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
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
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
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
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
he gave them no power to demand much less Inforce a Maintenance from such as did neither receive nor own them This the latter Priest transfers from the Apostles to himself and his Brethren and makes a quotation out of it with which he begins his 50th Section thus He adds pag. 359. Christ gave us no power to demand a Maintenance from those who do not receive us I perceive he is willing to creep in any how but unless he had come in fairer he is like to turn out again I do not admit that Christ hath given him power to demand Maintenance of any body no not of them that do receive him for Christ gives Power to none in this Case but those whom â—eâ—ends of which number he is none However I observe he doth not deny what I said viz. That Christ gaâ—e his Apostles no Power to demand a Maintenance from such as did neâ—ther receive nor own them but rather seems to grant it for he replies Nor do we demand of the Qâ—akers to give us one single Penny more than what was given to us and sâ—ttled on us many hundred years ago we only ask our own we only ask that which the Quaker did not take of his Landlord that which was or ought to have been abated in his Rent p. 338. Don't you demand of the Quakers the tenth part of their yearly Profits Could these be settled on you many hundred years ago The Folly of this pretence is obvious of it self But how many hundred years is it I pray since Tythes were settled on you 'T is but about 140 years ago since the first Statute-Law for Tythes was made and that too was made both by Papists and for Papists But he says They only ask that which the Quaker did not take of his Landlord They not only ask that which the Quaker did not take of his Landlord but they also ask it out of that which the Quaker did not take of his Landlord viz. out of the Profits for out of the Profits only are Tythes due says this Priest pag. 196. Now the Quaker took the Land only of his Landlord not the Profits He knew well enough what Land he took but he knew not when he took the Land what Profits he should have The Profits he receives afterwards by the Blessing of God on his Labour and honest Endeavours with the use and imployment of his Stock which his Landlord hath nothing to do with So that if the Priest will needs claim the tenth part of the Quaker's Profits because the Quaker did not take it of his Landlord he may by the same Reason claim the other nine parts of the profits too because the Quaker did not take them of his Landlord neither Again he says They only ask that which was or ought to have been abated in his Rent I deny that That which they demand viz. the tenth part of the Profits neither was nor ought to have been abated in the Rent If it shou'd be supposed that any thing is abated yet the most that could be expected would be but the tenth part of the Rent And if the tenth part of the Profits be no more than the tenth part of the Rent then must the whole Profit be no more than the whole Rent and what then shall the Farmer have to defray his Charge and maintain his Family But if the tenth part of the Profitâ— which the Priest claims be more than the tenth part of the Rent then according to the Priest's own way of reasoning he demands more of the Qâ—â—ker than either is or ought to be abated And indeed what Reason has a Landlord to abate of his Rent in consideration of â—ythes which are not demanded out of the Land which be lets but out of the Profits only which the Tenant by â—is own Labour Stock and Industry through the Blessing of God acquires However how could the tenth part of the Profits â—e abated in the Rent whenas the Rent is certain and fixed for twenty years or more together and the Profits alwayes uncertain never it may be of equal value two years together throughout the whole term and sometimes perhaps in two years time may rise or sink half in half Again he says pag. 239. Our Right to Tythes depâ—nds not at all upon vâ—â—ns being willing or unwilling to come and hear us You are so much the more unlike the Apostles whom ye preteâ—d to be Successors to And the Qâ—aker says he is sadly mistaken to think we come to sâ—u them our Sermons or that Tythes a 〈◊〉 Price which is the Quaker's own to give The Quakers are not at all mistaken in thinking you come to sell your Sermons They have known you of old and before they were Quakers they traded with you and bought your Ware and paid full dearly for your Sermons but they 'l never trade with you more for they see your Ware is nought and they find you the worst sort of Chapmen of any they have to do with For as I formerly observed take the most greedy and over-reaching Tradesman that one can find thoâ—gh he should tell me his Ware is very good and that he has such as will fit my turn yet he will not thâ—ust it upon me whether I like it or no but leaves me to 〈◊〉 own liberty either to take it or to leave it and if I do not take it to be sure he will never demand any thing of me for it But this Priest will either make us take his Ware though we neither like it nor have any need of it or to be sure will make us pay for it though we never take it What can be more Vnreasonable what more Dishonest than this § 28. As for going to Law for Tythes you have says he to his Brother Priest § 51. fully proved it lawful in the Conference and the Quaker answers not one of your Arguments so that till he reply to that I will only note That it is much against our Wâ—ll c. I answered all his Arguments for going to Law for Tythes in proving at large that Tythes are not due for no Argument can justifie going to law for that which is not due and if Tythes were due from the Quaker to the Priest he should not need to go to Law for them the Quaker would be as ready to pay them as the Priest should be to receive them I also shewed in my former Answer pag. 361 362. That for a Minister of Christ to sue men at Law for his Belley is without all Precept President or Ground in Scripture Religion or Reason and that it is contrary to the nature of a Gospel-Maintenance which is altogether free and voluntary not at all compuâ—sory But this the Priâ—sts both one and t'other chose rather to let pass untouch't than give occasion for further inquiry into it But the other Priest in his Vindication of the Conference pag. 327. though he silently slips over what I said against Priest
depends upon a ministerial Function In like manner when I say I claim as a man it is clear I there intend man in that sense wherein Man is opposed to a Minister of Christ and therefore afterwards speaking of the Priests Claim I say he claims not as a Man but as a Minister of Christ. Neither did I say as the Priest replies that I claim meerly in my natural capacity or barely as a man nor could the Priest in his right Wits understand me so to mean But this is a meer Catch of his to avoid the force of my Argument and make his less-observant Readers think he has said something whenas indeed what he has said is nothing at all to the purpose When I say I claim in a natural and civil capacity I include those civil Qualifications which may justly entitle to such a claim whether they arise from Purchase Heirship Free Gift Civil Office or any other of like nature and I shew that the Priest not claiming in this capacity noâ— by vertue of any of these or such like Qualifications his claim to Tythes and mine to my temporal Estate differ in the very ground and nature of them not in the several sorts of civil Claims as if one claimed by purchase t'other by descent c. but in the nature of the Claims themselves one being natural or civil t'other spiritual or religious Now the Priest claiming Tythes not in a civil capacity not upon civil qualifications but in a spiritual or religious capacity upon religious qualifications as a Priest and pretended Minister of Christ that which will make good my civil claim to my Estate will not make good his religious claim to Tythes The difference between civil and religious capacities and qualifications and the Claims arising therefrom may appear the more clearly if we consider them both in one and the same Person Suppose at this time as was formerly frequent a Clergy-man or Priest were Chancellor of England or invested with any other civil Office he by vertue of that civil qualification would have a good claim to such temporal Estate as should be annext to that civil Office with which he is so invested but he could not claim that Estate by vertue of his Priesthood or as a man religiously qualified any more then he could claim Tythes by vertue of his Chancellorship or as a man civilly qualified Hence the necessary and unavoidable distinction between civil religious Qualifications and Claims is manifest Now as he that makes claim to an Estate by vertue of a civil Qualification ought to prove maintain defend his Claim by humane Laws as being suitable to the nature of his Claim so he that makes claim to Tythes by vertue of a religious qualification ought to prove maintain defend his claim by divine Laws as being suitable to the nature of his Claiâ— But the Priest having wrested my words from a natural and civil capacity to a MEER natural capacity void of all civil Qualifications goes on to make what Advantage he can by this unworthy Pervertion Well sayes he the Priest hath a natural capacity also as well as T. E. is as much and as good a man as he but this alone gives him no Title to his Tythes he claims them in a spiritual capacity as T. E. claims his Estate in a civil capacity and now why is not a spiritual capacity as good a ground of claim to an Estate legally settled upon it as a civil capacity pag. 144. If he means by legally settled settled by divine spiritual Laws as Tythes were on the Iewish Priests a spiritual capacity is as Good a ground of claim to an Estate settled as a civil capacity is of claim to an Estate so settled by humane Laws but a spiritual capacity is not so good a ground of claim to an Estate settled by humane Laws as a civil capacity because a Claim grounded on a civil capacity is of the same nature with humane Laws and properly determinable by them but in a Claim grounded on a spiritual capacity it is not so He sayes pag. 145. An Estate in Land Rent-charge or Tâ—lls and Customs may be settled on the Mayor of such a City and on his Successors forever and then whoso sustains that Charge and bears that Office hath as good a Claim by Law to that In-come as â— E. hath to the Estate he is born to They claim sayes he under different Qualifications but one hath as good a Temporal Right for his time as the other He should have done well to have shewed the different Qualifications under which the Mayors of a City successively claim an Estate settled upon their Office I confess I do not see how they can claim under different qualifications since each of them claims as he is Mayor But if the Priest has any Crochâ—t in his Head as his own phrase is to help him out as he seldom is without a Meuse and can find any difference in their qualifications as Mayors or by which they claim yet surely he will not find the difference between Civil and Religious qualifications among them whatever qualifications the Mayors of a City may claim by they are all Civil I trow ne doe not mean I suppose that some of the Mayors claim their Toll c. under civil qualifications and some under Religious qualifications â—f not how impertinent is it to the purpose how irrelative to the Case in hand Neither is what follows of any more force or any whit more to the purpose Why sayes he ibid. is not a Religious Office as endowable as a Civil Office Sure his being a Minister of Christ makes him not uncapable of a temporal right for St. Paul saith the King is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Minister of God Rom. 13. 4. One's being a Minister of Christ doth not make him uncapable of a temporal Right nor any whit more capable of a temporal Right If he that is a Minister of Christ has right to a temporal Estate patrimonial or other which he claims and holds in a civil capacity his being a Minister of Christ doth not divest him of his Right to that temporal Estate as it would not invest him with such a Right if he were not in such a civil capacity and under such a qualification as doth entitle him to it Thus we see many of the Clergy have temporal Estates which they claim and hold in a civil capacity as men under such civil qualifications without any regard to their Priestly Function and in their enjoyment of those Estates no man I suppose impugns them But to what end doth the Priest urge the words of St. Paul that the King is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Minister of God Methinks he should not mean that the King is the Minister of God in the same sense wherein he himself pretends to be a Minister of Christ. But if he would needs make the King a Clergy man he might one would think have holpen him to an
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
It is plain that by an Estate of Inheritance or Free-hold the Statute here intends those Tythes that then were or after should come to be in the possession of Lay-men and appropriated to Temporal or Lay uses which implies it did not account Tythes an Estate of Inheritance or Free-hold to the Priests for then this distinction had been needless Besides the Statute sayes The Person or Persons so diâ—â—eised c. their Heirs Wives c. shall have remedy in the King 's temporal Courts c. and amongst other Writs by which they may proceed directs Writs of Dower All which have manifest Relation to the Impropriator's Titâ—e not to the Priest's for what Priest as a Priest can make his Wife a Dower of Tythes Or what hath a Priest's Heir or Wife to do with Tythes when he is dead But this Priest would gladly strengthen his Claim by twisting in the Impropriator's with it Therefore he sayes pag. 186. Those very Laws which made the Aâ—â—enation did not give the Laiâ—y any other Estate in Tythes than such as the Clergy had before and such â—s the rest of the Clergy had then to the Tythes remaining in Ecclesiastical Hands This is disproved by an Instance which himself gives pag. 185. which is â—f a Writ of Dower of praediâ—l Tythes brought in the Countess of Oxford ' s case 5. Iacob By which it appears that Tythes were settled in Dower upon that Countess as he stiles her which they could not have been if her Husband had not had another Estate in Tytheâ— than such as the Clergy then had or now have For no body I suppose â—â—magins that the Clergy have such an Estate in Tythes as by vertue of which they can settle Tythes in 〈◊〉 upon their Wives He that will take the pains to consult that Statute 32 H. 8. 7. will find that what it speaks of Estates of Inheritance Free-hâ—ld c. hath respect to Lay-men not to the Clergy For although in the second and last Paragrapâ—s where it directs the remedy for recovery of Tythes in case of substraction or detention thereof it expresly mentions Ecclesiastical as well as Lay Persons restraining the remedy for both to Ecclesiastical Courts and Laws yet in the seventh Paragraph where an Estate of Inheritance or Free-hold in Tythes is spoken of there is no mention made or notice taken of the Clergy not a word of any Ecclesiastical person but those Terms Estate of Inheritance Free-hold c. are expresly there applied to such Tythes c. as then were or should afterward be made temporal or admitted to be abide and go to or in temporal Hands and lay uses and profits c. And in case of diâ—â—elsure of such Estate of Inheritance Free-hold c. the Remedy was not restrained to the Eccesiastical Courts as in the other case wherein Ecclesiastical persons were concerned but left to the King 's temporal Courts From all which I gather that those words in the Statute Estate of Inheritance Frâ—â—hold c. have no relation at all to the Clergy noâ— do any way concern Ecclesiastical persons but were inserted purposely for the sakes of those â—ay-persons into whose Hands such Estates were then already come or likely to come And that the Law-makers then did understand the Laity to have another Estate in Tythes then the Clergy had The Author of the Conference in his Vindication pag. 316. hath another trick to prove Tythes a â—ree-hold and that is this He asks his Parishioner Who elect the Parliament-men that serve for the Counâ—y The Parishoner answers The Free-holders And did you never sayes he see Clergy mens Votes entred at one of those Elections Yes many a time quoth the Parishioner That very thing replies he proves them Free-holders But by his leave the proving some Priests Free-holders doth not prove Tythes a Free-hold Many of the Priests have temporal Estates Lands of Inheritance or purchase which gives them a Right of suffraâ—e in such Elections But then it must be considered that in such cases though they are Clergy Men they do not Vote as Clergy men but as men possest of such temporal Estates or Free-holds Beâ—ides most of the Priests have Gâ—ebe-Lands which may with less â—epugnancy to reason be called a Fâ—ee-hold than Tythes And this Priest hath not expressed upon which of these considerations it is that his Clergy-mens Votes are entred Now if he intendâ—d to have proveâ— by this Medium that Tythes are a Free-hold to the Clergy he should have demonstrated that every Priest that takes Tythes is thereby inabled to give a Voice in the Election of Parliament Men Which if they are not it is ratheâ— an Argument against him then for him and shews that Tythes are not a Freeâ—hold to the Clergy But of that let Lawyers â—udge I only add That as the Priests are unlike the Ministers of the Gospel in taking Tythes at all so they are much more unlike them in claiming a legal property and Free-hold therein And if Tythes may in any Notion of Law be called a Free-hold they are as I said in my former Book pag. 331. such a Free-hold as holdâ— the greatest part of the Nation in bondage â—ut he is angry that I say These Statutes foâ— Tythes were grounded on a false supposition That Tythes were due to God and Holy Church This he calls a repeating of old baffled falshoods pag. 188. and sayes he has proved this was a true supposition and maintained by the Primitive Orthodox Fathers adding that nothing is more false than my saying This was a Doctrine purely Popish and hatch'd at Rome he leaves out and here preach't up with thundring Excommunications by the l ope's Emmissaries and Agents which he knew could not be denyed and woâ—ld hâ—lp to discover where the Doctrine was hatch'd However he makes the validity and force oâ— the Statutes to depend on the Truth of this supposition That Tythes are due to God and Holy â—hurch for he sayes Since thesâ— Statutes were grounded on a Primitive and Protestant Doctrine thâ— Statutes are therefore good pag. 89. But by the rule of contraries If these Statutes were not grounded on a Primitive and Protestant Doctrine the Statutes are not therefore good Now that this Doctrine of Tythes being due to God and Holy Church was not a Primitive Doctrine appears in that therâ— is no mention of this Doctrine in any of the Writings of the New-Testament wherein the primitive Doctrines of Christianity are delivered This Doctrine is no where there to be found Nor iâ— the more simple and leâ—s corrupted Ages of the Church and nearest to the Apostles times was this Doctrine received But in the more distant Ages from the Aâ—â—stles when the Church became greatly corrupted both in doctrine and practice sprung up this Doctrine of Tythes being due to God and Holy Church and may truly be reckoned amongst those Doctrines and superstitious Practices which by the corruption of time have pâ—evailed in the Church of Rome contrâ—ry
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