Vindiciae Medio-Saxonicae, OR, Tithes totally Routed, BY MAGNA CHARTA IN A Reply to an Answer of Middlesex Letter and Petition, in the latter end of a Tract, called, A Treatise of Tithes.  
WHEREIN The Invalidity of the said Treatisers Arguments are fully manifested, and the said Letter and Petition clearly vindicated from Error and Mistake.  
BY AUG. WINGFIELD, A Member of this present PARLIAMENT.  
LONDON, Printed by F. L. for William Larnar, at the Blackmore near Fleet-Bridge, 1653.   

Tithes totally routed, by Magna Charta.  
HAving perused a Treatise of Tithes penned by way of Answer to its Opponents, by one, as it is conceived, of the long Robe; we thought fit to give timely admonition, that though he pretend to be a well wisher to Religion and Propriety, yet when he speaketh fair, men believe him not; for there are, it is to be feared, seven Abominations in his heart, who though his Sophisticated Arguments be covered with deceit, yet shall his wickedness be showed before the whole Congregation. Prov. 26.25, 26.  
In his Epistle to the Reader, he discovers both his spirit and his pride, censuring his Antagonists, as clamorous malicious ignorants, though perhaps in the judgement of unbiased Moderators, more learned, peaceable, and more Evangelically spirited than himself. But fearing lest his great Diana Tithes, the Nursery of contention and strife, should in these days of Reformation, and restauration of public Freedom and liberty, like Dagon before the Ark, fall to the ground and come to nought; he hath therefore, out of his worldly wisdom, judged it very opportune (both in reference to himself and also to his Clients the Tith-taking Priesthood and Impropriator) in this extremity of time, to force into his Aid a Catalogue of Acts of Parliament, though to little purpose, since few of them before the Statutes of H. 8. intimate so much as a right, much less command the payment of Parochial Tithes to Priests or others, as if this Respondent would make us all believe, that Ubi nomen Decim●, ibi argumentum Decimand●, that wheresoever in any Statute the word tithe is found, there is an argument for Tithing: though by his leave in some of them by him quoted there is not so much as the name 
* 〈◊〉 Char. c. 1●. Ma●●. c. 5.25. ●. 1. 〈…〉 : But although he and his Tith-taking Brethren have a long time, like Simeon and E●vi, confederated together, not only to make us ignorants, but still to keep so, by persuading of us and our fore fathers, That Tithes were first due by Divine Law, then by Canon Law, and now by Statute Law: yet are we and the good people of England resolved to be no longer deluded by them with their Paralogisms, and deceitful reasonings.  
And therefore that we may no longer digress by way of preface, we shall now come to reply, and to examine those two grand objections, which the Author of the said Treatise raiseth against the Middlesex Letter and Petition in the Expository opening of those two Statutes of Magna Charta. ch. 29. and 1. R. 2. ch. 14. where this Respondent saith pag. 13. That for the Penner of the said Letter and Petition to make the People believe, that the payment of Tithes is against Magna Charta, is such an exposition as was never made upon that Statute, and therefore to rectify this Error (as he calls it) he hath laboured, though in vain, to overthrow the said exposition, and those invincible arguments built upon it, and to set up his own contrary interpretation and false assertion, (viz.) That Tithes and the payment thereof by the people, were confirmed by Magna Charta, ch. 1. under the Notion of Church rights.  
And first for proof thereof he saith, pag. 14. That by the Common Law of this Land, at the confirmation of Magna Charta, Ecclesiastical persons had remedy to recover their Tithes in the Spiritual Court, and then concludes, that the Law gives no remedy but where there is a right: which assertion is very untrue. For Cook upon Tithes faith, That by the Common Law Lands are undecimable, and if undecimable, then certainly by that Law there can be no Church right to Tithes, neither to be recovered by virtue thereof in the Spiritual, or Pope's Court, Since the people of England were not bound in Law by his Cannons. Neither is Cook single in his opinion, For Selden foe 291 saith, That Arbitrary disposition of Tithes used by the Laity, as well de jure, of right, (as the positive Law then received and practised was) as de facto, of deed and practice, is that which Wickleff remembered in his Complaint to the King and Parliament under R. 2. The substance whereof in brief, is, That the proud and pompous Priests did constrain the poor People of England (viz. by Popish Canons) to pay their Tithes unto them, whereas within a few years before, they paid their Tithes and Offerings at their own free will and pleasure. Which is also attested by Ludlow a Judge of Assize in E. 3. who saith, That in ancient time a man might give his tithe to what Church he would; which is true says Judge Brook in Abridging the case. Selden fol. 252.  
And the said Author further saith, fo. 290. That under Innocent the 3d. it was usual in fact for Laymen by the practice of the Law at that time both Common and Canon, to convey the right of their Tithes, as Rent-charges or the like, to what Church or Monastery they pleased, and such Conveyances were clearly good. And whereas the Author of the said Treatise, p. 14. quoteth Mr. Selden for his Authority of Parochial right, he is clearly mistaken, since Mr. Seldens judgement in the same place immediately following is clearly to the contrary, and that which is here alleged as the Treatisers main Argument, is nothing but the opinion of the Canonists recited by Mr. Selden, and by him in the same and following pages fully confuted, pag. 144, 146.  
Moreover Magna Charta is, by Act of Parliament made in 25 E. 1. called, the Confirmation of the Charters, adjuged and declared to be the Common Law of the Land; which if true, as it is most true, than Tithes being not so much as named, much less confirmed by Magna Charta, are not due by the Common Law, (as the said Respondent weakly supposeth) and so not at all under Ecclesiastical cognisance.  
But he objecteth and saith, That Tithes are contained in these words, The Church's Rights, Mag. Char. cap. 1. for further satisfaction whereof, see Cooks exposition upon the very same words, where he saith, that Ecclesiastical persons shall enjoy their lawful jurisdictions, and other their rights (but not one word of Tithes) without diminution, and that no new Rights were given unto them hereby, but such as they had before confirmed: Now if no new Rights were given, than not Tithes, since the Author of the said Treatise confesseth p. 14. that the Common Right of Tithes due to the Rector of the Parish, is but from the time of K. John, and then, as M. Selden (whom he quoteth) p. 146. declareth, not so much as in opinion established, whereby it is evident, not only by Selden and his own confession, but also in the judgement of Cook, that at the confirmation of Magna Charta, Tithes were not at all comprehended in the Rights of the Church.  
Which will yet more fully appear if we consult Mr. Seldens book of Tithes, and the Roll of Winton. In the first whereof pag. 137. It is delivered for a clear truth, that there never was any Canon of any General Council as yet found, that purposely commanded payment of Tithes, nor any that expressly supposed them a duty of Common right, before the Council of Lateran, under Pope Innocent the 3d. 1615: So that at the Council of Lateran, which was in the latter end of K. John, and but 12 years or thereabouts before the confirmation of Magna Charta by H. the 3d. Tithes were not due by common right, that is by Common Law, and so consequently no rights of the Church. And if not then due by Common Law, then certainly not at the confirming of Magna Charta, since in the judgement of all, both Canonists and Common Lawyers, 12 years is not a competency of time, either for custom, or prescription, the one allowing 40 years at least, the other time out of mind.  
And yet to proceed, this Respondent doth further acknowledge, p. 14. that there was no Parochial Right of Tithes till after the Council of Lateran aforesaid, 1615. and that after the Decretal Epistle of Innocent the 3d sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury in the year aforesaid, the right of Tithes was allowed (but you must know by whom, (viz.) the Pope and his Clergy, not the People) and so became Lex Terrae, a Law of the Land, which are likewise the words and judgement of Cook: Now of what force and validity, a Right of Tithes, grounded upon a Canon of the Pope, and diametrically repugnant to Magna Charta can be, let all men judge; since Cook their Oracle hath declared in his Chapter of Tithes, that all Canons which are against the Common Law, or Custom of the Land, are of no force.  
Now as to the Roll of Winton, called by some Doomsday Book, which was a survey of all the Lands & Revenues both of Clergy & Laity, exactly taken by Commiss. in every County throughout the Nation, and returned into the Exchequer about the latter end of the Conquerors Reign, It is there Recorded in particular what the Revenues and deuce of every Presbyter and Church were, but yet notwithstanding very rarely, if at all, are any Tithes found among the Church Revenues. So that hence it is most clear, First, that in William the Conqueror's time, Tithes were no Revenus nor rights of the Church; nor yet Secondly, in H. 2. his time, fee the Letter and Petition, p. 5. And lastly, by the Authors own confession they became due only but from the latter end of K. John's Reign, and that grounded merely upon a Popish Canon, contrary to Magna Charta, which is acknowledged by the Learned, to be the Common Law of England, both before and after the Conquest.  
The second and last objection which the Author of the said Treatise maketh, is upon our exposition of the Statute of 1 R. 2. cap. 14. which we shall here make good to be most genuine and true, notwithstanding his false calumniation; and that his Anti-exposition is most absurd and false, and such as had not Custom wrought another Nature in him, to speak and write untruly, could never have fell from him. Now the question between us is, whether the Averment there spoken of be Lay Averment, and so to be made by the Plaintiff, according to his exposition, or Church Averment, and so to be made by the Defendant, according to our exposition: whether of which is most true, we shall leave to every one to judge, by opening unto you the Nature of Averment out of the judgement of the Learned, and by holding forth such reasons as shall in brief be produced.  
And first cowels Interpreter saith, That Averment signifieth (according to the Author of Terms of the Law) an offer of the Defendant to make good or to justify an exception pleaded in abatement or bar of the Plaintiffs Act. And Sir Hen. Smith in his book of Law fo. 359 also saith, That Averments must be offered to be proved true in Barrs. 1. Answers, Replications, Rejoinders, etc. but not in Counts and Declarations. And of the same judgement is Sir Edw. Cook, in his first part of Institutes foe, 362. So that it is evident, Averments are properly to be made by Defendants in their answears, or in after plead, and not by Plaintiffs in their Declarations: unless in some few particular cases, of which this is none, as is evident, not only by the Grammatical, and Logical Construction of the said Statute, but even in the judgement of Learned Rastal, a justice of the Common-pleas, in Q. Mary's days; who to out the question out of doubt hath set it down in the margin of his Abridgement of the Statutes, to be Church Averment, which we conceive to be a final determination of the question.  
And as 〈◊〉 your Ordinance of Nou. 1644. for the payment of Tithes, we … y conceive it to be the judgement of all the learned, that it is of no longer validity than during Parliamentary Session which is now dissolved upon sure grounds of Piety, Public ●●●dome, right reason, and honesty: and that notwithout the General consent of the major part, either precedent, or subsequent, of the Supreme Authority, the People.  
Now by what hath been said it will easily appear who doth most abuse and misled the People, and whether exposition of Magna Charta and the other Statute of R. 2. is most true. That of the Letter and Petition, backed with right reason, and the Authorities of great Lawyers and learned judges, or that of the Author of the Treatise, being a fancy of his own brain, and raised out of implicit Terms, which he that belieus, had need of of a Popish and implicit faith.   
FINIS.