—ems be not thought worthy the Name of a Martyr yet Hus I hope I may adventure to stile one without the danger of being called again a manifest Lyer since Hus was actually Burnt at Constance by sentence of the same Council which commanded the burning of Wickliffe's Bones and for maintaining Wickliffâ—'s Articles Neither did Swinderby Britâ— or Thorp hold Tythes in that Notion of temporal Right that these Priests do For Swinderby held Tythes to be meer Alms which might lawfully be taken from the Priest And in his seventh Article he sayes No Priest ought by bargaining and covenant to sell his Ghostly travel that is his spiritual Service or Ministry of which among many particulars he names Prayers Baptism Confirming Marrying c. Martyrol pag. 431. Which Hus also maintained saying It is no argument that if the Curate do perform his corporal Ministry that he ought therefore to challenge Tythes by a civil Title because that as well on the behalf of him which giveth the Tythes as also in the behalf of the Curate every such Ministry ought freely to be given and not by any civil exchange pag. 426. Brute also not only denyed the divine Right of Tythes which he judiciously and plainly disproves shewing that Tytâ—â—s under the Law were Ceremonial and therefore ended by Christ and not being afterwards commanded by Christ or his Apostles Christian People are not bound to pâ—y Tythes either by the Law of Moses or of Christ pag. 446 447. but accounted Tythes meer Alms as it seems by the Articles exhibited against him pag. 438. although he sayes By the tradition of men they are bound to pay them pag. 447. yet by the word Traditioâ— that seems rather meant de facto then dejure As for Thorp he denyed not only the divine Right of Tythes but the temporal Right also that these Priests plead for for he shews that the Parishioners have power to detain their Tythes The Parishioners sayes he that pay their temporal Goods be they Tythes or Offerings to Priests that do not their Office among them justly are partners of every Sin of those Priests because that they sustain those Priests fully in their Sin by their temporal Goods pag. 494. And being rebuked by the Arch-Bishop for expugning the freedom of holy Church he said Sr. Why call ye the taking of Tythes and of such other duties that Priests challenge now WRONGFULLY the freedom of holy Church since neither Christ nor his Apostles challenged nor took such Duties Therefore these takings of Priests now are NOT called JUSTLY the freedom of Holy Church but all such giving and taking ought to be called and holdeâ— the SLANDEROUS COVETOUSNESS of Men of the Holy Church pag. 495. Thus hast thou Reader in part the Opinions of these Men concerning Tythes which it may be the Priest will call senseless Sayings as he did before However it is manifest by these sayings that his was not a true saying when he said those Men were no more against Tythes then I represent the Priest himself to be CHAP. V. HAving shewed that Tythes were of Popish Institution and as such denyed by many good men not unworthy the Name of Martyrs whom God raised up in former Ages to bear witness against the Corruptions of the Church of Rome and who for such their witness-bearing did suffer undeâ— that Church I come in the next place to consider what tâ—ese two Priests have further offered concerning a temporal Right to Tythes § 1. The Author of the Right of Tythes to shew on what ground our Kings and Parliaments proceeded in estating Tythes on the Clergy sets down pag. â—4â— a Rule or Axiome of K. Edward the Confessor viz. That it is the duty of a King to preserve châ—rish maintain and govern the Churches of theiâ— Dominions according to the Constitutions of their Fathers and Predecessors If this was the Rule by which our Kings and Parliaments in the Reformation have settled Tythes upon the Clergy then are Tythes no clearer from Popery in their settlement then in their Institution for if Edw. 6. settled Tythes according to the Constitutions of his Father Hâ—n 8. and if Hen. 8. settled Tythes according to the Constitutions of his Father Hen. 7. and so back then seeing it is certain that Hen. 7. and his Predecessors were professed Papists and devoted to the Church of Rome and consequently that the Constitutions for the maintenance of the Church made by or under them were fully and absolutely Popish it will follow that the settlement of Tythes by which the Priests now claim a temporal Right to them was made according to Popish Constitutions which I think is not for the credit of their Claim But he sayes If I would fairly have disproved this Temporal Right I should have shewed there were no human Laws to estate Tythes on the Church nor no remedies in the Courts of Iustice against any that detained them c. pag. 142. That 's his mistake If I had argued against Fact the way he proposes had not been improper but arguing against his pretended Right I conceive I took the right method and am well content to submit it to the sensure of every judicious and impartial Reader That they have