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
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
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
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
Priest-hood only resteth in Christ and is not translated to any other and that theâ—e is now no Sacrifice leâ—t but Spiritual of Praise and Thanksgiving Heb. 13. â—5 it follows that by reason of any such external Priest-hood â—r Sacrifice Tythes are not now due unto the Church neither in any such regard ought to be challenged Again pag. 316. If there were any such Priest-hood and Tythes in that Right did appertain to the Church it is most like that our Saviour Christ and his Apostles would have challenged them But there is no one precept in the New Testament concerning paying of Tythes but only for a sufficient Maintenance for the Ministers of the Gospel Judge now Reader whether this man thought as the Priest does That our Lord Jesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers That Christ hath assigned Tythes to the Gospel Ministers and that they may be proved out of the New Testament to be due jure divino But leaving these Testimonies to the Reader 's censure I proceed now to examine his Right to Tythes by Donation and voluntary Dedication which in his next Section he makes way for but does not directly enter upon being diverted by a passage or two in my Book which it seems lay in his way § 8. First he falls with great anger upon me for saying in pag. 287. of my Book called Truth Prevailing Though Christ dâ—ny Tythes yâ—t if men will grant them it will serve the Priests turn This he calls a most malicious Inference pag. 72. But who sees not the Truth of it Care they I speak of the generality of them how they come by them so they can get them Regard they whether they have them from God or Man If some among them do yet that this Priest doth not no man that indifferently reads his Book can doubt But he thinks to pinch me closer upon this point I know sayes he to his dear Brother you never said nor thought that Christ denyed Tythes and since the Quaker affirms that Christ doth deny them let him produce the place of Scripture where Christ doth deny Tythes to be given or granted to Gospel Ministers or else he is a manifest Slanderer of Christ in this Suggestion pag. 73. I should not have thought this passage worth Transcribing but to detect his weakness and shew him how severely he jerks himself while he thinks to lash me If I do not produce the place of Scripturâ— where Christ doth deny Tythes to be given to Gospel Ministers he Brands me for a manifest Slanderer of Christ. He himself sayes Our Lord Iesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers pag. 61. yet produces no place of Scripture where our Lord Jesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers but on the contrary confesses Tythes are not mentioned in the Gospel or Epistles to be the very part pag. 67. and that Tythes are not mentioned in the New Testament by name ibid. Nor only so but affirms Our Lord and his Apostles did not make a new determination of the tenth part by name pag. 69. and that Our Lord 〈◊〉 probably on purpose decline determining the prâ—portion too expresly pag. 70. Now after all this 〈◊〉 that can so freely stigmatize me for a manifest Slanderer of Christ what will he think fit to call himself what badge will himself vouchsafe to wear He sayes Christ hath assigned Tythes to the Gospel Ministers pag. 72. but himself hath not assigned any place of Scripture for the proof thereof Shall I take the liberty to say by Retortion Let him produce the place of Scripture where Christ hath assigned Tythes to the Gospel-Ministers or else he is a manifest Slanderer of Christ in this suggestion The next occasion he takes to fall upon me is for taking King Ethelwolf's for the oldest Charter And here according to his usual Incivility he liberally bestows upon me the liveries of folly and falshood You did sayes he to his Brother pag. 73. provâ— this voluntarâ— Dedication with respect to this Nation by King Ethâ—lwolf's Charter Not because that was the first or oldest Donation of Tythes as T. E. foolishly and falsly suggests pag. 299. To the same purpose pag. 74. And because the Quaker dreading all higher antiquity and omitting alâ— inquiry into preceding Church History doth cunningly suppose Tythes no older amongst Christians then thiâ— Charter c. This is his charge how justly grounded will appear by comparing it with that part of my â—ook out of which he seems to draw it My words are these pag. 299. If he had any Charter or settlement of Tythes of Older Date then that of Ethelwolf which was about the Year 855. he should have produced it and probably so he would However since he did â—ot I have no reason to think he has any elder Where now is my folly where my falshood in this 〈◊〉 I foolish in thinking he would have produced an older Charter if he could when his business was to clear the Donation from all suspition of Popâ—ry and his interest led him in order thereto to produce thâ— most antient Charter he could find Or was I false in saying I had no reason to think he had any elder Charter since he whose main concern it was did not bring forth an older Or was it an argument I dreaded all higher Antiquity because I only refuted the highest Antiquity he brought and did not make it my busineâ—s to seek out for him an higher Antiquity then he could find for himself Belong'd it to me to search into preceding Church History to help him to a more authentick Charter What VVeak what Childish what Trifling work is this Let him not lay his Brother's Weakness at my Door but let him take his Brother to Task and teach him to manage his Cause more warily hereafter CHAP IV. HE now purposes a Method in which he promises to proceed in his following Discourse First he sayes He will look back into the Ages before K. Ethelwolf and shew by what Authority and presidents he made this Donation Secondly He will consider the Donation it self and the State of those Times in which it was made Thirdly He will note how it hath been confirmed since And then Fourthly Wipe off T. E's particular blots thrown upon this sacred Maintenance pag. 74. In this Method I intend to follow him with what brevity I can not insisting on every particular which might be spoken to in this part of his Discourse because the human Right necessarily depending on the Dâ—vine and the Divine Right hitherto remaining altogether unproved what can be urged in Defence of the Human Right will have the less weight and need the less Answer § 1. He begins with the Apostles Times and sayes pag. 75. The Apostles having given a general Rule for the Faithful to Communicate unto their Teachers in all good things the
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
Argument lies against both But he that shall read that place in my Book which the Priest hath quoted pag. 297. may plainly see my aim is to shew that even according to the Priest's Argument the Impropriators have no right to Tythes My words are It is obvious that if because Tythes have been dedicated as he sayes to God it is unlawful to alienate them to common uses then it must needs be unlawful for them to hold their Impropriations because they were offered in like manner as the rest of the Tythes were But say I there let them look to themselves Whether this be flattering and clâ—â—ing the Impropriators as he unhandsomly suggests let the Reader judge Then for those Lands given to Abbies and other Religious Houses as they were once called and upon the dissolution of those Houses settled on the Crown it is manifest his Argument impeaches that settlement and all the subequent Tittles to those Lands derived therefrom and aims at reducing those Lands into the Clergyes hands again For if as he argues being once dedicated they cannot be alienated to common use and that it is a dangerous thing to medle with any thing that hath given been to God Fr. Confer pag. 147. And again as the Censers being once given to God must remain to be his still so we may learn it ought to be in other sacred dedications they must remain sacred still Right of Tythes pag. 117. Then seeing these Abbey Lands were once dedicated to God as well as Tythes it follows unavoidably from his Argument that they cannot be alienated to common uses but must remain sacred still Thus we see at once both the aim of his unsatiable Eye and the weakness of his Argument which in my former Book pag. 297. is detected at large and the discovery thereof hath so â—ettled the man that by way of revenge and to vent his Anger he calls me poor Quaker â—lattering Quaker double-tongued and false-hearted man with more to the same purpose and what I speak with reference to those who possess the Abbey Lands he pâ—rverts and directs to the Iâ—propriators But he should have â—onsidered that his criminating me doth not at all acquit himself For if he will infer from my reasoning that I deny the Impropriators Right to Tythes which I readily enough acknowledge I do yet what is that to his Iustification whose Argument if true would strip not Impropriators only but all others also who possess Abbey Lands or any other Revenues once dedicated to God and Holy Church as the Phrase was Yet he would hide his own Teâ—th and smooth the matter over as if the Priests were the most resigned and submissive Men imaginable to the Law and very good Friends to the Impropriators For our parts sayes he pag. 118. like the Pharisâ—â— Luk. 18. 11. we do not like the Quakers take upon us to censure the actions of our Princes and Parliaments Whatever Opinions the Priests hold in this matter they do not oppose the Laws and go about to perswade any to take away the Impropriators Estates from them Do they not Pray hear now what the Author of the Conâ—erence in his Vindication pag. 305. sayes I confess that Henry 8. did alienate them speaking of Tythes c. And so did he also establish the six bloody Articles to shew himself as ill a friend to Protestants as to Tythes but is not this sayes he a wise Argument to prove that Sacriledge may de jure be câ—mmitted because de facto it hath been committed judge now Reader the truth of that saying of the other Priest viz. We do not take upon us to censure the Actions of our Princes and Parliament when this Priest charges Henry 8. and his Parliament with downright Sacriledge He might have considered that how ill a Friend soever Henry 8. was to Protestants he was not so ill a Friend to Tythes as the Priest represents him since the first Statute Law extanâ— for the payment of Tythes was made under his Reign But further sayes the Author of the Right of Tythes pag. 118. We do not pretend Conscience to save charges as the Quakers manner is Doth he know any Quaker that pretends Conscience to save charges If he does know any such I desire he will name him But if he knows no such what has he told If he would needs raise a Slander on the Quakers could he find nothing that would have look't more likely Do not the Quakers know before hand that if they refuse to pay Tythe they incur the penalty of treble dammage which by that time it is levied seldom comes to less then five or six times the single value of the Tythes demanded besides Imprisonment Is this the way to save Charges What Reader could he expect to find out of Bedlaâ— so much beside his Wits as to receive a suggestion so utterly repugnant to common sense and reason as this is But to proceed § 19. The Priest is troubled that Tythes are reputed of Popisâ— Institution and â—ain he would clear them if he knew how He tryes all the wayes he can and leaves no Stone unturned His first attempt is to defame me that my discourse might have the less acceptance In order whereunto he tells his Reader pag. 120. T. E. now falls to work for the Iesuits in good earnest labouring to make out the Pope's Title to England by a Prescription of eight or nine Hundred Years In this he is very faulty for besides his having represented me all along as a meer piece of Ignorance and Folly and thereby rendred me a very unfit Agent to carry on the deep designs of those crafty and politick Statists he knows full well that I labour not to make the Pope a Title to England but to raize out all Monuments of his usurped Authority that no print nor Foot-step may appear of his power having been exercised here by the continuance of any Custom which received either life or growth from him as this of Tythes did And since it may be lamented but cannot be denyed that the Papal Authority hath had too long as well as too great a sway here whether I pray doth best become a Protestant to acknowledge freely its full time and reject fully all its Institutions or to mince the matter represent the time shorter then it was and retain some of the Popish Institutions which like the Wedge of Gold and Babylonish Garment both deâ—ile the Camp and deform the Reformation Popery is now so justly abhor'd by the generality of English that it were a vain attempt to set up any thing apparently and avowedly Popish Therefore the Enemy of true Religion invents other wayes to keep up Popish Institutions and one is to date the Riâ—e of Popery so low as may leave room to introduce or continue some Popish Customs upon a pretence that they are antecâ—dent to Popery But he that shall duly consider the state of the Church in and from the Apostles times will find
Articles of Faith then surely they were such before else the bare determination of them would not have made them such Besides if there were Truth in what he sayes that the particulars he has mentioned had not been determined as Articles of Faith before Ethelwolf's time nor could have been Popish without such a determination yet very many other Instances may be given of Doctrines and Practices properly Popish sufficient to prove not the Church of Rome in general only but the then Church of England also which was a Member of that and for at least seven continued Successions received her Metropolitan Bishop out of the Romish Church to be Popish according to the Definition his Brother Priest has given of Popery in his Friendly Conference pag. 149. § 21. But to clear those times from the imputation of Popery he undertakes to reply to the Instances I had given in my former Book First he sayes Fâ—r those pag. â—01 the Quaker lays not much streâ—â— upon them and there are some of them allowed by the best Protestants and all men that understand Antiquity know those â—ecretal Epistles to be forged which first attributed these Constitutions to those early Popes Is not this a pretty way of replying to say his Opponent lays not much stress on them what may one not answer after this rate Next he sayes there are some of them allow'd by the best Protestants but which are they why did he not distinguish betwixt those he doth allow and those he doth not allow The Instances were The use of Holy Water to drive away Devils said to be Instituted by Alexander the first The Consecration of Chrism once a Year by Fabianus That all should stand up at the Reading of the Gospel by Anastatius That Wax Tapers should be Consecrated on the holy Sabbath by Zozimus That Processions should be made on Sundayes by Agapetus Some of these he sayes are allowed by the best Protestants but which they are he keeps to himself Lastly he sayes All men that understand Antiquity know those Decretal Epistles to be forged which attribute those Consâ—itutions to these early Popes Whether those Epistles be forged or no I will not undertake to determin nor need Iâ— for I delivered not those Instances upon my own Authority but gave the Authors out of whom I gathered them namely Fasâ—ic Temp. Platina and Burdegalensis to which more might be added if need were But suppose what he â—ayes that those Decretal Epistles are forged yet all men that understand Antiquâ—ty know that the things there instanced were in use before Ethelwolf's time and therefore must needs be instituted before So that his exception against the Decretal Epistles is but an idle shift for if it should be granted that those Constitutions were not made by those early Popes to whom they are attributed yet certain it is they were made by Popes earlier then Ethelwolf's Charter for Tythes which is enough to prove that Popery had made her â—ncroâ—chments in the Church before this dear Donation and famous Charter was made Thus we see his tripartitâ— Answer comes to just nothing and doubtless he spake considerately when he said pag. â—â—4 I will content my self to Reply to the Quaker's Instances for it can hardly be supposed he could expect by this Reply to content any boâ—y but himself But perhaps he look't upon those things as too immateriaâ— to deserve his notice and therefore coâ—tentâ—d himself to pass over them as lightly as he could as before he did Ethelwolf's being absolveâ— from his Vows by the Pope going on Pilgrimage to Rome and making such liberal Donations to uphold Superstition there But now that he comes to instances which he accounts more material it is to be hoped he will give a more material Reply First â—aith he concerning deposing of Kings T. E. saith Pope Zachary took upon him to depose K. Chilperick and absolved his Subjects from their allegiance Thus he sayes is a Forgery invented by the Champions of the Pope's Supremacy but denyed by the French who do assure 〈◊〉 that the deposing of K. Chilperick was done by Pipâ—n himself by the consent of the whole Kingdom of France before any notice was given to the Pope about it pag. 125. That the Reader may be the more able to judge of the Truth of this matter I will give him the words of the Authors themselves by whom it is delivered so many of them as I have by me which are but a few in respect of the many by whom this passage is recounted First therefore the Author of Fascic Temp. ad annum 744 sayes thus of Pope Zachaâ—ias Ipse Regem Francorum scilicet Hylderienâ—â— deposuit in locum ejus Pippinum instituit quia utilior fuit Et hic patet potesta Ecclesiae qâ—anta â—uerit hoc tempore qui regnum illud famosissimum transtulit de veris haeredibus ad genus â—ippini propter legitimam cauâ—am i. e. He deposed the King of France namely Hylderick and set Pippin in his place because he was more useful And here sayes he it appears how great the power of the Church was in this time in that he Translated the most famous Kingdom from the true Heirs to the Race of Pippin for a lawful cause platina though he mentions not the deposing of Childerick yet the setting up of Pippin by the Pope he does in these words At Pipinus regnandi cupidus legatos suos ad Pontificem mittit eumque rogat ut Regnum Franciae sibi auctoritate sua confirmet Amuit Pontisex ejas postulatis atque it a ejus auctoritate regnum Franciae Pipino ad judicatur i. e. But Pipin having a desire 〈◊〉 Reign sends his Ambassadors to the Popeâ— and 〈◊〉 him to confirm the Kingdom of France to him BY HIS AUTHORITY â— The Pope grants his requests and so BY HIS AUTHORITY the Kingdom of France was adjudged to Pipin Burdegalensis sayes of Pope Zachary Chronograph l. 2. ad annum 741. 〈◊〉 caepit Francos juramento 〈◊〉 absolvere i. e. This Pope was the first that absolved the French from their Oath of Allegiance For which he quotes Aemil. lib. 2. And a little after of Childâ—rick he hath these words Childerico 〈◊〉 Rege in Monasteriam truso Pipinus concilio Pontiâ—icis a Galliae Proceribus Rex declaratur eta S. Boâ—ifacio Germanorum Apostolo inungitur i. e. Châ—lderick the French King being thrust into a Monastery Pipin is by the counsel of the Pope declared King by the Nobility of France and ancinted by St. Boniface the Apostle of the Germans Iohn Fox in his Book of Martyrs Vol. 1. pag. 116. â—ath it thus By the Authority of the said Arch-Bishop Boniface which be received from Pope Zaehary Childericus King of France was deposed from the right of his Crown and Pipinâ—â— the betrayer of his Master was confirmed or rather intruded â—n Perkins against Coccius prob pag. 223. sayes Depositio Childerici Francorum Regis suit a Proceribus et Popâ—lo
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
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
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
going to Law for Maintenance yet to blemish if he could the Quakers he says Whereas the Quakers to make Magistrates as useless as Ministers used to declaim against going to Law upon any occasion whatsoever T. E. in contradiction to his Brethren says In Civil Cases it is no Injustice for a man to recover his due by Law Hereupon the Priest asks Have the Quakers received some nâ—w Dispensation from Heaven If not how comes it to be lawful to go to Law now in Civil Cases when 20 years ago the same thing was denyed by them as unlawful Had he intended to have convicted me of contradicting my Brethren it had behoved him to have proved not only said that the Quakers did use to declame against going to Law upon any occasion whatsoever Not only Honesty would have obliged him so to do but common Prudence would have led him to it But seeing he has so confidently said it without offering any Proof I put him upon the Proof of it and leave him under the Imputation of Slander until he shall give a Proof of his Assertion Upon this false Insinâ—ation he thus proceeds The Spirit then by which the Quakers pretend to be inspired either differs from it self or is not the same Spirit which the Quakers so lately pretended to The Spirit by which the Quakers are inspired neither differs from it self nor is any other Spirit than that which the Quakers have alwayes not only pretended to but injoyed The Quakers are led by the same Spirit that ever they were and their Testimony is the same that ever it was And truly I do not see but the Priests also are led by the same Spirit by which they were led twenty years ago for they Bâ—lyed the Quakers twenty years ago and so they do still Of this black Art this Priest is Master and as one resolved by false Reports to defame if he could them whom by Fair Reasoning and Plain Arguments he is not able to withstand he tells his Stories of the Quakers with as great Confidence as if he himself believed them One of them says he Vindication pag. 328. told me very lately That I accused the Quakers falsly in saying that they neglect to crave a Blessing upon their Meat which is now frequently practised among them Whereupon he says If this be their Minds now formerly they talked at another rate What said they we crave a Blessing when we go to Meat that 's stinting the Spirit to a Meal to a Breakfast a Dinner or a Supper The Quakers Practice in this case now is no other than it alwayes was They never neglected to crave a Blessing upon their Meat but have alwayes used to wait upon the Lord in an holy Fear and Reverence both to crave and receive his Blessing So that the Priest is indeed a False Accuser of the Quakers in saying They formerly talked at another Rate Let him name those Quakers if he can that have said as he reports the words What we crave a Blessing when we go to Meat And to provoke him to it let him take notice that the Charge of Slander is left at his Door Again He blames the Quakers for making their Appeals to Sessions and Assizes bringing Aâ—tions c. though they know there can be no prâ—câ—eding in any Court but that both Witnesses and Iuries must give their Evidences and Verdicts upon Oath If then it be truly so says he why will they be any Occasion to bring a Disgrace and Reproach upon Christianity Vind. p. 32â— That Christianity is disgraced and reproached by Oathes is too true but that the Occasion thereof is brought by the Quakers is as false The Quakers do not desire that either Witnesses or Juries should give their Evidences or Verdicts upon Oath but that both the one and the other should speak the plain and naked Truth without an Oath and that under the same Penalty as by Oath to which the Quakers with all readiness of Mind subject themselves if they be found guilty of giving False Evidence It is not then the Quakers fault that Christianity is dishonoured by Oaths but it is the Priest's Envy that casts this false Aspersion on them But he charges the Quakers not only with occasioning others to Swear but with taking Oaths themselves too and he says he is able to make it out He should have done it then and I make no doubt but he would if he had any ground for what he saith for it cannot be supposed that he who hath so grosly abused the Quakers without all ground would have spared them an inch in any thing for which he had had a real ground He adds a couple of Stories which he pretends to have heard from others The one is of two Quakers that took their Oaths in answer to an Exchequer Bill and very formally too put off their Hats and kiss'd the Book and this he says was lately told him by an Attorney of great Account and Practice His other Tale is of a Quaker who at a Commission came very formally to Swear against the late Bishop of Lincoln in a Chancery Suit And that being asked by one of the Commissioners from whom he says he had the Account How it came to pass that he being a Quaker would Swear he told him Thou knowest that among Hunts-men it was never thought amiss to kill a Fox or Badger by any means such being allowed no fair play c. leaving it to himself to make the application These are matters of fact depending upon personal Evidences which the Priest ought to have produced if he had intended to have dealt honestly Had he named the Quakers whom he here accuses or those Persons from whom he pretends to have received his Information I would have taken the pains to have sifted his Reports and tryed the Truth of his Stories and that I suppose he fore-saw and feared But seeing he hath chosen so dark a â—ath to walk in to secure himself from being traced I think it sufficient at present to tell him first That if any who bear the Name of Quakers have done as he reports of them they have therein done very wickedly and evilly and deserve as great condemnation and shame as he himself does for thus belying them if they have not so done But secondly for my own part I do not believe his Stories to be true but that they are either forged by himself or taken upon 〈◊〉 from others of his own temper and thus cast abroad with an evil design to defame the Quakers and blast the Reputation God has given them As therefore I fairly provoke my Adversary to give over Creeping and stand up like a man and to bring forth his Proofs and make good his Charges against the Quakers if he be able So I also make this just Request to my Reader that he will not pre-judge us for such groundless Reports raised or spread abroad by our professed and avowed Enemies but will suspend his Judgment till he
sees a Proof If I had a mind to retaliate my Adversary I could do it very effectually and give him a large Catalogue of scandalous and infamouâ— Priests but at present I forbear intending to let the World see I defend a Cause that has no need of such shifts § 29. I am now come to the Conclusion of each of my Adversaries Books in which I find neither any thing relating to the Subject of the Controversie Tythes nor ought else that deserves to be taken notice of They both take pains to justifie the ill Langâ—age which the first Priest gave in his Conference and indeed have so far out-done it since that that may comparatively be thought modest Some few Instances of which I gave before pag. 3. out of the Right of Tythes a few more I will add here out of the same Book that the Priest may see his own Complection as well at going off as coming on viz. These Rebels in Religion pag. 15. Such wretched pretenders as T. E. and his Crew pag. 153. T. E's head swimming with repeated Revelations pag. 154. His Seditious Folloâ—eâ—s pag. 181. This unlucky way of immediate Teaching pag. 182. Ignorance and Confidence can inspire a raw Quaker p. 187. Doting Falshoods As sensless as thy self pag. 191. What Insoleâ—ce is it for this Novice pag. 2â—6 Would have discovered his knavery in this false Assertion pag. 20â— Vagabond Speakers pag. 226. It is not to be wondred that he should defend his Brother's unseemly Expressions who knew himself so deeply guilty in the like kind But whether it becomes either one of them or the other let the Reader judge The Author of the Right of Tythes spends the greatest part of his 52 Section which is the Conclusion of his Book in Flouting and Jeering Deriding and Scoffing Disdaining and Scorning me but in all that I see no Argument unless it be of a bad â—ause and Mind therefore I let it pass But he observes that the former Priest had said The Primitive Christians were quite different from the Quakers that I had called it an old overworn Objection Whereupon he says The Quakers may be ashamed to let the Objection grow old and over-worn before they have either confessed the Truth or made some satisfactory Reply thereto pag. 240. But let him know The Objection is over-worn with being often replied to already It is worn with being answered over and over So that the Priests may rather be ashamed to urge an Objection tâ—at is so over-worn with answering Besides he may remember that his Brother Priest urged this Objection with reference to a future debate as Prâ—vidence should give Occasion and Assistance Conference page last which I took notice of in my former Answer pag. 363. and gave as the Reason why I would not anticipate his work But Providence it seems has not yet assisted him in that attempt and indeed if he never begin it till Providence assists him I never expect to see it Not only the Objection but himself also will ere then be old and over-worn But I perceive by this Priest it was expected that I should forth-â—â—th have entred upon the work and have proved that the antient Christians had not this that and the other Rite for he says pag. 241. If he meaning me can prove that these antient Christians had no distinct Order of men no Sacrament no Catechizing c. and so goes on to reckon up a matter of ten No's with an Et Caetera for me to prove But where all this while was his Learning asleep when he put his Opponent to prove not only Negatives but Et Caetâ—ra's also Was this like a Disputant His mind it seems was up in the jollity laughing at the ignorant Quaker as may be gathered from his own words at the entrance of this Section till he cou'd not 〈◊〉 the Absurdity he â—an into but expos'd himself to the laughter of others that are not more serious than himself Nor did he perhaps perceive the gross Contradiction he brought forth in his Mirth when telling his Brother the occasion he took to smile he says it was To observe what rare Effects the happy Conjunction of Ignorance and Fâ—lly have produced in your Adversary meaning me And yet a little after adds I am apt to hope when they the Quakers shall see how plainly the Ignorance and Malice the Hypocrisie and Mistakes of this their bold Champion meaning me are detected they will begin to perceive that their Pâ—inciples are not to be defended no not by the most politick Equivocation and Sophistry But are not the most politick Equivocation and Sopâ—â—stry rare Effects indeed of a Conjunction of Ignorance and Folly so rare I think that they were never yet known to procâ—ed from such a Conjunction What unhappy Conjunction was it then of Mirth and somewhat else that produced this rare Effect in him to make the most politick Equivocation and Sophistry the Effects of Ignorance and Folly But leaving him to recover himself I will wipe off an Aspersion which the other Priest hath cast upon the Quakers which having no relation to the Case of Tythes I thought fiâ— to refer to this place that I might not by interweaving it as he has done with the subject of Tythes interrupt the Course of the preceding Discourse and the rather because though he brings in his Cavil towards the beginning of his Chapter of Tythes pag. 300 he repeats it in the Conclusion of his Book pag. 333. Tâ—e matter is this The Author of the Conference amongst his many Abuses charged the Quakers with mis-applying that Text Ier. 5. 31. The Priests bear Rule by their Means And because I took no notice of it in my former Answer he in his Vindication pag. 300. 301. begins to insult and boast as if I had therefore passed it by because I knew neither how to answer his Argument nor vindicate the Reputation of my own Party and that not knowing how to excuse this I had put it into the Catalogue of minute passages Minute enough it certainly is to be put into such a Catalogue But to let him see he glories in a false Reason I will give him the true Reasons why I did not think it deserved an Answer First because he brought it in with an idle Story as himself calls it pag 153. oâ— the Invention of Guns and Powder no way pertinent to the subject he was upon but a very silly digression from the matter which I have observed frequent in him and take for an Indication of a discomposed Brain Secondly because though he charged the Quakers with mis-applying that Text Ier. 5. 31. yet he neither named any Quaker by whom nor any Book in which that Text was any way appâ—ied or so much as at all mentioned So that his Charge had neither Top nor Bottom Head nor Tayl. Who then could have thought the man so idle to expect an Answer to such an idle Charge But now in his Vindication pag. 301.
pag. 333. Had T. E câ—eared his Brethren from the Imposture he had effectually convicted me of virulency I hope the Reader will here find my Brethren so effectually cleared from the Priest's false Charge of â—mpâ—sture that he will see the Priest effectually convicted of virulency even according to his own confâ—ssion But leaving that to the Readâ—â—'s judgment let me now take the liberty to Expostulate a little with the Priest and ask him why he did not Answer those Grounds and Reasons which in the Book before-quoted out of which he piâ—k't this passage to cavil at the Quaker gave why we deny the World's Teachers He charges me with leaving my Argument to catch at or play upon a word or phrase Vindicat. pag. 311. But has not he charged his own guilt upon me Has he not here catched at and plaid upon a word or phrase and let the Arguments pass untouched Again his Brother Priest says in another Case though without Cause as I have already shewed The Quakers may be ashamed to let the Objection grow old and â—ver-worn before they have either confessed the Truth or â—ade some satisfactory Reply thereunto Right of Tythes pag. 240. But how long have these Objectioâ—s lain against the Priests it is little less than twenty years since they were first printed Might not they well be ashamed if they were not past shame who in all this time have neither confessed the Truth nor made any Satisfactory Reply to the Objections This Priest could find in his heart to look among the Grounds and Reasons there given to see if he could find any thing to carp at but let whoso will answer them for him He had not it seems Ingenuity enough to confess the Truth nor Courage enough to undertake a Reply to the Reasons Nay he did not so much as attempt to answer that one Reason out of which he took his Cavil viâ— That they are such Priests as bear Rule by their Means That they are indeed such is too notorious to be denyed and according as their Means are greâ—ter or less so do they bear more or less Rule over the people What Parish is it that knows not this bâ— sad Eâ—perience Yet hath he neither confessed the Truth of this nor made any much less a satisfactory Reply thereunto Besides in that very page out of which he catched that word he hath so played upon the Priests are charged to be such Shepherds that seek for their Gain from their Quarters and can never have enough which the Lord sent Isaiah to cry out against c. Isa. 56. 11. They are charged to be such Shepherds that seek after the Fleece and clothe with the Wool and feed on the Fat which the Lord sent Ezâ—kiel to cry out against c. Ezek. 34. They are charged to be such Prophets and Priests that Divine for Money and Preach for Hire which the Lord sent Micah to cry against and whilst we put intâ— their Mouthes they preached Peace to us but now we do not put into their Mouthes they prepare War against us Mic. 3. 11. May not these Priests be ashamed to let these Objections and many more in the same Book lie near Twenty Years against them and neither confess the Truth nor make any satisfactory Râ—ply thereunto Had it not beeâ— more for this Priest's Credit to have endeavour'd at least to remove these Objections by a sober Answer to the Grounds and Reasons in the fore-mentioned Book given than to catch at a word as he has done and only play upon a Phrase to exercise upon it his abusive Wit and Sophistry as he most falsly charges me to have done But let this suffice to manifest the Injustice of these Priests in charging the Quakers and me with those very things which they themselves are so deeply guilty of § 30. Now for a Conclusion of this Treatise I recommend to the Reader 's diligent Oâ—servation the following Particulars as a brief Râ—capitulation of the whole 1. That Tythes or an exact tenth part were never due by the Law of Nature by the eternal moral Law Thatâ— there is no Eternal Reason for that part nor Internal Rectitude in it 2. That Abraham's giving the Tythes of the Spoyls to Melchizedec and Iacob's Vowing to give the tenth part of his Increase to God being both of them spoâ—taneouâ— and frâ—e Acts are no obliging Precedents to any to give Tythes now 3. That Tythes are not now due by vertue of that Mosaick Law by which they once were due that Law being peculiar to the Iewish Polity and taken away by Christ at the dissolution of that Polity 4. That Tythes were never commanded by Christ Iesus to be paid under the Gospel nor ever demanded by any of the Apostles or other Ministers in their time That there is no Direction no Exhortation in any of the Apostolick Epistles to the Churches then gathered for the payment of Tythes either then or in after times That there is no mention at all of Tythes they are not so much as named in any of the New-Testament Writings with respect to Gospel-Maintenance although the Maintenance of Gospel-Ministers be therein treated of In a word That Tythes were not either demâ—nded or paid in the first and purest Ages of the Christian Church 5. That those Donations of Tythes which are urged by the Priests from Ethelwolf and others were made by Papists not in their Civil but Religious Capacity and were the Effects of the Corruption of Religion 6. That Tythes being claimed as due out of the Profits only those Donors could extend their Donations no further than to tâ—e Tythes of those Profits that did belong to themselves and of which they were the right Owners But the prâ—seâ—t Profits not belonging to them but to the present Occupants who are as really the right Owners of these Profits that arise now as they then were of those Profits that arose then and the present Occupants who are the right Owners of the present Profitâ— not having made any Donation of Tythes it follows that Tythes are not now due by vertue of any Donation from the right Owners 7. That the Laws which have been made for â—he payment of Tythes not making nor intending to make the Priests a Right to Tythes but supposing they had a Right to Tythes before if that Supposition prove to be false as it plainly and evidently doth and it now appears that in very deed the Priests had â—o right to Tythes before then haâ—e the Priests no Right to Tythes now by vâ—rtue of these Laws For those Laws not intending to make the Priests a 〈◊〉 Right but by mistakâ— supposing they had an old one that old one being trâ—ed and â—â—oved 〈◊〉 they have now neither old nor new Tâ—us it appears that the Priests have no Right to Tythes by the Law of God no Right to Tythes by the gift of the right Owners no Right to Tythes by the Laws of the Land 8. Tâ—at Tythes as taken in this