Full text of "A brief inquiry into the question whether a Christian can reasonably and conscientiously object to the payment of tithes"

See other formats

UMASS/AMHERST

31EDbeaiE'^SD4ES

i<M£i

0? M45o

DATE DUE

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS
LIBRARY

772

iu'^

Digitized by the Internet Arciiive

in 2D10 with funding from

Boston Library Consortium IVIember Libraries

http://www.archive.org/details/briefinquiryinto1959lees

BRIEF INQUIRY

INTO THE QUESTION,

WHETHER A CHRISTIAN CAN REASONABLY AND
CONSCIENTIOUSLY OBJECT

PAYMENT OF TITHES;

ADDRESSED IN

A LEtTER to A MEMBER OP THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS.

Rev. SAMUEL LEE, B. D.

* / ■

Prebendary of Bristol; Vicar of Banwell, Somersetshire; Domestic Chaplain to the Ear i
■tf Munster ; and. Regius Professor of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge.

BRISTOL:

PUBLISHED BY W. STRONG 26, CLARE STREET.

MDCCCXXXII.

,rtr\l

UMlVERSiTY OF
IVIA,SSACHUSEnS

ADVERTISEMENT.-

' AMHEfiST, MASS.

It may'WlfWdght, periiaps, that the docwneWtfpon wmck
the following' remarhs are offered is not such as to ivarrant
the inquiry here made into its grounds and spirit. My answer
is, I have not been so much-concerned about the document it-
self, as about the questions which it proposes to determine, and
above all, about the ground which it professes to take. The
question relating to Tithes has of late acquired a considerable
interest in this country ; but whether it is generally under-
stood, or truly represented, may be matter of doubt. The
document in question has, as I have thought, presented not an
unfit opportunity for examining this question ; and, as it has
assumed the strongest possible ground, namely, scriptural
authority, it has afforded an opportunity likewise for inquiring,
how far that ground has been made good. I have been un-
willing too, as a minister of the Established Church, to lie
under the imputation of making' unreasonable and unscriptu-
ral exactions from those whom it is my duty to teach and to
befriend. On these accounts I have thought it my duty to
put together and to publish the following inquiry: and I beg
it to be understood, that, however lightly I may have treated
some of the arguments of the document in question, it has not
been my intention to detract in the least possible degree from
the respect confessedly due to the Body, from v:hich that paper
emanated.

Near Bristol,

Dear Sir,

THE " Brief Statement" published by
the Society of Friends at their last annual meet-
ing, which you have been so good as to place in
my hands, I have carefully read and considered ;
and, T must say that, disposed as I fully am to treat
the conscientious scruples of every man with respect
and reverence, I cannot bring myself to believe
that the payment of Tithes is, as there stated, a
thing about which a conscientious scruple can be
made: I mean, a scruple founded on religious con-
viction, and taking its stand on some revealed doc-
trine of holy writ. Scruples may, I know, be
termed conscientious on other grounds; but, as
the *' Brief Statement" alluded to professes to ad-
vance no such grounds, I shall not be taxed with
unfairness if I pass those over; and, as it is my
wish to be short, I shall now proceed to examine

what I believe to be the main points in the State-
ment before us.

The first position taken is, that our blessed Lord
** introduced a dispensation pure and spiritual in
its character" To this no good objection can be
made. The dispensation is indeed pure, and it
is spiritual. Like every other sort of abstract truth,
it is perfect in its kind : and it has this peculiarity,
that while it teaches what is most valuable to man
as a social being, its tendency is purely and en-
tirely spiritual : its main object is to correct and
to amend the human heart ; and hence to give a
vigour, constancy, and consistency, to the actions
and the life. But, when we say this, we must be
careful to bear in mind, that the system is one
thing; society on which it is to act is another.
The system may be pure, but then its teachers
will never be equally so ; the treasure may be
spiritual and heavenly, but then its teachers can
be termed nothing better than earthen vessels:
and, by parity of reasoning, the means which they
employ can lay claim to no higher title. The
means, therefore, employed by man, must necessa-
rily have this character stamped upon them ; they
must partake of the earth, and must be earthy.
To the perfection, the purity, or the spirituality,

of the system itself, they can never attain : and
we must be content, with the very best desires,
the very best intentions, and indeed under the
very best circumstances which human wisdom can
devise, to meet with much of a very imperfect
character. I say this, in the outset of our inquiry,
not for the purpose of justifying any thing at vari-
ance with the purity of this system, much less of
recommending any thing in itself wrong, but only
to guard against our being too theoretical on ques-
tions of a practical character ; and to suggest the
propriety of giving that only to system which be-
longs to system, and that to practice which properly
belongs to it.

The next position we have to notice is this :
" He (i. e. our blessed Lord) taught hy his own
holy example and divine precepts that the ministry
of the gospel is to be without pecuniary remunera-
tiony' which I must deny; and I proceed to explain
what I mean by this denial. I do not mean to say,
that he did not leave us an example, that we should
follow his steps ; but I do that his example was in-
tended, or can be cited, for the object had in view
in this proposition. The most pointed passage in
the New Testament to which we can refer, on this
subject, is to be found in the first epistle of St.

Peter (ii. 21 — 25.) but this is altogether at variance
with every question about temporal provisions for
the church. The question here is purely on the
subject of christian sufferings, forbearance, forti-
tude, and the like ; and we are taught, that when
reviled we ought not to revile again, when suffer-
ing, we are not to threaten, but to commit our-
selves to him that judgeth righteously. The right
or the wrong of any secular or temporal appoint-
ment whatever, is there kept entirely out of sight;
and we are invited to contemplate and to imitate
the example of our blessed Lord, in an entirely
different point of view^ Still this Apostle tells
us, in this very chapter, (ver. 13.) that we are to
submit ourselves to every ordinance of man for
the Lord's sake : whether it he to the king as su-
preme, &c. ; and St. Paul tells us that we are to do
this for conscience sake^ (Rom. xiii. 5.) Some
of these ordinances must have been iniquitous ;
they were made by heathen rulers, and in some
cases made demands to which, I presume, no
Friend at this day would think of submitting.
But let this pass. Our Lord has himself taught us
that his kingdom is not of this worlds (John xviii.
36, &c.) : and, if we may take this as a principle,
which I suppose we may, then can we see why he

submitted to similar exactions, and expressly taught,
that to Csesar were to be rendered the things that
were Caesar's, and to God the things that were
God's. I say we can see why, upon another occa-
sion also, he inculcated that no offence should be
given in rendering this sort of dues, and actually
performed a miracle in order to enable his disciples
to comply with their payment. (Matt. xxii. 15 — 21.
xvii. 24 — 27.) But our Lord's example can be
carried much farther. We are taught by the Evan-
gelists, that his personal friends contributed of their
substance to his support and to that of his disci-
ples, during the time of his ministry on earth. In
the gospel of St. Luke (chap. viii. 3.) we are plainly
told, that Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's
stevmrdf and Susanna, and many others,, minis-
tered unto him OF THEIR SUBSTANCE. In other
places we are told, that one of the disciples carried
a bag, (John xii. 6. xiii. 29.) that occasionally they
bought, or forgot to buy, victuals (Mark vi. 37.
Luke ix. 13. Johniv. 8. vi. 5. xiii. 29.) and from
this last instance we learn, that it was not unusual to
give something to the poor out of this bag. We
here find, therefore, that contributions were made:
and these appear to have been voluntary. A trea-
surer was also appointed, and to him this portable

treasury, the bag, was committed to keep. Now,
1 may ask. Does not our Lord's example sanction
the receiving of pecuniary contributions for the
support of the Ministers of religion I Pecuniary
remunerations I will not call these, for there ap-
pears to be no necessity for introducing this latter
term. Pecuniary contributions were certainly
made ; they were voluntary (and such the grant of
Tithes originally was) ; they were expended for
the support of Christ and his disciples, and on some
occasions in alms bestowed on the poor. Our
Lord's example, therefore, may be cited in direct
opposition to the doctrines of the ** Brief State-
ment." He manifestly allowed of contributions
being made : he appointed a person to take care of
them; and he must have eaten and drunk of the
bread purchased by them. Both his doctrine,
therefore, as publicly taught, and his example, as
exhibited to the world, are manifestly opposed to
the proposition cited above : and, considering how
very brief the gospel narratives are, it is surprising
we should have so much, and that so direct and
positive, on this subject. Again, our blessed Lord
not only thus published and exemplified his senti-
ments on thes questions, but we also find the great
Apostle of the gentiles, — a man who, it is expressly

declared, was a cbosen vessel to bear the message
of christiaoity to THE GENTILES; to persons who,
we may suppose, had no knowledge of Jewish tithe
appointments, — preaching, and writing, that *' Even
so hath THE Lord ordained, that they which
preach the gospel should live of the gospel.^' (See
1 Cor. ix. 7—14.) And here we ought to observe,
theApostle grounds his doctrine on the observances
of the ceremonial law and the usages of the temple;
things which, according to the " Brief Statement,"
ought now to be entirely disregarded ! and which I
should have been disposed to allow, had not the
Apostle argued here to the contrary. In the tem-
ple, the original grant was voluntary; and so were
the contributions of the early Christians. According
to the example of our blessed Lord, and the express
declarations of his Apostle, pecuniary contributions
may be, and ought to be, made for the support
of the Minister of the gospel : remunerations, as
before remarked, they need not be termed. The
object had in view, in these cases, was his support,
— his maintenance, — the reasonable provision for
his wants. In our first two positions then, our
conclusions drawn from the preaching, writing,
and practices, of the earliest times of Christianity,
and advanced by its very founders are, that coo-

A 2

tributions may and ought to be made by Christians
for the support of christian Ministers. To say,
therefore, that this cannot be conscientiously sub-
mitted to, as it is insisted on in the " Brief State-
ment," is to say that which is contrary to this
preaching, writing, and example, and publicly to
advance, and to endeavour to disseminate,, senti-
ments contrary to those thus taught by Christ and
his Apostles ; and then to make a point of con-
science of that which is directly subversive of that
teaching and example : and which_, as such, must be
liable to suffer the vengeance of Almighty God.

The next position advanced is: — ** As the gift
is free, the exercise of it is to he free also : the
office is to be filled by those only who are called of
God by the power of the Holy Spirit ; who in
their preaching, as wall as in their circumspect
lives and conversation, are giving proof of this
caliy Here, I must confess, I am quite at a loss
to discover, in what way these propositions are
connected with the question, which treats only on
the propriety of supporting christian Ministers.
These propositions go, as far as I can see, to
questions of a totally different nature ; but, as the
first speaks on the freeness with which the gospel
bas been given, apparently intending to intimate

thereby (unless I am greatly mistaken), that the
Ministers of this gospel ought not to be maintained
at the public expense, I will endeavour to meet it
on this ground. I must be allowed to premise,
however, that, when the Scripture tells us that the
favour intended to be conferred is to be had with-
out money and without price, we are not to under-
stand that those whose business it is to present this,
are therefore to remain destitute of public support.
No; the contrary was the fact of the case when this
doctrine was first uttered ; and the refusal to bring
the tithes into God's house in those times, is pub-
licly and expressly branded as one of the most
common and flagrant sins of the Jewish nation.
The meaning of the expressions is manifestly this:
God on his part freely gave the boon in question
He bestowed that which money could not purchase;
which nothing but grace could bestow, and grace
too which could come from none but God, whose
IS the silver and the gold : and with whom, there-
fore, mortal men could make no such stipulation,
as they can with one another. There is no com-
mon measure of the value of a soul, and of
gold ; and, consequently, redemption on any such
grounds must be let alone for ever. (Psalm xlix.
7, &c. When we are told, therefore, that freely

we have received and freely we are to give, and
that the favour is without money and without price,
the meaning is, that we are not to attempt to dole
out the inestimable favours of redemption for money
or price. No ; they cost the precious blood of Christ;
and, although the Minister might have claimed to
be supported while he preached this, or Christ him-
self have actually received support while he did so,
yet the thing taught was not thereby bought; it was
still free and the gift of unmerited mercy and
grace. To mix up this doctrine, therefore, with
that about supporting christian Ministers, which is
a mere temporal arrangement, is to have recourse
to methods of confusion ; and to propound that
for a doctrine on one subject, which belongs to
another. Any question of conscience, therefore,
grounded upon this is unreasonable, and a mere
delusion. But, if it is intended hence to inculcate,
that the Ministers of religion ought not to be sup-
ported, and consequently, that Tithes ought not to
be paid, and that to exact them is to lay a tax upon
the freeness of the gospel, then I say, the ground
taken is hollow, and the conclusion false. My
proof is this : — I suppose it will be allowed that
persons may, in any age of the Church, give away
as much of their own wealth as they please, for the

support of Christianity, just as the persons spokefi
of in the Gospels gave their's away for the support
of Christ and his disciples.* I suppose, I say, that
every Christian, and therefore every one of the
Society of Friends, will allow this; it is no more
than what they themselves are doing for the sup-
port of their own Institutions. I may, in the next
place, take for granted, that a christian State has
power to sanction this by its laws, just as ours does
the charities given to an infirmary, the contribu-
tions, or even the bequests, made to schools in
general, and among others, to those of the Society
of Friends. Now, if we suppose such bequests or

* '* What was paid to the Church for several of the first ages
after Christ, was all brought to them by way of offerings ; and
these were made either at the altar, or at the collections, or else
occasionally... Afterwards, about the year 794, Offa, king of
Mercia (the most potent of all the Saxon kings of his time in
this island) made a law, whereby he gave unto the church the
tithes of all his kingdom. . . This law of Offa was that which first
gave the church a civil right in them in this land, by way of
property and inheritance, and enabled the clergy to gather and
recover them as their legal due, by the coercion of the civil
power.. .Yet this establishment of Offa reached no further than
to the kingdom of Mercia, over which Offa reigned; until
Ethelwulph, about sixty years after, enlarged it for the whole
realm of England." — Burn's Ecclesiastical Law, Vol.III.^ p.^74,
Ed, 1775,

gifts appointed to be paid out of lands, or the pro-
duce of lands, which were once the bequeather's
own property, the case will still be the same ; the
gift was at first freely bestowed, and was ap-
pointed to be paid by subsequent occupiers, as a
part or portion of the rent, with this difference
only, that the rent was to go to one person, the
bequest so made to be paid to another, and this
other was to be a christian Minister. For the con-
sideration now made, he was to give up his time
for the purpose of teaching the christian religion ;
and, upon his teaching any other doctrine, or
teaching this falsely, he was to be brought to his
trial, deprived of his interest in these. endowments,
and publicly censured. Let this be put as a case,
and I think it will be allowed, that whatever
might be said of the expediency of the original
grant, nothing could against its justice. Let it
now be supposed, that some one occupying the
lauds so circumstanced objects, and aflSrms (as it is
the case with our " Brief Statement"), that for him
to pay out such other reserved rent to any but the
landlord, or indeed to pay it all, is a grievous op-
pression,— that it is contrary to the doctrines of
Christianity, — is what the conscience of no one
ought to submit to, — -is what 7io king with his

council, and what no legislature, can justly calif 07%
maintain, or enforce ; suppose, I say, it be urged, —
where lands have been bequeathed by those who had
a right to do so, or sums of money willed by those
whose money it was, for the purpose of supporting
a chiistian school, such as the school belonging to
the Society of Friends at Sidcot is believed to be,
— that the tenant occupying such lands ought not
to pay his rent, or portion of rent reserved by such
bequest, or that the legislature ought not to allow
the nation to be taxed to pay the interest of such
sums of money vested in the public funds, because,
forsooth, no such things as rentals, or public funds,
are read of in the ±\ ew Tc-stament or recognized in
the early times of Christianity, or because an opinion
had got abroad that the creed of the Society of
Friends was not scriptural; What, I ask, ought in
justice, in fairness, in conscience, in christian so-
briety and meekness, to be said to such a plea?
Can any man in his senses lay his hand on his heart
and say, that his conscience has a right to refuse to
pay a debt, which he engaged to pay when first he
occupied such lands, or accepted such money as an
investment, and for the use of which interest is now
claimed ? Can any Christian tolerably read in the
Bible stand forth and affirm, that either the precepts

or practice of our blessed Lord or of his Apostles,
will justify such refusal, or afford him a pretence
for withholding from such institution the rents or
interest of monies which the former proprietors of
such lands or monies have willed should be paid
to it, and which the laws of the realm have from
that day to this maintained and sanctioned? Can
it with any colour of right be argued, that, because
such person has himself taken up some new opinions
on religious subjects, one of which is, that he ought
to refuse to pay such claims, he ought therefore
always and uniformly to resist them ? and not only
so, but persevere in publishing and disseminating
this? What, I ask, would the Society of Friends
say to me, if I were solemnly to aver, make it more-
over a part of my religious creed, and then a ques-
tion of conscience, that no rents ought to be paid
to them for the occupancy of lands left by will for
the support of the Sidcot School, or that no interest
ought to be paid by the nation at large for the sums
vested in the public funds for the same purpose?
I think they v/ould say, either that I was very ill
informed as to what Christianity is, or else, that my
notions of justice v/ere very different from those
which every just man has hitherto held ; and yet
this is what they are every day doing, when they

refuse to pay the Tithes claimed by the Established
Church of the lauds which they severally hold.
Both rest precisely on the same grounds; both
were originally granted by the real owners for these
several specific purposes ; both were voluntarily
and freely given ; both have been sanctioned by
laws made by the same legislature, and in some
instances by the very same laws. The only differ-
ence is, the gift was, in the one case, made some
years before it was in the other; which can make
no difference as to the question of right, to which
party soever the consideration be applied. It may
indeed be said, that when these grants were made,
in the first case, the times were dark and savoured
of superstition, and that scriptural knowledge
was more scarce than it is now. But what of
this? The right to dispose of this wealth originally,
and the justice of the laws which have since pro-
tected it, will stand unaffected by this considera-
tion. The question will now be, not about the
right or the wrong of these grants, but about the
expediency or the inexpediency of their original
intentions. And, if such question be allowed to be
mooted in the one case, justice will require that it
bo mooted in the other; so that it may now be
made matter of inquiry, whether the lands, &c.

given to support the institution at Sidcot and the
like, ought not to be taken from the Society of
Friends, and applied to some other purpose. Be-
cause it can now be argued, and perhaps proved,
that the persons who made these bequests were
unenlightened, or that their views were not scrip-
tural, or that these bequests were made for the
manifest purpose of setting up and continuing a sys-
tem of superstition, and a thousand such things ; all
of which might be made just as good grounds for
scruples of conscience, as those in the " Brief
Statement" which we have been considering. But
will the Society of Friends be induced to con-
vert these pretences into scruples of conscience?
I suppose not; and yet, by parity of reasoning,
they ought to do so, and particularly as they have
resorted to the very same kind of argument in their
** Brief Statement :" for these reasons : — the cases
are perfectly parallel, and the reasoning in each
rests on precisely the same grounds, namely, on an
assumption of right now finally and definitively to
determine, that grants formerly made upon lands
by those who had a right to make them, ought
now to be converted to such purposes, or rather
diverted from such purposes, as they shall think
proper. But, if they maintain (which undoubtedly

they will) that the bequests made for the purpose
of supporting their school at Sidcot, whether made
in land, or in any other property, oughtybr ever to
be applied to the purposes to which such bequests
assign them, particularly as this establishment was,
among other things, intended to disseminate the
knowledge of the christian religion, and that this
is binding on the conscience of every one belong-
ing to their Society; then, I say, it is also binding
on the same consciences, with the same force, and
for the same reasons, (if justice or religion is to
have any thing to do with the question) to hold
and to maintain, that the rents, or, which is the
same thing here, the Tithes, arising from the pro-
duce of certain lands, similarly circumstanced, and
which have been similarly disposed of, ought like-
wise punctually to be rendered, and perpetually
applied to the purposes assigned by the original
donors or makers of such grants. Conscience is
just as much concerned in the one case as it is
in the other, because it is placed in the same situa-
tion in both. It is therefore firmly bound, in each
by the laws of both God and man ; and conse-
quently compelled to maintain, that all such property
ought scrupulously to be applied to the purposes
for which it was originally given ; and that he who

irreligiously dares to hold or to promulgate a con-
trary opinion, will do this at the peril and risk of
his soul.

It is said, a little lower down in the " Brief
Statement," ^^ that to uphold any church establish-
ment hy Qompulsory laws, which oppress the con-
sciences of sincere believers in the Lord Jesus
Christ, is at variance with his holy law, and is
calculated to retard the universal spreading of his
reign." We have seen that in the case adduced,
the conscience of no one is really oppressed :
nothing more is called for, in the payment of
Tithes, than a portion of the rent, which a
former proprietor of the estate has determined
shall be so paid. The occupier, therefore, be he
of what creed he may, has no right to complain
when he is called upon to pay this rent or portion
of rent. Nor can his conscience be affected by
this, unless his conscience requires, either that just
and lawful debts ought not to be paid, or that per-
sons holding opinions different from his own, ought
to claim no protection under the common laws
of the land. The first is an unjust, the second an
intolerant and bigotted assumption ; and as such
might each fairly be treated, were it taken up as a
plea for the purpose of affecting the interests of

persons of any denomination or character whatso-
ever. Nor is the sentiment which tells us, " that
to uphold any establishment ^ <^c. by compulsory
laws" and so on, one whit better. Every sort of
establishment, set up in concurrence with the laws
of the land, has a right to claim support and
protection by compulsion ; because it is by this
alone that unreasonable and unjust subjects can be
controlled, and the rights of individuals or of socie-
ties be maintained inviolate. It is for this specific
purpose that laws have been enacted ; and to talk
of laws without allowing that they must be com-
pulsory, would be to talk about that which has no
meaning. But, if it be intended to be argued,
that no legislature has a right to unite itself with
such an establishment as that of the Church of
England is, then, I say, the plea is weak and futile,
and is plainly directed against that toleration which
this church has so abundantly taught and exempli-
fied, and which it should seem is but imperfectly
recognized by the authors of the •* Brief State-
ment" in question.

But let us suppose for the sake of argument,
that the system of Tithe payment complained of
were for ever put an end to, and that the lands on
which it had been fixed as a sort of rent, were re-

stored to their original tithe-free character; Would
the occupier of this land be in any way relieved,
as to the sum now to be paid as his rent? The
portion which had before gone to the Minis-
ter of religion, would now go in full tale to the
landlord ; and, if any public teacher of religion were
now to be supported, for the instruction of his
family and of the families of the labouring poor, this
must be done by a further contribution from his
and their purses, and from which they had hitherto
been exempt. The public teaching of religion
would now call for a tax, which the liberality of
our forefathers had happily provided for, but which
the short-sightedness, or want of information, or
illiberality of what are commonly called enlightened
times, has now deprived the public, and particu-
larly the poor, who have neither the means of
getting instruction themselves, nor of obtaining it
from others. I very well know that the Friend
will tell me, that in his society teaching can be had
for nothing; but may not a vast majority of the
public, and of well-informed men too, reply. Yes,
we know this; but then we have our doubts, — our
consciences tell us, that this instruction is unscriptu-
ral? The "Brief Statement" itself evinces instances
of mistake and error, such as to warn us against

taking those for our guides who appear never to
have made the holy scriptures their study, and who
are not remarkable for soundness of mind in other
respects. Of their good intentions we entertain no
doubts; but then we maintain, that in Religion,
in which the eternal interests of the soul are con-
cerned, good intentions (though excellent in their
place) are not alone sufficient to qualify any one
to become a public teacher. In the times of the
Jev/ish commonwealth, in the times of our Lord
and his Apostles, in the earliest and best days of
Christianity, men were set apart for the purpose of
studying and teaching true religion : rightly to di-
vide the word of truth was their first and main
business ; exemplary lives and conversation was
their second. The religious public contributed for
their support, and the word of God grew and mul-
tiplied. In later times, better and easier arrange-
ments were made by which the public in general,
and the poor in particular, were eased of this bur-
den which was now levied upon the land. This,
it is to be hoped, the good sense of the public will
see and duly appreciate. Whether, indeed, a more
' efficient and satisfactory method of payment may
not be had recourse to than that now in use,
I will not take upon me to determine. My opinion

is, that there may, and that it is greatly to be
wished such method were soon suggested and
adopted. Some parts of the *' Brief Statement" I
have passed over, because I deemed them to be
unimportant, and to contain matter of rare occur-
rence.

I now remain,

Dear Sir,

Your's faithfully,

SAMUEL LEE.

Banwell P^carage,
Aug, 3, 1832.

J. Cbilcott, Printer, 30, Wiae Street, Bristol.

BRIEF I NQUIRY

INTO THE QUESTION,

WHETHER THE CLERGY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND CAN
REASONABLY AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY CONSENT

TO THE

RECEIVING OF TITHES.

(In answer to a Tract entitled "A Brief Inquiry into the
Question, Whether a Christian can reasonably and conscientiously
object to the Payment of Tithes ; addressed in a Letter to a
Member of the Society of Friends.— By the Rev. SAMUEL
LEE, B.D. ; Prebendary of Bristol; Vicar of Banwell, Somerset-
shire ; Domestic Chaplain to the Earl of Munster ; and Regius
Professor of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge. — Bristol :
Pubhshed by W. Strong, 26, Clare Street. MDCCCXXXII.")

JOSEPH STORKS FRY,

A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS.

EFFINGHAM WILSON, ROYAL EXCHANGE, LONDON;
GEORGE DAVEY, BROAD STREET, BRISTOL.

1832.

INTRODUCTION.

IT seems requisite that I shoiild apprize the reader of the origin
of the present discussion.

Sometime ago, being in conversation with Professor Lee, on the
subject of Tithes, I put into his hands a copy of a document
published by the Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends, then
recently held in London; as explanatory of the views of the Society
on this subject, entitled " A Brief Statement, &c. ;'* — this pro-
duced the Professor's pamphlet, which is a commentary on the
" Brief Statement."

As he has addressed his " Brief Inquiry'' to me, in which he
has made no reserve, in the full and free expression of his
sentiments ; so, I also avail myself of the like liberty ; in which,
however, I trust I shall not be found to have trespassed on the
rules of decorum and courtesy : and perhaps the reader will be
disposed to think that the Professor has been rather inadvertent
to these rules, when he says, p. 22, " The Brief Statement itself
" evinces instances of mistake and error, such as may warn us
" against taking those for om* guides, who appear never to have
^^ made the holy scriptures their study; and who are 7wt remarkable
^'for soundness of mind in other respects."

A copy of the "Brief Statement" will be found at the end of
this tract.

A BRIEF INQUIRY, &c.

The great object of Professor Lee's tract is to
establish five positions, viz.: —

I. That a maintenance for the Ministers of the
Gospel is warranted by Scripture authority.

II. That the Society of Friends are unsound
in their doctrines on this point.

III. That Tithes, as now enjoyed by the
Clergy of the Church of England, are a charge
of the nature of a rent-charge on land, be-
queathed to a public charity.

IV. That this charge was freely given or
bequeathed by the real owners of the land, and

V. That it was. given for the specific purposes
to which it is now applied.

As, therefore, I wish to be as concise as
possible, I mean to confine myself, pretty much,
to these leading points.

Had the Professor made himself acquainted
with the doctrine and practice of Friends, he
would have found that we do not differ very

widely from him in the principles he has laid
down, on the subject of a maintenance of the
Ministers of the Gospel. He objects to the term
Remuneration^ so do we : objecting, of course, to
that which the term is intended to represent. He
says, "According to the example of our blessed
" Lord, and the express declarations of his
" Apostles, pecuniary contributions may be, and
" ought to be made, for the support of the minis-
*'ters of the gospel; remuneration, as before
" remarked, they need not be termed. The
" object had in view, in these cases, was his
" support, his maintenance, the reasonable pro-
" vision for his wants." All this is in perfect
accordance with the views and constant practice
of Friends, when their ministers travel from home
in the service of the Gospel. When at home,
they provide for their own maintenance, following
the example of the Apostle Paul, (Acts, xviii. 3.)
and should it so happen, that the family of a
minister thus abroad, stands in need of assistance
during his absence, it is cheerfully provided for ;
as all the necessitous in this society are, whether
preachers or hearers, without suffering them to
become chargeable to other societies, or to the
public.

This we conceive to be in true gospel order ;
and to be the extent of everything that is enjoined

by our Lord and his Apostles on this subject.
We entirely accede to the position laid down by
the Apostle Paul, that the spiritual labourer is
worthy of his hire.^ He says, '* If ive
" have sown unto you spiritual things, is it
" a great thing if we shall reap your carnal
" things .?" " They which 'preach the Gospel
"•' should live of the Gospel.'' 1 Cor. ix. 11
and 14. He also says, " Let him that is
" taught in the word, communicate unto him that
'^ teacheth, in all good things'' Gal. vi. 6. But
he no where says, ^o him that teacheth not ; neither
does he say that those are to communicate who
are not taught. Hence it appears that those who
faithfully spend their time in preaching the Gospel,
are entitled to bodily maintenance from those who
" receive them ;" yet such was the disinterested-
ness of this great Apostle, that he did not deem
the practice expedient for himself; for he says,
" Nevertheless, WE have not used this power ; but
" suffer all thi7igs, lest we should hinder the
" Gospel of Christ." 1 Cor. ix. 12. ''But I
" have used none of these things, neither have I
" written these things, that it should be so done
" imto me : for it were better for me to die, than
" that any man should make my glorying void."
V. 15. It is evident that he thought it more

* 1 Cor. ix. 1 Tim. v. Gal. vi.

consistent with the spirit of Christianity, and
more likely to further its interests, to support
himself by the labour of his own hands, than to
be supported by that of others ; and it is plain
that his companions in the ministry did the same,
for he says, " Neither didyf^ eat any marl's bread
^^ for nought, but wrought with labour and travail^
" night and day^ that we might not be chargeable
^^ to any of you ; not because [says he] we hvve
" not power, but to make ourselves an EN-
" SAMPLE unto you to follow us; for even when
" we ivere with you, this we commanded you, that
'Hf any would not work, neither should he eat,^^
2 Thess.iii. 8,9,10.

" Should it be objected on this occasion,
" that the Apostle received relief from the
" brethren of Philippi as well as from others,
" when he did not preach, the reply is, that this
" relief consisted of voluntary and affectionate
" presents, sent to him when in necessitous cir-
" cumstances. In this case he states that he never
" desired these gifts, but that it was pleasant to
"him to see his religious instruction produce a
" benevolence of disposition that would abound
" to their own account."^

This Apostle, in his address to the elders of
the church of Ephesus, thus beautifully describes

* Concise Hist, of Tithes.

his own conduct ; " I have coveted no man's
" silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves
" know that these hands have ministered unto my
" necessities, and to them that were with me.
"I have shewed you all things, how that so
" labouring^ ye ought to support the weak ; and
" to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how
" he said, It is more blessed to give than to
"receive."^

Consistently with the example of this great
Apostle, many of our ministers who are of ability,
travel entirely at their own charges, availing
themselves only of the kind hospitality of their
friends as they pass along.

We believe that Jesus Christ is the only Lord
and Head of his own Church ; that human learning
cannot give the qualification for the ministry ; that
no man is authorized to appoint and constitute
any other man to the office of a minister in the
Church of Christ ; that although human learning
may be a valuable accessary, it has nothing to do
with the primary qualification, properly so called.
We believe that the ministry of the Gospel is a
Divine Gift; and that "the office is to be filled
" only by those who are called of God, by the
"power of the Holy Spirit."t The Apostles
themselves were generally unlearned and ignorant

* Acts XX, 33, 35. f Brief Statement.

men ; but they had this Divine call, which endued
them with power and authority to preach the
Gospel. Even the Apostle Paul declared that
he " came not with excellency of speech or of
'' wisdom declaring the testimony of God. My
" speech, and my preaching was not with enticing
" words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration
" of the Spirit and of power ; that your faith should
*^ not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the
" power of God. Now we have received, not the
" spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of
" God ; that we might know the things that are
"• freely given to us of God ; which things also
" we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom
" teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth ;
" comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But
" the natural man receiveth not the things of
" the Spirit of God ; for they are foolishness unto
" him ; neither can he know them, because they
" are spiritually discerned." ^ This we believe
is still, Qven to this day, the state of true Gospel
ministry, by whomsoever it is exercised ; for we
cannot accede to the position laid down in the
" Brief Inquiry" (p. 4.) that the "Teachers (of
" the Gospel) can be termed nothing better than
" earthen vessels ; and by parity of reasoning, the
" means which they employ can lay claim to no

* 1 Cor. chap. ii.

*'* higher title." That is, as I understand the
position, that the means employed by the
ministers of the gospel can lay claim only to an
earthly title. This we conceive to be at variance
with the whole tenor of the doctrine of our Lord
and his Apostles, and also at variance with the
doctrine of the Church of England, on the subject
of the ministry. The Apostle says, " God, who
" commanded the light to shine out of darkness,
" hath shine d in our hearts, to give the light of
'^ the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face
" of Jesus Christ : but we have this treasure in
'' earthen vessels, that the excellency of the
" power may be of God, and not of us."^ We
cannot therefore admit, that the means employed
by a minister^ entrusted with the treasure of the
Holy Spirit, moving him to preach the Gospel,
can lay claim only to an earthly title: and without
this divine treasure, we cannot conceive anv
qualification for the ministry.

In the service of the Temple, the priests were
all washed and sanctified ; they were anointed
with the holy consecrating oil ; and the High
Priest had on his forehead a tablet of gold, with
the inscription. Holiness to the Lord, engraved
thereon. A beautiful type of the purity and
spirituality of the Gospel dispensation, and of its

* 2 Cor. iii. 6, 7.

ministers. What do the ministers of the Church
of England mean, when they declare that they
believe themselves inwardly moved by the Holy
Ghost to preach the gospel ? Do they not mean
that they perceive this light shining in their
hearts, pointing out to them the path of their re-
ligious duty. Surely, when thus moved by the
Holy Ghost, the means which they employ may lay
claim- to a higher than an earthly title ; as they
are instructed by the Bishop, at their ordination —
" Ye cannot have a mind apd will thereto of your-
" selves ; for that will and ability is given of God
" alone ; therefore ye ought, and have need to
''pray earnestly for his Holy Spirit."^ When
thus moved, or called, they must know that
verified in their own experience, which I have
adduced above as the experience of the Apostle.
If under the influence of the Holy Spirit, their
preaching would be in the demonstration of the
Spirit and of power : they would speak, not in the
words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which
the Holy Ghost teacheth. They would have that
spiritual discernment, by which they would re-
ceive the things of the Spirit of God ; which things,

* See the entire office of " Ordering* of Priests,'^ particularly
the hymn, " Come, Holy Ghost/' and the authority to forgive and
to retain sins, supposed to be conveyed by the imposition of the
Bishop's hands ; which must require no small degree of divine
illumination, as well as divine authority, rightly to exercise.

in their natural state, they cannot discern ; for in
that state, they are foolishness unto them. They
would know the meaning of the very important
queries put by the Apostle to the Corinthians ;
" Know ye not that ye are the temple of God ;
" and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you ?^"
" What ! know ye not that your body is the
" temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you,
" which ye have of God, and ye are not your
" own ?"t

We believe " That God raises up his own
" ministers. That these are to give their spiritual
"labours freely; ^eating such things as are set
^^ before ^^ern,' and, ^ having food and raiment^ to
" he therevjith content;'' (which things they deserve,
" while in the exercise of their calling, as much as
*' the labourer his hire) but that no bargains are to
" be made about religion. That ministers of the
" Gospel are not authorized to demand, conse-
" quently not io force, a maintenance from others ;
" or to take away any thing from those who are
" unwilling to receive them ; but that in such case
" they are to go their ways, and to shake the dust
" off their feet against those who reject thera ;
" or, in other words, to declare that they have done
" their own duty in going with the word of exhor-
" tation, and that the fault lies with those who

* ] Cor. iii. 16. t 1 Cor. vi. 19,

" refuse to hear it. That when they are not
" occupied in the work of the ministry, they
" are to support themselves, if necessity re-
" quire it, by their own industry, using their own
" scrips, purses, and clothes. That any con-
" strained payment on account of religion, as it is
" contrary to the intention of Jesus Christ, is an
" infringement of the great Christian tenet, that,
" Christ's kingdom being of a spiritual nature, the
" magistrate has no right to dictate a religion to
" any one, nor to enforce payment for the same ;
" and that therefore any legal interference in these
" matters, which are solely between God and man,
"is an act of legislation beyond the bounds of
" man's jurisdiction, and is neither more nor less
"than a usurpation of the prerogative of

" GOD."^

Before we proceed to consider the nature of the
claim of the clergy to tithes, it may be proper to
take some notice of a quotation made by the Pro-
fessor, p. 5, from 1 Peter ii. 21 — 25, as "the most
" pointed passage in the new testament, to which
" we can refer ;" and which I think with him has
very little to do with it. A more pointed passage,
in my apprehension, may be produced from the
same Apostle, 1 Pet. iv. 10, 11, " As every man
" hath received the gift, even so minister the same

* Concise Hist, of Tithes.

" one to another, as good stewards of the manifold
" grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak
" as the oracles of God ; if any man minister, let
'^ him do it, as of the ability which God giveth."
But let us hear what our Saviour himself says,
Matt. X. 8, when sending forth his Apostles to
preach, he enjoins them, "Freely ye have received,
freely give." They could not then execute their
Master's commission, without his divine assistance
and qualification ; so neither can his true minis-
ters in the present day, without the immediate
assistance of his own "free Spirit" (Ps. li. 12.)
But does my friend seriously mean to assert (p. 6.)
still quoting from the Apostle Peter, (ch. ii.) that
" We are to submit ourselves to every ordinance
" of man for the Lord's sake," verse 13, and for
"conscience sake," (Rom. xiii. 5,) without any
reference to the nature of the ordinance ! This
same Apostle (Acts iv. 19) evidently thought
otherwise ; " Whether it be right in the sight of
" God," says he to the Jewish rulers, "to hearken
"unto you more than unto God, judge ye." "Some
" of these ordinances to which the Apostle enjoins
" submission," the Professor says, " must have
" been iniquitous ; they were made by heathen
" rulers, and in some cases made demands to
*' which, I presume, no Friend at this day would
" think of submitting." And does the Professor

think that the Apostle enjoined submission to these
^Hniquitous ordinancesr or, that the early Christ-
ians, any more than a Friend at this day, would
think of submitting to them ! It is easy to see that
the Apostle would restrict his submission to such
ordinances, of a civil nature, as did not interfere
with conscience : and perhaps this will afford a
less objectionable solution of the reason, why our
Lord " performed a miracle in order to enable
" his disciples to comply with the payment of
« tribute," (Matt. xvii. 24, 27) than to suppose
that "he submitted to similar [iniquitous?] ex-
" actions" rather than give "offence'' to the tax-
gatherers, (p. 70 This is all in accordance with
the injunction to render to Ceesar the things that
are Cyesar's, and to God the things that are God's.
And I cannot see that, either on this occasion, nor
yet in the acceptance of voluntary contributions,
(p. 7.) " our Lord's example may be cited in
" direct opposition to the doctrines of the ' Brief
" Statement.' " (p. 8.)

We now come to consider the foundation of the
claim of the clergy to tithes ; ever keeping in view
the ground of Reason and Conscience ; the ground
the Professor himself has taken. He gives us the
following extract from Burn's Ecclesiastical Law ;
viz. " What was paid to the Church for several

" of the first ages after Christ, was all brought to
" them by way of offerings : and these were made
" either at the altar, or at the collections, or else
" occasionally. Afterwards, about the year 794,
" Offa, King of Mercia, (the most potent of all the
" Saxon Kings of his time in this island) made a
" law, whereby he gave unto the Church the tithes
" of all his kingdom ; [which, the historians

" TELL us, WAS DONE TO EXPIATE FOR THE DEATH

" OF Ethelbert, King of the East Angles, whom

" IN THE year preceding, HE HAD CAUSED BASELY

" TO BE MURDERED.] ^ This law of Offa was that
" which first gave the church a civil right in them
" in this land, by way of property and inheritance,
" and enabled the clergy to gather and recover
" them as their legal due, by the coercion of the
" civil power. Yet this establishment of Offa
"reached no farther than to the kingdom of
" Mercia, over which Offa reigned ; until Ethel-
" wulph, about sixty years after, enlarged it for
" the whole realm of England."

These grants of Offa and Ethel wulph the Pro-
fessor takes as the original title deeds, by which
the clergy claim the tithe ; and on this he thus
argues ; " The gift was at first freely bestowed,

* The Professor has not given us this passage in Burn, which
is printed in small capitals. Perhaps he was unwilling to shock his
readers with such a tale of horror.

"and was appointed to be paid by subsequent
" occupiers as a part or portion of the rent ; with
" this difference only, that the rent was to go to
" one person, the bequest so made, to be paid to
" another, and this other was to be a Christian
" Minister." He then draws a parallel between
tithes, and lands left by will for the support of a
public school, and says, " What, I ask, would the
' Society of Friends say to me, if I were solemnly

* to aver, make it moreover a part of my religious
' creed, and then a question of conscience, that
' no rents ought to be paid to them for the
' occupancy of lands, left by will for the support
' of Sidcot School ; or that no interest ought to
' be paid by the nation at large for the sums vested
' in the public funds for the same purpose ? I
' think they would say, either that I was very ill
' Informed as to what Christianity is, or else,
' that my notions of justice were very different
' from those which every just man has hitherto
' held ; and yet this is what they are every day
« doing, when they refuse to pay the tithes claimed
' by the Established Church, of the lands which
' they severally hold. Both rest precisely on the
' the same grounds ; both were originally granted
« by the real owners for these several specific

* purposes ; both were voluntarily and freely
' given." (p. 16, 170 Here then are the grounds

on which, in Reason and Conscience^ the clergy
of the present day rest their claim to tithes. That
is to say, first, that Offa and Ethelwulph, at the
times of their making their respective grants, were
the real owners of the lands on which they made
these grants.

Had the Saxon conquest of England been effected
by one great leader, it might reasonably be ex-
pected that, after having mm'dered or expelled the
ancient inhabitants, he might have called himself
the owner of the whole territory ; and might have
been so acknowledged by his followers; but this
was not the case." The Saxons came over indifferent
parties, each party landing in a different place ;
some landing on the eastern coast, and others
landing on the southern coast ; and this continued
for a hundred and fifty years, before they became
complete masters of the country. Now, as each
of these parties of invaders came under separate
leaders, it were reasonable to suppose that each
party would conquer for themselves; and would
consider themselves the -leal owners of that
portion of the territory they had obtained posses-
sion of. How far this was the state of England
after the Saxon conquest, let Hume inform us.
He says, '' The Saxons who subdued Britain, as
" they enjoyed great liberty in their own country,
" obstinately retained that invaluable possession

" in their new settlement ; and they imported into
" this island the same principles of independence
" which they had inherited from their ancestors.
" The King, so far from being entitled to an
" arbitrary power, was only considered the first
" among the citizens. It is probable that the
" Constitution might be somewhat different in the
" different nations of the Heptarchy ; and that it
" changed considerably during the course of six
" centuries, which elapsed from the first invasion
" of the Saxons till the Norman conquest ; but
" most of these differences and changes, with their
" causes and effects, are unknown to us. It only
" appears that, at all times, and in all the kingdoms,
" there was a national council, called a Wittenage-
"mot, or assembly of the wise men, whose consent
'' was requisite for enacting laws, and for ratifying
" the chief acts of public administration. But who
« were the constituent members of this Wittenage-
" mot, has not been determined by antiquarians.
" It is agreed that the bishops and abbots were
" an essential part. We may conclude that the
" more considerable proprietors of land were,
" without any election, constituent members of the
" national assembly ; and there is reason to think
" that forty hydes, or between four and five thou-
" sand acres, was the estate requisite for entitling
" the possessor to this honourable privilege. We

" have hints given us in the historians of the great
"power and riches of particular noblemen."

Here we find no paramount lord of the soil ; but
we find that our Saxon ancestors had at this time
laid the foundation of the present British Constitu-
tion ; they had a Limited Monarchy^ and a national
assembly, or Parliament^ whose consent was re-
quisite for enacting laws; nor do I find that the
landowners paid any acknowledgment, or service
to the crown, for their lands ; each one deriving
his title only from his own sword.

Therefore, Offa and Ethelwulph were not the
real owners of the lands over which they are said
to have granted the tithes.

We next examine the circumstances under
which these grants are said to have been made. It
appears that Offa had a daughter named Elfrida
or Etheldrida, and that Elthelbert, King of the
East Angles, who made suit to this princess, was
invited with all his retinue, by Offa, to Hereford, in
order to solemnize the nuptials ; when, instead of
marrying the daughter, he was murdered by the
father ; who seized his kingdom, and added it to
his own. Hume says, " He gave a tenth of all his
" goods to the Church ; he bestowed rich dona-
" tions on the Cathedral of Hereford ; and the
'' better to ingratiate himself with the Sovereign

" Pontiff, he engaged to pay him a yearly donation
" for the support of an Englisli College at Rome;
" and in order to raise the sum, he imposed the tax
" (called Rome-scot) of a penny on each house,
" possessed of thirty pence a year. This imposi-
*' tion, being afterwards levied on all England,
" was commonly denominated Peter's Pence; and
" though conferred at first as a gift, was afterwards
" claimed as a tribute by the Roman Pontiff."^

Here we find that " Offa gave a tenth of all his
" goods to the Church ;" that is a tenth of all his
own goods ; that he added to the endowments of
Hereford Cathedral ; and that he granted or con-
firmed this tax of Rome-scot to the Pope. Rapin
mentions the Rome-scot, and the donations to
the Church at Hereford ; but he makes no allu-
sion to any tenths or tithes as having been
granted by this prince.

" Ethelwulph, who succeeded his father, had

* *' Offa went to Rome before his death, and extended to his
own dominions the liberality of Ina, called Rome-scot." —
Turner's History of the Anglo Saxons.

" Rome-scot was first granted by Offa, as some say, or by Ina,
king of the West Saxons, as others say. Our ancestors did
frequently complain of this mark of slavery to the Church of
Rome, as a burden and scandal to the English nation. And in
the time of King Edward III. it was forbidden to be paid. King
Henry VIII. abrogated it ; but it was servilely restored by Queen
Mary ; but at last utterly abolished by Queen Elizabeth.'' —
Bailey's Diet. Article, Bome-scot.

" been a monk : but, on the unexpected death of
*^ his elder brother, the Papal dispensation was
" obtained to release him from his sacred obliga-
" tions. His mind was indolent and weak. His
" minister, Alstan, Bishop of Sherborne, ably sup-
" plied his master's deficiencies. "=^ His character
was that of a severe ecclesiastic through life ; giv-
ing himself up to monastic devotions, except when
roused by the incursions of the Danes. We can-
not therefore wonder that when the king was a
monk, surrounded by monks, and aided by a
council of which " bishops and abbots were an
" essential part," and a bishop his prime minister,
I say, that with such a king, and such a council, it
is not to be wondered at, that tithes, which before
had been only at the will of the donor, should be
fixed as a permanent tax on the country, and
which he consented to, under the notion that he
should thus avert the judgments of God, which
his ghostly counsellors represented as visible in
the frequent ravages of the Danes.

Could we trace a title to national tithes to King
Oifa, we should so far fix a disgrace on our coun-
try, for having suffered a tax, imposed by a
murderer, to avert the just judgment of God from
his own guilty head, to be patiently borne and
paid for A Thousand and Thirty-Eight Years !

* Turner's Hist, of the Anglo Saxons. 2nd edit. Vol. 1. p. 183.

And the title derived from Ethelwulph is, in my
opinion, a very sorry title indeed to be brought
forward by the ministers of the English Church :
it being nothing but a Job, got up by a junto of
ecclesiastics in the very darkest ages of Papal
usurpation, superstition, and bigotry. And I
think 1 have proved^ ag far as historical records
can be brought in proof, that neither OfFa nor
Ethelwulph, were the real owners of the lands of
their respective kingdoms ; but that the lands
were divided out among a large body of absolute
and independent proprietors ; consequently, the
similarity, if any, between tithes and a rent-
charge, is extremely small. A rent-charge is an
absolute charge on the land, authorising the
claimant, in case of default, not only to levy dis-
tress, but even to enter and take possession :
whereas the tithe claimant has his demand only
on the crop or produce ; which he cannot touch
until it be cut or severed from the freehold, and
converted into personal property ; and in case of
default, his only remedy is against the occupier :
and if he runs away, leaving his tithe unpaid, the
claimant may run after him. Tithe is, in fact, not
a tax on the land^ but a tax on the skill, capital, and
industry of the occupier: consequently, tithes may
be said to bear no resemblance to a rent-charge.

We next proceed to notice the Professor's
position, that tithes were originally granted for
the " specific purposes" to which they are now
applied. It appears by Ethel wulph's grant, that
they were given only " Sanctse Ecclesiee,* (to
Holy Church ;) of course they were to be ap-
plied to the general purposes to which tithes were
then applied ; which were, one-fourth to the
bishop, one-fourth to the clergy, one-fourth
for the support of buildings, and one-fourth to the
poor ; or, the bishops being otherwise provided
for, into three parts only, for the other three pur-
poses.t But who and what were the clergy, for
whose benefit the royal monk Ethelwulph, with
his monkish brethren, aided by a council, of which
Popish " bishops and abbots were an essential
part ;" who, I say, were the clergy, for whose be-
nefit these men taxed the country ? Not for a Pro-
testant clergy : not for men who protest against
the errors of the Church of Rome, and who have
renounced her communion. Not certainly for
these ; but for Popish priests and monks for ever !
And the poor, who were to partake of these tithes,
were such only as attended divine worship accord-

* Selden.

t At what period this alteration in the division of tithes took
place, does not seem to be ascertained.

ing to " canonical order ;"* that is, according to
the canons of the Church of Rome. If, there-
fore, the poor of the present day had a third of
the tithe, this third would be completely diverted
from the purpose assigned in the original grant.
Tithes, therefore, are not applied to any one of
the purposes for which they were originally
granted. Were we to admit the ground of the
grant of tithes to be valid, still they are not now
applied agreeably to the will of the donor : they
do not go to any Popish bishop ; they go to no
Romish priests or monks ; they are not applied to
the support of any Popish ecclesiastical buildings;
nor are they applied to the poor !

Now, when we consider all these facts ; that
tithes, as a Christian institution, are altogether of
Popish origin ; granted too by a weak Romish ec-
clesiastic, converted into a king! influenced as he
was, by others of the monkish fraternity ; granted
too, under a notion that he should thereby prevent
the future ravages of the Danes, in which expecta-
tion he was entirely disappointed ; that this grant
of tithes was confirmed and ratified by the Pope ;
that they were granted to " Holy Church," that is,
to the Church of Rome ; that, among other uses,
they were granted for the support of the Romish
system of worship, with all its pomp and c(jre-

* Selden.

monies ; and, without doubt, for masses for the
souls of the donors, so long as the tithes granted
by them should continue to be paid ; that the
Church of England is a church dissenting from the
Church of Rome ; that it has not only renounced
all spiritual allegiance towards the head of that
church, but that it does, in its homilies, denomi-
nate the Popes " most greedy Romish wolves,' —
" wicked, usurping bishops and tyrants, — special
" instruments and ministers of the devil !" and
by many other opprobrious epithets. When, I
say, we consider hy whom tithes were first made
a permanent tax in this country ; the false pre-
tences under which a weak, monkish king, was in-
duced to grant them ; the purposes for which
they were granted ; and that they are not noto
applied to any one of the said purposes ; it may
well be a question with the clergy of the Church
of England, how far they are entitled in reason
and CONSCIENCE to persist in receiving them. But
if tithes must be paid to ministers who are dis-
senters from the Church of Rome, I ask, what
claim, in reason and conscience, can the ministers
of the Episcopal sect set up for these tithes, that
may not be brought forward by other dissenting
ministers ? I conceive that the Independents,
who, at one period, enjoyed the tithes, almost
exclusively, Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists

and others, who are all equally dissenters, have,
in reason and conscience, an equal claim to tithes,
share and share alike. But I should say that, in
reason and conscience, they have none of them
any claim at all !

I think that those of the clergy who hold fast
by their Act of Parliament, are the more discreet ;
for when they let that go, as their only anchor,
they run adrift. As a magistrate, with whom I
was once in conversation on the subject of tithes,
and happening to mention the name of Moses,
quickly replied, " My dear Sir, we have nothing
to do with Moses, we look only to our Act of
Parliament I"

It may not, however, be amiss to remind the
clergy of the Church of England, that as they
derive their authority for enriching themselves
with the spoils of the Church of Rome entirely
from an act of the British Parliament ; so, an act
of the same Parliament, may, at any time, entirely
deprive them of these spoils ; or, whenever the
Parliament, considering tithes as an expiation for
Offa's crime, for which they are supposed to have
been established ; or, considering ihe Popish uses,
for which they are known to have been establish-
ed, and from which they have long since been
diverted, may think that they have been paid long
enough, and may think proper to rid the nation

of this degrading vestige of Popish usurpation,
they may perhaps suffer them to lapse into the
lands from which they are derived, as has been
done elsewhere.

Seeing then that tithes are applied to none of
the purposes for which they were originally
granted, in what a sad state are the clergy of
the Church of England, if the Professor is cor-
rect in his judgment, that tithes ought '^ punc-
" tually to be rendered, and perpetually applied
" to the purposes assigned by the original donors
" or makers of such grants.^* And that in this
case, " Conscience is firmly bound, by the laics
" of both God and man ; and consequently com-
" pelted to maintain, that all such property ought
''' scrupulously to be applied to the purposes for
" which it was originally ginen ; and that he who
" irreligiously dares to hold or to promulgate a
" contrary opinion, ivill do this at the peril and
" risk of his souV^ pp. 19. 20.

Here the Professor has reduced the subject to
a pure question of " Conscience :" and he has
stated it in such broad, clear, and plain language,
as scarcely to admit the possibility of perversion.
Here the Act of Parliament is laid aside ; and we
have before us a simple question of Conscience. —
Are the English tithes then, applied to the pur-

poses assigned by the original donors or makers of
the grants ? This question is rendered so important
by the awful consequences attached to it by the
Professor, as to require our once more adverting to
it. — The tithes, as we have stated, were granted to
" Holy Church," that is, to the Church of Rome ;
and they were to be disposed of as the Church
directed. The Church, then, directed that these
tithes should be divided into certain portions, and
each portion for a separate purpose ; but whether
the laws of the Church directed that they should
be divided into four parts, or only into three
parts, is not quite clear : we will therefore take the
three parts only, leaving the bishops out of the
question, excepting when they themselves become
rectors and vicars, by the ingenious process of
commendams. I have shown that the portion
allotted to the poor was to be paid only to those
who went to church, according to canonical order .
Knowing then, as we do, the stern inflexibility
of the Church of Rome, it would be a perversion
of all reason and common sense, to suppose that
tithes, established by a monk with a crown on his
head, were intended by him, at the time the grant
was made, ever to be enjoyed by any other than
by canonical^ that is to say, by Romish clergy :
as well might we say that, if we paid the tithes to
Indian Bramins, that they were " applied to the

" purposes for which they were originally given,"
as when they are paid to Protestant " heretics.'
Are the tithes then divided into three equal por-
tions? Is one of these portions appropriated to
the clergy of the Church of Rome ? Is one other
of these portions applied for the support of
Romish religious houses ? And is the other third
portion appropriated to the support of the poor
who go to church, according to canonical order ;
that is, according to the order of -the Church of
Rome? these being the purposes to which the
tithes were assigned by the original grant. The
answer is, as every body knows, as plain and
simple as the question itself. No, they are not
applied to any one of the three purposes stated
in the <[uestion ! Here then is a dilemma ! My
friend, the Professor, must therefore either forth-
with abandon his tithes in toto ; or, if he " irre-
" liglously dares to hold or to promulgate an
*' opinion that tithes shoidd not punctually he ren-
" dered, and perpetually applied to the purjooses
"■ assigned by the original donors or makers of
" such grants,'' he thereby violates " the laws of
" both God and man ; and does this at the peril
" and risk of his soul.''

RedlanDj near Bristol,

11th Month, 1832.

A BRIEF STATEMENT of the reasons why
the Religious Society of FRIENDS object to
the payment of Tithes, and other demands of
an Ecclesiastical nature : issued by the Yearly
Meeting of the said Society, held in London
in the Fifth Month, 1832.

The Religious Society of Friends has now existed
in this country for nearly two centuries as a distinct
Christian community. Amongst other circumstances
by which we have been distinguished from our fellow-
professors of the Christian name, has been an objection,
founded on a scruple of conscience, to the payment of
Tithes, and other demands of an Ecclesiastical charac-
ter. Apprehending that the motives of our conduct
herein are not generally well understood, and anxiously
desiring also that our own members may be encouraged
and strengthened to act consistently with our Christian
profession, we think it right, at the present time,
briefly to set forth the reasons for our testimony on this
important subject.

We have uniformly entertained the belief, on the
authority of Holy Scripture, that when in the fulness
of time, according to the allwise purposes of God, our
blessed Lord and Saviour appeared personally upon
earth. He introduced a dispensation, pure and spiritual
in its character. He taught by his own holy example
and divine precepts, that the ministry of the Gospel is to
be without pecuniary remuneration. As the gift is free,
the exercise of it is to be free also : the office is to be filled
by those only who are called of God by the power of

the Holy Spirit ; who, in their preaching", as well as
in their circumspect lives and conversation, are giving*
proof of this call. The forced maintenance of the
ministers of Religion is, in our view, a violation of those
great privileges which God, in his wisdom and good-
ness, bestowed upon the human race, when He sent his
Son to redeem the world, and, by the power of the
Holy Spirit, to lead and guide mankind into all truth.

Our blessed Lord put an end to that priesthood, and
to all those ceremonial usages connected therewith,
which were before divinely ordained under the Law of
Moses, The present system of Tithes was not in any
way instituted by Him, our Holy Head, and High
Priest, the great Christian Law-giver. It had no
existence in the purest and earliest ages of his Church,
but was gradually introduced, as superstition and apos-
tacy spread over professing Christendom, and was
subsequently enforced by legal authority. And it
further appears to us, that in thus enforcing as due*
" to God and Holy Church," a tithe upon the produce
of the earth, and upon the increase of the herds of the
field, an attempt was made to uphold and perpetuate
a divine institution, appointed only for a time, but
which was abrogated by the coming in the flesh of the
Lord Jesus Christ. The vesting of power by the laws
of the land in the king, assisted by his council, whereby
articles of belief have been framed for the adoption of
his subjects, and under which the support of the teachers
of these articles is enforced, is, in our judgment, a
procedure at variance with the whole scope and design
of the Gospel ; and as it violates the rights of private

* ^7 Henry viii. Ct 20.

judgment, so it interferes with that responsibihty by
which man is bound to his Creator.

In accordance with what has been ah'eady stated,
we of course conscientiously object also to all demands
made upon us in lieu of Tithes. We likewise object
to what are termed Easter-dues; demands originally
made by the priests of the Church of Rome, but
continued in the Protestant Church of England, for
services which we cannot receive. We also object
to Mortuaries, sums applied for and still enforced
in some places, as due to the incumbent of a parish
on the death of the head of a family. Neither do
we find, in the example or precepts of our blessed
Lord and his Apostles, an^^^ authority for these
claims, or others of a kindred nature, which all had
their origin in times of the darkness and corruption
of the Christian Church. And we further consider,
that to be compelled to unite in the support of build-
ings, where a mode of religious worship is observed
in which we cannot conscientiously unite, and in
paying for appurtenances attached to that mode of
worship, from which we alike dissent, is subversive
ot that freedom which the Gospel of Christ has
conferred upon all.

Deeply impressed with a conviction of the truth of
these considerations, we have felt it to be a religious
duty to refuse active compliance with all Ecclesiastical
demands which have been made upon us; or to be
'parties to any compromise whereby the payment
of them is to be insured. That this conduct has
not arisen from a contumacious spirit, we trust the

general character of our proceedings will amply
testify. And we trust, also, that it will be readily
admitted, that political considerations have not go-
verned our Religious Society, but that we have been
actuated by a sincere desire to maintain, in the sight
of God and man, a conscientious testimony to the
freedom and spirituality of the Gospel of Christ,
and thus to promote the enlargement of his kingdom
upon earth.

In their support of these views, our pious prede-
cessors underwent many and grievous sufferings,
which they bore with Christian meekness and patience.
Their loss of property was often excessive ; they
were subjected to cruel and vexatious prosecutions ;
they endured long and painful imprisonments; and
not- a few, who were thus deprived of their liberty,
manifested the sincerity of their faith by patiently
suffering this imprisonment unto death. Soon after
the accession of William III. to the throne of this
kingdom, more lenient laws were made by the
government for the recovery of these demands,
imprisonment became less frequent, and the execution
of the lav/ less severe. Subsequent legislative enact-
ments, under the mild sway of the present reigning
family, have still further mitigated its force. We
are sensible that our grateful acknowledgments are
due for these things, and we thus publicly express
them. At the same time, we feel that there are laws
still unrepealed, by which we might, in the support
of these our Christian principles, be subjected to
great loss of property, and to imprisonment for life ;
and in the execution of the law, as it now exists.

much pecuniary suffering, and many oppressive pro-
ceedings, may be and are inflicted. And here we
would observe, that each individual amongst us wholly
sustains the amount of the distraint made upon him,
and of all the consequent expenses : we have no fund
out of which a reimbursement takes place, as some
have erroneously supposed.

Seeing that we have, as a Religious Society, inva-
riably made, on this subject, an open confession before
men, we earnestly desire that we may all steadfastly
adhere to the original grounds of our testimony ; not
allow ourselves to be led away by any feelings of a
party spirit, or suffer any motives of an inferior
character to take the place of those which are purely
Christian. May none amongst us shrink from the
faithful and upright support of our Christian belief;
but, through the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,
seek after that meek disposition, in which our Society
has uniformly thought it right to maintain this testi-
mony, and which we desire may ever characterize
us as a body. It becomes us all, when thus con-
scientiously refusing a compliance with the law of
the land, to do it in that peaceable spirit of which
our Lord has left us so blessed an example. May
we all be concerned, in accordance with the advice of
this Meeting, given forth in the year 1759, 'to
demonstrate, by our whole conduct and conversation,
that we really suffer for conscience-sake, and keep
close to the guidance of that good Spirit, which will
preserve in meekness and quiet resignation under
every trial. For if resentment should arise against
those whom we may look upon as the instruments of

our sufferings, it will deprive us of the reward of
faithfulness, give just occasion of offence, and bring
dishonour to the cause of Truth. Cavilling or casting
reflections upon any, because of our sufferings, doth
not become the servants of Christ, whose holy
example and footsteps we ought in all things faithfully
to follow.'

It is the duty of the Christian, in patience and
meekness, and innocent boldness, to follow the con-
victions of religious duty, openly to avow his views,
and humbly to confide in the ever blessed Head of
the church. And we are persuaded that nothing
will so effectually promote the increase of genuine
Christianity, as for all who profess faith in Christ,
to manifest by their humble and peaceable demeanour,
and by the accordance of their whole lives with the
precepts of the Gospel, that their trust is in God ;
and that they are, seeking to imitate Him who was
holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.

We desire that the existing evils may, under the
Divine blessing, be remedied by the increase of
Christian light and knowledge, and that it may
please our Heavenly Father in the ordering of his
Providence, so to influence all the legislative pro-
ceedings of our Government, on this deeply im-
portant subject, as that they may tend to the fur-
therance of the Church of Christ, and the increase
of Godliness in the Nation. And it is our firm con-
viction, that in proportion as the heavenly precepts
and the blessed example of the Son of God, who is
given of the Father to be Lord of all, spread and pre-
vail, and effectually rule in the hearts and consciences

of men, — in proportion as the pure doctrines of the
Gospel gain the ascendency, — it will be seen, that to
uphold any church establishment by compulsory laws,
which oppress the consciences of sincere believers in
the Lord Jesus, is at variance with his holy law,
and is calculated to retard the universal spreading of
his reign.

In conclusion, it is our earnest prayer, that it
may please the Supreme Ruler of the Universe to
hasten the coming of that period when the light of
the glorious Gospel of Christ shall shine forth with
unclouded brightness ; when Righteousness shall cover
the earth as the waters cover the sea, and when the
kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms
of our Lord and of his Christ.

Signed, in and on behalf of the Yearly Meeting, by

SAMUEL TUKE,

Clerk to the Meeting this Year,

Rose, Printer, Broadmead, Bristol.

CONCISE HISTORY

TITHES,

with an Inquiry how far a

FORCED MAINTENANCE

FOR THE

MINISTERS OF RELIGION

is warranted by the Example and Precepts of

JESUS CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES.

JOSEPH STORRS FRY.

SIXTH EDITION,

Published by Edmund Fry, 73, Houndsditch, London ;

AND

P. Rose, Broadmead, Bristol,
1831.

The object of (he following Essay is loprese7il the Reader
with a concise account of the introduction of Tithes into
the Christian Church, with such arguments and conclu-
sions as appear fairly to arise therefrom ; and such as,
in the opinion of the Writer, are of general interest to the
Professors of Christianity.

In order to effect this object, the Writer has necessarily
had recourse to several Authors ; to one of whom, especially,
who treated on this subject in a work he published a few
years ago, he is greatly indebted; that Author having left
the writer at full liberty to make such extracts as he might
think proper : of which liberty he has accordingly availed
himself

Bristol^ 1819.

ROSE, PRINTER, BROADMEAD, BRISTOL.

A CONCISE

HISTORY OF TITHES3 &c.

CHAPTER I.

Tithes given by Abram ioMelchizedek, Priest of the Most High
God, Scripture account of Melchizedek.

THE first mention of Tithes that we find in the Sacred Records,
is in the relation of the return of Abram from the slaughter of
the four kings, where it is said, that " Melchizedek^ King of
Salem J brought forth bread and wine : and he was the Priest of
the most high God. And he blessed him, and said. Blessed be
Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth :
And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine
enemies into thine hand. And he gave him tithes of all. " Gen.
xiv.,18. This is the only notice of this occurrence ; nor is there any
further account of Melchizedek in the Old Testament, excepting
by the Psalmist, where he is supposed to be speaking propheti-
cally of our Saviout ; " Thou art a priest for ever after the
order of Melchizedek^ Ps. ex. 4. The above event appears to
have taken place about 400 years before the giving of the Law.
Here is a simple narration of a circumstance, totally unconnect-
ed, in an historical point of view, with any other. It appears
that Melchizedek met Abram and blessed him ; and that Abram
gave him tithes of all. But there does not appear to have been
any divine command, nor any precedent, for this gift ; nor is there
any reason assigned why the tithes were given : we are therefore
at hberty to conjecture for ourselves. It appears to me that the
motive which influenced Abram, was gratitude to God, for hav-
ing enabled him to overcome his enemies, and to rescue his kins-
man Lot and his household ; and for the blessing which it pleased
God to convey to him by Melchizedek ; and that, in the fulness
of his gratitude, he gave a tenth of the spoil to Melchizedek, as
the messenger of peace from God to him.

There is nothing in this occurrence that can by any force of lan-
guage be construed into an Institution, as some commentators
have attempted ; unless it be to oblige the payment of the tenth of
the spoil of war : for it does not appear that Abram paid the tenth
of his own increase ; nor does it appear that he gave the tenth
part at any other time. But the character or description
given of Melchizedek by the author of the Epistle to the He-
brews, is such as surely no man of the present day will pre-
sume to claim for himself. He describes him as " King of

4 [chap. II,

Righteousness ; also King ofSfdem^ which is ^ King of Peace ;
without Father^ without Mother, without Descent -^^ which lat-
ter expressions some suppose to mean only, without a known
pedigree ; but I think the description is too plain to be misunder-
stood. It proceeds thus : " Having neither beginning of days,
nor end of life ; hut made like unto the Son of God^ abideth a
Priest coniinuallij.^^ Heb. vii. 3. "" And here men that die re-
ceive tithes ; but there he receiyeth them of whom it is witnessed
that he liveth.'^ v. 8. It appears also that his priesthood was
of the same order as that of our Saviour. " The Lord sware
and will not repent, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order
ofMelchizedek.^^ Heb. vii. 21. J^F/^fl^ that order was appears
in the sequel. '' By so much was Jesus made a surety of a bet-
ter testament. And they truly were many Priests, because
they were not suffered to continue, by reason of death : But
this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable
jjriesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the utter-
most that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make
intercession for them. For such an high Priest became us, who
is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made
higher than the heavens.'''' Heb. vii. 22. S-uch was the order of
the priesthood of Christ, and such appears to have been the order
of the priesthood of Melchizedek. Whether or not they were
different appearances of the same divine personage, is not for me
to determine.

CHAPTI R II.

Tithes instituted by Divine Command, as a Heave-Offering, un-
der the Ceremonial Law of Moses. To continue until the com-
ing ofShiloh, i. e. The Messiah ; by whose Sacrifice, once for
all, ended all the Types and Shadows of that Dispensation.
TuE only command from God, that we read of in Holy Writ,
for the payment of Tithes, was given by Moses to the people of
Israel in the time of the Levitical Law. Then God first reserved
to himself the tithe of the land of Canaan;* for this reason, that,
intending to take the tribe of Levi more peculiarly into his ser-
vice, (as he did+ instead of, or in exchange for, all the first-
born of Israel,t having before reserved and appropriated the

* "And all the lithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or the
fruit of the tree, is the Lord's : it is holy unto the Lord." Leviticus xxvii. 30.

+ " Bring the tribe of Levi near, and present them before Aaron the
priest, that they may minister unto him." Numbers iii. 6.

1 " And I, behold, 1 have taken the Levites from among the children of
Israel, instead of all the first-born among the children of Israel ; there-
fore the Levites shall be mine ; because all the first-born are mine ; for on the

CHAP. 11.]^ 5

first-born to himself,*) he might bestow those Tithes ontha Le-
vites, for the maintenance of that whole tribe, as a reward of their,
services in the tabernacle of the congregation, + and in lieu of
their share of the land of Canaan^ from which thereupon they
were expressly excluded.];

Now, although it was grounded on a principle of moral jus-
tice and equity, that the Levites^ thus engaged in a continual
attendance on a public service ; and excluded from their share
in the inheritance of the promised land, should receive a suffi-
cient maintenance from those for whom they performed that
service, and who enjoyed their part of the land; yet the ascer-
taining the quota of that maintenance, to the exact proportion
of a tenth part of the increase of the land, was not grounded
on moral justice, but had its dependence on the ceremonial law,
adapted and limited to the polity of that dispensation and peo-
ple only. And, that it might not be extended beyond its
appointed time and bounds, it pleased Divine Wisdom to
subject it to such ceremonial circumstances as plainly rank it
among those carnal ordmances, (rites and cerem.onies,) which
were imposed but till the time of reformation. § For as God
appointed the Levites to be offered for a JVave-Offering by
Moses, in the name and on the behalf of the children of Irsael,
when he said to Moses : Thou shall bring the Levites to the

day that I smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, I hallowed unto me
all the first-born in Israel, both man and beast : mine they shall be : I am
the Lord." Numbers iii. 12, 13.

" And I have taken the Levites iox all the first-born of the children of
Israel." Numbers viii. 18.

* " Sanctify unto me all the first-born among the children of Israel,

both of man and of beast : it is mine." Exodus xiii. 2.

1 "And, behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel,
for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the
tabernacle of the congregation. And ye shall eat it in every place, ye and
your households; for it is your reward for your service in the tabernacle of
the congregation." Numbers xviii. 21., 31.

:{: " And the Lord spake imto Aaron, Thou shalt have no inheritance in
their land, neither shalt thou have any part among them : I am thy part, and
thine inheritance, among the children of Israel. But the Levites shall do the
service of the tabernacle of the congregation, and they shall bear their iniquity;
it shall be a statute for ever throu^liout your generations, that among the
children of Israel they have no inheritance. But the tithes of the children
of Israel, which they offer as a heave-oiFeringunto the Lord, 1 have given to
the Levites to inherit; therefore I liave said unto them. Among the children
of Israel they shall have no inheritance." Numbers xviii. 20, 23, 24.

§ "■ Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service and"
a worldly sanctuary ; which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers wash-
ings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."
Hebrews ix. 1, 10.

6 [chap. III.

Tabernacle of the Congregation^ and thou shalt gather the
whole assembly of the children of Israel together / and thou
shalt bring the Levites before the Lord^ and the children of
Israel shall put their hands upon the Levites ; and Aaron shall
offer [in the margin, wave'] the Levites before the Lord for an
Offering [in the margin, Wave Offering~\ of the children of
Israel, that they may execute the service of the Lord: Num.
viii. 9, 10, 11. So the tithes, which were assigned for the
mainienance of the Levites^ were to be first offered, by the
people, as a Heave-Offering unto the Lord. (The Tithes of
the children of Israel, which they offer as a Heave-Offering
unto the Lord^ I have given to the Levites, &c. Num. xviii.
24.) And even the Tithe of those Tithes, which the Levites
were to yield unto the priests, was to be offered by the Levites
as a Heave-Offering to the Lord, before the priests might have
them. Thus speak ufito the Levites, [said God to Moses,] and
say unto them^ When ye take of the children of Israel the
Tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance^
then ye shall offer up a Heave-Offering of it for the Lord;
even a tenth part of the Tithe, And this your Heave-Offer-
ing shall be reckoned unto you^ as though it zsere the corn
of the threshing-floor^ and as the fulness of the wine-press.
Thus ye also shall offer a Heave-Offering unto the Lordy of
all your Tithes which ye receive of the children o/ Israel y and
ye shall give thereof the Lord's Heave-Offering to Aaron the
priest.''^ V. 26. 27. 28. This makes it evident, beyond doubt,
that the tithes which were given by the people to the Levites^
and by the Levites to the priests, under the Law, had their de-
pendence on the ceremonial law, as that priesthood had ; and
were to stand no longer than that law and that priesthood stood,
which was but till Shiloh^ (\. e. the Messiah,^ came, and, by
the offering of himself once for all, put an end to all the sha-
dowy offerings under that law.

This the author of the epistle to the Hebrews so well under-
stood, that he positively declared that, the priesthood being
changed^ there is made of necessity a change also of the Law,
Hebrews vii. 12.

CHAPTER III.

The Introduction of the Gospel. The Precepts of Jesus Christ,
The Examples and Precepts of the Apostles Paul and Peter,
• Practice of the Primitive Christians,

Our blessed Saviour declared, that " All the Prophets and the
Law prophesied until John ; Matt, xi, 13, whom he calls not

CHAP. III.] 7

merely a Prophet, but )nore than a Prophet. For this^ fsays
he, J is he of whom it is written^ ' Behold I send my messenger
before thy face zohich shallprepare thy way before thee.'' " Matt,
xi. 9, and Mai. iii. 1. This was the forerunner of the Mes-
siah, spoken of in prophecy, as the '' Voice of one crying in the
wilderness^ Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths
straight." Matt. iii. 3, and Isaiah xl. 3. He it was, who
was sent to bear witness of the True Light, which lighteth
every man that cometh into the world ; and who cried, saying-,
" The Law was given by Moses, but Grace and Truth came
by Jesus Christ." John i. 17.

And that the apostles were satisfied that the dispensation of
the law was of no force among Christians, is also evident from
the following Scripture. " But there rose up certain of the sect
of the Pharisees, which believed, saying, That it was needful
to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the Law of
Moses." Acts xv. 5. " Then pleased it the Apostles and El-
ders, with the whole Church, to send chosen men of their own
company to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas ; namely, Judas
surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the bre-
thren : and they wrote letters by them after this manner.

The Apostles and Elders and Brethren send greeting unto
the Brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and
Syria and Cilicia.

Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out
from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls,
saying ye must be circumsised, and keep the law ; to whom we
gave no such commandment : it seemed good unto us, being
assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you, with
our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their
lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. IVe have sent
therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same
things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and
to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary
things ; that ye abstain from meats ojfered to idols, and from
blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication : from
which, if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye zoell."
Acts XV. 22 — 29. It appears then, on this evidence, that the dis-
pensation of the Gospel was now introduced ; a dispensation spo-
ken of 700 years before, by the Evangelical Prophet, in the
following beautiful strain. " Ho, every one that thirsteth,
come ye to the waters ; and he that hath no money, come ye,
buy and eat ; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money
and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that
which is not bread f and your labour for that which satis fieth

8 [chap. III.

not ? Hearken diligently unto me^ and eat ye that which is
good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your
ear, and come unto me : hear, and your soul shall live : and
I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure
mercies of David. Behold, I have given him for a witness to
the people, a leader and commander to the peop/e." Isaiah Iv.
This Leader and Commander, on the erection of this free
Gospel-Ministry, gave rules to his disciples how they were to
conduct themselves in the case before us. He enjoined the
twelve, before he sent them on this errand, as we collect from
the Apostles Matthew and Luke, that, as they had received
freely, so they were to give freely : that they were to provide
neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in their purses ; nor scrip,
nor other things, for their journey ; for that the workman was
worthy of his meat. Matt. x. 9, Luke ix. 3. And he after-
wards asked them, " When I sent you without purse, and
scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? and they said, No-
thing. Then said he unto them. But now he that hath a purse,
let him take it, and likewise his scrip. ^'' Luke xxii. 35.

In a little time afterwards, Jesus Christ sent out " other
seventy " of his disciples, to whom he gave instructions simi-
lar to the former, that they should not take scrip, clothes, or
money with them. But to these he said additionally, Into
whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things
as are set before you: but into whatsoever city ye enter, and
they receive you not, go your ways, and say, Even the very
dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against
you. Luke x. And, as on that occasion he compared the
ministers of the Gospel to the labourers whom a man sends to
the harvest, he told them they were at liberty to eat what
was set before them, because the labourer was worthy of his
hire.

This appears to be the substance of all that our Lord taught
upon this subject. We therefore refer, next, to the Apostle
Paul, for a further elucidation of it.

This Apostle, in his Epistles to Timothy, and to the Corin-
thians and Galatians,* acknowledges the position, that the spi-
ritual labourer is worthy of his hire.

He says, " If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it
a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things .^" " They
which preach the Gospel should live of the GospeV^ 1 Cor.
ix. 11 and 14. He also says, '' I^et him that is taught in
the word, communicate unto him that teacheth, in all good
things.^^ Gal. vi. 6. But he nowhere says, to him that
* 1 Tim. V. 1 Cor. ix. Gal. vi.

CHAP. III.] 9

teachethnot; neither does he say that those are to communi-
cate, who are not taught. Hence it appears that those who
faithfully spend their time in preaching" the Gospel, are entitled
to bodily maintenance from those who " receive them ;" yet
such was the disinterestedness of this g-reat Apostle, that he
did not deem the practice expedient for himself ; for he says,
'' Nevertheless we have not used this power ; hut- suffer all
things^ lest we should hinder the Gospel of Christ.'''' 1 Cor.
ix. 12. " But I have used none of these things.^ neither have I
written these things^ that it should be so done unto me: for it
were better for me to die^ than that any man should make my
glorying void.''"' v. 15. It is evident that he thought it more
consistent with the spirit of Christianity, and more likely to
further its interests, to support himself by the labour of his own
hands, than to be supported by that of others ; and it is plain
that his companions in the Ministry did the same, for he says,
" Neither did we eat any man^s bread for nought^ but wrought.,
with labour and travail^ night and day^ that we might not be
chargeable to any of you ; not because., [says he] we have not
power.) but to make ourselves an Ensample unto you to
follono us ; for even when we were with you^ this we command-
ed you^ that if any would not work^ neither should he eat.''''
2 Thess. iii. 8, 9, 10.

It is objected on this occasion, that the Apostle received re-
lief from the brethren of Philippi as well as from others, when
he did not preach. The reply is, that this rehef consisted of
voluntary and affectionate presents, sent to him when in neces-
sitous circumstances. In this case he states that he never de-
sired these gifts, but that it was pleasant to him to see his reli-
gious instruction produce a benevolence of disposition that
would abound to their own account.*

The Apostle Peter is the only other person that we find in
the New Testament as speaking on this subject. Writing to-
those who had been called to the spiritual oversight of the
churches, he advises as follows : " Feed the flock of God which
is among you., taking the oversight thereof not of constraint^
but willingly ; not for filthy lucre, bid of a ready mind ; nei-
ther as being lords over God's heritage.^ but being ensamples
to the flock ; and when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye
shall receive a crozon of glory that fadeth not away.'''' 1 Peter
V. 2. And he makes it a characteristic of false teachers, that,
" through covetousness shall they with feigned words make

* Phil. ix. 14, 16.
a2

10 [chap. III.

merchandize of you. ^ Peter ii. 3. Upon which words of
these Apostles three observations arise ; — That Ministers
should not make a gain of the Gospel : — That they should
look to God only, for their reward, viz. an incorruptible
Crown of Glory ; — and that Peter himself must have preach-
ed, like Paul, without fee or reward, or he could not consis-
tently have recommended such a practice to others.

In the very early times of the Gospel, many Christians,
both at Jerusalem, and Alexandria in- Egypt, sold their pos-
sessions, and lived together on the produce of their common
stock. Others, in Antioch, Galatia, and Pontus, retained
their estates in their possession, but established a fund, consis-
ting of weekly or monthly offerings for the support of the
Brethren. This fund continued in after times : but it was prin-
cipally for the relief of the poor and distressed, in which the
Ministers of the Gospel, if in that situation, might also share.
Tertullian, in speaking of such funds, gives the following
account : '' Whatsoever we have," says he, '• in the treasury
of our churches, is not raised by taxation, as though we put
men to ransom their religion ; but every man, once a month,
or when it pleaseth him, bestov/eth what he thinks proper :
but not except he be willing. For no man is compelled, but left
free to his own discretion. And that which is thus given is
not bestowed in vanity, but in relieving the poor ; and upon
children destitute of parents ; and in the maintenance of aged
and feeble persons ; and of men wrecked by sea ; and of such
as have been condemned to metallic mines ; ^r have been
banished to islands ; or have been cast into prison, professing
the Christian faith."*

In process of time, towards the close of the third century,
some lands were first given to the Church. + The revenue
from these was thrown into the general treasury or fund ; and
was distributed, as other offerings were, by the deacons and
elders : but neither bishops nor ministers of the Gospel were
allowed to have any concern with it. It appears from Origen,
Cyprian, Urban, Prosper, and others, that if in those times
such Ministers were able to support themselves, they were to
have nothino- from this fund. The fund was not for the benefit
of any particular persons. But if such ministers stood in need of
sustenance, they might receive from it; but they were to be
satisfied with simple diet, and necessary apparel. And so sa-
cred v/as this fund held to the purposes of its institution, that
the first Christian emperors, who did as the bishops advised

* Selden, ch. iv. § 1. t Ibid.

CHAP. III.] ll

them, had no recourse to it, but supplied the wants of minis-
ters of the Gospel from their own revenues ; as Eusebius,
Theodoret, and Sozomen relate.

The Council of Antioch, in the year 340, finding fault with
the deacons relative to the management of the funds of the
Churches, ordained that the bishops might distribute them ; but
that they should take no part of them to themselves ; or for the
use of the priests and brethren who lived with them, unless
necessity required it; using the words of the Apostle, '^ Having
food and raiment, be therewith content."

In looking at other instances which have been cited, I shall
mention one which throws light for a few years further upon
this subject. In the year 359, Constantius, the emperor, having
summoned a general council of bishops to Ariminum in Italy,
and provided for their subsistence there, the British and French
Bishops judging it not decent to live on the public, chose rather
to live at their own expense. Three only, out of Britain, com-
pelled by want, but yet refusing assistance offered to them by
the rest, accepted the Emperor's provision ; judging it more
proper to subsist by public, than by private support. This
delicate conduct of the bishops is brought to show, that where
ministers of the gospel had the power of maintaining themselves,
they had no notion of looking up to the public. In short, in
those early times, ministers were maintained only where their
necessities required it, and this out of the fund of the poor.
Those who took from this fund had the particular appellation
given them of " Sportularii," or " Basket-Clerks," because,
according to Origen, TertuUian, Cyprian, and others, they
' had their portion of sustenance given them in baskets. These
portions consisted but of a small pittance, sufficient only for their
livelihood ; and were given them on the principle laid down
by Matthew, that the ministers of Jesus Christ were to eat and
drink only such things as were set before them.

In process of time new doctrines were advanced relative to
the maintenance of the ministers, which will be hereafter ex-
plained. But as these were the inventions of men, and intro-
duced during the apostasy, no reason appears why these should
be held in preference to those of Jesus Christ and of his apostles ;
and to the practice of Christians in the purest periods of the
Church. On the other hand, it appears that the latter only are
to be relied on as the true doctrines. These were founded in
Divine wisdom, on the erection of the Gospel-Ministry, and
were unmixed with the inventions of men. They were founded
on the genius and spirit of Christianity; and not on the genius
or spirit of the world.

12 [CIIAP. IV.

CHAPTER IV.

History of Tithes from the Fourth Century to the reign of
Henry VIII. when they were definitely consolidated into the
Laws of the Land.

It has already appeared that, between the middle and the close
of the fourth century, such ministers of the Gospel as were
able, supported themselves ; but that those who were not able,
were supported out of the fund for the poor. The latter, how-
ever, had no fixed or determined proportion of this fund
allotted them ; but had only a bare livelihood from it, consisting'
of victuals served out to them in baskets, as before explained.
This fund, too, consisted of voluntary offerings ; or of reve-
nues from land voluntarily bequeathed. And the principle, on
which these gifts or voluntary offerings were made, was the
duty of charity to the poor. One material innovation, however,
had been introduced, as I remarked before, since its institution ;
namely, that the bishops, and not the deacons, had now the
management of this fund.

At the latter end of the fourth century, and from this period
to the eighth, other changes took place in the system of which
I have been speaking. Ministers of the Gospel began to be
supported, all of them without distinction, from the funds of
the poor. This circumstance occasioned a greater number of
persons to be provided for than before. The people, therefore,
were solicited for greater contributions than had been ordinarily
given. Jerome and Chvysostom, from good and pious motives,
as it appears, in turn exhorted them to give bountifully to the
poor, and double honour to those who laboured in the Lord's
work.* And though they left the people at liberty to bestow
what they pleased, they gave it as their opinion that they ought
not to be less liberal than the ancient Jews, who, under the
Levitical law, gave a tenth of their property to the priesthood
and to the poor.+ Ambrose, in like manner, recommended
tenths as now necessary, and as only a suitable donation for
these purposes.

The same line of conduct continued to be pursued by those
who succeeded in the government of the Church ; by Augustine
Bishop of Hippo, by Pope Leo, by Gregory, by Severin among
the Christians of Pannonia, % and by others. Their exhortations,
however, on this subject, were now mixed with promises and

* Selden, ch. v. § 4. f Ibid.

X Ibid, ch, 5. § 1.

CHAP. IV.] 13

threats. Pardon of sins, and future rewards, were held out
on the one hand; and it was suggested , on the other, that the
people themselves would be reduced to a tenth ; and the blood
of all the poor who died would be upon their heads,* if they
g-ave less than a tenth of their income to holy uses. By exhort-
ations of this sort, reiterated for three centuries, it began at
length to be expected of the people, that they would not give
less than tenths of what they possessed. No right, however,
was alleged to such a proportion of their income, nor was
coercion ever spoken of. These tenths also were for holy uses, of
which the claims of the poor formed the principal part. They
were called the Lord's Goods, in consequence ; and were also
denominated the Patrimony of the Poor.

Another change took place within the period assigned, which
must now be mentioned as of great concern. Ministers of the
Gospel now living wholly out of this fund (which was constitu-
ted of the tenths and of legacies) a determined portion of it,
contrary to all former usage, was set apart for their use. Of
this fund, one-fourth was generally given to the poor ; one-fourth
to the repairs of monasteries, abbeys, and other ecclesiastical
buildings; one-fourth to officiating ministers; and one-fourth
to the bishopsf with whom they lived. Hence (he maintenance
of the ministers, as consisting of these two orders, the repairs
of monasteries, &c. took now the greatest part of it; so that the
face of things began to be materially altered, for whereas for-
merly this fund went chiefly to the poor, yielding at the same
time some provision for the ministers of the Gospel, it now went
principally to the ministers of the Gospel, yielding at the same
time some provision for the poor. Another change must be noticed
with respect to the principle on which the gifts towards this fund
were offered. For whereas tenths were formerly solicited, on
the christian duty of charity to the poor ; they were now solicited
on the principle that, by the law of Moses, they ought to be
given for holy uses ; in which the benefit of the fatherless, the
stranger, and the widow, was included. From this time I shall
use the word tithes for tenths, and the word Clergy instead of
Ministers of the Gospel.

In the eighth century, matters were as I have now represented
them. The people had been brought into a notion that they were
to give no less than a tenth of their income to holy uses. Bish-
ops, generally, at this time, and, indeed, long previous to this,

* Selden. ch. v. § 4.
^ + Selden. cli ix. § 2. In process of time, as the Bishops became other-
wise provided for, the fund was divided into three parts, for the other three
purposes just mentioned.

14 [chap. IV.

lived in monasteries.* Their clerg-y also lived with them in
these monasteries ; and went from thence to preach in the coun-
try within the diocese. It must also be noticed, that there were
at this time other monasteries, under abbots or priors ; con-
sisting- mostly of lay-persons, distinct from those mentioned ;
and supported by offering's and legacies in the same manner.
The latter, however, not having numerous ecclesiastics to sup-
port, laid out more of their funds than the former were enabled
to do, towards the entertainment of strangers, and towards the
support of the poor. Now it must be observed, that when mon-
asteries of these two different kinds existed, the people were at
liberty to pay their tithes to either of them, as they pleased;
and that having this permission, they generally favoured the
latter.t To these they not only paid their tithes, but gave their
donations by legacy. This preference of the lay-abbeys to the
ecclesiastical, arose from the knowledge that the poor, for whose
benefit tithes had been originally preached up, would be thereby
more materially served. Other circumstances, too, occurred,
which induced the people to continue the same preference. For
the bishops in many places began to abuse their trust, as the
deacons had done before, by attaching the bequeathed lands to
their sees ; so that the inferior clergy and the poor became in a
manner dependent upon them for their daily bread. In other
places the clergy had seized all to their own use. The people,
therefore, so thoroughly favoured the lay-abbeys in. preference
to those of the church, that the former became daily richer;
while the latter did little more than maintain their ground. This
preference, however, which made such a difference in the funds
of the ecclesiastical and of the lay monasteries, was viewed
with a jealous eye by the clergy of those times ; and measures
were at length taken to remove it. In a council under Pope
Alexander the Third, in the year 1180, it was determined that
the liberty of the people should be restrained with respect to
their tithes. They were accordingly forbidden to make appro-
priations to religious houses, without the consent of the bishop
in whose diocese they lived. | But even this prohibition did not
succeed. The people still favoured the lay-abbeys, paying-
their tithes there ; till Pope Innocent the Third, in the year 1200,
ordained, and he enforced it by ecclesiastical censures, that every
one should pay his tithes to those who administered to him
spiritual things, in his own parish. § In a general council, held
at Lyons, in the year 1274, it was further decreed, that it was
no longer lawful for men to pay their tithes where they pleased,

* Selden, ch. 4. § 1. t l^id. ch. x. § 2.

+ Ibid. ch. vi. § 7. § Ibid, ch, vii.§ 1.

CHAP. IV.] 15

as before ; but that they should pay them to Mother-Church.*
And the principle on wh)ch they had now been long- demanded,
that they were due by Divine rig-htyt was confirmed by the
Council of Trent under Pope Pius the Fourth, in the year 1560.
In the course of forty years after the payment of tithes had been
thus forced by ecclesiastical censures and excommunications,
prescription was set up. Thus the very principle in which tithes
had originated was changed : thus, free-will offerings became
dues to be exacted by compulsion : and thus, the fund of the
poor was converted almost wholly into a fund for the mainte-
nance of the clergy.

Having now traced the origin of tithes, as far as a part of the
continent of Europe is concerned, I shall trace it as far as they
have reference to our own country. And here it may be observ-
ed, in few words, that the same system and the same changes
are conspicuous. Free-will offerings and donations of land
constituted a fund for the poor, out of which the clergy were
maintained. In process of time, tithes or tenths followed. Of
these, certain proportions were allowed to the clergy, the
repairs of ecclesiastical buildings, and the poor. This was the
state of things in the time of OfFa, king of Mercia, towards
the close of the eighth century, when that prince, having caused
Ethelbert, king of the East Angles, to be treacherously mur-
dered, fled to the Pope for pardon ; to please whom, and to
expiate his own sin, he caused those tithes to become dues in
his own dominions, which were before only at the will of the
donor.;];

About sixty years afterwards, (anno 855,) Ethelwolf, a weak
and superstitious prince, was worked upon by the clergy to ex-
tend tithes as dues, to the whole kingdom : and he consented to
do it, under a notion that he was thus to avert the judgments of
God, which they represented as visible in the frequent ravages
of the Danes. § Poor laymen, however, were still to be sup-
ported out of these tithes ; and the people were still at liberty to
pay them to whichever rehgious persons they pleased.

About the close of the tenth century, Edgar took from the
people the right of disposing of their tithes at their own discre-
tion ; and directed that they should be paid to the parish
churches. But the other monasteries or lay-houses resisting,
his orders became useless for a time. At this period the lay
monasteries were rich ; but the parochial clergy were poor.
Pope Innocent, however, by sending out toKing John his famous
decree, before mentioned, which was to be observed in England
* Seldeu, ch. vii. § 1. t Ibid. ch. vii. § 1. + Ibid. p. 201.
§ Ibid, ch, viii. § 4.

16 [chap. IV.

as well as in other places under his jurisdiction, and by which it
was enacted that every man was to pay his tithes to those only
who administered spiritual help to him in his own parish, settled
the affair ; for he set up ecclesiastical courts ; thundered out
his interdicts ; and frightened both king" and people.*

Richard the Second confirmed these tithes to the parishes, as
thus setded by this Pope : but it was directed by an Act, that,
in all appropriations to churches, the bishop of the diocese should
ordain a convenient sum of money to be distributed, out of the
fruit and profit of every living, among the poor parishioners an-
nually, in aid of their living and sustenance. " Thus, it seems,"
says Judge Blackstone, "the people were frequently sufferers
by the withholding those alms, for which, among other purposes,
the payment of tithes was originally imposed." At length tithes
were fully confirmed, and in a more explicit manner, by the fa-
mous Act of Henry the Eighth, on this subject. And here it
may be just observed, that whereas, from the eighth century to
this reign, tithes, whenever the reason of them was expressed,
were said to be due by Divine right, as under the Levitical Law ;
so, in the preamble to the act of Henry the Eighth, they are
founded on the same principle ; being described therein, as "due
unto God and holy Church ;" which Act has not only never
been repealed ; but it is frequently referred to in subsequent
Acts on the subject.

Thus, in our own country, as well as on the continent of
Europe, were those changes l)rought about, which have been
described : and they were brought about by the same means ;
for they were made, partly by the exhortations and sermons of

* To show the principles on which princes acted with respect to tithes, in
''these times, the following translation of a preamble to an Act of King Ste-
phen, may be produced. " Because through the providence of Divine mercy
we know it to be ordered, and by the Church's publishing it far and near,
every body has heard, that by the distribution of alms persons may be absol-
ved from the bonds of sin, and acquire the rewards of heavenly joy, — J,
Stephen, by the grace of God, king of ilngland, being willing to have a
share with those who, by a happy kind of commerce, exchange heavenly things
for earthly, and smitten with the love of God, and tor the salvation of my
own soul, and the souls of my father and mother, and all my forefathers and
ancestors,— do give unto God and to the Church of Saint Peter," &c. Selden,
ch, xi. § 1.

Indeed, the history of Tithes, as exhibited by the learned Selden, is a
melancholy history of the artifices and priestcraft of Rome, exerted against
the ignorance and superstition of mankind ; containing a series, first of per-
suasions, then of demands, accompanied with benedictions both for this life
and for that which is to come, on the faithful, and with cur?es on the unfaith-
ful ; still, however, under pretence of pleading the cause of the poor. Thus,
says Augustine, " Decimas tributa sunt egentium animarum ; redde ergo tri-
buta pauperibus;" and many others to the same purpose.

CHAP. Y.] . 17

Monks, partly by the decrees of Popes, partly by the edicts of
Popish Kings, and partly by the determinations of Popish Coun-^
cils.

It is not necessary to trace this subject further. I shall,
therefore, proceed to state such conclusions as in my opinion
result from the History of Tithes, and which are of general ap-
plication to professors of Christianity.

CHAPTER V.

Conclusions deducible from the foregoing histor^ical facts. 1.
That the conduct of Abram^ in the affair of Melchizedek,
cannot consistently be urged in favour of a forced mainte-
nance for Ministers of the Gospel. 2. That l^ithes, as a
part of the Ceremonial Law^ were abolished by Jesus Christy
and consequently form no part of the Christian dispensation.

3. That God raises up his own ministers ; who^ in imitation
of Christ and his Apostles., are to preach the Gospel freely.

4. That Tithes were introduced among Christians by the
spirit of Antichrist. 5. That they are not in equity due to
the Clergy. 6. That the payment of them, being compulsory,
is an acknowledgment of human authority in matfers of reli-
gion. 7. That being claimed upon an Act of Parliament^
which holds them forth as of Divine right, the payment of
them is, virtually, an acknoxsaledgment of the Jewish Reli-
gion, and a denial of the Coming of Christ.

The following conclusions, according to my apprehension, na-
turally arise from the preceding historical narrative.

First. That by the account recorded of the affair of Abram
and Melchizedek, the gift on the part of Abram was of spoil
and not of increase ; arid that, purely gratuitous : that it does
not appear to have had any connexion with the appointment
even of the Levitical Tithes, as the occurrence took place more
than four centuries before the giving of the Law ; and is not
upon that occasion, once alluded to by Moses, either by way of
precedent, or in any other way : it is, therefore, preposterous
to bring forward this act of the patriarch as a plea for tithes
under the Gospel ; and still more so, for the compulsory pay-
ment of them.

Secondly. That the Levitical priesthood, with all its cere-
monial institutions, ceased, on the coming of Jesus Christ. But
tithes were a part of these ceremonial institutions : they, there-
fore, form no part of the Christian dispensation. That if tithes
are now due, as the Levitical tithes were, they must be subject

18 - [chap. v.

to the same conditions. Now the Levites, who had a right to
tithes, previously g-ave up to the community their own right to
a share of the land : but the clergy claim a tenth of the produce
of the lands of others, having given up none of their own.
Tithes, by the Levitical law, were for the strangers, the father-
less, and the widows, as well as for the Levites ; but the Clergy,
by taking tithes, have taken that which was for the maintenance
of the poor ; and have appropriated it solely to their own use :
thus leaving the Poor a second burthen upon the land.

But, if it is true that the Levitical priesthood, to whom alone
tithes appertained, ceased on the coming of Jesus Christ : it
becomes Christians to make a serious pause ; for, by acquiescing
in the notion that the Jewish priesthood extends to them, they
virtually acknowledge that the priesthood of Aaron still exists,
and that Christ has not actually come.

This latter argument, by which it was insisted that tithes
cease with the Jewish dispensation ; and that those who acknow-
ledge them, acknowledge the Jewish religion for themselves,
has been admitted by many serious Christians. The celebrated
John Milton, in a treatise which he wrote on tithes, did not
hesitate to use it. He says, " Although hire to the labourer be
of moral and perpetual right ; yet that special kind of hire, the
tenth, can be of no right or necessity but to that special labour to
which God ordained it. That special labour was the Levitical
and ceremonial service of the tabernacle, which is now abolished :
the right, therefore, of that special hire, must needs be withal
abolished, as being also ceremonial. That tithes were ceremo-
nial is plain, not being given to the Levites till they had been
tirst offered a heave-offering to the Lord. He, then, who by
that law brings tithes into the Gospel, of necessity brings in
withal a sacrifice and an altar ; without which, tithes by that
law were unsanctified and polluted, and therefore never thought
of in the first Christian times; nor till ceremonies, altars, and.
oblations, had been brought back. And the Jews, ever since
their temple was destroyed, though they have rabbies and teach-
ers of their law, yet pay no tithes ; as having no Levites to
whom, no temple where to pay them, nor altar whereon to
hallow them: which argues that the Jews themselves never
thought tithes moral, but ceremonial only. That Christians,
therefore, should take them up, when Jews have laid them
down, must needs be very absurd and preposterous."

Thirdly. That God raises up his own ministers. That these
are to give their spiritual labours freely ; " eating such things
as are set before them^^'' and " having food and raiment^ to be
therewith content /" (which things they deserve, while in the

CHAP, v.] 19

exercise of their calling, as much as the labourer his hire) but
that no baroj'ains are to be made about rehofion. That ministers
of the Gospel are not authorised to demand, consequently not to
force^ a maintenance from others ; or to take away any thing-
from those who are unwiUing- to receive them ; but that in such
case they are to g-o their ways, and to shake the dust off their
feet against those who reject them ; or, in other words, to de-
clare that they have done their own duty in going with the word
of exhortation, and that the fault lies with those who refuse to
hear it. That when they are not occupied in the work of the
ministry, they are not to receive any thing ; but that they are to
support themselves, if necessity require it, by their own industry,
using their own scrips, purses, and clothes. That any constrain-
ed payment on account of religion, as it is contrary to the inten-
tion of Jesus Christ, is an infringement of the great Christian
tenet, that Christ's kingdom being of a spiritual nature, the ma-
gistrate has no right to dictate a religion to anyone, nor to enforce
payment for the same : and that, therefore, any legal interference
in these matters, which are solely between God and man, is an
act of legislation beyond the bounds of man's jurisdiction,
and is neither more nor less than a usurpation of the Prero-
gative OF God.

Fourthly. That neither tithes, nor any other impost, were
ever demanded for the support of the ministers of the Gospel in
the earliest and purest periods of the Christian Church ; nor until
nearly 400 years after Christ : after which time those charities,
which before had been solicited as alms for the use of the
POOR, were, by the craft and avarice of Romish Ecclesiastics,
converted to their own use ; and demanded, as due to them by
Divine right, under the revived appellation of tithes.

Fifthly. That if tithes are due at all, they are due to the poor ;
from whose use they have been forcibly diverted; and to whom,
in equity, they would still belong ; as no prince can alter the
nature of right and wrong : that they are not justly due to the
church or clergy, because OfFa wished them to be so, to expiate
his own crimes ; nor because Ethelwolf wished them to be so,
from a superstitious notion that he might thus prevent the in-
cursions of the Danes ; nor because Stephen wished them to be
so, as his own grant expresses ; on the principle, " that the
bonds of sin might be dissolved, and that he might have a part
with those who, by a happy kind of commerce, exchange
heavenly things for earthly ;" nor because the Popes wished
them to be so, from whose jurisdiction all the subjects of England
are discharged by law.

Sixthly. That the followers of Jesus Christ are not to be lords

20 [chap. v.

over God's heritage. But an acknowledgment of human au-
thority in matters of religion is a defence of the conduct of the
High Priest and his kindred, when they commanded Peter and
John " not to speak at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus ;" and
consequently it is a reprobation of the conduct of these Apostles
for their resolute reply, viz., " Whether it be right in the sight
ofGod^ to hearken unto you more than unto God^ Judge ye.'''
Acts iv. 18, 19. It is also a defence of persons in authority, in
every other act of opposition, not only to the Apostles, but also
to Jesus Christ himself. Nor is there any point at which such
an acknowledgment can stop, short of advocating, not only the
cause of Mahomet, but also every species of idolatry that ever
was established, from the Golden Image of Nebuchadnezzar,
down to Juggernaut of the present day. It is therefore impos-
sible for Christians, as such^ to comply with any demand for the
support of the ministers of religion. By every such payment

THEY ACKNOWLEDGE TJIE AUTHORITY OF MAN, AS A LEGISLATOR,
WITHIN THE PECULIAR AND SACRED PROTINCE OF GoD.

Seventhly. That all the more modem Acts of Parliament
upon this subject take the act of Henry the Eighth, as the great
ground-work, or legal foundation of tithes ; in the preamble of
which it is inserted, that they are " due unto God and holy
Church.'''' Now this preamble has never been done away ; nor
has any other principle been acknowledged, instead of that men-
tioned in this preamble, why tithes have been established by law.
It appears, therefore, that tithes are still collected on the founda-
tion of an assumed divine right.

But Christians, by receiving or paying tithes on this plea, do
virtually renounce their Christianity; and, so far, not only ac-
knowledge the Jewish religion for themselves; but are conceding
to the modern Jews, that Jesus Christ has not yet made his ap-
pearance upon earth : or they are denying his authority, as
Supreme Legislator in his own kingdom.

I MEAN to conclude with a few observations on the doctrine
that is frequently urged, that Tithes are as really the estate of
the Clergy^ as the other nine-tenths are the property of the Oc-
cupier of the Land.

If the Tithe-claimant had any interest or title whatsoever in
the Land, he would necessarily be a party in any deed of sale or
conveyance ; which is not the case. Nor can he controul the
occupier of any estate in the cultivation of his land ; whether to
break it up or to lay it down, whether to sow wheat, or barley,
or turnips, or vetches ; although in most cases the interest of the

CONCLUSION.] 21

claimant is materially affected thereby. The only claim he has
is on the increase, or rather on the produce^ whether of corn, or
grass, or cattle ; but he can make no claim on account of any
crops, until they are ciit^ or severed from the freehold ; and
thereby converted mio personal property. It is a charg-e solely
on the skill, capital, and industry of the farmer : and as one man
may possess these in a greater proportion than his neighbour,
in that proportion does he contribute more than his neighbour,
to the revenue of the clergy. Besides, the owner of an estate
may, if he please, either plant his land with timber, or let it lie
wholly neglected and unproductive ; in either of which cases
there would be no tithe to claim. — Tithe, therefore, is not a
charge on the Land ; but it is purely and entirely, a charge
on the personal estate of the occupier ; nor has the claimant,
in case of default, any remedy in law, against the Land ; but
his remedy lies solely against the property of the occupier.

It is frequently advanced as a proof of the property or estate
of the Clergy in the Land, that a man purchasing- an estate, sub-
ject to a tithe-charge, buys it at a rate proportionably lower
than he would if exonerated therefrom. Certainly he is aware of
the demand to which he is liable ; and as he has no means of
avoiding it, the estate is by so much the less valuable. So also an
estate subject to incursions of wolves would be less valuable than
one not subject to such a contingency ; but it by no means fol-
lows, as a necessary consequence., that the purchaser, because he
buys at a proportionably low price, acknowledges the title of the
sharer of the fruits of his industry, in one case, any more than he
would in the other.*

Generally speaking, however, Tithes attached to a living, are
no freehold nor estate, either of the clergy or of the patron.
They are neither more nor less than a salary or stipend, origin-
ally established by papal authority, and since acknowledged by
the legislature, for certain services performed, or supposed to be
performed, viz. the " Cure of Souls. '^'' They are a quid pro quo.
They are enjoyed by the incumbent, as a supposed equivalent,
so long only as he is supposed to be in the performance of the
service. Neither can Tithes be considered a property or freehold
of the patron, even though he is said to purchase the living. In

* Should any startle at this parallel, I beg such to be assured that it is ad-
vanced purely by way of illustration, without intending the slightest reflec-
tion upon any person living; yet we do not forget the epithets bestowed by
the Church of England in her Homilies, on those, by whose craft tithes were
first introduced among Christians ; " These special instruments and ministers of
the Devil, — The miserable tyranny, ravenny, and spoil of the most greedy Romish
wolves. — God doth curse the blessings, and bless the cursings, of such wicked
usurping Bishops and Tyrants.'*^ 5th and 6th parts of the 33d Homily.

22 [conclusion.

fact he does not, nor can he, strictly speaking-, purchase either
the living or the tithes. He buys only the right of presentation :
that is to say, the liberty to nominate a person legally qualified
to undertake the " Cure of Souls ;" who, if his character be ac-
ceptable to the bishop, is thereupon inducted to the living; but
if his character or qualifications be exceptionable, the bishop
may refuse his consent ; and if, in such case, the patron neglect
■within a limited time to nominate another person of approved
character and qualifications, the bishop himself not only may,
but he is legally bound and required to, appoint a suitable per-
son to supply the vacancy. And that tithes are an income, of the
nature only of a salary for certain services, has been proved in
the course of the present year, (1819,) by a clergyman having
been deprived of his gown, and consequently of the living, bi/
his bishop^ on a charge of preaching or promulgating blasphe-
mous doctrines. In other words, the parson, failing to fulfil his
duty, for the performance of which the salary was assigned, was
degraded and turned out of his office. Nothing can be more
remote from the nature of a freehold estate than such an income.
"With this view of the subject, it is obviously most unreasonable
that persons should be called upon for tithes, that is to say, for
salary or wages, for whom no service is perform^ed ; as is the
case with the great body of dissenters from theChurch of England.

Nor can I discover any reason, why the legislature are not
now at liberty to remunerate the clergy in some other way in
lieu of tithes ; should they in their wisdom judge fit so to do :
or should they discover, that in interfering with the business of
religion they have infringed on the divine prerogative, and
should in consequence annul all their acts on this subject; tithes,
as existing by virtue of these acts, would necessarily cease : the
religion, for which they are now collected, being no longer a
National Establishment : as the poor's rates would cease to be
collected, when they might not be wanted for the purpose to
which they are now apphed. Nor can 1 conceive that a claim of
property could be set up to one of these taxes, any more than to
the other, after the causes for which they are respectively col-
lected, had ceased to operate.

I am aware that to the preceding questions, respecting the
right or title of the clergy, as well as to the further questions,
whether the practice of taking a tenth of Produce, instead of a
tenth of Increase, be or be not a departure from ancient practice ;
whether the present system does or does not operate to the dis-
couragement of agriculture ; as well as to many other collateral
considerations, a ready answer may be given ; and that is, the
laws of the Land. It was no part of my professed intention to

CONCLUSION.] 23

enquire whether our Ecclesiastical System is or is not consistent
with these laws ; but whether it is or is not consistent with the
example and precepts of the Founder of Christianity, and of his
Apostles. If it be admitted that the negative has been satisfac-
torily proved in the foregoing- pages, it becomes a question for
the serious consideration of the Professors and Teachers of
Christianity, for Christian Legislators, and for Christian Magis-
trates, whether they are authorised to enforce any laws that stand
opposed to the laws and injunctions of Jesus Christ; whether
they can answer, in the great day of account, for being instru-
mental in perpetuating a system of usurpation, instituted in the
darkest ages of ignorance and superstition ; and, whether the
laws of man will, in that day, be a valid plea, in the face of the
precepts and examples of Jesus Christ, whose disciples they
profess to be.

FINIS.

Rose, Printer, Broadmead, Bristol.

SECOND LETTER

To a Member of the Society of Friends, viz.

MR. J. STORRS FRY,

OF REDLAND, NEAR BRISTOL,

CONTAINING SOME FURTHER INQUIRIES INTO THE ClUESTION,

WHETHER A CHRISTIAN CAN REASONABLY AND

CONSCIENTIOUSLY OBJECT TO THE

PAYMENT OF TITHES

IN ANSWER TO A TRACT BY HIM ON THE SAME SUBJECT, AND IN

REFUTATION OF CERTAIN STATEMENTS FOUND IN HIS

"concise HISTORY OF TITHES,"

Rev. SAMUEL LEE, B.D.

Prebendary of Bristol; Vicar of Banwell, Somersetshire ; Domestic Chaplain to the Earl
of Mnnster ; and Regius Professor of Hehreio in the University of Cambridge,

BRISTOL:

PUBLISHED BY W. STRONG, 26, CLARE STREET.

MDCCCXXXIH,

AD VERTISEMENT.

Having deemed it necessary y a few months agOy to publish
a few remarhs on a document issued by the Society of Friends
against the payment of tithes ^ containing, as it then appear-
ed to me, some very erroneous statements ; and having been
favoured., since that period. j with a tract written by Mr. Jos.
Storrs Fry, a member of that society, purporting to be a
refutation of those remarhs, I have thought it my duty now to
enter a little more particularly into that question ; and the
following pages are the result of my inquiries. Whether I
have succeeded or not, in shewing that my first impressions
were just on the questions at issue, it is the business of others
to determine. I ivill only say for myself, that my sole object
has been to arrive at the truth. No subject, perhaps, has
called forth so much ani?nadversion of late as that of the
tithes ; nor has any one ever elicited more vituperative or
sarcastic remark. — About a year ago, Mr. Fry put his *' Con-
cise History of Tithes " into my hands, and some time after
the "Brief Statement, 8fc.'" on ivhich my former letter was
written. I thought it was now time to shew, why I could not
fall in with the doctrines advanced in the last of these docu-
ments. I accordingly published my letter; and, this producing
the reply alluded to, I have now published a second. The
consideration which I have thus been enabled to give this sub-
ject has convinced me, that the complaints and censures just

11.

mentioned, are altogether groundless. I did expect, indeed,
that the Society of Friends, a Body of the highest respectability
in this country, would have shewn that the complaints and
charges which they have so long been making, and circu-
lating, were better founded than Mr. Fry has been able to
make it appear in his tract. I am afraid, however, that po-
litical feelings have had more to do in raising these objections
and complaints, than any real desire for the advancement of
truth, either religious or moral. I do not, indeed, charge
either that Body or Mr. Fry, ivith the deliberate intention
of doing this; but I do fear, that lohat originated first only in
mistake has inadvertently been allowed to grow into belief,
next into conviction, and lastly to assume the settled form of
party aversion and political distrust. If, however, it can be
shewn, that I still labour under mistake and misapprehension, I
now say, that upon this being done, 1 will immediately confess
my fault, and give up every claim which I have to tithes.

MR. JOSEPH STORRS FRY,

REDLAND, NEAR BRISTOL.

Dear Sir,

Your tract, entitled ^' A Brief Inquiry , &c."
written in answer to my former letter to you on the
subject of tithes, I have carefully read and con-
sidered; and, allow me to say that, notwith-
standing all you have hitherto been able to
advance on the questions in dispute, my opi-
nions still remain unchanged. Whether I can be
justified in remaining thus inflexible will appear
in the sequel, when I shall have advanced my
reasons for doing so. I will now only say, what
I trust you and those who think with you will
give me credit for, namely, that the sole object
which I have in view, in this discussion, is the
discovery of truth. If indeed I have, in my for-
mer letter, said any thing calculated to give you
or your friends pain, believe me, I am heartily
sorry for it. The investigation of truth certainly

stands in need of no expression of unkind or angry
feelings : and, from such it is my intention most
carefully to abstain. But, when I say this, you
must not suppose that I shall shew any thing like
courtesy to what I believe to be en'oneous state-
ments or false conclusions. These I must, of
course, deal openly and honestly with : and I have
to beseech you that, if I should appear to evince
any ungentleness in this respect, you will not
transfer to yourself, what really belongs to matter
which you, inadvertently perhaps, have misstated
and misrepresented. — To proceed, then, without
further preamble or preface : — ■

The object of my former letter was to shew you,
in opposition to the assertions found in a paper
of yours, entitled "a Brief Statement, &c." that
neither the example of our blessed Lord, nor the
writings of his apostles, could be adduced to shew
that the payment of tithes, as claimed by the mi-
nisters of the Church of England, could be reason-
ably or conscientiously objected to. The reason
was this : the payment of tithes, as claimed by
the ministers of the Established Church, was ori-
ginally fixed as a sort of rent charge upon the lands
of this country, by one to whom these lands did
of right belong. The grant was voluntarily and
freely made by the same personage, for the purpose

of promoting the service of God : and, therefore,
it was argued that, to object to their payment was
much the same thing as to object to the payment
of rent for the same lands. The reply with which
you have since favoured me is to this effect : first,
that it was not in the power of King Ethelwulph,
from whom this grant is said to have been de-
rived, to make it: and secondly, that if it was,
still, neither are the tithes now paid to the iden-
tical church, viz. the Church of Kome, to which
they were so granted ; nor, again, are they distri-
buted in that tripartite, or quadripartite man-
ner, which it was at first appointed they should
be. This I take to contain the sum and substance
of the questions in dispute between us : and as
you have deemed it expedient, occasionally to cite
certain passages from a tract formerly published
by yourself on this subject, intitled "a Concise
History of Tithes, &c." 1 shall not be going out
of my way, perhaps, if I notice a few of the lead-
ing positions laid down in it also.

The first point, then, which we have now to touch
upon, will be found in pages 4 — 7 of your reply to
me. Here you allow that St. Paul is explicit in de-
claring, that the ministers of the gospel ought to be
provided for, while they are labouring for the spi-
ritual good of others ; and in proof of this, you cite

1 Cor. ix. 11—14. Gal. vi. 6. and add, "But he no
where says, to him that teacheth not; neither does
he say that those are to communicate who are not
taught. To the first of these remarks, I certainly
have no objection to offer; because, if it is said
that the labourer is worthy of his hire, it surely is
implied that he who expects to receive such hire,
ought to labour. But when you say in your se-
cond remark, that those are not to communicate
who are not taught ; I am at a loss to know what
your meaning is. Do you mean to assert, that
Pagans, who may be said not to be taught, should
not contribute towards the support of Christian
ministers ? Or, do you mean, that persons who
receive their Christian instructions from one minis-
ter, ought not to contribute to the support of
another? Were I allowed to offer a conjecture, I
should say, the last is probably your meaning :
but be this as it may, I can say at once, that I
have not, and I never had, the least intention either
to propose or to maintain the proposition, that
persons instructed by one minister ought to con-
tribute to the support of another ; or (which will,
perhaps, meet your meaning still more directly),
that persons of one denomination of Christians
ought to contribute towards the support of ministers
of another. The questions now before me, make

it by no means necessary that I should hold any
such thing : nor does the Church of England re-
quire any such thing : all it asks for in the payment
of tithes is,* as I have formerly shewn, and shall
here prove beyond all possible doubt, the payment
of legal and just dehts, and not the charitable con-
tributions of Christians of any creed or denomina-
tion whatsoever.

You proceed : " Yet such was the disinterested-
ness of this great apostle," (Paul) "that he did not
deem the practice expedient for himself: for he
says, Nevertheless, WE have not used this power ;
hut suffer all thitiffs, lest we should hinder the
gospel of Christy 1 Cor. ix. 12. To this you add,
V. 15, and then remark ; " It is evident that he
thought it more consistent with the spirit of Chris-
tianity, and more likely to further its interests, to
support himself by the labour of his own hands^
than to be supported by that of others ; and it is
plain that his companions in the ministry did the

* Hearne tells us, in the notes to his edition of Sir J. Spel-
man's Life of Alfred, (p. 99.) "that Alfred with his first accord
with the Dane tyes him to the payment of tythes, and keeping
the peace and rights of the church." This extraordinary and
truly pious king, therefore, thought that one who was not
taught i ought to pay his just and legal debts, although the pay-
ment went to the support of a church of which he was not a
member.

same, for he says, Neither did WE eat any man^s
hread for nought, hut wrought with labour and
travail, night and day, that we might not he
chargeahle to any of you ; not hecause (says he) we
have not power, hut to make ourselves an en SAM-
PLE unto you to follow us ; for even when we were
with you, this we commanded you, that if any
would not work, neither should he eat.'''' 2 Thess.
iii. 8, 9, 10. If I understand you here, you cite
this passage to shew, that St. Paul wrought with
his own hands for the purpose of being an en-
samjHe, not to Christians generally, and to recom-
mend the duty of daily labouring to support them-
selves and their families; but an ensample to
Christian ministers, and to inculcate the duty
that they ought so to labour as to he chargeahle to
none. If this is your meaning, I have no hesita-
tion in saying that it differs very widely from that
of the apostle ; and that you are here citing him
for a purpose, for wdiich he never intended to be
cited. If you will give yourself the trouble to go
back to the 6th verse you will find, that the Thes-
salonians are warned to withdraw themselves from
certain disorderly brethren. At ver. 7 it is said,
" For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us :
for we hehaved not ourselves disorderly among
your Then follow the verses which you have

cited, after which we have : " For we hear that
there are some which walk among you disorderly^
WORKING NOT AT ALL, hut are husyltodies^'' and
so on. Now, let me ask you, Is St. Paul here
speaking about a provision for the ministry, or is
he only giving directions, as to what the general
conduct of Christians ought to be ? I leave you
to answer for yourself. A similar passage you have
cited, viz. Acts xx. 33 — 35. and this you have
similarly misapplied, although the last verse of it
ought to have suggested to you the true interpre-
tation of the whole. " / have shewed you all
things^'' says the apostle, '^how that so labour-
ing YE OUGHT TO SUPPORT THE WEAK, and
to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he
said, it is more blessed to give than to received
Is it likely, let me again ask, that St. Paul is here
inculcating on the rulers of the Ephesian church,
the particular manner in which the ministry is to
provide for itself and others ; or, generally, how
the whole Chmxh, considered in the aggregate, is
to conduct itself? I think the latter.

But, suppose this not to be the case, and that
St. Paul is urging on the Ephesian ministry,
the necessity of labouring with their ow^n hands.
Are we now to understand this as intended to in-
culcate something contrary to the doctrines taught

in 1 Cor. ix. 11, 12 — 14, already noticed? For
there we find that the apostle has expressly
declared, that provision ought to be made for the
ministers of the gospel. Let us turn to that chap-
ter and see, whether St. Paul is, or is not, thus
inconsistent, and whether he is not sufficiently
explicit and clear in his statements. At verr. 4, 5,
he asks, ''Have we not power to eat and to drink ?
Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife,
as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of
the Lord and Cephas ? Then, at ver. 6, " Or I
only and Barnabas, have not we 'power to forbear
working ?" If I understand the apostle aright, he
means strongly to affirm, that he and Barnabas
had the power, given generally by our Lord to his
disciples, to eat and to drink such things as were
set before them : each to marry a sister, that is a
believing woman, and to carry her about with them,
just as the other apostles and Cephas were in the
habit of doing ; and that they might, by virtue of
their commission, forbear working; because, he
goes on to say, not only had the law formerly pro-
vided for this, but even our Lord himself had
ordained it. Why then, let it be asked, did St.
Paul and Barnabas here forego these privileges ?
Was it, because the commandment of our Lord
was not pure and " disinterested" enough for them ?

Had they now, for the first time, discovered some-
thing more holy than the precepts which he had
given them ? I trow not. I suppose there must
be some other reason for all this ; and, I believe,
St. Paul himself will supply us with it. If you
will turn to 1 Cor. vii. 26, where he is speaking of
the expediency or inexpediency of marrying, a
subject also introduced in the passage just cited,
you will find him saying, " / suppose therefore^
that it is good roE the present distress,
/ say, that it is good for a man so to he, i. e. un-
mamed. This, I think, will solve the whole
difficulty. The apostle appears to have been un-
willing to afford to a body such as the infant church
of Corinth was, any occasion whatever by which
the sectarians, who formed a part of it, might
thwart the objects of his ministry. Tlh.Q pressure
of the ti7?ies made it, among other things, extremely
inexpedient to marry; but neither this nor any
other particular now adverted to was intended to
be binding on Christians generally. But, take the
other view, and argue for the necessity of following
the example of the apostle, in the one case ; con-
sistency will now require that you do so in the
other : because both emanate from the same au-
thority, and both were had recourse to under the
very same circumstances. When you say, there-

B 2

fore, that " Consistently with the example of this
great apostle , many of our ministers who are of
abihty, travel entirely at their own charges," &c.
I ask, Do they also, consistently with the example
of the same apostle, deem it expedient and binding
to remain unmarried ? I believe they do not : and,
under that impression, I must charge them at
once with inconsistency and partiality, in the
views they take of the apostle's practices and
doctrines, and by which they then judge of the
conduct of others. I must also tell you, that you
have here mistaken general doctrines for particular
ones ; and vice versa, particular doctrines for gene-
ral ones : that you make St. Paul's precepts to be
at variance with his practices, and that you then
set up the one in direct opposition to the other.
You acknowledge too in one instance, that even
the examp)le of Paul is against you, viz. in Philip.
iv. 14 — 16, for here you grant that he did receive
the contributions of his converts, even when he
was not actually employed in preaching. But then
you say, " This relief consisted of voluntary and
affectionate presents, sent to him when in neces-
sitous circumstances." But, will this so alter the
state of the case, as to justify you in maintaining
that Paul's example is binding in the one case, and
not m the other ? All that can be made out here

certainly is, St. Paul is acting in strict conformity
with his own doctrines. The causes which sug-
gested a different conduct among the Corinthians,
do not exist here : an appeal to expediency would
therefore be now out of place. The affectionate
character of the presents, in conjunction with the.
necessitous circumstances under which they were
bestowed, can have nothing whatever to do with
the doctrines in question about example, because,
charitable contributions are never called for, except
in circumstances of necessity, and if then be-
stowed they may be termed affectionate. In our
main question, however, we talk not about charity,
but about right.

The English Clergy never ask for these con-
tributions for themselves : they only say with St.
Paul, and which you allow, that provision ought
to be made for the ministry. They further say,
and this I now maintain, that such provision has
been affectionately and voluntarily made^ and

* So says Sir Henry Spelman : " The possessions, tythes, and
rights of the clergy being thus settled, they may doubtless be en-
joyed, HAVING BEEN FREELY COLLATED, {uccording aswusforetold
by thepropJiets Esay. and others, Isai. xlix.23.) by Icings, nobles, and
many good men, fully confirmed by law and parliament , established
by the possession of many years," &c. Pref. to larger work on
Tithes, p. iv» and again in a note, ib, " If these things had not

that it was made when the church of Christ
was in ^^necessitous circumstances^ They will
further say, unless T greatly mistake a very large
number of them (and in this I can most cordially
join them) that if necessity should require it, they
are as willing to work with their own hands, or
to travel at their own particular charges, as any
one of your respected Body can be.

1 may now, therefore, conclude on this head,
that, as you have urged nothing on the example of
our Lord, which the " Brief Statement" took for
granted was all in your favour, so must you now
give up that of St. Paul, whose doctrines you have
misunderstood and misapplied. I must also ad-
monish you, that j our arguments have been mis-
directed ; as you have taken for granted that the
ministers of the Church of England actually so-
licit contributions from their hearers and others, for
their support. When the fact of the case is, the
tithe payments which they expect, are not favours
but debts, and to the discharge of which they
have as good a claim, as the landlords of the several
estates, on which they are collected, have to their
rents. The example, therefore, of our Lord, or of

been primarily due unto God by the rule of his word, yet are
they now his, and separate from us, by voluntary gift and de-
dication of our ancient kings and predecessors."

his apostle St. Paul, has no more to do with this
question, beyond the original grant of these tithes,
than it has to do with any question whatever of
profit and loss, which may arise between yourself
and any other tradesman, in the city of Bristol or
elsewhere.

The next question you moot, (p. 7) is on the in-
adequacy of human learning alone, to qualify a
man for the ministry of the gospel. This I fully
allow ; and I agree with you in saying, that still
it is " a valuable accessory :" because, without it
the scriptures may be wrested to a man's own des-
truction. You say, that the apostles were " gene-
rally unlearned and ignorant men." To a certain
extent this is true, if we except St. Paul : but then,
they had a power given them from above, which
was to bring all things to their remembrance,
and to give them a wisdom which their adversa-
ries should not be able to gainsay. This enabled
them to indite the scriptures ; for these, we are
told, were all given by inspiration of God; and
also to converse and preach in tongues, of which
they never had before the least knowledge : qua-
lifications which, I think you will grant, are not
bestowed upon the Chm'ch now. Still, an attention
to reading was recommended even in those days ;
and apparently for this purpose, that as ministers

they might be enabled rightly to divide the word
of truth. That the gift of the Holy Ghost is still
necessary to make this word effectual, I believe as
sincerely and cordially as you do. When I say,
therefore, that this treasure is hidden in earthen
vessels, (i. e. when deposited with ministers) 1 only
mean, that they, as men, cannot boast that in
their flesh dwelleth any good thing ; but, that the
power is solely of God : and, as to the human
means which are employed, whether consisting of
tithe or other such temporal appointments, they
can lay claim to no title better than earthly. You
have, therefore, totally mistaken my meaning;
which I am the more surprised at, because the
connection ought to have shewn you, that I could
not have been speaking against the renewing in-
fluences of the Holy Spirit. But, when you follow
this up, by a quotation from your " Concise His-
tory," and tell us, that " Ministers of the gospel
are not authorized to demand, consequently not to
force, a maintenance from others; that any con-
strained payment on account of religion, as it is
contrary to the intention of Jesus Christ, is an
infringement of the great Christian tenet, that
Christ's kingdom being of a spiritual nature, the
magistrate has no right to dictate a religion to any
one, nor to enforce payment for the same, &c. &c.

you talk as wildly, as far from the point in debate,
and as unconnectedly with it, as it is possible for
you to do. You might just as well say, that be-
cause you are a Christian, and because Christianity
is free, no magistrate, legislature, nor king, what-
soever, has any right either natural or divine to
force you to pay a rent for the lands which you
occupy, and for which you have engaged to pay
such rent : or, that every Christian in Bristol,
Christianity being free, has as good a right to the
produce of your own manufactory, as you yourself
have : nothing being more certain, than that the
payment of tithes at which all this is aimed, is as
much a matter of temporal appointment and right,
as is the rent of any land in the kingdom, or, as
is your claim to the manufacture produced by the
combined operation of your own ingenuity and
vested capital. I must here notice another and a
similar instance, in which you have confused things,
in themselves, perfectly distinct and different (p. 13.)
I had quoted the passage from St. Peter, " submit
yourselves to every ordinance of man "/or the Lord's
sake^^ (1 Pet. ii, 13.) and from St. Paul, '^for con-
science sake^'' (Rom. xiii. 5.) and I am asked. Do 1
seriously mean to assert, that we are to submit
om'selves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's
sake, &c. without any reference to the nature of

the ordinance. '* This same apostle," it is added,
" evidently thought otherwise : whether it be right
in the sight of God," says he to the Jewish rulers,
" to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge
ye." (Acts iv. 19.) I answer. The apostle is here
speaking of the ordinances of God; I was speaking
of those, and those only, which are of a temporal
and legal nature, and are of man. St. Peter's an-
swer, quoted by you, was therefore right and in
its place ; it had respect to divine things only ;
and to those which had, beyond all doubt, been
matter of revelation. The appointments of which
I was speaking, and now speak, were, and are, of
a totally different character, and of a purely tem-
poral arrangement. They come properly, there-
fore, under those ordinances of man, of which St.
Peter manifestly spoke in his epistle; and which
St. Paul had in view in the passage cited by me
from the Eomans, and which is followed by these
w^ords, ^' For this cause pay ye tribute also,'' i. e.
pay the debts w^hich the state has laid upon you,
and do this for consciefice sake. When I say ordi-
nances of man, therefore, I do not mean ordinances
of God. Allow me further to suggest, that if you
persist, in thus confounding together things which
ought to be kept distinct and separate, reason,
whatever may be said of co7iscience, had better be

put professedly and entirely out of the question.
You conclude this article by saying. " This is all
in accordance with the injunction to render to
Csesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the
things that are God's." I answer, true ; it is so :
but I must add, it will be in vain to recognize this
doctrine, unless you are willing duly to discrimi-
nate between the things of Caesar and of God. If
you go on, taking the one for the other, as you
here have done, at the truth you never can expect
to arrive. And I shall now conclude, on this part
of our subject, that the example of our Lord, as
shewn in my former letter, and that both the ex-
ample and doctrine of the apostle Paul, establish
the position beyond all doubt, that Christians ought
to support those ministers who labour for their
edification : and I affirm, that although I do not
think this conclusion at all necessary to establish
the claim which ministers of the Church of Eng-
land make to the tithes, I do think it important in
justifying the characters of those who first granted
these tithes of their own free will, — who dedicated
them to the service of Almighty God, and whom
you have deemed it expedient to load with re-
proaches. I must add, that your endeavour to
bring over St. Paul's example to the support of a
cause contrary to that of his doctrine, has altogether
failed you in this instance.

Having, then, thus far settled these preliminary
questions, let us now approach another; (and one
which must connect these with our conclusion,) it
is this : the tithes, as now claimed hy the clergy of
the Church of England, consisted originally of free
will offerings, which were made to God for the
support of the ministers of the Christian religion
hy those whose lawful property they were, and who
therefore had a good and just right thus to dis-
pose of them.

In my former letter to you, I cited a passage
(p. 13) from Burn's Ecclesiastical Law, stating the
facts that OfFa, king of the Mercians, first gave to
the church the tithes of all his kingdom, and that
Ethelwulph, about sixty years after, extended this
law to the whole realm of England. I omitted a
passage, I own, which went to state that Offa
made this grant to expiate the death of Ethel-
bert, king of the East Angles, whom in the year
preceding, he had caused basely to be murdered.
This omission you seem to have considered as a
discovery of some importance, for you insert the
words at length printed in capitals, and then
admonish the reader, in a note at the foot of the
page, that I was perhaps unwilling to shock my
readers with such a tale of horror. Allow me, my
dear sir, to answer for myself. First, then, I had

no doubt you would make the discovery alluded
to ; and, as you will presently see, I provided for
it accordingly. In the next place, it was my wish*
to be short : and, therefore, it was important to
me to cite nothing more than the facts of the
case in question. With the goodness or badness,
the right or the wrong of the motives in making
these grants, I had nothing whatever to do. The
legal right to dispose of this wealth, and the
volmitary character of the grants when made,
comprehended all with which I was concerned.
^ It may indeed be said," I allowed (p. 17.) "that
when these grants were made, in the first case,
the times were dark and savoured of superstition,
and that scriptural knowledge was more scarce
than it is now. But what of this ? The right to
dispose of this wealth originally, and the justice
of the laws which have since protected it, will
stand unaffected by this consideration. The
question will now be, not about the right or the
wrong of these grants, but about the expediency
or inexpediency of their original intentions. And
if such question be allowed to be mooted in the
one case, justice will require that it be mooted in
the other : so that it may now be made matter of
inquiry, whether the lands, &c. given to support
the institution at Sidcot, ought not to be taken

from the Society of Friends and applied to some
other pm-pose. Because it can now be argued,
and perhaps proved, that the persons who made
these bequests were (also) unenlightened," &c.
I had, therefore, abundantly provided for the
omission of these few words ; . but all this you
have deemed it unnecessary to notice. The little
declamatory flourish, therefore, in which you
have indulged on this occasion, I shall allow you
to enjoy; believing, as I do, that it is not worth
contending about.

" Here then," you continue (p. 16) " are the
grounds on which, in Reason and Conscience, the
Clergy of the present day rest their claim to tithes.
That is to say, first, that Oifa and Ethelwulph, at
the times of their making their respective grants,
were the real owners of the lands on which they
made these grants." And, again, in page 19,
after ofiering some inconclusive arguments, and
after making a few extracts from Hume, you con-
clude, " Therefore, Oifa and Ethelwulph were not
the real owners of the lands over which they are
said to have granted the tithes." I shall now
shew you, that your reasoning on this subject is
inconclusive; that what Hume has told you is
false ; and lastly, that your conclusion is unten-
able. To begin then with your own reasoning:

" The Saxons," yon say, " came over in different
parties, each party landing in a different place ;
some landing on the eastern coast, and others
landing on the southern coast ; and this continued
for a hundred and fifty years, before they became
complete masters of the country. Now, as each
of these parties of invaders came under separate
leaders, it were reasonable to suppose that each
party would conquer for themselves ; and would
consider themselves the real owners of that por-
tion of the territory they had obtained possession
of." Here, 1 think, I find you stating explicitly,
that each of these Saxon parties would consider
themselves ihe real owners^ Sfc. So far you allow,
that conquest would give an indisputable right
to the land. This concession I deem important,
because it will have the effect of shortening our
inquiry. — Suppose, then, each party would con-
quer for themselves, and hence become the real
owners for the time being ; To whom, I ask,
would the whole of this property devolve, should
some one person become lord paramount of the
country ? Conquest, you allow, would give a
good claim to the land : and if one king, among
the many set up by the Saxons, should, by any
chance, get the ascendancy, then, by your own
shewing, he would become the real owner, or

lord paramount of the soil. Now, the historians
do tell uSj that, although there was a heptarchy
at one time, and a tetrarchy at another, yet that
some one king was always considered as the
sovereign of the whole estate of England. But
whether this is generally true or not, certain it is,
that Ethelwulph was lord paramount of all Eng-
land when he made the grant in question. He
was, therefore, the real owner of the land, upon
your own principles. Unless you suppose, that
every individual soldier had made and established
a claim to the land, which would be absurd and
false. Let us now see, what we can make of
your extract from Hume.

After stating that the Saxons obstinately re-
tained \hQ principles of independence^ which they
had inherited from their ancestors (which I shall
not dispute, because that independence was merely
feudal) he says, " the king, so far from being entitled
to an arbitrary power, was only considered the first
among the citizens^ This, indeed, seems to afford
the earnest of a speedy victory : but let us see
how Mr. Hume himself softens it down. " It is
probable," continues he, " that the constitution
might be somewhat different in the different
nations of the heptarchy : and that it changed
considerably during the com'se of six centuries,

which elapsed from the first invasion of the
Saxons till the Norman conquest ; but most of
these differences and changes, with their causes

AND EFFECTS, ARE UNKNOWN TO US." He

then goes on, gradually diluting his first assertion
thus : " It only appears that, at all times and in
all the kingdoms, there was a national council,
called a Wittenagemot, or assembly of the wise
men, whose consent was requisite for enacting
laws, and for ratifying the chief acts of public
administration. But who were the memhers of
this Wittenagemot, has not been determined hy
antiquarians^ .... " We may conclude that the
more considerable proprietors of land were, with-
out any election, constituent members of the
national assembly."...." We have hints given us
in the historians of the great power and riches
of particular noblemen."

One would have thought, that, allowing you the
most that could be made of Mr. Hume's citizen
king, you could hardly have seized upon any
thing else out of his almost evanescent quantities,
from which you could have formed any conclu-
sion : yet I find you affirming most positively,
and without further inquiry or proof, that " here
we find no paramount lord of the soil; but
we find that our Saxon ancestors had at this

time laid the foundation of the present British
constitution ;* they had a limited monarchy, and
a national assembly, or Parliament, whose con-
sent was requisite for enacting laws ; nor do I
find that the landowners paid any acknowledg-
ment, or service to the crown, for their lands ;
each one deriving his title only from his own
sword. Therefore," &c. Let us now see, how all
this will bear the test of examination.

In the first place, this limited citizen king is
a pure creation of Mr. Hume's brain : the ancient
Saxons of Germany, as well as those who settled
in this island, having never heard of such thing,
nor of any thing bearing the most distant re-
semblance to it. No one, perhaps, has examined
this question more closely than the worthy knight
Sir Henry Spelman ; and, as he was a very learned
and pious layman, no authority, perhaps, could
be more acceptable to you.f The following ex-

* With one remarkable exception, at least ; for the laws of
the enlightened Alfred were remarkably severe. — See his life
by Sir J- Spelman, p. 101, &c.

t It should be borne in mind, in perusing Spelman's work,
that his principal object was to shew, that although the Saxons
inherited from their ancestors a system which was in fact
altogether feudal, yet that, in their days, it had not assumed
that regular and established form, which it afterwards did in
this island among the Normans. If, then, he can be supposed

tracts, on this subject, are taken from his very
valuable work on the Original, &c. of Feuds in
England. (Ed. 1723)...." In another place," says he
" (Caesar) calleth them" {i, e. the nobler persons)
among the Germans, Comites et familiar es, as
accounting them (like Abraham's 318 soldiers)
to be all their LorcVs followers and of his family.
" Tacitus," he contiuues, " likewise nameth them
Comites, as companions and followers ; quod hello
seqiii Dominum COGUNTUR," saith Cujacius.
But Tacitas further saith, Gradus quinetiam ipse
comitatus hahet judicio ejus quern sectantur ;
that there were degrees in those companions, as
he whom they followed did appoint,^'' (p. 3.)
Again (p. 4.) " If we understand them to be feuds'*
among the Saxons, or of that nature, then are we
sm*e they were no more than for life, and not
inheritable, nor stretching further, without fur-
ther grace obtained from the Lord, S^cT Again,
(p. 5) " He (i. e. the conqueror) " presently trans-
fer'd his country-customs into England (as the
black book of the chequer witnesseth) and amongst
them (as after shall be made perspicuous) this
new French custom of making feuds hereditary,

to give any colouring to his narratives, it will most likely be
found on your side of the question.

* The term occurs, however, in Alfi-ed's will.

jiot regarding the former use of our Saxon an-
cestors ; who, like all other nations, save the
French, continued till that time their feuds and
tenures^ either arbitrary or in some definite limi-
tation, according to the ancient manners of the
Germans, received generally throughout Europe.
(ib. p. 8.) " The first charter.. ..or writing touching
lands and privileges, was (as a MS. of Canterbury
reporteth) made by Withredus king of Kent in
the year 694, and (as that charter itself witnesseth)
was appointed to be kept in the church of our
Saviour at Canterbury, as a precedent for pos-
terity to imitate." These grants, it seems, were
teimed in the Latin charters, beneficia or BENE-
riciA REGIS ; and received not the name of
feuds, until they were granted under the con-
queror, or after his times, IN PERPETUITY.
...." They were called beneficia when they were
granted only for life of the grantee ; but were
called feuds when they began to be granted in
perpetuity, and not before." (p. 9.) Hence
the origin of our term benefice, (ib. p. 10.) "Te-
nure in capite, tenure by knight-service, tenure
in socage, or frank-almoign ;'''' (were much less in
use among them) " though the like services were
performed to the Saxon lordships, by their thanes
and theodens, their socmen or husbandmen, and
their beads-men or clergymen, by way of contract

for the lands received from them^'' (i. e. from the
kings in the first place ; and, in the second, from
those who had received such lands from him) ib.
" Tho' there were.... amongst the Saxons.. ..iorc? and
TJiane, or Servitouh, whom beyond the seas
they called Seigneur and Vassall*;.... yet grew
not the words of tenure into use till ttiat feuds
became descendable to posterities, &c."... "Thirdly,
to hold in capite is of two sorts, the one general,
which is of the king.... the fountain whence all

FEUDS AND TENURES HAVE THEIR MAIN

ORIGINAL, &c." Again, in p. ii. the degrees and
distinctions of persons are thus laid down : " The
earl and the husbandman, the thane of the greater
sort called the king's thane, and the thane of the
lesser sort called the theoden, or under thane.
More degrees the Saxons had not in their laity....
As for their bondmen (whom they called theowes
and esnesj they were not counted members of
that common-wealth, but parcels of their master''s
goods and substance.^'' We are next told, that
the lands were considered as of two sorts; bocland,
or charter-lands ; and folkland, or land of the
vulgar people. The first of these was held free
of all menial services, liberum et immime a
servitiis VULGARIBUS et servilibus ; and

* Yet we have in Asser, *' cum noUUbus vasallis." p. 33. Ed»
1722.

it invested its possessors with the power of de-
vising it by will. Sir Henry Spelman also tells
us that it was free from all services, and was
not holden of any lord ;^ yet every charter cited
by him provides, that all such land -holders shall
be subject to the expedition; i. e. to attend the
king in his wars, to the repairing of highways,
bridges, and of citadels and walls of towns. If
the possessions so granted happened to be large,
they were further chargeable with church-scot
and shot, as we shall presently see. And, as to
the power of devising them by will, it appears by

* i. e. Not holden in a feudal sense. See p. 18. Judge
Blackstone seems to have been led into a mistake, by this
very passage in Spelman, and confirmed in it by his expla-
nation of the term allodium, or allodial. (See Gloss} "For
whereas," says he (Com. book 2. chap, iv.) "before, the pos-
sessions of their subjects were perfectly allodial (i. e. wholly
independent, and held of no superior at all.") Because, I
suppose, Spelman had told him that allodial signified not loaded,
or the like : although nothing can be more certain, than that
the precise force of this word is still unknown. Yet he adds,
in the very next paragraph, "Not but that it is reasonable to
believe, that even in the times of the Saxons, something similar
to this (i. e. feudal tenure) *' was in use." In the times of
Alfred certainly, the whole kingdom was little more than a
camp ; every farmer, artificer, &c. being professedly a soldier,
and governed by the very persons appointed to take the lead
in the field, should circumstances make that necessary. See
also a very valuable note, in refutation of Blackstone, appended
to the edition of 1830.

two remarkable instances cited by him, that the
king's licence was occasionally required to give
effect to such wills * And, it further appears,
that upon any refusal to comply with the services
so stipulated for, these estates reverted to the
crown. In aggravated cases, too, the thane lost
his life.f The theoden or under thane, was a
sort of thane or servitor to the greater or king's
thane; just as this latter was to the king. The
husbandman or churl, was of free condition,
and might rise, if he so prospered in his circum-
stances as to be able to hold five hides of land,
to the condition of thane. This class of men

* ^' One Brictrick, in the time of king Ethelred,. ..bequeathed
legacies of good value unto his Lord's wife, to intreat Iier
husband that this Brictrick's will. . .might stand. And Thola the
widow of UrJce, a thane, . . .obtained licence from the same king
Edward, (ib. p. 18.) that she might devise both her lands, and
goods, &c." The truth seems to be, these charters were noth-
ing more than the lease- deeds of the present day, which may
likewise be devised by will, without at all affecting the real
property of the grantor, in the lands so leased out and willed. —
Spelman on feuds and tenures, p. 34.

f This is natural enough from the nature of the case ; and
accordingly we find one instance, as given by Hearne, in which
a nobleman having determined to rebel against the king, goes,
in the first place, and resigns his lands. — Sir J. Spelman's life
of iElfred, pp. 32, 33. See Sir H. Spelman on Feuds and Te-
nures, pp. 18 — 37, and "of Parliaments," p. 59.

cultivated the lands holden either by the king, or
his thanes, rendering to their lords work and
produce, rather than rent (pp. 14, 15). Some of
these cultivated the lands which were after-
wards termed demesne lands, but by the Saxons
inlands; the other lands of their estates they
termed outlands. " True, it is," says Sir Henry,
" that both they (the thanes) and it (the land held
by them) were subject to military service, called
in latin expeditio.... And it appeareth by an ancient
MS. of Saxon laws in the king's library, that the
thanes were not only tyed to this, hut to many
other services to he done unto the king, and that
in respect of their land....r^\i\x^ in English, the
law touching a thane is ; that he have power to
make a will, and that in respect of his land he
shall do three things, viz. military expedition, re-
pairing of castles, and mending of hridges, and
for more lands to do more land-duties. To go
forth upon the king's summons, to the enclosing

of his park and mansion-house, and to into

the enemies lands, and to defend the sea, his own
head, and the peace, to pay alms-monies, church-
seeds, church-shots, and other things" " ALL

THE LAND OF THE KINGDOM waS wholly

tied to three services, as appeareth in the coimcil
of Eanham,.... where they are commanded to be

yearly done Also by the law of King Ethel-
red, who. ...ordained that every eight hides* or
plough land through THE whole kingdom,
shall find a man with a croslet and helmet to the
naval expedition. And every three hundred and
ten plough-lands, an ordinary ship. For these
purposes was the wliole land formerly divided,
either by Alfred the Great or some other pre-
cedent king, into 243,600 hides or plough-lands ;
and according to this division were the military
and other charges of the kingdom imposed and
proportioned.t..„ Hence it rose that the Saxon

* Each according to some 96 acres, to others 100. It appears
to be equal in quantity to a carucate, and to contain as much
land as will support one team of oxen. — See Spelman's Glos-
sary, sub voce hida.

f We are told however in another place, that " the Saxons
themselves termed these taxations land rights not services." —
(Sir H. Spelman on Feuds and Tenures, p. 40) But surely if
these were land-rights, they were the rights of the lords, not of
the tenants. Hence we may see, how we are to receive the
statement of Judge Blackstone, who. tells us, (Com. book
2. chap, iv.) that the fundamental maxim, taking the king as
*' the universal lord and original proprietor of all " the lands in
his kingdom : and that no man doth or can possess any part of
it, but what has mediately or immediately been derived from
him, &c." is " in reality a mere fictition.^' The maxim has
evidently been founded in fact. — See also Ingram's edition of
the Saxon Chronicle, ann. 534, 560, 648, p. 42 ; ann. G6d, p. 52 ;

kings in granting of lands, liberties, and privileges,
unto ecclesiastical persons and others, were
usually so careful in reserving expedition,
BUKGHEOTE, and BRiGBOTE,(i. e. repairing cas-
tles and bridges) as you may see in the charters
of king Withred, Ina, JEthelhald, JEthelwidph,
Edgar, &c. in the Britain councils, as also in the
charters here following, and in a multitude of
others elsewhere besides." (p. 18.) " Tt further
appears from Doomsday book, that the thane-
lands might be charged with a rent in addition to
the services imposed, and also be restrained from
alienation by will." (p. 23.)

I need not, pehaps, add any thing to this, to
convince you that the Saxon kings were really
recognised, in their times, as lords paramount of
all the soil in this country ; that their nobles
actually di\d.pay acknoivledgment, or service to the
crown, for their lands, although you had not
hitherto been able to find this ; that the monarchy

ann. 686, 688, 694, p. 71 ; ann. 945, p. 154 ; ann. 1008, 1020,
1031, 1035, p. 220, 252, 289, 292 ; ann. 1088. From which it
must appear, that whatever Mr. Hume and you may think of it,
the Saxori kings, and after them the Danish, believed that they
had a right to dispose of the lands in this country ; and that
they actually disposed of them, either by gift, or sale, or else
held them in their own hands, just as they pleased.

was not limited, except at the will of the prince
himself for the time being ; that there existed no
national assembly or Pariiameiit,^ in any thing
like the sense now ascribed to this latter term ;
and that each one did not derive his title only
from his oimi sword, as you have adventurously
asserted (p. 19). It is true, a national assembly
was occasionally called together by the king,
consisting of his thanes, earls, aldermen, the
bishops and abbots ; but this must have consti-
tuted a house of Lords only : for a house of Com-
mons we shall look in vain. Nor was this body
ever asked for pecuniary grants, as far as my in-
formation goes ; nor does their consent or assent
to any project of the king's appear to have been
at all necessary ; nor were they always consulted
in the making of laws.f Their advice was taken in

* See the Glossary of Sir R. Spelman under the word
Parlamentum, and his Tract "Of Parliaments," and "Of the
Ancient Government of England."

-f- Hence the expressions with which we so often meet in the
Saxon charters and laws : '^ Deerevit turn porro Aluredus" 8fc.
" Ego Eaduigh Monarchiam totius Britannia .... obtinens," &c.
''Ego Eadgarus Rex Anglorwm," &c. " Si quis vero hominum
Jianc meant donationem cum stultitics temeritatejactando infringere
tentaverit," &c. " Ego Et/ielredus totius Albionis Basileus" &c.
" Ego Cnute Rex," &c. So Edward the Confessor .... " Hanc
meam regalem Donationem " &c. " Ego Edgar totius Britannice

c 2

most cases of emergency ; and, in others, when
any remarkable grant was to be made, their pre-
sence and sig-natures seem to have been necessary ;
not so much, perhaps, to ratify the proceeding,
as to bind themselves to its future observance.
This, as far as I have hitherto been able to dis-
cover, is a just outline of the prerogatives, powers,
and practices, of the Saxon kings, and of their
councils or wittenmots : and, from this it ap-
pears, that their kings had the power to assign
any portion or portions of the land, over which
they exercised these prerogatives, to any persons
and at any times they may have thought proper ;
just as much as you have, at the present day, to
give your money or food to any object of charity,
which may be presented to your notice. But I
must give one extract more, and this shall be
from the life of Alfred the Great by Sir John
Spelman, a worthy son of the above-mentioned
Sir Henry, and likewise a layman; and, as this
finds the Saxons farther advanced in their insti-
tutions and laws, than they were in the times of
Ethelwulf, it must be more favourable to your
viewof this question, (p. 158, ed. 1719)...." This....

Basilens," &c. Sir H. Spelman on Feuds, chap. ix. And his
Tract " Of Parliaments, page 61, and Glossarium under the
"word Lex,

was an assembling of the representative body of
the state, settled hy Alfred in a formal and con-
stant course : not that it was of one and the same
form and solemnity of our later parliaments ; hut^
as the whole khigdom was then entirely either in
the hands of the king, or of his earls and thanes ;
and all that held lands under them, held them in
such subjection and dependence, as that they were
wholly at their lord^s disposal ; so that what was
then ordained by the king, his earls, and thanes,
was a binding law to the whole kingdom : for that
it was the act of those that held the absolute in-
terest, and did involve the right of the residue as
of such as were but their liege-men and VAS-
SALS. As for the bishops that were ever members
of those grand councils, and parties in the sanctions
of them ; besides, that in respect of their temporal
possessions, they had the interest of thanes or
barons, the sacred esteem of their persons and
function, together with their predominance of un-
derstanding, did not only make their votes equi-
valent to those of the nobles, but even the whole
act to have the more reverend esteem and accep-
tation." A little farther on, we are informed
of the magnificent endowments he made ; which
should go to prove, that he believed he was justi-
fied in disposing of the lands of the state. Of

these may be mentioned, " his endowment of thei
bishoprick of Dm'ham, with the gift of all the
country betwixt Tine and Tise :" not to dwell on
the many monasteries which he likewise built and
endowed.

This, I think, my dear Sir, will suffice to shew
you what the ojoinions and practices of the Saxons
were, as far as our question is concerned, and,
that very little reliance is to be placed on the
statement of Mr. Hume, cited by you. — Having,
then, so far settled this point, I shall now, by
your leave, examine your "examination, as far as it
shall appear necessary, of the circumstances under
which these grants are said to have been made."
Your account of Offa, (p. 19.) I shall pass over;
not because I believe what I have already cited
from Burn to be inaccurate, but because I wish to
be short, and because his history, be it what it
may, is unimportant to our question. We come,
therefore, directly to Ethelwulph. " Ethelwulph,"
you say,...." had been a monk His mind was in-
dolent and weak. His minister, Alstan, bishop of
Sherborne, ably supplied his master's deficien-
cies."* " His character," you add, " was that of
a severe ecclesiastic through life ; giving himself

* From Turner's History of the Anglo Saxons, 2nd. edition,
vol. i. page 183.

up to monastic devotions, except when roused by
the incursions of the Danes.- We cannot there-*
fore wonder that when the king was a monk,
surrounded by monks, and aided by a council f of
which " bishops and abbots were an essential
part," and a bishop his prime minister; I say,
that with such a king, and such a council, it is
not to be wondered at that tithes, which before
had been only at the will of the donor, should be
fixed as a permanent tax on the country, and
which he consented to, under the notion that he
should thus avert the judgments of God, which
his ghostly counsellors represented as visible in
the fi^equent ravages of the Danes." (pp. 20, 21.)

* Sir J. Spelman, who does not appear to have thought it
necessary to the truth of his narrative, to give highly coloured
statements, speaks thus of this king : " jEthelwolf, " says he,
. . ."became a most zealous professor ; and having in his father's
life time entered into sacred orders, he was at first made bishop
of Winchester ; but afterwards, upon his father's death, and
failance (perhaps) of other issues, he was necessitate cogente
(saith Huntington) deraigned and made king of the West
Saxons." Hearne tells us here, in a note, that " he was only
subdean not bishop." — Life of ^Elfred, p. 16,

t But yet this very council, is neither more or less than the
Parliament, the free constitution of which you have elsewhere
deemed it necessary to extol ! — A more elaborately and highly
coloured passage than the whole of this, or one pregnant with
more invidious and pungent remark, I must confess, I have never
before seen in any written production.

I answer, This endeavour to vilify the character
of Ethelwulph, his parUament, his nobles, &c.
can stand you in no stead whatsoever ; because,
as I have already remarked, the expediency or
inexpediency, the wisdom or the folly, of the grant
in question, is out of the sphere of our inquiry.
The only question we have to do with is, whether
Ethelwulph had, or had not, a right to dispose of
the lands of which he was at that time lord
paramount, and of which he held the sovereign
and undivided possession, I have shewn from
writers of far greater credit than Hume, that the
Saxon kings were thus circumstanced. They had,
therefore, an undoubted right to dispose of these
lands in any way they pleased ; and this they did
in cases innumerable, even without the advice or
consent of the national assembly. The g^ant in
question, however, was not made without the
advice and consent of this assembly ; and further,
it was willingly acceded to by the people, who
had no voice in that assembly.*

Still it may be doubted, whether Ethelwulph was
of a character so weak and indolent, as he has
been represented in your tract ; and whether there

* So, as cited by Spelman " of Parliaments" (Ed. 1727.
p. 61.) ** H(BC concessa sunt a Rege, Baronibus, ef Populo."

is any good reason for supposing, that the ghostly
council, with which he was, according to your
statement surrounded, would or could prevail upon
him to lay any permanent and oppressive tax upon
the people of England, under the notion that he
should by this means be able to avert the wrath of
Almighty God, as visible then in the ravages of
the Danes.* To the first of these positions I must

* Ethelwulph does not appear to have been singular in hold-
ing this sort of notion. The following are the remarks of
Hearne, the very learned editor of Sir J. Spelman's Life of
Alfred : "the Saxons," says he, "had now arrived at the very
height of wickedness ; which so far provoJced the wrath of God
as to iring so dreadful a Judgment upon this nation, that above two
hundred years this barbarous people hardly ever ceased to come
over in wholeswarms, and to destroy all before them.". . ."That this
decay of religion and piety, and indulging all manner of vice,
was the cause of so severe punishment, is generally asserted by
our historians," &c. p. 8. Nor is such recognition of the inter-
ference of Divine Providence unusual with the sacred writers.

Jacob, too, who does not' seem to have been beset by a ghostly
council of bishops, abbots, and the like, made a vow that he would
found a religious house at Bethel, and consecrate the tithes of
all he should possess, if God would only accompany and protect
him. (Gen. xxviii. 20 — 22.) David, in like manner, (2 Sam.
xxiv. 16, &c.) by the ghostly council of Gad his seer, purchased
the floor, oxen, &c. of Araunah the Jebusite, and oflfered a sa-
crifice which cost him something, with the view of averting the
plague which then raged in Jerusalem. Let me ask you, did
all this proceed from notions, sufficiently marking those who

.42

say, it is much easier to affirm than it is to prove,
that Ethelwulph was of so weak and indolent a
character as you will have him to be. You will
perhaps allow, that any king might be attached
to religion, and be constant in his devotions, with-
out necessarily being a fool : and yet this is all,
if we except the term monk, which you have to
bring against him : and, as to that, I should say,
we ought to judge of a man according to what he
hath, and not according to what he hath not. Nor
is it, perhaps, unreasonable or irreligious to sup-
pose, that any person possessed of wealth, might,
if he thought proper, dedicate a part of this to the
service of Almighty God, and for the good of his
fellow men, without evincing at the same time that
he must have laboured under superstitious notions,
or have been led by a council of corrupt men.
And yet this is all the crime, w^hich you can lay
to his charge. You say that .Ethelwulph had
been a monk. Well: and w^hat then.? Was every
monk necessarily a fool or a madman \ Some
wTiters, however, tell us, that he was Bishop of
Winchester, others that he was the Subdean;
that is, he held a dignified station in the Church,

held them as weak and indolent ? Insinuations of this sort
might have been tolerated in Hume, but they strike me as very
unseemlv in the mouth of a believer in revelation.

just as a son of the king, or of any nobleman may
at this day among us, which will by no means
prove that he is either weak, indolent, or super-
stitious. But, if his having been religiously dis-
posed, and having received his education among
ecclesiastics, and having moreover liberally en-
dowed the then existing establishment, were suffi-
cient to convict him of weakness and superstition,
the same must be said of his son Alfred, whom the
historians represent as exceedingly unwilling to
quit his seclusion, and to engage in the affairs of
state, — as being most constant in his devotions, —
very much attached to his ghostly counsellors, and
no less liberal in the bestowment of his wealth on
the Church. But this, perhaps, you will not be bold
enough to assert. Nor were the Clergy of those
times quite so ignorant and corrupt as you seem dis-
posed to make them. Men much better read in the
histories of those times than either you or myself,
and who were quite as capable of forming and
pronouncing a just opinion on these persons, have
asserted, that they were men of great ability and
integrity."^ It was not lill the times of Edgar, the

. * See some account of them in Sir J. Spelman's Life of ^Elfred,
pp. 133 — 143 and 157. "These were those. .. .bishops, the
abbot, and the monks, that we before have mentioned, all of
them clergy- men, who being of singular note and eminence for

grandson of Alfred, that the spiritual usurpation
and superstitions of Rome grew to any considerable
extent in this island.f And to this I must ad-
here, until I shall have seen better reasons to the
contrary, than any that have yet come before me.
We have grounds for believing, therefore, that
Ethelwulph was not quite so weak a prince as
you would have him to be ; and that his ghostly
counsellors were neither so depraved nor supersti-
tious as you have represented them. We have,
moreover, some positive reasons for believing that
this prince was neither indolent, weak, nor super-
stitious, as far as the grant in question is concerned.
The anticipations he had of his son Alfred's future
greatness, — the victories he obtained over the Danes
and the Welsh,— and the power which he retained
undiminished, in times of the greatest difficulty,
over the whole realm of England, constitute good
proofs that he was neither weak nor indolent. And
if, in his latter years, he allowed his reckless son

wisdom, learning, and integrity of life, were therefore (like
Hushai with David) assumed into the friendship and familiarity
of the king."

t lb. p. 104. At this time the celibacy of the Clergy, sale of
indulgences, the power of the Pope to appoint Bishops, and
a thousand other such superstitions and usurpations, were un-
heard of in this country.

Ethelbald to usurp a part ; still, this was no proof
of weakness which is usually pertinacious, espe-
cially as the whole state might have been endan*
gered by a family quarrel.* Nor were his hopes,
that Divine Providence would arrest the progress
of the Danes, frustrated. For this very son Al-
fred, from whom he anticipated so much, actually
lived to achieve all, and more than all, he had ex-
pected. And, will you tell me, (I do not ask Mr.
Hume or his admirers the question) that this
prince could have effected what he did, had not
a special Providence assisted him ? So fai', then,
the superstitious notions of Ethelwulph turned out

* Asser, Alfred's biographer and friend, seems to have been
of the same opinion, his words are; (Ed. 1722, p. 9.) "Nam,
ne irremedicabile Saxonice periculum belligerante patre et filio ;
quin immo tota cum gente ambobus rebellante, atrocius et cm-
delius per dies singulos quasi eludes intestina augeretur : ineffabili
patris dementia, et omnium astipulatione nobiliura, adunatum
antea regniim inter patrem et filium dividitur." And a little
lower down : " Tota ilia gens, ut dignum erat, inadventu senioris"
(i. e. iEthelwulfi) " ita gavisa est, ut, si illepermitteret,pertina~
cem filium suum Mthelbaldum cum omnibus suis consiliariis a
totius regni sorte expellere vellent. Sed ille, ut diximus, nimia
dementia, et prudenti consilio usus, ne ad regni periculum perve-
niret, ita fieri voluit." It was not, therefore, because the king
wanted either power, friends, or intelligence, that he permitted
this ; but because he was no friend to agitation, wa», and
bloodshed. Providence, too, soon cut off this rebel son.

to be well founded. The Danes were vanquished ;
the countiy recovered its strength and its wealth :
good and salutary laws were enacted : religion and
learning flourished : and, in short, the improve-
ment witnessed was scarcely less than miraculous.
I must also object to the terms permanent tax,
as applied by you to the grant of tithes by Ethel-
wulph. By a permanent tax, I understand you
to mean an opj^fessive permanent tax ; because
your context will admit of no other construction.
Allow me to say, you here labour under con-
siderable misapprehension, or else you are wil-
fully misrepresenting what you know. I have
shewn that Ethelwulph had, as lord paramount of
the soil of all England, a perfect right to make the
grant in question; — that he cannot be charged
with having been either a fool or enthusiast for
doing so; — and also, that the grant was freely
made. So far there was neither villany, fraud, nor
deceit, had recourse to in the transaction. — Let me
now put a case or two for the purpose of shewing
you, that the terms you have here used are over-
charged and unjust. I may suppose, then, that
you have lately taken into your occupation a cer-
tain piece cf land, for wdiich you have agreed to
pay a rent of ten pounds a year : and this I shall
suppose the land to be worth, or at least that

you supposed it to be so. You will perhaps allow,
that the landlord cannot be fairly charged with
injustice or oppression, if he expect you to pay this
rent regularly to him, so long as you continue to
occupy the land in question. All is, I think, fair
and just here. Let us now suppose another case,
in w^hich you have also agreed to pay a rent of ten
pounds a year for a piece of land equally valuable
with the former ; but here, you are required to pay
7iine pounds of this to one person, and one pound
to another. Now, will this slight variety in the
circumstances of the last case, so alter the charac-
ter of the transaction, as to make the rent here
claimed a vexatious and oppressive tax, while no
such character can be ascribed to the other ? What,
I ask, can it signify to th<', occupier, whether he
pay his ten pounds all in one sum, or in two ? Or,
In what way can it affect the justice of the case,
whether the person receiving either of these sums
be a minister of the Church of England, a manu-
facturer, a farmer, or of any other profession or
avocation whatsoever ? If there be oppression in
receiving this sum of ten pounds, it must be as
great and vexatious in the one case as it is in the
other. The introduction of a minister of religion,
cannot, as far as I can sec, add or diminish, in the
least, to the justice or injustice of the proceeding :

— but let us see what you have still to produce on
this subject.

In page 22 of your tract, you have an elaborate
article to shew, that "the similiarity, if any, between
tithes and a rent-charge is extremely small " be-
cause," you add, " a rent-charge is an absolute
charge on the land, authorising the claimant, in
case of default, not only to levy distress, but even
to enter and take possession : whereas the tithe
claimant has his demand only on the crop or pro-
duce : which he cannot touch until it be cut or
severed from the freehold, and converted into per-
sonal property ; and in case of default, his only
remedy is against the occupier: and if he runs
away, leaving his tithe unpaid, the claimant may 7-2^^
after him.'''* When you say " an absolute chai'ge on
the land," I suppose I am to understand, an absolute
charge on the occupier of the land ; for on no other
can a charge be made in any case. But this
is true also of the tithe claimant. Nor has the
tithe claimant his demand on the crop or produce :
this he may take, indeed, if he prefers it : but his
demand is on the occupier of the land. That the
demand is made in consideration of the crop or
produce, is beyond all doubt : and so, in fact, is
that of the landlord; for, although he lets his lands
for a stipulated rent, yet, it must be remembered,
he lets them out to farm^ and reserves an actual

control over the farmer as to what course of hus-
bandry he is to pursue. And again, the tithe
claimant, ninety -nine times in every hundred, re-
ceives from the farmer a money 'payment^ termed
a composition, in lieu of such produce or crop as
may fall to his share : which crop or produce, must,
as you know, grow out of the land so cultivated.
Both tithe claimant and landlord do, therefore,
actually receive money payments in consideration
of the use and occupation of such lands : and whe-
ther you term these a rent or a composition, the
thing is still virtually the same. And, as to your
facetious run-away case, What remedy, will the
landlord have, if the occupier should happen not
to pay his rent, and to run away, except to run
after him 9 Will his deserted lands supply the
needful pounds, shillings, and pence ? He may,
indeed, enter upon his lands, as you truly observe,
which the tithe claimant could not do : but this
only shews, that the laws of seizure and recovery,
as it respects the tithe claimant and landlord,
slightly differ : while the thing sought in each case
is virtually the same.

Upon turning to your " Concise History of
Tithes,"* (p. 22, ed. 5.) I find you saying, " that a

* This is a cheap little work, which was undertaken, apparently,
for the information of the lower orders. It sells at 2d. or 1*. 6d.
per dozen." It appears to have gone through five or six editions.

man purcliasing an estate, subject to a titlie-cliarge,
buys it at a rate proportionably lower than he

The arguments which it brings forward universally iiroceed
under one false assumption or another; arguing, either that
the tithes are claimed by divine right, and under the sanctions of
the Levitical law ; or, that they are charitable contributions only,
and therefore properly at the will of the donors : or, that they
are an unjust tax, imposed by Papal authority, or by weak
princes, and continued by unjust lega! exactions. I need not
shew, after what is advanced in this inquiry, that the whole of
this is perfectly groundless ; that the vituperative language, in
which a great portion of it is couched, is ungenerous and highly
unbecoming ; or that a very considerable part nf it is appli-
cable wdth much greater force against Christianity itself, than
it is against any one of its temporal appointments. Of the tone
and accuracy of this little manual, take the following as speci-
mens : " In process of time, tithes or tenths followed " (i. c. in
this country.) "Of these, certain proportions were allowed to
the clergy, the repairs of ecclesiastical buildings, and the poor."
(not one trace of which is to be found in, any history) Then
follows Offa's story. " About sixty years afterwards (anno 855)
Ethelwulf, a IV eaJc and superstitious jjrince, was worked upon by
the clergy (a term here used in an invidious sense) to extend
tithes as dues to the whole Jcin^dom," (i. e. he fixed them as
rents upon his own lands) ; "and he consented to do it, under a
notion that he was thus to avert the judgments of God, &c.
Poor laymen, however, were still to be supported out of these
tithes;" (altogether imaginary!) " and the people were still at
liberty" (i. e. as far as as their conscience wovi\d let them be so,)
"to pay them to whatever religious persons they pleased."
" About the close of the tenth century, Edgar took from the
people the right of disposing of their tithes at their own discre-

would if exonerated therefrom." Here, I think,
you allow that such land, is actually affected by
a tithe charge. And, I think, you must also
allow, that the rent claimed by the landlord, for
such land, will likewise be " proportionably lower"
than it otherwise would be. The tithes are, there-
fore, virtually a rent charge. There is still another
consideration which will put this matter beyond
all doubt. When the grant of tithes was made,
and indeed for a long time after, the landlord was
not paid by the occupier of the soil so much in
money diS> in produce ; for the purpose, as it is said,
of providing hospitality for the use of his lord.*
Both the landlord, therefore, and the tithe claim-
ant were, in all such cases, paid precisely in the
same way : and hence it probably was, that the
grant which was originally made in land, as will
presently be shewn, was restricted by the laws of
Edward the Confessor to a tenth of all the increase

tion ; and directed that they should he paid to the parish
churches." (p. 16.) In other words, Edgar, perceiving the
disposition of many of his subjects to rob the parish churches
and ministers of the revenues, which his predecessor Ethel-
wulph had generously devoted to the use of both, and to carry
them to the monasteries which were now becoming too rich
and too numerous, ordained that henceforth these tithes should
be applied to their original and legitimate purposes.

* And the produce of every tenth ploughed acre was carried
to the clergyman.— Seld. Hist.

and produce.* Disputes may have arisen, either
between the clergy and the landlords, or the clergy
and the farmers, which made such law necessary
to the peace of the realm.

The negative arguments adduced in your " Con-
cise History," in opposition to what has now been
said, are not worth the trouble of answering. Ar-
guments of this sort are, indeed, never worth much;
and, when they are opposed by others which are
positive, they may fairly be left to shift for them-
selves. But, when you affirm that tithe payments
are a charge upon capital, industry, and so on ; you
say nothing more than may be said of any rent
charge, or indeed of any other impost whatsoever.
The only question is, whether they are an oppres-

* " King Edward the Confessor," says Spelman, (larger
work on Tythes, p. 128.) about tlie year 1042, made all certain ;
namely, that tythe was due unto God, and should be paid, the
tenth sheaf, the tenth foal,. . . .the tent/i cheese, ivhere cheese was
made, or the tenth day's milk, ivhere there ivas no cheese made ,-
the tenth Iamb, the tenth fleece, the tenth part of butter, Sfc."
Similar specifications of titheable articles will be found in vol.
II. Concil. Mag. Brit, et Hib. ed. 1737, pp. 28, 29, 159, 178. I
mention this particularly with' regard to the tithe of cheese and
butter : an opinion having got abroad, which even the courts of
law have not generally rectified, that in every case the tenth of
milk alone can be claimed in kind, notwithstanding two cases
were decided in the Court of Exchequer, as cited in Spelman's
Glossary, sub voce altaragium, to the contrary.

sive or vexatious charge : and, as you ha\^e allowed
that the land is always purchased proportionably
lower when subject to such payment, and cannot
but allow that the rent is diminished in the same
proportion, it is quite out of your power to shew
that these payments are either vexatious or op-
pressive.

From what has been said, you will be enabled
to judge, with how much justice or regard to truth
the following statement, found in your tract, has
been made. " Could we trace a title to national
tithes to King Offa, we should so far fix a disgrace
on our country, for having suifered a tax imposed
by a murderer, to avert the just judgment of God
from his own guilty head, to be patiently borne and
paid for A thousand and thirty -eight
YEARS ! &c." Allow me to suggest, — you might
have spared yourself the trouble of putting forth
this vigorous specimen of agitation oratory; be-
cause no one has attempted to trace to King Offa
the national grant of tithes to the English clergy.
The thing which you have here conjm-ed up has
no real existence : it is altogether a false creation,
upon which, as a sort of stalking horse, you have
taken the opportunity to hang certain large words
printed in capital letters !

And the title derived from Ethelwulph," you

add, " is, in my opinion, a very sorry title indeed
to be brought forward by the ministers of the Eng-
lish church : it being nothing but a JOB, got up
by a junto of ecclesiastics in the very darkest ages
of papal usurpation, superstition, and bigotry."
(p. 22), It may be worth while to examine this.
The title derived from Ethelwulph is, you say, ''a
very sorry title." Will you, then, be so good as to
tell me what will constitute a good one? And,
whether the possessor of any one acre of land, in
all England, is vested with a better ? I know, my
dear sir, and 1 am tempted to believe you a] so
know, that you can do no such thing. The
tenure of every estate in this country was, in the
times of which we are speaking, at the will of the
sovereign only : afterw^ards it was extended to
terms of a year, years, or for life, with certain
services attached. In the next place it was allowed
to run on indefinitely, as to time ; and last of all, it
w'as confirmed by act of parliament to the several
holders. But the national claim to tithes com-
menced in a positive grant, made in perpetuity at
once ; and this has been confirmed by every sub-
sequent sovereign, and every subsequent parlia-
ment. Now, if this does not constitute a real and
good title, I should like to be told what does. As
to your assertions that the whole was a JOB, &c.

&c. I must tell you, I have neither thne nor in-
clination at present to reply to any such matter.

You tell me a little farther on, (p. 26.) "that
those of the clergy who hold fast by their act of
parliament, are most discreet; for when they let
that go, as their only anchor^ they run adrift." I
think I may say, that hitherto you have not been
able to shew this. But let us hear what you have

still to say on this matter " So," it is added a

little lower down, " an act of the same parliament,
may, at any time, entirely deprive them of these
spoils, &c." After all, then, an act of parliament
is only a moveable point: and it must follow, that
those of the clergy who hold fast by this alone,
cannot be very remarkable for their discretion.
Yes \ I am aware that any act of parliament may
be repealed : there need no ghost come from the
grave to tell me that. I must remind you, how-
ever, that I have not undertaken to argue either
against the 'potency or the instahility of an act of
parliament. All I have professed to do has been,
to inquire, whether the claim now made by the
clergy of the established church is, or is not, a
good one ; and whether every reasonable and con-
scientious Christian man is, or is not, bound to
accede to it. This, I had thought, afforded matter
proper enough for inquiry. Here, however, an

end is attempted to be put to all inquiry by the
assertion that, after all, an act of parliament will
most effectually settle the question, and carry the
tithes, which you here designate " spoils," into a
totally different channel. Every question about
the right or wrong of tithes is, therefore, now at
an end ; threatening is had recourse to ; and this
is to be followed up by a power which is irresis-
tible ! Pray tell me, Has either reason or con-
science any thing whatever to do with this ? If it
has, it is that sort of reason and conscience, to
which I shall not hesitate to confess myself a
stranger.

Come we now to consider the statements you
have made (p. 23,) as to the grant of tithes by King
Ethelwulph in general, and as to the purposes to
which they were to be applied in particular :
and here, I think, we shall find you full as un-
happy as in any of the preceding articles. " It
appears," you say, " by Ethelwulph's grant, that
they" (the tithes) "were given only Sanctse Ec-
clesiae, (to holy church :) of course," you continue,
" they were to be applied to the general purposes
to which tithes were then applied : which were,
one fourth to the bishop, one fourth to the clergy,
one fourth for the support of the buildings, and
one fourth to the poor." By sancta ecclesia, holy

church, you here understand the church of Rome
exclusively. With this qualification, then, I must
now affirm, that the whole of these statements is
any thing but true.

With regard to the terms of the grant, in the
first place, the following extracts, taken from the
best authorities now accessible, will perhaps be
sufficient and satisfactory. The Saxon Chronicle,
under ann. 854, speaks of the transaction in
this manner : " The same year king Ethelwulf
registered a tenth of his land over all

HIS KINGDOM for THE HONOUR OF GOD

and for his own everlasting salvation." (Ingram's
Ed. p. 94.) Asser, the biographer of Alfred and
one of his illustrious friends and advisers, delivers
himself in these words : " Eodem anno (i. e. 855.)
JEthelwulpus prsefatus venerabilis rex decimam
TOTius REGNI sui PARTEM ab omni regali
servitio, et tributo liberavit, in sempiternoque
graphio in cruce Christi pro redemptione animae
suae, et antecessoram suorum, UNI et trino

Deo * IMMOLAVIT." (Annates ^Elfridi Ed.

Wise. p. 8). Matthew of Westminster states the
matter thus : " Magnificus rex ^Ethelulfus, de-

* So in Magna Charta, as cited by Spelman, (p. Ixv. Ed.
1727.) " CoNCESsiMus Deo." Other editions of this grant may-
be seen in Selden.

cimam regni sui partem Deo et beatse Marisej
et omnibus Sanctis contulit, liberam ab omnibus
servitiis secularibus, exactionibus, et tributis." And
the words of the grant itself thus : " Ego .^Ethel-
ulfus rex Occidentalium Saxonum, cum consilio

Episcoporum acPrincipum meorum aliquam

PORTIONEM TERETE ME^E, Deo et beata) Mariae,
et omnibus Sanctis, jure jperpetuo possidendam
concedam, decimam scilicet partem terrje
mEtE, &c....ad serviendum soli Deo sine ex-
peditione, &c." (Matt. West. ed. 1601, page 158.)
Now it is curious enough to observe, that in these
three authorities the terms sanctm ecdesice no
where occur ; and in another, namely, Ingulfus^
as cited by Spelman and Selden, although these
terms do occur, yet they are so qualified as to
restrict them to the E'iiglish church. ^' Cum con-
silio Episcoporum ac Principum meorum

consensimus, ut aliquam portionem terrarum

in libertatem perpetuam donari sanctse Ec-

clesise dijudicavi ad serviendum Deo

SOLI gratuito consensu," adds Ingulfus,

'^ tunc primo cum decimis omnium terrarum, ac
honorum aliormn sive caiallorum, uniyer-
SAM dotaverat Ecclesiam Anglicanam
per suum Regium chirogTaphum confectum."
(Sir J. Spelman's History of Alfred, pages 21,

•22.* Seidell's History of Tytlies, page 205.)
Here, then, tlie original authors, who have
favoured us with all the knowledge we have re-
specting this grant, conspire to refute your gloss,
that the grant was made to the Church of Rome
(p. 28.). They also tell us, that a tithe or tenth of
the land was actually given,\ which may suffice
to shew you, among other things already adverted
to, that the tithes are now, as they ever were, a
sort of re7it charge laid on the land. And the
last, Ingulfus, tells us, that personal property was
also made subject to a similar demand.

* From this place it also appears, that not only Offa, king
of Mercia, but Ethelbert still earlier, and jElfwold king of
Northumherland, had made grants of tithes in their sevetal
kingdoms before the times of Ethelwulph. If so, and I see no
reason to doubt it, Ethelwulph' s grant made that general
throughout the kingdom, which had only prevailed before in
particular districts. Hence, we may see, how extremely de-
fective Blackstone's sketch of the history of Tithes is. (Com.
Book II. chap. III.)

t It is curious enough to remark, that the Lord Bishop of
Bath and Wells in his admirable little pamphlet on the tithes
lately published, has, in recommending land to be apportioned
to the clergy, recommended just what Ethelwulph actually
granted. Ethelwulph, however, thought it sufficient to take
care that produce was rendered in this proportion, instead of
assigning the land in parcels.

D 2

Let us now consider the remaining part of your
Statement : '^ of course," you say, " they were to
be applied to the general purposes to which tithes
were then applied." If by general purposes you
mean the service of God generally, I shall not
object ; because I am of opinion that this was the
general purpose for which they were given. But,
when you say that one fourth was to go to the
bishop, one fourth to the clergy, and so on, I
must object; because there is not one syllable of
truth in the statement. If king Ethelwulph and his
nobles intended that this quadripartite division of
the tithes should be for ever made, How does it
happen, that not so much as one word on the
subject occurs in the authors above mentioned ?
But this you will say is a negative argument.
Be it so ; still as it is backed by positive history,
it has its weight. The positive state of the case
is this. It appears from Bede and other writers,
that in times considerably earlier than those of
Ethelwulph, some of the popes recommended that
such quadripartite or tripartite division of tithes,
as that mentioned by you, should be made ; and it
is not improbable that it actually did obtain in
the monasteries of Italy, France, and Spain:
while it is as far certain as history can make it,
that no such division ever obtained in England,

either before or after the times of Ethelwiilph.'^
If tliis then be the case, there is a complete
end to your favourite division of tithes; and con-
sequently, to one of the most grievous charges
which you have been in the habit of making
against the clergy of the Established Church.
The case now resolves itself into one, not unlike
that of the primitive church, in which Christians
had all things in common : a state of things, to
which 1 believe neither yom'self nor any wealthy
Friend whatever would now consent, should it be
proposed on the general levelling system. One of
the limbs of the dilemma, therefore, on which
you had so ingeniously placed me, turns out to
be less substantial than the shadow of a shade ;
which indeed a little inquiry would have been
sufficient to shew you.

* Let me here recommend to your notice " An Essay on
the supposed existence of a quadripartite and tripartite division
of tithes in England, &c. by the Rev. William Hale Hale, M. A.

London, 1832." In which you will find the particulars

respecting this question ably laid down and discussed, so as
perhaps to satisfy your reason. Judge Blackstone has often
been cited to shew, that the law of the case still is, this four-fold
division of the tithes. But Judge Blackstone says no such
thing. He only says that " Charlemagne established the pay-
ment of them (i, e. tithes) in France, and made that famous di-
vision of them into four parts, &c." Com. book IL chap. IH.

You will, perhaps, return to the charge and tell
me that, Still the grant in question was made w^hen
the Church of England was subject to the juris-
diction of the Pope ; and that the mention of the
blessed virgin, with other things occurring in the
grant, is sufficient to shew that the protestant
church, as now by law established, can lay no
good claim to the wealth so granted. " Not for a

protestant clergy," you say " but for popish

priests and monks for ever !" I answer, I trust I
am not unwilling to give you the full advantage of
any and every light in which you can place this
question. And, perhaps, the best way to do this
will be, to put an extreme case. Suppose then,
that before this country became Christian, a con-
siderable quantity of property in land, &c. had
been dedicated to the ceremonies of heathen wor-
ship, and to the use of heathen priests. Suppose
in the next place, that the Christian religion
has now been established throughout the island.
What, 1 ask, is now to become of the property so
dedicated ? — The lawyers will tell you, that in all
cases of this sort, in which it is impossible to comply
with the express words of the donor, reason requires
that you follow the analogy of the case as nearly as
you can. In the case in question, then, the wealth
dedicated to the service of God under heathen

rule, ought now to be applied to the service of
God likewise : because this will be to comply with
the will of the donor, as nearly as the circum-
stances of the different cases will allow. And let
me tell you, this is just what was done in in-
numerable instances, in the earliest, best, and
purest, times of Christianity. The heathen temples
were converted into churches of Christ, as soon as
those who formerly frequented them, had become
converts to his religion. Hence, we are told that
the church of St. Paul, in London, now stands on
ground formerly occupied by a temple of Diana ;
and that of St. Peter, in Westminster, on a site
covered by another dedicated to Apollo.* Now,
according to your doctrine, these edifices still are,
and for ever must be, the sole property of heathen
priests, and dedicated to the worship of heathen
deities ! Do you see the absurdity of this } I
shall take for granted you do. And, if so, you will
be compelled to allow, that since the times of the
Reformation, all the property which had been de-
dicated, as that in the grant of Ethelwulph had, to
the sef'vice of God, ought religiously so to be ap-
plied in conformity with the tenourof his holy word,
and not according to the traditions of Romish

* Sir R. Baker's Chronicle, p. 8.

priests. Besides, as not one word occurs in the
whole grant, nor in any edition of it, restricting
this property either to the Church of Kome, or to
popish monks and priests ; it would be to travel
considerably out of the record, to consign a thing
to them to which they can prefer no real claim. I
think I may now affirm, that a second limb
of your ingenious dilemma has been demolish-
ed.— And, as to the dissenters generally, who
you think have as good a claim, as the clergy of
the Church of England have, to these tithes, I
must say, That when it can be shewn, that the
doctrines and government of the established church
are unscriptural, and theirs scriptural ; then, and
not till then, will the claim of the clergy cease to
be valid, and theirs be made good. This, I think,
you will allow, is the true and proper ground of
claim : and, on this I am most willing to rest all
the weight of the question.

I must notice one article more, and then I shall
proceed to my conclusion. " They," you say, i. e.
the parliament, "may perhaps suffer them" (the
tithes) " to lapse into the lands from which they
are derived, as has been done elsewhere" (p. 27).
" By suffering them to lapse into the lands, &c."
I suppose you mean, that they should hence cease
to be paid as a sort of rent charge ; the whole

value of tliem going into the possession of the land-
lord. Why this transfer of property is to be made,
you have yet to shew ; I say, you have yet to tell
us, upon what principle of reason or justice this is
to be done : for, as yet, you have not so much as
attempted this. No, dear sir, you have only com-
plained about the murder committed by OfFa,
the weakness, &c. of Ethelwulph, the jobbing dis-
position of the monks, the misappropriated spoils
by which the clergy enrich themselves, &c. id
genus; but no where have you shewn, that any
one of these complaints is well founded : and now,
as on another occasion, you run on in imagination
to some catastrophe, which is, as it has elsewhere
done, for ever to sink the tithes in the lands from
which they have been derived. But what do you
mean when you say elsewheref Do you mean,
those lands, in this country, which vrere made
tithe free by certain bulls and ordinances obtained
from the popes, and by which the working clergy
were deprived of their dues, for the purpose of more
daintily feeding the four privileged orders of monks ?
I can hardly suspect you of having intended this;
because it was manifestly a popish job, and as
such must be matter for your indignation rather
than for your approval. What was it then I Was
it the French revolution which elsewhere caused

these tithes so to lapse ? I am exceedingly un-
willing to suppose, you could ever have enter-
tained any such thought as this ; and yet, I do not
see what else you could possibly have meant. Tliat
you could threaten the clergy of the Established
Church, by shaking a revolutionary act of parlia-
ment at them, is easy enough to imagine; but, that
you should think it necessary to conjure up a re-
volution, such as that was which ended with the
battle of Waterloo, is to me almost incredible.

Still, I must remind you, that although an act
of parliament or an infuriated populace may be
irresistible, the legislature is nevertheless bound to
observe justice. "The throne," we know, "is es-
tablished by righteousness ;" and, that it is neither
a safe nor a wise thing to cause the people to err,
and then to put one's trust in their violence. But,
suppose we allow all to be done, that you are so
anxious to bring about; What, I ask, will the tithe
payer, the person supposed to be oppressed now,
have gained? This I leave for you to shew: it
will be enough for me to tell you what he will lose :
and, in order to put this matter in the clearest light,
I will take a case as before. Suppose, then, a
farmer to rent an estate, which if tithe free, is worth
£200 a year; but which subject to tithe is worth
c£l80: ^£20 at least being the sum to be paid for

tithes * In the first case, I thmk I may say, the
farmer will pay £200 a year in fiill tale ; it being
unusual with landlords to make any considerable
deduction fi'om the real annual value of their lands.
In the second cas.e, it is pretty well known that no
clergyman ever gets more, as a composition in lieu
of tithes, than tivo thirds^ in most cases one half,
and in many less than a half of their real value.
Under the tithe system, therefore, the farmer will
pay, in both rent and tithe, from o£] 90 or less, to
about £193 a year; under the tithe free scheme
<£200 at the very least. Now, without saying one
word more on the manifest injustice of robbing one
person to enrich another. What are we to say of the
delectable scheme, which is to relieve the tithe
'payer, hy raising his annual rent payments ?
Does not this strike you as enlightened, reason-
able, and liberal, in the extreme? Again, how

* I put a tenth of the rental here, as in the former case, not
because this is the realvakie of the tithes, but only for the sake
of argument. Every body knows, that the farmer ought to
make two rents and a half, at least, on his land to enable him
to live. One tenth of this, making due deductions for the labour
of turning the produce into money, will be the value of the
tithes : say one tenth of twice the rental. In this case, a sum
not less than ^^40, will be the tithe charge of a farm, worth in
the whole ^£"200 a year, which will make the loss or gain of the
tithe payer just twice the suras I have stated above.

will the poor fare under this Utopia of yours ? Will
they be better taught or fed ? Oh no. They must
now pay for their religious instruction, if they will
have any, and this will not always be the most
scriptural ; not to insist on the various advantages
now lost in the departed charities of their once
resident and kind pastors. Besides, to have raised
the amount of the farmer's outgoings, must even-
tually affect the poor : it must diminish their means
of employment, and make their condition, which
is now bad enough, considerably worse. As far as
I can see, therefore, your scheme has neither truth,
reason, nor justice, for its foundation; nor public
advantage or good for its end. It might, indeed,
enrich the landed proprietors ; but on the farmer,
the mechanic, and the labourer, it would lay new
and heavy burdens. And, although you will find
me as willing as any of your own preachers, to
make sacrifices for the furtherance of the gospel of
Christ, nothing will induce me to give in to the
project, which you have here so anxiously, but so
feebly and inconsiderately, advocated.

My reasons for coming to this conclusion are
briefly these : You have failed to shew that either
the example of our Lord, or that of the apostle
Paul, can be adduced in support of the positions
laid down in the '' Brief Statement" which you

took upon you to defend. In the next place, the
passage chosen from Hume is a most unhappy
one ; it being in one case false, and in all the rest,
inadequate to the purposes for which you cited it.
Your conclusions, therefore, not only as grounded
on this faulty document, but as opposed by au-
thority of the highest order, are wrong and unten-
able. In the next place, the charges you have
advanced against the abilities of Ethelwulph, the
integrity of his advisers, and the general character
of the clergy of his times, you are unable to
substantiate. All these, therefore, must be put
down for vain and groundless declamation. Your
' attempt, in the next place, to make it credible that
the clergy of England are bound to observe a four-
fold, or else a three-fold, division of their tithes,
rests on mistake and error; and can be recom-
mended with no better grace, than the custom of
having all things in common, adopted in the first
ages of the church, can now as binding on every
one professing Christianity. Nor are you able
to shew that tithes, granted as they were to the
church in catholic times, are now of right the pro-
perty of Romanists, and not of a protestant clergy.
As well might you attempt to maintain, as already
intimated, that the churches of St. Paul, in London,
and of St. Peter, in Westminster, are now the sole

property of idolaters and pagans. I am compelled,
therefore, both by my reason and conscience to
conclude, as m my former letter to you, that con-
science is here fairly bound, both by the laws of
God and man, to render to Csesar the things which
are Caesar's, and to God the things which are
God's ; to render to all their dues, custom to whom
ctistoni is due, and fear to w^hom fear. What those
dues are, it is the province of the minister of justice
now, as it was in the days of the apostle, to de-
cide. When you can shew, that these interfere
with the ordinances of God, I shall agree with you
in saying, that they ought not to be rendered. In
the present instance, however, this you have failed
to do; and, I think I may say, that what you have
now so palpably failed in, after so many years'
attention to the subject, you are never very likely
to succeed in satisfactorily effecting. Every Chris-
tian, therefore, in these realms is bound, not only
to render these tithe payments with just as much
punctuality as he is to pay his rents or other just
and legal dues, but every member of the legisla-
ture is also bound to maintain and uphold these
rights as of perpetual obligation ; and, if he refuses
to do this, it will be at the risk and peril of his
soul.

Again, if I .rightly apprehend the drift and

object of your reasoning, the system, against wMcli
you have been objecting, is either the same or
very nearly the same with that, w^hich you would
recommend. You tell us in your " Concise His
tory," that the Levitical law cannot now be cited
to sanction a system of tithes. T hold the same
thing ; and maintain, that the system of tithes,
against which you have been arguing, lays claim
to no such sanction. You think that Christians
generally, ought not to contribute towards the
support of their ministers. The system against
which you object, asks for no such contributions.
It only asks for the payment of a debt, contracted
on a totally diiferent ground ; namely, the occu-
pation of land. You say. No bargains ought to be
made about religion ; and, that neither the legis-
lature, nor the civil magistrate, ought to enforce
the fulfilment of any such bargains by exacting
certain payments. The ministers of the Church
of England say the very same thing. You do
allow, however, that ministers actually engaged in
their duties ought to be supported. St. Paul
allows the same, and so does the Church of
England. You think this should not be made
burdensome to the flock. The system to which
you object, has provided that it should by no
means be so. And How has the provision been

made ? Why, just as that for the Friends' school
at Sidcot has been, by setting aside the rents of a
certain portion of the land, which had been freely
and generously given, for this specific purpose ;
and these rents have been termed tithes. You
also recommend that these tithes be allowed to
lapse into the lands, from which they are derived,
so that the full rent henceforth go to the landlord.
But here you are inconsistent with yourself; for
you argue, apparently, in favour of the tithe
payer, while you propose a measure which will
manifestly injure him. And this you endeavour
to enforce by telling us, that the whole tithe system
is a popish job, got up by a junto of ecclesiastics,
&c. &c. I must here remind you, that similar
epithets might be heaped upon the promoters of
your school at Sidcot, which you would very pro-
perly repel by saying, that they were both unbe-
coming, and quite foreign to the purpose of argu-
ment. How, then, am I to account for all this
paradox ? I know of but one way in which this
can be done successfully, and that is, by supposing
that you have altogether mistaken the grounds of
the question before you ; for I will not allow my-
self to imagine, that your object is, right or
wrong, to deprive the English clergy of their
tithes. I believe your main object is, the relief

of the subject generally, and of the Christian
hearer in particular. The same is mine. The
only question between us is, How can this be
most effectually done ? You say, by depriving
the clergy of tithes. I say, and I think I have
proved, that this would be both injurious and
unjust. I have allowed, indeed, in my former
letter, that the present mode of collecting these
dues is a most undesirable one; and that the
sooner it is put an end to, the better will it be for
all parties. Not because the clergyman here
makes an undue or oppressive demand ; but be-
cause he is put into a most improper and galling
situation — a situation in which he is compelled to
make bargains with his flock, not about religion
as you have said, but about the amount, &c. of
dues, upon which himself and his family are to
subsist. The great evils of his situation are these:
He must either accede to proposals, in certain cases,
the most unjust and humiliating, or else risk his
own peace of mind, that of the neighbourhood
about him, and what is infinitely worse, the cause
of his divine Master. The imputation and the
charge of being more anxious about the fleece than
for the flock, might perhaps be borne ; while to be
made to sustain the character of a Judas, could not
but be intolerable. With some payers, any de-

mand however reduced will be met in a similar
manner; and, I am sure you will allow, that the
matter will in no way be mended by the circulation
of the " Brief Statement" of your society, or the
" Concise History of Tithes" composed and pub-
lished by yourself. You, my dear sir, have lived
long enough to know, that tithe payers, as well as
every other sort of payers, are much more easily
persuaded that they have been imposed upon, than
they are convinced that they have been fairly and
liberally dealt with. In the first case, the worst
feelings of our nature are readily enlisted in a
service, and marshalled on to a warfare, which is
neither good nor profitable in the sight of God or of
man. Here avarice, which is by no means the most
gentle or lovely of our vices, will take the lead.
Distrust, suspicion, disgust, hatred, malice, and all
uncharitableness, will, in close and almost impene-
trable phalanx, bring up the rear. Every auxiliary
to these will be hailed as a friend and ally, and the
end will in all human probability be, a wide and
deadly schism in the body of Christ. Diiference
of opinion and of sentiment will now be multiplied
to an indefinite extent, under the show of combat-
ing error; while every real friend to divine truth
will have to lament, that the fruits of the Spirit
have been curtailed in their abundance, perhaps

in. the same proportion. How far it may be de-
sirable to be found among the aiders and abettors
of this work, I leave you to judge ; and whether
you have not, inadvertently perhaps, thrown, by
your publications, a much greater weight into the
evil, than you have into the good, side of the ba-
lance. Do not imagine, however, that it is my
intention or wish to inculcate the doctrine of pas-
sive obfedience. My only object is, to recommend,
and particularly to those who make a high pro-
fession of religion, the duty of observing modera-
tion, and of evincing a meek spirit, united with a
sacred regard to truth. In this case, charges will
be made with caution, and supported with temper-
ance; with the view to amend, not to ruin and undo,
the delinquent, how bad soever the case may be. Of
such a conduct, whatever may be our questions or
diiferences of opinion, we never shall have reason
to repent : because, these questions and differences
will then tend to the furtherance of knowledge,
without, in any respect, diminishing our rehgious
experience, or administering to those evils, from
which they are otherwise inseparable. I hope I
have myself endeavoured to adhere to the rules
which I am now recommending. If I have any
where failed, I shall be greatly obliged to you for
pointing it out ; because I am sure, you will there-

by perform one of the highest offices of friendship
both to myself personally, and to the public in
general : and, if I haye yolunteered rather largely,
in this respect here, I hope and trust you will
ascribe it to the same motiye, and consider it as
intended to bring about the same happy results. •
I conclude by reminding you, that as you were
so good as to present me with a dilemma in your
" Brief Inquiry," which I think I haye satisfied,
you cannot take it amiss, if I here return the
compliment. 1 now call upon you, then, either
as a man of reason, satisfactorily to refute the
foregoing statements and conclusions ; or else, as
a man of conscience, publicly to retract all you
haye said on the question before us, and remain,

Dear Sir,

Yours, faithfully,

SAMUEL LEE.

December 8, 1832.

J. Cliilcott, Printer, Wine Street, Bristol.

STRICTURES

PROFESSOR LEE's

SECOND LETTER

ON THE SUBJECT OF

TITHES

BY JOSEPH STORRS FRY.

LONDON :

EFFINGHAM WILSON, ROYAL EXCHANGE.
GEORGE DAVEY, BROAD STREET, BRISTOL.

MDCCCXXXIII.

INTRODUCTION.

Although I have not deemed it either necessary or desirable
to be hasty in producing these Strictures, yet it is likely that
they would have made their appearance sooner, but for my
long absence from home, and a subsequent iUness ; perhaps,
however, the Professor will think with me, that two tracts
apiece, per annum, occupy quite as much time as we can con-
veniently bestow on this subject.

' J. S. F.

Redland, near Bristol^
1th Month, 1833.

STRICTURES.

CONSIDERING the present state of the Tithe
Question, and that it is likely soon to become
a subject of Parliamentary discussion and ad-
justment, I was inclined to think there would be
some advantage in deferring the further consi-
deration of the subject, until we are informed
of the views and determination of those in
authority respecting it: but as the multiplicity
of public business seems to render it very un-
certain how long I might have to wait for this
conclusion, I shall no longer decline offering
some observations on Professor Lee's second
letter ; and as these will most likely be com-
ments on particular parts of that letter, I purpose
to call them Strictures.

The first thing, then, that presents itself, is (in
the advertisement prefixed to his second letter,)
the characteristics which he has been pleased to
give of the religious body, of which, however
unworthy, I have the privilege of being a

member, the Society of Friends, commonly cal-
led Quakers. And here I must observe, that
in the first letter, p. 23, he speaks of us as a
People " who appear never to have made the
Holy Scriptures their study, and vt^ho are not
remarkable for soundness of mind in other
respects." The negative mode of expression
adopted in the latter member of this sentence
is in common colloquial use ; but always in a
positive sense : thus if we say, such a man is
not remarkable for generosity, we are always
understood to say, — although in a different
modification of words, — that he is remarkably
penurious ; when we say that another is not
remarkable for the neatness of his person, we
mean that he is a sloven. Therefore, by the
rules of common usage, I am obliged to give
the positive construction to the characteristic of
unsoundness of mind, bestowed on my friends.
All this I should have passed over, satisfied
with the slight remark T made upon it (in the
introduction to my reply to the Professor's
first letter), were it not that, in the advertise-
ment prefixed to his second letter, he has dis-
covered another characteristic^ which is, that
" Political feelings have had more to do in
raising these objections and complaints, than
any real desire for the advancement of truth

either religious or moral." Here, then, is a
body of professing christians, who do not study
the scriptures ; who are remarkable for un-
soundness of mind in other respects ; and who
are, moreover, political intriguers, under the
hypocritical mask of a desire for the advance-
ment of truth. Surely, were this the real state
of the bod}^, existing as it has done for one
hundred and eighty years, through many changes
both in church and state, it would not have
remained for the Professor now to have seen
through the mask. But he does not tell his
reader what sort of political feelings these are,
that have influenced our conduct with so much
consistency through all these changes. Did
these characteristics really attach to our body,
the ignorance of the scriptures, and the unsound-
ness of mind, would long since have been
notorious, and the hypocritical mask would have
been lifted up ; we should have been seen by
our fellow-countrymen in our naked deformity ;
and we should be held in the lowest degree of
contempt ! But no ! The Professor, speaking
of us, says, " It has not been my intention to
detract in the least possible degree from the
respect confessedly due to the body ;" and again,
^^ The Society of Friends, a body of the highest
respectability in this country." But what is

character ? Whence comes it ? how do indivi-
duals or associated bodies acquire it ? It comes
neither by chance, nor from " good intentions."*
" By their fruits ye shall know them." It is
the result of actions ; which actions result from
principles. Now, if it be true that ray brethren
really stand high in the esteem of their country-
men, it is quite certain that the insinuations of the
Professor are unfounded ; because this esteem
arises from a course of action, which generally
is of good savour and report in the world.

Without doubt we must expect in religious
societies, " under the very best circumstances
which human wisdom can devise, to meet with
much of a very imperfect character ;"f yet I
cannot but think, that in the establishment of a
christian church, something better than human
ivisclom would be vouchsafed ; so that the whole,
both its spiritual and temporal arrangements,
would be in christian harmony ; nothing that
should disturb the church, by jealousies and
discord. And here I may be permitted to say,
that in our church this is the case, as nearly,
I believe, as it can well be in any institution.
Our ministers are never involved in difficulties
with their hearers about a maintenance. But

» See p. 23, first letter. f Letter 1, p. 5.

how stands this affair in the Church of England ?
Let us hear the Bishop of Bath and Wells/'*
He says, " The obligation to pay Tithe must have
" frequently put a stop to the increasing improve-
" ment of the soil." — " The payment of smaller
" Tithes, and an indefinite demand for the dis-
" charge of some of the sacred offices of our
" church, have most materially tended to excite
" complaints and disaffection ; and to alienate
" the hearts of the people from their pastoral
" superintendents." — " Tithes have too long
" been the ground of differences ; have too long
" severed the hearts of the people from the
" ministers of the gospel." — "It is theirs (the
" ministers') to point out to the people, * the
" v^^ay, the truth, and the life.' It were, however,
" vain to expect the attainment of this great
" object, so long as Tithe forms, as at present,
" a line of demarcation between them." Here
is a picture of a christian church ! We are told
that one of its institutions frequently puts a stop
to the improvement of the soil ; that it alienates
the hearts of the people from their pastoral
superintendents ; and that it prevents its minis-
ters from pointing out to the people, the way,
the truth, and the life ! This is indeed human
wisdom \ but it is wisdom of so very low a

* Tract on Tithes, 1832.

character, as to be far inferior to the common
wisdom and prudence of man in the ordinary
concerns of life. It seems much more like the
wisdom and suggestion of an enemy, proposed
by him as a sure and certain method of pro-
ducing results, such as the Bishop informs us it
actually does bring forth ; and consequently
forming a line of demarcation between the mi-
nisters and the people ; rendering the ministers
odious and their ministry abortive. Certainly
there is nothing divine, nothing christian about
it, but all utterly anti-christian I While I admire
the candour of the Bishop, as well as his general
character, I should have thought that while
telling this tale of woe, he would have checked
his pen, and would have exclaimed, " Tell it not
in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon!'*

The Professor occupies several pages in again
discussing the scripture doctrine of the main-
tenance of the ministry ; on which point he
endeavours to prove that 1 have not only mis-
applied various portions of scripture, but have
also given a wrong construction to his own ex-
pressions. I am not aware that I have done
either. Still, as I have no intention to mis-
represent, if I should have erred in this way,
he will, I trust, impute it to my ignorance.

making due allowance for the fearful odds, in
such a contest, between a learned academic
Professor and a comparatively unlettered layman.
Enough has been said already on this sub-
ject ; and I leave it to those who interest them-
selves in the affair to settle it between us.

The Professor says, p. 14,* that " I have taken
for granted that the ministers of the Church
of England actually solicit contributions from
their hearers and others, for their support."
I can assure him that the thought never en-
tered my mind ; nor am I aware of any expres-
sion of mine that can bear such a construction.
Still, as he has broached the idea, I will tell
him that if I had taken it for granted, and
asserted it as a fact, I should have been quite
correct. It is the constant practice of the Ves-
tries of Bristol to go round their respective
parishes annually to solicit contributions for the
minister of such parish. Whether such custom
obtains generally throughout the kingdom or
not I do not know ; nor do I know whether
it prevails in all the parishes of this city. I
only know that such custom does obtain in

* These references to the pages are to be understood to be the
pages in the Professor's second letter, unless expressed to the
contrary.

several of the parishes of the city of Bristol
and in the parish of Clifton.

Alluding at p. 15 to what I have said re-
specting the inadequacy of human learning to
qualify a man for the ministry of the Gospel,
the Professor says, " This I fully allow ; and
I agree with you in saying, that still it is a
valuable accessor^/," I said only that it mai/
be a valuable accessory. Very far indeed am I
from thinking that much learning is (necessarily)
a valuable accessory in all such cases ; or that
" without it the scriptures may be wrested to
" a man's own destruction" any more than with
it. " I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
" and will bring to nothing the understanding
" of the prudent. Where is the wise ? where
" is the scribe ? where is the disputer of this
" world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom
" of this world? For after that in the wisdom
" of God, the world by wisdom knew not God,
" it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching
" to save them that believe." 1 Cor. i. 19. " Let
" no man deceive himself. If any man among
" you seemeth to be wise in this world, let
" him become a fool that he may be wise ;
" for the wisdom of this world is foolishness
" with God : for it is written. He taketh the

** wise in their own craftiness. And again, The
*' Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise that
" they are vain. Therefore, let no man glory
" in men." 1 Cor. iii. 18. And our Lord him-
self says, '^ri thank thee, O Father, Lord of
" heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these
" things from the wise and prudent, and hast
" revealed them unto babes." Matt. xi. 25. And
again he says, " Whosoever shall not receive
" the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall
" not enter therein." Mark x. 15. Here the
wisdom of the world is laid low in the sight of
God ; and we must become as little children^
laying our own wisdom in the dust. To persons
in this state, I believe that the mysteries of
the kingdom of God are often graciously un-
folded in reading the scriptures, after a manner
which is altogether unknown to the mere learned
student; seeing that (according to the apostle)
" they are spiritually discerned."* Here per-
haps my friend will say I have been preaching
him a sermon. I wish that every one who
reads it may profit by the instructive portions
of scripture here cited. To this I will add the
testimony of a pious clergyman, which I have
met with since I wrote the above. He says,

* See the Homilies on " A Fruitful Exhortation to the Reading-
of Holy Scripture.'^

" Plain unlettered sense will commonly go fur-
" ther, in understanding the most important
" matters, than all the advantages of science,
" which often render men too self-sufficient to
" judge aright. The Lord gives eyes to the
" blind, and closes the minds of haughty boast-
" ers. Conscious humble ignorance dwells
" nearer the porch of wisdom than arrogant
" genius and science."*

At p. 20 the Professor returns to the An-
glo-Saxons. It will be remembered that in
my former tract, I stated that the Tithes, as
granted by Ethelwulph, were granted Sanctce
Ecclesiae (to Holy Church.) The Professor
now produces several versions of this grant,
in which this term does not occur. I have
now another version of this celebrated docu-
ment lying before me, from Fuller's Church
History of Britain, (cited by Stratton, in his
English and Jewish Tithe Systems compared)
in which this term is not to be found. So
many versions of this document are extant,
and these varying each from the others, that
(as I find since I wrote my former tract) little
stress is laid on any of them by modern wri-
ters on Tithes ; they being generally considered

* Scott's Commentarj'- on the Bible — Practical observations on
John, chap. ix. y. 24 — 41.

as the mere fabrication of the cloister ; and,
probably, every monastery had a copy of its
own manufacture. Rapin gives a copy of this
document ; but he considers it of very doubtful
origin. My friend, the Professor, will startle
at this bold attempt to nullify in a few lines
what has evidently cost him great labour and
pains in the attempt to substantiate. I shall
therefore pass over all further argument on the
question, whether Ethelwulph was, or was not,
paramount lord and owner of the whole terri-
tory of England ; whether my quotations from
Hume were or were not a pure creation of his
brain ; whether Sharon Turner,* who is con-
sidered the first authority in all matters relating
to the Anglo-Saxons ; whether, I say, he be
correct or not, in confirming as he does sub-
stantially, what Hume told before him ; for he
tells us they had a " limited monarchy ;"'^ — that
a large portion of the estates were freed from
all but the three great necessities (what it is
necessary that all people should do, and from
which work none can be excused ;*) these were
military service, construction and reparation of
bridges, and of fortresses and walls. He tells
us also that " the land swarmed with independent
land proprietors."'^ But it were impossible to

* History of the Anglo Saxons. « Book yii. chap. 2.
* Book ix. chap. 3. c Book x. chap. 3.

settle differences of opinion on matters which
occurred a thousand years ago, and of which
the original records, if any ever existed, must
have long since perished.

If Ethelwulph had granted to the clergy, Tithes
over the whole territory of England, about the
year 855, in such manner and with such authority
as that it should be of equal force and validity
with a rent charge ; conferring a civil right in
them by way of property and inheritance, which
the clergy might recover as their legal due, by
the coercion of the civil power, why should any
of the advocates of the system in later days at-
tempt to produce any other authority than that of
Ethelwulph ? If any one were to call their title
in question, they would have only to shew a
copy of Ethelwulph's grant : but I believe it will
not be found that any law existed in England
prior to the time of Henry VIII. (more than 600
years after the time of Ethelwulph) whereby
Tithes could be recovered by a process at
common law.

We find by Rapin, (p. 94, folio edit., Vol. 1)
that a Council was held at Calcuith, in the year
765 ; when a canon of the synod of Northumber-
land, amongst others, was confirmed, of which
he says, " The XVIIth urges the payment of
Tithes from the authority of the Mosaic^ law."

And in the next century were published the con-
stitutions of Odo, Archbishop of Canterbury:
this must have been after the period assigned
to the grant of Ethelwulph ; as Rapin says, p. 137j
" By the Xth. the payment of Tithes is strongly
recommended, by reasons taken from the law of
Moses ; without making the least mention of
Ethelwulph's charter." It were strange and
unaccountable that Odo should have been content
with a strong recominendation, on the plea of the
Mosaick law, when he had in his hands a sub-
stantial and positive grant from the real owner
of the property in question. And it is not less
remarkable that as the plea of divine right was
evidently uppermost with the clergy of those
times,* and was considered by them their strong-
hold, that Ethelwulph, (if he ever did make such
grant) should not first have acknowledged the
plea of divine right in the clergy, to the Tithes ;
and then have confirmed it by virtue of his au-
thority as a temporal prince : and surely no man

* It is well known that Selden's '* Treatise on Tithes,'' the
object of which was to prove that Tithes were not due by Divine
right, under Christianity, (although the clergy were entitled to
them by the laws of the land, ) met with much opposition ; and
Dr. TUlesley, Archdeacon of Rochester, in his '^' Animadversions' '
on Selden's Treatise, gives a catalogue of seventy-two authors
before the year 1215, '^ maintaining the jus divinum of Tithe, or
more, to be paid to the priesthood mider the Gospel." See
Chalmers' Biographical Dictionary, article Selden.

would have been more ready than himself, to
have acknov^ledged this divine right. — But I
think 1 shall be able to set this question at rest.

Whether Ethelwulph's charter has or has not
been relied on, as the foundation of the claim of
Tithes, it is most certainly not insisted upon by
the clerical controversionalists of the present
day ; who contend that Tithes v^ere granted by
lords of manors, and other individual owners of
the estates which now, as they say, form parishes.
The author of " Six Letters to the Farmers of
England," page 8,* says that "the owners of
great estates applied to the bishop, and made a
bargain of this sort with him : that if he would
settle one of his clergy on their estates, they
would build a church ; and settle the tithe of the
produce of their lands on the clergyman. This
was done very generally, and such estate became
what is now called a parish ; some being great
and some small." And then a few lines further
on, he says. " The various kings in the Saxon
times did the same as the noblemen — built
churches on their oion lands^ and gave the Tithes
to the clergy, whom the bishop appointed." —

* A reply to this work has been published, entitled, *^ Tithes and
Church Property. A Letter to the Rev. Hug-h James Rose, B.D.
&c., &c., in reply to his ' Six Letters to the Farmers of Eng-land.' ''
I therefore presume that this is the name of the author of the
" Six Letters."

The Bishop of London has (as I am well m-
formed) always maintained the same doctrine in
the House of Lords. So does Bishop Marsh, of
Peterborough, see his charge of the year 1831,
to the clergy of his diocese, p. 22, where he
says, " It is well known that the Tithes of this
country were generally grants from, lords of
manors ; who, from motives of piety, and a
desire to promote religion among their de-
pendents, erected churches, and endowed them
with a tenth of the produce of their own estates.
The limits of these estates became the limits of
the districts called parishes, which were greater
or less according to the size of the manor."

In addition to these authorities, I mean to
present the reader with an extract from the re-
port of the case of the Attorney General v. Lord
Eardley, in the Exchequer, in 1820, before Lord
Chief Baron Richards. — The reader must bear
in mind that this judge was always considered
a zealous friend to the clergy.

" Tithes, (said the Chief Baron) as we all
know, are a property of a very special nature.
They do not belong to the owner of the land
or of the animals, in respect of which they
arise ; nor, at the time of their origin were
the}^ appropriated to any particular persons, so
as to give them a right to demand them ; for,

as far as we have any traces of their history,
it appears to have been left to the election of
the owner of the other nine parts of the titheable
matters to dispose of the tenth in distribution
amongst the clergy, and, sometimes, among the
clergy and objects of charity. The first insti-
tution of the payment of Tithes in this country,
as rendered in latter days, no where clearly
appears ; and, I apprehend it has not hitherto
been ascertained, at least to the satisfaction of
any of the learned persons who have made it
the object of their research. Tithes, indeed,
were probably introduced into this country as
early as Christianity itself, but as to the circum-
stances, in what manner, and under what regu-
lations, we have so far, no authentic records.
It is said, and perhaps correctly, that in the
earlier ages, the owners of property yielding
titheable articles, could not use the whole for
their own benefit, but were obliged to render
the tenth part to some of the officiating clergy,
as his preference should direct him ; or, as others
say, to the bishop, to be applied by him for
the use of the clergy, or to be administered
in charity."

Here my friend the Professor will see that
what I anticipated is verified : his anchor has
given way. Here are a clergyman, of high

standing in the Church, and two learned bishops
(one of whom is a brother professor at Cam-
bridge) maintaining the doctrine, that Tithes owe
their origin only to the voluntary acts of lords
of manors ; leaving his good friends, the monks
of the ninth century, as completely out of the
question as though they had never existed. — -
And he will also find a learned judge on the
bench gravely telling us all, that we know no-
thing whatsoever about the origin of Tithes,

Here I propose to notice a few matters of
lighter moment. — In my account of the Saxon
conquest of Britain, I said that, each of the con-
quering parties " would consider themselves the
real owners of that portion of the territory they
had obtained possession of." On which the
Professor says, p. 23, " So far you allow that
conquest would give an mdisputable right to the
land." Now the Professor, on further exami-
nation, will see that I allotv no such thing. Nor
have 1 ever learned such doctrine in the New
Testament. I allow only what I have said^ that
the conquerers would consider themselves the
owners of the territory.

The Professor describes (p. 39,) some ex-
pressions of mine in allusion to the monks, as
invidious and pungent. Pungent I intended

them to be, but how this pungency should affect
the Professor is marvellous. They were not
applied to him nor to his brethren. In justification
however, I may say, that I do not remember
ever to have opened a book written either by a
clerical or lay author, in which any allusion was
made to the Romish ecclesiastics of the middle
ages, which did not abound with stories of their
craft and avarice, as their grand leading charac-
teristics ; and which they exercised most success-
fully on the superstitious and ignorant people.
It certainly never would have occurred to me
to draw a parallel between these monks and the
patriarchs and prophets, (see p. 41.)

Having in my former tract hinted at the pos-
sibility of the Tithes being permitted to merge
into the lands from which they are derived, as
has been done " elsewhere," the Professor asks
me, p. 65, " Was it the French revolution which
" etsewhere caused these Tithes so to lapse ? " I
answer, it is not necessary to cross the water for
a precedent. They are so lapsed in Scotland.
They are also so lapsed in Holland^ as well as
in France. And in Ireland 1 how stands the
case there ?

The Professor at p. 56, attempts to prove
that what he calls my " favourite division of

Tithes" never did obtain in England. It is no
favourite of mi7ie. I mentioned it as a matter of
historical notoriety ; for which I deemed it no
more necessary to produce authorities, than I
should to prove that William, Duke of Normandy,
landed in Sussex, in the year 1066, that he de-
feated and slew the British King Harold, and
that he became King of England in his stead.
We read it in almost every old work on Tithes ;
we hear it alluded to in speeches in Parliament :
in short, it is considered as an admitted fact.
However, to proceed to the argument; the Pro-
fessor says, in the note at p. 61, "Judge Black-
stone has often been cited to shew that the law of
the case still is this four -fold division of the Tithes,
But Judge Blackstone says no such thing. He
only says, that Charlemagne established the
payment of them {i. e. Tithes) in France; and
made that famous division of them into four parts,
&c." Had the Professor examined Blackstone
more sedulously, he would have found that
Blackstone does not say o?ili/ that which relates
to Charlemagne. In book 1. ch. 11. sec. 5.
being at p. 384. Vol. 1. of the tenth edition, I
find the following passage. " A parson has,
" during his life, the freehold in himself of the
" parsonage house, the glebe, the tithes, and
*' other dues. But these are sometimes appro-

" priated ; that is to say, the benefice is perpe-
" tuall}^ annexed to some spiritual corporation,
" either sole, or aggregate, being the patron of
" the living ; which the law esteems equally ca-
" pable of providing for the service of the Church
" as any single private clergyman. This con-
" trivance seems to have sprung from the policy
" of the monastic orders, who have never been
" deficient in subtle inventions for the increase of
" their own power and emoluments.* At the
" first establishment of parochial clergy, the
" Tithes of the parish were distributed in a four-
" fold division ; one for the use of the Bishop,
" another for maintaining the fabric of the church,
" a third for the poor, and the fourth to provide
" for the incumbent. When the sees of the bishops
" became otherwise amply endowed, they were
" prohibited from demanding their usual share of
" these Tithes ; and the division was into three
" parts only." And at two pages further on he
says, " It is enacted by statute, 15 Richard II.
" c. 6, that in all appropriations of churches, the
" diocesan bishop shall ordain (in proportion to
" the value of the church) a competent sum to
" be distributed among the poor parishioners
" annually ; and that the vicarage shall be suf-
" ficiently endowed. It seems the parish were

• Pungent.

" frequently sufferers, not only by the want of
" divine service, but also by withholding those
" alms, for which, among other purposes, the
" payment of Tithes was originally imposed. —
" And therefore by statute 4 Henry IV. c. 12, it
" is ordained, that the vicar shall be — sufficiently
" endowed, at the discretion of the ordinary, for
" these three express purposes : to do divine
" service, to inform the people, and to keep
" hospitality."

And at p. 392, vol. 1, he says, " Legal resi-
" dence is not only in the parish, but also in the
" parsonage-house (if there be one,) for it hath
" been resolved that the statute intended resi-
" dence, not only for serving the cure, and for
'^ hospitality ; but also for maintaining the house;
" that the successor also may keep hospitality
" there."

Here I might retire from the field, with the
unimpeachable authority of Judge Blackstone on
my side ; the Professor evidently not knowing
all that Biackstone had said on this subject ; or
he would not have asserted that he had made no
allusion to the four-fold division of Tithes, ex-
cepting only in the case of Charlemagne, in
France.

I shall, however, produce further evidence. —
First, that of Richard Burn, L.L.D. Vicar of

Orton, in Westmoreland. In his "Ecclesiastical
Law," under the head Appropriation, he says,
" A second prejudice to the parochial clergy was,
" the early division of Tithes and offerings into
" several parts, for the several purposes of piety
" and charity. The benevolence of a diocese
" was at first entirely at the Bishop's receipt and
" disposal ; but that there might appear to be a
" just application of it, a rule obtained for di-
" viding the fund into four parts ; one to the
" fabrick and ornaments of the church ; another
" to the officiating priest ; a third to the poor,
" and necessitous travellers ; and a fourth re-
" served to the more immediate service of the
" bishop and his college ; but when sees began
" to be endowed with lands, and other firm pos-
" sessions, then the bishops (to encourage the
" foundation of churches, and to establish a
" better provision for the residing clergy) did
" tacitly recede from their quarter part, and were
" afterwards by canons forbidden to demand it
" if they could live without it. So as the division
"was now only into three parts; and every
" priest was the receiver and distributer, as the
" bishop had been before ; standing obliged to
" expend one part on the raising, supporting, and
" adorning his church and manse, another part
" upon entertaining strangers and relieving the

" poor ; and to have a third reserved for his own
*' immediate occasions. Yet still the whole
" product of Tithes and offerings was the bank
" of each parish church ; and the minister was
" the sole trustee and dispenser of them,
" according to those stated rules of piety and
" charity."

Pope Sylvester, in the beginning of the fourth
century, decreed that the revenues of the church
should be divided into four parts ; quarum una
cedat pontifici ad sui sustentationem ; altera,
presbyteris et diaconis, et omni clero ; iertia,
templorum et ecclesiarum repai'ationi ; quarta,
pauperibus et mfirmAs et peregrinis : that is, one
part should be assigned to the bishop, for his
maintenance ; another part to the priests and
deacons and the clergy in general ; the third part
to the reparation of the churches ; and the fourth
part to the poor, and to the sick and strangers.*

And by a canon of our own, made in the time
of King Alfred, it is decreed : That the Tithes
should be delivered to the priest, who should
divide them into three parts ; Unam partem ad
ecclesice reparationem ; alterayn, pauperibus ero-
gandam ; tertiam vero^ ministris Dei qui ecclesiam
ibi curant : that is, one part to the repair of the
church ; another to be bestowed on the poor ;

* Sir Simon Degge's " Parsons' Counsellor," part i. c. 7.

and a third to the ministers of God who serve
the church there.*

Sir Simon Degge then recites a provincial
canon of our own, which directs that certain por-
tions of the revenues shall be every year dis-
tributed, under the direction of the bishop, to
the poor of the parish. "By all which" (he
says) " it appears that originally the poor had a
'* share in the Tithes."

And, still further to prove the claim of the
poor on the Tithes, it may be stated that the
Commons of England often complained against
pluralities and non-residence, and at length a
statute was passed, in the 21st Henry VI IT. for
compelling the residence of incumbents, and
preventing pluralities of livings, in which it is
recited that the statute was, " For the more
" quiet and virtuous increase and maintenance
" of divine service, the preaching and teaching
" the word of God with godly and good example,
" giving the better discharge of curates, the
*' maintenance of hospitality ^ the relief of the 'poor,
** the increase of devotion, and good opinion
" of the lay fee toward the spiritual persons.^'

Sir Simon Degge commenting on this statute,
says, *' The third end of this good law was to
" maintain hospitality; and I would wish every

* Tfegge, part 1. chap. 7*

" clergyman to remember, that the 'poor have a
" share in the Tithes with him,'^^

And are we to be told, with all these autho-
rities before us, that although such quadripartite
or tripartite division of Tithes might have ob-
tained in the monasteries of Italy, France, and
Spain, " it is as far certain as history can make
it, that no such division ever obtained in Eng-
land:'f p. 60.

Here we have Sir William Blackstone, a writer
on the laws of England of the very first reputa-
tion, who is constantly brought forward as
authority by the most eminent barristers in the
course of their pleadings, as well as by the
judges themselves, at the present day : next
I have adduced an extract from Burn's Ecclesi-

* Degg-e, part 1. chap. T.

f On looking" into the '^ Patriot^' Newspaper of May 1, 1833,
I observed the following- paragraph : perhaps the Professor may
think it worth his while to examine whether or not the statement
it contains is correct : —

"Tripartite Division of Tithes. — In a Saxon MS. of the
Constitutions of King Ethelred and the Parliament, held in 1014,
which is in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, is
the following law : — " Concerning Tithes, the King and his Witan
(Parliament) have decided and pronounced, that according to law
the third part of the tithes of every church shall go to the repair of
the church ; another third part to the servants of God ; and the
remaining third to God's poor, and to necessitous working people.
Inquiry into the tripartite division of Tithes in England : By a
Layman."

astical Law, the author of which work was, as I
have staled, himself a clergyman ; and (as his
voluminous works abundantly prove) profoundly
versed in the laws of England, both civil and
ecclesiastical ; indeed, Burn's Ecclesiastical Law
is held in such high esteem by the clergy them-
selves, that it may very properly be called the
Parsons' Oracle. It is to be remembered that
Burn, as well as Blackstone, are writing on
English laws ; and therefore we are so to con-
strue their writings, unless when the contrary
is expressed, or very fairly and strongly implied ;
which is so far from being the case with the
extracts I have made from these authors, that
they are on the contrary, interspersed with quo-
tations from English statutes, and the provincial
canons of the English clergy.

Sir Simon Degge is also high authority, and is
frequently cited by Burn. From him I have
produced a decree of Pope Sylvester, for dividing
the Tithes into four parts. Next, Degge cites a
canon of our own, made in the time of King
Alfred, for the division of Tithes into three parts.
This latter is surely all English. Then he refers
to a statute law made in the time of Henry VIIL
which enjoins on the clergy, the maintenance of
hospitality and the relief of the jpoor. This is all
English too.

I trust the reader is abundantly satisfied, front
these authorities, that the four-fold division of
Tithes, and afterwards the three-fold division of
Tithes, did prevail in England ; and it does not
appear that the laws enjoining this division have
ever been repealed. I will therefore close this
subject in the words of Sir Simon Degge, in his
Parson's Counsellor, " I would wish every cler-
«« gyraan to remember, that the poor have a share
" of the Tithes with him."

We next in order come to the question how
far the clergy of the Protestant Church of
England are entitled, in equity^ to the property
given or bequeathed to the Popish Church of
England ; Romish 1 might still call it, with great
propriety ; but I am told the grants were made
to the church of England, not to the church of
Rome. I wonder what the English church was,
to the time of Henry VIII. if not a branch or
member of the church of Rome. Surely the
Professor could not suppose that I thought the
Tithes of this country were sent to the city of
Rome I

I concede to the Professor that " in all cases
of this sort, in which it is impossible to comply
with the express words of the donor, reason
requires that you follow the analogy of the case as

nearly you can." I will suppose a property existing,
the interest or rents whereof were directed by
the donor to be for ever distributed among the
widows of shipwrights, freemen of the city of
Bristol ; and 1 will suppose that all guilds or
fraternities like these of Bristol, be dissolved by
Act of Parliament, and that the freedom of the
city ceases also to exist ; but that every shipwright
who is free of England^ shall also be free of
every seaport town in England : then there would
be no more freemen of Bristol ; and in the course
of years there would be no widows of freemen :
then the Professor's position comes into action.
Here is a case " in ivhich it is impossible to comply
with the express words of the donor ; and reason
requires that you follow the analogy ;" which I
should say would be to give the produce of
this charity to the widows of shipwrights, who
have resided longest in the port of Bristol. —
But is there any, even the slightest, analogy
between this case of impossibility and the case
in question ? There was no more difficulty in the
days of Henry VHI. in " complying tvith the
express words of the donor s^"" than there had been
during several of the preceding centuries ; there
was no lack of popish priests and monks to
take all the Tithes, and to say the appointed
number of masses for the souls of the donors

of these Tithes. They were not extinct^ as in
the supposed case of shipwrights' widows : no,
there was as competent a number of popish
clergy in England at that time, as there is now
of protestant clergy. It was an act of violent
spoliation, (which term I use freely as I find
it in Blackstone) the popish clergy had their
option either to renounce their religion, or to
turn out ;^ many were pliant and kept their
livings ; while others had sufficient principle to
retain their allegiance to Rome, and gave up
their livings. It was a complete and entire di-
version of the revenues of the English- Romish
Church t from the purposes assigned by the
original donors or makers of the grants ; they
were not simply grants for the " service of
God,^^ but they were grants for the service of
God under a particular form ; and I am not
" travelling out of the record," (p. 64,) or with-
out sufficient evidence to bear me out, when I
assert that, so far as we have records of grants
to the English-Romish Church, we generally
find as a standing condition in those grants, that

* Thus the Bishop of Peterborough in his charge 1831 saySj
'* The Reformation produced a change in the ministers of religion,
but the revenues themselves were preserved ; the Tithes which had
been paid to the Roman Catholic clergy, being continued to the
Protestant clergy.'^ p. 21.

t I use this term to prevent the possibility of being misunderstood.

certain masses and prayers should be said for
the souls of the donors, so long as the property
given by them should be enjoyed by the clergy.

Before I close this subject, it is important
that I should bring forward the doctrine and
judgment of Lord Eldon, on a case of an at-
tempted diversion of funds, similar to that now
before us. It is the case of the Attorney Ge-
neral against Pearson, reported in 3 Merivale,
p. 353, July 14, l/, I8I7.

A bill and information was exhibited by the
Attorney General, by Stuart, claiming to be
minister, and by Mandon, a trustee. The de-
fendants alleged that a majority of the congre-
gation united in choosing another minister who
was a unitarian. The property was given up-
wards of a century preceding, in trust for preach-
ing the gospel, but without designating in the
trust, the kind of religious doctrines to be taught.
They said that in I78O some of the members
were trinitarian and some unitarian ; that in
1813 they appointed Stuart, the complainant,
their minister, then being a unitarian; but that
in 1816, he having turned trinitarian, they dis-
missed him ; and that Joseph Grey, a unitarian
preacher, with the unanimous consent of the
congregation, was appointed in his place. The
Lord Chancellor decided, that this being a trust

for religious purposeSj a court of equity would
exercise complete jurisdiction. That the deed
being in trust for religious worship, without
mentioning the kind, the court would resort to
usage to explain it, and to ascertain the kind
of worship originally intended. He then directed
an inquiry before the master, as to what was
the original purpose of the trust, that he might
settle the property, and have it appropriated to
the maintenance of those doctrines which were
originally intended.

The following are extracts from Lord Eldon's
judgment. Pp. 401 — 2. " It is of the first im-
portance to see what the record before the court
says upon the subject of the original institu-

tion.'" " What I have now to inquire is,

whether the deed creating the trust does, or
does not, upon the face of it, (regard being
had to that which the Toleration Act, at the
time of its execution, permitted or forbade with
respect to doctrine) bear a decided manifesta-
tion that the doctrines intended by that deed
to be inculcated in this chapel were trinitarian ?
because if that were originally the case ; and if
any number of trustees are now seeking to
fasten on this institution the promulgation of
doctrines contrary to those which, it is thus
manifest, were intended by the founders, I ap-

prehend that they are seeking to do that which
ihey ha^je no 'power to do; and which neither
they, nor all the other members of the congre-
gation, can call upon a single remaining trustee
to effectuate. In this view of the case, also,
supposing even that at the time of the esta-
blishment of this institution it had been legal
to impugn the doctrine of the trinity ; yet if
the institution had been established for trinita-
rian purposes, it could not now he converted to
uses which are anti-trinitarian. For (meaning
however to speak with all due reverence on
such a subject) to alloio such a conversion would
be to allow a trust for the benefit of A to be
diverted to the benefit of B. And the question
then resolves itself into this, whether such a
conversion in the case of a trust can possibly
be supported. If therefore this appears on the
face of the deeds to be the nature of the pre-
sent case, as I am inclined to believe it does,
it disposes of the question^ affording a short and
direct reason for not refusing the interference
of the court .^^

Pp. 418 — 19. '^ I must here again advert to
the principle which was, I think, settled in the
case to which I referred the other day, as
having come before the House of Lords on an
appeal from Scotland, viz., that if any persons

seeking the benefit of a trust for charitable
purposes, should incline to the adoption of a
different system from that which was intended
by the original donors and founders ; and if
others of those who are interested think proper
to adhere to the original system, the leaning
of the court must be to support those adhering
to the original system ; and not to sacrifice the
original system to any change of sentiment in
the persons seeking alteration, however coin-
mendable that alteration may be.^^

" Upon these grounds I have nothing ^t all
to do with the merits of the original system;
as it is the right of those who founded this
meeting-house, and who gave their money and
land for its establishment, to have the trusts
continued as was at first intended.^''

I forbear to enlarge the quotation : the opinion
here expressed is repeated in the report many
times, and in varied language.

Having now concluded my I'emarks on the
Professor's second letter, I will just recur to
the three great points at issue. First, the title
derived from Ethelwulph by the clergy for their
Tithes. This title, which the Professor has la-
boured through forty pages to substantiate, he
finds not even noticed by those who stand high

in the Church of England ; and who trace the
Tithes to an entirely different origin : and these
again are told by a learned judge on the bench,
that neither they, nor we, nor himself, know
anything about the matter.

Next, the quadripartite, and afterwards the
tripartite division of Tithes. Surely, after the
authorities that I have cited on this head, my
friend will not persist in maintaining that " it
is as certain as history can make it, that no
such division ever obtained in England."

And lastly, I think he must and will bow
to the doctrine laid down by that able lawyer,
and firm friend of the Church of England, the
Earl of Eldon : and if he does, he is bound to
acknowledge that the act of Henry VIII. was
an act of violence and spoliation ; as admitted
by Blackstone and others : that the revenues of
the English- Romish Church are entirely diverted
from the purposes to which they were assigned
by the original donors ; and that they are now
enjoyed by those who do not perform the rites
and ceremonies, nor preach the doctrines of
the original church to which the grants were
made ; and, consequently, that they hold and
enjoy their good things only by virtue of this
act of violence and spoliation.

At page 19 of his first letter, the Professor

lays it down that " Conscience — is firmly bound,
" by the laws of both God and man, that all
" such property (Tithes, &c.,) ought scrupulously
'' to be applied to the purposes for which it was
" originally given ; and that he who irreligiously
" dares to hold or to promulgate a contrary
" opinion, will do this at the peril and risk of
" his soul." Here the Professor declares him-
self bound in conscience by the laws of God
and man, scrupulously to apply his Tithes to
the purposes for which they were originally
given ; and this too at the peril and risk of his
soul. Now, if after the evidence I have pro-
duced, as to the original purposes* for which
these grants were made ; and the decision of
Lord Eldon in a case exactly similar ; and see-
ing that the Tithes are not only not scrtipulously
applied, but that they are not applied at all,
to the purposes for which they were originally
given, but to purposes altogether differing from
those for which they were intended by the ori-
ginal donors; if, I say, after this, my friend
can conscientiously continue to receive and to

* Notwithstanding' the obscurity in which the origin of Tithes
may be enveloped, it is quite certain that they were established by-
members of the Romish Church ; and Lord Eldon would say, it
were absurd to suppose that they were intended by the original
donors ever to be enjoyed by persons who may preach and pro-
mulgate new doctrines ; and whom the Romish Chm'ch now de-
nounces as Heretics.

enjoy his Tithes, under the dilemma in which
he has thus placed himself, he may be assured
that I shall not use severe epithets on the oc-
casion ; nor shall I judge him. " To his own
master he standeth or falleth !"

Having now succeeded in establishing the
several points which I had in view, I think T
might here lay down my pen ; but as the Pro-
fessor has thought proper to take new ground,
fp. 64,) by asserting the sound orthodoxy of the
Church of England, both in doctrine and govern-
ment, and frankly acknowledging that if I can
shew that the doctrines and government of the
Established Church are unscriptural, and those
of the Dissenters, generally, scriptural, he will
allow that they would be equitably entitled to
the Tithes ; and that he should be most ready
to admit their claim : having volunteered this
admission, I had intended taking that notice
of it which it well deserves : for I have no
doubt that of the various denominations of Dis-
senters that exist in this country, I should have
no difiSculty in shewing that any of the orthodox
non-conformists will be found to approximate
more closely to the scriptural model ; and to be
free from the greater part of those corruptions
which prevail in the Church of England. And
for the establishment of this assertion I need

not travel out of the evidence of Church of
England writers themselves.

I had indeed written a few sheets with this
view ; but finding the matter so abundant as
not to be reducible within the limits I have
prescribed to myself on the present occasion,
I am induced to decline it. It is my intention,
however, to revert to this subject, should there
arise any further occasion.

ROSE AND SON, PRINTERS, BROADMEAD, BRISTOL.

THIRD LETTER

Mn JOSEPH STORRS FRY,

A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS,

ON THE QUESTION, WHETHER A CHRISTIAN CAN REASONABLY
AND CONSCIENTIOUSLY OBJECT TO THE

PAYMENT OF TITHES,

IN ANSWER TO A TRACT

PROFESSING TO BE "STRICTURES &C." ON A SECOND LETTER
TO THAT GENTLEMAN ON THE SAME SUBJECT.

Rev. SAMUEL LEE, D.D.

Pi-ehendm-y of Bristol; Vicar of Banwell, Somersetshire; Domestic Chaplain

to the Earl of Mimster ifc. and Regius Professor of Hebrew

in the University of Cambridge.

CAMBRIDGE:

PRINTED AT THE PITT PRESS BY JOHN S^MITII,

PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY.

J. & J. J. DEIGHTON, CAMBRIDGE ;

J. G. & F. RIVINGTON, LONDON ; AND W. STRONG, BRISTOL.

M.DCCC.XXXni.

ADVERTISEMENT,

AFTER what has been said in my two former Lettera
on the subject before us, I need now offer no lengthened apoloyy
to the Public for having so far continued this Controversy. I
tvill only say that, as the Tithe -question had afforded abundant
opportunity for attack on the Clergy of the Established Church,
and had, moreover, been carried so far by the popular writers
of the day, that to doubt of its iniquity and of the oppression
and evil which it carried every where with it, was considered by
many as little less than heresy;, I was desirous of ascertain-
ing, for the satisfaction of my own mind, whether all this ivas
justifiable, and on what grounds it rested, I could hardly
allow myself to suppose, that some neiv light had not been
elicited on this question: and, ivhen I found that a religious
Body, so numerous and respectable as that of the Society of
Friends is, had also joined the general complaint and system
of attack, I tvas not without hopes that the infoi-mation, tvhich
my scanty reading on this subject had not yet brought to my
knowledge, would noiv be readily and abundantly supplied. I
must say, however, that the result has been a complete disap-
pointment. The more I have looked into this question — the more
I have examined ancient and modern documents respecting it —
the more I have considered the allegations usually deduced from
the Scriptures, and the reasonings founded on all these ; — the
more forcibly have I been carried to the conclusion, that the
whole of the complaints <^c. alluded to has been founded on
ignorance and error. I am very well aware, that I am open
to the suspicion of being an interested party. I think I may
say, however, that I have not conducted this inquiry as such:
nor have gone out of my way, in any degree, either to attack
or defend the Bodies to which either my opponent or myself
respectively belongs. If, indeed, I have been earnest in my

endeavours to expose bad reasoning^ faulty statetnents, or dis'
ingenuous and unforhearing sentiments, I must request that
this be attributed, not to any Person or Persons, but solely
to the thing immediately had in view. Of Mr Fry himself
and of the Body to which he belongs, my opinions are noiv
what they were before this controversy had an existence. I
do, and ever shall, I hope, very highly esteem both him and
them. I will only say, they have, for some reason or other,
laboured under a very extraordinary want of Tcnowledge on
the question before us, and hence have been led, inadvertently
perhaps, to the expression of opinions, and, in some cases, of
feelings which have had no foundation in truth or justice, and
are quite at variance with the faith they profess to hold. The direct
attack an the Established Church, which Mr Fry threatens
to make in his next publication, should it appear to him ne-
cessary, is not, perhaps, unbecoming in him as a Dissenter,
and certainly will be more creditable to him, as far as prin-
ciple is concerned, than the indirect one hitherto carried on
through the Tithe-question : and, as I anticipate no evil what-
ever from such a step, I must profess myself to be one of the
last who ivould attempt to dissuade him from it. I loould only
suggest that party feelings be entirely suppressed ; that truth
be had in vieiv, purely for its own sake : that a due distinction
be kept up between matters of temporal arrangement, and those
of a purely spiritual nature : that statements be fully and
fairly made ; opinions expressed without reserve : and, that
great caution be used in applying the declarations of Holy
Scripture. If all this be done, the sooner the menace alluded
to be carried into effect, the better will it be, if not for the
Church of England or the Society of Friends, as such, certainly
for the universal Church of Christ : as I hold, thai by the ex-
ertions of sincere and icell-directed minds, very much light may
yet be thrown on Christian Theology, and on Christian Insti-
tutions generally, how perfect soever these may noiv be.

Cambridge, Oct. 21, 1833.

Mr JOSEPH STOKRS FRY,

REDLAND, NEAR BRISTOL.

DEAR SIR,

Your second tract, professing to
be " Strictures" on my second letter to you on
the Tithe-question I have read and considered
with all the attention in my power : and, my
opinion is, that the subject in dispute between
us, has, in your hands, taken the turn which
it was both natural and desirable it should.
Every one must I think see, as much from
the contents of your pamphlets, as from the
statements constantly made in the public prints
of the day, that abundance of darkness, and
of darkness too that may be felt, very gene-
rally prevails on this question. This, I am not
without hopes, your writings may have the
effect of dispersing, although I cannot help
thinking the result will be quite the reverse
of what you have had in view. But, as I

wish to be as short as possible, great books
being generally great evils, I shall now pro-
ceed to consider the several positions contained
in these your " Strictures,"

The first eleven pages of your thirty-nine,
I shall pass over for the present, because thej^
contain nothing whatsoever on the subject in
dispute. In page 12. you say, " The Profes-
sor returns to the Anglo-Saxons. It will be
remembered,*^'' you continue, " that in my for-
mer tract, I stated, that the Tithes, as granted
by Ethelwulph, were granted Sanctce Eccle-
siae (to Holy Church). The Professor now
produces several versions of this grant, in w^hich
this term does not occur. I have now another
version of this celebrated document lying before
me, from Fuller^s Church History of Britain —
in which this term is not to be found." Your
former statement was, therefore, incorrect. I
must now admonish you, that you are far from
correct here likewise. The terms SanctcE Ec-
idesicB do occur in the extract made by me
from Ingulfus (p. 5^)^ with this remarkable ad-
junct, Universam Dotaverat Ecclesiam An-
GLTCANAM ; slicwiug, bcyoud all doubt, that not
the Church of Rome, but the Church of England^
was meant. This oversight is remarkable, espe-
cially as I had laid particular emphasis on the
passage, and printed it in capitals, that it might
not escape your notice.

This, however, when compared with what
follows, must sink into utter insignificance. "So
many versions," it is said, " of this document,
are extant, and these varying each from the
others, that (as I find since I wrote my former
tract) little stress is laid on any of them by
modern writers on Tithes : they being generally
considered as the mere fabrication of the cloister;
and, probably, every monastery had a copy of
its own manufacture. Rapin gives a copy of
this document; but he considers it of very
doubtful origin.* My friend, the Professor,^'
you add, " will startle at this bold attempt to
nullify in a few lines what has evidently cost
him great labour and pains in the attempt to
substantiate," (pp. 12, IS.)

Whatever I may have felt when I first read

* When you see how Rapin has conducted himself on this
occasion, I think I may say, you will consider his opinion of a
very doubtful character. In Vol. i. Book iv. then, he tells us,
that " Hitherto," i. e. till this grant had heed made by Ethel-
wulph, "the revenues of the Church were not very considerable.
But by this new grant they were encreased to that degree, that
Ethelwulph's successors had frequent occasion to wish he had
left the Clergy in their former state." 1 take for granted, that
Rapin did not state this as a fact, with its consequences, without
adequate authority for doing so. If he did, then is his credit
at an end, as an historian. In his account of the state of the
Church (ib.), however, he speaks of this grant, as of a thing
"of very doubtful authority;" which is the passage, I suppose,
to which you allude. I may now ask, How then did Rapin
happen to know, that the Saxon Princes had found so much
reason to deplore its being made ? and. How was it that you
did not discover this inconsistency in Rapin?

over this very extraordinary paragraph, certainly
I felt no disposition to startle. The statements
and conclusions I was favoured with in your
former tract, quite undid me for every thing
like startling: and, I can promise that I shall
be equally firm, whatever you may assert or
conclude in future. But let us now examine
the merits of all this.

When you say that the versions of this do-
cument are numerous and variable, I suppose
I am to understand, that the editions of it are
many, and that these vary considerably. I
answer, the editions or copies of the grant itself
are not numerous. I can find no more than
four: and, although these differ in some re-
spects in the words used, they do agree in the
thing stated. It is true, a very considerable
number of original Eng-lish historians* mention

* The original English historians to whom I allude are,
Ethelwerd, Ethelred, Ingulfus, Matthew of Westminster, Flo-
rence of Worcester, Nicholas of Gloucester, Henry of Huntingdon,
William of Malmesbury, Simeon of Durham, Bromton, and Hove-
den, all of whom have mentioned this grant as a fact, and some of
whom, have given the form and words of it. To these must be added
the authority of Edgar, in a speech made by him to the Clergy,
in which the grant is mentioned, and Ethelwulph named as the
person who made it. Of later writers we have Selden, the two Spel-
mans, Sir Henry, and Sir John, Hearne, Wilkins, Burn, Fuller,
Hume, Ingram, Reynolds Clarke, Sharon Turner, and last of
all, yourself in your '•'Concise History" and "Brief Inquiry."
To whom probably fifty more may be added. But, as I would
rather weigh, than number, my authorities, I am sure I need
not add one name more to convince you, that your second self

this grant as a fact, while they differ slightly
in the terms they employ, and in their accounts
of some of the particulars connected with it ;
yet they appear to be unanimous in the main.
And, as to later historians and antiquarians,
although some have not been able clearly to
make out what its object was, and others have
loaded the clergy of those times with obloquy
on account of its provisions, yet not more, per-
haps, than one or two persons can be found,
who have doubted of its authenticity. I do
not think, therefore, that much reliance can be
placed on the shift here had recourse to. But
let us examine the principle on which it is
grounded.

If it be laid down as a rule, That when
the historical records of any nation are nu-
merous and variable, they are not to be credited ;
then, I say, are we reduced at once to a state
of universal pyrrhonism. It being the fact, that
the historical records of every civilized nation
under heaven, partake more or less of this cha-
racter. Nor is the sacred history exempt : its
versions or editions being both numerous and
variable : and, in no case, is this more apparent
than it is in the Gospels. But, is the whole
therefore incredible ? I believe not. For, al-
though they vary in words, as it is likely inde-

in your Strictures leagued with the doubtful testimony of Rapin
must appear as nothing v/hen confronted by this phalanx,

pendent original writers would, yet they agree
in the tale told; which is just the case with
the documents above referred to. Your state-
ments here, therefore, are not only faulty, but
your principle is false and deceptive. You add,
"It were impossible to settle differences of
opinion on matters which occurred a thousand
years ago, and of which the original records,
if any ever existed, must have long since pe-
rished." (pp. 13. 14.)

The truth of this statement, I am sure
you will allow, will depend very much on the
importance we attach to the monosyllable must
just cited; and, if I can shew that it speaks
any thing but the truth, it will follow that
the whole is a pure fallacy. I now affirm,
then, positively, that the original records of
this grant have not perished long since, but
are now in existence^

The first to which I referred, wall be found
at p. 57. of my second letter as cited from In-
gram's Edition of the Saxon Chronicle (p. 94,)
in these words. " The same year King Ethel-
wulf registered a tenth of his land over all his
kingdom for the honour of God c^^c." This, I
say, is an original record of the grant in ques-
tion ; and it is remarkable, that of all the Saxon
Manuscripts yet discovered and collated, no one
exhibits any variety, if we except the year, most
making it 855. and one S56. with a few slight

differences in the orthography. Now, the Manu-
scripts used in this Edition, amount, according
to Ingram's synopsis in page xviii. to nine. The
age of some of these cannot, it should seem, be
ascertained ; but of the first five, the ages are
thus laid down, viz. a.d. 891. 977. 977- 1001.
1001. If, then, the grant in question was made
A.D. 855. or 6. and we now have MSS. written
as early as the years 89I. 977- &c. one of which
seems to have been written during the times
of King Alfred, and probably under his in-
spection ; Can we, I ask, reasonably require
a record of greater value and certainty, than
that which these very early and respectable
MSS. contain ?

Wanley, who was no mean authority in
Saxon matters, has honoured the first of these
MSS. with the term Autographon, or Au-
tograph : and Archbishop Parker has written
at the head of it, ^^ Chronica scripta anno 23
Alfredi.^'' (Ingram's observations, p. xix.) "We
have already noticed this MS. in the pre-
face", says Ingram, " as connected with the
names of Alfred and Plegmund, who seem to
have had some share in compiling the first part
of it." And, in the preface p. xii. " From
internal evidence indeed, of an indirect nature,
there is great reason to presume, that Arch-
bishop Plegmund transcribed or superintended
this very copy of the Saxon Annals to the

year 89I; the year in which he came to the
see ; inserting, both before and after this date,
to the time of his death in 923, such additional
materials as he was well qualified to furnish
from his high station and learning, and the con-
fidential intercourse which he enjoyed in the
court of King Alfred :" and a little lower
down : " Whether Xing Alfred himself was the
author of a distinct and separate Chronicle of
Wessex, cannot now be determined. That
he furnished additional supplies of historical
matter to the older Chronicles is, I conceive,
sufficiently obvious to every reader who will
take the trouble of examining the subject."'
Ingram then gives us the opinion of Dr. Beeke,
the present Dean of Bristol, (who has paid
great attention to these subjects,) in the following
words: "It is extremely improbable, when we
consider the number and variety of King
Alfred's works, that he should have neglected
the history of his own country. Besides a
genealogy of the kings of Wessex from Cerdic
to his own time, which seems never to have
been incorporated with any MS. of the Saxon
Chronicle, though prefixed or annexed to
several, he undoubtedly preserved many tra-
ditionary facts ; with a full and circumstantial
detail of his own operations, as well as those
of HIS Father, brother, and other members of
his family ; which scarcely any other person

than himself could have supplied.'' " To doubt
this,'' adds Ingram, " would be as incredulous
a thing as to deny that Xenophon wrote his
Anabasis, or Caesar his Commentaries."

Having shewn then, that the document re-
ferred to, in this first case, may be relied on,
because one copy of it, at least, is coeval with
the Historian who first committed the matter
in dispute to writing, if it is not actually an
autograph of such person (several of the others
being not more perhaps than 100 years its junior),
and also, that the original Chroniclers were
persons worthy of all credit ; it may be worth
while now to present you with some state-
ments which may be relied on, with regard to
the Saxon Chronicle generally. " England," says
Mr Ingram in the first sentence of his preface
to this Chronicle, " may boast of two substantial
monuments of its early history ; to either of
which it would not be easy to find a parallel in
any nation, ancient or modern. These are, the
Record of Doomsday, and the Saxon Chronicle.''''
Again, ib. p. ii. " The Saxon Chronicle contains
the original and authentic testimony of con-
temporary writers to the most important trans-
actions of our forefathers, both by sea and land,
from their first arrival in this country to the
year 1154." Ib. p. iii. "Philosophically con-
sidered, this ancient record is the second great
phenomenon in the history of mankind." " It

may safely be considered, not only as the
primceval source from which all subsequent
historians of English affairs have principally
derived their materials, and consequently the
criterion by which they are to be judged, but
also as the faithful depository of our national
idiom." Again p. vi. " Gibson himself was so
convinced of this, that he afterwards attributes
to the Saxon Chronicle all the knowledge we
have of those early times."

We may now perhaps conclude, that this
Chronicle, — whether we view it with reference to
the Manuscripts now in existence from which its
text has been formed, to the persons who appear
to have supplied the materials for its composition,
or to the character which it has ever sustained
among persons the best qualified to judge of its
pretensions, — is a document of the highest possible
value, and one which lays an indisputable claim
to the character of an original record of Eng-
lish history.

The second original writer to whom I re-
ferred (ib.) is Asser, the friend and adviser of
Alfred. This writer's testimony to the grant in
question, which is the following, will be found
at p. 57. of my second letter. " Eodem anno
(i.e. A.D. 855) JEthelwulfus praefatus venerabilis
rex decimam totius regni sui partem ab omni
regali servitio, et tributo liberavit, in sempiter-
noque graphio in cruce Christe pro redemptione

animae suae, et antecessorum suorum, uni et
trino Deo immolavit." (Ed. Wise. p. 8.) Here,
then, we have precisely the same thing recorded,
by an original and contemporary writer, as we
have in the Saxon Chronicle just mentioned.
Let us now see, whether we can rely or not on
the document professing to give this information.
I shall, take for granted, that it is not necessary
to prove, (what indeed every body knows) that
this Asser was situated as just stated.

The Manuscript used by Archbishop Parker
in his edition of Asserts life of Alfred was, ac-
cording to his opinion, as old as the times of
Alfred himself. His words given in his preface
are, " Latina autem cum sint, Saxonicis Uteris
excudi curavimus, mawime oh venerandam ipsius
archetypi antiquitatem, ipso adhuc {ut opinio
fert mea) JElfredo superstite^ iisdem literarum
formulis descriptam.'''' If, then, any reliance
can be placed on this opinion, this MS. is as old
as the times of Asser himself; and, if not an
Autograph, was in all probability copied from
one.

Another MS. of this work is said to be
preserved in the Cottonian Library in the Bri-
tish Museum, which, according to some, is older
than that used by the Archbishop; but which,
Wanley thinks, was written about a.d. 1000,
or 1001. Camden possessed another MS. copy
of this work, not older than the times of

Richard the second, the text of which has been
thought by some not inferior to that of either
of the preceding ones. Now in all these, as
well as in all the other MSS. hitherto disco-
vered,* the passage in question occurs without
the slightest variety. The same may be said
of the fact as stated in every one of the older
historians, who have copied either from the
Saxon Chronicle, or from this work of Asser.
And, although a variety is found to exist in the
words used by some of these secondary writers,
as already remarked, yet the fact of the grant in
question having been made, is affirmed by them
all : nor in any instance has it been contradicted,
or even called in question, by them-

We have, then, in these original documents
or records, (which according to your notions,
must all have perished long ago) not only
Authors of the highest possible reputation, and
who were eye-witnesses of what they have re-
lated, but even copies of these records, as an-
cient, or nearly as ancient, as the times in
which their several Authors lived. Every sub-
sequent writer too, may perhaps, be adduced
as bearing the same testimony, by recognizing
them as the original sources from which his
information and statements have been princi-
pally drawn. Is it not almost miraculous, I
may ask, that documents of this nature should

* See the preface to AVise's Edition of Asser.

be still in existence ? Is it not remarkable,
that in the general wreck of time, so much
testimony should be found to the single fact
which you have thought proper to deny with-
out any inquiry ? and which, you have then
had the complacency to flatter yourself, you
had demolished in a few carelessly written lines ?
Does not this look like one of those strange
phenomena, by which the counsels of the wise
are sometimes brought to nought ? — The more
I view this matter, the more does it appear to
me, like that preservation of the ancient MSS.
and Versions of the Scriptures, by which (not-
withstanding the great length of time that has
elapsed since their first publication, or the va-
riety found to exist in their several copies,
which according to your theory would be suf-
ficient to condemn the whole) their authenticity
and genuineness is put for ever beyond the
power of scepticism, or of ignorance, either to
impugn or injure. Notwithstanding the ease,
therefore, with which you have affected to de-
molish the testimony afforded by these ancient
records i — which may with some appear very
enviable, because it may recommend to their
adoption whatever may happen to please them
— I must confess myself to be one of that
number, who cannot but reprobate it ; and who be-
lieve it to be a duty, however painful that may
be, carefully to investigate, and unhesitatingly

to adopt what is true, to what result soever
it may eventually lead.

Having shewn, then, that the documents
in question possess the best claim possible to
the title of original records ; I have perhaps
supplied you with good and valid reasons for
passing "over all further argument on the
question, whether Ethelwulph was, or was not,
paramount lord and owner of the whole terri-
tory of England &c. (p. 13. Strictures &c.)
I shall now, therefore, proceed to consider a
few more of your positions respecting Ethel-
wulph''s grant.

The first of these occurs in page 14. where
the reader is asked, " If Ethelwulph had granted
to the clergy, Tithes... about the year 855,,,,
why should any of the advocates of the system
in later days attempt to produce any other
authority but that of Ethelwulph.? Sec."

To this question I answer, I do not see on
what grounds it is, that I am called upon to
account for the conduct, or conclusions, of others
in any case. If one has ignorantly grounded his
claim on the Law of Moses, another on certain
decretal epistles of the Pope, another on the
supposed voluntary grants of lords of manors, and
another solely on some modern act of Parliament,
I do not see, why I am to be called upon to
justify all this; nor can I, what you propose
to gain by it. But, when you tell me, in the

same paragraph that " it will not be found that
any law existed in England prior to the time
of Henry VIII. (more than 600 years after the
time of Ethelwulph) whereby Tithes could be
recovered by process at common law, * '' I must
be allowed to suggest to you, that you labour

* But at page 25. we are reminded of a canon, made as early
as the times of king Alfred, by which it was decreed, that the
Tithes should be delivered to the Priest &c." Only let me ask
you, Is such a canon as this any thing more or less than a law ?
And were not such laws enforced in the times of Alfred ? Are
we not told by the historians, again and again, that Alfred
compelled the Dane to pay tithes ? But it is quite unnecessary
to press such questions as these : the thing is too well known
to be doubted. If you would like to see further accounts on
this matter, pray turn to "Spelman's larger work of Tythes,"
Chap. XXVII. where you will find that " Edward the elder and
Guthrum, punished the non payment of Tythes," that Athelstan

about A.D. 924 " decreed them to be paid . . . and appointing a

time certain for doing thereof,". .. that "king Edmund about
A.D. 940. in a solemn Parliament, ordained that every man, upon
pain of his Christendom, and being accursed, should pay them
truly." ... That "king Edgar a.d. 959. confirmed the payment
of Tythes, . . . and this to be done under the pain mentioned in
the hook of the Laws of the land; whereby it appeareth that
the Laws of the land had anciently provided for the payment
hereof". ..He further enacted, that the Sherif, as well as the
Bishop and Priest, should compel every man to pay their Tythes^
that "king Canutus a.d. 1016. made the like law, with some
enlargement," ... that "king Edward the Confessor a.d. 1042.,
made all certain &c., and bindeth the Sherif, as well as the
Bishop to see this executed ". . . It appears also from Spelman's
first Volume of the Councils, to which Selden adds his testimony,
that about a.d. 786. in the time of OfFa, a great council was held
in which Tithes were established : which law was also extended
to West-Saxony. For a still greater abundance of matter to this
eifect, see Spelman himself. Is it not strange, my dear Sir,

under a very grievous want of knowledge in
this particular. I take for granted that vou
have access to Sir Simon Degge's Parson's
Counsellor, for you have quoted it more than
once in your Strictures. Turn now to Part ii.
Chap. XXVI, and you will find " that Tythes
were anciently determinable in the County and
Hundred Courts, is asserted both by Sir Ed-
ward Coke and Mr Selden : " (with Mr Selden's
opinion you ought to be well aquainted) " And
the same appears by the Laws of king Athel-
stan long before the conquest :" and a little
lower down, "yet notwithstanding, as Mr Selden
observes, the jurisdiction of Tythes was not so
settled in the Bishop and Ecclesiastical Courts,
but there were suits for Tythes as well in the
Temporal as Ecclesiastical Courts, whereof he
gives some instances. And amongst the Laws
of king Henry I. I find this clause, Si quis
rectam decimam superteneat, vadat praspositus
Regis et Episcopi et terra domini cum prebytero,
et ingratis auferant ; et Ecclesise cui pertinebit,
reddant, et nonam partem relinquant ei qui
decimam dare noluerit." See also the authori-
ties cited by Sir Simon in the margin. I

that any one should be found bold enough to venture a statement
like that of yours without making any enquiry ? Messrs Young
and Eagle too give reports of Tithe cases as early as a.d. 1204.
And all this you allow in your " Concise History ! " How I
ask, if no such law had been in existence, could such claims
have been made and enforced?

think, I may now say, that whatever you be-
lieve may be found on this subject, others have
found before you, that suits were entertained
at common Law, long before the times of
Henry VIII. We are next favoured (p. 14.) from
Rapin, with some account of a Council holden
at Calcuith in a. d. 765. the xvii*^ canon of
which urges the payment of Tithes from the
authority of the Mosaick law. I ask. What will
this prove, with reference to Ethelwulph's grant,
which was made just 90 years after? At (p. 15.),
we are also told from Rapin, that in the x*'^
canon of the constitutions of Odo, which were
published in the next century, the payment of
Tithes is again urged by reasons taken from
the Law of Moses, without making the least
mention of Ethelwulph's charter. I answer :
and what of this ? Is this sufficient to prove,
that no such charter could have existed ?
May I not suppose, that the charter existed,
as it certainly did in the times of Asser, In-
gulfus and others, and was too well known to
need citation, and that the Archbishop urged
a compliance with it, from the Law of Moses,
just as the Prophets did, from the considera-
tion that the right to the claim had previously
been established ? Why, let me ask you, does
St Paul urge upon his Christian converts the
duty of rendering to all their dues, but never
so much as once cites the heathen laws, by which

those dues had been created, and were demanded?
Are we hence to argue, as you have done, that
no such laws could have existed ? Whatever
you and your Society may think of this sort
of arguing, believe me, no one else will allow
it much credit. As to the seventy authors,
mentioned in your note, who flourished before
1215. and all maintained the divine right of
Tithes from the Law of Moses, I must tell
you, I can see nothing like argument in this :
because, I am neither bound to allow that they
were right, or, that you have rightly under-
stood them.

We are next informed in (pages l6. 17) that
the clerical controversialists of the present day
namely, Mr Rose, the Bishop of Peterborough,
and the Bishop of London, hold, that the right
of Tithes has grown out of donations first made
by the lords of manors, on whose lands Churches
were erected.* And hence, the reader is left
to infer, that, as the opinions of these Gentle-
men differ from my statements, error must rest
somewhere, and probably with me. My answer
is, I have some doubts, whether any such

* I have no doubt myself, that some churches were endowed
either with lands or Tithes long before the times of Ethelwulph ;
I only argue, that we have no good reason for believing, that
such endowments were general. It is rather extraordinary that
you should adduce these three Clergymen as authorities against
my position, when it does not appear that one of them has said
one word on the subject before us.

inference can be maintained. I find Burn
making similar statements, although he has
likewise declared, that the first grant of Tithes
over the whole of England was made by Ethel-
wulph, as I stated in my first letter (p. 13.).
" The more ordinary and standing method,''
says Burn, (under "Appropriation'') "of aug-
menting the number of churches depended on
the piety of the Thanes or greater lords; who
having large fees and territories in the Country,
founded churches for the service of their families
and tenants within their dominion &c." Now,
Is Burn inconsistent in making these several
statements ? I think not.

It was owing, perhaps, to the piety of these
Thanes, that such churches were built at all :
but, being built, it was owing neither to their
liberality nor piety, that they were endowed
with the Tithes. For this, the lord paramount
had provided long before many of them held
their lands in fee : and, as to those who lived when
the grant was made, they gave their consent
thereto, as shewn in my second letter. This
will account for the fact (and I shall maintain,
nothing else will), that as soon as churches
were erected, and parishes formed, the Tithes
were constantly rendered to the minister. The
extract you have made from Judge Richards
will prove the same thing, and it will prove
nothing else (p. 18.). " The owners of pro-

perty,^' says he, "yielding Titheable articles,
could not use the whole for their own henejit,
hut were obliged to render the tenth to some
of the officiating clergy, as his preference should
direct them &c." There must, I say, have been
some power forcing all this : there must have
been some written and producible document ;
otherwise, to suppose that the thing would ever
have been generally complied with, is to sup-
pose what, in similar circumstances, never takes
place. That such a law was in existence, and
was acted upon in the Hundred and County
Courts, during the Saxon times, I have already
shewn. To this law, therefore, and these modes
of enforcing it, we are in reason bound to refer
the endowments now alluded to : because no
other consideration can account for them. If,
then, the Clergymen named by you have
referred the origin of Tithes to their proximate
causes, namely the acts of the Thanes holding
land in fee under the Saxon Monarchs, while
I have referred them to their remote and real
cause or origin, viz. the grant of Ethelwulph,
which must have bound and forced such Thanes
to make these endowments. How does it appear
that I differ essentially in opinion or statement
from these Reverend Gentlemen ?

Judge Richards has certainly settled no-
thing as to the origin of Tithes, for he candidly
confesses his ignorance of it: the law he has

truly laid down, which was quite sufficient for
his purpose : and, as to my reverend brethren,
if they had differed totally from me, (which
they have not done) Would this necessarily
determine the question, and that I must have
been wrong, and they right ? I can see no
ground for such a conclusion as this.

In your next paragraph I am accused of
something like misrepresentation. " I said,"
are your words, " that each of the conquering
parties, would consider themselves the real
owners of the portion of the territory they had
obtained possession of." On which the Profes-
sor says, p. 23. '^ So far you allow that con-
quest would give an indisputable right to the
land." " Now," you go on, " the Professor, on
further examination, will see, that I alloiv no
such thing... I allow only what I have said^
that the conquerors would consider themselves
the owners of the territory." You must re-
member, that this was written for the purpose
of shewing, that Ethelwulph could have had no
right to the land, the possession of which the
earlier settlers had obtained by conquest ; and
consequently, that he could not justly lay a
Tithe-charge upon it. And your conclusion is,
p. 19. of your " Brief Inquiry." " Therefore,
Oifa and Ethelwulph were not the real oivners
of the lands over which thev are said to have
granted the Tithes." — Thev " were ?iot, &c."

you say : — not, they considered themselves not
&c. Let me ask, Am I to take this last senti-
ment as yours, or as theirs? This appeared to
me, and does still, to be your own conclusion,
and drawn from your own premises, and for
your own purposes : and, it is grounded on
the consideration, that these previous settlers
were the real owners of the land. If this is
not the case, then it rests on no premises what-
ever ; and the Therefore preceding it must
stand for nothing ! If I have misunderstood
you, the fault surely rests with yourself: for
it was quite out of my power to give a differ-
ent sense to your context.

But, I must ask you. Is not this sort of
arguing a little disengenuous ? Is it not some-
thing like mental reservation .? You only said
that they would co7isider themselves as the
real owners &c. : but you meant, that Offa and
Ethelwulph were therefore not the real owners
of these lands &c. You accuse me of little
less than misrepresentation ; but, in order to
make this good, you must either forego your
argument, and give up the point at issue,
or else you must disavow the principle by
which your conclusion was drawn. Which of
these alternatives you will take, I have yet to
learn.

We are next told (p. ig.) that ''the Pro-
fessor describes some expressions of mine in

allusion to the monks as invidious and pii7i-
gent.., hut how this pungency should aifect the
Professor is marvellous. They were not ap-
plied to him nor to his brethren.^"* I answer,
I gave the reasons at (p. 39. of my last) why I
made this remark. And at p. 50. I gave my
reasons for a similar one. I must now say,
your expressions are not applied exclusively to
the monks in either of these cases : and, I may
perhaps, consider some others as invidious, and
as applying to myself and my brethren, when
I am told, that the clergy of the Church of
England are " enriching themselves with the
spoils of the Church of Rome'' (p. 26.). It
would, perhaps, have been quite early enough
to apply this sort of language, when you had
proved that this was the fact, and that the English
clergy were a body of marauders. One word
on a paragraph in your last publication (pp. 6. 7.).
After citing a passage from the Tithe Tract of
the Bishop of Bath and Wells, in which the dis-
agreement occasioned by collecting Tithes is de-
plored, you break out in the following impas-
sioned strain : " Here is a picture of a chris-
tian church ! We are told that one of its
institutions frequently puts a stop to the im-
provement of the soil;... and that it prevents
its ministers from pointing out to the people,

the way, the truth, and the life Certainly,'*

you continue " there is nothing divine, nothing

christian about it, but utterly antichristian f^
I ask, will you tell me that this is not invidious,
and that it affects neither me, nor my hrethren ?
You also tell us, that in your own " church
this is the case (i.e. Christian harmony &c.) as
nearly," you believe, "as it can well be in any
institution." By the words " as nearly as it
can well be," I suppose I am to understand
that all, even in this institution, is not quite
perfect: and, consequently that after all, the
institution itself is only human, or, at best
only partially divine. I need not press tTiis
matter farther, because the same may be said
of every sort of church government in the
world. But, Will it follow, that because we
are now both reduced to the same human, or
at most partially divine, level, that neither of
us can have any thing divine, any thing chris-
tian about us, but every thing utterly anti-
christian 9 Or, putting your almost perfect
institution generally out of the question, Will
it also follow, that because a certain King of
England has provided a maintenance for the
Ministers of the Christian Religion, just as
certain Friends have bestowed monev and lands
on the Friends' School at Sidcot, there can be
nothing divine, nothing christian, but utterly
antichristian in the one case, but every thing
as near to perfection as it well can be, in the
other? Or, again, because it happens to be

in your power, by printing and circulating
certain erroneous and vituperative statements,
aided by the infidels and Roman Catholics of
the day, so to inflame the ignorant and irreligi-
ous that they shall refuse paying certain sums
due to the English Clergy, the Church to which
they belong is, therefore, antichristian, and
every thing that is abominable and vile ? Sup-
pose, my dear Sir, I had volunteered arguments
such as these in opposition to the '^ Brief State-
ment'' of your Society, the " Brief Inquiry,''
or lastly, to your own " Strictures" or " Con-
cise History,"* what would have been your

* I find in this work (p. 22. Ed. 5,) the following illustration
used when speaking of land subject to a Tithe-charge, " An
estate subject to incursions of wolves would be less valuable, &c."
In a note in the next page, we are told that this is "advanced
purely by way of illustration, without intending the slightest re-
flection upon any person living." One would have thought, that
in order to avoid every appearance of evil, as well as to save the
trouble of writing an explanatory note, the shortest way would
have been, to alter the expression : — subject to an inundation, — to
some heavy rent charge, an annuity, or the like, would have been
quite as suitable to the argument, and might have passed without
explanation. But, when it is added, in this very note, " yet we do
not forget the epithets bestowed by the Church of England in her
Homilies, on those by whose craft Tithes were first introduced.". . .
" These special instruments and ministers of the Devil^''^ &c.
one is tempted to believe, that this explanation was intended to
be very nearly explained away. Now, not to insist on the inac-
curacy of the statement, that it was by the craft of these men that
Tithes were first introduced, I would ask, Was it either wise or
good in you to ground any thing like a defence on expressions
uttered by ministers of this antichristian Church9 — One word

reply ? Would it not have been, that they
were personal, invidious, and unnecessarily sar-

more on a kindred subject. Having admonished you at p. 65. of
my last, of an appeal to something like the French revolution for
the purpose of settling our Tithe question, I am thus answered in
your "Strictures :" "It is not necessary to cross the water for a

precedent. They are so lapsed in Scotland And, in Ireland !

how stands the case there ? " I answer, they are not so lapsed in
Scotland, i. e. as to deprive the national Clergy of an adequate
provision from them : — nor are they so lapsed in Ireland. If I
understand the new Law aright, a rent-charge is fixed on the lands
in lieu of Tithe in kind : which I consider a good and salutary
regulation. But why the note of admiration ?(! ) Is it the up-
roar, bloodshed, and confusion, brought upon that country by the
Agitators, that here gives point to your remark, and is brought in
by way of defence against my admonition ? It grieves me cer-
tainly to notice things of this sort in you ; and, believe me, it
would not be done, were I not anxious to suggest to you, that not
only are you labouring under much mistake and want of informa-
tion on the subject before us, but also, that you are exhibiting a
wrong and unchristian spirit. I cannot help here noticing a state-
ment, which I find reported as lately made at one of the public
meetings at Exeter Hall ; and, as it will shew you, how the Mi-
nisters of this Antichristian Church are acting under their trials,
and thereby enable you to compare your own proceedings and
feelings with theirs, I shall give it. " At the annual meetings in
Dublin, the Blinisters generally breakfasted together ; and though
220 assembled there twelve months ago, and remained with each
other from eight o'clock till half- past eleven, not a single word
was dropped by any one with regard to his sutferings. They met
to consult how they could best promote the glory of God, and they
accounted it all joy to suffer for Christ's sake. They breakfasted
together a fortnight ago, and though they remained assem-
bled as long as usual, he did not hear one word in reference to
Tithes. The distress had been greater this year than it was during
the last," I will only remark, I should like to see such marks of
antichristianity as these in every Parish in the Kingdom : ay, and
in every Dissenting congregation too.

castic, not to insist on the very bad reasoning
which they contained ? I certainly can say, with
the Bishop, that I lament the existence of a
state of things, which gives to ill-informed or
designing men, so much power to stir up strife:
and, I do hope, as I have said in my former
letter, that it will soon be put an end to.*

The next matter I shall notice occurs in
pp. 20. and 21. of your " Strictures," in these
words : " The Professor at p. 56. attempts to
prove that what he calls my favourite division
of Tithes, never did obtain in England. It
is no favourite of mine" You add : "I men-
tioned it as a matter of historical notoriety :
for which I deemed it no more necessary to
produce authorities, than I should to prove that
William, Duke of Normandy, landed in Sus-
sex &c."

I must remark^ in the first place, that had
I attempted to prove that no such fourfold
division of Tithes had ever existed in England,
I should certainly have attempted an impossi-
bility : because it is, perhaps, impossible to prove

* I may here notice some remarks of yours at p. 9. of your
" Strictures." I refer you to p. 11. of your "Brief Inquiry," to
answer the first part of them. As to the contributions solicited by the
Clergy of Bristol occasionally, let me tell you, this is done by
them in lieu of personal Tithes, which by law (as old as the times
of Ethelwulph, and made Statute Law by Ed. VI.) they have a
right to claim. In these cases, therefore, they are not less generous
than your own unendowed Ministers.

a negative position in any case. No, my dear
Sir, I only affirmed that "it is as far certain
as history can make it, that 7io such division
ever obtained in England.'''' If proof in this
case, is at all to be made out, it must be
that such division has positively obtained ; and
this proof ought to come from you. You tell
me, however, that you " mentioned it as a
matter of historical notoriety, for which you
deemed it no more necessary to produce autho-
rities, than you should to prove that William,
Duke of Normandy, landed in Sussex &c. and
a little lower down you say, " In short, it is
considered as an admitted fact."

This, I must be allowed to say, is little
short of chivalrous ; and it is as groundless as
it is bold. You have nevertheless inquired,
and proceeded to the argument ; and, in doing
so, you have completely ruined all these va-
lourous assertions.

At p. 21. you cite, in the first place, a pas-
sage from my Second Letter in these words ;
" Judge Blackstone has often been cited to
shew that the law of the case still fs this four-'
fold division of Tithes. But Judge Blackstone
says no such thing." He only says, "that Char-
lemagne established the payment of them (i. e.
Tithes) in France ; and made that famous
division of them into four parts &c." You
then tell your reader that, "had the Professor

examined Blackstone more sedulously, he would
have found that Blackstone does not say only
that which relates to Charlemagne.'"* I answer,
I very well knew, that Blackstone had not
said only that which relates to Charlemagne.
I knew that he had said many more things
on the subject of Tithes, and even on their
three-fold and four-fold divisions : but, I also
knew, that he had said nothing more on the
Law which regulated the payment of such
Tithes. And, What have you favoured us with
in your long extract from Blackstone ? All
I can find in it is, an opinion that in ancient
times some such divisions obtained : but, where
or when, we are not told. The extract from
Blackstone, therefore, leaves the matter just
where it found it, expressing an opinion only
to which I have already subscribed ; but, ad-
vancing not so much as one syllable in support
of your assertions. You tell us, indeed, that
here you might retire from the field with the
unimpeachable authority of Judge Blackstone
on your side; " the Professor evidently not
knowing all that Blackstone had said on the
subject ; or he would not have asserted that he
made no allusion to the four-fold division of
Tithes, except only in the case of Charlemagne,
in France." (p. 23.) But, my dear Sir, I have
no where said that Blackstone made no allusion
to the four-fold division of Tithes, except only

ill the case of Charlemagne : this is all mis-
take and error ; and, all I can say on the subject
of your retiring from the field &c. now is,
that, retire when you will, you must carry
with you the conviction that you have totally
mistaken my words. Your citations from Burn,
(p. 24.) and from Pope Sylvester, (p. 25.) must
share the same fate with your extract from
Blackstone ; not one of these saying a single
word beyond what I have already allowed, viz.
that such three-fold or four-fold division of
Tithes did once exist in the Christian Church
generally.

In your next citation you are, if possible,
less felicitous ; for, although you disdained ge-
nerally to inquire into the history of these
divisions of the Tithes, yet you have not thought
it too much to consult the "Parson''s Counsel-
lor^' of Sir Simon Degge, in addition to Black-
stone, &c. ; and, strange to say, you find " a
canon of our own, made in the time of King Al-
fred,'''' in which '' it is decreed : That the Tithes
should be delivered to the priest, who should
divide them into three parts ; Unam partem^ ad
ecclesice reparationem ; alteram,, pauperihus ero-
gandam ; tertiam vero, ministris Dei qui eccle-
siam ibi cur ant : that is," you add, " one part
to the repair of the church ; another to be be-
stowed on the poor; and a third to the minis-
ters of God who serve the church there.'' Upon

consulting Sir Simon, I found that he referred
to Lambard's Archaionomia : but, all I could
find on the subject of Tithes, in the Laws of
Alfred, was this, " Decimas, primigenia, et
adulta tua Deo dato.''^ p. 19- Sir Simon, how-
ever, had marked the page, viz. 132. and upon
turning to this, you may guess my surprise,
when I found that the canons in question,
Avere neither the canons of Alfred, nor yet of
any other person of his time. No : they are the
canons of ^Ifricus, and appear to be nothing
more or less, than a Saxon translation of a set
of rules once in use among the Benedictine
Monks !

You will now perhaps allow me to say,
that if you would have deigned to make the
inquiry into this matter, that I recommended
in p. 6l. of my Second Letter, and had read
the " Essay on the supposed existence of a
quadripartite and tripartite division of Tithes
in England, &c. by the Rev. William Hale
Hale, &c." you would have avoided all the
mistake and vexation consequent upon it, in
which you now are implicated. You might,
indeed, tell your reader, that you deemed it
no more necessary to produce authorities to
establish this point, than you did to prove the
landing and victory of William the Conqueror,
&c. &c. and that the thing in debate is consi-
dered as an admitted fact ; and he may be

greatly delighted to hear it ! You should have
borne in mind, however, that a little inquiry
might possibly shew all this confidence to be
vain ; and every assertion made to support it,
groundless and false : and this you will pre-
sently find is actually the case.

Another ground you take (p. 21.) is, that
a 'VVe read it in almost every old work on
Tithes : we hear it alluded to in speeches in
Parliament.'' What you may have read in
almost every old work on Tithes, it is impos-
sible for me to say : but, I will say. You have
never vet seen it proved in any old work on
Tithes, that any such division of them ever
prevailed in England ; and I greatly douht
whether you have seen any such thing stated..
Seidell's work I may, perhaps, take for granted
you have read, as you have often referred to
it in your " Concise History ; " but Selden is
against you here. His words are (Chap, vi.),
" That quadripartite division was chiefly in the
diocese of Borne. For by some canons of the
French^ Spanish^ and some other churches, it
was tripartite, and had other differences. But
all this," adds he, '' in the primitive times ;
and from the first establishing of Christianity
by a disposition of the hierarchy, till about d.
years from Christ, it seems, it continued.'' It is
to be res^retted that you did not deem it necessary,
on this occasion, to name your authorities : and

the only reason I can offer for the omission is,
that you really had none. As to what you
hear on this subject, in speeches in Parliament,
I can only say, I am surprised you should
think of amusing your reader with any such
vague and unmeaning matter.

" And are we to be told,'" you continue,
" with all these authorities before us, that al-
though such quadripartite or tripartite division
of Tithes migjlit have obtained in the monas-
teries of Italy, France, and Spain, it is as far
certain as history can make it, that no such
division ever obtained in England f Yes, I
answer, you are to be told this : and you are
also to be told, that hitherto you have not
produced so much as one authority to the con-
trary. You have certainly given Blackstone
and Burn'^s opinions on this ancient division :
but these I never thought of disputing. Blackstone
and Burn, it is true, wrote on English laws, as
you have stated, when they gave these opinions :
but, it does not follow from this, that they hence
meant to affirm, that these practices ever obtained
in England. '' Sir Simon Degge,'' you add (p. 28),
" is also high authority, and is frequently cited
by Burn.'' Well; and what then.? Will all
this be sufficient to prove, that the canon of
j.Elfric, which he cites, must beyond all ques-
tion be one of the laws of Alfred, and " a
canon of our own ? Or, that the decree of

Pope Sylvester, also cited by him, was ever in
force in this country ?" I can see no such con-
sequences as these, and must say therefore, that
the inquiries, which after all, you deigned to
make, have totally ruined the whole of your
statements.

Before we dismiss this subject, however, we
must notice another statement, given in a note at
p. 27. of your " Strictures.'' " In a Saxon MS."
you say, " of the constitutions of King Ethelred
and the Parliament, held in 1014, which is in
the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge,
is the following law:'' — " Concerning Tithes, the
King and his Witan (Parliament) have decided
and pronounced, that according to law the third
part of the tithes of every church, &c." " Per-
haps the Professor/' you add, ''may think it
worth while to examine whether or not the
statement it contains is correct."

I answer. Whether such law as this is now
to be found in a MS. of Corpus Christi College
or not, I know not : but I do know, that Wilkin s
has given something very like it in his edition
of the Saxon Laws, (p. 113.) in these words:
^' Et de decimis Rex et Sapientes {his Witan,
Sax.) ejus statuerunt et decreverunt, prouti
justum est; quod tertia pars decimarum illarum
quae ad Ecclesiam pertinent, detur ad compen-
sationem Ecclesiag, et secunda pars Dei ministris,
tertiae pauperibus Dei et inopibus servilibus."

The words of Wilkins, respecting these laws^ in
his preface, are these: "JEthelredi Leges cum
MS. Cantabrigiensi. C. C. C. S. xviii. C07ituli,
ac illis Librum Constitution um tempore ^thel-
redi Regis editarum ex MS. Cotton Nero A. i.
MS. Cantabrig. C. C. C S. xviii. et Teoctu
RofFensi adjunxi.'" So that these Constitutions
were added, by Wilkins, to the Saxon laws al-
ready published, from different MSS.; one in
the Cottonian Library ; another in the Li-
brary of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge;
and a third, termed the Text of Rochester.
There does not, therefore, seem to be any good
ground for impeaching your extract, or the au-
thenticity of these constitutions. Our only ques-
tion, therefore, will be, What is the authority
due to this document ? But, before we answer
this question, it might be as well to bring all
the documents that bear upon it before you ; as
there are some in existence, of which you do
not seem to be aware. The first then, usually
cited, is found in a letter from Pope Gregory
to his missionary Augustine, in answer to the
question, " Into how many portions are the
Offerings at the Altar to be divided? to this
effect : It was the custom of the Church to
divide the offerings into four parts: one for
the Bishop; another for the Clergy; a third
for the poor; and the fourth^ for the repairs
of the Churches.'" "As to the last article,'*'

says Rapin, " which would have been very ob-
scure, had not the Pope cleared it up in his
answer : he replies, That Austin being a Monk,
ought not to live apart from the rest of the
Clergy, but according to the practice of the
primitive Christians, should have all things in
common,'^'' &c.

The second document was originally pub-
lished by Whelock in a note to his edition of
Bede: it was taken from a MS. in the Library
of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge ; and it
runs thus : " Sacerdotes populi suscipiant de-
cimas et nomina eorum quicunque dederint
scripta habeant super altare. Et ipsas decimas
secundum auctoritatem canonicam coram testibus
divident, et ad ornamentum ecclesiae primam eli-
gant partem, secunda autem per manus fidelium
ad usus pauperum atque peregrinorum miseri-
corditer cum omni humilitate dispensatur, ter-
tiam vero partem sibimet ipsis soli sacerdotes
reservent." This is said to have been taken
from the Latin Canons of Theodore, Archbishop
of Canterbury, and to have been translated into
Saxon by ^Elfricus.

The third document is taken from the ' Ex-
cerptiones'' of Egbert, Archbishop of York, and
agrees with the preceding almost word for word.
It is, therefore, unnecessary to copy it out. It
is found in Wilkins's Councils, Vol. i. p. 102,
and in the Tract of Mr Hale, pp. 22, 23.

The fourth document has already been partly
noticed in an extract from Sir Simon Degge. It
will be found in Wilkins, Vol. i. p. 253, and in
Mr Hale, p. 22.

The fifth document is that noticed above, as
taken from the Constitutions of Ethelred. Let
us now consider these in their order.

The first document speaks sufficiently for
itself: it was of foreign origin, and manifestly
had respect to those times in which Christians
had all things in common, as I remarked in my
second letter.

The second was also of foreign origin ; as
it appears to have been first written in Latin
by an Archbishop of Canterbury, who was a
foreigner, and who spent a considerable portion
of his time in transcribing foreign Councils, and
such like matter. It was translated into the
Saxon by J^lfricus : and lastly, it contains,
as some of the learned have thought, certain
rules for the use of the Clergy of the order of
St Benedict.*

* Such is the opmion of Wanley as cited by Mr Hale, Essay,
Part I. p. 23. A similar opinion is given by Wilkins, of the
Canons of ^Elfric. Sax. Laws, p. 153, Note. " Canones hos Ec-
clesiasticos Regulas potius, in usum Presbyterorum ex Regulis
Benedicti confectas esse dixerim." And, as this ^Ifricus seems
to have lived in the times of Ethelred, it is not improbable,
that it is to him we owe a similar constitution of that king. In
this case, all these Saxon documents come from one and the
same hand, viz. ^Ifricus ! who was as Spelman thinks, a zea-
lous propagator of the Popish leaven. Wilkins's Saxon Laws,

The third document is so very nearly allied
to the first, both in its phraseology and matter,
that both must have had a common origin : the
term eajcerptiones too, as Mr Selden, and after
him Mr Hale, has well remarked,* seems clearly
to indicate that this, with all its attendant mat-
ter, has been borrowed from some source not
Saxon : and the probability certainly is, that
these Excerptiones, and particularly this Canon,
came from the same original as did those of
Theodore.

Of the fourth document, or Canon of JElfric,
very little can be said. Of ^Elfric himself, in-
deed, scarcely any thing certain is known; except
that he appears to have been a diligent translator
of foreign documents into the Saxon language, and
that he flourished early in the eleventh century.

The fifth and last document, said to have
been enacted by king Ethelred and his Wi-
tan, is perhaps the only one that can be
said to lay claim to authority in the Saxon
church. This, however, according to your own
shewing, had no existence earlier than the eleventh
century, and the times of the notorious Dun-
stan. If, then, we allow this to have had all
the authority you can wish, it must have been

p. 196. It is certain, however from his Homilies, that he stren-
uously opposed the doctrine of transuhstantiation.

* Essay on the Division of Tithes in England, p. 24, and
Selden in his History, col. 1179, Fol. edit.

in the very worst of the Saxon times, and when
the influence and corruptions of Rome had reach-
ed their highest point. I do not think, therefore,
if we allow to this Canon every thing you can
desire, it can fairly be adduced to shew what
was pure Saxon usage.

But let us, for the sake of the argument,
allow even this. What now will be the con-
sequence ? Let us see. The Canon enacts, then,
that one third part of those Tithes which pertain
to the Church, be given to the repair of the
Church; a second to God'^s ministers; a third
to God\s poor and to the servile poor. I
think I may say, there is enough in the word-
ing of this Canon to betray both its origin and
object. Why, I would ask, is it said that a
third part of those Tithes which pertain to
the Church, shall be given, &c. unless some other
body, beside the ministering clergy and parochial
poor, is had in view. It strikes me, that it
was quite unnecessary to introduce this here,
unless it had some specific meaning and force.
Again, Why have we another distinction made
between God''s poor, and the servile poor, unless
some distinction was also to be made in the
persons to whom such alms were to be given ?
I believe there is a reason for all this : and, I
think, the very next Canon but one in this
collection, will put us in possession of it. It
stands thus : " Si quis decimas legitime reddere

nolit, tunc abeat Regis Praefectus, et Monasterii
Sacerdos, vel Praefectus Domini fundi et Epis-
copi, et sumant invite decimam partem pro
MoNASTERio ad quod ea pertinet^ &c. So,
then, if such Tithe, which really and originally
appertained to the Church, should happen to
be withheld ; then the King's prsefect, or the
praefect of the proprietor of the farm, and the
Bishop''s praefect, were to go with the Priest of
THE Monastery and take bv force that tenth
or Tithe which belonged to such Monas-
tery.*

This canon, then, must have been intended
to determine how appropriated Tithes, originally
belonging to a Parish Church, should be divid-
ed, when paid, or recovered when payment had
been refused, by Monasteries as Impropriators.^
And, I need not tell you, that early in the
eleventh century a very great number of such
appropriations was made. If this then be the
case, God'^s poor, (pauperibus Dei) as mentioned
above, must have meant the Monks, Nuns,
and other inmates of Monasteries who had taken

* That the Council of Eanham, held in the times of Ethelred,
had the government of the Monasteries in view, is evident from
some of its Canons : and that some of these were of foreign origin
has been shewn by Selden. See his History of Tithes, col. 1191,
fol. edit.

t That Rectors were understood, at least to be bound by
some such law as this, is I think extremely probable, as will
be seen from the sequel, though in no such sense as you have
supposed.

the vow of poverty :* the " servile poor (inopibus
servilibus) would, in this view, very properly
designate the parochial and other such poor :
and this, in all probability, was the intention
of the canon.

Our next inquiry will be, as to what is
meant, when we are told, that a third part shall
he given for repairing the Church. It has
been well remarked by Selden,-]- and before him
by Bracton, that ancient statutes and canons
are very likely to be misunderstood unless par-
ticular regard is had to the practices and customs
of the times, during which they were in force.
Now, all I have been able to make out on this
subject is, that if this canon ever generally ob-
tained, although the term Church is used here,
a part only of the Church could have been
meant : for it is notorious, that in old documents
of this sort, nothing like precision in the use
of language is to be found.

* " The monks were usually called pauperes, and were so in-
deed by their vow," Selden. Hist. col. 1118.

t"It is a common", says he, "but most deceiving argiiment
among them, affirmatively to conclude fact or practice of Tything
from what they see ordained for Tythes in any old canon of the
Church ; as if every thing so ordained, necessarily had also a
following use." Preface to History of Tithes. The words of
Bracton are, "Sunt autem in anglia consuetudines plures et di-
versee, secundum diversitatem locorum...Cum autem hujusmodi
leges et consuetudines per insipientes et minus doctos {qui
cathedram judicandi ascendunt antequam leges didicerint)
sepius trahantur ad abusum...ego Henricus de Bracton animum
erexi &c." Lib. i. 8. i. c. i.

Now, in one of the constitutions of Othobon
we are told, that the Chancel is to be repaired
at the expense of the Rector, which John de
Athon declares in his commentary is the cus-
tom ; and Lindwood''s opinion is in perfect
harmony both with the constitution of Othobon,
and this comment of John.* If then we may
interpret this canon by the practice of the times
nearest its enactment, and suppose it to have
been generally in force, we are bound to con-
clude, that, all intended to be inculcated was,
that some portion of the Tithes was to be
assigned, both by Rectors and Impropriators
of every description, to the repairs of the
Chancels of those Parish Churches from which
such Tithes had been received.

In the next place, What are we to under-

*See Mr Hale's Essay pp. 40—45. Part i. The words of
John, which have not been cited by IMr Hale are these. " Can-
cellos &c...alludens communi consuetudini anglicanse, per quam
refectio navis ecclesias ubi insident ipsi parrochiani laici ad
ipsos parrochianos pertinent (pertinet) : cancelli vero refectio
ad rectores." He adds, indeed, that of common right, when the
Bishop transfers his fourth to the Rector, he may command him
to repair the Fabric of the Church. But, as he immediately
adds, "Sed certe de consuetudine parrochiani etiam laici ad
hujusmodi reparationem compelluntur," it is probable he could
only have meant, that such a thing was equitable, or that it
might have prevailed in some other countries subject to the Pope.
It should be remembered, the constitutions of Ethelred were made
in the 11th century, and this John de Athon lived in the 13th.
Lindwood merely echoes the words of John, as may be seen in
Mr Hale.

stand when we are told, that a third part of
the Tithes is to be given to God's Ministers?
We have seen, that the canon in question, (and
in all probability every one of the other docu-
ments referred to,) was intended to affect those
monasteries or individuals to whom Tithes had
been appropriated. In this case then, by God's
Ministers must have been meant the Parochial
Clergy, their Vicars. Now, it is a remarkable fact,
that one of the laws of Cnute commands that if
a Thane have a Church in fee, and this have
a cemetary, one third portion of the Tithes
shall be assigned to the officiating Minister.^
And in Ireland, to this very day, this cus-
tom is found to obtain, i.e. the Vicar takes
one third portion of the Tithes, the Impro-
priator the other two.-j- Shall I then be far

*Wilkins's Saxon Laws, p. 130. By "propriarum decima-
rum," I suppose is here meant. Tithes which he possesses as
his own, or, which is the same thing, appropriated Tithes. See
Selden's Hist. col. 1190. Fol. Edit. But col. 1127 he tells us,
that "all the maintenance of the incumbent was at the bounty
of the monasteries' allowance."

t " In some parts of Ireland the Bishops had one quarter of
the Tithes, but then, it should be remembered, that the remaining
fourths were divided among the Parson and Vicar of each Church ;
and that when the Bishop took one-third, as in Derry and Raphoe,
then the Herenach took two-thirds of the temporalities, and the
Parson and Vicar two-thirds of the Tithes, the mode of dividing
Tithes between the Bishop, Parson, Vicar, and Herenach, differing
in several dioceses, but in no one any trace being perceivable of
any ancient right of the poor." Hale's Essay Part ii. p. 47-
See also Note to p, 50. where we may see. that however the

from the truth in supposing, that the canon in
question spoke of the Parochical Vicars, when
it directed, that one third part of the Tithes
should be appropriated to GocTs Ministers ?*
I think not. But, in some cases, as it is well
known, the monasteries so circumstanced paid
stipends in money to their Vicars ; and, in others,
gave them what are usually termed the small
Tithes^ for this their third part ; and, in all,
made this portion just as great or as small, as
they themselves thought proper.

It may be thought, perhaps, that the canons
required such Tithes to be equally divided, and
these three parts, to be equal third parts. I
have no doubt, that your argument, dear Sir,
requires this, as does the reasoning of all those
who have written or spoken on your side of
the question. Yet, I think I may say, this is
more than you and they put together can prove
ever took place under this, or any similar, con-
stitution. In the early times of Christianity,
when the four-fold division was in use, nothing-
like an equal distribution of the parts could
have obtained in practice, or indeed was ever

divisions varied, one part was usually assigned to the Vicar,
as the officiating Priest. But, that this could be no exact third
or fourth^ part, is evident from Selden's account of appropria-
tions and infeodations of Tithes, where it appears, that the mo-
nasteries, as impropriators, gave just what they pleased to the
Vicars; and, that the Papal decrees justified them in this.
Hist. Chap. vi.

* See your own citation from Degge p. 30. supra.

thought of. Nor is there any thing like a
shadow of proof to be met with, as far as my
reading goes, that any such thing was ever
practised under the three-fold division. When,
therefore, the monasteries took one third part
to themselves under the designation of God's
poor, and on the condition that a portion of
this should be bestowed on the servile poor ;
and, again, when they covenanted to give another
third part to their Vicars, and another to the
repairs of the Chancels, it is just as evident
from the nature, as it is from the history, of
the case, that an exact third part was never
meant: and the same must be true of the Im-
propriators of Tithes who succeeded them; and,
in a great measure, of the Rectors of Pa-
rishes, if we suppose these canons ever affected
them.

But there is still another light, in which
this question may be viewed^ and which will
conduct us to the same conclusions. I have
shewn in my last Letter, that all tenures were
originally held under the king, as lord para-
mount. It appears also from the grant of
the Tithes made by Ethelwulph, (pp. 57, 5S.)
that these were to be held in perpetuum, and
"m puram et liheram Eleemosynamy This
sort of tenure, you are probably aware, was
termed after the conquest ''Frank Almoigne^''
i.e. Free Alms. Of the general tenure, so

called, however, there were, according to Bracton,
several specific kinds.* But, as our question
is conversant about parochial Tithes, we need
insist upon one only, viz. that which respected
the particular tenure, under which these were
held by the Rectors of Parishes.

This, then, according both to the terms of
the original grant, as formerly cited by me,
and also, as explained by the ablest lawyers
under the feudal system, was held free of all
services whatsoever, except those specified in
the grant, such as prayers, and other duties
enjoined on the parochial clergy. No taxes
either for the support of the state, for repairing
roads, bridges, fortified towns, or even for the
relief of the parochial poor, were exacted, or
to be exacted, under this tenure: while Feudal
lords, and even the monasteries, the former
holding in capite, the latter, either in Barony,
or under a less free sort of Frank Almoigne,

*I mention this, because I find Blackstone speaking in his
law tracts (p. 209) and citing Bracton, as if there was but one.
Bracton says, however, Tract, v. lib. iv. c. i. " Videndum est
imprimis ;"..."de qua libera eleemosina" plainly intimating,
that there is more than one. And again, in the very next
sentence to that cited by Blackstone (Tract, i. lib. iv. c. 38.
not 28. as cited by him) " Item est tenementum datum in liberam
eleemosinam rectoribus Ecclesiarum, quas pura est et libera, et
magis libera et pura.'''' This is said in contradistinction to what
he had already said of this tenure in the persons of Abbots,
Priors, and the like. See also Note at p. 9. of Mr Hale's Essay,
Part. II.

were compelled to perform all these services,
and in every instance, in which there was not
some specific ground for exemption, both were
forced to pay their Tithes to the Parish Rectors ;
and, when the Tithes happened to be appropri-
ated, they were then to pay one third portion,
in one way or other, for the support of their
Vicars, another for the repairs of the Chancel,
and to bestow something in alms on the
Parish poor. Littleton and, after him. Sir
Edward Coke, terms this latter sort of Frank
Almoigne, " GocTs service,'''' in contradistinction
to that under which the Parish Rectors held.
I am most willing to allow, that, although
the law as it then stood, could not compel
the Rectors to support the Parish poor out
of their Tithes, it was, nevertheless, under-
stood, that they would act liberally in this
respect : and, I will further allow, that when-
ever they refused or neglected to do so, it
was the duty of the ordinary to admonish
them of this, and even to enforce the expen-
diture of such a sum of money annually in
alms, as should seem reasonable to him. But
then, the parochial poor were not the only objects
had in view ; travelling Preachers (monks pro-
bably from the monasteries) were also to be sup-
ported as well as such other strangers, as should
appear to be real objects of charity. And I
think, there can be no doubt, that it was to sup-

ply means for keeping up this system of liberality,
that monasteries and other Impropriators were
compelled, by the tenures under which they held
the Tithes, sufficiently to endow the Vicar, and
to give certain sums annually towards the support
of the parochial and other servile poor.

I shall maintain, therefore, until you shall
have shewn the contrary, that the third parts
mentioned in the constitution of Ethelred above
adverted to, were not exact third parts of the
Tithe in any case, nor ever intended to be
applied in any thing like the sense contended
for by you, supposing it was ever acted upon
at all. If I am wrong, you can of course
refute me ; and this I challenge you to do.
Until this be done, however, which I suspect
will not be soon, I shall affirm, that all the
assertions, affirmations, conclusions, charges &c.
&c. grounded on these documents, and found
either in your " Concise History," your " Brief
Inquiry,"" or your " Strictures," are groundless
and futile. Most willingly, indeed, will I
allow, that the Parochial Clergy are in con-
science bound to keep up hospitality with their
richer neighbours, and to give alms liberally
to the poor. This, I think, whatever the Law
may say on the subject, is so evident from the
spirit of the gospel, that I know not how any
man can excuse himself who thinks or acts
otherwise. To all, therefore that Sir Simon

Degge, or any other person has said, in re-
commendation of this virtue, I give my most
cordial assent, and hope I shall always be found
ready and willing to act up to its spirit. But
when you say, or insinuate, that the Clergy,
either Rectors or Vicars, have been great gain-
ers by the non-observance of these ancient
constitutions and laws, I must tell you that
the whole is untrue. Under those constitutions
the Clergy were liable to no taxes whatsoever,
except those already specified. They are now
liable to the king's taxes and the poor rates,
in addition to all those enjoined either by the
letter or spirit of these constitutions. Nor
are the Vicars, who were exempt then, exempt
now in any case, if we except the repairs of
the Chancels. So that, the truth is, were these
ancient constitutions and usages restored, the
Clergy would in every case have a large ac-
cession of income. It would be in their power,
particularly the Vicars, to double and perhaps
triple their alms to the poor, their subscriptions
towards the support of Parish schools, and to
other objects of religion and charity, to which
now they can give but scantily ; and to bring
up their families with prospects equal perhaps
to those, with which a mechanic or manufact-
urer can bring up his.

When you appeal to these ancient constitu-
tions and canons, therefore, you do, unwarily

perhaps, that which militates most strongly
against your professed object, which is, to de-
prive the Clergy of what you elegantly and
feelingly term "spoils."" But this, among other
such things, I leave to be reconciled, in your
next " Strictures.'"*

The next sentiment I have to examine is
given in the following words (p. 29.). I had
said that the grant of Tithes, made by Ethel-
wulph, was made to the Church of England,
and not to the Church of Rome. " I wonder,"'"'
you say, " What the English Church was to
the time of Henry VIII. if not a branch or
member of the church of Rome." I answer,
I wonder how you could have given utterance
to so absurd a sentiment. If you will look a
little more attentively into your Bible, you
will find that neither the Church of England,
no, nor yet the Church established in any
country out of Italy, was ever really a branch
or member of the Church of Rome. I am
very well aware, that the Popes and hierarchy
of Rome made such a claim as this ; but then
the claim was groundless : and, I also know
that the British Bishops in the earliest times,
and even after the times of Austin, resisted
this claim : that in the times of Ethelwulph,
it was but very partially acknowledged, and
hence were retained the terms, the English
Church (Ecclesia Anglicana), distinctive of its

entire independence.* Would it not have better
become a Dissenter of the reformed Church of
England, to have said, / wonder what the
Church of Rome was in England before the
times of Austin : — what after his times, with-
out any real ground of claim to any sort of
jurisdiction, — what now, when that mystery
of iniquity has been seen through, and put
down. Drs Doyle and Lingard will thank you,
no doubt, for the ground you have now taken as
a Dissenter ; because, you may be cited as the first
since the reformation, who has been bold enough

* I find too in a statute of Ed. iii. as cited by Mr Hale,
Essay part ii. p. 18. the terms, "Whereas the Holy Church
of England was founded in the estate of prelacy within the realm
of England... X.0 inform them of the law of God, and to make
hospitalities, alms, and other works of charity... and certain po-
sessions as well in fees, lands, rents, as in advowsons, which do
extend to a great value, where assigned by the said foimders, to
the prelates, and other people of the Holy Church of the said
realm. «&:c." And again, in another of Rich. ii.,.."Our lord the
king hath perceived... how the churches,... and other benefices of
his realm... solemnly and devoutly ordained and established of the
ancient progenitors of the king... to the intent that the same bene-
fices should be given to honest and meet persons of the realm., to
serve and honour God diligently, and to keep hospitality, &c."
Here, I say, in the darkest of Catholic times in this country, not
a word is said about the Church of Rome, Romish Priests, or any
thing of the sort. The Church of England, within the realm of
England, and as endowed by the kings or nobles of England, is the
only matter mooted, and this to shew, that the honour of God, and
the good of man, were the sole objects had in view. Nor, in the
times of MlMc, as noticed above, was the doctrine of transub-
stantiation generally held in England. See also Soame's Bampton
Lectures. I am indebted to a friend for this last information.

virtually to concede one of the most important
and ill grounded of Roman Catholic claims.

For your next attempt (pp. 29 — 35,) to
shew, that the Tithes originally given to the
Church of England, and now possessed by it,
properly belong to the Church of Rome, these
good Drs would also thank you, were they
not too well trained in the arts of controversy
not to know that the whole is a fallacy. You
adduce a case, adjudged by Lord Eldon, in
which a Dissenter bequeathed his property for
the furtherance of the Gospel, without specify-
ing under what particular form. Lord Eldon's
judgment was, that this property ought to be
applied in accordance with the creed of the
Testator. The grounds of this judgment are
obvious. The Testator was a Dissenter : and
it was unreasonable to suppose he would be-
queath property for the furtherance of the Go-
spel under any creed not consistent with his
own. Lord Eldon, therefore, gave a very pro-
per judgment : and the case is applicable to
all similar bequests. But, I want to know, in
what way this can be applied to the grant of
Ethelwulph. Ethelwulph at the head of the
state gave this wealth to the Church of Eng-
land, for the maintenance of the service of
God, generally. But Ethelwulph was no Dis-
senter ; nor were there any Dissenters at that
time in England. There were, therefore, no

sy.

rival parties to make the meaning of this
ffrant doubtful. It is true the Church was then
beginning to adopt certain Roman Catholic
practices : but, as the wealth was given for
God^s service expressly, you cannot argue that,
when it was afterwards discovered by the mem-
bers of that Church that these were errors, this
wealth ought to be applied to the maintenance
of such errors, in addition to others of a simi-
lar sort, exclusively. Lord Eldon's judgment,
which you have cited, was formed on no such
grounds as these. I must conclude, therefore,
that your case is not in point : that it bears in
no way whatever on the question before us :
and consequently, that the Tithes so granted
ought for ever to be applied to their original
and genuine object, the service of God, and
the maintenance of true Religion.

As Lord Eldon''s judgment on this case is
not in point, you will excuse me if I now
give you the judgment, not of a case in point
merely, but, of the very case itself here at issue,
by a much greater law authority than Lord
Eldon. It is the judgment of Sir E. Coke
on a certain part of the text of Littleton.
^' Since Littleton wrote, the Liturgy, or Book
of Common Prayer, and of celebrating divine
service, is altered. This alteration notwith-
standing, yet the tenure in frank almoigne
remaineth ; and such prayers and such divine

service shall be said and celebrated as now is
authorized; yea, though the tenure he in par-
ticular, as Littleton hereafter (^ 187.) saith, viz.
a chaunter une messe, &c. or a chaunter un
placebo or dirige, yet if the tenant saith the
prayers now authorised, it sujfficeth. And as
Littleton hath said before, in the case of
Socage, the changing of one kind of temporal
services into other temporal services, altereth
neither the name nor the effect of the tenure ;
so the changing of spiritual services into other
spiritual services, altereth neither the name
nor the effect of the tenure. And albeit the
tenure in frank almoigne is now reduced to a
certainty contained in the Book of Common
Prayer, yet seeing the original tenure was in
frank almoigne, and the change is by general
consent, by authority of Parliament, whereunto
every man is party, the tenure remains as it
was before.'''' Hale's Essay, Part ii. pp. 8, 9.
I think it probable, that if you had seen this
before your " Strictures'" went to press, you
would have been less urgent in favour of the
pretended claims of the Popish Clergy.

When you say, (p. 31) that these were
grants made "/or the service of God under a
particular fm^m,'''' by which you evidently mean
the whole Roman Catholic ritual, I must object,
and tell you, that you are " travelling" very
far "out of the record," I must also tell you^

that you have not proved) and cannot prove^
that the Tithes were ever the revenues of the
English Romish Church exclusively, although
masses for the dead may have been enjoined in
the grant. State property certainly differs, in
some respects, from the property of individuals.
Ethelwulph granted these Tithes, as I have
already said, as head of the State of England.
Now, the state has ever exercised a controll,
and, I believe, has a right to exercise it, as to
the particular modes in which such property is
to be applied, provided the main object of the
original grant be not contravened; although it
has no right to resume it. Hence, in Royal
foundations, letters patent have often been grant-
ed, dispensing with certain statutes, when it has
appeared, that the will of the Founder would
be more effectually complied with by adopting
the new, than by retaining the old, statute.
The reason for such dispensations seems to be
this. Of the main intention of the Founder,
there generally can be no doubt: and there
can be none, that he might have been mistak-
en in speaking on particulars. Some particu-
lars, therefore, may justly be dispensed with,
when it is clearly seen, that the general and
main object is promoted by doing so.

Your case of the shipwrights'* widows of
Bristol, will enable me to illustrate this. You
suppose, that, if no such shipwrights should

exist, as would satisfy the express words of at
bequest made to them, then recourse must be
had to analogy ; and others may be allowed to
partake of the bounty. So far I allow your
case. But I affirm, what you indeed have al-
lowed, that it is unsuitable to our question.
Why then, dear Sir, did you propose it at
all ? I think, however, it may be so proposed
as to suit the case in question. Suppose then,
that in ancient times, certain estates were
bequeathed for the purpose of providing vessels
for our Navy. And suppose it had been par-
ticularly expressed, that such vessels, in order
to have the benefit of this bequest, must have so
many benches of oars, and, of course, a specific
number of men to work them. Now, I ask,
would the state be compelled for ever to
construct such vessels as these, because the deed
had so expressed itself? And could a company
of shipwrights, professing to construct such
vessels, lay the only good claim to the pro-
ceeds of these estates ? But suppose, further,
(which will exactly suit your Roman Catholic
case,) that this company, notwithstanding its
ancient and imposing pretensions, constructed
bad vessels ; that they were unsound and often
went down, so as almost universally to make
shipwreck both of the cargo and passengers
entrusted to them : and, suppose, in addition to
this, that the whole had long ago been discovered

to be a system of deception, of lying and fraud,
invented and kept up by a party of wicked and
designing men. Are we now, I ask, to argue
that none but this company could lay a good
claim to the rents of these estates ? Nothing
surely can be more monstrous ; and yet this is
virtually the thing for which you are contending !
Having, then, so far dealt with your several
positions, I shall now briefly notice your recapi-
tulation. At page 35 I am told, that " this title,"
viz. the grant of Tithes made by Ethelwulph,
I have laboured through forty pages to substan-
tiate, but that you find it "not even noticed
by those who stand high in the Church of
England, &c." For a refutation of this, I
refer you to what has now been said, which
must more than satisfy you. Next, as to the
quadripartite and tripartite division of Tithes,
it is said, " surely, after the authorities cited
on this head, my friend will not persist in
maintaining, &c." I answer, It has been shewn,
that not so much as one authority has yet been
adduced by you to prove, that any such division
as you contend for ever prevailed in any Church,
much less in the Church of England. In the
last place, I am told, that I must and will bow

to the doctrine laid down by that able lawyer

the Earl of Eldon : and if I do, I am bound
to acknowledge that the act of Henry VIII.
was an act of violence and spoliation ; as admitted

by Blackstone* and others, &€."" I answer, in
the first place, I have shewn that the judgment
of the Earl of Eldon has nothing whatever to do
with the matter at issue. I am not, therefore,
bound, on its account, to acknowledge either one
thing or another about any act of Henry VIII.
nor can I see, why I am called upon to pro-
nounce any opinion on the acts by which Henry
dissolved the Monasteries ; our question being
solely on the origin, &c. of the parochial Tithes.
If, indeed, the parish poor were generally made
sufferers by this act, they received compensa-

* What part of Blackstone you allude to, I know not : but I do
find Blackstone saying, " The poor of England, till the time of
Henry VIII. subsisted entirely upon private benevolence, and
the charity of well-disposed Christians. For though it appears by
the Mirrour, (c. 1. § 3.) that by the common law the poor were
to be " sustained by Parsons and Rectors of the Church, and the
parishioners... yet till the statute 27 Henry VIII. c. 25. I find
no compulsory method chalked out for the purpose... The Monas-
teries were, in particular, their principal resource." Vol. 1. p. 359*
Hale's Essay, p. 36. And, it is worth while to add, to what has
been given by Mr Hale, that John de Athon in his comment on
the constitution of Othobon "de institutionibus &c." after shewing
that Rectors and others hold not Church property as their own
but for the common good, determines, "et si qui supersunt, non
sunt proprii sed communes indigentibus et pauperibus erogandi."
He does not determine that it is legally or canonically any specific
portion. But what is still more remarkable, this Lawyer also
determines, under the constitution "de residentia vicariorum," that
these alms are not to be given to the parish poor exclusively. He
thinks, however, that one's neighbours have the first claun, "nisi
extranei magis indigerent." The nobles and people are also
commanded to give alms. Wilkins's Sax. Laws, pp. 86, 149;
191, 193. &c.

tidn in the poor-rate act, which was afterwards
passed by Elizabeth ; and which eventually bore
upon the parochial clergy, so as to extract from
their incomes a very large proportion of the relief
thus obtained ; but, took less, perhaps, from the
lay impropriators, as such, than was their equit-
able share*. The parochial Clergy, therefore,
were not gainers either by the one or the other
of those acts; but were losers by both. It is a
mistake, however, to suppose, as you seem to do,
that the parochial poor were ever wholly support-
ed, either by the parish Clergy, or the Monas-
teries. For, in some of those ancient constitu-
tions, to which you are so apt to refer, the Clergy
are called upon to admonish their hearers, to be

* If you will take the trouble to look into Mr Hale's Essay
on the division of Tithes, part ii. pp. 21 — 32, you will find proof
positive, that the Monasteries were far less liberal in bestowing
alms on the poor, than you are willing to have it believed. I
myself have great doubts whether they amounted, on the whole, to
any thing like the sums now contributed by the parochial Clergy,,
In the first item occurring, I find four appropriated Rectories, worth
an annual income of £199. 7^- 5|c/. Out of this sum, £1. 19*.
was distributed in alms. That is, not one hundredth part was
given. Now, I have heard of a Vicarage, which is thought to be
a good benifice, from the otherwise clear proceeds of which, the
poor do, in one way or other, annually receive a sum amounting to
more than one fourth part. If you doubt the truth of this latter
statement, I think I can obtain a copy of the particulars for you.
I will not say, that in all instances, the alms of the Abbeys, &c.
were so low, as here stated, nor the outgoings of Vicarages so great ;
but I think I may say, that in all cases the parochial Clergy pay
a far greater proportion of their revenues towards the support of the
poor, than the Monasteries, &c. ever did.

liberal in bringing to the Church the alms for the
poor : and facts have been adduced to shew, that
parochial and other provisions were made for
the relief of the poor, quite independent of that
expected from the Monasteries, or from the pa-
rochial Clergy, long before the time of Henry
VIII.*

To sum up the whole of this argument. I
have shewn from documents of the most unex-
ceptionable character, and from the testimonies
of men, confessedly the most learned and judi-
cious on this subject, that the historical accounts
of the grant of Tithes to the English Church
by Ethelwulph are worthy of all acceptation ;
and that he who doubts of this, can receive the
testimony of no ancient historian or writer what-
soever, either sacred or profane.

I have shewn, in the second place, that from
all the historical evidence hitherto produced, and
I will add, that can be produced from documents
hitherto made public, no conclusion can be
drawn to shew, that any such quadrupartite, or
tripartite, division of Tithes as that which you
contend for, ever obtained in this country. I
have also shewn, that the documents cited by
you have either been misunderstood, or misap-
plied ; and, therefore, that no reliance can be
placed on the conclusions which you have de-
duced from them.

* See Mr Hale's Essay, part 11. § 5, 6.

And, lastly, I have shewn, that the cases
adduced by you to prove, that these Tithes are
now due to the Clergy or the Roman Catholic
Church, are quite beside the point, and futile.

It is true then, after all, notwithstanding
the assertions of your Society, in their " brief
statement" to the contrary, that these Tithes
were originally voluntary contributions and no-
thing more, made, by those who had the power
to make them, for the purpose of honouring God :
and, therefore, that they are perfectly of a
piece with those voluntary contributions made
by Johanna the wife of Chuza and others, for
the maintenance of our Lord and his Disciples
during his ministry, and not unlike those afforded
for the support of the Apostle Paul, during his
arduous and multifarious labours : and, conse-
quently, that they are not contrary, but agreeable,
to Scriptural usage.

It is also true, whatever your "brief inquiry"
may contain to the contrary, that Ethelwulph
was, at the head of his state, and with the con-
currence of his nobles, fully competent to make
this grant. And it is likewise true, maugre
all that your "Strictures" either affirm or insi-
nuate, that the documents from which this in-
formation has been collected, are both authentic
and genuine, and could not possibly have been
forgeries of the Cloisters. What you may here-
after produce, in the new attack on the Church

of England threatened in your Strictures, it is
quite impossible for me to say ; but sure I am,
that in this, carried on through the Tithe-system,
you have experienced a most complete failure
in every step of your course. You may,
indeed, have satisfied yourself and a few of your
immediate friends, that all this has been done
for the pure love of truth, and for the further-
ance of the everlasting Gospel. No impartial
reader, however, can ever come to such a con-
clusion.

One word on the case of conscience, ad-
vanced in the " Brief Statement^"* of your Soci-
ety, and in the " Concise History'' by yourself.
It is affirmed that Tithes cannot, on Scriptural
grounds, be conscientiously paid. I have shewn,
that they are mere temporal provisions, given,
not by the Church either of England or of
Rome, as such, nor with immediate reference
to any doctrine of the Gospel, but, as voluntary
contributions, in pur am et liber am eleemosynam^
pure and free almonry: to be held in consi-
deration of divine services done; and for the
promotion of good neighbourhood, by the ex-
ercise of hospitality towards the rich, and of
alms-giving and other assistance afforded to the
poor. They have, therefore, constituted matter,
first for Royal grant, and afterwards for Par-
liamentary regulation. Their payment has been
provided for, by fixing a sort of rent-charge on

the land; which land has, ever since the grant
was made, been voluntarily bought, sold, or
occupied by leasehold or otherwise, at a reduced
price, in consequence of this charge. This has
been discussed and allowed. These Tithes are,
therefore, matter of temporal arrangement purely.
They have never yet entered into any article of
faith, nor can they, any more than the rate of
rental of such lands, or the taxes imposed by
Government can : and you might as well attempt
to make the contents of your lardour, your
warehouse, or your purse, matter for questions
of conscience in religion, as you can these or
any other such temporal arrangements whatso-
ever. And, as I have shewn that the claim
is ancient and good, and further that the
Tithe-payer is a gainer and not a loser under
it, I maintain that the complaint which you
have set up and circulated, is groundless,
deceptive, and calculated, if listened to, greatly
to injure those whom you profess to befriend,
the Tithe-payers and the poor of this country.
Having dismissed our main question, then,
I may now notice a few of those passages
occurring in the early part of your Strictures,
which, hitherto, I have passed over. In page
4, a passage is cited from my first Letter,
in which I said, that your Body, i. e. the
Friends, " appear never to have made the
Holy Scriptures their study, and are not re-

markable for soundness of mind in other re-
spects." You then proceed to tell your reader
what this negative mode of expression must
necessarily mean. But this, as you had already
noticed it, you seem to say might have been
borne, had I not bestowed another character-
istic on your Body, in my Second Letter. My
words are then cited, thus: " Political feel-
ings have had more to do in raising these
objections and complaints, than any real de-
sire for the advancement of truth either re-
ligious or moral."' I must remind you here,
my dear Sir, that you have given a garbled
extract from my Advertisement, and one too,
which misrepresents my statements. My words
are, " / am afraid^ however, that political feel-
ings, Sec."" not directly, as your extract gives
them. — This, I must say, is as unfair, as your
comment accompanying the other extract, is un-
necessary and unforbearing.

But, taking the assertion in the extent which
you have given it, let me ask you. Is it too
much to say, that Tracts written professedly on
the nature and effects of Parliamentary enact-
ments, and on a question " likely soon to become
a subject of Parliamentary discussion and ad-
justment,"' are not political ? Is it affirming
too much to say, that "political feelings have
had more to do in raising these objections and
complaints, than any real desire for the advance-

ment of truth either religious or moral ? "" Is it
too much to assert, that, from your own shew-
ing, human policy, and human policy alone, is
at the bottom of all this ; and, that the party
putting it forth, is infinitely more intent on the
things of this world, than on those which are of
a purely spiritual nature ?

I know full well how anxious you are to
have it believed, that the appointment of Tithe-
payments is so closely connected with the Chris-
tian Religion, that no Christian can conscien-
tiously accede to it. This, if I rightly under-
stand you, is the main drift of all your arguments,
as well as of those published in the " Brief State-
ment" by your Society. Yet you say (p. 26.)
of your " Brief Inquiry : "" •' It may not be
amiss to remind the clergy of the Church of
England, that as they derive their authority
for enriching themselves with the spoils of the
Church of Rome entirely from an act of the
British Parliament ; so, an act of the same
Parliament, may, at any time, entirely deprive
them of these spoils.'''' Now, not to insist on
the groundless character of this statement, will
any man tell me that this is not altogether poli-
tical ? Do we find any thing like it in all the
Prophets, Evangelists, Apostles, or of our Lord
himself, in their or his efforts for the further-
ance of his spiritual kingdom ? If, indeed. Acts
of Parliament, and the Acts of the Apostles,

Prophets, &c. have, after all, precisely the same
bearing and object ; then is Christ'^s kingdom
of this world, notwithstanding all he might have
said to the contrary ; and then may w^e com-
bine God and Mammon ; and light and dark-
ness shall henceforth know no distinguishing
boundary, but all shall amicably amalgamate
for the temporal and spiritual welfare of man-
kind !

When you have duly considered this, I
think you must grant, that political feelings
have had much more to do with your argu-
ments and objects, than you have been willing
to allow.

But, when you make me to say, that your
Body are " political intriguers under the hypo-
critical mask,'' &c. &c. You go very unneces-
sarily out of your way, and make an effort
to enlist into your cause all the worst feelings
both of your own Body and of others. I have
distinctly and repeatedly allowed, that your
Body is highly respectable. This I shall always
allow. I must, at the same time, say that I
cannot, therefore, allow that they are remark-
able for soundness of mind. This I can allow
to no Body who suffers itself to be schooled in
the principles of Barclay : — principles which, I
think I can shew, have been extracted primarily
from the writings of Aristotle, and secondarily
from the School-Divinity of the dark ages. You

must not, my dear Sir, take fire at this: I
say it more " in sorrow than in anger :" and
to warn you of your danger, not to offend you.

The Scriptures cited by you at pp. 10, 11,
I must say, are, as on former occasions, misap-
plied. I have no wish for the advancement of
worldly learning except for the furtherance of
religion and of real knowledge ; not in op-
position to these. I do think, however, that
those, who are teachers of Religion, ought to
Study to shew themselves approved of God,
workmen, that need not to he ashamed, rightly
dividing the word of truth ; and, that for this
purpose, they ought, among other things, to
''give attention to reading.'''' In this respect,
we cannot, perhaps, be too learned. Our know-
ledge in the matters of Revelation, cannot
surely be too great ; nor our prayers for the
divine aid, effectually to apply this, too earnest,
or too constant. To be " filled with all the
fulness of God," and to be made to drink deeply
into the Spirit of Christ, so as to have all joy
and peace in believing, are I know, the great
ends to be had in view, in our sojourning here.
And, I must add, that while we labour to rea-
lize these things, for ourselves individually ; to
exhibit the genuine fruits of the Spirit, " Love,
joy, peace, longsuffering, goodness, meekness,
faith," &c. will constitute the only proofs to
others, that our faith is well founded, and our

conversion real. I say this, to shew you, that
when you virtually represent me as an advo-
cate for mere worldly learning, you deceive
yourself and wrong me.

I shall only say, in conclusion, that when
your promised direct attack on the Established
Church shall appear, in which you propose to
shew that certain Orthodox Dissenters have a
greater right to the Tithes, than its Clergy,
it will be quite early enough for me to say,
whether I shall be disposed to follow you or
not.

And now, my dear Sir, having answered
all your objections, and exposed most of your
fallacies, I remain.

J, i i^^liiCtXiJ,

Your''s very faithfully,

SAMUEL LEE.

-*i^/<

.H»* . /'/T

^.'

»SS^

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "A brief inquiry into the question whether a Christian can reasonably and conscientiously object to the payment of tithes"

See other formats