parts to themselves cannot vouchsafe to impart the fortieth portion thereof among the poor people of that parish that is so fruitful and profitable unto them It appears then the Poor were maintained out of the Tythes not only among the Iews in the time of the Law but in this Nation also till of late that the Priests have jâ—stled out the poor whose Names they made use of to get Tythes by at first and now ingross all the Tythes to themselves leaving the poor upon the Parish's charge So that the Parish though they pay their Tythes never so exactly and to the full are fain when that is done to begin again and make nâ—w Lâ—vies upon every man's â—state to supply the wants of the Poor And whether in this respect also the charge is not heavier on the people now let the indifferent Reader judge § 22. He spends his next Section in quarrelling with me for asking Whethâ—r it was not a Pope that set up Parish-Priests The occasion of the Question was this The Author of the Conference as this Priest in his Right of Tythes pag. 223. reports him had given two Reasons why the Apostles took no Tythes 〈◊〉 Noâ— of the Iews because their own Priests were in possâ—ssion of them 2. Not of the Gentiles because of their unfixt Station To each of these I returned an Answer in my former Book pag. 351. then askt this Question Seeing the Apostles state of Life was unfixt who I pray fixed your state of Life who divided Provinces into Parishes and set up Parish-Priests was it not a Pope For this Question the Priest derides me with a great deal of scorn and says Right of Tythes pag. 224. Never did any man pretend to 〈◊〉 of things he understood so little as T. E. doth of Ecclesiastical matters This All-knowing Quaker says he doth not understand that the Apostles themselves fixed Bishops and Pastors in the several Citiâ—s they had converted Timothy at Ephesus Titus in Crete giving them Commission to ordain and fix others in lesser Cities He were a knowing man himself if he were able to prove this Was Timothy fixed at Ephesus Titus in Crete By whom The Apostles themselves he says but how does he prove it He says it and that 's all Methinks since he judg'd I do not understand this he might have been so curteous to have offer'd some proof of it By which of the Apostles may it be supposed that Timothy and Titus were fixt as he expresses at Ephâ—sus and in Crete Paul was as likely to have been the man as any other for by his Ministry they both were converted to the Faith of the Gospel with him they seem to have most conversed and from him they received those Epistles which are inscribed to them Yet so far was Paul from fixing Timothy or Timothy from being fixed at Ephesus that we find he was sent by the Apostle into Macedonia Acts 19. 22. To Corinth 1 Cor. 4. 17. That he was with him at Athens when he writ to the Thessalonians 1 Thâ—s 1. 1. and 2 Thes. 1. 1. That he was sent to Thessalonica 1 Thes. 3. 2. 6. to Philippi Phil. 2. 19. That he was with the Apostle at Rome when he writ to the Collossians Col. 1. 1. In Prison with him there and released Heb. 13. 23. sent for by the Apostle to Rome again not long beforâ— his Death 2 Tim. 4. 9 21. So also for Titus hâ— was sent by the Apostle to visit the Corinthians afteâ— the first Epistle was written to them 2 Cor. 2. 12 7. 6. 12. 18. went afterwards again to visit thâ— Câ—rinthians and carried the second Epistle to them was sent for by the Apostle to come to him to Nicâ—polis where he intended to Winter Tit. 3. 12. Anâ— after all this we find him gone into Dalmatia 2 Tiâ— 4. 10. If these be Arguments of their being fixt at Ephosus and in Crete I confess I do not understand what he means by the word fixed Will â—e ground the fixation of Timothy at Ephesus on the words of the Apostle Paul 1 Tim. 1. 3. As I besought thee tâ— abide still in Ephesus c. or of Titus in Crâ—te on the words of the same Apostle Tit. 1. 5. For thâ—â— cause left I thee in Crete he will find them both quickly uâ—fixt again and travelling from Coâ—â—try to Country to visit the Churches to preach the Gospel or to minster to the Apostles and that after these Epistles were written to them But let us suppose for the present his Position to be true viz. That the Apostles themselves fixed Bishops aâ—d Pastors in the several Cities they had Converted Timothy at Ephesus Titus in Crete giving thâ—â— commission to ordain and fix others in lesser Cities and see how miserably he wounds himself and his Brother too with his own Weapon The Apostles he says took no Tythes of the Gentiles because of their unâ—â—xt Station Tythes or any other fixed Maintenance was utterly inconâ—istent with their unfixed state of Life Confer pag. 157. Yet the Apostles themselves fixâ—d Bishops and Pastors in the several Cities they had Converted Timothy at Ephesus Titus in Crete c. Did ever man that pretended to understanding so contradict and confound himself He gives their unfixt station for the reason why they did not take Tythes yet in the same Breath says Tiâ—â—thy 〈◊〉 fixed at Ephesus Titus was fixed in Crete the 〈◊〉 themselves fixâ—d Bishops and Pastâ—rs in the severâ—â— Cities they had converted A fixed state then according to him it seems there was amongst them in the several converted Cities and yet notwithstanding this their unfixt state was the reason why they did not take Tythes 〈…〉 the man that in derision calls me the All knowiâ—g Quaker This is he that sayâ— of me Never did any man pretend to write of things he understood so little as T. E. doth of Ecclesiastical matters Let him see now and be ashamed of his own weakness and learn for the future to speak witâ— more modesty of others He goes on thuâ— concerning me pag. 224. He knows not how Eusebius and other Historians reckon up the very Persons in all eminent Churcheâ— â—â—dained and fixed there by the Apostles Is he sure he speaks Truth in this How knowâ— he but that I do know what Euseâ—ius and other Historians say in this case as well as himself witâ—out offence to him be it spoken I know no reason why I may not But how much or little soever I know I 'le assure him I know more both in Eusebius and other Historians also than I could ever yet find Faith to believe and if I mistook him not he seem'd to be somewhat of the same mind in pag. 131. Again he says ibid It will be News to him to tell him That in the very beginnings of Christianity wheresoever the Gospel was once planted there were strict Canons made agaisnt the Clergy of one Diocess going into another to officiate This is News to
me indeed and which is worse false News too How chance he quoted no Author of his News Is not that a sign 't is News of his 〈◊〉 making I confess I never heard before that in the very beginnings of Christianity there were any such Canons made or any such Diocesses as he dreams of It behoves him therefore to set forth his Author left himself be repuâ—ed and that deservedly a Raiser and Spreader oâ— falsâ— News But in the mean time let us â—ift his News a little and see how well it hangs together He told us but now that Tmothy and Titus werâ— fixed at Ephesus and in Crete and that by the Apostles themselves though he does not know by whom yet we find not only the Apostle Paul sendâ—ng Tychicus a dear Brother and faithful Minister in the Lord Ephes. 6. 21. to the Ephesians 2 Tim. 4. 12. But Timothy also at Corinth at Athens at Thessâ—lonica at Philippi at Rome c. So likewise for Titus whom he fixes in Crete Doth not the Apostle speak of sending Artemas and Tychicus thither and of sending for Titus to Nicoâ—â—lis Tit. 3. 12 Doth he not intimate that Zenas and Apollo one of whom was an Expounder of the Law the other an eloquent Preacher of the Gospel were at Crete ver 13 â—nd did not Titus himself travel up and down into divers Cities and Countries in the labour of the Gospel Was he not at Corinth once and again anâ— went he not also unto Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4 10 Now if Timothy and Titus had been fixt as he fancies at Ephesus and in Crete if Bishops and Pastors had been fixt by the Apostles in all eminent Churches in the several Cities they had converted and if in those times in which fell the very beginnings of Christianity there had been any such Diocesses as he dreams of or any such strict Canons as he conjectures made against the Clergy of one Diocess going into another to officiate Pray how did Tychicus Apollo and otherâ— observe those Canons when they went as they did to Ephesus and Crete On how well did Timothy and Titus obey them when they went to officiate at Corinth Thessolonica Philippi Româ— and other places which according to this Priest were distinct Diocesses belonging to otheâ— men into which by the Canon they were strictly forbidden to go to officiate Doth not this discover the emptiness of his story and manifest the falness of his News But we may guess at his date of Christianity by the after-Instance he gives of a Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon the date of which he willingly leaves out but that Council was held according to Genebrard under Pope Leo the first in the Yeaâ— 454. Was this in the very beginnings of Christianity No nor of the Apostacy from Christianity neither for much Corruption both of Doctrine and Practice was in the Church before that time Thus Reader thou mayst see what his confident talk of strict Canons and Diocesses in the very beginnings of Christianity is come to Would any man of honesty ingenuity or modesty impose such falshoods upon ignorant Readers or expose such folly to judicious Eyeâ— He talks also pag. 225. of a Synod among the Britains held by S. Patrick anno 456. but without any mention of Parisâ—es and very confidently takes for granted that long before the Popes of Rome so much as directed any thing hâ—re the Brittains had fixed Arch-Bishops Bishops and Priests by which if he means those Priests were fixâ—d to Parishes as now they are which I observe he doth not expresly say but only that they were fixed they may believe it that dare take his word for it but prove it he never can Selden in his History of Tythes Chap. 9. Sect. 1. shews the contrary But the division of Parishes aâ—ong the Saxons the Priest ascribes to Honorius the fifth Arch-Bishop of Canterbury about the Year â—4â— or to Theodorâ—s the next bâ—t one in that Sea 〈◊〉 tâ—enty or thirty Years after Hence I perceivâ— he thinks he hath sufficient ground to deride me for asking If it was not a Pope that divided Provinces into Parishes and set up Parish-Priests Whether Parishes were divided by Honorius Theodorus or some other of later time I think not worth Inquiery I know the common Opinion attributes this work to Honoriâ—s which yet is doubted by many and some of great judgment It sufficeth my purpose that whether Parishes were set out and Parish-Priests fixt thereto by Honorius or Theodorus it was done by the Pope's power for either of these received his Archiepiscopal Authority from Rome Honorius says Bede Eccles. Hist. l. 2. c. 18. received the Pall of his Arch-Bishoprick from Honorius at that time Pope of Rome and withal a Letter in which the Pope grants to this Honorius Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and to Paulinus then Arch-Bishop of York to whom also he sent a Pall this power at thâ—ir request that which soever of them should die first the surviver might by the authority of the Pope's Command make such an Ordination of another in his room as should be pleasing to God This shews they received their authority from the Pope and what they acted by that authority was done by the Pope's power If therefore Honorius as Arch-Bishop of Canterbury divided that Province into Parishes and set up Parish Priests therein it cannot be denyed but those Parishes were divided and Priests set up by the Pope whose Instrument Honorius was therein and by whose power it was done And thus seems Caâ—den to understand it in his Brittania pag. 100. wherâ— he says When the Bishops of Rome had assigned several Churches to several Priests and 〈…〉 unto them Honorius Arch-Bishop of Canterbury about the Year of our Redemption â—36 began 〈◊〉 to divide England into Parishes as we read in the History of Canterbury So that he refers this Act of Honorius to the Bishop of Rome not oâ—ly in point of power but of example also In imitation then of what the Popes had donâ— and by vertue of Authority received from the Pope were these Parishes set out and were Parish-Priests at first set up whoever was the Pâ—pe's Agent therein The Priest conâ—ludes this Section thus And now says he we see T. E. hath neither Learniâ—g nor Truth in him who attributes our fixing to a â—ope when the Apostles themselves shewed the way in this Practice not intending that any â—agabond Speakers should be allowed after once the Christian Church was settled pag. 22â— I am better acquainted with my self than to pretend to any great store of Learning and with his manner of writing than to regard his Râ—flection on the Truth of what I have written With great readiness I submit both to the Censure of the judicious and impartial Reader But as little Learning as he is pleased to allow me I have enough at least to let him see that for all his great stock of Learning wiâ—h the conceit of which he is so over-blown
same nature with those Iewish Offerings which I think the Priest will not deny were ceremonial and ceast And does not the same Prophet Chap. 1. ver 7 8. reprove the Iewish Priests for offering polluted i. e. common Bread and for offering thâ— Blind the Lamâ— and the Sick for Sacrifices What else were these things â—ut Ceremonial purely Ceremonial And yet this Priest that he might still keep Tythes on foot sayes The Prophets were not wont to reprove the People for omission of things purely Ceremonial He adds ibib that Nehemiah calls his care in this viz. Tythes a good deed desiring God to remembâ—r him for it Nehem. 13. 14. It was no doubt a good deed in Nchemiaâ—h to take caâ—â— that Tythes should be duly paid according to the Law which required them which in his time was in full force But what is this to the purpose Doth this argue that Tythes were not Ceremonial or that it is a good Deed to pay them now when the Law that required them hath been so long abolished Was nothing Ceremonial that Nchemiah took care of No man with a name I think will affirm it But Tythes he sayes pag. 51. in all the new Testament are not reckoned â—p among things purely Ceremonial or declared to be repealed as Circumcision Sacrifices Washing Jewish difference of Meats and Jewish Feasts c. are Thâ—se he sayes are repealed by â—amâ— but so are not Tythes as being a thing that never were purely Ceremonial pag. 51. There was no need that Tythes should be repealed by Name It was sufficient that the Law by which alone they were due was repealed which that it was the Authoâ— to the Hebrews plainly shews Chap. 7. For having said Ver. 5. That they that are of the Sons of Levi who receive the Office of the Priest-hood have a Commandment to take Tythes of the People according to the Law and having next shewed that that Priest-hood which had a Law to take Tythes by was at an end he tâ—ence concludes plainly and positively vers 12. that The Priest-hood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the Law Here now is a plain repeal of that Law by which Tythes were given as well as of that Priest-hood to which they were given And Tythes standing by this Law and the reason of them depending oâ— the Iâ—wish Polity the repeal of this Law took away the right of Tythes as the removing that Polity did the Reason of them That Tythes are indeed Ceremonial and were so reputed by men of Note in several Ages cannot reasonably be doubted by any who are acquainted with Books Take a few of many Evidences that might be brought to prove it Epiphaniuâ— ranks Circumcision Tythes and Offerings at Ierusalem altogether making the payment of Tythes as much a part of the Ceremonial Law as the other two His words speaking of some who kept the Feast of Easter on the fourteenth Moon according to the Iewish Law for the Passover fearing lest otherwise they might incur the Curse of that Law are these If they avoid one Curse they fall under anâ—ther For such shall be also found accursed aâ— are not Circumcised such accursed as do not pay Tythes and they also are accursed that do not Offer at Ierusalem Hâ—res 50. see Selden's History of Tythes Review c. 4. pag. 461. As if he had said If they have regard to the Ceremonial Law then have they as much reason to be Circumcised to pay Tythes and to offer at Ierusalem as to observe Easter according to that Law But if they are not bound to Circumcision Tything and Offering at Ierusalem then neither are they bound to keep that Feast on the fourteenth Moon since all these things are alike Ceremonial This I take to be the faiâ— sense of Epiphanius his Argument which plainly shews both that Tythes were not paid in his time which was about the Year 380. and also that he esteemed Tythes to be of the same Nature with Circumcision and Iewish Offerings to have had their dependence on the same Law and to have stood and fallen together for he compares Tythes to Circumcision and Iewish Offerings which are undoubtedly abrogated And thus Selden understood him Oecolampadius on Ezek. 44. calls Tythes expresly Ceremonial His words are Priests that is Christians should not be greedy of filthy Lucre neither shall they have their lot upon this Earth but a free Inheritance in Heaven and the Lord himself will be their reward and inheritance what shall be wanting to them whose own God is the very fountain of good things So they shall be free in their minds nevertheless to them that serve at the Altar it is given to live of the Altar and they may eat of the Sacrifices receive first Fruits receive Tythes These things are Ceremonial but. Paul shews thereby that it is lawful to receive Food and Rayment for God addeth a Blessing to his Ministers that do well They did receive therefore of the Sacrifices i. e. The Apostles have spirituâ—l joy of these who Sacrifice themselves to God and the growth of the Church is their Glory their first Born and other things are blessed Thus he Walter Brute who in the Reign of K. Richard the second about the Year 1400. was Persecuted for his Testimony against Popery plainly calls the payment of Tythes a Ceremony His words speaking of the ceasing of Shadows and Ceremonies and of the ending of the Aaronical Priestâ—hood are these Whereupon I marvel that your learned men do say that Christian Folk are bound to this small Ceremony of the payment of Tythes and care nothing at all for other as well the great as the small Ceremonies of the Law And a little after having shewed that Circumcision was one of the greater Ceremonies of the Law and yet that Paul told the Galatians Whosoever was Circumcised was bound to keep the whole Law he sayes In like manner we may reason If we be bound to Tything we are Debterâ— and bound to keep all the whole Law For to say that men are bound to one Ceremony of the Law and not to others is no reasonable thing Either therefore we are bound to them all or to none Also that by the same old Law men are not bound to pay Tythes it may be shewed by many Reasons which we need not any more to multiply and increase because the things that be said are sufficient For he had said a pretty deal before upon this Subject shewing the end both of that Priest-hood to whom and of that service for which Tythes were appointed Forasmuch sayes he as the labour of those Sacrifices did cease at the coming of Christ how should those things be demanded which were ordained for that labour And seeing adds he that the first Fruits were not demanded of Christians which first Fruits were then in the time of the Law rather and sooner demanded then the Tythes why must the Tythes be demanded except it be therefore peradventure because that
the Tythes be more worth in value then the first Fruits In the end he concludes Wherefore seeing that neither Christ nor any of the Apostles commanded to pay Tythes it is manifest and plain neither by the Law of Moses nor by Christ's Law Christian People are bound to pay Tythes but by the Tradition of Men they are bound Martyrol vol. 1. pag. 446 447. The Bohemians also not long after in their 15th Article against the Popish Clergy say thu◠They receive Tythes of men and will of right have them and preach and say that men are bound to pay them Tythes and therein they say falsly For they cannot prove by the New Testament that our Lord Jesus Christ commanded it and his Disciples warned no man to do so neither did themselves receive them But although in the Old Testament it were commanded to give Tythes yet it cannot thereby be proved that Christian men are bound thereto For this precept of the old Law had an end in the first Year of our Lord Jesus Christ like as the Precept of Circumcision Wherefore well-beloved consider and see how your Bishops seduce you and shut your Eyes with things that have no proof Christ saith in the eleaventh of Luke Give Alms of those things that remain but he said not Give the Tenth of the Goods which ye possess but give Alms c. William Fulk in his Annotations on the Rhemists Translation of the Bible in Answer to those Iesuits who with this Priest would needs have Tythes to be due by the Moral Law saith thus § 4. on Heb. 7. The payment of Tythes as it was a Ceremonial duty is abrogated with other Ceremonies But as it is a necessary Maintenance of them that serve in the Church it MAY be retained or ANY OTHER stipend appointed that may be sufficient for their Maintenance be it MORE or LESS then the tenth part But that there is any Sacrificing Priest-hood to whom it is due in the New Testament the old payment of Tythes doth not prove Neither did Christ himself our high Priest ever make claim unto them nor his Apostles the Ministers of the Church but only to a sufficient living by the Gospel to be allowed of their temporal Goods to whom they ministred spiritual Goods 1 Cor. 9. 14. Gal. 6. 6. Thus he a man of no small note in the English Church in Q. Elizabeth's time by which it is evident that he accounted Tythes a part of the Ceremonial Law abrogated by Christ. And although he thought they might be retained as a necessary Maintenance of them that serve in the Church yet he layes no more or greater stress on Tythes then on any other sufficient stipend whether it were more or less then the tenth part which is directly contrary to this Priests Assertion of Tythes being due by the eternal moral Law which the Jesuits maintained and Fulk denyed Of the same judgment with Fulk was Andrew Willet a man of great account in the English Church in K. Iames his time He in his Synopsis Papismi fifth general Controversie pag. 313. sayes in the name of the English Church We also acknowledge as Bellarmine seemeth to grant Chap. 25. that to pay precisely the tenth is not now commanded by the Law of God as though that order could not be changed by any human Law as the Canonists hold but men necessarily were bound to pay Tythes And a little after Though sayes he the Law of Tenths be not now necessary as it was Ceremonious but it is lawful either to keep that or ANY OTHER Constitution for the sufficient Maintenance of the Church whether it be MORE or LESS then the tenth part yet we doubt not to say that this provision for the Church-Maintenance by paying of Tythes is the most safe ibid. Here he plainly calls the Law of Tythes Ceremonial acknowledging that men are not necessarily bound by the Law of God to pay Tythes now and although he accounts the paying of Tythes grounded upon human Laws th◠safest provision for the Church-maintenance yet he holds it equally lawful with respect to the Law of God to appoint any other sufficient Maintenance although it be not precisely the tenth but either more or less then the tenth part Which is utterly destructive of the morality of Tythes And indeed he makes Ministers Maintenance in general to be grounded in Equity upon the Moral Law but Tythes to depend upon positive Laws and he shews he understood the Moguntine Synod so But for the Levitical Law of Tything he calls it plainly a politick Constitution of that Country His own words are The Levitical Priest-hood being one whole Tribe it was thought reasonable that the tenth part of their Brethrens Goods should be alotted to them which being a judicial and politick Constitution of that Country doth neither necessarily bind Christians now neither is forbidden but left in that respect indifferent And a little after Although it be a wise and politick Constitution that the People should pay their Tythes and MAY conveniently be retained yet it is not now of necessity imposed upon Christians as though no other provision for the Church could serve but that pag. 314. Much more might be alledged out of these mens Writings to this purpose but this in this place may suffice to shew that the judgment of the Church of England in those times was quite another thing in this case then it is now represented by this Priest to be But leaving these Testimonies to the Reader 's consideration return we to the Author of the Right of Tythes § 9. He comes now to conclude his second Period in the close of which he again repeats his so oft reiterated Suppositions I conclude sayes he page 51. that part of our Substance being due to God by the Natural and Divine Law For he will yet allow God to have right but to a part and it were worth inquiry how God who is Eternally Lord of the World pag. 49. came to be disseized of his right to the whole and who it was that so compassionate to make him a Title to some part again And the Inspired Patriarchs sayes he being taught by Revelation Of which Revelation say I there is no Revelation but a bold presumption of his own That the tenth sayes he was his part and the Priests of God were his Receivers which if it were true say I had been Title sufficient for the Levitical Priests without a particular Law on purpose to make them due God himself adds he having approved also this payment which say I was not a payment but a free and voluntary Gift by a Renewed claim sayes he though never claim'd before say I and an express assignation sayes he of his Right under the Levitical Law to the Priests for the time being but not to any other Priests say I without a new assignation and the same God sayes he having the same Right still to his part and the same Lord of all say I having the same
he have established it only in general then he hath not expressed the particulars And he improves his argument to this conclusion One of these must be false for indeed there is a manifest Contradiction But does he not know which of them is false I will tell him then 'T is that which he has falsified to make the contradiction But till he had thus corrupted them there was neither falshood nor contradiction in them nor any thing else that might seem strange For if the first part had been a Position as it was but a Concession yet I hope it had been no Contradiction to say first That a Maintenance in general is established by a Divine Authority and afterwards That Christ hath expresly set down what this Maintenance is But he goes on upon this willful mistake that I say The Maintenance is only Meat and Drink And having first bestowed his usual Livery of folly upon me he yields pag. 60. that in those Texts which I cited out of St. Matthew and St. Luke the Maintenance set down is Meat and Drink When the Apostles sayes he went to the prejudiced and unbelieving Jews with the first news of the Gospel meat and drink was as much as they could expect and Christ bids them to take that and be contented But this he sayes was upon a particular occasion and to apply these Rules to all Ministers or to the general Commission he gave them afterwards is the most rididulous and absurd thing imaginable Though the Disciples were then sent but into the Cities of Iudea yet the Service they went upon was the same then as after viz. Preaching the Gospel And if the Iews amongst whom they then went were prejudiced and unbelieving both Iews and Gentiles amongst whom they went afterwards were prejudiced and unbelieving also So that to urge this as a reason why meat and drink was as much as they could expect and therefore that they were to take that and be contented is weak arguing for it supposes they were to be content with that because they could get no more whereas they were not to take so much as that unless it were freely given and by them that were worthy he who opened the hearts of any to give that could have enlarged their hearts to give much more had he pleased But if to apply the Maintenance in these places exprest to the general Commission given afterward be absurd as he sayes where shall we find any other Maintenance to apply to that Commission since he that gave the Commission mentions no other Maintenance but this But he sayes pag. 60. When Christ bids his Apostles to take Meat and Drink and be content he doth no where forbid them to receive more if good men freely gave it to them I do not say he did But the Question is not what freedom they might use in receiving what good men freely gave them But what was due unto them for their Service and what they might justly expect Which although my injurious Opponent would in my Name limit to Meat and Drink only yet as I used not those terms Only Meat and Drink so neither do I think the intent of our Saviour was to tye up his Ministers to Meat and Drink only in the strict and literal sense of the words but by the phrase of eating and drinking to intimate the necessary Conveniences of Life And so the Apostle Paul seems to understand it when speaking of Maintenance with reference to these Texts as his Phrase gives ground to believe he sayes Have wâ— not power to eat and to drink 1 C. r. 9. 14. and in another place Having Food and Rayment let us be therewith content 1 Tiâ— 6. 8. Which Phrase Food and Rayment is commonly understood to express the necessaries of man's Life What therefore he urges hereupon viz. that If Christ had determined Meat and Drink for the ONLY Gospel-maintenance then the Apostles had been great Sinners in receiving the price of Possessions sold and dedicated and that they must have returned them back again as must also St. Paul have done the wages he took of other Churches and those liberal presents he received from the Philippians is all grounded on a mistake that I restrain the Gospel-maintenance to Meat and Drink only as if it were not lawful for a Gospel-Minister to receive any thing but Meat and Drink only though never so freely offered by such as receive his Ministry and reap the benefit of it Whereas he that shall impartially read what I have there written and not strain my words to a Construction which the scope and drift of them cannot fairly bear may clearly see that I do not strictly tye the Maintenance to Meat and Drink only since I there quâ—te and apply the words of the Apostle Having Food and Rayment which is more then Meat and Drink only let us therewith be content Besides the scope of my Argument in that place was not to shew what freedom a Gospel-Minister may have or how far it may become him to use that libeâ—ty in receiving what is freely and voluntarily given by those that own and embrace his Message but what he may justly look for and expect to receive as his Right and from whom Now we know there is a great difference between expecting or looking for a thing as a just due and receiving or accepting a thing as a free gift or benevolence Which distinction the Priest not observing hath argued thus loosly and at random urging the free Gifts and voluntary Presents made to the Apostle by some Churches whom he had Planted Watered and bestowed much of his labour upon as Examples and Presidents for himself and his Brethren of the Clergy to demand require exact extort and by force take from People now their Goods and Substance not only against the Owners will but even from such as they have neither Planted Watered nor Laboured for such as receive not nor own their Ministry Here the other Priest in his Vindication pag. 301. hath a particular Crochet from my saying What this Gospel-Maintenance is is expresly set down by Christ himself when he said to his Disciples Eat such things as are set before you Eat and Drink such things as they give c. he infers According to this Rule Tythes are a Gospel-maintenance which have been expresly set before us expresly given us A pretty quirk Because those things which were freely chearfully without any constraint set before the Apostles or given to them were the proper Maintenance appointed for them therefore Tythes which poor men full sore agaiâ—st their wills as well as beyond ther abilities are compelled by the three Corded Whip of treble damages to set out for the Priests is a Gospel-Maintenance also Is it not a sign they have an ill cause to mannage who are fain to make use of such pittiful shifts as these But if he can satisfie himself that Tythes are a Gospel-Maintenance because set before them although they who so
of this kind to be abolished it seems necessary there should have been an express Revocation of them which we are sure there is not and therefore expressa nocent non expressa non nocent Tythes were not the only thing of this kind to be abolished for all the other Ceremonies of the Law were abolished as well as Tythes and yet as necessary as it seems to him he shall not find an express Revocation of the one half of them Will he thence infer that they are not all revoked or that those remain still in force of which there is not an express Revocation He understands better I hope But if he will admit other Ceremonies of the Law to be abolished notwithstanding there appears no express Revocation of them he cannot with Reason insist that Tythes are therefore not abolished because no express Revocation of them appears But how strangely partial is he and misguided by a selfish Interest who would have Tythes due without an express Command but will not allow them to be ended without an express revocation His Rule expressa nocent non expressa non nocent is so far from confirming him that it utterly overthrows his Cause and rases the conjectural and suppository Foundation of a Right to Tythes before the Law For there 's his Non expressa things not expreâ—â— which do not at all hurt me nor help him And for his expressa nocent I have already found him enough exprest even in point of Repeal and Revocation in those words of the Apostle Paul The Priest-hood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the Law Heb. 7. 12. He concludes this first part of his proof thus We may reasonably believe That Iesus intended they should remain of Divine Right as they had been reputâ—d alwayes before Is this cogent Nay is it indeed urgent or perswâ—sive How does he prove that Tythes had alwayes before been reputed of Divine Right Without bâ—gging the Question he can do nothing But why should we reasonably believe Jesus intended Tythes should remain of Divine Right Because he took away the Law by which they were due and the Priest-hood to which they were due Were these arguments of his intention that Tythes should remain With much more reason may we believe that Jesus intended they should not remain seeing he who knew as well as this Priest that the Assignation of them was made but to the Priests for the time being and that therefore without a new Institution they would be void in course at the dissolution of that Priest-hood did not think fit either by himself or his Apostles to give so much as an intimation either by word or practice that Tythes should remain for the Maintenance of Gospel Ministers Had Christ intended a continuance of Tythes it is not to be doubted but he would have signified his intention But seeing no such thing is exprest the Priest must remember his own Axiom non expressa non nocent i. e. things not exprest do not hurt and be content § 6. Thus I have gone through the several parts of his first Medium in which there is no strength at all to prove his Position that our Lord Jeâ—us and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers I come now to his second which runs thus But this is not all for there are positive Laws which do fairly intimate that Tythes were to be the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers when the Church was settled page 62. 'T was well what he said before was not all for if it had he had as good have said nothing And truly I somewhat Question whether what he sayes now will be much more to the purpose 〈…〉 here are positive Laws he sayes which do fairly intimate c. Are intimations the proper Results of positive Laws If the Laws are positive methinks they should declare positively not only hint things by intimation But waving that and his other less positive proofs such as our Saviour's affirming Tythes ought to be paid in the Time of the Law when all men grant they were due c. which he sayes plead only a probability and which I deny to plead so much as a probability I hasten after him to those two plain places as he calls them which I take to be the positive Laws mentioned before which he sayes do fairly intimate that Tythes were to be the maintenance of the Gospel Ministers when the Church was settled The first of these two plain places is That he sayes of St. Paul 1 Cor. 9. 14. affirming That like as the Jewish Priests and Levites lived of the Tythes and Oblations under the Law even so there was a special Ordinance of Christ that they who preach the Gospel should live of tâ—e Gospel that is sayes he of those good things which should be dedicated and offered in gratitude for the Gospel p. 63. How hard is this poor man put to it to piece up something that might look a little like a proof This is at least the third time that he has been driven to his Even so and yet he is even at a loss still For supposing the partcle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be necessarily rendred Even so as it is what can be thence inferred That Gospel Ministers should live of the Gospel Even so as the Iewish Priests and Levites lived of the Tythes and Oblations under the Law What just as they lived exactly after the same manner Why then the Ministers of the Gospel should not have the Tythes but the Tythes of the Tythes that is but the hundredth part for even so the Iewish Priests bad the Levites had the Tythes and paid this hundredth part or Tythe of Tythe to the Priests and the rest of the Priest Maintenance was made up by Oblations So that if the Priests now will needs as Gospel Ministers be maintained and live even just so as the Iewish Priests lived they must introduce the Iewish Oblationâ— again the Burnt-Offerings and Bloody Sacrifices as in the time of the Law and so deny the one Offering and become Debters to the whole Law This looks strangely and yet I see not how it can be avoided if they will strain the Particle Even to an exact parity of Maintenance between Iewish Priests and Gospel Ministers and if they do not strain it to such a parity they cannot squcese Tythes out of it for then they that preach the Gospel may live of the Gospel as well as the Iewish Priests and Levites lived of the things of the Temple and of the Altar and yet not by Tythes And indeed notwithstanding his Even so that he sayes to explain what it is to live of the Gospel that is sayes he of thâ—se good things which should be dedicated and offered in gratitude for the Gospel is faâ— enough from proving it must be Tythes for this shews the Maintenance was to be what Believers were willing freely to give which might as well be a
that 's the Proposition to be proved on the proof of which the Truth of the Conclusion depends Now instead of proving this Proposition That Christ hath assigned Tythes to the Gospel-Ministers he takes it for granted and with no more ado infers from thence that Tythes are now due to Gospel-Ministers jure divino Is this like a Disputant Doth this become a man of his high pretences to Schollarship and Learning Let the intelligent Reader judge § 7. I am now come to the end of his 11th Section in which he undertook to shew That our Lord Jesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers and that they may be proved out of the New-Testament to be due jure divino Before I proceed to his next Section I desire the Reader to observe First that my Opponent hath faln so far short of proving the establishment of Tythes by Christ and his Apostles for the Maintenance of Gospel-Ministers that he hath plainly acknowledged Tythes are not so much 〈◊〉 named in the New-Testament pag. 67. as indeed they are not with relation to Gospel-Ministers Secondly That though he sayes there are positive Laws pag. 62. yet he dares not say those Laws speak positively but only that they do fairly intimate that Tythes were to be the Maintenance of the Gospel-Ministers pag. 63. And to take off the force of his positive Laws more fully and shew how little positive they were with respect to Tythes he himself proves at large that Iesus did not make any new Law for Tythes pag. 68 69. and gives among others this Reason for it That Iesus might expect his Messengers should be gratified freely Nay so eager he is to shew why Jesus made no new Law for Tythes that no considering how destructive it would prove to his former talk of positive Laws pag. 62 63 64. he fairly argues the compulsion of a positive Law to be Iewish and Servile and voluntary charity to be more agâ—eeable to the freedom and ingenuity of Sons which Christians are compared to pag. 70 7â— Thirdly That those two Texts those two Plain places as he calls them Cor. 9. â—4 and Gal. 6. 6. make no mention at all of Tythes or any certain part They shew that some Maintenance is due they shew to whom it is due and from whom but they shew not the quantity of that Maintenance and Consequently do not prove Tythes to be it Besides he sayes pag. 69. Our Lord and his Apostles did not make a new Determination of the tenth part by name and pag. 70. Our Lord â—ight probably on purpose decline determining the proportion too expresly c. Now Tythes being an express Determination of the tenth part by name it is evident even from his own Positions that Tythes or a tenth part was not Determined by our Lord and his Apostles to be the Maintenance of Gospel Ministers Fourthly That although my Opponent begins this Section with a great deal of confidence and seeming Resolâ—tion undertaking to shew that our Lord Iesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers and that they may be proved out of the New-Testament to be due jure divino Yet in the Prosecution of this Argument he flags and sinks he is not positive and plain but delivers himself doubtfully and fearfully We may reasonably believe sayes he that Iesus intended they should remain of Divine Right pag. 62. and in the close of the Section miserably begs the Question that Christ hath assigned Tythes to the Gospel Ministers and on that precarious bottom would set the Divine Right of Tythes Thus far then we have gone and find no firm Foundation for a Divine Right to Tythes under the Gospel No Institution of them No New Determination of them No Establishment of them No Mention of them in all the New-Testament as a Maintenance for Gospel-Ministers Now Reader in the close of this Section take the Judgment of two eminent Divines so called of the Church of England and see how contrary this Priest is to them The first is Fulk in Q. Elizabeth's time The other Willet in K. Iames his time Fulk on Heb. 7. § 4. having shewed that the payment of Tythes as it was a Ceremonial duty is abrogated with other Ceremonies by the death of Christ and that any other sufficient Stipend whether it be more or less then a tenth part may be appointed as well as Tythes adds But that there is any Sacrificing Priest-hood to whom it namely Tythes is due in the New Testament the old payment of Tythes doth not prove Neither did Christ himself our high Priest ever make claim unto them nor his Apostles the Ministers of the Church but only to a sufficient living by the Gospel to be allowed of their temporal Goods to whom they ministred spiritual Goods 1. Cor. 9. 14. Gal. 6. 6. Thus he by which we may see he was far enough from thinking what this Priest affirms viz. That Christ and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers and that they may be proved out of the New Testament to be due jure divino and that Christ hath assigned Tythes to the Gospel Ministers c. seeing he sayes plainly both that the old Ceremonial payment of them is abrogated and no new claim made either by Christ or his Apostles to Tythes but only to a sufficient living by the Gospel and that too to be allowed of their temporal Goods to whom they ministred spiritual Goods And he quotes the very same Texts to prove the Apostles did not claim Tythes but only a sufficient Maintenance which this Priest has brought to prove that that Maintenance ought to be Tythes namely 1 Cor. 9. 14. Gal. 6. 6. Willet in his Synopsis of Popery fifth general Controversie pag. 315. repeating a Canon of the Council of Orleans thus As it is in the will of the giver to give what pleases him so if he find him stubborn and froward which receiveth it it is in his power to revoke the gift sayes thereupon We see then that the Word of God hath laid no such necessity upon Tythes for then this Council would not have permitted such Liberty And a little after setting down the fifteenth Article of the Bohemians against Tythes he adds Therefore Tythes are not necessarily due by the Word of God And a few lines lower This sayes he may further appear by the practice of other Churches that the payment of Tythes though of all other most fit is not imposed as a necessary Law Then instancing several Churches other wayes maintained he adds I alledge not the practice of these Churches as allowing the same for I prefer the condition of those Churches which yet do enjoy the antient provision of the Ministry by Tythes but only to shew that the â—â—stom â—f Tything is not imposed by any necessity And speaking of Melchizedeâ—'s Priest-stood he sayes Wherefore seeing Melchizedec's
he sayes shews The first Christians believed they were obliged to pay them by the Law of God He 's very much out For First Tâ—at the first Christians paid Tythes at all is not only denyed but learnedly disproved and Tythes proved not only improper for but utterly inconsistent with the Apostolical State by his own dear Brother the other Priest in his Conference pag. 57. And Secondly If Tythes had been as certainly paid in the next Ages to the Apostles as it is certain they were not paid in the Apostles Time yet would not such a practice any more have proved that the Christians believed they were obliged to pay them by the Law of God then it would have proved the Christians in Tertullian's time who Prayed and Sacrificed for the Dead without the Injunction of any Human Law either Ecclesiastical or Civil for a long time did believe they were obliged so to Pray and so to Sacrifice by the Law of God which that they were far enough from Beâ—ieving Tertullian sufficiently shews when speaking of those things he sayes If thou demandest the Laws of these and other such like Disciplines thou wilt find none in the Scriptures Thou wilt find Tradition pretended for the Author Custom for the Confirmer and Faith for the Observer lib de câ—â—on mil. He adds ibid. That accoâ—ding to S. Augustine'â— Rule viz. That such things as were Vniversally observed and owed not their beginning to any Council were to be thougâ—t to have been ordained by the Apostles Tythes and first Fruits must at least be of Apostoliâ—al institution This is grounded on a Supposition at which he is very notable that Tythes and first Fruits were Vniversaly paid I deny it both as to time and place Let him first prove that and then he may expect â— further Answer Now to his Councils § 6. In his first Regiment of Councils that which leads the Van pag. 85. is the Counterfeit Canons falsly ascribed to the Apostles of which enough hath been said before to detâ—ct them and shame â—him for urging them Next comes up the Council of Gangra held about the Year 324. in the seventh and eighth Canons of which Tythes he sayes are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he Englishes but ill Eâ—câ—esiastical Tribute of Fruits But bearing with the Translation let him shew if he can that Tythes are mentioned by name in any Canon of that Council If not Why abuses he his Reader in saying Tythes are there called Ecclesiastical Tribute of Fruits A like falshood he imposes on his Reader in his next quotation of the Council of Antiâ—â—h held in the Year 341. as he sayes but in the Year 345. sayes Burdegalensâ—s in the twenty fourth and twenty fifth Canons of which he reads he sayes The profits of the Church or the Fruits of the Fields But what is that to the proof of Tythes Could thâ— Church have no Profits or Fruits of the Fields but it must needs be Tythes If Tythes had been named 〈◊〉 that Council why did he not shew that But if they were not named there why does he play upon his Reader and endeavour to perswade him they weâ—e Is he not ashamed to say he finds many Antient Councils suppose Tytheâ— to have been paid and â—rdering how Tythes should be distributed by the Bishops and yet cannot shew out of those antient Councils as he calls them that Tythes were so much as oncé named in them To these Councils for credit sake and to increase the number he adds the Canonical Epistle as he calls it of St. Cyrill of Alexandria to Domnus where he sayes he finds mention of Ecclesiastical Revenues What then is nothing an Ecclesiastical Revenue but Tythes If he had found that Revenue there called Tythes he had tâ—en found something to his purpose but as it is it helps him not at all See now what his great boast of MANY Antient Councils which suppose Tythes to have been paid c. is come to The first has long since been branded for a Counterfeit the two next have not a word of Tythes the fourth and last is not the Decree of a Council but the Epistle of a single Person and that sayes nothing of Tythes neitâ—er And yet such is the immodest Confidence of the man that he doth not stick to say pag. 86. In the fore-cited places it appears that Tythes and First Fruits were given to the Church long before the Year of Christ 324. So indeed I think they had need to have been if they had been paid as he boldly sayes 't is certain they were from the earliest dayes of Christâ—anity pag. 84. But as that is very fairly disproved by his own dear Brother in his Friendly Conference pag. 157. So this remains yet to be proved by himself or any other that like himself has so much confidence and 〈◊〉 littlâ— credit as to undertake it But how comes it we have no more of these antienâ— Councils produced Why brought he not forth the Council of Caesaria holden about the Year 200. which Burdegalensis calls the first Council after the Apoâ—â—les times why past â—e over the several Councils of Carthage held about the Years 236. and 253 Why slipt he those â—olden at Antioch about the Year 270 Why mentioned he not the Council of Sinuessa in Campania nor the fiâ—st of Ancyra held about the Year 2â—0 Why took he no notice of the Council holden at Cirtes in Nâ—midia about the Year 304 Of the second of Ancyra about the Year 309 Or of the Neo-Caesarian about the Year 313 And to pass by the Roman and Elibertine Councils under Sylvester how came he to omit that great and universal Council as some call it holden at Nâ—ce about the Year 320 Were some of these Councils rejected so were some of them he urged Was there no mention of Tythes in these no more was there in those he alledged And doth it not look strangely that so many Councils held in sâ—veral parts of the World should not have a word of Tythes and yet this man should talk of Tythes being certainly paid from the earliest dayes of Christianityâ— Pray hear what Selden sayes upon this subject chap. 4. of his Hâ—story of Tythes pag. 43. speaking of the Opinion of them that would have Tythes to be an Ordinance of the Apostles Had it been sayes he the Apostles Ordinance or the use of the Church in the Primitive times Origen Tertullian and Cypriaâ— having such occasion to mention it could not have beâ—n so silent of it And is it likely adds he that all the old Councils from thence till near sâ—x Hundred Years after Christ which being authentick beyond exception have special Canons for the Lands and â—oods possâ—st by the Church the Offerings Revenuâ—s and such more could have omitted the name of Tenâ—hs if either such use or Apostolical Law had preceded They sayes he talk of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Goods of the Chuâ—â—h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Offerings of first
by the former Priest I had answered in my former Book and therein shewed by plain demonstration the emptiness of that Argument which because this Priest has but superficially toucht and not endeavoured by any found Reason to refute I think meet to transcribe hither That these were godly men and worthy Martyrs I grant yet will not their receiving Tythes make them either lawful or less Popish in the Institution The lot of those good Men fell in the very spring and dawning as it were of the day of Reformation and it was their happiness and honour that they were faithful even to the Death to those discoveries of Truth which they received But all Truths were not discovered at once nor all Vntruths neither But it being a day of the Infancy of Reformation it pleased God in his infinite wisdom and tenderness to rend the Vail as it were by little and little and so discover things gradually unto them that they might go cheerfully on in their Testimony and not come under thoâ—â— discouragements which the sight of so many difficulties at once might not improbably have brought upon them Nor will this seem strange to any who shall seriously consider that many of the blessed Martyrs who sealed their Testimony with their Blood and entred cheerfully the fiery Chariot had not so full and clear a sight of All the Superstitions and Abominations which in the dark Night of Ignorance had crept into the Church of Rome as it hath pleased God since to give Yet they being faithful to the Lord in what they did see were accepted by him and through Death received a Crown of Life Neither is it a fair way of Reasoning because some who lived but at the Day-break as it were of Reformation did not at that early Hour discover the whole Mystery of Iniquity although they did a great part or bore Testimony against every particular Evil in the Church of Rome although they did against a great many thence to argue that the Mystery of Iniquity extended no further then was discovered unto them or that there was no other Evil in the Church of Rome but what they testified against especially since we find divers things which they took little or no notice of plainly condemned and zealously witnessed against by others who are acknowledged to have been in their respective times Confessors of and true Witnesses for God against the Corruptions and Superstitions of the Romish Church as well as they so that what my Opponent saith in another case pag 114. You must not Interpret one Scripture to overthrow other plain Scriptures The same say I in this He ought not to instance these Menâ— receiving Tythes to overthrow or contradict the plain Testimonies of other faithful Servants of God who denyed them but rather as in the beginning of Christianity the Apostles did not all alike oppose the Ceremonies of the Law but Circumcision and other Rites were born with and for some time used by some of them which in process of time were utterly rejected and denyed by all which yet neither ought to have been nor was made use of by the rest of the Apostles or Churches as an Argument for the lawfulness and continuation of Circumcision or any other of the Iewish Riteâ— So in the Testimonies of those holy Martyrs and Confessors of Jesus what was denyed by some and witnessed against as Popish superstitious and wicked ought not to be received and defended now as not Popish or Superstitious at least by such as pretend to reverence their Testimonies because the same things were not denyed by all for God is not limitable to numbers of Witnesses but he raised up one to bear Testimony against one Corruption another against another Superstition some stormed one part of Babylon some another but did not make their Batteries all in one place Now that Tythes were denyed by mâ—â—y of those Godly Men Fox's Martyrology assures us in the instances of Thorp Swinderby Brute Wickliffe c. some of whom complained of the abuse of Tythes in that they were then fixt and settled as a payment whenas but a little before they were a voluntary free Gift disposable at the will and pleasure of the giver Others utterly denying and rejecting them as no way lawful at all Nay Thorp saith expreâ—â—y That those Priests that do take Tythes deny Christ to be come in the Flesh urging it as the Opinion of one of the Doctors and as he thinks of Ierome And Brâ—te saith not only that no Man is bound to pay Tythes in Gospel-timeâ— but that it is manifest and plain that neither by the Law of Moses nor by Christ's Law Christian People are bound to pay Tythes but by the Traditions of men Hence what Opinion these good men had of Tythes the Reader may judge But for any now to urge in defence and justification of Tythes that Cranmer Hooper Ridley and other Godly Martyrs received them what else is this but to oppose the Martyrs one to another and render them as clashing and warring amongst themselves yea and to endeavour by the practices of some to invalidate and make the Testimony of others utterly void and of no force which I am sure does ill become any Protestant to do and indeed I think none that were truly such would ever have attempted it This was my Answer to the former Priest which this latter Priest hath not by any solid Arguments attempted to reâ—ute but catching here and there at a word he quibbles on it to shew his Wit and levity and besides that doth little else but revile me and vilifie them whose Testimonies I â—sed against Tythes First he Caâ—â—s at those words all Truths were not discovered at once nor all Vâ—truths neither Upon this he sayes pag. 136. It is strange the Quaker should say so who before declared himself to be for unmediate teaching and who pag. 229. assirms The very Babes in Christ knew all things In the first part of this Quirk he only playes upon the word Immediate which being opposed to mediate teaching as mediate signifies means and helps is understood of the inward â—â—aching or speaking of the holy Spirit in the Heart of man without the help or use of outward means and so is called immediate in respect of manner not in respect of time But he that he might seem to say something applyes the word Immediate to time making immediate teaching to sound not a teaching without means and outward helps but a teaching in an instant or on a suddain But if he please to be less disingenuous and remove his own mistake he will find no incongruity in my words In the other part he does not so much Carp at me as Cavil at the Apostle Iohn whose the words are 1 Ioh. 2. 18 20. But if in the fore-going passage he dealt not fairly with me in the following he deals most foully for he affirms that I say pag. 230. If the Saints have not the Spirit in them so as
interest as these good men for Martyrs it seems we must not call them plainly did and yet the Author of the Conference in his Vindication pag. 307 309. makes as if they held no other Opinion of Tythes then I represent him to hâ—ld In all which he wrongs both them and me and tells his Reader a great untruth For neither did they hold Tythes to be due in that notion of a temporal Right in which he claims them nor did I represent him to hold that Tythes arâ— pure and meer Alms as they affirmed them to be Wickliffe he confesses denyed the Ius divinuâ— or divine Right of Tythes 'T is true indeed he did so and the human Right too in that sense wherein this Priest claims them and therefore is a very proper witness against him For Wickliffe held Tythes to be pure Alms disposable at the will and pleasure of the giver But this Priest calls Tythes his Free-hold and sayes he looks upoâ— himâ—â—lf to be no more obliged to the People for the payment of them then a Landlord is to his Tenant for the payment of his Rent Conference pag. 161. To the same purpose also 〈◊〉 speaks in his Vindication pag. 315. which is somewhat different I wis from meer Alms. And how contemptibly soever these Priests think of Iohn Wickliffe it appears that the University of Oxford in their publick Testimonial gave high commendation of him not only as a man of profound learning but as a stout and valiant Champion of the Faith Martyrol pag. 412. And that Iohn Hus the Bohemian by publick Disputation in the University of Prague did maintain and defend the Articles of Wickliffe and particularly that Tythes were pure Alms and might be taken from the Clergy pag. 425. And though Wickliffe it sâ—ems be not thought worthy the Name of a Martyr yet Hus I hope I may adventure to stile one without the danger of being called again a manifest Lyer since Hus was actually Burnt at Constance by sentence of the same Council which commanded the burning of Wickliffe's Bones and for maintaining Wickliffâ—'s Articles Neither did Swinderby Britâ— or Thorp hold Tythes in that Notion of temporal Right that these Priests do For Swinderby held Tythes to be meer Alms which might lawfully be taken from the Priest And in his seventh Article he sayes No Priest ought by bargaining and covenant to sell his Ghostly travel that is his spiritual Service or Ministry of which among many particulars he names Prayers Baptism Confirming Marrying c. Martyrol pag. 431. Which Hus also maintained saying It is no argument that if the Curate do perform his corporal Ministry that he ought therefore to challenge Tythes by a civil Title because that as well on the behalf of him which giveth the Tythes as also in the behalf of the Curate every such Ministry ought freely to be given and not by any civil exchange pag. 426. Brute also not only denyed the divine Right of Tythes which he judiciously and plainly disproves shewing that Tytâ—â—s under the Law were Ceremonial and therefore ended by Christ and not being afterwards commanded by Christ or his Apostles Christian People are not bound to pâ—y Tythes either by the Law of Moses or of Christ pag. 446 447. but accounted Tythes meer Alms as it seems by the Articles exhibited against him pag. 438. although he sayes By the tradition of men they are bound to pay them pag. 447. yet by the word Traditioâ— that seems rather meant de facto then dejure As for Thorp he denyed not only the divine Right of Tythes but the temporal Right also that these Priests plead for for he shews that the Parishioners have power to detain their Tythes The Parishioners sayes he that pay their temporal Goods be they Tythes or Offerings to Priests that do not their Office among them justly are partners of every Sin of those Priests because that they sustain those Priests fully in their Sin by their temporal Goods pag. 494. And being rebuked by the Arch-Bishop for expugning the freedom of holy Church he said Sr. Why call ye the taking of Tythes and of such other duties that Priests challenge now WRONGFULLY the freedom of holy Church since neither Christ nor his Apostles challenged nor took such Duties Therefore these takings of Priests now are NOT called JUSTLY the freedom of Holy Church but all such giving and taking ought to be called and holdeâ— the SLANDEROUS COVETOUSNESS of Men of the Holy Church pag. 495. Thus hast thou Reader in part the Opinions of these Men concerning Tythes which it may be the Priest will call senseless Sayings as he did before However it is manifest by these sayings that his was not a true saying when he said those Men were no more against Tythes then I represent the Priest himself to be CHAP. V. HAving shewed that Tythes were of Popish Institution and as such denyed by many good men not unworthy the Name of Martyrs whom God raised up in former Ages to bear witness against the Corruptions of the Church of Rome and who for such their witness-bearing did suffer undeâ— that Church I come in the next place to consider what tâ—ese two Priests have further offered concerning a temporal Right to Tythes § 1. The Author of the Right of Tythes to shew on what ground our Kings and Parliaments proceeded in estating Tythes on the Clergy sets down pag. â—4â— a Rule or Axiome of K. Edward the Confessor viz. That it is the duty of a King to preserve châ—rish maintain and govern the Churches of theiâ— Dominions according to the Constitutions of their Fathers and Predecessors If this was the Rule by which our Kings and Parliaments in the Reformation have settled Tythes upon the Clergy then are Tythes no clearer from Popery in their settlement then in their Institution for if Edw. 6. settled Tythes according to the Constitutions of his Father Hâ—n 8. and if Hen. 8. settled Tythes according to the Constitutions of his Father Hen. 7. and so back then seeing it is certain that Hen. 7. and his Predecessors were professed Papists and devoted to the Church of Rome and consequently that the Constitutions for the maintenance of the Church made by or under them were fully and absolutely Popish it will follow that the settlement of Tythes by which the Priests now claim a temporal Right to them was made according to Popish Constitutions which I think is not for the credit of their Claim But he sayes If I would fairly have disproved this Temporal Right I should have shewed there were no human Laws to estate Tythes on the Church nor no remedies in the Courts of Iustice against any that detained them c. pag. 142. That 's his mistake If I had argued against Fact the way he proposes had not been improper but arguing against his pretended Right I conceive I took the right method and am well content to submit it to the sensure of every judicious and impartial Reader That they have
that claim thereby to shew it and they to be sure are the Priests The other part also of the sentence he carps at wherein he sayes I arrogantly tell them in Corah's phrase they take too much upon them unless they can shew where Christ gave them such authority is of his own Cooking for I told them not in Corah's phrase They take too much upon them but modestly askt If Christ hath given no such power whence then doth man take so much upon him And this Inquiry too related to the settlement of Tythes in the time of Popery But sayes he pag. 158. let me ask this bold Questionist Where Christ forbid them to give a better Maintenance He bid the Apostles be content with Meat and Drink but he did not forbid them to take more if it were freely given Can a better Maintenance be given then that which Christ himself appointed He who was Lord of all if he had thought Tythes or aâ—y other maintenance better then this could as well have appointed that This Priest I perceive measures the goodness of the maintenance by the greatness and accounts that best that is biâ—gest But doubtless the Apostle Paul went by another Rule for he accounted that best which was least chargeable to the Church 1 Cor. 9. 18. To shew there needed no express command for making the maintenance better he tells me pag. 159. That an Hint is a Command to a Soul that loves God Be it so yet not so much as an Hint shall he find throughout all the New Testament for the payment of Tythes But seeing he sayes Christ bid the Apostles be content with Meat and Drink which was somewhat more then a bare hint methink if he who pretends to be one of the Apostles Successors were a Soul tâ—at truly loved God he should content himself with what he sayes Christ bid his Apostles be content with and not thus scrable after more See now the man's partiality An Hint must pass for a Command to the People for giving but an express Command will not suffice to make the Priest content with what the People give Is this a sign of a Soul that truly loves God 'T is true the Apostles were not forbidden to receive more nor Believers to give more neither lies the Objection in my Book against giving more but against altering the nature of the Maintenance and setting up another Maintenance of a different nature from that which Christ appointed For that Maintenance was free and voluntary and so ought the Maintenance of Christian Ministers to be alwayes but a Maintenance settled by humane Laws ceases to be free and so is not suitable to the Gospel which it self is free But to render me ridiculous the Priest says ibid. No doubt he will ask the primitive Believers who gave them order to sell their Estates and give them to the Apostles He will say They took too much upon them And hereupon he sayes Was ever so much Folly and Impudence conjoyned No doubt he had had one sin lesâ— to answer for had he left out this Abuse The Primitive Believers needed no Order for selling their Estates any more then Believers do now nor in disposing the Money as they did But if the primitive Believers should have taken upon them to have injoyned all other Believers afterwards to sell their Estates too and give the Money to their Ministers they would therein have taken too much upon them Believers in all Ages might be as liberal as they pleased to their Ministers but they might not make that which was Liberality in themselves an Imposition and Burden upon them that came after who may justly and reasonably expect to enjoy the same Liberty and Freedom to express their Liberality as the others did who went before For as the Gospel it self in its own nature is equally free in all Ages and the Ministers of the Gospel are so too in respect of its publication so as not to preach the Gospel because humane Laws command nor to forbear to preach it because humane Lawâ— forbid so ought the Gospel-Maintenance also oâ— the Maintenance of this Gospel-Ministry to be in all Ages equally free else is it not suitable to the Ministry and the Gospel to which it appertains And whensoever it ceases to be free by the interposed Injunction of paenal Laws it thenceforth ceases to bâ— a Gospel-Maintenance Now if we should suppose Tythes a lawful Maintenance 〈…〉 at the Donation of them was an Act of pure Liberality and perfect Freedom in the first Donors which universally considered is far enough froâ— probability and upon that Supposition should admit Tythes to have been then a free Maintenance yet the settling of them as a standing Maintenance and compelling after Ages by Pâ—nalties to pay them makes them not now a free Maintenance if they had been so then but the true Gospel-Maintenance ought to be free in its Continuation as well as in its Beginning and Christians now may justly expect as much Christian-Liberty Freedom as others in former Ages had which they do not enjoy who now stand bound to the performance of that which others were at liberty to The third Passage that he cavils at in this Section he thus gives pag. 160. For any Magistrate to set out Tythes for a Maintenance is a direct Opposition to Christ because they were commanded in the Levitical Law and Christ hath taken away Priest Law and Tythes altogether How proves he this saith he by Heb. 7. The Verse saith he he cunningly leaves out being conscious to himself he had fathered a Lye on that Chapter in which there is not one word of Christ's taking away Tythes no nor in any place of the New Tâ—stament What himself is guilty of that he charges upon me viz. the â—unningly leaving out of things for he has cunningly left out a material Clause in that Sentence of mine which he quoted namely that Christ hath disannulled that Law by which Tythes had been commanded to be paid unto the Levitiâ—al Priesthood which makes the taking away of Tythes a necessary consequent when the Law was taken away by which they stood 'T is true I added not thâ— Verse in Heb. 7. because the greatest part of the whole Chapter tends to the proof of my Assertion which therefore I was willing the Reader should read throughout But seeing my unfair Adversary hath made so Ill an use of my Good Meaning I will add the verses to let the Reader see how much I am abused Heb. 7. vers 5. compared with vers 12. and vers 18. In the 5th verse the Apostle shews that the Sons of Levi who received the Office of the Priesthood had a Commandment to take Tythes of the People according to the Law In the 12th verse he sayes The Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the Law so that here the Commandment by which they took Tythes was taken away and theâ—e remained no Commandment to take Tythes by Then
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
he hath in this very Period expressed himself very unlearnedly and inconsiderately The Apostles he says shewed the way in this practice not intending that any Vagabond Speakers should be allowed after once the Christian Church was settled Vaâ—abond Speakers It seems then with him those Speakers that are not fixt to a parish or place are Vagabonds and though such were allowed in the Christian Church before it was settled yet after once it was settled no Vagabond Speakers were to be allowed Doth he not already begin to perceive how for want of a little consideration he has stigmaâ—iz'd the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord with the infamous Brand of Vagabonds Could all his Learning furnish him no better than with such a Roguish Epithet foâ— to Rogâ—es the word Vagabond is usually now applied How little Reason has this boasting man to vaunt of his own Leâ—rning or undervalue another's § 23. In his next Section he makes a faint attempt to help the other Priest off who had so far over-shot himself in his Conference pag. 157. that among other Reasons why the Apostles had not Tythes he gave this for one That they needed them not for as they had their Gifts so their Maintenance by a miraculous providence which he grounded upon Lukâ— 22. 35. The falseness of this Argument I plainly shewed in my former Book called Truth Prevailing pag. 352. Whereupon this Priest in â—is Right of Tythes pag. 226. says I hope when T. E. considers how wonderfully God opened the hearts of the first Christians not only to give the Apostles Meat and Drink but to sell all and give the price to them he will upon second thoughts correct that passage pag. 352. and allow this to be an extraordinary and miraculous Providence of God's to encourage their first beginnings Tâ—e other Priest grounded his Miracle upon the Apoâ—tles wanting nothing when they were sent forth without Puâ—se and Scrip Luke 22. 35. This Priest finding that too weak to bear him up adds to it the believers â—elling their Estates Acts 4. 34 35. and to serve his End corrupts the Text too saying they sold all and gave the price to the Apostles as if they had transferred their own property to the Apostles which they did not but deposited it as in a common Bank which was committed to the care and trust of the Apostles to distribute but wherein the Apostles themselves had no more propriety than any other of the Church Therâ—fore the Text says not that they brought the Prices of the things sold and gave them to the Apostles which would imply an investing the Apostles with a peculiar propriety therein but that they brought the prices of the things that were sold and laid them down at the Apostles Feet which imports no more than a committing it to their care in whom the Trust was reposed as Treasurers of the coâ—mon Stock for the maintenance of the whole Society Whence it follows in the Text And distribution was made unto every Man acâ—ording as he had need In all which I confess â— do not see the Miracle he talks of â—nd if he himself will have this to be a Miracle he must then acknowledge Miracles are not ceased the same thing â—aving been practised by others of late Years and I think by some yet in Germany But if the selling of Possessions and living in a Community had been a Miracle yet it could not reasonably be assigned for a Reason why the Apostles did not take Tythes for we read not that it was used in any of the Gentile Cities that were converted to Christianity but only at Ierusalem and there too for a short time So that if this had been a Reason why the Apostles took no Tythes at Ierusalem yet it could not â—e a Reason why they took none at Rome at Corinth at Ephesuâ— at Coloss at Thessalâ—nica at Philippi and other places where they preached the Gospel and where this practice was never used nor at Ierusalem neither after it was disused Neither is 〈◊〉 true which the other Priest says viz. That the Apostles needed them not for the Apostle Paul testifies of himself that he had learnt to suffer Need Phil. 4. 12. and amonâ—st othâ—r Hardships reckons his Necessities 2 Cor. 6. 4. 12. 10. And it appears he used to work for his living Acts 20. 34. which the lfine-fingâ—red Priest now adayes scorn to do Thus all these seeming Reasons appear to be indeed but empty Shews and vain Pretences and the very true and right Reason why the Apostles did not take Tythes was because they knew that Tythes were a part of the Ceremonial Law given to the Jews and abrogated by Christ. The other Priest in his Conference pag. 158. said If you conclude that we must be in all things 〈◊〉 were thâ— Apostles then must you of the Laity now do as the Laity did then who sold their Possessions and laid them down at the Apostles Feet Acts 4. And I can argue the one with the same Reason you can the other This I plainly disproved in my former Book called Truth prevailing pag. 353. shewing the different grounds on which the Apostles and other Believers then acted the one being positively bound and under a necessity to preach the Gospel the other being altogether free and under no necessity to sell their Estates but did it voluntarily So that what-ever the Priest at first thought the same Reason will not serve to argue the one as the other and that may probably be the Reason that he having no other Reason was fain tâ— let his Argumeâ—t wholely fall and take no further notice of it Nor makes the other Priest in his Right of Tythes any other Reply to it than this T. E. saith indeed they sold their Estates voluntarily p. 353. which is most true and we do not desire any to sâ—ll theâ— involuntarily now But adds he pag. 227. when our people sell all voluntarily as they did we will quit our Claim to Tythes Indeed will ye so what after all this â—usle and Contest for a Divine Right of Tythes will ye quit yoâ—â— Claim thereto upon condition the people will â—ell all as once Believers did See Reader now the horrible Deceit and false Dâ—aling of this man in the Management of this Controversie and how contrary he has argued to his own Judgment Hath he not said over and over That Tythes are God's part God's due How oft hath he called Tythes a sacred Maintenance a divine Tribute a sacred Revenue c Did he not affirm they were grounded on the law of Nature and primitive Revelation and that they relie on an internal Rectitude and an eternal Reason pag. 49 Did he not assert That our â—ord Iesus and his â—postles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers pag. 〈◊〉 Was he not positive That our Lord Iesus and the Apostles said enough to shâ—w that the antient divine Right to the tenth part should be continued and the
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