the testimony of Heathen Authours to prove a Christian duty Min. Those testimonies do signifie the universal consent of mankind in this point and that it is ingrafted in our natural principles of Reason and Conscience and therefore is a part of that Law of Nature which our Lord came not to destroy but to fulfil and perfect and of which St. Paul speaks Rom. 2. 14. For when the Gentiles which have not the Law do by nature the things contain'd in the Law these having not the Law are a law unto themselves Thus having prov'd an Oath an act of Religion by Reason and consent of Nations confirm'd by Scripture in the reference it hath to the first Table I shall now proceed to shew you that it is an act of Justice and Charity in the respect it hath to the 2d Table Par. I pray go for ward in your undertaking Min. If you look into the holy Scriptures as well in the New as the Old Testament you 'l find that the primary designation and intendment of an Oath is for confirmation and the end of all strife as you may be inform'd from Heb. 6. 16. than which nothing can have a more moral consideration or have more immediate respect to Justice and Charity Now in order to the ending of strife and Law-suits about mens rights and properties you know that evidence is necessary without which no Court of Justice can proceed to the determining of Controversies Par. I understand the scope of your Argument But may not true and faithful Evidences be given without an Oath Min. If there were that truth in men that their bare testimony were infallible of sufficient credit then there were no need at all of an oath but seeing all men are lyars mankind is so generally leaven'd with hypocrisie and since fear or favour malice or interest sways with the far greater part of men it becomes highly needful that their evidences be demanded and given in such forms as are most binding to the Conscience which an Oath by all the world is acknowledg'd to be and therefore called by Diodorus Siculus The greatest bond of faith amongst men and by Dionysius Hal. The utmost assurance Beyond which saith Bishop Sanderson we have no further ways of scrutiny Par. But if men will be nought they may forswear themselves as well as lie and he that makes no conscience of a lie what conscience will he make of perjury Min. Conscience does not dread all sins alike some sins it can swallow down glibly others not without regret and in this case you must consider that an Oath is a much strongger bond to the conscience than a bare Testimony for such is the power of natural conscience even in the breasts of bad men that multitudes who fear not a lie yet do dread the solemnity of an Oath and the horrour of perjury Seeing therefore that the ends of justice and charity are so much served by the religious use of an Oath as hath formerly been prov'd would not the abolishing of it derogate from the honour of Christianity for while the Apostle saith An Oath for confirmation is the end of strife if you take away an Oath you take away that which by God is ordained to be the most effectual means of ending it and so make Christ not so much the Prince of Peace as Discord by making him the abolisher of that which was design'd to compose it Par. I should think your Discourse very reasonable and convincing did I not find in the Text I mentioned Matth. 5. 37. after Christ had said Let your communication be yea yea nay nay he adds for whatsoever is more than this cometh of evil If all Oaths then be evil how dare you call them good or plead for the lawfulness of them Min. That you mistake the Text I shall give you account in its due time and place But that all Oaths are not evil in themselves you may be satisfied not only by what has already been said of their morality and usefulness but further by these following considerations 1. In that by your own confession they were once lawful therefore not morally evil 2. By the example of the holy Patriarchs before the Levitical law was given therefore not ceremonial 3. By the examples of St. Paul and the Angel after the Gospel was promulg'd therefore against no Gospel Precept I begin with the first By your own confession they were once lawful under the Old Testament and till you prove them repeal'd must be so still and therefore are not of themselves evil Par. But doth not all good and evil depend upon the Divine will and not upon the nature of the thing commanded So that things are good or evil for no other reasons but because they are commanded or forbidden Min. Should you indeed consult some of the Writers of this Age whose learning I doubt surmounts their piety you would find them of this opinion such as the Dutch Szydlovius who tells us that all that we account now wicked could by a Divine commandment immediately become good and I am sorry that we have instances nearer home even in our own Nation such as by their Writings have not a little contributed to the debauching of this present Age. But let me tell you that the reasons of good and evil are eternal and were eternally lodged in the Divine Nature For God is not a meer arbitrary wilful being his will is not a blind impetus but acts by the dictates of Divine Wisdom the disposition of his holy Nature and the rules of eternal Justice So that what has an intrinsick goodness in it was agreeable to the Divine Nature antecedently to all Divine Commands and whatsoever is evil in it self was eternally repugnant to his holy Nature Par. I am very sensible that this is a digression from our subject but my desire of further satisfaction in this particular prompts me to give you a further interruption Min. I say it is the most horrid contradiction to affirm that God can will any thing that is disagreeable to the eternal rectitude of his Nature as all sin is and I appeal to your own faculties whether love meekness truth justice purity c. be not more suitable to his holiness and commend themselves to us by their inward goodness more than hatred murther theft lying impurity and the like If we had not these characters of goodness impress'd upon our consciences we should loose a main argument for the Divinity of the Holy Bible and a false Religion would bid as fair for our belief as the true miracles themselves being not able to ingage my faith if the Doctrines to be confirm'd by them be not agreeable to my reason and natural conscience to which God himself makes his appeal Deut. 4. 5 7. The heathen world could never be brought to the embracement of the true Religion were there not besides the will of the Law-giver a natural congruity in it with
occasion and by that means of the true scope of them how much more difficult must they needs be to us at this distance especially to such as are wholly strangers to all those things aforemention'd that are so necessary to the making any dark Scriptures intelligible Par. This I cannot deny but then I would gladly know how to reconcile this with such passages in the Bible which contrary wise call the Gospel a Light and bid us walk in the Light Min. You are greatly mistaken in supposing that I affirm all the Scriptures hâ—…rd to be understood I only say as St. Peter sayes that some passages are so for so run the words in which are some things hard c. Par. Are then the necessary points of Religion in them hard to be understood Min. No they are not for whatsoever is necessary to salvation either to be believed or to be done are in some place or other in holy Scripture fitted to the most vulgar capacity and shallowest understanding as for example the history of Christs birth death resurrection and ascension is as necessary to be believed so plain to be understood though yet it hath been perverted by the mis-interpretation of the Quakers and some Hereticks and from plain History turn'd into meer Allegory Then the duties of the first and second Table of the Law and the Love of God and our Neighbour all the Evangelical Precepts and the Essentials of Religion are in the Gospel made such easie Doctrines that he that runs may read them being fitted to the capacity of the most unlearned And this reminds us of our duty of thankfulness to our great Law-giver in that he hath made those Doctrines most plain which are most necessary to be believed and those things least necessary which are most difficult As for example it is not necessary to salvation to be knowing in all the Circumstances of the Levitical Rites nor in all the Genealogies of the Scripture nor in all the Apocalyptical Prophesies and therefore the obscurity of them need not dismay us Par. Certainly God would never have sent his Messengers to deliver those things to the world which he did not indispensibly require every one to understand Min. I hope to convince you of this mistake and to assist your apprehension by this plain comparison Suppose a King makes a great Feast for his Subjects he prepares meats for all constitutions and different dishes for different stomachs that among all this variety every person should feed upon that which is most agreeable to his constitution just such preparations hath God made for the Church in holy Scriptures where are Vyands for all pallats For the strong there is strong meat and mysteries to exercise the greatest Wits and the most improved Understandings Heb. 5. 14. And as for those whose understanding is either clouded by an unhappy constitution or was never well open'd and improv'd by education to such there is not wanting what is necessary even milk for babes many passages especially those of the greatest concern being written in such a plain and familiar style that the weakest and most illiterate of which number a greatest part of the members of the Church are shall never be able to excuse the neglect of them the Omniscient Author of the Scriptures herein graciously condescending to the shallowest capacities to let them see that they were not forgotten nor overlook't by him who says All Souls are his Ezek. 18. 4. The Scriptures being ordinarily compared to such a River wherein the Elephant may swim and the Lamb may wade But when illiterate people who commonly see no further than the outward appearance of things will venture to be guides and will be rashly passing judgment upon that which is above their understandings according to that character given of such men 1 Tim. 1. 7. Desiring to be teachers of the Law understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm and do leave the plain easie paths and confidently falling upon points too high for them no wonder if such wrest and pervert the Scriptures Par. I remember that was the second particular that the Scriptures have been wrested How do you make that good Min. This is matter of fact and known to all that are acquainted either with men or Books for we all too sadly know that there is not that opinion in Religion be it never so wild and absurd but challengeth authority from the Scriptures Though truth be the same yet every sect lays claim to it and though the Scripture be the fountain of truth yet is it by some rendred the very sink of errours Go to all the wild Sects yea Heresies in the world those of the Arrians Socinians Antinomians Ranters as well as this of the Quakers all these will with equal confidence challenge an authority from the Word of God The fault here is not in the Scriptures but in them that do abuse and wrest them to their own conceptions to make them speak their own sense as for instance Suppose a man that is troubled with a Vertigo in his head should tell you that he is confident the earth turns round 't is not the earth but a disturbed brain that is the cause of this mis-apprehension So every Fanatick will tell you that he 's confident he has the Scripture on his side in the behalf of his opinion where is now the fault in the Scripture or in the whim in his pate The Scriptures are in no fault for any irregularities in the conceptions of such men The fault is in their byass'd affections and their want of steady principles and defect both of wit and grace but the true sense of Scripture words continues one and the same though mens erroneous conceptions and interpretations of them should still abound and vary to the worlds end Par. But how then happens this strange variety in the interpretation of Scripture Min. By taking the words thereof to put what construction they please upon them while they mistake their true scope and meaning for it is not the Letter but the Sense that is the Word of God And 't is not only Quakers and other Separatists that have the words of Seripture but the Devil also as you will find Matth. 4. 6. when he tempted our Saviour He replyes there with a Text of Scripture But the Devil and these wanting the sense and design take the shell and leave the kernel It was St. Augustines saying That Hereticks and Schismaticks steal the words of Christ intimating that they may use his Name his Word and his Ordinances but then 't is only as Thieves and Robbers use their stoln goods to which they have no right nor property Par. Give me now leave to remind you of your third particular viz. the causes there exprest why the Scriptures are thus wrested Min. I am ready to gratifie your desires and begin with the first cause namely the want of learning which is derided by Hubberthorn and censur'd by those
but a small time of use because it could not give life none living under it but Adam all hopes of Salvation ever after depending upon the grace of the second Covenant which is the only plank after Shipwrack Par. But do we not read in Heb. 8. of an old Covenant which was to be done away and a new Covenant to succeed in the room of it Was not the old Covenant the Covenant of works and did not Abraham Moses and David live under it Min. That Abraham Moses and David lived under the old Covenant there mentioned I readily grant but that that was a Covenant of works I utterly deny which that you may apprehend you must know that the Covenant of grace though one and the same in substance from the first promulging of it to Adam unto the end of the World yet is according to the several forms or modes of its administration distinguished into Old which was to be abolished and New which was never to be antiquated In the times of the Old Testament the Covenant of Grace was administred by Promises Prophesies Sacrifices c. foresignifying Christ to come which for that time were sufficient to build up those who then lived in faith in the promised Messiah by whom they had remission of sins and eternal Salvation Under the Gospel when Christ the substance was come those Types and Ceremonies were abolished and the Ordinances in which this Covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word and the Administration of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper So that the words Old and New are not applicable to the Covenant as to the substance of it but only to its various dispensation Now that the Covenant in Old Testament times was a Covenant of Grace the same in substance with that under which we live in Gospel times I prove thus That Covenant which teacheth Christ by whom eternal Salvation may be attained and which offereth pardon of sin and acceptance to favour upon repentance must needs be a Covenant of Grace but the Covenant delivered in the Old Testament as well as that in the New is such a Covenant as appears from these Scriptures John 5. 46 47. Luke 24. 25 26 27. with 44 45 46. John 1. 45. John 8. 56. Acts 26. 22 23. Deut. 4. 30 31. Exod. 34. 6 7. 2 Chron. 7. 14. and many other places Par. I thank you for the information you have given me in the nature of the two Covenants for I did think as many of the Quakers do that all that lived in the time of the Old Testament were under the Covenant of Works An I have heard some urge it as it seems Hubberthorn here doth to bring down the credit and authority of Old Testament Scriptures and Preachers but I perceive mine and their great mistake herein I would have you now return to the Query about Oaths and let us suppose Hubberthorn by first Covenant to understand the legal dispensation of the Covenant of Grace under which he saith Oaths were lawful Min. Indeed Hubberthorn yields they were then lawful and yet he brings in his proofs as if they were as unlawful then as now Par. What are those proofs Min. In the beginning of his Book against Mr. Tombs you will find Hos. 4. 3. For Oaths the Land mourns and Zach. 5. 3. Every one that sweareth shalâ—… be cut off these are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do you gather from thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 horrid abuse the Quakers put upon the Scriptures and the Spirit of God by which they were writ Par. How do you make it appear that they abuse the Scriptures Min. Doth it not appear very plainly when they confess that in the time of the Law Oaths were lawful yet do bring in Hosea and Zachary who lived in the time of the Law speaking against that usage which themselves confess was then lawful If Hosea and Zachary were true Prophets how can we think they contradict the truth If they were false Prophets why do the Quakers use their testimony Par. It may be Hosea and Zachary did not mean the unlawfulness of Oaths then but only prophesied of their unlawfulness in the times of the Gospel Min. That you make use of a pitiful shift will be very evident if you consider that there was then a heavy calamity threatned and hanging over the Land the Prophet gives the cause thereof to be for Oaths and if Oaths were then lawful must the people be cut off for doing what was just and lawful or is it reasonable to think the people should suffer for a sin to be committed afterwards Par. Do you suppose that Oaths were unlawful during the continuance of the Law Min. I suppose no such thing my design being only to shew that fallacious way of arguing which the Quakers use and that this Hubberthorn so much esteemed by them is trap't in his own net and confuted by himself while he confesses Oaths to be lawful during the continuance of the Law and yet contradicts himself again by bringing texts out of the Law to prove them otherwise and thus you see he brings in the Old Testament contradicting it self also which in Deut. 6. 13. commands it as a duty as also in other places Jer. 4. 2. I pray you judge of these things Par. You have highly and I think not untruly charged the Quakers in the use of these Texts of the Prophets for I cannot but acknowledge it an absurdity to alledge the Scripture against it self but I pray you discover the true meaning of them and what swearing the people were there threatned for Min. If you mind the scope of the Prophet Hosea and the sins which swearing is there joyned withal in the first verse of the Chapter you will discern that the cause why the Land mourned was not for taking Oaths for those are already proved and confessed to be then lawful but for taking them against Truth and Mercy with malicious or injurious designs But their bringing in Zachary's words to disprove the lawfulness of swearing discovers a most dishonest principle in the Quakers because they cannot but know that the Prophets words are wrested by them for the fourth verse expresly interprets swearing for which the people are threatned to be cut off to be false-swearing only Therefore consult both at large Zach. 5. 3 4. This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth for every one that stealeth shall be cut off as on this side according to it and every one that sweareth shall be cut off as on that side according to it I will bring it forth saith the Lord of Hosts and it shall enter into the house of the thief and into the house of him that sweareth falsly by my Name Par. But what do you say to an Oath now under the dispensation of the Gospel Min. I say the Gospel has no where abolished the lawful use of it Par. You will fall under John Tombs his charge of Antichristianism for
our Lord saith Matth. 5. 34. But I say unto you swear not at all And the same is repeated by the Apostle James c. 5. 12. From whence it appears all manner of Oaths are unlawful and they who say the contrary do live in opposition to the Gospel Min. You mince the Text by taking a piece of it only as your usual way is of which I hope to convince you in the process of this discourse in order whereunto I shall pitch upon this method following First I shall shew you that these words do not generally forbid all manner of Oaths in that large sense you take them Secondly I shall endèavour to give you the true sense of the words and shew you what sort of swearing is there forbidden Par. It will very much contribute to my conviction if you do as you say Pray you therefore first prove to me that the words do not forbid all manner of Oaths in that large sense wherein we take them Min. I shall do it in this order First by proving it an act of Natural Religion towards God Secondly an act of necessary justice and charity towards men Thirdly that it is therefore a part of that moral and eternal Law which our Saviour professeth he came not to destroy but to fulfill And fourthly that we find it practised in the New Testament Par. I much desire to hear the first particular prov'd viz. that an Oath is an act of Religion Min. I prove it first by Reason Secondly by consent of Nations thus That whereby we glorifie God and adore his Attributes is an act of Religion but by an Oath rightly taken we glorifie God and adore his Attributes therefore such an Oath is an act of Religion The first part of the Argument is evident of it self for what else is Religion but to adore and glorifie God in the humble acknowledgment of his Attributes And that we do by an Oath reverently taken glorifie God is clear from the nature and definition of it for an Oath is a religious appeal unto God the searcher of all hearts as a witness of what we assert or promise and the avenger of perjury Now that by such a reverent appeal unto God we glorifie him appears in that we do therein make acknowledgment 1. Of God's existence and being for he that cometh to God must believe that he is c. Heb. 11. 6. and an Oath certainly is one sort of coming to God being an immediate appeal to him as Witness and Judge 2. Of his Omnipresence and Ubiquity that he is present in all places and at all times according to Psalm 139. Whither shall I go from thy presence c. How could we call upon him either as Witness of our sincerity or Judge of our hypocrisie if we did not believe him within hearing and therefore the not having God before our eys is in Scripture the description of the most profligated wretchless state of sin 3. Herein we acknowledge his Omniscience that he is in the Apostles stile 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the searcher of hearts that all things are naked and open to the eyes of him with whom we have then more immediately to do 4. His truth and veracity a Witness brought into the Court that cannot lie nor be impos'd upon as saith the Apostle Gal. 6. 7. Be not deceived God is not mocked 5. His providence and paternal care of the concerns of mankind taking the cause of the righteous into his own hand and helping them to right that suffer wrong 6. His superiority or rather supremacy over all things according to that of St. Paul Heb. 6. 16. For verily men swear by the greater Therefore in swearing by him we own him to be Supreme and most high 7. We herein acknowledge his vindictive justice as he is a Revenger of Perjury such an one as will by no means patronize iniquity fraud or guile Exod. 34. 7. and will both bring sin to light 1 Cor. 4. 5. and punish it Rom. 12. 19. So that I hope you see by this time that an Oath rightly circumstantiated and taken viz. in truth in judgment and in righteousness Jer. 4. 2. is a comprehensive part of Religion It being such a solemn acknowledgment where by we glorifie God's Existence Omnipresence Omniscience Truth Providence Superiority and revenging Justice How can you think it less then a duty fit to be commanded by God and to bear a part in the Moral Law as indeed we find it doth Deut. 6. 13. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and shalt serve him and swear by his Name And Jer. 4. 2. Thou shalt swear the Lord liveth in truth in judgment and in righteousness Par. I had thought that an Oath had been so far from glorifying God that it had been the only prosanation of his Name Min. Then it would never at any time have been commanded Par. I confess this Discourse inclines me to some more consideration about it than hitherto I have entred into Min. Therefore to confirm you further I shall resume the method propos'd and prove that an Oath is an act of Religion out of the light of Nature and the consent of Nations as is evident to such as are conversant in ancient Authors Aristotle the great Philosopher saith An Oath is the most venerable thing that pertains to Religion Cicero the learned Oratour gives this account of an Oath An Oath is a religious affirmation and what you affirm or promise by taking God to witness ought to be kept that is such an Oath binds you to performance And elsewhere he hath these words Our Fore-fathers thought no tie more fast to bind mens faith than an Oath And therefore anciently Captains of War in listing their Souldiers did alwayes bind them to their fidelity with an Oath which Oath was had in so great reverence with them that they honoured it with a religious title calling it a Sacrament or religious Solemnity whereupon Seneca that excellent Moralist saith Religion that is that military Oath which they call'd a Sacrament is the chiefest bond of fidelity in the Militia Yea so great a reverence had they for an Oath that those that broke it were the infamiâ notati the only men of infamy and justly seiz'd upon by Divine vengeance The Heathens had so great a dread of the sin of perjury that they said It laid waste the whole stock and family root and branch And what other is this then what the Prophet Zachary hath said almost in the same words cap. 5. 1 2 3 4. concerning the flying roll That it should enter into the house of him that sweareth falsly and consume it with the timber and stones thereof So that herein you may take notice of the harmony and agreement between the light and the law of Nature with the positive and Moral Law of God given by Moses to mankind which was nothing but the Law of Nature renew'd and improv'd Par. How come you to alledge
How so Min. The Gospel you hear commands a Maintenance be provided for the Ministry and the Civil Powers and Nursing Fathers of the Church have set out Tithes for that Maintenance so that if Tithes were not due by a Divine Appointment they are now due by a voluntary dedication of them Par. How does any such voluntary dedication appear Min. You need not scruple this point would you but give your self the pains of consulting Antiquaries or Church Histories especially that famous Charter of King Ethelwolf set down at large by Ingulf where you will find the whole History of the thing to the full satisfaction of any whose prejudices do not obstruct the free use of their Reason Par. I am apt to believe what you say without any further inquisition into the thing but then I suppose they were given in a blind and superstitious zeal which makes all void to us Min. This is another mistake For Tithes being given to God for the Maintenance of his Ministry no blemish in the dedication of them can alter their Property To make my assertion good a parallel case in Scripture shall be produced That which comes most near it is the case of the Two hundred and fifty men who offered Incense Yet there was a vast difference between them The Two hundred and fifty offered in a stubborn rebellious manner and these in an ignorant zeal as some suppose but we do not grant But that which will give us most light into our present case are the Censers which were so offer'd which you will find notwithstanding that damnable sin committed in the consecration of them yet because they were offer'd to God they were not to be alienated to common uses Numb 16. 37. Speak unto Eleazar the son of Aaron the Priest that he take up the Censers out of the burning c. for they are hallowed From hence you may learn how dangerous a thing it is to meddle with any thing that hath been given to God For you see the reason given why the Censers were not alienable was because they were hallowed by being offered before the Lord. Therefore saith a Learned Rabbi they were unlawful for a common use because they had made them Vessels of Ministry Par. I have often heard that Tithes were given at the first by the Pope and therefore not to be endured in a Nation that hath renounced all communion with him Min. This I know is one of the popular Arguments of the Quakers to cast a mist before the eyes of their ignorant Followers but suppose it had been so they would not have been less hallowed than the Two hundred and fifty Censers were and so consequently the alienation of them no less impious yet I deny your assertion that Tithes had their institution from Popery And I have good grounds for what I say for Tithes were setled upon the Church before Popery had made her encroachments in it For Popery is not of that antiquity as some do vainly and falsly boast Though they shew their old shooes and mouldy bread yet upon a strict enquiry they will be found to be but so many Gibeonitish Cheats and that their tenents and corruptions are not of that antiquity as is pretended by them However that you may have a distinct answer to your Question give me first your notion of Popery Par. I call all such Doctrines and Practises Popery as are held in the Church of Rome Min. That this is a wrong notion of Popery will be very evident if you consider that the Doctrine of the blessed Trinity the Incarnation Passion Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord is believed in the Church of Rome Par. I cannot but confess all this to be true Then I pray do you tell me what is Popery Min. I cannot give you a more brief and true account of Popery than this That it is such Doctrines and Superstitious practises which by the corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome contrary to the true ancient Catholick and Apostolick Church Where we agree in any points of Religion there is no more reason to call us Papists than there is to call them Protestants The Socinians maintain the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures the Church of England doth the same shall we therefore be branded with Socinianism By which instance you may see the Quakers folly in their charging Tithes with Popery But to make it more clear do you think that Cranmer Hooper Ridley Latimer Tayler and Bradford were inclinable to Popery Par. I suspect them not in the least for they sealed their detestation of it with their blood and were eminent Martyrs for the Protestant Cause in the bloody dayes of Queen Mary Min. Then I hope you will have a better opinion of Tithes since these in their time were receivers of them As also of the Common-Prayer-Book since some of those good men did assist in the compiling of it Par. Hereafter for their sakes Tithes shall never be reputed Popish by me yet methinks you have not proved yet the Divine institution of them Min. Is it not sufficient that I have proved Maintenance in general a Divine institution and that Tithes have been set out for that Maintenance but that you may be eased in this scruple let me tell you a story There happen'd to be a publick disputation in Germany before the Elector of Saxony concerning Tithes one side vigorously maintaining that they were due by the Laws of God arguing that Tithes were paid to the Priesthood of Melchisedec and so consequently that Tithes were still in force with the Priesthood further arguing that no Law is abolished whilst the reason of it continues still in force now there is as much reason for Tithes in the times of the Gospel as there was in the times of the Law And lastly they argued from that Analogy which the Apostle makes between the Levites Maintenance under the Law and the Ministers Maintenance under the Gospel even so hath the Lord ordained c. The other side as briskly maintaining that Tithes were due only by the Laws of the Land When they had all spent their Arguments the Elector himself gave the determination thus One party I perceive saith he is for the Divine another for the Human right of Tithes yet both sides agree and acknowledge them to be a right therefore according to my duty to maintain right I am bound to justifie and uphold Tithes After all this out-cry against Tithes do the Quakers think the paying and receiving of them to be a sin Par. Do you think that all this stir could have been if they thought it not a sin to demand and receive Tithes Min. What is sin Par. The transgression of the Law 1 John 3. 4. Min. Now shew me a Law against Tithes If it be the transgression of a Divine Law shew the Text if of an Human Law shew the Statute 'T is the Opponents part to prove and if we be faulty you must shew