the apostle writeth thus: When we were amongst you, we declared this unto you, that he that would not work, should not eat.' Wherefore the law of nature doth license all such as have the governance of kingdoms, to correct the abuse of the temporalities, which would be the chief cause of the destruction of their kingdoms; whether the temporal lords, or any other, had endowed the church with those temporalities or not. It is lawful for them in some cases to take away the temporalities, as it were by way of physic to withstand siu, notwithstanding any excommunication, or other ecclesiastical censure; forasmuch as they are not endowed, but only with condition thereunto annexed.

:

"Hereby it appeareth, that the condition annexed to the endowing or enriching of any church, is, that God should be honoured which condition if it once fail, the contrary taking place, the title of the gift is lost, and consequently the lord who gave the alms ought to correct the offence." iii. 82.

This is, as I have said, the sixteenth reason. I earnestly wish the reader to look at the others, though it does not seem worth while to transcribe them; and how anybody could think it worth while to reprint such matter I am at a loss to imagine. The first is that Solomon deposed Abiathar. 2. Nebuchadnezzar carried away the Israelites to Babylon. 3. Jehoash sent the treasures of the temple to Hazael. 4. Hezekiah gave them to the king of the Assyrians. 5. That it is lawful in time of necessity to use anything, be it ever so much consecrated. 6. Titus and Vespasian had power given them by God to take away the temporalities from the priests, &c. It is not worth while even to catalogue such rubbish; but we may just notice the beginning of the fourteenth reason, which stands rather oddly in a work put forth as containing "the sound principles of the protestant Reformation;"" Item, the temporal lords may take away the temporalities of such as use simony" [not because they may properly deprive them of what is not legally theirs, but] "because they are heretics." The twentieth tells us

"Item, by like power may he who giveth a stipend or exhibition, withdraw and take away the same from the unworthy labourers, as he hath power to give the same unto the worthy labourers; forasmuch then as temporalities of the clergy are the stipends of the laity, it followeth that the lay-people may, by as good authority, take away again the same from the clergy who will not worthily labour, as they might, by their power, bestow the same upon those who would not worthily labour, according to the saying of the gospel [Matt. xxi.], The kingdom shall be taken away from you, and given unto a people which shall bring the fruits thereof.'

We are told in the recommendatory letter to which I am obliged so frequently to allude that this " book is especially suited" for the use of "our beloved Irish brethren" while their "circumstances must too often preclude them from the purchase." And what has brought them into such circumstances but anti-tithe agitation? With all my heart and soul I acquit the originators of this new edition of any intention, or any feeling of the kind; but how could any man devise more bitter mockery than to throw in their teeth-under the profsesion too of effectually disseminating "the sound principles of the Protestant Reformation," and under such a head line as "THE DEFENCE OF WICKLIFFE BY JOHN HUSS," such matter as this

"Item, the most easy reformation of the clergy to the life of Christ and the Apostles, and the most profitable to the laity (that the clergy should not live contrary to Christ), seemeth to be the withdrawing of their alms, and the taking away of those things, which had been bestowed upon them. And it is thus proved: that medicine is the most apt to be laid to the sore, whereby the infirmity may soonest be holpen,

and which is most agreeable to the patients; such is the taking away of the temporalities" "It seemeth, also, by the law of conscience to pertain unto the laypeople, forasmuch as every man who worketh any work of mercy, ought diligently to have respect unto the ability of them that he bestoweth his alms upon; lest by nourishing or helping loiterers, he be made partaker of their offence. Whereupon, if priests do not minister in their spiritual things, as of their tithes, first-fruits and oblations, as Hortiensis teacheth in his third book, THE PEOPLE ought to take away the alms of their tithes from them."

This the Irish Clergy are to circulate through their parishes, and if the ignorant people neglect to use their salutary power, they are to send up petitions to her Most Gracious Majesty, praying that she would, as in duty bound on such petition, relieve them, for ;

"Whatsoever any of the clergy doth require or desire of the secular power, according unto the law and ordinance of Christ, the secular power ought to perform and grant the same. But the clergy, being hindered by riches, ought to require help of the secular power, for the dispensation of the said riches. Ergo, the secular power ought, in such case, by the law of Christ, to take upon it the office or duty of getting, keeping, and distributing, all such manner of riches.” iii. 84.*

But let us proceed from Huss's defence of Wickliff to a disputation of his own which occupies nearly five very close-printed pages, and of which the proposition is that "Tithes are pure alms." Could we be sure that it would only injure and mislead those who read and understand the whole, we might consider it as harmless-but let us take a specimen.

"Item, for the proof of this article, That tithes are pure alms, it is thus argued. For this proposition, Tithes are pure alms, is infinite; taking the truth for many of its particularities. It is most certain that it is not damnable, but most catholic, that God is something; which being false in all particulars, it is only true for that alone which doth surmount all kind. Ergo, by like reason, this particular is true, tenths are pure alms: for it is thus proved. These tenths of a good layman being wholly distributed by a faithful minister unto a needy layman, according to a good intent, how can they be but pure alms, yea, and more pure than any alms given by any of the clergy who may be a fornicator? The whole antecedent I suppose as possible, and doubtful unto the condemners, if it be true." iii. 91.

He afterwards states in the same disputation ;

"It seemeth to follow, consequently, that all the clergy receiving such alms are not only in respect of God, as all other men, but in respect of men, beggars. For they would not so instantly require those alms except they had need of them: neither ought we to be ashamed thereof, or to be proud beggars." ibid. 92.

And then, having quoted several of the fathers, &c., he adds ;

"By these sayings of these holy men it is evidently declared, that not only tithes, but also all other substance which the clergy have by gift or work of mercy are pure alms, which, after the necessity of the clergy is once satisfied, ought to be transported unto the poor." ibid. 93.

What is meant by satisfying "the necessity of the clergy" will appear more fully as we proceed. In the meantime, I will just say

I trust that this reason may not be the less acceptable to those of my brethren for whom the "book is especially suited," because it is the twenty-fifth of the twentyfour reasons. At least, in perfect keeping with the whole getting up of the work it is so called in the margin, and it seems as if there were twenty-four without it. But perhaps as the title speaks of" four and twenty reasons out of the Scriptures," we are to understand that the twenty-fifth is from some other quarter, as in fact it seems to be.

that perhaps the reader can hardly construe it too strictly. Indeed the allowing them anything like superfluity was one of the faults against which Fox particularly entered his own protest. In a note on the popish reasons of "Bishop Edven" he says

"Concerning mens giving to the church in these our popish days, four faults I

note.

First that they give superfluously more than is sufficient to necessity of life.” ii. 621.

To proceed, however,-Fox gives a list of the articles exhibited against a priest named William Swinderby, before the Bishop of Lincoln, in A.D. 1389. He says, "in form of words as they put them up, they might seem somewhat strange to be here recited; yet, to the intent that all men may see the spiteful malice of these spider-friars, in sucking all things to poison, and in forging that which is not true" he gives them, and some are these ;

"That if parishioners do know their curate to be a lecher, incontenent, and an evil man, they ought to withdraw from him their tithes, or else they be fautors of his sins.

"That tithes be purely alms, and that in case curates be evil men, the same may lawfully be conferred on other men." iii. 107.

These articles Swinderby abjured. Fox boldly declares that "he had never preached, taught, or at any time defended them, as appeareth more in the process following"-that is to say, a process against him for subsequent proceedings in the diocese of Hereford, in which process (whatever may be said of some of the other articles) he seems to me to make rather a lame business of these two; though we are of course to understand that Fox considered his explanation quite satisfactory.

"The second conclusion, that false friars and lecherous priests putten upon me was this: That if the parochiens know her curate to bene a lechour, incontinent, and an euill man, they owen to withdraw from him tithe; and else they bene fautours of his sinnes.

Thus I said not, but on this wise, and yet I say with protestation put before: That if it be knowne openlie to the people, that parsons or curates come to their benefice by simonie, and liuen in notorie fornication, and done not their office and her duties to her parochiens by good ensample of holie life, in true preaching, living and residence, wending awaie from his cure, occupied in secular office, he owes nought to have of the parochiens, tithes, ne offringes, nehem owes not to hold him for their curate, ny hem owes not to geuen him tithes, lest they bin guiltie to God of consent and maintaining of her open sinne. Nemo militans Deo, implicat se negotiis secularibus' 1. quest. 1. ca. Quisquis per pecuniam,' and dist. 80. cap. 'Si quis.'

The third conclusion was this, that friers and priestes putten upon me: That tithes purely bene almesses: and in case that curates bene euill men, they mowen leefullie be given to other men, by temporall Lords, and other temporalties been done away from men of the church actuallie and openlie trespassing.

This I said not in these termes, but thus I say with protestation made before : That it were modefull and leeful to secular lords by way of charitie, and power geuen to hem of God, in default of Prelates that amend not by God's lawe, cursed curates that openlie misusen the goods of holy church, that ben poor mens goods and customablie against the law of God: the which poore men, lordes ben holden to maintaine and defend, to take away and withdraw from such curates, poore mens goodes, the which they wrongfullie holden in helpe of the poore, and their owne willful offeringes, and their bodily almes deeds, and geue them to such that duly serue God in ye church, and beene needy in upbearinge of the charge that prelats shoulden doe, and done it not. 'Alter alterius onera portate, et sic adimplebitis legem Christi.' And as anenste taking awaie of temporalities I say thus with protestation made before: That it is

leefull to Kings, princes, dukes, and lordes of the worlde, to take awaie fro popes, cardinals, fro bishops and prelates, possessiones in the church, their temporalities, and their almes, that they have giuen them upon condition they shoulden serue God the better, when they verelie sene that their giuing and their taking bene contrarie to the law, of God, to Christes liuing and his apostles: and namelie in that, that they taken vppon them (that shoulden be next followers of Christ and his apostles in poorenesse and meeknesse) to be secular lords: against the teaching of Christ and St. Peter. Luc. xxii. Reges gentium. Et. 1 Pet. v. Neque dominantes in clero.' And namelie when such temporalties maken them the more proud, both in heart and in araie, then they shoulden bene else, more in strife and debate against peace and charitie, and in euil ensample to the world more to be occupied in worldly businesse: Omnem solicitudinem proiicientes in eum ;' and drawes them from the service of God, from edifying of Christes church, in empouerishing and making less the state and the power of Kinges, princes, dukes, and lords that God hath set them in; in wrongful oppression of commons for vnmightfulnesse of realmes. For Paul saith to men of the church (whose lore prelates shoulden soveraignlie followen), Habentes victum et vestitum, hiis contenti simus" "iii. 114, and see also p. 122.

One of the disciples of Swinderby was Walter Brute, "a layman' and learned of the diocese of Hereford" against whom certain articles "touching the cause of heresy as they call it" were set forth; one of them being that ;

"The aforesaid Walter hath said commonly, and avouched, and also hath laboured to inform men and companies, that no man is bound to give tithes or oblations; and if any man will needs give, he may give his tithes and oblations to whom he will, excluding thereby their curates." iii. 232.

Another article charges that ;

"The aforenamed Walter hath openly, publicly, and notoriously, said, avouched, and stubbornly affirmed, that the said William's" [that is, William Swinderby's] "answers, (whereof notice hath been given before) are good, righteous, and not able to be convinced in that they contain no error."

This case is the more worthy of notice, because it appears that Fox had occasional qualms about stating this doctrine so very broadly as some of those whom he represents as martyrs very commonly did. I have elsewhere remarked that in the Articles of the Waldenses, which he professes to give with most scrupulous accuracy, and which say that the ministers of the church should be supported by alms only, he has inserted the word tithes; * and in this case, he endeavours by marginal glosses to make the reader believe that Walter Brute meant only to say (a thing vastly worth saying, and which, I believe, few readers would discover in his language) that christians were not bound to pay tithes by the Mosaic law. Fox's treatment of Walter Brute's "more ample tractation" belongs however to another part (if in default of vindication it must form a part) of the subject. I am at present only speaking of the doctrine held by those whom Fox represents as eminently holy men respecting temporalities; and though a great deal might be quoted from this writer yet perhaps a few words may suffice to shew his opinion, not as stated by his enemies, but as explained by himself;

"Wherefore, seeing that neither Christ, nor any of his apostles, commanded to pay tithes, it is manifest and plain that neither by the law of Moses, nor by Christs

* Review of Fox's History of the Waldenses.

law Christian people are bound to pay tithes; but by the tradition of men they are bound." iii. 152.

This means only (as a note of Fox would have us believe) "Tithes due, to be paid by the law of men." But as I may have occasion to speak of him hereafter, it may be sufficient now to say of Walter Brute that he is acknowledged to have been a disciple of William Swinderby and, as we have already seen, is said to have affirmed that his leader's answers did "contain no error."

After this account of Walter Brute, there is an anonymous letter also declaring that "the conclusions of Swinderby be agreeable to the faith in every part," iii. 189. It is subscribed (apparently without offence to either Fox or his editor) "By the Spirit of God sometime visiting you."

I am afraid that these extracts may be rather tedious; but I cannot bring myself to apologize for their length; for in a matter so important, I would not make a man an offender for a word, or attempt the proof by one or two detached sentences. On the contrary, I consider these as only prefatory, and serving to introduce some others which I hope to send. I am, my dear Sir, yours very truly S. R. MAITLAND.*

THE CONVERSION OF JOHN THAULER, A DOMINICAN MONK, (Continued from p. 29.)

AFTER about three weeks more, Thauler again sent a messenger for the Layman, and on his arrival thus addressed him :

THAULER. Give me joy, my son; for, by God's grace, I seem now to be perfect in your alphabet, and, if you please, I shall be glad to recite it.

LAYMAN. There is no occasion, sir. I have no doubt of your knowing it, and I give you much joy of it.

THAULER. It is with difficulty that I mastered this lesson; but I now beseech you to give me yet further instruction.

LAYMAN. Of myself, Mr. Doctor, I certainly can go no further; but, if Almighty God shall please to teach you more through me, I will not refuse to do my part, and will be a willing, though unworthy instrument through which he may work his good pleasure. I will give you no other counsel than what he gives and suggests to me, and this out of pure love to God and you. And if your case is like that of the young man who, on being told by our Lord to give up everything, went away sorrowful, the fault will not be mine.

THAULER. Don't be uneasy, my son; for I have so strengthened my mind, that I shall reckon as nothing what may henceforward happen to me, but will follow God's counsel and yours, and be obedient.

By a series of mistakes, the proof of this letter did not reach Mr. Maitland in time to receive his correction, and the copy was quite out of the reach of the person on whom the duty of correction devolved at the last moment.

VOL. XIII.-Feb. 1838.

S