and Schismaticks saith S. Augustine (r) August 50 Epist ad Bonif. Com. to Bonifacius where he observes the Donatists used this very Objection which our Quakers now use and he learnedly proves That Gentiles were first to be invited in but when the Church is setled whatever straying Sheep wilfully leave the Fold these are to be compelled by Laws and moderate Penalties to return into the Fold alledging That to compel Men to that which is good is very lawful and an act of necessary Charity to their Souls yea a Duty of Christian Princes and a means which had brought many to see their Errors and repent Let T. E. read and answer the excellent Arguments in that Epistle if he can And withal let him observe it is not the Priests compel them but the Laws of the Land The Priests indeed see them in desperate Heresies and most wicked Schism and in pity to their Souls admonish them warn them 1 Thess v. 14. and labour to convince them by Arguments yea at length they use the Censures of the Church and finally as the last remedy complain to the Secular Magistrate to try if any thing will bring them to a better mind knowing that sometimes the rod and reproof give wisdom And this is no more than S. Paul threatned 2 Cor. x. 6. and acted also in delivering the incestuous Corinthian to Satan punshing his outward Man for the health of his Soul 1 Cor. v. 5. 'T is no more than a careful Father doth to his refractory Son Let not them therefore saith S. Augustine who being in Heresie and Schism are compelled to come in reprove us that they are compelled but consider whither we would compel them (ſ) August Epist 50. ut supra to Unity and Peace to a right Faith and to submission to their Governours to the Service of God and the Salvation of their Souls Nor doth our State use any Capital Punishments any Spanish Cruelties or Popish Fire and Faggot toward them but by moderate Penalties labours to reduce them which is no more than the first Christian Emperours did to reduce the Hereticks of those days by Fines Imprisonment banishing them out of eminent Cities burning their Books and prohibiting their Assemblies but still preserving their Lives in hopes of their Repentance And when our Magistrates imitate Holy Constantine and Theodosius herein the Quakers most unjustly call it Persecution § 50. He adds pag. 359. Christ gave us no power to demand a Maintenance from those who do not receive us Nor do we demand of the Quakers to give us one single Penny more than what was given to us and setled on us many hundred years ago we onely ask our own we onely ask that which the Quaker did not take of his Landlord that which was or ought to have been abated in his Rent If a Tenant be to pay an Annuity to a Lord as Free-Rent or to an Hospital or other Person will his saying he doth not receive him or them excuse him from paying the Money Our Lord JESVS owns us for his Ministers and the Laws of the Land own us and declare we are the Persons to whom this Estate belongs and what have the Quakers to do to dispute our Title any more than they do their Lords Title to his Estate The Papists pay us Tythes here in England and we should pay them if we lived in France If the State assign Tythes to a wrong Order of Men it is their fault But I am sure Tythes are not the Country-mans he may not keep them but must pay them as the Laws direct and is innocent in so doing Our Right to Tythes depends not at all upon Mens being willing or unwilling to come and hear us and the Quaker is sadly mistaken to think we come to sell them our Sermons or that Tythes are a Price which is the Quakers own to give The folly of all these Pretences was shewed before § 51. As for Going to Law for Tythes you have fully proved it lawful in the Conference and the Quaker answers not one of your Arguments so that till he reply to that I will onely note That it is much against our will that we are forced to sue for our just Dues and where a Legal Right is demanded the Sin lies at the Defendents door who will maintain an unjust Cause and force the Plaintiff to use this uneasie and ungrateful Method If it would not be too tedious I could shew him Examples of Primitive Gospel-Ministers upon the Churches Settlement requiring Justice of the Emperours against the Sacrilegious Invaders of the Sacred Revenue but it is time enough to produce Examples when he hath answered your Reasons already produced § 52. His Conclusion pag. 363. admonisheth me that 't is time for me to conclude also when I have made a Remark or two upon his pleasant Epilogue which I dare say would afford you as it did me the just occasion for a smile to observe what rare effects the happy conjunction of Ignorance and Folly have produced in your Adversary You said That the Quakers were quite different from the Primitive Christians which he thinks to avoid by calling it an old overworn Objection And truly as an Objection it is as old as the Quakers first appearance in the World but the Answer to it will be an unheard of Novelty And indeed the Quakers may be ashamed to let the Objection grow old and over-worn before they have either confessed the Truth or made some satisfactory Reply thereunto But the merriest passage is that T.E. who knows nothing of Ecclesiastical History and Antiquity and is a perfect Stranger to the Judgment and Practice of the Primitive Christians having scarce heard of the Names of the most Eminent Fathers as he hath abundantly manifested in this Book that he should challenge the poor ignorant Priests and attempt to threaten you into silence by daring you to dispute on this Question Risum teneatis Amici Doubtless if T. E. without going down to the Philistins of Rome should of a sudden become able to dispute well about the Doctrine and Discipline and Rights of the Primitive Church it would be the most famous Instance of immediately inspired Teaching that this Age ever saw And if he can prove that these Ancient Christians had no distinct Order of Men to Officiate in Divine things no Sacrament of the Lords Supper no Baptism with Water no Catechizing no Oblations at the Altar no separate Places for Worship and Set Forms for Sacred Administrations no Festival and Fasting Days no Kneeling at Prayers no singing of Praises nor answering of Amen c. he hath some rare Revelations sure about those Times and is able to confute S. Ignatius Justin Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Cyprian Origen and the rest of those Eldest Fathers in Matters done in their own time A very grand Undertaking which none would have boasted of but T. E. and none but an undiscerning Quaker can be persuaded it is possible to be
it be not brought to him and tender'd Now will the Quaker say This shews That the Lords Title to this Free-Rent lies in the Gift of him that is bound to pay it and that the Property of it is vested in him who incurs a Penalty if he do not make it ready and come and tender it T. E. is a rare Lawyer and can make the worst Tenures to seem the best and the Badges of having no Right at all to a thing to be the Marks of Property If I delighted to talk like T. E. I might pretend it to be a Sign that the Husbandman had no Property in the Nine parts but by the Gift of the Parson because the Law forbids him to lead away any of the Nine parts till the Parson have notice to come and take his Tenth But I scorn such fooling § 37. And now he is forced pag. 338. to supply his emptiness of Matter by repeating his old silly and blasphemous Argument That it is ridiculous and unreasonable for any to pretend a Power to dispose of those Profits or any part of them which arise from the Labour Stock and Care of another especially after their own Decease which I have sufficiently baffled before § 30. And here I will onely remark how that this Argument if it were good doth utterly take away all the Impropriators Right to their Estates in Tythes how much soever he flatter'd them before pag. 299. For are not their Tythes granted to their Ancestors long ago and by them setled on their Children a part of the Profits of another Mans Labour Stock Care c. and do they not claim a Property in them And doth not Elwood tell them they are ridiculous and unreasonable Men to think any could grant such a Property to them or that they have any Right to them at present or can convey them to their Posterity T. E's own words will serve to set out this matter Let any Impropriators read his Book pag. 225 335 336 338 339. and then let me bespeak them in T. E's own phrase Look to your selves you whose Ancestors first did buy these Tythes of the Crown or into whose Possession they are come now by Descent or Purchase Are you satisfied with the Quaker 's Plea and willing to resign You hear what he says And do you not think if T. E. had Power you should not hear of this after another manner He that tells you Tythes cannot be granted or conveyed if opportunity served would force you to restore them to his painful Husbandman See Elwood p. 297 298. And now you may discern the Genius of this double-tongued and false-hearted Man who talks backward or forward as may best serve his turn clawing the Impropriators to engage them to take his part against the Clergie and again laying down Assertions that make the Levites of old the Clergie and Impropriators now to be a company of ridiculous and unreasonable Men to pretend a Right to Tythes to which none could ever grant them any Right at all As for Artificers paying Tythes of their Gains it is no more than what they are obliged to by S. Paul's Rule Galat. vi 6. to give their Pastor a share of all good things and it is enjoyned by S. Augustine and by S. Ambrose and by divers Saxon Laws cited before And since they have Souls to save as well as others they seem obliged to it in Reason and Conscience But this is seldom demanded except in great Cities where the Laws of the Land enjoyn it Finally We grant to T. E. Tythes are due out of the Profits onely and therefore if God give no Increase or the Husbandman have nothing grow we expect no Tythe at all And how is this unreasonable § 38. The Quaker will not grant that his Arguments for taking away Tythes tend to destroy Hospitals and Donations to the Poor for this Reason sorsooth pag. 542. Because in that of the Poor there is saith he a Settlement of certain Lands in which the Donor had a Legal Property at the time of the Gift but in the Increase of the Occupiers Stock he that gave Tythes neither had nor never could have a Property and therefore no power to give 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 Again By his own confession all Hospitals endowed out of Tythes and all Gifts to the Poor granted out of Tythes for perpetuity are void And since in King Henry the Eighth's time there are several such Instances and the famous Hospital of Sutton called the Charterhouse hath one part of its Revenue in Tythes now if T. E's Argument be good these Hospitals and Gifts also must necessarily be destroyed or much impaired A third sort of these Charitable Donations consist of perpetual Rent-charges and certain Sum of Money to be paid yearly for ever out of the Profits of some certain Estate I my self know an Estate of 40 l. per Annum the Heirs whereof for ever are charged to pay 10 l. per Annum out of the Profits of that Estate to the Poor of three Parishes by the Grant of a pious Person deceased And there are hundreds of such Instances in England Now the Occupiers of the Lands thus charged must sell the Fourth or other part of the Profits produced by their Labour Sweat Stock Skill and Industry and when it is turned into Money must pay it intirely to the Poor of those Parishes and Hospitals who never did any thing for this Occupant onely because he inherits or is possessed of the Land formerly thus charged by its ancient pious Owner he must pay such a part of the said Profits Now T. E. overthrows all these Donations also in affirming That no Man can charge his Heirs for ever with such a part of the Profits arising out of their or their Tenants Charge Stock Care Skill many years after the death of the Donor The Money for these Payments are raised out of the Increase of the Occupiers Stock wherein according to T. E. no Man now deceased ever had or could have a Property and therefore no power to give That these Donations also are made void by T. E's wicked and sophistical Arguings So that however the Quaker destroys all Charitable Donations excepting such as are made in Lands given wholly to the Hospitals or other Poor And truly these will not stand long neither for all other Men believe the ancient Donors had not more or better Right to give away the Land it self than they have to dispose of such a part of the Profits thereof T. E. who question 's the one may question the other also And thus that he may starve the Clergie he attempts to starve all the Poor in England also in their company § 39. His next Position pag. 343. is That Tythes are a
Ethelwolph did this alone since he confessed pag. 285. that his Nobles consented to the Gift and if he have read the Charter as he pretends he must know that Ingulph saith it was made All the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of England being present and subscribing to it as also Beorred King of Mercia and Edmund King of the East-Angles before the Abbots Abbesses Dukes Earls and Nobles of the whole Land and an infinite multitude of other Faithful People who all consented to the Kings Charter and the Men of Dignity subscribed their Names (z) Ingulph apud Spelm. p. 350. We have also noted before how often this Donation hath been confirmed by the whole Nations Representative since that time which T. E. could not be ignorant of but to serve his ends he conceals all this meerly to get an occasion to Indite good King Ethelwolph of Invading his Subjects Properties § 30. But his Conscience accusing him for this Slander in pag. 323. he supposes that Ethelwolph did it by general consent and then says If it were so yet neither could he single nor they all conjoyned give any more than belonged to themselves viz the Tenth part of their Land or of the Yearly Profits for their own Lives but to make a Grant of the Tenth part of the Profits of the Land for ever is to my understanding saith he utterly repugnant to Reason It may be repugnant to his Understanding so sadly corrupted by Prejudice but it is agreeable enough to the Reason and the Practice of all other Men for the Lords in Fee to give what part of the Profits of their Estate they please for ever Is it not usual for such as settle their Estates to oblige their Heirs for ever to pay out of it a Sixth Eighth or Tenth part of the Rents of that Estate which the Heirs many hundred years after are obliged to pay to the Uses appointed by the first Donor Are not all perpetual Rent-charges and Grants with reservation of Free-Rents with many Donations of certain yearly Sums to Colleges Schools and Hospitals c. are not these Grants of such a part of the Profits of a Mans Estate for ever The Lawyers will deride T. E's Understanding in the Law as much as we do his skill in the Gospel and they will inform him That a Man is not absolute Master of his Estate unless he can make such Grants as these But that which stumbles T.E. is That In the Profits of the Land rightly computed the Labour Sweat Care Charge Skill Industry Diligence c. of the Husbandman are included and that inseparably for these are the Instrumental Causes of Production To admit then a Power in any Man to give the Tythes of the Profit beyond his own Life were to suppose a Power in that Man to give away the Labour Care Skill Charge Diligence and Industry of another which Reason gainsays And a little after It is most ridiculous This is his main Argument which he glories in much and repeats often but there is nothing at all in it but Mistake Falshood and Impiety For if T. E. will grant That it is lawful for a Lord to lay a perpetual Rent-charge upon his Estate to be paid in Money than which nothing is more common or more legal he must grant it is as lawful for this Lord to charge his Estate with paying the Tenth part of the Profits in specie For doth not the raising the Sum of Money setled by Rent-charge suppose 10 l. or 20 l. per Annum include the Labour Sweat Care Charge Skill and Industry of the Husbandman as well as the preparing the Tythe Nay the paying a Rent-charge in Money requires more Labour Charge and Pains than paying Tythes in specie for the Husbandman must not onely get his Profits together but carry suppose his Corn into the Barn thresh it winnow it and carry it out again and sell it and after all this he must pay this Money for which such a proportion of his Profits were sold Whereas Tythe being paid in specie needs onely be got together and the Husbandman hath no more charge nor trouble with it And besides Tythe is a more equitable Payment by far than a certain Sum of Money setled by Rent-charge for if the Land yield little Profit the Priest hath but little Tythes but Rent-charges must be paid in full even when the worst Years come without any Consideration If the whole Profits of the Land do not yield twice as much the utmost Farthing of the Rent-charge must be paid Now let any rational Man judge whether the granting of a perpetual Rent-charge be not to give away the Labour Charge and Industry of another as well as the granting of Tythes And yet I think T. E. is not so bereft of all sense that he will say such Rent-charges are ridiculous or unreasonable Besides we see that all Landlords who let long Leases and settle the Rents on their younger Children or more distant Relations do give away the Profits of the Husbandmans Labour Charge and Industry not onely the Tenth but the Third part of them at least But T. E. will reply A Man may charge his Tenants successively with such a Payment of the Part of the Profits of their Labour because he affords them Land to work upon but he cannot charge his Heirs successively I answer That the Lord also doth afford his Heirs Land to raise this Payment out of Pray how came this present Possessor to have any Right to this Land Doth he not derive his Right from his Forefathers T. E. grants they might have sold off what part of the Land they pleased and since they transmit it intire may they not leave a Charge upon it And if the Heir will not pay the Charge he must renounce the Land also For it is a Maxim in all Laws That the Burthen discends with the Inheritance And he that will not have the Incumbrance must not have the Benefit And in point of Reason why hath not the Father as good Right to oblige his Posterity as they have to possess his Lands Why should not the Father be obeyed by the Sons as well as the Sons provided for by the Father He might have charged his Posterity with the Tenth part of the best Years Profits in Money but now the Charge is onely the bare Tenth of the Years Profits be it less or more which all Men but Quakers will grant is an easie Charge If T. E. shall say The Land hath gone through many Hands since I answer Whoever bought this Land or howsoever it was conveyed no following Owner can sell that part of the Profits which he never had conveyed to him of which more hereafter At present it shall suffice to note this Argument of the Quakers is Protestatio contra factum and so signifies nothing at all It is an attempt to prove That cannot be done which is done as well in this as in other like Cases and That ought not to be
That A purchases D's Estate in the Tythes without his knowledge or consent by vertue of the general Words in the Conveyance from C If so the poor Impropriator hath an ill Bargain for then C may sell D's Estate in Tythes and A buy it and he receive nothing for it Now if the Impropriators Estate in Tythes do not pass by the general Words in the Conveyance from the Seller of the Land no more doth the Clergie-mans Estate in Tythes so pass Yea T. E. is so far mistaken in thinking general Words include Tythes that if the Lord of a Mannor whose Tythes belonged to the Clergie should expresly declare in his Deed of Sale That he did sell the Tythes such a Clause would not give the Buyer the least Right to them For private Contracts can make no alteration in things determined by the publick Laws Ex solenni Jure privatorum conventione nihil quicquam immutandum est (k) Reg. Jur. 27. But this matter is so plain that the Quaker fraudulently leaves out those Words of the Conveyance which would have discovered his Knavery in this false Assertion for thus he cites the words of the Deed to prove that the Purchaser buys the Tythes with the Land The said A grants bargains sells c. all that c. with its Appurtenances and every Part and Parcel thereof and also all the Estate Right Title Interest Property Claim and Demand whatsoever c. There he stops with an c. because 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 do manifest that the Purchaser buys no more Estate or Right than the Seller had to or in the Premises And indeed he could purchase no more for Nemo plus Juris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse haberet (l) Vlp. l. 46. ad Edict The Seller did not purchase the Tythes himself nor did they discend to him from his Ancestors but have been a distinct collateral Estate this many hundred Years which never passed between Father and Son Buyers and Sellers but remained in statu quo prius how many times soever the Land changed its Owners They were not capable of being sold nor alienated no not by the consent of the Incumbent himself since they are an Intailed Estate and The Church saith my Lord Coke is always a Minor and in the State of one under Age (m) In Mag. Chart. p. 3. And none can alienate a Minors Land And if T. E. would know the Reason why they are not excepted in the Purchase by name as Free-Rents and Rent-charges sometimes are I answer 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 and are sufficiently known to the whole Nation and confirmed by the consent of Kings and Parliaments and so need not be excepted by name as private Charges are And yet T. E. must know That if an Owner should sell an Estate in general words and not except nor mention a Free-Rent or Rent charge this would not discharge the Buyer from paying it nor destroy his Right to whom the said Rent was due Caveat Emptor Much less can the not excepting Tythes prejudice the Churches Right And thus T. E's Law comes to nothing § 41. In the next place he presents us pag. 346. with a Demonstration to prove That though the Tenant be abated by his Landlord in consideration of his Tythe yet the Abatements saith T. E. made in the Rents in respect of Tythes are not so great as the Tythes I answer That is none of the Priests fault who is not a Party to their Bargain But if there be not an Abatement proportionable to so known a Payment it is either the fault of the Landlord who will abate no more or the folly of the Tenant who consents to pay so much The Tythes are the known Interest of a third person so that the Landlord cannot justly demand any thing for them nor the Tenant prudently yield to pay any thing on account of them But let us hear his Demonstration or rather Supposition Suppose a Farm of the value of 100 l. per Annum if Tythe-free the Landlord abating 10 l. in consideration of the Tythe lets it for 90 l. per Annum Now the whole Profits of this Farm he supposes worth three times 90 l. that is 270 l. per Annum the full Tythe whereof is 27 l. per Annum so that the Tenant being onely abated 10 l. in consideratton of Tythes pays 27 l. for them Now all this is a meer Chymaera as I will shew when I have asked T. E. two Questions First Why did not his wise Tenant knowing such a Payment as 27 l. must go out of his Farm expect and stand upon more Abatement He should have yielded to pay onely 73 l. per Annum and then all had been right Secondly If the Landlord abates the Quaker 10 l. per Annum in consideration of Tythe to be paid Whether is not the Quaker a Knave who puts this 10 l. per Ann. in his own Pocket and will pay no Tythe at all I believe all the Parsons in England would compound with the Quakers after this rate that the Landlord allows But to examine his Device we find three faults with this Supposition of T. E.'s First He supposes the Landlords to be better than usually they are for I fear there are few Landlords who will or do let a Farm for 90 l. per Annum out of which they know may be made 270 l. Secondly He supposes the Tenants to get more Profit than any of them actually gain or than indeed it is reasonable they should For if the Landlord receive onely one 90 l. the Tenant hath another 90 l. to repay him for his Charge Care and Pains in Managing and a third 90 l. the Tenant hath remaining clear Profit to himself which is as much Profit as the Landlord himself gets by his own Estate which he purchased so that the Tenant hath as much benefit by another Mans Estate as the right Owner Thirdly And both these Suppositions are meerly to accuse the Parson of taking more for Tythe than ever he is likely to receive for what Parson did ever receive 27 l. per Annum for a 90 l. Farm Experience teacheth us that considering the small profit of Pasture-grounds together with Customs ill Payments and Concealment c. we scarce ever get so much as 20 s. 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 90 l. per Annum Now if the Landlord abates 10 l. a year in respect of Tythes and the Tenant pays but 9 l. a year then Tythes are