HAving perused with an equal eye, and unbyased judgement, three late Writings, the one called, A Tract of Tythes; and the other, A Treatise of Tythes; and a third termed, The Fune­ral of Tythes, &c. in nature of a Reply to the Treatise; where­in the party that wrote the Treatise is envited to a Rejoynder, and to joyn issue, but upon what par­ticular point that issue should be joyned, is not ex­pressed; so that for clear satisfaction to all per­sons, the Allegations and Reasons upon the whole matter on both parts are to be duly weighed, be­fore judgement can be given thereupon: We shall single forth whath hath been delivered in the Trea­tise, whereunto exception hath been taken in the Reply, and then peruse what is delivered in the Tract, which is not cleared in the Treatise (for [Page 4] it seemeth unto me, that the Treatise was not penned with reference to the Tract, or as an Answer there­unto) and to give such further satisfaction there­to as the same shall require, especially because the person that wrote that Treatise (as I am inform­ed) intendeth to say no more, til a more full Answer be given to what he hath delivered in that Trea­tise.

The first Exception in the Reply, is taken to a passage in the Epistle, concerning the Duty of payment, and that there is not any of the Learned Histories, but question the Duty; but the Reply names none; and if he did, he that saith, The la­bourer is worthy of his hire, and that thou shalt not muzzel the Ox that treadeth out the corn, is above them all; therefore if the Replyer peruse the Wri­ters well he shall finde, that it is the Rise, the Part and Manner of Payment that troubles them all, and not a Tythe or Portion to be due unto the Minister: And if the Reply be but constant to it self, you may see page 4. and other passages thereof, that he doth condemn the Appropriators for detaining the Tenths and Tythes, as they are paid in this Nation, which he himself there affirm­eth are due unto the Ministers. And it doth not appear to me, that the Treatise did intend to write higher of the Duty of Tythes, then as they are, and have been held due and payable in this Nati­on, by the established Laws, whereby we are clearly bound: And since the time they have been settled, both as for the part and proportion, as also for their Regular payment in this Nation (which though neither the Decretal Epistle by In­nocent [Page 5] the 3 in the year 1200. nor the Councel of Lateran in the year 1215. could impose upon this Nation for a Law, yet the same being held by the People of this Land to be reasonable) the same have been received and established for a Law ever since, and the people have thereunto submitted to the payment of them hitherto without dispute, as is most truly affirmed by the Treatise, and it may be with confidence enough averred, that there is no learned Writer that doth oppose the verity hereof, till this very age; neither are the places in the Tract, whereto the Reply referreth the Rea­der, at all against it; but true it is, that the most Learned Writer upon this subject, quoted in that Tract, doth shew a variety of payment of Tythes before the said Settlement and Establishment, but for the practise of it since, you have his own words in the Treatise, page 14.

And becanse we will take things along with us as we go, least happily we may be blamed as the Treatise is, for not giving an Answer to every thing contained in the Tract and in the Reply, we shall not balk that Objection (which surely the Treatise would not have done, had he thought it had been worth the Answering) That the Receivers of Tythes were never any other then Officers or Stewards for their imployment to good uses, whose Mis-user, Non-user, or Dis-user, is a forfeiture thereof. Here may be inquired whose officers or Stewards are here­by meant that they are; if they shall say they are Gods stewards, as al other people are of that which they possess in this world, then are they onely ac­countable to him; if it shall be said, that they are [Page 6] the Patrons or Parishoners Stewards, they must prove it, and not barely affirm it, for the Law saith, the Parson is seized of the Tythes, &c. in Right of his Church, as a man is said to be seized of Lands in Right of his Wife, and yet he is not his Wives Officer or Steward, but true and law­ful owner and Possessor, to his own use. But ad­mit him Quasi Officer or Steward, what a Non-sequiter then do you draw frow hence, that Ergo, his Non-user, Mis-user, Dis-user, must be a for­feiture of the Churches Right, and of the Patrons also: Do you not know, that the Law hath or­dained a Commission to rectifie Lands, Tithes, &c. given to good uses upon their mis-imployments, and can you give any instance that such things have been forfeited for mis-imployment: your cases of Keepership of Wilde-Beasts, Steward­ship or Cessation, per Bienium, suit not at all with it, if it be but in that point onely of the difference, by being seized in their own right, and in Right of the Church or other Right, you cannot be igno­rant, that if an Executor be outlawed, he forfeits not the goods whereof he is possessed as Executor, though his own he doth: besides, is it not clearly against the Statutes of 1 Eliz. and 13 Eliz. for a Parson to do, commit or suffer a forfeiture of the Parsonage? it is not denyed, but that a Parson for scandalous life, &c. may be removed, but it is utterly that he can forfeit the inheritance of his Parsonage.

And again, by your General words (Receivers of Tythes) you mean to include Appropriators too, for Officers and Stewards, but which way [Page 7] do you prove it: for you must know, that upon Appropriations there were by the Statutes of 15 R. 2. and 4 H. 4. Vicars End owed, and provision then made for the poor, which you acknowledge, was as the value of things then were, equal or near to the worth; and in all or most Parishes, where Tythes are appropriate, the Lands given to the poor thereupon remain, and are known by the name of the poors Lands or Town Land to this day; and by what clause of the Instrument of Appropriation do you finde, that the Appropria­tors were Officers or Stewards onely? or by what clause in all the Statutes that gave them to the Crown, or derived them out, or gives remedy for their recovery, do you finde them but Officers or Stewards? it is plain by them, that they are due to the Appropriator and Parson, and double and tremble damages given; but do you finde they are accountable to any for them? Besides, if there could be such forfeiture committed, who should take the forfeiture. The Patron ought to be pre­ferred before the Freeholder, for he is the suppo­sed Doner of Tythes, but that will not please the Replyer, it is the true owner must have them; but who that true owner is, will be the question, which he resolves to be every Freeholder, but he sets not forth his Title, how he came by them, sure it is he never bought them, nor paid for them; nor ought the Freeholder to be Judge in his own cause, whether the Tythes were well or ill imployed: And you conceive the Judges or Justices will not ad­judge the Title of the Appropriators to be good to Tythes: And yet you may see it every day ad­judged [Page 8] good by them, but it is so, that you will not acquiess in their judgement: And then you in­quire, why a Parliament may not take them away? To which we Answer, That we will not dispute the Power of Supreme Authority: but this you are to learn, that no man ought to have a dishonor­able thought of Supreme Authority, that they will do any unjust thing; and because they may do what they will, that therefore you should press them to do all they may.

And though you may be bold with Parliaments of former ages (for the dead bite not) and say that Tythes have come to Appropriators as Thief-stolen goods, and now the true owners have found where they be, &c. Were you not shewn in the Treatise that the Appropriators who have them, came to them by several Acts of Parliament, and you cannot make the Appropriators the Receivers, but you must make all those Parliaments the Thieves, nor is the legal Possession of the Appro­priators derived unto them by that Authority, to be paralleled with the Raign of that Julian; and the rather, because no Appropriation could be made, without a consent of Parson, Patron and Ordinary, who by the Law of this Nation, had as good power to return them as to take them.

And now to give you satisfaction to your won­der, that it should be affirmed, that Appropriators had as good right to Tythes (for you admit the Parsons have) as the Freeholder hath to his Free­hold: Are not Tythes made Lay-Fees by the Statutes? and hath not the Appropriator a Free­hold in them? do you not see daily that Recoveries [Page 9] are suffered of them, and fines, which are the grand assurance of the Land, levyed and acknowledged of them; are they not then Freeholds as well as Land or Rents? and what, or wherein lies that vast difference, they being both Freeholds, that should raise so great a wonder? may not the ad­miration rather be, that you should thus contend against the Laws, Statutes and Assurances of this Land: And when neither Judge nor jury will comply with you, that you should with your fre­quent Addresses, interrupt the more weighty and serious considerations of Supreme Authority, who whilest they are endeavoring to settle the great af­fairs of the Land, you would have them in the very first place to unsettle and confound, if not the Tenth part of the People, yet the Tenth part, (say we, the Sixth part or more say you of the Real Possessions of the Nation: the commence­ment where of was, as you are told by that Trea­tise, if not by a Law enjoyning them, yet (which is more strong) by a voluntary Donation of the People, ratified by the common Laws, and con­firmed by a multitude of Statutes, which need not be again recited.

All which Statutes you affirm, till the time of H. the eighth, are no more for the confirmation of Tythes, then other superstitious things abolished, whereby you plainly acknowledg Tythes by them to be confirmed; and when you can prove them superstitious which you deny in your Reply, p. 3.) you may take them; but if they were as you im­ply, superstitious, why are you then offended that the Appropriators have them, Reply, p. 4. to say [Page 10] truth, you answer this question your self in the same place, because they are not imployed as at first intended; and so if Tythes be superstitious, rather then the Appropriator should hold them, you would have them returned to the Minister, for the primitive superstitious intention (as you suppose) that you may with the more colour take them a­way quite.

And as for all the other Statutes since the be­ginning of the Raign of H. 8. you affirm contra­ry to the express words both of the Instruments of Appropriations (which are to hold in Proprios usus, to their own proper use) and contrary also to the very letter of those Statutes, which give them to the Crown, as the Abbots, &c. held them, and so confirm the grants of the Crown to the sub­jects also) that the makers of those Statutes meant, that the Tythes should be imployed, as at first intended. Certainly if you had ever read any of those Instruments whereby Tythes were appropriated, and duly weighed the last mentioned Statutes, you could not be of this opinion, nor that the Appropriators were but Officers and Ste­wards entrusted for the Church and poor, or that their imployment of Tythes to other uses, should be a forfeiture of their proper or appropriated right and interest: and it being made thus plain unto you, that the Appropriators are seized in their own right, discharged and free from all trust, by the very Instruments of the Appropriations themselves in express words, and by the before-mentioned Statutes; and whereof generally fines have been levyed, many five years since have passed, no claim [Page 11] til now made, wherby your pretended owners are clear­ly barred; be not, now you are thus enlightened, tur­bulent in the State, censorious of the learned and upright Judges, inciters of Jurors to be perjured, whom you would not have to go according to their evidence; in a word, strive not to subvert or overthrow the settled Go­vernment of Church or State; for who are they that trouble, perplex or strive to put this Nation into confu­sion (to use your own words) more then they that are restless to unsettle the real Possessions, either of Church or Commonwealth, for their own self ends and interests. But as to this of self-end & interest (to do the Replyant right) I must partly excuse him of the guilt thereof, for he dealeth thus far ingeniously herein, that though he would have Tythes confounded, that yet the Land-lord Freeholder or Husbandman should be never a whit the better, nor gainer by it: for in his Tract p. 30. (whereun­to in his Reply p. 5. he doth refer the Reader) he saith, Such Heathenism is not intended, that though Tythes be confounded in the Land, but that yet the Land ought to be charged with somewhat equivolent thereunto for the main­tenance of the Minister. But if the multitude did take notice of this passage, they would not con him thanks, nor return him to be their Advocate or Pen-man any more; and therefore he did very warily in his Reply, re­fer himself in this point silently to his Tract, rather then to publish this too often, least the Petitioners mouthes would hereby be stopped, and so he might want assist­ance to cry down Tythes, which all the Arguments and Reasons which he can use or render will not be able to do. But as I excuse the Replyant partly as to this; so I must condemn his want of charity to the Appropriator, for he proposeth nothing equivolent for him.

And as to the Stipend propounded for the Minister in [Page 12] lieu of his Tythes, because he hath mis-imployed them that they must be forfeited, is the Replyant assured, that the Minister will imploy his stipend better then his Tythes? and when the Ministers Tythes are gone, how can he be assured of his equ [...]volent stipend: let him not be first stripped of his Tythes, till he see equal allow­ance and consent thereunto, and then you may have them, in the mean time, pay them for conscience sake to the one and to the other, and condemn not former ages that have so done, for they are in conscience due, as all things else are, that the Law gives relief for, not­withstanding any thing yet said to the contrary.

Thus have I taken upon me (if I have not wronged the Gentleman who wrote the Treatise) to vindicate it, not finding any thing therein at all asserted, but what is most true, and may joyn issue, either upon the whole mat­ter, or upon any particular point therein, with all that hitherto hath been said against it.

And if any thing more be here alledged, it is but for the illustration of that which was therein the more concisely couched, and to satisfie the Replycant in that his Beloved conceit of Officer, Stewardship and Trust, wherein he thought himself not before Answered, which I hope is done in that perspicuity, that his judgement will hereby be convinced, and his pen silenced, and his adherents and others satisfied, truth vindicated, the Rights of the Church and Propriety justified, which is the only aym and scope of him that hath written this Vindication.