THE FOUNDATION OF TYTHES SHAKEN And the Four Principal Posts of Divine Institution Primitive Practice Voluntary Donations Positive Laws on which the nameless Author of the Book called The Right of Tythes Asserted and Proved hath set his pretended Right to Tythes Removed in a Reply to the said Book By Thomas Ellwood The Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change aâ—so of the 〈◊〉 Hebr 7. 12. For there is verily a 〈◊〉 â—f the Commandment going before â—â—c vers 18. In Augustine's time it was no general Law nor Custom in the Church that Tythes should be paid Willet's Sympâ—â— of Popery 5th Gen. Controv. pag. 314. Nemo plus â—uâ—is ad Alium transfâ—rre potest quam ipse habeâ—et Uâ—pian i. e. No man can make a better Title to another than he himself hath Id uod nostrum est sine facto nostro a nobis â—velli non potest Reg. Jur. i. e. That which is our own may not be taken away frâ—m us without our own act Printed in the year 1678. THE PREFACE Reader ONe of the great Faults which the witty Erasmus pleasantly taxed Luther with was this That he medled with the Monks Bellies for indeed that zealous Reformer did smartly inveigh against the Pride Idleness Luxury Voluptuousness and greedy Covetousness of the then Clâ—rgy I have of late been also drawn to meddle a little with the Priests Bellies the Occasion for which was thus offered by one of themselves Somewhat more than two years ago a Book was published by a Nameless Priest bearing the Title of A Friendly Conference between a Minister and a Parishioner of his inclining to Quakerism c. In the latter part of which he made Tythes the Subject of his Conference When I had read that Book and had observed that in some parts of it the Author thereof had greatly abused and mis-represented the People called Quakers in others had endeavoured to deceive his Reader by Sophistical and Fallacious Arguments I writ an Answer to the whole under the Title of Truth Prevailing c. which I divided into several Chapters according to the various Subjects treated of the last of which was Tythes This pinching the Priests in a tender part the Belley made them bestir themselves and lay their Heads together to consider what was to be done After divers Debates and much Consultation as I have been inâ—ormed about it another Book written by another Hand but without a Name too at length came forth entituled The Right of Tythes Asserted and Proved c. being an Answer to that one Chapter only of Tythes which though it was the last Chapter in my Book yet having the first and chiefest place in the Priests Minds and Affections obtained from them the first and chiefest Defence Some time after came out another Book said to be written by the Author of the Conference who was not willing yet it seems to trust the World with his Name This bearing the Title of A Vindication of the Friendly Conference c. and divided into like number of Chapters with mine seems to be designed for a general Reply to my Book The former called The Right of Tythes came first to my Hand and was about half dispatcht before I saw the latter I therefore chose to tâ—ke the Chapter of Tythes out of the latter so much â— mean of it as seemed Argumâ—ntative or pertinent to the purpose and clap it to the Book of Tythes as being of the same Subject To both these the Book in thy Hand is intended for an Answer how well it answereth that Intendment is left to thee Reader to judge If thou art a Tyth-Receiver of any kind there is great danger lest Interest mis-guiding thy Vnderstanding should hinder thee from discerning Truth and so from judging truly For that of the Poet. Impedit Ira Animum ne possit cernere verum Anger doth obstruct the Mind That the Truth it cannot find Is not more true of Anger than of Interest Advantage like the Byass on a Bowl is apt to sway the Judgment and draw the Mind to favour that side on which the Profit lies Against this Danger be pleased to take this Caution and be entreated to lay aside all Considerations of Gain or Loss Advantage or Disadvantage in this Case not measuring the Justice of the Cause by the Profit but weighing the Profit by the â—ustice Remember that Nihil utile quod non idem honestum i. e. Nothing is profitable which is not Honest and Nihil honestum esse potest quod justitia vacat i. e. Nothing can be Honest which is not Iust were approved Axioms amongst the gravest Heathen Philosophers and deserve much more to be observed by those who bear a Name derived from Christ. Ex Damno alterius commoda nulla feres Account not that for Iust and Honest Gain Which got by thee makes others Loss sustain Is a good Document for Men as well as Children In short whether thou art a Tythe-Receiver or no this I request of thee Read without Prejudice Judge without Partiality Examin this Discourse fully and throughly but give the Reasons therein given their due Poize and Weight The Author of The Right of Tythes in his Epistle pag. 2. charges me with bragging in a Letter of mine to a Quaker at York that I have shewed some little Learning in my former Book and there-upon says I dare affirm he hath but little to shew I am peâ—swaded He and I shall not fall out about my Learning for he seems willing to allow me a little and I assure him I never took my self to have much Nor do I think when his Disdain is at the highest he will desire to lay me lower in that respect than I of my self am willing to lie But in charging me with bragging of that little Learning which his Courtesie is pleased to allow me he deals discouâ—teouslyâ— and injuriously with me The Letter he mentions was in Answer to one from a Friend in York to me unknown in which he acquainted me That my Book having gained Acceptance there Endeavours were used to prevent its further Service by casting out a Report that I was a Iesuit at least that I was no Quaker but had a mind to shew my Parts and Learning c. The like Rumour also of my being a Jesuit was craftily spread in Nottingham-shire Hereupon to shew the Vanity of their Slander I thus writ in that Letter Some thou sayest will needs have me to be a Iesuit and why because of a little Learning must none then have Learning but they and Iesuits This is the common but poor shift of Priests hard beset when they cannot maintain their Ground they cry out Their Opponent is a Iesuit as if none could be too hard for them but Iesuits by whom to be worsted they are not ashamed to think it no shame the more shame for them Well Truth is too hard for them and Iesuits too And a little after Whatever they in their
their institution from Popery was with relation to that Chartâ—r of Ethelwolf which the Priest grounded their Dedication on and to the Definition of Popery which he then gave of which more hereafter However I see no necessity either to affirm the Church was Popish as early as Irenaeus and Origen or to recant what I have said in my former Book concernâ—ng the institution of Tâ—thes For he hath not proved and I deny that Tythes were instituted required or paid in the times of Irenaeus or Origen or well-nigh two hundred Years after But of the times in and about which Tythes began to be thought due and as so paid which Selden is positive was not till about the end of the fourth Century and the beginning of the fifth and of the State of the Church then and some what earlier also not to speak my own Sense I will give the Reader a short View and submit it to his judgment About the Year of Câ—rist two hundred as early as Origen Prayers Offerings and Sacrifices for the Dead began to be in use in the Church Tertullian who lived in that time mentions these things in his Book De Corona Militis and sayes They sprang from Tradition As early also was the Opinion of Purgatory received in the Church and believed Both Tertullian and Origen held it as Perkins confesses Problem page 175. Much about the same time crept in the Opinion of the Intercession of Saints departed this life from which sprang the Custom of Praying to Saints And though for some time this was disputed amongst the Learned of those times yet towards the latter end of the fourth Century much about the same time that Tythes began to be thought due this Custom of Praying to Saints grew in use in the Church And Perkins acknowledges that the Antients especially after the year four hundred did not only sin but were guilty of Sacriledge for they some itmes place sayeâ— he their Hope Faith and Confidence in the Saints of which he gives divers instances page 93. Reliques began to be had in veneration and to be carried up and down and flocked aâ—ter about the Year three hundred idem p. 81. The going on Pilgrimage came in fashion about the Year three hundred and twenty and prevailed so fast that about the end of that Century it was made a part of the Worship of God idem pag. 119. The use of Chrisme was instituted by Pope Sylvester about the Year 330. Extream Vnâ—â—on was Decreed by Pope Innocenâ— the first in the Year 402. Monkish Life began about the Year 260. idem pag. 226. The Caelibate or single Life of Priests began to be Preacht up by or before the Year 300. And about the Year 380. it was commanded by the publick â—udgment of the Church and a Vow of perpetual chastity declared necessary and injoyned idem pag. 192. By these few instances the Reader may give a guess at the State of the Church in those dayes wherein Tythes began to get up How much worse it grew afterwards in the following ages when Tythes came to be settled and established by Laws I shall have further â—ccasion anon to shew In the mean time I proceed to examine the Authorities the Priest urges from the Decrees of Councils § 5. As an Introduction to his Conâ—iliary Testimonies he gives his Reader a Note paâ— 8â— First sayes he Let it be noted That 〈…〉 be certain Tythes were paid from the earlieâ—â— daâ—es 〈◊〉 Christianity yet it waâ— not for a long time directâ—y iâ—joyned by aâ—y human Law either Ecclesiastical or Civil which shews the first Christians 〈◊〉 they were obliged to pay them by the Law of God pag 84 This is a Note worth the noting He sayes It is certain Tythes were paid from the earliest days of Christianity The earliest dayes of Châ—istianity Why did he not say pagâ— 67. Oâ—e Reason why Tythes are not mentioâ—ed in the Newâ— Testament by namâ— is To avoid all occasion of Scandâ—l to the Jews whose Priests were then in Possession of them Would the 〈◊〉 have been offended at the mention of Tâ—thes in the New-Testament which they were not like to see and would they not have beeâ— offended at seeing Tythes paid by the Christians to their Ministers Did he not there say Maâ—y things were suffered a while to run in their oâ—d chanâ—el till the whole Jewish Polity was Destroyed And will he now make Tythes to be turned out of their old Channel â—nd to â—un in a new one from the earliest dayes of Christianity before the â—hole Iewish Poâ—ity was Destroyed Did he not there say It would have been used as a prejudice to the young beginnings of the Gospel if the Preachers had presently claimed the Maintenance which others were legally inâ—tated in And will he here say The Chrisâ—iaâ—s did pay to their Preachers the Maintenance which others were legally instated in and that from the earliest dayes of Christianity Did he not say â—â—g 71. The State of the Church in the Apostles dayes was such that Believers though they werâ— willing could not have opportunity to pay Tythes regularly nor could the Gospel-Ministâ—rs receive them And will he here say Tythes were paid from the earliest dayes of Christianity And that this is certain too Certainly this desâ—rves to be nigro carbone notatum Noted with a black Cole He had forgot perhaps that his Brother Priest whom he defends had said in his Conference pag. 157. I confess the Apostles had not the Tythes in their dayes the Levites themselves were in Possession of them which they kept during the continuance of their Nation and Templeâ— Besides you ought to consider that Tythes or any other fixed Maintenance was utterly inconsistent with their unfixed State of Life being to Preach the Gospel in all Nations they became an improper Maintenance for them aâ—d besides you are to consider that the Apostles needed them not for as they had their Gifts so their Maintenance by a Miraculous Prâ—vidence Here one of the Priests sayes Tythes or any other Maintenance was improper for the Apostles and utterly inconsistent with their Stateâ— That the Apostles neither needed Tythes nor had Tythes nor could have had them if they would because the Levites Possest and kept Tythes during the continuance of their Nation and Temple which was not utterly Destroyed till about thirty seven Years after Christ's Death The other Priest sayes It is certain Tythes were paid from the earliest dayes of Christianity Is not this pretty How justly might I here reâ—ort what he most unjustly threw at me pag. 59. One of these must be false for indâ—â—d there is a manifesâ— coâ—tradiction Let them lay their heads together again and see if they can reconcile it But it seems however this early payment of Tythâ—s was not for a long time directly enjoyned which was seasonably noted by him to excuse himself from giving some early constitution either Ecclesiastical or â—ivil for the so early payment of them But this Non-Injunction
Tythe at all Hence then it is clear he claims no Tythes of that which the buyer hath thus purchased he lays no claim to any part of the Land Thus far then the Buyer hath purchased all the whole every part and the Priest doth not so much as pretend a Right to any of the Land he hath bought Now then let us come to the other purchase if I may so call it that out of which the Priest claims Tythes viz. the Profits and Increase Of this in my former Book pag. 345. I said thus When he has this Land if he will have Profit and Increase from it he must purchase that after another manner He pays for that and many times dear enough too by the Labour and Charge he bestows in Tilling Dressing and Manuring it And if in this sense he may be said to purchase the nine parts of the Crop or Increase in the same sense he purchaseth the tenth part also for he bestows his Charge and Pains on all alike and the tenth part stands him in as much as any one of the nine Thus then the Buyer first purchaseth the Land and afterward the Occupier whether Owner or Tenant purchaseth the Crop The one buys the Land by laying down so much Money the other obtains the Crop by bestowing so much Charge and so much Labour c And as in the purchase of the Lands the Buyer doth as really buy the tenth Acre or tenth part of the Lands as the ninth or any other part of the nine so in the purchase of the Crop the Occupier doth as really purchase the tenth part of the Profits and Increase as he doth the ninth or any other part of the nine and after the same manner he lays his Dung on all alike he sows his Seed on all alike he Plows all alike he bestows his Pains and Charge and exercises his Skill and Care equally on all Thus it appears that Tythes are really purchased by them by whom the nine parts are purchased and do really belong to them to whom the nine parts do belong whether Tythes be understood of Lands or of Profits If of Lands the Purchaser doth as really buy the tenth Acre as any of the nine and gives as much for it Nor doth the Priest claim any Property therein If of Profits the tenth Sheaf or tenth part of the Crop doth cost the Occupier as much to the full as any other of the nine parts Now seeing the Priest says If I can make out this this alone will do my business I hope the Reader will find it here so plainly made out that he will be satisfied my business is done What the Priest urges as the Opinions of some Lawyers concerning Tythes is of the less weight because they are grounded on this Mistake That Tythes are of Divine Institution which Error hath misled too many His Reflections on me of Insolence and Novice I regard not at all but pass from his Railing to see if I can find any Reason from him He puts a Case pag. 206. thus A. purchases an Estate in B of C the Tythes whereof are impropriatc and belong to D Now will the Quaker say that A. purchases D' s Estate in the Tythes without his Knowledge or Consent by vertue of the general words in the Coâ—veyance from C He takes for granted what I deny viz. that the Tythes belong to D. The Tythes belong to the Occupier of the Land to him to whom the other nine parts belong and he hath the same Right in Justice and Equity to the tenth part as to the other nine If C. sells his land what is that to D D. doth not claim the Tythe of that land nor pretend a Right to any part of it What Wrong doth C. do then to D. in this sale or how can C. be taxed with selling D's Right whenas D. neither hath nor pretends to have a Right to any part of the Land which C. sells The Claim that D. makes is not to the Tythe of the land but to the Tythe of the profits which Profits C. neither did sell nor could But after A. hath bought the Land he must to purchasing a new for a Crop if he expects to have one else he may be sure to go without He therefore to obtain a Crop layes out his Stock bestows his Labour takes Pains and Care early and late and in due time by God's Blessing upon his honest Endeavours receives a Crop sometimes with Advantage sometimes with Loss But although the Priest sayes pag. 196. Tythes are due out of the Profits only yet whether there be gain or loss whether there be increase or decrease whether there be profit oâ— no profit no sooner is the Crop made ready but in steps the Priest or Impropriator and sweeps the tenth part of it clear away although A. had laid out his Money and Labour upon all the parts of his Crop alike had paid as dear for the tenth part as for any of the nine and hath thereby in Justice and Equity as good a Right to that which is thus taken from him as to any of the rest which is left behind Thus the Priest's Case being opened and answered it appears that neither A. nor C. do any Wrong to D but that D. doth Wrong to A. in taking from him that which he hath honestly earâ—ed and dearly paid for And now the Priest may return if he please to his A. B. C. anew But he sayes The Quaker fraudulently leaves out those words of the Conveyance which would have discovered his Knavery in this false Assertion I thus exprest the words of the Deed viz. That the Seller doth'grant bargain sell c. ALL that c. with its Appurtenances and EVERY PART and parcel thereof the tenth said I as wâ—ll aâ— the nine and also ALL the Estate Right Tâ—tle Interest Property Claim Demand whatsoever c. There says the Priest he stops with an 〈◊〉 â—â—cause his shallow Reader should not see what follows in the Deed viz. Estate Right which I the said A. have or ought to have in the Premises which words sayes he do manifest that the Purchaser buyes no more Estate or Right than the Seller had to or in the Premises p. 208. He must doubtless have been a shallow Reader indeed that should have thought I intended the Purchaser had bought more of the Seller than the Seller had to sell and I take it to be no Argument of the Priest's depth to suggest it The Seller had a sufficient Right to the whole Estate to every foot of the Land he fold and the Buyer hath the same But sayeâ— the Priest the Seller did not purchase the Tythes himself nor did they descend to him from his Ancestors c. Tythes are not claimed of the Land but of the Profits only or of the yearly increase of renewing which the Occupier of the Land purchases another way If the Seller before he sold had the Land in his own Occupation he
Carnal minds may imagin I have learnt to know my self better than to ascribe to my self or my own Abilities any of that Honour which is due to the Power of Prevailing Truth Iudge Reader whether from those Expressions my Opponent had any just ground to tax me with bragging of my Learning But as an Argument of my want of Learning yeaâ— gross Ignorance as he is pleased to term it Ep. p. 3. he charges me with mistaking another Basil for Basil the Great This he takes out of that Chapter of my Book which treats of Swearing and his Brother Priest in his Vindication of the Conference objects the same against me in his Chapter of Swearing in Answer to mine When I shall come to that part of the Vindication I intend to give an Accompt oâ— that Passage and therefore to avoid needless Repetitions omit it here yet thought it needful to intimate thus much here lest â—y Opponent should so far mistake himself as to think I was willing to shift it Some Testimonies I have taken out of Fox's Martyrology or Book of Martyrs the various Editions of which render Quotations out of it very uncertain and sometimes suspected the Book which I have used is of the sixth impression in two Volumns printed at London in the year 1610. These things premised I now recommend the following Discourse to thy most serious perusal and thee to the Guidance of that good Spirit which leads into all Truth THE INTRODUCTION WHen Demetrius the Silver-Smith of Ephesus perceived that by Paul's preaching his Trade was like to decay he call'd his Crafts-men together and thus bespake them Ye know said he that by this Craft we have our Wealth Moreover ye see and hear that not â—lone at Ephesus but almost throughout all Asia this Paul hath perswaded and turned away much people saying that they be no Gods which are made with hands so that not only this our Craft is in danger to be set at nought but also that the Temple of the great Goddess Diana should be despised c. Acts 19. 25 26. The Case hath fallen out somewhat alike with our English Deâ—etrius the Author of the Book called The Right of Tythes asserted c. who finding his Diana â—otter by a stroke received from the last Chapter in a Book of mine called Truth Prevailing written in Answer to one from his Party called A Friendly Conference and apprehensive of greater Danger if timely course were not taken he gives the Alarm to his Fellow-Crafts-men and bespeaks him much to the same purpose as did the â—phesian Silver-Smith of old He said then This is the Craft by which we have our Wealth This sayes now This is the Oyl by which our Laâ—p is nourished the â—ay by which our Army is maintained page 13. He said then This Paul hath perswaded and turned away much People saying they be no Gods which are made with hands This saith now When I consider how easily so plausible a Discourse meaning that Book of mine might 〈◊〉 some well-meaning men out of the right way c. pag. 4. Again The Obstinacy which the unhappy Quakers contract from such false Insâ—â—uations as these of T. E. in this Case of Tythes c. pag. 6. Again Our Changers of Religion mainly seek to overthrow these things to that end have sent out T. E. as their Champion pag. 15. with more to the same purpose He said then Not only this our Craâ—t is in danger to be sâ—t at nought but also that the Temple of the great Goddess Diana should be despised This sayes now They would glâ—â—ly stir up the People to take away our Books and Subsistence from us pag. 14. To stop the Oyl that nourishes our Lamp and force us to disband for want of Pay pag. 13. And not only so but wise and pious men look upon them as designing to disturb the Kingdom destroy Learning ruin the most famous of all Protestant Churcheâ— pag. 14. To overthrow not only the Ministers and their Maintenance but also the Peace of the Church and Religion whose safety he sayes depends upon that Maintenance pag. 15. He raised the People into an uproar and filled the City with Confusion crying out for about the space of two hours Great is Diana of the Ephesians This man abounds with confusion also having little strength of sound Argument or sorce of solid Reasoning but crying up the sacred Maintenance Divine Tribute Righâ— of Holy Church c. And indeed the main difference that doth appear between that Demetrius and this is that he though he sought the destruction of the Apostle did not bespatter him with approbrious Language whereas this man hath endeavoured to besmear my Name with all the ignominy reproach and obloquy his evil Nature could prompt him to and his worse Education furnish him with of which these that follow are some This poor Retailer pag. 3. Our strutting Quaker pag. 16. Obscure and empty Quaker pag. â—7 This skulking Adversary pag. 19. This poor Quaker is as bold as he is Blind pag. 35. This Quaker hath learnt to Cant pag. 40. He hath the impudence pag. 113. This ungracious Chaâ— pag. 122. The Quaker is a manifest Lyar pag. 〈◊〉 This insolent Quaker pag. 161. T. Elwood is a 〈◊〉 Wretch pag. 173. Though T. E use the name of Popish Priests to gull the People yet he is one of their Iourny men pag. 179. He is an inspirado pag. 18â— A wild Quaker pag. 190. This double-tongu'd and false-hearted man pag. 195. His own base humor pag â—00 Common experience preclaims him a Lyar ibid. This seditious Libeller pag. 201. Is not the Quaker a Knave pag. 212. This malicious Slanderer pag. 214. This black-mouthed Slanderer may publish his own Venemoâ—s impieties pag. 233. This Reader is the Language wherewith he treats me notwithstanding which he hath the confidence to Brand me with Railing for calling Tythes the Priests Delilah the very Darling and minion of the Clergy This he sayes is Ill Language pag. 11. and Scurrillity pag. 12. which he will not meddle with But if this be ill Language and Scurillity by what Name I marvel shall that Language of his pass which is before recited Doubtless if Railing be not Reasoning as he truly sayes his Book is so replete with Railing that there is little room for Reasoning in it And though he terms that expression of mine Scurrillity and sayes he will not meddle with it yet can he not forbear but in the very next page catches up this which himself accounts ill Language and Scurrillity and throws it at the Quakers calling Tythes the Quakers Delilah the very Darling and Minion of that Sect pag. 13. And so transported he is with passion against the Quakers that he sees not the absurdity he runs himself upon in taxing the Quakers with railing at Tythes in the very same Line wherein he calls Tythes the Quakers Delilah the very Darling and Minion of that Sect Is not this contradictory And as
he all along looks upon the Quakers with an evil Eye of contempt disdain and scorn so he lifts up himself and his Brethren of the Clergy scarce finding words big enough to express the high conceit and loâ—ty Opinion he has of his own and their Abilities The leading Quakers sayes he perceiving the Clergy of England so able and industrious to discover all their evil Designs c. pag. 12. Again They know while the Clergy have these provisions they will have Books and leasure to Study and Learning enough to 〈◊〉 all their silly pretences pag. 13. Again Our Adversaries finding our study of the Law so destructive of their inspired Nonsense they would gladly stir up the People to take away our Books and Subsisâ—ence from â—s that we might be starved into Ignorance and by our sad Necessities be brought down to their scantling of understanding and then they hope their Speakers would be an equal match for â—s pag. 14. These are the Brags these the Insults these the Vauâ—ts these are some of the Rhodomontadroes of this Polemical Priest who in the pride of his Heart and haughtiness of his Mind looks on the poor Quakers with the same Eye of Scorn and Contempt as did the monstroâ—â— Philistine of Old upon the little Stripling David But when he takes occasion to mention me how is he put to it to find words sufficiently significant of his high disdain as in pag. 4. So MEAN a Creature Again in pag. 5. I judge it necessary to lay aside all Considerations of the MEANNESS of the Adversary And when he hath a mind to throw dirt on me rather then want a pretence to do it on he will use the help of his invention and suppose things not in common sense supposeable As when he sayes Dr. Sr I perceive our strutting Quaker looks on you with a scronful Eye and sayes pag. 277. Tythes were wâ—nt to be claimed as of divine Right but he finds this Priest is not hardy enough to adventure his câ—use upon that Title Sure he takes himself to be very terrible for he believes none but a hardy man dareâ— sâ—t upon him pag. 16. How can it reasonably be supposed that I did charge the Author of the Friendly Conference with want of hardiness in respect of my self Can he imagine I took that Book to be designed as an Onset upon me nothing is more irrational Again he sayes pag. 17. It is evident you laid aside this Weapon of the divine right not out of any distrust of the Argument nor out of any great Opinion of your Adversaries skill How weakly is this argued for a man of so great Learning One of my scantling of understanding might happily have spoken as pertinently as this The Author of the Friendly Conference did not lay aside the Weapon of divine right out of any great Opinion of his Adversaries skill Why did he know what skill his Adversary had before he try'd it Nay did he know before-hand or could he fore-see who his Adversary should be Surely either this great Learn't man in the wantonness of his Wit hath over-shot himself or else he must make his Dr. Sr. a Diviner instead of a Divine This he did to fasten on me an imputation of self-conceit and stick his strutting Epithet upon me but in pag. 3. when he had a mind to Badge me with the scornful Title of a poor Retailer he sayes I gleaâ—ed my Quotations out of Fisher against Bishop Gauden and that with so little skill that when the Printer in Fisher had mistaken Fimicus for Firmicus this poor Retailer calls him Fimicuâ— also pag. 115. which very Page of my Book detects his unfair dealing and clearly convicts him of manifest falshood for I there quote Gauden's Book of Oaths and the very page in Gauden's Book out of which I took that Seâ—tence notwithstanding which so little regard has he to speaking Truth that he charges me with gleaning it out of Fisher. But this is not the only instance of his unfair dealing by me as I shall have occasion hereafter to shew He seems highly offended that I called Tythes the Priests Delilah the very Darling Minion of the Clergy What ever Reasons induced me so to call them I think he hath sufficiently proved that I therein exprest my self aptly enough for he hath not only leap over all the rest of my Book and singled out this which was the last Chapter in it shewing thereby how near and dear this is to him and that whatever becomes of the rest this shall have a distinct Treatise for its perticular defence but in his treating of it also he delivers himself in such Pathetical expressions and speaks so feelingly of it that one may easily perceive it is one of his nearest concernâ— if not the nearest of all Hear what he sayes pag. 13. speaking of the Quakers with-holding Tythes from them They see sayes he they cannot quench the Lamp and therefore they would stop the Oyl that nourishes it Tythes then it seems in his own account is to the Priests what Oyl is to the Lamp that which makes it shine that which makes it give any light that which makes it of any use or service can any thing be nearer No Oyl no Light no Tythes no Preaching no Penny no Pater noster Did ever any who assumed the Name of a Minister of the Gospel speak after this rate before stop the Oyl the Lamp â—oes out the Lamp has done shining with-hold Tythes the Priest gives over the Priest has done preachâ—â—â— Without Oyl the Lamp will not burn without Tythes the Priest will not Preach Methinks this might 〈◊〉 â—nough to let the People see what a Ministry they 〈◊〉 under and seriously to consider Whether the dim Light their Lamps gives be worth the Oyl it spends them Certain it is that in thus comparing the Priests to the Lamp and the Tythes to the Oyl making Tythes the cause of the Priests preaching as the Oyl is of the Lamps burning this Priest hath spoke the very Truth though somewhat unadvisedly and 't is much if this unwary Expression don't lose him all the preferment he promised himself for his elaborate Book of the Right of Tythes which smells so strong of the Lamp But howsoever he speeds in that his own comparison will justifie me for calling Tythes the Priests Delilah the very Darling and Minion of the Clergy But more fully to discover his foundation and standing take another expression of his in the same page And because they dare not engage this Army they attempt to force them to disband for want of Pay It seems then this Army of Priests fight for Pay and without Pay fight who will foâ— them they will disband firstâ— But I am of Opinion they will consider twice before they disband once Men once in Arms are seldom forward to disband while either Pay or Plunder lasts How have they behaved themselves towards those that have no need of such an Army nor
his Dr. Sr. a Swineâ—erd instead of a Shepherd But what am I concern'd in all this Will he blame me because his Brother took up his Cause by the wrong end If divine Right as he sayes be antâ—cedent to any positive Constitution why began he at the human Right Or if he intended only to mannage the Argument of humane Right as this Priest intimates for him pag. 20. why did he meddle with the divine Right but seeing he gave a touch on each why am I blam'd for answering both He hadâ— Reason the rather to have begun with the divine Right and to have insisted on it too and have mannaged that Argument if he understood it in as much as he began his Discourse upon a Passage taken out of a Book of E. B's which related to the divine Right not to the humane Yet had he said nothing of Divine Right at all it may be I might have said the less but seeing he thought fit to say so much as might intimate a reserve for a divine Right I think I had reason to examine the claim and not as easily grant as he did weakly beg the Question But he sayes he perceives his Brother Priest had mentioned that the divine Right of Tythes was derived from Melchizedeck not from Levi. He 's very angry I fell upon this Passage and to vent his Passion bestows upon me the badge of a skulking Adversary Why so Because this Passage he sayes was single not guarded with any Proofs or Reasons stood naked was an open place Whose Fault was that Did he expect I should have guarded it with Prooâ—s and Reasons for him or that I should have been so mannerly as to have past it by because it was not guarded He would not it seems have had me enter there because it was an open place Surely if I had meddled with nothing but what was guarded with Proofs and Reasons I should have had little to meddle with for his whole Book is either uâ—guarded or ill guarded But he would perswade his Reader pag. 17 20. That I had triumphed over this naked Sentence as he calls it and over the Author too nay that I had boasted I had disproved clearly the divine Right of Tythes for which the better to hide himself he assigns no page of my Book nor do I know any Passage in it from which without â— positive Resolution to abuse me he could draw such an unfair inference The most I said that I remember was in pag. 282. and the words these That Tythes were not paid by Abraham to Melchizedeck but given and that but once and that too upon an Accidental Occasion nor then out of his own proper Estate but out of the Pillage of Sodom which he by the Sword had recovered from the Plunderers I think I need not stick to say I have already prov'd Whetheâ— this was an immodest Expression considering what I had before offer'd in the four preceding pages of my Book and whether he hath dealt fairly with me from hence to represent me as triumphing and boasting that I had disproved clearly the Divine Right of Tythes let the ingenuous Reader judge § 2. My first Opponent in his Friendly Conference pag. 135. had affirmed that those that insâ—st upon the divine Right of Tythes derive them not from Levi but Melchizedeck In my Answer to which pag. 277. I said It is then inquirable whether oâ— no Tythes were ever due to Melchizedâ—ck That which should make them due must be a Command they were not due to the Levitical Priesthood until they were commanded to be paid but after they were commanded to be paid they become due and so long as the Command stood in force it was an Evil to detain them But we do not find throughout the Scriptures any Command from God that Tythes should be paid unto Melchizedeck Upon this the Author of the Right of Tythes sayes pag. 20. My first words do declare I do not understand the Question But I believe either this Priest doth not understand the Question as the other stated it or else he thinks the other Priest did not understand how to state it as he should do and therefore he hath undertaken to state the Question anew The Case was plain enough to be understood before and I am content to abide the Reader 's Censure whether by my Answer to it I underâ—â—ood it or not I confess I did not then understand how this man Eighteen Moneths after would alter it no more then I now do how another of them Eighteen Moneâ—â—s hence may vary it again if this mans work succeed no better then the former The former Priest said The divine Right of Tythes was derived from Melchizedeck Now because no Right could be derived from Melâ—hizâ—deck to another which was not first in Melchizedeck himself I thought it justly inquirable Whether or no Tythes were ever due to Melchizedeck And because no certain and positive Evidence could be produced of Melchizedeck's Right to Tythes I judg'd it necessary to consider what way Tythes might come to be due to â— him and therefore said that which should make them due must be a Command This also I demonstrated by an â—nstance from the Levitical Priesthood to whom it is on all hands acknowledged they werâ— due after they were commanded to be paid to them not before therefore I said They were not due to the Levitical Priesthood until they were commanded to be paid but after they were commanded to be paid they became due and so long as that Command stood in force it was an Evilâ— to detain them This the Priest was willing to dash out lest as the Right of the Levitical Priesthood to Tythes depended upon an express Command so an equality of Reasoâ— should drive him to seek a Command on which to ground Melchizedeck's Right to them also which he very well knew he could no where find He attempts therefore to mend the matter by a new stating of the Question And whereas the other Priest had asseâ—ted that the Divine Right of Tythes was derived from Melchizedeck not from Levi this Priest sayes pag. 20. The Assâ—rtors of the Divine Right of Tythes do not make them originally due either to Melchizedeck or Levi but to God himself c. To whom Tythes were originally due was not the Question but from â—hom the present Priests do derivâ— a Divine Right in Tythes to themseves whereby Tythes may become due to them by a Dâ—vine Right which the former Priest asserted to be from Melchizedeck He does not claim Tythes from God to whom they were originally due but from Melchizeck to whom how they became due and from whom have they come to be due to these Priests had well become him to have proved § 3. He sayes The Tenth belongs to God I say All belongs to God the Nine Parts as well as the Tenth for the Fulness of the Earth is the Lords Psal. 24. 1. not a part only the Cattel on a
of Reasoning then all the rest and is indeed too low and mean by much for such lofty pretences to Learning and Scholarship as my Adversary makes for himself and his Brethren viz. to put the Defendent to prove the Negatiâ—e as he has done me morâ— then once and more then conduces to the credit of his cause As in pag. 31. I may ask him sayes he where he reads that Abraham did not pay them And a few Lines lower in the same page T. E. cannot prove Abraham did not pay Tythes ordinarily and I can make it appear very probable he did But he hath so accustomed himself to call Abraham's Gift a Payment that forgetting himself he brings me in as using the same Phrase as if I also admitted that which I have offered to much reason against his words are these pag. 30. So that T. â— 'â— saying he doth not read in Genesis that Abraham paid his Tythes constantly is no Argument c. But where doth T. E. say this He quotes no place noâ— indeed had any to quote for I no where said so but he hath put a double abusâ— upon my words first in making me to say I do not read in Genesis c. As if I had limitted the Story of Abraham and Melchizedec to the Book of Genesis only or had allowed no Evidence for proof of this pretended Right to Tythes but what could be found in Genesis And accordingly he playes upon me T. E's saying he doth not read in Genesis is no â—rgument unless all that Abraham ordinarily did were recorded there to wit in Genesis And I may ask him where he reads there to wit in Genesis that Abraham did not pay them pag. 31. whereas my words were general We do not find throughout the Scriptures which is more theâ— in Genesis only any command from God that Tythes should be paid unto Melchizedâ—c pag. 278. and If Tythes had been due from Abraham to Melchizedec then must Abraeham have paid Melchizedec Tythes of all his Substance of all that he possest But no such thing appears at all pag. 279. What pretence could the Priest have to thrust in Genesis here But his other abuse in the latter part of the sentence is somewhat more gross T. E's saying he doth not read that Abraham paid his Tythes constantly is c. These words are not in my Book but are a meer artifice of his own to insinuate as if I had yielded that Abraham paid Tythâ—s at that time upon that extraordinary occasion and had only seem'd to doubt whether he paid them constantly or not whereas nothing 〈◊〉 more plain then that I all along deny that Abraham over paid Tythes at all This is an art this Priest is expert at but I 'll assure him 't is a black one and will never credit him or his Cause He served me so once or twice before in his 16. page quoting me thus Tythes were wont to be claimed as of divine Right but I find this Priest is not hardy enough to adventure his cause upon that Title Whereas my words are not I find this Priest is not hardy enough but I do not find this Priest hardy enough Which variation how small so ever it may seem to some yet as Illiterate as he takes me to be I understand the different sense of those two Expressions and how little he is to be trusted which I am the more confirm'd in from his next Period where speaking of me he sayes He perswades his Quakers that they who were wont to claim Tythes dâ— jure divine were more bold then wise These words were not in my Book but a suggestion of his to abuse me for which whatever I think of others I have cause enough to think him more bold then honest Nor has he only gleaned on this passage but insisted deliberately on it and presented his false suggestion to the highest advantage he could make of it For he sayes Let us therefore see who and what they were whom T. E. thus Censâ—res Truly no less sayes he then Origen Cyprian S. Hierom S. Augustin divers Christian Councils of Old Justinian and the Imperial Roman Laws Charleâ— the Great and the French Capitulars the Saxon Kings and Councils of this Nation all Monarches and Parliaments of later times particularly K. Henry 8. Edward 6. together with the most famous common Lawyers as also the unconcern'd and incomparably learn'd Sr. Hen. Speâ—man with divers other excellent Writers two many to recite These were too many to have recited unless he had had more cause for it At this rate he may father what Falshoods he pleases upon his Adversary and then call him an obscure and empty Quâ—ker as he does me but he may withal assure himself he shall never by this means acquire the repute of a just man or a fair Dâ—sputant § 5. He sayes pag. 23. T. E. is very impertinent in inquiring what command there is in Scripture to Abraham to pay his Tythes to Melchizedec for there was not any Scripture at all in Abraham's time No doubt he thinks every Body impertinent that calls in question his beloved Tythes But wherein doth the Impertinency lie I hope a divine command for the payment of Tythes had not been Impertinent to his Claim I am sure a human command for the payment of them now is the most pertinent point he has to claim by and that his Brotâ—er Priest understood full well which made him step so lightly over the former and stick so close to the latter But I am impertinent it seems for inquiring for a command in Scripture Where else I wonder would he have had me inquire Is any other Book so pertinent as that to seek a divine Command in Aybut sayes the Priest there was not any Scripture at all in Abraham's time If he means that Writing is not so ancient he forgets himself but if he intends that the Scriptures we now have were not then written which is more probable that will not render me a whit the more impertinent for inquiring what command there is in Scripture to Abraham to pay Tythes since we find in Scripture many Commands are mentioned which were of a much elder date then the â—criptures in whiâ—h we read them There was as much Scripture to be sure when Abraham gave this Gift to 〈◊〉 as tâ—ere was before when he was called out of his Country when Circumcision was instituted and when 〈◊〉 tâ—e Heir of Promise was made an Offering and yet for every of these and many other 〈◊〉 besides we have express Command recorded in those Scriptureâ— which afterwards were written Nay if we will look back to the times before the Flood we shall find a Command to Noah for the making of the Ark Gâ—n 6. 14. And indeed the first Command that ever was given to man is plainly and fully exprest in Gen. 2. 16 17. And must I needs be impertinent in inquiring what Command there is in Scripture to Abraham to pay Tythes
high God from St. Paul's making him a Type of Christ's Priesthood and from his fixed Residence at Salem p. 36. This has indeed as fair an appearance as any of the Probabilities he has yet brought forth yet this will not do his business For here is not in all this any mention of any settled publick Worship wherein he could perform any outward Priestly Office or Service for which Tythe might have been a Compensation No such thing is here exprest and according to the Axiom which the Priest himself uses pag. 62 Non expressâ— non nocent those things that are not exprest do not hurt Besides his being called the Priest of the most high God doth not necessarily inseâ— an Exercise of such a settled publick Worship as my words import which had relation to external 〈◊〉 and Ceremonies as the word outward Servicâ— in my Book which the Priest left out do plainly evidence so that he might well enough be called the Priest of the most high God and yet have no such outward Priestly Office orâ— Service to perform in any settled publick Worship for which Tythes might have been a Compensation And indeed my Opponent himself describing Melâ—hizedco's Worship doth sufficiently shew it was of another kind then what my words had relation to For he says pag. 39. His Worship was altogether spiritual praising God praying for Abraham offering no bloody Sacrifices but ONLY bringing forth Bread and Wine So also says Sparrow in his Rationale of the Common Prayer pag. 338 339. Melchizedec had no other Offering that we read of but Bread and Wine Whereas it is plain my words aimed at such a settled publick Worship as coâ—sisted in external services But sure he doth not think that Melchizedec did pray for Abraham and bring out Bread and Wine constantly at Salem For that he ever did either the one or other constantly or any more then that one time is NOT EXPREST not likely Then for his having a fixed place of Residence at Salem which is another part of my Opponent's Argument upon which he grounds his Question What is a Priest fixed in a City for It is to be considered that his Residence at Salim is not mention'd with relation to his Priesthood but to his Kingship he was King of Salem that was Reason enough for his Residence there So Moses calls him Gen. 14. 18. And so the Apostle twice together Heb. 7. 1 2. But neither of them called him Priest of Salem much less affirmed as my Opponent does that he had â— Right founded in natural Justice and Equity to receive Tythes from all within his Jurisdiction of Salem for praising God praying for Abraham and only bringing forth Bread and Wine § 11. But my Adversary not content with Melchâ—zodec's being the Priest of the most high God will needs have him to be Abrahams Priest in ordinary too pag. 33 34 Not considering perhaps that himself had â—ot Abraham according to St. Hierom's computation as he saith twenty two Miles from Melchâ—zedec a distant somewhat of the largest for a Priest in Ordâ—nary and yet he placed them as near together as he could too For though he sayes St. Ierom compuâ—es the plain of Mamre which is Hebron where Abraham dwelt to be but twenty two Miles distant from Ierusalem yet he should not be ignorant of the different Judgments of the Antients about the place some taking Salem to be Ierusalem others not And that Hierom there delivers the Opinion of others not his own which was far otherwise viz. that Salem and Mamre were about eighty Miles asunder as Selden notes in the Review of the first Chapter of his History of Tythes pag. 452. Yet to countenance this conceit of his that Melchizedec was Abraham's Priest in Ordinary he tells us what the Iews think viz. that Melchizedec did continue to be the Priest of Abraham's Family long after for when 〈◊〉 Twins strugled in the Womb of Rebeâ—â—a it is said 〈◊〉 went to inquire of the Lord Gen. 25. 22. that is sâ—yes he by Sâ—m say the Hebrews or by Melchizedec as others pag. 33. 34. For the Opinion of the Hebrews that she inquired by Sem he quotes Lyra and for the Opinion of others that she inquired by Melchizedec he quotes Iunius and Tremellius upon that place which is Gen. 25. 22. Lyra I have not by me but Tremellius and Iunius I have And considering with my self how greatly he hath abused me in the mis-reciting of my words I thought it would not be amiss to examine his quotation and see whither he had dealt any fairer with them But when I had turned to the place and there read in the Text Abiâ—t ad consulendum Iehoram and in the Annotation upon it per aliquem Prophetam fortasse soceram qui idem diâ—itur Propheta supra 20. 7. I must confess I was amazed and somewhat troubled to think I had to do with one of so great confidence and so little honesty For he affirms expresly that Iunius and Trâ—melliâ—s upon this place say Rebeâ—ca went to inquire of the Lord by Melchizedec whereas Iunius and Tremâ—llius upon this place make no mention at all of Melchizedec but say plainly She went to inquire of the Lord by some Prophet perhaps by her Husbands Father which was Abraham who himself is called a Prophet before in C. 207. Who would have thought a man of his Learning would have been beholding to a false Quotation Who would have suspected one of his Abilities would have served one such a slippery trick Did he think because he had a meaâ— illitterate Adversary to deal with he might therefore quote anything without danger of discovery or did he hope no man of underâ—tanding would take the pains to read him O lucky man at least in this that he hath not publisht his Name with his Bookâ— which if he had I am confident he would have exposed himself as fully to the scorn of all sincere and knowing men by this Forgery as he fancies I have done my self by that which he calls an absurd position But for my part I shall wonder the less hereafteâ— at his unfair dealing with me whom he calls a poor Retailer and â—leaner since I find even those men whom I suppose he himself need not be ashamed to Glean after receive no better treatment at his Hands But concerning the Question it self Whether Rebecca went to inquire of the Lord by Melchizedec or some other not only the seveâ—ty and Epiphanus whom he makes to be mis-led by following their Chronology but Aâ—ias Montanus in his Chronologia sacrae Scriptura and Hugh Broughton in his Consent of Scripture make Sem to be dead some Years before Rebecca's conception whose Computations if we may credit we must conclude either that Mâ—lchizedec was not Sâ—m or which is more likely 〈◊〉 Rebecca went not to inquire of 〈◊〉 her Father in-Law Abraham being a Prophet and at hand § 12. In his 37. page he charges me with a gross mistake in
the whole time of the Mosaic Law under which the right of Tythes to the Levititical Priest-hood is recognized by all But in as much as these Priests disclaim all Right and Title by that Law it cannot be expected this Period should produce any thing to the advantage of their claim though something it may against it Here I must crave the Reader leave to make a short digression to remove a Cavil urged by the Author of the Conference the occasion whereof was thus At his entrance upon the discourse of Tythes in his Conference pag. 131. he mentioned a Book of Edward Burrough's called A just and righteous Plea c. Out of which he collected a Quotation in these words pag. 132. Tythes are now not to be paid according to the first Covenant neither is the first Priest-hood to be upheld that once gave and received Tythes Now should we pay Tythes according to the first Covenant and uphold any part of that Priest-hood which took Tythes c. then should we deny Iesus Christ to be come in the Flesh. Hereupon he took occasion to quarrel about the Priest-hood ignorantly taxing E. B. with ignorance in the Nature of the first Priest-hood and alledging that If by the first Priest-hood he meant that of Aaron then he had presented to the King and Council notoriâ—us falsity affirming it to be the first Priest-hood there bâ—ing before him â— Priest to whom Levi himself paid Tythes Heb. 7. 9. c. This because I saw it to be a meer Quibble a â—atch at wordâ— not pertinet to the subject he was upon but tending only to a Jangle I took no notice of in my Answer but stepped as directly as well I could into the matter it self of Tythes Hereupon in his Vindication pag. 2â—4 he boastingly vauntâ— and insults over me for passing by so considâ—rable a passage as he it seems takes it to be But I assure him I therefore passed it by because I looked upon it as a very inconsiderable passage and do still Nor should I have thought it now deserved my notice but that his unfair Inferences therefrom deâ—erve reproof He intimates that my silence hath given the World an occasion to look upon E. B. as a meer Cheat and Impâ—stor and sayes He had not that Inspiration which himself and his Parishoner had been discoursing of Poâ—r weak man He may soon at thiâ— rate give the World an occasion to look upon himself as a Slanderer and Back-biter but will never gain belief to his false suggestions with any to whom E. B. was known whose Name is honourable amongst the Righteous and his Memory sweet as a pretious Oyntment As to the Cavil it self which the Prieâ—â— hath raised it is altogether groundless For it is evident that E. B. â—id there call the Lâ—vitical Priest-hood the first Priest-hood with respect to that Priest-hood that succeeded it which is the Gospel ministry In which sense it is both generally understood commonly called the first Priest-hood And as well might the Priest blame the Apostle for calling that Covenant which was made with the Iews the first Covenant which he doth 〈◊〉 then once in his Epistle to the Hebrews Chap. 8. 7. and 9. 1. as find fault with E. B. for callâ—ng the Iewish Priest-hood the first Priest-hood There needs not much be said in this case to shew the emptiness of this Cavil which of it self is obvious to every Eye But he takes notice that E. B. was an occasion of my Convincement and thence himself takes fresh occasion to raise his wonder at my not answering this passage before He may for that reason the rather believe that I did not esteem it worthy of an Answer since if I had he may reasonably conclude I would not have been backward to vindicate one to whom I was so greatly obliged It is very true indeed that the Lord made E. B. instrumental to the turning me from the Darkness wherein I once sate under the teaching of the National Ministry unto the true Light of Christ Jesus which with joy of Heart and a thankful mind I acknowledge and my Soul blesses the Lord in the sense of his mercy extended to me therein And of that faithful Servant of God whom the Priest in derision calls mâ— Patriarch this certain Testimony I have to bear That he was endued with Power from on high and the Spirit of the Almighty rested on him of which amongst many thousands I am a witness But to proceed In the same place Vindication pag. 295. the Priest charges me with cunningly passing over his Arguments and skipping four pages at the entrance of his discourse of Tythes This Accusation is utterly false as will appear by comparing my Book with his He began with Tythes in his Conference at the bottom of pag. 131. He spent pag. 132. in quibling about the first Priest-hood Then in pag. 133. having disowned all Titles to Tythes by vertue of the Ceremonial Law he started a Question Whether Tythes are not purely Ceremonial c. which he answered in the Negative and withal shewed how far he understood them to be Ceremonial To all this I answered in my former Book called Truth prevailing bestowing two pages thereon pag. 282 283. Then in pag. 134. of his Conference he drew a comparison between the Prophets of the Levitical Priest-hood and the present Clergy To which I answered in pag. 348 349 and 350. of my said Book Judge now Reader whether was skipping over four pages and passing by his Arguments But of this let this suffice I now return to the former Subject from which the unfair dealing of my disingenuous Adversary hath occasioned this digression § 1. That which is chiefly to be inquired in our passage through his second Period viz. thâ— time under the Law is 1. Whether Tythes were a part of the Ceremonial Law 2. Whether they were abrogated by Christ. The Priest begins with the last of these and offers to prove after his manner that Tythes were not abrogated by Christ Let not thâ— Quaker sayes he so far mistake as to think that the abrogation of the Levitical Law concerning Tythes was an abrogation of Tythes themselvâ—s pag. 4â— I Answer so to think is no mistake but a certaiâ— Truth They were commanded by that Law and never commanded by any other While that Law stood in force they were uphâ—â—d by it but when that Lâ—w waâ— disaâ—â—ulled they fell together with it He sayes ibid. Our Lord abroâ—ated the Levitical Law concerning the modes of Gods Worship but he did â—ot abrogate Gods Worship In abrogating the Levitical Law â—e abrogated whatsoever had dependance on that Law which Tythes had The Worship of God considered simply had no dependance on that Temporary Law but was grounded upon the Law of Nature in the best acception thereof and so was not subâ—ect to an abrogation but the modes manners or wayes of Worship being of the Nature of that Levitical Polity and Instituted by the Law
by just and lawful means to do And for that Book it self of Cyprians de Vnitâ—te Ecclesiae out of which the Priest makes this quotation for Tythes although it be not wholly rejected yet is it suspected to have been corrupted in more places then oâ—e Perkins against Coccius sayes expresly of it Cypriano liber de unitate Ecclesia corruptus est ad stabiliendum Primatum Petri Problem pag. 14. i. e. Cyprians Book of the Vnity of the Church is corrupted to establish the Primacy of Peter of which he gives divers instances The Priest goes on To this sayes he of Cyprian we may add the Testimony of that antient Book which â—ears the Name of â—lements Constitutions What would not he stick to add how adulterate sâ—evâ—r that might seem to add some fresh colour to his decayed and dying Cause Tâ—ese Constitutions which bear the Name of Clement are less Authentick if less can be then those fore-mentioned Canons which are called Apostolical Perkins in his Problem against Coccius pag. 8. proves from Eusâ—bius â—uffiâ—us and others that There are many things 〈◊〉 under the Name of Clement Romanus of which having given diverâ— instances he adds The eight Books aâ—so of Apostolical Constitutions written by the same Clement desâ—rve no greater credit And for Selden's Opinion of them take it in his own words For Constitutiâ—ns of the Church if you could believe thosâ— supposâ—d to be made by the Apostles and to be Collected by Pope Clement the first you might be sure both of payment in the Apostles times as also of an express Opinion as antient for the right of Tenths But â—o man that willingly and most grosly deceives not himself can believe that this Constitution or divers others there are of any time near the Age of the Apostles but many hundred Years after The little worth and lâ—ss Truth of the whole Volumn is enough discovered by divers of the learned and it was long since branded for a Counterfâ—it in an â—eâ—umenical Couâ—cil Synod 6. in Trullo Thus he in his History of Tythes c. 4. pag. 42. and much more to the same purpose in his Review of that Chapter but this I take to be sufficient to detect the falsness of those Constitutions and my Opponents weakness in urging them His next Author is Ambrose out of whose Sermons 33. and 34. he takes two quotationâ— The first thus It is not sufficient for us to bear the Name of Christians if we do not the works of Christians now the Lord Commands us to pay our Tythes yearly of all our Fruits and Cattel pag. 80. The Particle now in this quotation is not in Ambrosâ— but added by the Priest The other quotation is long but to the same purpose and that which seems most material â—n it is the latter clause that of all the Substance which God gives a man he â—ath reserved the tenth part to himself and therefore it is not lawful for a man to retain it Here he sayes The Lord Commands us to pay Tythes yearly and that he hath reserved the tenth of all to himself but the Text he offers in proof thereof he fetches from the Levitical Law which neither is obliging to Christians nor do the Priests themselves claim by it nay they renounce it as may be seen both in the Conference pag. 133. and in the Right of Tythes pag. 46. What avaâ—â— these Testimonies then to theiâ— Cause which are drawn from that Law which they themselves disclaim were it never so undoubted that the quotationâ— themselves were genuine which yet there is very great cause to question For what likelihood is there that Ambrose or any other of those Ancient Writers could so far forget himself as from a particular Precept given to the People of the Iews to infer that God hath Commâ—nâ—ed Christians to pay Tythes yearly c But that the Writings of those Fathers as they are called have been corrupted in general men coâ—versant in History are not ignorant and in particulary Ambrose his Sermons arâ— by Perkins accounted Spurious or Counterfeit Problemâ— page 20. Next to Ambrose he brings Epiphanius pag. 81. saying The Scripture exhorteth the People that out of their just Labours they should give to the Priests for their Maintenace First Fruits Oblations and other things To this a twofold Answer is to be given 1. That here is no mention of Tythes and though the Priest for want of better proof would fain have first fruits understood for Tythes yet so contrary is it to all reason that no man of Judgment can be in danger to be so misled 2. When he saith the Scripture exhorteth the People to give the Priestâ— First Fruits for their Maintenance since we are certain no Scripture of the New-Testament doth so exhort he must necessarily be understood to speak this with relation to the Levitical Law which as it was designed for and given to so it did particularly concern the Iewish Nation not the Christians And that the Payment of Tythes were not in use in Epiphanius his time nor accounted necessary Selden proves from Epiphanius his own words in Heres 50. The whole Passage as it lies in Selden's History of Tythes Review c. 4. pag. 461. take as followeth When he viz. Epiphaniuâ— tells us sayes Selden of the Tessuresdeâ—atitae or those which thought the holy Easter must be kept on the 14th Moon according to the Law given to the Iews for their Passover and that because they apprehended that the keeping it otherwise was subâ—ect to the course of the Law he sayes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is they do all things or agree generally with the Church saâ—ing that they were too much herein addicted to the Iewish Custom And in his Argument against them he shews that the Course hath not reference only to the Passover but also to Circumcision to Tythes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Offerings Wherefore as he goes on if they escape one curse by keeping their Easter according to the Law of the Passover they thrust themselves into many other For saith he they shall find them also accursed that are not Circumcised and them cursed that pay not Tythes and them cursed that Offer not at Ierusalem Let any man now sayes Selden consider if this Bishop that was least unacquainted with the Customs of the Christian-Church understood not clearly that no necessary or known use of payment was among Christians in his time of Tythes no more then oâ— Circumcision or Offering at Ierusalem Doth he not plainly reckon it as a thing not only not in Christian use but even equals it with what was certainly abrogated Is not his Objection shortly thus Why do you not observe Circumcision and Tything and Offerings also at Ierusalem which are all subject to the like Curse And because some kind of Offerings indeed were in use among Christians therefore in the Objection he providently ties them to Ierusalem But of Tything he speaks as generally as of Circumcision Thus far Seldâ—n of
well of Cattel as of Fruits be rightly offered to their several Churches by Rich and Poor according to the saying of the Lord by the Prophet Bring ye all the Tythes into the Store-House c. For as God hath given us all so of all he requireth Tythe of the Profits of the Field and all Provisions of Bee's and Honey Lambs c. And he that payes not Tythes of all these is a Thief to God himself pag. 88. His observation on this is That they all declare Tythes to be due jure divino But whence fetcht they their Opinâ—on of the Divine Right of Tythes Do they not deduce it from the Words of the Prophet and ground their Decree thereupon And had not those Words of the Prophet a direct reference to the Câ—remonial Law And is not the Ceremonial Law ended and abrogated by Christ And do not these Priests disown any claim from it Friendly Coâ—ference pag. 133. Right of Tythes pag. 4â— What trifling then is it thus to Argue Besides there is great ground to susâ—ect the credit of his quotation Selden Nothing the falshood which some câ—mmit who out of Iuo attributed an express Canon for the payment of first Fruits and Tenths to the provincial Synod of Sivil and giving the words of that Canon little different from these quoted by the Priest sayes The old Manuscript Copy of Iuo hath it ex conciliâ— Spanensi and the Printed Book ex concilio Hispalensi Then sticking a little at the word Spanensi he adds Whatever he meant by it clearly the whole Canon is of much later time the first words of it also being nothing but the Syllables of one of Charlemains Laws that was not made till 780. years from Christ. He observes also that Gratian warily abstained from using these Canons and a little after concludes positively That among the known and certain Monuments of Truth till about the end 800 years no Law Pontificial of or Synodal saving that of Mascon Determins or Commands any thing concerning Tenths although very many are which speaking purposely and largely of Church Revenues Oblations and such like could not have been silent of them if that quantity had been then established for a certain duty He then shews that the Canonists and others in later Ages compiling their Decrees have made those words by which the Offerings of the Christians were expressed to serve as if they had expresly named Tythes in which Observation he seems to take this very Priest by the Nose and concludes thus He that reads those old Canons only as they are so applied in late Authority to Tythes might perhaps soon think that at first they were made specially and by name for them The matters sayes he is plainly otherwise What was ordained in them about Tythes is out of them in later times Tythes Oblatio â—s being then supposed of equal right expresly extended also to Tythes And to this purpose he cites Frier 〈◊〉 in Prolegom ad Toâ—â— 1. Conâ—il thus Licet forsan falsâ— tâ—li sint Pontifici vel certâ— tali Coâ—cilio per scriptorum incâ—rian ad scripti i. e. Although perhaps speaking of such Canons they are falsly ascribed to such a Pope or to such a Council by the carelesness of Writers Thus far Selden Hist. Tytheâ— c. 5. § 5. And in his sixth Section of the same Chapter mentioning again the Decree of Masoon which was but Provincial he sayes No Canon as yet was received in the Church generally as a binding Law for payment of any certain quantity which not only appears sayes he in that we find none such now remaining but also is confirmed by the Testimony of a great and learned French Bishop in whose Province also Mascon was that could not be ignorant of the received Law of his time He lived and wrote very near the end of this four Hundred Years I think sayes he in the very beginning of the next which according to Sâ—lden's division must be the Year 900. And in a Treatise abouâ— the dispensation of Church Revenues expresly denyes that befoâ—e his time any Synod or general Doctrine of the Church had determined or ordained any thing touching the quantity that should be given either for Maintenance or building of Churches He gives the Testimony of this Bishop in his own words thus Jaâ— vero de donandis rebus etordinandis Ecclesijs nihil unquam in Synodis constitutum est nihil a Sanctis Patribus publice praedicatum Nulla enim compulit necessitas fervente ubique religiosa devotione et amore illustrandi Ecclesias ultro â—estruante c. i. e. But now concerning endowing â—nd ordaining Churches there has never been any thing decreed in Synods nor publickly preached by the holy Fathers For there has not been any necessity for that religious Devotion being every where warm and the desire of adorning Churches burning of its own accord And then adds This Author is Agobard Bishop of Lyons very learned and of great judgment and had not so confidently denyed what you see he doth if any Decree Canon or Council generally received had before his time commanded the payment or offering of any certain part And to confirm the Truth of this Bishop's Testimony herein he adds that Neither in the Codex Ecclâ—siâ—â—niverculis or the Codex Ecclesiâ— Romane or Africane Fulgentius Ferrandus Cresconius or Isidore's Collection all which in those elder Ages were as parts of the Body of the Canon Law is once any mention of the name of Tenths Thus far Selden By which it may appear that Tythes had not so early a settlement in the Church as the Priest would perswade his Reader The Priest seems now to have done for the present with Councils and betakes himself to the Laws of Kings and Emperors To which before I pass I desire the Reader to take notice to what a nothing his great talk of Councils is come and that after all his great Brags he hath produced but one Council that expresly names Tythes and that but a Provincial one neitheâ— and falling so much short of that Antiquity that Antient Date the Beginning and earliest dayes of Christianity which he so frequently and vauntingly repeats that it was not much less then 600. yeaâ—â— after Christ before it was made and then too in probability little regarded § 8. Now let us observe the Laws he offers made by Kings and Emperours concerning Tythes The first he instances is of Constantine the Great Who he sayes pag. 89. being settled in his Empire in the Lands under his Dominion out of every City gave a certain Tribute to be distributed among the Church and Clergy of the Provinces and confirmed this Donation to stand forever If this be true yet what relation hath this to Tythes If Constantine gave a Tribute out of every City doth it thence follow that that Tribute was Tythes or the Tenth part of the Revenue of those Cities Or if that should be supposed would the Priest thence infer that the Country
having most treacherously and inhumanly murdered Ethelbert King of â—ent did thereupon give the tenth part of his Goods to the Church and founded Monasteries The latter having occasioned the Death of her Husband Earl Ethelwold murdered her Son in Law King Edward did found Religious Houses for Monks Nuns To EXPIATE that I may use the words of a great and learned Antiquary and make SATISFACTION for that most foul and hâ—inous Fact wherewith so wickedly she had charged her Soul by making away King Edward her Husband's Son as also to wash out the murdering of her former Husband Aethelwold a most Noble Earl c. Camden Brittan pag. 262. And that these Acts and such like of those and other Princes of those times have been thus taken and understood by men of Note and Learning appears not only by the last quoted Authority but also by the Testimony of Fâ—x who compiled the Book of Martyrs He in his first Volumn pag. 110. enumerating the many Monasteries and other Religious Houses founded and endowed before Ethelwolf's time says thereupon The End and Cause of these Deeds and Buildings cannot be excused being contrary to the Rule of Christ's Gospel for so much as they did these things seeking thereby MERITS with God and for Remedy of their Souls and REMISSION of their Sins For Proof whereof he produces a Charter of King Ethelbald above fifty years older then that of Ethelwolf granting certain Priviledges to Religious Men in which aâ—ter the Preamble are these words Qua propter ego Ethelbaldus Rex Merciâ—rum pro amore caelestis Patrie et remedio animaâ— mea studendum esse previdi ut eam per bona opera liberam efficeâ—em in omni vinculo delictorum i. e. Wherefore I Ethelbald King of the Mercians for the Love of the Heavenly Country and for the Remedy of my Soul have foreseen it needful to endeavour by good Works to make my Soul free from all bond of Sins â—rom which senteâ—ce Fox observes how great the ignorance and blindness of those men were who lacking no Zeal only lacked Knowledge to rule it withal seeking sayes he Salvation â—ot by Christ only but by their own deservings and MERITORIOUS deeds And in pag. 123. setting down the Charter of Ethelwolf so dear and precious to the Priests upon these words in it Pro remissione animarum peccatorum Nosâ—rorum he hath this Note Hereby sayes he it may appear how when the Churches of England began first to be indued with Temporalities and Lands also with Priviledges and exemptions inlarged moreover and that which specially is to be considered and lamâ—â—ted what PERNICIOUS Doctrine was this wherewith they were led thus to set Remission of their Sins and Remedy of their Souls in this Donation and such other Deeds of their Donation contrary to the information of Gods word and no small derogation to the Cross of Christ. Thus far Fox by which the Reader may at once see both the Opinion and Practice of Ethelwolf's Age in this matter and also the Censure of this Ecclesiastical Writer in thâ— early Age of Protestancy Yet the Priest sayes pag. 106. This Popish Doctrine of Merit and expiation by good works is not so old as that Age which he infers from some directions given by Anselm to those who visited the Sick in which is mention of being saved by the death of Christ as also from the words of Popâ— Adrian who calls as he sayes Merits a broken Reed c. The Popish Doctrine of Merits and Expiation by good works was not on a sudden and at once received in the grossest sense in which it hath since been hâ—lâ— but by degrees and for a while remission of Sins was attributed to the death of Christ and good workâ— joyntly which is the reason that in the writings of those elder times mention is made of the death of Christ and of good works promiscuously and the work of Redemption Salvation Remission indifferently ascribed to each This the Priest seem not ignorant of when he sayes pag. 10â— We may perceive they did not think this good work ALONE could expiate their Sins or merit Salvation wiâ—hout God's Mercy As for the judgment of Anselâ— Adrian or any other such it is not conclusive in this case for we are not so much to regard what was the private judgment of some one or few particular Persons as what was the general Opinion of the theâ— Church We find in Queen Mary's time when Popery was as its height when Dr. Day Bishop of 〈◊〉 came to visit Stephen Gardiner the bloody Bishop of Winchester lying then at point of Death and began as Fox relates to comfort him with words of Gods promiâ—e and with the free justification in the Blood of Christ our Lord repeating the Scriptures to him Winchester hearing that What my Lord quoth he will you open that Gap nâ—w then farewell all together to 〈◊〉 and such other in my case you may speak it but open this Window unto the people then farewel all together Martyrol vol. 2. pag. 1622. None I think can doubt but the Doctrine of meriting Salvation and of Expiating Sins by good works was then generally believed in the grossest sense by the Church of Rome and yet we see by this inâ—tance some of thaâ— Church had a private Judgment otherwise and some of the worst of that Church too For scarce did Bonner himself send more Sheep to the Roman Shambles then did this Buâ—cherly Bishop of Winchester who as Fox observes in the place fore cited on the day that Ridley and Latimer were burnt at Oxford deferr'd his Dinner till about four of the Clock in the afternoon reâ—using to eat till by a Post from Oxforâ— â—e had certain intelligence that the Fire was kindled upon those Godly Martyrs Thus we see some of the worst of the Romanists did not hold all the Opinions of the Church of Rome yet neither doth that prove either that those Romanists were no Papists nor yet that the Church of which they were Members did not hold those Opinions But the Priest as if he hoped to wind himself off from the Objection by criminating the Quakers says To merit Pardon and Salvation by good works is now a Doctrine of the grosser Romanists and I fear of some Quakers also who sleighting merit and necessity of Christ's Death ascribe Salvation to the following the Light within p. 10â— In this he slanders the Quakers I reject his Charge and in the Name of the Quakers deny it Let him name those Quakers that sleight the Merit and Necessity of Christ's Death I solemnly declare I know no such and yet I think if any such there were I might as well pretend to know them as he Nor do the Quakers ascribe Salvation to the following the Light within but they ascribe Salvation to Christ Iesus to whom the Light within doth lead those that truly follow it Herein he hath wronged the Quakers as in his next words he abuses me T.
It is plain that by an Estate of Inheritance or Free-hold the Statute here intends those Tythes that then were or after should come to be in the possession of Lay-men and appropriated to Temporal or Lay uses which implies it did not account Tythes an Estate of Inheritance or Free-hold to the Priests for then this distinction had been needless Besides the Statute sayes The Person or Persons so diâ—â—eised c. their Heirs Wives c. shall have remedy in the King 's temporal Courts c. and amongst other Writs by which they may proceed directs Writs of Dower All which have manifest Relation to the Impropriator's Titâ—e not to the Priest's for what Priest as a Priest can make his Wife a Dower of Tythes Or what hath a Priest's Heir or Wife to do with Tythes when he is dead But this Priest would gladly strengthen his Claim by twisting in the Impropriator's with it Therefore he sayes pag. 186. Those very Laws which made the Aâ—â—enation did not give the Laiâ—y any other Estate in Tythes than such as the Clergy had before and such â—s the rest of the Clergy had then to the Tythes remaining in Ecclesiastical Hands This is disproved by an Instance which himself gives pag. 185. which is â—f a Writ of Dower of praediâ—l Tythes brought in the Countess of Oxford ' s case 5. Iacob By which it appears that Tythes were settled in Dower upon that Countess as he stiles her which they could not have been if her Husband had not had another Estate in Tytheâ— than such as the Clergy then had or now have For no body I suppose â—â—magins that the Clergy have such an Estate in Tythes as by vertue of which they can settle Tythes in 〈◊〉 upon their Wives He that will take the pains to consult that Statute 32 H. 8. 7. will find that what it speaks of Estates of Inheritance Free-hâ—ld c. hath respect to Lay-men not to the Clergy For although in the second and last Paragrapâ—s where it directs the remedy for recovery of Tythes in case of substraction or detention thereof it expresly mentions Ecclesiastical as well as Lay Persons restraining the remedy for both to Ecclesiastical Courts and Laws yet in the seventh Paragraph where an Estate of Inheritance or Free-hold in Tythes is spoken of there is no mention made or notice taken of the Clergy not a word of any Ecclesiastical person but those Terms Estate of Inheritance Free-hold c. are expresly there applied to such Tythes c. as then were or should afterward be made temporal or admitted to be abide and go to or in temporal Hands and lay uses and profits c. And in case of diâ—â—elsure of such Estate of Inheritance Free-hold c. the Remedy was not restrained to the Eccesiastical Courts as in the other case wherein Ecclesiastical persons were concerned but left to the King 's temporal Courts From all which I gather that those words in the Statute Estate of Inheritance Frâ—â—hold c. have no relation at all to the Clergy noâ— do any way concern Ecclesiastical persons but were inserted purposely for the sakes of those â—ay-persons into whose Hands such Estates were then already come or likely to come And that the Law-makers then did understand the Laity to have another Estate in Tythes then the Clergy had The Author of the Conference in his Vindication pag. 316. hath another trick to prove Tythes a â—ree-hold and that is this He asks his Parishioner Who elect the Parliament-men that serve for the Counâ—y The Parishoner answers The Free-holders And did you never sayes he see Clergy mens Votes entred at one of those Elections Yes many a time quoth the Parishioner That very thing replies he proves them Free-holders But by his leave the proving some Priests Free-holders doth not prove Tythes a Free-hold Many of the Priests have temporal Estates Lands of Inheritance or purchase which gives them a Right of suffraâ—e in such Elections But then it must be considered that in such cases though they are Clergy Men they do not Vote as Clergy men but as men possest of such temporal Estates or Free-holds Beâ—ides most of the Priests have Gâ—ebe-Lands which may with less â—epugnancy to reason be called a Fâ—ee-hold than Tythes And this Priest hath not expressed upon which of these considerations it is that his Clergy-mens Votes are entred Now if he intendâ—d to have proveâ— by this Medium that Tythes are a Free-hold to the Clergy he should have demonstrated that every Priest that takes Tythes is thereby inabled to give a Voice in the Election of Parliament Men Which if they are not it is ratheâ— an Argument against him then for him and shews that Tythes are not a Freeâ—hold to the Clergy But of that let Lawyers â—udge I only add That as the Priests are unlike the Ministers of the Gospel in taking Tythes at all so they are much more unlike them in claiming a legal property and Free-hold therein And if Tythes may in any Notion of Law be called a Free-hold they are as I said in my former Book pag. 331. such a Free-hold as holdâ— the greatest part of the Nation in bondage â—ut he is angry that I say These Statutes foâ— Tythes were grounded on a false supposition That Tythes were due to God and Holy Church This he calls a repeating of old baffled falshoods pag. 188. and sayes he has proved this was a true supposition and maintained by the Primitive Orthodox Fathers adding that nothing is more false than my saying This was a Doctrine purely Popish and hatch'd at Rome he leaves out and here preach't up with thundring Excommunications by the l ope's Emmissaries and Agents which he knew could not be denyed and woâ—ld hâ—lp to discover where the Doctrine was hatch'd However he makes the validity and force oâ— the Statutes to depend on the Truth of this supposition That Tythes are due to God and Holy â—hurch for he sayes Since thesâ— Statutes were grounded on a Primitive and Protestant Doctrine thâ— Statutes are therefore good pag. 89. But by the rule of contraries If these Statutes were not grounded on a Primitive and Protestant Doctrine the Statutes are not therefore good Now that this Doctrine of Tythes being due to God and Holy Church was not a Primitive Doctrine appears in that therâ— is no mention of this Doctrine in any of the Writings of the New-Testament wherein the primitive Doctrines of Christianity are delivered This Doctrine is no where there to be found Nor iâ— the more simple and leâ—s corrupted Ages of the Church and nearest to the Apostles times was this Doctrine received But in the more distant Ages from the Aâ—â—stles when the Church became greatly corrupted both in doctrine and practice sprung up this Doctrine of Tythes being due to God and Holy Church and may truly be reckoned amongst those Doctrines and superstitious Practices which by the corruption of time have pâ—evailed in the Church of Rome contrâ—ry
oâ— Tythes The Parson says Shepherd in his Grand Abridgeâ—â—nt 〈◊〉 Tythes pag. 101. hath a good property in the Tythes where they are set out by the Ownerâ— not where they are set out by a Stranger Doth not this prove that the Parson's Title lies in the Gift of the Owner If the Owner sets out the Tythes he thereby disseizes himself thereof and gives the Parson a Property in the Tythes so by him set out but if the Tythes are not set out the Parson hath no Property therein nay if they be set out and not by the Owner but by a Stranger the Parson will be to seek of a Property notwithstanding such setting out By all which it appears That the Parson has no Property in the tenth patt of another's Crop until the Owner sets out that tenth part and thereby gives the Parson a property in it Nay further says Shepherd ibid. Tythes are not due nor is it Tythe within the Statute of 2. Edw. 6. until severance be made of the nine parts from the tenth part So that to make it Tythe within the Statute it must be severed and to make the Priest a Property in it it must be set out as Tythe by the Owner Judge now Reader whether the Priest hath any other Property in Tythes then what the present Owner gives him §14 Here again pag. 193. the Priest is gravelled with an Argument which he knows not how to answer and therefore having first stuck an ugly 〈◊〉 or two upon it to scare common Readers from observing it he makes a shew as if he would repeat it and sets down something that looks a little like it and then without more ado cryes I have sufficiently 〈◊〉 it before §30 and so takes his leave of itâ— He sets it down thus That it is ridiculous and unreâ—sonable for any to pretend a Power to dispose of thâ—sâ— Profits or any part of them which arise from the Labour Stock and Care of another especially after their own decease for which he quotes pag. 338. of my Book This he calls an old silly and blasphemous Argument and so lets it fall But questionless the man being conscious to himself that his Claim to Tythes is ridiculous and unreasonable these two words did so run in his mind that he fancied he read them in that place of my Book out of which he pretends to take this Quotation whereas indeed neither of those words is to be found in all that page noâ— any Argument in those terms wherein he gives this But that the Reader may see there was in that page such matter as might justly deserve as well as require an Answer anâ— which he in his thirtieth Section to which he referâ— did not reply unto I will repeat an Argument out of that page with the occasion of it which was this The Author of the Conference had said pag. 154. That Tythes were settled by those thaâ— were actually seized of them in Law Whereupon I thus argued If Tythes be the tenth of the profit or increase of the Land and they that settled Tythes as he saith were actually seized of them in Law then surely they could settle no more than they were actually seized of and they could be actually seized of no other Profits or Increase than what did grow increase or renew upon the Land while they were actually seized of it So that such settlement how valid soever while they lived must needs expire with them Hence I further reasoned thus Is any one so void of Reason as to imagin that they who were possest of Land a Hundred Years ago could then settle and dispose of the Profits and Increase that shall grow and arise upon the Land a Hundred Years hence which Profit cannot arise barely from the Land but from the Labour Industry and Stock of the Occupier Were ever any actually seized of the Labour at the Husband-man's Hands of the Sweat of his Bâ—ows of the judgment understanding and skill that God hath given him of the Stock he imploys the Cost he bestows the Care Pains Industry and Diligence he exercises for the obtaining of a Crop c. This solid Argument and sober reasoning he calls an old silly and blaspheâ—ous Argument But whether it be either silly or blasphemous I willingly submit to the impartial Reader 's judgment And whereas he pretendâ— he has sufficiently baffled it before in Sect. 30. I desire the Reader to compare that Section with my Reply to it Chap. 5. Sect. 5 6. and judge as he findâ— cause But though the Priest was not willing to handle this Argument yet he gladly catches an occasion from hence to complain again of me to the Improprâ—ators and he takes a great deal of needless pain to inform them of what their own experience hath long since taught them viz. that the Quakers deny their Right to Tythes The Quakers do indeed deny Tythes to be due to any one under the Gospel-state And for that cause have suffered and do by Impropriators as well as by Priests Nor is there any thing 〈◊〉 my Book relating to the Impropriators which may any whit excâ—se much less justifie his â—anderous reflections on me Well may I pitty them but never shall I flatter muchless â—law them at least in that sense wherein they are sure enough to be clawed if ever they come under the Priests Claws or fall within their Clutches His scurrilous Language and foul Epithets of double-tongued and false-hearted with his â—â—ye Insinuations of my flattering and clawing the Impropriators argue nothing else to me but that he wanted other Arguments to fill up this Section and thought it best to make a noise that vulgar Readers might 〈◊〉 he had said somethinâ— But for all his Clamour many of the Impropriators I doubt not discern both that it is Conscience makes the Quaker refuse to pay Tythes and Covetousness makes the Priest so greedy to get Tythes not only from the Quaker but Impropriator also § 15. He sayes pag. 195. As for Artificers paying Tythes of their gains it is no more than what they are obliged to by S. Paul's Rule Gal. 6. 6. 〈◊〉 give their Pastor a share of all good things This is not true That Rule of St. Paul doth not determine the proportion but leave Artificers and all others to their Christian-liberty in point of quantity Therefore to oblige Artificers to pay the Tythes of their Gains is more than St. Paul's rule obliges them to Finally sayes the Priest at the close of this Section pag. 196. We grant to T. E. Tythes are due oâ—t of the Profits only and therefore of God give no Increase or the Husband-man have nothing grow we expect no Tythes at all Where 's his Free-hold then But if Tythes are due out of the profits only why are you Priests so unreasonable to require Tythes where there is no profit yea where instead of profit there is apparent loss as it is certain you frequently do The Priest here sayes If
God give no Increase they expect no Tythe at all but it is easie to perceive what he means by Increase by his adding or the Husband-man have nothing grow There is some difference sure between Increase and having something grow He that sows ten Bushels of Seed in a Field and receives but eight again which that it often proves so many men to their loss know to be true is far enough from having increase when he decreases two in ten Yet such is the Conscience of these Priests that they will have the Tythes of that Crop though they see apparently there is not only no Profit or Increase but a certain loss and decrease even of the Seed besides all the Husbandman's other Charge and Pains So that it is not as the Priest sayes If God gives no increase that they expect no Tythe at all but if there be an utter and total decrease if the Husband-man have nothing grow i. e. if there be nothing at all for them to have then they expect nothing but if there be any thing at all if the Husband-man have anything grow though never so little if his loss be never so great and he reap â—ot again the one half of what he sowed and clearly lose the other half with all his Charge and Labour yet will the Priest make his loss so much the greater by taking from him the tenth part of that 〈◊〉 Crop he haâ— and have the Face when he has done to look the poor Man in the Face and tell him thâ—s 〈◊〉 according to St. Paul's Rule But long enough may the Priest say so before any wise man will believe him §16 In his next Section pag. 196. he alledges 〈◊〉 my Aâ—guments for taking away Tythes tend to destroy Hospitals and Donations to the Poor which supposition in my formâ—r Book I had denyed and disproved by several Reasons one whereof he after his imperfect manner of quoting thus sets down Because in that of the Poor there is a settlement of certain Lands in which the Donor had a legal property at the time of the giftâ— but in the increase of the Occupiers Stock he that gave Tythes neither had nor never could have a proâ—erty and therefore no power to give This is the Reason as he has maimed it but in my Book it stands thus In that of the Poor there is a certain settlement of Lands and Tenements in which it is to be supposed the Donor had a legal property or of which he was actually seized at the time of the Gift But in the case of Tythes here is no gift of Lands and Tenements but of the Increase growing and arising through and by reason of the Labour Care Industry and Stock of the Occupier which he that gave the Tythes neither had noâ— could have any property in nor was or could be actually seized of and therefore had no power to give This Reason is firm and solid and will endure a Shock And I observe that though he had peel'd it as much as he could and brought it in too with a scornful forsooth yet he was quickly contented to leave it and take up one of his old Notes for he immediately sayes pag. 197. We have noted before That by his Rules framed against Tythes all Donations made by Papists on consideration of meriting and expiating their Sins thereby are void And this will destroy a great many of these Hospitals and Gifts to the Poor That is not the consequent of my Aguments against Tythes but an inference of his own making to shelter Tythes under All Donations made by Papists are not void because some are The Donations of Tythes were designed to uphold and maintain a Worship and Ministry that were false and Antichristian but Donations to Hospitals for the Sustenance of the Poor had no such intendment The Papists as I observed before Chap. 4. Sect 12. in their â—ivil and politick capacity did many things well and commendably but what they did in their Religious capacity was stark nought But he says ibid. By my own confession all Hospâ—tals endowed out of Tythes and all Gifts to the Poor granted out of Tythes for perpetuity are void What then If men will give that which belongs not to them the fault is in themselves Though Charity be an excellent vertue yet it may not patronize â—njustice Nor indeed is that to be acounted Charity which is repugnant to justice Now if the Donors of Tythes â—ad no power nor right to make such perpetual Donations of Tythes as are now claimed but that such Donations do violate the Rights of others as in my former Book I have argued at large pag. 323 324 325 338 339 341. and also in this Chap. 5. Sect. 5. then may not any pretence of Charity be urged to justifie such violation Athird sort he says ibid. of these charitable Donations consist of perpâ—â—ual Rent-charges and certain sums of Money to be paid Yearly forever out of the Profits of some certain Estate Now he says the Occupiers of the Lands thus charged must sell such part of the Profits produced by their Labour Sweat Stock Skill and Industry and when it is turned into Mony â—ust pay it intirely to the Poor c. pag. 198. This he would make a parallel case to Tythes but it is not as I have already shewed Chap. 5. Sect. 5. For this Rent-charge doth not lie upon the Stock nor upon the Occupier unless he be Proprietor of the Lands or by particular contract with the Proprietor hath taken it upon himself But it lies upon the Land being charged thereon by him that was then actually seized of the Land or had at that time a legal property therein and the burden descending with the Inheritance the Heir is fain to undertake the burden because he cannot else enjoy the Land But the Tenanâ— who Occupies this Land and imploys his Stock upon it is no way at all concerned in this payment because it goes out of the Rent unless it be otherwise provided by private agreement between the Landlord and him But there is no proportion between Tytheâ— and this for Tythes is a burden lies upon the Stockâ— which the Donors of Tythes were not actually seâ—zed of nor had a legal property in and goes not out of the Rent but out of the Stock and the Landlord is not concerned in it but the Tenant And if the Proprietor occupy the Land himself it is by reason of the Stock he uses upon the Land that he payâ— Tythes not by reason of the Land for if he hath the Land in his Hands and hath no Stock upon it but lets it lie and makes no Profit of it he has no Tythâ— to pay for the Land though if at the same time he imploy his Stock any other way he is liable to pay Tythe of the profit of his Stock But though he make no Profit of his Land at all yet the Rent-charge he must pay The Priest says He knows an Estate of
forty Pounds per annum charged with the payment of ten Pounds per annum forever to the Poor Suppose the utmost Profits of that Estate should some Years through ill Seasons Blastings or other accidents fall under ten Pounds shall the Owner be excused from paying ten Pounds If not he may see thereby that the charge lies upon the Lands not upon the Profits for what if the Owner make no Profits at all that will not destroy the Rent-charge If he can improve his forty Pounds a Year to an hundred he shall pay but ten Pounds out And if he should make less then ten Pounds of it yet ten Poundâ— he must pay This shews it to be of a quite different Nature from Tythes and therefore not as the Priest suggests in any danger of being destroyed by the downfall of Tythes Having now removed the Priest's Objections and â—lear'd my Argument against Tythes from being destructive of Rent-charges and other sums of Money given to relieve the Poor I cannot but take notice of the seeming compassion the Priest shews of the Poor and the care he pretends to have of their Rights And considering withal how great a self-interest â—â—es at the bottom it brings to my remembrance the Story of Iudas Ioh. 12. 3 4 5. and the account the holy Pen-man gives of him ver 6. viz. This he said Not that he cared for the Poor but because c. §17 The next thing the Priest quarrels with is a Position he sayes of mine That Tythes are a greater Burden than Rents This he pretends to take out of pag. 343. of my Book in which there is no such Possibly he might deduce it from my Arguments in that place but then he should have so represented it and not have called it my Position The truth is the Position is in it self so 〈◊〉 saving that it seems to make Rents a Burden which simply they are not that I cannot but like and defend it though I blame his over-forward and unwelcome boldness in making Positions for me But hear what he sayes to this Position of his own making pag. 199. It would seem a Paradox that Two Shiâ—â—ings is a greater Burden than Twenty but only that nothing is so easie but it seems difficult when it is done unwillingly As he has stated it it may well seem a Paradox but state it aright and it will not seem any Paradox at all It is not the unwillingness in paying but the injustice in requiring that makes the payment a Burden In claims equally unjust the greatest Claim is the greatest Burden but where one Claim is just and t'other unjust as in the case of Rent and Tythes the unjust Claim is the greatest burden be the sum more or less Two Shillings exacted where it is not due is a greater burden than twenty Shillings demanded where it is due Two Shillings for nothing is a greater burden than Twenty Shillings for Twenty Shillings-worth This is no Paradox at all but plain to every common capacity And thus stands the case between Tythes and Rents Tythes are a Burden because they are not just not duc Rents are not a Burden because they are just they are due Tythes are a Burden because they are exacted of the Quakers at least for nothing Rents are not a Burden because they are demanded for a valuable consideration Thus his Paradox is opened But he is highly offended with me for saying I doubt not but if every English-man durst freely speak his own sense Nine parts of Ten of the whole Nation would unanimously cry TYTHES ARE A GREAT OPPRESSION This has so incensed him that not able to contain he calls me a seditious Libeller forgetting perhaps that his own Book is nameless and sayes pag. 200. T. E. not content to discover his own base humour measures all mens Corn by his own Bushel and as it is the manner of such as are Evil themselves he fanciâ—s all men pay their Tythes with as ill will as the Quakers and impudently slanders the whole Nation I step over his Scurrillity and ill Language and tell him first If this be as he sayes a Slander himself hath made it a tenth part bigger than it was by stretching it to All men and the whole Nation which he himself acknowledges waâ— spoken of but nine parts of the Nation I did not say All men and the whole Nation would call Tythes a great Oppression for I suppose some in a devout mistake may be as ready to pay as the Priest is greedy to receive them Secondly I am not at all Convinced that it is a Slander but do believe it a real Truth And though he sayes Common experience proclaims me a Lyar herein there being very few Parishes where Nineteen parts of Twenty do not pay their Tythes freely as any other due I dare appeal to eighteen parts of his Nineteen whether this be true or no. But since it is hard to take a right measure of Peoples freedom and willingness herein while the Lash of the Law hangs over them it were greatly to be wished that our Legislators in whose power it is to decide the doubt would be pleased to determine the Controversie by taking off those Laws and Penalties by which the People are compelled to pay Tythes and leave them wholly free in this case to exercise their Liberality towards their Ministers as God shall incline and inlarge their Hearts And truly if the Priest dislikes this Proposition it is a very great Argument either that he doth not believe what himself said but now viz. that nineteen parts of twenty pay Tythes freely or that he doth greatly distrust the goodness of his Ministry At length he takes notice of the Reasonâ— I gave why Rents are not a Burden as Tythes The first Reason he thus gives The Tenant hath the worth of his Rent of the Landlord but of the Priest he receiveth nothing at all To this says he I answer The Heir of an Estate charged with a perpetual payment to the Poor receives nothing from the Poor to whom he pays the Money yet this is no Oppression pag. 201. Though the Heir receives nothing from the Poor yet he receives the Estate which is so charged under that Condition of paying so much Money to the Poor which Estate otherwise he should not have had The Heâ—â— then doth not pay foâ— nothing although he hath nothing from the Poor to whom he pays for he hath that very Land in consideration on which the payment to the Poor is charged Thus the Heir is safe Then for the Tenant he is not at all concerned in the matter unless it be by private contract it goes out of the Landlord's Rent not out of the Tenant's Stock And if the Tenant by the Landlord's oâ—der pays it to the Poor he doth it in his Landlord's name by whom it is accepted as so much Rent paid But Tythe is quite another thing For first the Heir doth not receive the Land undeâ— condition of
the Person so pretending is indeed deputed by his Landlord to that service Now then if according to this Simile the Priest would say or do any thing to the purpose let him first prove Tythes or the Tenth part to be Gods peculiar due under the Gospel and when that shall be agreed on we will if he please in the next place examine his Deputation and see how well he can make it appear that God hath appointed him for his Steward and Receiver In the mean time his precarious and petitionary Pleas are neither helpful to him nor creditable to his Cause But he says pag. 202. after all this the Quaker is a notorious Falsifier in saying The Tenant receives nothing from the Priest for he receives his Prayers and his Blessing his Preaching and other Administrations If the Tenant be a Quaker the Priest is a notorious Falsifier for he knows full well the Quaker receives none of all these of the Priest The Quaker doth not beâ—ieve the Priest's Prayers or his Preaching either to be worth receiving And for his Blessing as the Quaker doth not desire it so he is so far from receiving it that he seldom goes without his Curse Then for his other Administrations as he calls them 't is well known they that receive them pay roundly for them over and beside their Tythe He comes now to my second Reason which he thus gives pag. 203. Rent is a voluntary Contract volenti non sit injuria but Tythe is not voluntary now but taken by force To this he thus answers Very good By this Rule then it appears that Tythes are not as he falsly affirm'd but now they were a general Oppression for the generality pay them willingly and many Thousands contract with their Landlord and their Parson to pay them as voluntarily as they do to pay their Rents That the generality pay Tythes willingly is a confident Assertion contradicted by common experience scarce any one thing producing so many Suits at Law and so much strife and contention as Tythes In one sense I confess they may be said to pay willingly that is they are willing to pay the Tenth rather than have three Tenths taken from them So that being under a necessity of bearing one they chuse that which they take to be the lightest Burden and least Suffering And if in this sense he means they pay willingly and contract voluntarily such Contracts and Payments are much-what as voluntary as a Traveller's delivering his Purse to an High-way Man pâ—esenting a Pistol to his Breast Or as some School-Boys putting down their own Breeches not out of any great willingness sure they have to be Whipt but because they had rather by that means come off with three lashes than by refusing so to do suffer three times as many But sayes the Priest ibid All things are not Oppressions that are paid involuntarily for some Knaves will pay no just dues to any without compulsion c. It is not the unwillingness to pay that makes the Oppression but the injustice and inequality of the payment Iust dues are no Oppression but his supposing Tythes a just due is a begging of the Question Rent is a just and equal payment for which the Tenant receives the value of what he pays And tâ—ough the Priest says pag. 205. No doubt the Quakers could â—ish rather there were no Rent to be paid neither and they voluntarily covenant to pay Rent because they cannot enjoy the Farm without that charge Yet no doubt he is conscious to himself that he slanders the Quakers in this also for it is very well known the Quakers are as willing to pay their Rents or any other just dâ—es and are as good Tenants to their Landlords as any others are to say no more The Quakers know Rents to be just and reasonable and they do not desire to reap the benefit of other men's Lands for nothing as they are not willing the Priests should reap the benefit of their Labour for nothing In short the Quakers do Conscientiously pay Rents and all other just dues from a Principle of equity and justice as well as from the same Principle they do Conscientiously refuse to pay Tythes which are against Equity and Iustice. The Priest undertakes to make it appear that the Quakers did voluntarily contract to pay Tythes If says he pag. 204. Tythes be not mentioned in tâ—e contract then the Laws of England suppose that the Tenant consents to pay them This is a supposition of his own supposing which he grounds upon this Reason that Tythes are a known charge upon all Land whereas Tythes as I have proved before are a charge upon the Stock not upon the Land and are paid out of the Profits of the Stock not â—ut of the Rent of the Land But if Tythes were a charge upon the Land as Rent-charges Annuities and other customary Payments are they would then issue out of 〈◊〉 Rents and the Landlords not the Tenants would be 〈◊〉 â—hereto Thus his Reason being removed 〈◊〉 Supposition â—alls together with what was built upoâ— it §18 In his next Section the Priest says T. E. comes â—o his last Reserve I wish be were come to his last Falshood that after that I might expect Truth from him That which he calls my last Reserve he thus gives pag. 205. viz. That Tythes were really purchased by the owners of Estates for which he quotes pag. 344. of my Book gives this for my proof viz. They purchased all that was not excepted out of the Purchase but Tythes were not excepted therefore the Purchasers bought them and may sell them again and says If I can make this out this alone will do my business Although I doubt not this passage in my former Book will give satisfaction to any indifferent Reader yet seeing the matter is proposed anew I will â—ndeavour to open it a little further First therefore I desire the Reader to consider What it is the Purchaser buys 2. What it is Tythes are demanded of The Purcâ—aser buys the Land and that he buys intire no Tythe-Land no tenth Acre is ever excepted expresly or implicity but he buys the whole Field or Farm the tenth part as well as the nine But in this Purchase he buys the Land not the Profits or Increase which by Husbandry and Manuring may arise upon the Land in time to come for they are uncertain and the seller who makes him an Assurance of the Land will not undertake to assure him a future Increase and Profit from the Land nor were it reasonable to expect it Since then this is a Purchase of Lands which the Priest doth not lay any claim to let us next enquire what it is the Priest demands Tythes of The Priest himself shall answer this who in his Right of Tythes pag. 196. says expresly We grant to T. E. Tythes are due out of the Profits only and therefore if God give no Increase or the Husband-man have nothing grow we expect no
he quotes after an odd manner a Tract so he stiles it called Some of the Quakers Principles put forth he says by Isaac Penington and the second Quaker there he tells us has this passage But I can tell him there is no such Tract put forth by Isaac Penington although a Book there is bearing this Title Some Principles of the Elect People of God in scorn called Quakers which is a Collection of some particular passages relating to our Principles taken out of several Books of divers Men and published together But neither was this put forth by Isaac Penington although his Name be to some parts of it This I take to be the Book which the Priest refers to And though he cites no page thereof yet finding in the fifth page that Passage I suppose which he cavils at I will set it down at large as it there stands The Title of that Page is this Grounds and Reasons why we deny the World's Teachers And the third Reason is thus given viz. They are such Priests as beaâ— rule by their means which was a horrible and filthy tâ—ing committed in the Land which the Lord sent Ieremiah to cry out against while we â—ad Eye and did not see we held up such Priests but the Lord hath opened our Eyes and we see them now in the same Estate that they were in which Ieremiah cryed out against who did not bear rule by his means and therefore we deny them Ier. 5. 31. This is that Paragraph to a Syllable in which there is no Foundation for the Priest's Cavil for the Quaker doth not say as the Priest suggests that those Priests mentioned by Ieremiah did bear Rule by their Estates but that these Priests whom we deny are such as bear Rule by their Means or Estates Those Priests in the time of the Prophet Ieremiah did bear Rule by means of the false Prophets These Priests now adays do bear Rule by means or help of those Estates which they get from the People That was an horrible and filthy thing then This is an horrible and filthy thing now For the horribleness and filthiness of the thing must not be restrained to their bearing Rule by those particular means only and no other for if they had born Rule by any other false and indirect means it would have been an horrible and filthy thing as well as it was in their bearing rule by means of the false Prophets For the only means by which the Priests of God ought to bear Rule is the Spirit and Power of God the vertue and influence of the divine Truth and those Priests that take upon them to bear Rule by any other means than this commit an horrible and filthy thing Thus did those Priests in Ieremiah's time They bore Rule not by means of the divine Spirit and Power not by means of the Heavenly vertue and influence of Tâ—uth but by â—ther means viz. by means of the false Pâ—ophets and therefore the true Prophet cryed out against them And thus do Priests now adayes They bear Rule not by means of the Spirit and Power of God not by means of the divine vertue and influence of Truth but by other means viz. by means of those Estates which they get from the People and therefore do we in the Name of the Lord deny them Now it is manifest that the Author of that Book out of which this passage is taken did not say that those Priests of old and these of late did both bear Rule by one and the same means but the scope and driâ—t of his words there is to shew that they did both bear Rule by false and unlawful means for he says in the place fore-quoted While we had Eyes and did not see we held up such Priests but the Lord hath opened our Eyes and we see them now in the same Estate that they were in which Ieremiah cryed out against who did not bear Rule by his means So that herein it is that he shews they agree in this it is that he draws the Comparison between them viz. in that they did not bear Rule by God's means In this they were both in the same Estate namely in that they did both bear Rule by wrong means although they did not both bear Rule by one and the same wrong means The Identity or Saâ—eness is not refer'd to the particular means by which they did and do bear Rule but to the Estate which they were and are in who did and do bear Rule by indirect meanâ— Therefore observe He doth not say We see them now bear Rule by the same means that they bore Rule by which Ieremiah cryed out against but he says We see them now in the same Estate that they were in which Ieremiah cryed against who did not bear Rule by his viz. God's means which was an estate of Apostacy and Degeneration an estate of Alienation from God and of Rebellion against him usurping to themselves an Authority and bearing Rule over the People but not by God's means not by those means which God had appointed viz. by the divine Vertue and heavenly Power of his holy Spirit but having recourse to other means to get up and to keep up a Domination and Rule Now although the means by which those Priests then did and these now do bear Rule are not Specifically the very same yet are they one and the same in Nature that is they are both wrong means both unlawful means both such means as God neither appointed nor allowed which is the ground of their being disclaimed and declamed against both by the Prophet of Old and by us now So that they are the same in that respect in and for which they were and are disowned and in that part it is that the Comparison lies with respect to that part the Parallel is drawn Nor doth the Allusion to the Prophet's words strictly tye the Alluder to an exact Comparison in every point and circumstance but it is sufficient that the Comparison holds in that part upon which the Argument is grounded Now the Quaker's Argument here against the Priests is grounded on their bearing Rule by false and indirect means by such means as are not God's means and these Priests being compared in this respect with those Priests in Ieremiah's time the Comparison is found to be true and good for those Priests then did bear Rule by means alike unlawful And the Prophet's crying out against those Priests then for committing thiâ— horrible and filthy thing doth justifie the Quakers in crying out against these Priestâ— now for committing a thing of the like Nature By this time I doubt not but I have satisfied the Reader that the Quakers do neither mis-interpret nor mis-apply that Text of the Propheâ— Ier. 5. 31. but that the Priest has grosly abused the Quakers and manifested an envious and foul mind in charging them hereupon with sottish Ignorance and calling them Cheaâ—s and Impostors And seeing the Priest says in his Vindication