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 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 a●so of the 〈◊〉 , Hebr 7. 12. For there is verily a 〈◊〉 ●f the Commandment going before ●●c . vers. 18.

In Augustine's time it was no general Law nor Custom in the Church , that Tythes should be paid , Willet's Symp●● of Popery , 5th Gen. Controv. pag. 314.

Nemo plus ●u●is ad Alium transf●rre potest , quam ipse habe●et , U●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 ●velli non potest Reg. Jur. i. e. That which is our own , may not be taken away fr●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 Cl●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 in●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 t●ke the Chapter of Tythes out of the latter ( so much , ● mean , of it as seemed Argum●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 ●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 pe●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 discou●teously● 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 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 ( yea● 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 o● that Passage , and therefore ( to avoid needless Repetitions ) omit it here ; yet thought it needful to intimate thus much here , lest ●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 ●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 De●etrius , the Author of the Book called , The Right of Tythes asserted , &c. who finding his Diana ●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 ●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 La●p is nourished , the ●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 Ins●●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 Cra●t is in danger to be s●t at nought , but also that the Temple of the great Goddess Diana should be despised . This sayes now , They would gl●●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 Churche● , 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 , Righ● 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. ●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 Cha● , 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. 18● . A wild Quaker , pag. 190. This double-tongu'd and false-hearted man , pag. 195. His own base humor , pag ●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 Venemo●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 he all along looks upon the Quakers with an evil Eye of contempt , disdain , and scorn , so he lifts up himself and his Brethren of the Clergy , scarce finding words big enough to express the high conceit , and lo●ty Opinion he has of his own and their Abilities . The leading Quakers ( sayes he ) perceiving the Clergy of England so able and industrious to discover all their evil Designs , &c. pag. 12. Again , They know while the Clergy have these provisions , they will have Books , and leasure to Study , and Learning enough to 〈◊〉 all their silly pretences , pag. 13. Again , Our Adversaries finding our study of the Law so destructive of their inspired Nonsense ; they would gladly stir up the People to take away our Books , and Subsis●ence from ●s , that we might be starved into Ignorance , and by our sad Necessities be brought down to their scantling of understanding ; and then they hope their Speakers would be an equal match for ●s , pag. 14. These are the Brags , these the Insults , these the Vau●ts , these are some of the Rhodomontadroes of this Polemical Priest , who in the pride of his Heart , and haughtiness of his Mind , looks on the poor Quakers with the same Eye of Scorn and Contempt , as did the monstro●● Philistine of Old , upon the little Stripling David . But when he takes occasion to mention me , how is he put to it to find words sufficiently significant of his high disdain ! as in pag. 4. So MEAN a Creature . Again in pag. 5. I judge it necessary to lay aside all Considerations of the MEANNESS of the Adversary . And when he hath a mind to throw dirt on me , rather then want a pretence to do it on , he will use the help of his invention , and suppose things not in common sense supposeable : As when he sayes , Dr. Sr , I perceive our strutting Quaker looks on you with a scronful Eye , and sayes , pag. 277. Tythes were w●nt to be claimed as of divine Right ; but he finds this Priest is not hardy enough to adventure his c●use upon that Title : Sure he takes himself to be very terrible , for he believes none but a hardy man dare● s●t upon him , pag. 16. How can it reasonably be supposed that I did charge the Author of the Friendly Conference with want of hardiness in respect of my self ? Can he imagine I took that Book to be designed as an Onset upon me ! nothing is more irrational . Again , he sayes , pag. 17. It is evident you laid aside this Weapon ( of the divine right ) not out of any distrust of the Argument , nor out of any great Opinion of your Adversaries skill ; How weakly is this argued , for a man of so great Learning ! One of my scantling of understanding might happily have spoken as pertinently as this . The Author of the Friendly Conference did not lay aside the Weapon of divine right , out of any great Opinion of his Adversaries skill : Why , did he know what skill his Adversary had before he try'd it ? Nay , did he know before-hand , or could he fore-see who his Adversary should be ? Surely , either this great Learn't man in the wantonness of his Wit , hath over-shot himself , or else he must make his Dr. Sr. a Diviner instead of a Divine : This he did to fasten on me an imputation of self-conceit , and stick his strutting Epithet upon me ; but in pag. 3. when he had a mind to Badge me with the scornful Title of a poor Retailer , he sayes , I glea●ed my Quotations out of Fisher against Bishop Gauden , and that with so little skill , that when the Printer in Fisher had mistaken Fimicus for Firmicus ; this poor Retailer calls him Fimicu● also , pag. 115. which very Page of my Book detects his unfair dealing , and clearly convicts him of manifest falshood : for I there quote Gauden's Book of Oaths , and the very page in Gauden's Book , out of which I took that Se●tence , notwithstanding which , so little regard has he to speaking Truth , that he charges me with gleaning it out of Fisher. But this is not the only instance of his unfair dealing by me , as I shall have occasion hereafter to shew .

He seems highly offended that I called Tythes the Priests Delilah , the very Darling & Minion of the Clergy . What ever Reasons induced me so to call them , I think he hath sufficiently proved that I therein exprest my self aptly enough ; for he hath not only leap over all the rest of my Book , and singled out this which was the last Chapter in it , shewing thereby how near and dear this is to him , and that whatever becomes of the rest , this shall have a distinct Treatise for its perticular defence , but in his treating of it also , he delivers himself in such Pathetical expressions , and speaks so feelingly of it , that one may easily perceive it is one of his nearest concern● , if not the nearest of all : Hear what he sayes , pag. 13. speaking of the Quakers with-holding Tythes from them , They see ( sayes he ) they cannot quench the Lamp , and therefore they would stop the Oyl that nourishes it . Tythes then it seems ( in his own account ) is to the Priests what Oyl is to the Lamp , that which makes it shine , that which makes it give any light , that which makes it of any use or service ; can any thing be nearer ? No Oyl , no Light ; no Tythes , no Preaching ; no Penny , no Pater noster . Did ever any , who assumed the Name of a Minister of the Gospel , speak after this rate before ! stop the Oyl , the Lamp ●oes out , the Lamp has done shining ; with-hold Tythes , the Priest gives over , the Priest has done preach●●● . Without Oyl the Lamp will not burn ; without Tythes the Priest will not Preach : Methinks this might 〈◊〉 ●nough to let the People see what a Ministry they 〈◊〉 under , and seriously to consider , Whether the dim Light their Lamps gives , be worth the Oyl it spends them ? Certain it is , that in thus comparing the Priests to the Lamp , and the Tythes to the Oyl , making Tythes the cause of the Priests preaching , as the Oyl is of the Lamps burning ; this Priest hath spoke the very Truth , though somewhat unadvisedly ; and 't is much if this unwary Expression don't lose him all the preferment he promised himself for his elaborate Book of the Right of Tythes , which smells so strong of the Lamp . But howsoever he speeds in that , his own comparison will justifie me for calling Tythes the Priests Delilah , the very Darling and Minion of the Clergy .

But more fully to discover his foundation and standing ▪ take another expression of his in the same page , And because they dare not engage this Army , they attempt to force them to disband for want of Pay . It seems then this Army of Priests fight for Pay ; and without Pay fight who will fo● them , they will disband first● But I am of Opinion they will consider twice , before they disband once . Men once in Arms are seldom forward to disband , while either Pay or Plunder lasts . How have they behaved themselves towards those that have no need of such an Army , nor exspecting benefit by them , have Consci●ntiously refused to pay them ? Did they disband , or threaten it ? nothing less . They rather Ralli●d their Forces together , & either by Law , or force without Law , have fallen upon the Spoil , & taken sometimes three , sometimes five or six times as much as they pretended to be due to them : So that it is not likely , while Plunder may be had , the want of Pay will disband the● .

But while this Priest talks of being forc'st to disband for want of Pay . I doubt he forget● the Nature of his Warfare , and the Cause for which he pretends to be engaged . Is not he one that takes upon him ● Cure of Souls ? and can he so easily quit his Station ? Will he leave the Souls of the People for a Prey to the Enemy , because he has not the pay he desires ? Surely then it is otherwise with him , then it was with the Apostle Paul , who did not say , If ye Pay ●e not , you 'l force me to disband ; if ye stop the Oyl my Lamp will go out ; without Tythes I cannot Preach , but A necessity is laid upon me , Yea , W● is to me if I preach not the Gospel , ● Cor. 9. 16. But this Priest does not appear to be under that necessity of Preaching , but rather under the necessity of giving over , if he be not paid to his content ; nay , he seems to understand no other W● , but that of having the Oyl stopped , and wanting P●y . The Parishoner in the Friendly Conference , pag. 160. was pretty near the mark it seems , when he said , The Covetousness of the Clergy hath given us occasion to fear , that bereave you of your preferments , and you would soon abandon your Profession : And that Priest understood better how to Varnish over his Cause , then this hath done ; for he answered more warily , I hope ( said he ) many of 〈◊〉 can appeal to the searcher of Hearts , that we embraced the Ministry upon better grounds then temporal Interests .

Whatever the grounds were upon which they embraced their Ministry , temp●r●l Interests it seems by this Priest , are the grounds upon which they will quit it , want of Pay will force them to disband . 'T is much if this Priest be not one of those , of whom his Dr. Sr. the Author of the Friendly Conference speaks , when he sayes , pag. 11. It cannot be expected to be otherwise , but that some men for a corrupt Interest will intrude themselves into these sacred Offices : Or at least one of those of whom the same Author complains , in pag. 160. of his Friendly Conference , where he sayes , The secular care of some of the Clergy , for the Maintenance of their Families have been excessive ; some such it seems there are among them , and he is as like to be one as another : for indeed the excess of his Secular care bespeaks him An Intruder for a corrupt Interest .

The Iews he sayes have a Proverb , Sine farina non est lex , pag. 14. i. e. Without Meal there is no Law . And have not the Priests a Proverb also , Sine farina non est Evangelium , i. e. Without Meal there is no Gospel . If his metaphors of the Lamp and the Oyl , the Army and the Pay be thought too weak to bear my Inference out , I will add what he in the next page tells us Tacitus sayes of the State , with his own application thereof to the Church , There can be no quiet to the Nations without Souldiers , no Souldiers without Pay , nor no Pay without Tribute , on which ther●fore the common saf●ty doth depend : Even so , sayes he , no Peace in the Church without Ministers , no Ministers without Maintenance , nor no Maintenance without these publick Contributions , on which therefore the safety of Religion doth d●pend . The plain English of this is , No Tythes , no Ministers ; no Meal , no Gospel ; for all is made to depend upon Tythes , No Ministers without Maintenance , no Maintenance without these publick Contributions ( namely Tythes , no other maintenance it seems will serve the turn ) on which therefore , namely Tythes , the safety of Religion doth depend : So that take away Tythes , and down falls Religion : but that must be understood of their Religion only , whose Subsistance depends upon Tythes , and I hope not of all theirs neither .

I am not willing to spend time in tracing him step by step through all his crooked turnings and winding● , wherein he often contradicts himse●f , one while making the Quakers to be acted by meer Cove●ousness ( in denying to pay Tythes ) pretending Conscience to save their Purses , supposing this kind of Godlines great Gain , pag. 12. insinuating , that the Quakers find their Harangues against Tythes very taking with the Covetous and Atheistical , with those who care not much for any Religion , and therefore like the cheapest best , pag. 14. Another while , The Quakers Obstinacy in this case of Tythes exposeth them to more Sufferings then all their other Errors , p. 6. One while , I am a bold Antagonist , pag. 5. Another while , The Quaker● dare not engage the Priests Army , pag. 13. Anon , T. E. singly provokes the Priest to take up this Argument , pag. 18. And ( which is beyond all the rest ) he calls me both a daring Adversary , and a sculking Adversary in one and the same page . But I pass over these , and many other of like nature , being desirous to try what further Strength and Force of Argument this great Warriour hath brought forth in the Defence of Tythes , then the Author of the Friendly Conference had done before him .

CHAP. 1.

§ . 1. TO make out the Divine Right of Tythes , there are three Periods ( he sayes , p. 19. ) to be considered ? 1. Before the Law ; 2. Under the Law ; 3. The Time of the Gospel . Concerning the ●st Period , before the Law , sayes he ( to his Dr. Sr. ) you said very little in your Conference , as not designing to mannage this Argument .

But why did he say so little ? Was it not because he had but little to say , and as I observed in my former Answer , Though he pretended to be a Minister of the Gospel , yet he took the Law for the surer holding , and therefore betook himself chiefly to that ? No , sayes this Priest ( to excuse him ) 'T is evident you laid aside this Weapon ( of the divine Right ) not out of any distrust of the Argument , but in very Truth you seem to have been loath to cast Pearls before Swine , who understand not the value of them , pag. 17 , 18.

Was his Parishioner then a Swine with whom he discoursed on that subject , whom he called his Good ● Friend and Neighbour , pag. 1. to whom he bore such true Friendship , pag. 2. whose serious Inclination , Modesty and Humility he commended , and the Expressions of whose Affection he accepted in all gratitude , pag. 3.

He hinted indeed before ( pag. 6. of his Friendly Conference ) that the Priests People were Beasts , and lean Beasts , no fatter for all the feeding ; but then they seemed to have been Kine , he stroak't so much M●l● from them ; but this Priest has explain'd the matter , and declared them arrant Swine , not considering that he hath made his Dr. Sr. a Swine●erd instead of a Shepherd .

But what am I concern'd in all this ? Will he blame me because his Brother took up his Cause by the wrong end ! If divine Right ( as he sayes ) be ant●cedent to any positive Constitution , why began he at the human Right ? Or if he intended only to mannage the Argument of humane Right ( as this Priest intimates for him , pag. 20. ) why did he meddle with the divine Right ? but seeing he gave a touch on each , why am I blam'd for answering both ? He had● Reason the rather to have begun with the divine Right , and to have insisted on it too , and have mannaged that Argument ( if he understood it ) in as much as he began his Discourse upon a Passage taken out of a Book of E. B's , which related to the divine Right , not to the humane . Yet had he said nothing of Divine Right at all , it may be I might have said the less ; but seeing he thought fit to say so much as might intimate a reserve for a divine Right , I think I had reason to examine the claim , and not as easily grant , as he did weakly beg the Question .

But he sayes , he perceives his Brother Priest had mentioned , that the divine Right of Tythes was derived from Melchizedeck , not from Levi. He 's very angry I fell upon this Passage , and to vent his Passion bestows upon me the badge of a skulking Adversary : Why so ? Because this Passage ( he sayes ) was single , not guarded with any Proofs or Reasons , stood naked , was an open place . Whose Fault was that ? Did he expect I should have guarded it with Proo●s and Reasons for him ? or that I should have been so mannerly as to have past it by because it was not guarded ? He would not it seems have had me enter there , because it was an open place . Surely if I had meddled with nothing but what was guarded with Proofs and Reasons , I should have had little to meddle with ; for his whole Book is either u●guarded or ill guarded .

But he would perswade his Reader , pag. 17 , 20. That I had triumphed over this naked Sentence , ( as he calls it ) and over the Author too ; nay , that I had boasted , I had disproved clearly the divine Right of Tythes ; for which , the better to hide himself , he assigns no page of my Book ; nor do I know any Passage in it , from which , without ● positive Resolution to abuse me , he could draw such an unfair inference . The most I said ( that I remember ) was in pag. 282. and the words these , That Tythes were not paid by Abraham to Melchizedeck , but given , and that but once , and that too upon an Accidental Occasion , nor then out of his own proper Estate ( but out of the Pillage of Sodom , which he by the Sword had recovered from the Plunderers ) I think I need not stick to say I have already prov'd . Whethe● this was an immodest Expression , considering what I had before offer'd in the four preceding pages of my Book ; and whether he hath dealt fairly with me from hence , to represent me as triumphing , and boasting that I had disproved clearly the Divine Right of Tythes , let the ingenuous Reader judge .

§ . 2. My first Opponent in his Friendly Conference , pag. 135. had affirmed , that those that insist upon the divine Right of Tythes , derive them not from Levi , but Melchizedeck : In my Answer to which , pag. 277. I said , It is then inquirable , whether o● no Tythes were ever due to Melchized●ck : That which should make them due , must be a Command , they were not due to the Levitical Priesthood , until they were commanded to be paid ; but after they were commanded to be paid , they become due ; and so long as the Command stood in force , it was an Evil to detain them . But we do not find , throughout the Scriptures any Command from God that Tythes should be paid unto Melchizedeck . Upon this the Author of the Right of Tythes sayes , pag. 20. My first words do declare , I do not understand the Question .

But I believe , either this Priest doth not understand the Question , as the other stated it ; or else he thinks the other Priest did not understand how to state it as he should do ; and therefore he hath undertaken to state the Question anew . The Case was plain enough to be understood before ; and I am content to abide the Reader 's Censure , whether by my Answer to it I under●●ood it or not . I confess , I did not then understand how this man Eighteen Moneths after would alter it , no more then I now do how another of them Eighteen Mone●●s hence may vary it again , if this mans work succeed no better then the former . The former Priest said , The divine Right of Tythes was derived from Melchizedeck . Now because no Right could be derived from Mel●hiz●deck to another , which was not first in Melchizedeck himself , I thought it justly inquirable , Whether or no Tythes were ever due to Melchizedeck ? And because no certain and positive Evidence could be produced of Melchizedeck's Right to Tythes , I judg'd it necessary to consider what way Tythes might come to be due to ● him , and therefore said , that which should make them due must be a Command . This also I demonstrated by an ●nstance from the Levitical Priesthood , to whom it is on all hands acknowledged they wer● due , after they were commanded to be paid to them , not before ; therefore I said , They were not due to the Levitical Priesthood , until they were commanded to be paid ; but after they were commanded to be paid they became due : and so long as that Command stood in force , it was an Evil● to detain them . This the Priest was willing to dash out , lest as the Right of the Levitical Priesthood to Tythes , depended upon an express Command , so an equality of Reaso● should drive him to seek a Command , on which to ground Melchizedeck's Right to them also , which he very well knew he could no where find .

He attempts therefore to mend the matter by a new stating of the Question : And whereas the other Priest had asse●ted , that the Divine Right of Tythes was derived from Melchizedeck , not from Levi ; this Priest sayes , pag. 20. The Ass●rtors of the Divine Right of Tythes do not make them originally due either to Melchizedeck or Levi , but to God himself , &c.

To whom Tythes were originally due , was not the Question ; but from ●hom the present Priests do deriv● a Divine Right in Tythes to themseves , whereby Tythes may become due to them by a D●vine Right , which the former Priest asserted to be from Melchizedeck . He does not claim Tythes from God , to whom they were originally due ; but from Melchizeck , to whom how they became due , and from whom have they come to be due to these Priests , had well become him to have proved .

§ . 3. He sayes , The Tenth belongs to God .

I say , All belongs to God , the Nine Parts as well as the Tenth ; for the Fulness of the Earth is the Lords , Psal. 24. 1. not a part only ; the Cattel on a thousa●d Hills ar● his , Psal. ●0 . 12. not the Tythes of them only . That Scripture therefore Prov. 3. 9. Honour the Lord with thy Su●stance , is misapplyed by the Priest , and , as he restrains it to the Payment of Tythes , is not a binding Rule to Christians as well as Iews ; C●ristians being no where commanded by God to pay Tythes , as the Iews expresly were . But the Christian doth then honour God with his Substance , when thankfully receiving the Goods of this World from the Hand of the Lord , he doth in God's holy Fear so use them , as not to abuse them , 1 Cor. 7. 31. when both in eating and drinking , and whatsoever else he does , he does all to the Glory of God , according to the Exhortation of the Apostle Paul , 1 Cor. 10 31. 'T is not to be doubted but that God , from whose Bounty and Blessing all is received , might reserve to himself what share he pleased ; but what he might do is one thing , what he did another : That he ever did appropriate the tenth part , I find not in Scripture exprest , excepting only in the time of the Levitical Priesthood , for which there was a particular Reason . He then chose the Iewish Nation to be his peculiar People , which People being divided into twelve Tribes , he separated one entire Tribe , the Tribe of Levi , to attend the Service of the Tabernacle ● The Land of Canaan he divided amongst the other e●eaven Tribes , but gave the Tribe of Levi no Inheritance amongst them , Numb. 18. 20 , 23 , 24. Deut. 10. 9. for they being wholely imployed in that service , could not have leisure to attend the Plough , or other Rural Occupations . Seeing therefore he had excluded them from a share of the Land ( the manuring of which would have taken them off from the Service he had designed them to ) and that by this means their Brethren , the other Eleaven Tribes , amongst whom their part was shared , did all fare so much the better , their respective Lots bein● so much the greater , he commanded the Eleaven Tribes that had the Lands , to pay the Tythes of the increase thereof , out of whic● this twelf Tribe should be maintained . And while that Priesthood and Polity stood , which Tythes were suitable and appropriated to , this Tything Command was in force , and no longer . But that eve● God did reserve the tenth , or command the payment of Tythes to any , before the constitution of the Levitical Priesthood , or since the Dissolution thereof , I no where read in Scripture . This is proper for the Assertors of the Divine Right of Tythes to prove , and indeed so absolutely necessary , that if they fail of this , all they can say beside will be too weak to bear their Title up : For in a matter of so great moment , it is not ●are Conjectures or meer Suppositions , nor Probability neither , will serve the turn , but positive Precept . The Levitical Priesthood was not left to such Incertainties . Though this Priest is willing to take it for granted , that the men of that Age wherein Abraham lived , knew and understood by the Light of Nature , that the tenth part belong'd to God , and was therefore to be paid to his Priests : yet we find God himself did not think fit to hazard the Levitical Priesthood on such uncertain terms , but secured their Maintenance to them by an express Command , which left no room for any Doubts or Scruples . And can it be imagin'd , that the Omm●scient God , whose Eye at once fore-sees all Events , would leave the Maintenance of his Gospel-Ministry , so much nearer to him then the Levitical Priesthood , to depend upon the ambiguous and doubtful Constitution of a single Act of Abraham's , or a Vow of Iacob's uncertain when , or where , or how performed ? No doubtless , it cannot reasonably be supposed , that he who took such particular Care of the Legal Priesthood ( which was to last but for a 〈◊〉 ) and was so punctual in appointing Tythes for their Maintenance , not thinking either Abraham ' Gift or Iacob's Vow sufficient ground for them to claim upon , although they were the cho●en Priests of God , without a plain and positive Command , would leave his Royal Priesthood , the Publishers of his Everlasting Gospel , so ill provided of a Claim to Tythes , as to be necessitated to strain a Title out of Abraham's Gift and Iacob's Vow , if he had ever intended Tythes should be the Maintenance of his Gospel-Ministers .

What else doth this Assertor of the divine Right of Tythes offer in proof of his Assertion , but Conjectures and Probabilities , as he calls them , as in page 30. where speaking of Abraham's giving to God the tenth of all the Spoils , he adds , As in all Probability he was wont ordinarily to do , of all that he got by God's ordinary Blessing . So again , pag. 31. T. E. cannot prove Abraham did not pay Tythes 〈◊〉 , and I can make it appear very probable he did . Again , There are ancient Authors and probable Reasons to induce us to beli●ve , &c. pag. 33. Again , speaking of 〈◊〉 being Sem , We cannot ( say● he ) be 〈◊〉 i● a matter of so great antiquity : but I ho●e these things may suffice to make it very probable , that Melchizede● was Abraham ' s Priest in Ordinary , pag. 34. And though he is able to shew no better ground then such probable Mayb●'s as these , yet he sticks not to require his Reader 's Assent as fully as if he had produced the most positive Proofs and plain Demonstrat●on : for speaking of Abraham's pitching upon the Tenth , he says , p. 25. In all R●ason we ought to bel●●ve it was first revealed by almighty God to him , &c. And speaking of Sacrificing bein● believed to be revealed by God to Adam , he says , The like we may believe also concerning this of dedicating the tenth part , pag. 26. Again , speaking of so●e Heathens that vow'd the Tenths to their Gods , he says , Which therefore we mu●t believe they had by Tradition from the first Patriarchs , who received it by Revelation from God , pag. 27. Yet in the next page sayes , It is not necessary ( since the Scripture is silent ) I should deter●ine , whether Abraham was immediately directed to it , or whether he learnt it from Melchizedec . Thus he argues from may be to must be , and from must be to may be back again , finding nothing firm , nothing certa●n , whereon to build a divine Right to Tythes .

Yet fain he would have it so , and therefore labours to perswade his Reader , pag. 21. that from the Example of Abraham's Giving and Iacob's Vowing the Tenth , there was a Claim made of this te●th part , as being originally due to God long before . And for thi● Claim he quote● Levit. 27. 30. All the Tythes of the Land is the Lord's . But he greatly mistakes , and mis-applyes that Text ; for thought the te●th , the nineth , the Eighth and the all was originally due to God long before , yet as a tenth , distinct and separate from the rest , it doth not appear to have been due long before , nor seems to be here mention'd by Moses , with relation to any such former Re●erve or Claim , but with respect to the L●vitical Priesthood , which was then settled in Aaron , the great Grand-child of Levi ; for which Priesthood he who was Lord of the whole , when he gave the Lands to the other eleaven Tribes , reserved this as a Subsistance more suitable to their Service , and a Compensation for their part of the Land .

But the better to colour this Conceit , of Tythes being claimed in Levit. 27. 30. as due long before , he perverts another Text , and puts a plain Abuse upon his Reader ; for he says , pag. 22. The first time Tythes are mentioned , Exod. 22. 29. they are not directly enjoyned , but supposed due , and forbid to be with-held : Whereas in Ex. 22. 29. Tythes are not mention'd at all , nor in all the Book of Exodus , that I observe , nor else●where as enjoyned , supposed due , or forbid to be with-held , until the 27th of Levit. 30. mention'd before the words in Exod. 22. 29. which he says doth not directly injoyn , but supposes Tythe due , and forbids t●em so be with-held , are these , Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe Fruits , and of thy Liquors ; the First-born of thy Sons shalt thou give unto me . Here is not a word of Tythes ; and yet this Priest hath so little regard to Truth , and so much to his own Interest , that he sticks not to say Tythes are in this place mentioned and supposed due . Neither of one part of that which is here mention'd , namely , the First born , which is here c●mmanded to be given to the Lord , is this the first mention ; but it was both mention'd and expresly commanded before , Exod. 13. ● . while the People of Isra●l were yet in Aegypt : and in Numb. 3. 13. the very day is assigned whereon God did appropriate this part to himself , and from which ( with Reverence so to speak ) he dates his Claim thereto : All the First born ( saith the Lord ) are mine ; for on the day that I smote all the First-born in the Land of Egypt , I hallowed unto me all the First-born in Israel , both Man and Beast , mine they shall be , I am the Lord . Here 's the time preci●ely s●t down , here 's the day expresly mention'd , on which God did sanctifie the First-born to himself , on which ( and not till which ) he assumed to himself a peculiar Right to the First-born distinct and separate from the rest , which yet was above four hundred year● after Abrah●m's Gift to Melchizedec . Let the Asse●tors of the Divine Right of Tythes , shew as plainly ( if they can ) when God did appropriate to himself the Tythe or Tenth Part , distinct from the other nine , before the time of the Levitical Priesthood , for whose Maintenance he then appointed it . Can it with any colour of Reason be supposed , that he who so precisely and punctually set down the very day whereon he chose to himself the First-born , which related but to that typical state of the Iews , would have given no hint , nor left any Footsteps at all of his Right and Claim to Tythes before the Constitution of the Levitical Priesthood , if he had indeed sanctified them to himself before , and intended them to be continued after the Dissolution of that Priesthood , for a Maintenance to his Gospel-Ministers !

§ . 4. The Priest sayes , pag. 22. Though God have a right to the tenth part of our Substance , yet he cannot be his own Receiver : So that we are to enquire who must be Gods receiver , and for that , even Reason will teach us , that what is due to the Master , ought to be paid to his next and immediate Servants , that is , to his Priests .

What he is not able to prove , that he is willing to take for granted . I acknowledge that God , who is Lord of all , hath a right to all our Substance , and may command and dispose the whole , or what part thereof he pleaseth : But that God hath a distinct right ●o the Tenth , more then to all or any of the other nine parts , and that by the Law of Nature , anteced●●t to any positive Constitution ; as this ●riest makes the Assertor● se●tors of the divine Right of Tythes to ass●rt , is more then I have yet seen proved either by this , or any other of the Assertors of the divine Right of Tythes , that I have hitherto met with . And till this be proved , 't is needless to inquire who should be the Receiver : Though even in that also , the Priest falls short , taking that to be a dictate of Reason , which right Reason did never dictate to him : for what is due to the Master , ought to be paid to such of his Servants , a● he appoints to receive it , whether they be his next and immediate Servants or not : for it is not their being next unto him , that doth authorize them to be his Receivers , but his deputing them unto that Service .

Again he sayes , pag. 23. Abraham , in paying his Tythes ( which were Gods part ) unto Melchizedec the Priest of the most high God , did confirm this dictate of Reason , &c.

What else is this but begging the Question , and that twice in two lines . He supposes Abraham paid his Tythes ( which the Scripture no where saye● he did ) and that Tythes ( as Tythes , as a distinct part ) were then Gods part , ( which the Scripture no where 〈◊〉 they were ) and if this would be granted him , he would then infer that Melchizedec had indeed a Right to Tythes , and perhaps also that from him a right to Tythes might be derived to a Gospel Ministry . But he runs too fast to hold that of which he is willing to make no question , is the main Question in this part of the Controversie , namely , Whether in Abraham's time , and antecedent to any positive Constitution , Tythes as Tythes , or a Tenth part distinct from the rest , was any more Gods peculiar part , then the other Nine : And whethers Abraham in giving ( as the Texts express it ) the Tenth of his Military Spoils to Melchizede● , did pay a just debt to Melchizedec , which he could not without injustice have with-held ; or whether that gift of Abrahams was a grateful acknowledgment , and voluntary ●eturn of kindness to Melchizedec , for his so friendly Congratulation , Fatherly blessing , and bountiful present of Bread and Wine to himself and his weary Followers : This is indeed the sum of the matter , the very thing on which ( and which alone ) a claim of Tythes from Melchizedec to any others , can with any reason be supposed to turn . And if my Opponents , either first or second , would stick to this , and ( though but for a while ) deny themselves the pleasure and delight they seem to take in railing and reviling , deriding and jeering , insulting and boasting , disdaining and scorning ; and would apply themselves to mannage this Argument with that gravity & seriousness that becomes the Subject , I should not doubt to see this Case brought to a speedy and fair Issue . But then I should expect to meet with more forcible Arguments , more cogen● Reasons , more evident Proofs , and plainer Demonstrations then Suppositions , Conjectures , Probabilities , Likelihoods , and May-be's ; and that which is a p●orer way of Reasoning then all the rest , and is indeed too low and mean by much for such lofty pretences to Learning and Scholarship , as my Adversary makes for himself and his Brethren , viz. to put the Defendent to prove the Negati●e , as he has done me mor● then once , and more then conduces to the credit of his cause . As in pag. 31. I may ask him ( sayes he ) where he reads , that Abraham did not pay them . And a few Lines lower in the same page , T. E. cannot prove Abraham did not pay Tythes ordinarily , and I can make it appear very probable he did .

But he hath so accustomed himself to call Abraham's Gift a Payment , that forgetting himself , he brings me in as using the same Phrase , as if I also admitted that , which I have offered to much reason against ; his words are these , pag. 30. So that T. ● . '● saying he doth not read in Genesis that Abraham paid his Tythes constantly , is no Argument , &c.

But where doth T. E. say this ? He quotes no place , no● indeed had any to quote ; for I no where said so ; but he hath put a double abus● upon my words , first , in making me to say I do not read in Genesis , &c. As if I had limitted the Story of Abraham and Melchizedec to the Book of Genesis only , or had allowed no Evidence for proof of this pretended Right to Tythes , but what could be found in Genesis : And accordingly he playes upon me , T. E's saying he doth not read in Genesis , — is no ●rgument , unless all that Abraham ordinarily did were recorded there . ( to wit , in Genesis ) And , I may ask him where he reads there ( to wit , in Genesis ) that Abraham did not pay them , pag. 31. whereas my words were general , We do not find throughout the Scriptures , ( which is more the● in Genesis only ) any command from God , that Tythes should be paid unto Melchized●c , pag. 278. and If Tythes had been due from Abraham to Melchizedec , then must Abraeham have paid Melchizedec Tythes of all his Substance , of all that he possest : But no such thing appears at all , pag. 279. What pretence could the Priest have to thrust in Genesis here ! But his other abuse in the latter part of the sentence is somewhat more gross . T. E's saying , he doth not read that Abraham paid his Tythes constantly , is , &c.

These words are not in my Book , but are a meer artifice of his own , to insinuate as if I had yielded that Abraham paid Tyth●s at that time , upon that extraordinary occasion , and had only seem'd to doubt whether he paid them constantly or not : whereas nothing 〈◊〉 more plain , then that I all along deny that Abraham over paid Tythes at all . This is an art this Priest is expert at , but I 'll assure him 't is a black one , and will never credit him or his Cause . He served me so once or twice before , in his 16. page , quoting me thus , Tythes were wont to be claimed as of divine Right , but I find this Priest is not hardy enough to adventure his cause upon that Title . Whereas my words are not , I find this Priest is not hardy enough ; but I do not find this Priest hardy enough . Which variation how small so ever it may seem to some , yet as Illiterate as he takes me to be , I understand the different sense of those two Expressions , and how little he is to be trusted ; which I am the more confirm'd in from his next Period , where speaking of me , he sayes , He perswades his Quakers , that they who were wont to claim Tythes d● jure divine , were more bold then wise .

These words were not in my Book , but a suggestion of his to abuse me ; for which ( whatever I think of others ) I have cause enough to think him more bold then honest . Nor has he only gleaned on this passage , but insisted deliberately on it , and presented his false suggestion to the highest advantage he could make of it . For he sayes , Let us therefore see who and what they were whom T. E. thus Cens●res : Truly no less ( sayes he ) then Origen , Cyprian , S. Hierom , S. Augustin , divers Christian Councils of Old , Justinian , and the Imperial Roman Laws , Charle● the Great , and the French Capitulars , the Saxon Kings and Councils of this Nation , & all Monarches and Parliaments of later times , particularly K. Henry 8. & Edward 6. together with the most famous common Lawyers , as also the unconcern'd and incomparably learn'd Sr. Hen. Spe●man , with divers other excellent Writers , two many to recite .

These were too many to have recited , unless he had had more cause for it : At this rate , he may father what Falshoods he pleases upon his Adversary , and then call him an obscure and empty Qu●ker , as he does me ; but he may withal assure himself , he shall never by this means acquire the repute of a just man , or a fair D●sputant .

§ . 5. He sayes , pag. 23. T. E. is very impertinent in inquiring what command there is in Scripture to Abraham to pay his Tythes to Melchizedec : for there was not any Scripture at all in Abraham's time . No doubt he thinks every Body impertinent that calls in question his beloved Tythes . But wherein doth the Impertinency lie ? I hope a divine command for the payment of Tythes had not been Impertinent to his Claim . I am sure a human command for the payment of them now is the most pertinent point he has to claim by ; and that his Brot●er Priest understood full well , which made him step so lightly over the former , and stick so close to the latter . But I am impertinent it seems for inquiring for a command in Scripture .

Where else I wonder would he have had me inquire ! Is any other Book so pertinent as that to seek a divine Command in ? Aybut , sayes the Priest , there was not any Scripture at all in Abraham's time .

If he means that Writing is not so ancient , he forgets himself ; but if he intends that the Scriptures we now have , were not then written ( which is more probable ) that will not render me a whit the more impertinent for inquiring what command there is in Scripture to Abraham to pay Tythes , since we find in Scripture many Commands are mentioned , which were of a much elder date then the ●criptures in whi●h we read them .

There was as much Scripture to be sure when Abraham gave this Gift to 〈◊〉 , as t●ere was before when he was called out of his Country , when Circumcision was instituted , and when 〈◊〉 , t●e Heir of Promise , was made an Offering : and yet for every of these ( and many other 〈◊〉 besides ) we have express Command recorded in those Scripture● , which afterwards were written . Nay , if we will look back to the times before the Flood , we shall find a Command to Noah for the making of the Ark , G●n. 6. 14. And indeed the first Command that ever was given to man , is plainly and fully exprest in Gen. 2. 16 , 17. And must I needs be impertinent in inquiring what Command there is in Scripture to Abraham to pay Tythes , and that upon this only Reason , that there was not any Scripture at all in Abraham's time ! If no Command at all had been remembred in Scripture of elder date then the Scripture it self , or then this Act of Abraham's , this Exception of the Priest had been less impertinent : but seeing , even from the very infancy of the World , the divine Commands are recorded , and more especially in so many particular Instance ; in Abraham's own time , and to Abraham himself , whether is more impertinent , I in calling for a Command in S●ripture to prove Melchizedec's Right to Tythes , or the Priest in sobbing me off with this evasive Answer , that there was not any Scripture at all in Abrah●●m's time , let the understanding Reader judge .

He confesses Moses indeed did write a brief History of those times four hundred years after : but since he comprises the 〈◊〉 of two thousand three hundred years in one Book of Genesis , it cannot be expected he should set down all particulars ; nor in all the Actions of the Patriarchs , shew what Reason they had for , o● how they we●e directed in such an Action , pag. 24.

Though it cannot be expected , that in so brief an History Moses should set down all particulars , or shew what Reason the Pat●iarchs had for , and how they were directed in all their Actions : yet in an Action of so great moment as this is made , from which so large a claim and weighty Title is derived , it may reasonably be expected he should have been more particular , full and plain ; and would no doubt have been so , had the Divine Wisdom , by which he writ , intended Tythes to be a Gospel-Maintenance , and to be claimed from hence .

How many other Passages , which seem to be less material , doth he insist more largely on , as the Des●●iption of Places , the Names of Rivers , Mountains , Towns , & c ? How exact is he in setting down the Fashion and Dimensions of the Ark , ●ow punctual in computing the time of the Flood 's beginning , increase , continuance and decrease , not contenting himself with the year only , or with the Moneth , but adding even the very day ? ●nd when he comes to Abraham's ●ime , he gives the very Circumstances of the things he treats of , as in 〈◊〉 account of his going into Aegyp● , and what be●el him there , Gen. 12. his parting with Lot , and the Occasion thereof , Chap. 13. the memorable Battel fought in the Vale of Siddim , between four Kings and five , the Occasion of that War , the Names of the Kings on either side , and of the place where the Battel was pitcht , twice over , the Success of the ●ight , the Plunder of Sod●m , and L●t's Captivity , Abraham's Muster , Pursuit , and Rescue , Gen. 14. In every of which he is more particular then in this Passage of Abraham's giving Melchi●edec Tythes ; which as it was done upon an accidental Occasion , so Moses runs over it , as briefly as may be , giving it only a transient touch : And indeed , the whole Passage seems to be but a kind of Parenthesis ; for in the 17th Verse Moses says , The King of Sodom went out to meet Abram ( after his return from the Slaughter of Chedorlaomer , and of the Kings that were with him ) at the Valley of Shaveh , which is the King's Dale . Then in the next Verse , he mentions Melchizedec ; And Melchizedec , King of Salem , brought forth Bread and Wine : and he was the Priest of the most high God . Vers. 18. And he blessed him , and said , Blessed be Abram of the most high God Possessor of Heaven and Earth . Vers. 19. And blessed be the most high God , which hath delivered thine Enemies into thine hand . And he gave him Tythe of all , Vers. 20. This is the full and whole Account which Moses gives of this matter ; and then immediately in the next words resumes his Discourse of the King of Sodom , Vers. 21. And the King of Sodom said unto Abram , Give me the Person● , &c. What could he have said less ? How could he have mention'd this Passage of Abraham's giving Tythes in fewer words , and with less remark ! which cannot reasonably be imputed to the brevity of his History , by any one that shall duly consider how copious he is upon other Subjects , setting down at large even the smallest Circumstances , as besides the former instances , will plentifully appear in the story of Abraham's Servant fetching a Wife for Isaac , Gen. 24. Of Iacob's suppla●ting his Brother , Chap. 27. Of his Service with Laban , Chap. 19 , 20 , 21. To omit the story of Ioseph's being sold into Aegypt , and what be●el both him and his Brethren there . But this is an Art the Priest hath , to perswade his Reader there is more in this Passage then the brevity of the History would give room to express . The History was written by Moses , who was inspired thereto by God , and as it is irrational to imagine that this Passage of A●braham's giving Tythes to Melchizedec , would have been past over so lightly , and left so bare , if it had had relation to future Ages , & that in the Times of the Gospel , a Right to Tythes was to be derived from hence ( as the Author of the Friendly Conference says it is , pag. 135. ) so it is great Impiety to suggest that any thing was here omitted , which it was necessary for the Church of God to know and understand . The Spirit of God hath said expresly , Abraham gave Tythes of all . The Spirit of God hath said expresly , It was the Spoyls which Abraham gave the Tenth of , Heb. 7. 4. And who is man , that he should take upon him to add or alter ! Darest thou say he pa●d , when God says he gave ! Darest thou say , it was of his own Substa●ce , when God says it was of the Spoyls ! Darest thou say , he did this ordinarily , when the Spirit of God hath thought fit to mention this one only extraordinary time ! Add thou not unto his Words , lest he reprove thee , and thou be found a Lyar , Prov. 30. 6.

§ . 6. But he says , p. 29. To give and to pay is all one in this Case , or else the Apost●e was over-seen , who not only saith he gave the Tenth , Heb. 7. 4. but , Levi paid Tythes in Abraham , Vers. 9.

Neither is to give and to pay all one in this case , nor yet was the Apostle over-seen : for the Apostle most properly accommodates his Speech to the several times it had relation to . When he speaks in Vers. 4. of Abraham , in whom it was a free and voluntary Gift , he uses the word Gave , as Moses had done before him ; but when in Vers. 9. he speaks of Levi ( whom he figuratively mentions , with an [ as I may so say ] for he speaks not personally of Levi himself , but of his Off-spring , the Levitieal Priest-hood who received Tythes which Levi never did himself ) then I say , refering to the time of the Law , in which God had commanded the payment of Tythes , he expresses himself by the word Gave . So that it is manifest he varied his Expression according to the persons he treated of , and the different times his Speech had relation to . When he speaks of Abraham , who lived before Tythes were commanded to be paid , he sayes he Gave , vers . 4. But when he speaks of the Levitical Priest-hood , who lived after Tythes were commanded to be paid , he alters his phrase , and sayes he Paid , vers . 9. Abraham gave , Levi paid , which distinction the Apostle needed not have used , had he understood ( as this Priest does ) giving and paying to be all one in this case .

It is very proper ( he sayes ) to say , We give a man that which is his due , pag. 29.

That must be understood in such cases only , where the due is altogether certain and unquestionable , such as are the instances he has given of David & Hez●kiah , one whereof saith , Give unto the Lord the honour due unto his Name , Psal. 29. 2. The other commanded the People to give the Priests their portions , 2 Chron. 31. 4. Neither of which admitted any doubt , since every one knew that Honour was due to the Name of the Lord , and none could be ignorant that Tythes were due to the Priests , then the Law of God expressly speaking it . But in a case of so great ambiguity as this claim of Tythes from Melchizedec , which is so utterly void of all certainty , that the very terms it is exprest in , must confirm at least , if not constitute a Title to the thing claimed , to express a Due , by the word Give , would be not only not very proper , but very improper and obs●u●c : So that what he sayes , pag. 30. That the word Give in Genesis 14. doth no more prove Tyt●es were not due to Melchizedec , ●ure divino , th●n the same in Chronicles proves they were not due to the Levites , jure divin● , will not hold . The disproportion between Me●chized●c's case , and that of the Levites , is too great ; unless he could shew as plain a command for the former , as he knows can be brought for the latter . The word Give in Chronicles , doth no way prejudice the Levites Right , because it was undeniably grounded upon an indisputable Command : But the word ●ive in Gen●sis doth greatly prejudice the pretended Right of Melchizedec , because there is no command in Scripture , from which such a Right might be derived . After the same manner argues the other Priest in his Vindication of the Conference , pag. 295. urging for an Example the words of Ioshua , Chap. 7. Ver. 19. [ My Son , give Glory to God ] which being the same with that of David , Psal. 29. 2. is answered in that . But he seems to take it a little ill , that I took no notice of a Greek word he had in his Margin , Conference , pag. 135. viz. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 which he ●enders He●ithed Abraham ; and sayes in his Vindication , pag. 296. Now since T. E. pretends to understand Greek , and this passage being in my Book , how came he to pass it by ?

I passed it by as believing it to be of no moment at all ; since if I should allow him even his own rendition , [ He Tythed Abraham ] it imports no more then [ He received Tythes of Abraham ] as both Beza's Latine , and the vulgar English have it , Heb. 7. 6. beyond which sense if he would strain it , the word will not bear it : verily , it is an Argument of a very weak Cause , when men are put to such hard shifts , as to squeez a Title out of one perticular and extraordinary Action , and are ●ain to strain the words also , whereby that action is exprest , to give some countenance to their Claim . But blessed be God , the Holy Ghost hath hedged them out , and either through propriety of Speech , or divine Providence ( let them grant which they please ) hath so worded this Transaction , that in both those Texts where it is spoken of , there is no mention at all of Due or Payment with relation to Abraham , but altogether of giving . Thrice over it is said , He gave , Gen. 18. 20. Heb. 7. 2. and 4. but never that he paid .

§ . 7. To prove , that Tyt●es were accounted due in this Period before the Law , he urges , The practise of certain of the Heathens giving Tythes to their Gods ; whereof some seem more perticular , some more general . The more particular instances are , of the Tyrians and Carthaginians , the In●abitants of the Island Syphnus , and the Romans . The more general are of the Greeks ; for which he cites Dydimus the Grammarian , and of all Heathens in general , for which he quotes Paulus Diaconus . 'T is true , Dydimus sayes , It was a Greek Custome to Consecrate the Tenth of their gain to the Gods : But how that saying of his to be understood , Selden in his History of Tythes , c. 3. well observes , 〈◊〉 ( sayes he ) those Grammarians mean ( for he mentioned Suidas also ) that all men paid their Tythes in Greece , and that of every kind of their Spoils or abundance , they deceive much , and are deceived : You must understand them as speaking of what was sometimes , and by Vow , or special Thanksgiving done . The other out of Pa●lus Diaconus , which sayes , The Ancients offered all their Tenths to their Gods ; is rejected both by Scaliger and Selden also , who shew that Paulus ( Epitomizing Sext●s , Pompeius Eestus , to whom this saying is Originally ascribed ) has mangled and corrupted the place , and he is severely lash't for his Pains by them both , especially by Scaliger , whose words are , vide quantum ●uris Barbarus ille sibi sumpserit in hoc loco mutiland● ! i. e. See what Authority that Barbarous man takes upon him in maining this place . And further calls him home con●identissimus ac ineptissimus . A most confident and foolish man . And Selden sayes plainly , If it be understood of Tythes used to be given by all , or of all things , it is false . Nor did that learned man stick to draw an Argument against this Opinion from Scripture silence , Scripture I mean , not sacred , but prophane , the Writings namely of a Learned Heathen ? Had the Offering of Tythes ( sayes Selden in his History of Tythes , pag. 29. ) been usúal of Yearly increase ; Cato , that in his De Re Rustica , hath so fully the Ceremonies of Sacrifices to be used by the Husband-man in his Harvest , had never omitted it . Whence by the way observe that Argument from Scripture silence , though prophane has been held good by men of Learning , although this Priest , to avoid the stroke of it , sayes it is not valid Right of Tythes , pag. 37. But to the Testimonies brought , all acknowledge that some of the Heathens did at some times , and upon some occasions , Vow , Give , and Consecrate Tythes to their Deities : and Seld●● proves it was no otherwise : Nay , he instances in some ( the Locrians ) who gave not a Tenth , but a Ninth part , C. 3. S. 3. And Diodorus Siculus tells us , ( l. 2. c. 2. ) The Egyptian Priests had the third part of the Revenue of the Kingdom . From all which we may gather that these Heathenish Oblations and Consecrations were neither general in point of place , constant in point of time , nor certain in point of quantity . Then for the ground of their thus doing , if it be ask't whence they learnt it , the Priest himself answers , It was propagated by Tradtion among the Heathens , Right of Tythes , pag. 26. again , which therefore we must believe they had by Tradition from the first Patriarchs , pag. 27. That they received it by Tradition is probable enough , though not from the first Patriarchs , who are no where in Holy Writ , remembred to have paid Tythes . But from the Iews , by whom Tythes were preceptively and constantly paid , there is reason sufficient to perswade they might learn it . And so it seem'd to Selden , The payment of the Tenth ( sayes he , c. 3. pag 34. ) very likely came to them ( the Arabians ) from the use of it among the Jews , their Neighbours , as also to the Carthaginians from their Ancesters the Paenicians , that spake the same Language ●ith the Jews , and converst most with them . Now if the Gentiles practised it in imitation , and by example of the Iews , what relation has their practice to this first Period , or time before the Law ? But whether it be more reasonable to think , that the Gentiles received it by Tradition from the first Patriarchs , by whom we never read that Tythes were above once actually given , and once Vowed to be given , or from the Iews , by whom they were constantly and publickly paid , I leave to the Readers judgment , and will conclude t●is Paragraph with what concludes the Review of Selden's Chap. 3. pag. 459. where having shewed that the Pelasgi in Vmbria Sacrificed the Tythe of their Children to Apollo , See now , sayes he , ( when you truly know the ancient Tything among the Gentiles ) how well they conclude here , that draw an Argumen● from the general Law of Nature or Nations , as if by that Law any such use of payment of Tythes had been established amongst them , as was continual or compulsory .

§ . 8. In my Answer to the former Priest , p. 278. amongst other Reasons which I offer'd to prove that Tythes was not a proper Debt , or just Due from Abraham to Melchizede● , this was one , That if Tythes had been due from Abraham to Melehizedec ( according as they are now demanded , which must be proved before a Divine Right to them , as they are now demanded , can be derived from Melchizedec ) then must Abraham have paid Tythes of all his Substance , of all that he possest . But no such thing appears at all . We do not read that Abraham gave him Tythes of his own Estate ; but that which he gave him the tenth of was the Spoyls which he had recover'd from the Kings that had plunder'd S●dom . To this the Author of the Right of Tythes thus answers , p. 30. That was an extraordinary occasion , wherein Abraham having got a Victory by God's Blessing , did give to God the tenth of all he had now gotten ; as in all probability he was wont ordinarily to do , of all that he got by God's ordinary Blessing ; only this ( as more especially remarkable ) is recorded in this short History .

Seeing this was an extraordinary Occasion , he should not urge it for a President , much less lay so great a stress upon it as he does . Let him read what his Brother Priest sayes in page 127. of his Conference , When any Text ( says he ) hath a r●lation to a particular Case , that Text must not stand for a General Rule , but must be apply'd to a like Occasion ; for its a most grand Falla●y to draw an universal Conclusion from particular Premises . Now these Texts in Gen. 18. and Heb. 7. ( wherein Abraham's Gift to Melchizedec is mentioned ) ●ave relation to a particular Case , to an● extraordinary Occasion , as the Priest himself says , therefore Th●s● Texts must not stand for a General Rule ; but if he will apply them at all , he must apply them to a like Occasion , to wit , a Military Expedition , wherein some notable Victory is in an extra ●rdinary manner obtained , as this was ; not 〈◊〉 them for a general Rule : for according to his Brother's Position , it is a most grand Fallacy , from particular Pr●mises , as this Gift of Abraham upon an extraordinary Occasion was , to draw an universal Conclusion , that Abraham ordinarily did pay Tythes , and that Christians now must . Thus then he is pincht off of his extraordinary hold , by his own dear Sir , the Author of the ●riendly Conference . And for what he talks of Abraham's giving the tenth ordinarily , he hath far less ground then for the former ; for in the former , ( viz. that Abraham on that extraordinary Occasion did give and Melchizedec receive ) he may as to fact be positive , though not as to intention : but in the latter ; ( viz. that Abraha● did ordinarily give the tenth of his ordinary increase ) he can be but suppositive at most . His Arguments and Reasons are may-be's and likelihoods , and his Proofs but probabilities , strongly inforced with this notable Demonstration , that it is not said in Scripture Abraham did not pay them , and that I cannot prove the contrary , pag. 30 , 31. Will he take it then for granted that Abraham did whatsoever I cannot prove he did not ? That would be pretty indeed .

After the same manner the other Priest also argues ( in his Vindication , pag. 296. ) where to my saying , Had Tythes been due to Melchizedec , then must Abraham have paid him Tythes of all his Substance , &c. He replies , We know nothing to the contrary but that he did so ; and I ●an affirm the one , as well as he deny the other .

Is this like a Disputant ? It is enough for a Respondent to deny : But is it enough for the Opponent to affirm ? He says else-where in his Conference , p. 152. It is the Opponent's part to prove . That is somewhat more I think then bare affirming . And the Maxime is , Affir●●●ti incumbit probati● ; i. e. He that affirms must prove . But ( in his Vindication , pag. 296. ) he adds , that Abraham's own Estate , having obtained them with the hazard of his Life , in a Iust and Righteous War .

This is indeed a pretty fetch ; yet so plain and manifest a fetch , that it will not stand him in any stead . Whether the Spoyls were strictly Abraham's own Estate by the Law of Arms , I will not undertake to determine ; especially since it appears by the story , that Aner , Eshcol and Ma●re were his con●ederates , and ran equal hazard of their Lives with him in the same War , and that he took not upon him to dispose of the whole ( although to the King of Sodom , from whom it was taken ) but l●●t his Confederates to dispose of their own shares as they saw good , Gen. 14. 1● , 24. However , whether it was in strictness his own Estate or no , to be sure it was not his own Estate in that sense wherein I spake it , and wherein Tythes are now demanded . So that his urging this here , is altogether beside the business , and at best but a shew of an Answer .

But he carps at my saying , The Occasion of Abraham's thus giving the tenth of the Spoyl to Melchizedec seems to be altogether accidental . This seems to him to be a meer Trifle ; and he says , ( Vindication , pag. 197. ) As meer an accidental Passage as the Quaker would have this to be , yet the Apostle draws a solid argument from thence .

What then ? May not a solid A●gument be drawn from an accidental Passage ? Let any one considerately read the place ( in Gen. 14. ) and see if he can find any ground to believe either that Abraham came thither with an intention to pay Tythes , or that Melchizedec came thither with an expectation to receive Tythes : and not rather , that Melchiz●dec understanding Abraham's Success and Return , went forth to meet him , and congratulate his Victory , bringing with him a Present of Bread and Wine , to refresh him and his Soldiers after the Fight : In Requital of which Noble and Princely Present Abraha● gave him the tenth of the Spoyls .

§ . 9. The Author of the Right of Tythes finds fault with my arguing , because it is negative , and says , p. 31. My n●gative arguing is of no more force , then it would be if I should say , those Ante-diluvian Patriarchs , did nothing else while they lived but beget Sons and Daughters , because no more is recorded of many of them , Gen. 5.

Negative arguing I thought had been proper for him whose part it is to deny ; as it belongs to him to prove , who undertakes to affirm . But waving that , I thu● answer to the substance of his Objection . Although the Patriarchs before the Flood did doubtless somthing else then beget Sons and Daughters , yet nothing that they did which the Spirit of God thought ●it to pass by unrecorded , had any relation to future times , or was to be Exemplary to the Church of God in after Ages . The like concerning Abraham . 'T is not to be doubted but he did more then is recorded of him . But that then , whatsoever it was , had no relation to future times , nor was to be Exemplary to the Church of God in after Ages ; for if it had , the Spirit of God , who recorded what is written , would not have omitted that . So that take it which way he will , this Dilemma will attend him ; either that Abraham did not pay Tythes ordinarily , and so there was nothing of that to be recorded , or that if he did pay Tythes ordinarily , his so doing had no relation to future times , nor was to be Exemplary to the Church of God in after Ages , and therefore was not recorded . Hence then , I hope , my negative arguing ( as he calls it ) will appear to be of ●ufficient force to prove , that a Right to Tythes now cannot be grounded on , or derived from any Act that Abraham did , which the divine Spirit did not think fit to record : for what the Priest says in another place , pag. 62. Express● nocent , non expressa non nocent , i. e. Those things that are expres● hurt , those things that are not exprest hurt not , is very true , if it be rightly apply'd . But as they hurt not him against whom they are urged , so they help not him by whom they are urged , which he should have done well to have consider'd . I 'll therefore invert his Axiom ( which holds as true the one way as the other ) and present it to him again ; Express● 〈◊〉 , non expressa non prosunt , i. e. Those things that are exprest do help , those things which are not exprest do not help . All his Pretences then of Abraham's paying Tythes ordinarily ( how oft soever he repeats them ) not being exprest , but leaning on Conjecture , do him no good at all ; they cannot help him , nor stand him in any stead .

§ . 10. In his next Section he is offended with me for saying , Tythes could not be due to Melchizedec upon a Right ●ounded in natural Justice and Equity ; my words ( p. 280. ) are these , He cannot plead tha● Tythes were due to Melchizedec upon a Right founded in natural Justice & Equity , since there was not in those days any setled publick Worship , wherein he could perform any outward Priestly Office or Service , for which Tythes might have been a Compensation . He in the reciting of this Sentence , leaves out the words outward service , that he might have the more room to strike at me , and call me ( as he does pag. 35. ) a poor Quaker , as bold as blind , saying , that I have exposed my self to the Scorn of all knowing men by this absurd Position .

If the Position appear absurd , it is he that hath made it look so , by mangling it . But as it stands in my Book I am not ashamed to own it . And if he or any other can shew me what settled publick Worship there was in Abraham's dayes , in which any outward Priestly Office or Service was to be perform'd , for which Tythes might have been a Compensation , I will acknowledge him to be a knowing man indeed .

He says , He might confute this Position from that place of Gen 4. ●6 . Then began men to call upon the Name of the Lord ; which must ( he says ) be meant in publick ; for in private they did it before , ibid.

Methinks his copious Reading should not suffer him to be ignorant of the various Judgments of Learned Men concerning this Text , whether it should be rendred . Then began men to call upon , or then began men to prophane the Name of the Lord ; I think it not safe for me to exercise my small Schollarship in the disquisition . Let it suffice for my little Reading to observe , that Hierom reads it not in the plural ( as our English Translation is ) Then began men to call , &c. but in the singular of Enos , Iste caepit invocare nomen Domini , He ( Enos ) began to call upon the Name of the Lord . And Pagnine , though he turns the Text , Tun● caeptum est ad invocandum in nomine Domini ; yet adds in the Margin , Invocari nomen , vel pollui , i. e , To call upon or pollute the Name , &c. But Tremellius and Iunius read it down-right prophane , Tun● caeptum est profanari in invocando nomine Domini , i. e. Then began men to prophane in calling upon the Name of the Lord ; to which Genebrard , Brought●n , and others assent . And indeed the sequel of the Story shews those times more inclined to Prophanene ● then Piety , for in all those six Generations between Enos and Noah , we find but one man , Enoch only , that is said to have walked with God , Gen. 5. and in the 6th and 7th Chapters we read , the Wickedness of men was grown to that height , that God repented he had made man , and by an universal Deluge swept all Mankind away , excepting only Noah and his Family , which were in all but Eight Souls . All which being duly weighed , I leave it to the judicious Reader 's consideration , whether in those times there was any settled publick Worship , wherein any outward Priestly Office or Service was to be performed , for which Tythes might have been a Compensation .

But he argues , that Melchizedeck did perform God's publick Worship solemnly and constantly at Salem ; and by that had a Right founded in natural Iustice and Equity , to receive Tythes from all within his Iurisdiction .

And this he infers from Moses ' s calling him the Priest of the most high God , from St. Paul's making him a Type of Christ's Priesthood , and from his fixed Residence at Salem , p. 36.

This has indeed as fair an appearance as any of the Probabilities he has yet brought forth ; yet this will not do his business . For here is not in all this any mention of any settled publick Worship , wherein he could perform any outward Priestly Office or Service , for which Tythe might have been a Compensation . No such thing is here exprest ; and according to the Axiom which the Priest himself uses ( pag. 62 ) Non express● non nocent , those things that are not exprest , do not hurt . Besides , his being called the Priest of the most high God , doth not necessarily inse● an Exercise of such a settled publick Worship as my words import , which had relation to external 〈◊〉 and Ceremonies , as the word [ outward Servic● ] in my Book ( which the Priest left out ) do plainly evidence ; so that he might well enough be called the Priest of the most high God , and yet have no such outward Priestly Office or● Service to perform in any settled publick Worship , for which Tythes might have been a Compensation . And indeed , my Opponent himself , describing Mel●hizedco's Worship , doth sufficiently shew it was of another kind then what my words had relation to . For he says , pag. 39. His Worship was altogether spiritual , praising God , praying for Abraham ; offering no bloody Sacrifices , but ONLY bringing forth Bread and Wine . So also says Sparrow in his Rationale of the Common Prayer , pag. 338 , 339. Melchizedec had no other Offering that we read of , but Bread and Wine . Whereas it is plain my words aimed at such a settled publick Worship as consisted in external services . But sure he doth not think that Melchizedec did pray for Abraham and bring out Bread and Wine constantly at Salem : For that he ever did either the one or other constantly , or any more then that one time , is NOT EXPREST , not likely .

Then for his having a fixed place of Residence at Salem , which is another part of my Opponent's Argument , upon which he grounds his Question , What is a Priest fixed in a City for ?

It is to be considered , that his Residence at Salim is not mention'd with relation to his Priesthood , but to his Kingship ; he was King of Salem , that was Reason enough for his Residence there . So Moses calls him , Gen. 14. 18. And so the Apostle twice together , Heb. 7. 1 , 2. But neither of them called him Priest of Salem , much less affirmed ( as my Opponent does ) that he had ● Right founded in natural Justice and Equity , to receive Tythes from all within his Jurisdiction of Salem , for praising God , praying for Abraham , and only bringing forth Bread and Wine .

§ . 11. But my Adversary , not content with Melch●zodec's being the Priest of the most high God , will needs have him to be Abrahams Priest in ordinary too , pag. 33 , 34 Not considering perhaps , that himself had ●ot Abraham ( according to St. Hierom's computation , as he saith ) twenty two Miles from Melch●zedec , a distant somewhat of the largest for a Priest in Ord●nary ; and yet he placed them as near together as he could too . For though he sayes St. Ierom compu●es the plain of Mamre , which is Hebron , where Abraham dwelt , to be but twenty two Miles distant from Ierusalem , yet he should not be ignorant of the different Judgments of the Antients about the place ; some taking Salem to be Ierusalem , others not . And that Hierom there delivers the Opinion of others , not his own , which was far otherwise , viz. that Salem and Mamre were about eighty Miles asunder , as Selden notes in the Review of the first Chapter of his History of Tythes , pag. 452. Yet to countenance this conceit of his , that Melchizedec was Abraham's Priest in Ordinary ; he tells us what the Iews think , viz. that Melchizedec did continue to be the Priest of Abraham's Family long after : for when 〈◊〉 Twins strugled in the Womb of Rebe●●a , it is said , 〈◊〉 went to inquire of the Lord , Gen. 25. 22. that is ( s●yes he ) by S●m , say the Hebrews , or by Melchizedec , as others , pag. 33. 34.

For the Opinion of the Hebrews , that she inquired by Sem , he quotes Lyra : and for the Opinion of others , that she inquired by Melchizedec , he quotes Iunius and Tremellius upon that place , which is Gen. 25. 22.

Lyra I have not by me , but Tremellius and Iunius I have . And considering with my self how greatly he hath abused me in the mis-reciting of my words , I thought it would not be amiss to examine his quotation , and see whither he had dealt any fairer with them . But when I had turned to the place , and there read in the Text , Abi●t ad consulendum Iehoram , and in the Annotation upon it , per aliquem Prophetam , fortasse soceram , qui idem di●itur Propheta supra , 20. 7. I must confess I was amazed , and somewhat troubled , to think I had to do with one of so great confidence and so little honesty . For he affirms expresly that Iunius and Tr●melli●s upon this place say , Rebe●ca went to inquire of the Lord by Melchizedec , whereas Iunius and Trem●llius upon this place make no mention at all of Melchizedec , but say plainly , She went to inquire of the Lord , by some Prophet , perhaps by her Husbands Father ( which was Abraham ) who himself is called a Prophet before , in C. 207. Who would have thought a man of his Learning would have been beholding to a false Quotation ! Who would have suspected one of his Abilities would have served one such a slippery trick ! Did he think , because he had a mea● illitterate Adversary to deal with , he might therefore quote anything without danger of discovery ? or did he hope no man of under●tanding would take the pains to read him ? O lucky man at least in this , that he hath not publisht his Name with his Book● which if he had , I am confident he would have exposed himself as fully to the scorn of all sincere and knowing men , by this Forgery , as he fancies I have done my self by that which he calls an absurd position . But for my part , I shall wonder the less hereafte● at his unfair dealing with me , whom he calls a poor Retailer and ●leaner , since I find even those men , whom I suppose he himself need not be ashamed to Glean after , receive no better treatment at his Hands . But concerning the Question it self , Whether Rebecca went to inquire of the Lord by Melchizedec or some other ? not only the seve●ty , and Epiphanus ( whom he makes to be mis-led by following their Chronology ) but A●ias Montanus , in his Chronologia sacrae Scriptura , and Hugh Broughton in his Consent of Scripture , make Sem to be dead some Years before Rebecca's conception ; whose Computations if we may credit , we must conclude either that M●lchizedec was not S●m , or ( which is more likely ) 〈◊〉 Rebecca went not to inquire of 〈◊〉 her Father in-Law , Abraham , being a Prophet and at hand .

§ . 12. In his 37. page , he charges me with a gross mistake , in saying , I 〈◊〉 not find any one Instance ( this single gift of Abraha●'s excepted ) of giving or receiving Tythes , in all that four Hundred Years between this time of Abraham and the Levitical Priest-hood● For he sayes , There is a plain Instance in holy Iacob , Gen. 28. 22. who made a solemn Vow to give unto God the Tenth of all his Gains .

If he would have convicted me of a mistake , he should have brought an Instance of giving Tythes , not of vowing them only . My words have respect to the 〈◊〉 of giving ; his Instance to the intention chiefly : I was not ignorant that Iacob had made a conditional Vow to give ; nor did I question his performance of his Vow : but I observed that the Holy Ghost had buried it in silence , not vouch●asing to record it for an Instance . And thereupon I said , I do not find any one instance ( this single Gift of ●braha●'s excepted ) of giving or receiving , much less of demanding or paying Tythes in all that space , &c. Which words of giving or receiving , demanding or paying have a manifest relation to the ultimate act or performance , of which the Holy Ghost hath not thought fit to leave an Instance ; which silent Omission of the Holy Ghost hath no reflection on Iacob's integrity , but only argues that the thing it self was not by God designed for our Example .

But let him call this a mistake of mine , yea , a gross mistake , if he please , and thereupon exercise ( as he does ) the levity of his Wit , and ease himself of a frothy Jest , he can not thereby hurt me , whatever he may himself . I 'll therefore take the less notice of that , and apply my self to consider Iacob's Vow ; which not being mentioned at all by the former Priest , I had no occasion to take notice of , in my Answer to him . I find this Vow of Iac●b was made upon an extr●ordinary occasion , as well as that Gift of Abraham . Iacob being afraid of rough Esau , who had threatned to take away his Life , was fain to leave his Fathers House and Country , and with his Staff only to flee to Padam Aram to his Uncle Laban for refuge ; and being on his way benighted , he lay down on the Ground to Sleep , having no other Pillow for his Head then an heap of Stones . In this distrest condition did the Lord God appear unto him in a Dream , and said , I am the Lord God of Abraham thy Father , and the God of Isaac : the Land whereon thou liest , to thee will I give it , and to thy Seed . And thy Seed shalt be as the Dust of the Earth ; and thou shalt spr●ad abroad to the West , and to the East , and to the North , and to the South : and in thee and in thy Seed shall all the Families of the Earth be bl●ssed : And behold I am with thee , and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest , and will bring thee again unto this Land : for I will not leave thee , until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of , Gen. 28. Jacob hereupon awaking in the sense of Gods presence , and seiz'd with fear at so wonderful an appearance , set up his stony Pillow for a Monumental Pillar , and calls that place the House of God . And as the Lord had freely , unrequested , made him so gracious and so large a Promise ; so he again , in token of his thankfulness to God , freely and unrequired , did vow a Vow , saying , If God will be with me , and will keep me in this way that I go , and will give me Bread to eat , and Rayment to put on ; so that I come again to my Father's House in peace : then shall the Lord be my God . And this Stone which I have set for a Pillar , shall be Gods House : And of all that thou shalt give me , I will surely give the Tenth unto thee , Gen. 28. This is the Vow , and this the occasion of making it ; which was both voluntary and conditional , Voluntary , in being unrequired ; Conditional , in depending on the performance of Gods promise to him , as the conditional Particle [ If ] demonstrates . Had Tythes been then a divine Tribute , he needed not have vowed to Give them ; justice would have obliged him to have paid them , whether he had Vow'd or no. Nor had it then been in his Power to have made his Obligation conditional ( as he did ) but Tythes he must have paid , whether God had ●een with him , preserved him in his way , and brought him back in peace , or no. This Vow of Iacob's therefore , being spontaneous and altogether free , Contributes nothing at all to the making up of a divine Right to Tythes .

§ . 13. Another passage in my Book that seems to gall him sore , is this , If Tythes had been due to Melchizedec , yet could not the Clergy of this Age derive any Right from him to them , in as much as they are not of his Priest-hood : To this he sayes , I hope T. E. will grant , that Christ was of his Priest-hood . And if he grant this , we must ask , whether or no his Apostles were not his Successors ? and then , whether we do not derive our Succession from them ? pag. 39.

That Christ was of his Priest-hood I grant , and that his Apostles were Followers of him : But that these Priests are Followers of the Apostles , as the Apostles were of Christ , I deny ; and think it would be worth their while to prove . He sayes , Melchizede● had th● same Priest-hood with the Ministers of the Gospel .

In some respects it may be called the same ; but what s that to him , unless he also were a Minister of the Gospel ! He can produce ( he sayes , pag. 40 ) the plain words of many Fathers , affirming , that the present Ministers of the Christian Church are of Melchizedec's Priest-hood .

This is very smoothly and crustily worded to beguil an unwary Reader , and make him believe the pres●nt Ministers have the approbation of those Fathers . What Ministers I pray must the Word Present here be understood to relate to , the then present , or the now present ? If he intends the then present Ministers , that lived in the several Ages of those Fathers ( as he calls them ) he plainly shuffles and evades ; for the question was not concerning them , but the Clergy of this Age expressly . But if by pr●sent he means the now present Ministers , the Clergy of this present Age , what could he have said more absurd , as well as false , then that he can produce the plain words of St. Hierom , Chrysostom , Augustine , Epiphanius and Theo●hilact ( the latest of whom has been dead well near a Thousand Years ) affirming that the present Ministers ( t●e Clergy of this Age ) are of Melchiz●dec's Priest-hood . But seeing he leans so hard upon the judgment of certain Fathers ( as he calls them ) whose plain words he sayes he can produce , but does not ; I will produce him the plain words of one , ( I will not say a Father , but ) a great Man in the English Church , Andrew Willet , who in his Synopsis of Popery , fifth general Controversie , pag. 315. sayes , It is great Blasphemy to say , that every Popish Priest is after the order of Melch●zedec . And a little after , The Scripture maketh this difference between the Priest-hood of Aaron , and the Priest-hood of Melchizedec , that the Priests of the Law were many , because they were taken away by Death : but Christ's Priest-hood is eternal , because he dieth not , Heb. 7. 23. But if there should be many Priests after Melchizedec's Order , there should herein be no difference at all . Wherefore seeing ●●lchized●c's Priest-hood only resteth in Christ , and is not Translated to any other , &c. Thus Willet , and to the same purpose said Fulk before him . Now if the Priest● Fathers have in plain words affirmed , That the present Ministers of the Chri●●ian Church are of Melchized●e's Priest-hood ; the Priest may do well to reconcile tho●e Fathers with these Doctors ( for so were these also st●led ) who so plainly affirm that Melchizedec's Priest-hood only resteth in Christ , and is not Translated to any other . But the reason I formerly gave why the Clergy of this Age are not of Melchizedec's Priest-hoods , seems to offend him more then all the rest . It was this , That Melchizedec was not made a Priest after the Law of a carna● Commandment , but a●ter the Power of an endless Life . But every one knows , that these men are made Priests after the Law of a carnal Commandment . This has so nettled him , that he is out of all patience , sayes , my Reason is ridiculous , that I have learnt to Cant , that I am an idle and imp●rtinent man , that this is an impudent Slander , that T. E. can prattle in Scripture phrase , that I am a boasting Quaker , and will not stick to say any thing , b● it never'so false and ●●reasonable .

This is the Language that this Learned man ( who sayes he will not meddle with scurrility , because Rail●ng is not Reasoning , pag. 12. ) hath upon this occasion , for want of better Arguments , ( or breeding , or both ) thrust in to help swell the number of his pages . But overlooking this , let us see what else he has to offer that looks at all like Reason . He sayes , pag. 41. The Apostle speaking of the Jewish Priests in that place ( Heb. 7. 16. ) saith , They were made Priests after the Law of a carnal Commandment , that is , according to Moses's Law , which consisted of outward and weak Commandments , reaching only to the purifying of the Flesh. Now ( sayes he ) what an idle and impertinent Man is this , to say , we are made Priests according to Moses's Law , and that every one knows this ! O impudent Slander ! Are we bound to all the Sacrificings , Washings , and other Levitical Rights and Ceremonies , at our Ordination ?

I will not here ( as justly I might ) retort his Idle and impertinent Epithets , nor yet his impudent Slander But I will tell him , he seems very willing to mistake , that he might excuse himself from a direct Answer . He charges me with saying , They are made Priests according to Moses ' s Law . I no wheresay so , no where intend so : for indeed , I do not think their Ordination so fairly grounded ; since all acknowledge the Law of Moses , though now abrogated , to have had a Divine Institution . I said , These men are made Priests after the Law of a Carnal Commandment . Doth that necessarily imply Moses's Law ? May no Law , no Commandment be called carnal , but that which did bind to Sacrificings , Washings , and other Levitical Ceremonies ? That 's strange indeed ! Nay , may not every Law , every Commandment , which is not spiritual , be properly enough called Carnal , as Carnal is understood in opposition to Spiritual ? What though I used the Apostle's Phrase ? must that Allusion tye my sense to the subject he was upon ? No such matter . He opposes the Levitical Priest●ood to Melchizedec , aff●rming that they were made Priests after the Law of a Carnal Commandment , but ●e after the Power of an Endless Life . I oppose the present Priest● to Melchizedec , shewing that these are not of his Order ( though for Tythes sake they pretend it ) in as much as he was made a Priest not after the Law of a Carnal Commandment , but after the Power of an Endless Life ; whereas these men are made Priests after the Law of a Carnal Commandment : but it does not follow that this must needs be the same Law by which the Levitical Priests were made , unless he thinks there can be no others . By what Law then are the Popish Priests made ( out of which this Priesthood sprang ? ) By what Law are the Turkish Priests made ? I hope he will not say either of these are made Priests by the Power of an Endless Life ( as was Melchizedec ) nor yet by the Law of Moses ; & yet by some Law or other no doubt they were made : What will he call that Law , Spiritual or Carnal ? Let him call it as he pleases : I insist not so much on the Names , as on the Natures of things , nor regard so much Words as Matter . Notwithstanding what he hath said the Difference yet remains , the Opposition is still as plain between Melchizedec and these Priests ; He was made a Priest , not after the Law of a Carnal Commandment , but after the Power of an Endless Life : These are made Priests , not after the Power of an Endless Life , but after the Law of a Carnal Commandment ; which plainly shews they are not of his Order , and so cannot derive any Right to Tythes from him , if Tythes could be proved to have ever been due to him .

He goes on , ibid. 'T is evident we are not Priests according to that Carnal , Outward , Changeable , Levitical Law .

Neither did I say ye were : But are ye not Priests according to a carnal Law , an outward Law , a changeable Law , though not according to that very Levitical Law ?

But ( says he ) we are Priests according to the Law of the Gospel , whose Eternal Duties have in them the Power of an Endless Life .

What a quaint Device is this to avoid the force of a Text ! Was not the Scripture-Phrase plain & pertinent enough ? or did it not suit his purpose ? Were he indeed a Priest after Melchizedec's Order , he need not have used this variation . Had he been made a Priest by the same Power of an Endless Life , by which Melchizedec was , the same words would have very well served to have exprest the same thing . But he being conscious to himself that he came to his Priesthood by another way , boggles at the Text , and instead of the Power of 〈◊〉 Endless Life , puts in the Law of the Gospel ; which the more to cover from the Reader 's Observation , he mis-cites my words also , making me say , Melchizedec was made a Priest after the Law of an Endless Lif● ; whereas my words ( agreeing with the Text ) are , He was made a Priest after the Power of an Endless Life , pag. 281. This Power of an Endless Life is a heavy Stone to all these carnal man-made Priests ; and therefore they struggle to get from under the weight of it , and endeavour to put it from them , as we see in this Priest , who thrusts this Power from himself , and places it in the Duties . He durst not say the Power of an Endless Life bad made him a Priest : but he says , he is a Priest according to the Law of the Gospel ( in which he speaks falsly also ) whose Eternal Duties , says he , have in them the Power of an Endless Life . If he has this Power no nearer him then in the Duty , by what Power then shall he Perform the Duty ? How vast a Difference is there between these Priests & those whom these pretend to be Suc●essors to ! Paul was an Apostle not of men , neither by man , but by Iesus Christ , and God the Father , Gal. 1. 1. He did not turn the Power off from himself to the Duties of the Gospel ( as this Priest does ) but he declar'd he receiv'd the Gospel it self , and his Apostleship or Ministry therein , by the Revel●tion of the Son of God ( Christ , the Power of God , 1 Cor. 1. 24. ) in him , Gal. 1. 12 , 15 , 16.

The Priest adds , And as this Law must never change , so neither must our Priesthood , but , like that of Melchizedec , shall endure forever .

The Law of the Gospel is indeed unchangeable , and so is Melchizedec's Priesthood ; but the changeableness of these Priests and their Priesthood is an evident token that they are not Priests of his Order , nor made according to the unchangeable Law of the Gospel . How many Turns and Changes has here been amongst them within little more then the last Century ! One while a Popish Priesthood , another while a Protestant , then Popish again , anon a Protestant ; and in later times , among the Protestants by themselves , one while an Episcopal Priesthood , by and by a Presbyterial , anon an Independent , and now an Episcopal again . Is this the unchangeable Priesthood he talks of , that , like Melchizedec's , shall endure forever ! Methinks the remembrance of former times should convince him of his Weakness . If this man himself was not then a Changer , and trudg'd with his Lamp that way which he saw the Oyl was likely to run ( which the concealing his Name gives cause to suspect ) I would ask him , where he , and the Priests whose Cause he advocates , were blessing and bringing forth their bread and their Wine between twenty and thirty years ago , when a Common-Prayer Priest was rare to be seen .

He goes on thus , And as we bear the same Office with him ( Melchizedec ) and do the like Work , we deserve the same Reward , and may expect Tythes as well as he , pag. 42.

I do not find he ever expected any . However , since these Priests pretend to bear the same Office with ●elchizedec , it will not be amiss to observe what they themselves make his Office to be . This Priest says , p. 39. His Worship was altogether spiritual , praising God , praying for Abraham , only bringing forth Bread and Wine . Sparrow Bishop of Exon , in his Rationale of the Common-Prayer , says much-what the same , Melchizedec had no other Offering , that we read of , but Bread and Wine , p. 339.

Now if this was the Office of Melchizedec , and these Priests pretend to bear the same Office with him , how comes it to pass that they have so much other Work to do , as Marrying , Burying , Sprinkling , Churching of Women , and much more , which it doth not appear Melchizedec did at all concern himself with ? Surely , either their Office is larger then Melchizedec's and so not the same with his ; or else , they go beyond their Office , when they intermeddle with these matters .

But however , he says , They do the like Work as Melchizedec did . His Work was to bring forth Bread and Wine , which he did frcely like a King , not putting Abraham to the Charge to pay for it . But these bring forth neither Bread nor Wine , but put the people to the Charge to buy them ; and if any be left , though the people pay for it , yet the Priests will be sure to have it . And He not only presented Abraham with Bread and Wine , but he blessed him too , before Abraham gave him the Tythes : but these Priests are ten sold forwarder to curse then to bless , especially if it be in a Case of Tythes , as the numerous Excommunications witness . Nor are they content with Cursing only , but many a godly conscientious man's Life have they taken away by long and hard Imprisonments , and many an honest industrous Family have they Ruined by their frequent Rapines . Is this like Melchizedec ? Surely no ; it more resembles those blind Watch-men , whom the Prophet Isaiah inveighs against , Chap. 56. who all look't to their own way , every one for his Gain from his Quarter : And those False Prophets , against whom the true denounced the Judgment of God , that bite with their Teeth , and cry Peace : and he that putteth not into their mouthes , they even prepare War against him , Mi● . 3. 5. in whose natur● and practice these being so apparently found , may justly , expect the same reward that those blind Watch-men and false Prophets received .

I have now attended him through his first Period , the time before the Law , and I hope have sati●fied the R●a●er , that nothing he hath produced from thence can warrant him any Right to Tythes . In 〈◊〉 foregoing discourse upon t●is Period I have shewed , that There is no command ex●ant for the paym●nt of Tythes before the Levitical Law ; That It is not at all absurd , but altogether reasonable and ●ust , to demand and insist on a positive Precept for the payment of them ; That ●t is a meer evasi●n to pre●end ther● was 〈◊〉 ●ight be a command , though not recorded ; and to alledge the shortness of the Story as a reason why it was omitted , since so many other things , of far less mo●●nt then this , are so p●rticularly and circumstantially delivered ; That It is an empty shift to say , A command ●n Scripture for the paying of Tythes in those times , is no● to be exp●●●ed because the Scriptur●s were not then written ; so many Co●●ands being 〈◊〉 in Scripture of el●er date then the instance of Abra●am and Jacob g●ving and vowing Tythes . That The ●riests Plea of a 〈…〉 being Originally due to God , is but a precavious Plea , a begging of the Question ; and if considered as a peculiar part distinct from the other nin● ▪ is altogether false ; if not so considered , conduces not at all to his purpose ; That To suppose a t●nth part , as a tenth distinct from the rest , to b● due to God Originally , is to clip the Wing of his Soveraign 〈◊〉 , and turn him off with a part only , who is , and ought to be acknowledged , Lord of all . That ●f it 〈◊〉 posible to be 〈…〉 Melchizedec , yet that no right could descend from him to these Priests , they being no kin at all to him , in point of Priest-hood . In fine , That The whole fabrick which this Priest has raised in this Period , how much white-washt and varnisht soever it may appear , is built upon a Sandy Foundation of meer Suppositions , Conjectures , Cuesses , Probabilities , Likely-hoods , May-be's ; not having in it one solid Stone of de●●nstrative Truth ●r firm Pillar of sound Reason to support it .

CHAP II.

HItherto no right to Tythes appears . I now follow him to his second Period , comprehending the whole time of the Mosaic Law , under which the right of Tythes to the Levititical Priest-hood is recognized by all . But in as much as these Priests disclaim all Right and Title by that Law , it cannot be expected this Period should produce any thing to the advantage of their claim , though something it may against it .

Here I must crave the Reader leave to make a short digression , to remove a Cavil urged by the Author of the Conference , the occasion whereof was thus ; At his entrance upon the discourse of Tythes , in his Conference , pag. 131. he mentioned a Book of Edward Burrough's , called , A just and righteous Plea , &c. Out of which he collected a Quotation in these words , pag. 132. Tythes are now not to be paid according to the first Covenant , neither is the first Priest-hood to be upheld that once gave and received Tythes ; Now should we pay Tythes according to the first Covenant , and uphold any part of that Priest-hood , which took Tythes , &c. then should we deny Iesus Christ to be come in the Flesh. Hereupon , he took occasion to quarrel about the Priest-hood , ignorantly taxing E. B. with ignorance in the Nature of the first Priest-hood , and alledging that If by the first Priest-hood he meant that of Aaron , then he had presented to the King and Council notori●us falsity , affirming it to be the first Priest-hood , there b●ing before him ● Priest to whom Levi himself paid Tythes , Heb. 7. 9. &c. This , because I saw it to be a meer Quibble , a ●atch at word● , not pertinet to the subject he was upon , but tending only to a Jangle , I took no notice of in my Answer , but stepped as directly as well I could into the matter it self of Tythes . Hereupon in his Vindication , pag. 2●4 . he boastingly vaunt● and insults over me for passing by so consid●rable a passage , as he it seems takes it to be . But I assure him I therefore passed it by , because I looked upon it as a very inconsiderable passage , and do still . Nor should I have thought it now deserved my notice , but that his unfair Inferences therefrom de●erve reproof . He intimates that my silence hath given the World an occasion to look upon E. B. as a meer Cheat and Imp●stor , and sayes , He had not that Inspiration , which himself and his Parishoner had been discoursing of .

Po●r weak man ! He may soon at thi● rate , give the World an occasion to look upon himself as a Slanderer and Back-biter ; but will never gain belief to his false suggestions with any , to whom E. B. was known , whose Name is honourable amongst the Righteous , and his Memory sweet as a pretious Oyntment . As to the Cavil it self , which the Prie●● hath raised , it is altogether groundless . For it is evident that E. B. ●id there call the L●vitical Priest-hood the first Priest-hood with respect to that Priest-hood that succeeded it , which is the Gospel ministry . In which sense it is both generally understood & commonly called the first Priest-hood . And as well might the Priest blame the Apostle for calling that Covenant which was made with the Iews , the first Covenant ( which he doth 〈◊〉 then once in his Epistle to the Hebrews , Chap. 8. 7. and 9. 1. ) as find fault with E. B. for call●ng the Iewish Priest-hood the first Priest-hood . There needs not much be said in this case , to shew the emptiness of this Cavil , which of it self is obvious to every Eye . But he takes notice that E. B. was an occasion of my Convincement ; and thence himself takes fresh occasion to raise his wonder , at my not answering this passage before . He may for that reason the rather believe , that I did not esteem it worthy of an Answer , since if I had , he may reasonably conclude I would not have been backward to vindicate one to whom I was so greatly obliged . It is very true indeed , that the Lord made E. B. instrumental to the turning me from the Darkness ( wherein I once sate under the teaching of the National Ministry ) unto the true Light of Christ Jesus ; which with joy of Heart , and a thankful mind , I acknowledge , and my Soul blesses the Lord in the sense of his mercy extended to me therein . And of that faithful Servant of God ( whom the Priest in derision calls m● Patriarch ) this certain Testimony I have to bear , That he was endued with Power from on high , and the Spirit of the Almighty rested on him ; of which amongst many thousands I am a witness . But to proceed ,

In the same place , Vindication , pag. 295. the Priest charges me with cunningly passing over his Arguments , and skipping four pages at the entrance of his discourse of Tythes .

This Accusation is utterly false , as will appear by comparing my Book with his . He began with Tythes in his Conference at the bottom of pag. 131. He spent pag. 132. in quibling about the first Priest-hood . Then in pag. 133. having disowned all Titles to Tythes by vertue of the Ceremonial Law , he started a Question , Whether Tythes are not purely Ceremonial , &c. which he answered in the Negative , and withal shewed how far he understood them to be Ceremonial : To all this I answered in my former Book , called Truth prevailing , bestowing two pages thereon , pag. 282 , 283. Then in pag. 134. of his Conference he drew a comparison between the Prophets of the Levitical Priest-hood , and the present Clergy : To which I answered in pag. 348 , 349 , and 350. of my said Book . Judge now Reader whether was skipping over four pages , and passing by his Arguments . But of this let this suffice . I now return to the former Subject , from which the unfair dealing of my disingenuous Adversary hath occasioned this digression .

§ . 1. That which is chiefly to be inquired in , our passage through his second Period , viz. th● time under the Law , is , 1. Whether Tythes were a part of the Ceremonial Law , 2. Whether they were abrogated by Christ . The Priest begins with the last of these , and offers to prove , after his manner , that Tythes were not abrogated by Christ , Let not th● Quaker ( sayes he ) so far mistake , as to think that the abrogation of the Levitical Law concerning Tythes , was an abrogation of Tythes themselv●s , pag. 4● .

I Answer , so to think is no mistake , but a certai● Truth . They were commanded by that Law , and never commanded by any other : While that Law stood in force , they were uph●●d by it : but when that L●w wa● disa●●ulled , they fell together with it .

He sayes , ibid. Our Lord abro●ated the Levitical Law concerning the modes of Gods Worship , but he did ●ot abrogate Gods Worship .

In abrogating the Levitical Law , ●e abrogated whatsoever had dependance on that Law , which Tythes had . The Worship of God , considered simply , had no dependance on that Temporary Law , but was grounded upon the Law of Nature , in the best acception thereof , and so was not sub●ect to an abrogation : but the modes , manners , or wayes of Worship , being of the Nature of that Levitical Polity , and Instituted by the Law thereof ; were abrogated by its Repeal . Now the parralel holds not between the Worship of God and Tythes , but between the worship of God and the maintenanc● of hi● Priests or Ministers : for as the Worship of God is grounded on the Divine Law of Nature , so th● Mai●tenance of his Ministers is founded upon a Principle of Natural justice and equity . And as God by the Levitical Law , instituted divers Modes , Manners , or wayes of this Worship , so by the same Law he appointed the Mode , Manner or Way of this Mai●tenance , which was by Tythes . Sacrifice , ●urnt-offerings , Washings and other External Observanc●● were the modes of that Worship , that is , they were the means or wayes by which that Worship was performed : and Tythes were the modes of that Maintenance ; that is , they were the means and wayes by which that Maintenance was raised . As therefore the Worship it self was the Substance , which was g●ounded on the Law of Nature , and the Sacrifices , and other outward Services which were the ●●des of it , were Ceremo●ial , and as such abrogated by Chri●● ▪ ●o the Maintenance it self was the Substan●● , whic● was founded on Natural ●ustice and equity , and Tythes , which were the modes of it , were Cere●onial ▪ and as such by Christ abolished . Yet so , that as the Worship it self remains though the Sacrifices which were the modes of it are abolished : So the Maintenance it self still abides , though the Tythes , which were the m●des of it , are abrogated : N●ither let any think , that Tythes are any wh●t less C●r●monical , because of t●at small mention of them in th●●tories of Iacob , so long before the L●vitical Law was given : for many things done by those , and other Patriarchs before them , were as certainly and plainly ▪ in their own Natures Cer●monial then , as they were afterwards , when Commanded by Moses . Certainly were this thing rightly understood and well considered , that Tythe is but a mode , a way , mean or manner of Mainteance , and consequently Ceremonical , it would greatly co●duce to the clearing this Case , ●nd determining this Controversie . And could men be perswaded to lay aside Passi●n ▪ and Interest , and come fairly and un●yass●d to the considation hereof , there ●ight yet be hopes of a fairer Issue then th● present face of things bespeaks . Doubtless the great Ground of these men Error , who stickle so much for Tythes , is there not distinguishing between the Maintenance it self , and the Way , Manner , M●ans , or M●de by which that Maintenance is raised . My present Adversary , Author of the D●vine Right of Tythes , acknowledges , p 43. That all the modes and circumstances of Gods Worship , enjoyned by the Levitical Law , and proper to that dispensation , and relating to Christ to come fell with that Polity , a●d ●er● abrogated by Christ ▪ But the main duty of Worshipping God continued in forc● still , saye● he .

And so say I also ▪ But then he falls i●to his forme● Error concerning Tythes with the Worship of God , to which they are by no means a suitable Parallel . Even s● ( sayes he ) in the Case of Tythes , they had not their Foundation upon , nor their Original from the Levitical Law : God had a Right to them before , &c.

Thus he runs on in his old strain , repeating his former groundless , supposition for a whole page or more , and then concludes , pag. 45. thus , N●w when Christ did abrogate that Ministry and Dispensation ( namely , of the Law ) there Appe●dixes must needs be abrogated with it ; but the main duty ( which was so before the C●remonial Law ) remains still .

The main duty does indeed remain still , which is a maintenance to Gods Ministers ; but his mistake is in making Tythes to be this main duty , whereas Tythes being but the mode , means or way of performing the main duty of Maintenance were really Appendixes of that Iewish Polity , and though known ( and sometimes but rarely used ) before the Ceremonial Law was actually given forth , were yet even then , in their own Nature Ceremonial , as well as those other modes and wayes of Worshipping by Sacrifice , &c. which though in frequent use with the Patrirachs long befor● the Prom lugation of the Ceremonial Law , or mention made of Tythes are yet acknowledged to be of the Nature of that Dispensation and Polity , and by Christ to be abrogated with it .

§ . 2. But here I cannot omit to take notice , that in hi● repetition of his former fancy of a Divine Right to Tythes before the Law , be abuses the holy Text , First , in saying , The Fathers of the Israelites had made a special V●w to pay this Divine Tribute , meaning Tythes , hereby insinuating that Iacob understood Tythes to be a known due or Tribute which he was before obliged to pay ; when as both his voluntary , unrequired and conditional Vow plainly speaks the contrary , and the words of the Vow expresly are , I will surely give [ he doth not say pay ] the tenth unto thee . Secondly , in saying , There was no need for God to institute Tythes anew , and that accordingly he claims them , & supposes them to be his due by a right antec●d●nt to the Levitical Law ; for proof of which he cites ( as before ) Ex●d. 22. 29. where Tythes are so far from being claimed and supposed due , that they are not so much as m●ntion●d at all . He adds Levis . 27. 30. which thus speaks , And all the Tythe of the Land , whether of the S●●d of the Land ; or of the Fr●it of the Tree , is the Lord : it is holy unto the Lord . This does not at all prove an antecedent Right or Claim to Tythes distinct from the rest ; for he had but a little before asserted his Right to the whole Land , when giving a reason why he would not have any one sell his Possession forever ; he sayes ; For the Land is mine , for y● are Strangers and sojourners with me , c. 25. 23. So there be claims , the whole Land as his own ; and here he first appropriates the Tythes to his ow● use .

§ . 3. But the Priest hopes to Demonstrate that Tythes were not abrogated by this comparison , Th● putting on ( sayes he ) a new State , doth not make o●e a new man , nor doth the pulling it off again Kill ●im .

This is very true , but falsly applyed : for he makes Tythes to be the man ; but what then shall be the S●it ? If he would apply his comparison rightly , he should make Mainte●ance to be as the ●an ; 〈◊〉 Tythes to be as the Suit ; and then he might infer aptly enough , that as the pulling off the Suit doth not kill the man , so the putting off Tythes doth not destroy the maintenance . And plainly , Tythes , though ( to pursue his comparison ) it was once made and worn as a Suit , yet when it was grown old , and had done its Service , it was cast off , and laid aside , never to be worn again .

He adds , Th●re may be many alterations in Circumstances , the Essentials still remaining the same . I pray consider now , Is not Tyth● a Circumstance of M●intenance ? Can any one imagine Tythe to be an Essential ? Essential is that which belongs to the being of ● thing , without which that thing cannot be . But that maintenance may be without Tythes , and consequently Tythes not Esse●tial to ●aintenance , not only the lowest Degree of Reason will teach , but experience also of former and the present Age confirm : The Apostles of our Lord had Maintenance sufficient ; yet no man ( with a name ) dares say , they had it by Tythes . And in other Countries at this day among Protestants , the Clergy receive their Maintenance by a Standing Salary from the State without any mention of Tythes .

§ . 4. From the Levitical Law , he sayes , they may leave something to cle●r that Title which thy have to Tythes from other Laws ; and on● of his Lessons is , That the Levitical Law was a Pattern for Christ t● i●itate , in his provision for Gospel Ministers ; as St. Paul teacheth us , where he sayes , Know y● not , that they which Minister about holy things [ i. e. the Levites ] liv● of the things of the Temple , [ i. e. Tythes ] and they which wait at the Altar , [ i. e. the Iewish Pri●sts ] are partakers with the Altar , [ i. e. the Sacrifices and Oblations ] Even so hath the Lord ordained , that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel , 1 Cor. 9. 1● , 14. which Words [ Even so ] do manifest ( saith he ) that Christ hath in the main , and for the Essential part , made like Provision for Gospel Ministers , as God the Father did for the Jewish Priesthood , page 46.

In thinking Christ took the L●vitical Law as a pattern for himself to imitate , in his Provision for Gospel Ministers ; this man very much mistakes . The very contrary appears most plain in Sacred Story . Freely ye have rec●ived , freely give , was our Lords Command to his Disciples when he sent them forth to preach , Mat. 10. 8. and freely receive what is freely given by those that receive you and your Message , was the Provision he allowed them , Luke 10. 7 , 8. And a sufficient Provision too it proved , even though they went as Lambs amongst Wolves , Vers. 3. for when they returned he asked them , Lacked ye any thing ? and their Answers was , Nothing , Luk. 22. 35. Had Christ intended to follow the Levitical Law , and by that Pattern to bestow Tythes on his Gospel Ministers ; it cannot be doubted but he would , by a plain and positive Precept , have fixt and settled that Maintenance on his , as his Father before had done on the Levitical Priesthood ; and not have le●t it to the uncertain construction of an Even so : If the place it self [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] should be allowed to be Even so rendered , which Baraturus by [ It● ] only ; Hierom , Montanus and others by [ Ita et ] and Tompson that Englisht Baza's Lati●e , reads it ( not [ Even so ] from which Word Even the Priest would hook in an Identity of Maintenance , but ) so also . But suppose it allowable to read it Even so as the Vulgar Translation hath it , yet will the particle [ Even ] in that place appear to every judicious and disinteressed Reader to have relation to the matter , not the manner , livelihood it self , not the way or means of livelihood ; imploying , that Christ was not less careful of his Ministers under the Gospel , then God had been of his Priests under the Law , which I hope it will be granted he might very well be , though he did not appoint them the self-same Maintenance . And indeed , when this Priest sayes , pag. 47. These words [ Even so ] do manifest , that Christ hath in the main , and for the essential part , made like Provision for Gospel Ministers , as God the Father did for the Jewish Priesthood ; he is not much beside the Mark , if he rightly understand the main and essential part , which is simply a maintenance , without respect to the mode or way , by which it should be raised .

Again , he sayes , This was also a Pattern for the devout Christians of Old , and did intimate to them , that they should not do less for their Ministers then would afford them an honourable Maintenance . It is not to be doubted the Levitical Law , in the Ages succeeding that of the Apostles , was but too much imitated by the Christians . He that reads the Writings of those Times , and observes the bulk of Iewish Ceremonies , that have gradually crept into the publick Worship of Professed Christians● will find no cause to question it . And though the Christians in those times were very commendable for providing honourably for Christs Ministers ; yet in recurring to the Levitical Law , then abrogated , and fetching Examples from thence , they did not deserve commendation . Nor is there any need for Christians now to look back to the a●tiquated Ceremonies of the Law for Example o● Incitement to their duty herein , since such is the Power and Efficacy of the Gospel , that it opens the hearts of those who receive it , to Communicate freely of their car●als , to those from whom they receive Spirituals . Thus was it with Lydia , the Thyatiress , when her heart was opened : She was not backward to entertain them who were Instrumental to her Conversion , but even constrained them to come to her House and abide there , Act. 16. 14 , 15.

These men peradventure may think such a Maintenance not honourable enough . But they should remember , that it was honourable enough for the holy Apostles , and for our Saviour himself also , who though he were Lord of all , yet did not disdain to be thus provided for , but by his own Example laid the Foundation of this Gospel Maintenance , as we read in Luk. 8. 2 , 3. where Mary Magdalen , I●anna the Wife of Chuza , Herod's Steward , and Susanna , and many others are remembred to have ministred to him of their Substance . Was this accepted by the Master , and will it not content them who call themselves his Servants ? They had need then be put in mind , that the Disciple is not above his Master , nor the Servant above his Lord . And that , It is enough for the Disciple that he is as his Master , and the Servant as his Lord , Matth. 8. 24 , 25. And were these men indeed what they pretend to be , they would not think slightly of that Maintenance , which our blessed Saviour was contented with . But verily , their despising and rejecting this , and creeping to the Magistrate for another , is Argument enough that for all their pretences , they are not the Servants of humble Jesus .

§ . 5. To shew that the Levitical Law for Tythes was a pattern for the Christians of old , he gives us a quotation out of Origen , thus , Our Lord saith in the Gospel ( speaking of tything Mint , &c. ) These things ought ye to have done . If you reply , He said this to the Pharisees , not to his Disciples ; then hear what be saith to his Disciples , Except your Righteousness exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven , Matth. 5. Therefore that which he would have done by the Pharisees , more abundantly would he have it done by his Disciples . — Now how doth my Righteousness exceed that of the Pharisees , if they durst not taste of the Fruits of the Earth , before they had separated the Priests and Levites parts ; and I devour the ●ruits of the Earth , so that the Priest knows not of it , the Levite is a stranger to it , and God's Altar receives nothing . Herein ( sayes the Priest ) Origen speaks my sense fully , pag. 47.

By this then we know fully what the Priests sense is in this case ; let us see now how much , or rather how little , this sense of his agrees with Truth . When Christ said to the Pharisees ( concerning tything Mint , &c. ) These things ye ought to have done , &c. the Law , by which Tythes were commanded to be paid , was in force , and therefore the Pharisees in observing the Law , did but what they ought to do . But though they were in that part so observant of the Law , yet in other parts , more material , they were wholly negligent . Now as that caution of our Saviour to his Disciples , Except your Righteousness exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees , &c. was not given with particular relation to the Pharisees punctuality in tything Mint , &c. being spoken long before , and upon another occasion ; so neither can it with any colour of reason be supposed , that the excess or superabounding of the Disciples Righteousness above and beyond the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees , was to consist in a more exact observance of the Ceremonies of the Law , which were then even expiring , and the Disciples daily fitting for the manifestation of a more glorious and lasting Administration . But the Scribes and Pharisees , who were so exact in those smaller and lighter matters of tything Mint , &c. did break great and weighty Commands of God , and taught men so , as appears in Matth. 15. 6. where Christ tells them , You have mad● the command of God ( for honouring of Parents ) of no effect by your Tradition ; and in Mark 7. 13. ( where the same passage is recorded ) He adds , And many such like things do ye , of which there is a large Bed-roll in the 23d of Matthew . For these Pharisaical Tythers did shut the Kingdom of Heaven against men , neither entring themselves , nor suffering others , They devoured Widows Houses , were full of extortion , and while they were so exact in tything the very Pot-herbs , they omitted the weightier matters of the Law , Iudgment , Mercy and Faith . Now while the Righteousness , of the Pharisees stood in a nice and exact performance of those lesser matters : the Disciples Righteousness was to shine forth in the performance of those weightier matters , Judgment , Mercy , Faith , &c. wherein as they were exercised , their Righteousness would as really exceed the Righteousness of the Pharisees , as the things themselves in which they were conversant ( viz. Judgment , Mercy , Faith , &c. ) did excel those things which the Pharisees were busied about , ( to wit , tything of Mint and A●●ise ) And how great a preheminence and preference the one sort has of the other , may sufficiently appear in the Vers. 23. where Judgment , Mercy and Faith are comparatively to Tythes , called the weig●tier matters . But the disproportion is more clearly set forth in the next Vers. where Tythes are compared to the Gnat ( one of the least of Insects ) but Iudgment , Mercy and Faith to the Camel ( one of the greatest of Animals ) which Metaphors , drawn from the two Extreams , do evidently enough denote the different Natures of the things there handled ; one sort of which ( viz. Judgment , Mercy , &c. ) is plainly Moral , the other ( viz. tything of Mint , &c. ) as clearly Ceremonial . Now to su●pose Christ intended his D●sciples should exceed the Righteousness of the Pharisees in the ceremonial and lesser parts of the Law , in which the Pharisees were themselves but too apt to exceed ; and that he should enjoyn this too on no less penalty then Exclusion from the Kingdom of Heaven is contrary both to Reason and true spiritual Sense● What therefore the Pri●st quotes from Origen , and sayes is fully his own sense too , may not by any means be received , at least as he understands it . For he sayes , That which Christ would have done by the Pharisees , m●re abundantl ) would he have it d●ne by 〈◊〉 Disciples . But who can admit this in 〈…〉 terms as it is here laid down . Christ would have the Pharisees have kept the whole Law , even every Ceremony and Circumstance therein commanded ( which , being then in force , they ought to have done ) but would he have his Disciples do this more abundantly , now that himself hath Na●l'd them to his Cross ! that were to deny h●m come in the Flesh. What Origen himself therefore saith , That it is the part of a wise Interpreter to find out ●hat things in the Law are to be Literally observed , and what not ; the same may well be said of his Writings , There is need of great caution and sound judgment in quoting what he has written . For though he was a Man of great Learning , yet was he too apt to run the wrong way , for which he has been not lightly censured by many . And indeed , his aptness to allegorize the Scriptures , makes it seem the more strange that he should take this place literally ; and yet he hath even here exprest himself so darkly too , that it would puzzle I think a wise Citator to find out who that Levite is , to whom under the Gospel , Tythes should be paid according to the Letter of the Law .

But leaving the Priest to untye that Knot , I here present thee Reader with the judgment of Walter Brute upon this Text , whom though I know before-hand the Priest despises and disdains ( reproachfully calling him Renegad● , Right of Tythes , pag. 139. ) because he strikes at their Diana Tythes ; yet I make no doubt but amongst honest men , he will at least he never the worse , if not the better thought of . He having shewed that Tythes were Ceremonial , and the Law abrogated by which they were due to the Levites , goes on to disprove the pretences of those who claim a Right from those words of Christ to the Pharisees . His words are these , Whereupon some do say , that by the Gospel we are bound to pay Tythes , because Christ said to the ●harisees , Mat. 23. Wo he to you Ser●bes and Pharisees , which pay your Tythes of Mint , Annise Seed , and of Cuminin , and leave Judgment , Mercy and Truth undone . O ye blind Guides that strain at a Gnat and swallow up a Camel . This word soundeth not as a Commandment or manner of bidding , whereby Christ did command Tythes to be given ; but it is a word of disallowing the Hypocrisie of the Pharisees , who of Covetousness did rather weigh and esteem Tythes , because of their own singula● Commodity , rather then other great and weighty Commandments of the Law . And me seemeth that our men are in the same predicament of the Pharisees , which do leave off all the old Law , keeping only the Commandment of Tything . It is manifest and plain enough by the premises , and by other places of Scriptures , that Christ was a Priest after the order of Melchized●c , of the Tribe of Iudae , not of the Tribe of Levi ; who gave no new Commandment of tything any thing to him and to his Priests , whom he would place after him , but when his Apostles said to him , Behold , we have left all things , and have followed thee , what then shall we have ? He did not answer them thus , Tythes shall ●e paid you , neither did he promise them a temporal , but an everlasting reward in Heaven : For he , both for Food , and also for Apparel , taught his Disciples not to be careful . — And Paul , right-well remembring this Doctrine , instructeth Ti●●thy , and saith thus , But we having Food , and wherewithal to be covered , let us therewith be content , 1 Tim. 6. Thus fa● Brute , whom Fox enrolls amongst the holy Confessors of Jesus , Martyrol . vol. 1. pag. 146. Era●mus a●so , in his Paraphrase on Luke 11. Upon the words [ ye Tythe Mint , &c. ] sayes thus , These things which God commanded for a time to be kept according to the Flesh , ye ought not to omit ; but those things which God would have chiefly to be done , which are perpetually good , and acceptable to him , ought first of all to be performed . Observe here how he accounts of Tythes ; not as things perpetually good and acceptable to God , but as things commanded for a time , to be kept according to the Flesh : To which the Iews ( Israel after the Flesh ) were bound ; but the Christians ( Israel after the Spirit ) are free from that bond . With these take the judgment of Andrew W●lle● in his Syno●sis of Popery , and ●n the fifth general Controversie , pag. 3● 4. Where setting down the Jesuits Argument for the Morality of Tythes , out of Matth. 23. 23. He thus Answers it , We must consider in what time our Saviour Christ to spake unto the Pharisees , for as yet neither the Law , nor the Ceremonies thereof were fully abrogated : Christ was Circumcised , and Mary his Mother purified according to the Law , Luk● 2. 21 , 22. Our Saviour also biddeth the Leper to shew himself to the Priest , and offer a gift as Moses commanded , Matth. 8. 4. Yet none of all these Ceremonies now stand in force , though Christ did them at that time , and bad them to be done . The same Answer may serve also concerning his Injuction to the Pharisees as touching their Tythes . Thus he , by which it is past doubt that , although he was a zealous Advocate for Tythes as a Maintenance , yet he acounted them not Moral , but Ceremonial .

§ . 6. The Priest hath yet another document from the Levitical Law , namely , That the substance of that which was required then , is due still not by vertue of that ●aw , but because there is an inkerent equity in th● thing , pag. 48.

The Substance is a Maintenance in which there is an inherent equity , that the Labourers should be rewarded , but that this Maintenance should be by Tythes , was not the Substance in which the inherent equity stood , but a Circumstance , Ceremony or Mode , due only by vertue of that Law while it stood , and no longer . For though it be equal that the Labourer should be rewarded for his labour , yet the equality of the reward stands not in Tythes , or a tenth part , which may either exceed or ●all short of the Labourers just desert , and so not prove an adaequate reward to his work . That the substance of that which was required in the Law , is due still , he sayes , pag. 48. Is Origen's meaning in the af●resaid place ; and so ( he sayes ) we must interpret St. Hierom , when he saith , That which we have said of Tythes and first Fruits which were once given by the People to the Priests and Levites , you must understand also of the Christian People , to whom it is commanded not only to give Tythes but to sell all .

But where is there a command to Christians , either to give Tythes , or to sell all ? Hierom prest it from Mal. 3. which had direct reference to the Iews , and cannot possibly be made a Command to Christians . And for Christians selling all , there is mention indeed in holy Writ of some that did so , but not that they were commanded so to do ; that was voluntary .

But the Priest explains Hierom's meaning , that is ( sayes he pag. 49 ) so much of the command as was Moral , so much as was grounded upon eternal Reason , ought to stand .

That is not specifically Tythes , but a Maintenance in general . It is the Maintenance that is Moral , and grounded upon eternal Reason ; but no man methinks th●nks should have so little a reason , as to think Tythes , as Tythes , as a certain and definite part , are grounded upon eternal Reason . It was not an eternal , but ●emporal Reason , ( suitable to the Iewish Polity ) on which Tythes were grounded under the Law , and that was the ●●ason they did not remain , but fell together with that Law .

He Argues further , That God is Eternally Lord of the World , and must alwayes be Worshipped , and alwayes have Ministers , and these must alwayes be Maintained out of their Masters Portion , Page 49.

So they may , and yet not by Tythes , if God be Lord of the World : for then all being his , neither he nor his Ministers need to be ●yed to a Tenth . Why not a Ninth , an ●ighth , a Sixth , or any other part if he pleases ? Has the Eternal reason of ●ythes tyed God who is Lord of all the World , to the Tenth part only . Plainly these men , while they pretend to honour God as the Eternal Lord of the World , would make him in reallity Lord but of a Tenth Part of it . That they make his Portion , which he must take or none . And if they might be believed , all should depend upon this Tenth ; without Tythes no Maintenance , without Maintenance no Ministers , without Ministers no Worship . This I'm sure is not Gospel Language . But this is like his former comparison of the Oyle and the Lamp .

But whatever this Priest talks of the Law of Nature and Eternal Reason ( to beget a reverance in Peoples mind to Tythes , and make them how their Necks the more willingly to his hard and heavy Yoke ) we may see that Tythes were not reputed of Divine Right by the Eternal moral Law , if we consider the Alienations that have been made of them to common uses in Hen. 8. time . And though the Priest may think to wipe off the Objection by e●claiming against Hen. 8. and his Parliament , and by branding them with the Horrible Name of Sacriledge , as he does in his Vindication . pag. 305. Yet when he shall come to consider that those Alienations have been confirmed by Edw. 6. and Q. Eliz. and allowed by all Succeeding Kings and Parliaments ever since ; and that the Statutes made for those Alienations , stand yet in force ; I take him to be too great a Time-server to pursue his Argument of Sacriledge , at least with his Name to it . However , if he will charge Sacriledge on all the Princes & Parliament , from Hen. 8. to this day , that will not remove the Objection , but sti●l it will appear that , whatever he thinks of them , they have not thought Tythes to be due by the Eternal moral Law . And indeed , if we look upon the practice of the Priests themselves , we shall have reason to think that they thems●lves do not really believe that Tythes are due by the Eternal moral Law ( whatever they pretend to keep simple People in awe ) for do not they Alienate Tythes themselves ? Do not they pay Tenths ( which are the Tythes of the Tythes ) to the Crown ? See Right of Tythes , p. 231. If Tythes , as they pretend , may not be alienate● to Common uses ; and if such alienation be Sacriledge , Why then do they themselves alienate them ? D●th not this plainly shew , that either they do not believe Tythes to be due by the Eternal moral Law , or else that they herein sin against their own Consciences and Knowledge ?

§ . 7. But that which comes next is such a piece of Logick , as would make a serious man smile . When the Levitical Priesthood failed ( sayes he , pag. 49 ) there must be another , and a better ; and therefore we may claim Tythes as Gods due , and as his Ministers Portion , &c.

What a pretty pair of Non-sequiters is here . Because there must be another and a better Priesthood , when the Levitical failed , doth it therefore follow , these must needs be they ! upon which of the premises I wonder doth this conclusion lean ? that there must be another Priesthood , or that it must be a better ? If it rest on the former , that there must be another Priesthood , that no doubt there may be , and yet not be these : if on the latter , that it must be better , then past all doubt it cannot be these , since these are so far from being better , that they are not a little worse . But if upon the failure of the Levitical Priest-hood , there must be another , a better , and it were possibly to suppose these to be that , doth it thence follow that these may claim Tythes ? What empty arguing is this ! Right Reason would rather have inferred , that if indeed the old Priest-hood had stood , the old Maintenance by Tythes might also have continued ; but the old Priest-hood being ended the old Maintenance by Tythes is ended also . And as there was to be another Priest-hood ( wholly another , not the same corrected or reformed ) so there should als● be another Maintenance ( wholly another , not the same a little variated ) which should excel the old Maintenance , as this other Priest-hood was to be a better Priest-hood then the former , and that in the same Notion of meliority . This I am sure would be not only more rational , but more agreeable also to the words of the Apostle , 2 Cor. 5. 17. Old things a●e passed away , behold all things are become Now. So also the Divine Iohn , Rev. 21. 5. Behold I make all things new . Which words are there delivered with a very Remarkable Emphasis , He tha● sate upon the Throne said , Behold , I make all things new . And he said unto me , Write : for these words are true and Faithful . How Vnfaithful then are these Priests , who endeavour to make the●e true words untru● , by claiming and contending for the old legal Maintenance by Tythes , which long since is de jure passed away .

But he hath yet another fetch , They need not , he sayes , claim them by the Levitical Law as it is Ceremonial . What then ; will they claim them by the Levitical Law , but under some other Notion ? How doth he twist and twine about to get a claim by the Levitical Law , to which alas ! his dear Brother has foreclosed his way , by saying plainly & in general terms , they derive them not from Levi , Conference , p. 135.

§ . 8. And now ( sayes the Priest to his Brother ) I hope T. E. must confess , that your second Position , viz. [ That Tythes are not purely Ceremonial ] is made good also ; since I have shewed they were grounded on the Law of Nature , and Primitive Revelation , relying on an Internal Rectitude in the thing it self , and an Eternal Reason of it , and were paid by th●se Patriarchs who lived long before the Ceremonial Law , by Virtue of the preceding Declaration of the Divine Right unto them , pag. 49.

If this Faith hath no better Foundation then his hope , the man is in an ill case ; for I assure him , I am so far from being brought to confess he hath made good the second Position also , that I declare , I a● fully satisfied he hath made good neither first nor second yet . And though he enumerates many and great matters which he pretends he has shewed , yet , unless he means , that saying is shewing , ●he hath not shewed any one particular of those many which he speaks of . He sayes , he has shewed that Tythes were grounded on the Law of Nature and Primitive Revelation : but he has no otherwise shewed it then by saying so . In pag. 21. he begins with it , and sayes , Gods right to Tythes is founded primarily upon the Law of Nature , &c. and four or five Lines lower he adds , Natural Reason teacheth us to give God some part of his gifts back again , &c. Then in the same page he concludes , Some part of our Substance being therefore due to God , &c. So that at first he begs the Question , and on that precarius bottom sets his Building . He takes for granted that which is denyed , and then cryes out he has shewed : and so indeed he has the weakness of his Cause or his own inability to manage it . If to find Gods Right he would look into the Law of Nature , he shall there find that God has a right to all , and to all alike . He is the God of Nature , the Universal Power , by which all things were made , and by which all things subsist . An equal Right he has , by the Law of Nature , to all that his hands have made , or ever was brought forth by his productive FIAT . But nothing can constitute to him a distinct and particular Right to a tenth , or any other part , so as to make that part ( per excellentiam ) more peculiarly and eminently his then the rest , but his own appropriation and assumption thereof to himself , which cannot be proved of Tythes before the Leviti●al Law . That a tenth part ( or Tythes , which is the same ) is not due by the Law of Nature , Melan●ton affirms , saying , The Quota ( the tenth part ) is not Natural , but the Aliquota ( some part ) that st●●ds in equity , founded on the Law of Nature : but the Quota ( or tenth part ) is founded on the Ceremonial and judicial Law , which Law , says he , are proper to Moses's Polity , and belong not to us , seeing God hath utterly Destroyed it , 1 Tom. page 303. Delibert . Christiana .

And for Tythes being founded on Primitive Revelation , he shews it much after the same manner as he doth that they are grounded on the Law of Nature● for he sayes , we ought to believe it , pag. 25. We may believe it , p. 26. We must believe it , p. 27 , &c. But I would know of him whence he has his Revelation that Tythes were founded on Primitive Revelation ? He is too great a s●offer at Inspiration to pretend to know it that way . Doth he read it any where in the holy Scriptures ? He should then have done well to have given us 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 M●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 .

●e has indeed a notable knack of s●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 Subst●●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 Lo●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 ● 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 : no● was there then an Eternal Reason for raising the Maintenance by that particular way of Tythes , but a temporal , suitable t● 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 in●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 self● 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 ●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 D●cla●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 Reco●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 R●ctitude in the things . But if Tythes , as Tythe , that is , as it is a certain and determinate quantity , not the aliquot● , b●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 inj●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 gr●und for Tythes to stand and remain upon now , then for Circumcision . And that Tythes and Circumcision were a like Ceremonial Epiphanius intim●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 O●c●lampadius on Ez●k. 44. ranks Sacrifices , first Fruits and Tythes altogether , and calls them expresly Cerem●nial . He instances also in bloody Sacrifices , which , he sayes , ibid. were purely Ceremonial , and cease when that La● ceas●th . And yet these very bl●●dy Sacrifices , which he acknowledges ceremonial and ceast , were a great , if not the greatest part of the Maint●nance of the Priest● under the Law : For the Priests themselves had not the Tythes , but the Title of the Tythes , that is the hundred part , which the Levit●s paid them out of the Tythes which they re●eived . From which instance it is evident , that although Maintenance it self be Moral , and grounded on the Law of Nature , yet the ●ode or manner of that Maintenance may be Ceremonial , yea , purely Ceremonial , as he acknowledges those bloody Sac●ifices to have been which are ceast .

He sayes , ibid. he might add , that The Proph●ts ( who are not wont to reprove the People for ●mission of things purely Ceremonial ) declaim against the Jews for ●etaining their Tythes , for which he cites M●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 same nature with those Iewish Offerings , which I think the Priest will not deny were ceremonial and ceast . And does not the same Prophet , Chap. 1. ver. 7 , 8. reprove the Iewish Priests for offering polluted ( i. e. common ) Bread , and for offering th● Blind , the Lam● and the Sick for Sacrifices ? What else were these things ●ut Ceremonial , purely Ceremonial ? And yet this Priest , that he might still keep Tythes on foot , sayes , The Prophets were not wont to reprove the People for omission of things purely Ceremonial .

He adds , ibib . that Nehemiah calls his care in this ( viz. Tythes ) a good deed , desiring God to rememb●r him for it , Nehem. 13. 14. It was no doubt a good deed in Nchemia●h to take ca●● that Tythes should be duly paid according to the Law which required them , which in his time was in full force . But what is this to the purpose : Doth this argue that Tythes were not Ceremonial , or that it is a good Deed to pay them now , when the Law that required them hath been so long abolished ? Was nothing Ceremonial that Nchemiah took care of ? No man with a name I think will affirm it .

But Tythes , he sayes , pag. 51. in all the new . Testament are not reckoned ●p among things purely Ceremonial , or declared to be repealed , as Circumcision , Sacrifices , Washing , Jewish difference of Meats , and Jewish Feasts , &c. are . Th●se ( he sayes ) are repealed by ●am● , but so are not Tythes , as being a thing that never were purely Ceremonial , pag. 51.

There was no need that Tythes should be repealed by Name . It was sufficient that the Law by which alone they were due , was repealed ; which that it was , the Autho● to the Hebrews plainly shews , Chap. 7. For having said , Ver. 5. That they that are of the Sons of Levi , who receive the Office of the Priest-hood , have a Commandment to take Tythes of the People according to the Law ; and having next shewed that that Priest-hood , which had a Law to take Tythes by , was at an end , he t●ence concludes plainly and positively , vers. 12. that The Priest-hood being changed , there is made of necessity a change also of the Law . Here now is a plain repeal of that Law by which Tythes were given , as well as of that Priest-hood to which they were given . And Tythes standing by this Law , and the reason of them depending o● the I●wish Polity ; the repeal of this Law took away the right of Tythes , as the removing that Polity did the Reason of them .

That Tythes are indeed Ceremonial , and were so reputed by men of Note in several Ages , cannot reasonably be doubted by any who are acquainted with Books . Take a few of many Evidences that might be brought to prove it .

Epiphaniu● ranks Circumcision , Tythes and Offerings at Ierusalem altogether , making the payment of Tythes as much a part of the Ceremonial Law , as the other two . His words ( speaking of some who kept the Feast of Easter on the fourteenth Moon , according to the Iewish Law for the Passover , fearing lest otherwise they might incur the Curse of that Law ) are these . If they avoid one Curse , they fall under an●ther . For such shall be also found accursed a● are not Circumcised , such accursed as do not pay Tythes , and they also are accursed that do not Offer at Ierusalem . H●res . 50. ( see Selden's History of Tythes , Review , c. 4. pag. 461. ) As if he had said , If they have regard to the Ceremonial Law , then have they as much reason to be Circumcised , to pay Tythes , and to offer at Ierusalem , as to observe Easter , according to that Law . But if they are not bound to Circumcision , Tything and Offering at Ierusalem , then neither are they bound to keep that Feast on the fourteenth Moon , since all these things are alike Ceremonial . This I take to be the fai● sense of Epiphanius his Argument ; which plainly shews , both that Tythes were not paid in his time ( which was about the Year 380. ) and also that he esteemed Tythes to be of the same Nature with Circumcision and Iewish Offerings , to have had their dependence on the same Law , and to have stood and fallen together : for he compares Tythes to Circumcision and Iewish Offerings , which are undoubtedly abrogated . And thus Selden understood him .

Oecolampadius on Ezek. 44. calls Tythes expresly Ceremonial . His words are , Priests , that is Christians , should not be greedy of filthy Lucre , neither shall they have their lot upon this Earth , but a free Inheritance in Heaven , and the Lord himself will be their reward and inheritance ; what shall be wanting to them whose own God is , the very fountain of good things So they shall be free in their minds ; nevertheless to them that serve at the Altar , it is given to live of the Altar , and they may eat of the Sacrifices , receive first Fruits , receive Tythes . These things are Ceremonial ; but. Paul shews thereby that it is lawful to receive Food and Rayment , for God addeth a Blessing to his Ministers that do well . They did receive therefore of the Sacrifices , i. e. The Apostles have spiritu●l joy of these who Sacrifice themselves to God , and the growth of the Church is their Glory ; their first Born and other things are blessed . Thus he .

Walter Brute ( who , in the Reign of K. Richard the second , about the Year 1400. was Persecuted for his Testimony against Popery ) plainly calls the payment of Tythes a Ceremony . His words ( speaking of the ceasing of Shadows and Ceremonies , and of the ending of the Aaronical Priest●hood ) are these , Whereupon I marvel that your learned men do say , that Christian Folk are bound to this small Ceremony of the payment of Tythes , and care nothing at all for other as well the great as the small Ceremonies of the Law . And a little after ( having shewed that Circumcision was one of the greater Ceremonies of the Law , and yet that Paul told the Galatians , Whosoever was Circumcised was bound to keep the whole Law ) he sayes , In like manner we may reason , If we be bound to Tything , we are Debter● , and bound to keep all the whole Law . For to say that men are bound to one Ceremony of the Law , and not to others , is no reasonable thing . Either therefore we are bound to them all , or to none . Also , that by the same old Law , men are not bound to pay Tythes , it may be shewed by many Reasons , which we need not any more to multiply and increase , because the things that be said are sufficient . For he had said a pretty deal before upon this Subject , shewing the end both of that Priest-hood to whom , and of that service for which Tythes were appointed . Forasmuch ( sayes he ) as the labour of those Sacrifices did cease at the coming of Christ , how should those things be demanded , which were ordained for that labour ? And seeing ( adds he ) that the first Fruits were not demanded of Christians , which first Fruits were then ( in the time of the Law ) rather and sooner demanded then the Tythes : why must the Tythes be demanded , except it be therefore peradventure , because that the Tythes be more worth in value then the first Fruits . In the end he concludes , Wherefore seeing that neither Christ , nor any of the Apostles , commanded to pay Tythes ; it is manifest and plain , neither by the Law of Moses , nor by Christ's Law , Christian People are bound to pay Tythes : but by the Tradition of Men , they are bound , Martyrol . vol. 1. pag. 446 , 447.

The Bohemians also not long after , in their 15th Article against the Popish Clergy , say thu● , They receive Tythes of men , and will of right have them , and preach and say that men are bound to pay them Tythes , and therein they say falsly . For they cannot prove by the New Testament , that our Lord Jesus Christ commanded it , and his Disciples warned no man to do so , neither did themselves receive them . But although in the Old Testament it were commanded to give Tythes , yet it cannot thereby be proved that Christian men are bound thereto . For this precept of the old Law had an end in the first Year of our Lord Jesus Christ , like as the Precept of Circumcision . Wherefore well-beloved , consider , and see how your Bishops seduce you , and shut your Eyes with things that have no proof Christ saith in the eleaventh of Luke , Give Alms of those things that remain , but he said not , Give the Tenth of the Goods which ye possess , but give Alms , &c.

William Fulk , in his Annotations on the Rhemists Translation of the Bible , in Answer to those Iesuits , who , with this Priest , would needs have Tythes to be due by the Moral Law , saith thus ( §. 4. on Heb. 7. ) The payment of Tythes , as it was a Ceremonial duty , is abrogated with other Ceremonies . But as it is a necessary Maintenance of them that serve in the Church it MAY be retained , or ANY OTHER stipend appointed , that may be sufficient for their Maintenance , be it MORE or LESS then the tenth part . But that there is any Sacrificing Priest-hood , to whom it is due in the New Testament , the old payment of Tythes doth not prove : Neither did Christ himself , our high Priest , ever make claim unto them : nor his Apostles , the Ministers of the Church , but only to a sufficient living by the Gospel , to be allowed of their temporal Goods , to whom they ministred spiritual Goods , 1 Cor. 9. 14. Gal. 6. 6. Thus he ( a man of no small note in the English Church in Q. Elizabeth's time ) by which it is evident that he accounted Tythes a part of the Ceremonial Law , abrogated by Christ . And although he thought they might be retained as a necessary Maintenance of them that serve in the Church , yet he layes no more or greater stress on Tythes , then on any other sufficient stipend , whether it were more or less then the tenth part , which is directly contrary to this Priests Assertion , of Tythes being due by the eternal moral Law , which the Jesuits maintained and Fulk denyed .

Of the same judgment with Fulk was Andrew Willet ( a man of great account in the English Church in K. Iames his time ) He , in his Synopsis Papismi , fifth general Controversie , pag. 313. sayes in the name of the English Church , We also acknowledge ( as Bellarmine seemeth to grant , Chap. 25. ) that to pay precisely the tenth , is not now commanded by the Law of God ▪ as though that order could not be changed by any human Law , as the Canonists hold , but men necessarily were bound to pay Tythes . And a little after , Though ( sayes he ) the Law of Tenths be not now necessary , as it was Ceremonious : but it is lawful either to keep that , or ANY OTHER Constitution for the sufficient Maintenance of the Church , whether it be MORE or LESS then the tenth part : yet we doubt not to say , that this provision for the Church-Maintenance by paying of Tythes , is the most safe , ibid. Here he plainly calls the Law of Tythes Ceremonial , acknowledging that men are not necessarily bound by the Law of God to pay Tythes now : and although he accounts the paying of Tythes , grounded upon human Laws , th● safest provision for the Church-maintenance ; yet he holds it equally lawful ( with respect to the Law of God ) to appoint any other sufficient Maintenance , although it be not precisely the tenth , but either more or less then the tenth part . Which is utterly destructive of the morality of Tythes . And indeed , he makes Ministers Maintenance in general to be grounded in Equity upon the Moral Law : but Tythes to depend upon positive Laws , and he shews he understood the Moguntine Synod so . But for the Levitical Law of Tything , he calls it plainly a politick Constitution of that Country . His own words are , The Levitical Priest-hood being one whole Tribe , it was thought reasonable that the tenth part of their Brethrens Goods should be alotted to them ; which being a judicial and politick Constitution of that Country , doth neither necessarily bind Christians now , neither is forbidden , but left in that respect indifferent . And a little after , Although it be a wise and politick Constitution , that the People should pay their Tythes , and MAY conveniently be retained , yet it is not now of necessity imposed upon Christians , as though no other provision for the Church could serve but that , pag. 314.

Much more might be alledged out of these mens Writings , to this purpose : but this in this place may suffice to shew , that the judgment of the Church of England in those times , was quite another thing in this case , then it is now represented by this Priest to be . But leaving these Testimonies to the Reader 's consideration , return we to the Author of the Right of Tythes .

§ . 9. He comes now to conclude his second Period , in the close of which he again repeats his so oft reiterated Suppositions . I conclude , sayes he , page 51. that part of our Substance being due to God by the Natural and Divine Law . ( For he will yet allow God to have right but to a part : and it were worth inquiry how God who is Eternally Lord of the World , pag. 49. came to be disseized of his right to the whole , and who it was that so compassionate to make him a Title to some part again ) And the Inspired Patriarchs ( sayes he ) being taught by Revelation . ( Of which Revelation ( say I ) there is no Revelation , but a bold presumption of his own ) That the tenth ( sayes he ) was his part , and the Priests of God were his Receivers ( which if it were true ( say I ) had been Title sufficient for the Levitical Priests , without a particular Law on purpose to make them due ) God himself ( adds he ) having approved also this payment ( which ( say I ) was not a payment , but a free and voluntary Gift ) by a Renewed claim ( sayes he ) ( though never claim'd before , say I ) and an express assignation ( sayes he ) of his Right under the Levitical Law to the Priests for the time being ( but not to any other Priests ( say I ) without a new assignation ) and the same God ( sayes he ) having the same Right still to his part ( and the same Lord of all , say I , having the same Right still to all ) and the same occasion ( sayes he ) to use it for the Maintenance of his Ministers at this day ( not so , say I , for he neither hath such a Tribe to maintain , nor such Service to imploy them in at this day as then . ) Hence ( sayes he ) I suppose it will follow , That ( unless an express repeal can be shewed ) the Gospel Ministers in Gods Name , may justly claim Tythes as due to them still , and that by a Divine Right too .

What a Series of premises hath he drawn his Discourse through , to Issue it at last in a Suppositive Conclusion ! But it is the less to be wondered at , since his premises are mostly Suppositive also , leaning on conjecture and relying at best but on probability . But in this last Clause I must needs say he has exprest himself with more Caution and less Confidence then usually : for he speaks with a Reserve [ unless an express repeal can be shewed ] to which I return him a twofold Answer . 1. That an express repeal is not of absolute necessity , and that for two reasons , 1. Because , the Right which he pretends , and insists so much on , antecedent to the Levitical Law , is not grounded upon an express Command ; and what is not expresly commanded , needs not be expresly repealed . And therefore he might very well allow me the same Liberty ( if I either needed or listed to use it ) of arguing a Repeal form Suppostitions , Guesses , Conjectures and Maybe's , which himself uses to prove a Right . And not only so , but I might also urge Argumentum ad hominem , and put him shrewdly to it , by asking him , Where he reads that Tythes are not repealed ; and telling him ( as he doth me , pag. 31. ) That he cannot prove Tythes are not repealed , and I can make it appear very probable they are . But having Noted this as a weakness in him , I will not Answer him after this manner , because I would not be like unto him . 2. Because the express Assignation of the Right of Tythes under the Levitical Law , was ( as hims●lf words it , pag. 51. ) to the Priests for the time being ; and common Reason and experience tell us that when a Deed or Assig●ment is made to a man for his life , there is no need , upon the Death of the Assigne , of a new deed to declare the old one void , the Death of him sufficiently declaring that , to the Term of whose Life the Assignment was at first restrayned . Now the Assignation of Tythes to the Priests under the Levitical Law , was for and during the life of that Priesthood ( if I may so express it ) and had that Assignment been made void while that Priesthood lived , there had then indeed been need of an express Repeal . But seeing it was not made void in the life tim● of that Priesthood , but continued in force as long as that Priesthood lived , the Death or Dissolution of that Priesthood did vocate the Assignation in course . And there is no more Reason to expect an express Repeal of it , then there would be , if the Parliament should make a Law to continue for three years , to expect that , at the three years end , they should make another Law on purpose to declare the first void .

Thus it appears that an express Repeal of Tythes by name was not of absolute necessity , in relation to either Claim . Not in relation to the Ant●-Levitical Claim , that Claim it self not being grounded upon any express Command : nor with respect to the Assignation he speaks of under the Levitical Law , that Assignation being at first limited to a certain time , to the P●iests for the time being , as himself expresses it , pag. 51. Yet Secondly , to put it out of all doubt that Tythes are indeed ended with that legal Priest-hood , the holy Apostle , by the Divine Spirit , hath most plainly and expresly affirmed , That the Priest-hood being changed , there is made of necessity a change also of the Law , Heb. 7. 12. Here is an express Repeal of the Law , by which the Assignation of Tythes to that Priesthood was made .

Thus have I brought him to the end of his second Period , and in the way have made it evident that Tythes were not founded on the Law of Nature , but on the Levit●cal , Ceremonial Law ; that they had not an inherent equity in them , nor did rely on an internal Rectitude , or eternal Reason , but on an external Rectitude and temporal Reason , suitable to the Polity of that State . That as the Sacrifices and other Ceremonies of the Law , were not the Worship of God it self , which was founded upon the Law of Nature ; but ●odes and Circumstances of performing that Worship , proper to that Dispensation , which fell with that Polity , and were abrogated by Christ : So Tythes were not the Maintenance it self , which was founded upon the Law of Nature ; but a Circumstance of the qua●tity or proportion of maintenance , a Mode , Manner , Means , or Way , by which the Maintenance was therein provided and raised , which being proper to that dispensation , fell together with the other Ceremonies of that Polity , and were abrogated with them by Christ ; That Tythes are not Essential to Maintenance , but that Maintenance hath been and is without them ; that Christ did not make the Levitical Law a Pattern for himself to imitate in providing for Gospel Ministers ; that the Righteousness of the Disciples exceeding that of the Scribes and Pharis●es , had not relation to tything , but to the weightier matters of the Law , Judgment , Mercy and Faith ; that Tythes being assigned by the Levitical Law , to the Priests for the time being ( ie . for the time of that Priesthood's continuance only ) the dissolution of that Priesthood hath vocated the Assignments , and put an ●nd to Tythe● .

Thus far then my way is clear'd , and nothing lest unremov'd , on which , with any colour of Reason , a Claim to Tythes may be Grounded .

CHAP III.

§ . 1. I Now go on to his third and last Period , the Times of the Gospel . He begins it with a Concession of mine , That a Maintenance in general to the Ministers of the Gospel is just , reasonable , and establisht by a Divine Authority .

With this grant he is greatly pleased , and hopes from hence to scre● a Right to Tythes ; but he is as greatly mistaken also , for Tythes I am sure can never be squc●s'd out of that Concession . He attempts it thus , Let him ( sayes he , pag. 52. ) but stand to this grant , and then it will follow , That the Ministers of the Gospel may claim a Maintenance in general , jure divino , for that Maintenance which is established by Divine Authority is due jure divino .

This might very well have been spared , being no more then is contained in the Grant it self : I expect his Inference , which such an one as it is , here follows , And why then ( sayes he ) should not that Maintenance still be so due , which God directed before the Law , approved under the Law , and never repea●ed after the Law ? pag. 52.

Pro thesaur● carbones ! I expected he would have drawn up some notable Conclusion from my Concession ; but instead thereof lo a Petition ! Petitio Principij , a begging of the Question , namely , that Tythes were directed by God before the Law , and never repealed after the Law ( for their being approved under the Law , conduces nothing to their continuance under the Gospel ) He would very fain all along have it granted , that Tythes were grounded on the Law of Nature , that the tenth part was alwayes Gods particular part , as he is eternally Lord of the World , and that the Patriarchs before the Law were by special ●●velation commanded to pay Tythes , but this cannot be granted . He knows the Proverb , Win it and wear it . If he can prove it , let him ; if not , he must be content to forego it . And for the repeal of Tythes after the Law , it is before Demonstratively Argued both from the Dissolution of the Priesthood to which the expiration of the Term for which , and the express repeal of the Law by which they were granted .

He adds , ibid. If the Divine Authority hath established a Maintenance , that supposeth it was such a Maintenance as was due before , according to T. E. pag. 318.

I deny that the establishing a Maintenance doth suppose there was a Maintenance due before , but it doth not infer a parity of Maintenance . It doth not follow , that because there was a Maintenance due before , therefore the Maintenance thus established must needs be the same , or such a Maintenance as was before due . Neither is this according to me , as he sayes , but according to himself , and his perversion of my words , pag. 318. Where noting my opponent of instability in his Position , I observe that he uses the words [ Create and Establish ] promiscuously , as if they were synonimous . And to shew their different acceptions , I tell him , That if he will say , Temporal Authority hath created ( 't is his own words ) a Right to Tythes , he thereby cuts off all pretentions to any Right antecedent to that Creation . If he will say , that temporal Authority hath only establisht a temporal Right to Tythes , that supposes a temporal Right to them before .

Observe , I did not say , that supposes such a temporal Right to them as was before ; but that supposes a temporal Right to them before . So here when I say , Divine Authority hath established a maintenance in general , &c. the word [ ESTABLISH ] doth not suppose it to be such a Maintenance as was due before , but supposes only that there was a Maintenance in general due before , which is far enough from restrayining it to a particular kind of Maintenance . Thus he at once abuses me and his Reader , and makes good the saying , Posito uno Errore , sequuntur Mille. For upon this false and weak Supposition that the establishing of a Maintenance supposes it to be such a Maintenance as was due before , he bestirs himself to prove that Tythes were due before . In order whereunto , after his wonted manner , supplying his Defects with Confidence , he peremptorily affirms , pag. 53. that the Maintnance paid to Gods Ministers before the Law and under it , was Tythes . The payment of Tythes under the Law is not questionable , as well as not imitable . But for the time before the Law , I desire him to be less peremptory , and more Demonstrative . If he please , I would gladly know who those Ministers were to whom Tythes as a Maintenance were paid before the Law ; seeing the Scripture remembreth Mel●hizedec only to have received Tythes , and that but once , nor then as a PAYMENT , but a GIFT . And when he is upon this Subject , he may seasonably explain his next Sentence also , which is this , The Priest-hood of Melchizedec , and of Levi , both were so maintained , namely , by Tythes . The instance of Levi is clear , but not to this purpose . But that the Priest-hood of Melchi●edec was maintained by Tythes will be hard I think for him to prove . Melchizedec himself , as I noted before , never received Tythes but once , that we read of , and then he was at a considerable charge too ( for it cannot be thought so great a Troop as Abraham led with him , three hundred and eighteen of his own Domesticks , besides his Confederates Aner , Escol and Mamre , could be refresht with Bread and Wine , for a small matter ) which expence deducted out of the Tythe he received , unlikely it is the remainder should be enough to maintain him all the time of his Priest-hood , if he , who was a King , and by the Apostles comparison , Heb. 7. greater then Abraham had needed such a Maintenance . And for Iacob , though it is not to be doubted but he performed his Vow , yet after what manner he performed it , is not agreed on ; some thinking he paid his Tythes in kind to they know not whom ( of which number this Priest is one , pag. 38. ) Others with greater probability and better Authority , that he offered them by way of Sacrifice immediately to God . However it was , Melchizedec could not have them , if we understand him to be Sem , since most agree that S●m was buried long before . So that the holy Text affords no countenance at all to this over-bold Assertion , that Melchizedec's Priesthood was maintained by Tythes .

§ . 2. He charges me pag. 53. with striving to pervert two Texts ( 1 Cor. 9. and Gal. 6. 6. ) by two limitations . First , in saying , The Apostle's intent 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 , namely such as receive their Ministry , such as believe them to be true Ministers , such as are taught by them , &c. This , he saves , is a notorious falshood , for in 1 Cor. 9. St. Paul is all along speaking of the Ministers Right to be maintained .

This is far enough from proving my words a notorious falshood , namely , that his intent is not so much to set forth what the Maintenance is , as who they are from whom it is to be received : for his speaking of the Ministers Right to be maintained , is not a setting forth what the maintenance is . But he would perswade his Reader that the Apostles drift was chiefly to set forth what the Maintenance is : for sayes he , He shews what Maintenance was due to the Jewish ●inisters , affirming that Christ had ordained [ even so ] that we should l●●e 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 .

This yet even as he has worded it , though he has added his own divination to the Text , doth not so much express what the Maintenance is , as from whom to be received . He sayes , The Apostle shews what Maintenance was due to the Jewish Ministers , affirming , that Christ had ordained [ even so ] that we should live of the Gospel .

What [ Even so ] as the Iewish Priests lived under the Law ! What! just the very same Maintenance as they had in every respect ! Not so , I trow , then this doth not express what the Maintenance is , although it doth that there is a Maintenance . But the Priest explains his [ even so ] that is , sayes he , the Rights of God under the Gospel ; What are they ? Has not God a Right to ALL under the Gospel , as well as he had under the Law and before it ? How then doth this express what the Maintenance is ? unless he means that he would have all ? Besides , he adds another branch of this Maintenance , viz. Acknowledgments made to God for the mercy revealed in the Gospel , and these he seems to make distinct from the Rights of God : for First , he reckons the Rights of God , and then these acknowledgments made to him . But what are these ? are they not voluntary , arbitrary , uncertain ? And is this to set forth a certain Maintenance ? How doth this man darken Counsel by words without Vnderstanding ? Job 38. 2.

But while he charges me with notorious falshood in saying , the Apostles intent in this place is not so much to set forth what the Maintenance is , as who they are from whom it is to be received , which is indeed a plain Truth ; is not he himself guilty of the notorious falshood he labours so much to fasten on me ? in saying here , Not a word in all this who should pay it ; when as from the very entrance of his Discourse upon this Subject , the Apostle labours to convince the believing Corinthians , that it was from THEM he might r●ceive Maintenance . And he grounded his Argument on this especially , that THEY had been taught by him , and had received his Ministry . Are not YOV my Work in the Lord ? saith he , Vers. 1. If I be not an Apostle unto others , yet doubtless I am to YOV : for the Seal of my Apostleship are YE in the Lord , Vers. 2. Then besides the instances he uses of a Souldier , a Planter , a Shepherd , he Argues plainly from THEIR having received first of him , Vers. 11. If we have sown unto YOV Spiritual things , is it a great thing if we shall rea● YOVR Carnal things and Vers. 12. If others he partakers of this Power over YOV , are not we rather ? From all which it is most apparent that he makes his labour amongst THEM and THEIR receiving his Ministry , the Ground and Reason of his Demand . Is not his Expostulation with THEM particularly , who had received the Gospe● through his Ministry ? saith he not expresly , is it a great thing if we shall reap YOUR Carnal● ? YOURS , who are my work in the Lord ; YOURS , who are the Seal of my Apostleship in the Lord ; YOURS , unto whom I have already sowed Spiritual things ; And is there not a word in all this who should pay , or who they are from whom the Maintenance should be received . Was this man well advised to Tax me with a notorious falshood , for but saying , The intent of the Apostle is not so much to set forth what the Maintenance is , as who they are from whom it is to be received ? ( by which words [ not so much ] it appears I did not wholly exclude the Maintenance , but shewed that the Maintenance was not in this place so particularly and plainly described as the Maintainers ) and yet himself not blush to say , The●e is not a word in all this 〈◊〉 should pay it : Let him shew me from this text if he can , as plainly and particularly what the Maintenance is , as I have done him , who they are from whom it is to be received . Then in the instances of the O● the Souldier , the Shepherd , and Vinedresser , he abuses me not a little . Can these , sayes he , ( as St. Paul brings them in ) belong to those who ●ay the Maintenance ? Doth the Ox pay his Master Maintenance ? Or the Souldier give his Prince a St●pend ?

Can he ( say I ) believe that this was my meaning ? Or do my words admit such a construction ? Doth not my application of each of those instances convict him evidently of dishonest dealing ? Do I not say expresly , the Ox was to be fed by him whose Corn he trod out , pag. 284. Is this to make the Ox pay his Master Maintenance ? Do I not make the Souldier maintainable by him for whose defence he fights ? pag. 285. Is this to make the Souldier give his Prince a Stipend ? Say I not most plainly , He that plants a Vineyard m●y eat of the Fruit , but it must be the Fruit of the Vineyard which he hath planted ; And that he that feeds a Flock may eat of the Milk , but it must be the Milk of the Flock whi●h he feeds ? ibid. And doth not the Apostle say the same ? Is not this the free and unconstrained sense of the place ? With what Face then then can this Man calm an Abuser of Scripture , and affirm that all the Instances do shew the contrary to what I would squeez out of them ? Have men that have no Names , no Fore-Heads neither ! The Ox ( he sayes ) must not be starved , who is willing to work , though he be not actually imployed by him that feedeth him , pag. 55.

Who said he must ? Was it likely I would have the Ox starved , when I said expresly , The Ox was to be fed ? Is feeding the way to starve him ? Doth not this unjust man know fulwell , that the Question was not whether the Ox should be fed or no ; but who in equity are bound to feed him , they by whom he is imployed , they for whom he labours , they whose Corn ●e treadeth out ; or they who do not imploy him at all , they for whom he never labours , they whose C●rn he doth not ●read out , nor can , and whose business or service he is not at all fit for ? This was the plain case , as my words manifest , The Ox ( said I , pag. 284. ) that trod out the Corn ( in the time of ●he Law ) was not to be mu●zled , but was to be fed by him whose Corn he trod out : but it was not agreeable to the equity of that Law , that whi●e the Ox trod out Corn for one man , another should be bound to keep him , that had been unreasonable . Now how unrighteous is this man , from hence to insinuate that I would have the Ox starved ? and how impertinent , to argue that the Ox must not be starved , though he be not actually imployed by him that feeds him ? thereby fallaciously intimating ▪ that the controversie rested upon that point , whether the Ox should be fed , though by him for whom he laboured , any longer then he was in actual imployment , which was no part at all of the Controversie ; but whether while he was imployed in one man's service , while he was treading out Corn for one man , another , for whom he did no service , should be bound to keep him . This I said was unreasonable , and not agreeable to equity . The same I now again affirm , and dare expose it to the strongest assault my Opponent is able to make against it . Now for the latter place , Gal. 6. The Priest sayes , S. Paul tells them , they must give the Ministers a part of all their good things ; and is not that ( saith he ) a declaring what the Maintenance is ? By this he would 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 , s● 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 , c●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-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 ●is sense , to uphold a selfish interest . But if the Priest had been desirous of an Inference of mine to confute , he needed not have formed an Inference for me : for in pag. 286. of my Book , he might have found a pai● 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 oug●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 ●o but bear the Name of Christians , that they speak against it . The instances of the Ox , the Souldier , the ●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 sak●s the labour , hazard , pains and care is undergone and to whose benefit it redounds . And in the two last instan●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 a great matter for him to have reaped their carnal things . But he grounds the reasonableness and equity of his Right to their carnal things , upon the labour he had bestowed on them , and benefit they had received by him in spiritual things . And in his other Epistle to the Galatians , he plainly shews that as he that teaches was to be communicated to , so the Communication was to be from him that was taught . And as this was the Doctrine , such also was the Practice of the Apostle . He was not forward to pick up a Maintenance from every one that profest Christianity , as appears in the case of Lydia , who was fain to use more for●ible Arguments , then her bare profession of Christianity , but to get him to her House , beseeching him , and those that were with him , if they judged her faithful to the Lord , to come into her House , and abide there , Acts 16. 15. Neither were the Disciples , when they were sent forth to Preach permitted by their Master to receive so much a● Food from any but those that received their Message , Luk. 10. 8 , 10 , 11. So that all along the New Testament , wheresoever there is mention of Ministers Maintenance , it is with relation to them that own the Ministry .

But this the Priest doth by no means like , well knowing the loss that he and his Brethren would sustain , if none should be bound to maintain them , but such as own their Ministry ; and therefore he uses all his , endeavour to avoid the force of this Argument . He would put it by , first , by urging , pag. 56. that according to the Quakers Principles , the Christians of Old were all immediately taught by inward Revelation ; And if so ( sayes he ) what need any Gospel-Ministry at all ? What need of outward Means ? What need had they ●o 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 ?

If the Christians of Old were all immediately taugh● by inward Revelation , yet it doth not thereon follow , that there was no need of any Gospel Ministry at all , as he supposes . For if the Christians of old were all immediately taught by inward Revelation ; yet a time there was when they were not so taught , but were unconverted to the Faith of Christ . The Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians , Chap. 5. Vers. 8. tels them , Ye are now Light in the Lord . But withal he adds , Ye were sometime Darkness . Now how came these Ephesians to be changed ●rom Darkness to Light ? Was it not by the means of a Gospel Ministry ? Doth not the same Apostle speaking of the Ministry committed to him , Acts 26. 16 , 17 , 18. say expresly that he was made a Minister , to open the Eyes of the Gentiles , and to turn them from Darkness to Light , & from the Power of Satan unto God ? Thus the Ephesians , who were sometimes Darkness , came to be Light in the Lord , having their Eyes opened , and being by this Ministry turned from the Darkness to the Lig●t . Nor was it thu● with the Ephesians only , but with both Iews and Gentiles in general● The work of the Gospel Ministry was to turn both Ie●s and Gentiles from the Darkness and Unbelief of Iudaism and Gentilism to the Light and Faith of Christ Jesus . Now if after they were so turn'd from the Darkness to the Light , and from the Unbelief to the Faith , they were immediately taught by inward Revelation ; yet it cannot possibly be supposed they were so taught before they were so turned , while they were in the Darknes● , and in the Unbelief . So that there was need of that Ministry to turn them from Darkness to the Light , and from Unbelief to the Faith , in order to bring them to that inward Revelation by which they might be taught . Hence it appears , that if what he asserts to be according to the Quakers Principles should be granted , viz. That the Christians of old were all immediately taught by inward Revelation , yet his inference from thence of no need of a Gospel Ministry at all , is fals● , since there was need of a Gospel Ministry to bring them to that State wherein they might be so taught . And though this work of gathering People out of the Iewish and Heathenish States to the Christian Faith , of turning them from the Darkness ( in which they could not see ) to the Light of the Gospel ( by which they might see the Divine Mysterie● of the heavenly Kingdom ) was the first and chief work of the Ministry ; yet was it not the only end or service to which that Ministry was appointed , and for which it was indued with Power from on High . For when Christ ascended up on High , and led Captivity Captive , he gave Gifts unto men , for the perfecting of the Saints , for the work of the Ministry , for the edifying of the Body of Christ , Eph. 4. So that the work of the Ministry was not only to bring to the Faith , but to build up th● Saints in the Faith , whereunto they were brought by it : which twice in one Epistle the Apostle Paul affirms , 2 Cor. 10. 8. and 13. 10. And very Serviceable to the Saints was the Ministry of that day , even to them who knew the Truth and were established in it , them that had received the anointing , had it abiding in them , and were taught by it , by exhorting them to keep to it , and to abide in it ; by putting them frequently in Remembrance of their duty , and stirring up their pure minds thereto , in which they were helpers of the Saints joy . Here then the Priest is found in an Error , in infering a Conclusion which doth not follow from his own premises . For if it were granted him that the Christians of old were all immediately taught by inward Revelation ; yet it doth not thence follow , that there was no need of any Gospel Ministry at all ; since it is evident a Gospel Ministry was altogether needful to gather them to the true Faith , and direct them to the inward teaching ; and very useful and serviceable to confirm and build up in the Faith , even those who are come to the anointing in themselves , and were taught by it .

But seeing the Priest upon a false hope that he had gotten an advantage , adventures so far as to argue equity , a thing rare to be found amongst them ; and upon a wrong conclusion asks , With what equity could this Teacher require Maintenance of them , that had no occasion for his Teachi●g at all ? I will assure both him and his Brethren ( in the name of all my fellow Quakers , as he calls them , the meanest of which ( that is truly such ) I heartily embrace as my fellow ) that the Quakers , as they have no good Opinion of his or his Brethren's reaching , so they have no desire to be taught by them , nor have any occasion for their teaching at all , being far better taught without them . And hereupon I ask him in his own words , With what equity be and his fellow Priests can require Maintenance of them , that have no occasion for their teaching at all ?

His second shift to void the force of those Text● which restrain the Ministers Maintenance to them that receive and own the Ministry , and to justify the Priests practice of extorting Tythes from those that are not taught by them , is an exact Parallel Case , as he calls it , which he thus brings in , pag. 57. Suppose a pious man ▪ sayes he , an hundred Years ago did endow a Free-School with 20 l. per annum , to be raised out of the profits of a parcel of Ground , worth 200 l. per annum , ( that is , the tenth part of the profits ) on condition that all the Boyes 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 ●each all the Boyes of that Town , if they will come , it being the same trouble to him to teach 10. as 20. but it may be not above 10. of 20. Boyes 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 200 l. per annum , would he thin● it just or reasonable to stop 10 l. of the 20 l. because half the Boyes do not co●●● to be taught . This ( he sayes ) is the very case between the present Clergy and the Quakers .

But he mistakes in this as well as the rest . His Parallel will not hold between the Quakers and the Boyes ; for the Boyes in this case , whether they come to School or stay away , are not concerned in the Maintenance of the Master , but the Quakers whether they hear the Priest or stay away are concerned ( more then they should ●e ) in the Maintenance of the Priest . The School-master has no advantage at all from the Boyes , if they come to be taught , for he receives his stipend from another hand , without any dependance on the Boyes . And if the Boyes come not to be taught , they suffer nothing , they lose nothing , for as they receive nothing , they pay nothing . But the Case is far otherwise between the Priest and the Quakers . For the Priest comes for his Mainten●nce to the Quakers , and has his dependance on their labour , and whether the Quakers come to hear or no , to be sure he make them pay , that is , he tears away their Substance from them . See now the difference between the Boyes and the Quakers ; the Boyes pay nothing though they are taught , but the Quakers must pay though they are not taught . The Boyes are taught for nothing : the Quakers pay for nothing . Is this his exact Parallel , his very Case ! If he would have made the Boyes Case Parallel with the Quakers , he should have supposed the Masters stipend was to be raised out of the Boyes earnings , as the Priests Maintenance is extorted out of the Quakers labours ; and then , if the Boyes had found the Master as uncapable of teaching Grammer , as the Quakers have found the Priests uncapable of Preaching the Gospel ; or if the Boyes had found the Master had taught false Latine , as the Quakers have found by sad experience , the Priests have taught false Doctrine , I think the Boyes would have been much more commendable for seeking out an abler Teacher , then the Master could have been excusable for taking away the Poor Boyes Money , when he neither did , nor could do them any good . I might here shew the disparity and unaptness of his Comparison in many other particulars also , both as to the Donation , the certainty of stipend , &c. But this which is said will I doubt not sufficiently manifest , that instead of shewing the fallacy of my arguing ( which by this Parallel he undertook to do ) he hath but shewed his own weakness .

§ . 4. In his 10th Section , pag. 58. He charges me thus , T. E's second device to take off his former grant of a general Maintenance establisht by Divine Authority , is pag. 286. That Christ hath expresly s●t down what this Gospel Maintenance is , viz. only Meat and Drink , Mat. 10. 10. Luke 10. 6 , 7 , 8. 1 Cor. 9. 4. Upon which he thus comments , Tru●y this seems some-what strange , sayes he , that T. E. should first say , Divine Authority hath only establisht a maintenance in general , and in the next page but one , affirm , That the same Authority had particularly exprest what this maintenance must be . If ( sayes he ) Christ have allotted the particular maintenance , then he hath not left it ●o generals ; if he have established it only i● general , then hath he not exprest the particulars . One of these ( adds he ) must be false , for indeed there is a● manifest contradiction .

In his Parallel but now I noted him of Weakness , but here I cannot excuse him from Wickedness in thrusting in words as mine , which he certainly knows are not mine , that he might thereby pervert my meaning . Disingenuity is too mild a word to express such dealing as this is by ; this is plain dishones●y . Truly ( sayes he ) this seems some-what strange , that T. E. should first say , Divine Authority had only establisht a maintenance in general , and in the next page but one , affirm , that the same Authority hath particularly expressed what this maintenance must be . Here he affirms , that in one page I say , Divine Authority had only established a Maintenance in general , and that in the next page but one I affirm , the same Authority hath particularly expressed what this Maintenance must be ; where the words [ only ] in the first place , and [ particularly ] in the second , are not my words , but his own , thrust in on purpose to abuse me , and render my sayings absurd and contradictory . In the first of those places , pag. 284. he refers to , my words are plainly thus . That a Maintenance in general to the ●●inisters of the Gospel , is Iust , Reasonable , and established by a Divine Authority , I grant . Here 's no such word as [ only ] and yet he affirms , that I here say , Divine Authority had only established a Maintenance in general . In the other place , pag. 286. My words are , But what this Gospel Maintenance is , is expresly set down by Christ himself . Here 's not the word [ particularly ] and yet he sayes , I here affirm , That the same Authority hath particularly expressed what this Maintenance is . And the better to perswade the Reader that ● had so written as he reports me , when he first repeats my saying that Christ hath expresly set down what this Maintenance is , he adds in the same Character [ viz. only meat and drink ] as if he had taken these words also out of my Book together with the other ; and then sayes , Truly , this seems some-what strange . Doth it so more shame for him that made it seem so . Truly it would seem the more strange to me also , that he should deal so unjustly by me , had he not served me in the like manner more then once before . Nor can it be supposed this happened by chance , since he insists deliberately on it , and argues from it . For he sayes , If Christ have allotted the particular maintenance , then he hath not left it to generals ; if he have established it only in general , then he hath not expressed the particulars . And he improves his argument to this conclusion , One of these must be false , for indeed there is a manifest Contradiction . But does he not know which of them is false ? I will tell him then , 'T is that which he has falsified , to make the contradiction . But till he had thus corrupted them , there was neither falshood nor contradiction in them , nor any thing else that might seem strange . For , if the first part had been a Position , as it was but a Concession , yet I hope it had been no Contradiction to say , first , That a Maintenance in general is established by a Divine Authority ; and afterwards , That Christ hath expresly set down what this Maintenance is .

But he goes on upon this willful mistake , that I say , The Maintenance is only Meat and Drink . And having first bestowed his usual Livery of folly upon me , he yields , pag. 60. that in those Texts which I cited out of St. Matthew , and St. Luke , the Maintenance set down is Meat and Drink . When the Apostles ( sayes he ) 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 this he sayes was upon a particular occasion , and to apply these Rules to all Ministers , or to the general Commission he gave them afterwards , is the most rididulous and absurd thing imaginable .

Though the Disciples were then sent but into the Cities of Iudea , yet the Service they went upon was the same then as after , viz. Preaching the Gospel . And if the Iews , amongst whom they then went , were prejudiced and unbelieving , both Iews and Gentiles , amongst whom they went afterwards , were prejudiced and unbelieving also . So that to urge this as a reason why meat and drink was as much as they could expect , and therefore that they were to take that and be contented , is weak arguing ; for it supposes they were to be content with that , because they could get no more , whereas they were not to take so much as that , unless it were freely given , and by them that were worthy ; he who opened the hearts of any to give that , could have enlarged their hearts to give much more , had he pleased . But if to apply the Maintenance in these places exprest , to the general Commission given afterward be absurd ( as he sayes ) where shall we find any other Maintenance to apply to that Commission , since he that gave the Commission mentions no other Maintenance but this ?

But he sayes , pag. 60. When Christ bids his Apostles to take Meat and Drink , and be content , he doth no where forbid them to receive more , if good men freely gave it to them .

I do not say he did . But the Question is not what freedom they might use in receiving what good men freely gave them : But what was due unto them for their Service , and what they might justly expect . Which although my injurious Opponent would in my Name limit to Meat and Drink only ; yet as I used not those terms [ Only Meat and Drink ] so neither do I think the intent of our Saviour was to tye up his Ministers to Meat and Drink only , in the strict and literal sense of the words , but by the phrase of eating and drinking to intimate the necessary Conveniences of Life . And so the Apostle Paul seems to understand it , when speaking of Maintenance , with reference to these Texts , as his Phrase gives ground to believe , he sayes , Have w● not power to eat and to drink , 1 C. r. 9. 14. and in another place , Having Food and Rayment let us be therewith content , 1 Ti● . 6. 8. Which Phrase [ Food and Rayment ] is commonly understood to express the necessaries of man's Life . What therefore he urges hereupon ( viz. that If Christ had determined Meat and Drink for the ONLY Gospel-maintenance , then the Apostles had been great Sinners in receiving the price of Possessions sold and dedicated , and that they must have returned them back again , as must also St. Paul have done the wages he took of other Churches , and those liberal presents he received from the Philippians ) is all grounded on a mistake that I restrain the Gospel-maintenance to Meat and Drink only , as if it were not lawful for a Gospel-Minister to receive any thing but Meat and Drink only , though never so freely offered by such as receive his Ministry , and reap the benefit of it . Whereas he that shall impartially read what I have there written , and not strain my words to a Construction which the scope and drift of them cannot fairly bear , may clearly see , that I do not strictly tye the Maintenance to Meat and Drink only , since I there qu●te and apply the words of the Apostle , Having Food and Rayment ( which is more then Meat and Drink only ) let us therewith be content . Besides , the scope of my Argument in that place was not to shew what freedom a Gospel-Minister may have , or how far it may become him to use that libe●ty , in receiving what is freely and voluntarily given by those that own and embrace his Message : but what he may justly look for , and expect to receive as his Right , and from whom . Now we know there is a great difference between expecting or looking for a thing as a just due , and receiving or accepting a thing as a free gift or benevolence : Which distinction the Priest not observing , hath argued thus loosly and at random , urging the free Gifts and voluntary Presents made to the Apostle by some Churches whom he had Planted , Watered , and bestowed much of his labour upon , as Examples and Presidents for himself and his Brethren of the Clergy to demand , require , exact , extort and by force take from People now their Goods and Substance , not only against the Owners will , but even from such as they have neither Planted , Watered , nor Laboured for ; such as receive not , nor own their Ministry .

Here the other Priest in his Vindication , pag. 301. hath a particular Crochet , from my saying , What this Gospel-Maintenance is , is expresly set down by Christ himself , when he said to his Disciples , Eat such things as are set before you . Eat and Drink such things as they give ▪ &c. he infers , According to this Rule Tythes are a Gospel-maintenance , which have been expresly set before us , expresly given us . A pretty quirk ! Because those things which were freely , chearfully & without any constraint , set before the Apostles or given to them , were the proper Maintenance appointed for them ; therefore Tythes , which poor men full sore agai●st their wills ( as well as beyond ther abilities ) are compelled , by the three Corded Whip of treble damages , to set out for the Priests , is a Gospel-Maintenance also . Is it not a sign they have an ill cause to mannage , who are fain to make use of such pittiful shifts as these ? But if he can satisfie himself that Tythes are a Gospel-Maintenance because set before them , ( although they who so set them are constrained thereto ) yet what will he say to the case of those others , who preferring their Christian freedom before outward Liberty , and an undefiled Conscience before all Worldly priviledges and advantages , cannot by any terrors be induced to set the Tythes before the Priests , or give it to them ( as well knowing that neither are those Priests the Ministers of Christ , nor Tythes a Gospel-maintenance ) but for their faithful Testimony against them , have their Bodies shut up in nasty Holes and stinking Dungeons , and their Goods made Havock of by the Priests means , and forcibly taken from them ? Will he call this a Gospel-maintenance also ; Such a Maintenance may please such a Ministry ; but they who know the Gospel , understand better , and cannot be so deluded . But the Priest adds , That if Tythes were not Melchizedec's due before such time as Abraham gave him them ; yet when they were so given him , they were without all dispute , which ( sayes he ) will sufficiently make good our Title to Tythes ( could we lay no other claim unto them ) wherefore it was ( sayes he ) that I said before , That if they were not due by a divine appointment , yet are they now due by a voluntary dedication of them .

That those Tythes which Abraham gave Melchizedec were Melchizedec's after Abraham had given him them , is indeed without dispute ; but for the Priest thence to infer , That that will sufficiently make good their claim to Tythes , is an absurd and very irrational Inference . Though that gift of Abraham's did intitle Melchizedec to the things thereby given ; yet it did not entitle him to any thing else , either from Abraham or any other person . So that if the Priest had any right to claim from Melchizedec , yet could he not thereby extend his claim any further then to those particular Spoils which Abraham gave Melchizedec . For if Melchizedec himself could not by vertue of that Gift claim any thing else , much less then can any other . And though the Priest finding Ethelwolf's Donation not so credible as he hoped it would have been , would now make as if in his former words , Confer . pag. 146. viz. That if Tythes were not due by a divine appointment , they are now due by a voluntary dedication of them ] he had reference to this Gift of Abraham's , yet is it but a meer shift and evasion : for it is manifest that by the Civil Powers and Nursing Fathers of the Church , he had direct relation to Ethelwolf and others who lived near his time . But men who account their Tongues their own , will take the liberty to say any thing .

§ . 5. In his 11th Section , he undertakes to shew , That our Lord Iesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel-Ministers ; and that they may be proved also out of the New Testament to be due Jure divino , pag. 61.

This indeed is somewhat to the purpose . If he prove this , the Controversie is ended . But if he has no better Evidence to prove Tythes due jure divino under the Gospel , then he has offered to prove them so due before the Levetical Law , he will fall very much short of his undertaking . Let us see however what he has to offer in this place , where his greatest strength may be expected .

His first medium to prove that our Lord Jesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel-Ministers , is this , That there is no Repeal of Tythes in all the New Testament .

This is no more then he hath said before over and over , and which I have already discovered the weakness & emptiness of , having plainly shewed , that there was no necessity of an express Repeal of Tythes by name , either in relation to the Claim made to them from a pretended Right before the Law , that pretended Right not being grounded upon an express Command ▪ or with respect to the Assignation of them to the Levitical Priest-hood by the Levitical Law , that Assignation being but temporary , and limitted to the continuance of that Priest-hood , made ( as this Priest sayes expresly , pag. 51. ) to the Priests for the time being ; and so to expire in course with that Priest-hood . And yet , to put the matter out of all doubt that Tythes are ended with that Priest-hood where the Apostle mentions the change of the Priest-hood , in the very same place he affirms , that the Law is changed also , which he argues as a necessary Inference from the change of the Priest-hood . For the Priest-hood being changed ( sayes he , Heb. 7. 12. ) there is made of necessity a change also of the Law . And that he speaks there with relation to the Law of Tythes , as well as the other parts of the Levitical Law , is most clear from Ver. 5. where he saith , And ●erily they that are of the Sons of Levi , who receive the Office of the Priest-hood , have a Commandment to take the Tythes of the People according to the La● , &c. But now , the Sons of Levi being discharged from the Office of the Priest-hood , and that Priest-hood , which stood in that Tribe of Levi , being changed , that Law also is changed , according to which those Sons of Levi , who executed the Office of that Priest-hood , had a Commandment to take Tythes of the People . I appeal to every judicious Reader , whether this be not the free and natural sense of the Apostles words . And may not this be called A Repeal of Tythes ? Then neither may the other be called a Repeal of the Priest-hood : for neither here , nor elsewhere , that I remember , is it said in so many Syllables , The Priest-hood is repealed . Yet as there is enough said here , to warrant a Conclusion that the Priest-hood is ended , though the word [ Repeal ] be not used ; so is there in like manner enough said here , to warrant a Conclusion that Tythes are ended also , though the word [ Repeal ] is not used .

He adds under this Head , That Our Saviour did not revoke Tythes , so far as they were Moral , and a necessary provision for his Ministers ; so far as they were founded on the Law of Nature , and Primitive Revelation , and grounded on an eternal Reason , pag. 62.

All this is but a new begging of the old Question . I deny that Tythes were Moral , founded on the Law of Nature , or grounded on an eternal Reason . This is true of Maintenance in general , but it is not true of the Modes and Circumstances of Maintenance , whereof Tythe is one . For Tythe ( as I have said before ) is a mode or way of raising Maintenance , a Circumstance of the quantity or proportion of Maintenance . And though it be a dictate of the Law of Nature and eternal Reason that there should be a Maintenance , that the Labourer should be rewarded ; yet doth not the Law of Nature prescribe the certain quantity or proportion of Maintenance , nor the way or m●ans by which it must be raised . These depend not on an eternal , but on a temporal Reason , variable according to the diversity of times , places and occasions .

He adds further , If Tythes had been the only thing of this kind to be abolished , it seems necessary there should have been an express Revocation of them , which we are sure there is not ; and therefore expressa nocent , non expressa non nocent .

Tythes were not the only thing of this kind to be abolished : for all the other Ceremonies of the Law were abolished as well as Tythes ; and yet , as necessary as it seems to him , he shall not find an express Revocation of the one half of them . Will he thence infer that they are not all revoked , or that those remain still in force , of which there is not an express Revocation ! He understands better I hope . But if he will admit other Ceremonies of the Law to be abolished ; notwithstanding there appears no express Revocation of them , he cannot with Reason insist that Tythes are therefore not abolished , because no express Revocation of them appears . But how strangely partial is he , and misguided by a selfish Interest , who would have Tythes due without an express Command , but will not allow them to be ended without an express revocation ! His Rule , expressa nocent non expressa non nocent , is so far from confirming him , that it utterly overthrows his Cause , and rases the conjectural and suppository Foundation of a Right to Tythes before the Law . For there 's his Non expressa ( things not expre●● ) which do not at all hurt me , nor help him . And for his expressa nocent , I have already found him enough exprest , even in point of Repeal and Revocation , in those words of the Apostle Paul [ The Priest-hood being changed , there is made of necessity a change also of the Law ] Heb. 7. 12.

He concludes this first part of his proof thus . We may reasonably believe , That Iesus intended they should remain of Divine Right as they had been reput●d alwayes before .

Is this cogent ? Nay , is it indeed urgent or persw●sive ? How does he prove that Tythes had alwayes before been reputed of Divine Right ? Without b●gging the Question he can do nothing . But why should we reasonably believe Jesus intended Tythes should remain of Divine Right ? Because he took away the Law , by which they were due , and the Priest-hood to which they were due ? Were these arguments of his intention that Tythes should remain ! With much more reason may we believe that Jesus intended they should not remain , seeing he ( who knew as well as this Priest , that the Assignation of them was made but to the Priests for the time being ; and that therefore , without a new Institution , they would be void in course at the dissolution of that Priest-hood ) did not think fit , either by himself or his Apostles , to give so much as an intimation , either by word or practice , that Tythes should remain for the Maintenance of Gospel Ministers . Had Christ intended a continuance of Tythes , it is not to be doubted but he would have signified his intention . But seeing no such thing is exprest , the Priest must remember his own Axiom [ non expressa non nocent . i. e. things not exprest , do not hurt ] and be content .

§ . 6. Thus I have gone through the several parts of his first Medium , in which there is no strength at all to prove his Position , that our Lord Je●us and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers . I come now to his second , which runs thus , But this is not all , for there are positive Laws which do fairly intimate , that Tythes were to be the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers , when the Church was settled , page 62.

'T was well what he said before was not all , for if it had , he had as good have said nothing . And truly I somewhat Question whether what he sayes now will be much more to the purpose . 〈…〉 here are positive Laws , he sayes , which do fairly intimate , &c.

Are intimations the proper Results of positive Laws ? If the Laws are positive , methinks they should declare positively , not only hint things by intimation . But waving that , ( and his other less positive proofs , such as our Saviour's affirming , Tythes ought to be paid , in the Time of the Law , when all men grant they were due , &c. which , he sayes , plead only a probability , and which I deny to plead so much as a probability ) I hasten after him to those two plain places ( as he calls them ) which I take to be the positive Laws mentioned before , which , he sayes , do fairly intimate , that Tythes were to be the maintenance of the Gospel Ministers , when the Church was settled . The first of these two plain places , is That ( he sayes ) of St. Paul , 1 Cor. 9. 14. affirming , That like as the Jewish Priests and Levites lived of the Tythes and Oblations under the Law , even so there was a special Ordinance of Christ , that they who preach the Gospel should live of t●e Gospel : that is , sayes he , of those good things which should be dedicated and offered in gratitude for the Gospel , p. 63.

How hard is this poor man put to it , to piece up something that might look a little like a proof . This is at least the third time , that he has been driven to his [ Even so ] and yet he is even at a loss still . For supposing the partcle 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 to be necessarily rendred [ Even so ] as it is , what can be thence inferred ? That Gospel Ministers should live of the Gospel Even so , as the Iewish Priests and Levites lived of the Tythes and Oblations under the Law ? What , just as they lived ? exactly after the same manner ? Why then the Ministers of the Gospel should not have the Tythes , but the Tythes of the Tythes , that is , but the hundredth part ; for even so the Iewish Priests bad , the Levites had the Tythes , and paid this hundredth part , or Tythe of Tythe to the Priests , and the rest of the Priest Maintenance was made up by Oblations . So that if the Priests now will needs as Gospel Ministers be maintained , and live even just so as the Iewish Priests lived , they must introduce the Iewish Oblation● again , the Burnt-Offerings and Bloody Sacrifices , as in the time of the Law , and so deny the one Offering , and become Debters to the whole Law . This looks strangely ; and yet I see not how it can be avoided , if they will strain the Particle [ Even ] to an exact parity of Maintenance between Iewish Priests and Gospel Ministers , and if they do not strain it to such a parity , they cannot squcese Tythes out of it ; for then they that preach the Gospel may live of the Gospel , as well as the Iewish Priests and Levites lived of the things of the Temple , and of the Altar , and yet not by Tythes . And indeed , notwithstanding his [ Even so ] that he sayes to explain what it is to live of the Gospel , that is ( sayes he ) of th●se good things which should be dedicated and offered in gratitude for the Gospel , is fa● enough from proving it must be Tythes : for this shews the Maintenance was to be what Believers were willing freely to give , which might as well be a S●xth , or a Twelfth , a Fifth , or a Fifteenth part , as a Tenth , according as their ability would permit , or the occasion should require . And if it were in the Donors choi●e what part to give , that leaves no place for a Divine Right to Tythes . Thus then we see this first of his plain places , and positive Laws , is so far from affording a positive proof that Tythes were to be the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers , that it doth not so much as fairly intimate it .

But to help out the matter he adds pag. 64. That the blessed Iesus who ordained this , did incline the hearts of pious Christians to dedicate Tythes and other Oblations made in gratitude for the Gospel .

This I shall have occasion to take further notice of , when I shall come anon to examine his Dedications , Donations and Charters . In this place let it susfice , that what he takes for granted , I deny , and expect proof of . The World is not ignorant what heaps of Oblations and Dedications have been made , under pretence of gratitude for the Gospel , by many whose hearts the Blessed Jesus did never incline thereto .

I come now to his second plain place or positive Law , as he calls it , which he thus brings in , Le●t any should say , This Text supposes something will be given , but doth not enjoyn the Christians to give , ●e have another Law directed to the People , containing both their duty and the Ministers Right , Ga● . 6. 6. Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things .

His former Text , he sayes , supposes something will be given , and this en●oyns something shall be given , but neither one nor ●other expresses what part . What proof then can either of these places afford that Tythes , or the tenth part , was to be the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers , and that our Lord Jesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers , whenas neither of these places mention Tythes or any certain quantity ! He that is taught in the word is to Communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things . That he doth as really , though not so largely , who giveth but an hundredth part , as he that giveth a tenth . And on the other hand , if he that is to be the receiver may take the liberty of fixing the quantity , he may if he please , make it a third part or a half , as well as a tenth . We see then no certain Conclusion can be drawn from these Texts as to the proportion or quantity of Maintenance , that being left wholly free , and at the disposal of the Giver . Consequently Tythes , which are a certain quantity cannot be proved by these Scriptures to be established by our Lord Iesus and his Apostles for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers . Thus these two plain places and positive Laws ( as the Priest calls them ) are plain and positive enough against him and his Brethren , to prove , that they ought not to exact Maintenance from those that deny their Ministry : but will not prove what he would have , viz. Tythes for the Gospel Maintenance , either positively , or by fair intimation .

To back his insufficient proofs , he ru●s over again his overworn Stories of the Antiquity of the tenth part , how it was made known by God to be his part by Revelation , and learn'd by the Heathens by Primitive Tradition , and much more of the same Rank . In all which his Conclusions , are no more forcible then that in all reason it ought to be that part ; and there is no reason to 〈◊〉 , but that this is the share or portion of Gospel Ministers , pag. 66.

But this being so groundless , and having been so often Answered , I think it not worth my while to stay upon ; but proceed to an Objection he makes , pag. 67. There is ( sayes he ) but one Objection against this , viz. That Tythes are not mentioned in the Gospel or Epistles to be the very part .

If there were no other Objection but this , yet this is such an one as he can never be able to remove . A grand Objection indeed , st●ongely inforced against himself by the Maxim urged by himself , ( pag. 62. ) Non expressa non nocent , Those things which are not exprest do not hurt This shuts out all his Conjectures , and Suppositions , and restrains him closely to what is exprest . But seeing ( by his own confession , pag. 67. ) Tythes are not exprest , not mentioned in the New-Testament to be the Gospel-Maintenance , how rash and over-confident was he in the entrance of his 11th Section to assert ( pag. 61 ) That our Lord Jesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel-Ministers , and that they may be proved also out of the New-Testament to be due , jure divino ! Will he undertake to prove that out of the New-Testament , which he confesses is not mentioned in the New-Testament , and yet at the same time tell us , Non expressa non nocent ! What man of reason , modesty or name would not be ashamed of this ! But besides this which he hath brought , there are other Objections against Tythes being the Maintenance of Gospel-Ministers , namely , That Tythes or a tenth part is a Ceremony , Mode , or Circumstance of Maintenance , and as such was a part of the Ceremonial Law , which being abrogated by Christ , was not fit to be received amongst Christians ; That a Maintenance by Tythes , or any other certain , fixed and determinate quantity , is not agreeable with the Nature of the Gospel , which as it self is free , so ought the Maintenance also to be ; this being one of the Believers Priviledges under the Gospel : The Law was a State of Bondage ; the Gospel is a State of Liberty . The Law represented the condition of Servants ; the Gospel that of Sons . The Law treated those that were under it , as Children in Nonage under Tutors and Governours ; the Gospel treats them that receive it , as men arr●ved to an adult age . Besides , under the Gospel , Tythes are not an equal way of Maintenance , in respect either of the Giver , or of the Receiver , or of the Service .

Many other Objections might also be urged against Tythes being a Gospel-Maintenance , but these may serve to convince the Priest , that he was too hasty in concluding there is but this one Objection which he has brought . But leaving these , at least at present , let us see how he attempts to remove that one Objection which himself has urged , viz. That Tythes are not mentioned in the Gospel or Epistles to be the very part . To this , sayes he , I reply , There are very good Reasons why Tythes are not mentioned in the New-Testament , by name ; His first reason is , To avoid all occasion of scandal to the Jews , whose Priests were then in Possession of them .

There is no weight at all in this reason ; for we see that in that very Epistle which was written to the Hebrew● or Iews themselves , the Apostle tells them expresly ( and argues it forcibly and undeniably ) that the Iewish Priest-hood , and the Law by which they took Tythes , together with that Covenant , and the whole Iewish Polity , were abrogated and ended by Christ . And he that had written all this so Plain , so Full , so Home , needed he avoid mentioning Tythes as a Gospel-Maintenance , for fear of giving Offence to the Iews ! What can be more irrational ! What could have been said more Offensive to the Iews then he in that Epistle writ ! Besides , whatsoever was written by the Evangelists or Apostles , whether it were Historical or Epistolary , it was written for , and dedicated to the Believers in Christ Jesus ; not to Unconverted Iews , but to those who were turned from Iudais●● to the Christian Faith ; which whosoever truly was , must needs be brought from off the Iewish Priests , and see the end of that Priest-hood , by the Springing up of a New one . It cannot then with Reason be supposed , that they who believed the Iewish Priest-hood ended , and Consequently that Tythes were no longer due unto it , would in zeal to that Priest-hood have taken Offence at the mentioning of Tythes for a Gospel-Maintenance , or that the holy Pen-men did for that Reason omit the mention of them . But further , If it might with any shew of Reason be allowed that in not mentioning Tythes as a Gospel-Maintenance , Regard was had to the Iews : Yet what Relation at all could this Reason have to the Gentiles , unto whom the far greater part of the Epistles were written ? Will he supose the Gentiles would have been Offended at the Trasferring of Tythes from the Iewish Priests to the Gospel-Ministers ? That indeed may well be supposed ; but not upon the score on which he grounds his Reason . They might justly indeed have been scandaliz'd , had the Iewish Ceremonial Maintenance by Tythes been introduced among Christians ; but not out of any love or zeal for the Iewish Priests , of whom they had not so great esteem , and to whom they bear not so much good Will. Neither is this all , but the emptiness and lightness of this Reason will more fully yet appear to him that shall consider , that some of the Apostles lived to see the Iewish Priests actually dispossest of Tythes , and that Nation dispersed and scattered , the Synagogue not only dead , but buried , and the whole Iewish Polity destroyed , and yet after all this , no claim put in to Tythes , no exortation to pay them , no mention of them as a Gospel-Maintenance . If therefore one should suppose the Apostles forbore to claim Tythes as the Gospel-Maintenance , while the Iewish Priests were possest of them , and that Polity had yet some shew of standing , in condescention to the Jews , and to avoid all occasion of scandal to them ; yet surely he must abandon all Reason , and utterly renounce his Understanding , that can believe they forbore upon this Reason to claim Tythes afterwards also , when they had seen the Temple raised to the Ground , the Jewish Priests actually dispossessed , and that whole Polity totally subverted . If Tythes had been intended for the Gospel Ministers Maintenance , and in tenderness to the Iews , ( as he fancies ) had been suffered a while to run in their old Channel , till the whole Jewish Polity had been D●stroyed , yet what shew of Reason can be given , why those Apostles that lived to see the whole Iewish Polity Destroyed , did not then turn Tythes into their New and proper Channel , and expresly declare , That Tythes were the Maintenance established by Christ for the Gospel Ministers ?

His second Reason why Tythes are not mentioned in the New Testament to be the Maintenance of Gospel Ministers is this , There was not any need for Iesus to make any new Law for Tythes , since they were sufficiently declared to be due to God before , by Revelation , and Example , by Reason and God's own choice ; by the grounds on which they were given , and the ends for which they were imployed , pag. 68.

If his Particle [ before ] refers to his second Period , the time of the Levitical Law , he then speaks to no purpose at all , that Law being ended , and any Title thereby disclaim'd by the present Clergy . And if it relate to his first Period , the time before the Levitical Law , I have then already refuted this Reason of his over and over ; and doubtless were he not at ● great strait , he would not thus nauseat his Reader with Tautologies . That Tythes were due to God before the Levitical Law , and sufficiently declared so to be by Revelation , Example , Reason , &c. he has beg'd a Concession of beyond all degrees of Modesty , but not offer'd one solid Reason to prove . Of the ground on which they were given , and the end for which they were imployed before the Law , there is nothing exprest , and he knows who said , Non expressa non nocent , i. e. Things not exprest , hurt not .

His third Reason why Tythes are not mentioned in the New Testament to be the Maintenance of Gospel Ministers is , Because the devotion of the Christians in those dayes was so great , that they gave more then a tenth freely , Selling all and following Christ , and bestowing on the Apostles more then they were in a condition to receive , pag. 69.

That the Christians in those dayes gave more then a tenth , is more then he can prove . For though some of them sold their Possessions , and laid the price thereof at the Apostles Feet , yet was not that given to the Apostles for their proper use , but deposited as in a common stock or treasury , for the common supply and maintenance of them all , while they lived together in that Community , which was not long . But what part soever it was that they gave , it is enough for my purpose that it was a Gift , a free Gift . And if our Lord Jesus did not think fit to make any new determination of the tenth part by Name , pag. 69. after that the old determination thereof under the Law was determined and ended by hi● Death ; but committed his Ministers to the Christians devotion for Maintenance , how comes this Priest so confidently to affirm , pag. 61. That our Lord Iesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers ? How strangely doth he contradict himself herein , when in one place he is positive that our Lord Iesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers , pag. 61. in the other as express , That our Lord and his Apostles did not make a new determination of the tenth part by name , pag 69. and urges Reasons to prove that they neither did nor needed make any new Law for Tythes ; as first , The great devotion of Christians in those dayes , pag. 69. Secondly , The expectation our Lord Iesus might have , that the joyful Message of his Gospel should be so thankfully received , that those to whom it was sent , should do as much freely to the gratifying his Messengers , as the servile Jews did by the compulsion of a positive Law , pag. 70. Thirdly , The fore-sight our Lord Iesus had , that his Grace would open the Hearts of Kings and Princes , and other devout persons to give more then a tenth part of their good things , to those in his Name and for his sake , who were sent to Preach the Gospel . Fourthly , That since such times were coming , our Lord might probably on purpose decline determining the proportion too expresly , that Christians might have the opportunity of a voluntary Charity . Fifthly , That this was more agreeable to the freedom and ingenuity of Sons , which Christians are compared to . Sixthly , That positive Laws were likely to be made when the decayes of Piety and Charity did require them , pag. 71. These are the Reasons he offers for proof that our Lord Iesus and his Apostles did not make a new determination of the tenth part by name , and that in the very same Section , wherein he so confidently affirmed , That our Lord Iesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers . If they have established Tythes , they have then established a tenth part by name ; for Tythes are denominated , or take their Name , from the number Tenth . ( Decimae a decimo ) But that neither Christ nor his Apostles have established a tenth part by Name , and consequently have not established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers , the Reasons before recited , which the Priest himself hath given , do plainly enough prove . For besides the great and prompt devotion of Christians in those dayes , our Lord Iesus ( he sayes ) might expect that the joyful Message of his Gospel should be so thankfully received , that those to whom it was sent should do as much freely to the gratifying his Messengers , as the servile Jews did by the compulsion of a positive Law .

So then it seems our Lord Jesus did not think fit to compel Christians by a positive Law to pay Tythes , but left the gratifying his Messengers to that freedom , which he foresaw his Grace would open their Hearts to : for to maintain Christ's Ministers by the compulsion of a positive Law , was ( as the Priest rightly observes ) suitable to the s●rvile state of the Iews , which Christians , who are compared to Son● , ought not to be subjected to , but le●t to the exercise of a voluntary Charity , which is more agreeable to the freedom and ingenuity of Sons . Therefore he sayes , Since such times were coming , our Lord might probably on purpose decline determining the proportion too expresly . In all which he hath notably argued against himself , and sufficiently proved that the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministry ought to be by free gift , voluntary Charity , uncompelled , that the compulsion of positive Law in this case , is a badge of Iewish servility not agreeable to the Christian State , which stands in and acts from the freedom and ingenuity of Sons , and that therefore our Lord Iesus and his Apostles did not make any new Law for Tythes , did not make any new determination of a tenth part by name , and that our Lord might probably on purpose decline determining the proportion too expresly . But what now is become of his first Assertion , That our Lord Iesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers ? Did Christ establish Tythes , and yet on purpose decline determining the proportion expresly ? Is not Tythe or a tenth part an express determination of the proportion ? What manif●st contradiction has this over-hasty man run himself into ! Again , if ( as he sayes , pag. 68 ) There was no need for Jesus to make any new Law for Tythes . If our Lord and his Apostles did not make a new determination of a tenth part by name , pag. 69. If our Lord might probably on purpose decline determining the proportion too expresly , that Christians might have the opportunity of a voluntary Charity , pag. 70. If he expected they to whom his Gospel was sent , should do as much freely to the gratifying his Messengers , as the servile Iews did by the compulsion of a positive Law . And if this free , gratuitous and voluntary Charity was more agreeable to the freedom and ingenuity of Sons , which Christians are compared to , then the servile compulsion of a positive Law . And if positive Laws were likely to be made when the decays of Piety and Charity did require them , pag. 71. which could not be in the Apostles dayes , when the devotion of Christians was so great , that they gave ( as the Priest sayes ) more then a tenth freely , and bestowed on the Apostles more then they were in a condition to receive , pag. 69. I say , if all this may serve to ●rove that our Lord Jesus and his Apostles left the 〈…〉 of the Gospel Ministers to the free and 〈◊〉 Charity of Christians , fore-seeing that his 〈◊〉 would open their Hearts thereto , pag. 70. and 〈◊〉 made no positive La● to compel them to the 〈◊〉 servility of paying Tythes , what then becomes of those positive Laws he speaks of , pag. 62. which he sayes do fairly intimate , that Tythes were 〈…〉 Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers , when the Church was settled ? Is there any thing in this but ●●●●radiction and confusion ?

He has yet one Reason more why Tythes are not mentioned in the New-Testament to be the Maintenance of the Gospel-Ministers , and that is , That the State of the Church in those dayes was such , that Believers , though they were willing , could not have opportunity to pay Tythes regularly ; nor could the Gospel-Ministers receive them , pag. 71.

Had he assigned this for a general Reason , why Tythes should not be paid at all under the Gospel , he had said something to the purpose . But in restrayning his Reason to the State of the Church in those dayes only , he falls short . Besides , how knows he that Believers then were willing to have paid , and Gospel Ministers to have received Tythes , had opportunity served ? I believe the contrary , and have many Reasons inducing me thereunto ; but since he affirms it , let him prove it . However , if Tythes ( as he dreams ) were to be the Maintenance of the Gospel-Ministers , when the Church was settled , the want of opportunity for the paying and receiving them regularly at that instant , could be no good Reason why they were wholly passed over in silence , and no mention made of them to that purpose in all the New-Testament , unless he would suppose that all that was mentioned in the New-Testament had Relation to the then present State of the Church , and nothing to the future . But if some things relating to the future State of the Church are mentioned in the New-Testament , then surely so might Tythes have been also , had they been intended for a Gospel Ministry's Maintenance , when the Church was settled .

He adds , That as it was no prejudice to the Jewish Priests , that there was little or no Tythes paid , during their Fore-Fathers wandring in the Wilderness ; no more is it to us , that they were not paid regularly in the Times of Persecution , pag. 71.

That could be no prejudice to the Iewish Priests , because Tythes were not due to them , or required to be paid , till their wandring in the Wilderness was over , and they settled in the Land of Canaan ; and an express command there was for the payment of Tythes to them when they were so settled . But these Priests can produce no Command for the payment of Tythes to them either before the times of Persecution , in those times , nor after them . It is not then a non-payment of Tythes regularly in the times of Persecution that prejudices these Priests : but that which prejudices their Claim is , That Tythes were never du● to them at all ; they have no Command , nor ever had , to claim Tythes by .

Yet he sayes , Our Lord Iesus and the Apostles said so much in the New-Testament , that the Primitive Christians understood them to intend Tythes for the Gospel-Maintenance , pag. 71.

How knows he this , seeing the Scripture is silent of it ? Had the Primitive Christians understood Tythes to be intended by Christ for the Maintenance of his Ministers , no doubt they would have paid them : for they knew full well that Saying of our Lord , He that knows his Masters Will , and doth it not , shall be beaten with many stripes . Their non-payment of Tythes , therefore is a sufficient Argument that they did not understand Tythes to be appointed by Christ for the Maintenance of his Ministers .

He adds , That they ( to wit our Lord Jesus and the Apostles ) said enough to shew , that the Ancient Divine Right to the tenth part should be continued .

I wish he had quoted his Text for this , that I might have known whence he had it : for I have read the New-Testament more then once , and yet I Solemnly profess , I never read this there .

But sayes he , pag. 7● . It was neither necessary , nor convenient they should speak more plainly in this matter : This being sufficient to establish the Divine Right of Tythes under the Gospel , &c.

This ! Which ? What means he here by This ? Did the not mentioning Tythes at all in the New-Testament for a Gospel Maintenance , establish ( thinks he ) the Divine Right of Tythes under the Gospel ? Or did our Lord and his Apostles not making a new Determination of the tenth part by name , do this ? Or did his purposely declining to determine the proportion too expresly ? Or what else may we suppose his [ This ] can relate to , which may be thought sufficient to establish the Divine Right of Tythes under the Gospel . Certainly either he is very Dark , or I am very D●ll : for in good earnest , I do not understand , what to refer his Particle [ This ] unto . But whatever it is , I perceive he would have it sufficient , not only to establish a Divine Right of Tythes under the Gospel , but also , to teach us that Tythes being Originally due to God , and by Christ assigned to the Gospel-Ministers , are now due to them , jure divino , pag. 72.

This is much to the same purpose , as if he should have said that Tythes being due , jure divino , are due , jure divino . If ever Popery should prevail here , and this man turn Fryar , 't is fit he should be of the Mendicant Order , he is so ready at begging . Two Questions has he very confidently begged in these two Lines . First , That Tythes are Originally due to God , which that they are as Tythes , as a tenth part distinct from the other nine , or more peculiarly then the rest , I have before more then once denied and disproved . Secondly , That Christ hath assigned Ty●●es to the Gospel-Ministers . Hath he so ? and yet Tythes not mentioned in the Gospel or Epistles to be the very part , p. 07. Tythes not mentioned in the New-Testament , by name , ibid. That methinks is strange . What! an Assignation ple●ded , wherein the thing pretended to be assigned , is not so much as named , nor the certain quantity described ! Who ever heard of such an Assignation before ? But how doth it appear there is such an assignation ? for we have hitherto but his bare word for it . Before , when he spake of the Levitical Priest-hood's Right to Tythes ( of which no Body doubted ) he was very forward to produce an express assignation , and a Text withal to attest it . But now , when he speaks of the Gospel-Ministers Right to Tythes , ( which needs the clearest proof , and plainest demonstration ) his assignation and evidence are both to seek . Is this to shew that our Lord Jesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel-Ministers ? Is this to shew that Tythes may be proved out of the New-Testament to be due , jure divino ? pag. 61. Is this to prove the Divine Right of Tythes sufficiently established under the Gospel , ( pag. 72. ) to say that Tythes being originally due to God , and by Christ assigned to the Gospel-Ministers , are now due to them , jure divino ? Can any one doubt but that if Tythes were indeed assigned to the Ministers of the Gospel , they were then unquestionably due to them jure divino ? Or can it be imagined , that I or any man else would grant the first of these , and deny the latter Was the Question wheth●● , If Christ had assigned Tythes to the Gospel-Ministers , Tythes would thereby have been due to them ? Or was it not , Whether Christ had indeed assigned Tythes to the Gospel-Ministers or no ? This belonged to him to prove ; and does he think to carry it without proof , by a sly supposing it ? He deceives himself . He sayes of me , pag. ● . I write to please an illiterate Sect ; and I may gull the unlearned Quakers into a Belief , &c. But I wonder what learned Sect he wrote to please , and what sort of Readers he hoped to meet with , or what scantling of Vnderstanding ( as his phrase is ) he suited his Discourse to , when he said , Tythes being Originally due to God , and by Christ assigned to the Gospel-Ministers , are now due to them , jure divino ! Did he hope to perswade his Reader by begging instead of proving , and by taking that for granted which indeed the main Question in Controversie , and which requires the most evident Demonstration ? He might perhaps by this means gull some hasty heedless Reader ; but ●en of Sence and Understanding are not satisfied with such put-off's . Fair Words may please Fools , but Wise men look for fair Proofs . Would he think I dealt fairly with him , if I should say , that he being a Deceiver is not a Minister of Christ ? The Conclusion is true , if it be drawn from a true Proposition . It is clear enough , that he is not a Minister of Christ , if he be a Deceiver ; but whether he be a Deceiver or no , is the Question , on the proof of which , the Truth of the Conclusion depends . Now if instead of proving this Proposition [ That he is a Deceiver ] I should take it for granted , and without more ado infer from thence , that he is no Minister of Christ , I should do by him just as he has done by his Reader . He sayes , Tythes being by Christ assigned to the Gospel-Ministers , are now due to them by Divine Right . The Conclusion here is undoubtedly true , if the Proposition be true from which it is drawn . No man in his wits will deny , that Tythes are due to Gospel Ministers , if Christ have assigned Tythes to them : But that 's the Question in Controversie ; that 's the Proposition to be proved , on the proof of which the Truth of the Conclusion depends . Now instead of proving this Proposition [ That Christ hath assigned Tythes to the Gospel-Ministers ] he takes it for granted , and with no more ado infers from thence , that Tythes are now due to Gospel-Ministers , jure divino . Is this like a Disputant ? Doth this become a man of his high pretences to Schollarship and Learning ? Let the intelligent Reader judge .

§ . 7. I am now come to the end of his 11th Section , in which he undertook to shew , That our Lord Jesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers ; and that they may be proved out of the New-Testament to be due , jure divino . Before I proceed to his next Section , I desire the Reader to observe , First , that my Opponent hath faln so far short of proving the establishment of Tythes by Christ and his Apostles for the Maintenance of Gospel-Ministers , that he hath plainly acknowledged Tythes are not so much 〈◊〉 named in the New-Testament , pag. 67. ( as indeed they are not , with relation to Gospel-Ministers ) Secondly , That though he sayes , there are positive Laws , pag. 62. yet he dares not say , those Laws speak positively , but only that they do fairly intimate that Tythes were to be the Maintenance of the Gospel-Ministers , pag. 63. And to take off the force of his positive Laws more fully , and shew how little positive they were with respect to Tythes , he himself proves at large , that Iesus did not make any new Law for Tythes , pag. 68 , 69. and gives among others , this Reason for it , That Iesus might expect his Messengers should be gratified freely . Nay , so eager he is to shew why Jesus made no new Law for Tythes , that no considering how destructive it would prove to his former talk of positive Laws , pag. 62 , 63 , 64. he fairly argues the compulsion of a positive Law to be Iewish and Servile ; and voluntary charity to be more ag●eeable to the freedom and ingenuity of Sons , which Christians are compared to , pag. 70 , 7● . Thirdly , That those two Texts , those two Plain places , as he calls them , Cor. 9. ●4 . and Gal. 6. 6. make no mention at all of Tythes or any certain part . They shew that some Maintenance is due , they shew to whom it is due , and from whom , but they shew not the quantity of that Maintenance , and Consequently , do not prove Tythes to be it . Besides , he sayes , pag. 69. Our Lord and his Apostles did not make a new Determination of the tenth part by name ; and pag. 70. Our Lord ●ight probably on purpose decline determining the proportion too expresly , &c. Now Tythes being an express Determination of the tenth part by name , it is evident even from his own Positions , that Tythes or a tenth part was not Determined by our Lord and his Apostles , to be the Maintenance of Gospel Ministers . Fourthly , That although my Opponent begins this Section with a great deal of confidence , and seeming Resol●tion , undertaking to shew , that our Lord Iesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers , and that they may be proved out of the New-Testament to be due , jure divino . Yet in the Prosecution of this Argument he flags and sinks ; he is not positive and plain , but delivers himself doubtfully and fearfully . ( We may reasonably believe , sayes he , that Iesus intended they should remain of Divine Right , pag. 62. ) and in the close of the Section miserably begs the Question , that Christ hath assigned Tythes to the Gospel Ministers , and on that precarious bottom would set the Divine Right of Tythes . Thus far then we have gone , and find no firm Foundation for a Divine Right to Tythes under the Gospel . No Institution of them ; No New Determination of them ; No Establishment of them ; No Mention of them in all the New-Testament , as a Maintenance for Gospel-Ministers .

Now Reader , in the close of this Section take the Judgment of two eminent Divines ( so called ) of the Church of England , and see how contrary this Priest is to them . The first is Fulk in Q. Elizabeth's time , The other Willet in K. Iames his time . Fulk on Heb. 7. §. 4. having shewed that the payment of Tythes , as it was a Ceremonial duty , is abrogated with other Ceremonies by the death of Christ , and that any other sufficient Stipend , whether it be more or less then a tenth part , may be appointed as well as Tythes , adds , But that there is any Sacrificing Priest-hood , to whom it ( namely Tythes ) is due in the New Testament , the old payment of Tythes doth not prove . Neither did Christ himself our high Priest , ever make claim unto them : nor his Apostles the Ministers of the Church , but only to a sufficient living by the Gospel , to be allowed of their temporal Goods , to whom they ministred spiritual Goods , 1. Cor. 9. 14. Gal. 6. 6. Thus he , by which we may see he was far enough from thinking what this Priest affirms , viz. That Christ and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers , and that they may be proved out of the New Testament to be due jure divino , and that Christ hath assigned Tythes to the Gospel Ministers , &c. seeing he sayes plainly both that the old Ceremonial payment of them is abrogated , and no new claim made either by Christ or his Apostles to Tythes , but only to a sufficient living by the Gospel , and that too to be allowed of their temporal Goods , to whom they ministred spiritual Goods . And he quotes the very same Texts to prove the Apostles did not claim Tythes , but only a sufficient Maintenance , which this Priest has brought to prove , that that Maintenance ought to be Tythes , namely , 1 Cor. 9. 14. Gal. 6. 6.

Willet in his Synopsis of Popery , fifth general Controversie , pag. 315. repeating a Canon of the Council of Orleans , thus , As it is in the will of the giver to give what pleases him , so if he find him stubborn and froward which receiveth it , it is in his power to revoke the gift ; sayes thereupon , We see then that the Word of God hath laid no such necessity upon Tythes , for then this Council would not have permitted such Liberty . And a little after , setting down the fifteenth Article of the Bohemians against Tythes , he adds , Therefore Tythes are not necessarily due by the Word of God . And a few lines lower , This ( sayes he ) may further appear by the practice of other Churches , that the payment of Tythes ( though of all other most fit ) is not imposed as a necessary Law . Then instancing several Churches other wayes maintained , he adds , I alledge not the practice of these Churches , as allowing the same ( for I prefer the condition of those Churches , which yet do enjoy the antient provision of the Ministry by Tythes ) but only to shew , that the ●●stom ●f Tything is not imposed by any necessity . And speaking of Melchizede●'s Priest-stood , he sayes , Wherefore seeing Melchizedec's Priest-hood only resteth in Christ , and is not translated to any other , and that the●e is now no Sacrifice le●t but Spiritual , of Praise and Thanksgiving , Heb. 13. ●5 . it follows that by reason of any such external Priest-hood ●r Sacrifice , Tythes are not now due unto the Church , neither in any such regard ought to be challenged . Again , pag. 316. If there were any such Priest-hood , and Tythes in that Right did appertain to the Church ; it is most like that our Saviour Christ and his Apostles would have challenged them : But there is no one precept in the New Testament concerning paying of Tythes , but only for a sufficient Maintenance for the Ministers of the Gospel . Judge now , Reader , whether this man thought ( as the Priest does ) That our Lord Jesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers ; That Christ hath assigned Tythes to the Gospel Ministers ; and that they may be proved out of the New Testament to be due jure divino . But leaving these Testimonies to the Reader 's censure , I proceed now to examine his Right to Tythes by Donation , and voluntary Dedication , which in his next Section he makes way for , but does not directly enter upon , being diverted by a passage or two in my Book , which it seems lay in his way .

§ . 8. First he falls with great anger upon me ; for saying in pag. 287. of my Book , called , Truth Prevailing , Though Christ d●ny Tythes , y●t if men will grant them , it will serve the Priests turn . This he calls a most malicious Inference , pag. 72.

But who sees not the Truth of it ? Care they ( I speak of the generality of them ) how they come by them , so they can get them ? Regard they whether they have them from God or Man ? If some among them do , yet that this Priest doth not , no man that indifferently reads his Book , can doubt . But he thinks to pinch me closer upon this point ; I know , sayes he to his dear Brother , you never said nor thought that Christ denyed Tythes , and since the Quaker affirms , that Christ doth deny them , let him produce the place of Scripture where Christ doth deny Tythes to be given or granted to Gospel Ministers , or else he is a manifest Slanderer of Christ in this Suggestion , pag. 73.

I should not have thought this passage worth Transcribing , but to detect his weakness , and shew him how severely he jerks himself , while he thinks to lash me . If I do not produce the place of Scriptur● where Christ doth deny Tythes to be given to Gospel Ministers , he Brands me for a manifest Slanderer of Christ . He himself sayes , Our Lord Iesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers , pag. 61. yet produces no place of Scripture where our Lord Jesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers , but on the contrary confesses , Tythes are not mentioned in the Gospel or Epistles to be the very part , pag. 67. and that Tythes are not mentioned in the New Testament by name , ibid. Nor only so , but affirms Our Lord and his Apostles did not make a new determination of the tenth part by name , pag. 69. and that Our Lord 〈◊〉 probably on purpose decline determining the pr●portion too expresly , pag. 70. Now after all this , 〈◊〉 that can so freely stigmatize me for a manifest Slanderer of Christ , what will he think fit to call himself ? what badge will himself vouchsafe to wear ? He sayes , Christ hath assigned Tythes to the Gospel Ministers , pag. 72. but himself hath not assigned any place of Scripture for the proof thereof . Shall I take the liberty to say by Retortion , Let him produce the place of Scripture where Christ hath assigned Tythes to the Gospel-Ministers , or else he is a manifest Slanderer of Christ in this suggestion ?

The next occasion he takes to fall upon me , is for taking King Ethelwolf's for the oldest Charter . And here ( according to his usual Incivility ) he liberally bestows upon me the liveries of folly and falshood . You did ( sayes he to his Brother , pag. 73. ) prov● this voluntar● Dedication ( with respect to this Nation ) by King Eth●lwolf's Charter . Not because that was the first or oldest Donation of Tythes , as T. E. foolishly and falsly suggests , pag. 299.

To the same purpose , pag. 74. And because the Quaker dreading all higher antiquity , and omitting al● inquiry into preceding Church History , doth cunningly suppose Tythes no older amongst Christians then thi● Charter , &c.

This is his charge ; how justly grounded will appear by comparing it with that part of my ●ook , out of which he seems to draw it . My words are these , pag. 299. If he had any Charter or settlement of Tythes of Older Date then that of Ethelwolf ( which was about the Year 855. ) he should have produced it , and probably so he would . However , since he did ●ot , I have no reason to think he has any elder . Where now is my folly , where my falshood in this ? 〈◊〉 I foolish in thinking he would have produced an older Charter if he could , when his business was to clear the Donation from all suspition of Pop●ry , and his interest led him , in order thereto , to produce th● most antient Charter he could find ? Or was I false in saying , I had no reason to think he had any elder Charter , since he , whose main concern it was , did not bring forth an older ? Or was it an argument I dreaded all higher Antiquity , because I only refuted the highest Antiquity he brought , and did not make it my busine●s to seek out for him an higher Antiquity then he could find for himself ? Belong'd it to me to search into preceding Church — History to help him to a more authentick Charter ? What Weak , what Childish , what Trifling work is this ! Let him not lay his Brother's Weakness at my Door ; but let him take his Brother to Task , and teach him to manage his Cause more warily hereafter .

CHAP IV.

HE now purposes a Method , in which he promises to proceed in his following Discourse . First , he sayes , He will look back into the Ages before K. Ethelwolf , and shew by what Authority and presidents he made this Donation . Secondly , He will consider the Donation it self , and the State of those Times in which it was made . Thirdly . He will note how it hath been confirmed since . And then , Fourthly , Wipe off T. E's particular blots thrown upon this sacred Maintenance , pag. 74.

In this Method I intend to follow him , with what brevity I can , not insisting on every particular which might be spoken to in this part of his Discourse ; because the human Right necessarily depending on the D●vine , and the Divine Right hitherto remaining altogether unproved , what can be urged in Defence of the Human Right will have the less weight , and need the less Answer .

§ 1. He begins with the Apostles Times , and sayes , pag. 75. The Apostles having given a general Rule for the Faithful to Communicate unto their Teachers in all good things , the Primitive Christians did alwayes make liberal Oblations to their Pastors , not only of Houses and Lands , as we read in holy Scriptures , but also of many and other things , which being Collected every Lord ' s-Day , was delivered to the Bishop , saith Justin Martyr .

Should I now take the liberty to deal by him , as he in his 10th Section ( pag. 5● . ) dealt by me , I might here help him to as soul a contradiction , as he did there make for me . I did but grant my Adversa●ies Position , that a Main●enance in general to the Ministers of the Gospel is — established by Divine Authority , pag. 284. and after said , What this Maintenance is , is expresly set down by Christ himself , pag. 286. He thrusts the word [ Only ] into my Grant , and reports me to say , Divine Authority had only established a Maintenance in general , and thereupon infers , if he have established it only in general , then hath he not expressed the particulars ; not sticking at a down-right forgery , that he might ●ender me contradictory to my self . Now if I would be so unworthy and dishonest as to imitate him herein , how strange a contradiction might here be made by adding the word only to his g●neral Rule , and making him say here , The Apostles had given only a general Rule for the Faithful to Communicate , &c. w●en as he had said expresly but a little before , The Apostles had established Tythes ( which is a particular quantity ) for the Maintenance of the Gospel-Ministers , pag. 61. But his unfair dealing by me shall not , I hope , make me forget how to behave my self towards him . Nor would I in this place have mentioned this ( having noted it before ) but to s●t more clearly before his Eye the Crimson die of his own Crim● . But leaving this , l●t us enquire what Truth there is in his Allegation . Upon this general Rule of the Apostle , he sayes , The Primitive Christians did alwayes make liberal Oblations to their Pas●ors , not only of Houses and Lands , as we read in holy Scripture , but also of Money and other things .

In what part of holy Scripture did he eve●●ead that the Christians gave Houses and Lands to their Pastors ? That Text had been worth quoting . St. Luke indeed , in his History of the Acts of the Apostles , doth mention some that sold their Houses and La●ds , and brought the prices thereof , and laid them down at the Apostles Feet . But he cannot be supposed to refer to this for two Reasons . 1. Because he makes this Ob●ation of Houses and Land● by the Christians to their Pastors , to be the effect of that general Rule given by the Apostle to the Faithful to Communicate unto their Teachers in all good things , mentioned in the Epistle to the Galatians , whereas thi● selling of Possessions , and living in a Community , was not only long before that Epistile was written , but sometime also before he that writ it was himself converted to the Christian Faith ; and therefore could not be done in Observance of that general Rule . 2. Because in that History of the Apostles Acts , St. Luke doth not say , that any made Oblations of ●ouses and Lands ; but the clean contrary , viz. that as many as were Possessors of Lands or Houses sold them , and brought the prices of the things that were sold , and laid them down at the Apostles feet , Acts 4. 34. to the end . So that here was not an Offering of Houses and Lands , but of Money , which the Priest mentions besides , as distinct from the Oblations of Houses and Lands , and as leaning upon another Authority : for he refers the Oblatio● of Houses and Lands to the proof of holy Scripture ; but the Oblation of Money and other things to the Testimony of Iustin Martyr . The Apostles ( he sayes ) having given a general Rule for ●he Fait●●ul to communicate unto their Teachers in all good things , the Primitive Christians did alwayes make liberal Oblations to their Pastors , not only of Houses and Lands as we read in holy Scripture , but also of Money and other things ; which being Collected every Lords Day was delivered to the Bishop , saith Iustin Martyr . Here its plain he makes the Oblations of Houses and Lands distinct from that of Money and other things . The former , he sayes , we read in holy Scripture , the latter he tells us Iustin Martyr saith . If he has read in holy Scripture this Oblation of Houses and Lands , I desire he would direct to the place , that I may read it also . But if be no where reads this in holy Scripture , but adds this amplification as a Flourish to his D●scourse , he is the more to be blamed in this , and the less to be credited in the rest . How lean a Case doth he advocate , that needs the help of such sorry shifts !

Besides , he abuses his Reader in his application as well as in his allegation ; for he intimates as if those liberal Oblations had been made by the Primitive Christians to their Pastors for their proper use and Maintenance ; whereas it is evident in holy Scripture that they who sold their Possessions , and laid the prices at the Apostles feet , did deposit that money in a common Stock or Treasury , for the Maintenance of all such as were gathered into that Community ; out of which Stock Distribution was made unto every man according as he had need , Acts 4. 35. So that those Oblations were not made as a peculiar Maintenance for the Apostles or Pastors , but for the common Maintenance of all the Faithful , as well hearers as teachers , in that place . And when afterwards the inconvenience of that Way appearing , they came to make Weekly and Monethly Contributions , the Mo●ey so collected was not appropriated to the use of the Apostles , Pastors or Teachers , but both intended for , and imployed to the Relief of the poor Saints in general , as may be seen in divers places of Scripture , particularly in 1 Cor. 16. where concerning the collection for the Saints , the Apostle advises , that upon the first day of the week , every one should lay by him in store , as God had prospered him , Promising withal , that when he came to them , whomsoever they by their Letters should approve , he would send to carry this Gift of theirs to Ierusalem ; yea , and to go himself with it , if need require . And in his second Epistle to the same Church , Chap. 9. he reminds them of this Charitable Work , which in general terms , he calls a Ministring to the Saints ; and though he exhorts them to liberality and bounty , yet so far is he from prescribing any certain quantity , that he leaves all to this absolute liberty , Every man according as he purposeth in his heart , so let him give , Vers. 7. and in the 9th Vers. alluding to the words of the Psalmist , he plainly shews this charitable contribution was for the Relief of the Poor ; He hath dispersed abroad , he hath given to the Poor , &c. And that these contributions were for the Poor , he speaks expresly , Rom. 15. 25 , 26. But now I go unto Jerusalem , to Minister unto the Saints ; for it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia , to make a certain Con●ribution for the poor Saints which are at Jerusalem . It was not therefore fairly done of the Priest to perswade his Reader , that these weekly Collections made by the Christians for the Relief of their Poor Brethren , were Oblations or Offerings to their Pastors and Teachers for their peculiar use , as he seems to do : Which yet if they had been , it would not in any measure have proved Tythes , since no certain quantity is exprest , much less a tenth ; nor any forced Maintenance , they being altogether free and voluntary .

§ . 2. But he is willing to hasten from Scripture-evidence , finding nothing there that may serve his purpose ; therefore he sayes , pag. 75. Not to expaliate into the whole Maintenance of the Christian Bishops and Priests in the first Ages , he will come to enquire whether they had nothing in that Maintenance Answering to Tythes ; yea , Whether they had not Tythes given them by a voluntary Devotion .

For this he offers the Testimony of Irenaus , thu● , pag. 76. We ought to offer to God the first Fruits of his Creatures , as Moses saith , Thou shalt not appear before the Lord empty : for not all kind of Oblations are abrogated ; there were Olations among them , and there are Oblations among 〈◊〉 .

And a little after , thus , As the Jews gave their tenths , so the Christians gave all they had freely and cheerfully to the Lords uses , not giving less then they , as having a greater hope .

In the first of these places no mention at all is made of Tythes , but of first Fruits , and that with respect to the Law of Moses , not binding to Christians . In the latter it is evident the Christians did not give Tythes , or any thing answering Tythes : for the words are express , they gave all they had freely and chearfully to the Lords uses . So that neither of these places serve his end .

But because he here ( and else-where in Ancient Writers ) reads the word first fruits , he would perswade his Reader that first Fruits and Tythes are all one , the same thing under divers Names ; and that the very fir●t Christians dedicated their first Fr●its of all the Earth's productions to God , pag. 77.

●ere this true , that the very first Christians dedicated their fi●st Fruits of all the Earths productions to God , m●t●ings some mention of it should have been in holy S●ripture . But neither any hint at all do I there find that they did so , nor any exhortation to them , in any of the Epistles so to do . Since therefore no proof of thi● can be drawn from Scripture , and that ●renaeus and others that writ after him , speak o● the time● in w●ich they lived , I conclude the Priest was somewhat mistaken in fathering thi● dedication of fi●st Fruits upon the very first Christians .

Then for ●is other conceit , That first Fruits a●d Tyt●es si●nifi● the same thing , the evidence he offer● are , T●e Apostolical Canons , which ( he sayes , pag. 77. ) were the Decrees of divers Christian Synods made in the times of Persecution , and of great Authority in th● C●ristian Church .

But doubtless were he not at a very low Ebb , he would never have mentioned the Apostolical Canons ( as they are called ) which though to credit his Cause , he pretends to have been of great authority in the Christian Church , yet he must not be the man he would willingly pass for in point of Knowledge and Reading , i● he be now to learn that many learned and knowing Men have long since exploded & rejected them , a● Suppositions and false . Perkins against Coccius , in his Pr●blem of the Church of Rome , pag. 7. sayes , The Book of the Canons of the Apostles is said to be Apocryphal , and quotes Isidor● affirming the same . The first that mentioned them , he sayes , was Epiphanius ( who wrote about the Year ●80 . ) and in the sixth Council of Constantinople they were condemned . Selden also in his History of Tythes , ● . 4. pag. 43. calls them plainly counterfeit Canons ; and in his Review on that Chapter , shews more at large that they are so .

§ . 3. The Priest quotes here a Sentence out of Origen , wherein first Fruits are mentioned , but not a word of Tythes ; yet in his application of it , pag. 79. he makes Origen conclude from hence , that the Law of Tythes and first Fruits ought to stand in force among Christians ; but therein he wrongs Origen , whose words are , Haec diximus asserentes modatum de primitijs frugum vel pecorum debere etiam secundum literam stare , i. e. These things we have said , affirming that the Commandment co●cerning the first Fruits of Fruits and of Cattel ought to stand even according to the Letter . These are Origen's words , into which the Priest ( for his own end ) hath slyly thrust the word [ Tythes ] and made him say the Law of Tythes and first Fruits ought to stand . What credit is to be given to such a Man !

Nor deals he much better with Cyprian whom he quotes next , after this manner , To him ( sayes he , pag. 79. ) we may add St. Cyprian , who lived about forty years after , who commending the Nobleness of the ●irst Christians , blames those , who did not give the Tythes out of their Inheritance , which ( sayes the Priest ) Cyprian would not have done , but that he believed Christ intended Tythes for the Maintenance of a Gospel Ministry .

He that shall fairly consu't the place , will easily see that the Priest hath quite missed Cyprians meaning● for he doth not blame them for not giving Tythes ; but comparing the Oblations of the Primitive Christians , with those of the time wherein he lived , he shews the decay of Devotion to be such , that they did not then give so much as the tenth part of what the first Christians gave . His words , as I find them in Selden's Review , c. 4. are , Do●●s tunc et fun los renundabant , et the sauros sibi in calo repomentes , distribuenda in usus indigentium praetia Apostolis offerebaut . At nunc patrimonio nec decimas damus ; et cum vend●re jubeat Dominus , emimus potius et augemus , i. e. Then they sold Houses and Farms , and laying up Treasures for themselv●s in Heaven , they offered the Prices to the Apostles , to be distributed for the uses of the Poor . But now we do not give so much as th● Tenths of our Patrimony ; and whereas the Lord commandeth to sell , we rather buy and increase . Whence it is plain , Cyprian doth not either require Tythes , or blame them that did not give Tythes . But uses the word Decimas rhetorically to perswade the Christians of his time to greater Liberality and Charity , by the example of the first Christians , to whose free bounty , what these gave would not ( if compar'd ) be so much as a tenth part . And thus Selden , in the place fore-quoted understood him . But no more reason is there to suppose Cyprian did here blame the Christians fo● not giving Tythes out of their Patrimonies , then there would be to imagine he blamed them for increasing their Estates by purchase , which the Christian Religion doth in no wise prohibit Christians by just and lawful means to do . And for that Book it self of Cyprians , de Vnit●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 o●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 ●ears the Name of ●lements Constitutions . What would not he stick to add , how adulterate s●ev●r , that might seem to add some fresh colour to his decayed and dying Cause . T●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 Eus●bius , ●uffi●us and others , that There are many things 〈◊〉 under the Name of Clement Romanus ; of which having given diver● instances , he adds , The eight Books a●so of Apostolical Constitutions , written by the same Clement , des●rve no greater credit . And for Selden's Opinion of them , take it in his own words , For Constituti●ns of the Church ; if you could believe thos● suppos●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 ●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 l●ss Truth , of the whole Volumn is enough discovered by divers of the learned : and it was long since branded for a Counterf●it in an ●e●umenical Cou●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 quotation● . 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 Ambros● , but added by the Priest . The other quotation is long , but to the same purpose , and that which seems most material ●n it is the latter clause , that of all the Substance which God gives a man , he ●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 ava●● these Testimonies then to thei● Cause , which are drawn from that Law which they themselves disclaim ; were it never so undoubted that the quotation● 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 Comm●n●ed Christians to pay Tythes yearly , & c ? But that the Writings of those Fathers ( as they are called ) have been corrupted in general , men co●versant in History are not ignorant ; and in particulary Ambrose his Sermons ar● by Perkins accounted Spurious , or Counterfeit . Problem● . 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 Priest● 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. Epiphaniu● ) tells us ( sayes Selden ) of the Tessuresde●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 sub●ect to the course of the Law ; he sayes , that 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that is , they do all things , or agree generally with the Church , sa●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 o● 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 Seld●n of Epiphanius . By which the Reader may judge , Whether Christians paid Tythes in Epiphanius his time , or whether Epiphaniu● accounted the Payment of Tythes a Christian duty , who so plainly equals Tythes with Circumcision and Iewish Offerings , which are most certainly abrogated .

To ●piphanius the Priest joynes Chrysostom , whom he reports to speak after this manner , It is lawful and fitting for Christians to pay Tythes , and that Melchizedec was our Tutor in this matter , page 81.

Doth this sound at all like Chrysostom ? Is it likely he would say Melchizedec was our Tutor in paying Tythes ? Did Melchizedec then pay Tythes ? To whom I wonder ? Or did he teach that Tythes are to be paid ? Wh●re I pray ? That Golden-mouthed Doctor ( as his name imports ) understood the Text and himself better then to have let fall such an expression . But his Writings have run the same fate with others of those earlier time● , being in many places partly through inadvertency , partly through design , corrupted . And Perkins out of Sixtus Senensis the Library-keeper , reckons above a hundred homilies that bear the name of Chrysostom , which yet are reputed Spurious . Problem , pag. ●4 . &c. And Selden , in his History of Tythes , C. 5. pag 56. giving the Opinions of the Fat●ers of that Age , sayes Chrysostom , perswading even Labourers and Artificers to give bou●tifully their Offerings to the Church for holy uses , according to the Apostolical Ordinance in the Churches of Co●inth and Galatia ; brings the Iewish liberality in the payment of their Tenths for Example ( beneath which he would not have Christians determin their Charity ) adding , that he speaks these things not as commanding or forbidding that they should give more , yet as thinking it fit that they should not give l●ss then a tenth part . Whence it is plain that Tythes were not yet generally paid nor held du● ; but the Mi●isters & the Poor were alike maintained by the free Gifts and Voluntary Oblation , of the P●ople , which through the coldness of Devotion , falling short of answering the necessary ends , as formerly , gave occasion to these men to excite their Charity , and provoke them to more liberality by the Example of the Iews , who paid the tenth of their increase . Hence it is , that in some of their Writings the word [ Decimae ] sometimes occurs . And from their frequent Inculcation of this , as a Provocation to t●e Christians to equal at least , if not exceed , in charity and bounty the Iews , an Opinion about this time , Ignorance and Superstition Co-operating the●e to , began in some places to enter the Church , Tha● Tythes were due . But then they were claimed and received in the name of the Poor , and the claim derived from the Mosaical Law , as Selden proves at large , C. 5. But for the first four hundred years after Christ Selden is positive . No use of Tythes occurs till about the end of this four hundred years , are his words , C. 4. pag. 35. And again , Till towards the end of the first four hundred years , no payment of them can be proved to have been in use , ibid.

The Priest's next quotation is of Hierom , whom he makes to say , That as a Priest or Levite , he himself lived upon Tythes and Oblations , pag. 81.

In this he deals not well with his Reader : for he gives not Hierom's own words fairly , but taking a piece only , represents his sense far otherwise then it is . Hierom's words are these , Si ego pars Domin● sum , et faniculus hareditatis ejus , nec accipio partem inter caeteras tribus , sed QVASI Levita et Sacerd●s vivo de decimis , et altari serviens altaris oblation● sustent●r , habens victu● et vestitum , his contentus ere , et ●●●dam crucemnudus sequ●r . i. e. If I am the Lords par● , and a cord of his Inheritance , and receive n● sh●●● amongst the rest of the Tribes , but live LIKE AS ● Levite and a Priest of the Tythes , and serving at the Altar am sustained by the Offering of the Al●ar , having Food and Rayment , with those will I be content , and naked fo●●ow the naked Cross. It s plain that Hier●m here alludes to the Iewish Priests and their Maintenance , and therefore uses the word Tythes as suiting his comparison of a Levite . But it doth no more follow from hence that Hierom really lived upon Tythes , then it doth that he was really a Levite , of a certain Tribe , and neither had nor might have any Patrimonial Estate amongst his Brethren ; all which might with like reason be infer'd from these words , by him that would take them literally & strictly , not comparatively and with allusion . And it may be observed , that though in the first part of his Sentence , pursuing his Simile of a Levite having no part among the other Tribes , he mention● Tythes which was the Levites Maintenance , yet in the latter part , he hath a plain reference to the words of the Apostle Paul , 1 Tim. 6. 8. Having Food and Rayment , let us therewith be content . Another quotation he gives out of Hierom upon Matth. 22. where he sayes , Hierom call● Tythes the things that be Gods .

But that Homily upon Matthew is rejected by Perkins in pag. 23. of his Problem , and ranked amongst several other Works , which he sayes , by the common judgment of all men ar● falsly ascribed to Hierom.

His next Author is Augustin , who , he sayes , pag. 82. intimates it was no new Custom nor Opinion to pay Tythes as Gods due .

His words as he cites them are , For our fore-Fathers therefore abounded in all ●lenty , 〈…〉 they gave God his Tythe , and Caesar his Tribute .

That Tythes were not paid in the Apostles times , is both evident from Scripture , and granted by the Priest : That Tythes were not paid in the first two Hundred Years after Christ , may be fairly Collected from Tertullian , who speaking of the Christian Monethly Contributions in his time , sayes , Modicam unusquisque stipem menstruâ die , velcum velit , et si modo velit , & si modo possit , appo●it : Nam nemo compellitur , sed sponte confert . i. e. Every one layes down a small piece of Money on the Monethly day , or when he will , and if so be he be willing , and if so be he be able : For no man is compelled , but bestows freely , Apol. c. 39. Then for the next fifty Years , those words of Cyprian ( cited but misapplied by the Priest ) if the place be not depraved ) shew that Tythes were not then paid . For he noting the coldness of their Charity then , compared with the liberality of the first Christians , sayes , They then sold Houses and Lands , and brought the Prices to the Apostles to be disposed for the use of the Poor : but now we do not give so much as the Tenths ; which plainly shews that Tenths or Tythes were not paid in his time .

And about the Year 380. What Epiphaniu● writes of the Tessaresdecaticae , cited but now out of Selden , puts it out of doubt that Tythes were not paid in his time , at least in the Greek Eastern Church . And if Tythes were not paid in Epiphanius his time , certainly the Custom of paying them , and Opinion of their being due ( if any such Custom or Opinion had been general ) in Augustin's time ( who was Born before Epiphanius died ) must needs be somewhat new . But if Andr●w Willet's judgment be of any force with the Priest , he is very plain and positive as to this Case . In Au●ustin's time ( sayes he ) it was no general Law nor Custom in the Church , that Tythes should be paid , Synop. Papism . 5. gen. Controv. pag. 314. And yet there is ground to suppose , that in Augustin's time , in some places , and at some times , some Persons did give Tythes ; but not that there was any general , settled or constant payment of them .

He adds another quotation from Augustin's Sermon de Tempore , 219. thus , Tythes are required as due Debt , and he that will not give them invades another man's right — Whatsoever art sustaineth thee , it is Gods : and he requireth Tythes out of whatsoever thou livest by .

He gives us more of him , but this the most material , and sayes , The whole Sermon is most worthy to be read — being an evid●nt proof of the Antients Opinion that Tythes were of divine Right .

Whether that Sermon were Augustin's or no , is a great Question . Selden ( a curious searcher into antiquity ) susp●cts it , his words of it are , About Harvest he made it , if it be his ; for it hath been doubt●d whether it be his or no. And in the Margin he sayes , The very words of this Sermon are in that counterfeit Treatise falsly attributed to St. Augustin , and inscribed De Rectitudine Catholicae conversationis , History of Tythes , c. 5. pag. 54. Which Treatise Perkins places amongst those Writings of his , which by the common judgment of all men are reputed spurious or counterfeit . But be it true or false , the Priest hath not given his quotation out of it fairly ; but hath omitted those Text , which shew whence he derived the claim to Tythes , namely from Malachy 3. and other Texts of the Old Testament relating to Tythes and first Fruit , among the Iews , but not obliging Christians , yea , disclaimed by this very Priest , pag. 46. ●nd hath also left out several passages , which shew that Tythes were then claimed not for the Priests , but the Poor . Decima Tributa sunt egentium Auimarum : redde ergo Tributa Pauperibus . i. e. Tythes are the Tributes of needy Souls : therefore pay the Poor their Tributes . And in that very place from which the Priest gives us these words [ Tythes are required as due debt , and he that will not give them invades another man's right ] and there leaves off with a — it follows thus , Et quaenti pa●peres in locis ubi ipse habitat , illo decimas non dante , fame mortui fuerint , tantoru● homicidiorum reus ante tribunal eterni Iudicis apparebit , quiae Domino Pauperibus delegatum suis usibus res●rvavit . i. e. And look how many Poor , in the places where he lives , shall perish through Hunger , by reason of his not giving Tythes , of so many Murders shall h● be found guilty before the Tribunal of the eternal Iudge , because he hath kept to his own use that which was appointed by the Lord for the Poor . From these passages , it is manifest both whence the Opinion of the Right of Tythes , then entring the Church , was taken , ( viz. the Levitical Law ) and to whom they were then supposed to be due , viz. the Poor . And he might also ( had it suited his interest ) have added another passage in the same place , which gives a taste of the state of those times ( if the Sermon be allowed genuin ) in point of Doctrine . The words are these , Qui ergo sibi aut premium comparare , aut pec●atoru●● desider at indulgentiam promereri , reddat Decima● . i. e. He therefore that desires either to purchase a reward to himself , or to merit Pardon of his Sins , let him pay Tythe . By which the Reader may observe , how far the Mystery of Iniquity had by that time wrought , and to what pass the State of Christianity was then come , when Tythes began to be preacht up , and paid .

The Priest sayes he could further prove the Opinion of the Ancients , that Tythes were of divine right , by many more instances . But ( saith he ) I will end these Testimonies of single Eminent Fathers , with that of Prosper of Aquitain , who speaking to the Ciergy of his Dayes , saith , We do willingly receive the daily Oblations and Tythes of the Faithful , and shall we lay aside the care of the Flock ? pag. 83.

That Tythes by the private devotion of some began to be given in Augustin's time , is already noted ; and that such Gifts were more frequent in Prosper's time ( which was about fifty Years after ) is not unli●e●y . Nor need we question , but the Clergy then did willingly ( as he sayes ) receive th●m , especially if we consider how much even in those times , they were departed from the purity and soundness of the Gospel . Of which occasion will offer to speak at large hereafter . At present therefore take only a touch out of Prosper himself in his Book , De promissionibus et praedictionibus Dei . Orationibus sanctorum ( sayes he ) me expiari ob omina peccato posse confido . i. e. I firmly believe that by the Prayers of the Saints , I may be purged from all Sin .

But this saying of Prosper , That the Priests did willingly receive what the People offered , although it may prove that Tythes were sometimes given ; yet it cannot prove any general or constant payment of Tythes .

I have no● gone through the Testimonies he hath brought of which some are reputed false and co●nterfeit , as the Apostolical Canons , Clements Constitutions , and the Sermons attributed to Ambrose . S●me suspected , as that of Augustin De tempore . Some not fairly cited , as Origen , Cyprian , and Hierom. Some Misapplyed , as Iustin Martyr , Irenaeur , and Epiphani●● . Some speak of Tythes by way of comparison only , and with allusion to the Iewish State . Some mention Tythes by way of provocation to stir up the People to greater Charity and Liberality . Some about four hundred Years after Christ , Preach up Tythes to be due , but to the Poor ; and enforce the Claim from the Mosaical Law , and other Writings of the Old Testament . But none of them , ( I except those Spurious Constitutions and Canons ) say , That Christ Appointed , Established , Confirmed Tythes , or that the Apostles either in●oyn'd or approved the payment of them , or that they were at all paid in the first Ages of Christianity . So that hitherto we have found no Divine Right to Tyth●s under the Gospel , unless any will so far deceive themselves as to acknowledge that for a Divine Right now in force which depended on the Levitical Law , and by its abrogation ceased .

§ . 4. At the close of his Testimonies , the Priest sayes , Now I hope the Quaker will not say all these were Papists ; or that the Church was Popish as early as Irenaeus and Origen : and if not , then he must recant his false Assertion , that Tythes came in with Popery , pag. 84.

That which in my former Book , I said of Tythes having their institution from Popery , was with relation to that Chart●r of Ethelwolf , which the Priest grounded their Dedication on , and to the Definition of Popery which he then gave , of which more hereafter . However , I see no necessity either : to affirm , the Church was Popish as early as Irenaeus and Origen , or to recant what I have said in my former Book concern●ng the institution of T●thes . For he hath not proved , and I deny , that Tythes were instituted , required or paid in the times of Irenaeus or Origen , or well-nigh two hundred Years after . But of the times in and about which Tythes began to be thought due , and as so paid ( which Selden is positive , was not till about the end of the fourth Century , and the beginning of the fifth ) and of the State of the Church then , and some what earlier also , not to speak my own Sense , I will give the Reader a short View , and submit it to his judgment .

About the Year of C●rist two hundred ( as early as Origen ) Prayers , Offerings and Sacrifices for the Dead began to be in use in the Church . Tertullian , who lived in that time , mentions these things in his Book De Corona Militis , and sayes , They sprang from Tradition .

As early also was the Opinion of Purgatory received in the Church , and believed . Both Tertullian and Origen held it , as Perkins confesses , Problem page 175.

Much about the same time crept in the Opinion of the Intercession of Saints departed this life , from which sprang the Custom of Praying to Saints . And though for some time this was disputed amongst the Learned of those times , yet towards the latter end of the fourth Century ( much about the same time that Tythes began to be thought due ) this Custom of Praying to Saints grew in use in the Church . And Perkins acknowledges , that the Antients , especially after the year four hundred , did not only sin , but were guilty of Sacriledge ; for they some itmes place ( saye● he ) their Hope , Faith and Confidence in the Saints ; of which he gives divers instances , page 93.

Reliques began to be had in veneration , and to be carried up and down , and flocked a●ter about the Year three hundred , idem . p. 81.

The going on Pilgrimage came in fashion about the Year three hundred and twenty , and prevailed so fast , that about the end of that Century , it was made a part of the Worship of God , idem . pag. 119.

The use of Chrisme was instituted by Pope Sylvester , about the Year 330.

Extream Vn●●on was Decreed by Pope Innocen● the first , in the Year 402.

Monkish Life began about the Year 260. idem ▪ pag. 226.

The Caelibate , or single Life of Priests , began to be Preacht up , by or before the Year 300. And about the Year 380. it was commanded by the publick ●udgment of the Church , and a Vow of perpetual chastity declared necessary , and injoyned , idem . pag. 192.

By these few instances the Reader may give a guess at the State of the Church in those dayes , wherein Tythes began to get up . How much worse it grew afterwards in the following ages , when Tythes came to be settled and established by Laws , I shall have further ●ccasion anon to shew . In the mean time I proceed to examine the Authorities the Priest urges from the Decrees of Councils .

§ . 5. As an Introduction to his Con●iliary Testimonies , he gives his Reader a Note , pa● . 8● . First , ( sayes he ) Let it be noted , That 〈…〉 be certain Tythes were paid from the earlie●● da●es 〈◊〉 Christianity ; yet it wa● not for a long time direct●y i●joyned by a●y human Law , either Ecclesiastical or Civil : which shews the first Christians 〈◊〉 , they were obliged to pay them by the Law of God , pag ▪ 84

This is a Note worth the noting . He sayes , It is certain Tythes were paid from the earliest days of Christianity . The earliest dayes of Ch●istianity ! Why did he not say , pag● 67. O●e Reason why Tythes are not mentio●ed in the New● Testament by nam● is , To avoid all occasion of Scand●l to the Jews , whose Priests were then in Possession of them ? Would the 〈◊〉 have been offended at the mention of T●thes in the New-Testament , which they were not like to see and would they not have bee● offended at seeing Tythes paid by the Christians to their Ministers ? Did he not there say , Ma●y things were suffered a while to run in their o●d chan●el , till the whole Jewish Polity was Destroyed ? And will he now make Tythes to be turned out of their old Channel , ●nd to ●un in a new one from the earliest dayes of Christianity , before the ●hole Iewish Po●ity was Destroyed ? Did he not there say , It would have been used as a prejudice to the young beginnings of the Gospel , if the Preachers had presently claimed the Maintenance , which others were legally in●tated in ? And will he here say , The Chris●ia●s did pay to their Preachers the Maintenance which others were legally instated in , and that from the earliest dayes of Christianity ? Did he not say , ●●g . 71. The State of the Church in the Apostles dayes was such , that Believers , though they wer● willing , could not have opportunity to pay Tythes regularly ; nor could the Gospel-Minist●rs receive them ? And will he here say , Tythes were paid from the earliest dayes of Christianity ? And that this is certain too ? Certainly this des●rves to be [ nigro carbone notatum ] Noted with a black Cole . He had forgot perhaps , that his Brother Priest ( whom he defends ) had said in his Conference , pag. 157. I confess the Apostles had not the Tythes in their dayes — the Levites themselves were in Possession of them , which they kept , during the continuance of their Nation and Temple● Besides , you ought to consider , that Tythes , or any other fixed Maintenance , was utterly inconsistent with their unfixed State of Life ; being to Preach the Gospel in all Nations , they became an improper ▪ Maintenance for them ; a●d besides , you are to consider , that the Apostles needed them not , for as they had their Gifts , so their Maintenance by a Miraculous Pr●vidence .

Here one of the Priests sayes , Tythes , or any other Maintenance , was improper for the Apostles , and utterly inconsistent with their State● That the Apostles neither needed Tythes , nor had Tythes , nor could have had them if they would , because the Levites Possest and kept Tythes , during the continuance of their Nation and Temple , which was not utterly Destroyed till about thirty seven Years after Christ's Death . The other Priest sayes , It is certain Tythes were paid from the earliest dayes of Christianity . Is not this pretty ? How justly might I here re●ort what he most unjustly threw at me , pag. 59. One of these must be false , for ind●●d there is a manifes● co●tradiction . Let them lay their heads together again and see if they can reconcile it .

But it seems however , this early payment of Tyth●s was not for a long time directly enjoyned ; which was seasonably noted by him to excuse himself from giving some early constitution either Ecclesiastical or ●ivil for the so early payment of them . But this Non-Injunction , he sayes , shews The first Christians believed they were obliged to pay them by the Law of God .

He 's very much out . For , First , T●at the first Christians paid Tythes at all , is not only denyed , but learnedly disproved , and Tythes proved not only improper for , but utterly inconsistent with the Apostolical State , by his own dear Brother the other Priest in his Conference , pag. 57. And Secondly , If Tythes had been as certainly paid in the next Ages to the Apostles , as it is certain they were not paid in the Apostles Time , yet would not such a practice any more have proved that the Christians believed they were obliged to pay them by the Law of God , then it would have proved the Christians in Tertullian's time , who Prayed and Sacrificed for the Dead , without the Injunction of any Human Law , either Ecclesiastical or Civil , for a long time , did believe they were obliged so to Pray and so to Sacrifice , by the Law of God ; which that they were far enough from Be●ieving Tertullian sufficiently shews , when speaking of those things , he sayes , If thou demandest the Laws of these and other such like Disciplines , thou wilt find none in the Scriptures . Thou wilt find Tradition pretended for the Author , Custom for the Confirmer , and Faith for the Observer . lib de c●●on . mil.

He adds , ibid. That acco●ding to S. Augustine'● Rule , viz. [ That such things as were Vniversally observed , and owed not their beginning to any Council , were to be thoug●t to have been ordained by the Apostles ] Tythes and first Fruits must at least be of Apostoli●al institution .

This is grounded on a Supposition ( at which he is very notable ) that Tythes and first Fruits were Vniversaly paid . I deny it , both as to time and place . Let him first prove that , and then he may expect ● further Answer . Now to his Councils .

§ . 6. In his first Regiment of Councils , that which leads the Van , pag. 85. is the Counterfeit Canons falsly ascribed to the Apostles ; of which enough hath been said before to det●ct them , and shame ●him for urging them . Next comes up the Council of Gangra held about the Year 324. in the seventh and eighth Canons of which , Tythes ( he sayes ) are called [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] which he Englishes ( but ill ) E●c●esiastical Tribute of Fruits . But bearing with the Translation , let him shew ( if he can ) that Tythes are mentioned , by name , in any Canon of that Council . If not , Why abuses he his Reader in saying , Tythes are there called Ecclesiastical Tribute of Fruits ? A like falshood he imposes on his Reader in his next quotation of the Council of Anti●●h , held in the Year 341. ( as he sayes , but in the Year 345. sayes Burdegalens●s ) in the twenty fourth and twenty fifth Canons , of which he reads ( he sayes ) The profits of the Church , or the Fruits of the Fields .

But what is that to the proof of Tythes ? Could th● Church have no Profits or Fruits of the Fields but it must needs be Tythes ? If Tythes had been named 〈◊〉 that Council , why did he not shew that ? But if they were not named there , why does he play upon his Reader , and endeavour to perswade him they we●e ? Is he not ashamed to say , he finds many Antient Councils suppose Tythe● to have been paid , and ●rdering how Tythes should be distributed by the Bishops , and yet cannot shew out of those antient Councils ( as he calls them ) that Tythes were so much as oncé named in them ?

To these Councils ( for credit sake , and to increase the number ) he adds the Canonical Epistle ( as he calls it ) of St. Cyrill of Alexandria to Domnus , where , he sayes , he finds , mention of Ecclesiastical Revenues .

What then , is nothing an Ecclesiastical Revenue but Tythes ? If he had found that Revenue there called Tythes , he had t●en found something to his purpose ; but as it is , it helps him not at all . See now what his great boast of MANY Antient Councils , which suppose Tythes to have been paid , &c. is come to . The first has long since been branded for a Counterfeit , the two next have not a word of Tythes , the fourth and last is not the Decree of a Council , but the Epistle of a single Person , and that sayes nothing of Tythes neit●er . And yet , such is the immodest Confidence of the man , that he doth not stick to say , pag. 86. In the fore-cited places it appears , that Tythes and First Fruits were given to the Church long before the Year of Christ 324. So indeed I think they had need to have been , if they had been paid ( as he boldly sayes , 't is certain they were ) from the earliest dayes of Christ●anity , pag. 84. But as that is very fairly disproved , by his own dear Brother , in his Friendly Conference , pag. 157. So this remains yet to be proved by himself , or any other , that like himself , has so much confidence and 〈◊〉 littl● credit , as to undertake it .

But how comes it we have no more of these antien● Councils produced ? Why brought he not forth the Council of Caesaria ( holden about the Year 200. ) which Burdegalensis calls the first Council after the Apo●●les times ? why past ●e over the several Councils of Carthage , held about the Years 236. and 253 ? Why slipt he those ●olden at Antioch about the Year 270 ? Why mentioned he not the Council of Sinuessa in Campania , nor the fi●st of Ancyra , held about the Year 2●0 ? Why took he no notice of the Council holden at ( Cirtes ) in N●midia , about the Year 304 ? Of the second of Ancyra , about the Year 309 ? Or of the Neo-Caesarian , about the Year 313 ? And ( to pass by the Roman and Elibertine Councils under Sylvester ) how came he to omit that great and universal Council ( as some call it ) holden at N●ce , about the Year 320 ? Were some of these Councils rejected ? so were some of them he urged . Was there no mention of Tythes in these ? no more was there in those he alledged . And doth it not look strangely that so many Councils , held in s●veral parts of the World , should not have a word of Tythes ; and yet this man should talk of Tythes being certainly paid from the earliest dayes of Christianity● Pray hear what Selden sayes upon this subject , chap. 4. of his H●story of Tythes , pag. 43. speaking of the Opinion of them that would have Tythes to be an Ordinance of the Apostles , Had it been ( sayes he ) the Apostles Ordinance , or the use of the Church in the Primitive times , Origen , Tertullian and Cypria● ( having such occasion to mention it ) could not have be●n so silent of it . And is it likely ( adds he ) that all the old Councils from thence , till near s●x Hundred Years after Christ ( which , being authentick beyond exception , have special Canons for the Lands and ●oods poss●st by the Church , the Offerings , Revenu●s , and such more ) could have omitted the name of Ten●hs , if either such use or Apostolical Law had preceded ? They ( sayes he ) talk of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , the Goods of the Chu●●h , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 Offerings of first Fruits ; but have not a word any where of the tenth part . And ( adds he ) 〈◊〉 those counterfeit Canons also ( meaning those called the Apostles Canons ) one is inde●d of first Fruits ( although , touching them by that Name , certainly no Law was made under the Apostles ) but no words of Tenths , Thus he .

§ . 7. Thus far of those Councils which he supposes suppose Tythes to have been paid . Come we now to those other which , he sayes , directlye joyn them , of w●ich the fi●st he gives is , The Decree of a Roman Council in the Year 374. commanding , That Ty●●s and first Fruits should be paid by the Christians , and they which with-hold them should be anathematized , pag. 86.

This is the first of his direct Injunctions for the payment of Tythes ; and he had no sooner set down this , but he began to bethink himself , that this Council , if it came to be examined , would scarce stand the tryal , and therefore without more ado , in the very next words he sayes , But there is some question whether this Council be genuin or no ; I shall therefore ( sayes he ) ●mit this , and all those other Councils which suppose them , but do not enjoyn them , pag. 86.

The Proverb sayes , we may judge of a Man by the Company he keeps . But if we should judge of his Cause , by the Evidences he brings to prove it , what may the Cause be thought to be , when the Witnesses are Counterfeits , Cheats , corrupted and fals● ? What shameful work is this ?

But now he comes to one which he calls a positiv● Ecclesiastical Law , and the first too ; and yet that was not made till the Year 5●0 . as he sayes , but Selden places it in the Year 586. It is the Council of Matiscon ( a Bishoprick in the Diocess of Lyons ) which he sayes , pag. 87. speaks thus , The divine Laws taking care of the Priests and Ministers of the Churches , for their Inheritance , have injoyned all the People to pay the Tyth●● of their Fruits to holy places , that being hindred by no labour , they may more duely attend spiritual Ministries , which Laws the whole company of Christians have for a long time kept inviolate .

T●us far his English differs little from the Latine , as Selden has it , saving that where his English is , That being hindred by no labour : The Latin● adds , per res illegitimas , i. e. by Vnlawful things . But in the latter part of his quotation , which contains the Decree it self , there is no correspondence between the Latine and his English ; so great a Liberty of variation doth he take . The Latine in Selden's ( History of Tythes , c. 5. §. 5. ) goes on thus , Vnd● statuimus ut Decimas Ecclesiasticas ●mnis Populus inferat , quibus Sacerdotes aut in Pauperum usu● aut 〈◊〉 Captivorum redemptione● erogatis , suis orationibus pacem populo ac Salutem impetrent . i. e. Whereupon we ordain that all the People bring in the Ecclesiastical Tythes , which being bestowed either for the use of the Poor , or for the Redemption of Captives , the Priests by their Prayers may obtain Peace and Safety for the People . Instead of which his English runs thus , Wherefore we D●cree and ordain , That the Anti●nt Custom be obs●rved s●ill among the Faithful , and that all the People bring in the Tythes , which maintain the Worship of God . Let the Understanding Reader compare now , and see what he can find in this English to Answer that in the Latine [ quibus Sacerdotes , aut in pauperum usum , aut in captivorum redemptionem erogatis , suis orationibus pacem populo ac s●●utem impetrent ] or what in the Latine to Answer this in the English [ That the Antient Custom be observed still among the Faithful ; And , That Tythes maintain the Worship of God . ] This is a fault this Priest is too frequently guilty of : he gives not his quotations in the Authors words , but in his own , concealing the Author's , that he may the more safely and undiscerned twist his quotations to his purpose , and thereby lead his Readers judgment Captive Hoodwi●kt . His design here was to prove the Antiquity of Tythes in the Christian-C●urch , to contenance which , he is not content with what is said in the Decree , viz. That the Christians have kept these Laws inviolate for a long time ; but adds , The Antient Custom . And because the words of the Decree shew what Service Tythes were then ●ut to , namely , the us● of the Poor or R●demption of Captives , he leaves that out , and inst●●d thereof puts in [ which maintain the Worsh●p of God ] And having thus formed it for his purpose , he thinks now he has got enough to serve his turn . These words ( he sayes ) do fully prove our Assertion of Tythes having been paid from the beginning , ●ure divin● , pag. 87.

But he mistakes in this too , and that not a little . This Council falls a gr●at 〈◊〉 too low to prove his Assertion . For how should these , who lived so near the end of the sixth Century , understand the Practice of the first Times , what was done in the beginning , and what was paid in the earliest dayes of Christianity , better then they whose lot fell nearer to the first Times by well-nigh the one half ? Or what likelihood is there , that if Tythes had been paid from the beginning , from the earliest dayes of Christianity , no one of those many Councils before remembred , should so much as once have mentioned Tythes , especially seeing divers of them speak particularly of the Offerings , Oblations , Rev●nues and Treasure of the Church ? But this Council intimates , that Tythes had been paid for a long time .

What then , must that long time be extended to the very beginning , to the earliest dayes of Christianity ? No such matter . Selden sayes , That long time they speak of , might have had perhaps beginning from the Doctrine of those two great Fathers St. Ambrose and St. Augustine , about the Year 400. History of Tythes , pag. 48. From which time to this Council , there having passed about one hundred and eighty years , might not improperly be called a long time . The common use of speech will ●ustifie it . But the Decree mentions Divine Laws , from whence the Priest infers Tythes were paid from the beginning , jure divino .

But Selden , in the place fore quoted , shews , that the Laws there called Divine , were but the Mosaical Laws , which these Priest● , both one and 'tother , refuse to claim by , Friend●y Co●●erence , pag. 133. Right of Tythes , pag. 46. T●us much of the particular parts of the Decree . Now of the Council , it self , it is observable , that as it was but a provincial Council , and so affords no general Determination ; so ( as Selden Notes , pag. 58. ) Not so much as any Canon of it is found mentioned , as of received Authority , in any of the more Antient Compilers of Synodal Decrees : which he there shews at large . But leaving what hath been said of this to the Readers observation & judgment , I go on to examin his next quotation out of the Council of Hispalis , which he Dates in the Year 590. and delivers in these words , We ordain that all the Fruits and Tythes as well of Cattel as of Fruits , be rightly offered to their several Churches , by Rich and Poor , according to the saying of the Lord by the Prophet , Bring ye all the Tythes into the Store-House , &c. — For as God hath given us all , so of all he requireth Tythe of the Profits of the Field , and all Provisions , of Bee's and Honey , Lambs , &c. And he that payes not Tythes of all these , is a Thief to God himself , pag. 88. His observation on this is , That they all declare Tythes to be due , jure divino .

But whence fetcht they their Opin●on of the Divine Right of Tythes ? Do they not deduce it from the Words of the Prophet , and ground their Decree thereupon ? And had not those Words of the Prophet a direct reference to the C●remonial Law ? And is not the Ceremonial Law ended and abrogated by Christ ? And do not these Priests disown any claim from it ? Friendly Co●ference , pag. 133. Right of Tythes , pag. 4● . What trifling then is it thus to Argue ! Besides , there is great ground to sus●ect the credit of his quotation . Selden Nothing the falshood which some c●mmit , who out of Iuo , attributed an express Canon for the payment of first Fruits and Tenths , to the provincial Synod of Sivil , and giving the words of that Canon , little different from these quoted by the Priest , sayes , The old Manuscript Copy of Iuo hath it , ex concili● Spanensi , and the Printed Book ex concilio Hispalensi . Then sticking a little at the word [ Spanensi ] he adds , Whatever he meant by it , clearly the whole Canon is of much later time , the first words of it also being nothing but the Syllables of one of Charlemains Laws , that was not made till 780. years from Christ . He observes also that Gratian warily abstained from using these Canons ; and a little after concludes positively , That among the known and certain Monuments of Truth , till about the end 800 years , no Law Pontificial of or Synodal ( saving that of Mascon ) Determins or Commands any thing concerning Tenths , although very many are which , speaking purposely and largely of Church Revenues , Oblations , and such like , could not have been silent of them , if that quantity had been then established for a certain duty . He then shews that the Canonists and others in later Ages , compiling their Decrees , have made those words , by which the Offerings of the Christians were expressed , to serve as if they had expresly named Tythes ( in which Observation he seems to take this very Priest by the Nose ) and concludes thus , He that reads those old Canons only , as they are so applied , in late Authority , to Tythes , might perhaps soon think that at first they were made specially and by name for them . The matters ( sayes he ) is plainly otherwise . What was ordained in them about Tythes , is out of them in later times ( Tythes & Oblatio ●s being then supposed of equal right ) expresly extended also to Tythes . And to this purpose he cites Frier 〈◊〉 , ( in Prolegom ad To●● . 1. Con●il . ) thus , Licet forsan fals● t●li sint Pontifici , vel cert● tali Co●cilio per scriptorum inc●rian ad scripti . i. e. Although perhaps ( speaking of such Canons ) they are falsly ascribed to such a Pope , or to such a Council by the carelesness of Writers . Thus far Selden , Hist. Tythe● , c. 5. §. 5. )

And in his sixth Section of the same Chapter , mentioning again the Decree of Masoon , which was but Provincial , he sayes , No Canon as yet was received in the Church generally , as a binding Law , for payment of any certain quantity ; which not only appears ( sayes he ) in that we find none such now remaining , but also is confirmed by the Testimony of a great and learned French Bishop ( in whose Province also Mascon was ) that could not be ignorant of the received Law of his time . He lived and wrote very near the end of this four Hundred Years ( I think ( sayes he ) in the very beginning of the next , which , according ▪ to S●lden's division , must be the Year 900. ) And , in a Treatise abou● the dispensation of Church Revenues , expresly denyes , that befo●e his time any Synod or general Doctrine of the Church had determined or ordained any thing touching the quantity that should be given , either for Maintenance or building of Churches . He gives the Testimony of this Bishop in his own words , thus , Ja● vero de donandis rebus etordinandis Ecclesijs , nihil unquam in Synodis constitutum est , nihil a Sanctis Patribus publice praedicatum . Nulla enim compulit necessitas , fervente ubique religiosa devotione , et amore illustrandi Ecclesias ultro ●estruante , &c. ( i. e. But now concerning endowing ●nd ordaining Churches , there has never been any thing decreed in Synods , nor publickly preached by the holy Fathers . For there has not been any necessity for that , religious Devotion being every where warm , and the desire of adorning Churches burning of its own accord . And then adds , This Author is Agobard Bishop of Lyons ( very learned and of great judgment ) and had not so confidently denyed what you see he doth , if any Decree , Canon , or Council , generally received , had before his time commanded the payment or offering of any certain part . And to confirm the Truth of this Bishop's Testimony herein , he adds , that Neither in the Codex Eccl●si●●niverculis , or the Codex Ecclesi● Romane , or Africane , Fulgentius Ferrandus , Cresconius , or Isidore's Collection ( all which , in those elder Ages , were as parts of the Body of the Canon Law ) is once any mention of the name of Tenths . Thus far Selden . By which it may appear that Tythes had not so early a settlement in the Church as the Priest would perswade his Reader .

The Priest seems now to have done for the present with Councils , and betakes himself to the Laws of Kings and Emperors . To which before I pass , I desire the Reader to take notice to what a nothing his great talk of Councils is come ; and that after all his great Brags , he hath produced but one Council that expresly names Tythes , and that but a Provincial one neithe● , and falling so much short of that Antiquity , that Antient Date , the Beginning and earliest dayes of Christianity , which he so frequently and vauntingly repeats , that it was not much less then 600. yea●● after Christ , before it was made , and then too in probability little regarded .

§ . 8. Now let us observe the Laws he offers , made by Kings and Emperours concerning Tythes . The first he instances is of Constantine the Great , Who ( he sayes , pag. 89. ) being settled in his Empire , in the Lands under his Dominion , out of every City gave a certain Tribute , to be distributed among the Church and Clergy of the Provinces , and confirmed this Donation to stand forever .

If this be true , yet what relation hath this to Tythes ? If Constantine gave a Tribute out of every City , doth it thence follow that that Tribute was Tythes or the Tenth part of the Revenue of those Cities ? Or if that should be supposed , would the Priest thence infer , that the Country People , the Farmers , the Husband-men , who lived not in the Cities , but in the Country-Towns and Villages , were by this Donation obliged to pay the Tythes of the Increase of the Lands , which they man●red and occupied ? What need had there been then of such a Tribute out of the Cities ? This instance of Constantin's Donation , if it be allowed to prove any thing , will rather prove that Tythes were not then paid , then that they were . But the Truth of the Donation is questioned . Cusanus sayes thus of it , Sunt m●o judicio illa de Constantino Apocrypha , i. e. Those things concerning Constantine are in my judgment Apocryphal , that is , obscure and doubtful . Many other Authorites Perkins produces to prove the Donation of Constantine false , Problem . pag. 15. But whether it be false or true , it speaks nothing of Tythes , and therefore is the less to be regarded .

The Priest goes on thus , It were endles's to relate all the Constitutions of pious Emperours either to enlarge the Revenues of the Church , to preserve its Liberties , or to secure the Donations made by others . Let that one Law which is so full for the Divine Right of Tythes , serve instead of many instances , pag. 89.

I cannot but take notice , how short-winded this Priest is when he comes in earnest to produce his Authorities . He talks big before-hands , and gives great expectation of what he will do , but when he comes to the Point , how mean ( Alas ! ) is his performance in respect of the preparation he makes ! What a noise did he make of Councils ere now ! Who that heard him would not have almost thought , that All the Antient Councils had been called on purpose to settle Tythes upon the Clergy ? And yet after all this heaving and swel●ing , the great Mountain hath brought forth but one Mouse , and that a little one too ; I mean his high talk and great preparation hath produced at last but one Authentick Council that mentions Tythes ( if that one be Authentick ) and that but a Provin●ial neither . And now that he is slipt from Councils to the Laws of Kings and Emperours , he instances one of Constantine the Great , of suspected Credit , that has no mention of , nor relation to Tythes , and then immediately sayes , It were endless to relate ALL the Constitutions of Pious Emperours , &c. as if he had almost wearied himself with relating so many before , whenas indeed this was the first and only one that he had so much as named . And how poorly afterwards doth he come off , when he sayes , L●t that ONE Law which is so full for the Divine Right of Tythes , serve instead of MANY instances ! Can any one doubt ( who observes his manner of writing ) that this is only a Flourish to hide his penury ? It had been worth his while ( though he had taken a little the more time for it ) to have given us some of the most material of those MANY Constitutions of Pious Emperours , which he sayes it were ENDLESS to relate ; and it is not to be questioned but so he would , could he have found amongst them All any that had spoken but favourable of Tythes . But since no more are to be had , let us look the more intently on this he doth give , and see whether it deserves to serve instead of Many instances . He words it thus , pag. 89. The Tythes by God's Command are separated for the Priests , that they which are of Gods Family may be sustained by his Portion , and therefore they cannot by any human Priviledge be given to Lay-men ; lest the Supream Authority should therein prejudice the Divine Commandment .

I see no reason for his calling this a Law , which is rather a Declaration by Doctrine , then a Constitution by Precept . If it be a Law , he might have done well to have acquainted his Reader who was the Law-maker . He neither tells us who was the Author of it , nor in what Age 't was made ; but sets it down bare and naked , as I have here Transcribed it : only in the Margin he hath this reference [ Cod. l. 7. Tit. de pr●scrip ] But though he conceals the date of it , yet that Passage in it [ therefore they cannot by any Human ●iviledge be given to Lay-men ] speaks it to be of muc● later Birth then he would willingly have it pass for . However , let the Age and Author of it be as they are , it deserves not the name of a Law , much less of such a Law , as in the Case of Tythes may serve instead of many instances : for it injoyns nothing , but only supposes Tythes separated for the Priests by God's Command , and declares they therefore cannot by any Human Priviledge be given to Lay-men . This peradventure may some-what concern the Civil Magistrate and the Impropriators , but not the Case in hand .

In the same place , he sayes , A parallel Law to this we find in Authenticis , ti . eod.

It may be so . But where he found it , there it seems he thought fit to leave it , for he sayes not a word more of it . But going on nearer to King Ethelwolf's time , he sayes , K. Ethelwolf might know how the Religious K. Riccaredus had confirmed the Decrees of the first Council of Hispa●is about paying Tythes , Anno. 5●0 . Nor could he be ignorant what Charles the great had done in settling Tythes on the Church about 100. years before K. Ethelwolf's Don●tion . pag. 90.

The Story of Riccaredus I am a stranger to , and like to be for him ; for he has not been so fair as to acquaint his Reader whence he took it . That of Charles the great was about the year 780. far enough short of his boasted Antiquity , and of the earliest dayes of Christianity , falling indeed in a time when the Church was miserably depraved and corrupted , and growing every day worse and worse , as I shall have occasion more particularly to shew when I come to Ethelwolf's time . And though the Priest sayes , This Emperour ( who gave Tythes ) was so far from Idolatry , that he called a Council to condemn the use of Images , and write against them himself .

Yet Corruptions en●ugh were there then in the Church , beside the use of Images to prove the Religion he profest to be Popish , according to the definition of Popery given by the other Priest in his Friendly Conference , pag. 149. where he sayes , I cannot give you a more brief and true Account of Popery then this , That it is such Doctrines and Supperstitious Practices , which by the Corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome , contrary to the True , Antient , Catholick , and Apostolic Church . Now that the Doctrine of Purgatory , of the Intercession of Saints deceased , of Monkish life and the Calibate ( or unmarried life of Priests ) and that the Practice of Praying for the Dead , of Sacrificing for the Dead , of Praying to Saints , of Going Religiously on Pilgrimage as a part of Divine Worship , that the use of Chrism and of Exteam Vnction , were received in the Church long before this Charles his time , I have already shewed ; That these Doctrines and Practices by the corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome , I have proved before by the unquestionable evidence of Protestant Authors : and whether these Doctrines be true or false , whether these Practices be Superstitious or no , whether or no both the Doctrines and Practices be contrary to the True , Antient , Catholick and Apostolick Church , let the true Protestant judge . If these Doctrines and Practices are not Superstitious , if they have not prevailed by the corruption of time , if they are not contrary to the True , Antient , Catholick and Apostolick Church , then am I under a mistake . But if they are Superstitious , if they have prevailed through the corruption of time , if they are contrary to the True , Antient ▪ Catholick and Apostlick Church , then are they Popish ( according to the Priests own definition 〈…〉 ) and consequently Tythes , so far as he derives their institution from those who were in the belief and use of these Superstitiou● Doctrines 〈◊〉 Practices , had their institution from Popery . But 〈◊〉 this more when I come to Ethelwolfs time .

What hath been said in this place with relation to Charles the Great may opportun●ly also give● check to the Priest's over-bold Assertion in his following words , when he saith , that Before the time of King Ethelwolf , Tythes were settled on the Church in most parts of the Christian World , eve● by Civil and Ecclesiastical Constitutions , as well as Voluntary Donations , &c. pag. 90.

I call this an over-bold Assertion , because , First , I know he herein affirms more by a great deal then he is able to prove ; and Secondly , If he could make such a general settlement appear , yet would not that acquit Tythes from the blemish of a Popish Institution , i● as much as I have proved before , even by the Priests own definition of Popery , that Popery had made her encroachments in the Church before the time of Charles the Great .

§ . 9. Hitherto he has travelled Forraign Countries to seck a Right to Tythes , and has taken muc● pains to little purpose . Now he begins to look Homeward , where I am of Opinion he will speed no better . He had a mind in his way to brand me with ignorance , but he wanted an occasion for it . Where therefore he could not find a way , he resolved ( like the Carthaginian Captain ) to make one . Hereupon he sayes , pag. 91. He perceives all along I 〈◊〉 the very Birth of Tythes in the Year 855. For this Suggestion he has not the least colour of reason . For if the Birth of Tythes were dated ( as he sayes ) in that Year , it was 〈…〉 but 〈…〉 but his Brother 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 them that date , by fixing on Ethelwolf's C●arter for the ground of his Claim to Tythes , which was made in that Year . The Argument was his own , the Method and order of his Discourse was at his o●n choice . Had he designed an elder Birth to Tythes , he might have given them an elder Date if he could . But he thought fit to Date his Claim to Tythes from Ethelwolf's Donation , which , out of Sp●lman , I shewed was made in the Year 855. and thereupon I said ( pag. 2●9 . ) If he had any Charter or Settlement of Tythes of older Date then that of Ethelwolf ( which was about the Year 855. ) he should have produced it , and probably so he would . However , since he did not , I have no reason to think he 〈◊〉 any ●lder . I took the oldest he thought fit to give , and did not take upon my self to Date the Birth of Tythes , but shewed the Reader in what year my Opponent had dated his Cla●m .

● But having liberally bestowed his Brothers ignorance upon me , and thereby got an occasion to insinuate that I am miserably mistaken , he goes about to set forth a more an●ient date of the Birth of Tythes , then that of Ethelwolf's Charter . And fi●st he brings in Flet● the Lawyer expounding the word [ Church-esset ] to signifie a certain measure of Corn which every one of Old gave to the holy Church , about the time of St. Mar●●n ' s Feast , as well in the time of the Brittains as the English ; adding , that it was after called first Fruits . From hence he infers , That by this account , there was a kind of Tythes paid by the Brittains before the co●●ing of Austin .

Pray mark his word [ a kind of Tythes ] he himself it seems for ) all his usual confidence , would not adventure to call it simply Tythes , but a kind of Tythes . What m●ans he by that ? Was this certain measure of Corn the tenth part of the Crop ? he sayes , Every one of Old gave this certain measure of Corn , but doubtless every one had not a Crop of Corn growing . But waving this and his other Conceits of the Saxo● words Ciric-sceat , or Ciric-set signifying the Tribute of the Church , or the Church Seed ; with what else he urges out of Malmsbury , Spelman and Lindenbrogius , concerning first Fruits of Seed , & Tribute of Corn together with the Law he cites of K. Ina commanding the payment of the Caric-sceat on the Feast of St. Martin under a severe penalty ( all which are nothing to the present purpose , unless he could prove that this Church-esset and Caric-sceat were really and properly Tythes , which I deny ) I go on to his next quotation , the Epistle of Boniface to Cuthbert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury , in which he tells me , I shall find Tythes by name . Only by the way , seeing he hath mentioned K. Ina for a Patron of Church Revenues , I desire the Reader to take a little notice of th● corruption and superstition of that Age and Church in which K. Ina lived , and for whose sake he made that Law ▪ He built ( sayes Speed ) the Abbey of Glasenbury , and garnished the Chapp●l thereof with Gold and Silver , and gave rich Ornaments thereto ; as Altar , Chalice , Censer , Candlesticks , Bason and holy Water , Bucket , Images and Pale for the Altar . He instituted also a certain Yearly payment to the See of Rome , known afterwards and challenged by the name of Peter Pence , and casting off at last his Regal Authority , he went to Rome , where in the habit of a Religious man he spent the remainder of his Life . By this the Reader may perceive what Religion K. Ina was of , who besides his other Superstitio●s , was a s●tter up of Images in the Church ; and declared his Communion with the Church of Rome , not only by his Donation to it , but by entring and leading a Monkish life in it ▪ And what the Church of Rome at that time was , in point of Idolatry , is notorious to all that have conversed in the Histories of those times , and observed the great 〈◊〉 occasioned about Images and Image-worship between the Emperors Philippicus & Leo the third on the one hand , and the Popes Constantine , Gregory the second , and Gregory the third , ( under one of whose 〈◊〉 Ina went to Rome ) on the other hand ; the Emperors endeavouring the destruction of Images ; the Popes with the Clergy cls stoutly maintaining and defending them . And under two of these Popes were two Councils called in Rome on purpose to establish Image-worship . Now to his quotation out of Boniface , he sayes , pag. 92. If I desire to have the name of Tythes , as well as the thing , among the Antient Saxons , I may find in the Epistle of Boniface to Cuthbert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury , Anno. 745. That the English Priests in those dayes were maintained by the taking the daily Oblations and Tythes of the faithful .

Hitherto he has found neither the thing nor the name among his Saxon Evidences , but has given only some ill grounded Conjectures that Church-esset and Ciric-sceat might signifie a kind of Tythes . And what he has now found in the Epistle of this Arch-Bishop Boniface , comes much too late to clear Tythes from the blemish of Popish Institution . For if he could prove an Institution of Tythes in this Nation , a general Dedication of Tythes or any positive Law commanding the payment of Tythes here , as early as this Epistle of Boniface ; which yet is far from early in comparison of the earliest dayes of Christianity , yet unless he could also wipe away ( for covering will not se●ve ) those foul Spots and filthy Stains , those gross Corruptions and Superstitions , wherewith the Church was 〈◊〉 that time , and before , miserably polluted and deformed ; all he can say will not acquit Tythes from a Popish Institution , even according to the Notion his Brother Priest has given of Popery . But though through the blind devotion of that Age , some of the most superstitiously Zealous might not improbably give Tythes , yet hath not he given , or met with any Law , Constitution , or Synodal Decree of that time ( of undoubted Credit ) injoyning the payment of Tythes . This very Cuthb●rt , to whom the fore-cited Epistle of Boniface was written , being then Arch-Bishop of Canterbury , called together the Bishops and Prelates , and held a great Synod near a place called Clomesh● , the Decrees of which Synod Iohn Fox hath set down particularly , in his Acts and Monuments of the Church , upon the Year 747. ( in which Year that Synod was held ) But in all those Decrees there is not the least mention of Tythes : No Constitution yet appears , Civil or Ecclesiastical , for the payment of Tythes . And as for Boniface himself , from whose Epistle the Priest would prove the settlement of Tythes in England before Popery , take but the Character that Fox gives of him in the place fore-quoted , and then think as thou canst of him , the Religion and times he lived in . First he taxes him with maintaining superstitious Orders of lascivious Nun● and other Religio●s , and restraining the same from lawful Marriage . Then he adds , For so we find of him in Stories , that he was a great setter up and upholder of such blind Superstition and all Popery . Who being admitted by Pope Gregory the second , Arch-Bishop of Magunce , and indued with full Authority legantine over the Germans , builded Monasteries , Canonized Saints , commanded Relicks to be worshipped , &c. Item ( sayes he ) by the Authority of the said Arch-Bishop Boniface , which he received from Pope Zachary , Childerious King of France was deposed from the right of his Crown , and Pipinus betrayer of his Master was confirmed , &c. From this Boniface ( adds he ) proceeded that detestable Doctrine which now standeth Registred in the Popes Decrees , Dist. 40. Cap. Si papa . which in a certain Epistle of his is this , That in case the Pope were of most filthy living , and forgetful or negligent of himself , and of the whole Christianity , in such sort , that he led innumerable Souls with him to H●ll , yet ought there no man to rebuke him in so doing , for he hath Power to judge all men , and ought of no man to be judged again . Now Reader weigh and consider with thy self what manner of Bishop this Boniface was , what a Religion he profest , what times he lived in , and then tell me whether or no Popery had not made her encroachments in the Church , in the time of this Bishop Boniface .

Next to the Epistle of Boniface before mentioned , the Priest offers a Collection made by Egbert Arch-Bishop of York in the Year , as he says , 750. of all the Cano●s that were made in the Councils before his time , and wh●ch were in force in England ; among which Canons , he sayes , pag. 93. there is frequent mention of Tythes , as particularly in the 4. 5. 99. and 100. The words of the fourth Canon he gives thus , That the People be 〈◊〉 in the right manner of Offering them to Gods Church . The words of the fifth Canon he sets down thus , That the Priest shall take them , and set down the names of those who gave them . There he stops , omitting the rest of that Canon , which in the Latine thus follows , [ et secundum Autoritatem Canonicam coram testibus divi●ant , et ad ornamentum ecclesiae primam eligant partem , secundam autem ad usum pauperum atque peregrinorum per ●or●● manus misericorditer cum omni humilitate dispensent ; terti●● vero sibimet ipsis Sacerdotes reservent . i. e. and according to Canonical Authority shall divide them before Witnesses , and shall chuse the first part for the Ornament of the Church ; The second part they shall with all humility most mercifully distribute with their own hands to the use of the Poor a●d of Strangers ; but the third part the Priests shall keep for themselves . ] I have Transcribed this only to shew the Priest's Craft in concealing it . He would have the benefit of this Canon , he would use the Authority of it to prove his Claim to Tythes ; but he would not have the People understand how and to what uses Tythes were appointed by this Canon to be imployed . How great a charge are the People now at in maintaining the Poor , and in repairing and adorning those Houses which they call Churches , over and above their Tythes to the Priests , whereas this Canon which the Priest urges for the proof of his Claim to Tythes , commands expresly that the Tythes being divided into three parts , two parts of the three should be bestowed upon those publique uses , and the Priests to have but the one third part that remained . But now , alas ! the Priests swollow the whole tenths , the two parts as well as the third ; and the People are fain to make New-Levies to defray those publique charges , from which by this Canon they were to be freed . But be this spoken by the way only . Now to the Canons themselves . He sayes , they were collected by Egbert about the Year 750. but by whom and when were they made ? Doubtless that had been very material , but he has not a Syllable of it , but delivers it in the gross , for a Collection made by Egbert of all the Canons that were made in the Councils before his time , &c. But by what Art did Egbert collect Canons that were not made till after his death ? For that some such are ●n that Collection which bare his name , Selden gives more then probable reasons . First , he sayes , The Authority of the Title must undergo a Censure . Then he adds , Who ever made it , supposed , that Egbert gathered that Law and the rest joyn'd with it out of some former Church-Constitutions , neither doth the name [ Excerptiones ] denote otherwise . But in that Collection some whole Constitutions occur in the same Syllables as they are in the Capitularies of Charles the Great . Of which he instances one , and sayes , There are some others which could not be known to Egbert that died in the last year of Pipin , Father to Charles . How ( sayes he ) came he then by that ? And how may we believe that Egbert was the Author of any part of those Excerptions ? Unless you would excus● it with that use of the middle time● which often inserted into one Body and ●●d●r one name , Laws of different Ages . ( But that excuse will not help , since there would still remain t●e same doubt and ground for jealousie that these Canons about Tythes were made in some of the latter Ages , not in ( much less before ) that which Egbert lived in ) But admit that ( sayes Selden ) yet what is [ Secundum canonicam autoritatem coram tescibus dividant ? ] The Antientest canonica autoritas ( sayes he ) for dividing Tythes before Witnesses , is an old Imperial attributed in some Editions to the leave●th year of the Reign of Charles the Great , being King of France , in others , to the Emperour Luther the first . But refer it to either of them , and it will be divers years later then Egbert's death . And ( adds he ) other mixt Passages there plainly shew , that whose soever the Collection was , much of it was taken out of the Imperial Capitularies , none of which were made in Egbert's time . Perhaps ( sayes he ) the greatness of Egbert's name was the cause why some later Compiler of those Excerptions might so inscribe it , to gain it Authority . And a little lower , he sayes , The heads of a Synod holden in Egbert's time , under King Ethelbald and Cuthbert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury , are yet extant ; but not any express mention is found in them of Tyth●● , although most of the particulars of Church-Government are toucht there . Thus far Selden in his History of Tythes , c. 8. §. 1. whose words I have here set down the more at large , that the Reader may see not only his judgment of this Collection , but the Reasons also , on which his judgment was grounded ; which I doubt not will satisfie the judicious and disinteressed Reader that neither was that Collection of Canons made by Egbert , nor are those Canons themselves of so great Antiquity as the Priest pretends , and would gladly have them taken to be .

To these fore-mentioned Canons , he adds another of the Council of Chalcuth , which he dates in the Year 787. and gives in these words , All men are strictly charged to give Tythes of all that they Posses's , because it is the Troprierty of the Lord God , or th● part that specially belongs to him , pag. 93.

Whether this Canon be genuine or no , is somewhat doubtful . Some Objections lie against it , as the making Renulph , King of West-Saxony , to joyn with Offa in calling the Council , which seems not well to agree with Renulph's time ; and some other variation of Names , which possibly the mistake of Transcribers might occasion . But that which is more material is , that the very Syllables of this Canon are found among some Constitutions made by Odo Arch-Bishop of Canterbury , about 150. Years ●fter the Date of this Canon . See Selden's History of Tythes , c. 8. § . 8. But not to insist on things doubtful , that which I observe is , that this Council ( or Synod rather ) of Chalcuth was held under two Legates ●ent from Rome by Pope Hadrian the first ; which plainly shews both that the Popes Primacy and Authority was before that time received and own'd in England , that this Council was held in Subjection to him , and that the Church of England was then in Communion with the Church of Rome . All which is deduceable from that Epistle written by the said Legates to the Pope , in which giving him a particular Account of the Transactions of that Synod , they have these words , Haec Decreta , beatissime Papa Hadriane , in Concilio publico coram Rege Aelfwaldo & Archiepiscopo Eanbaldo et Omnibus Episcopis et Abbatibus Regionis seu senatoribus Oucibus et Populo Terrae proposumus ; et illi ut superius fati sumus cum om●i devotione menti● juxtapossibilitatem virium suarum , adjurante superna clementia , se in omnibus custodive denovorunt , & signo Sanctae Crucis in vice vestrâ , in manu nostr● confirmaverunt , &c. i. e. These Decrees , most blessed Father Hadrian , WE PROPOSED in the publique Council before K. Aelfwald and Arch-Bishop Eanbald & all the Bishops & Abbots of the Country , as also the Senators , Dukes and People of the Land ; and they with all devotion of mind , as we said before , did Solemnly Promise , that by the help of God's Mercy , they would observe them in all things according to their utmost Ability , and they confirmed them in OUR hand in YOUR STEAD with the sign of the Cross , &c. And a little after , acquainting the Pope that the same Decrees were forthwith carried to the Council held the same time under Offa for the Western part ( for the Legates it seems divided , and went one to Aelfwald in the North , 'tother to Offa in the West ) adds , that upon the reading thereof , Omnes consona voce & alacri animo gratiam referentes Apostolatus vestri admonitionibus , promiserunt , &c. i. e. They all with one voice and chearful mind , returning thanks for the admonitions of YOUR APOSTLESHIP , did Promise , &c. What the Church of Rome at that time was hath been somewhat declared before , and may be more hereafter . But of Pope Adrian himself , who sent those Legates hither , and by whose procurement and Authority that Council was held , take a Character from Iohn Fox in his Book of the Acts and Monuments of the Church , Vol. 1. pag. 117. Adrian the first likewise following ( sayes he ) the steps of his Fore-Fathers the Popes , added and attributed to the veneration of Images more then all the other had done before , writing a Book for the ADORATION and utility proceeding of them , Commanding them to be taken for Lay-mens Kalenders , holding moreover a Synod at Rome against Felix , and all others that spoke against the setting up of such Stocks and Images . Judge now Reader , whether this Council of Chalcuth be a fit instance to prove that Tythes were settled on the Church before Popery had made her Incroachments in it , and that Tythes had not their institution from Popery , when this very Council was held by Legates sent by the Pope on purpose for that end .

§ . 10. Having said what he can from Councils and Canons , he makes a shew as if he would bring forth s●me temporal Laws also for the settlement of Tythe● in England before Ethelwolf's time . His words are these , pag. 94. If it be inquired what Laws our Princes made in this matter : Not to mention all those Charters which from the first beginning of Christianity , do confirm all the Liberties , and all the Revenues of the Church ( among which were Ty●●●s ) we will only note , that Ethelbald King of Mercia , Anno. 794. confirms to all the Clergy of his Kingdom the Liberty which they had out of the Woods , the Fruit of the Ground , and the taking of Fish . And this ( being after that Epistle of the German Boniface , which assured us Tythes were then enjoyed by the Clergy ) must ( he sayes ) be meant of Tythes .

In the former part of these words there is a flourish and a falshood . The flourish in these words [ not to mention all the Charters which from the beginning of Christianity , do ●onfirm , &c. ] what else is this but an empty found of words without matter ? The falshood in these words [ Tythes were among the Revenues of the Church from the first beginning of Christianity ] this ● tax for a down-right falshood , let him clear it as he can . Then for the Donation or Confirmation of Ethelbald : It speaks nothing of Tythes , but discharges the Monasteries and Churches of his Kingdom from publick Taxes , Burdens and Services ( some few excepted ) and then sayes , Let the Servants of God ( it speaks generally , not the Priest● or Clergy only ) have their own liberty in the Fruits of the Woods and Fields , and in taking Fish , that they need not make presents to the King or to the Princes , unless they do it of their own accord , but being free let them serve God , &c. Here 's no mention of Tythes ; and if there had , yet I think the Priest would have been hard bestead to have acquitted them by this Donation from a Popish Institution , or to have proved this Charter made before Popery had made her encroachments in the Church ; especially if we consider that Fox in his Book of Martyrs , gives this very Charter as an instance of the Popish blindness of that Age. His words ( speaking of them that builded & endowed Churches , Monasteries , Abbies , &c. ) are these , The cause and end of their Deeds and Buildings cannot be excused , being contrary to the Rule of Christ's Gospel , for so much as they did these things seeking thereby Merits with God , and for remedy of their Souls , and remission of their Sins , as may appear testified in their own Records , whereof one here I thought to set forth for probation of the same . Then he sets down this very Charter of Ethelbald , and after adds , By the Contents hereof may well be understood ( as where he saith , Pro amore celestis Petriae , pro remedio anime , pro liberatione anim● , et absolutione delictorum , &c. i. e. For the love of the Heavenly Country , for the remedy of my Soul , for the deliverance of my Soul , and pardon of my Sins , &c. ) how great the ignorance and blindness of these men was , who lacking no Zeal , only lacked Knowledge to rule it withal : Seeking their Salvation not by Christ only , but by their own deservings and meritorious Deeds . Thus far Fox in his Acts and Monuments of the Church , Vol. 1. l. 2. toward the end . From which the Reader may observe how contrary his Opinion of those times was to this Priest , who brings the very same Charter for proof that Tythes were settled on the Church before Popery had made her encroachments in it , which Fox gave as an i●stance of Popish blindness and ignorance . And besides the general corruption of that time , The Author of this Charter Ethelbald himself was a lewd and vitious person . Speed in his Chronicle , pag. 254. calls him A most lascivious Adulterer , and the Arch-Bishop of Ment● in an Epistle to him , taxes him with wallowing in Luxury and Adultery with Nuns .

To this Ethelbald , the Priest ●oyns K. Offa , who he sayes in the Year 793. did give the tenth of all he had to the C●urch .

Why did he not add the occasion of this Gift ? Was he as●amed of it ? so let him then be of the gift too . It was a most ex●●rable . Murder , agg●a●ated with the violation of Hospitality . T●e Story Fox sets down out of Ior●alensis and Malmsbury , to this effect ; Ethelbert , King of Eastangles came to the Court of Offa with a Princely Train to sue for his Daughter in Marriage , Offa's Queen suspecting Ethelbert had some other design , perswaded her Husband to kill him : Offa thereupon the next day caused him to be trained into his Palace alone from his Company by one called Guimbertus , who took him and bound him , and there struck off his Head , which forth-with he presented to the King and Queen — Offa length understanding the Innocency of thus King , and the heinous Cruelty of the Fact , gave the tenth part of his Goods to holy Church , and to the Church of Hereford , in remembrance of this Ethelbert , he bestowed great Lands — and afterwards went up to Rome for his Pennance , where he gave to the Church of St. Peter a Penny through every House in his Dominion — and there at length was translated from a King to a Monk , Martyrol . vol. 1. pag. 117. Here now we see the cause of this Gift was a most barbarous Murder , and the Gift the price of innocent Blood . Yet this Gift of Offa's was but particular , the tenth of his own Goods , not a general act , nor find we that he made any Law to compel others to do the like . But the Priest urges that this Offa had with all his Clergy condemned the adoration of Images , and so was no Idolater . That he and all his Clergy did condemn the adoration of Images , is more I think then the Priest can prove ; but suppose that , doth it therefore follow that he was no Idolater ? Is nothing then Idolatry but worshipping of Images ? What 's the praying to Saints ? What 's the worshipping of Relicks ? Will the Priest say that Offa and all his Clergy had condemned this also . Hee 'l say perhaps he was no Papist neither . What went he up to Rome for ? What made him so observant and bountiful to the Pope ? What made him before receive the Popes Legates ? are not these plain Arguments of his communion with the Church of Rome , in which besides all other Idolatries , the adoration of Images was then most zealously maintained ?

From Offa's Gift he takes a step of about sixty Years to Ethelwolf's Charter , finding nothing in the way to countenance Tythes . Now before we enter upon Ethelwolf's Charter , I intreat thee Reader to cast thy Eye a little back , and take a short Review of the ●uthorities he has urged to prove the settlement of Tythes in England before Ethelw●lf's time . His first out of Fl●ta has nothing of Tythes . His second of Ina has nothing of Tythes . His third of Boniface proves not any settlement of Tythes , nor that the Priests were maintained by Tythes ; but only that they did receive Tythes of such as did freely offer them . His fourth of Egberts Coll●ction of Canons , is proved by Selden not to be Collected by Egbert , but by some other of later times . His fifth of a Canon of the Council of Chalcuth is by Selden upon reasonable grounds suspected to be a Constitution of Odo Arch-Bishop of Canterbury , above a Hundred Years after Ethelwolf's time . His sixth of E●helbald's grant speaks nothing a● all of Tythes . His seventh and last of Offa was not any general settlement , but a particular 〈◊〉 of the tenth of his own Goods . So that amongst all these there is not any one positive Law , Ecclesiastical or Civil , undoubtedly genuine , and certainly made within the time pretended , that expresly commands the payment of Tythes , or clearly declares that Tythes in those times were generally and constantly paid . Then for the qualifications of the Persons by whom he fains Tythes were settled , one was A setter up of Images in the Church ; another , A lascivious Adulterer ; a third , A treacherous and cruel Murderer , and all superstitiously devoted to the Idolatrous Church of Rome . All which due●y considered , what advantage I pray has he got at last ? What additional strength has he gained ? What further discovery has he made ? What antienter evidenc● has he found ? What 〈◊〉 authentick Charter has he produced for the settlement of Tythes on the English Church , then that of Ethelwolf ? Where 's now his great b●ast of Antiquity , and his vaunt of the early settlement of Tythes ? when after so long a search , and narrow a scruting among all the old Records he could find , he is able at length to shew no Charter for the settlement of Tythes in England , of elder date then that of Ethelwolf , in the Year 855. nor any Conciliary Canon for the payment of any tolerable reputation , save that of Chalcu●h in the Year 789. ( if at least that may be reputed tolerable ) which was held and governed by the Legates of Pope Adrian ( a stout maintainer of Image-worship , and so in the Priest's own Notio● an Idolater ) sent hither from Rome on purpose .

§ . 11. Now come we after this far-fetcht ●ompass to K. Ethelwolf's Charter at last , which the former Priest had the wit to begin with at first , and not trouble himself with a fruitless search after what was not to be found , as this wise man has done to little purpose . The occasion of the Donation he tells us , pag. 96. was the Danish Invasions , which made K. Ethelwolf co●sult hi● ( lergy and Nobles , by what means they might best avert the anger of God , &c. Whereupon ( he sayes ) it was by general consent there determined , That the Tythes throughout all England should be granted to God and the Church .

He said in the page next before , That K. Ethelwolf in this Donation doth rather confirm the right of Tythes , then Originally make them due . Here he sayes it was determined that Tythes throughout all England should be granted , &c. Which of these must stand ? Was it a Grant or a Confirmation ? Were Tythes throughout all England granted before ? what need had there then been of a Grant now ? Were Tythes throughout all England not granted before ? what was there then for K. Ethelwolf to confirm ? This hangs not well together . But I observe his eager desire to say enough , causes him sometimes to say too much .

I expected now we should have forth-with entred upon the Examination of this Donation . But , whatever the matter is , he interposes another Section , to sup●ly ( as it seems ) the defects of the Charter . Thus he begins it , pag. 97. But lest there should be any defect in this Charter we will shew how it hath been confirmed since in all Ages . Hereupon he takes occasion to mention Allured and Guthrum , Edward the Elder , Ath●lston , Edmund , Edger , Canute and Edward the Confessor . All which he might very well have sp●red ; the question not being how late Tythes were settled , but how early ? for if Ethelwolf's Donation be inpugned as Popish , I think he takes but an indirect course to Vindicat● that by instancing others more apparently Popish then it self . Yet as if he had no sense of this he runs on not only to , but through the Norman Conquest , as far as the time of the Reformation , and out of Spelman conclude● , These Grants had been ratified in thirty nine several great Councils and Parliaments before the Reformation . But of whom I pray did those Councils consist before the Reformation ? Were they not the Popish Clergy , the very same ( or of the same ) that drank the Blood of so many godly Martyrs , and Decreed Tythes to themselves ?

Here he takes occasion to touch again upon his Old string of Divine Right , & Tythes being Originally due to God , &c. pag. 99. Which because I would not ( like him ) be ●ound alwayes singing the same Song , I forbear to reply to , referring the Reader to what hath been already said in Answer thereunto in the former part of this Discourse upon his first Period . But there is another Passage in this Section , pag. 99. which I am not willing to pretermit . Amongst other great things which he speaks of this Donation , on● is , T●at the benefit thereof hath been enjoyed for eight hundred Years by those to whom the Donation was made . For this I confess I am beholding to him . He has helped me to a notable Medium to prove what sort of Priests this Donation was made to , by assuring me it was made to them , who for so long a time enjoyed the Benefit of it ; which is a Characte● not at all applicable to the present English Clergy , nor to any other so aptly as to the Popish Priests , who injoyed the benefit of it by far the longest of any . Though considering the date of the Charter and the time of Reformation ( between which scarce full seven hundred Years did intervene ) I see not how the Popish Priests neither can be said to have enjoyed the benefit of that Donation for eight hundred Years , unless he intend that he and his Brethren are fundamentally and in the ground a part of the same Priesthood with them , though in some min●ter Circumstances disagreeing ; and so would reckon the benefit of this Donation to have been enjoyed for eight hundred Years by those and these in common . But then he should consider , that this infers the Donation to be made to those and these in common , the consequence of which will be , that these and they are Ministers of Christ a like . But because this Passage seems somewha● anigmatical , if I have not fully reacht his sense , I desire he will explain it in his next . Meanwhile I go on to his next Section , in which he notes three general Exceptions that I take at this Charter of Ethelwolf , which in so many Sections he intends I perceive to avoid rather then Answer .

§ . 12. My first exception , he sayes , is in respect of the Author of that Charter , pag. 289. And here , he sayes , I affirm K. Ethelwolf was a Papist .

I not only affirmed , but proved it from History , and gave such demonstrations of it as he chose rather to over-look then answer . It had become him to have shewed ( if he could ) that the instances I gave of Ethelwolf's being a Papist , were either not true , or not conclusive . But he has not so much as attempted either of these . I shewed from good authority that Ethelwolf was bred a Monk , took upon him the Vow of single Life according to the prof●ssion of that Order , was aft●rward ●●de Deacon and Bishop in the then Clergy , but upon the Death of his Father , was in order to th● Civil Government , absolved of his Vows by Pope Gregory the fourth , went himself in great Devotion to Rome , confirmed his former grant of Peter-pence to the 〈◊〉 obliged himself further to the Yearly payment of three Hundred Marks to Rome , wh●reof two Hundred were appointed by him to buy Oyl to keep all the Lamps burning in St. Peters and St. Pauls Churches at Rome , and the other Hundred Marks was a Yearly present to the Pope , and that he was the Pope's Creature .

All this spoken of Ethelwolf particularly , the Priest passes silently over , without the least touch or note ; and as one that is ashamed to confess , and afraid to deny , he puts me off with this sorry shift , pag. 100. If T. E. had known what gives a man the just denomination of a Papist , he would not have discoursed so absurdly .

What a pittiful come off is this ! Is this like a Disputant ? W●y did he not take up the discourse , and lay open the absurdity of it ? Would a man of his scantling of understanding and discretion let slip so fair an advan●age ? Who could have thought it ! Well , that discourse however , absurd or not , remains una●swered , and the instances there g●ven to prove Ethelwolf a Papist are not disproved , or any way removed by the Priest . He tells us , it is not every one that agrees in some Opinions with the Roman Church , wh● is a Papist ; since then all Christians in the World would be Papists , ibid.

But what 's this to the purpo●e ? is not this another device to avoid the matter ? Are the Instances I gave of Ethelwolf's being a Papist common to all Christians as well as Papists ? 'T is true indeed , there are some Tenents common to Papists and all Christians , as that there is a God , that Christ is come , and hath suffered for Mankind , &c. But are those things mentioned before of Ethelwolf of the Nature of these ? are they received in common by all Christian , as well as by Papists ? Let me come a little nearer him . He reckons himself not only a Christian , but a Minister of Christ also ; Is what is related before of Ethelwolf consistent with his Christianity ? If not , why does he thus abuse both his Reader and me , by suggesting that what I there spake of Ethelwolf is agreeable to all Christian , as well as Papists . But if what is spoken before of Ethe●wolf be not agreeable to all Christians , but to Papists only , I hope it will be sufficient proof that Eth●lwolf was a Papist .

Having said who is not a Papist , he now gives us the definition of a Papist thus , He is a Papist who professes himself a Member of the Roman Church , and acknowledges the ●opes Suprema●y , believing all the Articles of the Roman Church ' s Faith , p. 101.

This definition would exclude a great number of profest Papists from being Papists ; for many that have lived and dyed in the profession of that Religion , and in communion with the Roman Church , did not believe all the Articles of the Roman Church's Faith . Most notorious are the Controversies which for many Ages have been maintained amongst the Religious Orders of that Church , one sort most hotly and violently impugning the Faith and Opinions of the other , yet all Papists . So that to the constituting a Papist it is not of absolute necessity that he believes all the Articles of the Roman Church's Faith . But if he profess himself a Member of that Church , and be in communion with it , that 's enough to denote him a Papist . The other Priest in his Friendly Conference , pag. 149. gave his Parishioner a Definition of Popery ; his words are these , I cannot give you a more brief and true account of Popery then this , That it is such Doctrines and superstitious Practices , which by the corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome , contrary to the true , ancie●t , catholick and apostolick Church . Now if this be a true account of Popery , and so true an one that he cannot , as he sayes , give a more true ; what truer account then can be given of a Papist then to say , he is a Papist that holds such Doctrines and su●erstitious Practices , &c. Or , he is a Papist that holds Popery : But Popery is such Doctrines and superstitious Practices , which by the Corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome , contrary to the true , ancient , catholick and apostolick Church . Therefore he that holds such Doctrines and superstitious Practices , which by the corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome , contrary to the true , ancient , catholick and apostolick Church , is a Papist . Now let us measure Ethelwolf by the Priests definition of Popery , and see how far Ethelwolf will fall short of being a Papist . That Ethelwolf held the Doctrine of the Caelibate , or single life of Priests , is clear from his taking upon him the Vow of Single Life when he entred his Monkish Order . He held the Doctrine that the Pope had po●er to absolve and release him from his Vows , and accordingly received an Absolution from the Pope . He held the practice of burning Lamps continually day and night in the houses they called Churches , and accordingly gave two hundred Marks a year to buy Oyl to feed the Lamps in two of those Churches , and that in Rome . Now if these Doctrines and Practices were superstitious ; if they were such as by the corruption of time prevailed in the Church of Rome ; if they were contrary to the true , ancient , catholick and apostolick Church ( which none I think but a Papist will deny ) then according to the Priest's Definition they are Popery , and consequently Ethelwolf in holding them was a Papist .

But the Priest sayes , King Ethelwolf did never profess himself a Member of the Roman Church , ibid.

Is not this strange ! What made him then seek Absolution of his Vows from the Pope ? What caused him to go in such great Devotion to Rome ? What moved him to give two hundred Marks a year to maintain the Lamp-Religion of the Ro●an Church ? What induced him to settle a hundred 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 upon the Pope ? What led him to re-build the English School ●n Rome , ●ounded at first by 〈◊〉 , for a Seminary to train up the English Youth in the ●eligion of the R●man C●urch ? And how I wonder ●as he the ●opes Creature ( as in History i● recorded of him ) if he never profest himself a M●mber of the Roman Church ?

He adds , that Ethelwolf and his Succ●ssors were Vicarius Christ , o●ning no Supre●m in their K●ngdom● but Christ , ibid.

Certain it is , that the Popes Supremacy was received long before Ethelwolf's time . Perkins against 〈◊〉 acknowledges , it begun openly and 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 , Anno ●●7 . which was near two hun●●ed and fi●●y years before the Charter of 〈◊〉 for Tythes ; and ●e quot●s S●gebert upon the year ●07 . thus , Boniface obtained of the Emperor 〈…〉 t●e Church of Rome should be the H●ad of all Churches . T●is was within a few years after Austin's coming from Rome hither , and planting the ●oman Religion here . From which time , for the space of well-●igh a hundred years , all the Arch-Bishops of C●nterbury , seven in number succ●ssiv●ly , were Italians and Forreigners , as Fox notes in his Martyrology , vol. 1. pag. 121. shewing ●articularly in one of them , Theodorus by Name , that he was sent into England by Vitellianus the Pope , to be Arch-Bishop of Canterbury , whereupon this Theodorus took upon him the placing and displacing the Bishops at his Pleasure . He turned out Cedda and Wilfride the Arch-Bishops of York , under Pretence they were not lawfully consecrated , notwithstanding ( says Fox ) they were sufficiently authorized by their Kings . Wilfride hereupon went to Rome to complain ( but without redress ) Why did he not complain to his King , if he was accounted Vi●arius Christi ? Why made he his application to the Pope , if the Pope's Supremacy was not then owned ? Besides , if Ethelwolf and his Successors were Vicarij Christi , owning no Supream in their Kingdoms but Christ ; how came it that they subjected themselves and their Kingdoms to the See of Rome , making them tributary to the Pope by the yearly payment of Rome scot or Peter - 〈◊〉 , which was a 〈◊〉 Tax laid upon every House in England , and paid to the Popes Treasury at Rome ?

H● adds further , T●at Ethelwolf did not hold all the Opinions of the Church of Rome , and therefore was no Papist , p. 101.

That Ethelwolf was a Papist , according to the account which the other Priest gives of Popery ( which he says is the t●uest Account he can give of it ) I have proved before . That the holding every Opinion of the Church of Rome , is absolutely necessary to the denominating a Papist , I deny . A great part of the professed Papists do not hold all the Opinions of the Church of Rome . His Consequence therefore is false , although he should prove his Proposition . Suppose a man hold Purgatory , Indulgences , praying to Saints , worshipping of Saints , praying for the Dead , sacrificing for the Dead , worshipping of Relicks , Auricular Confession , ●ennance , Absolution , Pilgrimages , Single Life of Priests , Latin Services , Masses , Merits , and abundance more of such like Romish Ware ; shall this man be denyed to be a Papist because he holds not every particular of the Church of Rome ? How absu●d were that ? Verily I cannot see what should induce this Priest thus to argue , unless he should have apprehension , that the account which his Brother Priest has given of Popery , will take in him and his Brethren too , as holding such Doctrines and superstitious Practices , which by the corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome , contrary to the true , ancient , catholick and apostolick Church ; and has therefore to secure himself from the Imputation of Popery , invented this new Definition of a Papist .

But when he cannot clear Ethelwolf from being a Papist , he atttempts to justifie his Donation of Tythes though a Papist , and therefore sayes , pag. 101. If we should grant — that Ethelwolf was a Papist , yet neither would that make his Donation of Tythes void ; for an erroneous Opinion in the person who doth a thing good in it self ( as we have proved Tythes to be ) doth not make the Act void .

How lightly doth he speak of Popery ! how willing he is to extenuate it ! An erroneous Opi●ion ! It seems then Popery in his Opinion , is but an erroneous Opinion . I alwayes thought Popery had been at least one degree worse then a bare Erroneous Opinion . But suppose it for the present to be but an erroneous Opinion ; yet may not an erroneous Opinion be sufficient to make void an Act which flows from that Erroneous Opinion , and is designed to uphold that Erroneous Opinion , as this Donation of Tythes did ? The Opinion which was the cause of this Donation was this , That this Gift would be a means to appease the Anger of God , obtain remission of Sins and Salvation of his Soul . This was ( to say on more of it ) a very erroneous Opinion , and from this erroneous Opinion did spring the Donation of Tythes . Now this Opinion ( which was the cause ) being thrown aside and rejected , the Donation ( which was the Effect ) is void of it self ; according to that known Maxim Sublata Causâ tollitur effectus ; i. e. When the Cause is taken away , the Effect is taken away also . Nor was this Donation Erroneously grounded in respect only of the Remission and Salvation expected by it ; but also in respect of the Person● to whom , and the Service for which it was given . They to whom Tythes were then given , were not the Ministers of Christ , but his E●emies ; and that Religion which Tythes w●●e given to support , was not the true undefiled Religion and uncorrupted Worship of God , but the false corrupted Religion and Worship of the degenerate Church of Rome . Wha● he sayes of the Act or thing being good in it self , hath no place here , unless he could as really prove , as readily say , that Tythes are good in themselves : How Tythes or Tenths are good in themselves , any more then Ninths , Eights , Sevenths , or any other number , I confess I do not understand .

But sayes he , pag. 101. If all the good acts of Papists ( in the true sense ) and all their Charters and Donations be void , meerly because ●ade and done by Papists ; then all the Charters of our Kings , all the endowments of Hosp●●als and Schools , Magna Charta , and all publick Acts for some Hundreds of Years before K. Henry the eighth , would be void : Which Principle ( sayes he ) would destroy the Maintenance of the Poor , the Priviledges of Cities , and the Freedom of all English Subjects . ( With him in this part agrees the other Priest in his Vindication , pag. 303. urging for instance Magna Charta , to both which one and the same Answer may serve . )

This is all grounded upon a mistake , ●nd I doubt a wilfull one too . His interest diswades him from distinguishing , as he ought , between Religious and Civil Acts. What the Papists did as men , as Members of a Body Politick is one thing ; what they did as Christians , as Members of a Religious Society is another . Though in their Religious capacity they were wrong , yet in their civil capacity they were right ? they were really men ; they were truly Members of the Political Body , though they were not truly Members of the Body of Christ , their Kings were true Kings , their Parliaments were true Parliaments , their Civil Government , a true Government , though their Church was not the true Church . The making void therefore this Charter of Tythes , which had direct Relation to their Religion , and was designed to su●port their Church and Worship , which was false , doth not at all shake , much less overthrow those civil Acts , Laws , Charters and Priviledges , which in a civil capacity , as Members of the Body politick , and with relation to the civil Government , which was true , were made or enacted by them . He grounds his Thesis on a false Hypothesi● , when he sayes , If all the good Acts of Papists ( in the true sense ) and all their Charters and Do●ations be void , meerly because made and done by Papists , &c. For I do not say that all the good Acts of Papists ( in the true sense ) are void ; but I say that th●s Act ( the Donation of Tythes ) was not a good Act , being given to maintain that Ministry which was not the true Ministry of Christ , but a false M●nistry , and to uphol● that Worship which was not the true Worship of God , but a false Worship . Nor were all their Charters and Donations void . meerly becau●e made and done by Papist ; but this Charter of Tythes is therefore void , because made to support and sustain a Religion and Worship by which God was dishonoured . So that I impugne not all the good Acts of Papists , meerly because done by Papists ( nor indeed any good Act of theirs in the true sense ) neither seek I to evacuate all their Charters and Donations ( or indeed any of them ) meerly because made by Papists : but I impugne this Donation and Charter of Tythes , as an evil Act , proceeding from the erroneous , unsound and corrupt judgment of Papists , and tending to uphold and maintain an erroneo●● , unsound and corrupt Religion and Worship . Safe then and sound may all the good acts of Papists in the true sense , all their civil and political Acts , Laws , Charters , Grants and Donations , the maintenance of the Poor , the Priviledge● of Cities , and the Freedom of all English Subjects , stand and remain inviolate and untoucht , notwithstanding the enervation of this Charter for Tythes .

§ . 13. The second Objection which he offers in my Nam● is this , That Tythes were given to maintain th● Popish Clergy . This he sayes is a mistake , pag. 102. for sayes he , It was for the Maintenance of the English Clergy , who had a Patriarch of their own in those dayes , and were a Church of themselves , not holding all the Opinions of the Roman Church , nor professing any Canonical obedience to the Pope — and therefore they cannot justly be called a Popish Clergy .

That Tythes were given to maintain the English Clergy is not doubted . But what then ? Does their being an English Clergy acquit them from being a Popish Clergy ? Cannot an English Clergy be Popish ? I wish with all my Heart it could not . But what I pray was that Clergy that drank such great Draughts of Protestant Blood in Q. Mary's time ? was it not both English and Popish . Since then an English Clergy has been Popish , now vain a shift is it in him to say Tythes were not given to maintain the Popish Clergy , because they were given to maintain the English Clergy . But this English Clergy had ( he sayes ) in those dayes ( of Ethelwolf ) a Patriarch of their own . Had they so ? How much was Ethelwolf then overseen in sending to Pope Gregory for absolution from his Vows , when he might as well have had it from his own Patriarch at home ▪ What was the matter ? was the Patriarch busie , or out of the way , or did not Ethelwolf know there was one . But who I pray was Patriarch in his time ? what was his Name ? When began the Patriarc● at of England , and how long stood it ? Out of what Legend I wonder did the Priest take this Fable , that he quotes no Authority for it . This Patriarch doubtless must be a man of a very soft and easie temper , to let the Pope send over his 〈◊〉 hither to be Arch-Bishops of canterbury , the chief Se●t of his Patriarchat ; and send his ●egats hither to call and govern Councils . And when Th●odor●s the Italian Arch-Bishop of Canterbury took upon him to displace Wilfride Arch-Bishop of York , was not Wilfride very much to blame to neglect his own Patriarch , and go to Rome to complain to the Pope ? What Patr●arch alive , but a very good natured Man would ha●e endured all this ? But I am partly of the Opinio● , when it comes to the upshot , we shall find no other Patriarch of England but the Pope , ( or some Deputy of his ) who being in the time of the Council at Nice , one of the four Patriarchs of the Christian World ( as it was then called ) took in these Western parts into his Patriarchat . And when Gregory Bishop of Rome dispenced with the English in the case of Degrees prohibited , he did it ( sayes Perkins ) as Patriarch , Problem . pag. 204. Whence it appears that England was then subject to the Patriarch of Rome , which it would not have been , if it had had a Patriarch of its own .

He adds , They were a Church of themselves , not holding all the Opinions of the Roman Church , nor professing any Canonical obedience to the Pope . What he means by their being a Church of themselves I understand not . They were such a Church of themselves , as the Pope sent his Creatures to be Arch-Bishops in . They were such a Church of themselves , as whose Councils the Pope sent his Legats to govern . They were such a Church of themselves as in case of grievance had recourse to the Pope for redress . And for the Opinions of the Roman Church , that they held them all , I will not say , but I dare affirm they held enough to justly denominate them a Popish Clergy . Whateve● the Opinions of the Church of Rome then were , that th●se were in Communion with that Church is notorious , and that some time before Eth●lwolf , Pope Vitellianus sent Theodorus over into England and divers Monks of Italy with him , to set up here in England Latine Service , Masses , Ceremonies , Letanies , and such other Romish Ware , &c. if Fox and his Testimony may be taken , whose very words these are , Martyrol . vol. 1. pag. 112. And what Observance they paid to the Pope may be not only gathered from that passage in Arch-Bishop Wilfride's address to the Pope , wherein speaking of Th●odore by whom he was turned out , he sayes , Quem quidem , pro eo quod abhac Apostolicae sedis summitate directus est , accusare non aude● . i. e. Whom in as much as he hath been directed by this high Apostolical See , I dare not accuse . And from Rainolds De Rom. Eccles. Idolatria . Where in his Epistle pag. 13. He tells the English Semi●aries , that about the Year 800. the King of England Revere●cing the Pope as St. Peters Vicar , gave him Yearly a Penny out of every Family , &c. But also most plainly concluded from the words of Florilegus , cited by Camden in his Brittania , pag. 411. where mentioning divers Priviledges of the Monastery of St. Albanes , founded by K. Offa , and endowed by him and his Successors , he giveth this for one , that The Abbat or Monk appointed Arch-Deacon under him , hath pontifical Jurisdiction over the Priests and Lay-men , of all the Possessions belonging to this Church , so as he yieldeth subjection to no Arch-Bishop , Bishop or Legate , save only to the Pope of Rome . To the Pope of Rome then it appears , this Abbat , notwithstanding all hi● Priviledges , did yield subj●ction : How much more then did the rest of the Clergy , who were not priviledged as he was , yield obedience to the Pope ! The same Author there likewise adds , That Offa the magnificent King granted out of his Kingdom a set Rent or Imposition , called Rome-scot to St. Peter's Vicar , the Bishop of Rome , and himself obtained of the said Bishop of Rome , that the Church of St. Albane , the Protomartyr of the English Nation , might faithfully collect and reserve to their own use the same Rome-scot throughout all the Province of Hertford , &c. We s●e now what respect , what regard , what obs●rvance , what veneration , what subj●ction and obedience was used towards the Popes of Rome by the Kings and Clergy of England , even before Ethelwolf's time ; much more was it increased afterwards , as times grew worse , and Popes higher . That the Church of Rome was then idolatrous , and that grosly too in the Worship of Images , I have shewed before ; as also , that divers Monks were sent into England by the Pope , to set up their Latin Service , Masses , Letanies , Ceremonies , and other Romish Ware here . That this Romish Ware was set up here cannot be doubted , since Theodore ( one of those Monks which the Pope thus sent ) was made Arch-Bishop of Canterbury . From all which let the Reader judge whether the Clergy of those times was Popish or no.

But if they were , 't is much alike for ought I se● to the Priest ; For he says , pag. 102. Suppose again the Saxon Priests had been Papists , that would not have made the Donation of Tythes invalid , because Tythes are God's Right , and the Grant was intended to God .

So that how bad soever the Clergy was to whom Tythes were given , 't is all one , the Donation ( if he may have his will ) must stand . But why ? Because , says he , Tythes are God's Right ?

But how come Tythes or Tenths to be Gods Right more then Nineths or Eighths ? He begs the Question , on , and gives it for proof .

He adds , The Grant was intended to God .

He said himself but a few Lines before , It was for the Maintenance of the English Clergy , using the words of Ingulf , [ Universam dotaverat Ecclesiam Anglicanam ; i. e. He endowed the whole Church of England . ] But suppose the Grant intended to God , must all Grants stand then that were intended to God ? A notable way indeed to revive all the old Grants and Donations , which in the thickest Darkness of Popish Ignorance were by blind Zeal and superstitious Devotion given to Holy Church ( as they called it ) and intended to God .

But what thinkest thou , Reader , makes this Priest play the Advocate thus for God , and stickle so hard for God's part ? is it his Care for God , or his Love to himself ? thou shalt see anon the Reason . He intends to make himself God's Receiver , and therefore no wonder if he talk so much of God's part .

But he sayes , The Clergy of that Ag● were God's only publick Ministers .

It seems then he can be content to call the Popish Clergy God's publick Ministers : but I hope he sees the consequent , that then th● popish Church was God's publick Church , and the popish Worship Gods publick Worship also ; and where then was the Church , Worship and Ministry of Antichrist , so much cry'd out against by God's Confessors and holy Witnesses in almost every Age ? Were they the publick Ministers of God who believed and held the Doctrine of Purgatory , of praying for the Dead , of sacrificing for the Dead , of praying to Saints , of worshipping Relicks , of Auricular Confession , of Pilgrimages , of Consecrations of Water , Oyl , Salt , Crism , of Latin Servic● , Masses , Letanies , and other Ceremonies of the Church of Rome . By this , Reader , thou mayst guess what a kind of Minister he himself is .

He adds , The Donors supposed them a good Ministry , and as such endowed them ; for they esteemed them to be God's Receivers , p. 103.

There 's no doubt but the Donors supposed them a good Ministry ; but that Supposition doth neither make nor prove them so . And seeing they were not what the Donors supposed them to be , there is no reason why that Donation should stand , which was made upon such a mistake , and without which it had not been made . For it cannot be supposed the Don●●s would have made such a Donation , had they not by Mistake supposed that Ministry ( to which they made it ) to be what it was not : and Reason would , that what was done upon a mistaken Supposition , should , when the Mistake appears , be ●oid ▪ But if all that has been given upon wrong Suppositions must stand , his Office of Receiver may in time grow very considerable : for , not here to mention all other popish Gifts , what does he imagine the Turks think of their Priests ? Do not they suppose them to be a good Ministry , and as such endow them ? Do not they esteem them to be God's Receivers ? Whatever Donations then amongst them have been made , or shall be , upon this Supposition , shall be valid and in force , according to his Argument , in succeeding Ages ; and if ever the Turks should be prevailed upon to assume the Name and Profession of Christianity ( though otherwise sufficiently erroneous and corrupt ) this Priest stands ready to be the Receiver of what was given to the Turkish Priests , up on the same Reasons by which he claims what was given to the popish Priest , viz , That the Don●rs supposed them to be a good Ministry , and as such endowed them ; that they esteemed them to be God's Receivers ; that the Grant was intended to God ; that if there had been a Fault in the least , that would not prejudice the Masters Title ; and that if they had been a Turkish Clergy , and forfeited their own Right , they could not forfeit his . The other Priest one may see has the Office in his Eye already ; for he says , Suppose the Turkish Empire ( through God's Mercy ) should be converted to Christianity , may not the Muffti himself , and those whom T. E. calls Emaums ( which are the Turkish Priests ) together with all the Mosche ( which are their Temples ) and Reven●es now belonging to them , be reconsecrated to Christianity ? Vindic. pag. 314. Judge now , Reader , whether with these men all be not Fish that come to Net ; and whether it is likely they would stick at any thing that is like to be gainful , who have already contrived a Reconsecration of the Turkish Priests Revenues .

But to go on ; The Author of the Right of Tythes pursues his Argument to the same purpose again , pag. 104. ( sayes he of Ethelwolf 's Clergy ) If they were erroneous , neither Prince nor People knew it ; and they did not give these to maintain their Errors , but to maintain that which they believed to be a good Ministry , and the true Worship of God ; and therefore the Donation remains good .

May not all this be said of the worst state of the Roman Church ? nay , may it not be said of the very Turk ( whom I mention not for comparison , but illustration sake ) Does either Prince or People know that their Priests are erroneous ? or do they endow them to maintain their Errors ? nay , do they not give their Endowments to maintain that which they believe to be a good Ministry , and the true Worship of God ? But must those Endowments therefore remain good , and Christian Ministers claim and exact them !

He adds further , That though that Clergy were erroneous , yet Ethelwolf ought to have given them God's du● , and the people ought to have paid it to them , which he a●gues as examples from the Example of the Iewish Priests , who though very erroneous , had a Right to T●thes .

But is it as certain , that the popish Clergy in Ethelwolf's time was chosen and ordained by God , as the Iewish Priests were ? And is it as certain , that Tythes were appointed by Christ for the Maintenance o● Christian Ministers , as it is that they were appointed by God for the Maintenance of the Iewish Priests ? He might d● well to observe a Difference between the states of Law and Gospel . God then chose that whole Nation to be his peculiar People : hath he ever chose a whole Nation to be his peculiar People since ? Nay , Hath he not chose himself a peculiar People out of all Nations , Kindreds , Tongues and Peoples , picking here one and there one , one of a Tribe and two of a Family ? Out of that People he separated one entire Tribe to the service of the Tabernacle , who in a natural and lineal Succession were appointed to carry on and continue that Priesthood to the end of that Polity : but under the Gospel it is not so . His Argument therefore from the Example of the Iewish Priests will not hold . But if Ethelwolf and the People ought to have given and paid Tythes as God's Due to that Clergy , though ●rroneous , then surely he and they were unjust in not giving them sooner , and so were also his Predecessors : for , if as God's Due they ought to have given them at all , they ought then to have given them from the first , and upon that Supposition were guilty of Sacriledge in detaining them , which the Priest it may be did not fore-see when he called Ethelwolf a Religious and Mild Prince , pag. 95. a Good King , pag. 107. and the Clergy's B●nefactor , pag. 109. But to what end doth he argue the validity of the Donotion from the ignorance of the Donors , saying , If the Clergy were erroneous , neither Prince nor People knew it , &c. seeing it had been all one if they had known it . For if Ethelwolf ought to have given Tythes to that Clergy , & the people ought to have paid them , though that Clergy were erroneous , what odds had there been if both Prince and People had known them to be erroneous ? They must it seems have given and paid them Tythes howev●r . How ill do these two periods agree ! In the first he says , Though that Cl●rgy were erroneous , yet Ethelwolf ought to have given them God's Due , and the people ought to have paid it to them . In the second he says , The Donation is therefore good , because if they were erronious , neither Prin●e nor People knew it . Thus one while , their ignorance of the Clergy's Errors , and belief that they were a good Ministry , makes the Donation of Tythes to them good . Another while , though they were erroneous , yet the Prince ought to give them , and the people ought to pay them : What would it have availed then for either Prince or People to have known the Clergy was erroneou● , if whether they ●new it or knew it not , they were obliged to pay them ?

But whatever that Clergy was , he says , Almighty God hath now provided himself of Ministers that ar● no Papists , but the most considerable Enemies to Popery in all the World , p. 10.

I verily believe it indeed , and withal , that those Ministers whom God hath now provided for himself , neither do nor dare receive Tythes . And though he cryes out , It is from a Protestant Clergy that the Quakers would take Tythes : I dare engage the Quakers shall never serve the Protestant Clergy as the Protestant Clergy has served the Popish , who have cryed out , and that justly , against the popish Clergy , and thrust them out , but have got the Tythes which were given unto them , and keep them for themselves . The Protestants in protesting against the popi●h Clergy , did well and very commendably : but their taking Tythes from the popish Clergy to themselves is their blemish , and will be so long as they retain them .

§ . 14. The third Objection which the Priest gives in my Name is this , That Ethelwolf granted this Charter for Tythes 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 m●riting Salvation by good works ; and that he gave this as an expiation for his Sins . Upon this he says , pag. 105. 'T is somewhat strange that T. E. should reckon ●oth these for evil Motives ; and it is the first time that I ev●r heard it called an evil Motive , to be moved to do a good work , for the Good of our Souls .

'T is very strange this Priest should think to avoid the ●orce of the Objection by a Quibble only . To be moved to do a Good Work simply , is not an Evil Motive ; but to be moved to do a good work as an expi●tion for Sin , or with an expectation of meriting Salvation thereby , is an evil Motive .

Again , ( says the Priest ) The desire of Remission of his Sins was a good Motive in it self , only he took an ill course to obtain it , if he sought expiation by Good Works , ibid.

The Desire of Remission of his Sins was a good Desire ; but what was it a Motive to ? If it was a Motive to him to give Tythes , that argues he expected Remission of his Sins by this Donatio● ▪ and that he did so the words of the ●●arter confirm [ Pro remissione animarum & peccatorum nostrorum ] And though the Charter be by divers dive●sl● reported , yet in this part they generally agree either in words or substance

Florentius of Worcester hath , Pro Redemptione anime sue & Antecessorum suorum ; i. e. For the Redemption of his Soul , and of the Souls of his Ancestors . With him agrees Hoveden . And Hu●tingdon does not much differ , whose words are [ Propter amorem Dei et redemptionem sui ; i. e. For the Love of God and his own Redemption . ] And the Bishop and Clergy then on their part undertaking , that such a number of Psalms and Masses should be sung and said for the King and his Nobles , express themselves to the same purpose , as having respect to the same end , namely , [ Pro salute ( as Matth●w Westminster hath it ) pro mercede et refrigerio delictorum suorum , ( as in Malmsbury ) i. e. For their Salvation , for their Rewa●d , and an abatement of their Offences . ] So that it is plain , they expect●d by this Donation to obtain the Salvation and Redemption of their Souls , the Remission and Forgiveness of their Sins .

And that it was the common Opinion of those times , that Sins might be expiated by Acts of Piety ●nd Charity ( as they accounted them ) the Examples of Offa and A●frida ( the one falling somewhat b●fore , the other somewhat after Ethelwolf's time ) perswade . The first whereof having most treacherously and inhumanly murdered Ethelbert King of ●ent , did thereupon give the tenth part of his Goods to the Church , and founded Monasteries . The latter having occasioned the Death of her Husband Earl Ethelwold , & murdered her Son in Law King Edward , did found Religious Houses for Monks & Nuns , To EXPIATE ( that I may use the words of a great and learned Antiquary ) and make SATISFACTION for that most foul and h●inous Fact , wherewith so wickedly she had charged her Soul , by making away King Edward her Husband's Son ; as also to wash out the murdering of her former Husband Aethelwold , a most Noble Earl , &c. Camden Brittan . pag. 262.

And that these Acts , and such like , of those and other Princes of those times , have been thus taken and understood by men of Note and Learning , appears not only by the last quoted Authority , but also by the Testimony of F●x , who compiled the Book of Martyrs : He in his first Volumn , pag. 110. enumerating the many Monasteries and other Religious Houses , founded and endowed before Ethelwolf's time , says thereupon , The End and Cause of these Deeds and Buildings cannot be excused , being contrary to the Rule of Christ's Gospel , for so much as they did these things seeking thereby MERITS with God , and for Remedy of their Souls , and REMISSION of their Sins . For Proof whereof he produces a Charter of King Ethelbald ( above fifty years older then that of Ethelwolf ) granting certain Priviledges to Religious Men , in which a●ter the Preamble are these words , Qua propter , ego Ethelbaldus Rex Merci●rum , pro amore caelestis Patrie , et remedio anima● mea studendum esse previdi , ut eam per bona opera liberam effice●em in omni vinculo delictorum : i. e. Wherefore I Ethelbald , King of the Mercians , for the Love of the Heavenly Country , and for the Remedy of my Soul , have foreseen it needful to endeavour by good Works to make my Soul free from all bond of Sins . ●rom which sente●ce Fox observes how great the ignorance and blindness of those men were , who lacking no Zeal , only lacked Knowledge to rule it withal , seeking ( sayes he ) Salvation ●ot by Christ only , but by their own deservings and MERITORIOUS deeds . And in pag. 123. setting down the Charter of Ethelwolf ( so dear and precious to the Priests ) upon these words in it [ Pro remissione animarum & peccatorum Nos●rorum ] he hath this Note , Hereby ( sayes he ) it may appear , how when the Churches of England began first to be indued with Temporalities and Lands ; also with Priviledges and exemptions inlarged : moreover ( and that which specially is to be considered and lam●●ted ) what PERNICIOUS Doctrine was this , wherewith they were led , thus to set Remission of their Sins , and Remedy of their Souls , in this Donation and such other Deeds of their Donation , contrary to the information of Gods word , and no small derogation to the Cross of Christ . Thus far Fox ; by which the Reader may at once see both the Opinion and Practice of Ethelwolf's Age in this matter , and also the Censure of this Ecclesiastical Writer in th● early Age of Protestancy .

Yet the Priest sayes , pag. 106. This Popish Doctrine of Merit and expiation by good works is not so old as that Age ; which he infers from some directions given by Anselm to those who visited the Sick , in which is mention of being saved by the death of Christ ; as also from the words of Pop● Adrian , who calls ( as he sayes ) Merits a broken Reed , &c.

The Popish Doctrine of Merits and Expiation by good works was not on a sudden and at once received in the grossest sense in which it hath since been h●l● , but by degrees ; and for a while remission of Sins was attributed to the death of Christ , and good work● joyntly ; which is the reason that in the writings of those elder times mention is made of the death of Christ , and of good works promiscuously , and the work of Redemption , Salvation , Remission indifferently ascribed to each . This the Priest seem not ignorant of , when he sayes , pag. 10● . We may perceive they did not think this good work ALONE could expiate their Sins , or merit Salvation wi●hout God's Mercy .

As for the judgment of Ansel● , Adrian , or any other such , it is not conclusive in this case : for we are not so much to regard what was the private judgment of some one or few particular Persons , as what was the general Opinion of the the● Church . We find in Queen Mary's time , when Popery was as its height , when Dr. Day , Bishop of 〈◊〉 came to visit Stephen Gardiner the bloody Bishop of Winchester , lying then at point of Death , and began ( as Fox relates ) to comfort him with words of Gods promi●e , and with the free justification in the Blood of Christ our Lord , repeating the Scriptures to him , Winchester hearing that , What my Lord ( quoth he ) will you open that Gap n●w ? then farewell all together : to 〈◊〉 and such other in my case you may speak it ; but open this Window unto the people , then farewel all together , Martyrol , vol. 2. pag. 1622. None I think can doubt but the Doctrine of meriting Salvation , and of Expiating Sins by good works , was then generally believed in the grossest sense by the Church of Rome , and yet we see by this in●tance some of tha● Church had a private Judgment otherwise , and some of the worst of that Church too . For scarce did Bonner himself send more Sheep to the Roman Shambles , then did this Bu●cherly Bishop of Winchester , who ( as Fox observes in the place fore cited ) on the day that Ridley and Latimer were burnt at Oxford , deferr'd his Dinner till about four of the Clock in the afternoon , re●using to eat till by a Post from Oxfor● ●e had certain intelligence , that the Fire was kindled upon those Godly Martyrs . Thus we see some of the worst of the Romanists did not hold all the Opinions of the Church of Rome ; yet neither doth that prove either that those Romanists were no Papists , nor yet that the Church of which they were Members did not hold those Opinions .

But the Priest , as if he hoped to wind himself off from the Objection by criminating the Quakers , says , To merit Pardon and Salvation by good works , is now a Doctrine of the grosser Romanists , and I fear of some Quakers also , who ( sleighting merit and necessity of Christ's Death ) ascribe Salvation to the following the Light within ▪ p. 10● .

In this he slanders the Quakers . I reject his Charge , and in the Name of the Quakers deny it . Let him name those Quakers that sleight the Merit and Necessity of Christ's Death . I solemnly declare I know no such ; and yet I think , if any such there were , I might as well pretend to know them as he . Nor do the Quakers ascribe Salvation to the following the Light within , but they ascribe Salvation to Christ Iesus , to whom the Light within doth lead those that truly follow it . Herein he hath wronged the Quakers , as in his next words he abuses me ; T. E. ( says he ) himself pleads , that there is no Salvation unless we have a ●inless Perfection , and ( as if Christ had never dyed ) positively affirms , Wheresoever there is Sin , there is also Condemnation ; for which he sets pag. 97. of my Book , in which no such words are to be found as he has put down in the first part of this Sentence [ viz. That there is no Salvation unless we have a ●inless Perfection ] these not being my words , but his own . And the latter part he hath grosly perverted , making those words [ Wheresoever there is Sin , there is also Condemnation ] to import , as if Christ had never dyed ; for which there is no colour at all . For the End of Christ's Coming and tasting D●ath , was not to take away the condemnation only , and leave the sin remaining ; but he was manifested to take away our sins , 1 Jo●n 3. 5. to destroy the works of the Devil , vers. 8. Not only to take off the Condemnation due for those Works , and leave the Works standing ; but to destroy the Works themselves . And where Sins are not taken away , where the Works of the Devil are not destroyed , there the Condemnation is not taken off , but remains , as the Apostle proves , Rom. 2. 9. Now this Doctrine doth not at all deny the Death of Christ , nor derogate any thing from the Vertue and Power thereof , but confesses and exalts it , in that it ascribes to him the whole work of taking away not only the condemnation , but the sin also ; of not only taking off the guilt , but destroying the works of the Devil too : whereas the contrary Doctrine doth import , that Christ hath not compleated the Work he came to do , while it supposes him to take away the Condemnation , but leave the Sin remaining , whenas he was manifested on purpose to take away the Sin , and to destroy th● Works of the Devil .

But as if the Priest thought it not enough to pervert my words , and fasten on them a suggestion by no means deducible from them , he thus goes on ; Now he that looks for Salvation by his Per●ection , doth hold that Popist Doctrine of meriting Salvation by good Works .

But who is he that looks for Salvation by his Perfection ? The Quaker does not : who does ? It is one thing to believe Perfection attainable , to aim at it , and press after it , but it is another thing to look for Salvation by it . Patience , Humility , Meekness , Temperance , Charity , and other Christian vertues are not only desirable , but ( I suppose he 'l grant ) attainable . But must they who seek after and obtain these Vertues , needs look for Salvation by them ? it is no fair consequent : and had he had the last of these Vertues , he would not have suggested this foul slander .

He adds there , And he that proudly sayes , he hath no Sin to be remitted , r●nders Christ's death as useless , as he that believes he shall obtain remission by his good Works .

He that speaks proudly , Sins in so speaking : But that must not be charged on him who speaks the Truth in humility . That remission of Sins is to be received through the Blood of Christ ; the Apostle Paul expresly sayes to the Ephesi●e●s , c. 1. 7. and Colossians , c. 1. ver. 14. Now he who hath thus received remission of his Sins , and with an humble and thankful Heart acknowledges it , can he be said to render Christ's death useless , when he attributes the remission of his Sins to Christ's Death ? If any one sayes his Sins are remitted , when they are not , he is to blame and deceives himself . If any one expects remission of Sins by any other way then the death of Christ , he renders the death of Christ useless . But surely , he that in Truth and Humility , acknowledges he hath received remission of Sins through the death of Christ , doth not thereby render the death of Christ useless , but altogether useful ; since without it his Sins had not been r●mitted . And thus the Quaker does , to the refutation of the Priest's slander , and the discovery of his evil mind in suggesting the Quaker will be found more a Papist then K. Ethelwolf .

But whether Ethelwolf were a Papist or no , it is much alike to the Priest , for he sayes , We conclude therefore , that the Quaker falsly accuses our Anc●stors in calling them Papists , and their Clergy Popish , and in affirming they were acted by evil motives . And yet ( sayes he ) if all these had been as true as they are false , it had been hurtful only to themselves , but doth not at all make their pious Donations of Tythes to God and his Ministers to be void , pag. 109. What Ethelwolf was , who gave Tythes , ( viz. first a Monk in Orders , then absolved from his Vows by the Pope , a great Benefactor to the Pope , and to the Church of Rome in particular , and in a word the Popes Creature . ) What motives induced him to give Tythes ( viz. to obtain thereby Remission of his Sins , and the Redemption of his Soul . ) What Clergy that was to whom he gave Tythes ( viz. Popish Priests and Monks , corrupt in Doctrine , corrupt in Practice , corrupt in Life , corrupt in Manners . ) What the Religion of those times was , ( viz. praying to Saints , praying for the Dead , sacrificing for the Dead , worshipping of Relicks , A●ricular Confession , going on Pilgrimages , extream Vnction , Chris● , holy Water , Purgatory , Latine Service , and saying Mass , with abundance more of the like nature ) hath been related before . And what a kind of Protestant that Priest is , who will deny this to be Popery , and them to be Papists that held them , I leave to the Readers judgment . Many more instances might be given to shew how foully the Church of that Age was over-run with the Romish Leprosie ; but these I take to be sufficient to satisfie any true Protestant . And indeed to what purpose were it to add more , when the Priest here sayes , That if all this had been true ( that they that gave Tythes had been Papists , and the Clergy to whom they gave them had been Popish , and the motives on which they gave them had been Evil ) yet it had been hurtful only to themselves , but doth not at all make their Pious Donations of Tythes to God and his Ministers to be void . So that it seems be they good or bad that gave , be they good or bad to whom they gave , be the motives good or bad which iuduced them to give , he regards none of all this ; 't is the Gift he looks at , and so long as he can enjoy that , he matters not whence or how it came . But seeing he having prostituted his both Reason and Conscience to the libidinous desire of advantage and interest , regards not how he comes by it : I will only recommend to the Reade●s consideration how ill it become● them , who pretend to be Protestant Ministers , to lay claim to the gift of a popish Prince , given to maintain a popish Clergy and Worship , and upon such motives as are not only evil . but directly contrary to Protestant principles .

§ . 15. In the former Ob●ections which the Priest made in my Name against the Donation of Tythes , he left out the instances I had given to prove the Donation popish , and took no notice of them . In this which next follows , he leaves out some ▪ and gives the others false : I to manifest further the corruption of that time , and Apostacy of that Church , did set down what the Clergy on their part undertook , in consideration of the said Charter , to perform , as in Spelman's Brittish Councils I found it thus , It pleased also Alhstan and Swi●hin , the Bishops of the Churches of Shirborn and Winchester , with their Abbats , and the Servants of God , to appoint , that upon the Wednesday in every Week , all our Brethren and Sisters in every Church , should sing Fifty Psalms , and every Priest say two Masses , one for K. Ethelwolf , and another for his Nobles that consented to this Gift , for a reward and for an abatement of their Offences . And that they should say for the King so long as he lived , Oremus , Deus qui justificas ; for his Nobles also while they lived , Pretende Domine ; but after they were dead , for the deceased King by himself , and for the deceased Nobles in common , &c. Instead of this he hath these words , pag. 109. Some slighter Cavils he hath , pag. 292 , 293. As fi ●st , his calling the Clergy of that Age Apostates and corrupt , for being so grateful to their Benefactors , as to engage to sing David's Psalms , and to make Prayers twice a Week for them , that God would reward their bounty and pardon their Sins . What is there in this at all like my quotation , unless it be the word [ Psalmes ? ] Do I call them Apostates and corrupt for being grateful to their Benefactors ? Or do I not note the manner of their expressing their gratitude , as an instance of their Apostacy and Corruption ? in that they undertook to say Masses for them , both Living and Dead ? instead of which he sayes , they engaged to make prayers for them . Yet he is fain to confess , pag. 110. they called these Prayers [ Missas ] but sayes , they were far different from the Missal of the Church of Rome , whose Offi●●s ( he sayes ) were first brought in here by Osmund Bishop of Sailsbury , Anno. 1096.

But in that he speaks wrong . For long before Osmund's time ( 300. Years at least ) under Pope Adrian , who ( according to Genebrand ) entred the Popedom in the Year 772. ( about eighty years before Ethelwolf's Donation ) the Roman Missal ( made , as they say , by Pope Gregory ) was ( by decree of a Council at Rome , with the help of a Popish Miracle ) commanded to be universally received and used . The Story whereof ( for brevity here omitted ) is set down at large by Durundus in his Rationale l. 5. c. 2. and out of him and other Authors , by Iohn Fox in his first Volumn of the Book of Martyrs , pag. 117. This Decree for the establishing Gregory's Missal , and making it universal , was vigorously prosecuted by Charles the Emperor , not only threatning , but punishing those that refused it , and burning the other Service Books where-ever he ●ound them , insomuch that , as Fox observes , Gregory's Service had only the place , and hath ( adds he ) to this day in the greatest part of Europe . And that it was received & used here in England as well as in other Countries , not only the Devotion this Nation then had to the Church of Rome , and the influence Charles the Emperor had upon the English , may make it probable : But the occasion of Osmund's bringing in that Service which was called the Use of S●rum , set down at large both by Fox and Stow , doth fully and plainly prove . Fox vol. 1. p. 166. sayes , Thurstan coming out of Normandy with William the Conqueror , and being made Abbat of Glastenbury , fell out with his Monks to such an height that from Words they went to Blows , by which divers were Wounded , and some Slain ; the occasion whereof was , that Thurstan contemning their Quire Service , then called the Use of St. Gregory , compelled his Monks to the use of one William a Monk of Fisca● in Normandy . Stow in his Annals of England , pag. 157. upon the Year 1083. relating the same matter , sayes thus , This Man ( Thurstan ) among other his Fellows , despising the Song called Gregory's Song , began to counsel the Monks to learn the Song of one William of Festamps , and to sing it in the Church , which to do when they refused , as they that had been ever used not only in this , but in other service of the Church , to follow the manner of the Roman Church , sudainly on a day with a company of Armed men brake into the Chapter-house , &c. and so goes on to relate the Skirmish which being beside my purpose , I omit , and only observe from these Testimonies , first , that this Roman Mass , instituted by Gregory and bearing his Name , and by Pope Adrian & his Roman Council appointed to be used in all places , was received and used here in England before the Conquest ; secondly , that the English Clergy had been ever used , not only in this , but in other service of the Church to follow the manner of the Church of Rome ; thirdly , that this Missal of Gregory , thus by decree of Council made universal , and then received and used here in England , was in substance the same that was used afterwards , both here and elsewhere untill the time of Reformation ; Fox saying expresly , that Gregory's Service had only the place , and yet hath to this day in the greatest part of Europe . But that the Reader may the better judge whether these Masses were such innocent things as the Priest doth here represent them , whether the Priests that said them were the right Ministers of God , as pag. 112. he makes no doubt they were ; whether the People that used them were nearer in Opinion to the Protestant Church of England then to the present Papists , as pag. 135. he sayes they were ; And whether if they were so , it is not greatly to be lamented ; take here a Story out of Bede , shewing what Opinion they had in those times of the vertue of their Masses . In the Wars between Ecgfrid and Edilr●d Kings of Northumberland and Mercia , a Young Man named Innua , one of Ecgfrid's Souldiers was l●ft for dead among the Slain ; where , after he had ●ain a Day and Night , recovering sense and strength , he got up , intending to escape to his Friends , but falling into his Enemies hands , he was made a Prisoner , and after his Wounds were ●ured , he was bound , that he might not get away : But no Bonds would stay upon him , but alwayes at a certain hour fell off . Of which Bede gives this reason , This Young man had a Brother , a Priest , named Tunua , who was at that time Abbat of a Monastery called from his Name Tu●uacestir . This Abbat hearing his Brother was slain , went to search out his Body among the dead , and found a Corps so like his Brother's , that not doubting it to be the same , he took it up and buried it in his Monastery ; and took care that Masses were said often to obtain pardon for his Soul ; by the celebration of which Masses , sayes Bede , it happened that no ma● had power to bind him , but presently his Bonds were loosed . And he reports the Yo●ng man himself to give this Answer to the Earl that had him in custody , inquiring the reason why he could not be kept bound , I have ( said he ) a Brother a Priest in my Country ; and I know that he , supposing me to be slain , doth often say Mas● for me , and if I were now in the other World , there my Soul , through his intercessions , would be released from punishments . Afterwards , when this Young man , being Ransomed , returned home , and recounted what had befallen him , many ( sayes the Historian ) by the report hereof were stirred up in Faith and Devotion to Pray , or to give Alms , or to offer the Sacrifices of an holy Oblation to the Lord , for the REDEMPTION of their Relations who were departed out of this World . For they understood ( sayes Bede ) that the healthful Sacrifice was available to the EVERLASTING REDEMPTION both of SOUL and BODY . Thus hast thou Reader a brief discovery both what sort of Masses were then in use , and what they attributed to them : no less then the Redemption of Souls , for which Christ died . Now for a close , take withal the Account which Perkins in his Problem against Coc●ius , pag. 145. gives of the Rise of the Mass , thus , First , ( sayes he ) The Lord's Supper was celebrated in a most plain manner . 2dly , It was increased with Ceremonies , and first with Oblations for the Dead , which was a gratulation or thanksgiving for them , and this was two Hundred Years after Christ . 3dly , Prayers for the Dead were added about the Year 400. Then Purgatory , and Redemption of Souls out of Purgatory by Masses . Then about the Year 780. Gregoryes Mass began to be used in the Churches of Italy , where before the Liturgy of Ambrose had been more in use . 4 thly , They began to dispute of Transubstantiation about the Year 840. So that it seems , not only saying of Masses for the Redemption of Souls out of Purgatory was in use , but Transubstantiation also was on Foot before this famous Charter of Ethelwolf for Tythes was granted . Judge now R●ader , if thou art a Protestant , whether Popery had not made her incroachments in the Church before Ethelwolf's time ; whether the Cl●rgy to whom he gave Tythes were not Popish , who undertook to say these Masses for him and his Nobles both Living and Dead , and whether the Priest has not grosly abused his Reader in suggesting that these Masses were only innocent Prayers , and in affirming they were far different from the Missal of the Church of Rome .

§ . 16. Next , he says , pag. 110. I quarrel with the Charter for the Names of the Saints annext to it , in whose Honour it s said to have been made .

I gave the words of Ingulf thus , — for the Honour of Mary the glorious Virgin and Mother of God , and of Saint Michael the Arch-Angel , and of the Prince of the Apostles Saint Peter , as also of our holy Father Pope Gregory . To take off this Note of Popery , the Priest sayes , pag. 110. T. E. may ●ote , that there is not one of the three Mentioners of this Clause that agree in it , so that it is very probable , the Historians living some Ages after , might ( as their manner is ) put in this less mat●rial passage in the phrase of their own times , of which dealing in other Cases I could give many instances .

To let pass his Solecism , or Incongruity of Speech , [ that there is not one of the three Mentioners of this Clause that agree in it ] more tollerable in one so illiterate as my self , then in such a profound Rabbi : I desire him and the Reader also to take notice , that the same Objection , upon the same Reason , lies as forcibly against the Extent of the Charter it self , there being as great variety and little agreement in that part amongst the mentioners of the Charter , as there is in the mention of the Saints , for whose Honour the Charter is said to be made ; so that up on that s●ore it may as well be questioned , whethe● the Grant was general of All England , or not : for some of the Historians give it in such words as seem to speak only of his Demeasne Lands , some of his Kingdom of West-Sa●ony only : so that it is as probable that the Historians that extend this Donation to All England , might therein follow the Humou● of their own times , of which dealing in other cases I could give som● instances also . In the mean time the Priest had best have a care how he adventures to ra●e the Images of the Saints carved upon his beloved Charter , lest before he be aware he shake and weaken the Foundation of the Charter it self .

But he says , However , it was given to God in the first pla●e , and no mention of the Saints in all the body of the Charter ,

But sure he had forgotten that Matthew of Westminster hath in the very body of the Charter [ Deo et beatae Mariae et omnibus Sanctis ; i. e. To God and blessed Mary , and to all Saints . ]

In his next page he says , I quarrel with the other Priest because he will not grant they gave Tythes in a blind and superstitious Zeal ; and he takes upon him to defend it misapplying the words of the Apo●tle , It is good to be Zealous alwayes in a good thing .

But the Priest has not prov'd their giving of Tythes a good thing ; and I have proved , they were blind and superstitious in this as well as in other things , and therefore their Zeal therein was not commendable , but condemnable .

But his Brother Priest seems to be now of another Mind , and to understand the Case better ; for in hi● Vindication , pag. ●03 . acknowledging , there might be some Corruptions and great Defects in Ethelwolf's Charter , yet withal endeavouring to excuse him , as having no idolatrous Design , but an honest Zeal , that those whom ●e esteemed Ministers of Christ , might be provided for ; he adds , What can be more uncharitable the● to make a damnable Idolater of him , for doing something , though it were in an ill manner , through invincible ●gnorance ? Thus he , who in his Conferrence , pag. 147. would by no means admit that Tythes were given in an ignorant Zeal , doth here , in Contradiction both to his Brother Priest and to himself , acknowledge this Do●ation of Tythes was made in an ill manner , and through invincible ignorance . Nor doth he attempt to wipe off those stains , which I had discovered in his Charter , but rather endeavours to cover them again , by drawing t●e Curtain of Ignorance before them . This however he is forced to grant , That this Donation of Tythes proceeded from Ignorance , yea , from in●incible Ignorance : so that ignorance , at least , ( to say no worse ) was , in this particular , the Mother of Ethelwolf's Devotion .

Again , sayes the Author of the Right of Tythes to his Brother Priest , Whereas you had said , Tythes were given to God for the Maintenace of his Ministry , T. E. interprets this to be a calling the idolatrous Priesthood of the Church of Rome Gods Ministers , which ( says h● ) is a malicious and false Inference , since the Priesthood to whose Maintenance Tythes were given , was neither Idolatrous nor the Priesthood of the Church of Rome , pag. 111.

The Inference is neither malicious not false ; but plain and true . These Priests , both one and t'other , affirm that Priesthood to whose Maintenance Ethelwolf gave Tythes , to be God's Ministry . I have proved they were a Popish Priesthood by the Testimonies of divers approved Authors , by the tenour of the Charter it self , and by the Definition the former Priest gave of Popery , viz. That it is such Doctrines and superstitious Practices , which by the corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome , contrary to the true , antient , catholick and apostolick Church . I have shewed at large that those Priests , to whose Maintenance Ethelwolf granted Tythes , did hold and use such Doctrine and superstitious Practices , as by the corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome , contrary to the true , antient , catholick and apostolick Church , of which I have given ma●y instances . I have also proved that Priesthood Popish by the assertion of this latter Priest my present Opponent , who in his Right of Tythes , pag. 99. saye● , The Benefit of this Donation hath been enjoyed for eight hundred years by those to whom the Donation was made , which must of necessity be understood of popish Priests , otherwise the Assertion is utterly false . For he is a meer Stranger to History , who doth not know , that from Ethelwolf's time until the Reformation , which in this Nation began little more then a hundred years ago , Romish Superstitions , Corruptions and Idolatries , encreased daily and prevailed , and the English Clergy in every Age grew more devoted to the Observance of the Sea of Rome . Now when I have so fully proved that that was a popish Priesthood to whose Maintenance King Ethelwolf gave Tythes ▪ and yet these Priests plainly affirm that , that Priest● hood was God's Ministry , what inference can be more plain and true , then that they call that idolatrous Priesthood of the Church of Rome God's Ministers ? This Priest sayes , pag. 102. The Clergy of that Ag● was God's only publick Ministers ; and pag. 99. The benefit of the Donation had been enjoyed for eight hundred years by those to whom the Donation was made . The Donation was made in the year eight hundred fifty five , to which 800 years of enjoyment being added brings to the year one thousand , six hundred , fifty five : I desire thee Reader to compare these two sayings of this Priest together , and to examin well the account of time , and then judge whether this very Priest , who cryes out so vehemently against me for inferring that the other Priest call'd th● idolatrous Priesthood of the Church of Rome God's Ministers , calling it a malicious and false inference ; doth not himself call that idolatrous Priesthood of the Church of Rome , God's own publick Ministers . When he sayes , The Clergy of that Age , to whom this Donation of Tythes was made , was God's only publick Ministers , and that the Benefit of this Donation was enjoyed for eight hundred years by those to whom the Donation was made , doth it not clearly follow that he accounts all the popish Clergy in England , in the blackest and bloodiest times of Popery , even Bonner himself and his ●rethren , God's only publick Ministers , who were indeed the publick Ministers of Antichrist , and the greatest Enemies of God ? Nay , he adds , pag. 112. It is certain the Donors intended them ( viz. Tythes ) to the right Ministers of God ; and I make no doubt ( sayes he ) they were such to whom they gave them ; and they to whom they were given enjoyed ( sayes he , pag. 99. ) the benefit thereof for eight hundred years . What 's the Consequent ? That he makes no doubt they were the right Ministers of Christ , who enjoyed the Tythes for eight hundred years after Ethelwolf , which comprehends the Popish Priesthood in its most filthy and poluted state . Can any one believe this Priest to be himself a Minister of Christ ? Let him clear himself hereof if he can , and shew how the Benefit of this Donation of Tythes was enjoyed for eight hundred years by any Priesthood that was not Popish and Idolatrous .

§ . 17. In his next Section he falls foully upon me ; and he that was so fine-mouthed , that he would n●t meddle with Scurrility , because Railing is not Reasoning , p. 12. bestows here again on me his usual Rhetorick of Dishonesty , Ignorance and Impudence . The Occasion he takes from hence . The former Priest had said in his Friendly Conference , pag. 146. Tythes being given to God for the Maintenance of his Ministry , n● blemish in the Dedication of them can alter their pr●perty . Hereupon in my Answer , pag. 294. I observed he was for having all he could get , be it dedicated by whom it will , or how it will , and that he wanted nothing but power to revive all the old Donations of the Papists , given in the mid-night darkness of Popery , to redeem th●ir Souls out of a supposed Purgatory ; then I added , Nay , so general is his Assertion ( no Blemish , &c. ) that nothing once dedicated by whomsoever , would seem to come amiss to ●im ; not the Offerings of the Gentiles to their Heathenish Deities , not the Endowments of the Turks to their Mah●metan Priests , nor yet the thirty pieces of Silver ( the price of Innocent Blood ) had Juda● chanced to have dedicated it , would upon this Position , have been unwelcome t● this man , could he once but have got them into possession To this the latter Priest sayes , pag. 113. Were these given to the true God ? or were these Offerings Tythes ? If they were not both of these , why doth this Quaker mention them here ?

To justifie Ethelwolf's Donation of Tythes to the Popish Clergy , the Priest often urges the Intention of the Donors , as pag. 103. The Donors supposed them a good Ministry , and as such endowed them ; for they esteemed them to be God's Receivers . Again , pag. 112. It is certain the Donors intended them to the right Ministers of God . And pag. 104. They gave Tythes to maintain that which they believed to be a good Ministry , and the true Worship of God ; and therefore the Donation remains good . Here its evident he makes the validity of the Donation to depend upon the Intention of the Donors . But when the Gentiles offered to their Heathenish Deities did they not suppose and believe those Deities to be true Gods , and the Priests of those Deities to be a good and a right Priesthood ? and did not some of them offer Tythes also , as the Priest has tak●n some needless pains to prove ? Now if as he argues pag. 104. The Donation therefore remains good , because the Donors gave Tythes to maintain that which they believed to be a good Ministry , and the true Worship of God ( although in very deed it was a bad Ministry , and a false Worship ) I appeal to the judicious Reader , whether the same Argument doth not serve , and the same Reason reach to fetch in the Gentiles Donations of Tythes to their Heathenish Priests . And for the Turks , who are said to profess the true God ( though not to worship him truly ) can any one doubt but they believe their ●ahumetan Priests to be a good Ministry , and their Al●oran-worship the true Worship of God ? how plain is it then , that according to this Priest's Argument , their end●wments to their Priests remain good ? and that these Priest● could be well content to receive them , if they knew but how to come by them , and the rather because the Revenues of the Turkish Priests consist partly in Tythes als● . Nay , he sticks not to say , pag. 117. If the things were offered to maintain 〈◊〉 evil way of Worship , they may be applied to maintain a right way of Worship ; but still they must remain sacred ? But the other Priest hath since cleared the case : for in his Vindi● . pag. 314. he sayes , Suppose the Turkish Empir● ( through Gods mercy ) should be converted to Christianity , may not the Muff●i himself , and those whom T. E. calls Emaums together with all the Mosks and Revenues now belonging to them , be reconsecrared to Christianity ? What therefore I observed from the words of the former Priest , is confirmed and proved by them both ; and no imputation of di●honesty or ignorance , can be justly charged on me therein . But he taxes me with impudence , in calling that a general Assertion which ( he sayes ) had three limitations , Tythes , the true God , and the Maintenance of his Ministry . pag. 113.

But he might have taken notice , that I call'd his Assertion general with relation to those words [ No blemish , &c. ] which is spoken without any limitation ; be the Blemishes in the Dedication never so many , never so great , never so foul , yet with them it matters not ; No blemish in the dedication of them can alter their property , said the first Priest , and Your words I will stand to ( sayes the last Priest ) and make it appear , That such things as Tythes are , being given to the true God for a good end , NO BLEMISH in the dedication can alter their property . This he undertakes to prove by the instance of the Censers offered by Co●ah's company , pag. 114. And he blames me for observing what a pretty Parallel the other Priest had found out , and how well he had match't his case , in bringing this rebellious Consecration , att●nded with a damnable Sin , to Parallel the dedication of Tythes . But doubtless he that shall well consider it will find he has by this Parallel rather hurt then help't , disgraced then credited his Cause . It is the difference , he sayes , between these two Cases , that makes the Argument good . Why then did he call it a parallel case ? Is this case parallel to his , and yet doth his Argument receive its strength not from the parity but the disparity or difference of the case ? that 's strange indeed : where was his Logick , and common sense , when he writ that ! He quarrels also at the reason given why those Censers were commanded to be kept , namely , To be a sign and memorial to the Children of Israel , that no s●ranger , &c. Numb. 16. 40. This Reason , though given in the Text , he rejects , and sayes , If we dare believe Almighty God , rather then this ignorant Quaker , this was not the Reason why they were to be k●pt ; for , sayes he , God gives another Reason of that , ver. 37. Because they are hollowed , and ver. 38. For they ●ffered them before the Lord , therefore they are h●llowed .

In the same 38. verse , the particular Reason was given also , The Censers of these Sinners against their own Souls , l●t them make them broad Plates for a covering of the Altar : for they ●ffered them before the Lord , therefore they are hollowed : and they shall be a sign unto to the Children of Israel . Here was both a general Reason , and a paerticul●r , the general Reason was , their being hollowed ; the particular Reason was , that they might be a Sign and Memorial unto the Children of Israel , as the Text expresses . Now the general Reason doth not exclude the particular , any more then the particular doth destroy the general . But here we see plainly that God would not suffer these Censers to b● used in the service to which they were dedicated , but caused them to be wrought out , and put to another use ; which because I exprest before by [ the altering of their property ] he makes himself prophanely merry ; and having ironically call'd it an ingenious Note of T. E's , he asks , Hath not his immediate t●aching learnt him to speak sense ? th● form of the Censers was altered indeed , but the property ( sayes he ) was not altered at all .

What manner of teaching he hath had is sufficiently discovered by his frequent Scurrilities and prophane I●sts . But for all his conceit , he may take notice , t●at the word [ property ] having various significations , relates to use as well as to possession ; so that those Censer● being turned into Plates , and thereby losing with their ●orm the use to which they had been appropriated , it is not improper to say the property of them ( in that respect ) was altered . But not to regard such triffling Cavils , wherein the other Priest also concurs with him in his Vindication , pag. 304 , 305. let us examine how far the instance of the Censers may patronize this Donation of Tythes . In the time of the Law , among the Vessels and Utensils of the Tabernacle , Censers had a place and service by God's command ; and they , as well as the rest of the holy Vessels , were hallowed and consecrated to the service of God . And while tha● Tabernacle or Temple , and th● Ceremonial Worship thereof remained , these V●ssels were not to be put to any prophane or common use . Yet had not those Vessels any intrinsick and perpetual Holiness , but only an outward and temporal sanctity , as Vessels set apart ●or that service . But when that Service was at an end , that Temple forsaken , that Worship , and all its dependencies , laid aside , those Vessel● ceased to be Holy , and became sub●ect to common use . And though while that Typical Worship stood , in the Service of which Censers were by divine appointment used , the Offering of Censers before the Lord did hallow and exempt them from common use : yet 〈◊〉 that Worship is ended , and Law abrogated , in and by which Censers were appointed to be used , the Offering of Censers now would not have that effect . For if a man should now dedicate to the Lord all such Vessels as were formerly used in the ●●wish Worship ; what would such a Dedication signifie ? Must the things so dedicated be reputed Holy , and exempted from all common use ? T●at were indeed a ready way to extirpate Christianity , & reduce the World to Iudaism : but who wo●ld not declame against that ! As in the case of the Censers , so in the case of Tythes , which was another part of the Ceremonial Law , and appurtenant to that Typical state . W●ile the Ceremonial Law was in force , if a man made an Oblation of Tythe , or any other part of his estate , it was thence●orth hollowed to the Lord , and might not be converted to common uses . But since Christ hath abrogated the Ceremonial Law , b● which Tythes were commanded , a Dedication of T●th●s is n● more sacred NOW , th●n a Dedication of Censers NOW would be . When therefore the Priest sayes , pag. 114. These Censers were by God's spe●i●l order declared holy , and forbidden to be used to any ●o●mon use afterward ▪ it must be understood of 〈◊〉 time of the Law , when Censers wer● in use ; not of the time of the Gospel , wherein they have no place . A●d when he sayes , pag. 117. The Censers being once given to God , must remain to be his sti●● ; If he extends the particle [ still ] to the present time , he errs ●gregiously ; if he do not so extend it , he doth not obtain his end . And when he sayes , pag. 114. If the Censers might not be alienated , muc● less should Tythes ; He argues fallaciously : for it doth not follow , that because the Censers might not be alienated then , Tythes should not be alienated now . But as , if the Censers dedicated under the Law might not be alienated then , neither might Tythes be alienated then : So if Censers dedicated under the Gospel , may be alienated now , Tythes dedicated under the Gospel , may in like manner be alienated now . This he cannot avoid , if he grant that Censers and other Vessels of the Iewish Worship dedicated under the Gospel , may be alienated : But if he do not grant this , he ●ets open , not a Wi●ket , but the broad Gates to Iudaism . For if it be in man's power to dedicate what he pleases to God , and the thing so dedicated must be reputed holy , and separate to a Religious use , what bar is there to hinder the bringing in of all the Jewish Ceremonies ? In short , The hallowed Censers not being alienable then ( in the time of the Law ) shew that Tythes might not be alienated then ( in the time of the Law ) but it doth not prove that Tythes might never be alienated , any more then it proves that Censers might never be alienated , but must remain separated to holy uses to the World's End . Though Censers offered in the time of the Law , when they were in use by divine appointment , were hallowed , and not alienable to common uses ; yet after that Law was abrogated , and the use of Censers ended , the offering of Censers would not have hallowed them , but they might notwithstanding such Oblation be put to common uses . And if the offering of Censers then will not patronize the offering of Censers now , nor their being hallowed then infer their being hallowed now ; to be sure the offering and hallowing of Censers then will not justifie the offering and hallowing of Tythes n●w ; nor the unlawfulness of alienating those hallowed Censers then , infer it unlawful to alienate Tythes now . The offering of Censers then , while that Worship stood to which they served , will no more authorize any to dedicate Tythes now , when that Priesthood is ended to which they did peculiarly belong , then it will warrant the offering of Censers now , when that Worship to which they served is ended . Neither doth it any more follow , that because the Censers then offered were hallowed , and might not then be alienated to common uses , therefore Tythes now offered are hollowed , and may not now be alienated to common uses ; then it doth that if Censers should be now offered they would be hallowed now also , and might not now be alienated to common uses . Thus then we see his instance of the Censers will not make good the Donation of Tythes , but that Tythes , notwithstanding the Dedication he talks of , may safely be alienated to common uses . And indeed , if this matter be rightly considered , it will appear the World has been grievously g●ll'd in this ●ase of Dedications . For first it was hammered in●o the peoples Heads , that to make Dedications of Moneys , Lands , Tythes , &c. to God and holy Church , was a thing very pleasing and acceptible unto God , a means to appease and pacifie his Wrath , to obtain Pardon and Remission of Sins , and the ready way to get out of Purgatory . When once the People had drunk in this Perswasion , how was their ●Dedicating Zeal inflam'd ! what Murder or other horrid Cri●e was committed , the expiation whereof was not sought by a Gift to holy Church ( as it was then called ! ) They needed not any other Spur ; and had not the Statute of Mortmain at length been provided as a Bit to restrain and curb the immoderate heat of their misguided Devotion , it may well be doubted that instead of the tenth nine parts of ten had been given to the Church , so willing were men to go the nearest way to Heaven , as they misapprehended this to be . It was ( saith Andrew Willet in his Synopsis of Popery , fifth general Controversie , pag. 309. ) a common practice in time of Popery , so the Priests might be enriched , they cared not greatly though all the Stock of their Patrons and Founders were undone . The Statute of Mortmain ( says he ) was made to restrain this . And now although those Priests , by whose false Insinuations and crafty Allurements the most of these Donations were fraudulently procured , are turned out of doors and rejected , yet another sort are come up in their rooms , who , though they pretend to be the most considerable Enemies to the former in the World , yet are well content to reap what the others had thus s●wed . These men tell us , that these Don●tions ( Tythes , and such things as Tythes are ) must remain sacred , may not be alienated to common uses . And if any one would object that they were gotten indirectly , obtained per dolum malum , by Fraud and Cozin , it avails not ; they make no matter of that ; No Blemish in the Dedication can alt●r the Property , say they , who make themselves the Receivers . F●ctum valet , quod fieri non debuit , said the Friendly Conference , pag. 147. in Margin ; i. e. Though they ought not to have been dedicated at all , yet being once dedicated , the Dedication stands good . Thus , Reader , thou may'st see how miserably the World has been abused by their Priests , who taking advantage to work upon their Devotion , enticed the People to make these Donatio●s , and now cry out they are irreversible , being once dedicated they cannot be altered , nor alienated to common uses . Who sees not now , that by the same Art they might have gotten , and with the sa●e Reason have held nine parts of ten , as well as the tenth ? And well was it for the Nation that a stop was put to this Ecclesiastical Drein , before the Church-Corban had swallowed up all ; out of which , it seems , there is no Redemption .

§ . 18. In his next Section , pag. 117. he charges me with exasperating the Impropriators against the Priests , and endeavouring to get them on my side ; which is altogether false . I am not so tender of the Impropriators Right ( as he suggests ) as not believing the Impropriators have any Right to the Tythes of another man's Crop ; It is notorious enough that the Quakers suffer by Impropriators as well as by Priests ; and my Argument lies against both . But he that shall read that place in my Book which the Priest hath quoted , pag. 297. may plainly see my aim is to shew , that even according to the Priest's Argument , the Impropriators have no right to Tythes . My words are , It is obvious , that if because Tythes have been dedicated ( as he sayes ) to God , it is unlawful to alienate them to common uses , then it must needs be unlawful for them to hold their Impropriations , because they were offered in like manner as the rest of the Tythes were . But ( say I there ) let them look to themselves . Whether this be flattering and cl●●ing the Impropriators ( as he unhandsomly suggests ) let the Reader judge . Then for those Lands given to Abbies and other Religious Houses ( as they were once called ) and upon the dissolution of those Houses settled on the Crown , it is manifest his Argument impeaches that settlement , and all the subequent Tittles to those Lands derived therefrom , and aims at reducing those Lands into the Clergyes hands again . For if , as he argues , being once dedicated they cannot be alienated to common use ; and that it is a dangerous thing to medle with any thing that hath given been to God , Fr. Confer . pag. 147. And again , as the Censers being once given to God , must remain to be his still , — so we may learn it ought to be in other sacred dedications , — they must remain sacred still , Right of Tythes , pag. 117. Then seeing these Abbey Lands were once dedicated to God as well as Tythes , it follows unavoidably from his Argument , that they cannot be alienated to common uses , but must remain sacred still . Thus we see at once both the aim of his unsatiable Eye , and the weakness of his Argument , which in my former Book , pag. 297. is detected at large , and the discovery thereof hath so ●ettled the man , that by way of revenge , and to vent his Anger , he calls me poor Quaker , ●lattering Quaker , double-tongued and false-hearted man , with more to the same purpose ; and what I speak with reference to those who possess the Abbey Lands , he p●rverts and directs to the I●propriators . But he should have ●onsidered , that his criminating me , doth not at all acquit himself . For if he will infer from my reasoning , that I deny the Impropriators Right to Tythes , which I readily enough acknowledge I do , yet what is that to his Iustification , whose Argument ( if true ) would strip not Impropriators only , but all others also who possess Abbey Lands , or any other Revenues once dedicated to God and Holy Church , as the Phrase was : Yet he would hide his own Te●th , and smooth the matter over , as if the Priests were the most resigned and submissive Men imaginable to the Law , and very good Friends to the Impropriators . For our parts ( sayes he , pag. 118. like the Pharis●● , Luk. 18. 11. ) we do not ( like the Quakers ) take upon us to censure the actions of our Princes and Parliaments , — Whatever Opinions the Priests hold in this matter , they do not oppose the Laws , and go about to perswade any to take away the Impropriators Estates from them . Do they not ? Pray hear now what the Author of the Con●erence , in his Vindication , pag. 305. sayes , I confess that Henry 8. did alienate them ( speaking of Tythes , &c. ) And so did he also establish the six bloody Articles , to shew himself as ill a friend to Protestants as to Tythes : but is not this ( sayes he ) a wise Argument , to prove that Sacriledge may , de jure , be c●mmitted , because , de facto , it hath been committed ? judge now . Reader , the truth of that saying of the other Priest [ viz. We do not take upon us to censure the Actions of our Princes and Parliament ] when this Priest charges Henry 8. and his Parliament with downright Sacriledge . He might have considered , that how ill a Friend soever Henry 8. was to Protestants , he was not so ill a Friend to Tythes , as the Priest represents him , since the first Statute Law extan● for the payment of Tythes was made under his Reign .

But further , sayes the Author of the Right of Tythes , pag. 118. We do not pretend Conscience to save charges , as the Quakers manner is .

Doth he know any Quaker that pretends Conscience to save charges ? If he does know any such , I desire he will name him . But if he knows no such , what has he told ? If he would needs raise a Slander on the Quakers , could he find nothing that would have look't more likely ? Do not the Quakers know before hand , that if they refuse to pay Tythe , they incur the penalty of treble dammage , which by that time it is levied , seldom comes to less then five or six times the single value of the Tythes demanded , besides Imprisonment ? Is this the way to save Charges ? What Reader could he expect to find out of Bedla● so much beside his Wits , as to receive a suggestion so utterly repugnant to common sense and reason , as this is ? But to proceed .

§ . 19. The Priest is troubled that Tythes are reputed of Popis● Institution , and ●ain he would clear them if he knew how . He tryes all the wayes he can , and leaves no Stone unturned . His first attempt is to defame me , that my discourse might have the less acceptance : In order whereunto he tells his Reader , pag. 120. T. E. now falls to work for the Iesuits in good earnest , labouring to make out the Pope's Title to England , by a Prescription of eight or nine Hundred Years .

In this he is very faulty : for ( besides his having represented me all along as a meer piece of Ignorance and Folly , and thereby rendred me a very unfit Agent to carry on the deep designs of those crafty and politick Statists ) he knows full well , that I labour not to make the Pope a Title to England ; but to raize out all Monuments of his usurped Authority , that no print nor Foot-step may appear of his power having been exercised here by the continuance of any Custom which received either life or growth from him , as this of Tythes did . And since it may be lamented , but cannot be denyed , that the Papal Authority hath had too long as well as too great a sway here ; whether I pray doth best become a Protestant , to acknowledge freely its full time , and reject fully all its Institutions ; or to mince the matter , represent the time shorter then it was , and retain some of the Popish Institutions , which like the Wedge of Gold and Babylonish Garment , both de●ile the Camp , and deform the Reformation ; Popery is now so justly abhor'd by the generality of English , that it were a vain attempt to set up any thing apparently and avowedly Popish . Therefore the Enemy of true Religion invents other wayes to keep up Popish Institutions , and one is to date the Ri●e of Popery so low , as may leave room to introduce or continue some Popish Customs , upon a pretence that they are antec●dent to Popery . But he that shall duly consider the state of the Church , in and from the Apostles times , will find that the Mystery of Iniquity , which began to work in their dayes , hath continued working ever since , and in every Age successively hath brought forth more and more of its work . So that Popery was not All brought forth in a Day , nor in an Age , but was introduced gradually . And as the true Religion of Christ was instituted , prosessed and practised some time before it was distinguished by the Name Christian. So the false Religion was received also before it was denominated Popish : yet this false Religion was really in its N●ture Popish , before it obtained to be called Popish , as the true Religion was really in its Nature Christian , before it received the Name Christian. He therefore that will receive whatsoever he finds practised or commended in the Church before the Name of Popery prevailed , may be very likely to receive something which was brought forth by the working of the mystery of Iniquity , and is really and truly of the Nature of Popery .

But the Priest sayes ( as he has said before , more then once ) If the Saxons in K. Ethelwolf's ti●e were Papists , it will not follow that all their Donations are void .

I say so too . Some of their Donations were meerly civil , made by them as men and Members of a civil Society ; but this of Tythes was the product of their Religion , and of that part of it wherein they were most corrupt . So that although All their Donations are not void , yet if any at all of their Donations are void , there is none which with more reason should be so then this of Tythes .

Again he sayes , Suppose they were Papists in some things , yet it follows not that giving Tythes was a Popish Act ; for all the Acts of Papists are not Popish .

But I have proved that the giving of Tythes was a Popish Act , proceeding from such Motives , and attended with such Circumstances as are repugnant to true Protestant Principles .

But sayes he , pag. 121. The Protestants have disputed as much and as well for Tythes , as ever the Papists did .

If by Protestants he means his Brethren the Priests , I wonder not at all at it : Tythes are their Diana , the Oyl that nourishes their Lamp , pag. 13. No wonder then if they dispute fo● Tythes , and that much too , but how well let others judge . Yet commonly the Dispute ends on their parts with Club-Law , and in the case of Tythes an Imprisonment and trebble dammages are Ratio ultima Cleri , the Clergy's last Argument , and many times their first too , but alwayes the strongest , and that they most rely on .

He adds , It is a Popish Opinion , That the Bishop of Rome can exempt men from paying Tythes .

'T is so indeed : but it is the subsequent of another Popish Opinion , That the Bishop of Rome can injoyn men to pay Tythes . So that the particular exemption from Tythes and the institution of Tythes are de●ived from one and the same Power . And if the payment of Tythes had not been settled and established by the Authority of the Bishop of Rome , the Opinion of his power to exempt men from paying Tythes had not prevailed as it did . But do not these Popish exemptions remain still among the Protestants ? Those Lands which the Pope made Tythe free , are they not Tythe free still ? What signifies that I pray ? Is that an argument of the divine Right of Tythes ? and that Tythes are due by the moral eternal Law ? Or is it not rather a fair intimation , that Tythes are indeed but of human Institution , and that from the Bishops of Rome too ? whose exemptions are in force , and observed here , even to this day .

Then he sayes , I begun too low by far ; for if Popery came not into the Church , till about seven Hundred Years after Christ ( according to T. E's proof ) then Tythes were much ancienter then Popery ; for they were paid ( sayes he ) and declared to be due to the Church at least five Hundred Years before .

In all this he is wrong . For first , I have proved Popery did come into the Church before seven Hundred Years after Christ , & before any settled payment of Tythes . Next , he neither hath proved , nor can prove by any Testimony of credit in this case , that Tythes were paid and declared to be due to the Christian Church at least five Hundred Years before . He may talk of the Apostles Canons and Clement's Constitutions and be laugh't at for his pains : but no Authentick evidence of those times can be produced to prove the payment of Tythes . The oldest of his Authors that mentions Tythes is Origen ; who grounded his judgment on the L●vitical Law , and thought it necessary that that Law should stand in force according to the Letter , which could not be consistent with Christianity . But although Origen was a learned man , yet Perkins says he was Errorum plenus , full of Errors ; and Hierom calls his Writings , Ven●nata , Venemous : and among the rest of his Errors Purgatory was one , as witnesseth the same Perkins against Co●●ius , Probl. pag. 175. So that if he will fetch Tythes from Origen , he may take Purgatory along with them , if he please . However , he shall find that some of those Opinions which afterwards were most rightly denominated Popish , were by the Mystery of Iniquity brought into the Church as early as his earliest mention of Tythes , let him climb as high as he can .

§ . 20. But to clear Tythes from a Popish Institution , he sayes , pag. 122. That most of those Doctrines which are properly called Popery , and which first caused and still justifie the Protestants separation from Rome , were not maintained as Articles of Faith , 〈◊〉 no● in the Church of Rome it self , at the time of this Donation , Anno 855.

Of this he gives several Instances , pag. 123. the first is this , The Marriage of Priests was not forbidden till the time of Gregory the 7th , above two hundred years after .

For this he cites Polid. Virgill de ver. invent . l. 5. c. 4. But how unfairly he has quoted his Author , and how foully he hath abused his Reader , let Polydore's own words shew in the place cited , where having declared how it fared with the Eastern Priests in that case , he adds , At occidentalibus paulatim est Connubium abrogatum . Syricius enim priums ●acerdotibus et diaconis , ut ait Gratianus distinctione 82. ●onjugio interdicit , qui circiter annum salutis humane 387. federe caepit : i. e. But Marriage was taken from the Priests in the West by degrees . For Syricius , who began to sit ( in the Roman Chair ) about the year of man's Salva●ion 387. was the first that forbad Marriage to Priests and Deacons , as Gratian says in his 82 Distinction . Idem instituit ( says Polydore ) ut quicunque aut viduam aut secundam duxisset uxorem , ab ordine sacerdotali pelleretu● ; sic per hoc voluit ut deinceps Digamus ad officium facerdotis non admittertur : i. e. The same Syricius ordained , that whatsoever Priest had married a Widow or a Second Wife , should be put out of his Priesthood ; so by this he would not have any one that had had two Wives be admitted from that time forward to the Priests Office . Then sayes he , Pelagius secundus deinde statuit , ut subdiaconi vel uxores a se separarent , vel illis contenti , sacerdotiorum possessione cederent , et cum neutrum admisissent , jussit , ut omnino uxores , abse abnegarent : i. e. Afterward Pelagius the second ( who sate about the year 580. ) appointed that Sub-deacons should either put their Wives from them , or contenting themselves with them should quit their Benefices ; and when they would admit of neither , he commanded , that by all means they should put their Wives away from them . Verum id decretum ( adds he ) Gregorius qui Pelagio successit , iniquum censuit , — et idcirco ●anxit , ut nullus amplius fieret subdiaconus , nisi se ca●te victurum prius promississet , quo si● cunctis legem continentiae imponeret : i. e. But Gregory , who succeeded Pelagius ( the same who sent Austin the Monk over hither ) thought that Decree unjust , — and therefore he made a Decree , that from thenceforth none should be made a Sub-deacon , until he had first promised to live chastely ; that so he might impose the Law of Continency upon them all . And sayes Polydore , Voluit , opinor , Gregorius minores coercere , ut illorum exemplo majores ex Syricij decreto mox sua sponte matrimonia spernerent : i. e. Gregory . I think , was willing to restrain the lesser Orders , that by their Example the greater after a while might of their own accord despise Marriage according to the Decree of Syricius . Then a little lower he adds . Ceterum non tenuit quempiam tum primum ista Gregoriana lex , sicut ante Calesti decretum non est servatum , quom idem Gratianus auctor est , primum sacerdotibus universis indixisse Caelibatum . Alij id Eugenio post Gregorium attribuunt . Preterea illud ipsum tum M●ldensi synod● tum Carthaginensi est magno omnium consensu statutum , sieut in Canonicis Decretis distinctione 32. ●t 84. legimus . Ita al●j● deinque super alijs promulgatis legibus , non ante Pontificatum Gregorij 7. qui anno salutis 1074● est Ponti●ex creatus , conjugium adimi Occidentalibus sacerdotibus potuit : i. e. But that Law of Gregory 's did not at first restrain any of them , as the Decree of Calistus before was not kept , whom the same Gratian reports to be the first that injoyned Single Life to all Priests . Which others attribute to Eugenius after Gregory . Moreover the very thing ( viz. that Priests should not Marry , was ordained both in the Synod of Meldensis and Council of Carthage , with the full consent of all , as we read in the Cano●●cal Decrees , Distinction 32. and 84. Thus one Law being made upon the Neck of another , Marriage could not be taken from the Western Priests before the time of Pope Gregory the seventh . who was made Pope in the year of Salvation 1074. Thus ●olydore . Judge now Reader the honesty of this Priest , who brings Polydore for a Witness , that the Marriage of Priests was not forbidden till the time of Gregory the seventh , above a thousand years after Christ ; whena● Polydore there says expresly , The Marriage of Priests was forbidden by Syricius about the year 387. and afterwards by other Popes and Councils , although their Decrees could not so far prevail a● to take away Priest , Marriage wholely , until the time of Gregory the seventh . But though Priests Marriage was not wholely taken away before Gregory the seventh's time , yet evident it is , the Opinion that it ought to be taken away was received , and according thereunto Endeavours used to take it away many hundred years before Gregory the seventh's time , or King Ethelwolf● either . The Marriage of Priests ( says Polydore ) was forbidden long before , and Laws made against it , although they were not obeyed . The Marriage of Priests was not forbidden ( says this Priest ) till the time of Gregory the seventh , and brings Polydore for his Voucher . Shameless man ! Is this the way to provo Tythes antienter then Popery ? What Credit can be given to any Quotation that this man brings , who makes no Conscience of speaking falsly ? But that Priest , Marriage was indeed forbidden long before either Gregory the seventh or Ethelwolf either was born , Perkins against Coccius plainly acknowledges ; first he says , Problem pag. ●90 . Conjugium Clericorum ante ●recentos a Christo annos fuit ubique sine interdicto , et sine voto continentiae perpetuo , liberum : i. e. The Marriage of Priests for three hundred years after Christ , was everywhere free , without Interdiction , and without perpetual Vow of Continency . Then pag. 192. Continentiae votum necessarium et perpetuum , videtur in occidentali Ecclesia statutum primo , et annexum ordinibus , circa annum 380. a Christo. Ante quidem receptum suit , sed privata quorundam devotione , non publico Ecclesiae judicio . Tum autem primum communi decreto ( si non est fictitium decretum istud ) in occidentalibus Ecclesijs interdictum dicitur co●j●gium Clericorum , ut impurum , a Syricio Papa : i. e. The necessary and perpetual Vow of Continency seems to have been ordained first in the Western Church , and annext to Orders , about the year from Christ 380. It was indeed received before , but by the private Devotion of some , not by the publick Iudgment of the Church . But that is the first time that by a common Decree ( if that Decree be not forged ) the Marriage of Priests is said to have been forbidden by Pope Syricius in the Western Churches , as impure . And there is the more Reason to believe this Decree of Syricius genuine , because it is evident that this was the Opinion of those times . Origen above 150 years before , said , Videtur mihi quod illius solius est offerre sacrificium , qui inde●inent et perpetuae se devovit castitati : I think it belongs to him only to offer sacrifice , who hath devoted himself to uncessant & perpetual Chastity , Hom. 13. upon Numb . Pope Syricius himself in an Epistle to Hymerius Bishop of Tarracon , says , that They who are in the Flesh , that is , they who are Married , cannot please God . And Leo the first , in an Epistle to Anastatius , says , To set forth the purity of perfect Continency , Marriage is not allowed so much as to Sub-Deacons . By all which it appears , that Priests Marriages were denyed and forbidden in those early Ages of the Church , the Mystery of Iniquity even then working . And this being one of those Doctrines which , by his own confession , are properly called Popery , may serve to convince him of the Corruption of those times to which he refers the rise of Tythes .

His next Instance is of the seven Sacraments , the Number of which he says was not defined till Peter Lombard's Dayes , Anno 114● . He quotes Cassander de sacran 〈◊〉 .

The Book I have not , and therefore cannot examin his Quotation . But if he hath dealt in this as in the former , he is not at all to be regarded . However , if it be as he says , t●at the Number of the seven Sacraments was not defined till Peter ●ombard's dayes , yet were there so many other Popish Doctrines and Opinions received in the Church long before , as sufficiently prove those times to be Popish , from which he fetches his Donation of Tythes .

Next , he says , The Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not received for a point of Faith till the Lateran Council above one thousand two hundred years after Christ .

Although Transubstantiation was not by publick Decree imposed as an Article of Faith , until the Council of Lateran , yet was it received and believed by many some hundreds of years before . Perkins says , Problem pag , 145. Disputations began concerning Transubstantiation about the year 840. So that Transubstantiation it seems was a hatching before Ethelwolf's Charter for Tythes was granted . And as the Council of Lateran , somewhat after the year 1200. was the first that made Transubstantiation an Article of Faith ; so the same Council of Lateran was the first general Council that decreed ●●rochial Right to Tythes , as Selden proves in his History of Tythes , ch. 6. §. 7. and ch. 10. §. 2. towards the end . So that the general parochial payment of Tythes , and the general belief of Transubstantiation , were decreed and established at one and the same time , in one and the same General Council .

Purgatory it self ( he sayes ) was but a private Opinion , and affirmed only by some , Anno 1146. and Indulg●●ces can be no older : yea , their application to Souls in Purgatory was first brought in ( he says ) by Boniface the eighth .

Purgatory ( saith Perkins , pag. 175. ) was first received in the Church by Tertullian and Origen , who both lived about two hundred years after Christ . That it was held by Augustin also , and others of the Fathers , though in somewhat a different Notion from what it afterward obtained , he shews , p. 176 , and 178. and concludes , pag. 180. Ergo Purgatorium , quod est inter Mortem et ultimum judicium , quodq : tantum inservit expurgandis peccatis venialibus , paenis temperalibus , non ●uit receptum apud ●eteres nisi sorte post annum 600. i. e. Therefore Pu●gatory which is between Death and the last Iudgment , and which serves only to purge venial sins , and take away temporal punishments , was not received among the Antients unless happily after the year 600. Whence by implication is granted that after the year 600. ( which was two hundred and fifty years before Ethelwolf's Donation of Tythes ) Purgatory was received , even in this sense among the Antients . 'T is true , Indulgences can be no older then Purgatory , nor need they ; for that is old enough to prove those times Popish wherein Tythes were granted . Polydore , Vergil de Invent. Re● . l. 8. c. 1. searching the Original of them , sayes , Non reperio ante fuisse , quod sciam , quam D. Gregorius ad suas stationes id praemij proposuerit : i. e. I do not find , so far as I know , that Indulgences were before St. Gregory proposed that Reward to his Stations : which was about the Year 600. Then using the Testimony of the Bishop of Rochester to the same purpose , he adds , Atque hoc pacto post Gregorium veniarum Seges paulatim crevit , cujus messem non exiguam permulti interdum colligerunt , &c. i. e. And by this means after Gregories time the Crop of Pardons or Indulgences grew up by little and little , of which very many have sometimes reapt a large Harvest ; and whence it appears Indulgences were in use much earlier then the Priest delivers . But to proceed , the Priest says , that the half Communion began but a little before the Council of Constance , and was never decreed till then ; That the putting the Apocripha into the Canon of Scripture , and divers other points , were never decreed till the Council-of Trent ; And that , if it were not to avoid prolixity , he could make it evident , That the Pope's universal Supremacy and Infallibility , Iu●●ification by the Merit of Good Works , Auricular Confession , Formal Invocation of Saints , and other Corruptions of the modern Papists , w●re not determined as Articles of Faith , no not in Rome it self in Ethelwolf ' s time .

That many , if not most of these were believed , and publickly held in the Church of Rome , long before Ethelwolf's time , is undoubted . Concerning the ●ope's Supremacy , Perkins sayes , Problem . pag. 202. Primatus Dominij , vel authoritationis in Romano Pontifice , ante 600. an . ignotus , publice et manifeste caepit in Bonifacio anno 607. i. e. The Primacy of Dominion or Authority in the Pope of Rome , which was not known before the year 600. began publickly and manifestly in Boniface in the year 607. ( about two hundred and fifty years before Ethelwolf's Charter . ) And of Confession he sayes , pag. 180. Confessio aur●cularis , id est , confessio specialis omnium mortalium peccatorum , ad eorundem remissionem necessaria , et sacerdoti occulte facta , cepit in Ecclesia urgeri et praecipi circa annos a Christo octingentos : i. e. Auricular Confession , that is , particular Confession of all mortal sins , held necessary for the obtaining Remission of them , and which is made in private to the Priest , began to be enforced & commanded in the Church about eight hundred years after Christ ( which was about fifty years before Ethelwolf's Charter . ) And of Invocation of Saints , he sayes , pag. 89. No Invocation of the Dead can be shewed in the Church for three hundred and fifty years after Christ . Then p. 90. he says , This Invocation began to be brought into the use of the Catholick Church about the year 380. by common Custome and private Devotion . And pag. 91. he affirms , that After the year 400. the antients did commit Sin , yea , and were guilty of Sacriledge in the Invocation of Saints ; of which he gives many Instances full of gross Impiety , and then adds , pag. 94. The Invocation which in former Ages was of private Devotion began to be publick about the year 500. for then Petrus Gnaphaeus mingled the Invocation of Saints with the publick Prayers of the Church . For he is said to have invented this , that in every Prayer the Mother of God should be named , and her divine Name called upon . And about the year 600. Pope Gregory the great commanded a Letany , which was made for the Invocation of Saints , to be sung publickly .

Thus we see that these Doctrines , which he sayes are properly called Popery , were received , held , believed and publickly professed many a year before Ethelwolf was born . And were it not to avoid prolixity , I could make it evident , that the greatest part of the Errors , Corruptions , Superstitions and Idolatries of the Church of Rome , were received , believed and openly maintained long before Ethelwolf made his Donation of Tythes . But suppose the particulars he has instanced were not determined as Articles of Faith in Ethelwolf's time , but without any such formal Determination were received and commonly believed , are they therefore not popish ? Doth Popery lie only in the Determination of them ? If they are Errors , if they are Corruptions , if they are Superstitions , if they are Idolatries , after they are determined as Articles of Faith , then surely they were such before , else the bare determination of them would not have made them such . Besides , if there were Truth in what he sayes , that the particulars he has mentioned had not been determined as Articles of Faith before Ethelwolf's time , nor could have been Popish without such a determination ; yet very many other Instances may be given of Doctrines and Practices properly Popish , sufficient to prove not the Church of Rome in general only , but the then Church of England also ( which was a Member of that , and for at least seven continued Successions , received her Metropolitan Bishop out of the Romish Church ) to be Popish , according to the Definition his Brother Priest has given of Popery , in his Friendly Conference , pag. 149.

§ . 21. But to clear those times from the imputation of Popery , he undertakes to reply to the Instances I had given in my former Book . First , he sayes , F●r those , pag. ●01 . the Quaker lays not much stre●● upon them , and there are some of them allowed by the best Protestants , and all men that understand Antiquity know those ●ecretal Epistles to be forged , which first attributed these Constitutions to those early Popes .

Is not this a pretty way of replying , to say his Opponent lays not much stress on them ? what may one not answer after this rate ? Next he sayes , there are some of them allow'd by the best Protestants : but which are they ? why did he not distinguish betwixt those he doth allow , and those he doth not allow ? The Instances were , The use of Holy Water to drive away Devils , said to be Instituted by Alexander the first . The Consecration of Chrism once a Year , by Fabianus . That all should stand up at the Reading of the Gospel , by Anastatius . That Wax Tapers should be Consecrated on the holy Sabbath , by Zozimus . That Processions should be made on Sundayes , by Agapetus . Some of these , he sayes , are allowed by the best Protestants , but which they are he keeps to himself . Lastly he sayes , All men that understand Antiquity know those Decretal Epistles to be forged , which attribute those Cons●itutions to these early Popes . Whether those Epistles be forged or no , I will not undertake to determin ; nor need I● for I delivered not those Instances upon my own Authority , but gave the Authors out of whom I gathered them , namely Fas●ic . Temp. Platina and Burdegalensis ; to which more might be added , if need were . But suppose what he ●ayes , that those Decretal Epistles are forged : yet all men that understand Antiqu●ty know that the things there instanced were in use before Ethelwolf's time , and therefore must needs be instituted before . So that his exception against the Decretal Epistles is but an idle shift : for if it should be granted that those Constitutions were not made by those early Popes to whom they are attributed , yet certain it is they were made by Popes earlier then Ethelwolf's Charter for Tythes ; which is enough to prove that Popery had made her ●ncro●chments in the Church before this dear Donation and famous Charter was made . Thus we see his tripartit● Answer comes to just nothing ; and doubtless he spake considerately when he said , pag. ●●4 . I will content my self to Reply to the Quaker's Instances ; for it can hardly be supposed he could expect by this Reply to content any bo●y but himself .

But perhaps he look't upon those things as too immateria● to deserve his notice , and therefore co●tent●d himself to pass over them as lightly as he could ; as before he did Ethelwolf's being absolve● from his Vows by the Pope , going on Pilgrimage to Rome , and making such liberal Donations to uphold Superstition there . But now that he comes to instances which he accounts more material , it is to be hoped he will give a more material Reply . First , ●aith he , concerning deposing of Kings , T. E. saith , Pope Zachary , took upon him to depose K. Chilperick , and absolved his Subjects from their allegiance . Thus ( he sayes ) is a Forgery invented by the Champions of the Pope's Supremacy , but denyed by the French , who do assure 〈◊〉 , that the deposing of K. Chilperick was done by Pip●n himself , by the consent of the whole Kingdom of France , before any notice was given to the Pope about it , pag. 125.

That the Reader may be the more able to judge of the Truth of this matter , I will give him the words of the Authors themselves by whom it is delivered ( so many of them as I have by me , which are but a few in respect of the many by whom this passage is recounted . ) First therefore the Author of Fascic . Temp. ( ad annum 744 ) sayes thus of Pope Zacha●ias , Ipse Regem Francorum , scilicet Hylderien●● , deposuit , & in locum ejus Pippinum instituit , quia utilior fuit . Et hic patet potesta Ecclesiae q●anta ●uerit hoc tempore qui regnum illud famosissimum transtulit de veris haeredibus ad genus ●ippini , propter legitimam cau●am . i. e. He deposed the King of France , namely Hylderick , and set Pippin in his place , because he was more useful . And here ( sayes he ) it appears how great the power of the Church was in this time , in that he Translated the most famous Kingdom from the true Heirs to the Race of Pippin , for a lawful cause . platina , though he mentions not the deposing of Childerick , yet the setting up of Pippin by the Pope he does in these words , At Pipinus regnandi cupidus , legatos suos ad Pontificem mittit , eumque rogat , ut Regnum Franciae sibi auctoritate sua confirmet . Amuit Pontisex ejas postulatis , — atque it a ejus auctoritate regnum Franciae Pipino ad judicatur . i. e. But Pipin having a desire 〈◊〉 Reign sends his Ambassadors to the Pope● and 〈◊〉 him to confirm the Kingdom of France to him BY HIS AUTHORITY . ● The Pope grants his requests , and so BY HIS AUTHORITY the Kingdom of France was adjudged to Pipin . Burdegalensis sayes of Pope Zachary ( Chronograph . l. 2. ad annum 741. ) 〈◊〉 caepit Francos juramento 〈◊〉 absolvere , i. e. This Pope was the first that absolved the French from their Oath of Allegiance : For which he quotes Aemil. lib. 2. And a little after , of Child●rick he hath these words , Childerico 〈◊〉 Rege in Monasteriam truso , Pipinus — concilio Ponti●icis a Galliae Proceribus Rex declaratur eta S. Bo●ifacio — Germanorum Apostolo inungitur . i. e. Ch●lderick the French King being thrust into a Monastery , Pipin is by the counsel of the Pope declared King by the Nobility of France , and ancinted by St. Boniface the Apostle of the Germans . Iohn Fox in his Book of Martyrs , Vol. 1. pag. 116. ●ath it thus , By the Authority of the said Arch-Bishop Boniface , which be received from Pope Zaehary , Childericus King of France was deposed from the right of his Crown , and Pipin●● the betrayer of his Master was confirmed or rather intruded ●n . Perkins against Coccius , prob . pag. 223. sayes , Depositio Childerici Francorum Regis suit a Proceribus et Pop●lo consilium vero deponendi , Papae fuit . i. e. The deposing of Childerick the French King , was done by the Nobles and People ; but the Counsel that he should be deposed , was given by the Pope . He quotes there Sabellicus , Blondus , and from him Alcuinus , Paulus and many others , all agreeing that Childerick was deposed by the counsel of the Pope . Did all these combine to invent a Forgery ? or were all these Champions of the Pope's Supremacy ; some whereof were Protestants ? The Priest sayes Chilperick was deposed before any notice was given to the Po●e about it , and that he did only approve of the deed after it was done , pag. 125.

But besides Popish Authors , Fox sayes he was deposed by the Popes Authority : And Perkins , though he makes the act of deposing to be the Peoples , yet he acknowledges the Pope advised them thereunto ; both which must be false , if what the Priest sayes be true . But Perkins proves by divers Witnesses of 〈◊〉 , that The Pope's counsel was first had [ Zacharia Roma●o Pontificie PRIUS consulto ] before Childerick was deposed , or Pipin made King . So that I conclude the Priest wrong in saying , it was done before any notice was given to the Pope about it . But 〈…〉 let the Reader judge .

He offers another Evidence against this deposition of Childerick by the Pope's Authority , which is part of an Epistle from Hinc-marus Arch-Bishop of Rhemes to Pope Adrian the second , who ( he sayes ) had written to him to Excommunicate the King of France . The words he gives thus , There was never any such precept before sent from Rome to any of my Predecessors , pag. 125.

That might be without any injury to the former Relation of Childerick's being deposed by the Pope . For Fox sayes he was deposed by the Authority of Boniface Arch-Bishop of Mentz , which he received from the Pope . Now this Boniface had a power L●gantine from the Pope , and is called by Burdegalensis the Apostle of the Germans : So that it may very well be that the Pope by this Legate of his might depose the French King , and yet send no precept about it to the Arch-Bishop of Rhemes , who were Hinc-Marus his pred●cessors . But however from these very words of Hinc-Marus it is evident , that Pope Adrian took upon him to Excommunicate the King of France , however he succeeded in it . And from another clause in the same Epistle there is great ground to suspect , that he purposed to d●p●se as well as Excommunicate him , and to s●t up another in his stead : Why else doth Hinc-Marus , in the Name of the French , say there , Let him not command us Franks to serve him t●at we will not serve ? Hence I think may well be gathered that the Pope did not only require the Arch-Bishop of Rhemes to E●communicate the French King , but also commanded the French Men or Franks to s●rve another ; w●ic● sufficiently shew● how much the Popes even the● took upon them , ●lthough the Franks would not so los● thei● King .

But he says , There is as little Truth in Gregory the thirds deposing of Leo Isaurus about Images , pag. 126.

The very words of Platina in the Life of Gregory the third , are these , Hic statim ubi Pontificatum iniit , Cleri Romani consensu , Leonem tertium Imperatorem Constantinopolitanum imperio simul et communione ●idelium privat ; quod sanctas imagines ● sacris aedibus abrasiss●t , & statuas demolitus esset , &c. i. e. He , as soon as he was made Pope , with the consent of the Roman Clergy , Excommunicates Le● the third , the Emperor of Constantinople , and withal deprives him of his Empire , because he had rased the holy Images out of the Churches , and had demolished the Statues . Fox sayes , vol. 1. pag. 116. Leo was Excommunicated by Gregory the third . And Perkins , pag. 210. quotes August . Stench . cont. vallam in these words , Gregorius tertius Excommunicavit Leonem , & ab ejus Imperio Roman Italiamque avertit , omnibus juramento ●●delitatis absolutis . i. e. G●egory the third Excommunicated Leo , and withdrew Rome and Italy from his Government , setting them all free from their Oath of Allegiance . From these Testimonies whether Gregory the third , did depos● the Emperor Leo or not , let the Reader judge . Besides , this same Emperor had been Anathematized before by Pope Gregory the second , as the Author of Fasciculus Temporum affirms , who also notes ( ad annum , 714. ) that About those times the Popes began to set themselves against the Emperors more then ordi●arily , even in temporal matters , and to transfer the Empire from one Nation to another , a● the time required .

The next instance of Popery which he carps at is , the worship of Images , which he sayes , pag. 128. is another manifest Slander , not that the Saxons had no Images , for that he acknowledges they had , but sayes , they had them only for Ornament , Memory , Reverenc● and Example , but not for Worship , pag. 129.

Perkins shewing the gradual Introduction of Images , sayes , Problem . pag. 77. They were not used otherwise then for Ornament for three Hundred & Eighty Years after Christ . Then pag. 78. about the Year 400 ▪ the Historical use of them began to come up , not in private Houses only , but also in the Churches of the Christians . But ( adds he ) as Superstition increased , the worshipping of Images took place , yet it was not received by Learned and Godly Men , nor were Images set forth to be worshipped openly before the Year 600. And if ( sayes he ) the Worship of Images gained ground any where before these times , it was not among the Learned , but the superstitious People . But after the Year 600. the Worship of Images grew more ●ommon , especially among the common People , who by Superstition were easily led into Idolatry . And although upon the second Council of Ni●e's Decr●eing the Worship of Images , a Book was written contradictory thereunto , and a Synod holden at Frankford where in the Acts of that Council were condemned , yet was not that Synod clear in the case of Images : for it condemned the Council of Constantinople also held a little before under the Emperor Co●r●●ymus for the abolishing of Images , and as ●erk●ns observes went a middle way between that and the Council of Nice , giving a cer●ain v●n●ration to Images , which was at least Superstition and Popery . But ●or the Church of Rome it self , of which the Saxon Church was a Member , with which it was in Communion , and to which it was in subjection , if we inquire how it stood with her in those times , with respect to Image-worship , Fox in his Martyrol . vol. 1. pag. 116 , and 117. tells us , That not only Pope Gregory the second and third , with Pope Zacharias and Constantine the first , wrought great Masteries against the Greek Emperors , Philippicus and Leo and others , for the maintaining of Images to be set up in Churches : but also that Pope Paul the first , thundred out great Excommunications against Constantine the Emperor of Constantinople , for abrogating and plucking down Images set up in Temples ; And that Stephen the third , not only maintained the filthy Idolatry of Images in Christian Temples , but also advanced their Veneration , commanding them most ethuically to be increased , &c. This was about One Hundred Years before Ethelwolf's Donation of Tythes : and if the Church of Rome , which was then the Mother Church to England , was so Idolatrous then , what may we think she was in Ethelwolf's time , one Hundred Years after ? and what may we suppose that King himself to be , who was so great an Admirer of her , and bountiful Benefactor to her !

He sayes , Thirdly , I instance in Miracles and Intercession of Saints , taxing Bede with these points of Popery , and the Saxons of his time . To this , sayes he , pag. 131. I reply , That if the belief 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 Miracl● then any they can find in all Bede's History .

What a miserable shift is this ! Is this Reasoning ? or Railing ? would any man , that had either a good Cause or good parts , have shewed so much weaknes● to give a meer Quibble instead of a solid Reply ! In his 28 Sect. pag. 161. He charges me ( though very unjustly , as in its place , c. 5. S. 4. I have shewed ) with evading all serious Answers by some petty Cavil . Judge now Reader , if himself be not here guilty , of what he there charges upon me . Hath he not in this very place evaded a serious Answer by a petty Cavil ? But this is an usual way with him , when he is hard set , and willing to avoid the matter . I alledged that long before Ethelwolf was Born , Popery had made her encroachments in the Church , among many instances whereof that I brought , one was the belief of strange kind of Miracles wrought by the Relicks of Popish Saints ; nor only so , but by th● Wood of the Cross , and by Holy Water also : This I proved by divers quotations out of the Ecclesiastical History of Beda the Saxon. To which , after his prophane Iest , he replyes , 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 human learning in that Age , might occasion the credulous reception of more then was true ; and yet we must not condemn them presently for Papists , ibid.

He that will take the pains to read Bede's History ( particularly his third Book , 2 , 11 , 13 , and 15. Chap. and his fifth Book , 4. Chap. ) may there find relation of Miracles as palpably Popish as any in the Roman Legend . And if it should be granted , that Miracles were then wrought to Convince that People , it must be supposed that those Miracle● ( if wrought by the Power of God ) were wrought to Convince them of the true Faith and Worship of God , and to establish them in it . But the Miracles mentioned in those Chapter● of Bede's History to which I have above refer'd , tend not to the setting up of the true Worship of God , but a false Worship , even the Worship of the Church of Rome , in the veneration and adoration of Relicks of Popish Saints , of the Wood of the Cross , of Holy Water , and of consecrated Oyl , which all men know to be a part ( and a corrupt part too ) of the present Romish Religion . So that in these things the Saxon Church then appears to have been in the same condition , in which the Church of Rome both then was and now is .

He sayes , They might be credulous and apt to be imposed upon , but that was their infirmity , and amount● but to Superstition , not to Popery , ibid.

He forgets his Brother's Definition of Popery , Friendly Confer . pag. 149. That it is such Doctrines and SUPERSTITIOUS Practices , which by the corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome , contrary to the true , ancient , Catholick and Apostolick Church . So that if those things recorded by Bede , to be wrought and believed by and among the Saxons , were such superstitious practices , as by the corruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome , contrary to the true , ancient , Catholick , and Apostolick Church , then they are Popery , and they by and amongst whom they were so wrought , believed and received were Papists ; but no Protestant I hope will deny the instances above given to be superstitious Practices , to have prevailed in the Church of Rom● through the corruption of time , and to be contrary to the true , ancient , Catholick and Apostolick Church . Besides , if ( as he sayes ) they might be credulous , and apt to be imposed upon , and so could be excused ( as he would have them ) upon the score of their Infirmity ; yet who I pray were they that took the advantage of their credulity , and did impose upon them ? were they not their Priests ? their Clergy ? and what were they mean while ? If the People wer● credulous and easie to be beguiled and imposed upon : the Priests were not less crafty and ready to impos● upon them and beguil them . But was not this the same Priest-hood to which Tythes were afterward● given ; who thus imposed upon the credulous People , and deluded them with lying Wonders ?

As for Intercession of Saints , he sayes , If I mean that the Saxons prayed to the Saints as their Interc●ssors with God , I do egr●giously wrong them , pag. 132.

About what time the Opinion of the Interc●ssion of Saints was received in the Church , and how understood , Perkins in his Problem of the Church of Rome , pag. 87. &c. shews , First , ( he sayes ) it was altogether unknown in the Church of God for the space of two Hundred Years after Christ . After which time Origen ( he sayes ) and other Fathers disputed concerning the Saints Intercession for us , but very diversly and doubtfully , untill the Year 400. From that time it seems to have been a received Opinion . For the Ancients , he sayes , pag. 89. teach that the Saints do interceed , not only openly by Praying , but interpr●tatively also by meriting or deserving ; of which he there gives many instances , and concludes that among the An●ients , the Saints are made immediate Intercessors to God for us . From this belief of the Saints Intercession , sprang the custom of Invocation or Praying to Saints , which Perkins shews was not in the Church for three Hundred and Fi●ty Years after Christ , but began to creep in about the Year 380. and after the Year 400. he sayes , the Ancients sin●ed , and were guilty of Sacriledge in praying to the Saints , of which he gives many Instances , some whereof shew that the Saints were prayed to as Intercessors to God , yea , as Mediators between God and Man . For Paulinus in natali . 3. in Faelicem , sayes , Exora , ut precibus plenis Meritisque redonet Debita nostra tuis . i. e. Pray ( O Faelix ) that he would forgive us our Sins for the sake of thy full Prayers and Merits . And Fortunatus in vita Martini lib. 2. thus intreats Mart●n , Inter me et Dominum Mediator ad esto benigne . i. e. Be thou ( O Martin ) afavourabl● Mediator between the Lord and me . No● was this Opinion of the Intercession of the Saints , and consequently the custom of praying to the Saints , the private Belief and Practice only of some , but the same Perkins , pag. 94. tells us , that the Invocation which in former Ages was of private devotion , began to be publick about the Year 500. for then , sayes he , Petrus Gnaph●us mixed the Invocation of Saint● with the publick Prayers of the Church , for he is said to have invented this , that in every Prayer the Mother of God should be named , and her divine 〈◊〉 called upon : and Gregory the great ( adds he ) about the Year 600. commanded that a Letany of Prayers to Saints should be sung publickly : This is spoken of the Church in general . Now concerning the Church in this Nation , it is to be noted that this is that Gregory who sent over Austin the ●onk to Plant the Romish Religion here , and whose Successors for many Years after had the ordering of the English Church , and making Bishops in it , and for the space of one Hundred and Fifty Years at least , the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury were Italians or other Forreigners of the Popes placing . How those Italian Prelates , that came out of the Bosom of the Roman Church , did form the Church here , I leave to the Readers judicious consideration ; adding only , to shew the devotion of the English then to the Roman Church , that Beda in his Eccles. Hist. l. 4. c. 5. sayes , Oswi King of Northumberland was so greatly in love with the Roman and Apostolical Institution , that had he recovered of an Infirmity whereof he died , he intended himself to have gone to Rome , and there to have ended his dayes , as I●a , Offa , K●nredus , with other of the Kings of this Land afterward did in Monkish Orders , as ●ox reports . And that Stow in his Annals , pag. 157. speaking of the English Monks unwillingness to change their manner of singing , which they had re●eived from Rome , sayes , [ As they that had been ●ver used not only in this , but in other s●rvice of the Church to follow the manner of the Roman Church . ] Now inasmuch as the Church of Rome did pray to Saints as their Intercessors with God , and the then Church of England was in subjection to the Church of Rome , and had th● Roman Church in so great veneration and esteem : since the same Pope Gregory that sent Austin to set up the Popish Worship here , did appoint a Let any of Prayers to ●aints to b● sung publickly ; and since it appears by Bede and others , that the Opinion and Belief of the Saints Intercession was received and held by the Saxons in those times , what reason can there be to doubt of the Saxons praying to Saints , as their Intercessors with God ? If they believed them Intercessors at all , with whom could they think they interceded but with God ? And if they believed they interceded with God for them , what should hinder their praying to them as their Intercessors with God ? especially seeing that Church from which they received both Doctrine and Discipline did so . But a passage there is in Bede's Eccles. Hist. l. 5. c. 22. from which the judgment of the Saxon Church , in the point of Intercession and Mediation of Saints , may pretty well be guessed at , Adamnan a Scotch-Abbat coming Ambassadour into England about the Year 720. visited the Abbey of Wire in the Bishoprick of Durham , of which Ceolfride was then Abbat . The Scot it seems had the wrong cut on his Crown , not after the Mode of St. P●ter , but after the fashion of Simon Magus ; which the English Abbat observed , and reproved the Scot for . He excused it by the custom of his Country , protesting that although he was Shorn like Simon Magus , yet in his Heart he abhorred Simon 's Infidelity , and desired to follow the steps of the blessed Princ● of the Apostles St. Peter : To which the English Abbat replied , That as he desired to follow St. Peter's Deeds or Admonitions , so it became him to imitate his manner of Habit , whom he desired to have for his Advocate with God the Father [ quem apud Deum patre● habere Patronum quaeris ] or , as Fox renders it , Whom you desire to have a Mediator between God and you . On which word [ Mediator ] Fox in his Margin , ( vol. 1. pag. 114. ) gives this Note , There is but one Mediator between God and Man , Christ Iesus ; plainly shewing he understood by this Sentence , the Saxons made other Mediators between God and Man , besides Christ Jesus . But leaving this to the Reader 's censure , I proceed .

The Priest sayes , pag. 132. 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 ( sayes he ) were the Saxons guilty , for they did not believe Transubstantiation , no not in K. Edgar's dayes , An. 9●5 .

He said before , pag. 123. the Doctri●e of Transubstantiation was not received for a point of Faith till the Lateran Council , above one Thousand two Hundred Years after Christ ; No wonder then if it were not believed by the Saxons . But that will not ●cquit the English-S●xon Church from the charge of Idolatry , any more then it will the Church of Rome , which hath been by many sufficiently convicted of Idolatry long before that ●a●eran Council in the Year 1215. wherein Transubstantiation was made a point of Faith . And though the Priest sayes , This is the only thing more wherein the present Church of Rome is charged with Idolatry : yet doubtless he must be very forgetful , or much too favourable to the Roman Church . For Rainolds , de Romane Ecclesia Idolatria , against Bellarmine and others of the Popish Patrons , doth charge the Church of Rome downright with Idolatry , not only in the worshipping of Saints , Images , and the Sacrament of the Eu●harist ; but of Relicks also , and of Water , Salt , Oyl , and other Consecrated things , which out of the Papists own Books he proves in the assumption of his ●rgument , l. 2. c. 1. And that the Saxons followed the Church of Rome in these things , is too well known to be denyed .

§22 . More Instances , he sayes , he could give to prove that the Saxons were like the Protestants in the most fundamental matters ; but that two shall suffice at present . 1. of the merit of good Works . 2. of the Canon of Scripture . For the first of these , he offer● some sentences out of Bede and Alcuin against the merit of Works , which , if faithfully given , may serve to shew the judgment of those particular Men , but are not sufficient to prove the general received Opinion of those times , much less of the after times wherein Ethelwolf lived and gave Tythes ; for Bed● dyed in the Year 735. ( 120. Years before Ethelwolf's Donation ) as the Epitome of his Ecclesiastical History shews ; and Alcuin was one of Bede's Hearers , as Burdegalensis testifies . And if the private judgment of some particular Men be made the measure of the general Opinion , he may thereby excuse the Church of Rome all along ●rom this and other unsound Doctrines , since there is scarce a Century wherein som● or other have not delivered themselves contrary to the common received Opinions of that Church . Stephen Gardiner himself in Q. Mary's dayes , discovered to Dr. Day Bishop of Winchester how he understood the Doctrine of free Iustification by Christ , as out of the Book of Martyrs is noted before , yet no man I think will question whether the Church was then Popi●h or no , o● whether the Popish Doctrine of merits was not then commonly and generally received . That very Pope Leo the fourth , whom Ethelwolf went in such devotion to see , towards whom he was so liberal , and to whom he committed his Son Alfred to be brought up , being ready to joyn Battel with the Saracens at Ostia , thus prayed , O God whose right Hand lifted up St. Peter , that he was not dro●ned when he walked upon the Waves , and delivered the Apostle Paul from the bottom of the Sea in his third Shipwrack , hear us favourably , and for the MERITS OF THEM BOTH grant , &c. Plat. in vita . Leon. 4. li. But what the common Opinion was of the merit of good Works among the Saxons , may be collected from the Tenour of the Charters of their . ●eligious endowments , which as they often sprang from some flagitious Wickedness , so they usually declare the intendment of the gift to be for the Salvation or Redemption of the Donors Soul , or for the Remission of his and his Ancestors sins , or some such-like Expression as plainly imports an expiation or satisfaction for Sin . And that this is not my judgment only , but that they were thus understood by men of note in former times , hear the judicio●s Camden , who in his Brittania , pag. 262. speaking of a Monastery founded by Q. Aelfrith , saith , Q. Aelfrith Built a Monastery to EXPIATE and make SATISFACTION for that most foul and hainous Fact , wherewith so wickedly she had charged her Soul by making away K. Edward her Husbands Son ; as also to wash out the Murthering of her former Husband Aethel●old , &c. And elsewhere ( pag. 254. ) speaking of Ambresbury in Wiltshire , he saith , In that place afterward Alfritha K. Edgar's Wife , by Repentance and some good deed to EXPIATE and make SATISFACTION for Muthering of K. Edward her Son in Law , built a stately Nunnery , &c. And Fox in his Acts of the Church , Vol 1. pag. 120. enumerating the many Religious Houses that were built in England in the sixth , seventh , and eighth Centuries , hath these words thereupon , Thus ye see what Monasteries , and in what time , begun to be founded by the Saxon Kings , newly converted to the Christian Faith , within the space of two Hundred Years ; who , as they seemed then to have a certain zeal and devotion to Godward , according to the leading and teaching that then was : so it seemeth again to me two things to be wished in these foresaid Kings ; first , that they wh●ch begun to erect these Monasteries — had foreseen the danger , &c. — secondly , that unto this their Zeal and Devotion had been joyned like Knowledge and Doctrine in Christ's Gospel , especially in the Article of our free Justification by the Faith of Jesus Christ ; because of the LACK whereof , as well the Builders and Founders thereof , as they that were professed in the same , seem both to have run the WRONG way , and to have been DECEIVED . For albeit in them there was a Devotion and Zeal of mind , — yet the end and cause of their Deed● and Buildings cannot be excused , being contrary to the Rule of Christ's Gospel , for so much as they did these things seeking MERITS with God , and for REMEDY of their Souls , and REMISSION of their Sins , as may appear testified in their own Records , &c. Thus he . Whence its plain that he ( who undertook to write an History of the Acts and Monuments of the Church , and may well be thought to understand something of those times as well as this Priest ) concluded that although the Saxons in those dayes ( whom the Priest so often calls his pious Ancestors , and famous Tyt●e● givers ) were Zealous according to the teaching that then was , yet they had not the true knowledge and Doctrine of Christ's Gospel , especially in the point of justifi●ation , but for lack thereof were deceived , and ran the wrong way , seeking remedy of their Souls , and remission of their Sins , by the merits of their works . And for proof that they so did , Fox there sets down the very same Charter of Ethelbald which this Priest brings to prove the Right of Tythes , pag. 94. which Charter being by Fox set down , in the place fore-cited , toward the end of his second Book , he there adds as followeth , By the contents hereof , sayes he , may well be understood ( as where he saith , Pro amore calestis partie , proremedio animae , pro liberatione animae , et absolutione delictorum , &c. i. e. For the love of the Heavenly Country , for the remedy of my Soul , for the delivering of my Soul , and for the pardon of my Sins , &c. ) how great the IGNORANCE and BLINDNESS of these men , was , who lacking no Zeal , only LACKED KNOWLEDGE to rule it withal : seeking their Salvation NOT BY CHRIST ONLY , but by their OWN DESERVINGS and MERITORIOUS deeds . And the same Fox but two pages further , entring upon the Reign of King Ethelwolf , sayes , This Ethelwolf ( as being himself once muzled in that order ) was alwayes good and devout to Holy and Religious orders , insomuch that he gave to them the Tythe of all his Goods and Lands in West-Saxony , with liberty and freedom from all servage and civil charges . Whereof this Charter instrument beareth Testimony after this tenor proceeding , much like to t●e De●a●ion of Ethelbald above mentioned . Then r●citing the C●arter ( even that v●ry Charter so hug'd , and so ex●ol'd by these Priests ) and therein fin●ing these words [ Pro remissione animarum et peccatorum nostrorum . i. e. For the deliverance of our Soul● , and the remission of our Sins ] he adds , Hereby it may appear , how and when the Churches of England began first to be indued with Temporalities and Lands ; also with Priviledges and Exemption● enlarged : moreover ( and that which specially i● to be considered and LAMENTED ) what PERNICIOUS Doct●in● was this , wherewith t●ey were led , t●us to set REMISSION of their SINS , & REMEDY of their Souls , in this Donation and such other deeds of their Donation , CONTRARY to the information of God's word , and no small derogation to the Cros● of Christ . Thus far Fox ; which I have set down the more largly that the Reader may see what his judgment was of the Religion of those times , wherein this Donation of Tythes was made ; and may himself be the better able to judge , whether I here wronged the People and Clergy of those times in calling them Papists .

The Priest's next and last instance of the Saxons not being Papists , is their keeping the Canon of Scripture entire , and rejecting the Apocrypha from being of divine Authority .

But this ( if they did so ) will not clear them from being Papists , since many of the Church of Rome , yea , some of the Cardinals have done the like , as Perkins shews , ●rob . pag. 48. And if it be true that he himself sayes , pag. 123. that the putting the Apocrypha into the Canon of Scripture , was never decreed till the Council of Tren● , about a Hundred and Ten Years ago , then before that time the Church of Rome it self had not the Apocrypha in the Canon of Scripture , any more then the Saxons had ; and yet I think he will not say the Church of Rome was not Popish o● Ido●atrous before the Council of Trent .

In the close of this Section he sayes , Finally , if T. E. have either shame or grace , let him Repent of this foul Slander , which he hath as falsly as maliciously cast upon our fore-Fathers the pious Saxons — But if T. E. will not Recant , I shall leave it to the Reader to judge of his ignorance and impudence , pag. 135.

Because there is nothing in this but Scurrility , and Railing instead of Reason , I intend no Reply to it : but will take notice of another passage or two in the same page .

§23 . First , he sayes , The Saxons were more Orthodox in SOME points then ROME it self then was .

A goodly commendation ! Was Rome it self so Orthodox then in his account , that he makes her the ●tandard to measure others by ? Rome it self no doubt was somewhat less corrupt then then in after Ages she grew to be ; yet he that with an impartial Eye shall view the state of the Romish Church in those times , will find her far enough from being Orthodox . And if the Saxon Church was not in ALL points so depraved as Rome it self then was , yet was she also too unsound in Faith to be reputed Orthodox . But secondly , the Saxons , sayes he , differed from the present Papists in all the most material Articles of Faith , being nearer in Opinion to the Prot●stant Church of England .

It seems then they are not one with the Protestant Church of England , but only nearer in Opinion to it , then to the present Papists . Yet in pag. 102. he say●● , The Clergy of that Age were Gods only publick Ministers ; and pag. 112. he makes no doubt but they were the right Ministers of God : which if they were , how comes it that they were not positively one with the Protestant Church of England , but only nearer to it , then to the present Papists ? But wherein were they nearer to the Protestant Church of England then to the present Papists ? Not , I hope in their shaven Crowns , not in their Monkish Life , not i● their Vows of continency , not in their going on Pilgrimages , not in their belief of Purgatory , not in th●ir praying for the Dead , not in their sacrificing for the Dead , not in the worshipping of Relicks , not in the praying to Saints , not in saying Mass , not in Latine service , not in auricular Confession , not in extream Vnction , not in the use of Chrism , not in the use of Holy Water to drive away Devils , or of ●onsecrated Oyl to allay Storms and Tempests . In these , I ●row , and such like things as these , they were nearer the present Papists then the Protestant Church of England . But thirdly , He charges me with ignorance and impudence , in supposing the Church so much corupted with Popery then , that their very Donations were not fit to stand good or be enjoyed , no not by a Protestant Ministry .

No sure , not by a Protestant Ministry of all other : for since it is denominated Protestant from protesting against Popery , what can be more unsuitable to it , then to subsist by a Donatio● which was made to uphold that which it hath protested against . By a Protestant Ministry he means , no doubt , a true Gospel Ministry , the nature and qualifications whereof if he rightly understood , he would not think that such a Ministry hath a greater liberty to enjoy a Popish Donation then another , but a less : in as much as such a Ministry ought more especially to abstain , not only from known and certain Evil , but even from every appearance of Evil ; and not only to avoid the works of the Flesh , but to hate even the Garment spotted with the Flesh. So that I account the Church so corrupted with Popery then , that their Donations of Tythes are not fit to be enjoyed by any Ministry at all , much less by a Protestant Ministry .

That the Church then was indeed greatly corrupted with Popery , is evident by the many instances given of Doctrines and Practices received and held therein , which beyond all contradiction have through the corruption of time prevailed in the Church of Rome contrary to the true , ancient , Catholick and Apostolick Church : Nor is it likely it should be otherwise , if we consider the Constitution of the Church here in those times . For when Austin the Monk came hither from Rome , and ●ound some reception here , he sent to the Pope for advice and direction how to form , settle , & govern that Church which he then was gathering ; and from the Pope he received Instructions in all particulars he desired to be informed in . From the Pope he received the Power he here exercised , and the Pall of his Arch-Bishoprick , as his Successors generally did . And the Religion and Worship which he brought with him from Rome , grew by degrees to be the general Religion and Worship of the Nation . For although the Profession of Christianity had been in this Island long before Austin came hither , yet had it been much deprest by Heathenism , and the remains of it shortly after extinguished by Austin and his Sectators . Austin being dead , his Successors for a long time after were such , as the succeding Popes sent over hither , Fox reckons them in this order Laurentius , Mellitus , Iustus , Honorius , Deusdedit ; Bed . l. 3. c. 29. which last being dead , Oswi and Egbert , Kings of Northumberland and Canterbury , sent Wighard a Presbyter to Rome ( with great Gifts and Presents of Silver and Golden Vessels to Pope Vitalianus ) to be by him ordained Arch-Bishop ; but he delivering his Message and Presents to the Pope died at Rome before he could be consecrated ; whereupon the Pope writes a Letter to King Oswi , commending his zeal and care , and sends him some Relicks of the Apostles Peter & Paul , & of other Saints ( as he calls them ) and to the Queen his Wi●e the Pope sent a Cross with a golden Nail in it : withal he acquaints the King , that so soon as he could find a Man fit for the place , he would not fail to send him an Arch-Bishop . Accordingly , after much inquiry Theodorus at length was found ; but he being Born at Tharsus of Cilicia , l. 4. c. 1. had his Crown clipt after the Eastern manner , in imitation ( as they pretended ) of St. Paul , so that he was fain to wait four Moneths till his Hair was grown , that he might have the right cut as they accounted it ; that done he was ordained Arch-Bishop of Canterbury by Pope Vitalianus , and soon after he set forward for England accompanied with Adrian and other Monks , about the Year 668. This is that Theodorus who Fox sayes was sent into England by the Pope , and with him divers other Monks of Italy to set up here in England L●tine Service , Masses , Ceremonies , Letanies , with such other Romish ware , &c. Vol. 1. pag. 112. And Adrian , the chief of those Monks , was sent ( as Bede observes ) not only to assist Theodore , but to have an Eye also over him , that he introduced nothing after the Greek manner into the Church contrary to the Truth of the Faith received then from Rome . Not long after , in the time of this Theodore , came over from Rome Iohn the Arch-Chanter or chief Singer , l. 4. c. 18. sent hither by Pope Agatho , to teach them how to sing here after the same manner as they sang in St. Peter's ( as they called it ) at Rome : besides which , he had particular instructions from the Pope , to inform himself fully of the Faith of the English Church , and at his return to Rome to give the Pope an account thereof . Great care we see wa● taken by the ●opes to frame the Church of England by the Romish square ; l. 5. c. 22. and that the English-Saxons did imitate the Church of Rome , Bede shews , when he sayes , that Naitan King of the Picts having a desire to reform the Church in his own Dominion , that he might do it the more easily and with greater Authority , sought the assistance of the English Nation , who he knew long before had ordered their Religion according to the example of the Holy and Apostolick Church of Rome ; which was then had in so great veneration with the Saxons , that many of the Kings of this Island laid down their Scepters , and went in devotion to Rome , desiring to sojourn a while as Pilgrims on Earth , as near the Holy places as they could , that they might afterward be received the more familiarly in Heaven by the Saints : And this sayes Bede was so customary in those times , l. 5. c. 7. that many of the English Nation , both Noble and Ignoble , Laity and Clergy , Men and Women seemed to strive who should get thither first . And that it was thus in Ethelwolf's time , may appear by his going in great devotion ( as Speed saith ) to Rome , and there committing his youngest Son Alfred to the Popes bringing up ( as Fox Records ) together with his liberal presents made to that Church . Thus ●eest thou Reader how devout the Saxons were to the Church of Rome , and how solicitous and careful that their own Church might follow its example . If thou wouldst further know what the Church of Rome then was , which was cried up for the Mother Church she was full of Superstition , Idolatry , Blasphemy ; She was a worshipper of Images , of Saints , and of R●licks ; she prayed to Saints as Intercessors and Mediators between God and Man ; She prayed and sacrificed for the Dead ; She held the Doctrines of Purgatory , Indulgences , Merits , Ear-Confession , Pilgrimages , and single Life of Priests . To mention all her Corruptions and Superstitions were to write a Volumn . Then for the Popes themselve● , fit Heads enough they were for such a Body . Their own Writers are not able to cover the infamy of their Lives . The Author of Fascicul . Temp. confesses Constantine the second ( whom he makes to have sate , Anno. 764. ) to have been the fifth infamous Pope , and Pope Ione he reckons for the sixth , who , so far as I can gather , possest the Roman Chair within a Year or two after Ethelwolf was there , to the irreparable infamy of the Roman Church . And for the other Popes who sate in the latter end of that Century in which Pope Ione f●ll , and in the beginning of the next , nothing but what is scandalous can be said of them , as Fascic . Temp. confesses . If we seek a Character of those times , not only Fox in his Acts of the Church , dividing the time from Ch●ist's Incarnation into divers Periods or Ages , reckons the third Period of time from about 600. to about the Year 900. ( whic● comprehends most of the Saxons Reign , and the earliest Tythe Donation ) the declining time of the Church and of true Religion . But even Platina in vitae Steph. 3. ( well nigh a Hundred Years before Ethelwolf's Donation ) laments the Wickedness of the times , in these words , Nunc vero adeo refrixit pietas et religio , non dico nudis pedibus , &c. i. e. But now Devotion and Religion is grown so cold , that Men can s●arce find in their Hearts to Pray , I do not say bare-Footed , but even with their Hose and Shoes on . They do not now Weep as they go , or while they are Sacrificing , as did the holy Fathers of Old , but they Laugh , and that impudently . I speak even of those of the Purple Robe ; they do not sing the Hymns , for that they account Servile ; but they entertain one another with Jests and Stories to stir up Laughter . In a word , the more prone any one is to Jesting and Wantonness , the greater praise he hath in such corrupt manners . This Clergy of ours dreads and shuns the company of severe and grave Men. Why so ? Because they had rather live in so great Licentiousness , then be subject to one that counsels or governs well ; and by that means the Christian Religion grows every day worse and worse . Thus Platina of the times before Ethelwolf . And of the times a little after , another Popish Writer cries out , l●eu , heu , heu , Domine Deus , &c. i. e. Alas , alas , alas ! O Lord God , how is the Gold darkned , how is the best Colour changed ! What Scandals do we read to have happened about these times even in the holy Apostolick seat ! — What ●ontentions , Emulations , Sects , Envyings , Ambitions , Instrusions , Persecution● ! O worst of times ! in which Holiness fails , and Truth is cut of from the Sons off men , ●ascic . Temp. ad an. 884.

Thus hast tho● Reader , a short view off those times , those Popes , those Churches : by which thou mayst perceive both the degeneration and Apostacy of the Roman Church from the Simplicity and ●urity of the Gospel ; as also the dependence of the Saxon Church upon the Church of Rome , its continual recourse and application to her , as to its . Mother and Nurse , from whose Breasts it sucked that corrupt Milk , which filled it with putrefaction and unsoundness ever after . And very little ( if any whit at all ) did the Saxon Church differ from the Church of Rome , but as Superstitions and Idolatries encreased in the Church of Rome , so they were brought over hither and received here , as fast as the distance of place would well permit . Judge then whether the Saxon Church be not rightly called Popish , whether Ethelwolf , who gave Tythes was not a Papist , whether the Clergy to which he gave them was not Popish , whether the Religion which Tythes were given to uphold was not the Popish Religion , and whether it becomes a Protestant Ministry , who are so denominated from protesting against Popery , to receive and exact that Maintenance which was given by a Popish Prince to Popish Priests to uphold Popery .

§ . 24. In his next Section the Priest urges tha● Tythes were not Popish , because received by some of the Martyrs , pag. 136.

T●is being offered by the former Priest , I had answered in my former Book , and therein shewed by plain demonstration the emptiness of that Argument , which because this Priest has but superficially toucht , and not endeavoured by any found Reason to refute , I think meet to transcribe hither . That these were godly men , and worthy Martyrs I grant : yet will not their receiving Tythes make them either lawful , or less Popish , in the Institution . The lot of those good Men fell in the very spring and dawning ( as it were ) of the day of Reformation , and it was their happiness and honour that they were faithful ( even to the Death ) to those discoveries of Truth which they received . But all Truths were not discovered at once , nor all Vntruths neither . But it being a day of the Infancy of Reformation , it pleased God in his infinite wisdom and tenderness , to rend the Vail as it were by little and little , and so discover things gradually unto them , that they might go cheerfully on in their Testimony , and not come under tho●● discouragements , which the sight of so many difficulties at once , might not improbably have brought upon them . Nor will this seem strange to any who shall seriously consider , that many of the blessed Martyrs , who sealed their Testimony with their Blood , and entred cheerfully the fiery Chariot , had not so full and clear a sight of All the Superstitions and Abominations , which in the dark Night of Ignorance had crept into the Church of Rome , as it hath pleased God since to give . Yet they being faithful to the Lord in what they did see , were accepted by him , and through Death received a Crown of Life .

Neither is it a fair way of Reasoning , because some who lived but at the Day-break ( as it were ) of Reformation , did not , at that early Hour , discover the whole Mystery of Iniquity ( although they did a great part ) or bore Testimony against every particular Evil in the Church of Rome ( although they did against a great many ) thence to argue , that the Mystery of Iniquity extended no further then was discovered unto them , or that there was no other Evil in the Church of Rome , but what they testified against , especially since we find divers things which they took little or no notice of , plainly condemned , and zealously witnessed against by others , who are acknowledged to have been in their respective times , Confessors of and true Witnesses for God against the Corruptions and Superstitions of the Romish Church , as well as they ; so that what my Opponent saith in another case ( pag 114. ) You must not Interpret one Scripture to overthrow other plain Scriptures : The same say I in this , He ought not to instance these Men● receiving Tythes to overthrow or contradict the plain Testimonies of other faithful Servants of God , who denyed them , but rather as in the beginning of Christianity , the Apostles did not all alike oppose the Ceremonies of the Law , Acts 16. 3. & 18. 18. and 21. 26. but Circumcision and other Rites were born with , and for some time used by some of them , which in process of time were utterly rejected and denyed by all , which yet neither ought to have been , nor was made use of by the rest of the Apostles or Churches , as an Argument for the lawfulness and continuation of Circumcision , or any other of the Iewish Rite● : So in the Testimonies of those holy Martyrs and Confessors of Jesus , what was denyed by some , and witnessed against as Popish , superstitious and wicked , ought not to be received , and defended now as not Popish or Superstitious ( at least by such as pretend to reverence their Testimonies ) because the same things were not denyed by all ; for God is not limitable to numbers of Witnesses , but he raised up one to bear Testimony against one Corruption , another against another Superstition ; some stormed one part of Babylon , some another , but did not make their Batteries all in one place . Now that Tythes were denyed by m●●y of those Godly Men , Fox's Martyrology assures us in the instances of Thorp , Swinderby , Brute , Wickliffe , &c. some of whom complained of the abuse of Tythes , in that they were then fixt and settled as a payment , whenas but a little before they were a voluntary free Gift , disposable at the will and pleasure of the giver : Others utterly denying and rejecting them , as no way lawful at all . Nay , Thorp saith expre●●y , That those Priests that do take Tythes , deny Christ to be come in the Flesh , urging it as the Opinion of one of the Doctors , and as he thinks of Ierome . And Br●te saith , not only that no Man is bound to pay Tythes in Gospel-time● , but that it is manifest and plain , that neither by the Law of Moses nor by Christ's Law , Christian People are bound to pay Tythes , but by the Traditions of men . Hence what Opinion these good men had of Tythes , the Reader may judge . But for any now to urge , in defence and justification of Tythes , that Cranmer , Hooper , Ridley , and other Godly Martyrs received them , what else is this , but to oppose the Martyrs one to another , and render them as clashing and warring amongst themselves , yea , and to endeavour , by the practices of some , to invalidate and make the Testimony of others utterly void and of no force , which I am sure does ill become any Protestant to do ; and indeed I think none , that were truly such , would ever have attempted it . This was my Answer to the former Priest , which this latter Priest hath not by any solid Arguments attempted to re●ute , but catching here and there at a word , he quibbles on it to shew his Wit and levity , and besides that doth little else but revile me , and vilifie them whose Testimonies I ●sed against Tythes . First he Ca●●s at those words [ all Truths were not discovered at once , nor all V●truths neither . ] Upon this he sayes , pag. 136. It is strange the Quaker should say so , who before declared himself to be for unmediate teaching , and who , pag. 229. affirms , The very Babes in Christ knew all things . In the first part of this Quirk , he only playes upon the word [ Immediate ] which ( being opposed to mediate teaching , as mediate signifies means and helps ) is understood of the inward ●●aching or speaking of the holy Spirit in the Heart of man , without the help or use of outward means : and so is called immediate in respect of manner , not in respect of time . But he , that he might seem to say something , applyes the word [ Immediate ] to time , making immediate teaching to sound , not a teaching without means and outward helps , but a teaching in an instant , or on a suddain . But if he please to be less disingenuous , and remove his own mistake , he will find no incongruity in my words . In the other part , he does not so much Carp at me , as Cavil at the Apostle Iohn , whose the words are , 1 Ioh. 2. 18 , 20. But if in the fore-going passage he dealt not fairly with me ; in the following he deals most foully : for he affirms that I say , pag. 230. If the Saints have not the Spirit in them , so as to teach them all things , they have not the Spirit at all . These are not my words ( as he that will consult the place , may see ) but an inference of his own , made on purpose to abust me . And the other Priest ( in his Vindication , pag. 284. ) though he nibbles at the same passage , yet neither doth he quote it as this Priest doth , nor charge me with affirming , that If the Saints have not the Spirit in them , so as to teach them all things , they have not the Spirit at all : But sayes , The Quaker seems to fancy , that if the Spirit be not with Believers in this immediate manner , his is not with them at all . Observe now Reader , how I am dealt with between these two Priests . One of them sayes positively , that I affirm : The other sayes , The Quaker seems to fancy . The one sayes I affirm , if the Saints have not the Spirit in them , so as to teach them all things , they have not the Spirit at all . The othe● sayes , The Quaker seems to fancy , that if the Spirit ●e not with believers in this immediate manner , he is not with them at all . And yet these Priests both one and t'other pretend to repeat the self-same s●ntence out of my Book , and that in my own words . Is this fai● dealing ? Yet upon this and his former mistake of immediate teaching , he sayes , pag. 137. All that T. E. allows for Saints , got their knowledge in an Instant , as the Apostles did .

This also I reject for a slander : Nor do I believe that the Apostles got their knowledge , as he says , in an instant . But that they grew in Grace ( by the Grace ) in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ , as the Apostle Peter exhorted the Saints , 2 Pet. 4. 18. and as Paul did the Colossians , chap. 1. ver. 10. But from these false Premises he draws this lame Conclusion , Either therefore he must deny these Holy men were taught immediately ( and then by his Rule they could have no knowledge in divine things ) or else he must confess Truths were not revealed to them by degrees .

But there is no necessity for this . For I will suppose those Holy men were taught immediately in respect of the manner of teaching , not in respect of time . They might be taught by the Spirit of God in their own Hearts , without the help of outward means , and yet those Truths which they were thus taught might be revealed to them by degrees . The Wind that bloweth where it li●teth , bloweth also when it lifteth : and ●e that turns the Key of David , opens and shuts at his own pleasure .

Upon my saying , Those good men & Godly Martyrs lived at the very dawning of the Day of Reformation , He thus sports himself . Very ple●sant ! sayes he , Let 〈◊〉 then ask the Quaker what Hour of the Morning it was when his other Martyrs ( as he falsly calls them ) Thorp , Swinderby , Brute and Wickliffe lived ? If it was but Day-break in Cranmer's time , it was dark as mid-night in Wickliffe's ; if Cranmer and Bradford had but little Light , Wickliffe and Thorp had none at all ; and therefore unless they had Cats Eyes they could not see then , pag. 138.

Surely his flouting humour was up when he writ this , and he was resolved to indulge his Genius , whom soever he spatter'd . But letting his unhandsome expression pass , which is obvious enough to every Reader that has not Cats Eyes , I reply to his question that what ever Hour Thorp , Swinderby , Brute and Wic●li●●e lived in , or how dark soever it then was , they had light enough given them to discover that Tythes were but an human Institution , & ought not to be paid . And though they lived before Cranmer , in times of greater Darkness , and not see so many of the Corruptions of the Church of Rome as Cranmer and his Associates did , yet they saw some , and what they did see was as really a Corruption , and their Testimonies against it ought as ●ell to be received , as the Testimonies of those other Martyr● , against other Corruptions afterwards . Nor ought those earlier Testimonies to be weakned ( much ●ess rejected ) by the example or practice of later Martyrs , since both the former and later are , by the same Historian , recorded to be good and godly men , stout Champians and valiant Souldiers for the Truth of Jesus Christ , all bearing Testimony against the Corruptions and Superstitions of the Church of Rome , though not all against the self-same particular Corruption . For Wickliffe inveighed against the Pride , Pomp , Luxury and temporal Possessions of the Clergy ; Brute denyed all Swearing ; and Thorp denyed to Swear upon the Bible ; the evil of which was not seen by many of the Martyrs that came after . And even among those of greatest note , and eminency in point of Learning , who were not only contemporaries , but Co-sufferers ( as I may say ) with respect both to cause and time , there was not in all things an equal discovery , and sight of Corruptions and Romish Superstitions . For ●ooper being elected Bishop of Glouster , in King Edward the sixth dayes , when Cranmer himself was Arch-Bishop of Canterbury , refused to be consecrated in the Episcopal vestiments or habit , and to take the Oath used in the Consecration of Bishops , both which he complained were against his Conscience , and therefore petitioned the King either to discharge him of his Bishoprick , or to dispence with him in those things which were offensive and burdensom to his Conscience . And although he thereupon obtained Letters from the King and the Earl of Warwick to the Arch-Bishop in his behalf , yet so little did Cranmer an● the other Bishops discern the Superstition and Evil of those things , that as Fox observes , they stood earnestly in defence of the a●oresaid Ceremonies , saying , It was but a small matter ; that the fault was in the abuse of the things , not in the things themselves ; that he ought not to be so stubborn in so light a matter ; and that his wilfulness therein was not to be suffered . Nor would they yield to his consecration but upon condition , that sometimes he should in his Sermon shew himself Apparrelled as the other Bishops were , which Fox in plain terms calls a Popish attire , and sayes , that Notwithstanding that godly Reformation of Religion that began in the Church of England , besides other Ceremonies more ambitious then profitable , or tending to Edification , they used to wear such Garments and Apparel as the Popish Bishops were wont to do , which ( he sayes ) tended more to ●●perstition then otherwise ; and ( sayes he ) when Hooper was appointed to Preach before the King , he came forth as a new Playe● in a strange Apparel on the Stage , having for his upper Garment a long Scarlet Chymere down to the Feet , and under that a white Linnen Rochet that covered all his Shoulders ; upon his Head he had a Geometrial , that is , a foursquared Cap , albeit that his Head was round . What cause of shame ( says Fox ) the strangeness hereof was that day to that good Preacher , every man may easily judge , Martyr . Vol. 2. pag. 1366. Thus seest thou Reader that what Hooper Conscientiously scrupled and refused , as an offence and burden to his Conscience , and what Fox who wrote the Story affirms to be Popish and Superstitious , Cranmer and other of his Associate Bishops saw no Evil in ; which I mention not with any design to detract the same of those worthy men , ( whose honour and true excellency stood not so much in knowing much ( though much they knew ) as in being faithful to what they knew ) nor to intimate any discordance among them ( who I make no doubt agreed full well in a good resolution to oppose all Popish Errors , so far as they had a clear discerning of them ; which Apology , to men of candor needless , I am in some sort constrained here to make , to obviate , and if it may be to prevent the unjust Cavillations of my very disingenuous and captious Adversaries . ) But I therefore instance this case of Bishop Hooper , to manifest , that amongst such as to be sure were no Renegadoes , but real Martyrs , all the Superstitions and Corruptions of the Roman Church were not equally discovered to all ; but that s●me saw that to be Popish , and rejected it , which others , not seeing to be so , continued in : but their continuing in it makes not the thing it self less evil , or the Testimony of others who have seen and decry'd it , less considerable with those who look through the Eye of Reason , not of interest ; the like is to be said in the case of Tythes . If some of the Martyrs did not see Tythes to be of Popish Institution , and therefore did continue the use of them ; that practice of theirs doth no more prove that Tythes are not of Popish Institution , then their using and wearing the pontificial Garments , doth prove those Garments were not of Popish Institution , which Bishop Hooper denyed as Popish .

§ . 25. The Author of the Friendly Conference , in his Vindication , pag. 306. says , The Quaker should have told us what those many things are , which were allowed by them ( Cranmer , Ridley , Latimer , &c. ) and since plainly condemned by others .

I con●ess I did not think it needful , in a thing so obvious , to have instanced particular● ; but since it seems he expected it , he may take if he please the fore-mentioned for some . But withal I would have him know I take notice how unfairly he deals with me , altering my words that he may make an occasion to abuse me . For whereas I said , pag. 307. We 〈◊〉 divers things which they took little or no notice of , plainly condemned , and zealously witnessed against by others : He pretending to repeat my words , sayes , The Quaker should have told us what those MANY things are , which are allowed by them , and SINCE plainly condemned by others . Where besides the manifest alteration of my words , he thrust in the word [ since ] only that he might have a Stone to throw at me ; for thereupon he sayes , I suppose by these [ others ] 〈◊〉 means such as himself , or such factious and schis●atick Spirits .

Whe●eas my words in the place fore-cited do evidently refer to former times : for after I had said , We find divers things which they took little or no notice of , plainly condemned , and zealously Witnessed against by others , I immediately added , Who are acknowledged to HAVE BEEN in their respective times , Confessors of and true Witnesses for God against the Corruptions and Superstitions of the Romish Church , as well as they , How is it possible this man could thus have abused me , if he had not designedly set himself to it . Yet this is the man that in his Epistle complains of my dishonesty in mis-stating his Book .

But he will not allow Wickliff , Swinderby , Brute and Thorp the Name of Martyrs , but sayes , pag. 309. of his Vindication , Never a man of these was a Martyr . But why ? Because a Martyr is one that seals his Testimony of the Truth with his Blood ; and Wickliffe not being burned till Forty One Years after his Death , what Blood I pray ( sayes he ) was lef● in Wickliffe's Bones , after they had been Buried Forty One Years ? The others he also denyes to have been Martyrs , because ( as he sayes ) their Ends were un●ertain , pag. 308.

The word Martyr properly signifies a Witness , and is applicable to them who make confession of the Truth , and bear witness to it , but more especially ( and per ex●ellentia● ) to them that suffer for the Truth . And though it is commonly understood of them that suffer unto death , yet inasmuch as many Sufferings which extend not unto Death , are as grievous and cru●l as death it self , I see no reason why such as faithfully and constantly undergo such Sufferings , not baulking their Testimony for fear of Death , should be deprived of their Palms , and excluded from the Catologue of Martyrs , who it may be were as fully resigned to Death , and could as willingly and cheatfully have undergone it ( if it had been inflicted ) as they did those other hardships they endured , or as others , who actually suffered Death . However , since no man ought to execute himself , they who boldy co●fest the Truth , and faithfully bore witness to it , pat●iently suffering whatsoever was laid upon them for the sake thereof ; whether he will allow them to be called Martyrs or not , their Testimony , I hope , ought not to be rejected nor themselves despised , reproached and villified , as we shall see anon they are . As for Wickliffe , Fox calls him a valiant Champion ; and though he died quietly at Lutterworth in Leicestershire , yet great and grievous troubles underwent he , as Fox in his Sto●y repo●ts , and as 〈◊〉 in his Brittania intimates , pag. 518. Swinderby the Priest denyes to be a Martyr , because Fox sayes , Whether he dyed in Prison , or whether he escaped their Hands , or was burned , there is no certain relation made . But he conceals , that Fox in the same place adds ▪ that a Law being made , in the begin●ing of the Reign of Hen. 4. against the favourers of Wick●iffe , under the Name of Lollards , certain Priest was thereupon Burnt in Smithfield , who by divers conjectures appears to him to be this Swinderby , Martyrol . pag. 4●8 . who was before condemned by the Bishop of Hereford , pag. 436. Brute is by the Priest denyed to be a Martyr , because Fox sayes , What ●nd he had I find not Registred . But Fox shews that although at that time when he appeared before the Bishop of Hereford it is likely he escaped , yet a Year or two after by the instigation of the Bishops , the King issued forth his Commission with great sharpness and severity against the said Brute and his Abbettors , which argues that the said Walter Brute did persist in his Testimony against the Church of Rome . Thorp he will not admit be to a Martyr , because Fox sayes , his end was uncertain : But Fox leaves not the matter so . Fo● he sayes , By all conjectures it is to be thought , that the Arch-Bishop Tho. Arundel being so hard an Adversary against those men , would not let him go . Much less is it to be supposed , that he would ever retract his Sentence and Opinion , which he so valiantly maintained before the Bishop ; neither doth it seem that he had any such recanting Spirit . Again , neither is it found that he was burned : Wherefore ( sayes Fox ) it remaineth most like to be true , that he being committed to some strait Prison ( according as the Arch-Bishop in his Examination before did threaten him ) there ( as Thorp confesseth himself ) was so straitly kept , that either he was secretly made away , or else there he dyed by Sickness ; as he instances in Iohn Ashton another of Wickliff's Followers , who was so served , Martyrol . pag. 500. Now though the manner of these mens deaths cannot be certainly known , yet certain it is that they were devou● and godly men , and zealous against the Romish Errors so far as they discerned them . And if we may take his character of them , who writ their Sto●y , he calls Swinderby a worthy Priest , and true Servant of Christ , Martyrol . pag. 437. Of Brute he sayes , that In the tractation of his discourse may appear the mighty operation of God's Spirit in him , his ripe knowledge , modest simplicity , his valiant constancy , his learned tractations , and manifold conflicts sustained against God's Enemies , pag. 438. Thorp he calls a good Man and bl●ssed Servant of God , pag. 500. A Warriour valiant under the triumphant Banner of Christ , pag. 485. And tells his Reader , He shall behold in this Man the marvelous force and strength of the Lord's Might , Spirit and Grace , working and fighting in his Souldiers , and also speaking in their Mouthes , according to the word of his promise , Luk. 21. ibid. In all which , either Fox was much mistaken in the men , or this Priest in his Right of Tythes has most exceedingly injured them : For he renders them Apostates , calls them Renegadoes , scoff● at their knowledge , and sayes , Cranmer , Hooper , Ridley , &c. are much disgraced by the parallel , pag. 139 , 140. Surely if the men ( the times wherein they lived considered ) were guilty of some weaknesses or infirmities , it had much better become this pretended Protestant , to have mentioned them at least with common civility , had it been but for the Cause sak● in which they were engaged , then thus to fall on them in reviling Language , and defame them for Apostates and Renegado's . In which he seems rather to exceed then imitate the foolish out-rage of the Papists against Wickliffe : for they burnt the Bones of Wickliffe only Forty One Years after he was dead ; but this Priest seeks to distain and blemish the Name , the Memory , and the Testimonies of these four men together , which have flourished well nigh three Hundred Years : And so angry is he at them , that I speed the worse at his hands for having mentioned them . For forgetting in his heat that he said at the beginning he would not meddle with scurrility , he here falls downright upon me , and sayes , I am a manifest Lyer in giving such Renegadoes the name of Martyrs ; which Language as it credits not him that gave it ( without any provocation that I know of from me ) so it hurts not me to whom it is given ; nor would I have taken notice of it at all , but to manifest the temper of my Adversary , and the liberty of nameless Writers . But he fathers one part of his calumny upon Fox , and sayes , Most of these Opposers of Tythes recanted openly , and proved Apostates , as Mr. Fox himself confesseth . But in this he does Fox wrong : For , first , he no where calls them Apostates , nor is it likely he thought them so by the character he gave of them . Neither secondly , doth he confess that most of them recanted openly ; for of Wickliffe and Thorp he mentions no such thing at all . And what he speaks of Swinderby , it wa● not so properly ( if well considered ) a Recantation of what he held , as a Denyal of Articles laid to his charge in such terms as he did not hold them ; which afterward himself explained and maintained . As for Brute , Fox doth not tax him with retracting any thing at all ; but only shews that he submitted himself principally to the Gospel of Iesus Christ ; and to the determination of Holy Kirk , and to the general Council● of Holy Kirk ; and to the sentence and determination of the four Do●tors of holy Writ , that is , Augustine , Ambrose , Icrom and Gregory , and to the correct●on of the Bishop of Hereford , pag. 461. And surely the character which Fox gives of Brute , and of the mighty operation of God's Spirit in him , doth not imply he thought Brute either an Apostate , or Renegado . But suppose it had been so , as he opprobriously objects , that most of these Opposers of Tythes had recanted their Opinions ; yet if afterwards they returned and stood to their Testimony , must it not be received ? If they had fallen by infirmity , might they not rise again by Repentance ? and must their after Testimony be rejected because of a former slip ? I could nam● him the Man ( if I judg'd it necessary ) who for his Testimony against th● Church of Rome endured divers Years Imprisonment , sustained many a sharp Conflict , and bore the brunt of many an hard ●attel against the Popish Bishops , yea , stood his ground against them , even to sentence & degradation , and after all this , was drawn , either by threats or flattery , to sign a Recantation , to the great di●●onour of his Cause , and wounding of his Conscience : yet this Man shortly after retracted that Recantation , resumed his Testimony against the Church of Rome , and died a famous Martyr , doing himself an exemplary piece of justice upon that Hand with which he had subscribed the Recantation . But notwithstanding this man's slip , his Testimony for God against the Idolatries and Corruptions of the Roma● Church , are justly had in very great esteem . But to proceed .

The Priest sayes , Right of Tythes , pag 139. As for the knowledge of T. E's Martyrs , we may guess at the size th●reof by that senseless saying of one of them , viz. That one of the ancient Doctors , S. Jerom ( he thought ) did affirm , that those Priests who take Tythes , deny Christ to be come in the Flesh.

This which was spoken by William Thorp ( whom Fox calls a good man and blessed Servant of God , yea a valiant Warriour under the triumphant Banner of Christ ) the Priest calls a senseless saying , an idle thing , and in derision scossingly sayes , We may guess at the size of their knowledge by this . But does this become him ? Is t●i● at all like a Protestant ? what could Harpsfield , Harding , or any other of the Popish Champions have said more contemptuously ? But he not only denyes this Sentence to be Hierom's , but that any ancient Doctor did ever say so idle ● thing .

In which he deals worse with Thorp then did Arundel the Popish Arch-Bishop , to whom Thorp urged it ( and under whom he suffered ) for the Arch-Bishop did not deny his quotation , but blam'd him for picking such sharp Sentences out of the Scriptures , and out of the Doctors against the Priests , which was an implicit acknowledgment of the Truth of his Allegation . Thus , Reader , thou seest the contempt these Priests have of any that speak against their corrupt interest , as these good men ( for Martyrs , it seems , we must not call them ) plainly did : and yet the Author of the Conference , in his Vindication , pag. 307 , 309. makes as if they held no other Opinion of Tythes , then I represent him to h●ld .

In all which he wrongs both them and me , and tells his Reader a great untruth . For neither did they hold Tythes to be due in that notion of a temporal Right in which he claims them , nor did I represent him to hold that Tythes ar● pure and meer Alms , as they affirmed them to be . Wickliffe , he confesses denyed the Ius divinu● , or divine Right of Tythes .

'T is true indeed he did so , and the human Right too in that sense wherein this Priest claims them , and therefore is a very proper witness against him . For Wickliffe held Tythes to be pure Alms , disposable at the will and pleasure of the giver . But this Priest calls Tythes his Free-hold , and sayes , he looks upo● him●●lf to be no more obliged to the People for the payment of them , then a Landlord is to his Tenant for the payment of his Rent , Conference , pag. 161. ( To the same purpose also 〈◊〉 speaks in his Vindication , pag. 315. ) which is somewhat different , I wis , from meer Alms. And how contemptibly soever these Priests think of Iohn Wickliffe , it appears that the University of Oxford in their publick Testimonial , gave high commendation of him , not only as a man of profound learning , but as a stout and valiant Champion of the Faith , Martyrol . pag. 412. And that Iohn Hus the Bohemian , by publick Disputation in the University of Prague , did maintain and defend the Articles of Wickliffe , and particularly , that Tythes were pure Alms , and might be taken from the Clergy , pag. 425. And though Wickliffe it s●ems be not thought worthy the Name of a Martyr , yet Hus , I hope , I may adventure to stile one , without the danger of being called again a manifest Lyer , since Hus was actually Burnt at Constance , by sentence of the same Council which commanded the burning of Wickliffe's Bones , and for maintaining Wickliff●'s Articles .

Neither did Swinderby , Brit● , or Thorp hold Tythes in that Notion of temporal Right that these Priests do . For Swinderby held Tythes to be meer Alms , which might lawfully be taken from the Priest . And in his seventh Article he sayes , No Priest ought by bargaining and covenant to sell his Ghostly travel ( that is , his spiritual Service or Ministry ) of which among many particulars he names Prayers , Baptism , Confirming , Marrying , &c. Martyrol . pag. 431. Which Hus also maintained , saying , It is no argument , that if the Curate do perform his corporal Ministry , that he ought therefore to challenge Tythes by a civil Title , because that as well on the behalf of him which giveth the Tythes , as also in the behalf of the Curate , every such Ministry ought freely to be given , and not by any civil exchange , pag. 426. Brute also not only denyed the divine Right of Tythes , which he judiciously and plainly disproves , shewing that Tyt●●s under the Law were Ceremonial , and therefore ended by Christ , and not being afterwards commanded by Christ or his Apostles , Christian People are not bound to p●y Tythes either by the Law of Moses or of Christ , pag. 446 , 447. but accounted Tythes meer Alms , as it seems by the Articles exhibited against him , pag. 438. although he sayes , By the tradition of men they are bound to pay them , pag. 447. yet by the word Traditio● , that seems rather meant de facto then dejure . As for Thorp , he denyed not only the divine Right of Tythes , but the temporal Right also that these Priests plead for ; for he shews that the Parishioners have power to detain their Tythes , The Parishioners ( sayes he ) that pay their temporal Goods ( be they Tythes or Offerings ) to Priests that do not their Office among them justly , are partners of every Sin of those Priests , because that they sustain those Priests fully in their Sin , by their temporal Goods , pag. 494. And being rebuked by the Arch-Bishop for expugning the freedom of holy Church , he said , Sr. Why call ye the taking of Tythes , and of such other duties that Priests challenge now ( WRONGFULLY ) the freedom of holy Church : since neither Christ nor his Apostles challenged nor took such Duties . Therefore these takings of Priests now are NOT called JUSTLY the freedom of Holy Church , but all such giving and taking ought to be called and holde● the SLANDEROUS COVETOUSNESS of Men of the Holy Church , pag. 495.

Thus hast thou , Reader , in part , the Opinions of these Men concerning Tythes , which it may be the Priest will call senseless Sayings , as he did before . However , it is manifest by these sayings , that his was not a true saying , when he said , those Men were no more against Tythes then I represent the Priest himself to be .

CHAP. V.

HAving shewed that Tythes were of Popish Institution , and as such denyed by many good men ( not unworthy the Name of Martyrs ) whom God raised up in former Ages to bear witness against the Corruptions of the Church of Rome , and who for such their witness-bearing did suffer unde● that Church ; I come in the next place to consider what t●ese two Priests have further offered concerning a temporal Right to Tythes .

§ . 1. The Author of the Right of Tythes , to shew on what ground our Kings and Parliaments proceeded in estating Tythes on the Clergy , sets down ( pag. ●4● . ) a Rule or Axiome of K. Edward the Confessor , viz. That it is the duty of a King to preserve , ch●rish , maintain and govern the Churches of thei● Dominions , according to the Constitutions of their Fathers and Predecessors .

If this was the Rule by which our Kings and Parliaments in the Reformation have settled Tythes upon the Clergy ; then are Tythes no clearer from Popery in their settlement , then in their Institution : for if Edw. 6. settled Tythes according to the Constitutions of his Father H●n. 8. and if Hen. 8. settled Tythes according to the Constitutions of his Father Hen. 7. and so back ; then seeing it is certain that Hen. 7. and his Predecessors were professed Papists , and devoted to the Church of Rome , and consequently that the Constitutions for the maintenance of the Church made by or under them were fully and absolutely Popish , it will follow that the settlement of Tythes , by which the Priests now claim a temporal Right to them , was made according to Popish Constitutions , which I think is not for the credit of their Claim .

But he sayes , If I would fairly have disproved this Temporal Right , I should have shewed there were no human Laws to estate Tythes on the Church , nor no remedies in the Courts of Iustice against any that detained them , &c. pag. 142.

That 's his mistake . If I had argued against Fact ▪ the way he proposes had not been improper : but arguing against his pretended Right , I conceive I took the right method , and am well content to submit it to the sensure of every judicious and impartial Reader , That they have Remedies in Courts against such as do not give them Tythes , and that they are not backward to use those Remedies to the utmost degree of Severity and Rigour , is a known and certain Truth , confirm'd by the ruin of many an industrious Family , and sealed with the innocent Blood of many a Conscientious Man , who has dyed a Prisoner at their Suit for Tythes . But I hope he will not argue from Fact to Right , and infer that it ought to be so , because it is so . The Popish Priests ( as I shew'd him in my former Book , pag. 360. ) had Law on their sides o●ce , in this Nation , as well as he , and have it still elsewhere ; and others of another Name , within our own remembrance , had Law on their sides and the same Law too ( and were forward enough to use it ) by which the present Priests recover Tythes . Had these therefore , will he say , a right to Tythes ? If he affirms it , he knows what follows : if he denyes it , the consequence is plain , That L●w and Right 〈◊〉 not inseparable . He sayes , To contrive by Sophistry and Probabilities to shew a thing cannot be , which we see with our Eyes , is to nibble , not dispute .

I did not go about to shew that what he sees with his Eyes cannot be ; but I endeavour'd fairly and without Sophistry to prove , that what he sees with his Eyes ( in this case ) should not be : not that it cannot be ; but that it connot rightly and justly be . And upon the Priest's comparing his Right with the Parishioners , and making them to stand upon the same bottom , I argued for four or five pages together , shewing the ground of their Claims to be different , the one temporal , the other spiritual ; and plainly proving , that a temporal settlement of Tythes is not sufficient to give the Priests a right thereto , because Tythes ar● claimed upon considerations that are not temporal , but spiritual ; see Truth prevailing , pag. 311 , 312 , 313 , 314 , 315. To all which , the Author of the Friendly Conference in his Vindication , repeating these words of mine , That I claim my Estate in a natural and civil capacity , without relation to a ministerial Function , returns this Reply , pag. 310. This will pass for an Argument , when he can prove that the Ministers of the Gospel ought to be reputed Outlaws , and what is set apart for such ought to be exposed to the Rapine of every sacriligious Ruffian . And if humane Laws be a good Plea for other men , I do not know why they should be a bad Plea for us , and this ( sayes he ) may serve to answer several of his pages , where he beats the Air with a repetition of a company of vain and empty words .

Is not this a strange Answer ? what part of it is either sober or at all pertinent to the matter ? But letting pass the former part of this Answer ( which bespeaks him a fitter man to wrangle with Ruffians , then discourse with sober and civil people ) since in the latter part he sayes , If humane Laws be a good Plea for other men , he does not know why they should be a bad Plea for them , I will adventure once more to incur his Displeasure , by telling him that one Reason is , because his Plea being spiritual , grounded upon a spiritual consideration , is not sutable to those humane and temporal Laws , as ot●er mens Pleas , which are not spiritual , but temporal , are . And when his Brother Priest insists on the Divine Right of Tythes , and claims them by the Law of God , if one of his Parishioners ( or any Lay-man ) should say as this Priest does , If Divine Laws may be a good Plea ●or other men , I do not know why they should be a bad Plea for me ; and thereupon produce either the Law of Moses , or some Text in the New Testament to prove his Title to the Estate he claims ; would not he be apt to smile at his Parishioner , and inform him , that he claiming in a civil capacity , not upon spirit●al but temporal Considerations , must have recourse to humane Laws for the Confirmation of his Claim , and not expect to have a civil Claim grounded on humane and temporal Considerations , secured and made good unto him by the spiritual and divine Law of God ? With how much more Reason might his Parishioner even laugh out-right at him , who pretending to be a Minister of Christ , and in that capacity or Qualification claiming Tythes as due to him , not upon temporal but spiritual Considerations , betakes himself to humane Laws to make his Title good ?

But leaving this as a sufficient Reply to that little piece of insufficient Answer , which he is pleased t● afford to so many pages of mine , I turn me to the other Priest , who I find uses many more words , though not much more to the purpose .

§ . 2. In my Answer to the first Priest , pag. 311. I said , I shall discover his Fallacy further , by telling him , not only that I enjoy my Estate as a temporal Right , but also that I claim it in a natural and civil Capacity , without relation to a ministerial Function or spi●itual Office , as a Man , not as a Minister of Christ . But the Priest doth not claim Tythes in this Capacity . He claims in a spiritual Capacity ( although his Claim be false ) his Claim depends upon a ministerial Function . He claims not as a Man , but as a Minister of Christ ( for such he pretends to be , though he be not . ) His Claim therefore to Tythes , and my Claim to my temporal Estate , differing in the very Ground and Nature of them , that which will make good my claim to my Estate , will not make good his Claim to Tythes . Fo● my Claim to my Estate being grounded upon a natural or temporal consideration only , a temporal Right is sufficient to make it good . But his Claim to Tythes being grounded upon a spiritual consideration ( as he pretends to be a Minister of Christ ) a temporal Right is no way equal or suitable to his Claim . The first part of these words the Priest recites , and thereto thus replyes , ( Right of Tythes , pag. 143. ) T. E. doth not claim meerly in his natural Capacity , nor barely as a Man ( for all his talking ) since many wiser and better men then T. E. have no Estate at all , nor no Right to any : Every m●n hath a natural Cap●●ity , but that alone gives no Title to an Estate ; it is therefore as a man so qualified that T. E. ●laims , that is , as a Purchas●r , or one to whom an Estate hath been given , or as being descended from some so qualified , or else as invested with some civil Office or Employment to which such an Estate is annext .

What I meant by a natural Capacity is explained by the word [ civil ] as also by the following words [ without relation to a ministerial Function or spiritual Office ] which plainly shews ▪ I there opposed not a natural capacity to a civil capacity ( for I joyn them together ) but a natural capacity to a spiritual capacity ; and therefore when I mention the Priests Claim , I say he claims in a spiritual capacity , his Claim depends upon a ministerial Function . In like manner , when I say I claim as a man , it is clear I there intend man in that sense wherein Man is opposed to a Minister of Christ ; and therefore afterwards speaking of the Priests Claim , I say , he claims not as a Man , but as a Minister of Christ . Neither did I say as the Priest replies , that I claim meerly in my natural capacity , or barely as a man ; nor could the Priest , in his right Wits , understand me so to mean . But this is a meer Catch of his , to avoid the force of my Argument , and make his less-observant Readers think he has said something , whenas indeed what he has said is nothing at all to the purpose . When I say I claim in a natural and civil capacity , I include those civil Qualifications which may justly entitle to such a claim , whether they arise from Purchase , Heirship , Free Gift , Civil Office , or any other of like nature : and I shew that the Priest not claiming in this capacity , no● by vertue of any of these or such like Qualifications , his claim to Tythes and mine to my temporal Estate differ in the very ground and nature of them ; not in the several sorts of civil Claims , as if one claimed by purchase , t'other by descent , &c. but in the nature of the Claims themselves ; one being natural or civil , t'other spiritual or religious . Now the Priest claiming Tythes , not in a civil capacity , not upon civil qualifications , but in a spiritual or religious capacity , upon religious qualifications , as a Priest and ( pretended ) Minister of Christ , that which will make good my civil claim to my Estate , will not make good his religious claim to Tythes . The difference between civil and religious capacities and qualifications , and the Claims arising therefrom may appear the more clearly , if we consider them both in one and the same Person . Suppose at this time ( as was formerly frequent ) a Clergy-man or Priest were Chancellor of England , or invested with any other civil Office ; he by vertue of that civil qualification , would have a good claim to such temporal Estate as should be annext to that civil Office with which he is so invested ; but he could not claim that Estate by vertue of his Priesthood , or as a man religiously qualified , any more then he could claim Tythes by vertue of his Chancellorship , or as a man civilly qualified . Hence the necessary and unavoidable distinction between civil & religious Qualifications and Claims is manifest . Now as he that makes claim to an Estate by vertue of a civil Qualification ought to prove , maintain , defend his Claim by humane Laws , as being suitable to the nature of his Claim : so he that makes claim to Tythes by vertue of a religious qualification , ought to prove , maintain , defend his claim by divine Laws , as being suitable to the nature of his Clai● .

But the Priest , having wrested my words from a natural and civil capacity , to a MEER natural capacity , void of all civil Qualifications , goes on to make what Advantage he can by this unworthy Pervertion . Well , sayes he , the Priest hath a natural capacity also , as well as T. E. is as much and as good a man as he ; but this alone gives him no Title to his Tythes ; he claims them in a spiritual capacity , as T. E. claims his Estate in a civil capacity : and now , why is not a spiritual capacity as good a ground of claim to an Estate legally settled upon it , as a civil capacity ? pag. 144.

If he means by [ legally settled ] settled by divine & spiritual Laws , as Tythes were on the Iewish Priests , a spiritual capacity is as Good a ground of claim to an Estate settled as a civil capacity is of claim to an Estate so settled , by humane Laws ; but a spiritual capacity is not so good a ground of claim to an Estate settled by humane Laws , as a civil capacity , because a Claim grounded on a civil capacity is of the same nature with humane Laws , and properly determinable by them ; but in a Claim grounded on a spiritual capacity it is not so .

He sayes , pag. 145. An Estate in Land , Rent-charge , or T●lls and Customs , may be settled on the Mayor of such a City , and on his Successors forever ; and then , whoso sustains that Charge , and bears that Office , hath as good a Claim by Law to that In-come , as ● . E. hath to the Estate he is born to . They claim ( sayes he ) under different Qualifications ; but one hath as good a Temporal Right for his time as the other ,

He should have done well to have shewed the different Qualifications under which the Mayors of a City successively claim an Estate settled upon their Office . I confess I do not see how they can claim under different qualifications , since each of them claims as he is Mayor . But if the Priest has any Croch●t in his Head ( as his own phrase is ) to help him out ( as he seldom is without a Meuse ) and can find any difference in their qualifications , as Mayors , or by which they claim , yet surely he will not find the difference between Civil and Religious qualifications among them ; whatever qualifications the Mayors of a City may claim by , they are all Civil I trow ; ne doe , not mean I suppose that some of the Mayors claim their Toll , &c. under civil qualifications , and some under Religious qualifications . ●f not , how impertinent is it to the purpose ! how irrelative to the Case in hand ! Neither is what follows of any more force , or any whit more to the purpose . Why ( sayes he , ibid. ) is not a Religious Office as endowable as a Civil Office ? Sure his being a Minister of Christ makes him not uncapable of a temporal right ; for St. Paul saith , the King is 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Minister of God , Rom. 13. 4.

One's being a Minister of Christ doth not make him uncapable of a temporal Right , nor any whit more capable of a temporal Right . If he that is a Minister of Christ has right to a temporal Estate ( patrimonial or other ) which he claims and holds in a civil capacity , his being a Minister of Christ doth not divest him of his Right to that temporal Estate , as it would not invest him with such a Right , if he were not in such a civil capacity , and under such a qualification , as doth entitle him to it . Thus we see many of the Clergy have temporal Estates , which they claim and hold in a civil capacity , as men under such civil qualifications , without any regard to their Priestly Function ; and in their enjoyment of those Estates , no man I suppose impugns them . But to what end doth the Priest urge the words of St. Paul , that the King is 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Minister of God ? Methinks he should not mean , that the King is the Minister of God in the same sense wherein he himself pretends to be a Minister of Christ . But if he would needs make the King a Clergy man , he might , one would think , have holpen him to an higher Office among them then a Deaconship . The King is indeed the Minister of God , but his ministerial function is civil ; and therefore he is called the civil Magistrate . And if we consider the time wherein that Epistle to the Romans was written , we shall find no cause to suppose the Apostle call'd the Magistrate the Minister of God in a Religious and Spiritual sense : it being written probably about the beginning of Nero's Reign , then whom that Age did not bring forth a greater Enemy to the Christian-Religion . And being spoken of Magistracy in general , it cannot without the greatest absurdity be understood in a Religious sens● . But if the Magisterial Office be a civil Office and Function , to what end serves the mention of it here ? The Priest's is not such ; it helps not him at all . He sayes , By vertue of that Ministerial Function , his Majes●y claims many temporal rights ( besides the antient Patrimony of his Family : ) And will ( adds he ) this faucy Quaker say , he hath a better Title to his Estate , then the King hath to the Rights and Revenues of his Crown .

No , No : The Quaker will not be so ●aucy as the Priest — would gladly have him . The Quaker knows the King's Temporal Rights are Built upon a bottom as fir● and stable as the Priest's claim to Tythes is weak and feeble . And the Priest knows too , that the King claims his Rights upon considerations of another nature , then those upon which the Priest claims Tythes : for the King claims his Rights in a civil capacity , and under a civil qualification , by vertue of the administration of a civil Office ; but the Priest claims Tythes in a Religious capacity , and upon the account of a Spiritual Office . Judge now Reader how very impertinently the Priest has urged this Instance , and how far it is from helping him : After the same rate goes he on for several pages together , offering nothing of solid Argument , but mee● Sophistry . He undertakes ( pag. 146. ) to evidence the Priests claim by a parallel . Suppose , sayes he , some Prince or great Man did out of his own Inheritance make a donation of some certain Lands or Rents to an Elwood , and entail it on the Family of Elwoods forever ; if T. E. be the Heir of that Family , he will say he hath as good a Right to this as if he had purchased it . And why may not , sayes he , the Priest claim his Tythes as justly as T. E. claims this Donative ?

There are many Reasons why he should not ( both with relation to the Giver , to the Gift it self , and to the considerations on which it is given ) but that which is most direct to the present case , is the different capacities of the Claimers . T. E. if he should claim such a Donative , must claim it in a civil capacity , under a civil qualification , without respect to any Religious Office ; but the Priest claims not Tythes so , but quite contrary : he claims on the score of a Religious Office without respect to any civil capacity or qualification at all . What can be more different then two such Claims , whereof one is meerly Civil , the other meerly Religious ? Now that Claim that is civil falls properly under the cognizance of human Laws , which are of the same nature with it ; but so doth not the other . Nor were the Religious Donations of Tythes accounted cognizable by the civil Magistrate , or subjected to human Laws for many hundred Years af●●r they were given .

In the winding up of this Section , he shews himself to be a man of a base unworthy mi●d , who because he finds me fenced by Truth against the force of his Arguments , le ts fly one of his en●enomed Darts to wound the honour of my deceased Mother . And rather then want an opportunity he sti●●● not to make a down-right falshhood by which to make way for ●is slanderous insinuation . His words are these , pag. 147. Though this bold Quaker do of●en say [ we are no Pr●ests ] I must t●ll him , there is more fear he is no Elwood , then we no Pries●s ; a●d our Ordi●ation is easier to prove , the● T. E's Mother's Honesty .

False man and most unworthy ! Let him produce if he can that place in my Book , wh●●● I say they are no Priests . Do I not frequently call them Priests , and seldom any thing e●se ? And 〈…〉 so void of shame as well as honesty , to charge me that I often say They are no ●ri●sts ! But it is obvious that he forged this falshood only to usher in his slanderous suggestion . But I would have him know he has hereby only discovered his own base & ungenerous Nature ( in attempting to defame the Memory of one whom probably he never knew , much less had ever provocation from ) but is not able to blemish her Reputation , who was well known to be a modest , chaste and vertuous Woman , unstain'd throughout her Life with any spot of In●amy , & having slept in Peace about some twenty Years , her Memory is still fresh and sweet to all that knew her , and her good Name above the reach of this Detractor's Tongue .

§ . 3. In his next Section , pag. 148. The Priest quotes me saying thus , pag. 314. If the case of the Priest and of T. E as to Temporal Right be equal , then the Priest must acknowledge he is no more a Minister of Christ then T. E. at least , that he doth not claim them as a Minister of Christ , any more then T. E. doth his temporal ●state ; otherwise the parallel will not hold .

W●at a lame quotation hath he here given ! In the page out of which he has taken this , I observed how willing the Priest was , for his own interest , to parallel his cas● with the Parishioners , as if there were no difference at all in their Claims . One claims a temporal th●●● , and the other claims a temporal thing . One claims by a temporal Right , and the other claims by a temporal Right . One hath no need of a Precept or Example in holy Scripture for what he claims , no more hath the other . Thus he takes his Parishioner by the ●ose , and endeavours to cokes him into a conceit , that their cases answer pat to one another , that their Right is all one , their Claim one and the same , their pretensions just alike . But then ( say I ) they must not stay there , the Priest must also acknowledge , he is no more a Minister of Christ then the other , at least that he doth not claim Tythes as a Minister of Christ , any more then the other doth his temporal Estate ; otherwise the parallel will not hold . For if he claims Tythes as a Minister of Christ , if he demands them in consideration of a spiritual Office , I am sure then their Claims will not agree ; and that which will be sufficient to make good a Title to the one , will not be so to the other . This I recite the larger , that the Reader may see upon what gr●●nds I made this Conclusion . The Priest sayes , The maxim on which this inference is grounded , is this wretched absurdity ? That none can have equal temporal rights by the Laws , unless they be equal in all Capacities .

But this ( to use his own term ) is a wretched untruth ; for my Inference is not grounded on such a Maxim : I said not that they must be equal in all Capacities ; but that if one claimed in a civil capacity & the other in a spiritual , their Claims then would not agree , nor the pretended Parallel hold . There is a difference between being equal in all Capacities , and claiming in quite contrary Capacities . If one man claims in a civi● capacity , and another in a spiritual capacity , and both by the same human Laws ; surely 〈◊〉 that claims in a spiritual capacity is therein opposite not only to him that claims in a civil capacity , but to the Laws also by which himself claims , which are of a civil Nature , and therefore cannot properly and rightly be made use of to maintain a religious and spiritual claim . But he sayes , The same Laws do give equal temporal Rights to persons of all kind of Capacities ; for the same Estate , he sayes , may be enjoyed by Iudge first , then by a Souldier , then by a Mercha●t , then by a Woman ; and all these in their several 〈◊〉 may have an equal Right to this Estate , though they be every one of different Capacities , pag. 149.

Though he sayes the same Laws give equal temporal Rights to Persons of all kind of Capacities , yet among the Instances he gives to demonstrate his Assertion , there is never an one of his Capacity ; and therefore it reaches not his case . His Instances of a Iudge , a Souldier , a Merchant , a Woman , are all civil , of the same Nature with the Laws by which they claim : but so is not the Priest , he claiming in a capacity of a contrary Nature to the Laws by which he claims : for the Laws are human and civil , but the capacity he claims in is Spiritual and Religious . He has one instance more , but that no more to the purpose then the former . Suppose ( sayes he , pag. 149. ) the King have by the Law a temporal Right to one Estate , and some of his Subjects an equal Right to another E●●ate ; you shall hear ( says he ) T. E's wise way of arguing : The King claims a temporal thing ; so doth the Subject : the King claims by a temporal right ; so doth the Subject : the King hath no need of Scripture to prove his right ; no more hath the Subject : yet for all this , their Claim is not one and the same , they must stay there ; the King must acknowledge himself no more a King then the Subject , or else the cases are not parallel .

In this , as in the next , his Sophistry is evident . This is not ( as he floutingly calls it ) my wise way of arguing , but his foul way of perverting Arguments . I argued not between a King and a Subject , but between a Priest and a Parishioner ▪ showing the contrariety of the Capacities in which they claimed . This ●e turns off from the Priest to the King , as if the King's case and the Priest's were so just alike , that whatsoever is said of the Priest's case must needs agree to the King 's ; whereas the Priest's case is as contrary to the King 's , as it is to the Parishioners : for the King claims in a civil capacity as well as the Parishioner , but the Priest claims in a Religious capacity contrary to both . A King and Subject may well have equal right to their respective Estates by the same Laws , because though the qualifications under which they claim , differ in degrees , yet they differ not in Nature ; they are both civil , and both o● the same Nature with those Laws by which they claim . But with the Priest it is quite otherwise : The qualification under which he claims Tythes , is quite contrary to that under which the Parishioner claims his Estate , and no less to the Laws also by which himself claims Tythes .

The rest of this Section he spends in Railing , and most part also of the rest of his Book ; in which I do not intend to encounter him , as being neither able nor willing to match him therein . His following Sections therefore , being fuller of reviling Language then solid Arguments , and more repl●●e with ●ailing then with Reason , I shall make the fewer Remarques upon ; and the rather for that I have , in a deli●erate progress through all his three Periods of time , sufficiently disproved already all his pretences of a divine Right to Tythes ; and made it manifest t●at the Institution of Tythes , since the times of the Gospel , was Popish , that Popery had made her encroachments in the Church before Tythes were settled on it ; that those settlements of Tythes that were afterwards made , proceeded from a blind zeal and superstitious Devotion , grounded on Principles repugnant to the true Christian - Religion , which I recommend to the consideration and Conscience of every serious Reader , and proceed .

In his 27. Section he quarrels at three passages of mine ; One is the description of a Ministers maintenance from Luke 10. 7 , 8. and Matth. 10. 11. Against which he objects , pag. 156. That if this order of taking Meat and Drink then , were a perpetual and general rule to all Ministers to the World's end , so must also all the rest of the rules their mentioned be .

That does not follow . If some of those Rules had relation to that particular service only , yet this of maintenance was more general ; and therefore he may observe , that when our Saviour afterwards gave his more general Commission for the preaching of the Gospel to all Nations , he made no new Provision for their maintenance ; which argues he intended the continuance of that which he had before appointed ; and this also is confirmed by the practice of the Apostles afterward , especially of the Apostle Paul , who though he was not imployed in that particular Message on which the other Apostles were sent ( for he was not converted till some Years after ) yet refers directly to the maintenance there appointed [ Have we not power to Eat and to Drink ? 1 Cor. 9. 4. ] So that we see the Apostle understood that maintenance which Christ had at first appointed was to continue , ( and accordingly asserts his power to receive it , long after that particular occasion , on which it was first given , was over ) and yet he did not observe those other directions which were given on that particular occasion : for he both preach't to the Gentiles , and had Money in his Purse , and that of his own earning too .

The next passage is this , He says , pag. 157. I saucily ask Kings and Princes where Christ gave them power to alter that Maintenance , and set up another in the room of it ? arrogantly telling them 〈◊〉 Corah's phrase , they take too much upon them , &c.

The sau●e is of his own making ; the question only mine , and that made not to Kings and Princes , but to the Priests : for when I had asked , Where hath Christ given power to any man to alter this Maintenance , and set up another in the room of it ? I add , Doubtless if any such authority were given , it concerns them that claim thereby to shew it , and they to be sure are the Priests . The other part also of the sentence he carps at , wherein he sayes , I arrogantly tell them in Corah's phrase they take too much upon them , unless they can shew where Christ gave them such authority ) is of his own Cooking : for I told them not in Corah's phrase They take too much upon them ; but modestly askt , If Christ hath given no such power , whence then doth man take so much upon him ? And this Inquiry too related to the settlement of Tythes in the time of Popery . But , sayes he , pag. 158. let me ask this bold Questionist , Where Christ forbid them to give a better Maintenance ? He bid the Apostles be content with Meat and Drink ; but he did not forbid them to take more , if it were freely given .

Can a better Maintenance be given , then that which Christ himself appointed ? He who was Lord of all , if he had thought Tythes , or a●y other maintenance better then this , could as well have appointed that . This Priest , I perceive , measures the goodness of the maintenance by the greatness , and accounts that best that is bi●gest . But doubtless the Apostle Paul went by another Rule ; for he accounted that best which was least chargeable to the Church , 1 Cor. 9. 18. To shew there needed no express command for making the maintenance better , he tells me ( pag. 159. ) That an Hint is a Command to a Soul that loves God . Be it so : yet not so much as an Hint shall he find throughout all the New Testament for the payment of Tythes . But seeing he sayes Christ bid the Apostles be content with Meat and Drink ( which was somewhat more then a bare hint ) methink , if he ( who pretends to be one of the Apostles Successors ) were a Soul t●at truly loved God , he should content himself with what he sayes Christ bid his Apostles be content with ; and not thus scrable after more . See now the man's partiality , An Hint must pass for a Command to the People for giving : but an express Command will not suffice to make the Priest content with what the People give . Is this a sign of a Soul that truly loves God ? 'T is true , the Apostles were not forbidden to receive more , nor Believers to give more : neither lies the Objection in my Book against giving more , but against altering the nature of the Maintenance , and setting up another Maintenance of a different nature from that which Christ appointed : For that Maintenance was free and voluntary , and so ought the Maintenance of Christian Ministers to be alwayes ; but a Maintenance settled by humane Laws ceases to be free , and so is not suitable to the Gospel , which it self is free .

But to render me ridiculous , the Priest says , ibid. No doubt he will ask the primitive Believers , who gave them order to sell their Estates , and give them to the Apostles ? He will say , They took too much upon them . And hereupon he sayes , Was ever so much Folly and Impudence conjoyned ?

No doubt he had had one sin les● to answer for , had he left out this Abuse . The Primitive Believers needed no Order for selling their Estates , any more then Believers do now , nor in disposing the Money as they did . But if the primitive Believers should have taken upon them to have injoyned all other Believers afterwards to sell their Estates too , and give the Money to their Ministers , they would therein have taken too much upon them . Believers in all Ages might be as liberal as they pleased to their Ministers ; but they might not make that which was Liberality in themselves , an Imposition and Burden upon them that came after , who may justly and reasonably expect to enjoy the same Liberty and Freedom to express their Liberality , as the others did who went before . For as the Gospel it self , in its own nature , is equally free in all Ages , and the Ministers of the Gospel are so too , in respect of its publication ( so as not to preach the Gospel because humane Laws command , nor to forbear to preach it because humane Law● forbid ) so ought the Gospel-Maintenance also , o● the Maintenance of this Gospel-Ministry , to be in all Ages equally free ; else is it not suitable to the Ministry , and the Gospel to which it appertains . And whensoever it ceases to be free , by the interposed Injunction of paenal Laws , it thenceforth ceases to b● a Gospel-Maintenance . Now if we should suppose Tythes a lawful Maintenance , 〈…〉 at the Donation of them was an Act of pure Liberality and perfect Freedom in the first Donors ( which universally considered is far enough fro● probability ) and upon that Supposition should admit Tythes to have been then a free Maintenance ; yet the settling of them as a standing Maintenance , and compelling after Ages by P●nalties to pay them , makes them not now a free Maintenance , if they had been so then ; but the true Gospel-Maintenance ought to be free in its Continuation as well as in its Beginning ; and Christians now may justly expect as much Christian-Liberty & Freedom as others in former Ages had , which they do not enjoy who now stand bound to the performance of that which others were at liberty to .

The third Passage that he cavils at in this Section , he thus gives , pag. 160. For any Magistrate to set out Tythes for a Maintenance , is a direct Opposition to Christ , because they were commanded in the Levitical Law , and Christ hath taken away Priest , Law and Tythes altogether . How proves he this , saith he ? by Heb. 7. The Verse , saith he , he cunningly leaves out , being conscious to himself he had fathered a Lye on that Chapter , in which there is not one word of Christ's taking away Tythes , no nor in any place of the New T●stament .

What himself is guilty of , that he charges upon me , viz. the ●unningly leaving out of things : for he has cunningly left out a material Clause in that Sentence of mine which he quoted , namely , that Christ hath disannulled that Law by which Tythes had been commanded to be paid unto the Leviti●al Priesthood ; which makes the taking away of Tythes a necessary consequent , when the Law was taken away by which they stood . 'T is true , I added not th● Verse in Heb. 7. because the greatest part of the whole Chapter tends to the proof of my Assertion , which therefore I was willing the Reader should read throughout . But seeing my unfair Adversary hath made so Ill an use of my Good Meaning , I will add the verses , to let the Reader see how much I am abused ; Heb. 7. vers. 5. compared with vers. 12. and vers. 18. In the 5th verse the Apostle shews , that the Sons of Levi , who received the Office of the Priesthood , had a Commandment to take Tythes of the People according to the Law . In the 12th verse he sayes , The Priesthood being changed , there is made of necessity a change also of the Law ; so that here the Commandment , by which they took Tythes , was taken away , and the●e remained no Commandment to take Tythes by . Then in the 18th verse he sayes expresly , There is verily a disannulling of the Commandment going before , for the Weakness and Vnprofitableness thereof : Now the disannulling the Commandment by which Tythes were due , is a disannulling of Tythes . How did Christ take away the Levitical Priesthood , but by taking away the Law by which that Priesthood was made , and setting up another Priesthood in its room ? In like manner he took away the Maintenance by Tythes , by taking away the Law by which that Maintenance was commanded , and setting up another Maintenance in its room . And as the Apostles exercised the New Priesthood without regard to the Old : so they also received the New Maintenance , and looked not after the Old ; plainly intimating they understood the Old Maintenance to be ended , as well as the Old Priesthood . And Andrew Willet fairly argues it in his Synopsis of Popery , fifth General Controversie , pag. 314. S. Paul ( saith he ) saith in flat words , If the Priesthood be changed , of necessity there must also be a change of the Law , Heb. 7. 12. But the Priesthood of the Law is alt●red and changed , Ergo also the Law of the Priesthood , and so consequently the Ceremonial Duty of Tythes . Thus he , wherein at once he both acknowledges Tythes to be Ceremonial , and proves them ended with the Legal Priesthood .

§ . 4. In his next Section , pag. 161. the Priest charges me with evading all serious Answers by some petty Cavil , for proof of which he gives this Instance ; That the Author of the Friendly Conference having asked , If men might not do what they would with their own ? I said , No , They might not spend it upon Harlots , nor waste it prodigally , nor make an Idol of it .

That it may the better appear whether this was ● petty Cavil to evade a serious Answer , I will briefly set down the manner of it ; The Author of the Friendly Conference , pag. 154. having affirmed ( not pro●ved ) that Tythes and other Church-Revenues have been settled by those that were actually seized of them in Law , adds thus ; Now if the Quakers can prove from the Laws of God or Right Reason , that it is not lawful for every one to do what he will with his own , and consequently , that he may not settle Tythes , Lands or M●neys upon the Clergy , then they do something to the purpose . Hereupon in my Answer , pag. 320. I say , That I may be sure to do something , even in his sense , to the purpose , I will prove both from the Laws of God and Right Reason , that it is not lawful for every man to do what he will with his own . Accordingly I there prove ( pag. 321. ) first in general , That a man may not imploy his Estate to an Evil Vse : then more particularly , That he may not spend his Substance upon his Lusts ; That he may not bestow it among Harlots ; That he may not make an Idol of i● nor uphold Idolatry with it . Now in the General Exception and this last Particular , I had direct relation to the Settlement of Tythes , having proved before , that Tythes were imployed to an Evil Use in maintaining a Corrupt Clergy , and that it was an Idolatrous Worship which Tythes were given to uphold . And to manifest , that I did not leave my Argument to catch at or play upon a Word or Phrase ( as the Author of the F. Confer . falsly charges me in his Vindication , pag. 310. ) but prosecuted my Argument fairly , to prove that the settlement of Tythes on the Clergy was evil , in order thereunto I thus reasoned , ( pag. 321 , 322. ) Will any Protestant be so inconsiderate as to say , that it is lawful for a man to lay out his Money in Beads , Crosses , Crucifixes , Agnu● Dei's , and such like trumpery ? Will he say it is lawful to buy Masses , Prayers , Pardon● , Indulgences , & c ? Will he say it was lawful , by the Law of God , for Ethelwolf at Rome to give two hundred Marks a year to buy Oyl , to keep S. Peter's Lamps and S. Paul's Lamps burning ? If he thinks this justifiable , let him defend it ; if not , he may in this very instance see , both that it is not lawful for every man to do what he will with his own ; and also , that Ethelwolf , his great Donor and Patron , did that with his own that was not lawful for him to have done , namely , uphold Superstition and Idolatry . Thus having proved both that a man may not do what he will with his own , as also that Ethelwolf in his other Church-Donations did that with his own which it was not lawful for him to have done ( and in which the Priests , neither one nor t'other , sayes any thing in his Defence ( though fairly invited to it● but leave him under the Judgment of having done Evil therein . ) I go on there to shew , that He did not transgress in this Instance only , of giving that yearly Pension to Rome , but in his Donation of Tythes also : for it is evident he gave them to maintain a Popish Clergy , degenerated from Apostolical Purity , and f●ully corrupt both in Doctrine and Practice , in upholding of which he di● that which was Evil , and therefore to be sure unlawful . Judge now , Reader , whether this be leaving my Argument to catch at or play upon ● word or phrase , whether this be to 〈◊〉 all serious Answers by some petty Cavil ( as my cavilling Adversaries cry out ) or whether it be a fair prosecution of my Argument , and a solid serious Answer , proving that it is not lawful for every man to do what he will with his own , and that by an Instance in Ethe●wolf himself .

But I perceive the Priest had covertly grounded his Proposition upon the words in the Parable , Mat. 20. 15. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with 〈◊〉 own ? which , because spoken by our Saviour , he expected perhaps should have born out his mis-application of them : but finding his Expectation disappointed in the Answer , both he and his Brother Pri●●● are enraged , and fly upon me with open Mouth : One saying , If the Quaker can but spit his Malice against me , he cares not , though it fly in our Saviour's own Face , whose very words I used — Is it not lawful for 〈◊〉 to do what I will with my own , & c ? Vindication , pag. 311.

The other saying , If the Quaker had been one of the Labourers in the Vineyard , 't is like he might have drolled thus upon the Master thereof , who ( in the Person of God ) saith , Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with my own ? Right of Tythes , p. 162.

But I would wish the first of these Priests to take notice , that his Tongue slipt when he said just now , he used the very words of our Saviour ; for our Saviour said , Is it not lawful for ME to do what I will with mine own ? but instead of 〈◊〉 the Prie●● put in [ every one ] If the Quakers can prove — that 〈◊〉 is not lawful for EVERY ONE to do what he will with his own .

There is some difference sure between him of whom that Parable was spoken , and every one . Because God ( in whose Person , as the latter Priest sayes , the Master of the Vineyard speaks ) may do what he will with his own , to whom it is impossible to do amiss ; may every one therefore challenge to himself the same Liberty and Power ? That 's not to make me● Servants and Stewards to the great Housholder , but Lords and Masters . But a● to the Case of Tythes , I have proved that Ethelwolf in the settlement of Tythes , did that with his own which was evil . in upholing a false Religion , which it more concerns the Priest to clear him from , then thus without cause to cavil .

§ . 5. In my Answer to the Friendly Conference , I said , pag. 323. Suppose that Ethelwolf had an ample Power of disposing what he pleased , or that the People had by consent joyned with him in the D●nation , every man according to the Interest he had ; yet neither could he single , nor he and they conjoyned , grant any more then belonged to themselves . This was too plain to be denyed , being grounded on a firm Maxim , Nemo plus juris ad alium transferre potest , quam ipse haberet ; i. e. No man can transfer more Right to another then he himself hath ; therefore they seek wayes to evade it . The Author of the Conferen●e sayes , Suppose I grant it ; wh●● then ? His Parishioner answers in my Name , To make ● Grant of the tenth part forever is ( in his understanding ) utterly 〈◊〉 to Reason . The Priest replie● , Is it reasonable wholly to pass an Estat● from the● and their Heirs forever , and yet repugnant to 〈…〉 grant but a part of that Estate forever ?

By this I perceive he has taught his Parishioner to use as little Honesty as himself . The Parishioner has learnt of the Priest to chop and mangle Sentences , and cunningly leave out what he likes not . He maketh me here say . To make a Grant of the tenth 〈◊〉 forever is ( in my understanding ) utterly repugnant to Reason . This goes clearer with the Priest , as if I had said it was repugnant to Reason to grant the tenth part of an Estate forever , and accordingly he argue● ▪ whereas I say plainly , They might have disposed of what part of the Land they pleased , they might have given the tenth part of the Land , the tenth Acre , &c. But that which I said is ( to my understanding ) repugnant to Reason , Iustice and Equity , is for the● to make a grant of the tenth part of the PROFITS of the Land forever . ( These words [ of the profits of the Land ] he leaves out in reciting my words , thereby drawing it from the profits of the Land to the Land it self ) which alters the case : for as I shewed , the profits of the Land forever could not be said to belong to them , because it depended on the stock , labour , &c. of another , which they had no interest in no● right unto . But if the profits of the Land forever did not belong to them , and they had no power to grant any more then did belong to themselves , it follows that they had no power to grant the Tythes of the profits of the Land forever . [ They endeavour to weaken the force of this Argument by comparing Tythes with a Rent-charge , urging , That the owners might as well make a grant of Tythes forever , as set a Rent-charge upon their Lands forever . ] This the Author of the of Tytth Rhgies talks much of , and fills many pages 〈◊〉 in Sect. 30. and 38. shifting the same matter into divers dresses by variety of expressions , to make the fairer shew and greater appearance of saying something . But he that shall impartially consider the nature of each , will find a vast difference between a Rent-charge and Tythes : for a Rent-charge is paid by reason of the Land on which it is charged , which it is to be supposed ●e that charged it had at that time ● property in ; but Tythes are not paid by reason of the Land , but by reason of the stock and labour , &c. imploy'd thereon by him that occupies it , which appears by this , that they who have no Lands , are as well charged with the payment of Tythes out of the improvement or increase of their stocks and labours in their Trades and manual Occupations , as they are who occupy Lands . So that Tythes lie properly on the stock not on the Land ; but a Rent-charge lies properly on the Land , not on the stock ; and therefore although there should be no increase at all , no profit made , no Crop pl●nted , nor any thing renewing upon the Land , yet the Rent-charge must be paid , because it is charged in consideration of the Land it self : but it is not so in the case of Tythes . If there be no increase , no profit made , no Crop planted , nor any thing renewing upon the Land , no Tythe can be demanded , because Tythe is charged in consideration of the increase and improvement made of the Stock . And for the Non-payment of a Rent-charge , he on whom it is settled , may enter upon and possess the Land which is charged with the payment of it . But in the case of Tythes it is otherwise . For non-payment of Tythes , he who claims them , cannot enter upon or possess the land , but is made whole out of the stock of the Occupier . All which demonstrates that it is the stock , not the land , of which the Tythe is paid . If a Trades-man hold a ●arm ( as many d● ) and dividing his 〈◊〉 , he 〈◊〉 one part of it in his Farm , ●nd the other in hi● Trade , he is liable to the payment of Tythes out o● each . But if he should draw his Stock out of 〈◊〉 Farm , and imploy it all in his Trade , letting his Farm lie unstocked , and so receive no profit from it , he would not be chargeable with Tythes for his Farm , but only for the improvement of his Stock 〈◊〉 his Trade : Yet if there be a Rent-charge upon 〈◊〉 ▪ Farm , he is chargeable with that nevertheless , and liable to pay it , whether he imploy his Farm or not . Whence it is still more evident , that a Rent-charge being a charge upon the Land , ●ot upon the Stock ; and Tythes being a charge upon the stock , not upon the land , though our Ancestors had power to lay a Rent-charge upon their own Lands , in which they had a property , yet they could not have power to grant Tythes out of other mens Stocks , in which they had no property . Now since Tythe is not the tenth part of the Land , but the tenth part of the increase of the Stock , howsoever imployed , whether upon Land or otherwise , and seeing the labour , care , skill , industry and diligence of the Occupant , whether Husband man or Trades-man is involved and necessarily included in the Stock , as instrumental means and causes of producing the increase , a perpetual grant of Tythes implies a grant not only of other mens Stocks , in which the Granters had no property , but of other mens labours , care , skill , diligence and industry also , long before they were begotten , upon which supposition , all men but Priests , since Ethelwolf's time 〈◊〉 be born Slaves , under an obligation to imploy their time , pains , industry and skill in working for the Priests . But whether it be rational to admit in Ethelwolf , or any other , a power to impose the necessity of such a servile condition on their Po●●erity , let the free-spirited Reader judge . Against this the Priest objects thus , Doth not the raising the sum of Money ( settled by Rent-charge ) include the labour , sweat , care , charge , skill and industry of the Husbandman , as well as the preparing of Tythe ▪ pag. 168.

The case of a Rent-charge even in this Respect is greatly different from that of Tythes . For a Rent-charge is a burden , fixt upon the Land , and according to the maxim , The Burden descending with the Inheritance , he that ( as the Priest sayes , pag. 170. ) will not have the incumbrance , must not have the benefit . He therefore to whom such Land descends on which the burden of a Rent-charge lies , finding he cannot enjoy the Land without performing the condition ( which is to pay the Rent-charge ) subjects himself unto the burden , and that he may enjoy the Estate undertakes the performance of the Condition , which thus becomes his own act . So that this man's Ancestors do not take upon them to give away his stock , labour , skill and industry ( for they only charge a burden on their own land , which he is at liberty to take or leave . ) But he himself gives away his own stock ●abour , skill and industry , that he may enjoy the Estate . But it is far otherwise in the case of Tythes : for Tythe ( though a Burden and a grievous one too ) is not fixt upon the Land , nor descends with the Inheritance : for they who have no lands nor inheritances , are liable , if they have personal Estates , to pay Tythes as well as they that have Lands ; and they that have Lands are not liable to pay Tythes , unless by imploying a Stock or personal Estate upon them , they make an increase , or have something renew upon the Land . Nay , it hath been held possible so to order the matter , as to reap the benefit of the Lands , and yet 〈◊〉 fre● from the incumbrance of Tythes . However , if 〈◊〉 to whom the Land descends , refuse to pay the Tythes , yet he is in no danger of loosing the land . So that he hath not the Land under condition of paying Tythes , 〈◊〉 the other has under condition of paying a Rent-charge , & therefore neither needs nor doth subject himself to the burden and incumbrance of Tythes . Here the● in short lies the civil difference between a Rent-charge and Tythes . A Rent-charge is a burden charged upon the land , Tythe is a burde● lies upon the stock . A Rent-charge is laid upon the lands by them that had a just Propriety therein ; Tythe is laid upon the stock by them that had no Propriety at all therein ; the stock and labour , &c. of the present Possessor is not subjected to the Rent-charge unless by his own consent and undertaking ; but the stock and labour , &c. of the present Possessor is subjected to the burden of Tythes ▪ without his own consent or undertaking , yea against it . By this it appears , both that a Rent-charge and Tythes are very unlike , and that it is utterly repugnant to reason , to suppose that Ethelwolf and his People had power to load their Posterity with the burden of Tythes forever . And indeed if we consider the practice of our Ancestors , in their Donations of Tythes we may find , that they did not look upon Tythes to be at all of the Nature of a Rent-charge ; for they took great care by legal settlements to secure and assure those Rent-charges ; but made no provision ( for some Hundred Years ) for the payment of Tythes , save by Ecclesiastical Censures ; nor was the kn●ck of Suing for Tythes in temporal Courts found out , till o● late Years . Which argues , that as they gave 〈…〉 they intended the continuance of them should have ●epended on ●●votion also .

He objects again in pag. 170. That seeing the present Possessor derives his Right to his land from his fore-Fathers , who might have sold off what part of the Land they pleased ; and since they transmit it 〈◊〉 , ●ay they not leave a charge upon it ? And if the ●eir 〈◊〉 not pay the charge , he must renounce the Land 〈◊〉 .

As they might have sold off what part of the Land they pleased , so they might have laid a charge upon the Land , because the property of the Land 〈◊〉 in themselves , but they could not have subjected the stock and labour of the present Occupant to that 〈◊〉 , because they had not a property in the stock and labour of the present Occupant . And though he sayes , If the Heir will not pay the charge , he must renounce the land also ; yet in the case of Tythes , he knows full well it is not so : for if the Heir will not pay Tythes , he is not bound to renounce the Land , nor does he forfeit it by the non-payment of Tythes . But he possesses and injoyes the Land , whether he pay Tythes or no. Which shews , he did not receive the Land under any condition of paying Tythes ; for then he could not injoy the Land without performing the condition .

But he sayes , pag. 171. The Quaker's Argument is , Protestatio contra factum ( i. e. A Protestation against Fact ) and so signifies nothing at all : It is an 〈◊〉 to prove that cannot be done , which is done , as 〈◊〉 in this , as in the like ●ases ; And that ought not to 〈◊〉 done , which hath been done a thousand times , and 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉 of all Christian Laws .

That 〈…〉 nothing at all , is more then I understood before . The intent of my Argument is not to prove that that c●●not be done , which is done ; but that that should not be done , which is done ; or , as his after words are , That 〈◊〉 not to be done , which is done , although it had been done ten thousand times , and approved 〈…〉 by such Law● as he , for his profit sake , will call Christian.

§ . 6. For want of strength of Reason and force of Argument , he falls now to down-right Railing , having a mind ( I suppose ) to try if he can daunt me with blustring words , and therefore exhibits a charge against me of no le●s nature then Blasphemy . He grounds it upon my saying , That for any one to tell me that Ethelwolf ( or some other ) hath given him my labour , pains , charges , care , skill , industry , diligence understanding , &c. seven or eight hundred Years , it may be , before either he or I was Born , is a thing most ridiculous , and utterly inconsistent with Reason . Upon which he sayes , pag. 172. It is no great wonder he should call all men Fools , when as this blasphemous Argument ●●ies in the face of God himself , who ( even by the Quaker's 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 and pains , charge and care , and that from one Generation to another . God ( sayes he ) 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 ( sayes he ) this the Quaker saith is a ridiculous & unreasonable thing . O bold blasphemer ! &c.

And in pag. 173. he adds , 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 , 〈◊〉 it by this wicked and silly way of reasoning .

In this charge it is hard to say whether he shews more envy or ignorance : however to be sure there 's but too much of both . He sayes , God made over to his Priests the tenths of the profits of many mens Sweat and Labour , many Hundred Years before they were Born , and that I call this a ridiculous and unreasonable thing , and thereupon he calls me a bold Blasphemer ! But what a bold — Slanderer is he to say I call it a ridiculous and unreasonable thing for God to do thus , when I spake it of Ethelwolf by name ! Can nothing then be ridiculous and unreasonable in man , but it must be so in God also ? or must the same thing needs be ridiculous and unreasonable in God , which is ridiculous and unreasonable in man ? Has man then an equal power with God ? and is his Soveraig●ty as universal ? Let me tell him , 't is a ridiculous and unreasonable thing in men to take upon them the disposing of any thing which is not in their power to dispose : but it were impiety to infer the same of God , since nothing can be above his Power , who is himself the highest Power . It was just and reasonable in God , to ass●me a power to injoyn all the owners of Canaan to pay to the Priests the tenth part of those profits which did arise from their Sweat and Pains , Charge and Care , and that from one Generation to another ; because he had a Right to all the Sweat and Pains , Charge and Care of all the Owners of Canaan throughout all Generations . And as he gave that People their Land , so he gave them also their life , their health , their strength their wealth , their skill , their care , ability and understanding , and whatsoever else was necessary or conducible to the producing those profits , of which he enjoyed them to pay the Tythes . They received all of him , they owed all to him : justly therefore , and very reasonably might he require of them what he pleased , and lay upon them what charge he pleased , in respect either of their Land , or of their Stocks , or of their Labour , or of their Skill , &c. all which were his free Gifts to them . But I pray now , had Ethelwolf or any other of the Tythe-givers , the same power over their Posterity as God had over the Iews ? Do we owe our health , strength , ability to labour , skill , understandings , stocks , &c. to them , as the Iews did theirs to God ? If not , then let the Priest know , That for any one to say Ethelwolf ( or some other ) hath given him my labour , pains , charges , care , &c. seven or eight Hundred Years before either he or I was Born , is a thing most ridiculous and unreasonable , and for him to call this Blasphemy is ridiculous and unreasonable also . And it is so much the more unreasonable in him , in that he first calls me a bold Blasphemer , and then examins whether I am so or no. For after his saying this blasphemous Argument flies in the Face of God himself , and after his vehement Exclamation [ O bold Blasphemer ! ] he adds , If he saith the thing be ridiculous and unreasonable in it self , then this Quaker chargeth God with f●lly and injustice , who doth injoyn it .

If he saith , why does he go upon If 's then ? sure it had become him to have inquired that , and been certain of it too , before he had shot his over-hasty Bolt , and set his foul Brand of bold Blasphemer on me . But he hath learnt it seems to Hang men first , and try them afterwards : Nor slipt this from him through inadvertency only , but premedittely and with a malicious design of mischief ; for he saw the reason on which I grounded my saying , as his following words manifest , which are these , Nor can he be excused by saying , God hath more power then men .

Which words declare he understood well enough in what sense I spake , and that I therefore called it a ridiculous and unreasonable thing , because it supposed a Grant of that , which the Granter had no right in , nor power over . Wilfully therefore , and against the Light of his own understanding and Conscience , hath he thus abused me , perverting my words , to a quite contrary sense to what he knew I spake them in . He sayes , In evil , foolish , and unjust things God hath no power at all .

But man hath : else had not this man dealt so evilly , foolishly and unjustly by me , as he hath done in this matter . God ( he sayes ) cannot Lye , he cannot do anything ridiculous or unjust .

Doth it therefore follow that men cannot lye neither ? or that men cannot do any thing ridiculous or unjust ? And may not men be charged with doing a thing ridiculous and unjust , but presently the charge must be transfer'd from Men to God ? how ridiculous and unjust is such an Inference ! But sayes ●e , Because God once made this Grant , we dare be consident 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 Ethelwolf .

He 's very daring sure , and wants modesty more then confidence . Because God once made this grant , may Men take upon them to make such another ? and is the Act lawful , wise and just in men , because it was lawful , wise and just in God ? may men then lawfully , wisely and justly do whatsoever God hath lawfully , wisely and justly done ? A notable Position to bring in Iudaism ! and a fine defence he has helpe● the Pope to , for the many Iewish Rights , and Ceremonies wherewith the Romish Religion abounds , who may learn of this Priest to say , We dare be confident the use of these things is lawful , and wise , and just , because God once commanded the use of them . And on the same reason also might men return to Circumcision and Sacrifices , and justifie the Act. But to come a little closer to the Priests interest ( in which , how dull soever they are in other parts , they are usually very quick of sense ) I would ask this Priest , whether if the King should make a Law that no Priest should have any inheritance amongst the People , he would dare to be confident that that were a lawful , wise and ●●st act , because God once made such a Law amongst the People of Israel ? I am apt to think if he were put to 〈◊〉 tryal , he would tell another Story . His calling me a blasphemous Wretch , and my way of reasoning ●icked and silly , discovers the rancour of his own Spirit , but no way weakens my Argument . But in saying my way of reasoning condemns Almighty God , as much as it doth King Ethelwolf , he either pr●sumptuously exalts King Ethelwolf into an equal power with God , or impiously debases God to such a scantling of power as Ethelwolf had , or was capable of , in either of which he has been too daring , and a great deal over confident . My Argument however [ that it is a ridiculous and unreasonable thing for any man to undertake the disposing of that which himself hath nothing to do with ; and that that man , who takes upon him 〈◊〉 make a perpetual grant of Tythes , doth thereby ●●dertake to dispose of that which himself hath nothing to do with , namely , the labour , pains , charges , care , skill , industry , diligence and understanding of another .

This Argument I say , remains firm and sound , not weakened or any way impaired , by any thing the Priest hath alledged against it ; but his false application of it to God , and his malicious reflections upon me , are sufficiently exposed , to make him ashamed of what he has writ , if he be not wholly past shame●

§ . 7. As I argued it unreasonable that such a grant should be made , so I shewed it was not agreeable to Iustice and Equity that it should be continued , because the consideration was taken away for which the grant was made . If ( said I , pag. 326 , 327. ) Ethelwolf a Papist gave Tythes to the Romish Clergy , he did it upon a consideration , for the health of his Soul and remission of his Sins , which he believed he might obtain in that Church , and by the help of that Ministry to whom he gave his Tythes , & mediation of those Saints in honour of whom he granted th●s Charter ▪ — Now if the consideration be taken away , why should the charge be continued ? To this the Priest answers ( Right of Tythes , pag. 174. ) I have already proved that T. E. falsly supposes King Ethelwolf to have held all the Opinions of the present Church of Rome .

I reply , that the Priest falsly charges me with supposing so , and cunningly urges this both here and elsewhere to acquit Ethelwolf from being a Papist ; as if a man could not have been a Papist unless he held ALL the Opinions of the present Church of Rome ; whereas ALL the Opinions of the present Church of Rome , were not then held in the Church of Rome it self : but there were enough held then in the Church of Rome ( of which Ethelwolf was a zealo●s Member , and to which he was a liberal Benefactor ) to make it an Erroneous , Corrupt , Superstitious and Idol●trous Church . He endeavours also to clear Ethelwolf and the Saxons from the Popish Doctrine of Merits ; using thereto , as before , the Testimony of Alcuin . But he does but , for his profit sake , set a fair gloss on a foul matter . T●at they were corrupt in the Doctrine of Merits , both the express words of their own publick Instruments do declare , and the Testimonies of learned men concerning them do confirm , which having insisted on largely before , Chap. 4. Sect. 18. I refer the Reader thither for a more full Answer , that I may not too much swell this Treatise by needless Repetitions .

Concerning Ethelwolf's obtaining Remission by the help of that Ministry to which he gave his Tythes , the Priest sayes , pag. 175. No wise man will deny , but that there was a true Church in England in th●se dayes : 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 .

A strange Assertion indeed ! Because there was a true Church in England in those dayes , must the Popish Church needs be it ? Hee 'l say perhaps , There was no other : How knows he that ? If there were but two or three that held the Faith of Jesus Chri●● in a pure Conscience , and did not joyn with the Abominations of the times , in which they lived , they ●ere a true Church : for neithe● numbers nor visibility make a true Church , as himself knows , if he understands Protestant Principles . God had a true Church all along the Apostacy , even in the thickest time of Popish darkness , before Luther began to Reform ; will the Priest thence infer , that the Church of Rome was a true Church all that time ? Let him carry on his Argument from Ethelwolf's time to Luther's , and say no wise man will deny , but that there was a true Church in England all that while : and if in that Church ( referring to the National ●hurch ) and by that Ministry , no Pardon could be had from God ; then there was no Salvation to be ●ad in this Nation at all in those Ages , no nor in any Nation in Christendom ; which is a strange assertion indeed . Salvation doubtless was obtained in those times , as well in this as other Nations in Christendom ; ( though not by the help of a false Ministry ) but what then ? must those indirect and wrong means , contrived to obtain Salvation by in those times , be therefore still kept up ? and ought the charge to be still continued , when the consideration for which it was given , is taken away ? But the Priest I think is almost ashamed of the consideration for which Tythes were given ; and therefore he shuns it as much as he may , and when he cannot avoid it , he smooths it over as fairly as he can . Did that good King ( sayes he , pag. 176. ) 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 Christ's Merits , Gods mercy , and the Churches prayers ; but he did not indent with God for it .

By his leave , there is not a word of Christ's merit● in all the Charter , nor of God's m●rcy neither , in any of the Copies that I have seen ; but that he gave Tythes for the remission of his Sins , is expresly set down . And the Bishops with their Abbats and the rest of the Clergy engaged on their part to sing fifty Psalms and say two Masses every Wednesday for the King and his Nobles , both during their Lives , and after their Deaths . By this Reader thou mayst a little judge what the Religion of those times was , and what it was he calls the Churches prayers , which were Popish Masses to be said for his Soul after he was dead , which the Priest confesses he hoped R●mission of his Sins might follow . As for the Saints , he sayes , T. E. is mistak●n , in thinking they then did believe the Saints usurped Christ's Office .

Whether they thought so or no , let Perkins speak Prob. pag. 93 , 94. Veteres ( sayes he ) praesertim post an 400. Invocatione Sanctorum peccarunt , imo sacrilegij sunt rei . Nam aliquando spem , fidem , fid●ciam in ijs collocant . i. e. The Ancients , es●●ciall● since the Year 400. have sinned , yea , and are guilty of Sacriledge too , in praying to Saints . For sometimes they place their Hope , Faith and Confidence in them ; of which he there gives very many Instances , shewing that the Saints were prayed to as Intercessors and Mediators , which is Christ's Office , which having mentioned before , c. 4. S. 18. I omit here . But in the Charter it self the Grant is made to God , and St. Mary and all Saints together ; and Ingulf ( who relates it ) sayes it was made for the honour of Mary the glorious Virgin and Mother of God , and of St. Michael the Arch-Angel , and of the Prince of the Apostles St. Peter , as also of our holy Father Po●e Gregory , of whose Saintship let the Reader judge . But sayes the Priest , pag. 177. If we suppose Ethelwolf as much a Papist as King Stephen , yet his Donations to pious uses must stand good , even though the Opinion of merit it had been the motive to him to make them ▪ or else ( sayes he ) T. E revokes all the Charters and Donations made in those really Popish times , to never so good and pious uses .

The donation of Tythes was not to a pious use , unless he will call it a pious use to uphold Impiety : for it was given to maintain and uphold a corrupt and false Worship and Ministry . For ( not to run over again all the Errors , Corruptions , Superstitions and Idolatries , that were then crept into and received in the Church ) were not saying Masses for the Souls of the dead one of the uses he calls pious ? For Ethelwolf ●o give two Hundred Marks a Year to burn Day-light at Rome , and one Hundred Marks more to the P●pe ; were not these pious uses indeed ! T●ou mayst judge Reader by these , of what kind and nature his pious uses were , which he so often talks of . But this is an old Popish trick , to cry out Holy Church , Holy Church , and pious uses , to keep simple People in awe , that the matter might not be inquired into . Thus no doubt all the rest of the lik●kind of donations , given in old time to the Popish Priests : to pray for the Souls of the Donors , and deliver them out o● Purgatory , were set off by the Priests with the specious Titles of Donations to pious uses , and endowments to Holy Church : But , as many of them , notwithstanding their specious pretences , have been long ●ince alienated from those uses , and yet other donations that were made to uses truly good and pious , although by Papists , were no way thereby hurt or impaired ; so likewise may this Donation of Tythes , given to an evil use , be right●y and justly made void , and yet other Grants , Donations and Charters , made by Papists also , to uses truly good and pious , not thereby be revok●d , or any way infringed .

§ . 8. The foul stains of Popish Corruption and Superstition , which stick upon this Donation and Charter of Tythes , are so visible and obvious to every Eye , that the Priest is greatly troubled at them , and fain would he wipe them off , if he could . He rubs and scrapes hard to get them out , but still the Spots remain . And indeed , as well might he undertake to wash a Brick white , or change the Colour of an Ethiopian's Skin , as hope to clear the Donation of Tythes from the just imputation of Popish Corruption . Fain he would perswade his Reader that Ethelwolf's Clergy was not Popish . But Popery is writ upon them in such Capital Letters , by Historians of all sorts that speak of those times , that if he expects to gain belief , he must first perswade men to shut their Eyes , and utterly abandon the use of their understandings . The gradual creeping in of those false Doctrines and superstitious Practices , in almost every Century after the Apostles dayes , which afterward obtained the Name Popery , is so particularly set down , and plainly proved by Protestant Writers of no mean credit , that there is no room left to doubt it . Nay , the other Priest , in his Vindicatio● of the Friendly Conference , pag. 277. forgetting perhaps that Ethelwolf's Donation bares date in the Year 855. has unluckily dated the entrance of Popery in the Year 700. no less then 155. 〈◊〉 before Ethelwolf's Charter of Tythes was made . His words are these , We may observe , sayes he , that when by the furious inundation of the barbarous Nations into the Roman Empire , learning fell into decay ; and whe● Arts and Sciences were discouraged and neglected , at the same time all manner of Corruptions crept into the Church ; and as ignorance increased , Errors multiplied ; So that most of the present evil Opinions of the Church of Rome , had their Original in those unlearned Ages , from about the Year of Christ 700. till about the Year 1400. about the mid-night of which Darkness , there was scarce any Learning left in the World — These were ( sayes he ) the unhappy times , which b●●d and nursed up Invocation of Saints , Worship of Images , Purgatory , with all the fana●ical Visions and Revelations , Miracles , &c. Then began Shrines , Pilgrimages , Relicks , purchasing of Pardons , and the Popes attempts for an universal Monarchy .

Thus he . ▪ Wherein , though he mention but few of the many particular Errors and Corruptions which in those times were grown up in the Church ; and though he mistake in point of time , in saying these which he hath mention'd were bred and nursed up about or after the Year 700. most of them if not all being of older standing , as I have already shewed ; yet he hath said enough to disprove all his Brother Priest hath said or can say towards clearing Ethelwolf's Clergy from being Popish . For if these Errors and Corruptions had sprung up no earlier th●n the Year 700. yet consider I pray to what a height such weeds were like to grow , in the fruitfull Soyl of superstitious Devotion , and cherished with the warmth of a blind and mis-guided Zeal , in the space of an Hundred and Fifty Years .

Yet the Author of the Right of Tythes , pag. 178. denyes again that Tythes were given to the Popish Priests ; and says , King Ethelwolf's Clergy agreed with the Protestant Church of England in more points t●an with the modern corrupt Church of Rome .

If this were true , it were more to the discredit of the Protestant Clergy , than to t●e credit of Ethelwolf'● C●ergy . But I deny his Assertion , un●ess he mean it of those who , as his Brother says ( Friendly Conference , pag. ●1 . ) for a corrupt Interest intrude themselves into the Ministry ; of which number himself is very likely to be one . But he that diligently sh●ll observe the accounts these Priest● themselves give of those times , will see they writ● not plainly and ●airly , but strive to colour over a corrupt Interest , and that 's the Reason they neither agree one with another , nor with themselves . The Author of the Fri●ndly Conference , pag. 148. sayes , Tythes were settled upon the Church , before Popery had made her 〈◊〉 in it ; for Popery is not of that Antiquity , &c. And he refers to Ethelwolf's Donation for the settlement , pag. 146. which was made in the year 855. Yet the same man ( if he be the same that writ the Vindication , as is pretended ) makes Popery as antient as the year 700. above one hundred & fifty years older then Ethelwolf's Charter . Most ( sayes he ) of the present Evil Opinions of the Church of Rome , had their Original in those unlearned Ages , from about the ▪ year 700. till about the year , 1400. Vind. pag. 277. Thus he one whi●e makes the s●ttlement of Tythes older than Popery , another while Popery older than the settlement of Tythes . In like manner the other Priest in his Right of Tythes , pag. 102. says , The Clergy of that Age were God's only publick Ministers . And pag. 112. The Donors intended Tythes to the Right Ministers of God ; and I make no doubt they were such to whom they gar● them . Again , pag. 178. King Ethelwolf ' s Cl●●gy ●greed with the Protestant-Church of England in more points , than with the modern corrupt Church of Rome . And yet the sa●e Priest sayes , pag. 99. The benefit of this Don●ti●n of Tythes hath been enjoyed for eight hundred years by those to whom the Donation was made . Now certain it is that the benefit of this Donation was enjoyed by the Popish Clergy all the time of Popery , till the very latter-end of Hen. 8. or the beginning of Edw. 6. and afterward again in Queen Mary's time ; and if all this while Tythes were enjoyed by them to whom the Donation was made , then it must needs be made to a Popish Clergy , or e●se there never was such a thing as a Popish Clergy in England . Now though it be thus plainly proved from his own words , that Tythes were given to a Popish C●ergy , yet so daringly confident is he , to say they were God's only publick Ministers , and that he makes no doubt they were the Right Ministers of God . Were they God 's own publick Ministers , were the● the Right Ministers of God who enj●yed the ben●fit of this Donation of Tythes , all along from Ethelwolf's time to the Reformation ? If so , then the Popish Clergy all that while , even in the most idolatrous times , yea Bonner , Gardner , and their Associates , who drunk so deep of Protestant Blood , were in his account Right Ministers of God . But if they who e●joyed the Benefit of this Donation of Tythes all along from Ethelwolf's time until the Reformation , were not the Right Ministers of God , but a corrupt popish Clergy ; then were not they ( even by his own Argument ) the Right Ministers of God , but a corrupt popish Clergy to whom this Don●tion of Tyth●s was made ; for he sayes expresly , the Benefit of if was enjoyed for eight hundred years by those to whom the Donation was made . This is unavoidable : and therefore his saying King Ethelwolf's Clergy agreed with the Protestant-Church of England in more points , than with the modern corrupt Church of Rome , may cast an imputation on him and his Brethren , but cannot clear Ethelwolf his Clergy from Popery .

But what he cannot prove he is very forward to take for granted , and therefore says , pag. 178. 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 settled them on the true Protestant Ministry , did observe therein the Intention of the Donors , and did apply Tythes to the Right Vse for which God intended them .

He talks idly . God never intended Tythes to any such use in the times of the Gospel ; let him prove it if he can . And for observing the Intention of the Donors ; it is manifest the Donors intended their Tythes to such a Clergy , as would SAY MASS for their Souls when they were DEAD . Is he one of them ? or are his Brethren such ? or was that one of the Points in which he brags King Ethelw●lf's Clergy ●greed more with the Protestant-Church of England , than with the modern corrupt Church of Rome . However , by his own confession here , that Clergy from whom Tythes were taken , was corrupt and fallen into Popery . Seeing then Tythes were taken from the same Clergy to which they were given ( for the benefit , he sayes , was enjoyed eight hundr●d years by those to whom the Donation was made , pag. 99. ) was not Ethelwolf's Clergy corrupt and fallen into Popery too ?

Again , he sayes , pag. 178. Since the first Donors did not settle them on the Popish Clergy , and the present Laws have given them to the Protestant Clergy , I know not wh●t Title the Popish Priests can justly have to them .

Nor I neither ; not that the first Donors did not settle them on them ( as he begs ) but because that settlement was not just , and with what either Iustice or Credit a Protestant-Minister can thus creep in , and plead a Right to Tythes by a Donation Fraudulently obtained by a popish Clergy , I leave the Reader to judge .

To supply his defect of Argument he betakes himself here again to his usual course of Railing , and because he cannot fairly answer , he sets himself f●ully to bespatter me and the Quakers , pag. 179. calling us the very Darlings of the great ●gents for Rome ; saying , we learn our Lesson from the Papists , and are doing their Work for them , calling me a Iourney-man to the Popish Priests , and much more of the same bran . All which savouring so strong of Ignorance and Envy , and being as far from Truth as from all manner of likelihood and probability , I will not give so much Countenance to his Charge as to think it worth an Answer .

And whereas he sayes , Their Doctrine of Perfection , despising the Letter of Scripture , pleading for Ignorance , relying on the merit of following the Light within , &c. are Popery in disguize .

I shall only tell him at this time , that his so saying is down-right Falshood , and open Slander withou● disguise ; a further account of which he may expect in Reply to his Brother's Vindication .

§ . 9. He is offended at my saying , That if Tythes were a suitable Maintenance for a Protestant-Ministry , yet the Clergy now do nothing for the People ( nor indeed have any to do ) which can deserve so great a Compensation . This was spoken upon occasion of the other Priest's saying , Friendly Conference , pag. 86. Their only work is to explain the written Word of God , and apply the same ; and yet a little after , p. 92 , 93. acknowledged that whatsoever is necessary to Salvation either to be believed or done , are in some place or other in holy Scripture fitted to the most vulgar capacity and ●hallowest understanding , &c. But this Priest not willing to take notice of this , which he knew would be an hard knot to untye , looks over it , as if he had not seen it , and says , pag. 180. Certainly we do 〈◊〉 much for the People as ever was done by any Clergy in the World : We pray for them , preach to them , administer the Sacraments duly among them , we marry and bury , we visit the Sick , relieve the Poor , comfort the Sad , reprove Sinners , confute Her●ticks , and shew the Folly of Ellwood , &c.

If they perform the rest no bette● then this last , they little deserve the Wages they receive . But do they perform these particular Services for th● Tythes which they receive ? If not , it is but a false pretence to urge these as the Works for which Tyth● is a Compensation . Let us examine the matter a little . They administer , he sayes , the Sacraments ▪ but are they not paid for it beside ? Will they baptiz● the Child of him that payes Tythes without being paid distinctly for that ? Do they not make their ●arishioners that pay Tythes , pay them over and above for giving them Bread and Wine , though the Parishioners buy the Bread and Wine themselves , and pay for it besides out of their own Purses ? Will they marry a man that payes Tythes , unless he gives them a sum of Money on purpose ? or will they bury any of the most zealous Tythe-payers , and not be paid distinctly for it ? What meer deceit is it then to name these things as Services , for which they deserve Tythes , when , let their Tythes be never so great , they will not do any of all these without being paid for it over and above . Then for the other Particulars named , as Visiting the Poor , &c. It is too notorious that many of them spend more Time and Money in Taverns and Ale-houses then in Visiting the Sick and Relieving the Poor . Instead of Comforting the Sad , they make many sad by their Exactions and Extortions upon the people , under the specious pretences and gilded names of sacred Revenues and Rights of Holy Church . If they Reprove some Sinners by Words , they Encourage more by Example ; and what he calls Confuting of Heresies , proves oftentimes Opposing of Truths . Lastly , He says , They shew the F●lly of Ellwood , &c. Indeed ! Is this then one of the Works for which they receive Tythes ? Is it the general Service and universal Labour of the Clergy ? I confess I have heard they had private Cabals , and several little Committees about my Book ( wherein he that gave the Occasion of writing it , received no Thanks for his Labour , and wisht he had never medled ) and that after many consultations and Debates about it , they at length resolved to divid● it into several parts , some being appointed to answer one part , & some another ; which the event doth somewhat confirm . But I never understood before that they had a general Convocation about it , and that it was undertaken as a National Service , for which all the Parish Priests in the Nation must have Tythes . But truly , had I thought there had been so many Heads engaged in the Work , I should have expected st●onger Reasons , and more forcible Arguments then I find in the Replies . But we must take them as they are now .

He sayes , pag. 181. They are alwayes ready to perform any Di●ine Office which their people need or require .

He should have added [ for Money ] for notwithstanding their Tythes , those other Offices which he calls Divine must be sure to be paid for distinct .

Here the other Priest puts in a word , Vindicat. pag. 314. where his Parishioner citing those words of mine , If Tythes were a suitable Maintenance , the Clergy now does nothing for the people which can dese●ve so great a Compensation ; he replies , That is , if his Worship may be judge .

Is not this a learned Answer ? and a notable Demonstration that the Clergy doth something for the people , which deserves Tythes for a Compensation ? The Reader perhaps may think this is not the Answ●r it self , but a Preparative only to an Answer ; take therefore his following words , thus , But what I wonder do the Impropriators for the people , which deserves so great a Compensation ?

Truly nothing that I know of ; nor do they pretend to do any thing : but what is that to the purpose ? doth that excuse the Priest ? or is this any Answer at all to my Objection ? He adds , Besides , it s all one to the people , whether they pay Tythes or no : as I shall shew you anon .

This is his Answer to a syllable : In which , judge Reader whether there be any thing serious , any thing argumentative , any thing pertenent to the purpose ; and whether he hath not here evaded a serious Answer by a petty Cavil against the Impropriators .

Again , The Pa●ishioner urging that from his saying , Our only Work is to explain the written Wo●d of God , and to apply the same ; I concluded , that what they do for the people is not suitable to the Reward of Tythes ; the Priest replies , Doth not this Quaker ( think you ) ins●ruct the people very graciously ? As if Tythes were of more real value to them , tha● the Word of God explained and applyed ?

That 's not my Instruction , but his Mis-construction of my words . I neither say nor intimate that Tythes are of more real value to the people than the Word of God explained and applyed . But t●at Tythes are of more real value to the people than the Priest's Labour in explaining that which he tells them himself , i● s● plain already that it needs no Explanation : which if it be not true , he was too blame to say it ; but if it be true , then have they no need of his help therein , and consequently pay him Tythes for nothing , or at least for that which doth not deserve so great a Compensation .

But he complains I have done him wrong , and says , I must not let the Abuse pass , which he hath put upon me in this Quotation . He so states my words , as his Reader must understand him , that I make explaining and applying the Word of God , the sole and the only Work of a Minister . — And a little after , — [ only Work ] related to the particular which I was there disco●rsing of , and not to the general Office of a Minister .

Neither did I so represent it : for I know there are several other things which they take into their Off●●e ; but then they have distinct Rates and Prices set on them , and they are paid for them in Money over and above the Tythes .

But to return to the other Priest , the Author of the Right of Tythes .

§ . 10. In his next Section he taxes me with many Mistakes in point of Law , wherein if I am defective it is no great wonder , having never been educated in that Study . He begins with a great deal of Mirth and Ioke , according to the levity of his Mind , and by and by slips into his usual strain of prophane Ieering and Flouting at Revelation , and Immediate Teaching , calling me an Inspirado , &c. All which I let pass as the froth of his Wit , in which no Argument lies . The first Mistake he charges me with is in saying , The Stature of 27 of Hen. 8. is the first Parliamentary Law for payment of Tythes ; wherea● ( sayes he , p. 183. ) the very first Law in the Statute-Book is a Grant for the Church's injoying her Rights inviolable .

I was not altogether so confident and positive as he reports me , but said , This is the first Parliamentary Law that I find amongst our Statutes for the payment of Tythes ; which words [ that I find among our Statutes ] he leaves out in reciting my words . Now if it had , so happened that his sagacity and industrious Diligence had chanced to have found out another ●tatute of elder date than that I gave , yet met●inks the Modesty and Wariness of my Expression , might have won upon him to have pardoned such an Omission , and thereby have oblieged me to have done him the like Kindness another time . But since he stands so upon it , let us see what other Statute he has brought , and whether I am guilty indeed of a Mistake in this case or no. He says , The very first Law in the Statute-Book is a Grant for the Church's injoying her Rights inviolable .

What then ? Is there any mention of Tythes in that Grant ? or was it a Law made for the payment of Tythes ? Not a Tittle of Tythes is in it . How then was this a Parliamentary Law made for the payment of Tythes , when neither Tythes nor Payment are so much as mentioned in it ? This was a Confirmation of Liberties to the Church , but not a Law made for the payment of Tythes ; nor do I yet think the Priest will find ( though he turn the Statute Book over again ) any Law made directly for the payment of Tythes , before that which I have quoted ; which if he do not , instead of fastning a Mistake in this case ●pon me , hee 'l find a Charge of a wo●e nature return upon himself .

The next Mistake he charges me with is , that I say , This Statute of 27 Hen. 8. was made by a popish King and Parliament ; Whereas ( says he ) that very Statute declares the King Supream Head of the Church of England , as T. E. may see if he read it over : And how they can be Papists that have renounced the Pope's Authority , I cannot well understand , sayes he , ibid.

He needed not have taken the pains to inform me that Hen. 8. had assum'd the Supremacy before the making of that Statute , since I had advertised him of that in the same page out of which he pretends to pick these mistakes ( pag. 333. ) where I say , Henry 8. being more Papist then Protestant ( though he had transfer'd the Supremacy from the Pope to himself ) and believing , as most of the other Doctrines of the Church of Rome , so that of Tythes being due to God and Holy Church , in the twenty seventh Year of his Reign made a Law for the payment of Tythes , &c. But that which he either cannot or will not understand is , how they can be Papi●t● that have renounced the Popes Authority .

Truly though he has not deserved much kindness of me , yet I will take a little pains to inform him how this may be ; and in order thereunto I will begin with the definition of Popery which his Brothe● gives in his Conference , pag. 149. Popery is suc●● Doctrines and superstitious Pra●tices , which by the Corruption of time , have prevailed in the Church of Rome , contrary to the Tr●e , Ancient , Catholick , an● Apostolick Church . As this is Popery , so ●e tha● holds , believes and uses such Doctrines and P●actice● is a Papist ; but so did Hen. 8. after he had reno●nced the Pope's Authority , and assum'd the Supremacy to himself . And if Herbert ( who writ his Life ) may find credit with the Priest , he will tell him , pag. 369. that though he separated from the obedience o● the Roman Church , yet not from the Religion thereof , some few Articles excepted : Of which more full Te●●imonies we may find in Fox's Acts and M●numents , and in Speed's Chronicle . The six Articles were ●na●ted after the Popes authority was ●e●ounced , ( and after this Law for the payment of Tythes was made also ) which Articles were for the establishing of Doctrines grosly Popis● , viz. Transu●stantiation , the half Communion , the single Life of Priest● , Vows of perpetual Chastity , private Masses , and auricular Confession , and stood in force all his time . And many suffered Ma●tyrd●m under him after he had renounced the Pope's Supremacy , as Laubert , Barns , Askew , and many others , who to be sure were no Renegadoes , but such as certainly sealed their Testimony with their Blood . Besides , he might have learnt from his Brother Priest , that Hen. 8. did establish the six bloody A●ticles , to shew himself as ill a friend to Protestants as to Tythes , Vindication , pag. 305. which if he had considered might perhaps have helped to open his understanding a little in this dark and difficult point . However , by that time he has read and weighed what has now been offered concerning it , I hope he may begin to understand how they could be Papists that had renounced the Popes authority ; and then I expect he should withdraw his action , and not charge me with a mistake , in saying the Statute of 27 Hen. 8. for the payment of Tythes , was made by a Popish King and Parliament . But he sayes , I mistake a Statute made in 32 ▪ Hen. 8. c. 7. for a Statute made in 37. Hen. 8.

Who but would take this man to have been Domitian's Schollar , he is so ready-handed at catching Flies ? What a grand mistake was this to set 37 fo● 32 ! A mistake it was however . But common ingenuity would rather have imputed it to the Printer than the A●thor , especially considering how ill the Book is Printed throughout . He knows well enough that till he had made a second Correction of Errors , his own Book was not free from such mistakes , if it be yet . And if I could have taken the same Course , 〈◊〉 had not had this Straw to stumble at .

He adds , that I bring in Protestant King Edw. 6. for a Popish confirmer of Tythes .

He wrongs me in that . My words are these ( pag. 334. ) In pursuance of these Laws of Hen. 8. ●is Son and Successor Edward 6. made another , grounding is upon those which his Father had made before . This is not calling Edw. 6. a Popish confirmer of Tythes .

§ . 11. But he takes great pains to prove Tythes a Free-hold , and spends several pages about it , using great earnestness therein , and calling me Heretick for but so much as questioning it . I do not profess my self a Lawyer , and therefore will not take upon me to Answer all his Law-quotations , lest I should need the same Excuse that he at last is fain to make , pag. 188. [ Ne sutor ultra crepida● . ] But I observe he sayes , pag. 185. that In the very Statute of 32. Hen. 8. There is mention made of an Estate of Inh●ritance or Free-hold in Tythes .

By this I perceive he confounds the Clai●s of Priest and Impropriator : for that Clause in the Statute hath plain relation to the Impropriators , a directing how and where Lay-men possessing Tythes , and being thereof disseized , may have their Remedy . The words of the Statute run thus , And be it further enacted , &c. that all cases , where any Person or Persons , which now have , or which hereafter shall have any Estate of Inheritance , Free-hold , term , Right or Interest , of , in or to any Parsonage , Vicarage , Portion , Pension , Tythes , Oblations , or other Ecclesiastical or Spiritual profit , which now be , 〈◊〉 which hereafter shall be made temporal , or admitted to be , abide and go to or in temporal Hands , and lay uses and profits by the Law and Statutes of this Realm , shall hereafter fortune to be disseised , &c. It is plain that by an Estate of Inheritance or Free-hold the Statute here intends those Tythes that then were or after should come to be in the possession of Lay-men , and appropriated to Temporal or Lay uses ; which implies it did not account Tythes an Estate of Inheritance or Free-hold to the Priests , for then this distinction had been needless . Besides , the Statute sayes , The Person or Persons so di●●eised , &c. their Heirs , Wives , &c. shall have remedy in the King 's temporal Courts , &c. and , amongst other Writs by which they may proceed , directs Writs of Dower ; All which have manifest Relation to the Impropriator's Tit●e , not to the Priest's ▪ for what Priest ( as a Priest ) can make his Wife a Dower of Tythes ? Or what hath a Priest's Heir or Wife to do with Tythes , when he is dead ? But this Priest would gladly strengthen his Claim , by twisting in the Impropriator's with it . Therefore he sayes , pag. 186. Those very Laws which made the A●●enation , did not give the Lai●y any other Estate in Tythes , than such as the Clergy had before , and such ●s the rest of the Clergy had then to the Tythes remaining in Ecclesiastical Hands .

This is disproved by an Instance which himself gives , pag. 185. which is ●f a Writ of Dower of praedi●l Tythes brought in the Countess of Oxford' s case , 5. Iacob .

By which it appears that Tythes were settled in Dower upon that Countess ( as he stiles her ) which they could not have been , if her Husband had not had another Estate in Tythe● than such as the Clergy then had or now have . For no body , I suppose , ●●magins that the Clergy have such an Estate in Tythes as by vertue of which they can settle Tythes in 〈◊〉 upon their Wives . He that will take the pains to consult that Statute ( 32 H. 8. 7. ) will find that what it speaks of Estates of Inheritance , Free-h●ld , &c. hath respect to Lay-men , not to the Clergy . For although , in the second and last Paragrap●s , where it directs the remedy for recovery of Tythes , in case of substraction or detention thereof , it expresly mentions Ecclesiastical as well as Lay Persons , restraining the remedy for both to Ecclesiastical Courts and Laws ; yet in the seventh Paragraph , where an Estate of Inheritance or Free-hold in Tythes is spoken of , there is no mention made or notice taken of the Clergy , not a word of any Ecclesiastical person , but those Terms [ Estate of Inheritance , Free-hold , &c. ] are expresly there applied to such Tythes , &c. as then were or should afterward be made temporal , or admitted to be , abide , and go to , or in temporal Hands and lay uses and profits , &c. And in case of di●●elsure of such Estate of Inheritance , Free-hold , &c. the Remedy was not restrained to the Eccesiastical Courts ( as in the other case wherein Ecclesiastical persons were concerned ) but left to the King 's temporal Courts . From all which I gather , that those words in the Statute [ Estate of Inheritance , Fr●●hold , &c. ] have no relation at all to the Clergy , no● do any way concern Ecclesiastical persons , but were inserted purposely for the sakes of those ●ay-persons , into whose Hands such Estates were then already come , or likely to come : And that the Law-makers then did understand the Laity to have another Estate in Tythes then the Clergy had .

The Author of the Conference , in his Vindication , pag. 316. hath another trick to prove Tythes a ●ree-hold , and that is this ; He asks his Parishioner , Who elect the Parliament-men that serve for the Coun●y ? The Parishoner answers , The Free-holders . And did you never ( sayes he ) see Clergy mens Votes entred at one of those Elections ? Yes many a time , quoth the Parishioner . That very thing ( replies he ) proves them Free-holders .

But , by his leave , the proving some Priests Free-holders doth not prove Tythes a Free-hold . Many of the Priests have temporal Estates , Lands of Inheritance or purchase , which gives them a Right of suffra●e in such Elections . But then it must be considered , that in such cases , though they are Clergy Men , they do not Vote as Clergy men , but as men possest of such temporal Estates or Free-holds . Be●ides , most of the Priests have G●ebe-Lands , which may with less ●epugnancy to reason be called a F●ee-hold , than Tythes . And this Priest hath not expressed upon which of these considerations it is that his Clergy-mens Votes are entred . Now if he intend●d to have prove● , by this Medium , that Tythes are a Free-hold to the Clergy , he should have demonstrated that every Priest that takes Tythes is thereby inabled to give a Voice in the Election of Parliament Men : Which if they are not , it is rathe● an Argument against him then for him , and shews that Tythes are not a Free●hold to the Clergy . But of that let Lawyers ●udge : I only add , That as the Priests are unlike the Ministers of the Gospel in taking Tythes at all , so they are much more unlike them in claiming a legal property and Free-hold therein : And if Tythes may in any Notion of Law be called a Free-hold , they are ( as I said in my former Book , pag. 331. ) such a Free-hold , as hold● the greatest part of the Nation in bondage .

●ut he is angry that I say , These Statutes fo● Tythes were grounded on a false supposition , That Tythes were due to God and Holy Church . This he calls a repeating of old baffled falshoods ; pag. 188. and sayes , he has proved this was a true supposition , and maintained by the Primitive Orthodox Fathers ; adding , that nothing is more false than my saying , This was a Doctrine purely Popish , and hatch'd at Rome ( he leaves out [ and here preach't up with thundring Excommunications by the l ope's Emmissaries and Agents ] which he knew could not be denyed , and wo●ld h●lp to discover where the Doctrine was hatch'd ) However , he makes the validity and force o● the Statutes to depend on the Truth of this supposition , That Tythes are due to God and Holy ●hurch : for he sayes , Since thes● Statutes were grounded on a Primitive and Protestant Doctrine , th● Statutes are therefore good , pag. 89. But by the rule of contraries , If these Statutes were not grounded on a Primitive and Protestant Doctrine , the Statutes are not therefore good . Now that this Doctrine , of Tythes being due to God and Holy Church , was not a Primitive Doctrine appears , in that ther● is no mention of this Doctrine in any of the Writings of the New-Testament , wherein the primitive Doctrines of Christianity are delivered . This Doctrine is no where there to be found . Nor i● the more simple , and le●s corrupted Ages of the Church , and nearest to the Apostles times , was this Doctrine received . But in the more distant Ages from the A●●stles , when the Church became greatly corrupted both in doctrine and practice , sprung up this Doctrine of Tythes being due to God and Holy Church , and may truly be reckoned amongst those Doctrines and superstitious Practices , which by the corruption of time , have p●evailed in the Church of Rome , contr●ry 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 Doctri●e obtained , and was the more generally received . And when , th●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 whic● 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 Title● , 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 divin● , 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 suppos● 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 Answ●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 sei●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 an● 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 hi● 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 thes● sacred Offices , he not only may but ought to be ejected . They that for co●rupt Interest thrust themselves in , should for their Corruption be th●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 property depends not on the Office , but on the person's Life that bears the Office . And the Remainder of this property , which the Priest sayes is to his Successors forever , can take no place till the death of the present person who sustains the Office . So that when he who sustains the Office comes to be turned out of his Office , his Successor in the Office can have no property at all , untill he that is so turned out be dead , because he hath the property vested in him during his Life . Thus stands the case according to this Priest , wherein how consistent he is to himself the Reader may observe . Now let us hear what the other Priest sayes to this matter , in his Vindication of the Conference , pag. 317. This property ( sayes he ) doth not belong to either of them apart , but the property belongs to the person , as qua●ified by holy Orders , and put into actual possession by Ins●itution and Induction . This quite contradicts the other Priest : for if the property doth not belong to either of them apart , then the present person who sustains the Office cannot have the property vested in him during his Life , but during his Office only . For if he might have it during his Life , he might then have it apart from his Office ; which this Priest denyes , in saying , This property doth not belong to either of them apart . But if the property doth not belong to either of them a part , what becomes of the property when they are parted ? The Priest it seems ( according to this Priest ) has no property any longer than he is in Office ( though , according to the other Priest , he hath it vested in him during hi● Life ) turn him out of Office , and his property is gone , because this property doth not belong to either the person or Office apart . On the other hand , The Office has no property any longer than it hath a Priest in it , because the property doth not belong to either of them apart . Where then resteth the property when the Office is void ? Doth the property cease ? They had best have a care of that , for that will shrewdly endanger the Title . Thus , Reader , thou seest , after all their blustring big words for a property in Tythes , they cannot agree where to fix it . A property they would fain have ( and nothing less , sayes one of the Priests , will serve my turn , Vindication , pag. 317. ) but where to place it they do not know . To leave it in the Office they know is dangerous , because the Office was notoriously Popish when Tythes were first settled on it . To fix it to the persons sustaining the Office is no less hazardous , because some , at least , of t●ose persons are acknowledged by the Priest to be Intruders for a cor●upt interest . But leaving the Priests to consult anew about the settlement of their conceited property , since Tythes have so great a dependence on the Office , let us again consider the nature of that Office when Tythes were settled on it . The Priest sayes , Right of Tythes , pag. 190. I make my self sure of that which none but a wild Quaker , would ever so much as once suppose ; viz. To be sure the office of Priest-hood was Popish ; and the Office it self being n●w laid aside , the property vested in it must be gone along with it . Thus he quotes my words ; but , as his usual manner is , very defectively , that he may thereby find means either to abuse me , or avoid an Answer . My words are these , p. 336. It was to be sur● a Popish Office when Tythes were first paid to it in this Nation , an office set up by the Pope , and that not as a secular ●rince , but as a ●ope ( as a spiritual Father : for such he pretends to be ) but if their had been a property in the office , yet seeing the office it self is laid aside , and the Pope , who was the author ●f it , ●ast off , surely whatever property was in the office , must ●eeds be gone along with it . This has it seems put him so out of patience , that he returns this Answer , H● must be under some degree of frensie , who can perswad● himself , that there are no Priests now , or that the Reformation laid the office aside . That had been a reformation as wild as a Quaker could project . Doth he think that any body will grant thes● doting falshoods ? No Protestants ( that ever I knew ) held the office of Priesthood to be Popish . And truly , T. E. thy suppositions will not be granted by any , but those who are as senseless as thy self , pag. 191.

This is his full Answer ; in which I think no sensible man can find any thing argumentative , reasonable , or civil . Wherefore waving this , I will first inquire somewhat more particularly into that Office on which it is pretended Tythes were settled , and then take notice of his Answer .

First then for the Office . It was ( I said ) to be sure a popish Office , when Tythes were first paid to it in thi● Nation , an Office set up by the Pope , &c. Austin the Monk coming over hither from Rome , by Authority w●ich he received from Pope Gregory orda●ned Bishops and Priests here . And this was long befor● Tythes were paid in England . After Austin's death , his Successors were c●nsecrated Arch-Bishops of Canterbury b● the succeeding Popes , or by their Authority , by vertue of which p●pish Consec●ation re●eived themselves , they took upon them to or●ain new Priests as occasion seemed to them to require . Thu● was that Prie●●●ood in its Ordination entirely popish : A Priestly Office set up and held up by the Powe● and Authority of the Popes of Rome . And as its institution , so its work and service , the End and Intention of it was popish : and so much worse was it in its progress , then in its institution , as the latter times were worse then the former , and as the Church of Rome grew daily more depraved and corrupt , out of which it sprang , by which it was nursed up , and to which it was subservient . And at the time when Tythes were settled on this Office ( and before ) the Work and Service of it was to say M●sses for the Soul● of the Dead ( thus did the Clergy engage to do , even in that very Charter of Ethelwolf ) to pray for the Dead that their Souls might be delivered out of Purgatory , to receive Auricular Confession , to absolve the people from their Sins , &c. These things are too certain and known to be doubted , much less denyed , and too plain and evident to leave any question , whether this Office was at that time popish or no. Now though this Office continued long , yet at length it came to an end in this Nation . The Pope , who set this Office up , was cast off ; the Service of this Office ( viz. the Masses and popish Prayers ) ceased ; the Opinions of Purgatory , Auricular Confession , &c. were disowned , and the Office it self was laid aside .

Now let us take notice of the Priests Answer , H● 〈◊〉 be ( sayes he ) under some degree of Frensie , who can perswad● himself , that there are no Priests now , or that the Reformation laid the Office aside .

If the Reformation did not lay the Office aside , the Reformation was therein too short ; for the Offic● was undoubtedly evil , and did deserve to be laid aside . But the laying of that Office as●de doth not infer that there are no Priests now : Unless he thinks that all Priests are of one and the same Office , and so puts no difference betwixt Light and Darkness , Good and Evil. If he think so , I must then ask him whether he exercises the same Office that the popish Priests now do at Rome and elsewhere . What their's is , is pretty well known , and if his be the very same with their's , it will not be hard to guess what his is . But if he will reckon his not the same with their's , but another and better Office , he may thereby see that there may be Priests now , although that Office which was once exercised here , and is still in divers popish Co●ntries , be laid aside . Doth the erecting of a false Office make void the true ? or cannot the right Office of Priests remain , if the wrong be taken away ? Or will he say that was a right and true Office which was exercised here by the popish Priests , till the time of the Reformation ? Then he justifies the same Office still , which is yet exercised by the popish Priests in Italy , Spain , and other Countries . Certain it is that no such Office was ever appointed by Christ , or known among the Apostles . They had no Office for saying of Masses , for praying for the Dead , that their Souls might be delivered out of Purgatory , for receiving Auricular Confession , and for many other things which were the peculiar Services of this Office . These things were not known amongst them , but sprang up after the Apo●●olical Times , in the Apo●●acy , and continued till the Reformation . But i● , as he says , the Reformation did not lay the Office aside , what is become of it ? by whom is it executed ? Do the Priests who receive Tythes now in England perform the sam● Office that those popish Priests did then ? Do these say Masses , and pray for the Dead ? Do these receive Auricular Confession , and take upon them to absolve the people from their Sins ? This was the Office of those Priests ; but none I hope of these Priests will acknowledge this to be their Office : how then are the Offices the same ? But that that Office of Priesthood to which Tythes were given , and by vertue of which Tythes were so long held and enjoyed in England before the Reformation , was a popish Office , and as such laid aside by the Reformation , no man I think , that understands those times , and has not an Interest to serve , can doubt . And if the Office was laid aside in which the pretended property was vested , how should the property remain , and not be laid aside together with the Office ? But what Shifts will not Priests make for their Profits sake !

§13 . His next Cavil is at my saying , The Priest's Title lies in the Gift of the Owner , which I shewed by this , That the Priest hath no power to take one Sheaf or Ear of the Husbandman's Corn from o●● his Ground , untill the Owner hath severed it as Tythe from the remainder , and thereby first disseized himself of that part , and by his own Act given the Priest a Title thereunto . And although the Law , supposing Tythe due to God and Holy Church , enjoyns the owner to set it out , yet if he refuse , he incurs the Penalty of that Law for his refusal , but the Property of the Tythe remai●s intire in himself . To this the Priest says , pag. 191. It is an odd kind of property which we have to a thing , that we may not keep in our Possession ; and a strang● Gift , which we must give whether we will or no , and be punishe● if we do not give it .

He might better say , It is an odd kind of Property th● Priest claim● to a thing he never had in possession , nor they f●om whom he claims it ; and which there is no certainty in , nor knows he whet●er it be much or little . As for the Owner , he may keep in his possession the thing in which he hath a Propriety , viz. Tythes , and the Priest cannot dispossess him the●●of , although by Laws grounded on a Religious Mistak● he may cause him otherwise to suffer for not dispossessi●g him●elf .

But he says , pag. 192. he will give a parallel case , There are ( says he ) many free R●nts and 〈◊〉 Payments , which the person charged with them must bring to such an House , in such a Town , as such a day , and then and there disseize himself of the said ●oney , by a tender thereof to the Lord or his Assigns ; which Lord need never de●a●d this Money , and yet may take the forf●iture , if it ●e not brought to him , and tendered .

This is not a parallel Case to Tythes : for in this Case of Rents and Customary Payments , the Lord or other person claiming them , may for default of payment either enter upon the Lands out of which such Rents and Payments issue , or bring his Action of Debt against the person charged therewith ; which argue● he has a Property in the thing he claims . But it is not so in the Case of Tythes . If the Owner refuse to set them out , the Priest cannot enter upon the Land , nor regularly bring an Action of Debt against the Owner : but can only recover the Penalty of the Statute for his not making him a property by setting them out . Which plainly shews the Priest hath not any property in Tythes , nor is by the Statutes themselves understood to have any civil or Te●poral Right thereto ; but is only supposed to have a divine Right , and upon that mis-supposition the Statutes injoyn the Owners to make the Priest a temporal Right by setting out of Tythes . Besides , Free Rents and Customary Payments are certain , and not in the power of the Occupant to extinguish or alter . But it is far otherwise in the Case of Tythes . It is in the powe● of the Occupant to make the Tythes much , little or nothing ( and that without any Fraud to his Ancestors ) for if a man stock his Land with Horses , he is liabl● to very little Tythes , if any ( and I think not to any , un●ess it be by particular Custom of the place . ) But if he plant Woods , and let them stand for Ti●ber , no Tythe at all can be demanded ; and what then b●comes of the Priests Property ? has not he a fine property the mea● while , which another man , without any Fraud or Indirect Dealing , may extinguish when he pleases ? Is it not plain by this , that the Priest's Title lies in the Gift of the present Owner , who may chuse whether the Priest shall have any thing or nothing ? And is the Case of Free Rents and Customary Payments a parallel to this ? Can he who stand● charged with those Payments extinguish or alter them at his pleasure ? Can he make them more or less as he sees good ? If not , how then is that a parallel Case 〈◊〉 this o● Tythes ?

The Parson ( says Shepherd in his Grand Abridge●●nt , 〈◊〉 . Tythes , pag. 101. ) hath a good property in the Tythes where they are set out by the Owner● not where they are set out by a Stranger . Doth not this prove that the Parson's Title lies in the Gift of the Owner ? If the Owner sets out the Tythes , he thereby disseizes himself thereof , and gives the Parson a Property in the Tythes so by him set out : but if the Tythes are not set out , the Parson hath no Property therein ; nay , if they be set out , and not by the Owner , but by a Stranger , the Parson will be to seek of a Property notwithstanding such setting out . By all which it appears , That the Parson has no Property in the tenth patt of another's Crop , until the Owner sets out that tenth part , and thereby gives the Parson a property in it . Nay further , says Shepherd , ibid. Tythes are not due , nor is it Tythe within the Statute of 2. Edw. 6. until severance be made of the nine parts from the tenth part . So that to make it Tythe within the Statute , it must be severed : and to make the Priest a Property in it , it must be set out as Tythe by the Owner . Judge now Reader , whether the Priest hath any other Property in Tythes then what the present Owner gives him .

§14 . Here again , pag. 193. the Priest is gravelled with an Argument , which he knows not how to answer , and therefore having first stuck an ugly 〈◊〉 or two upon it , to scare common Readers from observing it , he makes a shew as if he would repeat it , and sets down something that looks a little like it , and then without more ado cryes , I have sufficiently 〈◊〉 it before , §30 . and so takes his leave of it● He sets it down thus , That it is ridiculous and unre●sonable for any to pretend a Power to dispose of th●s● Profits , or any part of them , which arise from the Labour , Stock and Care of another , especially after their own decease ; for which he quotes pag. 338. of my Book .

This he calls an old , silly and blasphemous Argument , and so lets it fall . But questionless the man being conscious to himself , that his Claim to Tythes is ridiculous and unreasonable , these two words did so run in his mind , that he fancied he read them in that place of my Book out of which he pretends to take this Quotation : whereas indeed neither of those words is to be found in all that page , no● any Argument in those terms wherein he gives this . But that the Reader may see there was in that page such matter as might justly deserve , as well as require an Answer ( an● which he in his thirtieth Section , to which he refer● did not reply unto ) I will repeat an Argument out of that page , with the occasion of it , which was this . The Author of the Conference had said , pag. 154. That Tythes were settled by those tha● were actually seized of them in Law . Whereupon I thus argued , If Tythes be the tenth of the profit , or increase of the Land , and they that settled Tythes ( as he saith ) were actually seized of them in Law , then surely they could settle no more than they were actually 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 . Hence I further reasoned thus , Is any one so void of Reason , as to imagin that they who were possest of Land a Hundred Years ago , could then settle and dispose of the Profits and Increase that shall grow and arise upon the Land a Hundred Years hence ; which Profit cannot arise barely from the Land , but from the Labour , Industry and Stock of the Occupier . Were ever any actually seized of the Labour at the Husband-man's Hands , of the Sweat of his B●ows , of the judgment , understanding and skill that God hath given him , of the Stock he imploys , the Cost he bestows , the Care , Pains , Industry and Diligence he exercises for the obtaining of a Crop ? &c. This solid Argument and sober reasoning he calls an old , silly , and blasphe●ous Argument . But whether it be either silly , or blasphemous , I willingly submit to the impartial Reader 's judgment . And whereas he pretend● he has sufficiently baffled it before in Sect. 30. I desire the Reader to compare that Section with my Reply to it , Chap. 5. Sect. 5 , 6. and judge as he find● cause .

But though the Priest was not willing to handle this Argument , yet he gladly catches an occasion from hence to complain again of me to the Impropr●ators ; and he takes a great deal of needless pain to inform them , of what their own experience hath long since taught them , viz. that the Quakers deny their Right to Tythes . The Quakers do indeed deny Tythes to be due to any one under the Gospel-state ; And for that cause have suffered and do , by Impropriators as well as by Priests . Nor is there any thing 〈◊〉 my Book , relating to the Impropriators , which may any whit exc●se , much less justifie , his ●anderous reflections on me . Well may I pitty them , but never shall I flatter , muchless ●law them , at least in that sense wherein they are sure enough to be clawed , if ever they come under the Priests Claws , or fall within their Clutches . His scurrilous Language , and foul Epithets of double-tongued and false-hearted , with his ●●ye Insinuations of my flattering and clawing the Impropriators , argue nothing else to me , but that he wanted other Arguments to fill up this Section , and thought it best to make a noise , that vulgar Readers might 〈◊〉 he had said somethin● . But for all his Clamour , many of the Impropriators I doubt not discern , both that it is Conscience makes the Quaker refuse to pay Tythes , and Covetousness makes the Priest so greedy to get Tythes , not only from the Quaker but Impropriator also .

§ 15. He sayes , pag. 195. As for Artificers paying Tythes of their gains , it is no more than what they are obliged to by S. Paul's Rule , Gal. 6. 6. 〈◊〉 give their Pastor a share of all good things .

This is not true . That Rule of St. Paul doth not determine the proportion , but leave Artificers and all others to their Christian-liberty , in point of quantity . Therefore to oblige Artificers to pay the Tythes of their Gains , is more than St. Paul's rule obliges them to ; Finally , sayes the Priest at the close of this Section , pag. 196. We grant to T. E. Tythes are due o●t of the Profits only ; and therefore of God give no Increase , or the Husband-man have nothing grow , we expect no Tythes at all .

Where 's his Free-hold then ! But if Tythes are due out of the profits only , why are you Priests so unreasonable to require Tythes where there is no profit , yea , where instead of profit there is apparent loss , as it is certain you frequently do . The Priest here sayes , If God give no Increase , they expect no Tythe at all ; but it is easie to perceive what he means by Increase , by his adding [ or the Husband-man have nothing grow ] There is some difference sure between Increase , and having something grow . He that sows ten Bushels of Seed in a Field , and receives but eight again ( which that it often proves so many men to their loss know to be true ) is far enough from having increase , when he decreases two in ten . Yet such is the Conscience of these Priests , that they will have the Tythes of that Crop , though they see apparently there is not only no Profit or Increase , but a certain loss and decrease even of the Seed , besides all the Husbandman's other Charge and Pains . So that it is not as the Priest sayes , If God gives no increase , that they expect no Tythe at all ; but if there be an utter and total decrease , if the Husband-man have nothing grow , i. e. if there be nothing at all for them to have , then they expect nothing , but if there be any thing at all , if the Husband-man have anything grow , though never so little , if his loss be never so great , and he reap ●ot again the one half of what he sowed , and clearly lose the other half with all his Charge and Labour , yet will the Priest make his loss so much the greater , by taking from him the tenth part of that 〈◊〉 Crop he ha● , and have the Face when he has done to look the poor Man in the Face , and tell him th●s 〈◊〉 according to St. Paul's Rule . But long enough may the Priest say so before any wise man will believe him .

§16 . In his next Section , pag. 196. he alledges 〈◊〉 my A●guments for taking away Tythes , tend to destroy Hospitals and Donations to the Poor ; which supposition in my former Book I had denyed , and disproved by several Reasons , one whereof he , after his imperfect manner of quoting , thus sets down , Because in that of the Poor there is a settlement of certain Lands , in which the Donor had a legal property at the time of the gift● but in the increase of the Occupiers Stock , he that gave Tythes neither had , nor never could have a pro●erty , and therefore no power to give . This is the Reason , as he has maimed it , but in my Book it stands thus ; In that of the Poor , there is a certain settlement of Lands and Tenements , in which it is to be supposed , the Donor had a legal property , or of which he was actually seized at the time of the Gift . But in the case of Tythes , here is no gift of Lands and Tenements , but of the Increase growing and arising through , and by reason of the Labour , Care , Industry and Stock of the Occupier , which he that gave the Tythes neither had , no● could have any property in , nor was , or could be actually seized of , and therefore had no power to give . This Reason is firm and solid , and will endure a Shock ; And I observe , that though he had peel'd it as much as he could , and brought it in too , with a scornful [ forsooth ] yet he was quickly contented to leave it , and take up one of his old Notes ; for he immediately sayes , pag. 197. We have noted before , That by his Rules framed against Tythes , all Donations made by Papists , on consideration of meriting , and expiating their Sins thereby , are void : And this will destroy a great many of these Hospitals , and Gifts to the Poor .

That is not the consequent of my Aguments against Tythes , but an inference of his own making to shelter Tythes under . All Donations made by Papists are not void , because some are . The Donations of Tythes were designed to uphold and maintain a Worship and Ministry that were false and Antichristian : but Donations to Hospitals for the Sustenance of the Poor , had no such intendment . The Papists ( as I observed before , Chap. 4. Sect 12. ) in their ●ivil and politick capacity did many things well and commendably , but what they did in their Religious capacity was stark nought .

But he says , ibid. By my own confession , all Hosp●tals endowed out of Tythes , and all Gifts to the Poor granted out of Tythes for perpetuity , are void .

What then ? If men will give that which belongs not to them , the fault is in themselves . Though Charity be an excellent vertue , yet it may not patronize ●njustice : Nor indeed is that to be acounted Charity which is repugnant to justice . Now if the Donors of Tythes ●ad no power nor right to make such perpetual Donations of Tythes as are now claimed , but that such Donations do violate the Rights of others , ( as in my former Book , I have argued at large , pag. 323 , 324 , 325 , 338 , 339 , 341. and also in this , Chap. 5. Sect. 5. then may not any pretence of Charity be urged to justifie such violation .

Athird sort , he says , ibid. of these charitable Donations , consist of perp●●ual Rent-charges , and certain sums of Money to be paid Yearly forever , out of the Profits of some certain Estate . Now , he says , the Occupiers of the Lands thus charged , must sell such part of the Profits produced by their Labour , Sweat , Stock , Skill and Industry , and when it is turned into Mony , ●ust pay it intirely to the Poor , &c. pag. 198.

This he would make a parallel case to Tythes ; but it is not , as I have already shewed , Chap. 5. Sect. 5. For this Rent-charge doth not lie upon the Stock , nor upon the Occupier , unless he be Proprietor of the Lands , or by particular contract with the Proprietor hath taken it upon himself . But it lies upon the Land , being charged thereon by him that was then actually seized of the Land , or had at that time a legal property therein , and the burden descending with the Inheritance , the Heir is fain to undertake the burden , because he cannot else enjoy the Land . But the Tenan● who Occupies this Land and imploys his Stock upon it , is no way at all concerned in this payment , because it goes out of the Rent , unless it be otherwise provided by private agreement between the Landlord and him . But there is no proportion between Tythe● and this , for Tythes is a burden lies upon the Stock● ( which the Donors of Tythes were not actually se●zed of , nor had a legal property in ) and goes not out of the Rent , but out of the Stock , and the Landlord is not concerned in it , but the Tenant . And if the Proprietor occupy the Land himself , it is by reason of the Stock he uses upon the Land that he pay● Tythes , not by reason of the Land ; for if he hath the Land in his Hands , and hath no Stock upon it , but lets it lie and makes no Profit of it , he has no Tyth● to pay for the Land ; though if at the same time he imploy his Stock any other way , he is liable to pay Tythe of the profit of his Stock . But though he make no Profit of his Land at all , yet the Rent-charge he must pay .

The Priest says , He knows an Estate 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 Pound● 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 ●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 ●●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 Shi●●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 fanci●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 wa● 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 Reason● 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 He●● then doth not pay fo● 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 o●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 unde● condition of paying Tythe , nor forfeits ●e the Land for not paying it , neither is Tythe charged upon the Land , as the payment to the Poor is , ( of which see before , Chap. 5. Sect. 5. and Sect. 13. ) Then secondly , The Tenant is liable to the payment of the Tythe , not out of his Rent , but out of his Stock , over and above his Rent and the Land-lord is not concerned about it , unless any private agreement antecede . Thus it appears his Instance of a Rent charge to the Poor is quite beside the business , and his Answer is no Answer to the Reason I offered .

But he seems to have another . Again , saith he , The Tenant receives as much from God , as he doth from his Landlord : for we think , that Land is not more necessary to the increase , than God's blessing , ibid.

Nor so necessary neither , say I , since increase may be without Land , but not without God's blessing . The Tenant therefore receives more from God , than he doth from his Landlord : for from his Landlord he receives Land only , and that upon a Rent ; but from God he receives All he hath , his Stock , his Crop , his Health , his Strength , &c. and that freely . As therefore he receives All from God , so unto God ought All to be returned . God's wisdom , counsel and holy fear ought to be waited for , and regarded in disposing and imploying those things , which God hath been pleased to give . But what is this to the Priest or to Tythes ? Why , says he , upon that consideration our pious A●c●stors obliged their H●irs forever to give God his part of the Pr●fits , because both they and their Heirs were Yearly to receive all their Increase from his Blessing , ibid.

What is God's part of the Profits ? If all the Increase be received from his blessing , how comes he to have but a part of the Profits ? Where hath God , under the Gospel , declared the tenth part parti●ularly to be his ? or who had power to assign that p●rt to him that is Lord of all ? He urges for a Law , the saying of King Edward the Confessor , Of all things which God gives , the tenth part is to be restored to him , who gave us the nine parts together with the tenth , pag. 202.

Whence ●dward the Confessor learnt that Do●trine , may easily be guessed , if we consider in what time he lived . Speed says he was Crowned King of England in the Year 1042. And says the Author of the Conference , in his Vindication , pag. 277. Mo●● of the present evil Opinions of the Church of Rome , had their Original in those unlearned Ages , from about the Year 700. to about the Year 1400. About the mid-night of which darkness , there was scarce any Learning left in the World ; — These ( says he ) were the unhappy times , which bred and nursed up Invocation of Saints , Worship of Images , Purgatory , 〈◊〉 all the Fanatical Visions and Revelations , Miracles , &c. Then began Shrines , Pilgrimages , Reliques , purchasing of Pardons , and the Popes attempts for a● universal Monarchy . And though he here mentions some particulars , yet he said but a few Lines before , At the same time ( that Learning fell into decay ) all manner of Corruptions crept into the Church , &c. Now according to his computation of time ( for the Rise and growth of Popery , and of all manner of Corruptions ) from about the Year 700. to about the Year 1400. his mid-night of Darkness must fall about the Year 1050. and this K. Edward the Confessor entring his Reign in the Year 1042. it is manifest that this Law of his for Tythes was made in the very mid-night of Darkness . Hence the Reader may observe , that although this K. Edward , to whom ( as Camden observes ( Brittania , pag. 377. ) our Ancestors and the Popes vouchsafed the Name of St. Edward the Confessor , was a man of great justice , temperance and vertue , but especially Continency ( for which it seems , in that incontinent Age , he was Sainted ) yet that he learnt this Opinion ( of the tenth part being due to God ) in the mid-night of Darkness , when there was scarce any learning● est in the World , when all manner of Corruptions were either crept or creeping into the Church , and wherein most of the present ●vil Opinions of the Church of Rome had their Original ; which makes the quotation not much for the Priest's credit . And truly , if it had been , as he intimates , an act of Piety in our Ancestors to give Tythes and that upon that consideration , that both they and their Heirs were Yearly to receive all their Increase from God's blessing : they had done I think but equally , to have left their Po●●erity at liberty , to have acted in like manner from the Impressions of Piety , rather than for the necessity of Paternal Obligations , supposing their Injunctions ( in this case ) obligatory . As for what the Priest here takes for granted , that the tenth is God's peculiar part , it is but an old Popish Opinion ( by which the World hath been too long gulled ) which never was , nor ever can be proved , with respect to Gospel-times . And to be sure , when ever he pleads God's Right , he makes himself God's Steward and Receiver . He says here , Now the Priest is but God's Steward and Receiver ; and if it were true , that the Tenant did receive nothing from the Steward of God , yet he might justly pay him Tythes for his Masters sake , from whom he receives all .

There were some of Old , who , with as much con●idence and little Truth , affirmed themselves to be the Children of God , as this Priest doth , that he and his Brethren are God's Stewards and Receivers . But the Answer which Christ gave unto them , Iohn 8. 44. is very observable , and no less applicable . The Tenant ( says the Priest ) receives nothing from his Landlords Steward , and yet he pays his Rent to him , or to any other whom his Landlord assigns to re●eive it .

True : but two things first he makes himself sure of . One , that the sum demanded is indeed his Landlords due . The other , that the person demanding is indeed his Landlord's Steward , or by him assigned to receive it . The Tenant , though he pays his Rent to the Steward , contracts with the Landlord ; and if at any time any doubt arises about the Rent , they rec●●● to the Lease for Decision . Now if the Priest would make any advantage of his S●mile , he should prove if he could ) that God hath any where declared under the Gospel the tenth to be his peculiar part , which the Priest hath often b●g'd a Concession of , but has no way to prove : for if we have recourse to the holy Records , the Scriptures of the New Testament , from thence to be sure he can fetch no proof that Tythes are God's peculiar part , since by his own confession , pag. 67. Tythes are not mentioned in the Gospel or Epistles to be the very part . Besides , the Tenant , though the Rent be certain and acknowledged , is not forward , if wi●e , to part with his Money to every one that calls himself a Steward , and takes upon him to be his Landlord's Receiver . But he expects a plain and satisfactory proof that 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 be●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 p●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 t●ough the Priest says , pag. 205. No doubt the Quakers could ●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 d●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 t●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 ●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 〈◊〉 ●hereto . Thus his Reason being removed , 〈◊〉 Supposition ●alls together with what was built upo● it .

§18 . In his next Section the Priest says , T. E. comes ●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 ●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 Purc●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 Tythe at all . Hence then it is clear he claims no Tythes of that which the buyer hath thus purchased ; he lays no claim to any part of the Land . Thus far then the Buyer hath purchased all , the whole , every part : and the Priest doth not so much as pretend a Right to any of the Land he hath bought . Now then let us come to the other purchase ( if I may so call it ) that out of which the Priest claims Tythes , viz. the Profits and Increase . Of this in my former Book , pag. 345. I said thus , When he has this Land , if he will have Profit and Increase from it , he must purchase that after another manner . He pays for that ( and many times dear enough too ) by the Labour and Charge he bestows in Tilling , Dressing and Manuring it . And if in this sense he may be said to purchase the nine parts of the Crop or Increase , in the same sense he purchaseth the tenth part also : for he bestows his Charge and Pains on all alike ; and the tenth part stands him in as much as any one of the nine . Thus then the Buyer first purchaseth the Land : and afterward the Occupier , whether Owner or Tenant , purchaseth the Crop . The one buys the Land by laying down so much Money : the other obtains the Crop by bestowing so much Charge , and so much Labour , &c And as in the purchase of the Lands , the Buyer doth as really buy the tenth Acre , or tenth part of the Lands , as the ninth , or any other part of the nine : so in the purchase of the Crop , the Occupier doth as really purchase the tenth part of the Profits and Increase , as he doth the ninth , or any other part of the nine ; and after the same manner he lays his Dung on all alike , he sows his Seed on all alike , he Plows all alike , he bestows his Pains and Charge , and exercises his Skill and Care equally on all . Thus it appears that Tythes are really purchased by them , by whom the nine parts are purchased , and do really belong to them to whom the nine parts do belong ; whether Tythes be understood of Lands , or of Profits . If of Lands , the Purchaser doth as really buy the tenth Acre , as any of the nine , and gives as much for it : Nor doth the Priest claim any Property therein . If of Profits , the tenth Sheaf , or tenth part of the Crop , doth cost the Occupier as much to the full , as any other of the nine parts . Now seeing the Priest says , If I can make out this , this alone will do my business : I hope the Reader will find it here so plainly made out , that he will be satisfied my business is done .

What the Priest urges as the Opinions of some Lawyers concerning Tythes , is of the less weight , because they are grounded on this Mistake , That Tythes are of Divine Institution ; which Error hath misled too many . His Reflections on me ( of Insolence and Novice ) I regard not at all ; but pass from his Railing to see if I can find any Reason from him . He puts a Case ( pag. 206. ) thus , A. purchases an Estate in B , of C , the Tythes whereof are impropriatc , and belong to D : Now will the Quaker say that A. purchases D' s Estate in the Tythes , without his Knowledge or Consent , by vertue of the general words in the Co●veyance from C ?

He takes for granted what I deny , viz. that the Tythes belong to D. The Tythes belong to the Occupier of the Land , to him to whom the other nine parts belong ; and he hath the same Right , in Justice and Equity , to the tenth part as to the other nine . If C. sells his land , what is that to D ? D. doth not claim the Tythe of that land , nor pretend a Right to any part of it . What Wrong doth C. do then to D. in this sale ? or how can C. be taxed with selling D's Right , whenas D. neither hath , nor pretends to have , a Right to any part of the Land which C. sells ? The Claim that D. makes is not to the Tythe of the land , but to the Tythe of the profits ; which Profits C. neither did sell nor could . But after A. hath bought the Land , he must to purchasing a new for a Crop , if he expects to have one ; else he may be sure to go without . He therefore to obtain a Crop , layes out his Stock , bestows his Labour , takes Pains and Care , early and late ; and in due time , by God's Blessing upon his honest Endeavours , receives a Crop , sometimes with Advantage , sometimes with Loss . But although the Priest sayes ( pag. 196. ) Tythes are due out of the Profits only , yet whether there be gain or loss , whether there be increase or decrease , whether there be profit o● no profit ; no sooner is the Crop made ready , but in steps the Priest or Impropriator , and sweeps the tenth part of it clear away ; although A. had laid out his Money and Labour upon all the parts of his Crop alike , had paid as dear for the tenth part as for any of the nine , and hath thereby , in Justice and Equity , as good a Right to that which is thus taken from him , as to any of the rest which is left behind . Thus the Priest's Case being opened and answered , it appears that neither A. nor C. do any Wrong to D ; but that D. doth Wrong to A. in taking from him that which he hath honestly ear●ed and dearly paid for . And now the Priest may return , if he please , to his A. B. C. anew .

But he sayes , The Quaker fraudulently leaves out those words of the Conveyance which would have discovered his Knavery in this false Assertion .

I thus exprest the words of the Deed , viz. That the Seller doth'grant , bargain , sell , &c. ALL that , &c. with its Appurtenances , and EVERY PART and parcel thereof ( the tenth , said I , as w●ll a● the nine ) and also ALL the Estate , Right , T●tle , Interest , Property , Claim & Demand whatsoever , &c. There ( says the Priest ) he stops with an 〈◊〉 ●●cause his shallow Reader should not see what follows in the Deed , viz. [ Estate , Right ] — which I the said A. have or ought to have in the Premises : which words ( sayes he ) do manifest , that the Purchaser buyes no more Estate or Right than the Seller had to or in the Premises , p. 208.

He must doubtless have been a shallow Reader indeed , that should have thought I intended the Purchaser had bought more of the Seller , than the Seller had to sell ; and I take it to be no Argument of the Priest's depth to suggest it . The Seller had a sufficient Right to the whole Estate , to every foot of the Land he fold ; and the Buyer hath the same .

But ( saye● the Priest ) the Seller did not purchase the Tythes himself , nor did they descend to him from his Ancestors , &c.

Tythes are not claimed of the Land , but of the Profits only , or of the yearly increase of renewing , which the Occupier of the Land purchases another way . If the Seller , before he sold , had the Land in his own Occupation , he then purchased the Tythes himself , as much as he did the other nine parts of his Crop . But to talk of Tythes descending from Ancestors , argues the Priest doth not well understand what it is himself claims . Tythes did descend to the Seller from his Ancestors , as much as the other nine parts of the Profits . But neither one nor the other can properly be said to descend from the Ancestors to the present Possessor , seeing both the nine parts and the tenth are the yearly increase , produced ( instrumentally ) by the yearly Labour , Charge and Care of the present Possessor . That which descends to a man from his Ancestors , is what his Ancestors were possest of , or had a Right unto : But no man's Ancestors could be possest of , or have a Right unto those Profits of yearly increase which in their times were not in being , but are since produced by the Labour and Charge of another .

But he says , pag. 209. If T. E. would know the Reason why Tythes are not excepted in the Purchase by name , as Free Rents and Rent Charges sometimes are , I answer , ( says he ) Free Rents and Rent Charges , &c. are laid upon Land by private Contracts , and could not be known ( unless they were by Name excepted ) to be due out of such an Estate : whereas Tythes were a publick Donation , &c.

This with some may pass for a Reason ; but if he were willing to give the true Reason , he knows that as Free Rents and Rent Charges are laid upon Land , and are paid out of the Rent of the Land , without regard to the Increase that is made : so the Burden of Tythes lies upon Stock , and is due ( as he says ) out of the Profits only ( without regard to the Rent of the Land ) which Profits are the Improvement of the Husbandman's Stock , through God's B●essing on his industrious Diligence and Labour : It were very improper therefore to except Tythes out of a Purchase of Land , seeing Tythes are not charged on the Land , nor claimed of the Land .

§19 . He quarrels next with a Demonstration of mine , the occasion whereof was this . The Author of the Conference , pag. 156. said , Though the Tenant pays Tythes , yet are they no inconvenience to him , because he pays less Rent in Consideration thereof . To shew the Fallacy of this Position , I urged that if it should be granted , that the Tenant payes less Rent in consideration of Tythes ( which yet I said is questionable ) yet the aba●e●ent , which ●e is supposed to have in Rent , is not proportionable or answerable to the value of the Tythes he pays ; and thus I undertook to demonstrate it . Suppose a Landlord lets a Farm for 90 l. a year , which if it were Tythe-free would yield 100 l. the Tenant , to pay his Rent , defray all his Charge of Husbandry , and have a comfortable Subsistence and Maintenance for himself and his Family , must ( according to the computation of skilful Husbandmen ) by his Care , Industry and Labour , together with the Imployment of his Stock , raise upon his Farm three Rents , or three times as much as his Rent comes to , which will make 270 l. and the tenth part of 270 l. is 27 l. so that if the Tenant should have 10 l. a year abated in his Rent because of Tythes , and he payes 27 l. a year because of Tythes , then does he pay 17 l. a year in 90 l. more than he is supposed to be allowed in his Rent . Against this the Priest both cry out , and make no little Noise . And first , the Author of the Conference in his Vindication , pag. 321. would ●ain from hence infer , That Tenants have really Abatements in their Rents in lieu of Tythes : and therefore having first ( to shew how copious he can be in Scurrilities , and what variety of ill Language he has to express himself by ) said , I perceive the Quaker begins to sneak ; he adds , An Abatement it seems there is .

But how doth it seem there is an Abatement ? why he is willing to turn my [ if ] to an [ is ] and strain a Position out of my Supposition . But these shifts discover the strait he was in , and how near he was sinking , that would catch at such a twig to hang by . Then he excepts at the Demonstration for uncertainty , because I did not say whether the Farm of 90 l. a year consisted in Tillage , or in Pasturage : yet he acknowledges , that the Tythes of a Farm of that value ( 90 l. a Year ) consi●●ing in Tillage may be worth 27 l. a year . On the other hand , the other Priest , in his Right of Tythes , pag. 212. says , I believe all the Parsons in England would compound with the Quakers after this rate that the Landlord allows ( that is , supposing the Landlord did really allow 10 l. in 100 l. Rent . ) And in pag. 213. he says , What Parson did ever receive 27 l. per annum for a 90 l. Farm ? Experience , says he , teacheth us , that — we scarce every get so much as 20s . for 10 l. Rent , unless where there is very much Corn , but take the Church-Livings one with another , and there is not above 9 l. a Year made of a Farm upon the improved Rent of ninety Pound per annum .

Thus they contradict one another . Neither is this last Priest any more consistent with himself : for among the reasons he gives why they scarce ever get so much as 20 s. for 10 l. Rent , he mentions ill payments , and conc●alment ; forgetting it seems , that he had said but a few Leaves before , There are very few Parishes , where nineteen parts of 〈◊〉 do not pay their Tythes freely as any other dues , pag. 200. How ill do these two sayings hang together ! Nineteen parts in twenty pay their Tythes fr●●ly as any other d●es , and yet the Priests can scarce ever get so much as 20 s. for 10 l. Rent , by reason of ill ●ayments and conc●alment . Thus he contradicts himself , as before he did his Brother . But he sayes , pag. 214. I will not like T. E. make suppositions at Random , but give an Instance of my own knowledge .

It seems then he understood the Case I proposed to be but a supposition , and accounted it a supposition at random too ; yet so little ingenuity had both his Brother and he , and so much need of Shifts and contriviances , that they were willing to take this random supposition ( as he calls it ) for a positive con●lusion that the Landlord doth abate 10 l. in 100 l. in co●sideration of Tythes , and make what advantages they could there-from , as if it were a real and certain thing . Nay , he thereupon asks if the Quaker be n●t a Knave , for putting this 10 l. per annum in his own Pocket , which the Landlord abated in consideration of be paid .

But did he ever know a Quaker that desired an abatement of Rent in consideration of Tythe to be paid , or that accepted an abatement from his Landlord , upon that consideration ? If he knows any such , let him not spare to name him : if not , it will appear his suggestion is both false , and proceeded from an evil mind . The Instance he ●ets against my Supposition , is this , pag. 214. The Parish of A. yields in Rents to the Landlords at least 1000 l. per annum : but in the best Years , the Tythes there are not worth 80 l. per annum .

He did warily not to name this Parish , lest he should be convicted of falshood . But seeing he says they scarce ever get so much as 20 s. for 10 l. Rent , unless where there is very much Corn : and that , take the Church-livings one with another , there is not above 9 l. a Year made of a Farm upon the improved Rent of 90 l. a Year made of a Farm upon the improved Rent of 90 l. a year , and gives the Parish of A. for an Instance : to Answer his Instance , I return him a Case which his Brother Parson gives in his Vindication , pag. 322. and says it is a ●eal Case , if they dare believe one another . It is of a Farm Rented at 30 l. a year , which the Priest himself ( as he says ) being to purchase for another chose two Neighbours to view and value . They , comparing it with other Farms in the same Village , found it worth but 25 l. a year , according to the Rates that other men paid . This being objected to the Seller , he replied that he who paid 30 l. a year was discharged from Tythes , whereas he that paid but 25 l. had Tythes to pay . Hence it appears , that the Tythe of this 30 l. a year was rated at 5 l. by which proportion ( according as the Priest himself hath stated his Case ) the Tythes of a Farm of 90 l. a year come to 15 l. So that the difference is but 6 l. in 15 l. between one Priest's account and the other's , unless we take in the Parish of A , and then the odds is above half in half . Some other trifling Objections the Priest urges against my supposed Case , as first , that I suppose Landlords better than usually they are . Secondly , that I suppose the Tenants get more profit than any of them actually gain , or then ( says the Priest ) it is reasonable they should : for ( says he , Right of Tythes , pag. 212. ) if the Landlord receive only one 90 l. the Tenant hath another 90 l. to repay him for his Charge , Care , and Pains in managing , and a third 90 l. the Tenant hath remaining clear Profit to himself , &c.

He reckons wrong : for if he thinks 90 l. will repay the Tenant his Charge , Care and Pains in managing a Farm of 90 l. a year in Tillage , and keep his House beside , he is greatly mistaken ; but if he would have it that this 90 l. will defray his Charge of Husbandry only , and lay the Charge of his House-keeping on the third 90 l. which he fancies the Tenant hath remaining clear Profit to himself , he will find that by that time all Houshold Expences are defraid , for the maintaining such a Family as the management of such a Farm will require , there will not be much clear profit remaining . And yet I think , how unreasonable soever it may seem to the Priest , all reasonable men will judge it reasonable , that the Tenant should have some clear profit remaining to himself , to support him against acciden●●l l●sses , to enable him to exercise Charity towards others , and to make such necessary provisions for his Family , as may be suitable to his condition . But not to insist too particularly hereon , I let the Priest know , that his Brother Parson ( the Author of the Conference ) is in this Case on my side , and against him . For he says ( in his Vindication , pag 321. ) A Far● of that value ( viz. 90 l. a Year ) consisting in Tillage may be worth ( as he says , meaning me ) 27 l. per an . — to the Parson . This first , confirms my computation , namely , that upon a Rent of 90 l. a Tenant had need make 270 l. how else should the Tythe be worth 27 l. which is but the tenth part of 270 l. unless the Priest takes more for the Tythe than the full tenth part of the Profits ? Secondly , this shews the falshood of the other Priest , in setting the Tythe of a 90 l. Farm at but 9 l. a year . Thus these Priests fall one against another .

But ( says the Author of the Conference ) Suppose a Quaker enjoy a Farm of 90 l. per annum Rent , and the Landlord abate 10 l. a Year in consideration of Tythes . Or be it questionable whether he abate any thing upon that consideration . I 'le tell you what is not questionable , that the Quaker will pay nothing , and will pay this neither to the Landlord nor Priest , Vindication , pag. 323.

This ? what this ? this abatement ? why himself makes it questionable whether there be any abatement upon consideration of Tythes , or no : and if there be not an abatement upon that consideration , what hath the Quaker to pay ? or how is either the Landlord or the Priest cozened by the Quaker ( as he unfairly suggests one of them shall be s●re to be ? ) The Landlord is not ●ozened by the Quaker's not giving Tythes to the Priest : since the Quaker did not receive any abatement from the Landlord upon consideration of such a gift . Nor would the Quaker accept an abatement upon those terms , were t●e Landlord never so willing to make one . The Landlord , if he hath a mind to bestow any thing on the Priest , may take his own course therein , but the Quaker will have no hand in it . The Priest is not cozened by the Quaker's not giving him Tythes , and indeed it were strange to think he should , since in that respect he has nothing to be cozened of ; for the Quaker owes him nothing , nor has any trading with him , by means whereof he might come into his Debt . Thus neither Landlord nor Priest sustains any wrong by the Quaker : for the Quaker pays the Landlord du●ly for what he receive● of him , according to the contract between them . And if he pays nothing to the Priest , it is because he owes him nothing , nor receives any thing of him . But if no gentler word than Cozenage will serve the Priest's turn , I leave it to the Reader 's consideration , whether of the two is in reallity the Cozener , the Quaker in refusing to give away the tenth part of his Labour and l●st Profits to the Priest , to whom he knows he owes nothing , and from whom he receives nothing : or the Priest in getting away , by one means or other , the tenth part of the Quaker's Crop , and yearly Increase of his St●ck and Labour , for nothing . But to return to the other Priest , Author of the Right of Tythes .

§ 20. He in his 42. Sect. pag. 215. frames a Quotation out of pag. 347. of my Book , and gives it thus . The Landlord's dealing is far more merciful than the Priest's ; for the Landlord allows two parts to the Tenant for his Charge and Subsistence ; but the Pri●st takes the full tenth part of the Increase of the whole Farm , and leaves the poor Farmer no consideration for his Toyland Charge . To this he gives several sorts of Answers , whereof the 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 [ v●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 ●7 . l. a year to the Parson . That it cannot be , unless it be worth 270 l. ● 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 Pr●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 , no● halts on either Leg ; but that his Brother and himself , by their o●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 Oc●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 R●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 Occu●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 T●nant , he either is not at all concern'● 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 .

If● 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 Coveto●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 ●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 Priest● 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 S●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 Batt●l , 1 Sam. 30. 25.

T●e Comparison is not equal , nor the Cases alike . David in distributing the Spoils , ●ispo●ed but of that which was his own : for the Spoyls b●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 thos● 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 ●thelwolf's Profits , who has been dead above 800. Years before these Profits were in being ? Besides , those 200. men whom David left at the Brook Bes●r , were not like any of the lazy Clergy , that through Pride or Idleness refuse to work , expecting to be maintained by other men's Labours : but th●y were fellow-Souldiers with the other 400. that went , a part of the same Army , engaged in the same Service , and set forward with the rest in the same expedition , and went on together as far as they wer● able ; but having spent their strength in the three dayes march from Aphek to Ziklag before , and now again in a hot Pursuit of the Amalekites , they fainted on the way , and could not go over the Brook Besor , and therefore were fain to abide there . How unlike is this to the Case of these Lordly Priests ! and how irrelative to the present purpose !

But , says the Priest , finally , Will T. E. say , It is Oppression in the Priest to take his full Tenth , and make the Country-man no satisfaction for his Pains ? If this be Oppression then God was the Author ( according to T. E. ) and th● Levites the In●●ruments of Oppression , since they were ordered to take the full Tenth without any Compensation , pag. 217.

That doth not follow , nor can be fairly inferred , unless the Priests now were under the same Circumstances that the Levites were under , unless England were as fruitful as was the Land of Canaan , unless our Laws and Polity were the same with theirs , and unless we had as plain and positive a Command to pay Tythes as the Iews had . Tythes were suited to the state and condition of that Country and People , and expresly commanded by God : but neither are they at all suitable to the state and condition of this Country & People , nor any where commanded by God to be ●ow paid . There was an equality in the Iews paying Tythes to the Levites , because the Iews enjoyed the Levites share of the land , and every Fami● of the other Tribes had their Lot enlarged by the 〈◊〉 of the Levites Part amongst them ; so that Tythe with them was but a kind of Commutation or Exchange for Land . But it is not so in England : the Priests here are not debarr'd from having Lands as well as othe● men , but are equally capable of enjoying temporal Estates , by Descent , Purchase , or otherwise , as the rest of the people are . Besides , the Land of Canaan was so fruitful , that with less then half the Charge which the English Husbandman is now at , they frequently received six or eight , and sometimes ten times as much increase as Lands in England usually produce ; by means whereof they might with more ease pay the full tenth to the Levites , then the English Farmers now can the twentieth part to the Priests . Thes● Considerations , duly weighed , will make it evidently appear , that although Tythes were not an Oppression to the Iews , yet they may be ( and are ) so to us , who have neither the same ( nor any ) Command from God to pay them , nor the same ( nor any ) Compensation for them , nor equal ability to undergo them , as had the Iews . And though the Priest says , The Levites were ordered to take the full tenth without any Compensation , yet therein he speaks not the Truth : for they that paid the Tythes had the Levites 〈◊〉 ( viz. those Lands which would otherwise have f●llen to the Levites share ) divided amongst them : so that they had a Compensation , Lands for Tythes . The Priest's Argument therefore is fallacious , and his Conclusion utterly false . He infers not rightly when he says , If it be Oppression in the Priest to take the full tenth , &c. then God was the Author of Oppression . The Consequence is not true : for in Canaan , where God was the Author of taking the full tenth , there it was no Oppression ; and in England , where it is a● Oppression , here God was not the Author of taking the full tenth . Thus we see , that for the Priest to take the full Tenth without making the Country-man any satisfaction for his pains , may be truly called an Oppression , and yet God not be thereby taxed with being the Author of it . But these gross Absurditie● the Priest runs himself into by over-hastily and inconsiderately catching up a wrong Conclusion , that what was lawful , just and equal between the Iews and L●vites , in th● time of the Law , and in the Land of Canaan only , must need be so in all times and places between other People and their Priests ; not duely weighing the different circumstances under which the Iews then stood , and others now stand .

Let us hear now how the Priest says the Country-man is compensated for his pains . S. Augustine saith ( if the Priest says true ) God gives us all the nine parts , in compensation for our pains , in providing the tenth for him , ibid.

What a pretty Notion is this , neither confirmed by Scripture-Evidence , nor backed with any Reason . He thought ( it seems ) S. Augustine's ipse dixi● would have passed , but it will not , at least with me . God gives us all the nine parts , 't is true , but not to reward us for providing him the tenth : for he gives us the Tenth as well as the Nine . And as he gives us all , so he expects we should use it all in his Fear , and imploy it all to his Honour , the nine parts as well as the tenth , and the tenth part as well as the nine . But he that thinks God gives him the nine parts upon condition that he shall provide the tenth for him , may be in danger to be begged , and so lose the nine parts too .

Another Conceit the Priest has to this purpose , which he pretends to fetch from Sr. Hen-Spelman ; and that is of the sacredness of the number Seven , and that by right God should have had a full se●enth part of our Profits , but that in compensation for our pai●s he remits three parts , and so is content with a tenth .

If this be true S. Austine was out : for he ( according to the Priest ) says , God gives us all the nine parts , in compensation for our pains , in providing the tenth for him : But this ( taking no notice at all of the nine parts ) says , God gives us back three parts of our Profits in compensation for our pains , and instead of a seventh , is contented with a tenth part of our Estate . Methinks the Priest might have considered , before he had brought these two sentences together , that there is some odds between giving nine parts in compensation for the pains in providing the tenth , ●nd giving back three parts in compensation for the pains in providing the seventh ; wherein not only the Clai●s , but the Allowances also for pains , are very disproportionable . However , if ( as he fancies ) God did give back to ●he Iews three parts of their profits , in compensation for their pains ; then seeing the Husbandmen here , in many places , are at well-nigh three times the pains and charge the Iews were at , it might justly be expected that if God did now require any such Tribute he , who is perfect Justice , would make his Abat●ments proportionable to the ●ains , which must necessarily be taken in providing his part , whence the same Reason that is supposed to have bro●ght it from a sevent● to a tenth , on account of reward for pains , would long since have drawn it from a Tenth to a Fifteenth , as a more a●ple Reward for gr●ater Pains . But leaving these petty Conceits to the Judgment of those sober men to whom he propounds them , I will go on to that which the Priest offers as a further Answer yet to my Objection .

I will only add , ( sayes he , pag. 218. ) That the Priest's Payment is more Merciful then the Landlord's ; for the Landlord expects his full Rent , be the year ne●er so bad , or t●e Profits never so few or small ; but the ● ri●sts part cannot exceed th● increase ; if it be little , he hath but little ; if God gives much , th● Country●man is a●le to pay more .

The Landlord , I grant , doth expect his full Ren● in bad years , as well as in good ; but he never expects more then his Rent , be the year never so good . Though he often consider the Tenant's Losses in bad years , yet if t●e best years happen within the term of his Contract , he expects no Advance of Rent thereby . Now , if there wer● Truth in what the Priest says of his own part , it were something to the purpose ; but alas ! it is utterly false .

He says , The Priest's Part cannot exceed the Increase .

It may be he means , it should not ; but then the Priests are the more too blam● in exceeding what they account their part : For certain it is , that where there is no increase , nay , where there is a plain and manifest Decrease , where the Crop is not so much as ●le Seed that was sown , even there ●o the Priests aim and take a tenth part . Now why do they thus , if their part cannot exceed the increase ? Doth not this convict them of taking a part where themselves confess they should have no part ? If a man sow twenty Bushels of Wheat , and receive at Harvest but ten Bushels again , would any man but a Tythe-Taker call this an increase ? Yet these Priest● have learned new Figures of speech , and will call it an increase from Twenty to Ten ; and though the poor Farmer lose half his Seed , and all his plowing and other C●arge , ( which seldom comes to less than thirty Shillings an Acre ) yet shall he not escape so ; the P●iest w●ll have a Bout with him too , and make him poorer yet , by taking from him the tenth part of the Remainder of his Decrease . Yea , though the Seed that was sown was tythed the year befor● , and hath not now produced its own value , yet is it now tythed over again , and thus the Priest takes Tythes of one thing twice . Judge now , Reader , if t●is be not Injustice , if this be not Vnmercifulness , if this be not great Oppression . Yet doth the Priest sooth up the poor Husbandman , and sawns upon him with flattering words ; I●deed ( says he ) the Priest is h●reby ob●●ged to 〈…〉 with his Neighbours , since he ●spans● in their ●ains and Losses , p. 218.

In their Gains to be sure hee 'l be a Sharer , and i● one respect in their Losses too , that is , Let them los● what they will , if they do not lose all , to be sure hee 'l have a share of what is left , how little soever it ●e . Thus he hath a share in making them lose , to that he sets both his hands ; but to bear a part of the Hu , bandmau's Loss , he will not stretch out the least of hi● Fingers . Does he bear a share of the Hu●ban●m●n's Loss , who when the Husbandman reaps but half the Seed he sowed , and loseth three times , the value of his Crop beside , takes from him the tythe of that little that remain● , although it was tyt●ed the year before , and no increase , but so much los● upon it since ? Such Sharers in Losses the Husbandman had better be without , than have . Yea , it were far better for him that the Priest would only share in his Gains , and never pretend to share in his Losses : for when-ever he comes under that pretence , to be sure he makes him the greater Loser : And yet he crye , The Priest and the Husbandman ought to have the same care for one another .

If the Husbandman ●ad no more care of the Priest , than the Priest has of the Husbandman , there would not be so many fat Priests , and lean Farmers , as there are . The Husbandman in●eed takes care and pains all the year round ; but what case doth the Priest take , unle●● it be , when Harvest comes to get as much from the Husba●dman as he can ? Thus indeed they both take care , though not both the same Care . The Husbandman's Care inriches the Priest , but the Priest's Care impoverishes the Husbandman .

§21 . H● is loth to confess that the Charge is much gheavier 〈◊〉 upon the people , than it was under the Levi●●●al Priesthood ; and endeavours to perswade the contrary by a suppositive Computation of the Charge then , which he borrows from Godw●n , as he from others ; the sum of which is , That the Jewish Husbandman paid One Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One Bushels out of Six Thousand , that is , above a sixth part of his Crop , pag. 219 , 220.

To which I reply , 1st , That the Computation is doubtful : for it supposes the Tythe of the whole Crop was to be paid to the Levites , after the First Fruits were taken out , which the Text seems not to allow . The express words are , Deut. ●4 . 22. Thou shalt truly Tythe all the Increase of thy Se●d , that the Field bringeth forth year by year . There was t●e Seed , and the Increase of the Seed . The ●eed was part of the former years increase , and so was tythed before : but if it should now have been tyt●ed a●ain , together with its own Increase , it would th●n have been tythed twice . In order then to a right Computation , it seems the Seed should first be deducted , and the Increase only computed ; which will make a considerable Alteration in the Account : for it must be no very small quanticy of Seed , that produces 6000. Bushels of Grain .

But 2. This more then a sixth part , as he accompts it , was not all paid to the Priest● and 〈…〉 appropriated to their Maintenance ; but the Fath●rl●ss , the Widow , and the Stranger were provide● for out of this . The Husbandman did not ra●se a 〈…〉 to maintain the Poor ( as now he 〈…〉 to do ) b●t this de●rayed all those Charges , and he and hi● 〈◊〉 had their share of it too . But if the Hu●band●e ▪ now should compute their C●arge , and take an 〈◊〉 ●●ccount of what they pay both to the Priest and his Sub-Officers , and also to the Poor upon all Occasions , I am perswaded many of them would find a sixth part of their Crop doth 〈◊〉 excus● them .

Again , 3. The Husb●ndman now payes T●the of many more things t●an the Iews did , as Hay , Wool , Mi●k , Wood , &c. to omit things of less value , as Honey , Wax , Eggs , &c. yea the Priests now have the Tythe even of the Husbandman's Straw and Chaff as well as of his Hay , to the great Dammage of the Husbandman , who often wants these to maintain his Cattel , alwayes to make Dung to keep his Land in heart .

But 4. If nothing of all this were to be alledged : if the Iews had paid a full sixth part to the Levit●s , and that for the Levites proper use , and had undertaken the Relief of Father●ess , Widow and Strangers beside● ; and if the Husbandmen now paid Tythe● of no more things than what the Iews paid Tythes of , yet comparing the great Charge and small Increase the Hu●bandman now hath , with the small Charge and great ●ncrease the Iews then ●ad , it will still appear that t●e people are under a greater Burden , and the Charge lies heavier on the people now , who pay th● t●nth part to the Priest , than it did , or would have done on the Iews , had they paid , as they did not , a 〈…〉 part to the Levites .

To what I urged before , to prove the Charge heavier on the people now , t●an it was on the Iews , viz. That the Levit●s having no Inheritance with their Brethren , the Lots of the other Tribes were the bigger , which was some Consideration for their Tythes , &c. The Priest answers , That though the Levites had not any intire Country set out together , yet they had fair Possessions in every Tribe , having forty eight Cities , with two thousand Cubits round without the Wall , appointed them by God ; which ( says he , pag. 220. ) was a better proportion then our Gl●be-land , and in value might be esteemed the twelfth part of the Land of Canaan .

He computes strangely to make the Levites Cities with their Suburbs a twelfth part in value o● the Land of Canaan . Was that the way for the Levites to have No Inheritance ( Numb. 18. 23 , 24. ) No Part with their Brethren ( Deut. 10. 9. ) to give them a greater part tha● any of their Brethren had ? For if ( according to the Priest ) they had had in Cities and Suburbs a twelfth part in value of the Land of Canaan ; and they were in number ( as Selden computes ) scarce a fiftieth part of the peop●e , they had had a notable Advantage by being ( as I may say ) disinherited of the Land , although they had received neither Tythes nor Oblation● , but those Cities and Suburbs only . But what value soever those Cities were of , the Levites had them , and that by God●● a●po●ntment : But by whose appointment have t●e Priests now their Parsorage-houses & Vicarage-houses with their Glebe-lands ? or what value may we suppose them to amount unto ? If there be in England and Wales about ten thousand Parishe , to ●ach of which a Parsonage or Vicarage-house belongs , these , could t●ey be reduced into Town , would make as many , and probably as fair , a● those t●e Levites had . For ten thousand Houses divided into forty eight parts , afford above two hundred unto each : and doubtless two hundred such Houses as most of these are , with their great Tythe-Barns and other appurtenant Buildings , would make as la●ge a Town as most , if not as any of them . Then for the Glebe-lands belonging to these Houses , there is no question but their extent doth far exceed the two thousand Cubits of Land alotted to the Levites round each ●●ty . For suppose there be but twenty Acres of Glebe-land to every Parsonage or Vicarage-house one with another , yet that ( not to make an exact calc●lation ) casts about four thousand Acres to every two hundred Houses , which probably would surpass the Limits of the L●vites Suburbs , at least a fourth part . This in short , only to shew , that if the Levites had Houses , and Lands about them , so have the Priests now also , and that ( so far as may be gathered ) in much greater quantity . So that the Levites having Cities and Suburbs doth not at all abate the force of my Argument , but still it appears that the Charge is much heavier upon the people now , than it was under the Levitical Priesthood : for if the Levites received Tythes of the people , so do the Priests , and that of more things than the Levites did ; if the Levites had Houses of the people to dwell in , and some Lands about them for their Cattel , so have the Priests of th● people now , and that ( probably ) in greater proportion then the Le●ites had . Thus far then the people now have the worst of it , but much more in that which follows : for if the Levites had Cities and Suburbs , they had not Inheritances with their Brethren ; they had not those Cities and Suburbs and the Share of the Land besides . But the Priests now have not only Cities and Suburbs ( as I may call them ) but Inheritances also with their Brethren . They have not only Houses and Lands equivalent at l●ast , if not superiour , to what the Levites had , but their share also of the rest of the Land , being equally capable of holding Estates by Civil Title , as any other of the people are . And how much soever the Priests thus possess , so much the less the people have , and so much th● heavier lie● the Burden on them , than it did upon the Iews . Besides , Let it be considered what vast Revenues , what gr●at and rich Possessi●ns ( sufficient to de●ray the publick Charge of the Nation ) are grasped into the hands of Arch-Bishops , Bishops , Pr●bends , Deans and Chapters , &c. From whence I pray were these squeezed ? was it not from the people ? Are not the people hereby impoverished to make the Clergy rich ? Were ever the Iews so served by their Priesthood ? Had their Priests or Levites Lands or Poss●ssions in the Land of Canaan , besides their Cities and Suburbs ? Judge then Reader , whether the Charge lies not heavier on the people now , than it did under the Levitical Priesthood , seeing the people now pay more and injoy less than the Ie●s did .

Then for their Offerings , If the Levites had a part of the Sacrifices , a share of the Feast , a part of the voluntary Oblations , the first Born of Cattel , R●tes for the redemption of the first Born of men , and of persons dedicated by Vow ; The Priests now have many more wayes of drayning M●ney from the People , and such as are more burdensom to the People too . In the Sacrifices , Feasts and voluntary Ob●ations , as the Priests and Levites had a part ▪ so the people also had their share . But in the Off●rings and Payments which the Priests now claim and receive , the People have no share at all : so much money is demanded and paid , with which the Prie●t feasts himself , but th● People neither ●at nor drink for it . But if there happen to be a Feast in the Parish , at a Christening ( as they call it ) or any other Gossipi●g Bout , who but the Pars●n there ? The price for Redemption of Persons dedicated by Vow was very uncertain . The Priest sets down fi●ty Sh●kels , which was the highe●● ●rice that it could at any time amount unto . But in other Cases ( more likely to happen ) the price was sometimes thi●ty , sometimes twenty , sometimes ●en , sometimes five , and sometimes b●t three Shekels ; and if the Party vowing was poor , then was he to pay 〈◊〉 according to his ability , Levit. 27. But these in g●neral happened so rarely , that little comparatively could come to the Priests thereby . And indeed , if the m●ny Arts and Engins which the Priest● have & use , to 〈◊〉 Mon●y out of the People by , were reckoned up together ( some of which in my former Book , pag. 349. are presented to the Reader 's view ) the Iewish Offerings to their Priests would seem s●all in comparison of what the Clergy now hath .

Two pass●ges more out of my Book he quarrels with in this Section , one is , that Those Tythes and Offerings under the Law maintained all the Officers belonging to that Taberna●le , so that the P●ople were at no further Charge . To this he says , pag. 222. Pray what [ All ] was there to be maintained ? None besid● the Levites , except the poor Nethinims , who wer● Gibeonites , and did the Drudgery of the Temple .

It matters not what [ All ] there was ; It is sufficient that all the Officers ( Priests , Levites and Nethinims ) were maintained by those Tythes and Offerings , and the People not put upon any n●w charge . Whereas now notwithstanding the heavy Charge the People a●e at in maintaining their Priests , t●ey are fain to begin again , and make new provisi●n , for the maintenance of the Nethinims of these times ( the Clarks and Sextons , &c. ) to do the Priests drudgery , which the Priests are either too fine or too idle to do themselves , and too Covetous to pay for doing . This Charge therefore , be it more or less , is so much more than the Iew : were liable to .

The other passage is , That out of the Tythes under the Law Provision was made , for th● Fatherless , th● Widow , and the Stranger , Deut. 14. 28 , 29. This , he says , is another mistake , if I mean these were provided for out of the Levites Tythe .

He may see what Tythe I meant by the Text I quoted , which speaks of the third Year's Tythe , thus Deut. 14. 28 , 29. At the end of three Years thou shalt bring forth All the Tythe of thin● Increase the same Year , and shalt lay it up within thy Gates . And the Levite ( because he hath no part nor Inheritance with thee ) and the Stranger , and the Fatherless , and the Widow , which are within thy Gates , shall come , and sh●ll eat and be satisfied , &c. Now whether he will call this the Levites Tythe or no , which was thus to be laid up for the Levite , Stranger , Fatherless and Widow in common ( and was it seems to be ALL the Tythe of the Increase of that Year ) yet to be sure it was included in that , which he says was more than a sixth part of the Husband-man's Profits . So that those Tythes which the Husband-man paid , were not for the Maintenance of the Priests and Levites only , but of the Stranger , the Fatherless & the Widow also ; and the Husband-man was at no further charge . And as Tythes were at first introduced in this and other Nations , under the specious pretences of C●arity and Alms to the Poor , so in the settlement of them in this Nation , especial regard was had to the Poor , & particular Provision made for their Maintenance out of the Tythes , as appears by the Statutes of 15 R. 2. 6. and 4. H. 4. 12. Of the neglect of which , William Thorp ( who lived under both these Kings , and is by Fox recorded for an Holy Confessor of Jesus , though by this Prie●t branded with the ignominious Name of a Re●egado ) thus complaineth to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury ; It is now no wonder though the People grudge to give the Priests the Livelode that they ask . Mekil People now know , how that Priests should live , and how that they live contrary to Christ and to his A●ostles . And therefore the People is full heavy to pay ( as they do ) their tempo●al Goods to Parsons and to other Vicars and Priests , which should be faithful Dispensators of the Parish's Goods : taking to themselves no more but a scarse living of Tythes , nor of Offerings , by the Ordinance of the common Law . For what soever Priests take of the People ( be it Tythe or Offering , or any other duty or service ) the Priests ought not to have thereof no more , but a bare living ; and to depart the residue to the poor Men and Women specially of the Parish of whom they take this temporal Living . But the most deal of Priests now wasteth the Parishes Goods , and spendeth them at their own Will after the World , in their vain Lusts : so that in few places poor men have duly ( as they should have ) their own Suste●ance , nother of Tythes nor of Offerings , nor of other large Wages and Foundations that Priests take of the People in divers manners above , that they need for needful sustenance of Meat and Clothing : But the poor needy People are forsaken and left of Priests to be sustained of the Parishioners , as if the Priests took nothing of the Parishioners to h●lp the People with . And thus Sir , into over-great Charges of the Parishioners , they pay their temporal Goods twice , where once might suffice , if Priests were true Dispensators . Thus he , Martyr●l . Vol. 1. pag. 494. By which it doth appear that in former times Tythes were reputed the Parish's Goods ( not the Priest's Fre●hold and Property , as these confident Priests now adayes have learnt to talk ) of which the Prie●●s we●e but Dispensators or Stewards , to receive a bare Living for themselves , and distribute the rest to the poor of the Parish , by which the Parishioners were exempted from further charge in that respect , till the Covetous Priests took all to themselves , and shut the Poor quite out ; which was gradually done , as by degrees the payment of Tythes was at first brought in on the Poor ▪ behalf , and under pretence of relieving the Poor . Nor do I remember I have read of any other provision made for the Poor , or so much as the Name of Overseer of the Poor in any of our Statutes mentio●ed , until the Forty Third Year of Q. Elizabeth , not full Eighty Years ago . For in the beginning of her Reign , Tythes ( under the Name of the Goods of the Church ) were reputed the Goods of the Poor , and a Maintenance for the Poor expected from the Clergy , as appears by the Injunctions given by the Queen in the Year 1550. of which the Eleventh runs thus , Furthermore , because the Goods of the Church are called the Goods of the Poor , and at these dayes nothing is less seen then the Poor to be sustained with the same , all Parson● , Vi●ars ▪ P●nsionaries , Prebendaries , a●d other beneficed Me● , within this Deanrie , not being resident upon their Benefices , which may dispend yearly twenty Pounds or above , either within this Deanrie , or elsewhere , shall distribute hereafter among their poor Parishioners , or other Inhabitants there , in the presence of the Church-Wardens , or some other honest men of the Parish , the fortieth part of the Fruits and Revenues of their said Benefice , le●t they be ●o●thily noted of Ingratitude , which reserving so many parts to themselves , cannot vouchsafe to impart the fortieth portion thereof among the poor people of that parish , that is so fruitful and profitable unto them . It appears then , the Poor were maintained out of the Tythes , not only among the Iews in the time of the Law , but in this Nation also till of late , that the Priests have j●stled out the poor ( whose Names they made use of to get Tythes by at first ) and now ingross all the Tythes to themselves , leaving the poor upon the Parish's charge . So that the Parish , though they pay their Tythes never so exactly , and to the full , are fain when that is done to begin again , and make n●w L●vies upon every man's ●state , to supply the wants of the Poor . And whether in this respect also , the charge is not heavier on the people now , let the indifferent Reader judge .

§ . 22. He spends his next Section in quarrelling with me , for asking Wheth●r it was not a Pope that set up Parish-Priests ? The occasion of the Question was this . The Author of the Conference ( as this Priest in his Right of Tythes , pag. 223. reports him ) had given two Reasons why the Apostles took no Tythes : 〈◊〉 No● of the Iews , because their own Priests were in poss●ssion of them : 2. Not of the Gentiles , because of their unfixt Station . To each of these I returned an Answer in my former Book , pag. 351. then askt this Question , Seeing the Apostles state of Life was unfixt , who , I pray , fixed your state of Life ? who divided Provinces into Parishes , and set up Parish-Priests ? was it not a Pope ? For this Question the Priest derides me with a great deal of scorn , and says ( Right of Tythes , pag. 224. ) Never did any man pretend to 〈◊〉 of things he understood so little , as T. E. doth of Ecclesiastical matters . This All-knowing Quaker ( says he ) doth not understand , that the Apostles themselves fixed Bishops and Pastors in the several Citi●s they had converted , Timothy at Ephesus , Titus in Crete ; giving them Commission to ordain and fix others in lesser Cities .

He were a knowing man himself , if he were able to prove this . Was Timothy fixed at Ephesus ? Titus in Crete ? By whom ? The Apostles themselves , he says : but how does he prove it ? He says it , and that 's all . Methinks since he judg'd I do not understand this , he might have been so curteous to have offer'd some proof of it . By which of the Apostles may it be supposed that Timothy and Titus were fixt ( as he expresses ) at Eph●sus and in Crete ? Paul was as likely to have been the man , as any other : for by his Ministry they both were converted to the Faith of the Gospel , with him they seem to have most conversed , and from him they received those Epistles which are inscribed to them . Yet so far was Paul from fixing Timothy , or Timothy from being fixed at Ephesus , that we find he was sent by the Apostle into Macedonia , Acts 19. 22. To Corinth , 1 Cor. 4. 17. That he was with him at Athens , when he writ to the Thessalonians , 1 Th●s. 1. 1. and 2 Thes. 1. 1. That he was sent to Thessalonica , 1 Thes. 3. 2. 6. to Philippi , Phil. 2. 19. That he was with the Apostle at Rome , when he writ to the Collossians , Col. 1. 1. In Prison with him there , and released , Heb. 13. 23. & sent for by the Apostle to Rome again , not long befor● his Death , 2 Tim. 4. 9 , 21. So also for Titus , h● was sent by the Apostle to visit the Corinthians , afte● the first Epistle was written to them , 2 Cor. 2. 12 & 7. 6. & 12. 18. went afterwards again to visit th● C●rinthians , and carried the second Epistle to them was sent for by the Apostle to come to him to Nic●polis , where he intended to Winter , Tit. 3. 12. An● after all this we find him gone into Dalmatia , 2 Ti● . 4. 10. If these be Arguments of their being fixt at Ephosus and in Crete , I confess I do not understand what he means by the word fixed . Will ●e ground the fixation of Timothy at Ephesus , on the words of the Apostle Paul , 1 Tim. 1. 3. ( As I besought thee t● abide still in Ephesus , &c. ) or of Titus in Cr●te , on the words of the same Apostle , Tit. 1. 5. ( For th●● cause left I thee in Crete ) he will find them both quickly u●fixt again , and travelling from Co●●try to Country to visit the Churches , to preach the Gospel , or to minster to the Apostles ; and that after these Epistles were written to them .

But let us suppose , for the present , his Position to be true [ viz. That the Apostles themselves fixed Bishops a●d Pastors in the several Cities they had Converted , Timothy at Ephesus , Titus in Crete , giving th●● commission to ordain and fix others in lesser Cities ] and see how miserably he wounds himself , and his Brother too , with his own Weapon . The Apostles , he says , took no Tythes of the Gentiles , because of their un●●xt Station . Tythes , or any other fixed Maintenance , was utterly incon●istent with their unfixed state of Life , Confer . pag. 157. Yet the Apostles themselves fix●d Bishops and Pastors in the several Cities they had Converted , Timothy at Ephesus , Titus in Crete , &c. Did ever man that pretended to understanding so contradict and confound himself ! He gives their unfixt station for the reason why they did not take Tythes , yet in the same Breath says , Ti●●thy 〈◊〉 fixed at Ephesus ; Titus was fixed in Crete ; the 〈◊〉 themselves fix●d Bishops and Past●rs in the sever●● Cities they had converted . A fixed state then ( according to him ) it seems there was amongst them in the several converted Cities , and yet notwithstanding this , their unfixt state was the reason why they did not take Tythes . 〈…〉 the man that in derision calls me the All knowi●g Quaker . This is he that say● of me , Never did any man pretend to write of things he understood so little , as T. E. doth of Ecclesiastical matters , Let him see now , and be ashamed of his own weakness , and learn for the future to speak wit● more modesty of others .

He goes on thu● concerning me , pag. 224. He knows not how Eusebius and other Historians , reckon up the very Persons in all eminent Churche● , ●●dained and fixed there by the Apostles .

Is he sure he speaks Truth in this ? How know● he but that I do know what Euse●ius , and other Historians , say in this case , as well as himself ? wit●out offence to him be it spoken , I know no reason why I may not . But how much or little soever I know , I 'le assure him I know more both in Eusebius and other Historians also , than I could ever yet find Faith to believe : and if I mistook him not , he seem'd to be somewhat of the same mind in pag. 131.

Again , he says , ibid , It will be News to him to tell him , That in the very beginnings of Christianity , wheresoever the Gospel was once planted , there were strict Canons made agaisnt the Clergy of one Diocess going into another to officiate .

This is News to me indeed , and which is worse , false News too . How chance he quoted no Author of his News ? Is not that a sign 't is News of his 〈◊〉 making ? I confess I never heard before , that in the very beginnings of Christianity , there were any such Canons made , or any such Diocesses , as he dreams of . It behoves him therefore to set forth his Author , left himself be repu●ed , and that deservedly , a Raiser and Spreader o● fals● News . But in the mean time let us ●ift his News a little , and see how well it hangs together . He told us but now , that Tmothy and Titus wer● fixed at Ephesus and in Crete , and that by the Apostles themselves ( though he does not know by whom ) yet we find not only the Apostle Paul send●ng Tychicus ( a dear Brother , and faithful Minister in the Lord , Ephes. 6. 21. ) to the Ephesians , 2 Tim. 4. 12. But Timothy also at Corinth , at Athens , at Thess●lonica , at Philippi , at Rome , &c. So likewise for Titus , whom he fixes in Crete : Doth not the Apostle speak of sending Artemas and Tychicus thither , and of sending for Titus to Nico●●lis , Tit. 3. 12 ? Doth he not intimate that Zenas and Apollo ( one of whom was an Expounder of the Law , the other an eloquent Preacher of the Gospel ) were at Crete , ver. 13 ? ●nd did not Titus himself travel up and down into divers Cities and Countries in the labour of the Gospel ? Was he not at Corinth once and again ? an● went he not also unto Dalmatia , 2 Tim. 4 ▪ 10 ? Now if Timothy and Titus had been fixt ( as he fancies ) at Ephesus , and in Crete ; if Bishops and Pastors had been fixt by the Apostles in all eminent Churches , & in the several Cities they had converted ; and if in those times , in which fell the very beginnings of Christianity , there had been any such Diocesses as he dreams of , or any such strict Canons , as he conjectures , made against the Clergy of one Diocess going into another to officiate ; Pray how did Tychicus , Apollo and other● observe those Canons , when they went ( as they did ) to Ephesus and Crete ? On how well did Timothy and Titus obey them , when they went to officiate at Corinth , Thessolonica , Philippi , Rom● , and other places , which ( according to this Priest ) were distinct Diocesses belonging to othe● men , into which by the Canon they were strictly forbidden to go to officiate ? Doth not this discover the emptiness of his story , and manifest the falness of his News ?

But we may guess at his date of Christianity , by the after-Instance he gives of a Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon , the date of which he willingly leaves out : but that Council was held ( according to Genebrard ) under Pope Leo the first in the Yea● 454. Was this in the very beginnings of Christianity ? No ; nor of the Apostacy from Christianity neither : for much Corruption , both of Doctrine and Practice , was in the Church before that time . Thus Reader thou mayst see what his confident talk , of strict Canons and Diocesses in the very beginnings of Christianity , is come to . Would any man of honesty , ingenuity or modesty impose such falshoods , upon ignorant Readers , or expose such folly to judicious Eye● !

He talks also pag. 225. of a Synod among the Britains , held by S. Patrick , anno 456. but without any mention of Paris●es ; and very confidently takes for granted , that long before the Popes of Rome so much as directed any thing h●re , the Brittains had fixed Arch-Bishops , Bishops and Priests ; by which if he means those Priests were fix●d to Parishes ( as now they are ) which I observe he doth not expresly say , but only that they were fixed ; they may believe it , that dare take his word for it , but prove it he never can . Selden in his History of Tythes , Chap. 9. Sect. 1. shews the contrary . But the division of Parishes a●ong the Saxons , the Priest ascribes to Honorius the fifth Arch-Bishop of Canterbury about the Year ●4● . or to Theodor●s ( the next b●t one in that Sea ) 〈◊〉 t●enty or thirty Years after .

Hence I perceiv● he thinks he hath sufficient ground to deride me , for asking If it was not a Pope that divided Provinces into Parishes , and set up Parish-Priests . Whether Parishes were divided by Honorius , Theodorus , or some other of later time , I think not worth Inquiery . I know the common Opinion attributes this work to Honori●s ; which yet is doubted by many , and some of great judgment . It sufficeth my purpose , that whether Parishes were set out and Parish-Priests fixt thereto , by Honorius or Theodorus , it was done by the Pope's power : for either of these received his Archiepiscopal Authority from Rome . Honorius ( says Bede , Eccles. Hist. l. 2. c. 18. ) received the Pall of his Arch-Bishoprick from Honorius at that time Pope of Rome , and withal a Letter , in which the Pope grants to this Honorius Arch-Bishop of Canterbury , and to Paulinus then Arch-Bishop of York ( to whom also he sent a Pall ) this power , at th●ir request , that which soever of them should die first , the surviver might , by the authority of the Pope's Command , make such an Ordination of another in his room as should be pleasing to God . This shews they received their authority from the Pope ; and what they acted by that authority , was done by the Pope's power . If therefore Honorius , as Arch-Bishop of Canterbury divided that Province into Parishes , and set up Parish Priests therein , it cannot be denyed but those Parishes were divided , and Priests set up , by the Pope , whose Instrument Honorius was therein , and by whose power it was done . And thus seems Ca●den ▪ to understand it , in his Brittania , pag. 100. wher● ▪ he says , When the Bishops of Rome had assigned several Churches to several Priests , and 〈…〉 unto them , Honorius Arch-Bishop of Canterbury , about the Year of our Redemption ●36 , began 〈◊〉 to divide England into Parishes , as we read in the History of Canterbury . So that he refers this Act of Honorius to the Bishop of Rome , not o●ly in point of power , but of example also . In imitation then of what the Popes had don● , and by vertue of Authority received from the Pope , were these Parishes set out , and were Parish-Priests at first set up , whoever was the P●pe's Agent therein .

The Priest con●ludes this Section thus ; And now ( says he ) we see T. E. hath neither Learni●g nor Truth in him , who attributes our fixing to a ●ope , when the Apostles themselves shewed the way in this Practice , not intending that any ●agabond Speakers should be allowed , after once the Christian Church was settled , pag. 22● .

I am better acquainted with my self , than to pretend to any great store of Learning , and with his manner of writing , than to regard his R●flection ▪ on the Truth of what I have written ▪ With great readiness I submit both to the Censure of the judicious and impartial Reader . But as little Learning as he is pleased to allow me , I have enough at least to let him see , that , for all his great stock of Learning ( wi●h the conceit of which he is so over-blown ) 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 . Va●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 stigma●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 ( fo● to Rog●es the word Vagabond is usually now applied ? ) How little Reason has this boasting man to vaunt of his own Le●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 Luk● 22. 35. The falseness of this Argument I plainly shewed in my former Book , called Truth Prevailing , pag. 352. Whereupon this Priest in ●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 .

T●e other Priest grounded his Miracle upon the Apo●tles wanting nothing when they were sent forth without Pu●se and Scrip , Luke 22. 35. This Priest finding that too weak to bear him up , adds to it the believers ●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 . Ther●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 co●mon Stock for the maintenance of the whole Society ; Whence it follows in the Text , And distribution was made unto every Man , ac●ording as he had need . In all which I confess ● do not see the Miracle he talks of , ●nd if he himself will have this to be a Miracle , he must then acknowledge Miracles are not ceased , the same thing ●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 ●e a Reason why they took none at Rome , at Corinth , at Ephesu● , at Coloss , at Thessal●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 amon●st oth●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-fing●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 th● 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 t● let his Argume●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 s●ll the● 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 ●usle and Contest for a Divine Right of Tythes , will ye quit yo●● Claim thereto , upon condition the people will ●ell all , as once Believers did ! See , Reader , now the horrible Deceit and false D●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 ▪ ●ord Iesus and his ●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 sh●w , that the antient divine Right to the tenth part should be continued , and the Gospel-Ministers should be the Receivers of it , pag. 71 ? Who that had read all this could have thought any other , but that he verily believed Tythes were so ordained and settled by God , that they were an immutable unalterable Maintenance ? Nay , K. Hen. 8. is , by the other Priest , charged with Sacriledge , for but alienating some part of the Tythes , Vindicat. pag. 305. ) And yet he now says , When our people sell all vol●ntarily as they did , we will quit our Claim to Tythes ? Doth not this manifest that what he hath writte● before of the divine Right of Tythes was in Hypocrisi● and Dissi●ulation , to blind the Eyes of ignorant people ? Had he sincerely believed Tythes to be s● due , as in the places fore-quoted he plainly affirms ; had he faithfully believed that our Lord Jesus and the Apostles intended the ancient divine Right to the tenth part should be continued , and that the Gospel-Ministers should be the Receivers of it ; how could he ( pretending , as he doth , to be himself a Gospel-Minister ) quit his Claim to Tythes for any other Mai●tenance ! Would he quit that which himself says Our Lord Jesus intended should be continued , if he believed in earnest that Jesus ever intended so ! And if he did not so indeed believe , how false was he , and how devoid of Truth , so to affirm ! But what will not Interest and Advantage work , in men of corrupt Minds ! Tythes then however , are not , it seems , so sacred a Maintenance , so divine a Tribute , but that the Priests will quit their Claim thereto , when-ever they find they can mend their Market . Till then ( says the Priest , viz. Till the people sell all voluntarily ) We desire the Quakers will let us quietly enjoy our ordinary Maintenance , and we are well content

No wonder . Fill them full , give them what they would have , and they are well content ; but no longer . How like are these to some of them of old , that ( as the Prophet words it , Mic. 3. 5. ) bite with their Teeth , and cry , Peace : and he that putteth not into their Mouthes , they even prepare War against him ? Just thus it is with the Priests now : feed them , fill them , keep th●m biting ; labour , toyl and drudge for them ; and make it thy Care that they be maintained in Pride , I●leness and Fulness of Bread , although thy own Family want , and they are well content , and will cry , Peace , Peace , and s●w a soft Pillow under each Arm-hole . But if once thou beginnest to slack thy Hand , look to thy self . If once thou forbearest to put into their Mouthes , they will not only prepare War against thee , but will quickly too make War upon thee ; will take thee Prisoner , and spoil thy Goods . In a word , if thou givest them not what they would have to bite , they will bite Thee .

§ . 24. As he would be very well conte●t to be ma●ntained by the Quakers , so he would fain perswade the Quakers to be as well content to maintain him ; and the chief medium he uses to perswade by is this , T●at to pay Tythes ( especially unwillingly ) is a piece of passive Obedience , to which a man ought to submit quietly for Conscience sake , and in point of Obedience to the Authority imposing it , though it be never so much against his Iudgment , pag. 127.

Doth this man regard what he writes , who puts such a Gull as this upon his Reader ? Where any thing is imposed by Authority , which is contrary to a man's Conscience , no doubt the man is as well oblieged , on the one ha●d , to submit quietly , for Conscience sake , by a passive Obedience , to what is so imposed ; as , on the other hand , not to act against Conscience . But who till now ever heard , that actually to pay Tythes is a pi●ce of passive Obedience ? Doth not the Law injoyn men to set out their Tythes , to separate the tenth part from the nine ? Is not that Action ? If thus to do be a passive Obedience , I would fain know what is active . Why says he , If the King should bid the Quaker turn Minister , and take Tythes , his doing that were Active Obedience .

So it were indeed : but then his refusing to do it , and suffering quietly for so refusing , were passive Obedience . In like manner , if Authority command a man to set out his Tythes , to separate the tenth part of his Corn from the nine , his doing that , were active Obedience : but his refusing to do it , and suffering quietly for so refusing , is passive Obedience .

But he says , pag. 228. Our Saviour submitted to pay Tribute , which ought not to have been exacted of hi● . And S. Paul commands the Christians to pay Tribute and Custom to the Heathen Emperors , though they used it to idolatrous and wicked Purposes .

Those were Taxes purely civil ; which Tythes are not : And they were levyed for a Civil Use , however afterwards disposed of ; which Tythes are not . He thin●k● the Quakers may as well submit to ( what they account ) an Vnjust Payment , as to ( what they call ) an Vnjust Imprisonment , p. 229.

So they do : and much after the same manner . In the Case of an Un●ust Imprisonment ( as that for Tyth●s is ) they do not imprison themselves ; but if th● Sheriff or his Servants come , and take them to Prison , they make no Resistance , but qui●tly submit . So also in the Case of Unjust Payment ( as that of Tythes is ) they do not pay it , nor dare they : but if the Sheriff , or any other Authorized come , and take away their Tythes , or their Goods for refusing to pay them , they make no resistance , but quietly submit . Thus they submit alike to an unjust Payment and to an unjust Imprisonment , by a passive Obedience in each .

He begins to cogg with the Quak●rs , and sayes , If I were in their case , I cou●d pay my Tythes in Obedience to the laws of the Nation , though I did believe the law never so unjust ; b●cause this Payment ( to one so opinionated ) is a Penalty , and his Obedience therein m●erly Passive .

He speaks very like a temporizing Priest ; but if he were in the Quakers Case , he would be of another Mind ; for indeed he could not be in their case unless he were better minded than he is . But are Tythes a Penalty ? What Offence are they a Penalty for ? Were Tythes then imposed as a Fine or Mulct for some Transgression ? The Party then , of whom they are demanded , ought in Justice to be first convicted of that Transgression , before the Penalty [ Tythes ] be required of him . This is a new Crotchet concerning Tythes . I have heard indeed of a Penalty for not paying Tythes ; but I never heard that Tythes themselves were a Penalty before . The Quakers perhaps might be somewhat beholding to him , if he would inform them what the Transgression was , for which Tythes were made a Penalty , that by keeping out of the Offence , they might avoid the Penalty . But is the Payment of Tythes a Penalty only to one that believes the Payment unjust ( for so I understand him by the word [ Opinionated ] It must then be the Belief of the Injustice of the Payment that makes it a Penalty ; and if so , then he that , so believing , payes it , inflicts a Penalty on himself , which , beside the Injustice is contrary to Nature .

Again says he , I cannot remember ever to have read of any sort of People in the World before , who counted it a Sin to pay an Imposition supposed unjust ; which is no more a Sin , than to be Stockt or Whipt , to be Fined or Imprisoned ; all which we may submit to without Sin .

To submit to Stocking , Whipping , Fining or Imprisoning is one thing ; but for a man to Stock , Whip , Fine or Imprison himself is another : so to suffer for not paying Tythes is one thing , and to pay Tythes is another . This he sayes , and therefore cunningly changes his Voice from Active in paying Tythes , to Passive in being Stockt , Whipt , &c. When he speaks of the payment he says , If I were in their Case I would pay my Tythes , &c. And , I never read of any who counted it a Sin to pay an Imposition , &c. Here he uses the Active [ to pay . ] But when he says it is no more a Sin , than to be Stockt or Whipt , to be Fined or Imprisoned , he turns from Active to Passive : for to pay is Active ; to be fined or Imprisoned is Passive . This Fallacy of his he thought perhaps the unlearned Quaker would not find out . He says , We may submit to Stocking , Whipping , Fining and Imprisonment without Sin . 'T is very true ; and so we may to Death also : but doth it thence follow that a man may without Sin put himself to death , be his own Executioner , and kill himself ? If it be evil for a man to do this , how can he without evil do the other ? If he may not put himself to death , by the same reason he may not stock , whip , imprison or fine himself . And if Tythes be a penalty ( as the Priest says they are , to one that believes the payment of them unjust ) he may no more execute that penalty on himself , by paying Tythes , than he may execute the other pen●lties of Stocking , Whipping , Imprisonment or Death , by putting himself in the Stock● , by Whipping himself , by clapping himself into Prison , or by putting himself to Death . But seeing the Priest says , If he were in our Case he would pay his Tythes , &c. Let me put him the Question , Whether if he were in our Case , and were sentenced to be Hanged ( as some of the Quakers , purely for their Religion , and conscientious Obedience to God , have been ) he would forth-with take an Halter , and Hang himself ?

He connludes , That it is no Sin to pay Tythes , though it were a Sin in the Law to command them , and in the Priests to t●ke them , pag. 230.

The other Priest also in his Conference , pag. 15● . says , After all this Out-cry against Tythes , do the Quakers think the paying and receiving of them to be a Sin ? And in his Vindicat●on , pag. 300. he complains that this Question was not Answered , and says , It was the most considerable passag● that he had .

That Tythes were a part of the Ceremonial Law given to ●he Ie●s , and taken away by Christ's death , is largely proved before . They were a part of those Offerings which by the One Offering were ended , and so ended as never to be offered again , because the Offering of them again would have been a denyal of that one Offering by which they were taken away . Now as it would be a Sin to offer the other Offerings of the Law , the Burnt-Offerings , Meat-Offerings , Drink-Offerings , &c. although commanded , so is it also a Sin to offer the Offering of Tythes , although commanded thereunto . If all the Offerings , Sacrifices and Ceremonies of the Law should now be set up again , as it would be Sin in them that should set them up , or command the performance of them , so would it be sin in them also that should act therein , or consent thereto . If a man should bring forth his Oxen , Bullocks or Sheep to be made a Sac●ifice or Burnt-Offering● as of Old , this would be sin in him that should so do , although commanded , as well as in him or them that should so command . But if a man being so commanded should refuse , and his Oxen or Sheep be taken from him by force , or against his will , and made a Sacrifice or Burnt-Offering , the sin would lie upon them that thus command or Act , & the man so refusing would be guiltless before the Lord . If a man should be commanded to Circumcise himself , or to offer himself to be Circumcised , that man if he should actually Circumcise himself , or consent to be Circumcised by another , would be guilty of sin before the Lord , notwithstanding his being commanded : But if he , who is thus commanded , shall refuse to Circumcise himself or to consent that another shall Circumcise him , and he be taken by force and Circumcised against his will , the Sin will lie at their door who thus command or Act , and the man himself , thus refusing to act , or to consent unto the Act , will be guiltness before the Lord . Now Tythes being ended by Christ , as well as the other Offerings of the Law , and as Circumcision ; it is a sin to pay Tythes now ( and a denyal of the one Offering Christ Iesus ) as it would be a sin to offer the other Offerings of the Law now , or to be Circumcised . And as in those Cases , the being commanded would not excuse them from Sin that should perform those things ; so neither in this case of Tythes , will the being commanded excuse● them from Sin that pay them . But if a man conscientiously refuses to pay them , and dares not act therein , nor consent thereto , though his Tythes should be forcibly taken from him , or any Penalty be inflicted on him , he in his thus conscientiously refusing to act therein or consent thereto ( yet not resisting , but quie●ly suffering ) will be found guiltless in the sight of the Lord . Hence it appears that to pay Tythes is a Sin , as well as to receive them . And thus the one Priest's false Position , and the other Priest's most considerable Passage , are plainly and fully answered .

§ . 25. His next Section treats of the First Fruits and Tenths paid by the Clergy to the Crown , against which , he says , the Quaker hath nothing to say , hut only that this Power once stuck in the Tripple Crown .

Where he found this he might have found more : for in the same placo ( pag. 355. ) in Answer to the other Priest , who called First Fruits and Tenths one of the Faire●● Flowers belonging to the Crown , I said , No Flower can be fair in an English Crown , which was taken out of a Pope's Mitre . And if nothing else could be said against it , but that it once stuck in the Triple Crown , that alone were enough to make it unworthy to be worn in an English Diadem . Hence it appears I not ●nly had more to say , but said more also against this Flower ( as they account it ) of First Fruits and Tenths , than only that it once stuck in the Tripple Crown : for I shewed , that being taken out of a Pope's Mitre , it could not be a fair Flower in an English Crown , and that having once stuck in the Triple Crown , it was unworthy to be worn in an English Diadem . Besides , those words [ if nothing else could le said against it ] imply there was more to be said against it , if need require , and opportunity serve . But this which was said was more than he was willing to take notice of , and that little he did take notice of , was more it seems , t●an he either knew how , o● , at least , thought fit to Answer . He says upon it , pag. 230. His Majesty will not so easily be wheadled out of so great a part of his Revenue , and so clear an acknowledgment of his Clergies subjection to him . What if he will not ? Has this any appearance of an Answer ? or carries it in it the least shew of an Argument ?

The other Priest , Author of the Conference , seems to have something to say here , Vindication , pag. 325. First he says , I do not ●ind that T. E. answers the Argument , but catches at a phrase , &c.

For my part , I see no Argument there to Answer , unless he will call it an Argument for Tythes , that the ●ing hath a Revenue out of Tythes . And if that were his meaning , I take it to be Answer sufficient to such an Argument , to shew that the Tythes themselves , out of which that Revenue arises , are contrary to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ ? But can either of these Priests ( or any man else , using his understanding ) think it an argument of any force for the lawfulness or Equity of Tythes , that a Revenue arises out of them to the Crown ? What Evil might not , in other Nations , be patronized by such an Argument ? May not the Papists argue their Indulgences are right and good , because they bring in a considerable Revenue to the Catholick Chair , as they call it ? Unhappy Luther ! who saw not the force of this Argument , but zealously notwithstanding exclaimed against Indulgences . May they not from the same Argument infer the lawfulness of Stews at Rome , since from them arises a considerable Revenue to support the Triple Crown ? But though he is offended that himself is compared to the Crow , for calling fi●st Fruits and Tenths so fair a Flower , yet he cannot deny but this Flower stuck once in the Triple Crown ; ●ut then , he says , it was stole from the English Diad●m , ibid.

Was it so ? Did it ever stick in the English D●adem before Hen. 8. Stuck it there ? That 's more indeed then ever I read ; and more I think than he is able to prove . But both these Priest● urge the payment of first-Fruits and Tenths to be an acknowledgment of the Clergies subjection .

It may be it is so ; but there is no necessity it must be so . Is there no other way for the Clergy to acknowledge their Subjection but by paying fi●st Fruits and Tenths ? The payment of Tribute is I confess an acknowledgement of Subjection ; yet not so , but that subjection may be acknowledged other waye● without it ; what acknowledgement else would all such be capable of making of their subjection , who are not in a condition to pay Tribute , in which rank a great part of the Nation will be found ?

Now to return to the Author of the Right of Tythes ; he spends the rest of his 47th Section in computing the Revenue the King receives from the Clergy , which yet he doth so confusedly , that it is ●ard to collect from thence any certain Sum for the Total of that Revenue . The best account I can gather from his is , that it is near 30000 l. per annum . Be it more or less , it is not much material . No doubt it is a large sum ( if fully paid . ) But what a vast sum is that then , which the Priests receive of the People , of which perhaps this may be scarce the twenti●th part , being usually paid by Composition and at low Rates ! But the stress of the Objection I take to be this , That if Tythes be taken away , the Revenue of the Crown is so much diminished as this amounts to . The Answer is , Conscience & Honour ought to be preferred before Worldly Advantages . If the Rev●nues of the Crown are not found sufficient without t●is , there are other and far better Wayes of enlarging them than by this . Were this Iron-Yoke but once taken off from the galled Necks of the people , they would be certainly far more able , as well as probably more willing , to bear the publick Charges of the Nation . An● it were not difficult to demonstrate that the Crown would be rather a Gainer thereby , than a Loser .

§ . 26. He says in his next Section , pag. 231. I shall not need now to confute that frequent and unjust Re●roach of the Quakers calling Ministers Hirelings , pag. 356 , &c. since I have shewed , the only Reve●u●s they have are no other than what they have a three-fold Title to ; first , by the Laws of God and Nature : secondly , by the Donation of the right Owners : thirdly , by the La●s of this Land .

He has as much need now as ever to clear himself and his Brethren ( if he can ) from the Charge of being Hirelings , since his Triple Title is disproved , and he cannot make out a Right to Tythes . He talks much of the Law of God , but No Law of God can he shew for the payment of Tythes now . He talks also of Tythes being due by the Law of Nature : but that 's a Position so extreamly ridiculous , that it is enough to render him suspected for a Na●u●al . These two make the first part of his threefold Title . The second part is the Donation of the Right Owners . This is so far from being true , that it is utterly impossible it should be true : for Tythes being due ( as himself says , pag. 196. ) out of the Profits only , they to whom he ascribes the Donation of Tythe neither were nor could be the right Owners of those Profits , out of which the Priests now claim and take Tythes . They were the right Owners of those Profits t●at arose while they were possest of the Lands , and might dispose of those Profits , as they pleased ( so 〈◊〉 were not to an evil use . ) But the present Prop●●etors or Occupiers of Land now , are as really the Right Owners of all such Profits as are ●aised upon the Lands now , as they of old then were of the Profits that were rai●ed in their times . Seeing then those ancient D●●ors of Ty●●hes could not make these Priest● any Title to the pr●sent Profits , because they themselves were not the right Owners of these Profits . And the present Proprietors or Occupants , who are the right Owners of the present Profits , have not made any Donation of Tythes to the Priests ; It is evident that they have no T●tl● at all by Donation . Thus his s●cond string also has given him the slip . His third is the Laws of 〈◊〉 Land . But he must take notice , that the Laws do not give a man a Right either to Lands , Tythes or any thing else ; but do only conserve unto him that Right which he hath already , whether by descent , purchase or gift , and secure him , in the injoyment thereof , from Viol●nce or Injury from others . If therefore he could have proved a Right , he might well have urged the Laws of the Land to conserve that Right : but if he has not otherwise a Right , he in vain expects the Laws should make him one . Nor do those Laws which in joyn the payment of Tythes , pretend to give a Righto Tythes ; but suppose the Priests to have a Right , and therefore take care to secure that supposed Right unto them . But now it appears that that Supposition was grounded upon a Mistake , and that the Priests have no Right at all to Tythes , but that all their Claims are false . That they have no Right by the Law of God , no right by the Law of Nature , no Right by any Donation or Gift from the Right Owners of the Profits , out of which ( and which only ) they claim Tythes . Now the Reason and Ground of the Law being , not to make a Right but , to conserve and secure to men that Right they have , if the Priests have no Right to Tythes ( as I have proved they have not ) then is there nothing for the Law to conserve or secure to them , and so that Law , with relation to them , is at an end : for the Rule in Law being , Cessante Ratione Legis , cessat Lex ( i. e. Where the Reason of the Law 〈◊〉 , there the Law it self ceaseth also ) the Reason of the Law ceasing in this Case , where it hath nothing to conserve , the Law it self must needs also cease ( de jure ) according to that Rule . Thus the Priests th●e●fold ●ord is broken , and down falls he and his pretended Right of Tythes together .

But in order to clear ( if it were possible ) the Priests from the just imputation of Hirelings , he says , pap. 232. The people do not hire them ; they set them not on work , nor do they , out of their own , give them any Wages .

This doth but further discover the Vnrighteousness of the Priests : for if the People do neither hire them , nor set them on work , how unreasonable and unjust are they to demand , yea and force Wages from them , that neither hired them nor set them on work ! Is this to do as they would be done unto ? Would the Priests think it equal that any of their Parishioners , who are hired and set on work by others , should come and demand Wages of them , when as they neither hired them , nor set them on work ? The latter part of his Sentence is a positive untruth . The words are these , Nor do they ( the people ) out of their own , give them ( the Priests ) any Wages . This is utterly false . The Wages which people give them is truly and properly out of the peoples own : for it is out of the yearly Profits , and the yearly Profits are truly and properly the peoples own , and belong not to any man else .

Next he says , They ( the Priest● ) are imployed by Go● , and he hath provided for them .

I deny that they are imployed by God : let him prove it if he can . If they were imployed by God , they would be content with such 〈◊〉 as he hath made for them whom he imployes , and not thus scrape and scratch , rend and tear , and never think they have enough .

In the rest of this Section he charges me with l●ading the Loyal and Suffering Clergy with a foul Calumny , in saying , They ●led , and left their Flo●k● to the Mercy of those whom they accounted no better than Wolves , &c.

This is matter of Fact , of which the whole Nation was then a Witness ; and there is scarce a Parish wherein some are not yet living who are able to judge whether this be a foul Calumny or a just Charge , to whose Censure I submit it .

He says , They were sequestred , imprisoned , silenced , and by armed Soldiers violently torn from their Cures ▪

This may be true of some of them , whose Unhappiness it seems it was to lose what was non● of their own . But if they had indeed been imployed by God , and had taken the Apostles for their Example ( Acts 4. 18 , 19 , 20. & 5. 28 , 29 , 40 , 41 , 42. ) though they had been sequestred , imprisoned , and by armed Soldiers violently torn from their Cures , yet they would not have so been silenced . If such things as t●ese could have silenced the Apostles and those othe●s that were imploy'd by God , in the first appearance of Christianity in the World , the sound of the Gospel had not rung so loud nor so far as it then did .

In conclusion , as he raises to them Trophies of Praise , and celebrates their Names with the highest Eulogi●s his fancy could furnish him with : so on me he casts up the overflowing of his Gall , and with it the most reproachful and scurrilous Expressions his imbittered M●nd did suggest unto him , Then he calls the Loyal and Suffering Clergy — These Noble Sufferers — Such Illustrous Names — whom All the World Admires and Venerates . Of me he sayes , This black-mouthed Slanderer may publish his own venomous Impiet●es . But as this putrid matter doth only discover the foulness of the Stomach from whence it came , but doth not at all defile me : so I envy not them all the Odours and Perfumes he has provided to sweeten their Names withal , which perhaps there may be need enough of .

The Author of the Conference took another Course to acquit the Priests from the charge of being Hirelings , by comparing the Priests with the Iudges of the Land , and Tythes with the King's Allowances to the Iudges . In my Answer to him , I shewed his fallacy in this so plain , that this other Priest ( who came in for his second ) was not willing to meddle at all with the matter , but left him to get off as well as he could . He said in his Conference , pag. 159. You know the King has twelve Iudges , &c. And these have an honourable Allowance from the Exchequor , will you therefore say that they are Hirelings , and sell Iustice ? and is not ours the same Case ? I answered ( in ●ruth prevailing , pag. 356. ) No : for you pret●n● to be Ministers o● Christ ; wherea● they pretend no higher than to be Ministers of State . You call your selves Spiritual persons : but you reckon them but Lay-men . You challenge to your selves a ●piritual Function : they claim but a civil or temporal Office . They therefore standing in a civil Capacity , may reasonably and fairly , without any imputation of Injustice , receive what their Master is pleased to bestow upon them . But you , who pretend to be Ministers of Christ J●sus , are therefore justly condemnable as Hire●ings , because ye will not be content with that Maintenance , which he ( whom ye call , though untruly , your Master ) hath appointed , but seek for Hire from others . Out of this he takes the first Sentence only , which was this [ You pretend to be Ministers of Christ , whereas they pretend no higher , than to be Ministers of State ] and passing by all the rest , makes this Reply to that . I thought ( sayes he , Vindication , pag. 326. ) that every Magistrate had been a Minister of God : St. Paul had ill ●●ck , that he had not our inspired Ellwood to correct him , when he said , He is the Minister of God to thee for good , &c. and beareth not the Sword in vain , Rom. 13. 1 , 4.

That he may not have as ill luck in wanting correction , as he fancies St. ●aul had , it will not be amiss to correct him before we go any further . He sayes he thought every Magistrate had been a Minister of God . In what sense did he understand the word Minister , when he thought so ? Did he think every Magistrate was a Minister of God in the same sense and Notion whereon he himself pretends to be a Minister of Christ ? If he thought so , he must think again . If he did not think so , he doth but conclude and urges this Text with a design to deceive his Reader . However his Comparison between the Priests and Judges will not hold , their Cases are not the same . 'T is true that Magistrates are Ministers of God , but that is as they are Ministers of State , as they bear the Sword . They are Ministers of God in a political and civil Administration , and so are called Civil Magistrates . But the Priests pretend to be Ministers of the Gospel of Christ Jesus , which is a spiritual Administration● So that neither are the Priests Ministers of God in the same sense that the Magistrates are ; nor are the Magistrates Ministers of God in the same sense that the Priests pretend to be . Yet this Priest says , Is not our Case the same with theirs ? Not at all , say I : for first , The Judges are what they pretend to be : so are not you . They pretend to be civil Magistrates , Ministers of State ; and so they are indeed : but you pretend to be Ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ , and are not . 2. They are contented with that Maintenance which their Master , the supream Civil Magistrate , hath allot●ed them , and seek no further : but you are not contented with that Maintenance which the supream Spiritual Magistrate , Christ Jesus , whom you ( though untruly ) call your Master , hath allotted for the Ministers of his Gospel , but hunt about for more . And indeed , such very Hirelings are the Priests grown , that that Parish which is able to give most Wages , may have their choice of Priests , take them upon Tryal and hire which they will . I do not herein discover a Secret , but write that which almost every body knows . In short , whether the Priests are Hirelings or no , let them judge who are fain to hire them , to bargain with them , and in small Pa●●shes , and little Vicarages , to engage and enter into Covenants to them to make their wages worth so much a Year , or else they would not stay with them , nor Preach to them . Nay , are not the Priests Hirelings to one another , as well as to the People ? Do not many of the rich Priests get three or four Benefices into their Hands together , and Hire other poor Priests ( whom they call Curats , but the People call them Iourney-men ) to preach for them ? And many of these Vnderling Priests are not Beneficed-men ( as they term it ) b●t only drive a small Trade , by Preaching for others that either are not willing to take the pains , or cannot possibly themselves supply so many places , as t●ey have engrossed into their Hands . Thus these poor Curats have some of them , two or three Maste●●●piece , by whom they are plainly and positively hired , from whom they receive certain standing Wages , and are engaged to Preach or read Prayers so many times in the Moneth . Now what will the Priest● say of these ? May not these be justly called Hirelings ? Yes sure , and very Canonical Hirelings I think ; f●●●hey are Priests hired by Priests to do Priests work : and if such Priests be not Hirelings , I confess I know not what an Hireling is . But leaving this to others judgement , I return to the Author of the Right of Tyth●s .

§ . 27. He begins in his 49. Section thus . T. E. once more attempts to justifie the Quak●rs in detaining Tythes , although their separation be voluntarily ; but this is sufficiently confuted before , Sect. 9. And I desire the Reader only to remember the Instance of the Truant-Boyes wilful absence from an endowed Free-School , pag. 233.

This which is a chief part of the Controversie ( at least between the Priests and the Quakers ) the Priests have little mind to meddle with , so far as I perceive . Whether Tythes are due at all from any , even from those that hear the Priests , and receive their Ministry , is the general Question . But if Tythes were due from those that receive the Priest● Ministry and hear them , yet whether they are due from the Quakers ( and others ) who neither hear them , nor receive their Ministry , is the particular Question . The co●cluding the general Question in the Negative , concludes the particular Question in it : But the concluding the general Question in the Affirmative , doth not include the particular Question . If Tythes ●re not due at all from any ( even from those that hear the Priest● , and receive their Ministry ) then to be sure they are not due from the Quakers , who utterly disown them and their Ministry . But if Tythes co●ld be proved to be due from such as hear the Priests and receive their Ministry : yet it follows not that they are due from the Quakers , who neither hear them nor receive them . So that the Priests have a double Task to perform : first to prove Tythes due to them from such as do hear them ; secondly ( when that 's done , which c●n never be done ) to prove Tythes due to them from such , as are so far from hearing them , that they altogether disown them . Now the latter of these ( which is the direct and immediate Case between the Priests and the Quak●rs ) the Priests have been very backward to come to , and have as feebly performed ( if what they have said in this Case may deserve to be called a Performance ) as faintly undertaken . The first Priest cast it off to the Fag-End of his Conference , pag. 161. and then too said as little to it , as well he could : yet to that little that he said ( scarce fifteen Lines ) I returned him more than three Pages in Answer ; to which he was more wary than to Reply a word . And the other Priest , in his Right of Tythes , when he came to this part , where it behoved him to have shewed his utmost skill and strength , chose rather it seems to l●t it slip with a Reference to another Section , saying , This is suffciently confuted before , Sect. 9. In which place too he only touches it by the by , and gives an Instance of certain Truant-Boys wilful absence from an endowed Free-School , which is the only thing he here desires his Reader to remember . But what the Priest hath said in that Section , and particularly his Bo●ish-Instance , the Reader may find fully answered , and I make no doubt to his satis●action in the third Section of the third Chapter of this Book , to which , for avoiding needless Repetitions , I refer him .

But although the Author of the Right of Tythes had no edge ( as it appears ) to meddle with this part of the Controversie : yet that he might not be sentenced by the Reader for a Mute , if he should have wholely passed it by ; he thought it expedient to make a shew of saying something , and therefore pickt out a Passage or two , on which he nibbles a little . First he says , pag. 234. T. E. saith , pag. 358. Some Ministers are Vicious , and such as the Apostle hath exhorted us to with-draw our selves from .

He is willing I perceive to make my Question a Position , and I do not much matter if he do . The Occasion of my words was this , The Priest , in his Conference , pag. 161. said , The Minister is not to blame for their separation , &c. Hereupon I asked , If the Minister be one that for Corrupt Interest hath intruded himself ( as it seems by what he says in the Conference , pag. 11. some such there be ) If the Minister be a man of Vicious and Intemperate Life , of a Disorderly Conversation , such as the Apostle has exhorted to with-draw from , is not the Ministir then to blame for the Separation ? Now I observe this Priest is so cunning , that he neither attempts to clear the Priests , nor at all undertakes to resolve the Question . Clear the Priests he could not , their Corruption being confessed by his Brother Priest in the 11th page of his Conference , and that Confession confirmed also even by National Experience . To have answered the Question had been no less difficult ; fo● to deny that a corrupt Interest , a vicious and intemperate Life , and such a disorderly Conversation as the Apostle has exhorted to with-draw from , are a suf●●cient and justifiable Cause of Separation , were to exceed all bounds of Modesty ▪ and yet to grant , that , where this Cause is , the Minister is to blame for the separation , had been not only a Contradiction to his Brother Priest , affirming the contrary ( which yet between them two had been no n●w thing ) but even a cutting with his own hand the Throat of his own Cause . To avoid all these Dangers at once , he tu●ns my Question into an Assertion , and then instead of an Answer to it , gives me a Question to answer ; which is this . But do not the Quakers separate from good Ministers as much and as well as from bad ?

This I confess is a pretty Device to beg a Conce●●ion that some of them are good ; but I will not grant him that . Yet I would not here be misunderstood ; I speak not of them now as Men , but as Ministers . I reflect not ( in this place ) on their Conversations , but on their Ministry . Some of them perhaps may be sober , t●mperate and of orderly Co●versation ; but none of them are Good Ministers , because they are not the true Ministers of the Gospel of Christ Jesus , though they all pretend so to be . This premised , my Answer is plain and short , in the Negative , I deny that the Quakers do separate from good Ministers .

He adds , A Vicious Minister may be a pretence to them who resolved to separate however ; but his Vice is not the true Cause of their separation .

The Causes of Separation may be to dive● ▪ different . The Vice of the Minister to some , the Vice of the Ministry to others ; a debauched Priest to some , a false and antichristian Ministry to others ; and either of these is Cause sufficient to separate upon . A Priest's Debauchery is Cause enough to justifie a separation from that Priest : a Ministry's being false and antichristian is Cause sufficient to justifie a Separation from that Ministry . And as that Minister is to blame , whose Debauchery is the Cause of Separation from him : so that Ministry is to blame also , whose false and antichristian state is the Cause of Separation from it .

But he says , I belye S. Paul , in saying , he exhorts the people to with-draw from a bad Minister ; he bids them not ( says the Priest , pag. 234. ) with-draw from a Father , but a Brother walking Disorderly , 2 Thess. 3. 6.

Was ever poor man so hard put to it ! how great a strait must he be in , that would make use of such a pittiful shift as this ! Are the Priests got so high , they disdain to acknowledge the People for their Brethren ? They learnt not that from Christ Iesus , nor any of his Apostles . For Christ was not ashamed to call them Brethren unto whom he declared the Name of hi● Father , Heb. 2. 11 , 12. And the Apostles in their Epistles salute the Saints by the Title of Brethren . Thus Paul , Rom. 12. 1. and in almost all his Epistles . Thus Iames , chap. 1. vers. 2. Thus Peter , 2 Epist. 1. 10. Thus Iohn , 1 Epist. 2. 7. Nor is any Compellation more frequent in their Writings , than this of Brethren . Yea , in that very place wherein Paul gives this monitory Counsel to the Thessalonians , he calls them Brethren . And says the Divine Iohn to the Churches of Asia , I am your Brother , &c. Rev. 1. 9. The Apostles then and the rest of the Saints were Brethren it seems , and yet saith Paul to the Thessalonians , Now we command you , Brethren , in the Name of our Lord Iesus Christ , that ye with-draw your selves from every Brother that walketh disorderly , &c. From every Brother ! Either then the Minister must not be a Brother , or , if he walk disorderly , must be with-drawn from , although he be a Minister . Besides , what were those false Teachers that troubled the Churches of Galatia and Corinth ? were they not bad Ministers ? Did not Paul wish they were even cut off , Gal. 5. 12 ? And can any one think he would not have had the Galatians with-draw from them ? But I do not at all wonder this Priest is so unwilling the people should with-draw from a bad Minister .

Next he says , I run again into my old Mist●ke , applying Christ's Directions to his Disciples on a private Mission to Vnbelievers , as if it were a standing Rule for Ministers amongst Believers .

This he draws from a close Expostulation with the other Priest himself , thus , He pretends to be a Minister of Christ . Where did Christ e're impower hi● Ministers to make people hear them , whether they will or no ? or to exact Wages of them although they did not hear them ? His Instruction to his Disciples was , Whosoever shall not receive you , nor hear your Words , shake off the Dust of your Feet , Mat. 10. 14 , The first part of this the Priest steps over . The latter part he says is my old Mistake . Whether it be a Mistake or no will appear . I urged it to shew that the Apostles were not directed to press and pin their preaching upon any , but to shake off the Dust of their Fe● against those that should not receive nor hear their Words . This he says was Christ's Direction to his Disciples upon a private Miss●on to Vnbelievers , and he calls it my Mistake to apply this as if it were a standing Rule for Ministers among believe●s . Had this Direction belong'd only to that private Mission , as he calls it , Paul & Barnabas who were not imployed in that Missi●n , nor converted to God till afterward , had had no share in this Direction , nor any Commission to use it . Yet they , we see , long after Christ's Ascention , did punctually observe this Direction , shaking off the Dust of their Feet at Antioch against those that rejected their Testimony , Acts 13. 51. So that this Direction had relation to the general Commission , as well as to that particular Mission , which he calls private ; and the Mistake , whether old or new , is his own , in restraining it to that particular Mission .

In the next place he says , I compare the Quakers , in rejecting their Ministry , to the Jews who rejected the Apostles , and judged themselves unworthy of eternal Life , Acts 13. 46.

This is a very silly Catch , and hath neither Truth nor Wit in it . I made no Comparison at all ; but shewed from that Text , that the practice of the Apostles was consonant to the Instruction of their Master . They preach the Gospel to the Iews . The Iews reject it . They do not say , You shall hear it whether you will or no ; or however you shall pay us for Preaching it : but they turn from them , and offer their Message unto others . Hereupon I said ( in Truth prevailing , pag. 359. ) He greatly mistake , if h● thinks it to be the mind of Christ to impose his Gospel upon any , or , as the Spaniards are said to have dealt with the Indians , to make men Christians whether they will or no : Nay , nay ; he lovingly invites all ; he inwardly strives by his Spirit with all ; he graciously tenders Mercy to all ; but he obtrudes it upon none . And if he gave no Authority to his Apostles to compel any to hear them ; to be sure he gave them no power to demand , much less Inforce a Maintenance from such , as did neither receive nor own them . Out of this last Sentence ( passing over the rest ) he frames this Quotation for me ; Christ gave his Apostles no Authority to compel any to hear them . He replies , Yes surely , he bid the● go into the High-wayes and Hedges , and compel those whom they found there to co●● in , Luk. 14. 23.

H●s Catch here is upon the word [ compel ] and a meer Catch it is . Compulsion or constraining is two-fold ; by fair means , and by foul . By fair means , as by Entreaty , Perswasion , Reason , Love , &c. By foul means , as by the severity and sharpness of Penalties , whether corporal or pecuniary . He that observes not this distinction may easily err . Of the first sort of Compulsion Instances in Scripture are frequent . When Christ , immediately after his Resurrection , appeared to those two Disciples of his that were going to Em●us , and they drew nig● to the Village , it is said , Luke 24. 28 , 29. He made as though he would have gone further ; but they CONSTRAINED him , — and he went in to tarry with them . Now what manner of Compulsion was this ? how did they constrain him ; by fair means or by foul ? The Text expresses how . First , by a kind Invitation , saying , Abide with us . Secondly , by urging reasons why he should abide with them , For it is towards Evening , and the day is far spent . In like manner , when Lydia's Heart was opened , she constrained the Apostle Paul and his company to come into her House , and abide there . Here again we see is compulsion ; but of what kind , what nature ? by what means ? fair ? or foul ? By entreaty . Read the Text , Acts 16. 15. And when she was Baptized , and her Houshold , she besought us , saying , If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord , come into my House and abide there . And she CONSTRAINED us . Many more like Examples might be added from 2 Cor. 5. 14. and 12. 11. Gal. 2. 14. Matth. 14. 22. Mark ● . 45. But these are suffi●ient to shew that the word● Compel and Constrain ( which are Synonomous , and indifferently used ) do not always import outward force and violence , or penal Severity and Rigour ; but frequently ( and in holy Writ most frequently ) kind Invitations , loving Intreaties , gentle Perswasions , and demonstrative Reasons . Now let us examin the Text he urges , Luke 14. 23. and see what is there intended by the word Compel . The Parable is of a certain Man , that made a great Supper , and bad ( or invited ) many Guests . They urge Excuses , but come not . The Master therefore of the House bids his Servant go into the Streets and Lanes of the City , and bring in the Poor , the Maimed , the Halt and the Bli●d . That done , and yet there being room for more , the Master sends his Servant again , saying , Go out into the High-ways and Hedges , and compel them to come in , that my House may be filled . For I say unto you , that none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my Supper . Consider now I pray , what manner of Compulsion was either needful or proper to be used to such Persons as are here described . Is it proper to force Guests to a Feast , or send them to Go●l if they do not come ? Is it needful to Whip poor hungry Be●gars to a Supper , or hale them in by the Head and Shoulders ? Such persons as these , that had no better provision than they could get from the High-ways and Hedges , would not need , one would think , to be dragged by force , or driven by Blows to a good Supper . If outward force and violence had been to be used , it seems more reasonable that it should have been exercised on them that were invited and did not come : but they we see were so far from suffering any such violent and penal compulsion , that after refusal , they were utterly excluded from the Feast ; the Master of the House saying expresly , None of those men which were bidden , shall taste of my Supper , vers. 24. So that they that refused to come to the Feast , were not fetched in by force : their punishment was to be shut out . And if the others who were brought out of the Streets , Lanes , Highways and Hedges , had made Excuses and refused to come , as those did , there had been the same reason to ●ave shut them out also , as there was to shut out the former : but no more reason to have exercised violence towards these , than towards the former , upon whom for refusing to come , we do not find that any was used . But if these , that were brought from the Highways and Hedges , did not refuse , but readily came at the Call , there was then no need of ( nor room for ) any such forcible , violent and penal Compulsion , as the Priest here speaks of .

But to make it more evident that our Saviour in this Parable did not intend any such violent or penal Compulsion as the Priest would fain be at , let us con●ult the 22th Chapter of Matthew , where the same Parable in substance ( though somew●at different in Circumstances ) is delivered . There we read , that after they who were first invited had refused to come to the Wedding Dinner , the K●ng said to his Servants , ver. 9. Go ye therefore into the Highways , and as many as ye shall find , bid to the Marr●age . These were the same sort of Guests , mentioned by Luke , who were in the Highways and Hedges ; and yet we see this great King did not command , or impower his Servants to use any other Compulsion to them , than an Invitation : As many as ye shall find , ●id [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] to the Marriage . Thu● that place in Luke being aptly explained by this in Matthew , it appears that those words [ Compel them to come in ] import no more than , Bid , or Invite , them to the Marriage .

Besides , if we look further into the Parable , we shall find that when the King , taking a view of his Guests , saw one there which had not on a wedding Garment , and asked him , Friend , how camest thou in hither , not having on a Wedding Garment . The man was speechless , and the King commanded his Servants to bind that man Hand and Foot , and cast him into utter Darkness . Which plainly proves he was not brought in against his Will , he was not driven in by force , nor dragged in by Head and Shoulders , for if he had , he had then had a fair Plea to make , a ready Answer to return to the Question , How camest thou in hither , & c ? I was driven in by stripes , I was drawn in by force , I was brought in against my will , might he have said . Had it been so , he needed not have been speechless , as it seems he was . And how , again , could it have stood with the divine justice of that great King to sentence a man to be bound and cast into utter Darkness , for coming in thither without a Wedding Garment , if the man had been brought in by force , against his own mind , and that too by his Command . But it is manifest that no such forcible , violent , penal Compulsion as the Priest aims at , was commanded or intended by our Saviour in this Parable ; and consequently that the word [ compel ] in this place ( Luke 14. 23. ) is misunderstood , at least misapplied by the Priest , and his Yes surely is surely false .

But he urges the Judgment of Augustine , That to compel Men to that which is good , is very lawful , and an Act of necessary Charity to their Souls , yea , a duty of Christian-Princes , &c. pag. 235.

Is it so ? How chanced it then that they , who , being invited to the Supper , came not , were not ●ompelled to come ? Doth the Priest think the Ma●te● of the House , who made the Invitation , did not know what Charity was necessary to th●ir Souls , or was ignorant of the duty of a Christian Prince ? Would he have omitted an Act of such necessary Charity ( had it indeed been Charity ) or neglected a duty , had it been a duty ? But let us examin this Position , and see if there be any thing of truth or reason i● it . The Position is , That to compel men to that which is good , is very lawful , and an Act of n●cessary Charity to their Souls , yea a duty of Christian Princes . First , who shall judge whether the thing to be compelled to , is good or no ; They that are to be compelled , or he that is to compel ? If they that are to be compelled may judge , it is not likely that they should judge that good which they must be compelled to ; for if they judged it good , they would not need to be compelled to it . If he that is to compel must judge , then whatsoever he shall judge to be good ( be it never so bad ) that must bear the name of Good , and all must be compelled to receive it . Secondly , concerning Christian Princes the like dissatisfaction may arise . Possibly they who are compelled to that as Good , which they believe is not good , may question whether they are Christian Princes that so compel . On the other hand , what Prince is there throughout that part of the World which is called Christendom , that is not ready on all Occasions to assert himself a Christian Prince ? Now therefo●e if every one that holds himself a Christian Prince not only lawfully may , but also , both in point of duty and as an Act of necessary Charity to the Souls of others , ought to compel men to that which he judges good , what hinders then but he , whose Ancestors received from Rome the Title of Most Christian King , and who professeth himself a Son of the Church of Rome , lawfully may , yea must ( according to this Position ) both as his own duty , and as an Act of necessary Charity to their Souls , compel all Protestants in his Dominions to the Romish Religion , which he judges good ? Thus , Reader , thou seest the horrid Consequence of this false and Antichristian Position . But this is the old Argument of the Papists , long since exploded and detested by men of Reason and Ingenuity , though sometimes , as now , made use of at a pinch of need , to countenance a corrupt and selfish Interest .

But he shews him●●lf a right Romanist . He hath not only the Popish Argument for Persecution , but the Popish Cloak also to cover himself withal . It is not , says he , pag. 236. the Priests compel them , but the Laws of the Land . The Priests indeed see them in desperate Heresies and most wicked S●hism , and in pity to their Souls , admonish them , warn them , 1 Thess. 5. 14. and labour to convince them by Arguments ; yea , at length they use the Censures of the Church , and finally , as the last remedy complain to the secular Magistrate , &c.

What did Bonner more , or the worst of Popish Bishops ? They did not use to Burn me● themselves : but they got a Law made that such as they declared Hereticks should be Burnt , and then they sentenced those for Hereticks , that would not bow to them and their Inventions , and prayed the Magistrates to burn them . What odds in all this between the Popish Priests and these , save only that these are not yet come to Popish Fire and Fagot , as himself well observes , pag. 237 ▪

But besides this , is it all true that the Priest says here ? Do they descend by these steps to their Church-Censures and secular Complaint ? Do they admonish ? Do they warn ? Do they ever attempt to convince by Arguments ? Whom of a thousand is lie able to name for an Instance of such procedure ? yet he says , This is no more than S. Paul threatned , 2 Cor. ●0 . 6. and acted also , in delivering the incestuous Corinthian to Satan , punishing his outward man for the health of his Soul , 1 Cor. 5. 5.

S. Paul indeed , did admonish often , did warn frequently , did labour to convince by Arguments , and that earnestly ; but I never read before that he complained to the secular Mag●●●rate , or so much as threatned so to do . I am sure the Scriptures he hath quoted will not justifie this Assertion . But if S. Paul did not complain to the secular Magistrate , then this , which the Priests confesses they do , is more than S. Paul did , and the Priest , in saying it is no more , is found in a downright Falshood . But to proceed .

I said in Answer to the former Priest , If Christ gave no Authority to his Apostles to compel any to hear them ; to be sure he gave them no power to demand , much less Inforce a Maintenance from such as did neither receive nor own them . This the latter Priest transfers from the Apostles to himself and his Brethren , and makes a quotation out of it , with which he begins his 50th Section thus , He adds , pag. 359. Christ gave us no power to demand a Maintenance from those who do not receive us .

I perceive he is willing to creep in any how : but unless he had come in fairer , he is like to turn out again . I do not admit that Christ hath given him power to demand Maintenance of any body , no not of them that do receive him : for Christ gives Power to none in this Case , but those whom ●e●ends , of which number he is none . However , I observe he doth not deny what I said [ viz. That Christ ga●e his Apostles no Power to demand a Maintenance from such , as did ne●ther receive nor own them ] but rather seems to grant it : for he replies , Nor do we demand of the Q●akers to give us one single Penny more than what was given to us , and s●ttled on us many hundred years ago : we only ask our own ; we only ask that which the Quaker did not take of his Landlord , that which was or ought to have been abated in his Rent , p. 338.

Don't you demand of the Quakers the tenth part of their yearly Profits ? Could these be settled on you many hundred years ago ! The Folly of this pretence is obvious of it self . But how many hundred years is it , I pray , since Tythes were settled on you ? 'T is but about 140 years ago since the first Statute-Law for Tythes was made , and that too was made both by Papists and for Papists .

But he says , They only ask that which the Quaker did not take of his Landlord .

They not only ask that which the Quaker did not take of his Landlord , but they also ask it out of that which the Quaker did not take of his Landlord , viz. out of the Profits : for out of the Profits only are Tythes due , says this Priest , pag. 196. Now the Quaker took the Land only of his Landlord , not the Profits . He knew well enough what Land he took , but he knew not , when he took the Land , what Profits he should have . The Profits he receives afterwards by the Blessing of God on his Labour and honest Endeavours , with the use and imployment of his Stock , which his Landlord hath nothing to do with . So that if the Priest will needs claim the tenth part of the Quaker's Profits , because the Quaker did not take it of his Landlord , he may by the same Reason claim the other nine parts of the profits too , because the Quaker did not take them of his Landlord neither .

Again , he says , They only ask that which was or ought to have been abated in his Rent .

I deny that . That which they demand , ( viz. the tenth part of the Profits ) neither was nor ought to have been abated in the Rent . If it shou'd be supposed that any thing is abated , yet the most that could be expected would be but the tenth part of the Rent . And if the tenth part of the Profits be no more than the tenth part of the Rent , then must the whole Profit be no more than the whole Rent ; and what then shall the Farmer have to defray his Charge , and maintain his Family ? But if the tenth part of the Profit● , which the Priest claims , be more than the tenth part of the Rent , then ( according to the Priest's own way of reasoning ) he demands more of the Q●●ker than either is or ought to be abated . And indeed , what Reason has a Landlord to abate of his Rent in consideration of ●ythes , which are not demanded out of the Land , which be lets , but out of the Profits only , which the Tenant by ●is own Labour , Stock and Industry ( through the Blessing of God ) acquires ? However , how could the tenth part of the Profits ●e abated in the Rent , whenas the Rent is certain and fixed for twenty years or more together , and the Profits alwayes uncertain , never it may be of equal value two years together throughout the whole term , and sometimes perhaps in two years time may rise or sink half in half .

Again , he says , pag. 239. Our Right to Tythes dep●nds not at all upon v●●ns being willing or unwilling to come and hear us .

You are so much the more unlike the Apostles , whom ye prete●d to be Successors to .

And the Q●aker ( says he ) is sadly mistaken , to think we come to s●u them our Sermons , or that Tythes a 〈◊〉 Price which is the Quaker's own to give .

The Quakers are not at all mistaken in thinking you come to sell your Sermons . They have known you of old , and before they were Quakers they traded with you , and bought your Ware , and paid full dearly for your Sermons ; but they 'l never trade with you more : for they see your Ware is nought , and they find you the worst sort of Chapmen of any they have to do with . For ( as I formerly observed ) take the most greedy and over-reaching Tradesman that one can find , tho●gh he should tell me his Ware is very good , and that he has such as will fit my turn , yet he will not th●ust it upon me , whether I like it or no , but leaves me to 〈◊〉 own liberty , either to take it or to leave it ; and if I do not take it , to be sure he will never demand any thing of me for it . But this Priest will either make us take his Ware , though we neither like it , nor have any need of it ; or to be sure will make us pay for it , though we never take it . What can be more Vnreasonable , what more Dishonest than this !

§ . 28. As for going to Law for Tythes , you have ( says he to his Brother Priest , §. 51. ) fully proved it lawful in the Conference , and the Quaker answers not one of your Arguments ; so that till he reply to that , I will only note , That it is much against our W●ll , &c.

I answered all his Arguments for going to Law for Tythes , in proving at large that Tythes are not due ; for no Argument can justifie going to law for that which is not due ; and if Tythes were due from the Quaker to the Priest , he should not need to go to Law for them ; the Quaker would be as ready to pay them , as the Priest should be to receive them . I also shewed ( in my former Answer , pag. 361 , 362. ) That for a Minister of Christ to sue men at Law for his Belley , is without all Precept , President , or Ground in Scripture , Religion or Reason ; and that it is contrary to the nature of a Gospel-Maintenance , which is altogether free and voluntary , not at all compu●sory . But this the Pri●sts , both one and t'other , chose rather to let pass untouch't , than give occasion for further inquiry into it .

But the other Priest ( in his Vindication of the Conference , pag. 327. ) though he silently slips over what I said against Priest ▪ going to Law for Maintenance , yet to blemish ( if he could ) the Quakers , he says , Whereas the Quakers ( to make Magistrates as useless as Ministers ) used to declaim against going to Law upon any occasion whatsoever , T. E. in contradiction to his Brethren ; says , In Civil Cases it is no Injustice for a man to recover his due by Law . Hereupon the Priest asks , Have the Quakers received some n●w Dispensation from Heaven ? If not , how comes it to be lawful to go to Law now in Civil Cases , when 20 years ago the same thing was denyed by them as unlawful ?

Had he intended to have convicted me of contradicting my Brethren , it had behoved him to have proved ( not only said ) that the Quakers did use to declame against going to Law upon any occasion whatsoever . Not only Honesty would have obliged him so to do , but common Prudence would have led him to it . But seeing he has so confidently said it , without offering any Proof , I put him upon the Proof of it , and leave him under the Imputation of Slander , until he shall give a Proof of his Assertion .

Upon this false Insin●ation he thus proceeds , The Spirit then by which the Quakers pretend to be inspired , either differs from it self , or is not the same Spirit which the Quakers so lately pretended to .

The Spirit by which the Quakers are inspired , neither differs from it self , nor is any other Spirit than that , which the Quakers have alwayes not only pretended to , but injoyed . The Quakers are led by the same Spirit that ever they were , and their Testimony is the same that ever it was . And truly I do not see but the Priests also are led by the same Spirit , by which they were led twenty years ago : for they B●lyed the Quakers twenty years ago , and so they do still . Of this black Art this Priest is Master , and as one resolved by false Reports to defame ( if he could ) them , whom by Fair Reasoning and Plain Arguments he is not able to withstand , he tells his Stories of the Quakers with as great Confidence as if he himself believed them .

One of them ( says he , Vindication , pag. 328. ) told me very lately , That I accused the Quakers falsly in saying that they neglect to crave a Blessing upon their Meat , which is now frequently practised among them : Whereupon he says , If this be their Minds now , formerly they talked at another rate : What ( said they ) we crave a Blessing when we go to Meat ? that 's stinting the Spirit to a Meal , to a Breakfast , a Dinner , or a Supper .

The Quakers Practice in this case now is no other than it alwayes was . They never neglected to crave a Blessing upon their Meat , but have alwayes used to wait upon the Lord , in an holy Fear and Reverence , both to crave and receive his Blessing . So that the Priest is indeed a False Accuser of the Quakers in saying , They formerly talked at another Rate . Let him name those Quakers ( if he can ) that have said , ( as he reports the words ) What we crave a Blessing when we go to Meat ? And to provoke him to it , let him take notice , that the Charge of Slander is left at his Door .

Again , He blames the Quakers for making their Appeals to Sessions and Assizes , bringing A●tions , &c. though they know there can be no pr●c●eding in any Court but that both Witnesses and Iuries must give their Evidences and Verdicts upon Oath . If then it be truly so ( says he ) why will they be any Occasion to bring a Disgrace and Reproach upon Christianity ? Vind. p. 32● .

That Christianity is disgraced and reproached by Oathes is too true , but that the Occasion thereof is brought by the Quakers is as false . The Quakers do not desire that either Witnesses or Juries should give their Evidences or Verdicts upon Oath ; but that both the one and the other should speak the plain and naked Truth without an Oath , and that under the same Penalty as by Oath , to which the Quakers with all readiness of Mind subject themselves , if they be found guilty of giving False Evidence . It is not then the Quakers fault that Christianity is dishonoured by Oaths , but it is the Priest's Envy that casts this false Aspersion on them .

But he charges the Quakers not only with occasioning others to Swear , but with taking Oaths themselves too , and he says he is able to make it out .

He should have done it then ; and I make no doubt but he would , if he had any ground for what he saith : for it cannot be supposed , that he who hath so grosly abused the Quakers without all ground , would have spared them an inch in any thing for which he had had a real ground .

He adds a couple of Stories which he pretends to have heard from others . The one is of two Quakers that took their Oaths in answer to an Exchequer Bill , and very formally too , put off their Hats , and kiss'd the Book : and this he says , was lately told him by an Attorney of great Account and Practice . His other Tale is of a Quaker who at a Commission , came very formally to Swear against the late Bishop of Lincoln , in a Chancery Suit . And that being asked by one of the Commissioners ( from whom , he says , he had the Account ) How it came to pass that he being a Quaker would Swear ? he told him , Thou knowest that among Hunts-men it was never thought amiss to kill a Fox or Badger by any means ; such being allowed no fair play , &c. leaving it to himself to make the application .

These are matters of fact , depending upon personal Evidences , which the Priest ought to have produced , if he had intended to have dealt honestly . Had he named the Quakers whom he here accuses , or those Persons from whom he pretends to have received his Information , I would have taken the pains to have sifted his Reports , and tryed the Truth of his Stories : and that I suppose he fore-saw , and feared . But seeing he hath chosen so dark a ●ath to walk in , to secure himself from being traced , I think it sufficient at present to tell him , first , That if any who bear the Name of Quakers have done as he reports of them , they have therein done very wickedly and evilly , and deserve as great condemnation and shame , as he himself does for thus belying them , if they have not so done . But secondly , for my own part , I do not believe his Stories to be true , but that they are either forged by himself , or taken upon 〈◊〉 from others of his own temper , and thus cast abroad with an evil design to defame the Quakers , and blast the Reputation God has given them . As therefore I fairly provoke my Adversary to give over Creeping , and stand up like a man , and to bring forth his Proofs and make good his Charges against the Quakers , if he be able : So I also make this just Request to my Reader , that he will not pre-judge us for such groundless Reports , raised or spread abroad by our professed and avowed Enemies , but will suspend his Judgment till he sees a Proof . If I had a mind to retaliate my Adversary , I could do it very effectually , and give him a large Catalogue of scandalous and infamou● Priests ; but at present I forbear , intending to let the World see I defend a Cause that has no need of such shifts .

§ . 29. I am now come to the Conclusion of each of my Adversaries Books , in which I find neither any thing relating to the Subject of the Controversie , Tythes , nor ought else that deserves to be taken notice of . They both take pains to justifie the ill Lang●age , which the first Priest gave in his Conference , and indeed have so far out-done it since , that that may comparatively be thought modest . Some few Instances of which I gave before ( pag. 3. ) out of the Right of Tythes ; a few more I will add here out of the same Book , that the Priest may see his own Complection , as well at going off as coming on , viz. These Rebels in Religion , pag. 15. Such wretched pretenders as T. E. and his Crew , pag. 153. T. E's head swimming with repeated Revelations , pag. 154. His Seditious Follo●e●s , pag. 181. This unlucky way of immediate Teaching , pag. 182. Ignorance and Confidence can inspire a raw Quaker , p. 187. Doting Falshoods — As sensless as thy self ▪ pag. 191. What Insole●ce is it for this Novice , pag. 2●6 . Would have discovered his knavery in this false Assertion , pag. 20● . Vagabond Speakers , pag. 226.

It is not to be wondred that he should defend his Brother's unseemly Expressions , who knew himself so deeply guilty in the like kind . But whether it becomes either one of them or the other , let the Reader judge .

The Author of the Right of Tythes spends the greatest part of his 52 Section ( which is the Conclusion of his Book ) in Flouting and Jeering , Deriding and Scoffing , Disdaining and Scorning me ; but in all that I see no Argument ( unless it be of a bad ●ause and Mind ) therefore I let it pass . But he observes that the former Priest had said , The Primitive Christians were quite different from the Quakers , & that I had called it an old overworn Objection : Whereupon he says , The Quakers may be ashamed to let the Objection grow old and over-worn , before they have either confessed the Truth , or made some satisfactory Reply thereto , pag. 240.

But let him know , The Objection is over-worn with being often replied to already ; It is worn with being answered over and over . So that the Priests may rather be ashamed to urge an Objection t●at is so over-worn with answering . Besides , he may remember that his Brother Priest urged this Objection with reference to a future debate , as Pr●vidence should give Occasion and Assistance ( Conference , page last ) which I took notice of in my former Answer , pag. 363. and gave as the Reason why I would not anticipate his work : But Providence , it seems , has not yet assisted him in that attempt ; and indeed , if he never begin it till Providence assists him , I never expect to see it . Not only the Objection , but himself also will ere then be old and over-worn . But I perceive by this Priest , it was expected that I should forth-●●th have entred upon the work , and have proved that the antient Christians had not this , that and the other Rite : for he says , pag. 241. If he ( meaning me ) can prove that these antient Christians had no distinct Order of men , — no Sacrament , no Catechizing , &c. and so goes on to reckon up a matter of ten No's , with an Et Caetera , for me to prove . But where all this while was his Learning asleep , when he put his Opponent to prove not only Negatives but Et Caet●ra's also ? Was this like a Disputant ? His mind , it seems , was up in the jollity , laughing at the ignorant Quaker ( as may be gathered from his own words at the entrance of this Section ) till he cou'd not 〈◊〉 the Absurdity he ●an into , but expos'd himself to the laughter of others that are not more serious than himself . Nor did he perhaps perceive the gross Contradiction he brought forth in his Mirth , when telling his Brother the occasion he took to smile , he says it was , To observe what rare Effects the happy Conjunction of Ignorance and F●lly have produced in your Adversary ( meaning me ) And yet a little after , adds , I am apt to hope , when they ( the Quakers ) shall see how plainly the Ignorance and Malice , the Hypocrisie and Mistakes of this their bold Champion ( meaning me ) are detected , they will begin to perceive , that their P●inciples are not to be defended , no not by the most politick Equivocation and Sophistry .

But are not the most politick Equivocation and Sop●●stry rare Effects indeed of a Conjunction of Ignorance and Folly ? so rare I think that they were never yet known to proc●ed from such a Conjunction . What unhappy Conjunction was it then of Mirth and somewhat else that produced this rare Effect in him , to make the most politick Equivocation and Sophistry the Effects of Ignorance and Folly . But leaving him to recover himself ▪ I will wipe off an Aspersion which the other Priest hath cast upon the Quakers ; which , having no relation to the Case of Tythes , I thought fi● to refer to this place , that I might not by interweaving it ( as he has done ) with the subject of Tythes , interrupt the Course of the preceding Discourse : and the rather , because , though he brings in his Cavil towards the beginning of his Chapter of Tythes , pag. 300 , he repeats it in the Conclusion of his Book , pag. 333. T●e matter is this .

The Author of the Conference , amongst his many Abuses , charged the Quakers with mis-applying that Text , Ier. 5. 31. The Priests bear Rule by their Means . And because I took no notice of it in my former Answer , he ( in his Vindication , pag. 300. 301. ) begins to insult and boast , as if I had therefore passed it by , because I knew neither how to answer his Argument , nor vindicate the Reputation of my own Party ; and that , not knowing how to excuse this , I had put it into the Catalogue of minute passages . Minute enough it certainly is to be put into such a Catalogue . But to let him see he glories in a false Reason , I will give him the true Reasons why I did not think it deserved an Answer . First , because he brought it in with an idle Story ( as himself calls it , pag ▪ 153. ) o● the Invention of Guns and Powder , no way pertinent to the subject he was upon , but a very silly digression from the matter , which I have observed frequent in him , and take for an Indication of a discomposed Brain . Secondly , because though he charged the Quakers with mis-applying that Text , Ier. 5. 31. yet he neither named any Quaker by whom , nor any Book in which that Text was any way app●ied , or so much as at all mentioned : So that his Charge had neither Top nor Bottom , Head nor Tayl. Who then could have thought the man so idle to expect an Answer to such an idle Charge ! But now ( in his Vindication , pag. 301. ) 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 bea● rule by their means , which was a horrible and filthy t●ing committed in the Land , which the Lord sent Ieremiah to cry out against ; while we ●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 T●uth , but by ●ther means , viz. by means of the false P●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 dri●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 Sa●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 mean● . 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 thi● horrible and filthy thing , doth justifie the Quakers in crying out against these Priest● 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 Prophe● , 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 Chea●s and Impostors . And seeing the Priest says in his Vindication , pag. 333. Had T. E ▪ c●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 ●mp●sture , that he will see the Priest effectually convicted of virulency , even according to his own conf●ssion .

But leaving that to the Read●●'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 pi●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 ●ver-worn , before they have either confessed the Truth , or ●ade some satisfactory Reply thereunto , Right of Tythes , pag. 240. But how long have these Objectio●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 , vi● . 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 gre●ter or less , so do they bear more or less Rule over the people . What Parish is it that knows not this b● sad E●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 Ez●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 int● 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 R●ply thereunto ? Had it not bee● 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 O●servation , the following Particulars , as a brief R●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 ; That● 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 spo●taneou● and fr●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 dem●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 t●e Tythes of those Profits that did belong to themselves , and of which they were the right Owners . But the pr●se●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 Profit● , 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 ●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 ●o right to Tythes before , then ha●e the Priests no Right to Tythes now by v●rtue of these Laws . For those Laws not intending to make the Priests a 〈◊〉 Right , but ( by mistak● ) supposing they had an old one ; that old one being tr●ed and ●●oved 〈◊〉 , they have now neither old nor new . T●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. T●at Tythes , as taken in this Nation , are a very great Oppress●on , an unreasonable and unequal Imposition . Vnreasonable , in that , under pretence of taking the tenth part of the Profits , the Priests take the tenth part where there is no Profit , but loss ; in that , under co●our of taking the tenth part of the Increase , they take the tenth part where there is no Increase , but D●crease ; and the same Seed is Tyth●d twice . Vnequal , in respect both of the Payers , and of the 〈◊〉 ▪ In respect of the Payers , in that the burden lies chi●●ly on the poor Farmers and Husbandm●n , and men of 〈◊〉 Estates pa● least : So that he that has many Thousands a Year scarce pays so much Tythes , as he that Rents a Farm of fi●ty Pounds a year . In respect of the Receivers , in that one Priest hath as much as ten others . For some of the Priests engross to themselves the Tythes of three or four Parishes , amounting to four or five Hundred Pounds a year ( and some to more ) whenas others are g●ad of a small Vicarage of thirty or forty Pounds a year ; and some are fain to play the Curats for twenty Pounds a year , if they can get it . And yet these last are as much Priests , as much Ministers , take as much Pains , ( to as little purpose ) are as good Men , and perhaps as well Learned , as many of the others ; only they are not able to make so good Friends to the Bishop or the Patron .

9. That Tythes being claimed by the Priests as wages for work , it is the highest Injustice in the Priests to take Tythes from the Quakers , who neither set the Priests on work , nor like their work , nor receive their work .

10. And ●astly , That Tythes are utterly inconsistent with the Gospel-state , and with the Christian - Religion . For Tythes being a part of the Ceremonial Law , and peculiarly belonging to the Iewish Polity , which Christ came to end and take away ; the continuing , or restoring of Tythes , is equally a denyal that Christ is come in the Flesh , as the continuing or restoring of any other part of the Ceremonial Law ( as of Circumcision , b●●ody Sacrifices , &c. ) would be .

These things I request every sober Reader to weigh well , and consider seriously of ; that he may no longer consent to or act in a thing so greatly dishonourable to our Lord Iesus Christ , and to the true Christian-Religion ; but in patient suffering , contentedly sit down amongst them , who conscientiously refusing to pay . Tythes , do peaceably and quietly , by a passive Obedience , submit to what Authority requires , waiting in stillness and patient Hope , till God shall be pleased to open further the Eyes of Princes , and incline their Hearts to break this painful Yoke , and ease the People of this heavy burden , und●r which the Nation groans .

ERRATA .

OF the Faults of the Press , the most considerable are here corrected . Others of less moment ( as Mis-pointings , Mis-placing of Letters , putting [ e ] for [ a ] and othe● Literal Mistakes ) the ingenuous Reader is desired to excuse .

Page 1. line 22. for men read man . P. 7. l. 32. r having P. 14. l 4. r. became . Pag. 15. l. 27. f have r. h●w . Pag. 16. l. 1. r. Psal. 50. 10. P. 20. l. 11. after before , make a full point . P. 22. l. 27. af●er hold , make a full point . P. 23. l. 8. f. thing r. hinge . P 25. l. 23. f. gleaned r glanced . l. 24. ● . presentel r. prosecuted . P. 29. l. 33. f. 19 , 20 , 21. r 29 , 30 , 31. P. 33. l. 13. r. Gen. 14 P. 36. l. 18. f. That , r. This. l. 32. r. Gen. 14. P. 45. l. 17. r. Ie●●ram . P. 49. l. 25. f. ●rus●ily , r. craftily . P. 51. l. 29. r. Rites . p. 52. l 27. r ●ther . P 57. l 26. r precarious . p 62 and p 63. are ●et twice . p 62. l 8 , & 9. r profi●s . l 11. after whether , r this p 63 l 9. after of , r Abraham and. p 6● again , l 1. f concerning , r of comparing . l 10. dele and dispensation . l 11. f there , r these l 32. r Father . p 64. l 16. r is the Lord's . l 28. f state r 〈◊〉 . p 65. l 27. r learn . p 66 l 19 , & 20 r B●za turns . p 67 l 5. r implying . p 68. l 27 r Mat. 10. p 72. line la● , after und●●e , r being the weightier things of the ●aw 〈◊〉 should ye have done these things , and also n●t have left the other und●●e p 73. l 10. after all , r the Ce●em●nie● of . l 29. f 146 r 446. p 74. l 10. r page ● 4 p 83. l 9. r meat . p 85. l 4. f Title , r Tythe . p 90. l ● . f pay r 〈◊〉 l 23. after Cerem●nies , r by the Death of 〈◊〉 . p 93 l 9. af●er that , r was . p 94. l 1. after to , r God a●d . p 95. l 13. r 〈◊〉 . p 96. l' 11. f therein , r then . p 98. l 18. after that , make a full point . p 104. l 17. r call me p 106. l 31. dele not . l 32. af●er hindred , r not . p 112. l 31. fare , r were . p 119. l 12. f 14. r 4. p 134 l 28. r rased . from p 150 to p 158. the paginar figures are mi●●aken . p 153. l 26. r m●ny . p 160. l 12. r manda●u ● . p 161. l 7. r venund●bant . p 162 l 1. r Cypriani . p 164. l 30. r Tess●resdecatite . from p 164 to p 167. the paginary figures are mi●●aken . p 165. l 1. & l 6. r curse . p 167. l 32. r funiculus . p 175 l 2 after sin , r in praying to Saints . p 177 l 22 after other , r fixed . p 178 l 16 f 57. r 157. p 187 l 15 after end , r of . l 16 dele of . p 189 l ●4 r unive●sal● . P 199 l 10 after or , r l. l 29 r Religious . p 203 l 5 r Lot●●r . p 204 l 30 r 〈◊〉 . l 32 r adjurante . l 33 r custodire d●ooverunt . p 207. l ●31 r P●tria . P. 218 l 13 r vicaries . p 226 l 3 r Idololatria l 5 r ●ings . p 229 l 30 f least , r servant . P 231 l 1 f as examples , r ab exemplo . p 235 l 16 r page 120. l 19 f these , r their . l 30 r me● . p 244 l 12 read Durandus . p 246 l 6 after Bede , read Eccles. Hist. lib. 4. cap. 22. l 10 r ●mma . l 20 r Tunna . p 250 l 32 after maintenance , read these . p 252 l 19 f own , r only . p 256 l 27 r hal●owed . p 262 l ● r covin . p 263 l 12 r subsequent Titles . p 268 line last , read Christian Church . p 2●0 l 7 f ver. r Rev. l 1● r primus . p 271 l 1 r ablegarent . p 274 l 3 r indesinenti . p 276 l 2 r temporalibus . l 28 d ele and. p 277 l 12 r authoritativus . p 278 l 3 r page 93 p 2●2 l 4 ● annuit . l 18 r Monasterium . p 285 l 6 r Imperijs . p 28● l 4 f ethically to be increased , r ethnically to be incensed . l 25 f have shewed , r shall shew . p 297 l 6 after seeking , r thereby . p 298 l 8 r nuzled . l 9 after holy , r Church . p 300 l 13 f are r were . p 310 l 28 after Christ , r by the Anointing . p 312 l 8. after Grace , r and. l 11 read 2 Pet. 3. 18. p 313 l 16 after and , r did p 317 l 2 f such , r other . p 325 l 24 f fully , r folly . p 340 l 27 after equal , r temporal . p 341 l 2 f ●lamning , r claims . l 19 f next , r rest . p 342 l 31 read Mat. 10 , 10. p 353 l 9 f clearer , r clever . l 34 read ●ight of Tythes . p 365 l 15 r Sect. 14. p 367 l 26 r Sect. 14 P 383 l 23 dele a. p 403 l 4 f at , r of . p 414 l 〈◊〉 f for , r from . p 427 l 8 after of , read Tythe to . p 468 l 14 for sayes , read saw p 470 l 16 read place . p 477 l 18 for Then , read Them . p 479 for whereon , read wherein . line 8 f conclude , read collude .

THE END ▪

Notes, typically marginal, from the original text

Notes for div A39304-e35190