professing any Canonical obedience to the Pope which was first done by Ralph Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Anno 1115. and therefore they cannot justly be called a Popish Clergy But suppose again the Saxon Priests had been Papists that would not have made a Donation of Tythes invalid because Tythes are God's Right and the Grant was intended to God (g) Ad serviendum Deo soli Ingulph Deo contulit Math. West The Clergy of that Age were God's only publick Ministers and the Quaker's private Teaching was not then invented the Donors supposed them a good Ministry and as such endowed them for they esteem'd them to be God's Receivers and since there is no fault in God if there had been a fault in the Servant that could not prejudice the Master's Title Besides Almighty God hath now provided himself of Ministers that are no Papists but the most considerable Enemies to Popery in all the World so that if they had been a Popish Clergy and forfeited their own Right they could not forfeit ours and yet it is from a Protestant Clergy that the Quakers would take the Tythes Again T. E. must know that erroneous opinions in the Clergy do not make void the Rights which they have by the Laws of God or Man For the Jewish Priests in Christ's time were very erroneous in judgement and yet Christ pronounces they had a Right to Tythes even to those small Tythes not expressed in God's Law but Dedicated by the Pharisees for saith he These things ye ought have done Matth. xxiii 23. so doubtless we may say Though that Clergy were erroneous yet Ethelwolph ought to have given them God's due and the People ought to have paid it to them If they were erroneous neither Prince nor People knew it and they did not give these to maintain their Errors as T. E. maliciously insinuates but to maintain that which they believed to be a good Ministry and the true Worship of God and therefore the Donation remains good If I give alms to a poor Turk Papist or Quaker he is malicious who sayes I do it to maintain his Errors when I do it to relieve his wants (h) Misericordia solet juvare paupâ—rem non examinare justitiam Ambros de Nabeth However will any plead if I endow an Alms-house and suppose the Beads-men to be good Men but am mistaken and after my decease it appears the Persons which were chosen were of evil Principles or wicked Life that this makes my Donation to be wholly void We may say such evil Persons ought to be put out and better put in but be the Persons good or bad the Gift given to God stands good and is irrevocable § 18. Thirdly The Quaker objects ibid. That he did it upon evil motives For the good of our Souls and the forgiveness of our sins are the words of the Charter which shews it to be an effect of that Popish Doctrine of meriting Salvation by Good works and that he gave this as an expiation for his sins 'T is somewhat strange that T. E. should reckon both these for evil motives and it is the first time that I ever heard it called an evil motive to be moved to do a good work For the good of our Souls Again the desire of Remission of his sins was a good motive in it self onely he took an ill course to obtain it if he sought Expiation by Good works to merit pardon and salvation by good works is now a Doctrine of the grosser Romanists and I fear of some Quakers also who slighting the merit and necessity of Christ's death ascribe Salvation to the following the Light within yea T. E. himself pleads that there is no Salvation unless we have a sinless perfection and as if Christ had never died positively affirms Wheresoever there is sin there is also condemnation p. 97. Now he that looks for Salvation by his perfection doth hold that Popish Doctrine of meriting Salvation by Good works and he that proudly says he hath no sin to be remitted renders Christ's death as useless as he that believes he shall obtain remission by his Good works And therefore I doubt the Quaker will be found to be more a Papist than K. Ethelwolph For this Popish Doctrine of Merit and Expiation by Good works is not so old as that Age yea the learned Bishop Vsher proves that this Doctrine was not received here in Alselm's days for in his Directions to those who visited the Sick are these Questions and Answers A. Brother dost thou believe thou canst not be saved but by the death of Christ B. Yes A. Give him thanks for this with all thine heart B. I do A. If the Lord would judge thee say O Lord I set the death of my Lord JESUS between me and thy Judgement otherwise I cannot stand before thee (i) Vsher de Succes Eccles c. 7. §. 21. Yea Pope Adrian our Country-man calls Merits a broken Reed on which if we lean it will pierce our hand (k) Adrian in 4. Sent. And 't is evident from S. Bernard Durandus and others that the Church of Rome it self was not for Merits in this gross sense of 300 or 400 years after Ethelwolph's time And for his words in this Charter and some such like as are to be found among the most Orthodox Fathers they mean no more than that they hoped these good fruits meet for Repentance would be acceptable to God so that he perceiving their purposes of well-doing might of his great mercy bestow that pardon on them which Christ alone merited And hence the good King adds that they gave these also That the Priests might so much the more fervently pour out their Prayers to God without ceasing for them So that we may perceive they did not think this good work alone could expiate their sins or merit Salvation without God's mercy and to that end they desired the daily and importunate Prayers of the Church for them since they had learned from S. James That the Prayers of God's Ministers were a good means to obtain Remission James v. 14 15. But let us here also suppose they were led by those evil motives which T. E's malice falsly lays to their charge will he say that all the Donations of Papists who really are led by these Motives are invalid to those to whom they are made If so then all the Schools Hospitals and other charitable Gifts of Popish Donation are void which is a ridiculous Assertion The giving any thing to a pious use upon evil motives may endanger the Giver's losing his Reward in Heaven but it will not deprive the Receivers of the benefit of such a Gift on Earth and if we might not lawfully enjoy a Gift unless the Giver were moved by just and good motives to give it we could scarce enjoy any Donation of Papist or Protestant since we cannot certainly know whether they were induced to it by good or bad motives We conclude therefore That the Quaker falsly
done which hath been done a thousand times and that by the approbation of all Christian Laws And the Quaker in saying these things are ridiculous and unreasonable doth call all the Christian World Fools and pass his Censure upon Kings and Nobles Parliaments and Judges who have allowed such Grants to be just and reasonable and either made them or confirmed and approved them divers times It seems all these were a company of ridiculous and unreasonable Men or else T. E. is such an one himself and whether be the more likely let the Reader judge But it is no great wonder he should call all Men Fools whenas this blasphemous Argument flies in the face of God himself who even by the Quakers own confession in the Levitical Law did assume a Power to enjoyn all the Owners of Canaan to pay to the Priests the Tenth part of those Profits which did arise from their Sweat Pains Charge Care and that from one generation to another God did make over to his Priests these Tenths of the Profits of many Mens Sweat and Labour c. many hundred years before they were born Now this the Quaker saith is a ridiculous and unreasonable thing O bold Blasphemer If he saith the thing be ridiculous and unreasonable in it self then this Quaker chargeth God with Folly and Injustice who doth enjoyn it Nor can he be excused by saying God hath more power than Men for in evil foolish and unjust things God hath no power at all God cannot lie He cannot do any thing ridiculous or unjust And because God once made this Grant we dare be confident the Act is lawful and wise and just and that T. E. is a blasphemous Wretch to censure it by this wicked and silly way of reasoning which condemns Almighty God as much as it doth King Ehtelwolph I will not insist now upon the Atheistical denial of Providence which is couched in this Argument also for I shall shortly have occasion to shew how the Quaker supposes his Husbandman deserves all the Profits for his Labour and as if God contributed nothing he excludes him from any share of them when they are produced But this false and impious Argument is sufficiently exposed already to make any Man recant it that hath any spark of Grace or Understanding in him § 31. In the next place he affirms pag. 326. The Consideration on which Tythes were given is taken away for Ethelwolph gave them for the Health of his Soul and the Remission of his Sins which he believed might be obtained in that Church by the help of that Ministry to whom he gave his Tythes and the Mediation of those Saints in honour of whom he granted the Charter I have already proved That T. E. falsly supposes King Ethelwolph to have held all the Opinions of the present Church of Rome and particularly That he did not expect Pardon of his Sins by the Merits of his Good Works Alcuinus gives us the sense of the English Church in those days who saith He onely can deliver us from sin who came without sin and was made a Sacrifice for sin (a) Alcuin l. 4. in Joh. 8. The Saxons believed that Pardon was merited onely by Christ's Death onely they did esteem Good Works a good evidence of their Repentance and a Motive to God to accept them to that Pardon which was merited onely by Christ's Death which Opinion is much favoured by those Scriptures Prov. xvi 6. Dan. iv 27. Mat. iii. 8. Luke xi 41. and maintained by the most Orthodox Fathers For instance Lactantius no Papist for certain as living An. 310. saith Great is the reward of Mercy to which God hath promised the Remission of all sins (b) Lactant. Inst l. 6. And for obtaining this Remission by the help of that Ministry viz. the Saxon-Ministry to which he gave his Tythes no wise Man will deny but that there was a True Church in England in those days and if in that Church and by that Ministry no Pardon could be had from God then there was no Salvation to be had in this Nation at all in that Age no nor in any Nation in Christendom which is a strange Assertion As for the Saints we have shewed T. E. is mistaken in thinking they then did believe the Saints usurped Christs Office Ethelwolph honoured the Saints and so do we now but neither he nor we worship them or expect Pardon by them But we need not plead thus since T. E. falsly makes this a Consideration for which he gave Tythes Did that good King covenant with God or his Priests that they should give him Remission or else this Gift to be of no effect Was it inserted as a Condition or Proviso He hoped indeed Remission of Sins might follow through Christs Merits Gods Mercy and the Churches Prayers but he did not Indent with God for it And indeed the main Consideration was That the Clergy might pray for the whole Kingdom without the hinderances of Want and Worldly Care as the words of the Charter shew And this Consideration is not taken away but observed to this day Again If the King did fail of his Hope and could not finally get Remission in that Church which is a malicious Supposition this will not make his Charter void For if a Father in consideration of his affection to his Son and for his Provision settle part of his Estate on him being inwardly moved thereto by the hopes he will be dutiful the Sons undutifulness may disappoint the fathers hopes but doth not vacate his Settlement unless it were expressed and provided That the Deed should be void upon the Sons disobedience Finally If we suppose Ethelwolph as much a Papist as King Stephen mentioned by T. E. pag. 332. yet his Donations to Pious Uses must stand good even though the Opinion of Merit had been the Motive to him to make them or else T. E. revokes all the Charters and Donations made in those really Popish Times to never so good and pious Uses which all Men will confess is most absurd So that let us grant the Quaker all his own asking and still his malicious Conclusions will not follow § 32. I hope by this time the Reader will see how little truth is in that Saying pa. 327. If Tythes were ever due to any by vertue of this Gift it must be to the Popish Priests for to them they were given This we have shewed to be a gross mistake before § 17. and we will onely note That King Ethelwolph's Clergy agreed with the Protestant Church of England in more Points than with the modern corrupt Church of Rome And since the Donors gave them not to a Popish Clergy but to God and his true Ministers our Kings and Parliaments that took them away from the corrupt Clergy who were fallen into Popery and setled them on the true Protestant Ministry did observe therein the Intention of the Donors and did apply Tythes to the right use for which
4. The number of the Seven Sacraments was not defined till Peter Lombard's dayes Anno 1140 (m) Cassand de Sacram. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not received for a point of Faith till the Lateran Council above 1200 years after Christ (n) Scotus in 4. Sent. dist 11. q. 3. Purgatory it self was but a private Opinion and affirmed onely by some An. 1146 (o) Otto Frising l. 8. Chr. c. 26. And Indulgences can be no older (p) Polyd. Virgil. l. 8. cap. 8. Fish Roffens contra Luther Ar. 18. Yea their Application to Souls in Purgatory was first brought in by Boniface VIII (q) Agrip. de Vanit Scien c. 61. The Half Communion began but a little before the Council of Constance and was never decreed till then (r) Gregor de Valent. de Legit. usu Eucha c. 10. An. 1415. Yea the putting the Apocrypha into the Canon of Scripture and divers other Points were never decreed till the Council of Trent about 110 years ago And if it were not to avoid prolixity I could make it evident That the Pope's Vniversal Supremacy and Infallibility Justification by the merit of Good works Auricular Confession Formal Invocation of Saints and other corruptions of the modern Papists were not determined as Articles of Faith no not in Rome it self in Ethelwolph's time and then how can he be called a Papist supposing he had agreed with the then Roman Church in all points But I must not lanch out into this Ocean wherefore I will content my self to reply to the Quaker's Instances 1. For those pag. 301. the Quaker lays not much stress upon them and there are some of them allowed by the best Protestants and all Men that understand Antiquity know those Decretal Epistles to be forged which first attributed these Constitutions to those early Popes Proceed we therefore to his more material Instances And first concerning Deposing of Kings T. E. saith Pope Zachary I. took upon him to depose King Chilperic and absolved his Subjects from their Allegiance This is a Forgery invented by the Champions of the Pope's Supremacy but denied by the French who do assure us That the deposing of King Chilperic was done by Pepin himself by the consent of the whole Kingdom of France before any notice was given to the Pope about it who did not pretend to any such Authority over the French King nor is he allowed it at this day but only approved of the deed after it was done and advised to put him into a Monastery (ſ) Centur. Magdeburg and the ancient Historians words thus describing this matter may be seen in Widrington Apol. pro jure Princip And to let T. E. see how unlikely this feigned Deposition of Chilperic by the Pope's Authority is I will set down the Reply of Hinc-marus Arch Bishop of Rhemes to Pope Adrian the Second who had written to him to Excommunicate the King of France Anno 870. which was less than deposing There was never saith Hinc marus any such precept before sent from Rome to any of my Predecessors And going on he tells the Pope That the French assembled in Council did desire his Holiness according to the Example of his Predecessors to meddle with Ecclesiastical matters which belonged to him and not with the Common-wealth which was the Kings part to dispose of And let him not say they command us Franks to serve him that we will not serve for his Predecessors did never put this yoke upon our Predecessors neither can we endure it (t) Hincmar ap L. Boch Decret Ecc. Gal. l. 2. Tit. 2. p. 317. I cite this the more largely because our Ethelwolph married the Daughter of this very King of France whom the Pope could not so much as Excommunicate much less Depose and no doubt Ethelwolph was as free from the Pope's Authority in this matter as the King of France his Father-in-law Secondly There is as little truth in Gregory the Third's Deposing of Leo Isaurus about Images which Deposition Onuphrius a judicious Historian calls a meer Fable (u) Onuphr in Vit. Greg. VII Indeed no Bishop did ever depose a King or Emperour till Hildebrand's time An. 1074. which is confirmed by the best Historians of that Age (x) Chron. Hirsaug Otto Frising l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 Godfr Viter part 17. Trithemius c. Let Onuphrius speak for all Gregory the Seventh did first of all the Popes of Rome despising the Imperial Authority and power not only Excommunicate but presume to deprive the Emperour of his Kingdom and Empire a thing never heard of in the World before (y) Onuphr Vit. Gregor VII And Sigebertus Chr. An. 1088. calls it A Novelty and a Heresie Yea the whole Church of Liege in their Epistle to Paschal II. tell him to his face That no Pope before this Gregory did ever use the Temporal Sword (z) Epist Leodens Eccles ad Paschal 2. So that this piece of Popery was not crept into any part of the Christian Church much less into England when Tythes were given to the Church nor was the Pope's Supremacy or Infallibility owned here in those dayes as I will undertake to prove against this Quaker and the Jesuits whose part he takes in this matter So that I will only note That if T. E. referre the first Original of Tythes to Ethelwolph's Donation in this Kingdom then he should have produced an Example of the Pope's power to depose the Kings of England which if he can shew to have then been a Doctrine received here it will make somewhat to his purpose but these forreign Instances if they were as true as they are false do not prove the Saxons were Papists in this point Secondly The Quaker Instances in the Worship of Images and upon presumption that our Saxon-Ancestors worshipped them he frequently call them Idolaters which is another manifest slander For though the Saxons had some few Images and Pictures for ornament and memory yet they did not worship them in this Age nor long after and though the second Council of Nice did attempt to establish Image-worship we may see in Dr. Stillingfleet's last Book of the Idolatry of the Roman Church That the greatest part of the Christian World rejected that Council and detested the practice thereof yea that Council was almost by all so much contemned that it was scarce counted worth the Reading by him that translated it (a) Anastas Bibliothec. Praef. ad 7. Synod But to shew what was the opinion of the Saxons and Gallican Churches generally agreeing in their opinions where the most famous Tythe-givers of this Age lived let it be noted that Sir Henry Spelman proves That the Saxons from Augustin's time had Images only for ornament memory reverence and example but not for worship (b) Concil tom 1. not ad Concil Lond. An. 712. And about 60 years before K. Ethelwolph's Donation we read a full Account of the English Churches opinion about Images Anno 792.
For Charles the Great of France saith the Historian sent the Constitutions of a Synod which he had received from Constantinople into Britain in which alas were many inconvenient things and contrary to the Catholick Faith especially that Images ought to be worshipped which is altogether accursed by the Church of God against which Alcuinus writ an Epistle wonderfully proved by the Authority of Divine Scripture which in the name of our Princes and Bishops he carried with the Constitutions back to the King of France (c) Hoveden Annal. p. 232 Sim. Dunel Col. 111. Math. West An. 793. And upon this a Synod was called at Frankfort wherein by the Gallican English and German Churches the worship of Images was condemned and a Book written in the Name of Charles the Great against the second Council of Nice (d) Vid. Eiginharti Annal An. 794. and that this opinion continued long after may be seen in Dr. Stillingfleet pag. 832. who instances in Famous Authors that in the name of the Gallican Church opposed all Image-worship such as Jonas Aurelianensis Anno 842. and Agobardus Bishop of Lyens An. 850. Hincmarus Bishop of Rhemes An. 880. c. And that the English remained free from this Idolatry a long time after is shewed by Sir Roger Twysden (e) Histor Vindic. c. 9. p. 184. Thirdly He instances in Miracles and Intercession of Saints taxing Bede with these points of Popery and the Saxons of his time I reply That if the beliefe of Miracles make Men Papists then T. E. and his Quakers are all Papists for they believe they are immediately taught which is a stranger and greater Miracle than any they can find in all Bede's History Again It is not unlikely but some extraordinary Miracles might be wrought at the first Conversion of the Saxons the more easily to convince that rugged People and the want of Humane Learning in that Age might occasion the credulous reception of more than was true and yet we must not condemn them presently for Papists they might be credulous and apt to be imposed upon but that was their infirmity and amounts but to Superstition not to Popery I add That in Eusebius and other old Church-Histories there are many Miracles recorded which yet doth not prove either the Authors relating them or the People believing them to be Papists As for Intercession of Saints if he mean that the Saxons prayed to the Saints as their Intercessors with God he doth egregiously wrong them for the old Saxon Psalters in which are their Private Devotions have no mention of any Saints at all as is attested by Spelman and Twysden who had perused several Originals and Bishop Vsher affirms the like of a Prayer Book which he had seen as old as K. Athelstan's time An. 940. Nor were the Saints Names added in their Litanies with Ora pro nobis till about the time of K. Canutus almost 200 years after K. Ethelwolph's time So that neither in this matter were our Tythe-givers Idolaters nor Papists neither There is but one thing more wherein the present Church of Rome is charged with Idolatry and that is in Adoring the Host or Body of Christ which they say is transubstantiate in the Sacrament but neither in this were the Saxons guilty for they did not believe Transubstantiation no not in King Edgar's dayes An. 975. as appears by the Saxon Paschal Homily which Aelfricus then translated into Saxon being appointed to be publickly read There is saith he much difference between the Body of Christ which suffered for us and that which is consecrated in the Eucharist that was born of the Virgins flesh but his Spiritual Body which we call the Host is composed of many grains without blood or bones or any member or any Soul This Mystery is a pledge and sigure but the Body of Christ is Truth it self (f) Homil◠Pasch Sax. And another Discourse of his to a Saxon Bishop of those Times saith The Host is the Body of Christ not corporally but spiritually (g) B. Ushe◠de Success 〈◊〉 Eccles c. 〈◊〉 §. 21. Which proves they were of the same opinion with Protestants in this main point and could be no Idolaters at all I could give more Instances to prove that the Saxons were like the Protestants in the most fundamental matters but two Instances more shall suffice at present 1. As to the merit of Good works The Lord teacheth us saith V. Bede that no Man is sufficiently able to save himself either by his own Free-will or his own merits (h) Bed in Psal 31. And by the Righteousness of his deeds shall no Man be saved but only by the Righteousness of Faith (i) Id. in Psal 77. By the mercy of God in the Name of our Saviour and not by our merits we obtain Life saith Alcuinus An. 800. (k) In Psal 142. And long after even in Anselm's time this was the opinion of the Church of England as we have proved before so that in this point the Quakers with their Perfection are more Popish than the Saxons were I shall conclude with the Canon of Scripture which the Saxons kept entire as we have it rejecting the Apocrypha from being of Divine Authority even as the present Protestants Church doth see of old Beda (l) Comm in Apoc. c. 4. Alcuinus (m) Advers Elipantum Gislebertus Westmonast (n) Alterc inter Synag Eccl. c. 1. An. 1090. and since that Johannes Sarisburiensis (o) Ep. 172. An. 1180. and Guliel Occam (p) Dial. part 3. tract 1. l. 3. c. 16. An. 1330. to name no more Finally then 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 who were more Orthodox in some Points than Rome it self then was and differred from the present Papists in all the most material Articles of Faith being nearer in opinion to the Protestant Church of England And although they were in some lesser matter inclining to Superstition yet they were very devout according to their knowledge and may shame the present Age who do not so many good things though they have more Understanding But if T. E. will not recant I shall leave it to the Reader to judge of his Ignorance and Impudence in saying Tythes were given by Papists and Idolaters to Idolaters for Idolatrous uses and in supposing the Church so much corrupted with Popery then that their very Donations were not fit to stand good or be enjoyed no not by a Protestant Ministry § 22. To manifest that the Donation of Tythes is not Popery we have already proved they were given to the Church before Popery came in and now we shall shew they were allowed received and confirmed after Popery was turned out and that as you noted in the Conference even by those who were Martyrs for the Protestant Faith Cranmer Hooper Ridley Latimer Taylor and
Right to be maintained And he shews what Maintenance was due to the Jewish Ministers affirming that Christ had ordained even so that we should live of the Gospel that is the Rights of God under the Gospel and the acknowledgments made to him for the mercy therein revealed The things of the Christian Temple and Altar were to be our Maintenance And is not this to say What the Maintenance is not a word in all this who should pay it And for the Instances of the Ox the Souldier the Shepherd and Vine-dresser Can these as S. Paul brings them in belong to those who pay the Maintenance Doth the Ox pay his Master Maintenance or the Souldier give his Prince a Stipend It is the Ministers whom S. Paul compares to the Ox for profitableness to the Souldier for hazards to be undergon to the Vine-dresser and Shepherd for pains and care And all the Instances do shew the contrary to what this Abuser of Scripture would squeeze out of them The Ox must not be starved who is willing to work though he be not actually imploy'd by him that feeds him and so of the rest As for the latter place Gal. vi S. Paul tells them they must give the Ministers a part of all their good things And is not that a declaring what the Maintenance is The Apostle saith indeed He that is taught in the Work must give this But that is to distinguish Christians from Heathens of which the World was then full The Heathen was not bound to maintain the Gospel Ministers but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Catechumen the Christian who was or might be taught if his own laziness or pride or obstinacy hindered not He was to give the Catechist or Minister a part of all his goods So that still this proves not T. E's foolish Inference That none must contribute to a Ministers Maintenance but those that are taught by him actually for these Places say nothing against a Gospel Ministers receiving Maintenance from all professed Christians so that unless the Quakers will own themselves Heathens they cannot be excused from paying Tythes And because T. E. puts in this device meerly to excuse his Fellow Quakers from paying our Dues I will let him see the fallacy of this Arguing First considering the state of things then and secondly with respect to the condition they are in now First According to the Quakers Principles the Christians of old were all immediately taught by inward Revelation And if so what need any Gospel Ministery at all what need of outward Means what need had they to have any Teachers of the Word Or with what equity could this Teacher require maintenance of them that had no occasion for his Teaching at all The Quaker forgot himself when he granted a Gospel Ministry and a general Maintenance for such since being taught without Means overthrows all this And the Christians to whom S. Paul writ might upon these Principles have pleaded an exemption from giving any Maintenance at all Secondly But now that there is according to T. E. a General Maintenance established by Divine Authority and that pious Men have given a certain part of the profits of their own Lands for this maintenance How unjust a thing is it for the Quakers to with-hold this Maintenance upon pretence they are not that is They will not be taught Let this exact Parallel Case shew their dishonesty herein Suppose a Pious Man an hundred Years ago did endow a Free-School with twenty pounds per Annum to be raised out of the Profits of a parcel of Ground worth two hundred pounds per Annum that is the Tenth part of the Profits on condition that all the Boys in such a Town should be taught gratis Now suppose there be a Master legally invested in this School resident at it and ready to teach all the Boys of that Town if they will come it being the same trouble to him to teach ten as twenty But it may be not above ten of twenty Boys within that Town will come to be taught the rest are Truants and do not come If T. E. himself were the Heir or Tenant to this two hundred pounds per Annum would he think it just or reasonable to stop ten pounds of the twenty because half the Boys do not come to be taught Doth not the Masters legal Title and willingness to teach give him a just right to the whole stipend And will not all Men say the Occupier of the two hundred pounds per Annum is a Knave to withhold any part of it on this pretence And yet this is the very case between the present Clergy and the Quakers and surely none will think Christ or his Apostles would countenance the unjust detaining of other Mens Dues upon such weak pretences § 10. T. E's second device to take off his former Grant of a General Maintenance established by Divine Authority is pag. 286. That Christ hath expressely set down what this Gospel Maintenance is viz. onely meat and drink Matth. x. 10. Luke x. 6 7 8. 1 Cor. ix 4. Truly this seems somewhat strange that T. E. should first say Divine Authority had onely established a Maintenance in general and in the next page but one affirm That the same Authority hath particularly expressed what this maintenance must be If Christ have allotted the particular Maintenance then he hath not left it to generals If he have established it onely in general then hath he not expressed the particulars One of these must be false for indeed there is a manifest contradiction But moreover this unfortunate Interpreter never meddles with any place of Scripture without abusing it and betraying the folly of that Spirit which is in him For these places of S. Matthew and S. Luke were spoken upon a particular occasion of sending Disciples into the Neighbouring Cities of Judea and Christ gave them special Rules appropriate to that Mesiage onely and to apply these Rules to all Ministers or to the general Commission he gave them afterwards is the most ridiculous and absurd thing imaginable When the Apostles went to the prejudiced and unbelieving Jews with the first news of the Gospel Meat and Drink was as much as they could expect and Christ bids them to take that and be contented But he doth no where forbid them to receive more if good Men freely gave it to them And if Christ according to T. E's fancy had determined Meat and Drink for the onely Gospel Maintainance then the Apostles had been great Sinners in receiving the price of Possessions sold and dedicated Acts iv Chap. v. If they had been taught by T. E's Spirit they must have returned them back again and so must S. Paul have done the wages he took of other Churches 2 Cor. xi 9. and those liberal Presents he received from the Philippians Phil. iv 18. Yea and our Quaker must needs exclaim against S. Paul for daring to be so bold that when his Master had expresly set down