Christian Temples but also advanced their Veneration commanding them most ethuically to be increased c. This was about One Hundred Years before Ethelwolf's Donation of Tythes and if the Church of Rome which was then the Mother Church to England was so Idolatrous then what may we think she was in Ethelwolf's time one Hundred Years after and what may we suppose that King himself to be who was so great an Admirer of her and bountiful Benefactor to her He sayes Thirdly I instance in Miracles and Intercession of Saints taxing Bede with these points of Popery and the Saxons of his time To this sayes he pag. 131. I reply That if the belief of Miracles make men Papists then T. E. and his Quakers are all Papists for they believe they are immediately taught which is a stranger and greater Miraclâ— then any they can find in all Bede's History What a miserable shift is this Is this Reasoning or Railing would any man that had either a good Cause or good parts have shewed so much weaknesâ— to give a meer Quibble instead of a solid Reply In his 28 Sect. pag. 161. He charges me though very unjustly as in its place c. 5. S. 4. I have shewed with evading all serious Answers by some petty Cavil Judge now Reader if himself be not here guilty of what he there charges upon me Hath he not in this very place evaded a serious Answer by a petty Cavil But this is an usual way with him when he is hard set and willing to avoid the matter I alledged that long before Ethelwolf was Born Popery had made her encroachments in the Church among many instances whereof that I brought one was the belief of strange kind of Miracles wrought by the Relicks of Popish Saints nor only so but by thâ— Wood of the Cross and by Holy Water also This I proved by divers quotations out of the Ecclesiastical History of Beda the Saxon. To which after his prophane Iest he replyes It is not unlikely but some extraordinary Miracles might be wrought at the first Conversion of the Saxons the more easily to Convince that rugged People and the want of human learning in that Age might occasion the credulous reception of more then was true and yet we must not condemn them presently for Papists ibid. He that will take the pains to read Bede's History particularly his third Book 2 11 13 and 15. Chap. and his fifth Book 4. Chap. may there find relation of Miracles as palpably Popish as any in the Roman Legend And if it should be granted that Miracles were then wrought to Convince that People it must be supposed that those Miracleâ— if wrought by the Power of God were wrought to Convince them of the true Faith and Worship of God and to establish them in it But the Miracles mentioned in those Chapterâ— of Bede's History to which I have above refer'd tend not to the setting up of the true Worship of God but a false Worship even the Worship of the Church of Rome in the veneration and adoration of Relicks of Popish Saints of the Wood of the Cross of Holy Water and of consecrated Oyl which all men know to be a part and a corrupt part too of the present Romish Religion So that in these things the Saxon Church then appears to have been in the same condition in which the Church of Rome both then was and now is He sayes They might be credulous and apt to be imposed upon but that was their infirmity and amountâ— but to Superstition not to Popery ibid. He forgets his Brother's Definition of Popery Friendly Confer pag. 149. That it is such Doctrines and SUPERSTITIOUS Practices which by the corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome contrary to the true ancient Catholick and Apostolick Church So that if those things recorded by Bede to be wrought and believed by and among the Saxons were such superstitious practices as by the corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome contrary to the true ancient Catholick and Apostolick Church then they are Popery and they by and amongst whom they were so wrought believed and received were Papists but no Protestant I hope will deny the instances above given to be superstitious Practices to have prevailed in the Church of Româ— through the corruption of time and to be contrary to the true ancient Catholick and Apostolick Church Besides if as he sayes they might be credulous and apt to be imposed upon and so could be excused as he would have them upon the score of their Infirmity yet who I pray were they that took the advantage of their credulity and did impose upon them were they not their Priests their Clergy and what were they mean while If the People werâ— credulous and easie to be beguiled and imposed upon the Priests were not less crafty and ready to imposâ— upon them and beguil them But was not this the same Priest-hood to which Tythes were afterwardâ— given who thus imposed upon the credulous People and deluded them with lying Wonders As for Intercession of Saints he sayes If I mean that the Saxons prayed to the Saints as their Intercâ—ssors with God I do egrâ—giously wrong them pag. 132. About what time the Opinion of the Intercâ—ssion of Saints was received in the Church and how understood Perkins in his Problem of the Church of Rome pag. 87. c. shews First he sayes it was altogether unknown in the Church of God for the space of two Hundred Years after Christ. After which time Origen he sayes and other Fathers disputed concerning the Saints Intercession for us but very diversly and doubtfully untill the Year 400. From that time it seems to have been a received Opinion For the Ancients he sayes pag. 89. teach that the Saints do interceed not only openly by Praying but interprâ—tatively also by meriting or deserving of which he there gives many instances and concludes that among the Anâ—ients the Saints are made immediate Intercessors to God for us From this belief of the Saints Intercession sprang the custom of Invocation or Praying to Saints which Perkins shews was not in the Church for three Hundred and Fiâ—ty Years after Christ but began to creep in about the Year 380. and after the Year 400. he sayes the Ancients sinâ—ed and were guilty of Sacriledge in praying to the Saints of which he gives many Instances some whereof shew that the Saints were prayed to as Intercessors to God yea as Mediators between God and Man For Paulinus in natali 3. in Faelicem sayes Exora ut precibus plenis Meritisque redonet Debita nostra tuis i. e. Pray O Faelix that he would forgive us our Sins for the sake of thy full Prayers and Merits And Fortunatus in vita Martini lib. 2. thus intreats Martâ—n Inter me et Dominum Mediator ad esto benigne i. e. Be thou O Martin afavourablâ— Mediator between the Lord and me Noâ— was this Opinion of the
Achaia to make a certain Conâ—ribution for the poor Saints which are at Jerusalem It was not therefore fairly done of the Priest to perswade his Reader that these weekly Collections made by the Christians for the Relief of their Poor Brethren were Oblations or Offerings to their Pastors and Teachers for their peculiar use as he seems to do Which yet if they had been it would not in any measure have proved Tythes since no certain quantity is exprest much less a tenth nor any forced Maintenance they being altogether free and voluntary § 2. But he is willing to hasten from Scripture-evidence finding nothing there that may serve his purpose therefore he sayes pag. 75. Not to expaliate into the whole Maintenance of the Christian Bishops and Priests in the first Ages he will come to enquire whether they had nothing in that Maintenance Answering to Tythes yea Whether they had not Tythes given them by a voluntary Devotion For this he offers the Testimony of Irenaus thuâ— pag. 76. We ought to offer to God the first Fruits of his Creatures as Moses saith Thou shalt not appear before the Lord empty for not all kind of Oblations are abrogated there were Olations among them and there are Oblations among 〈◊〉 And a little after thus As the Jews gave their tenths so the Christians gave all they had freely and cheerfully to the Lords uses not giving less then they as having a greater hope In the first of these places no mention at all is made of Tythes but of first Fruits and that with respect to the Law of Moses not binding to Christians In the latter it is evident the Christians did not give Tythes or any thing answering Tythes for the words are express they gave all they had freely and chearfully to the Lords uses So that neither of these places serve his end But because he here and else-where in Ancient Writers reads the word first fruits he would perswade his Reader that first Fruits and Tythes are all one the same thing under divers Names and that the very firâ—t Christians dedicated their first Frâ—its of all the Earth's productions to God pag. 77. â—ere this true that the very first Christians dedicated their fiâ—st Fruits of all the Earths productions to God mâ—tâ—ings some mention of it should have been in holy Sâ—ripture But neither any hint at all do I there find that they did so nor any exhortation to them in any of the Epistles so to do Since therefore no proof of thiâ— can be drawn from Scripture and that â—renaeus and others that writ after him speak oâ— the timeâ— in wâ—ich they lived I conclude the Priest was somewhat mistaken in fathering thiâ— dedication of fiâ—st Fruits upon the very first Christians Then for â—is other conceit That first Fruits aâ—d Tytâ—es siâ—nifiâ— the same thing the evidence he offerâ— are Tâ—e Apostolical Canons which he sayes pag. 77. were the Decrees of divers Christian Synods made in the times of Persecution and of great Authority in thâ— Câ—ristian Church But doubtless were he not at a very low Ebb he would never have mentioned the Apostolical Canons as they are called which though to credit his Cause he pretends to have been of great authority in the Christian Church yet he must not be the man he would willingly pass for in point of Knowledge and Reading iâ— he be now to learn that many learned and knowing Men have long since exploded rejected them aâ— Suppositions and false Perkins against Coccius in his Prâ—blem of the Church of Rome pag. 7. sayes The Book of the Canons of the Apostles is said to be Apocryphal and quotes Isidorâ— affirming the same The first that mentioned them he sayes was Epiphanius who wrote about the Year â—80 and in the sixth Council of Constantinople they were condemned Selden also in his History of Tythes â— 4. pag. 43. calls them plainly counterfeit Canons and in his Review on that Chapter shews more at large that they are so § 3. The Priest quotes here a Sentence out of Origen wherein first Fruits are mentioned but not a word of Tythes yet in his application of it pag. 79. he makes Origen conclude from hence that the Law of Tythes and first Fruits ought to stand in force among Christians but therein he wrongs Origen whose words are Haec diximus asserentes modatum de primitijs frugum vel pecorum debere etiam secundum literam stare i. e. These things we have said affirming that the Commandment coâ—cerning the first Fruits of Fruits and of Cattel ought to stand even according to the Letter These are Origen's words into which the Priest for his own end hath slyly thrust the word Tythes and made him say the Law of Tythes and first Fruits ought to stand What credit is to be given to such a Man Nor deals he much better with Cyprian whom he quotes next after this manner To him sayes he pag. 79. we may add St. Cyprian who lived about forty years after who commending the Nobleness of the â—irst Christians blames those who did not give the Tythes out of their Inheritance which sayes the Priest Cyprian would not have done but that he believed Christ intended Tythes for the Maintenance of a Gospel Ministry He that shall fairly consu't the place will easily see that the Priest hath quite missed Cyprians meaningâ— for he doth not blame them for not giving Tythes but comparing the Oblations of the Primitive Christians with those of the time wherein he lived he shews the decay of Devotion to be such that they did not then give so much as the tenth part of what the first Christians gave His words as I find them in Selden's Review c. 4. are Doâ—â—s tunc et fun los renundabant et the sauros sibi in calo repomentes distribuenda in usus indigentium praetia Apostolis offerebaut At nunc patrimonio nec decimas damus et cum vendâ—re jubeat Dominus emimus potius et augemus i. e. Then they sold Houses and Farms and laying up Treasures for themselvâ—s in Heaven they offered the Prices to the Apostles to be distributed for the uses of the Poor But now we do not give so much as thâ— Tenths of our Patrimony and whereas the Lord commandeth to sell we rather buy and increase Whence it is plain Cyprian doth not either require Tythes or blame them that did not give Tythes But uses the word Decimas rhetorically to perswade the Christians of his time to greater Liberality and Charity by the example of the first Christians to whose free bounty what these gave would not if compar'd be so much as a tenth part And thus Selden in the place fore-quoted understood him But no more reason is there to suppose Cyprian did here blame the Christians foâ— not giving Tythes out of their Patrimonies then there would be to imagine he blamed them for increasing their Estates by purchase which the Christian Religion doth in no wise prohibit Christians
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
higher Office among them then a Deaconship The King is indeed the Minister of God but his ministerial function is civil and therefore he is called the civil Magistrate And if we consider the time wherein that Epistle to the Romans was written we shall find no cause to suppose the Apostle call'd the Magistrate the Minister of God in a Religious and Spiritual sense it being written probably about the beginning of Nero's Reign then whom that Age did not bring forth a greater Enemy to the Christian-Religion And being spoken of Magistracy in general it cannot without the greatest absurdity be understood in a Religious sensâ— But if the Magisterial Office be a civil Office and Function to what end serves the mention of it here The Priest's is not such it helps not him at all He sayes By vertue of that Ministerial Function his Majesâ—y claims many temporal rights besides the antient Patrimony of his Family And will adds he this faucy Quaker say he hath a better Title to his Estate then the King hath to the Rights and Revenues of his Crown No No The Quaker will not be so â—aucy as the Priest would gladly have him The Quaker knows the King's Temporal Rights are Built upon a bottom as firâ— and stable as the Priest's claim to Tythes is weak and feeble And the Priest knows too that the King claims his Rights upon considerations of another nature then those upon which the Priest claims Tythes for the King claims his Rights in a civil capacity and under a civil qualification by vertue of the administration of a civil Office but the Priest claims Tythes in a Religious capacity and upon the account of a Spiritual Office Judge now Reader how very impertinently the Priest has urged this Instance and how far it is from helping him After the same rate goes he on for several pages together offering nothing of solid Argument but meeâ— Sophistry He undertakes pag. 146. to evidence the Priests claim by a parallel Suppose sayes he some Prince or great Man did out of his own Inheritance make a donation of some certain Lands or Rents to an Elwood and entail it on the Family of Elwoods forever if T. E. be the Heir of that Family he will say he hath as good a Right to this as if he had purchased it And why may not sayes he the Priest claim his Tythes as justly as T. E. claims this Donative There are many Reasons why he should not both with relation to the Giver to the Gift it self and to the considerations on which it is given but that which is most direct to the present case is the different capacities of the Claimers T. E. if he should claim such a Donative must claim it in a civil capacity under a civil qualification without respect to any Religious Office but the Priest claims not Tythes so but quite contrary he claims on the score of a Religious Office without respect to any civil capacity or qualification at all What can be more different then two such Claims whereof one is meerly Civil the other meerly Religious Now that Claim that is civil falls properly under the cognizance of human Laws which are of the same nature with it but so doth not the other Nor were the Religious Donations of Tythes accounted cognizable by the civil Magistrate or subjected to human Laws for many hundred Years afâ—â—r they were given In the winding up of this Section he shews himself to be a man of a base unworthy miâ—d who because he finds me fenced by Truth against the force of his Arguments le ts fly one of his enâ—enomed Darts to wound the honour of my deceased Mother And rather then want an opportunity he stiâ—â—â— not to make a down-right falshhood by which to make way for â—is slanderous insinuation His words are these pag. 147. Though this bold Quaker do ofâ—en say we are no Prâ—ests I must tâ—ll him there is more fear he is no Elwood then we no Priesâ—s aâ—d our Ordiâ—ation is easier to prove theâ— T. E's Mother's Honesty False man and most unworthy Let him produce if he can that place in my Book whâ—â—â— I say they are no Priests Do I not frequently call them Priests and seldom any thing eâ—se And 〈…〉 so void of shame as well as honesty to charge me that I often say They are no â—riâ—sts But it is obvious that he forged this falshood only to usher in his slanderous suggestion But I would have him know he has hereby only discovered his own base ungenerous Nature in attempting to defame the Memory of one whom probably he never knew much less had ever provocation from but is not able to blemish her Reputation who was well known to be a modest chaste and vertuous Woman unstain'd throughout her Life with any spot of Inâ—amy having slept in Peace about some twenty Years her Memory is still fresh and sweet to all that knew her and her good Name above the reach of this Detractor's Tongue § 3. In his next Section pag. 148. The Priest quotes me saying thus pag. 314. If the case of the Priest and of T. E as to Temporal Right be equal then the Priest must acknowledge he is no more a Minister of Christ then T. E. at least that he doth not claim them as a Minister of Christ any more then T. E. doth his temporal â—state otherwise the parallel will not hold Wâ—at a lame quotation hath he here given In the page out of which he has taken this I observed how willing the Priest was for his own interest to parallel his casâ— with the Parishioners as if there were no difference at all in their Claims One claims a temporal thâ—â—â— and the other claims a temporal thing One claims by a temporal Right and the other claims by a temporal Right One hath no need of a Precept or Example in holy Scripture for what he claims no more hath the other Thus he takes his Parishioner by the â—ose and endeavours to cokes him into a conceit that their cases answer pat to one another that their Right is all one their Claim one and the same their pretensions just alike But then say I they must not stay there the Priest must also acknowledge he is no more a Minister of Christ then the other at least that he doth not claim Tythes as a Minister of Christ any more then the other doth his temporal Estate otherwise the parallel will not hold For if he claims Tythes as a Minister of Christ if he demands them in consideration of a spiritual Office I am sure then their Claims will not agree and that which will be sufficient to make good a Title to the one will not be so to the other This I recite the larger that the Reader may see upon what grâ—â—nds I made this Conclusion The Priest sayes The maxim on which this inference is grounded is this wretched absurdity That none can have equal temporal rights by
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
Gospel-Ministers should be the Receivers of it pag. 71 Who that had read all this could have thought any other but that he verily believed Tythes were so ordained and settled by God that they were an immutable unalterable Maintenance Nay K. Hen. 8. is by the other Priest charged with Sacriledge for but alienating some part of the Tythes Vindicat. pag. 305. And yet he now says When our people sell all volâ—ntarily as they did we will quit our Claim to Tythes Doth not this manifest that what he hath writteâ— before of the divine Right of Tythes was in Hypocrisiâ— and Dissiâ—ulation to blind the Eyes of ignorant people Had he sincerely believed Tythes to be sâ— due as in the places fore-quoted he plainly affirms had he faithfully believed that our Lord Jesus and the Apostles intended the ancient divine Right to the tenth part should be continued and that the Gospel-Ministers should be the Receivers of it how could he pretending as he doth to be himself a Gospel-Minister quit his Claim to Tythes for any other Maiâ—tenance Would he quit that which himself says Our Lord Jesus intended should be continued if he believed in earnest that Jesus ever intended so And if he did not so indeed believe how false was he and how devoid of Truth so to affirm But what will not Interest and Advantage work in men of corrupt Minds Tythes then however are not it seems so sacred a Maintenance so divine a Tribute but that the Priests will quit their Claim thereto when-ever they find they can mend their Market Till then says the Priest viz. Till the people sell all voluntarily We desire the Quakers will let us quietly enjoy our ordinary Maintenance and we are well content No wonder Fill them full give them what they would have and they are well content but no longer How like are these to some of them of old that as the Prophet words it Mic. 3. 5. bite with their Teeth and cry Peace and he that putteth not into their Mouthes they even prepare War against him Just thus it is with the Priests now feed them fill them keep thâ—m biting labour toyl and drudge for them and make it thy Care that they be maintained in Pride Iâ—leness and Fulness of Bread although thy own Family want and they are well content and will cry Peace Peace and sâ—w a soft Pillow under each Arm-hole But if once thou beginnest to slack thy Hand look to thy self If once thou forbearest to put into their Mouthes they will not only prepare War against thee but will quickly too make War upon thee will take thee Prisoner and spoil thy Goods In a word if thou givest them not what they would have to bite they will bite Thee § 24. As he would be very well conteâ—t to be maâ—ntained by the Quakers so he would fain perswade the Quakers to be as well content to maintain him and the chief medium he uses to perswade by is this Tâ—at to pay Tythes especially unwillingly is a piece of passive Obedience to which a man ought to submit quietly for Conscience sake and in point of Obedience to the Authority imposing it though it be never so much against his Iudgment pag. 127. Doth this man regard what he writes who puts such a Gull as this upon his Reader Where any thing is imposed by Authority which is contrary to a man's Conscience no doubt the man is as well oblieged on the one haâ—d to submit quietly for Conscience sake by a passive Obedience to what is so imposed as on the other hand not to act against Conscience But who till now ever heard that actually to pay Tythes is a piâ—ce of passive Obedience Doth not the Law injoyn men to set out their Tythes to separate the tenth part from the nine Is not that Action If thus to do be a passive Obedience I would fain know what is active Why says he If the King should bid the Quaker turn Minister and take Tythes his doing that were Active Obedience So it were indeed but then his refusing to do it and suffering quietly for so refusing were passive Obedience In like manner if Authority command a man to set out his Tythes to separate the tenth part of his Corn from the nine his doing that were active Obedience but his refusing to do it and suffering quietly for so refusing is passive Obedience But he says pag. 228. Our Saviour submitted to pay Tribute which ought not to have been exacted of hiâ— And S. Paul commands the Christians to pay Tribute and Custom to the Heathen Emperors though they used it to idolatrous and wicked Purposes Those were Taxes purely civil which Tythes are not And they were levyed for a Civil Use however afterwards disposed of which Tythes are not He thinâ—kâ— the Quakers may as well submit to what they account an Vnjust Payment as to what they call an Vnjust Imprisonment p. 229. So they do and much after the same manner In the Case of an Unâ—ust Imprisonment as that for Tythâ—s is they do not imprison themselves but if thâ— Sheriff or his Servants come and take them to Prison they make no Resistance but quiâ—tly submit So also in the Case of Unjust Payment as that of Tythes is they do not pay it nor dare they but if the Sheriff or any other Authorized come and take away their Tythes or their Goods for refusing to pay them they make no resistance but quietly submit Thus they submit alike to an unjust Payment and to an unjust Imprisonment by a passive Obedience in each He begins to cogg with the Quakâ—rs and sayes If I were in their case I couâ—d pay my Tythes in Obedience to the laws of the Nation though I did believe the law never so unjust bâ—bâ—cause this Payment to one so opinionated is a Penalty and his Obedience therein mâ—erly Passive He speaks very like a temporizing Priest but if he were in the Quakers Case he would be of another Mind for indeed he could not be in their case unless he were better minded than he is But are Tythes a Penalty What Offence are they a Penalty for Were Tythes then imposed as a Fine or Mulct for some Transgression The Party then of whom they are demanded ought in Justice to be first convicted of that Transgression before the Penalty Tythes be required of him This is a new Crotchet concerning Tythes I have heard indeed of a Penalty for not paying Tythes but I never heard that Tythes themselves were a Penalty before The Quakers perhaps might be somewhat beholding to him if he would inform them what the Transgression was for which Tythes were made a Penalty that by keeping out of the Offence they might avoid the Penalty But is the Payment of Tythes a Penalty only to one that believes the Payment unjust for so I understand him by the word Opinionated It must then be the Belief of the Injustice of the Payment that makes it a Penalty and if so