whose Person as the latter Priest sayes the Master of the Vineyard speaks may do what he will with his own to whom it is impossible to do amiss may every one therefore challenge to himself the same Liberty and Power That 's not to make meâ— Servants and Stewards to the great Housholder but Lords and Masters But aâ— to the Case of Tythes I have proved that Ethelwolf in the settlement of Tythes did that with his own which was evil in upholing a false Religion which it more concerns the Priest to clear him from then thus without cause to cavil § 5. In my Answer to the Friendly Conference I said pag. 323. Suppose that Ethelwolf had an ample Power of disposing what he pleased or that the People had by consent joyned with him in the Dâ—nation every man according to the Interest he had yet neither could he single nor he and they conjoyned grant any more then belonged to themselves This was too plain to be denyed being grounded on a firm Maxim Nemo plus juris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse haberet i. e. No man can transfer more Right to another then he himself hath therefore they seek wayes to evade it The Author of the Conferenâ—e sayes Suppose I grant it whâ—â— then His Parishioner answers in my Name To make â— Grant of the tenth part forever is in his understanding utterly 〈◊〉 to Reason The Priest replieâ— Is it reasonable wholly to pass an Estatâ— from theâ— and their Heirs forever and yet repugnant to 〈…〉 grant but a part of that Estate forever By this I perceive he has taught his Parishioner to use as little Honesty as himself The Parishioner has learnt of the Priest to chop and mangle Sentences and cunningly leave out what he likes not He maketh me here say To make a Grant of the tenth 〈◊〉 forever is in my understanding utterly repugnant to Reason This goes clearer with the Priest as if I had said it was repugnant to Reason to grant the tenth part of an Estate forever and accordingly he argueâ— whereas I say plainly They might have disposed of what part of the Land they pleased they might have given the tenth part of the Land the tenth Acre c. But that which I said is to my understanding repugnant to Reason Iustice and Equity is for theâ— to make a grant of the tenth part of the PROFITS of the Land forever These words of the profits of the Land he leaves out in reciting my words thereby drawing it from the profits of the Land to the Land it self which alters the case for as I shewed the profits of the Land forever could not be said to belong to them because it depended on the stock labour c. of another which they had no interest in noâ— right unto But if the profits of the Land forever did not belong to them and they had no power to grant any more then did belong to themselves it follows that they had no power to grant the Tythes of the profits of the Land forever They endeavour to weaken the force of this Argument by comparing Tythes with a Rent-charge urging That the owners might as well make a grant of Tythes forever as set a Rent-charge upon their Lands forever This the Author of the of Tytth Rhgies talks much of and fills many pages 〈◊〉 in Sect. 30. and 38. shifting the same matter into divers dresses by variety of expressions to make the fairer shew and greater appearance of saying something But he that shall impartially consider the nature of each will find a vast difference between a Rent-charge and Tythes for a Rent-charge is paid by reason of the Land on which it is charged which it is to be supposed â—e that charged it had at that time â— property in but Tythes are not paid by reason of the Land but by reason of the stock and labour c. imploy'd thereon by him that occupies it which appears by this that they who have no Lands are as well charged with the payment of Tythes out of the improvement or increase of their stocks and labours in their Trades and manual Occupations as they are who occupy Lands So that Tythes lie properly on the stock not on the Land but a Rent-charge lies properly on the Land not on the stock and therefore although there should be no increase at all no profit made no Crop plâ—nted nor any thing renewing upon the Land yet the Rent-charge must be paid because it is charged in consideration of the Land it self but it is not so in the case of Tythes If there be no increase no profit made no Crop planted nor any thing renewing upon the Land no Tythe can be demanded because Tythe is charged in consideration of the increase and improvement made of the Stock And for the Non-payment of a Rent-charge he on whom it is settled may enter upon and possess the Land which is charged with the payment of it But in the case of Tythes it is otherwise For non-payment of Tythes he who claims them cannot enter upon or possess the land but is made whole out of the stock of the Occupier All which demonstrates that it is the stock not the land of which the Tythe is paid If a Trades-man hold a â—arm as many dâ— and dividing his 〈◊〉 he 〈◊〉 one part of it in his Farm â—nd the other in hiâ— Trade he is liable to the payment of Tythes out oâ— each But if he should draw his Stock out of 〈◊〉 Farm and imploy it all in his Trade letting his Farm lie unstocked and so receive no profit from it he would not be chargeable with Tythes for his Farm but only for the improvement of his Stock 〈◊〉 his Trade Yet if there be a Rent-charge upon 〈◊〉 Farm he is chargeable with that nevertheless and liable to pay it whether he imploy his Farm or not Whence it is still more evident that a Rent-charge being a charge upon the Land â—ot upon the Stock and Tythes being a charge upon the stock not upon the land though our Ancestors had power to lay a Rent-charge upon their own Lands in which they had a property yet they could not have power to grant Tythes out of other mens Stocks in which they had no property Now since Tythe is not the tenth part of the Land but the tenth part of the increase of the Stock howsoever imployed whether upon Land or otherwise and seeing the labour care skill industry and diligence of the Occupant whether Husband man or Trades-man is involved and necessarily included in the Stock as instrumental means and causes of producing the increase a perpetual grant of Tythes implies a grant not only of other mens Stocks in which the Granters had no property but of other mens labours care skill diligence and industry also long before they were begotten upon which supposition all men but Priests since Ethelwolf's time 〈◊〉 be born Slaves under an obligation to imploy
their time pains industry and skill in working for the Priests But whether it be rational to admit in Ethelwolf or any other a power to impose the necessity of such a servile condition on their Poâ—â—erity let the free-spirited Reader judge Against this the Priest objects thus Doth not the raising the sum of Money settled by Rent-charge include the labour sweat care charge skill and industry of the Husbandman as well as the preparing of Tythe pag. 168. The case of a Rent-charge even in this Respect is greatly different from that of Tythes For a Rent-charge is a burden fixt upon the Land and according to the maxim The Burden descending with the Inheritance he that as the Priest sayes pag. 170. will not have the incumbrance must not have the benefit He therefore to whom such Land descends on which the burden of a Rent-charge lies finding he cannot enjoy the Land without performing the condition which is to pay the Rent-charge subjects himself unto the burden and that he may enjoy the Estate undertakes the performance of the Condition which thus becomes his own act So that this man's Ancestors do not take upon them to give away his stock labour skill and industry for they only charge a burden on their own land which he is at liberty to take or leave But he himself gives away his own stock â—abour skill and industry that he may enjoy the Estate But it is far otherwise in the case of Tythes for Tythe though a Burden and a grievous one too is not fixt upon the Land nor descends with the Inheritance for they who have no lands nor inheritances are liable if they have personal Estates to pay Tythes as well as they that have Lands and they that have Lands are not liable to pay Tythes unless by imploying a Stock or personal Estate upon them they make an increase or have something renew upon the Land Nay it hath been held possible so to order the matter as to reap the benefit of the Lands and yet 〈◊〉 freâ— from the incumbrance of Tythes However if 〈◊〉 to whom the Land descends refuse to pay the Tythes yet he is in no danger of loosing the land So that he hath not the Land under condition of paying Tythes 〈◊〉 the other has under condition of paying a Rent-charge therefore neither needs nor doth subject himself to the burden and incumbrance of Tythes Here theâ— in short lies the civil difference between a Rent-charge and Tythes A Rent-charge is a burden charged upon the land Tythe is a burdeâ— lies upon the stock A Rent-charge is laid upon the lands by them that had a just Propriety therein Tythe is laid upon the stock by them that had no Propriety at all therein the stock and labour c. of the present Possessor is not subjected to the Rent-charge unless by his own consent and undertaking but the stock and labour c. of the present Possessor is subjected to the burden of Tythes without his own consent or undertaking yea against it By this it appears both that a Rent-charge and Tythes are very unlike and that it is utterly repugnant to reason to suppose that Ethelwolf and his People had power to load their Posterity with the burden of Tythes forever And indeed if we consider the practice of our Ancestors in their Donations of Tythes we may find that they did not look upon Tythes to be at all of the Nature of a Rent-charge for they took great care by legal settlements to secure and assure those Rent-charges but made no provision for some Hundred Years for the payment of Tythes save by Ecclesiastical Censures nor was the knâ—ck of Suing for Tythes in temporal Courts found out till oâ— late Years Which argues that as they gave 〈…〉 they intended the continuance of them should have â—epended on â—â—votion also He objects again in pag. 170. That seeing the present Possessor derives his Right to his land from his fore-Fathers who might have sold off what part of the Land they pleased and since they transmit it 〈◊〉 â—ay they not leave a charge upon it And if the â—eir 〈◊〉 not pay the charge he must renounce the Land 〈◊〉 As they might have sold off what part of the Land they pleased so they might have laid a charge upon the Land because the property of the Land 〈◊〉 in themselves but they could not have subjected the stock and labour of the present Occupant to that 〈◊〉 because they had not a property in the stock and labour of the present Occupant And though he sayes If the Heir will not pay the charge he must renounce the land also yet in the case of Tythes he knows full well it is not so for if the Heir will not pay Tythes he is not bound to renounce the Land nor does he forfeit it by the non-payment of Tythes But he possesses and injoyes the Land whether he pay Tythes or no. Which shews he did not receive the Land under any condition of paying Tythes for then he could not injoy the Land without performing the condition But he sayes pag. 171. The Quaker's Argument is Protestatio contra factum i. e. A Protestation against Fact and so signifies nothing at all It is an 〈◊〉 to prove that cannot be done which is done as 〈◊〉 in this as in the like â—ases And that ought not to 〈◊〉 done which hath been done a thousand times and 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉 of all Christian Laws That 〈…〉 nothing at all is more then I understood before The intent of my Argument is not to prove that that câ—â—not be done which is done but that that should not be done which is done or as his after words are That 〈◊〉 not to be done which is done although it had been done ten thousand times and approved 〈…〉 by such Lawâ— as he for his profit sake will call Christian. § 6. For want of strength of Reason and force of Argument he falls now to down-right Railing having a mind I suppose to try if he can daunt me with blustring words and therefore exhibits a charge against me of no leâ—s nature then Blasphemy He grounds it upon my saying That for any one to tell me that Ethelwolf or some other hath given him my labour pains charges care skill industry diligence understanding c. seven or eight hundred Years it may be before either he or I was Born is a thing most ridiculous and utterly inconsistent with Reason Upon which he sayes pag. 172. It is no great wonder he should call all men Fools when as this blasphemous Argument â—â—ies in the face of God himself who even by the Quaker's own confession in the Levitical Law did assume a power to enjoyn all the Owners of Canaan to pay to the Priests the tenth part of those profits which did arise from their sweat and pains charge and care and that from one Generation to another God sayes he did make over to his Priests these Tenths of the
God give no Increase they expect no Tythe at all but it is easie to perceive what he means by Increase by his adding or the Husband-man have nothing grow There is some difference sure between Increase and having something grow He that sows ten Bushels of Seed in a Field and receives but eight again which that it often proves so many men to their loss know to be true is far enough from having increase when he decreases two in ten Yet such is the Conscience of these Priests that they will have the Tythes of that Crop though they see apparently there is not only no Profit or Increase but a certain loss and decrease even of the Seed besides all the Husbandman's other Charge and Pains So that it is not as the Priest sayes If God gives no increase that they expect no Tythe at all but if there be an utter and total decrease if the Husband-man have nothing grow i. e. if there be nothing at all for them to have then they expect nothing but if there be any thing at all if the Husband-man have anything grow though never so little if his loss be never so great and he reap â—ot again the one half of what he sowed and clearly lose the other half with all his Charge and Labour yet will the Priest make his loss so much the greater by taking from him the tenth part of that 〈◊〉 Crop he haâ— and have the Face when he has done to look the poor Man in the Face and tell him thâ—s 〈◊〉 according to St. Paul's Rule But long enough may the Priest say so before any wise man will believe him §16 In his next Section pag. 196. he alledges 〈◊〉 my Aâ—guments for taking away Tythes tend to destroy Hospitals and Donations to the Poor which supposition in my formâ—r Book I had denyed and disproved by several Reasons one whereof he after his imperfect manner of quoting thus sets down Because in that of the Poor there is a settlement of certain Lands in which the Donor had a legal property at the time of the giftâ— but in the increase of the Occupiers Stock he that gave Tythes neither had nor never could have a proâ—erty and therefore no power to give This is the Reason as he has maimed it but in my Book it stands thus In that of the Poor there is a certain settlement of Lands and Tenements in which it is to be supposed the Donor had a legal property or of which he was actually seized at the time of the Gift But in the case of Tythes here is no gift of Lands and Tenements but of the Increase growing and arising through and by reason of the Labour Care Industry and Stock of the Occupier which he that gave the Tythes neither had noâ— could have any property in nor was or could be actually seized of and therefore had no power to give This Reason is firm and solid and will endure a Shock And I observe that though he had peel'd it as much as he could and brought it in too with a scornful forsooth yet he was quickly contented to leave it and take up one of his old Notes for he immediately sayes pag. 197. We have noted before That by his Rules framed against Tythes all Donations made by Papists on consideration of meriting and expiating their Sins thereby are void And this will destroy a great many of these Hospitals and Gifts to the Poor That is not the consequent of my Aguments against Tythes but an inference of his own making to shelter Tythes under All Donations made by Papists are not void because some are The Donations of Tythes were designed to uphold and maintain a Worship and Ministry that were false and Antichristian but Donations to Hospitals for the Sustenance of the Poor had no such intendment The Papists as I observed before Chap. 4. Sect 12. in their â—ivil and politick capacity did many things well and commendably but what they did in their Religious capacity was stark nought But he says ibid. By my own confession all Hospâ—tals endowed out of Tythes and all Gifts to the Poor granted out of Tythes for perpetuity are void What then If men will give that which belongs not to them the fault is in themselves Though Charity be an excellent vertue yet it may not patronize â—njustice Nor indeed is that to be acounted Charity which is repugnant to justice Now if the Donors of Tythes â—ad no power nor right to make such perpetual Donations of Tythes as are now claimed but that such Donations do violate the Rights of others as in my former Book I have argued at large pag. 323 324 325 338 339 341. and also in this Chap. 5. Sect. 5. then may not any pretence of Charity be urged to justifie such violation Athird sort he says ibid. of these charitable Donations consist of perpâ—â—ual Rent-charges and certain sums of Money to be paid Yearly forever out of the Profits of some certain Estate Now he says the Occupiers of the Lands thus charged must sell such part of the Profits produced by their Labour Sweat Stock Skill and Industry and when it is turned into Mony â—ust pay it intirely to the Poor c. pag. 198. This he would make a parallel case to Tythes but it is not as I have already shewed Chap. 5. Sect. 5. For this Rent-charge doth not lie upon the Stock nor upon the Occupier unless he be Proprietor of the Lands or by particular contract with the Proprietor hath taken it upon himself But it lies upon the Land being charged thereon by him that was then actually seized of the Land or had at that time a legal property therein and the burden descending with the Inheritance the Heir is fain to undertake the burden because he cannot else enjoy the Land But the Tenanâ— who Occupies this Land and imploys his Stock upon it is no way at all concerned in this payment because it goes out of the Rent unless it be otherwise provided by private agreement between the Landlord and him But there is no proportion between Tytheâ— and this for Tythes is a burden lies upon the Stockâ— which the Donors of Tythes were not actually seâ—zed of nor had a legal property in and goes not out of the Rent but out of the Stock and the Landlord is not concerned in it but the Tenant And if the Proprietor occupy the Land himself it is by reason of the Stock he uses upon the Land that he payâ— Tythes not by reason of the Land for if he hath the Land in his Hands and hath no Stock upon it but lets it lie and makes no Profit of it he has no Tythâ— to pay for the Land though if at the same time he imploy his Stock any other way he is liable to pay Tythe of the profit of his Stock But though he make no Profit of his Land at all yet the Rent-charge he must pay The Priest says He knows an Estate of
thousaâ—d Hills arâ— his Psal. â—0 12. not the Tythes of them only That Scripture therefore Prov. 3. 9. Honour the Lord with thy Suâ—stance is misapplyed by the Priest and as he restrains it to the Payment of Tythes is not a binding Rule to Christians as well as Iews Câ—ristians being no where commanded by God to pay Tythes as the Iews expresly were But the Christian doth then honour God with his Substance when thankfully receiving the Goods of this World from the Hand of the Lord he doth in God's holy Fear so use them as not to abuse them 1 Cor. 7. 31. when both in eating and drinking and whatsoever else he does he does all to the Glory of God according to the Exhortation of the Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 10 31. 'T is not to be doubted but that God from whose Bounty and Blessing all is received might reserve to himself what share he pleased but what he might do is one thing what he did another That he ever did appropriate the tenth part I find not in Scripture exprest excepting only in the time of the Levitical Priesthood for which there was a particular Reason He then chose the Iewish Nation to be his peculiar People which People being divided into twelve Tribes he separated one entire Tribe the Tribe of Levi to attend the Service of the Tabernacle â— The Land of Canaan he divided amongst the other eâ—eaven Tribes but gave the Tribe of Levi no Inheritance amongst them Numb 18. 20 23 24. Deut. 10. 9. for they being wholely imployed in that service could not have leisure to attend the Plough or other Rural Occupations Seeing therefore he had excluded them from a share of the Land the manuring of which would have taken them off from the Service he had designed them to and that by this means their Brethren the other Eleaven Tribes amongst whom their part was shared did all fare so much the better their respective Lots beinâ— so much the greater he commanded the Eleaven Tribes that had the Lands to pay the Tythes of the increase thereof out of whicâ— this twelf Tribe should be maintained And while that Priesthood and Polity stood which Tythes were suitable and appropriated to this Tything Command was in force and no longer But that eveâ— God did reserve the tenth or command the payment of Tythes to any before the constitution of the Levitical Priesthood or since the Dissolution thereof I no where read in Scripture This is proper for the Assertors of the Divine Right of Tythes to prove and indeed so absolutely necessary that if they fail of this all they can say beside will be too weak to bear their Title up For in a matter of so great moment it is not â—are Conjectures or meer Suppositions nor Probability neither will serve the turn but positive Precept The Levitical Priesthood was not left to such Incertainties Though this Priest is willing to take it for granted that the men of that Age wherein Abraham lived knew and understood by the Light of Nature that the tenth part belong'd to God and was therefore to be paid to his Priests yet we find God himself did not think fit to hazard the Levitical Priesthood on such uncertain terms but secured their Maintenance to them by an express Command which left no room for any Doubts or Scruples And can it be imagin'd that the Ommâ—scient God whose Eye at once fore-sees all Events would leave the Maintenance of his Gospel-Ministry so much nearer to him then the Levitical Priesthood to depend upon the ambiguous and doubtful Constitution of a single Act of Abraham's or a Vow of Iacob's uncertain when or where or how performed No doubtless it cannot reasonably be supposed that he who took such particular Care of the Legal Priesthood which was to last but for a 〈◊〉 and was so punctual in appointing Tythes for their Maintenance not thinking either Abraham ' Gift or Iacob's Vow sufficient ground for them to claim upon although they were the choâ—en Priests of God without a plain and positive Command would leave his Royal Priesthood the Publishers of his Everlasting Gospel so ill provided of a Claim to Tythes as to be necessitated to strain a Title out of Abraham's Gift and Iacob's Vow if he had ever intended Tythes should be the Maintenance of his Gospel-Ministers What else doth this Assertor of the divine Right of Tythes offer in proof of his Assertion but Conjectures and Probabilities as he calls them as in page 30. where speaking of Abraham's giving to God the tenth of all the Spoils he adds As in all Probability he was wont ordinarily to do of all that he got by God's ordinary Blessing So again pag. 31. T. E. cannot prove Abraham did not pay Tythes 〈◊〉 and I can make it appear very probable he did Again There are ancient Authors and probable Reasons to induce us to beliâ—ve c. pag. 33. Again speaking of 〈◊〉 being Sem We cannot sayâ— he be 〈◊〉 iâ— a matter of so great antiquity but I hoâ—e these things may suffice to make it very probable that Melchizedeâ— was Abraham ' s Priest in Ordinary pag. 34. And though he is able to shew no better ground then such probable Maybâ—'s as these yet he sticks not to require his Reader 's Assent as fully as if he had produced the most positive Proofs and plain Demonstratâ—on for speaking of Abraham's pitching upon the Tenth he says p. 25. In all Râ—ason we ought to belâ—â—ve it was first revealed by almighty God to him c. And speaking of Sacrificing beinâ— believed to be revealed by God to Adam he says The like we may believe also concerning this of dedicating the tenth part pag. 26. Again speaking of soâ—e Heathens that vow'd the Tenths to their Gods he says Which therefore we muâ—t believe they had by Tradition from the first Patriarchs who received it by Revelation from God pag. 27. Yet in the next page sayes It is not necessary since the Scripture is silent I should deterâ—ine whether Abraham was immediately directed to it or whether he learnt it from Melchizedec Thus he argues from may be to must be and from must be to may be back again finding nothing firm nothing certaâ—n whereon to build a divine Right to Tythes Yet fain he would have it so and therefore labours to perswade his Reader pag. 21. that from the Example of Abraham's Giving and Iacob's Vowing the Tenth there was a Claim made of this teâ—th part as being originally due to God long before And for thiâ— Claim he quoteâ— Levit. 27. 30. All the Tythes of the Land is the Lord's But he greatly mistakes and mis-applyes that Text for thought the teâ—th the nineth the Eighth and the all was originally due to God long before yet as a tenth distinct and separate from the rest it doth not appear to have been due long before nor seems to be here mention'd by Moses with relation to any such former Reâ—erve or Claim
Epiphanius By which the Reader may judge Whether Christians paid Tythes in Epiphanius his time or whether Epiphaniuâ— accounted the Payment of Tythes a Christian duty who so plainly equals Tythes with Circumcision and Iewish Offerings which are most certainly abrogated To â—piphanius the Priest joynes Chrysostom whom he reports to speak after this manner It is lawful and fitting for Christians to pay Tythes and that Melchizedec was our Tutor in this matter page 81. Doth this sound at all like Chrysostom Is it likely he would say Melchizedec was our Tutor in paying Tythes Did Melchizedec then pay Tythes To whom I wonder Or did he teach that Tythes are to be paid Whâ—re I pray That Golden-mouthed Doctor as his name imports understood the Text and himself better then to have let fall such an expression But his Writings have run the same fate with others of those earlier timeâ— being in many places partly through inadvertency partly through design corrupted And Perkins out of Sixtus Senensis the Library-keeper reckons above a hundred homilies that bear the name of Chrysostom which yet are reputed Spurious Problem pag. â—4 c. And Selden in his History of Tythes C. 5. pag 56. giving the Opinions of the Fatâ—ers of that Age sayes Chrysostom perswading even Labourers and Artificers to give bouâ—tifully their Offerings to the Church for holy uses according to the Apostolical Ordinance in the Churches of Coâ—inth and Galatia brings the Iewish liberality in the payment of their Tenths for Example beneath which he would not have Christians determin their Charity adding that he speaks these things not as commanding or forbidding that they should give more yet as thinking it fit that they should not give lâ—ss then a tenth part Whence it is plain that Tythes were not yet generally paid nor held duâ— but the Miâ—isters the Poor were alike maintained by the free Gifts and Voluntary Oblation of the Pâ—ople which through the coldness of Devotion falling short of answering the necessary ends as formerly gave occasion to these men to excite their Charity and provoke them to more liberality by the Example of the Iews who paid the tenth of their increase Hence it is that in some of their Writings the word Decimae sometimes occurs And from their frequent Inculcation of this as a Provocation to tâ—e Christians to equal at least if not exceed in charity and bounty the Iews an Opinion about this time Ignorance and Superstition Co-operating theâ—e to began in some places to enter the Church Thaâ— Tythes were due But then they were claimed and received in the name of the Poor and the claim derived from the Mosaical Law as Selden proves at large C. 5. But for the first four hundred years after Christ Selden is positive No use of Tythes occurs till about the end of this four hundred years are his words C. 4. pag. 35. And again Till towards the end of the first four hundred years no payment of them can be proved to have been in use ibid. The Priest's next quotation is of Hierom whom he makes to say That as a Priest or Levite he himself lived upon Tythes and Oblations pag. 81. In this he deals not well with his Reader for he gives not Hierom's own words fairly but taking a piece only represents his sense far otherwise then it is Hierom's words are these Si ego pars Dominâ— sum et faniculus hareditatis ejus nec accipio partem inter caeteras tribus sed QVASI Levita et Sacerdâ—s vivo de decimis et altari serviens altaris oblationâ— sustentâ—r habens victuâ— et vestitum his contentus ere et â—â—â—dam crucemnudus sequâ—r i. e. If I am the Lords parâ— and a cord of his Inheritance and receive nâ— shâ—â—â— amongst the rest of the Tribes but live LIKE AS â— Levite and a Priest of the Tythes and serving at the Altar am sustained by the Offering of the Alâ—ar having Food and Rayment with those will I be content and naked foâ—â—ow the naked Cross. It s plain that Hierâ—m here alludes to the Iewish Priests and their Maintenance and therefore uses the word Tythes as suiting his comparison of a Levite But it doth no more follow from hence that Hierom really lived upon Tythes then it doth that he was really a Levite of a certain Tribe and neither had nor might have any Patrimonial Estate amongst his Brethren all which might with like reason be infer'd from these words by him that would take them literally strictly not comparatively and with allusion And it may be observed that though in the first part of his Sentence pursuing his Simile of a Levite having no part among the other Tribes he mentionâ— Tythes which was the Levites Maintenance yet in the latter part he hath a plain reference to the words of the Apostle Paul 1 Tim. 6. 8. Having Food and Rayment let us therewith be content Another quotation he gives out of Hierom upon Matth. 22. where he sayes Hierom callâ— Tythes the things that be Gods But that Homily upon Matthew is rejected by Perkins in pag. 23. of his Problem and ranked amongst several other Works which he sayes by the common judgment of all men arâ— falsly ascribed to Hierom. His next Author is Augustin who he sayes pag. 82. intimates it was no new Custom nor Opinion to pay Tythes as Gods due His words as he cites them are For our fore-Fathers therefore abounded in all â—lenty 〈…〉 they gave God his Tythe and Caesar his Tribute That Tythes were not paid in the Apostles times is both evident from Scripture and granted by the Priest That Tythes were not paid in the first two Hundred Years after Christ may be fairly Collected from Tertullian who speaking of the Christian Monethly Contributions in his time sayes Modicam unusquisque stipem menstruâ die velcum velit et si modo velit si modo possit appoâ—it Nam nemo compellitur sed sponte confert i. e. Every one layes down a small piece of Money on the Monethly day or when he will and if so be he be willing and if so be he be able For no man is compelled but bestows freely Apol. c. 39. Then for the next fifty Years those words of Cyprian cited but misapplied by the Priest if the place be not depraved shew that Tythes were not then paid For he noting the coldness of their Charity then compared with the liberality of the first Christians sayes They then sold Houses and Lands and brought the Prices to the Apostles to be disposed for the use of the Poor but now we do not give so much as the Tenths which plainly shews that Tenths or Tythes were not paid in his time And about the Year 380. What Epiphaniuâ— writes of the Tessaresdecaticae cited but now out of Selden puts it out of doubt that Tythes were not paid in his time at least in the Greek Eastern Church And if Tythes were not paid in Epiphanius his time certainly the
People the Farmers the Husband-men who lived not in the Cities but in the Country-Towns and Villages were by this Donation obliged to pay the Tythes of the Increase of the Lands which they manâ—red and occupied What need had there been then of such a Tribute out of the Cities This instance of Constantin's Donation if it be allowed to prove any thing will rather prove that Tythes were not then paid then that they were But the Truth of the Donation is questioned Cusanus sayes thus of it Sunt mâ—o judicio illa de Constantino Apocrypha i. e. Those things concerning Constantine are in my judgment Apocryphal that is obscure and doubtful Many other Authorites Perkins produces to prove the Donation of Constantine false Problem pag. 15. But whether it be false or true it speaks nothing of Tythes and therefore is the less to be regarded The Priest goes on thus It were endles's to relate all the Constitutions of pious Emperours either to enlarge the Revenues of the Church to preserve its Liberties or to secure the Donations made by others Let that one Law which is so full for the Divine Right of Tythes serve instead of many instances pag. 89. I cannot but take notice how short-winded this Priest is when he comes in earnest to produce his Authorities He talks big before-hands and gives great expectation of what he will do but when he comes to the Point how mean Alas is his performance in respect of the preparation he makes What a noise did he make of Councils ere now Who that heard him would not have almost thought that All the Antient Councils had been called on purpose to settle Tythes upon the Clergy And yet after all this heaving and swelâ—ing the great Mountain hath brought forth but one Mouse and that a little one too I mean his high talk and great preparation hath produced at last but one Authentick Council that mentions Tythes if that one be Authentick and that but a Provinâ—ial neither And now that he is slipt from Councils to the Laws of Kings and Emperours he instances one of Constantine the Great of suspected Credit that has no mention of nor relation to Tythes and then immediately sayes It were endless to relate ALL the Constitutions of Pious Emperours c. as if he had almost wearied himself with relating so many before whenas indeed this was the first and only one that he had so much as named And how poorly afterwards doth he come off when he sayes Lâ—t that ONE Law which is so full for the Divine Right of Tythes serve instead of MANY instances Can any one doubt who observes his manner of writing that this is only a Flourish to hide his penury It had been worth his while though he had taken a little the more time for it to have given us some of the most material of those MANY Constitutions of Pious Emperours which he sayes it were ENDLESS to relate and it is not to be questioned but so he would could he have found amongst them All any that had spoken but favourable of Tythes But since no more are to be had let us look the more intently on this he doth give and see whether it deserves to serve instead of Many instances He words it thus pag. 89. The Tythes by God's Command are separated for the Priests that they which are of Gods Family may be sustained by his Portion and therefore they cannot by any human Priviledge be given to Lay-men lest the Supream Authority should therein prejudice the Divine Commandment I see no reason for his calling this a Law which is rather a Declaration by Doctrine then a Constitution by Precept If it be a Law he might have done well to have acquainted his Reader who was the Law-maker He neither tells us who was the Author of it nor in what Age 't was made but sets it down bare and naked as I have here Transcribed it only in the Margin he hath this reference Cod. l. 7. Tit. de prâ—scrip But though he conceals the date of it yet that Passage in it therefore they cannot by any Human â—iviledge be given to Lay-men speaks it to be of mucâ— later Birth then he would willingly have it pass for However let the Age and Author of it be as they are it deserves not the name of a Law much less of such a Law as in the Case of Tythes may serve instead of many instances for it injoyns nothing but only supposes Tythes separated for the Priests by God's Command and declares they therefore cannot by any Human Priviledge be given to Lay-men This peradventure may some-what concern the Civil Magistrate and the Impropriators but not the Case in hand In the same place he sayes A parallel Law to this we find in Authenticis ti eod It may be so But where he found it there it seems he thought fit to leave it for he sayes not a word more of it But going on nearer to King Ethelwolf's time he sayes K. Ethelwolf might know how the Religious K. Riccaredus had confirmed the Decrees of the first Council of Hispaâ—is about paying Tythes Anno. 5â—0 Nor could he be ignorant what Charles the great had done in settling Tythes on the Church about 100. years before K. Ethelwolf's Donâ—tion pag. 90. The Story of Riccaredus I am a stranger to and like to be for him for he has not been so fair as to acquaint his Reader whence he took it That of Charles the great was about the year 780. far enough short of his boasted Antiquity and of the earliest dayes of Christianity falling indeed in a time when the Church was miserably depraved and corrupted and growing every day worse and worse as I shall have occasion more particularly to shew when I come to Ethelwolf's time And though the Priest sayes This Emperour who gave Tythes was so far from Idolatry that he called a Council to condemn the use of Images and write against them himself Yet Corruptions enâ—ugh were there then in the Church beside the use of Images to prove the Religion he profest to be Popish according to the definition of Popery given by the other Priest in his Friendly Conference pag. 149. where he sayes I cannot give you a more brief and true Account of Popery then this That it is such Doctrines and Supperstitious Practices which by the Corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome contrary to the True Antient Catholick and Apostolic Church Now that the Doctrine of Purgatory of the Intercession of Saints deceased of Monkish life and the Calibate or unmarried life of Priests and that the Practice of Praying for the Dead of Sacrificing for the Dead of Praying to Saints of Going Religiously on Pilgrimage as a part of Divine Worship that the use of Chrism and of Exteam Vnction were received in the Church long before this Charles his time I have already shewed That these Doctrines and Practices by the corruption of time have
profits of many mens Sweat and Labour c. many Hundred Years before they were Born Now sayes he this the Quaker saith is a ridiculous unreasonable thing O bold blasphemer c. And in pag. 173. he adds Because God once made this Grant we dare be confident the act is lawful and wise and just and that T. E. is a blasphemous Wretch 〈◊〉 it by this wicked and silly way of reasoning In this charge it is hard to say whether he shews more envy or ignorance however to be sure there 's but too much of both He sayes God made over to his Priests the tenths of the profits of many mens Sweat and Labour many Hundred Years before they were Born and that I call this a ridiculous and unreasonable thing and thereupon he calls me a bold Blasphemer But what a bold Slanderer is he to say I call it a ridiculous and unreasonable thing for God to do thus when I spake it of Ethelwolf by name Can nothing then be ridiculous and unreasonable in man but it must be so in God also or must the same thing needs be ridiculous and unreasonable in God which is ridiculous and unreasonable in man Has man then an equal power with God and is his Soveraigâ—ty as universal Let me tell him 't is a ridiculous and unreasonable thing in men to take upon them the disposing of any thing which is not in their power to dispose but it were impiety to infer the same of God since nothing can be above his Power who is himself the highest Power It was just and reasonable in God to assâ—me a power to injoyn all the owners of Canaan to pay to the Priests the tenth part of those profits which did arise from their Sweat and Pains Charge and Care and that from one Generation to another because he had a Right to all the Sweat and Pains Charge and Care of all the Owners of Canaan throughout all Generations And as he gave that People their Land so he gave them also their life their health their strength their wealth their skill their care ability and understanding and whatsoever else was necessary or conducible to the producing those profits of which he enjoyed them to pay the Tythes They received all of him they owed all to him justly therefore and very reasonably might he require of them what he pleased and lay upon them what charge he pleased in respect either of their Land or of their Stocks or of their Labour or of their Skill c. all which were his free Gifts to them But I pray now had Ethelwolf or any other of the Tythe-givers the same power over their Posterity as God had over the Iews Do we owe our health strength ability to labour skill understandings stocks c. to them as the Iews did theirs to God If not then let the Priest know That for any one to say Ethelwolf or some other hath given him my labour pains charges care c. seven or eight Hundred Years before either he or I was Born is a thing most ridiculous and unreasonable and for him to call this Blasphemy is ridiculous and unreasonable also And it is so much the more unreasonable in him in that he first calls me a bold Blasphemer and then examins whether I am so or no. For after his saying this blasphemous Argument flies in the Face of God himself and after his vehement Exclamation O bold Blasphemer he adds If he saith the thing be ridiculous and unreasonable in it self then this Quaker chargeth God with fâ—lly and injustice who doth injoyn it If he saith why does he go upon If 's then sure it had become him to have inquired that and been certain of it too before he had shot his over-hasty Bolt and set his foul Brand of bold Blasphemer on me But he hath learnt it seems to Hang men first and try them afterwards Nor slipt this from him through inadvertency only but premedittely and with a malicious design of mischief for he saw the reason on which I grounded my saying as his following words manifest which are these Nor can he be excused by saying God hath more power then men Which words declare he understood well enough in what sense I spake and that I therefore called it a ridiculous and unreasonable thing because it supposed a Grant of that which the Granter had no right in nor power over Wilfully therefore and against the Light of his own understanding and Conscience hath he thus abused me perverting my words to a quite contrary sense to what he knew I spake them in He sayes In evil foolish and unjust things God hath no power at all But man hath else had not this man dealt so evilly foolishly and unjustly by me as he hath done in this matter God he sayes cannot Lye he cannot do anything ridiculous or unjust Doth it therefore follow that men cannot lye neither or that men cannot do any thing ridiculous or unjust And may not men be charged with doing a thing ridiculous and unjust but presently the charge must be transfer'd from Men to God how ridiculous and unjust is such an Inference But sayes â—e Because God once made this Grant we dare be consident the act is lawful and wise and just and that T. E. is a blasphemous Wretch to censure it by this wicked and silly way of reasoning which condemns Almighty God as much as it doth King Ethelwolf He 's very daring sure and wants modesty more then confidence Because God once made this grant may Men take upon them to make such another and is the Act lawful wise and just in men because it was lawful wise and just in God may men then lawfully wisely and justly do whatsoever God hath lawfully wisely and justly done A notable Position to bring in Iudaism and a fine defence he has helpeâ— the Pope to for the many Iewish Rights and Ceremonies wherewith the Romish Religion abounds who may learn of this Priest to say We dare be confident the use of these things is lawful and wise and just because God once commanded the use of them And on the same reason also might men return to Circumcision and Sacrifices and justifie the Act. But to come a little closer to the Priests interest in which how dull soever they are in other parts they are usually very quick of sense I would ask this Priest whether if the King should make a Law that no Priest should have any inheritance amongst the People he would dare to be confident that that were a lawful wise and â—â—st act because God once made such a Law amongst the People of Israel I am apt to think if he were put to 〈◊〉 tryal he would tell another Story His calling me a blasphemous Wretch and my way of reasoning â—icked and silly discovers the rancour of his own Spirit but no way weakens my Argument But in saying my way of reasoning condemns Almighty God as much as it
or that the Reformation laid the Office aside If the Reformation did not lay the Office aside the Reformation was therein too short for the Officâ— was undoubtedly evil and did deserve to be laid aside But the laying of that Office asâ—de doth not infer that there are no Priests now Unless he thinks that all Priests are of one and the same Office and so puts no difference betwixt Light and Darkness Good and Evil. If he think so I must then ask him whether he exercises the same Office that the popish Priests now do at Rome and elsewhere What their's is is pretty well known and if his be the very same with their's it will not be hard to guess what his is But if he will reckon his not the same with their's but another and better Office he may thereby see that there may be Priests now although that Office which was once exercised here and is still in divers popish Coâ—ntries be laid aside Doth the erecting of a false Office make void the true or cannot the right Office of Priests remain if the wrong be taken away Or will he say that was a right and true Office which was exercised here by the popish Priests till the time of the Reformation Then he justifies the same Office still which is yet exercised by the popish Priests in Italy Spain and other Countries Certain it is that no such Office was ever appointed by Christ or known among the Apostles They had no Office for saying of Masses for praying for the Dead that their Souls might be delivered out of Purgatory for receiving Auricular Confession and for many other things which were the peculiar Services of this Office These things were not known amongst them but sprang up after the Apoâ—â—olical Times in the Apoâ—â—acy and continued till the Reformation But iâ— as he says the Reformation did not lay the Office aside what is become of it by whom is it executed Do the Priests who receive Tythes now in England perform the samâ— Office that those popish Priests did then Do these say Masses and pray for the Dead Do these receive Auricular Confession and take upon them to absolve the people from their Sins This was the Office of those Priests but none I hope of these Priests will acknowledge this to be their Office how then are the Offices the same But that that Office of Priesthood to which Tythes were given and by vertue of which Tythes were so long held and enjoyed in England before the Reformation was a popish Office and as such laid aside by the Reformation no man I think that understands those times and has not an Interest to serve can doubt And if the Office was laid aside in which the pretended property was vested how should the property remain and not be laid aside together with the Office But what Shifts will not Priests make for their Profits sake §13 His next Cavil is at my saying The Priest's Title lies in the Gift of the Owner which I shewed by this That the Priest hath no power to take one Sheaf or Ear of the Husbandman's Corn from oâ—â— his Ground untill the Owner hath severed it as Tythe from the remainder and thereby first disseized himself of that part and by his own Act given the Priest a Title thereunto And although the Law supposing Tythe due to God and Holy Church enjoyns the owner to set it out yet if he refuse he incurs the Penalty of that Law for his refusal but the Property of the Tythe remaiâ—s intire in himself To this the Priest says pag. 191. It is an odd kind of property which we have to a thing that we may not keep in our Possession and a strangâ— Gift which we must give whether we will or no and be punisheâ— if we do not give it He might better say It is an odd kind of Property thâ— Priest claimâ— to a thing he never had in possession nor they fâ—om whom he claims it and which there is no certainty in nor knows he whetâ—er it be much or little As for the Owner he may keep in his possession the thing in which he hath a Propriety viz. Tythes and the Priest cannot dispossess him theâ—â—of although by Laws grounded on a Religious Mistakâ— he may cause him otherwise to suffer for not dispossessiâ—g himâ—elf But he says pag. 192. he will give a parallel case There are says he many free Râ—nts and 〈◊〉 Payments which the person charged with them must bring to such an House in such a Town as such a day and then and there disseize himself of the said â—oney by a tender thereof to the Lord or his Assigns which Lord need never deâ—aâ—d this Money and yet may take the forfâ—iture if it â—e not brought to him and tendered This is not a parallel Case to Tythes for in this Case of Rents and Customary Payments the Lord or other person claiming them may for default of payment either enter upon the Lands out of which such Rents and Payments issue or bring his Action of Debt against the person charged therewith which argueâ— he has a Property in the thing he claims But it is not so in the Case of Tythes If the Owner refuse to set them out the Priest cannot enter upon the Land nor regularly bring an Action of Debt against the Owner but can only recover the Penalty of the Statute for his not making him a property by setting them out Which plainly shews the Priest hath not any property in Tythes nor is by the Statutes themselves understood to have any civil or Teâ—poral Right thereto but is only supposed to have a divine Right and upon that mis-supposition the Statutes injoyn the Owners to make the Priest a temporal Right by setting out of Tythes Besides Free Rents and Customary Payments are certain and not in the power of the Occupant to extinguish or alter But it is far otherwise in the Case of Tythes It is in the poweâ— of the Occupant to make the Tythes much little or nothing and that without any Fraud to his Ancestors for if a man stock his Land with Horses he is liablâ— to very little Tythes if any and I think not to any unâ—ess it be by particular Custom of the place But if he plant Woods and let them stand for Tiâ—ber no Tythe at all can be demanded and what then bâ—comes of the Priests Property has not he a fine property the meaâ— while which another man without any Fraud or Indirect Dealing may extinguish when he pleases Is it not plain by this that the Priest's Title lies in the Gift of the present Owner who may chuse whether the Priest shall have any thing or nothing And is the Case of Free Rents and Customary Payments a parallel to this Can he who standâ— charged with those Payments extinguish or alter them at his pleasure Can he make them more or less as he sees good If not how then is that a parallel Case 〈◊〉 this
paying Tythe nor forfeits â—e the Land for not paying it neither is Tythe charged upon the Land as the payment to the Poor is of which see before Chap. 5. Sect. 5. and Sect. 13. Then secondly The Tenant is liable to the payment of the Tythe not out of his Rent but out of his Stock over and above his Rent and the Land-lord is not concerned about it unless any private agreement antecede Thus it appears his Instance of a Rent charge to the Poor is quite beside the business and his Answer is no Answer to the Reason I offered But he seems to have another Again saith he The Tenant receives as much from God as he doth from his Landlord for we think that Land is not more necessary to the increase than God's blessing ibid. Nor so necessary neither say I since increase may be without Land but not without God's blessing The Tenant therefore receives more from God than he doth from his Landlord for from his Landlord he receives Land only and that upon a Rent but from God he receives All he hath his Stock his Crop his Health his Strength c. and that freely As therefore he receives All from God so unto God ought All to be returned God's wisdom counsel and holy fear ought to be waited for and regarded in disposing and imploying those things which God hath been pleased to give But what is this to the Priest or to Tythes Why says he upon that consideration our pious Aâ—câ—stors obliged their Hâ—irs forever to give God his part of the Prâ—fits because both they and their Heirs were Yearly to receive all their Increase from his Blessing ibid. What is God's part of the Profits If all the Increase be received from his blessing how comes he to have but a part of the Profits Where hath God under the Gospel declared the tenth part partiâ—ularly to be his or who had power to assign that pâ—rt to him that is Lord of all He urges for a Law the saying of King Edward the Confessor Of all things which God gives the tenth part is to be restored to him who gave us the nine parts together with the tenth pag. 202. Whence â—dward the Confessor learnt that Doâ—trine may easily be guessed if we consider in what time he lived Speed says he was Crowned King of England in the Year 1042. And says the Author of the Conference in his Vindication pag. 277. Moâ—â— of the present evil Opinions of the Church of Rome had their Original in those unlearned Ages from about the Year 700. to about the Year 1400. About the mid-night of which darkness there was scarce any Learning left in the World These says he were the unhappy times which bred and nursed up Invocation of Saints Worship of Images Purgatory 〈◊〉 all the Fanatical Visions and Revelations Miracles c. Then began Shrines Pilgrimages Reliques purchasing of Pardons and the Popes attempts for aâ— universal Monarchy And though he here mentions some particulars yet he said but a few Lines before At the same time that Learning fell into decay all manner of Corruptions crept into the Church c. Now according to his computation of time for the Rise and growth of Popery and of all manner of Corruptions from about the Year 700. to about the Year 1400. his mid-night of Darkness must fall about the Year 1050. and this K. Edward the Confessor entring his Reign in the Year 1042. it is manifest that this Law of his for Tythes was made in the very mid-night of Darkness Hence the Reader may observe that although this K. Edward to whom as Camden observes Brittania pag. 377. our Ancestors and the Popes vouchsafed the Name of St. Edward the Confessor was a man of great justice temperance and vertue but especially Continency for which it seems in that incontinent Age he was Sainted yet that he learnt this Opinion of the tenth part being due to God in the mid-night of Darkness when there was scarce any learningâ— est in the World when all manner of Corruptions were either crept or creeping into the Church and wherein most of the present â—vil Opinions of the Church of Rome had their Original which makes the quotation not much for the Priest's credit And truly if it had been as he intimates an act of Piety in our Ancestors to give Tythes and that upon that consideration that both they and their Heirs were Yearly to receive all their Increase from God's blessing they had done I think but equally to have left their Poâ—â—erity at liberty to have acted in like manner from the Impressions of Piety rather than for the necessity of Paternal Obligations supposing their Injunctions in this case obligatory As for what the Priest here takes for granted that the tenth is God's peculiar part it is but an old Popish Opinion by which the World hath been too long gulled which never was nor ever can be proved with respect to Gospel-times And to be sure when ever he pleads God's Right he makes himself God's Steward and Receiver He says here Now the Priest is but God's Steward and Receiver and if it were true that the Tenant did receive nothing from the Steward of God yet he might justly pay him Tythes for his Masters sake from whom he receives all There were some of Old who with as much conâ—idence and little Truth affirmed themselves to be the Children of God as this Priest doth that he and his Brethren are God's Stewards and Receivers But the Answer which Christ gave unto them Iohn 8. 44. is very observable and no less applicable The Tenant says the Priest receives nothing from his Landlords Steward and yet he pays his Rent to him or to any other whom his Landlord assigns to reâ—eive it True but two things first he makes himself sure of One that the sum demanded is indeed his Landlords due The other that the person demanding is indeed his Landlord's Steward or by him assigned to receive it The Tenant though he pays his Rent to the Steward contracts with the Landlord and if at any time any doubt arises about the Rent they recâ—â—â— to the Lease for Decision Now if the Priest would make any advantage of his Sâ—mile he should prove if he could that God hath any where declared under the Gospel the tenth to be his peculiar part which the Priest hath often bâ—g'd a Concession of but has no way to prove for if we have recourse to the holy Records the Scriptures of the New Testament from thence to be sure he can fetch no proof that Tythes are God's peculiar part since by his own confession pag. 67. Tythes are not mentioned in the Gospel or Epistles to be the very part Besides the Tenant though the Rent be certain and acknowledged is not forward if wiâ—e to part with his Money to every one that calls himself a Steward and takes upon him to be his Landlord's Receiver But he expects a plain and satisfactory proof that
the Person so pretending is indeed deputed by his Landlord to that service Now then if according to this Simile the Priest would say or do any thing to the purpose let him first prove Tythes or the Tenth part to be Gods peculiar due under the Gospel and when that shall be agreed on we will if he please in the next place examine his Deputation and see how well he can make it appear that God hath appointed him for his Steward and Receiver In the mean time his precarious and petitionary Pleas are neither helpful to him nor creditable to his Cause But he says pag. 202. after all this the Quaker is a notorious Falsifier in saying The Tenant receives nothing from the Priest for he receives his Prayers and his Blessing his Preaching and other Administrations If the Tenant be a Quaker the Priest is a notorious Falsifier for he knows full well the Quaker receives none of all these of the Priest The Quaker doth not beâ—ieve the Priest's Prayers or his Preaching either to be worth receiving And for his Blessing as the Quaker doth not desire it so he is so far from receiving it that he seldom goes without his Curse Then for his other Administrations as he calls them 't is well known they that receive them pay roundly for them over and beside their Tythe He comes now to my second Reason which he thus gives pag. 203. Rent is a voluntary Contract volenti non sit injuria but Tythe is not voluntary now but taken by force To this he thus answers Very good By this Rule then it appears that Tythes are not as he falsly affirm'd but now they were a general Oppression for the generality pay them willingly and many Thousands contract with their Landlord and their Parson to pay them as voluntarily as they do to pay their Rents That the generality pay Tythes willingly is a confident Assertion contradicted by common experience scarce any one thing producing so many Suits at Law and so much strife and contention as Tythes In one sense I confess they may be said to pay willingly that is they are willing to pay the Tenth rather than have three Tenths taken from them So that being under a necessity of bearing one they chuse that which they take to be the lightest Burden and least Suffering And if in this sense he means they pay willingly and contract voluntarily such Contracts and Payments are much-what as voluntary as a Traveller's delivering his Purse to an High-way Man pâ—esenting a Pistol to his Breast Or as some School-Boys putting down their own Breeches not out of any great willingness sure they have to be Whipt but because they had rather by that means come off with three lashes than by refusing so to do suffer three times as many But sayes the Priest ibid All things are not Oppressions that are paid involuntarily for some Knaves will pay no just dues to any without compulsion c. It is not the unwillingness to pay that makes the Oppression but the injustice and inequality of the payment Iust dues are no Oppression but his supposing Tythes a just due is a begging of the Question Rent is a just and equal payment for which the Tenant receives the value of what he pays And tâ—ough the Priest says pag. 205. No doubt the Quakers could â—ish rather there were no Rent to be paid neither and they voluntarily covenant to pay Rent because they cannot enjoy the Farm without that charge Yet no doubt he is conscious to himself that he slanders the Quakers in this also for it is very well known the Quakers are as willing to pay their Rents or any other just dâ—es and are as good Tenants to their Landlords as any others are to say no more The Quakers know Rents to be just and reasonable and they do not desire to reap the benefit of other men's Lands for nothing as they are not willing the Priests should reap the benefit of their Labour for nothing In short the Quakers do Conscientiously pay Rents and all other just dues from a Principle of equity and justice as well as from the same Principle they do Conscientiously refuse to pay Tythes which are against Equity and Iustice. The Priest undertakes to make it appear that the Quakers did voluntarily contract to pay Tythes If says he pag. 204. Tythes be not mentioned in tâ—e contract then the Laws of England suppose that the Tenant consents to pay them This is a supposition of his own supposing which he grounds upon this Reason that Tythes are a known charge upon all Land whereas Tythes as I have proved before are a charge upon the Stock not upon the Land and are paid out of the Profits of the Stock not â—ut of the Rent of the Land But if Tythes were a charge upon the Land as Rent-charges Annuities and other customary Payments are they would then issue out of 〈◊〉 Rents and the Landlords not the Tenants would be 〈◊〉 â—hereto Thus his Reason being removed 〈◊〉 Supposition â—alls together with what was built upoâ— it §18 In his next Section the Priest says T. E. comes â—o his last Reserve I wish be were come to his last Falshood that after that I might expect Truth from him That which he calls my last Reserve he thus gives pag. 205. viz. That Tythes were really purchased by the owners of Estates for which he quotes pag. 344. of my Book gives this for my proof viz. They purchased all that was not excepted out of the Purchase but Tythes were not excepted therefore the Purchasers bought them and may sell them again and says If I can make this out this alone will do my business Although I doubt not this passage in my former Book will give satisfaction to any indifferent Reader yet seeing the matter is proposed anew I will â—ndeavour to open it a little further First therefore I desire the Reader to consider What it is the Purchaser buys 2. What it is Tythes are demanded of The Purcâ—aser buys the Land and that he buys intire no Tythe-Land no tenth Acre is ever excepted expresly or implicity but he buys the whole Field or Farm the tenth part as well as the nine But in this Purchase he buys the Land not the Profits or Increase which by Husbandry and Manuring may arise upon the Land in time to come for they are uncertain and the seller who makes him an Assurance of the Land will not undertake to assure him a future Increase and Profit from the Land nor were it reasonable to expect it Since then this is a Purchase of Lands which the Priest doth not lay any claim to let us next enquire what it is the Priest demands Tythes of The Priest himself shall answer this who in his Right of Tythes pag. 196. says expresly We grant to T. E. Tythes are due out of the Profits only and therefore if God give no Increase or the Husband-man have nothing grow we expect no
then purchased the Tythes himself as much as he did the other nine parts of his Crop But to talk of Tythes descending from Ancestors argues the Priest doth not well understand what it is himself claims Tythes did descend to the Seller from his Ancestors as much as the other nine parts of the Profits But neither one nor the other can properly be said to descend from the Ancestors to the present Possessor seeing both the nine parts and the tenth are the yearly increase produced instrumentally by the yearly Labour Charge and Care of the present Possessor That which descends to a man from his Ancestors is what his Ancestors were possest of or had a Right unto But no man's Ancestors could be possest of or have a Right unto those Profits of yearly increase which in their times were not in being but are since produced by the Labour and Charge of another But he says pag. 209. If T. E. would know the Reason why Tythes are not excepted in the Purchase by name as Free Rents and Rent Charges sometimes are I answer says he Free Rents and Rent Charges c. are laid upon Land by private Contracts and could not be known unless they were by Name excepted to be due out of such an Estate whereas Tythes were a publick Donation c. This with some may pass for a Reason but if he were willing to give the true Reason he knows that as Free Rents and Rent Charges are laid upon Land and are paid out of the Rent of the Land without regard to the Increase that is made so the Burden of Tythes lies upon Stock and is due as he says out of the Profits only without regard to the Rent of the Land which Profits are the Improvement of the Husbandman's Stock through God's Bâ—essing on his industrious Diligence and Labour It were very improper therefore to except Tythes out of a Purchase of Land seeing Tythes are not charged on the Land nor claimed of the Land §19 He quarrels next with a Demonstration of mine the occasion whereof was this The Author of the Conference pag. 156. said Though the Tenant pays Tythes yet are they no inconvenience to him because he pays less Rent in Consideration thereof To shew the Fallacy of this Position I urged that if it should be granted that the Tenant payes less Rent in consideration of Tythes which yet I said is questionable yet the abaâ—eâ—ent which â—e is supposed to have in Rent is not proportionable or answerable to the value of the Tythes he pays and thus I undertook to demonstrate it Suppose a Landlord lets a Farm for 90 l. a year which if it were Tythe-free would yield 100 l. the Tenant to pay his Rent defray all his Charge of Husbandry and have a comfortable Subsistence and Maintenance for himself and his Family must according to the computation of skilful Husbandmen by his Care Industry and Labour together with the Imployment of his Stock raise upon his Farm three Rents or three times as much as his Rent comes to which will make 270 l. and the tenth part of 270 l. is 27 l. so that if the Tenant should have 10 l. a year abated in his Rent because of Tythes and he payes 27 l. a year because of Tythes then does he pay 17 l. a year in 90 l. more than he is supposed to be allowed in his Rent Against this the Priest both cry out and make no little Noise And first the Author of the Conference in his Vindication pag. 321. would â—ain from hence infer That Tenants have really Abatements in their Rents in lieu of Tythes and therefore having first to shew how copious he can be in Scurrilities and what variety of ill Language he has to express himself by said I perceive the Quaker begins to sneak he adds An Abatement it seems there is But how doth it seem there is an Abatement why he is willing to turn my if to an is and strain a Position out of my Supposition But these shifts discover the strait he was in and how near he was sinking that would catch at such a twig to hang by Then he excepts at the Demonstration for uncertainty because I did not say whether the Farm of 90 l. a year consisted in Tillage or in Pasturage yet he acknowledges that the Tythes of a Farm of that value 90 l. a Year consiâ—â—ing in Tillage may be worth 27 l. a year On the other hand the other Priest in his Right of Tythes pag. 212. says I believe all the Parsons in England would compound with the Quakers after this rate that the Landlord allows that is supposing the Landlord did really allow 10 l. in 100 l. Rent And in pag. 213. he says What Parson did ever receive 27 l. per annum for a 90 l. Farm Experience says he teacheth us that we scarce every get so much as 20s for 10 l. Rent unless where there is very much Corn but take the Church-Livings one with another and there is not above 9 l. a Year made of a Farm upon the improved Rent of ninety Pound per annum Thus they contradict one another Neither is this last Priest any more consistent with himself for among the reasons he gives why they scarce ever get so much as 20 s. for 10 l. Rent he mentions ill payments and concâ—alment forgetting it seems that he had said but a few Leaves before There are very few Parishes where nineteen parts of 〈◊〉 do not pay their Tythes freely as any other dues pag. 200. How ill do these two sayings hang together Nineteen parts in twenty pay their Tythes frâ—â—ly as any other dâ—es and yet the Priests can scarce ever get so much as 20 s. for 10 l. Rent by reason of ill â—ayments and concâ—alment Thus he contradicts himself as before he did his Brother But he sayes pag. 214. I will not like T. E. make suppositions at Random but give an Instance of my own knowledge It seems then he understood the Case I proposed to be but a supposition and accounted it a supposition at random too yet so little ingenuity had both his Brother and he and so much need of Shifts and contriviances that they were willing to take this random supposition as he calls it for a positive conâ—lusion that the Landlord doth abate 10 l. in 100 l. in coâ—sideration of Tythes and make what advantages they could there-from as if it were a real and certain thing Nay he thereupon asks if the Quaker be nâ—t a Knave for putting this 10 l. per annum in his own Pocket which the Landlord abated in consideration of be paid But did he ever know a Quaker that desired an abatement of Rent in consideration of Tythe to be paid or that accepted an abatement from his Landlord upon that consideration If he knows any such let him not spare to name him if not it will appear his suggestion is both false and proâ—eeded from an evil mind The
Profits who has been dead above 800. Years before these Profits were in being Besides those 200. men whom David left at the Brook Besâ—r were not like any of the lazy Clergy that through Pride or Idleness refuse to work expecting to be maintained by other men's Labours but thâ—y were fellow-Souldiers with the other 400. that went a part of the same Army engaged in the same Service and set forward with the rest in the same expedition and went on together as far as they werâ— able but having spent their strength in the three dayes march from Aphek to Ziklag before and now again in a hot Pursuit of the Amalekites they fainted on the way and could not go over the Brook Besor and therefore were fain to abide there How unlike is this to the Case of these Lordly Priests and how irrelative to the present purpose But says the Priest finally Will T. E. say It is Oppression in the Priest to take his full Tenth and make the Country-man no satisfaction for his Pains If this be Oppression then God was the Author according to T. E. and thâ— Levites the Inâ—â—ruments of Oppression since they were ordered to take the full Tenth without any Compensation pag. 217. That doth not follow nor can be fairly inferred unless the Priests now were under the same Circumstances that the Levites were under unless England were as fruitful as was the Land of Canaan unless our Laws and Polity were the same with theirs and unless we had as plain and positive a Command to pay Tythes as the Iews had Tythes were suited to the state and condition of that Country and People and expresly commanded by God but neither are they at all suitable to the state and condition of this Country People nor any where commanded by God to be â—ow paid There was an equality in the Iews paying Tythes to the Levites because the Iews enjoyed the Levites share of the land and every Famiâ— of the other Tribes had their Lot enlarged by the 〈◊〉 of the Levites Part amongst them so that Tythe with them was but a kind of Commutation or Exchange for Land But it is not so in England the Priests here are not debarr'd from having Lands as well as otheâ— men but are equally capable of enjoying temporal Estates by Descent Purchase or otherwise as the rest of the people are Besides the Land of Canaan was so fruitful that with less then half the Charge which the English Husbandman is now at they frequently received six or eight and sometimes ten times as much increase as Lands in England usually produce by means whereof they might with more ease pay the full tenth to the Levites then the English Farmers now can the twentieth part to the Priests Thesâ— Considerations duly weighed will make it evidently appear that although Tythes were not an Oppression to the Iews yet they may be and are so to us who have neither the same nor any Command from God to pay them nor the same nor any Compensation for them nor equal ability to undergo them as had the Iews And though the Priest says The Levites were ordered to take the full tenth without any Compensation yet therein he speaks not the Truth for they that paid the Tythes had the Levites 〈◊〉 viz. those Lands which would otherwise have fâ—llen to the Levites share divided amongst them so that they had a Compensation Lands for Tythes The Priest's Argument therefore is fallacious and his Conclusion utterly false He infers not rightly when he says If it be Oppression in the Priest to take the full tenth c. then God was the Author of Oppression The Consequence is not true for in Canaan where God was the Author of taking the full tenth there it was no Oppression and in England where it is aâ— Oppression here God was not the Author of taking the full tenth Thus we see that for the Priest to take the full Tenth without making the Country-man any satisfaction for his pains may be truly called an Oppression and yet God not be thereby taxed with being the Author of it But these gross Absurditieâ— the Priest runs himself into by over-hastily and inconsiderately catching up a wrong Conclusion that what was lawful just and equal between the Iews and Lâ—vites in thâ— time of the Law and in the Land of Canaan only must need be so in all times and places between other People and their Priests not duely weighing the different circumstances under which the Iews then stood and others now stand Let us hear now how the Priest says the Country-man is compensated for his pains S. Augustine saith if the Priest says true God gives us all the nine parts in compensation for our pains in providing the tenth for him ibid. What a pretty Notion is this neither confirmed by Scripture-Evidence nor backed with any Reason He thought it seems S. Augustine's ipse dixiâ— would have passed but it will not at least with me God gives us all the nine parts 't is true but not to reward us for providing him the tenth for he gives us the Tenth as well as the Nine And as he gives us all so he expects we should use it all in his Fear and imploy it all to his Honour the nine parts as well as the tenth and the tenth part as well as the nine But he that thinks God gives him the nine parts upon condition that he shall provide the tenth for him may be in danger to be begged and so lose the nine parts too Another Conceit the Priest has to this purpose which he pretends to fetch from Sr. Hen-Spelman and that is of the sacredness of the number Seven and that by right God should have had a full seâ—enth part of our Profits but that in compensation for our paiâ—s he remits three parts and so is content with a tenth If this be true S. Austine was out for he according to the Priest says God gives us all the nine parts in compensation for our pains in providing the tenth for him But this taking no notice at all of the nine parts says God gives us back three parts of our Profits in compensation for our pains and instead of a seventh is contented with a tenth part of our Estate Methinks the Priest might have considered before he had brought these two sentences together that there is some odds between giving nine parts in compensation for the pains in providing the tenth â—nd giving back three parts in compensation for the pains in providing the seventh wherein not only the Claiâ—s but the Allowances also for pains are very disproportionable However if as he fancies God did give back to â—he Iews three parts of their profits in compensation for their pains then seeing the Husbandmen here in many places are at well-nigh three times the pains and charge the Iews were at it might justly be expected that if God did now require any such Tribute he who is perfect Justice would make
have the Tythe even of the Husbandman's Straw and Chaff as well as of his Hay to the great Dammage of the Husbandman who often wants these to maintain his Cattel alwayes to make Dung to keep his Land in heart But 4. If nothing of all this were to be alledged if the Iews had paid a full sixth part to the Levitâ—s and that for the Levites proper use and had undertaken the Relief of Fatherâ—ess Widow and Strangers besideâ— and if the Husbandmen now paid Tytheâ— of no more things than what the Iews paid Tythes of yet comparing the great Charge and small Increase the Huâ—bandman now hath with the small Charge and great â—ncrease the Iews then â—ad it will still appear that tâ—e people are under a greater Burden and the Charge lies heavier on the people now who pay thâ— tâ—nth part to the Priest than it did or would have done on the Iews had they paid as they did not a 〈…〉 part to the Levites To what I urged before to prove the Charge heavier on the people now tâ—an it was on the Iews viz. That the Levitâ—s having no Inheritance with their Brethren the Lots of the other Tribes were the bigger which was some Consideration for their Tythes c. The Priest answers That though the Levites had not any intire Country set out together yet they had fair Possessions in every Tribe having forty eight Cities with two thousand Cubits round without the Wall appointed them by God which says he pag. 220. was a better proportion then our Glâ—be-land and in value might be esteemed the twelfth part of the Land of Canaan He computes strangely to make the Levites Cities with their Suburbs a twelfth part in value oâ— the Land of Canaan Was that the way for the Levites to have No Inheritance Numb 18. 23 24. No Part with their Brethren Deut. 10. 9. to give them a greater part thaâ— any of their Brethren had For if according to the Priest they had had in Cities and Suburbs a twelfth part in value of the Land of Canaan and they were in number as Selden computes scarce a fiftieth part of the peopâ—e they had had a notable Advantage by being as I may say disinherited of the Land although they had received neither Tythes nor Oblationâ— but those Cities and Suburbs only But what value soever those Cities were of the Levites had them and that by Godâ—â— aâ—poâ—ntment But by whose appointment have tâ—e Priests now their Parsorage-houses Vicarage-houses with their Glebe-lands or what value may we suppose them to amount unto If there be in England and Wales about ten thousand Parishe to â—ach of which a Parsonage or Vicarage-house belongs these could tâ—ey be reduced into Town would make as many and probably as fair aâ— those tâ—e Levites had For ten thousand Houses divided into forty eight parts afford above two hundred unto each and doubtless two hundred such Houses as most of these are with their great Tythe-Barns and other appurtenant Buildings would make as laâ—ge a Town as most if not as any of them Then for the Glebe-lands belonging to these Houses there is no question but their extent doth far exceed the two thousand Cubits of Land alotted to the Levites round each â—â—ty For suppose there be but twenty Acres of Glebe-land to every Parsonage or Vicarage-house one with another yet that not to make an exact calcâ—lation casts about four thousand Acres to every two hundred Houses which probably would surpass the Limits of the Lâ—vites Suburbs at least a fourth part This in short only to shew that if the Levites had Houses and Lands about them so have the Priests now also and that so far as may be gathered in much greater quantity So that the Levites having Cities and Suburbs doth not at all abate the force of my Argument but still it appears that the Charge is much heavier upon the people now than it was under the Levitical Priesthood for if the Levites received Tythes of the people so do the Priests and that of more things than the Levites did if the Levites had Houses of the people to dwell in and some Lands about them for their Cattel so have the Priests of thâ— people now and that probably in greater proportion then the Leâ—ites had Thus far then the people now have the worst of it but much more in that which follows for if the Levites had Cities and Suburbs they had not Inheritances with their Brethren they had not those Cities and Suburbs and the Share of the Land besides But the Priests now have not only Cities and Suburbs as I may call them but Inheritances also with their Brethren They have not only Houses and Lands equivalent at lâ—ast if not superiour to what the Levites had but their share also of the rest of the Land being equally capable of holding Estates by Civil Title as any other of the people are And how much soever the Priests thus possess so much the less the people have and so much thâ— heavier lieâ— the Burden on them than it did upon the Iews Besides Let it be considered what vast Revenues what grâ—at and rich Possessiâ—ns sufficient to deâ—ray the publick Charge of the Nation are grasped into the hands of Arch-Bishops Bishops Prâ—bends Deans and Chapters c. From whence I pray were these squeezed was it not from the people Are not the people hereby impoverished to make the Clergy rich Were ever the Iews so served by their Priesthood Had their Priests or Levites Lands or Possâ—ssions in the Land of Canaan besides their Cities and Suburbs Judge then Reader whether the Charge lies not heavier on the people now than it did under the Levitical Priesthood seeing the people now pay more and injoy less than the Ieâ—s did Then for their Offerings If the Levites had a part of the Sacrifices a share of the Feast a part of the voluntary Oblations the first Born of Cattel Râ—tes for the redemption of the first Born of men and of persons dedicated by Vow The Priests now have many more wayes of drayning Mâ—ney from the People and such as are more burdensom to the People too In the Sacrifices Feasts and voluntary Obâ—ations as the Priests and Levites had a part so the people also had their share But in the Offâ—rings and Payments which the Priests now claim and receive the People have no share at all so much money is demanded and paid with which the Prieâ—t feasts himself but thâ— People neither â—at nor drink for it But if there happen to be a Feast in the Parish at a Christening as they call it or any other Gossipiâ—g Bout who but the Parsâ—n there The price for Redemption of Persons dedicated by Vow was very uncertain The Priest sets down fiâ—ty Shâ—kels which was the higheâ—â— â—rice that it could at any time amount unto But in other Cases more likely to happen the price was sometimes thiâ—ty sometimes twenty sometimes â—en sometimes five and
but with respect to the Lâ—vitical Priesthood which was then settled in Aaron the great Grand-child of Levi for which Priesthood he who was Lord of the whole when he gave the Lands to the other eleaven Tribes reserved this as a Subsistance more suitable to their Service and a Compensation for their part of the Land But the better to colour this Conceit of Tythes being claimed in Levit. 27. 30. as due long before he perverts another Text and puts a plain Abuse upon his Reader for he says pag. 22. The first time Tythes are mentioned Exod. 22. 29. they are not directly enjoyned but supposed due and forbid to be with-held Whereas in Ex. 22. 29. Tythes are not mention'd at all nor in all the Book of Exodus that I observe nor elseâ—where as enjoyned supposed due or forbid to be with-held until the 27th of Levit. 30. mention'd before the words in Exod. 22. 29. which he says doth not directly injoyn but supposes Tythe due and forbids tâ—em so be with-held are these Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe Fruits and of thy Liquors the First-born of thy Sons shalt thou give unto me Here is not a word of Tythes and yet this Priest hath so little regard to Truth and so much to his own Interest that he sticks not to say Tythes are in this place mentioned and supposed due Neither of one part of that which is here mention'd namely the First born which is here câ—mmanded to be given to the Lord is this the first mention but it was both mention'd and expresly commanded before Exod. 13. â— while the People of Israâ—l were yet in Aegypt and in Numb 3. 13. the very day is assigned whereon God did appropriate this part to himself and from which with Reverence so to speak he dates his Claim thereto All the First born saith the Lord are mine for on the day that I smote all the First-born in the Land of Egypt I hallowed unto me all the First-born in Israel both Man and Beast mine they shall be I am the Lord. Here 's the time preciâ—ely sâ—t down here 's the day expresly mention'd on which God did sanctifie the First-born to himself on which and not till which he assumed to himself a peculiar Right to the First-born distinct and separate from the rest which yet was above four hundred yearâ— after Abrahâ—m's Gift to Melchizedec Let the Asseâ—tors of the Divine Right of Tythes shew as plainly if they can when God did appropriate to himself the Tythe or Tenth Part distinct from the other nine before the time of the Levitical Priesthood for whose Maintenance he then appointed it Can it with any colour of Reason be supposed that he who so precisely and punctually set down the very day whereon he chose to himself the First-born which related but to that typical state of the Iews would have given no hint nor left any Footsteps at all of his Right and Claim to Tythes before the Constitution of the Levitical Priesthood if he had indeed sanctified them to himself before and intended them to be continued after the Dissolution of that Priesthood for a Maintenance to his Gospel-Ministers § 4. The Priest sayes pag. 22. Though God have a right to the tenth part of our Substance yet he cannot be his own Receiver So that we are to enquire who must be Gods receiver and for that even Reason will teach us that what is due to the Master ought to be paid to his next and immediate Servants that is to his Priests What he is not able to prove that he is willing to take for granted I acknowledge that God who is Lord of all hath a right to all our Substance and may command and dispose the whole or what part thereof he pleaseth But that God hath a distinct right â—o the Tenth more then to all or any of the other nine parts and that by the Law of Nature antecedâ—â—t to any positive Constitution as this â—riest makes the Assertorâ— seâ—tors of the divine Right of Tythes to assâ—rt is more then I have yet seen proved either by this or any other of the Assertors of the divine Right of Tythes that I have hitherto met with And till this be proved 't is needless to inquire who should be the Receiver Though even in that also the Priest falls short taking that to be a dictate of Reason which right Reason did never dictate to him for what is due to the Master ought to be paid to such of his Servants aâ— he appoints to receive it whether they be his next and immediate Servants or not for it is not their being next unto him that doth authorize them to be his Receivers but his deputing them unto that Service Again he sayes pag. 23. Abraham in paying his Tythes which were Gods part unto Melchizedec the Priest of the most high God did confirm this dictate of Reason c. What else is this but begging the Question and that twice in two lines He supposes Abraham paid his Tythes which the Scripture no where sayeâ— he did and that Tythes as Tythes as a distinct part were then Gods part which the Scripture no where 〈◊〉 they were and if this would be granted him he would then infer that Melchizedec had indeed a Right to Tythes and perhaps also that from him a right to Tythes might be derived to a Gospel Ministry But he runs too fast to hold that of which he is willing to make no question is the main Question in this part of the Controversie namely Whether in Abraham's time and antecedent to any positive Constitution Tythes as Tythes or a Tenth part distinct from the rest was any more Gods peculiar part then the other Nine And whethers Abraham in giving as the Texts express it the Tenth of his Military Spoils to Melchizedeâ— did pay a just debt to Melchizedec which he could not without injustice have with-held or whether that gift of Abrahams was a grateful acknowledgment and voluntary â—eturn of kindness to Melchizedec for his so friendly Congratulation Fatherly blessing and bountiful present of Bread and Wine to himself and his weary Followers This is indeed the sum of the matter the very thing on which and which alone a claim of Tythes from Melchizedec to any others can with any reason be supposed to turn And if my Opponents either first or second would stick to this and though but for a while deny themselves the pleasure and delight they seem to take in railing and reviling deriding and jeering insulting and boasting disdaining and scorning and would apply themselves to mannage this Argument with that gravity seriousness that becomes the Subject I should not doubt to see this Case brought to a speedy and fair Issue But then I should expect to meet with more forcible Arguments more cogenâ— Reasons more evident Proofs and plainer Demonstrations then Suppositions Conjectures Probabilities Likelihoods and May-be's and that which is a pâ—orer way
thereof were abrogated by its Repeal Now the parralel holds not between the Worship of God and Tythes but between the worship of God and the maintenancâ— of hiâ— Priests or Ministers for as the Worship of God is grounded on the Divine Law of Nature so thâ— Maiâ—tenance of his Ministers is founded upon a Principle of Natural justice and equity And as God by the Levitical Law instituted divers Modes Manners or wayes of this Worship so by the same Law he appointed the Mode Manner or Way of this Maiâ—tenance which was by Tythes Sacrifice â—urnt-offerings Washings and other External Observancâ—â— were the modes of that Worship that is they were the means or wayes by which that Worship was performed and Tythes were the modes of that Maintenance that is they were the means and wayes by which that Maintenance was raised As therefore the Worship it self was the Substance which was gâ—ounded on the Law of Nature and the Sacrifices and other outward Services which were the â—â—des of it were Ceremoâ—ial and as such abrogated by Chriâ—â— â—o the Maintenance it self was the Substanâ—â— whicâ— was founded on Natural â—ustice and equity and Tythes which were the modes of it were Cereâ—onial and as such by Christ abolished Yet so that as the Worship it self remains though the Sacrifices which were the modes of it are abolished So the Maintenance it self still abides though the Tythes which were the mâ—des of it are abrogated Nâ—ither let any think that Tythes are any whâ—t less Câ—râ—monical because of tâ—at small mention of them in thâ—â—tories of Iacob so long before the Lâ—vitical Law was given for many things done by those and other Patriarchs before them were as certainly and plainly in their own Natures Cerâ—monial then as they were afterwards when Commanded by Moses Certainly were this thing rightly understood and well considered that Tythe is but a mode a way mean or manner of Mainteance and consequently Ceremonical it would greatly coâ—duce to the clearing this Case â—nd determining this Controversie And could men be perswaded to lay aside Passiâ—n and Interest and come fairly and unâ—yassâ—d to the considation hereof there â—ight yet be hopes of a fairer Issue then thâ— present face of things bespeaks Doubtless the great Ground of these men Error who stickle so much for Tythes is there not distinguishing between the Maintenance it self and the Way Manner Mâ—ans or Mâ—de by which that Maintenance is raised My present Adversary Author of the Dâ—vine Right of Tythes acknowledges p 43. That all the modes and circumstances of Gods Worship enjoyned by the Levitical Law and proper to that dispensation and relating to Christ to come fell with that Polity aâ—d â—erâ— abrogated by Christ But the main duty of Worshipping God continued in forcâ— still sayeâ— he And so say I also But then he falls iâ—to his formeâ— Error concerning Tythes with the Worship of God to which they are by no means a suitable Parallel Even sâ— sayes he 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 c. Thus he runs on in his old strain repeating his former groundless supposition for a whole page or more and then concludes pag. 45. thus Nâ—w when Christ did abrogate that Ministry and Dispensation namely of the Law there Appeâ—dixes must needs be abrogated with it but the main duty which was so before the Câ—remonial Law remains still The main duty does indeed remain still which is a maintenance to Gods Ministers but his mistake is in making Tythes to be this main duty whereas Tythes being but the mode means or way of performing the main duty of Maintenance were really Appendixes of that Iewish Polity and though known and sometimes but rarely used before the Ceremonial Law was actually given forth were yet even then in their own Nature Ceremonial as well as those other modes and wayes of Worshipping by Sacrifice c. which though in frequent use with the Patrirachs long beforâ— the Prom lugation of the Ceremonial Law or mention made of Tythes are yet acknowledged to be of the Nature of that Dispensation and Polity and by Christ to be abrogated with it § 2. But here I cannot omit to take notice that in hiâ— repetition of his former fancy of a Divine Right to Tythes before the Law be abuses the holy Text First in saying The Fathers of the Israelites had made a special Vâ—w to pay this Divine Tribute meaning Tythes hereby insinuating that Iacob understood Tythes to be a known due or Tribute which he was before obliged to pay when as both his voluntary unrequired and conditional Vow plainly speaks the contrary and the words of the Vow expresly are I will surely give he doth not say pay the tenth unto thee Secondly in saying There was no need for God to institute Tythes anew and that accordingly he claims them supposes them to be his due by a right antecâ—dâ—nt to the Levitical Law for proof of which he cites as before Exâ—d 22. 29. where Tythes are so far from being claimed and supposed due that they are not so much as mâ—ntionâ—d at all He adds Levis 27. 30. which thus speaks And all the Tythe of the Land whether of the Sâ—â—d of the Land or of the Frâ—it of the Tree is the Lord it is holy unto the Lord. This does not at all prove an antecedent Right or Claim to Tythes distinct from the rest for he had but a little before asserted his Right to the whole Land when giving a reason why he would not have any one sell his Possession forever he sayes For the Land is mine for yâ— are Strangers and sojourners with me c. 25. 23. So there be claims the whole Land as his own and here he first appropriates the Tythes to his owâ— use § 3. But the Priest hopes to Demonstrate that Tythes were not abrogated by this comparison Thâ— putting on sayes he a new State doth not make oâ—e a new man nor doth the pulling it off again Kill â—im This is very true but falsly applyed for he makes Tythes to be the man but what then shall be the Sâ—it If he would apply his comparison rightly he should make Mainteâ—ance to be as the â—an 〈◊〉 Tythes to be as the Suit and then he might infer aptly enough that as the pulling off the Suit doth not kill the man so the putting off Tythes doth not destroy the maintenance And plainly Tythes though to pursue his comparison it was once made and worn as a Suit yet when it was grown old and had done its Service it was cast off and laid aside never to be worn again He adds Thâ—re may be many alterations in Circumstances the Essentials still remaining the same I pray consider now Is not Tythâ— a Circumstance of Mâ—intenance Can any one imagine Tythe to be an Essential Essential is that which belongs to the being of â— thing without which that thing cannot be
those in his Name and for his sake who were sent to Preach the Gospel Fourthly That since such times were coming our Lord might probably on purpose decline determining the proportion too expresly that Christians might have the opportunity of a voluntary Charity Fifthly That this was more agreeable to the freedom and ingenuity of Sons which Christians are compared to Sixthly That positive Laws were likely to be made when the decayes of Piety and Charity did require them pag. 71. These are the Reasons he offers for proof that our Lord Iesus and his Apostles did not make a new determination of the tenth part by name and that in the very same Section wherein he so confidently affirmed That our Lord Iesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers If they have established Tythes they have then established a tenth part by name for Tythes are denominated or take their Name from the number Tenth Decimae a decimo But that neither Christ nor his Apostles have established a tenth part by Name and consequently have not established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers the Reasons before recited which the Priest himself hath given do plainly enough prove For besides the great and prompt devotion of Christians in those dayes our Lord Iesus he sayes might expect that the joyful Message of his Gospel should be so thankfully received that those to whom it was sent should do as much freely to the gratifying his Messengers as the servile Jews did by the compulsion of a positive Law So then it seems our Lord Jesus did not think fit to compel Christians by a positive Law to pay Tythes but left the gratifying his Messengers to that freedom which he foresaw his Grace would open their Hearts to for to maintain Christ's Ministers by the compulsion of a positive Law was as the Priest rightly observes suitable to the sâ—rvile state of the Iews which Christians who are compared to Sonâ— ought not to be subjected to but leâ—t to the exercise of a voluntary Charity which is more agreeable to the freedom and ingenuity of Sons Therefore he sayes Since such times were coming our Lord might probably on purpose decline determining the proportion too expresly In all which he hath notably argued against himself and sufficiently proved that the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministry ought to be by free gift voluntary Charity uncompelled that the compulsion of positive Law in this case is a badge of Iewish servility not agreeable to the Christian State which stands in and acts from the freedom and ingenuity of Sons and that therefore our Lord Iesus and his Apostles did not make any new Law for Tythes did not make any new determination of a tenth part by name and that our Lord might probably on purpose decline determining the proportion too expresly But what now is become of his first Assertion That our Lord Iesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers Did Christ establish Tythes and yet on purpose decline determining the proportion expresly Is not Tythe or a tenth part an express determination of the proportion What manifâ—st contradiction has this over-hasty man run himself into Again if as he sayes pag. 68 There was no need for Jesus to make any new Law for Tythes If our Lord and his Apostles did not make a new determination of a tenth part by name pag. 69. If our Lord might probably on purpose decline determining the proportion too expresly that Christians might have the opportunity of a voluntary Charity pag. 70. If he expected they to whom his Gospel was sent should do as much freely to the gratifying his Messengers as the servile Iews did by the compulsion of a positive Law And if this free gratuitous and voluntary Charity was more agreeable to the freedom and ingenuity of Sons which Christians are compared to then the servile compulsion of a positive Law And if positive Laws were likely to be made when the decays of Piety and Charity did require them pag. 71. which could not be in the Apostles dayes when the devotion of Christians was so great that they gave as the Priest sayes more then a tenth freely and bestowed on the Apostles more then they were in a condition to receive pag. 69. I say if all this may serve to â—rove that our Lord Jesus and his Apostles left the 〈…〉 of the Gospel Ministers to the free and 〈◊〉 Charity of Christians fore-seeing that his 〈◊〉 would open their Hearts thereto pag. 70. and 〈◊〉 made no positive Laâ— to compel them to the 〈◊〉 servility of paying Tythes what then becomes of those positive Laws he speaks of pag. 62. which he sayes do fairly intimate that Tythes were 〈…〉 Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers when the Church was settled Is there any thing in this but â—â—â—â—radiction and confusion He has yet one Reason more why Tythes are not mentioned in the New-Testament to be the Maintenance of the Gospel-Ministers and that is That the State of the Church in those dayes was such that Believers though they were willing could not have opportunity to pay Tythes regularly nor could the Gospel-Ministers receive them pag. 71. Had he assigned this for a general Reason why Tythes should not be paid at all under the Gospel he had said something to the purpose But in restrayning his Reason to the State of the Church in those dayes only he falls short Besides how knows he that Believers then were willing to have paid and Gospel Ministers to have received Tythes had opportunity served I believe the contrary and have many Reasons inducing me thereunto but since he affirms it let him prove it However if Tythes as he dreams were to be the Maintenance of the Gospel-Ministers when the Church was settled the want of opportunity for the paying and receiving them regularly at that instant could be no good Reason why they were wholly passed over in silence and no mention made of them to that purpose in all the New-Testament unless he would suppose that all that was mentioned in the New-Testament had Relation to the then present State of the Church and nothing to the future But if some things relating to the future State of the Church are mentioned in the New-Testament then surely so might Tythes have been also had they been intended for a Gospel Ministry's Maintenance when the Church was settled He adds That as it was no prejudice to the Jewish Priests that there was little or no Tythes paid during their Fore-Fathers wandring in the Wilderness no more is it to us that they were not paid regularly in the Times of Persecution pag. 71. That could be no prejudice to the Iewish Priests because Tythes were not due to them or required to be paid till their wandring in the Wilderness was over and they settled in the Land of Canaan and an express command there was for the payment of Tythes to
well of Cattel as of Fruits be rightly offered to their several Churches by Rich and Poor according to the saying of the Lord by the Prophet Bring ye all the Tythes into the Store-House c. For as God hath given us all so of all he requireth Tythe of the Profits of the Field and all Provisions of Bee's and Honey Lambs c. And he that payes not Tythes of all these is a Thief to God himself pag. 88. His observation on this is That they all declare Tythes to be due jure divino But whence fetcht they their Opinâ—on of the Divine Right of Tythes Do they not deduce it from the Words of the Prophet and ground their Decree thereupon And had not those Words of the Prophet a direct reference to the Câ—remonial Law And is not the Ceremonial Law ended and abrogated by Christ And do not these Priests disown any claim from it Friendly Coâ—ference pag. 133. Right of Tythes pag. 4â— What trifling then is it thus to Argue Besides there is great ground to susâ—ect the credit of his quotation Selden Nothing the falshood which some câ—mmit who out of Iuo attributed an express Canon for the payment of first Fruits and Tenths to the provincial Synod of Sivil and giving the words of that Canon little different from these quoted by the Priest sayes The old Manuscript Copy of Iuo hath it ex conciliâ— Spanensi and the Printed Book ex concilio Hispalensi Then sticking a little at the word Spanensi he adds Whatever he meant by it clearly the whole Canon is of much later time the first words of it also being nothing but the Syllables of one of Charlemains Laws that was not made till 780. years from Christ. He observes also that Gratian warily abstained from using these Canons and a little after concludes positively That among the known and certain Monuments of Truth till about the end 800 years no Law Pontificial of or Synodal saving that of Mascon Determins or Commands any thing concerning Tenths although very many are which speaking purposely and largely of Church Revenues Oblations and such like could not have been silent of them if that quantity had been then established for a certain duty He then shews that the Canonists and others in later Ages compiling their Decrees have made those words by which the Offerings of the Christians were expressed to serve as if they had expresly named Tythes in which Observation he seems to take this very Priest by the Nose and concludes thus He that reads those old Canons only as they are so applied in late Authority to Tythes might perhaps soon think that at first they were made specially and by name for them The matters sayes he is plainly otherwise What was ordained in them about Tythes is out of them in later times Tythes Oblatio â—s being then supposed of equal right expresly extended also to Tythes And to this purpose he cites Frier 〈◊〉 in Prolegom ad Toâ—â— 1. Conâ—il thus Licet forsan falsâ— tâ—li sint Pontifici vel certâ— tali Coâ—cilio per scriptorum incâ—rian ad scripti i. e. Although perhaps speaking of such Canons they are falsly ascribed to such a Pope or to such a Council by the carelesness of Writers Thus far Selden Hist. Tytheâ— c. 5. § 5. And in his sixth Section of the same Chapter mentioning again the Decree of Masoon which was but Provincial he sayes No Canon as yet was received in the Church generally as a binding Law for payment of any certain quantity which not only appears sayes he in that we find none such now remaining but also is confirmed by the Testimony of a great and learned French Bishop in whose Province also Mascon was that could not be ignorant of the received Law of his time He lived and wrote very near the end of this four Hundred Years I think sayes he in the very beginning of the next which according to Sâ—lden's division must be the Year 900. And in a Treatise abouâ— the dispensation of Church Revenues expresly denyes that befoâ—e his time any Synod or general Doctrine of the Church had determined or ordained any thing touching the quantity that should be given either for Maintenance or building of Churches He gives the Testimony of this Bishop in his own words thus Jaâ— vero de donandis rebus etordinandis Ecclesijs nihil unquam in Synodis constitutum est nihil a Sanctis Patribus publice praedicatum Nulla enim compulit necessitas fervente ubique religiosa devotione et amore illustrandi Ecclesias ultro â—estruante c. i. e. But now concerning endowing â—nd ordaining Churches there has never been any thing decreed in Synods nor publickly preached by the holy Fathers For there has not been any necessity for that religious Devotion being every where warm and the desire of adorning Churches burning of its own accord And then adds This Author is Agobard Bishop of Lyons very learned and of great judgment and had not so confidently denyed what you see he doth if any Decree Canon or Council generally received had before his time commanded the payment or offering of any certain part And to confirm the Truth of this Bishop's Testimony herein he adds that Neither in the Codex Ecclâ—siâ—â—niverculis or the Codex Ecclesiâ— Romane or Africane Fulgentius Ferrandus Cresconius or Isidore's Collection all which in those elder Ages were as parts of the Body of the Canon Law is once any mention of the name of Tenths Thus far Selden By which it may appear that Tythes had not so early a settlement in the Church as the Priest would perswade his Reader The Priest seems now to have done for the present with Councils and betakes himself to the Laws of Kings and Emperors To which before I pass I desire the Reader to take notice to what a nothing his great talk of Councils is come and that after all his great Brags he hath produced but one Council that expresly names Tythes and that but a Provincial one neitheâ— and falling so much short of that Antiquity that Antient Date the Beginning and earliest dayes of Christianity which he so frequently and vauntingly repeats that it was not much less then 600. yeaâ—â— after Christ before it was made and then too in probability little regarded § 8. Now let us observe the Laws he offers made by Kings and Emperours concerning Tythes The first he instances is of Constantine the Great Who he sayes pag. 89. being settled in his Empire in the Lands under his Dominion out of every City gave a certain Tribute to be distributed among the Church and Clergy of the Provinces and confirmed this Donation to stand forever If this be true yet what relation hath this to Tythes If Constantine gave a Tribute out of every City doth it thence follow that that Tribute was Tythes or the Tenth part of the Revenue of those Cities Or if that should be supposed would the Priest thence infer that the Country
the Lord and might not be converted to common uses But since Christ hath abrogated the Ceremonial Law bâ— which Tythes were commanded a Dedication of Tâ—thâ—s is nâ— more sacred NOW thâ—n a Dedication of Censers NOW would be When therefore the Priest sayes pag. 114. These Censers were by God's speâ—iâ—l order declared holy and forbidden to be used to any â—oâ—mon use afterward it must be understood of 〈◊〉 time of the Law when Censers werâ— in use not of the time of the Gospel wherein they have no place Aâ—d when he sayes pag. 117. The Censers being once given to God must remain to be his stiâ—â— If he extends the particle still to the present time he errs â—gregiously if he do not so extend it he doth not obtain his end And when he sayes pag. 114. If the Censers might not be alienated mucâ— less should Tythes He argues fallaciously for it doth not follow that because the Censers might not be alienated then Tythes should not be alienated now But as if the Censers dedicated under the Law might not be alienated then neither might Tythes be alienated then So if Censers dedicated under the Gospel may be alienated now Tythes dedicated under the Gospel may in like manner be alienated now This he cannot avoid if he grant that Censers and other Vessels of the Iewish Worship dedicated under the Gospel may be alienated But if he do not grant this he â—ets open not a Wiâ—ket but the broad Gates to Iudaism For if it be in man's power to dedicate what he pleases to God and the thing so dedicated must be reputed holy and separate to a Religious use what bar is there to hinder the bringing in of all the Jewish Ceremonies In short The hallowed Censers not being alienable then in the time of the Law shew that Tythes might not be alienated then in the time of the Law but it doth not prove that Tythes might never be alienated any more then it proves that Censers might never be alienated but must remain separated to holy uses to the World's End Though Censers offered in the time of the Law when they were in use by divine appointment were hallowed and not alienable to common uses yet after that Law was abrogated and the use of Censers ended the offering of Censers would not have hallowed them but they might notwithstanding such Oblation be put to common uses And if the offering of Censers then will not patronize the offering of Censers now nor their being hallowed then infer their being hallowed now to be sure the offering and hallowing of Censers then will not justifie the offering and hallowing of Tythes nâ—w nor the unlawfulness of alienating those hallowed Censers then infer it unlawful to alienate Tythes now The offering of Censers then while that Worship stood to which they served will no more authorize any to dedicate Tythes now when that Priesthood is ended to which they did peculiarly belong then it will warrant the offering of Censers now when that Worship to which they served is ended Neither doth it any more follow that because the Censers then offered were hallowed and might not then be alienated to common uses therefore Tythes now offered are hollowed and may not now be alienated to common uses then it doth that if Censers should be now offered they would be hallowed now also and might not now be alienated to common uses Thus then we see his instance of the Censers will not make good the Donation of Tythes but that Tythes notwithstanding the Dedication he talks of may safely be alienated to common uses And indeed if this matter be rightly considered it will appear the World has been grievously gâ—ll'd in this â—ase of Dedications For first it was hammered inâ—o the peoples Heads that to make Dedications of Moneys Lands Tythes c. to God and holy Church was a thing very pleasing and acceptible unto God a means to appease and pacifie his Wrath to obtain Pardon and Remission of Sins and the ready way to get out of Purgatory When once the People had drunk in this Perswasion how was their â—Dedicating Zeal inflam'd what Murder or other horrid Criâ—e was committed the expiation whereof was not sought by a Gift to holy Church as it was then called They needed not any other Spur and had not the Statute of Mortmain at length been provided as a Bit to restrain and curb the immoderate heat of their misguided Devotion it may well be doubted that instead of the tenth nine parts of ten had been given to the Church so willing were men to go the nearest way to Heaven as they misapprehended this to be It was saith Andrew Willet in his Synopsis of Popery fifth general Controversie pag. 309. a common practice in time of Popery so the Priests might be enriched they cared not greatly though all the Stock of their Patrons and Founders were undone The Statute of Mortmain says he was made to restrain this And now although those Priests by whose false Insinuations and crafty Allurements the most of these Donations were fraudulently procured are turned out of doors and rejected yet another sort are come up in their rooms who though they pretend to be the most considerable Enemies to the former in the World yet are well content to reap what the others had thus sâ—wed These men tell us that these Donâ—tions Tythes and such things as Tythes are must remain sacred may not be alienated to common uses And if any one would object that they were gotten indirectly obtained per dolum malum by Fraud and Cozin it avails not they make no matter of that No Blemish in the Dedication can altâ—r the Property say they who make themselves the Receivers Fâ—ctum valet quod fieri non debuit said the Friendly Conference pag. 147. in Margin i. e. Though they ought not to have been dedicated at all yet being once dedicated the Dedication stands good Thus Reader thou may'st see how miserably the World has been abused by their Priests who taking advantage to work upon their Devotion enticed the People to make these Donatioâ—s and now cry out they are irreversible being once dedicated they cannot be altered nor alienated to common uses Who sees not now that by the same Art they might have gotten and with the saâ—e Reason have held nine parts of ten as well as the tenth And well was it for the Nation that a stop was put to this Ecclesiastical Drein before the Church-Corban had swallowed up all out of which it seems there is no Redemption § 18. In his next Section pag. 117. he charges me with exasperating the Impropriators against the Priests and endeavouring to get them on my side which is altogether false I am not so tender of the Impropriators Right as he suggests as not believing the Impropriators have any Right to the Tythes of another man's Crop It is notorious enough that the Quakers suffer by Impropriators as well as by Priests and my
Argument lies against both But he that shall read that place in my Book which the Priest hath quoted pag. 297. may plainly see my aim is to shew that even according to the Priest's Argument the Impropriators have no right to Tythes My words are It is obvious that if because Tythes have been dedicated as he sayes to God it is unlawful to alienate them to common uses then it must needs be unlawful for them to hold their Impropriations because they were offered in like manner as the rest of the Tythes were But say I there let them look to themselves Whether this be flattering and clâ—â—ing the Impropriators as he unhandsomly suggests let the Reader judge Then for those Lands given to Abbies and other Religious Houses as they were once called and upon the dissolution of those Houses settled on the Crown it is manifest his Argument impeaches that settlement and all the subequent Tittles to those Lands derived therefrom and aims at reducing those Lands into the Clergyes hands again For if as he argues being once dedicated they cannot be alienated to common use and that it is a dangerous thing to medle with any thing that hath given been to God Fr. Confer pag. 147. And again as the Censers being once given to God must remain to be his still so we may learn it ought to be in other sacred dedications they must remain sacred still Right of Tythes pag. 117. Then seeing these Abbey Lands were once dedicated to God as well as Tythes it follows unavoidably from his Argument that they cannot be alienated to common uses but must remain sacred still Thus we see at once both the aim of his unsatiable Eye and the weakness of his Argument which in my former Book pag. 297. is detected at large and the discovery thereof hath so â—ettled the man that by way of revenge and to vent his Anger he calls me poor Quaker â—lattering Quaker double-tongued and false-hearted man with more to the same purpose and what I speak with reference to those who possess the Abbey Lands he pâ—rverts and directs to the Iâ—propriators But he should have â—onsidered that his criminating me doth not at all acquit himself For if he will infer from my reasoning that I deny the Impropriators Right to Tythes which I readily enough acknowledge I do yet what is that to his Iustification whose Argument if true would strip not Impropriators only but all others also who possess Abbey Lands or any other Revenues once dedicated to God and Holy Church as the Phrase was Yet he would hide his own Teâ—th and smooth the matter over as if the Priests were the most resigned and submissive Men imaginable to the Law and very good Friends to the Impropriators For our parts sayes he pag. 118. like the Pharisâ—â— Luk. 18. 11. we do not like the Quakers take upon us to censure the actions of our Princes and Parliaments Whatever Opinions the Priests hold in this matter they do not oppose the Laws and go about to perswade any to take away the Impropriators Estates from them Do they not Pray hear now what the Author of the Conâ—erence in his Vindication pag. 305. sayes I confess that Henry 8. did alienate them speaking of Tythes c. And so did he also establish the six bloody Articles to shew himself as ill a friend to Protestants as to Tythes but is not this sayes he a wise Argument to prove that Sacriledge may de jure be câ—mmitted because de facto it hath been committed judge now Reader the truth of that saying of the other Priest viz. We do not take upon us to censure the Actions of our Princes and Parliament when this Priest charges Henry 8. and his Parliament with downright Sacriledge He might have considered that how ill a Friend soever Henry 8. was to Protestants he was not so ill a Friend to Tythes as the Priest represents him since the first Statute Law extanâ— for the payment of Tythes was made under his Reign But further sayes the Author of the Right of Tythes pag. 118. We do not pretend Conscience to save charges as the Quakers manner is Doth he know any Quaker that pretends Conscience to save charges If he does know any such I desire he will name him But if he knows no such what has he told If he would needs raise a Slander on the Quakers could he find nothing that would have look't more likely Do not the Quakers know before hand that if they refuse to pay Tythe they incur the penalty of treble dammage which by that time it is levied seldom comes to less then five or six times the single value of the Tythes demanded besides Imprisonment Is this the way to save Charges What Reader could he expect to find out of Bedlaâ— so much beside his Wits as to receive a suggestion so utterly repugnant to common sense and reason as this is But to proceed § 19. The Priest is troubled that Tythes are reputed of Popisâ— Institution and â—ain he would clear them if he knew how He tryes all the wayes he can and leaves no Stone unturned His first attempt is to defame me that my discourse might have the less acceptance In order whereunto he tells his Reader pag. 120. T. E. now falls to work for the Iesuits in good earnest labouring to make out the Pope's Title to England by a Prescription of eight or nine Hundred Years In this he is very faulty for besides his having represented me all along as a meer piece of Ignorance and Folly and thereby rendred me a very unfit Agent to carry on the deep designs of those crafty and politick Statists he knows full well that I labour not to make the Pope a Title to England but to raize out all Monuments of his usurped Authority that no print nor Foot-step may appear of his power having been exercised here by the continuance of any Custom which received either life or growth from him as this of Tythes did And since it may be lamented but cannot be denyed that the Papal Authority hath had too long as well as too great a sway here whether I pray doth best become a Protestant to acknowledge freely its full time and reject fully all its Institutions or to mince the matter represent the time shorter then it was and retain some of the Popish Institutions which like the Wedge of Gold and Babylonish Garment both deâ—ile the Camp and deform the Reformation Popery is now so justly abhor'd by the generality of English that it were a vain attempt to set up any thing apparently and avowedly Popish Therefore the Enemy of true Religion invents other wayes to keep up Popish Institutions and one is to date the Riâ—e of Popery so low as may leave room to introduce or continue some Popish Customs upon a pretence that they are antecâ—dent to Popery But he that shall duly consider the state of the Church in and from the Apostles times will find
that the Mystery of Iniquity which began to work in their dayes hath continued working ever since and in every Age successively hath brought forth more and more of its work So that Popery was not All brought forth in a Day nor in an Age but was introduced gradually And as the true Religion of Christ was instituted prosessed and practised some time before it was distinguished by the Name Christian. So the false Religion was received also before it was denominated Popish yet this false Religion was really in its Nâ—ture Popish before it obtained to be called Popish as the true Religion was really in its Nature Christian before it received the Name Christian. He therefore that will receive whatsoever he finds practised or commended in the Church before the Name of Popery prevailed may be very likely to receive something which was brought forth by the working of the mystery of Iniquity and is really and truly of the Nature of Popery But the Priest sayes as he has said before more then once If the Saxons in K. Ethelwolf's tiâ—e were Papists it will not follow that all their Donations are void I say so too Some of their Donations were meerly civil made by them as men and Members of a civil Society but this of Tythes was the product of their Religion and of that part of it wherein they were most corrupt So that although All their Donations are not void yet if any at all of their Donations are void there is none which with more reason should be so then this of Tythes Again he sayes Suppose they were Papists in some things yet it follows not that giving Tythes was a Popish Act for all the Acts of Papists are not Popish But I have proved that the giving of Tythes was a Popish Act proceeding from such Motives and attended with such Circumstances as are repugnant to true Protestant Principles But sayes he pag. 121. The Protestants have disputed as much and as well for Tythes as ever the Papists did If by Protestants he means his Brethren the Priests I wonder not at all at it Tythes are their Diana the Oyl that nourishes their Lamp pag. 13. No wonder then if they dispute foâ— Tythes and that much too but how well let others judge Yet commonly the Dispute ends on their parts with Club-Law and in the case of Tythes an Imprisonment and trebble dammages are Ratio ultima Cleri the Clergy's last Argument and many times their first too but alwayes the strongest and that they most rely on He adds It is a Popish Opinion That the Bishop of Rome can exempt men from paying Tythes 'T is so indeed but it is the subsequent of another Popish Opinion That the Bishop of Rome can injoyn men to pay Tythes So that the particular exemption from Tythes and the institution of Tythes are deâ—ived from one and the same Power And if the payment of Tythes had not been settled and established by the Authority of the Bishop of Rome the Opinion of his power to exempt men from paying Tythes had not prevailed as it did But do not these Popish exemptions remain still among the Protestants Those Lands which the Pope made Tythe free are they not Tythe free still What signifies that I pray Is that an argument of the divine Right of Tythes and that Tythes are due by the moral eternal Law Or is it not rather a fair intimation that Tythes are indeed but of human Institution and that from the Bishops of Rome too whose exemptions are in force and observed here even to this day Then he sayes I begun too low by far for if Popery came not into the Church till about seven Hundred Years after Christ according to T. E's proof then Tythes were much ancienter then Popery for they were paid sayes he and declared to be due to the Church at least five Hundred Years before In all this he is wrong For first I have proved Popery did come into the Church before seven Hundred Years after Christ before any settled payment of Tythes Next he neither hath proved nor can prove by any Testimony of credit in this case that Tythes were paid and declared to be due to the Christian Church at least five Hundred Years before He may talk of the Apostles Canons and Clement's Constitutions and be laugh't at for his pains but no Authentick evidence of those times can be produced to prove the payment of Tythes The oldest of his Authors that mentions Tythes is Origen who grounded his judgment on the Lâ—vitical Law and thought it necessary that that Law should stand in force according to the Letter which could not be consistent with Christianity But although Origen was a learned man yet Perkins says he was Errorum plenus full of Errors and Hierom calls his Writings Venâ—nata Venemous and among the rest of his Errors Purgatory was one as witnesseth the same Perkins against Coâ—â—ius Probl. pag. 175. So that if he will fetch Tythes from Origen he may take Purgatory along with them if he please However he shall find that some of those Opinions which afterwards were most rightly denominated Popish were by the Mystery of Iniquity brought into the Church as early as his earliest mention of Tythes let him climb as high as he can § 20. But to clear Tythes from a Popish Institution he sayes pag. 122. That most of those Doctrines which are properly called Popery and which first caused and still justifie the Protestants separation from Rome were not maintained as Articles of Faith 〈◊〉 noâ— in the Church of Rome it self at the time of this Donation Anno 855. Of this he gives several Instances pag. 123. the first is this The Marriage of Priests was not forbidden till the time of Gregory the 7th above two hundred years after For this he cites Polid. Virgill de ver invent l. 5. c. 4. But how unfairly he has quoted his Author and how foully he hath abused his Reader let Polydore's own words shew in the place cited where having declared how it fared with the Eastern Priests in that case he adds At occidentalibus paulatim est Connubium abrogatum Syricius enim priums â—acerdotibus et diaconis ut ait Gratianus distinctione 82. â—onjugio interdicit qui circiter annum salutis humane 387. federe caepit i. e. But Marriage was taken from the Priests in the West by degrees For Syricius who began to sit in the Roman Chair about the year of man's Salvaâ—ion 387. was the first that forbad Marriage to Priests and Deacons as Gratian says in his 82 Distinction Idem instituit says Polydore ut quicunque aut viduam aut secundam duxisset uxorem ab ordine sacerdotali pelleretuâ— sic per hoc voluit ut deinceps Digamus ad officium facerdotis non admittertur i. e. The same Syricius ordained that whatsoever Priest had married a Widow or a Second Wife should be put out of his Priesthood so by this he would not have any one that
to the true antient Catholick and Apostolick Church which the Priest calls Popery Conference pag. 149. And as this Doctrine sprang up in corrupt times so it grew up together with the Corruptions of those times and the more corrupt the Church grew and farthest off from the purity and truth of the Gospel the more credit and belief this Doctriâ—e obtained and was the more generally received And when thâ—ough the prevalency of Popery the Church was most of all defiled and polluted with Idolatry and Superstition and in its worst estate then was this Doctrine in greatest repute and in fullest force and strength By all which let the Reader judge whether this was a primitive Doctrine And as this was not a primitive Doctrine so neither was it a protestant Doctrine for the Bohemians whom Fox calls Protestants when they renounced the Popes Yoke took away Tythes from the Clergy and reduced them to certain Stipends as Selden out of Io. Major notes Hist. Tythes pag. 167. which they would not have done if they had believed that Tythes were due to God and Holy Church Thus it appears that this Doctrine of Tythes being due to God and Holy Church is neither a primitive nor Protestant Doctrine and that the Statutes grounded thereon are built upon a false supposition He excepts against my saying For a man to claim that by a temporal Right from a temporal Law which the Law he claims by commands to be paid as due by a divine Right is 〈◊〉 juggling To whicâ— he replies pag. 189. All the World knows two Titles to the same thing being subordinate to one another do strengthen each other This is a meer shift for it is evident those Statutes do not intend to make the Priests another Title then what they claimed by before but only to appoint the payment of Tythes upon the old Title of being due to God So that these Statutes do not make the Priests a temporal right nor was it the design of them so to do for the Statute of 32 H. 8. 7. speaking of Tythes impropriated sayes Which now be or which hereafter shall be made temporal which implies plainly They understood all Tythes before such Impropriations in no other Notion then Ecclesiastical or Spiritual and that they accounted all other Tythes which were not so impropriated but remained in the hands of the Clergy Ecclesiastical or spiritual profits still not temporal Now for the Priests to claim a temporal right to Tythes by those Laws which declare the Right they have to be spiritual this is the Juggle If they will claim Tythes by these Statutes they should claim them in that notion wherein the Statutes suppose them due which is as a spiritual Right not as a temporal The Priest sayes A Father having a maintenance reserved 〈◊〉 of his Sons Estate mentioned in those deeds which settle the said Estate on the Son though he had a right to be maintained by his Son jure divino may claim a maintenance by vertue of these deeds jure humano and the second Title strengthens but doth not destroy the first This is quite beside the case for besides that the comparison will not hold between a Father a Priest unless any in the darkness of their ignorance should so far mistake as to own the Priests for their spiritual Father nor in that case neither with respect to Tythes but to a Maintenance only here are in the case of a Father two distinct Titleâ— independent one of the other and the Deed of settlement in which such maintenance is reserved doth not express the reserved maintenance to be due jure divinâ— but declares it to be a temporal Right settled upon civil and temporal considerations But how remote is this from the Priest's case The Statutes mention no temporal Right of Tythes to the Priests but supposâ— a divine Right and upon that supposition command the payment of them as so due This Deed of settlement mentions nothing of a divine Right but acknowledges a civil and temporal Right to the maintenance therein reserved As well then may the Father claim a divine Right to this maintenance by vertue of this Deed as the Priest claim a temporal Right to Tythes by vertue of these Statutes and both alike unreasonable §12 In my former Book I inquired two things pag. 335 336. first What it is the Priest claims a property in secondly Where this property is vested in the person of the Priest or in the Office To the first the Priest gives no Answâ—r here only in another place pag. 196. he sayes We grant Tythes are due out of the profits only and with this answer he contents himself overlooking the Arguments I offered in pag. 335 336 338 339. to prove the unreasonableness of such a claim particularly That if Tythes be the tenth of the profit or increase of the Land and they that settled Tythes as he saith were actually seiâ—ed of them in Law then surely they could settle 〈◊〉 more than they were so seized of and they could be actually seized of no other profits or increase than what did grow increase or renew upon the Land while they were actually seized of it So that such settlement how valid soever while they lived must needs expire with them This and much more such plain anâ— serious argumentation tending to prove the emptiness and unreasonables of their plea to Tythes from the Donation of Ethelwolf and others the Priests both one and t'other pass by unanswered The Reader may guess why The second thing inquired was Where this property is vested in the person of the Priest or in the Office This I perceive they are wonderful wary how they answer One Priest sayes An Office is capable of being vested in a property and the present person who sustains that Office hath this property vested in him during his Life with remainder to his Successors forever Right of Tythes pag. 190. This as doubtfully and darkly delivered as might be seems in the first part to affix the property to the Office but in the latter part to the person that sustains the Office For he sayes The present person who sustains that Office hath this property vested in him not during his Office only but during hiâ— Life which may extend far beyond his Office For if the present person who sustains the Office be an ignorant vicious debauched scandalous Priest as alas too many of them are if he be one of them who the Author of the Conference sayes pag. 11. will for a corrupt interest intrude themselves into thesâ— sacred Offices he not only may but ought to be ejected They that for coâ—rupt Interest thrust themselves in should for their Corruption be thâ—ust out again But what mean while becomes of the property If as this Priest sayes the present person who sustains the Office hath this property vested in him during his Life the divesting him of the Office doth not divest him of the property because according to this Priest
oâ— Tythes The Parson says Shepherd in his Grand Abridgeâ—â—nt 〈◊〉 Tythes pag. 101. hath a good property in the Tythes where they are set out by the Ownerâ— not where they are set out by a Stranger Doth not this prove that the Parson's Title lies in the Gift of the Owner If the Owner sets out the Tythes he thereby disseizes himself thereof and gives the Parson a Property in the Tythes so by him set out but if the Tythes are not set out the Parson hath no Property therein nay if they be set out and not by the Owner but by a Stranger the Parson will be to seek of a Property notwithstanding such setting out By all which it appears That the Parson has no Property in the tenth patt of another's Crop until the Owner sets out that tenth part and thereby gives the Parson a property in it Nay further says Shepherd ibid. Tythes are not due nor is it Tythe within the Statute of 2. Edw. 6. until severance be made of the nine parts from the tenth part So that to make it Tythe within the Statute it must be severed and to make the Priest a Property in it it must be set out as Tythe by the Owner Judge now Reader whether the Priest hath any other Property in Tythes then what the present Owner gives him §14 Here again pag. 193. the Priest is gravelled with an Argument which he knows not how to answer and therefore having first stuck an ugly 〈◊〉 or two upon it to scare common Readers from observing it he makes a shew as if he would repeat it and sets down something that looks a little like it and then without more ado cryes I have sufficiently 〈◊〉 it before §30 and so takes his leave of itâ— He sets it down thus That it is ridiculous and unreâ—sonable for any to pretend a Power to dispose of thâ—sâ— Profits or any part of them which arise from the Labour Stock and Care of another especially after their own decease for which he quotes pag. 338. of my Book This he calls an old silly and blasphemous Argument and so lets it fall But questionless the man being conscious to himself that his Claim to Tythes is ridiculous and unreasonable these two words did so run in his mind that he fancied he read them in that place of my Book out of which he pretends to take this Quotation whereas indeed neither of those words is to be found in all that page noâ— any Argument in those terms wherein he gives this But that the Reader may see there was in that page such matter as might justly deserve as well as require an Answer anâ— which he in his thirtieth Section to which he referâ— did not reply unto I will repeat an Argument out of that page with the occasion of it which was this The Author of the Conference had said pag. 154. That Tythes were settled by those thaâ— were actually seized of them in Law Whereupon I thus argued If Tythes be the tenth of the profit or increase of the Land and they that settled Tythes as he saith were actually seized of them in Law then surely they could settle no more than they were actually seized of and they could be actually seized of no other Profits or Increase than what did grow increase or renew upon the Land while they were actually seized of it So that such settlement how valid soever while they lived must needs expire with them Hence I further reasoned thus Is any one so void of Reason as to imagin that they who were possest of Land a Hundred Years ago could then settle and dispose of the Profits and Increase that shall grow and arise upon the Land a Hundred Years hence which Profit cannot arise barely from the Land but from the Labour Industry and Stock of the Occupier Were ever any actually seized of the Labour at the Husband-man's Hands of the Sweat of his Bâ—ows of the judgment understanding and skill that God hath given him of the Stock he imploys the Cost he bestows the Care Pains Industry and Diligence he exercises for the obtaining of a Crop c. This solid Argument and sober reasoning he calls an old silly and blaspheâ—ous Argument But whether it be either silly or blasphemous I willingly submit to the impartial Reader 's judgment And whereas he pretendâ— he has sufficiently baffled it before in Sect. 30. I desire the Reader to compare that Section with my Reply to it Chap. 5. Sect. 5 6. and judge as he findâ— cause But though the Priest was not willing to handle this Argument yet he gladly catches an occasion from hence to complain again of me to the Improprâ—ators and he takes a great deal of needless pain to inform them of what their own experience hath long since taught them viz. that the Quakers deny their Right to Tythes The Quakers do indeed deny Tythes to be due to any one under the Gospel-state And for that cause have suffered and do by Impropriators as well as by Priests Nor is there any thing 〈◊〉 my Book relating to the Impropriators which may any whit excâ—se much less justifie his â—anderous reflections on me Well may I pitty them but never shall I flatter muchless â—law them at least in that sense wherein they are sure enough to be clawed if ever they come under the Priests Claws or fall within their Clutches His scurrilous Language and foul Epithets of double-tongued and false-hearted with his â—â—ye Insinuations of my flattering and clawing the Impropriators argue nothing else to me but that he wanted other Arguments to fill up this Section and thought it best to make a noise that vulgar Readers might 〈◊〉 he had said somethinâ— But for all his Clamour many of the Impropriators I doubt not discern both that it is Conscience makes the Quaker refuse to pay Tythes and Covetousness makes the Priest so greedy to get Tythes not only from the Quaker but Impropriator also § 15. He sayes pag. 195. As for Artificers paying Tythes of their gains it is no more than what they are obliged to by S. Paul's Rule Gal. 6. 6. 〈◊〉 give their Pastor a share of all good things This is not true That Rule of St. Paul doth not determine the proportion but leave Artificers and all others to their Christian-liberty in point of quantity Therefore to oblige Artificers to pay the Tythes of their Gains is more than St. Paul's rule obliges them to Finally sayes the Priest at the close of this Section pag. 196. We grant to T. E. Tythes are due oâ—t of the Profits only and therefore of God give no Increase or the Husband-man have nothing grow we expect no Tythes at all Where 's his Free-hold then But if Tythes are due out of the profits only why are you Priests so unreasonable to require Tythes where there is no profit yea where instead of profit there is apparent loss as it is certain you frequently do The Priest here sayes If
Tythe at all Hence then it is clear he claims no Tythes of that which the buyer hath thus purchased he lays no claim to any part of the Land Thus far then the Buyer hath purchased all the whole every part and the Priest doth not so much as pretend a Right to any of the Land he hath bought Now then let us come to the other purchase if I may so call it that out of which the Priest claims Tythes viz. the Profits and Increase Of this in my former Book pag. 345. I said thus When he has this Land if he will have Profit and Increase from it he must purchase that after another manner He pays for that and many times dear enough too by the Labour and Charge he bestows in Tilling Dressing and Manuring it And if in this sense he may be said to purchase the nine parts of the Crop or Increase in the same sense he purchaseth the tenth part also for he bestows his Charge and Pains on all alike and the tenth part stands him in as much as any one of the nine Thus then the Buyer first purchaseth the Land and afterward the Occupier whether Owner or Tenant purchaseth the Crop The one buys the Land by laying down so much Money the other obtains the Crop by bestowing so much Charge and so much Labour c And as in the purchase of the Lands the Buyer doth as really buy the tenth Acre or tenth part of the Lands as the ninth or any other part of the nine so in the purchase of the Crop the Occupier doth as really purchase the tenth part of the Profits and Increase as he doth the ninth or any other part of the nine and after the same manner he lays his Dung on all alike he sows his Seed on all alike he Plows all alike he bestows his Pains and Charge and exercises his Skill and Care equally on all Thus it appears that Tythes are really purchased by them by whom the nine parts are purchased and do really belong to them to whom the nine parts do belong whether Tythes be understood of Lands or of Profits If of Lands the Purchaser doth as really buy the tenth Acre as any of the nine and gives as much for it Nor doth the Priest claim any Property therein If of Profits the tenth Sheaf or tenth part of the Crop doth cost the Occupier as much to the full as any other of the nine parts Now seeing the Priest says If I can make out this this alone will do my business I hope the Reader will find it here so plainly made out that he will be satisfied my business is done What the Priest urges as the Opinions of some Lawyers concerning Tythes is of the less weight because they are grounded on this Mistake That Tythes are of Divine Institution which Error hath misled too many His Reflections on me of Insolence and Novice I regard not at all but pass from his Railing to see if I can find any Reason from him He puts a Case pag. 206. thus A. purchases an Estate in B of C the Tythes whereof are impropriatc and belong to D Now will the Quaker say that A. purchases D' s Estate in the Tythes without his Knowledge or Consent by vertue of the general words in the Coâ—veyance from C He takes for granted what I deny viz. that the Tythes belong to D. The Tythes belong to the Occupier of the Land to him to whom the other nine parts belong and he hath the same Right in Justice and Equity to the tenth part as to the other nine If C. sells his land what is that to D D. doth not claim the Tythe of that land nor pretend a Right to any part of it What Wrong doth C. do then to D. in this sale or how can C. be taxed with selling D's Right whenas D. neither hath nor pretends to have a Right to any part of the Land which C. sells The Claim that D. makes is not to the Tythe of the land but to the Tythe of the profits which Profits C. neither did sell nor could But after A. hath bought the Land he must to purchasing a new for a Crop if he expects to have one else he may be sure to go without He therefore to obtain a Crop layes out his Stock bestows his Labour takes Pains and Care early and late and in due time by God's Blessing upon his honest Endeavours receives a Crop sometimes with Advantage sometimes with Loss But although the Priest sayes pag. 196. Tythes are due out of the Profits only yet whether there be gain or loss whether there be increase or decrease whether there be profit oâ— no profit no sooner is the Crop made ready but in steps the Priest or Impropriator and sweeps the tenth part of it clear away although A. had laid out his Money and Labour upon all the parts of his Crop alike had paid as dear for the tenth part as for any of the nine and hath thereby in Justice and Equity as good a Right to that which is thus taken from him as to any of the rest which is left behind Thus the Priest's Case being opened and answered it appears that neither A. nor C. do any Wrong to D but that D. doth Wrong to A. in taking from him that which he hath honestly earâ—ed and dearly paid for And now the Priest may return if he please to his A. B. C. anew But he sayes The Quaker fraudulently leaves out those words of the Conveyance which would have discovered his Knavery in this false Assertion I thus exprest the words of the Deed viz. That the Seller doth'grant bargain sell c. ALL that c. with its Appurtenances and EVERY PART and parcel thereof the tenth said I as wâ—ll aâ— the nine and also ALL the Estate Right Tâ—tle Interest Property Claim Demand whatsoever c. There says the Priest he stops with an 〈◊〉 â—â—cause his shallow Reader should not see what follows in the Deed viz. Estate Right which I the said A. have or ought to have in the Premises which words sayes he do manifest that the Purchaser buyes no more Estate or Right than the Seller had to or in the Premises p. 208. He must doubtless have been a shallow Reader indeed that should have thought I intended the Purchaser had bought more of the Seller than the Seller had to sell and I take it to be no Argument of the Priest's depth to suggest it The Seller had a sufficient Right to the whole Estate to every foot of the Land he fold and the Buyer hath the same But sayeâ— the Priest the Seller did not purchase the Tythes himself nor did they descend to him from his Ancestors c. Tythes are not claimed of the Land but of the Profits only or of the yearly increase of renewing which the Occupier of the Land purchases another way If the Seller before he sold had the Land in his own Occupation he
not be a fair Flower in an English Crown and that having once stuck in the Triple Crown it was unworthy to be worn in an English Diadem Besides those words if nothing else could le said against it imply there was more to be said against it if need require and opportunity serve But this which was said was more than he was willing to take notice of and that little he did take notice of was more it seems tâ—an he either knew how oâ— at least thought fit to Answer He says upon it pag. 230. His Majesty will not so easily be wheadled out of so great a part of his Revenue and so clear an acknowledgment of his Clergies subjection to him What if he will not Has this any appearance of an Answer or carries it in it the least shew of an Argument The other Priest Author of the Conference seems to have something to say here Vindication pag. 325. First he says I do not â—ind that T. E. answers the Argument but catches at a phrase c. For my part I see no Argument there to Answer unless he will call it an Argument for Tythes that the â—ing hath a Revenue out of Tythes And if that were his meaning I take it to be Answer sufficient to such an Argument to shew that the Tythes themselves out of which that Revenue arises are contrary to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ But can either of these Priests or any man else using his understanding think it an argument of any force for the lawfulness or Equity of Tythes that a Revenue arises out of them to the Crown What Evil might not in other Nations be patronized by such an Argument May not the Papists argue their Indulgences are right and good because they bring in a considerable Revenue to the Catholick Chair as they call it Unhappy Luther who saw not the force of this Argument but zealously notwithstanding exclaimed against Indulgences May they not from the same Argument infer the lawfulness of Stews at Rome since from them arises a considerable Revenue to support the Triple Crown But though he is offended that himself is compared to the Crow for calling fiâ—st Fruits and Tenths so fair a Flower yet he cannot deny but this Flower stuck once in the Triple Crown â—ut then he says it was stole from the English Diadâ—m ibid. Was it so Did it ever stick in the English Dâ—adem before Hen. 8. Stuck it there That 's more indeed then ever I read and more I think than he is able to prove But both these Priestâ— urge the payment of first-Fruits and Tenths to be an acknowledgment of the Clergies subjection It may be it is so but there is no necessity it must be so Is there no other way for the Clergy to acknowledge their Subjection but by paying fiâ—st Fruits and Tenths The payment of Tribute is I confess an acknowledgement of Subjection yet not so but that subjection may be acknowledged other wayeâ— without it what acknowledgement else would all such be capable of making of their subjection who are not in a condition to pay Tribute in which rank a great part of the Nation will be found Now to return to the Author of the Right of Tythes he spends the rest of his 47th Section in computing the Revenue the King receives from the Clergy which yet he doth so confusedly that it is â—ard to collect from thence any certain Sum for the Total of that Revenue The best account I can gather from his is that it is near 30000 l. per annum Be it more or less it is not much material No doubt it is a large sum if fully paid But what a vast sum is that then which the Priests receive of the People of which perhaps this may be scarce the twentiâ—th part being usually paid by Composition and at low Rates But the stress of the Objection I take to be this That if Tythes be taken away the Revenue of the Crown is so much diminished as this amounts to The Answer is Conscience Honour ought to be preferred before Worldly Advantages If the Revâ—nues of the Crown are not found sufficient without tâ—is there are other and far better Wayes of enlarging them than by this Were this Iron-Yoke but once taken off from the galled Necks of the people they would be certainly far more able as well as probably more willing to bear the publick Charges of the Nation Anâ— it were not difficult to demonstrate that the Crown would be rather a Gainer thereby than a Loser § 26. He says in his next Section pag. 231. I shall not need now to confute that frequent and unjust Reâ—roach of the Quakers calling Ministers Hirelings pag. 356 c. since I have shewed the only Reveâ—uâ—s they have are no other than what they have a three-fold Title to first by the Laws of God and Nature secondly by the Donation of the right Owners thirdly by the Laâ—s of this Land He has as much need now as ever to clear himself and his Brethren if he can from the Charge of being Hirelings since his Triple Title is disproved and he cannot make out a Right to Tythes He talks much of the Law of God but No Law of God can he shew for the payment of Tythes now He talks also of Tythes being due by the Law of Nature but that 's a Position so extreamly ridiculous that it is enough to render him suspected for a Naâ—uâ—al These two make the first part of his threefold Title The second part is the Donation of the Right Owners This is so far from being true that it is utterly impossible it should be true for Tythes being due as himself says pag. 196. out of the Profits only they to whom he ascribes the Donation of Tythe neither were nor could be the right Owners of those Profits out of which the Priests now claim and take Tythes They were the right Owners of those Profits tâ—at arose while they were possest of the Lands and might dispose of those Profits as they pleased so 〈◊〉 were not to an evil use But the present Propâ—â—etors or Occupiers of Land now are as really the Right Owners of all such Profits as are â—aised upon the Lands now as they of old then were of the Profits that were raiâ—ed in their times Seeing then those ancient Dâ—â—ors of Tyâ—â—hes could not make these Priestâ— any Title to the prâ—sent Profits because they themselves were not the right Owners of these Profits And the present Proprietors or Occupants who are the right Owners of the present Profits have not made any Donation of Tythes to the Priests It is evident that they have no Tâ—tlâ— at all by Donation Thus his sâ—cond string also has given him the slip His third is the Laws of 〈◊〉 Land But he must take notice that the Laws do not give a man a Right either to Lands Tythes or any thing else but do only conserve unto him that Right which he
hath already whether by descent purchase or gift and secure him in the injoyment thereof from Violâ—nce or Injury from others If therefore he could have proved a Right he might well have urged the Laws of the Land to conserve that Right but if he has not otherwise a Right he in vain expects the Laws should make him one Nor do those Laws which in joyn the payment of Tythes pretend to give a Righto Tythes but suppose the Priests to have a Right and therefore take care to secure that supposed Right unto them But now it appears that that Supposition was grounded upon a Mistake and that the Priests have no Right at all to Tythes but that all their Claims are false That they have no Right by the Law of God no right by the Law of Nature no Right by any Donation or Gift from the Right Owners of the Profits out of which and which only they claim Tythes Now the Reason and Ground of the Law being not to make a Right but to conserve and secure to men that Right they have if the Priests have no Right to Tythes as I have proved they have not then is there nothing for the Law to conserve or secure to them and so that Law with relation to them is at an end for the Rule in Law being Cessante Ratione Legis cessat Lex i. e. Where the Reason of the Law 〈◊〉 there the Law it self ceaseth also the Reason of the Law ceasing in this Case where it hath nothing to conserve the Law it self must needs also cease de jure according to that Rule Thus the Priests thâ—eâ—fold â—ord is broken and down falls he and his pretended Right of Tythes together But in order to clear if it were possible the Priests from the just imputation of Hirelings he says pap 232. The people do not hire them they set them not on work nor do they out of their own give them any Wages This doth but further discover the Vnrighteousness of the Priests for if the People do neither hire them nor set them on work how unreasonable and unjust are they to demand yea and force Wages from them that neither hired them nor set them on work Is this to do as they would be done unto Would the Priests think it equal that any of their Parishioners who are hired and set on work by others should come and demand Wages of them when as they neither hired them nor set them on work The latter part of his Sentence is a positive untruth The words are these Nor do they the people out of their own give them the Priests any Wages This is utterly false The Wages which people give them is truly and properly out of the peoples own for it is out of the yearly Profits and the yearly Profits are truly and properly the peoples own and belong not to any man else Next he says They the Priestâ— are imployed by Goâ— and he hath provided for them I deny that they are imployed by God let him prove it if he can If they were imployed by God they would be content with such 〈◊〉 as he hath made for them whom he imployes and not thus scrape and scratch rend and tear and never think they have enough In the rest of this Section he charges me with lâ—ading the Loyal and Suffering Clergy with a foul Calumny in saying They â—led and left their Floâ—kâ— to the Mercy of those whom they accounted no better than Wolves c. This is matter of Fact of which the whole Nation was then a Witness and there is scarce a Parish wherein some are not yet living who are able to judge whether this be a foul Calumny or a just Charge to whose Censure I submit it He says They were sequestred imprisoned silenced and by armed Soldiers violently torn from their Cures This may be true of some of them whose Unhappiness it seems it was to lose what was nonâ— of their own But if they had indeed been imployed by God and had taken the Apostles for their Example Acts 4. 18 19 20. 5. 28 29 40 41 42. though they had been sequestred imprisoned and by armed Soldiers violently torn from their Cures yet they would not have so been silenced If such things as tâ—ese could have silenced the Apostles and those otheâ—s that were imploy'd by God in the first appearance of Christianity in the World the sound of the Gospel had not rung so loud nor so far as it then did In conclusion as he raises to them Trophies of Praise and celebrates their Names with the highest Eulogiâ—s his fancy could furnish him with so on me he casts up the overflowing of his Gall and with it the most reproachful and scurrilous Expressions his imbittered Mâ—nd did suggest unto him Then he calls the Loyal and Suffering Clergy These Noble Sufferers Such Illustrous Names whom All the World Admires and Venerates Of me he sayes This black-mouthed Slanderer may publish his own venomous Impietâ—es But as this putrid matter doth only discover the foulness of the Stomach from whence it came but doth not at all defile me so I envy not them all the Odours and Perfumes he has provided to sweeten their Names withal which perhaps there may be need enough of The Author of the Conference took another Course to acquit the Priests from the charge of being Hirelings by comparing the Priests with the Iudges of the Land and Tythes with the King's Allowances to the Iudges In my Answer to him I shewed his fallacy in this so plain that this other Priest who came in for his second was not willing to meddle at all with the matter but left him to get off as well as he could He said in his Conference pag. 159. You know the King has twelve Iudges c. And these have an honourable Allowance from the Exchequor will you therefore say that they are Hirelings and sell Iustice and is not ours the same Case I answered in â—ruth prevailing pag. 356. No for you pretâ—nâ— to be Ministers oâ— Christ whereaâ— they pretend no higher than to be Ministers of State You call your selves Spiritual persons but you reckon them but Lay-men You challenge to your selves a â—piritual Function they claim but a civil or temporal Office They therefore standing in a civil Capacity may reasonably and fairly without any imputation of Injustice receive what their Master is pleased to bestow upon them But you who pretend to be Ministers of Christ Jâ—sus are therefore justly condemnable as Hireâ—ings because ye will not be content with that Maintenance which he whom ye call though untruly your Master hath appointed but seek for Hire from others Out of this he takes the first Sentence only which was this You pretend to be Ministers of Christ whereas they pretend no higher than to be Ministers of State and passing by all the rest makes this Reply to that I thought sayes he Vindication pag. 326. that every Magistrate had been
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
forty Pounds per annum charged with the payment of ten Pounds per annum forever to the Poor Suppose the utmost Profits of that Estate should some Years through ill Seasons Blastings or other accidents fall under ten Pounds shall the Owner be excused from paying ten Pounds If not he may see thereby that the charge lies upon the Lands not upon the Profits for what if the Owner make no Profits at all that will not destroy the Rent-charge If he can improve his forty Pounds a Year to an hundred he shall pay but ten Pounds out And if he should make less then ten Pounds of it yet ten Poundâ— he must pay This shews it to be of a quite different Nature from Tythes and therefore not as the Priest suggests in any danger of being destroyed by the downfall of Tythes Having now removed the Priest's Objections and â—lear'd my Argument against Tythes from being destructive of Rent-charges and other sums of Money given to relieve the Poor I cannot but take notice of the seeming compassion the Priest shews of the Poor and the care he pretends to have of their Rights And considering withal how great a self-interest â—â—es at the bottom it brings to my remembrance the Story of Iudas Ioh. 12. 3 4 5. and the account the holy Pen-man gives of him ver 6. viz. This he said Not that he cared for the Poor but because c. §17 The next thing the Priest quarrels with is a Position he sayes of mine That Tythes are a greater Burden than Rents This he pretends to take out of pag. 343. of my Book in which there is no such Possibly he might deduce it from my Arguments in that place but then he should have so represented it and not have called it my Position The truth is the Position is in it self so 〈◊〉 saving that it seems to make Rents a Burden which simply they are not that I cannot but like and defend it though I blame his over-forward and unwelcome boldness in making Positions for me But hear what he sayes to this Position of his own making pag. 199. It would seem a Paradox that Two Shiâ—â—ings is a greater Burden than Twenty but only that nothing is so easie but it seems difficult when it is done unwillingly As he has stated it it may well seem a Paradox but state it aright and it will not seem any Paradox at all It is not the unwillingness in paying but the injustice in requiring that makes the payment a Burden In claims equally unjust the greatest Claim is the greatest Burden but where one Claim is just and t'other unjust as in the case of Rent and Tythes the unjust Claim is the greatest burden be the sum more or less Two Shillings exacted where it is not due is a greater burden than twenty Shillings demanded where it is due Two Shillings for nothing is a greater burden than Twenty Shillings for Twenty Shillings-worth This is no Paradox at all but plain to every common capacity And thus stands the case between Tythes and Rents Tythes are a Burden because they are not just not duc Rents are not a Burden because they are just they are due Tythes are a Burden because they are exacted of the Quakers at least for nothing Rents are not a Burden because they are demanded for a valuable consideration Thus his Paradox is opened But he is highly offended with me for saying I doubt not but if every English-man durst freely speak his own sense Nine parts of Ten of the whole Nation would unanimously cry TYTHES ARE A GREAT OPPRESSION This has so incensed him that not able to contain he calls me a seditious Libeller forgetting perhaps that his own Book is nameless and sayes pag. 200. T. E. not content to discover his own base humour measures all mens Corn by his own Bushel and as it is the manner of such as are Evil themselves he fanciâ—s all men pay their Tythes with as ill will as the Quakers and impudently slanders the whole Nation I step over his Scurrillity and ill Language and tell him first If this be as he sayes a Slander himself hath made it a tenth part bigger than it was by stretching it to All men and the whole Nation which he himself acknowledges waâ— spoken of but nine parts of the Nation I did not say All men and the whole Nation would call Tythes a great Oppression for I suppose some in a devout mistake may be as ready to pay as the Priest is greedy to receive them Secondly I am not at all Convinced that it is a Slander but do believe it a real Truth And though he sayes Common experience proclaims me a Lyar herein there being very few Parishes where Nineteen parts of Twenty do not pay their Tythes freely as any other due I dare appeal to eighteen parts of his Nineteen whether this be true or no. But since it is hard to take a right measure of Peoples freedom and willingness herein while the Lash of the Law hangs over them it were greatly to be wished that our Legislators in whose power it is to decide the doubt would be pleased to determine the Controversie by taking off those Laws and Penalties by which the People are compelled to pay Tythes and leave them wholly free in this case to exercise their Liberality towards their Ministers as God shall incline and inlarge their Hearts And truly if the Priest dislikes this Proposition it is a very great Argument either that he doth not believe what himself said but now viz. that nineteen parts of twenty pay Tythes freely or that he doth greatly distrust the goodness of his Ministry At length he takes notice of the Reasonâ— I gave why Rents are not a Burden as Tythes The first Reason he thus gives The Tenant hath the worth of his Rent of the Landlord but of the Priest he receiveth nothing at all To this says he I answer The Heir of an Estate charged with a perpetual payment to the Poor receives nothing from the Poor to whom he pays the Money yet this is no Oppression pag. 201. Though the Heir receives nothing from the Poor yet he receives the Estate which is so charged under that Condition of paying so much Money to the Poor which Estate otherwise he should not have had The Heâ—â— then doth not pay foâ— nothing although he hath nothing from the Poor to whom he pays for he hath that very Land in consideration on which the payment to the Poor is charged Thus the Heir is safe Then for the Tenant he is not at all concerned in the matter unless it be by private contract it goes out of the Landlord's Rent not out of the Tenant's Stock And if the Tenant by the Landlord's oâ—der pays it to the Poor he doth it in his Landlord's name by whom it is accepted as so much Rent paid But Tythe is quite another thing For first the Heir doth not receive the Land undeâ— condition of