the Text. But if it be not recorded there Why makes he himself so over-wise Eccles. 7. 16. And yet if he could prove or I should grant that Tythes had been Commanded to be pai'd before Moses's time yet would not that prove Tythes any whit less Ceremonial since many things that were revealed to and required of the Patriarchs before the Mâ—saie Law were clearly Ceremonial and afterward both required by the Ceremonial Law and Universally acknowledged to be abrogated with it as Bloody Sacrifices Circumcision c. Yea the distinction between Clean and Unclean Beasts was observed before the Flood as appears Gen. 7. 2. which yet I think the Priest will not deny to be Ceremonial and ended â—e has indeed a notable knack of sâ—pposing 〈◊〉 he knows would be difficult to prove For in his p. 22. he sayes Though God have a right to the tenth part of our Substâ—â—ce yet c. And pag. 24. We know from the Light of Nature that part of our Substance is due to God and this he repeats frequently But what Nature is it he talks so much of by the Light and Reason whereof he has learnt to make Man's part nine times as big as GODS and yet sayes God is Eternally Loâ—d of the World Surely it is a Corrupt and selfish Nature whose counterfeit Light gives him so false a sight of things He hath shewed he sayes That Tythes rely on an Internal Rectitude in the thing it self and an Eternal Reason of it How can that be He plunges himself into these absurdities by not distinguishing between Maintenance in general and Tythes which are but a particular mode or way of raising Maintenance by Confounding which he thus confounds his own sence If he were pleading for a Maintenance in general his argument there were good and pertinent for there is no doubt an Internal Rectitude in the thing it self that he that Labours should be rewarded for his Labour and an Eternal Reason of it from the equity of the thing But to suppose an Eternal Reason that the tenth part only and no other must be this reward is utterly repugnant to all Reason and equity since possibly the fifth part may be too small or the fifteenth too great â— compensation for the work In the time of the Law by which Tythes were commanded though there was an Internal Rectitude for a Maintenance and an Eternal Reason of it yet the providing and raising that Maintenance by the way of Tythes did not rely on an Internal Rectitude but on an EXTERNAL noâ— was there then an Eternal Reason for raising the Maintenance by that particular way of Tythes but a temporal suitable tâ— the Polity of that State The Ox that trod out the Corn was not to be muzzled but for the Labour and Service he did he was to be fed and this depended on an Internal Rectitude in the thing it self but he that should thence inâ—er that the certain quantity of Meal which should be given to the Ox or the Specifick kinds of Food he should eat did rely also on an Internal Rectitude in the things themselves would hereby sufficiently convince the World that he himself had but too much need to have his own Understanding rectified From what has been said the Reader I presume may collect that my Opponent hath much mistaken the matter in making Tythes which is not the Substance the Maintenance it selfâ— but a Circumstance of the quantity of Maintenance to rely on an Internal Rectitude in the thing it self and an Eternal Reason of it He adds that he has shewed Tythes were paid by those Patriarchs who lived long before the Ceremonial Law by Virtue of the Preceding Declarations of the Divine Right unto them Indeed the man is much to be blamed He seems to have abandoned all Regard to Truth and Modesty and to be resolved to say anything that may suit his purpose Where hath he â—hewed that the Patriarchs before the Ceremonial Law did pay Tythes Or how indeed is it possible he should shew this when as before that Law Tythes are but twice mentioned at all in holy Writ and in each place expresly said to be given without any word of payment But that he should not only say they paid what the holy Text sayes plainly they gave but also affirm they paid it by Virtue of the Preceding Dâ—claâ—ations of the Divine Right unto them whenas no such Preceding Declarations or any Declaration at all of the Divine Right appears in the Divine Recoâ—d but the H. G. hath been altogether silent therein and not thought fit to leave any monument or Footstep of a Divine Right to Tythes in those Times is an arrogant and presumptious piece of Confidence He confesses pag. 50. That all things done by the Patriarchs were not eternal Duties instancing in Circumcision which he sayes was not grounded on the Law of nature nor imposed for any eternal Reason or internal Râ—ctitude in the things But if Tythes as Tythe that is as it is a certain and determinate quantity not the aliquotâ— bâ—t the quota not the Maintenance simply but a proportion of Maintenance is not grounded on the Law of Nature as Melancton is before remembred to observe nor was injâ—yned for any eternal but temporary Reason or internal but external Rectitude in the thing which whether it was or no let the judicious Reader from what hath been said judge then surely there is no more grâ—und for Tythes to stand and remain upon now then for Circumcision And that Tythes and Circumcision were a like Ceremonial Epiphanius intimâ—tes when lib. 1. ord 8. he gives Tenths for one of his Instances of Shadows contained in the Law making them equal with Circumcision And Oâ—câ—lampadius on Ezâ—k 44. ranks Sacrifices first Fruits and Tythes altogether and calls them expresly Ceremâ—nial He instances also in bloody Sacrifices which he sayes ibid. were purely Ceremonial and cease when that Laâ— ceasâ—th And yet these very blâ—â—dy Sacrifices which he acknowledges ceremonial and ceast were a great if not the greatest part of the Maintâ—nance of the Priestâ— under the Law For the Priests themselves had not the Tythes but the Title of the Tythes that is the hundred part which the Levitâ—s paid them out of the Tythes which they reâ—eived From which instance it is evident that although Maintenance it self be Moral and grounded on the Law of Nature yet the â—ode or manner of that Maintenance may be Ceremonial yea purely Ceremonial as he acknowledges those bloody Sacâ—ifices to have been which are ceast He sayes ibid. he might add that The Prophâ—ts who are not wont to reprove the People for â—mission of things purely Ceremonial declaim against the Jews for â—etaining their Tythes for which he cites Mâ—l 3. 10. But he might see if he pleas'd in the eighth Verse where the Reproof is that the Prophet joyning Tythes and Offerings together reproves the Iews alike for the omission of each whence I may better argue that Tythes are of the
he hath in this very Period expressed himself very unlearnedly and inconsiderately The Apostles he says shewed the way in this practice not intending that any Vagabond Speakers should be allowed after once the Christian Church was settled Vaâ—abond Speakers It seems then with him those Speakers that are not fixt to a parish or place are Vagabonds and though such were allowed in the Christian Church before it was settled yet after once it was settled no Vagabond Speakers were to be allowed Doth he not already begin to perceive how for want of a little consideration he has stigmaâ—iz'd the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord with the infamous Brand of Vagabonds Could all his Learning furnish him no better than with such a Roguish Epithet foâ— to Rogâ—es the word Vagabond is usually now applied How little Reason has this boasting man to vaunt of his own Leâ—rning or undervalue another's § 23. In his next Section he makes a faint attempt to help the other Priest off who had so far over-shot himself in his Conference pag. 157. that among other Reasons why the Apostles had not Tythes he gave this for one That they needed them not for as they had their Gifts so their Maintenance by a miraculous providence which he grounded upon Lukâ— 22. 35. The falseness of this Argument I plainly shewed in my former Book called Truth Prevailing pag. 352. Whereupon this Priest in â—is Right of Tythes pag. 226. says I hope when T. E. considers how wonderfully God opened the hearts of the first Christians not only to give the Apostles Meat and Drink but to sell all and give the price to them he will upon second thoughts correct that passage pag. 352. and allow this to be an extraordinary and miraculous Providence of God's to encourage their first beginnings Tâ—e other Priest grounded his Miracle upon the Apoâ—tles wanting nothing when they were sent forth without Puâ—se and Scrip Luke 22. 35. This Priest finding that too weak to bear him up adds to it the believers â—elling their Estates Acts 4. 34 35. and to serve his End corrupts the Text too saying they sold all and gave the price to the Apostles as if they had transferred their own property to the Apostles which they did not but deposited it as in a common Bank which was committed to the care and trust of the Apostles to distribute but wherein the Apostles themselves had no more propriety than any other of the Church Therâ—fore the Text says not that they brought the Prices of the things sold and gave them to the Apostles which would imply an investing the Apostles with a peculiar propriety therein but that they brought the prices of the things that were sold and laid them down at the Apostles Feet which imports no more than a committing it to their care in whom the Trust was reposed as Treasurers of the coâ—mon Stock for the maintenance of the whole Society Whence it follows in the Text And distribution was made unto every Man acâ—ording as he had need In all which I confess â— do not see the Miracle he talks of â—nd if he himself will have this to be a Miracle he must then acknowledge Miracles are not ceased the same thing â—aving been practised by others of late Years and I think by some yet in Germany But if the selling of Possessions and living in a Community had been a Miracle yet it could not reasonably be assigned for a Reason why the Apostles did not take Tythes for we read not that it was used in any of the Gentile Cities that were converted to Christianity but only at Ierusalem and there too for a short time So that if this had been a Reason why the Apostles took no Tythes at Ierusalem yet it could not â—e a Reason why they took none at Rome at Corinth at Ephesuâ— at Coloss at Thessalâ—nica at Philippi and other places where they preached the Gospel and where this practice was never used nor at Ierusalem neither after it was disused Neither is 〈◊〉 true which the other Priest says viz. That the Apostles needed them not for the Apostle Paul testifies of himself that he had learnt to suffer Need Phil. 4. 12. and amonâ—st othâ—r Hardships reckons his Necessities 2 Cor. 6. 4. 12. 10. And it appears he used to work for his living Acts 20. 34. which the lfine-fingâ—red Priest now adayes scorn to do Thus all these seeming Reasons appear to be indeed but empty Shews and vain Pretences and the very true and right Reason why the Apostles did not take Tythes was because they knew that Tythes were a part of the Ceremonial Law given to the Jews and abrogated by Christ. The other Priest in his Conference pag. 158. said If you conclude that we must be in all things 〈◊〉 were thâ— Apostles then must you of the Laity now do as the Laity did then who sold their Possessions and laid them down at the Apostles Feet Acts 4. And I can argue the one with the same Reason you can the other This I plainly disproved in my former Book called Truth prevailing pag. 353. shewing the different grounds on which the Apostles and other Believers then acted the one being positively bound and under a necessity to preach the Gospel the other being altogether free and under no necessity to sell their Estates but did it voluntarily So that what-ever the Priest at first thought the same Reason will not serve to argue the one as the other and that may probably be the Reason that he having no other Reason was fain tâ— let his Argumeâ—t wholely fall and take no further notice of it Nor makes the other Priest in his Right of Tythes any other Reply to it than this T. E. saith indeed they sold their Estates voluntarily p. 353. which is most true and we do not desire any to sâ—ll theâ— involuntarily now But adds he pag. 227. when our people sell all voluntarily as they did we will quit our Claim to Tythes Indeed will ye so what after all this â—usle and Contest for a Divine Right of Tythes will ye quit yoâ—â— Claim thereto upon condition the people will â—ell all as once Believers did See Reader now the horrible Deceit and false Dâ—aling of this man in the Management of this Controversie and how contrary he has argued to his own Judgment Hath he not said over and over That Tythes are God's part God's due How oft hath he called Tythes a sacred Maintenance a divine Tribute a sacred Revenue c Did he not affirm they were grounded on the law of Nature and primitive Revelation and that they relie on an internal Rectitude and an eternal Reason pag. 49 Did he not assert That our â—ord Iesus and his â—postles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers pag. 〈◊〉 Was he not positive That our Lord Iesus and the Apostles said enough to shâ—w that the antient divine Right to the tenth part should be continued and the
Carnal minds may imagin I have learnt to know my self better than to ascribe to my self or my own Abilities any of that Honour which is due to the Power of Prevailing Truth Iudge Reader whether from those Expressions my Opponent had any just ground to tax me with bragging of my Learning But as an Argument of my want of Learning yeaâ— gross Ignorance as he is pleased to term it Ep. p. 3. he charges me with mistaking another Basil for Basil the Great This he takes out of that Chapter of my Book which treats of Swearing and his Brother Priest in his Vindication of the Conference objects the same against me in his Chapter of Swearing in Answer to mine When I shall come to that part of the Vindication I intend to give an Accompt oâ— that Passage and therefore to avoid needless Repetitions omit it here yet thought it needful to intimate thus much here lest â—y Opponent should so far mistake himself as to think I was willing to shift it Some Testimonies I have taken out of Fox's Martyrology or Book of Martyrs the various Editions of which render Quotations out of it very uncertain and sometimes suspected the Book which I have used is of the sixth impression in two Volumns printed at London in the year 1610. These things premised I now recommend the following Discourse to thy most serious perusal and thee to the Guidance of that good Spirit which leads into all Truth THE INTRODUCTION WHen Demetrius the Silver-Smith of Ephesus perceived that by Paul's preaching his Trade was like to decay he call'd his Crafts-men together and thus bespake them Ye know said he that by this Craft we have our Wealth Moreover ye see and hear that not â—lone at Ephesus but almost throughout all Asia this Paul hath perswaded and turned away much people saying that they be no Gods which are made with hands so that not only this our Craft is in danger to be set at nought but also that the Temple of the great Goddess Diana should be despised c. Acts 19. 25 26. The Case hath fallen out somewhat alike with our English Deâ—etrius the Author of the Book called The Right of Tythes asserted c. who finding his Diana â—otter by a stroke received from the last Chapter in a Book of mine called Truth Prevailing written in Answer to one from his Party called A Friendly Conference and apprehensive of greater Danger if timely course were not taken he gives the Alarm to his Fellow-Crafts-men and bespeaks him much to the same purpose as did the â—phesian Silver-Smith of old He said then This is the Craft by which we have our Wealth This sayes now This is the Oyl by which our Laâ—p is nourished the â—ay by which our Army is maintained page 13. He said then This Paul hath perswaded and turned away much People saying they be no Gods which are made with hands This saith now When I consider how easily so plausible a Discourse meaning that Book of mine might 〈◊〉 some well-meaning men out of the right way c. pag. 4. Again The Obstinacy which the unhappy Quakers contract from such false Insâ—â—uations as these of T. E. in this Case of Tythes c. pag. 6. Again Our Changers of Religion mainly seek to overthrow these things to that end have sent out T. E. as their Champion pag. 15. with more to the same purpose He said then Not only this our Craâ—t is in danger to be sâ—t at nought but also that the Temple of the great Goddess Diana should be despised This sayes now They would glâ—â—ly stir up the People to take away our Books and Subsistence from us pag. 14. To stop the Oyl that nourishes our Lamp and force us to disband for want of Pay pag. 13. And not only so but wise and pious men look upon them as designing to disturb the Kingdom destroy Learning ruin the most famous of all Protestant Churcheâ— pag. 14. To overthrow not only the Ministers and their Maintenance but also the Peace of the Church and Religion whose safety he sayes depends upon that Maintenance pag. 15. He raised the People into an uproar and filled the City with Confusion crying out for about the space of two hours Great is Diana of the Ephesians This man abounds with confusion also having little strength of sound Argument or sorce of solid Reasoning but crying up the sacred Maintenance Divine Tribute Righâ— of Holy Church c. And indeed the main difference that doth appear between that Demetrius and this is that he though he sought the destruction of the Apostle did not bespatter him with approbrious Language whereas this man hath endeavoured to besmear my Name with all the ignominy reproach and obloquy his evil Nature could prompt him to and his worse Education furnish him with of which these that follow are some This poor Retailer pag. 3. Our strutting Quaker pag. 16. Obscure and empty Quaker pag. â—7 This skulking Adversary pag. 19. This poor Quaker is as bold as he is Blind pag. 35. This Quaker hath learnt to Cant pag. 40. He hath the impudence pag. 113. This ungracious Chaâ— pag. 122. The Quaker is a manifest Lyar pag. 〈◊〉 This insolent Quaker pag. 161. T. Elwood is a 〈◊〉 Wretch pag. 173. Though T. E use the name of Popish Priests to gull the People yet he is one of their Iourny men pag. 179. He is an inspirado pag. 18â— A wild Quaker pag. 190. This double-tongu'd and false-hearted man pag. 195. His own base humor pag â—00 Common experience preclaims him a Lyar ibid. This seditious Libeller pag. 201. Is not the Quaker a Knave pag. 212. This malicious Slanderer pag. 214. This black-mouthed Slanderer may publish his own Venemoâ—s impieties pag. 233. This Reader is the Language wherewith he treats me notwithstanding which he hath the confidence to Brand me with Railing for calling Tythes the Priests Delilah the very Darling and minion of the Clergy This he sayes is Ill Language pag. 11. and Scurrillity pag. 12. which he will not meddle with But if this be ill Language and Scurillity by what Name I marvel shall that Language of his pass which is before recited Doubtless if Railing be not Reasoning as he truly sayes his Book is so replete with Railing that there is little room for Reasoning in it And though he terms that expression of mine Scurrillity and sayes he will not meddle with it yet can he not forbear but in the very next page catches up this which himself accounts ill Language and Scurrillity and throws it at the Quakers calling Tythes the Quakers Delilah the very Darling and Minion of that Sect pag. 13. And so transported he is with passion against the Quakers that he sees not the absurdity he runs himself upon in taxing the Quakers with railing at Tythes in the very same Line wherein he calls Tythes the Quakers Delilah the very Darling and Minion of that Sect Is not this contradictory And as
again insinuate that I had altogether denyed there was any kind of character or description at all of the Maintenance in these Texts which is very unworthily done of him for he knows fulwell my words are not positive but comparative I do not say the Apostle doth not at all set forth what the Maintenance is but that the intent of the Apostle in those Scriptures is not so much to set forth what the Maintenance is as who they are from whom it is to be received And that the Maintenance it self is not so much set forth not so plainly fully particularly and positively declared and described in these Texts as the maintainers the Persons from whom it is to be received I have already shewed on the former Scripture and shall do now on this also Let him saith the Apostle that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things Here now is most plainly and fully declared who it is that is thus to communicate who it is from whom the Maintenance is to be received namely he that is taught in the word but what the Maintenance is to be is not so plainly sâ— fully so particularly set forth but in a general term In all good things No quantity exprest whether a tenth a fifth a fifteenth or a twentieth part but lest to the free will of the giver which renders the proportion uncertain In which respect the Maintenance here is not so plainly particularly and certainly exprest as it is from whom it should come which is positively and certainly bounded and limited to him that is taught in the word § 3. He confesses pag. 55. for he cannot avoid it that the Apostle sayes indeed He that is taught in the word must give this but that sayes he is to distinguish Christians from Heathens of which the World was then full The Heathen he acknowledges was not bound to maintain the Gospel-ministers but the Catehumen the Christian who was or might be taught if his own Laziness or Pride or Obstinacy hindred not Is this according to the Text Doth the Apostle say Let him that is or might be taught not if his own Laziness or Pride or Obstinacy hindred câ—mmunicate c He who was so careful to Preach the Gospel of Christ without charge 1 Cor. 9. 18. He that would not reap Carnals but where he had before sown Spirituals nor there neither alwayes He who was so wary whom he received of that he would not use the just power he had of receiving Maintenance from them who were his own work in the Lord and the very seal of his Apostleship can it be thought that he would be maintained by the Lazy the Proud the Obstinate May it be supposed that he who sayes Let them that are taught in the word communicate c. would have them also communicate who are not taught but are hindred from being taught by their own Laziness or Pride or Obstinacy If all such should be drawn in to maintain the Gospel-Ministers who then should be left out Upon what reason then were the Heathens exempted might not they have been taught if their own Laziness Pride or Obstinacy had not hindred So that although the Priest sayes The Heathen was not bound to maintain the Gospel-Ministers yet according as he has glost the Text and by the same reason upon which he would bring in such as might be taught but are not the very Heathen is liable to be brought in also to this Communication for the Ministers Maintenance because though he is not he might be taught if his own Laziness Pride or Obstinacy did not hinder This is indeed a notable way to advance the Priests Maintenance but neither is this way agreeable to natural Reason or gospel-Gospel-Truth nor are they Ministers of the Gospel who can receive much less exact a Maintenance after this manner He sayes ibid. That still this speaking of Gal. 6. 6. proves not T. E.'s foolish inference That none must contribute to a Ministers Maintenance but those that are taught by him actually What quirk he couches under the word actually I know not Sure I am he found it not in any inference of mine However if he intend no more by being actually taught then the Apostle expresses Let him that is taught c. I shall not think much of his calling me Fool having so good and so wise a Man as the Apostle Paul to bear me company in this Reproach And indeed I had rather be thought a Fool for sticking to the Apostle's sense then found a Knave by perverting â—is sense to uphold a selfish interest But if the Priest had been desirous of an Inference of mine to consute he needed not have formed an Inference for me for in pag. 286. of my Book he might have found a paiâ— together very pertinent to this purpose as having respect not to this Text only but that of 1 Cor. 9. also in these words All therefore that can be inferred from these Instances will amount to no more then this First That a Gospel Minister may expect and receive a Gospel Maintenance from such as receive his Ministry 2dly That a Gospel Minister ougâ—t not to expect any Maintenance from those that do not receive his Ministry This is plain and full and as I take it close to the Point it may be he takes it so too which made him not willing to undertake it but fairly pass it by He adds ibid. That these places say nothing against a Gospel-Minister's receiving Maintenance from all professed Christians This is somewhat like his saying before that I could not make it appear Abraham did not pay Tythes If from these places he would derive his Claim it will not be enough that they speak not against what he claims but it is requisite they should speak for it and that plainly too But these places are so far from speaking for such a Latitude as he aim at of scraping Maintenance from all taught or untaught that â—o but bear the Name of Christians that they speak against it The instances of the Ox the Souldier the â—lanter the Shepherd do sufficiently shew that as Maintenance is due to those that labour fight take pains and care for others so its due from them for whose sakâ—s the labour hazard pains and care is undergone and to whose benefit it redounds And in the two last instanâ—es of the Planter and Shepherd which may explain the other two being of like application the Apostle sends the Planter for Fruit directly to the Vineyard of his own planting and the Shepherd for Milk to the Flock of his own feeding The Shepherd was not to go to another Flock and say These are Sheep too and therefore I 'le Milk them I 'le Fleece them but he was to consider whether he had fed them and if he had not fed them he had no reason to expect Milk from them For if Paul had not sowed unto the Corinthians spiritual things it had then been
the Person so pretending is indeed deputed by his Landlord to that service Now then if according to this Simile the Priest would say or do any thing to the purpose let him first prove Tythes or the Tenth part to be Gods peculiar due under the Gospel and when that shall be agreed on we will if he please in the next place examine his Deputation and see how well he can make it appear that God hath appointed him for his Steward and Receiver In the mean time his precarious and petitionary Pleas are neither helpful to him nor creditable to his Cause But he says pag. 202. after all this the Quaker is a notorious Falsifier in saying The Tenant receives nothing from the Priest for he receives his Prayers and his Blessing his Preaching and other Administrations If the Tenant be a Quaker the Priest is a notorious Falsifier for he knows full well the Quaker receives none of all these of the Priest The Quaker doth not beâ—ieve the Priest's Prayers or his Preaching either to be worth receiving And for his Blessing as the Quaker doth not desire it so he is so far from receiving it that he seldom goes without his Curse Then for his other Administrations as he calls them 't is well known they that receive them pay roundly for them over and beside their Tythe He comes now to my second Reason which he thus gives pag. 203. Rent is a voluntary Contract volenti non sit injuria but Tythe is not voluntary now but taken by force To this he thus answers Very good By this Rule then it appears that Tythes are not as he falsly affirm'd but now they were a general Oppression for the generality pay them willingly and many Thousands contract with their Landlord and their Parson to pay them as voluntarily as they do to pay their Rents That the generality pay Tythes willingly is a confident Assertion contradicted by common experience scarce any one thing producing so many Suits at Law and so much strife and contention as Tythes In one sense I confess they may be said to pay willingly that is they are willing to pay the Tenth rather than have three Tenths taken from them So that being under a necessity of bearing one they chuse that which they take to be the lightest Burden and least Suffering And if in this sense he means they pay willingly and contract voluntarily such Contracts and Payments are much-what as voluntary as a Traveller's delivering his Purse to an High-way Man pâ—esenting a Pistol to his Breast Or as some School-Boys putting down their own Breeches not out of any great willingness sure they have to be Whipt but because they had rather by that means come off with three lashes than by refusing so to do suffer three times as many But sayes the Priest ibid All things are not Oppressions that are paid involuntarily for some Knaves will pay no just dues to any without compulsion c. It is not the unwillingness to pay that makes the Oppression but the injustice and inequality of the payment Iust dues are no Oppression but his supposing Tythes a just due is a begging of the Question Rent is a just and equal payment for which the Tenant receives the value of what he pays And tâ—ough the Priest says pag. 205. No doubt the Quakers could â—ish rather there were no Rent to be paid neither and they voluntarily covenant to pay Rent because they cannot enjoy the Farm without that charge Yet no doubt he is conscious to himself that he slanders the Quakers in this also for it is very well known the Quakers are as willing to pay their Rents or any other just dâ—es and are as good Tenants to their Landlords as any others are to say no more The Quakers know Rents to be just and reasonable and they do not desire to reap the benefit of other men's Lands for nothing as they are not willing the Priests should reap the benefit of their Labour for nothing In short the Quakers do Conscientiously pay Rents and all other just dues from a Principle of equity and justice as well as from the same Principle they do Conscientiously refuse to pay Tythes which are against Equity and Iustice. The Priest undertakes to make it appear that the Quakers did voluntarily contract to pay Tythes If says he pag. 204. Tythes be not mentioned in tâ—e contract then the Laws of England suppose that the Tenant consents to pay them This is a supposition of his own supposing which he grounds upon this Reason that Tythes are a known charge upon all Land whereas Tythes as I have proved before are a charge upon the Stock not upon the Land and are paid out of the Profits of the Stock not â—ut of the Rent of the Land But if Tythes were a charge upon the Land as Rent-charges Annuities and other customary Payments are they would then issue out of 〈◊〉 Rents and the Landlords not the Tenants would be 〈◊〉 â—hereto Thus his Reason being removed 〈◊〉 Supposition â—alls together with what was built upoâ— it §18 In his next Section the Priest says T. E. comes â—o his last Reserve I wish be were come to his last Falshood that after that I might expect Truth from him That which he calls my last Reserve he thus gives pag. 205. viz. That Tythes were really purchased by the owners of Estates for which he quotes pag. 344. of my Book gives this for my proof viz. They purchased all that was not excepted out of the Purchase but Tythes were not excepted therefore the Purchasers bought them and may sell them again and says If I can make this out this alone will do my business Although I doubt not this passage in my former Book will give satisfaction to any indifferent Reader yet seeing the matter is proposed anew I will â—ndeavour to open it a little further First therefore I desire the Reader to consider What it is the Purchaser buys 2. What it is Tythes are demanded of The Purcâ—aser buys the Land and that he buys intire no Tythe-Land no tenth Acre is ever excepted expresly or implicity but he buys the whole Field or Farm the tenth part as well as the nine But in this Purchase he buys the Land not the Profits or Increase which by Husbandry and Manuring may arise upon the Land in time to come for they are uncertain and the seller who makes him an Assurance of the Land will not undertake to assure him a future Increase and Profit from the Land nor were it reasonable to expect it Since then this is a Purchase of Lands which the Priest doth not lay any claim to let us next enquire what it is the Priest demands Tythes of The Priest himself shall answer this who in his Right of Tythes pag. 196. says expresly We grant to T. E. Tythes are due out of the Profits only and therefore if God give no Increase or the Husband-man have nothing grow we expect no
pag. 333. Had T. E câ—eared his Brethren from the Imposture he had effectually convicted me of virulency I hope the Reader will here find my Brethren so effectually cleared from the Priest's false Charge of â—mpâ—sture that he will see the Priest effectually convicted of virulency even according to his own confâ—ssion But leaving that to the Readâ—â—'s judgment let me now take the liberty to Expostulate a little with the Priest and ask him why he did not Answer those Grounds and Reasons which in the Book before-quoted out of which he piâ—k't this passage to cavil at the Quaker gave why we deny the World's Teachers He charges me with leaving my Argument to catch at or play upon a word or phrase Vindicat. pag. 311. But has not he charged his own guilt upon me Has he not here catched at and plaid upon a word or phrase and let the Arguments pass untouched Again his Brother Priest says in another Case though without Cause as I have already shewed The Quakers may be ashamed to let the Objection grow old and â—ver-worn before they have either confessed the Truth or â—ade some satisfactory Reply thereunto Right of Tythes pag. 240. But how long have these Objectioâ—s lain against the Priests it is little less than twenty years since they were first printed Might not they well be ashamed if they were not past shame who in all this time have neither confessed the Truth nor made any Satisfactory Reply to the Objections This Priest could find in his heart to look among the Grounds and Reasons there given to see if he could find any thing to carp at but let whoso will answer them for him He had not it seems Ingenuity enough to confess the Truth nor Courage enough to undertake a Reply to the Reasons Nay he did not so much as attempt to answer that one Reason out of which he took his Cavil viâ— That they are such Priests as bear Rule by their Means That they are indeed such is too notorious to be denyed and according as their Means are greâ—ter or less so do they bear more or less Rule over the people What Parish is it that knows not this bâ— sad Eâ—perience Yet hath he neither confessed the Truth of this nor made any much less a satisfactory Reply thereunto Besides in that very page out of which he catched that word he hath so played upon the Priests are charged to be such Shepherds that seek for their Gain from their Quarters and can never have enough which the Lord sent Isaiah to cry out against c. Isa. 56. 11. They are charged to be such Shepherds that seek after the Fleece and clothe with the Wool and feed on the Fat which the Lord sent Ezâ—kiel to cry out against c. Ezek. 34. They are charged to be such Prophets and Priests that Divine for Money and Preach for Hire which the Lord sent Micah to cry against and whilst we put intâ— their Mouthes they preached Peace to us but now we do not put into their Mouthes they prepare War against us Mic. 3. 11. May not these Priests be ashamed to let these Objections and many more in the same Book lie near Twenty Years against them and neither confess the Truth nor make any satisfactory Râ—ply thereunto Had it not beeâ— more for this Priest's Credit to have endeavour'd at least to remove these Objections by a sober Answer to the Grounds and Reasons in the fore-mentioned Book given than to catch at a word as he has done and only play upon a Phrase to exercise upon it his abusive Wit and Sophistry as he most falsly charges me to have done But let this suffice to manifest the Injustice of these Priests in charging the Quakers and me with those very things which they themselves are so deeply guilty of § 30. Now for a Conclusion of this Treatise I recommend to the Reader 's diligent Oâ—servation the following Particulars as a brief Râ—capitulation of the whole 1. That Tythes or an exact tenth part were never due by the Law of Nature by the eternal moral Law Thatâ— there is no Eternal Reason for that part nor Internal Rectitude in it 2. That Abraham's giving the Tythes of the Spoyls to Melchizedec and Iacob's Vowing to give the tenth part of his Increase to God being both of them spoâ—taneouâ— and frâ—e Acts are no obliging Precedents to any to give Tythes now 3. That Tythes are not now due by vertue of that Mosaick Law by which they once were due that Law being peculiar to the Iewish Polity and taken away by Christ at the dissolution of that Polity 4. That Tythes were never commanded by Christ Iesus to be paid under the Gospel nor ever demanded by any of the Apostles or other Ministers in their time That there is no Direction no Exhortation in any of the Apostolick Epistles to the Churches then gathered for the payment of Tythes either then or in after times That there is no mention at all of Tythes they are not so much as named in any of the New-Testament Writings with respect to Gospel-Maintenance although the Maintenance of Gospel-Ministers be therein treated of In a word That Tythes were not either demâ—nded or paid in the first and purest Ages of the Christian Church 5. That those Donations of Tythes which are urged by the Priests from Ethelwolf and others were made by Papists not in their Civil but Religious Capacity and were the Effects of the Corruption of Religion 6. That Tythes being claimed as due out of the Profits only those Donors could extend their Donations no further than to tâ—e Tythes of those Profits that did belong to themselves and of which they were the right Owners But the prâ—seâ—t Profits not belonging to them but to the present Occupants who are as really the right Owners of these Profits that arise now as they then were of those Profits that arose then and the present Occupants who are the right Owners of the present Profitâ— not having made any Donation of Tythes it follows that Tythes are not now due by vertue of any Donation from the right Owners 7. That the Laws which have been made for â—he payment of Tythes not making nor intending to make the Priests a Right to Tythes but supposing they had a Right to Tythes before if that Supposition prove to be false as it plainly and evidently doth and it now appears that in very deed the Priests had â—o right to Tythes before then haâ—e the Priests no Right to Tythes now by vâ—rtue of these Laws For those Laws not intending to make the Priests a 〈◊〉 Right but by mistakâ— supposing they had an old one that old one being trâ—ed and â—â—oved 〈◊〉 they have now neither old nor new Tâ—us it appears that the Priests have no Right to Tythes by the Law of God no Right to Tythes by the gift of the right Owners no Right to Tythes by the Laws of the Land 8. Tâ—at Tythes as taken in this