Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	ancient_a	time_n	year_n	3,898	5	4.4489	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A38520	Epistola Medio-Saxonica, or, Middlesex first letter to His Excellency, the Lord General Cromwell together with their petition concerning tithes and copy-holds of inheritance, presented to the supreme authority, the Parliament of England : wherein the tortious and illegal usurpation of tithes, contrary to Magna Charta, is discovered, the blemished dignity of copy-holders revived, and how lords of manors have formerly incroached upon their liberties, by imposing arbitrary fines, and multiplying of heriots : whereunto is annexed two additional cases concerning the unreasonable exactions of fines and heriots, contrary to law, in these latter times ...	Cromwell, Oliver, 1599-1658.; Wingfield, Augustus. Vindiciae Medico-Saxonicae.	1653 (1653)	Wing E3170; ESTC R5296	18,776	30

the said Treatisers Arguments are fully manifested and the said Letter and Petition clearly vindicated from Error and Mistake BY AUG WINGFIELD A Member of this present PARLIAMENT LONDON Printed by F.L. for William Larnar at the Blackmore near Fleet-Bridge 1653. Tithes totally routed by Magna Charta HAving perused a Treatise of Tithes penn'd by way of Answer to its Opponents by one as it is conceived of the long Robe we thought fit to give timely admonition that though he pretend to be a wel wisher to Religion and Propriety yet when he speaketh fair men believe him not for there are it is to be feared seven Abominations in his heart who though his Sophisticated Arguments be covered with deceit yet shall his wickednesse be shewed before the whole Congregation Prov. 26.25 26. In his Epistle to the Reader he discovers both his spirit and his pride censuring his Antagonists as clamorous malitious ignorants though perhaps in the judgement of unbiased Moderators more learned peaceable and more Evangelically spirited than himself But fearing lest his great Diana Tithes the Nursery of contention and strife should in these days of Reformation and restauration of publique Freedom and liberty like Dagon before the Ark fall to the ground and come to nought he hath therefore out of his worldly wisdom judged it very opportune both in reference to himself and also to his Clients the Tith-taking Priesthood and Impropriator in this extremity of time to force into his Aid a Catalogue of Acts of Parliament though to little purpose since few of them before the Statutes of H. 8. intimate so much as a right much lesse command the payment of Parochial Tithes to Priests or others as if this Respondent would make us all beleeve that Ubi nomen Decima ibi argumentum Decimandi that wheresoever in any Statute the word Tith is found there is an argument for Tithing though by his leave in some of them by him quoted there is not so much as the name * Mag. Char. c. 1. Marl. c. 5. 25 E. 1. 2● E. 1. c. But although he and his Tith-taking Brethren have a long time like Simeon and Dovi confederated together not only to make us ignorants but still to keep so by perswading of us and our fore fathers That Tithes were first due by Divine Law then by Canon Law and now by Statute Law yet are we and the good people of England resolved to be no longer deluded by them with their Paralogisms and deceitfull reasonings And therefore that we may no longer digresse by way of preface we shall now come to reply and to examine those two grand objections which the Author of the said Treatise raiseth against the Middlesex Letter and Petition in the Expository opening of those two Statutes of Magna Charta ch 29. and 1. R. 2. ch 14. where this Respondent saith pag. 13. That for the Penner of the said Letter and Petition to make the People believe that the payment of Tithes is against Magna Charta is such an exposition as was never made upon that Statute and therefore to rectifie this Errour as he calls it he hath laboured though in vain to overthrow the said exposition and those invincible arguments built upon it and to set up his own contrary interpretation and false affertion viz. That Tithes and the payment thereof by the people were confirmed by Magna Charta ch 1. under the Notion of Church rights And first for proof thereof he saith pag. 14. That by the Common Law of this Land at the confirmation of Magna Charta Ecclesiastical persons had remedy to recover their Tithes in the Spiritual Court and then concludes that the Law gives no remedy but where there is a right which assertion is very untrue For Cook upon Tithes saith That by the Common Law Lands are undecimable and if undecimable then certainly by that Law there can be no Church right to Tithes neither to be recovered by virtue thereof in the Spiritual or Popes Court Since the people of England were not bound in Law by his Cannons Neither is Cook single in his opinion For Selden fo 291 saith That Arbitrary disposition of Tithes used by the Laity as well de jure of right as the positive Law then received and practiz'd was as de facto of deed and practise is that which Wickleff remembred in his Complaint to the King and Parliament under R. 2. The substance whereof in brief is That the proud and pompous Priests did constrain the poor People of England viz. by Popish Canons to pay their Tithes unto them whereas within a few years before they paid their Tithes and Offrings at their own free will and pleasure Which is also attested by Ludlow a Judge of Assize in E. 3. who saith That in antient time a man might give his Tith to what Church he would which is true sayes Judge Brook in Abridging the case Selden fol. 252. And the said Author further saith fo 290. That under Innocent the 3d. it was usuall in fact for Laymen by the practice of the Law at that time both Common and Canon to convey the right of their Tithes as Rent-charges or the like to what Church or Monastery they pleased and such Conveyances were clearly good And whereas the Author of the said Treatise p. 14. quoteth Mr. Selden for his Authority of Parochial right he is clearly mistaken since Mr. Seldens judgement in the same place immediately following is cleerly to the contrary and that which is here alleged as the Treatisers main Argument is nothing but the opinion of the Canonists recited by Mr. Selden and by him in the same and following pages fully confuted pag. 144 146. Moreover Magna Charta is by Act of Parliament made in 25 E. 1. called the Confirmation of the Charters adjuged and declared to be the Common Law of the Land which if true as it is most true then Tithes being not so much as named much less confirmed by Magna Charta are not due by the Common Law as the said Respondent weakly supposeth and so not at all under Ecclesiastical cognisance But he objecteth and saith That Tithes are contained in these words The Churches Rights Mag. Char. cap. 1. for further satisfaction whereof see Cooks exposition upon the very same words where he saith that Ecclesiastical persons shall enjoy their lawfull jurisdictions and other their rights but not one word of Tithes without diminution and that no new Rights were given unto them hereby but such as they had before confirmed Now if no new Rights were given then not Tithes since the Author of the said Treatise confesseth p. 14. that the Common Right of Tithes due to the Rector of the Parish is but from the time of K. John and then as M. Selden whom he quoteth p. 146. declareth not so much as in opinion established whereby it is evident not onely by Selden and his own confession but also in the judgment of Gook that at

the confirmation of Magna Charta Tithes were not at all comprehended in the Rights of the Church Which will yet more fully appear if we consult Mr. Seldens book of Tithes and the Roll of Winten In the first whereof pag. 137. It is delivered for a clear truth that there never was any Canon of any General Council as yet found that purposely commanded payment of Tithes nor any that expresly supposed them a duty of Common right before the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the 3d. 1615 So that at the Council of Lateran which was in the latter end of K. John and but 12 years or thereabouts before the confirmation of Magna Charta by H. the 3d. Tithes were not due by common right that is by Common Law and so consequently no rights of the Church And if not then due by Common Law then certainly not at the confirming of Magna Charta since in the judgment of all both Canonists and Common Lawyers 12 years is not a competency of time either for custom or prescription the one allowing 40 years at least the other time out of mind And yet to proceed this Respondent doth further acknowledge p. 14. that there was no Parochial Right of Tithes till after the Council of Lateran aforesaid 1615. and that after the Decretal Epistle of Innocent the 3d sent to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in the year aforesaid the right of Tithes was allowed but you must know by whom viz. the Pope and his Clergy not the People and so became Lex Terrae a Law of the Land which are likewise the words and judgement of Cook Now of what force and validity a Right of Tithes grounded upon a Canon of the Pope and diametrically repugnant to Magna Charta can be let all men judge since Cook their Oracle hath declared in his Chapter of Tithes that all Canons which are against the Common Law or Custom of the Land are of no force Now as to the Roll of Winton called by some Doomsday Book which was a survey of all the Lands Revenues both of Clergy Laity exactly taken by Commiss in every County throughout the Nation and returned into the Exchequer about the latter end of the Conquerours Reign It is there Recorded in particular what the Revenues and dues of every Presbyter and Church were but yet notwithstanding very rarely if at all are any Tithes found among the Church Revenues So that bence it is most cleer First that in William the Conquerrors time Tiths were no Revenue nor rights of the Church nor yet Secondly in H. 2. his time see the Letter and Petition p. 5. And lastly by the Authors own confession they became due onely but from the latter end of K. Johns Reign and that grounded meerly upon a Popish Canon contrary to Magna Charta which is acknowledged by the Learned to be the Common Law of England both before and after the Conquest The second and last objection which the Author of the said Treatise maketh is upon our exposition of the Statute of 1 R. 2. cap. 14. which wee shall here make good to be most genuine and true notwithstanding his false calumniation and that his Anti exposition is most absurd and false and such as had not Custom wrought another Nature in him to speak and write untruly could never have fell from him Now the question between us is whether the Averment there spoken of be Lay Averment and so to be made by the Plaintiff according to his exposition or Church Averment and so to be made by the Defendant according to our exposition whether of which is most true we shall leave to every one to judge by opening unto you the Nature of Averment out of the judgment of the Learned and by holding forth such reasons as shall in brief be produced And first Cowells Interpreter saith That Averment signifieth according to the Author of Terms of the Law an offer of the Defendant to make good or to unstifie in exteption pleaded in abatement or bar of the Plaintiffs Act. And Sir Hen. Smith in his book of Law fo 359 also saith That Averments must be offered to be proved true in Barrs 1. Answers Replications Rejoinders c. but not in Counts andDeclarations And of the same judgment is Sir Edw. Cook in his first part of Institutes fo 362. So that it is evident Averments are properly to be made by Defendants in their answears or in after pleadings and not by Plaintiffs in their Declaration unlesse in some few particular cases of which this is none as is evident not only by the Grammatical and Logical Construction of the said Statute but even in the judgement of Learned Rastal a Iustice of the Common-pleas in Q. Maries days who to put the question out of doubt hath set it down in the margent of his Abridgement of the Statutes to be Church Averment which we conceive to be a final determination of the question And as to your Ordinance of Nov. 1644. for the payment of Tithes we clearly conceive it to be the judgement of all the learned that it is of no longer validity than during Parliamentary Session which is now dissolv'd upon sure grounds of Piety Publique freedome right reason and honestie and that notwithout the Generall consent of the major part either precedent or subsequent of the Supreme Authority the People Now by what hath been said it will easily appear who doth most abuse and mislead the People and whether exposition of Magna Charta and the other Statute of R. 2. is most true That of the Letter and Petition back'd with right reason and the Authorities of great Lawyers and learned Iudges or that of the Author of the Treatise being a fancy of his own brain and raised out of implicite Terms which he that believs had need of of a Popish and implicite faith FINIS