is called without father and mother that is of such a certain Tribe His Worship was altogether Spiritual Praising God Praying for Abraham offering no bloody Sacrifices but onely bringing forth Bread and Wine which some have thought to be the Types of the great Gospel-Sacrament of the Lords Supper And hence it is plain That we are Priests after Melchisedec's Order And if Authority of Fathers be of as much credit as the single Testimony of T. E. I can produce the plain words of S. Hierom S. Chrysostom S. Augustin Epiphanius Theophylact and many more affirming That the present Ministers of the Christian Church are of Melchisedec's Priesthood And none that ever I heard of before did deny it but the Jews and this Quaker But his Assertion is not more strange than his Reason is ridiculous For if we ask him why he denies us to be of Melchisedec's Priesthood he answers Every one knows that these men are made Priests after the Law of a Carnal Commandment whereas Melchisedec was made a Priest after the Law of an endless Life Doth every one know this No sure for every one knows not the meaning of this Phrase To be made a Priest after the Law of a Carnal Commandment Hebr. vii 16. no not this Quaker himself who hath learned to cant in this Language which if he had known the meaning of he would not have misapplied so grosly For the Apostle speaking of the Jewish Priests in that place saith They were made Priests after the Law of a Carnal Commandment that is according to Moses Law which consisted of outward and weak Commandments reaching onely to the purifying of the Flesh Now what an idle and impertinent man is this to say we are made Priest according to Moses Law and that every one knows this O impudent Slander Are we bound to all the Sacrificings Washings and other Levitical Rites and Ceremonies at our Ordination Every one will know by this that T. E. can prattle in Scripture-phrase without any knowledge of its meaning 'T is evident we are not Priests according to that carnal outward changeable Levitical Law but according to the Law of the Gospel whose Eternal Duties have in them the power of an Endless Life And as this Law must never change so neither must our Priesthood but like that of Melchisedec shall endure for ever And as we bear the same Office with him and do the like Work we deserve the same Reward and may expect Tythes as well as he And now whereas the boasting Quaker saith He thinks he need not stick to say he hath proved Tythes were not due to Melchisedec the sober Reader will believe his onely Reason is because he will not stick to say any thing be it never so false and unreasonable § 8. Concerning the Second Period or Time Vnder the Law you had affirmed two things in the Conference 1. That we did not claim Tythes now by vertue of the Levitical Law 2. That they were not purely Ceremonial In your first Concession That Tythes are not now claimed by vertue of the Levitical Law T. E. rejoyces saying pag. 282. That you have saved him the pains of proving the Levitical Law for Tythes was abrogated by Christ But let not the Quaker so far mistake as to think that the abrogation of the Levitical Law concerning Tythes was an abrogation of Tythes themselves Our Lord abrogated the Levitical Law concerning the Modes of Gods Worship but he did not abrogate Gods Worship The Worship of God was founded upon the Law of Nature and Divine Revelation and was performed by the Patriarchs before there was any written Law about it The Levitical Law enjoyned many Modes and Circumstances proper to that Dispensation and relating to Christ to come all which fell with that Polity and were abrogated by Christ But the main Duty of Worshipping God continued in force still Even so in the Case of Tythes they had not their Foundation upon nor their Original from the Levitical Law God had a Right to them before and in his Right jure Divino they had been paid to his Receiver The Law of Nature assisted by particular Inspiration had so fully declared the Divine Right of Tythes that holy Men had recognized Gods due to them and the Father of the Israelites had made a special Vow to pay this Divine Tribute So that there was no need for God to Institute Tythes anew and accordingly he claims them and supposes them to be his Due by a Right antecedent to the Levitical Law Exod. xxii 29. Levit. xxvii 30. And having chosen the Jews for his peculiar People and established a Polity among them proper to that Dispensation as his Church was confined to that one Nation so his Priests were fixed to one Tribe and on that Tribe he settles his own Demesnes Tythes by a plain Assignation of them to the Levites as his Receivers Numb xviii 21. and so they were to continue so long as that Polity stood Now the restraining these Tythes to the Tribe of Levi and all the Circumstances of Tything which related to the Ceremonial Worship such as the bringing the first or Levites Tythe in specie to Jerusalem or to some of the Levites Cities and likewise the second Tythe which onely might be changed into Money and laid out in a Feast at Jerusalem (q) Vide Deut. xiv 22 23. Tob. l. 7. Scal. de Decimis in Crit. sacr Deut. xxvi and not the first Tythe as T. E. mistakes as also the Tything of the Levites Tythe for the Priests Numb xviii 26. the Redemption of the First-born of all Men and unclean Beasts These with some other Circumstances were wholly Ceremonial Appendixes to the Original Right of Tythes and proper to that Ministry and Dispensation Now when Christ did abrogate that Ministry these Appendixes must needs be abrogated with it but the main Duty which was so before the Ceremonial Law remains still The putting on a new Sute doth not make one a new Man nor doth the pulling it off again kill him And there may be many alterations in Circumstances the Essentials still remaining the same But some may say Is the Levitical Law of no use to prove Tythes to be of Divine Right now I answer Though we do not claim by it yet we may learn something from it to clear that Title which we have from other Laws For First This shews how God continued his Claim to those Tythes which were his due before And this shews his approbation of the Payment of them by the Patriarchs This also confirms the disposal of them to those that bear the Office of Gods Ministers and makes good the Prescription against those who are not Gods Ministers Secondly This was a Pattern for Christ to imitate in his Provision for Gospel-Ministers as S. Paul teacheth us where he saith Know ye not that they which minister about holy things i. e. the Levites live of the things of the Temple i. e Tythes and they
which wait at the Altar i. e. the Jewish Priests are partakers with the Altar i. e. in the Sacrifices and Oblations Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel 1 Cor. ix 13 14. Which words Even so do manifest that Christ hath in the main and for the essential part made like Provision for Gospel-Ministers as God the Father did for the Jewish Priesthood Thirdly This was also a Pattern for the Devout Christians of old and did intimate to them that they should not do less for their Ministers than would afford them an honourable Maintenance Wherein Origen speaks my sense fully (r) Orig. in Num. Hom. 2. Our Lord saith in the Gospel speaking of Tything Mint c. These things ought ye to have done If you reply He said this to the Pharisees not to his Disciples then hear what he saith to his Disciples Except your Righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. v. Therefore that which he would have done by the Pharisees more abundantly would he have it done by his Disciples Now how doth my Righteousness exceed that of the Pharisees if they durst not taste of the Fruits of the Earth before they had separated the Priests and Levites parts and I do devour the Fruits of the Earth so that the Priest knows not of it the Levite is a stranger to it and Gods Altar receives nothing Fourthly The Substance of that which was required then is due still not by vertue of that Law but because there is an inherent Equity in the thing And this is Origen's meaning in the aforesaid place when he saith Therefore I think it necessary that this Law of Paying Tythes of the Fruits of the Earth and some others should stand in force according to the Letter And so we must interpret S. Hierom when he saith That which we have said of Tythes and First-fruits which were once given by the People to the Priests and Levites you must understand also of the Christian People to whom it is commanded not onely to give Tythes but to sell all (ſ) Hieron in Mal. 3. That is so much of the Command as was moral so much as was grounded upon Eternal Reason ought to stand God is eternally Lord of the World and must alwaies be worshipped and alwaies have Ministers and these must alwaies be maintained out of their Masters Portion When the Levitical Priesthood failed there must be another and a better and therefore we may claim Tythes as God's Due and as his Ministers Portion as they were declared to be both before the Levitical Law and under it and yet need not claim them by the Levitical Law as it is Ceremonial And now I hope T. E. must confess that your second Position viz. That Tythes are not purely Ceremonial is made good also since I have shewed they were grounded on the Law of Nature and Primitive Revelation relying on an Internal Rectitude in the thing it self and an Eternal Reason of it and were paid by those Patriarchs who lived long before the Ceremonial Law by vertue of the preceding Declarations of the Divine Right unto them T is true all things done by the Patriarchs were not Eternal Duties because all things they did relyed not on these Principles which the Payment of Thythes rely upon Circumcision was not grounded on the Law of Nature nor imposed for any Eternal Reason or Internal Rectitude in the thing Bloody Sacrifices were also purely Types of Christ to come and therefore these were purely Ceremonial and cease when that Law ceaseth But Tythes as to the main were not such and therefore remain in force still I might add That the Prophets who are not wont to reprove the People for omission of things purely Ceremonial declaim against the Jews for detaining their Tythes see Mal. iii. 10. And Nehemiah calls his care in this a Good Deed desiring God to remember him for it Nehem. xiii 14. Nor are Tythes in all the New Testament reckon'd up among things purely Ceremonial or declared to be repealed as Circumcision Sacrifices Washing Jewish Difference of Meats and Jewish Feasts c. are These are repealed by Name but so are not Tythes as being a thing that never were purely Ceremonial I conclude that part of our Substance being due to God by the Natural and Divine Law and the Inspired Patriarchs being taught by Revelation That the Tenth was this part and the Priests of God were his Receivers God himself having approv'd also this payment by a renew'd claim and an express Assignation of his Right under the Levitical Law to the Priests for the time being and the same God having the same Right still to his part and the same occasion to use it for the maintenance of his Ministers at this Day Hence I suppose it will follow That unless an express repeal can be shewed the Gospel Ministers in God's Name may justly claim Tythes as due to God and them still and that by a Divine Right too which I will now more fully prove § 9. Having found sure footing for the Divine Right of Tythes thus far we will now go on with T. E. to consider the third Period of time viz. Vnder the Gospel And first we will begin with what the Quaker grants pag. 284. viz. That a Maintenance in general to the Ministers of the Gospel is Just Reasonable and established by a Divine Authority Let him but stand to this Grant and then it will follow That the Ministers of the Gospel may claim a Maintenance in general Jure Divino For that Maintenance which is established by Divine Authority is due Jure Divino And why then should not that Maintenance still be so Due which God directed before the Law approved under the Law and never repealed after the Law If the Divine Authority hath established a Maintenance that supposeth it was such a Maintenance as was due before according to T. E. p. 318. Now before the Gospel times the Maintenance paid to Gods Ministers before the Law and under it was Tythes The Priesthood of Melchisedec and of Levi both were so maintained And therefore if a new maintenance was as T. E. speaks created it might be somewhat else But if a Maintenance be establisted methinks it should be Tythes But to proceed The places which you produced out of the New Testament for this Establishment were 1 Cor. ix and Gal. vi 6. Now our Quaker as if he did already repent of his Concession strives to pervert these Texts by two Limitations First The Apostle speaks not so much saith he what the Maintenance is as who they are from whom it is to be received viz. Such as receive their Ministry such as believe them to be true Ministers such as are taught by them This is a notorious falshood for in the former place viz. 1 Cor. ix S. Paul is all along speaking of the Ministers
Meat and Drink for the Gospel Maintenance He should ordain that Believers should give their Teachers part of all their Goods or good things Gal. vi 6. But we shall rather believe T. E. contradicts himself than that the Apostles contradicted their Master and therefore shall conclude That the Quaker abuses our Lords words in apylying them to be a determination of the onely Gospel Maintainance and especially if he would make them a standing Rule for the succeeding Ministry after the Church was settled the folly whereof I shall shew more fully § 27. § 11. And now having removed his vain exceptions I shall go on to shew That our Lord Jesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the maintenance of the the Gospel Ministers and that they may be proved also out of the Now Testament to be due Jure Divino First in regard there is no repeal of Tythes in all the New Testament which shews that our Lord left these in the same state as he found them excepting onely so far as concerned that Priestood which was to be abolished so far as they were Gods Right and an acknowledgement of his Supremacy and Bounty so far as they were Moral and a necessary Provision for his Ministers so far as they were founded on the Law of Nature and Primitive Revelation and grounded on an Eternal Reason our Saviour did not revoke them no nor any thing else so established And if Tythes had been the only thing 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 (t) Reg. Jur. 195. And we may reasonably believe That Jesus intended they should remain of Divine Right as they had been reputed alwayes before Secondly 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 For besides our Saviour's affirming Tythes ought to be paid Math. xxiii 23. The Double Honour or the Elder Brothers Portion due to the Presbyters 1 Tim. v. 17. The Order for a Bishop to be given to Hospitality which cannot be maintained without a large Income 1 Tim iii. 2. The remark of Melchisedec's receiving Thythes of whose Order Christ and the Gospel-Ministers are Hebr. vii I say besides these which plead only a probability there are two plain places first that of S. Paul 1 Cor. ix 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either by word of mouth or Revelation That they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel that is of those good things which should be dedicated and offered in gratitude for the Gospel For this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not onely a Good Message but the Reward given for it as well in LXX 2 Sam. iv 10. as in other Authors as Mr. Mede hath fully proved (u) Med. Diatr in loc And the Blessed JESVS who ordained this did incline the hearts of Pious Christians to dedicate Tythes and other Oblations made in gratitude for the Gospel And now that such Dedications are made we enjoy them as well by the Ordinance as the Grace and Providence of Christ and therefore Jure Divino What was given in acknowledgment for the love of Jesus shewed in the Gospel was Jesus his Part and he who hath now all power given him in Heaven and Earth hath here assigned his and his Fathers Part to the Ministers of the Gospel and this Assignation gives them a Right thereunto Jure Divino But secondly Lest any should say This Text supposeth something will be given but doth not enjoyn the Christians to give We have another Law directed to the People containing both their Duty and the Ministers Right Gal. vi 6. Let him that is taught in the Word communicate unto him that teacheth in all Good things Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Let the Christians make the Ministers of the Gospel partakers or sharers with them in all their Goods For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to distribute or give some part to another so that he may participate with us Rom. xii 13. Phil. iv 15. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Earthly goods Luke xvi 25. Yea the Fruits of the Earth are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke xii 18. and hence Beza interprets it Ex omnibus bonis Now surely T. E. will not say We have no other Goods or good things but Meat and Drink If we be so poor some excuse may be made but if we have any other Good things Corn Hay Wool increase of Flocks and Herds c. we must not appropriate them all to our own use but we are enjoyned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to distribute some part of all these Good things or Goods to God's Ministers Some part he must have of all our Goods and in all reason that part ought to be the Tenth For a Tenth was given by the Patriarchs before the Law a Tenth at least by the Jews under the Law This was the Part which God made known to be his by Revelation the part which the Heathens had learned by Primitive tradition to dedicate to their Gods The Part which God approved in the Jewish Polity and which Christ never disapproved The Tenth was a part so reasonable and so known so acceptable to God so acknowledged by Men and so certainly due to God before that there is no reason to doubt but that this is the share or portion of Gospel-Ministers And so good Men of old understood it to be and therefore communicated this Tenth Part to God and his Ministers and therein both expounded and obey'd this Apostolical Injunction The People must Communicate and that to the Gospel-Ministers and they may claim Jure Divino to have a part of all their Good things even the same part which was alwayes known to be God's Part and so need not be particularly expressed here There is but one Objection against this viz. That Tythes are not mentioned in the Gospel or Epistles to be the very Part To this therefore I reply thirdly There are very good Reasons why Tythes are not mentioned in the New Testament by Name viz. First To avoid all occasion of scandal to the Jews whose Priests were then in possession of them and though the Synagogue was dead yet it was to be decently buried whereupon many things were suffered a while to run in their old Channel till the whole Jewish Polity was destroy'd And it would have been used as a prejudice to the young beginnings of the Gospel if the Preachers had presently claimed the Maintenance which others were legally instated in And we see in S. Paul 1 Cor. ix that even where they had a right and authority in the first and
and Schismaticks saith S. Augustine (r) August 50 Epist ad Bonif. Com. to Bonifacius where he observes the Donatists used this very Objection which our Quakers now use and he learnedly proves That Gentiles were first to be invited in but when the Church is setled whatever straying Sheep wilfully leave the Fold these are to be compelled by Laws and moderate Penalties to return into the Fold alledging That to compel Men to that which is good is very lawful and an act of necessary Charity to their Souls yea a Duty of Christian Princes and a means which had brought many to see their Errors and repent Let T. E. read and answer the excellent Arguments in that Epistle if he can And withal let him observe it is not the Priests compel them but the Laws of the Land The Priests indeed see them in desperate Heresies and most wicked Schism and in pity to their Souls admonish them warn them 1 Thess v. 14. and labour to convince them by Arguments yea at length they use the Censures of the Church and finally as the last remedy complain to the Secular Magistrate to try if any thing will bring them to a better mind knowing that sometimes the rod and reproof give wisdom And this is no more than S. Paul threatned 2 Cor. x. 6. and acted also in delivering the incestuous Corinthian to Satan punshing his outward Man for the health of his Soul 1 Cor. v. 5. 'T is no more than a careful Father doth to his refractory Son Let not them therefore saith S. Augustine who being in Heresie and Schism are compelled to come in reprove us that they are compelled but consider whither we would compel them (ſ) August Epist 50. ut supra to Unity and Peace to a right Faith and to submission to their Governours to the Service of God and the Salvation of their Souls Nor doth our State use any Capital Punishments any Spanish Cruelties or Popish Fire and Faggot toward them but by moderate Penalties labours to reduce them which is no more than the first Christian Emperours did to reduce the Hereticks of those days by Fines Imprisonment banishing them out of eminent Cities burning their Books and prohibiting their Assemblies but still preserving their Lives in hopes of their Repentance And when our Magistrates imitate Holy Constantine and Theodosius herein the Quakers most unjustly call it Persecution § 50. He adds pag. 359. Christ gave us no power to demand a Maintenance from those who do not receive us Nor do we demand of the Quakers to give us one single Penny more than what was given to us and setled on us many hundred years ago we onely ask our own we onely ask that which the Quaker did not take of his Landlord that which was or ought to have been abated in his Rent If a Tenant be to pay an Annuity to a Lord as Free-Rent or to an Hospital or other Person will his saying he doth not receive him or them excuse him from paying the Money Our Lord JESVS owns us for his Ministers and the Laws of the Land own us and declare we are the Persons to whom this Estate belongs and what have the Quakers to do to dispute our Title any more than they do their Lords Title to his Estate The Papists pay us Tythes here in England and we should pay them if we lived in France If the State assign Tythes to a wrong Order of Men it is their fault But I am sure Tythes are not the Country-mans he may not keep them but must pay them as the Laws direct and is innocent in so doing Our Right to Tythes depends not at all upon Mens being willing or unwilling to come and hear us and the Quaker is sadly mistaken to think we come to sell them our Sermons or that Tythes are a Price which is the Quakers own to give The folly of all these Pretences was shewed before § 51. As for Going to Law for Tythes you have fully proved it lawful in the Conference and the Quaker answers not one of your Arguments so that till he reply to that I will onely note That it is much against our will that we are forced to sue for our just Dues and where a Legal Right is demanded the Sin lies at the Defendents door who will maintain an unjust Cause and force the Plaintiff to use this uneasie and ungrateful Method If it would not be too tedious I could shew him Examples of Primitive Gospel-Ministers upon the Churches Settlement requiring Justice of the Emperours against the Sacrilegious Invaders of the Sacred Revenue but it is time enough to produce Examples when he hath answered your Reasons already produced § 52. His Conclusion pag. 363. admonisheth me that 't is time for me to conclude also when I have made a Remark or two upon his pleasant Epilogue which I dare say would afford you as it did me the just occasion for a smile to observe what rare effects the happy conjunction of Ignorance and Folly have produced in your Adversary You said That the Quakers were quite different from the Primitive Christians which he thinks to avoid by calling it an old overworn Objection And truly as an Objection it is as old as the Quakers first appearance in the World but the Answer to it will be an unheard of Novelty And indeed the Quakers may be ashamed to let the Objection grow old and over-worn before they have either confessed the Truth or made some satisfactory Reply thereunto But the merriest passage is that T.E. who knows nothing of Ecclesiastical History and Antiquity and is a perfect Stranger to the Judgment and Practice of the Primitive Christians having scarce heard of the Names of the most Eminent Fathers as he hath abundantly manifested in this Book that he should challenge the poor ignorant Priests and attempt to threaten you into silence by daring you to dispute on this Question Risum teneatis Amici Doubtless if T. E. without going down to the Philistins of Rome should of a sudden become able to dispute well about the Doctrine and Discipline and Rights of the Primitive Church it would be the most famous Instance of immediately inspired Teaching that this Age ever saw And if he can prove that these Ancient Christians had no distinct Order of Men to Officiate in Divine things no Sacrament of the Lords Supper no Baptism with Water no Catechizing no Oblations at the Altar no separate Places for Worship and Set Forms for Sacred Administrations no Festival and Fasting Days no Kneeling at Prayers no singing of Praises nor answering of Amen c. he hath some rare Revelations sure about those Times and is able to confute S. Ignatius Justin Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Cyprian Origen and the rest of those Eldest Fathers in Matters done in their own time A very grand Undertaking which none would have boasted of but T. E. and none but an undiscerning Quaker can be persuaded it is possible to be