to the true antient Catholick and Apostolick Church which the Priest calls Popery Conference pag. 149. And as this Doctrine sprang up in corrupt times so it grew up together with the Corruptions of those times and the more corrupt the Church grew and farthest off from the purity and truth of the Gospel the more credit and belief this Doctriâ—e obtained and was the more generally received And when thâ—ough the prevalency of Popery the Church was most of all defiled and polluted with Idolatry and Superstition and in its worst estate then was this Doctrine in greatest repute and in fullest force and strength By all which let the Reader judge whether this was a primitive Doctrine And as this was not a primitive Doctrine so neither was it a protestant Doctrine for the Bohemians whom Fox calls Protestants when they renounced the Popes Yoke took away Tythes from the Clergy and reduced them to certain Stipends as Selden out of Io. Major notes Hist. Tythes pag. 167. which they would not have done if they had believed that Tythes were due to God and Holy Church Thus it appears that this Doctrine of Tythes being due to God and Holy Church is neither a primitive nor Protestant Doctrine and that the Statutes grounded thereon are built upon a false supposition He excepts against my saying For a man to claim that by a temporal Right from a temporal Law which the Law he claims by commands to be paid as due by a divine Right is 〈◊〉 juggling To whicâ— he replies pag. 189. All the World knows two Titles to the same thing being subordinate to one another do strengthen each other This is a meer shift for it is evident those Statutes do not intend to make the Priests another Title then what they claimed by before but only to appoint the payment of Tythes upon the old Title of being due to God So that these Statutes do not make the Priests a temporal right nor was it the design of them so to do for the Statute of 32 H. 8. 7. speaking of Tythes impropriated sayes Which now be or which hereafter shall be made temporal which implies plainly They understood all Tythes before such Impropriations in no other Notion then Ecclesiastical or Spiritual and that they accounted all other Tythes which were not so impropriated but remained in the hands of the Clergy Ecclesiastical or spiritual profits still not temporal Now for the Priests to claim a temporal right to Tythes by those Laws which declare the Right they have to be spiritual this is the Juggle If they will claim Tythes by these Statutes they should claim them in that notion wherein the Statutes suppose them due which is as a spiritual Right not as a temporal The Priest sayes A Father having a maintenance reserved 〈◊〉 of his Sons Estate mentioned in those deeds which settle the said Estate on the Son though he had a right to be maintained by his Son jure divino may claim a maintenance by vertue of these deeds jure humano and the second Title strengthens but doth not destroy the first This is quite beside the case for besides that the comparison will not hold between a Father a Priest unless any in the darkness of their ignorance should so far mistake as to own the Priests for their spiritual Father nor in that case neither with respect to Tythes but to a Maintenance only here are in the case of a Father two distinct Titleâ— independent one of the other and the Deed of settlement in which such maintenance is reserved doth not express the reserved maintenance to be due jure divinâ— but declares it to be a temporal Right settled upon civil and temporal considerations But how remote is this from the Priest's case The Statutes mention no temporal Right of Tythes to the Priests but supposâ— a divine Right and upon that supposition command the payment of them as so due This Deed of settlement mentions nothing of a divine Right but acknowledges a civil and temporal Right to the maintenance therein reserved As well then may the Father claim a divine Right to this maintenance by vertue of this Deed as the Priest claim a temporal Right to Tythes by vertue of these Statutes and both alike unreasonable §12 In my former Book I inquired two things pag. 335 336. first What it is the Priest claims a property in secondly Where this property is vested in the person of the Priest or in the Office To the first the Priest gives no Answâ—r here only in another place pag. 196. he sayes We grant Tythes are due out of the profits only and with this answer he contents himself overlooking the Arguments I offered in pag. 335 336 338 339. to prove the unreasonableness of such a claim particularly That if Tythes be the tenth of the profit or increase of the Land and they that settled Tythes as he saith were actually seiâ—ed of them in Law then surely they could settle 〈◊〉 more than they were so seized of and they could be actually seized of no other profits or increase than what did grow increase or renew upon the Land while they were actually seized of it So that such settlement how valid soever while they lived must needs expire with them This and much more such plain anâ— serious argumentation tending to prove the emptiness and unreasonables of their plea to Tythes from the Donation of Ethelwolf and others the Priests both one and t'other pass by unanswered The Reader may guess why The second thing inquired was Where this property is vested in the person of the Priest or in the Office This I perceive they are wonderful wary how they answer One Priest sayes An Office is capable of being vested in a property and the present person who sustains that Office hath this property vested in him during his Life with remainder to his Successors forever Right of Tythes pag. 190. This as doubtfully and darkly delivered as might be seems in the first part to affix the property to the Office but in the latter part to the person that sustains the Office For he sayes The present person who sustains that Office hath this property vested in him not during his Office only but during hiâ— Life which may extend far beyond his Office For if the present person who sustains the Office be an ignorant vicious debauched scandalous Priest as alas too many of them are if he be one of them who the Author of the Conference sayes pag. 11. will for a corrupt interest intrude themselves into thesâ— sacred Offices he not only may but ought to be ejected They that for coâ—rupt Interest thrust themselves in should for their Corruption be thâ—ust out again But what mean while becomes of the property If as this Priest sayes the present person who sustains the Office hath this property vested in him during his Life the divesting him of the Office doth not divest him of the property because according to this Priest
THE FOUNDATION OF TYTHES SHAKEN And the Four Principal Posts of Divine Institution Primitive Practice Voluntary Donations Positive Laws on which the nameless Author of the Book called The Right of Tythes Asserted and Proved hath set his pretended Right to Tythes Removed in a Reply to the said Book By Thomas Ellwood The Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change aâ—so of the 〈◊〉 Hebr 7. 12. For there is verily a 〈◊〉 â—f the Commandment going before â—â—c vers 18. In Augustine's time it was no general Law nor Custom in the Church that Tythes should be paid Willet's Sympâ—â— of Popery 5th Gen. Controv. pag. 314. Nemo plus â—uâ—is ad Alium transfâ—rre potest quam ipse habeâ—et Uâ—pian i. e. No man can make a better Title to another than he himself hath Id uod nostrum est sine facto nostro a nobis â—velli non potest Reg. Jur. i. e. That which is our own may not be taken away frâ—m us without our own act Printed in the year 1678. THE PREFACE Reader ONe of the great Faults which the witty Erasmus pleasantly taxed Luther with was this That he medled with the Monks Bellies for indeed that zealous Reformer did smartly inveigh against the Pride Idleness Luxury Voluptuousness and greedy Covetousness of the then Clâ—rgy I have of late been also drawn to meddle a little with the Priests Bellies the Occasion for which was thus offered by one of themselves Somewhat more than two years ago a Book was published by a Nameless Priest bearing the Title of A Friendly Conference between a Minister and a Parishioner of his inclining to Quakerism c. In the latter part of which he made Tythes the Subject of his Conference When I had read that Book and had observed that in some parts of it the Author thereof had greatly abused and mis-represented the People called Quakers in others had endeavoured to deceive his Reader by Sophistical and Fallacious Arguments I writ an Answer to the whole under the Title of Truth Prevailing c. which I divided into several Chapters according to the various Subjects treated of the last of which was Tythes This pinching the Priests in a tender part the Belley made them bestir themselves and lay their Heads together to consider what was to be done After divers Debates and much Consultation as I have been inâ—ormed about it another Book written by another Hand but without a Name too at length came forth entituled The Right of Tythes Asserted and Proved c. being an Answer to that one Chapter only of Tythes which though it was the last Chapter in my Book yet having the first and chiefest place in the Priests Minds and Affections obtained from them the first and chiefest Defence Some time after came out another Book said to be written by the Author of the Conference who was not willing yet it seems to trust the World with his Name This bearing the Title of A Vindication of the Friendly Conference c. and divided into like number of Chapters with mine seems to be designed for a general Reply to my Book The former called The Right of Tythes came first to my Hand and was about half dispatcht before I saw the latter I therefore chose to tâ—ke the Chapter of Tythes out of the latter so much â— mean of it as seemed Argumâ—ntative or pertinent to the purpose and clap it to the Book of Tythes as being of the same Subject To both these the Book in thy Hand is intended for an Answer how well it answereth that Intendment is left to thee Reader to judge If thou art a Tyth-Receiver of any kind there is great danger lest Interest mis-guiding thy Vnderstanding should hinder thee from discerning Truth and so from judging truly For that of the Poet. Impedit Ira Animum ne possit cernere verum Anger doth obstruct the Mind That the Truth it cannot find Is not more true of Anger than of Interest Advantage like the Byass on a Bowl is apt to sway the Judgment and draw the Mind to favour that side on which the Profit lies Against this Danger be pleased to take this Caution and be entreated to lay aside all Considerations of Gain or Loss Advantage or Disadvantage in this Case not measuring the Justice of the Cause by the Profit but weighing the Profit by the â—ustice Remember that Nihil utile quod non idem honestum i. e. Nothing is profitable which is not Honest and Nihil honestum esse potest quod justitia vacat i. e. Nothing can be Honest which is not Iust were approved Axioms amongst the gravest Heathen Philosophers and deserve much more to be observed by those who bear a Name derived from Christ. Ex Damno alterius commoda nulla feres Account not that for Iust and Honest Gain Which got by thee makes others Loss sustain Is a good Document for Men as well as Children In short whether thou art a Tythe-Receiver or no this I request of thee Read without Prejudice Judge without Partiality Examin this Discourse fully and throughly but give the Reasons therein given their due Poize and Weight The Author of The Right of Tythes in his Epistle pag. 2. charges me with bragging in a Letter of mine to a Quaker at York that I have shewed some little Learning in my former Book and there-upon says I dare affirm he hath but little to shew I am peâ—swaded He and I shall not fall out about my Learning for he seems willing to allow me a little and I assure him I never took my self to have much Nor do I think when his Disdain is at the highest he will desire to lay me lower in that respect than I of my self am willing to lie But in charging me with bragging of that little Learning which his Courtesie is pleased to allow me he deals discouâ—teouslyâ— and injuriously with me The Letter he mentions was in Answer to one from a Friend in York to me unknown in which he acquainted me That my Book having gained Acceptance there Endeavours were used to prevent its further Service by casting out a Report that I was a Iesuit at least that I was no Quaker but had a mind to shew my Parts and Learning c. The like Rumour also of my being a Jesuit was craftily spread in Nottingham-shire Hereupon to shew the Vanity of their Slander I thus writ in that Letter Some thou sayest will needs have me to be a Iesuit and why because of a little Learning must none then have Learning but they and Iesuits This is the common but poor shift of Priests hard beset when they cannot maintain their Ground they cry out Their Opponent is a Iesuit as if none could be too hard for them but Iesuits by whom to be worsted they are not ashamed to think it no shame the more shame for them Well Truth is too hard for them and Iesuits too And a little after Whatever they in their
by just and lawful means to do And for that Book it self of Cyprians de Vnitâ—te Ecclesiae out of which the Priest makes this quotation for Tythes although it be not wholly rejected yet is it suspected to have been corrupted in more places then oâ—e Perkins against Coccius sayes expresly of it Cypriano liber de unitate Ecclesia corruptus est ad stabiliendum Primatum Petri Problem pag. 14. i. e. Cyprians Book of the Vnity of the Church is corrupted to establish the Primacy of Peter of which he gives divers instances The Priest goes on To this sayes he of Cyprian we may add the Testimony of that antient Book which â—ears the Name of â—lements Constitutions What would not he stick to add how adulterate sâ—evâ—r that might seem to add some fresh colour to his decayed and dying Cause Tâ—ese Constitutions which bear the Name of Clement are less Authentick if less can be then those fore-mentioned Canons which are called Apostolical Perkins in his Problem against Coccius pag. 8. proves from Eusâ—bius â—uffiâ—us and others that There are many things 〈◊〉 under the Name of Clement Romanus of which having given diverâ— instances he adds The eight Books aâ—so of Apostolical Constitutions written by the same Clement desâ—rve no greater credit And for Selden's Opinion of them take it in his own words For Constitutiâ—ns of the Church if you could believe thosâ— supposâ—d to be made by the Apostles and to be Collected by Pope Clement the first you might be sure both of payment in the Apostles times as also of an express Opinion as antient for the right of Tenths But â—o man that willingly and most grosly deceives not himself can believe that this Constitution or divers others there are of any time near the Age of the Apostles but many hundred Years after The little worth and lâ—ss Truth of the whole Volumn is enough discovered by divers of the learned and it was long since branded for a Counterfâ—it in an â—eâ—umenical Couâ—cil Synod 6. in Trullo Thus he in his History of Tythes c. 4. pag. 42. and much more to the same purpose in his Review of that Chapter but this I take to be sufficient to detect the falsness of those Constitutions and my Opponents weakness in urging them His next Author is Ambrose out of whose Sermons 33. and 34. he takes two quotationâ— The first thus It is not sufficient for us to bear the Name of Christians if we do not the works of Christians now the Lord Commands us to pay our Tythes yearly of all our Fruits and Cattel pag. 80. The Particle now in this quotation is not in Ambrosâ— but added by the Priest The other quotation is long but to the same purpose and that which seems most material â—n it is the latter clause that of all the Substance which God gives a man he â—ath reserved the tenth part to himself and therefore it is not lawful for a man to retain it Here he sayes The Lord Commands us to pay Tythes yearly and that he hath reserved the tenth of all to himself but the Text he offers in proof thereof he fetches from the Levitical Law which neither is obliging to Christians nor do the Priests themselves claim by it nay they renounce it as may be seen both in the Conference pag. 133. and in the Right of Tythes pag. 46. What avaâ—â— these Testimonies then to theiâ— Cause which are drawn from that Law which they themselves disclaim were it never so undoubted that the quotationâ— themselves were genuine which yet there is very great cause to question For what likelihood is there that Ambrose or any other of those Ancient Writers could so far forget himself as from a particular Precept given to the People of the Iews to infer that God hath Commâ—nâ—ed Christians to pay Tythes yearly c But that the Writings of those Fathers as they are called have been corrupted in general men coâ—versant in History are not ignorant and in particulary Ambrose his Sermons arâ— by Perkins accounted Spurious or Counterfeit Problemâ— page 20. Next to Ambrose he brings Epiphanius pag. 81. saying The Scripture exhorteth the People that out of their just Labours they should give to the Priests for their Maintenace First Fruits Oblations and other things To this a twofold Answer is to be given 1. That here is no mention of Tythes and though the Priest for want of better proof would fain have first fruits understood for Tythes yet so contrary is it to all reason that no man of Judgment can be in danger to be so misled 2. When he saith the Scripture exhorteth the People to give the Priestâ— First Fruits for their Maintenance since we are certain no Scripture of the New-Testament doth so exhort he must necessarily be understood to speak this with relation to the Levitical Law which as it was designed for and given to so it did particularly concern the Iewish Nation not the Christians And that the Payment of Tythes were not in use in Epiphanius his time nor accounted necessary Selden proves from Epiphanius his own words in Heres 50. The whole Passage as it lies in Selden's History of Tythes Review c. 4. pag. 461. take as followeth When he viz. Epiphaniuâ— tells us sayes Selden of the Tessuresdeâ—atitae or those which thought the holy Easter must be kept on the 14th Moon according to the Law given to the Iews for their Passover and that because they apprehended that the keeping it otherwise was subâ—ect to the course of the Law he sayes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is they do all things or agree generally with the Church saâ—ing that they were too much herein addicted to the Iewish Custom And in his Argument against them he shews that the Course hath not reference only to the Passover but also to Circumcision to Tythes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Offerings Wherefore as he goes on if they escape one curse by keeping their Easter according to the Law of the Passover they thrust themselves into many other For saith he they shall find them also accursed that are not Circumcised and them cursed that pay not Tythes and them cursed that Offer not at Ierusalem Let any man now sayes Selden consider if this Bishop that was least unacquainted with the Customs of the Christian-Church understood not clearly that no necessary or known use of payment was among Christians in his time of Tythes no more then oâ— Circumcision or Offering at Ierusalem Doth he not plainly reckon it as a thing not only not in Christian use but even equals it with what was certainly abrogated Is not his Objection shortly thus Why do you not observe Circumcision and Tything and Offerings also at Ierusalem which are all subject to the like Curse And because some kind of Offerings indeed were in use among Christians therefore in the Objection he providently ties them to Ierusalem But of Tything he speaks as generally as of Circumcision Thus far Seldâ—n 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
first is this That there are few Landlords who take so little Rent as one part of three and few Priests get so much as a full tenth part of all manner of Profits so that says he this Argument is faulty on both sides and halts on both Legs To the first part of this vâ—z That there are few Landlords who take so little Rent as one part of three his Brother Priest shall Reply for me who in his Vindication pag. 321. says A Farm of 90. l. a year consisting in Tillage may be worth â—7 l. a year to the Parson That it cannot be unless it be worth 270 l. â— year to the Tenant which being thrice as much as the Rent plainly shews the Landlord takes no more then one part of three To the latter part viz. That few Priests get so much as a full tenth part of all manner of Profits this Priest himself shall Answer himself who in his Right of Tythes pag. 200. says There are very few Parishes where nineteen parts of twenty do not pay their Tythes freely as any other Dues If this be true then there are very few Parishes wherein the Priests do not get of nineteen parts of twenty the full tenth part of all manner of Prâ—fits for what should hinder their getting it of all them that pay Tythes so freely Thus if this Priest dares believe his Brother Priest for the first part and himself for the second he will find my Argument is not faulty on either side noâ— halts on either Leg but that his Brother and himself by their oâ—ten interfering and hitting one Leg against t'other are themselves become lame and halt of both Legs Another Answer that he gives is this The very same thing is done in Annuities Free Rents Rent-charges Donations to the Poor c. the Money is paid intire and no satisfaction is made to the Ocâ—upant for his pains in raising it yet none ever called these Oppression till T. E. appeared pag. 216. Here he thwarts himself again He said but in pag. 201. There are some indeed who cry out against all publick Payments and these do call not only Tythes but the Landlord's Rents and Assesments to the King and Râ—lief to the Poor great Oppressions What could he have said more plainly opposite to his other Sentence Though for my part I do not believe he spake Truth in this Assertion nor that he is able to prove it by any Instance Nor should I have thought it worth mentioning but to let him see that when men take the liberty to write any thing true or false they seldom come off without contradiction and shame But to pass by his Contradictions which are too common with him to be much taken notice of let us examin his Answer He says in Annuities Free-Rents Rent charges and Donations to the Poor the Money is paid intire and no satisfaction made to the Occuâ—ant for his pains in raising it This is false For if the Occupant be the Owner he receives the Land under the Condition of such Payments and the Inheritance is satisfaction to him but if he be but Tâ—nant he either is not at all concern'â— in those payments but the Landlord discharges them out of his Rents or otherwise or if by contract he pays them at all it is but as part of his Rent for which he has proportionably the same satisfaction from his Crop as he hath for the other parts of his Rent Another Answer he gives thus ibid. We labour Spiritually for them who take bodily pains for us and indeed the Parishioners give us nothing at all but only this Pains they take in making God's part ready Doth he think that nineteen parts of twenty in most Parishes or nine parts either believe Tythes to be God's part or make it ready as such Let him not so deceive himself The World hath been too long gulled already with such pretences which might pass for currant in former Ages when Darkness covered the Earth and gross Darkness the People but now that light is broken forth which discovers they are but counterfeit and as really false as seemingly fair His Triple Plea of Divine Donative and Humane Right which here again he mentions taken out of the Triple Crown I mean derived from a Popish Power is already so fully Answered in several parts of the fore-going discourse that it would be improper here to discuss them again But seeing he says We the Priests labour Spiritually for them who take bodily pains for us Ifâ— he speak it with respect to the Quakers I must take the liberty to tell him he speaks that which is not true for the Priests do not labour Spiritually for the Quakers but in an evil Spirit do often labour against them through Covetoâ—sness and Envy casting them into Prison and spoiling them of their Goods for Nothing by which means many industrious Families being stripped of those necessaries which by the blessing of God on their honest Labours and diligent Endeavours were provided for their subsistence have been reduced to great wants and became Objects of good Mens Charity as well as Examples of the CLERGY's CRUELTY And hence have the groans of many a distressed Widow and the Cryes of many a Fatherless and helpless Child made so by the Priests means entred the Ear of the God of vergeance who certainly will repay With respect then to the Quakers the Priest's Position is false and â—ruly with respect to his own Hearers the reason of it will not hold For supposing him to labour Spiritually for them as they take bodily Pains for him yet inasmuch as he is not tyed to any certain proportion of Labour for them for though the Priestâ— preach and pray by the Hour-glass yet I never heard they were strictly bound to make their Prayer or Sermon just an Hour long neither more nor less there is no reason they should be tyed to a certain proportion and quantity of Labour for him which they are when the exact tenth is required of them but that they should be free and at liberty in their labour for him as far at least as he is in his labour for them But he says ibid. If our Ancestors enjoyned their Sâ—ccessors to give the Priest the tenth part without his taking Pains it was no more injustice in them than in King David who made his part who tarried by the stuff equal to his who went down into the Battâ—l 1 Sam. 30. 25. Tâ—e Comparison is not equal nor the Cases alike David in distributing the Spoils â—ispoâ—ed but of that which was his own for the Spoyls bâ—longed unto him both as he was anointed King and as he was Captain General of the whole Army Therefore we read in the Text verse 20. And David took all the Flocks and the Herds which they drave before thosâ— other Cattel and said THIS IS DAVID's SPOYL But will any man pretending to understand himself say of the Husband-man's Crop at this day These are â—thelwolf's
he quotes after an odd manner a Tract so he stiles it called Some of the Quakers Principles put forth he says by Isaac Penington and the second Quaker there he tells us has this passage But I can tell him there is no such Tract put forth by Isaac Penington although a Book there is bearing this Title Some Principles of the Elect People of God in scorn called Quakers which is a Collection of some particular passages relating to our Principles taken out of several Books of divers Men and published together But neither was this put forth by Isaac Penington although his Name be to some parts of it This I take to be the Book which the Priest refers to And though he cites no page thereof yet finding in the fifth page that Passage I suppose which he cavils at I will set it down at large as it there stands The Title of that Page is this Grounds and Reasons why we deny the World's Teachers And the third Reason is thus given viz. They are such Priests as beaâ— rule by their means which was a horrible and filthy tâ—ing committed in the Land which the Lord sent Ieremiah to cry out against while we â—ad Eye and did not see we held up such Priests but the Lord hath opened our Eyes and we see them now in the same Estate that they were in which Ieremiah cryed out against who did not bear rule by his means and therefore we deny them Ier. 5. 31. This is that Paragraph to a Syllable in which there is no Foundation for the Priest's Cavil for the Quaker doth not say as the Priest suggests that those Priests mentioned by Ieremiah did bear Rule by their Estates but that these Priests whom we deny are such as bear Rule by their Means or Estates Those Priests in the time of the Prophet Ieremiah did bear Rule by means of the false Prophets These Priests now adays do bear Rule by means or help of those Estates which they get from the People That was an horrible and filthy thing then This is an horrible and filthy thing now For the horribleness and filthiness of the thing must not be restrained to their bearing Rule by those particular means only and no other for if they had born Rule by any other false and indirect means it would have been an horrible and filthy thing as well as it was in their bearing rule by means of the false Prophets For the only means by which the Priests of God ought to bear Rule is the Spirit and Power of God the vertue and influence of the divine Truth and those Priests that take upon them to bear Rule by any other means than this commit an horrible and filthy thing Thus did those Priests in Ieremiah's time They bore Rule not by means of the divine Spirit and Power not by means of the Heavenly vertue and influence of Tâ—uth but by â—ther means viz. by means of the false Pâ—ophets and therefore the true Prophet cryed out against them And thus do Priests now adayes They bear Rule not by means of the Spirit and Power of God not by means of the divine vertue and influence of Truth but by other means viz. by means of those Estates which they get from the People and therefore do we in the Name of the Lord deny them Now it is manifest that the Author of that Book out of which this passage is taken did not say that those Priests of old and these of late did both bear Rule by one and the same means but the scope and driâ—t of his words there is to shew that they did both bear Rule by false and unlawful means for he says in the place fore-quoted While we had Eyes and did not see we held up such Priests but the Lord hath opened our Eyes and we see them now in the same Estate that they were in which Ieremiah cryed out against who did not bear Rule by his means So that herein it is that he shews they agree in this it is that he draws the Comparison between them viz. in that they did not bear Rule by God's means In this they were both in the same Estate namely in that they did both bear Rule by wrong means although they did not both bear Rule by one and the same wrong means The Identity or Saâ—eness is not refer'd to the particular means by which they did and do bear Rule but to the Estate which they were and are in who did and do bear Rule by indirect meanâ— Therefore observe He doth not say We see them now bear Rule by the same means that they bore Rule by which Ieremiah cryed out against but he says We see them now in the same Estate that they were in which Ieremiah cryed against who did not bear Rule by his viz. God's means which was an estate of Apostacy and Degeneration an estate of Alienation from God and of Rebellion against him usurping to themselves an Authority and bearing Rule over the People but not by God's means not by those means which God had appointed viz. by the divine Vertue and heavenly Power of his holy Spirit but having recourse to other means to get up and to keep up a Domination and Rule Now although the means by which those Priests then did and these now do bear Rule are not Specifically the very same yet are they one and the same in Nature that is they are both wrong means both unlawful means both such means as God neither appointed nor allowed which is the ground of their being disclaimed and declamed against both by the Prophet of Old and by us now So that they are the same in that respect in and for which they were and are disowned and in that part it is that the Comparison lies with respect to that part the Parallel is drawn Nor doth the Allusion to the Prophet's words strictly tye the Alluder to an exact Comparison in every point and circumstance but it is sufficient that the Comparison holds in that part upon which the Argument is grounded Now the Quaker's Argument here against the Priests is grounded on their bearing Rule by false and indirect means by such means as are not God's means and these Priests being compared in this respect with those Priests in Ieremiah's time the Comparison is found to be true and good for those Priests then did bear Rule by means alike unlawful And the Prophet's crying out against those Priests then for committing thiâ— horrible and filthy thing doth justifie the Quakers in crying out against these Priestâ— now for committing a thing of the like Nature By this time I doubt not but I have satisfied the Reader that the Quakers do neither mis-interpret nor mis-apply that Text of the Propheâ— Ier. 5. 31. but that the Priest has grosly abused the Quakers and manifested an envious and foul mind in charging them hereupon with sottish Ignorance and calling them Cheaâ—s and Impostors And seeing the Priest says in his Vindication