of the Church of Rome yea some of the Cardinals have done the like as Perkins shews â—rob pag. 48. And if it be true that he himself sayes pag. 123. that the putting the Apocrypha into the Canon of Scripture was never decreed till the Council of Trenâ— about a Hundred and Ten Years ago then before that time the Church of Rome it self had not the Apocrypha in the Canon of Scripture any more then the Saxons had and yet I think he will not say the Church of Rome was not Popish oâ— Idoâ—atrous before the Council of Trent In the close of this Section he sayes Finally if T. E. have either shame or grace let him Repent of this foul Slander which he hath as falsly as maliciously cast upon our fore-Fathers the pious Saxons But if T. E. will not Recant I shall leave it to the Reader to judge of his ignorance and impudence pag. 135. Because there is nothing in this but Scurrility and Railing instead of Reason I intend no Reply to it but will take notice of another passage or two in the same page §23 First he sayes The Saxons were more Orthodox in SOME points then ROME it self then was A goodly commendation Was Rome it self so Orthodox then in his account that he makes her the â—tandard to measure others by Rome it self no doubt was somewhat less corrupt then then in after Ages she grew to be yet he that with an impartial Eye shall view the state of the Romish Church in those times will find her far enough from being Orthodox And if the Saxon Church was not in ALL points so depraved as Rome it self then was yet was she also too unsound in Faith to be reputed Orthodox But secondly the Saxons sayes he differed from the present Papists in all the most material Articles of Faith being nearer in Opinion to the Protâ—stant Church of England It seems then they are not one with the Protestant Church of England but only nearer in Opinion to it then to the present Papists Yet in pag. 102. he sayâ—â— The Clergy of that Age were Gods only publick Ministers and pag. 112. he makes no doubt but they were the right Ministers of God which if they were how comes it that they were not positively one with the Protestant Church of England but only nearer to it then to the present Papists But wherein were they nearer to the Protestant Church of England then to the present Papists Not I hope in their shaven Crowns not in their Monkish Life not iâ— their Vows of continency not in their going on Pilgrimages not in their belief of Purgatory not in thâ—ir praying for the Dead not in their sacrificing for the Dead not in the worshipping of Relicks not in the praying to Saints not in saying Mass not in Latine service not in auricular Confession not in extream Vnction not in the use of Chrism not in the use of Holy Water to drive away Devils or of â—onsecrated Oyl to allay Storms and Tempests In these I â—row and such like things as these they were nearer the present Papists then the Protestant Church of England But thirdly He charges me with ignorance and impudence in supposing the Church so much corupted with Popery then that their very Donations were not fit to stand good or be enjoyed no not by a Protestant Ministry No sure not by a Protestant Ministry of all other for since it is denominated Protestant from protesting against Popery what can be more unsuitable to it then to subsist by a Donatioâ— which was made to uphold that which it hath protested against By a Protestant Ministry he means no doubt a true Gospel Ministry the nature and qualifications whereof if he rightly understood he would not think that such a Ministry hath a greater liberty to enjoy a Popish Donation then another but a less in as much as such a Ministry ought more especially to abstain not only from known and certain Evil but even from every appearance of Evil and not only to avoid the works of the Flesh but to hate even the Garment spotted with the Flesh. So that I account the Church so corrupted with Popery then that their Donations of Tythes are not fit to be enjoyed by any Ministry at all much less by a Protestant Ministry That the Church then was indeed greatly corrupted with Popery is evident by the many instances given of Doctrines and Practices received and held therein which beyond all contradiction have through the corruption of time prevailed in the Church of Rome contrary to the true ancient Catholick and Apostolick Church Nor is it likely it should be otherwise if we consider the Constitution of the Church here in those times For when Austin the Monk came hither from Rome and â—ound some reception here he sent to the Pope for advice and direction how to form settle govern that Church which he then was gathering and from the Pope he received Instructions in all particulars he desired to be informed in From the Pope he received the Power he here exercised and the Pall of his Arch-Bishoprick as his Successors generally did And the Religion and Worship which he brought with him from Rome grew by degrees to be the general Religion and Worship of the Nation For although the Profession of Christianity had been in this Island long before Austin came hither yet had it been much deprest by Heathenism and the remains of it shortly after extinguished by Austin and his Sectators Austin being dead his Successors for a long time after were such as the succeding Popes sent over hither Fox reckons them in this order Laurentius Mellitus Iustus Honorius Deusdedit which last being dead Oswi and Egbert Kings of Northumberland and Canterbury sent Wighard a Presbyter to Rome with great Gifts and Presents of Silver and Golden Vessels to Pope Vitalianus to be by him ordained Arch-Bishop but he delivering his Message and Presents to the Pope died at Rome before he could be consecrated whereupon the Pope writes a Letter to King Oswi commending his zeal and care and sends him some Relicks of the Apostles Peter Paul of other Saints as he calls them and to the Queen his Wiâ—e the Pope sent a Cross with a golden Nail in it withal he acquaints the King that so soon as he could find a Man fit for the place he would not fail to send him an Arch-Bishop Accordingly after much inquiry Theodorus at length was found but he being Born at Tharsus of Cilicia had his Crown clipt after the Eastern manner in imitation as they pretended of St. Paul so that he was fain to wait four Moneths till his Hair was grown that he might have the right cut as they accounted it that done he was ordained Arch-Bishop of Canterbury by Pope Vitalianus and soon after he set forward for England accompanied with Adrian and other Monks about the Year 668. This is that Theodorus who Fox sayes was sent into England by
not defined till Peter â—ombard's dayes yet were there so many other Popish Doctrines and Opinions received in the Church long before as sufficiently prove those times to be Popish from which he fetches his Donation of Tythes Next he says The Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not received for a point of Faith till the Lateran Council above one thousand two hundred years after Christ. Although Transubstantiation was not by publick Decree imposed as an Article of Faith until the Council of Lateran yet was it received and believed by many some hundreds of years before Perkins says Problem pag 145. Disputations began concerning Transubstantiation about the year 840. So that Transubstantiation it seems was a hatching before Ethelwolf's Charter for Tythes was granted And as the Council of Lateran somewhat after the year 1200. was the first that made Transubstantiation an Article of Faith so the same Council of Lateran was the first general Council that decreed â—â—rochial Right to Tythes as Selden proves in his History of Tythes ch 6. § 7. and ch 10. § 2. towards the end So that the general parochial payment of Tythes and the general belief of Transubstantiation were decreed and established at one and the same time in one and the same General Council Purgatory it self he sayes was but a private Opinion and affirmed only by some Anno 1146. and Indulgâ—â—ces can be no older yea their application to Souls in Purgatory was first brought in he says by Boniface the eighth Purgatory saith Perkins pag. 175. was first received in the Church by Tertullian and Origen who both lived about two hundred years after Christ. That it was held by Augustin also and others of the Fathers though in somewhat a different Notion from what it afterward obtained he shews p. 176 and 178. and concludes pag. 180. Ergo Purgatorium quod est inter Mortem et ultimum judicium quodq tantum inservit expurgandis peccatis venialibus paenis temperalibus non â—uit receptum apud â—eteres nisi sorte post annum 600. i. e. Therefore Puâ—gatory which is between Death and the last Iudgment and which serves only to purge venial sins and take away temporal punishments was not received among the Antients unless happily after the year 600. Whence by implication is granted that after the year 600. which was two hundred and fifty years before Ethelwolf's Donation of Tythes Purgatory was received even in this sense among the Antients 'T is true Indulgences can be no older then Purgatory nor need they for that is old enough to prove those times Popish wherein Tythes were granted Polydore Vergil de Invent. Reâ— l. 8. c. 1. searching the Original of them sayes Non reperio ante fuisse quod sciam quam D. Gregorius ad suas stationes id praemij proposuerit i. e. I do not find so far as I know that Indulgences were before St. Gregory proposed that Reward to his Stations which was about the Year 600. Then using the Testimony of the Bishop of Rochester to the same purpose he adds Atque hoc pacto post Gregorium veniarum Seges paulatim crevit cujus messem non exiguam permulti interdum colligerunt c. i. e. And by this means after Gregories time the Crop of Pardons or Indulgences grew up by little and little of which very many have sometimes reapt a large Harvest and whence it appears Indulgences were in use much earlier then the Priest delivers But to proceed the Priest says that the half Communion began but a little before the Council of Constance and was never decreed till then That the putting the Apocripha into the Canon of Scripture and divers other points were never decreed till the Council-of Trent And that if it were not to avoid prolixity he could make it evident That the Pope's universal Supremacy and Infallibility Iuâ—â—ification by the Merit of Good Works Auricular Confession Formal Invocation of Saints and other Corruptions of the modern Papists wâ—re not determined as Articles of Faith no not in Rome it self in Ethelwolf ' s time That many if not most of these were believed and publickly held in the Church of Rome long before Ethelwolf's time is undoubted Concerning the â—ope's Supremacy Perkins sayes Problem pag. 202. Primatus Dominij vel authoritationis in Romano Pontifice ante 600. an ignotus publice et manifeste caepit in Bonifacio anno 607. i. e. The Primacy of Dominion or Authority in the Pope of Rome which was not known before the year 600. began publickly and manifestly in Boniface in the year 607. about two hundred and fifty years before Ethelwolf's Charter And of Confession he sayes pag. 180. Confessio aurâ—cularis id est confessio specialis omnium mortalium peccatorum ad eorundem remissionem necessaria et sacerdoti occulte facta cepit in Ecclesia urgeri et praecipi circa annos a Christo octingentos i. e. Auricular Confession that is particular Confession of all mortal sins held necessary for the obtaining Remission of them and which is made in private to the Priest began to be enforced commanded in the Church about eight hundred years after Christ which was about fifty years before Ethelwolf's Charter And of Invocation of Saints he sayes pag. 89. No Invocation of the Dead can be shewed in the Church for three hundred and fifty years after Christ. Then p. 90. he says This Invocation began to be brought into the use of the Catholick Church about the year 380. by common Custome and private Devotion And pag. 91. he affirms that After the year 400. the antients did commit Sin yea and were guilty of Sacriledge in the Invocation of Saints of which he gives many Instances full of gross Impiety and then adds pag. 94. The Invocation which in former Ages was of private Devotion began to be publick about the year 500. for then Petrus Gnaphaeus mingled the Invocation of Saints with the publick Prayers of the Church For he is said to have invented this that in every Prayer the Mother of God should be named and her divine Name called upon And about the year 600. Pope Gregory the great commanded a Letany which was made for the Invocation of Saints to be sung publickly Thus we see that these Doctrines which he sayes are properly called Popery were received held believed and publickly professed many a year before Ethelwolf was born And were it not to avoid prolixity I could make it evident that the greatest part of the Errors Corruptions Superstitions and Idolatries of the Church of Rome were received believed and openly maintained long before Ethelwolf made his Donation of Tythes But suppose the particulars he has instanced were not determined as Articles of Faith in Ethelwolf's time but without any such formal Determination were received and commonly believed are they therefore not popish Doth Popery lie only in the Determination of them If they are Errors if they are Corruptions if they are Superstitions if they are Idolatries after they are determined as
by the former Priest I had answered in my former Book and therein shewed by plain demonstration the emptiness of that Argument which because this Priest has but superficially toucht and not endeavoured by any found Reason to refute I think meet to transcribe hither That these were godly men and worthy Martyrs I grant yet will not their receiving Tythes make them either lawful or less Popish in the Institution The lot of those good Men fell in the very spring and dawning as it were of the day of Reformation and it was their happiness and honour that they were faithful even to the Death to those discoveries of Truth which they received But all Truths were not discovered at once nor all Vntruths neither But it being a day of the Infancy of Reformation it pleased God in his infinite wisdom and tenderness to rend the Vail as it were by little and little and so discover things gradually unto them that they might go cheerfully on in their Testimony and not come under thoâ—â— discouragements which the sight of so many difficulties at once might not improbably have brought upon them Nor will this seem strange to any who shall seriously consider that many of the blessed Martyrs who sealed their Testimony with their Blood and entred cheerfully the fiery Chariot had not so full and clear a sight of All the Superstitions and Abominations which in the dark Night of Ignorance had crept into the Church of Rome as it hath pleased God since to give Yet they being faithful to the Lord in what they did see were accepted by him and through Death received a Crown of Life Neither is it a fair way of Reasoning because some who lived but at the Day-break as it were of Reformation did not at that early Hour discover the whole Mystery of Iniquity although they did a great part or bore Testimony against every particular Evil in the Church of Rome although they did against a great many thence to argue that the Mystery of Iniquity extended no further then was discovered unto them or that there was no other Evil in the Church of Rome but what they testified against especially since we find divers things which they took little or no notice of plainly condemned and zealously witnessed against by others who are acknowledged to have been in their respective times Confessors of and true Witnesses for God against the Corruptions and Superstitions of the Romish Church as well as they so that what my Opponent saith in another case pag 114. You must not Interpret one Scripture to overthrow other plain Scriptures The same say I in this He ought not to instance these Menâ— receiving Tythes to overthrow or contradict the plain Testimonies of other faithful Servants of God who denyed them but rather as in the beginning of Christianity the Apostles did not all alike oppose the Ceremonies of the Law but Circumcision and other Rites were born with and for some time used by some of them which in process of time were utterly rejected and denyed by all which yet neither ought to have been nor was made use of by the rest of the Apostles or Churches as an Argument for the lawfulness and continuation of Circumcision or any other of the Iewish Riteâ— So in the Testimonies of those holy Martyrs and Confessors of Jesus what was denyed by some and witnessed against as Popish superstitious and wicked ought not to be received and defended now as not Popish or Superstitious at least by such as pretend to reverence their Testimonies because the same things were not denyed by all for God is not limitable to numbers of Witnesses but he raised up one to bear Testimony against one Corruption another against another Superstition some stormed one part of Babylon some another but did not make their Batteries all in one place Now that Tythes were denyed by mâ—â—y of those Godly Men Fox's Martyrology assures us in the instances of Thorp Swinderby Brute Wickliffe c. some of whom complained of the abuse of Tythes in that they were then fixt and settled as a payment whenas but a little before they were a voluntary free Gift disposable at the will and pleasure of the giver Others utterly denying and rejecting them as no way lawful at all Nay Thorp saith expreâ—â—y That those Priests that do take Tythes deny Christ to be come in the Flesh urging it as the Opinion of one of the Doctors and as he thinks of Ierome And Brâ—te saith not only that no Man is bound to pay Tythes in Gospel-timeâ— but that it is manifest and plain that neither by the Law of Moses nor by Christ's Law Christian People are bound to pay Tythes but by the Traditions of men Hence what Opinion these good men had of Tythes the Reader may judge But for any now to urge in defence and justification of Tythes that Cranmer Hooper Ridley and other Godly Martyrs received them what else is this but to oppose the Martyrs one to another and render them as clashing and warring amongst themselves yea and to endeavour by the practices of some to invalidate and make the Testimony of others utterly void and of no force which I am sure does ill become any Protestant to do and indeed I think none that were truly such would ever have attempted it This was my Answer to the former Priest which this latter Priest hath not by any solid Arguments attempted to reâ—ute but catching here and there at a word he quibbles on it to shew his Wit and levity and besides that doth little else but revile me and vilifie them whose Testimonies I â—sed against Tythes First he Caâ—â—s at those words all Truths were not discovered at once nor all Vâ—truths neither Upon this he sayes pag. 136. It is strange the Quaker should say so who before declared himself to be for unmediate teaching and who pag. 229. assirms The very Babes in Christ knew all things In the first part of this Quirk he only playes upon the word Immediate which being opposed to mediate teaching as mediate signifies means and helps is understood of the inward â—â—aching or speaking of the holy Spirit in the Heart of man without the help or use of outward means and so is called immediate in respect of manner not in respect of time But he that he might seem to say something applyes the word Immediate to time making immediate teaching to sound not a teaching without means and outward helps but a teaching in an instant or on a suddain But if he please to be less disingenuous and remove his own mistake he will find no incongruity in my words In the other part he does not so much Carp at me as Cavil at the Apostle Iohn whose the words are 1 Ioh. 2. 18 20. But if in the fore-going passage he dealt not fairly with me in the following he deals most foully for he affirms that I say pag. 230. If the Saints have not the Spirit in them so as
saying I 〈◊〉 not find any one Instance this single gift of Abrahaâ—'s excepted of giving or receiving Tythes in all that four Hundred Years between this time of Abraham and the Levitical Priest-hoodâ— For he sayes There is a plain Instance in holy Iacob Gen. 28. 22. who made a solemn Vow to give unto God the Tenth of all his Gains If he would have convicted me of a mistake he should have brought an Instance of giving Tythes not of vowing them only My words have respect to the 〈◊〉 of giving his Instance to the intention chiefly I was not ignorant that Iacob had made a conditional Vow to give nor did I question his performance of his Vow but I observed that the Holy Ghost had buried it in silence not vouchâ—asing to record it for an Instance And thereupon I said I do not find any one instance this single Gift of â—brahaâ—'s excepted of giving or receiving much less of demanding or paying Tythes in all that space c. Which words of giving or receiving demanding or paying have a manifest relation to the ultimate act or performance of which the Holy Ghost hath not thought fit to leave an Instance which silent Omission of the Holy Ghost hath no reflection on Iacob's integrity but only argues that the thing it self was not by God designed for our Example But let him call this a mistake of mine yea a gross mistake if he please and thereupon exercise as he does the levity of his Wit and ease himself of a frothy Jest he can not thereby hurt me whatever he may himself I 'll therefore take the less notice of that and apply my self to consider Iacob's Vow which not being mentioned at all by the former Priest I had no occasion to take notice of in my Answer to him I find this Vow of Iacâ—b was made upon an extrâ—ordinary occasion as well as that Gift of Abraham Iacob being afraid of rough Esau who had threatned to take away his Life was fain to leave his Fathers House and Country and with his Staff only to flee to Padam Aram to his Uncle Laban for refuge and being on his way benighted he lay down on the Ground to Sleep having no other Pillow for his Head then an heap of Stones In this distrest condition did the Lord God appear unto him in a Dream and said I am the Lord God of Abraham thy Father and the God of Isaac the Land whereon thou liest to thee will I give it and to thy Seed And thy Seed shalt be as the Dust of the Earth and thou shalt sprâ—ad abroad to the West and to the East and to the North and to the South and in thee and in thy Seed shall all the Families of the Earth be blâ—ssed And behold I am with thee and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest and will bring thee again unto this Land for I will not leave thee until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of Gen. 28. Jacob hereupon awaking in the sense of Gods presence and seiz'd with fear at so wonderful an appearance set up his stony Pillow for a Monumental Pillar and calls that place the House of God And as the Lord had freely unrequested made him so gracious and so large a Promise so he again in token of his thankfulness to God freely and unrequired did vow a Vow saying If God will be with me and will keep me in this way that I go and will give me Bread to eat and Rayment to put on so that I come again to my Father's House in peace then shall the Lord be my God And this Stone which I have set for a Pillar shall be Gods House And of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the Tenth unto thee Gen. 28. This is the Vow and this the occasion of making it which was both voluntary and conditional Voluntary in being unrequired Conditional in depending on the performance of Gods promise to him as the conditional Particle If demonstrates Had Tythes been then a divine Tribute he needed not have vowed to Give them justice would have obliged him to have paid them whether he had Vow'd or no. Nor had it then been in his Power to have made his Obligation conditional as he did but Tythes he must have paid whether God had â—een with him preserved him in his way and brought him back in peace or no. This Vow of Iacob's therefore being spontaneous and altogether free Contributes nothing at all to the making up of a divine Right to Tythes § 13. Another passage in my Book that seems to gall him sore is this If Tythes had been due to Melchizedec yet could not the Clergy of this Age derive any Right from him to them in as much as they are not of his Priest-hood To this he sayes I hope T. E. will grant that Christ was of his Priest-hood And if he grant this we must ask whether or no his Apostles were not his Successors and then whether we do not derive our Succession from them pag. 39. That Christ was of his Priest-hood I grant and that his Apostles were Followers of him But that these Priests are Followers of the Apostles as the Apostles were of Christ I deny and think it would be worth their while to prove He sayes Melchizedeâ— had thâ— same Priest-hood with the Ministers of the Gospel In some respects it may be called the same but what 's that to him unless he also were a Minister of the Gospel He can produce he sayes pag. 40 the plain words of many Fathers affirming that the present Ministers of the Christian Church are of Melchizedec's Priest-hood This is very smoothly and crustily worded to beguil an unwary Reader and make him believe the presâ—nt Ministers have the approbation of those Fathers What Ministers I pray must the Word Present here be understood to relate to the then present or the now present If he intends the then present Ministers that lived in the several Ages of those Fathers as he calls them he plainly shuffles and evades for the question was not concerning them but the Clergy of this Age expressly But if by prâ—sent he means the now present Ministers the Clergy of this present Age what could he have said more absurd as well as false then that he can produce the plain words of St. Hierom Chrysostom Augustine Epiphanius and Theoâ—hilact the latest of whom has been dead well near a Thousand Years affirming that the present Ministers tâ—e Clergy of this Age are of Melchizâ—dec's Priest-hood But seeing he leans so hard upon the judgment of certain Fathers as he calls them whose plain words he sayes he can produce but does not I will produce him the plain words of one I will not say a Father but a great Man in the English Church Andrew Willet who in his Synopsis of Popery fifth general Controversie pag. 315. sayes It is great Blasphemy to say that every Popish Priest is after
the order of Melchâ—zedec And a little after The Scripture maketh this difference between the Priest-hood of Aaron and the Priest-hood of Melchizedec that the Priests of the Law were many because they were taken away by Death but Christ's Priest-hood is eternal because he dieth not Heb. 7. 23. But if there should be many Priests after Melchizedec's Order there should herein be no difference at all Wherefore seeing â—â—lchizedâ—c's Priest-hood only resteth in Christ and is not Translated to any other c. Thus Willet and to the same purpose said Fulk before him Now if the Priestâ— Fathers have in plain words affirmed That the present Ministers of the Chriâ—â—ian Church are of Melchizedâ—e's Priest-hood the Priest may do well to reconcile thoâ—e Fathers with these Doctors for so were these also stâ—led who so plainly affirm that Melchizedec's Priest-hood only resteth in Christ and is not Translated to any other But the reason I formerly gave why the Clergy of this Age are not of Melchizedec's Priest-hoods seems to offend him more then all the rest It was this That Melchizedec was not made a Priest after the Law of a carnaâ— Commandment but aâ—ter the Power of an endless Life But every one knows that these men are made Priests after the Law of a carnal Commandment This has so nettled him that he is out of all patience sayes my Reason is ridiculous that I have learnt to Cant that I am an idle and impâ—rtinent man that this is an impudent Slander that T. E. can prattle in Scripture phrase that I am a boasting Quaker and will not stick to say any thing bâ— it never'so false and â—â—reasonable This is the Language that this Learned man who sayes he will not meddle with scurrility because Railâ—ng is not Reasoning pag. 12. hath upon this occasion for want of better Arguments or breeding or both thrust in to help swell the number of his pages But overlooking this let us see what else he has to offer that looks at all like Reason He sayes pag. 41. The Apostle speaking of the Jewish Priests in that place Heb. 7. 16. saith They were made Priests after the Law of a carnal Commandment that is according to Moses's Law which consisted of outward and weak Commandments reaching only to the purifying of the Flesh. Now sayes he what an idle and impertinent Man is this to say we are made Priests according to Moses's Law and that every one knows this O impudent Slander Are we bound to all the Sacrificings Washings and other Levitical Rights and Ceremonies at our Ordination I will not here as justly I might retort his Idle and impertinent Epithets nor yet his impudent Slander But I will tell him he seems very willing to mistake that he might excuse himself from a direct Answer He charges me with saying They are made Priests according to Moses ' s Law I no wheresay so no where intend so for indeed I do not think their Ordination so fairly grounded since all acknowledge the Law of Moses though now abrogated to have had a Divine Institution I said These men are made Priests after the Law of a Carnal Commandment Doth that necessarily imply Moses's Law May no Law no Commandment be called carnal but that which did bind to Sacrificings Washings and other Levitical Ceremonies That 's strange indeed Nay may not every Law every Commandment which is not spiritual be properly enough called Carnal as Carnal is understood in opposition to Spiritual What though I used the Apostle's Phrase must that Allusion tye my sense to the subject he was upon No such matter He opposes the Levitical Priestâ—ood to Melchizedec affâ—rming that they were made Priests after the Law of a Carnal Commandment but â—e after the Power of an Endless Life I oppose the present Priestâ— to Melchizedec shewing that these are not of his Order though for Tythes sake they pretend it in as much as he was made a Priest not after the Law of a Carnal Commandment but after the Power of an Endless Life whereas these men are made Priests after the Law of a Carnal Commandment but it does not follow that this must needs be the same Law by which the Levitical Priests were made unless he thinks there can be no others By what Law then are the Popish Priests made out of which this Priesthood sprang By what Law are the Turkish Priests made I hope he will not say either of these are made Priests by the Power of an Endless Life as was Melchizedec nor yet by the Law of Moses yet by some Law or other no doubt they were made What will he call that Law Spiritual or Carnal Let him call it as he pleases I insist not so much on the Names as on the Natures of things nor regard so much Words as Matter Notwithstanding what he hath said the Difference yet remains the Opposition is still as plain between Melchizedec and these Priests He was made a Priest not after the Law of a Carnal Commandment but after the Power of an Endless Life These are made Priests not after the Power of an Endless Life but after the Law of a Carnal Commandment which plainly shews they are not of his Order and so cannot derive any Right to Tythes from him if Tythes could be proved to have ever been due to him He goes on ibid. 'T is evident we are not Priests according to that Carnal Outward Changeable Levitical Law Neither did I say ye were But are ye not Priests according to a carnal Law an outward Law a changeable Law though not according to that very Levitical Law But says he we are Priests according to the Law of the Gospel whose Eternal Duties have in them the Power of an Endless Life What a quaint Device is this to avoid the force of a Text Was not the Scripture-Phrase plain pertinent enough or did it not suit his purpose Were he indeed a Priest after Melchizedec's Order he need not have used this variation Had he been made a Priest by the same Power of an Endless Life by which Melchizedec was the same words would have very well served to have exprest the same thing But he being conscious to himself that he came to his Priesthood by another way boggles at the Text and instead of the Power of 〈◊〉 Endless Life puts in the Law of the Gospel which the more to cover from the Reader 's Observation he mis-cites my words also making me say Melchizedec was made a Priest after the Law of an Endless Lifâ— whereas my words agreeing with the Text are He was made a Priest after the Power of an Endless Life pag. 281. This Power of an Endless Life is a heavy Stone to all these carnal man-made Priests and therefore they struggle to get from under the weight of it and endeavour to put it from them as we see in this Priest who thrusts this Power from himself and places it in the Duties He durst not say the Power of