THE Right of Tithes ASSERTED & PROVED, FROM Divine Institution, Primitive Practice, Voluntary Donations, and Positive Laws.  
WITH A JUST VINDICATION OF THAT SACRED MAINTENANCE From the Cavils of THOMAS ELWOOD, In his Pretended Answer to the FRIENDLY CONFERENCE.  
LONDON, Printed for E. Croft at the Three Golden Lions in the Poultry, over against the Stock-market, 1677.   

To the Worthy AUTHOR OF THE Friendly Conference.  
SIR,  
IF I had not perused your Adversaries Book, I should have thought it impossible for the most implacable Malice to have so basely misrepresented the Pious Design and Modest Expressions of your Friendly Conference. But now I see that Quakers, as well as Jesuits, can make use of Equivocation and positive Untruths, when they dispute only to uphold a Faction. His mangling your Sentences, and mistaking your Sense; his forcing of Consequences from your misconstrued Words, and taking his own wild Suppositions for acknowledged Truths; are so obvious to an observing Reader, that the Man is generally believed to have more of Confidence and crafty Wit, than either of solid Learning, or sincere Honesty. And though in a Letter of his to a Quaker at York, he brags that he hath showed some little Learning in this Piece; I dare affirm, he hath but little to show; being only happy in this, that he writes to please an illiterate Sect. He may gull his unlearned Quakers into the belief that he hath read all those Fathers whose Names he citys; but the Priests (whom he reproaches) are wise enough to discover, he gleaned his Quotations up at the second hand, out of Fisher against Bishop Gauden, and some other obscure English Writers: which he hath also done with so little skill, that when the Printer in Fisher had mistaken Fimicus for Firmicus, this poor Retailer calls him Fimicus also, pag. 115. And what he read in the same Fisher of one Basil, his gross ignorance applies to Basil the Great, involving himself thereby in the absurdity of asserting this monstrous and ridiculous untruth, That Basil the Great refused to swear at a Council, which was called above threescore years after he was dead, pag. 165. But I will not anticipate your discoveries of his Ignorance by any more Instances, because I doubt not but you will sufficiently convince the world, that there is no reason why T. Elwood should pass for a Scholar among his own Party, but only because (as himself saith, p. 355.) Asinus Asino, Sus sui pulcher. And when you have pulled off his Vizard, his very Friends doubtless will begin to blush, that they have adored so mean a Creature, while he was covered with a Lion's skin. And I hope the discovery may tend to reduce them to the Protestant Church, where they will find more ingenuous, more honest, and more able Guides. I confess I once thought the justest return to his Ignorance and Malice, his unjust Accusations and notorious Fallacies, was to answer them with silence: But when I consider how easily so plausible a Discourse might seduce some wellmeaning Men out of the right way, or harden them in the wrong, I judge it necessary to lay aside all consideration of the meanness of the Adversary; and will not only encourage you to publish the Answer which I hear you have prepared against this bold Antagonist, but shall venture to cast in my Symbol also, upon his last Chapter of Tithes. Not that I delight to put my Sickle into another's Harvest, nor that I esteem you will need any Second against so easy and obnoxious an Opponent: Your own Skill is so great, your Cause so good, and your fair Advantages against this Man are so very many; that I make no doubt but you have already prepared a solid and judicious Confutation of all his Pretences, as well in this, as the other Chapters. Yet I deem it not unfit to add these Papers, for the following Reasons.  
First, Because I think this Subject of Tithes deserves a fuller and more particular Consideration, than the brevity of your general Answer will allow.  
Secondly, Because the Argument of this Chapter is T. Is main device to alienate men's minds from the Church of England, and so to heighten our unfortunate Divisions; wherein therefore he ought to be prevented by all just means.  
Thirdly, The obstinacy which the unhappy Quakers contract from such false Insinuations as these of T. E. in this Case of Tithes, exposes them to more Sufferings than all their other Errors: So that in pity to these ill-instructed Persons, I would attempt their full satisfaction in this matter.  
Lastly, I think it not inconvenient to try whether it be not possible, by variety of Methods and Arguments, for us both to advance the same Charitable End, viz. to rescue all mistaken Dissenters from their Prejudices against so pious a Donation, for so necessary an End.  
These were my Motives to this Undertaking. And the Method by which I have proceeded therein, is this.  
First, I have deduced the History of Tithes through Three eminent Periods of Time, viz. Before the Law, Under the Law, and The Times of the Gospel: wherein I have made it evident, That Tithes were paid, among the Patriarches by Revelation; among the Gentiles by Tradition, and the Light of Nature; among the Jews by a written Command from God the Father; among the Primitive Christians by the Establishment of Christ and his Apostles. I have showed also, That the most Ancient Fathers assert them to be Due to Christian Ministers: That many Councils do suppose them, and others enjoin them to be Paid: and, That the Laws of divers Christian Princes did of old Confirm them.  
Secondly, I have vindicated the Donations and Confirmations of Tithes in this Kingdom; proving that the Donors of them (our pious Saxon Ancestors) were neither Papists, nor Idolaters; but that they were Given long before Popery came in, Confirmed by divers Princes and Parliaments in every Age, and secured by good Laws after Popery was cast out: So that they were as freely and rightly Granted, as frequently and fully Confirmed, and have been as long and as quietly Enjoyed, as any Possessions in the whole Nation.  
Thirdly, I have considered all the particular Objections urged by T. E. against the Reasonableness and Lawfulness of Tithes; and have made it appear, that he hath blasphemed Almighty God, reviled our Lawgivers, perverted our Laws, slandered the whole Nation, and contradicted himself; and that he is mistaken in Scripture, History, Matter of Fact, and every thing he meddles with. So far is he from proving Tithes to be Jewish or Popish, unreasonable or ridiculous, a horrible Oppression or a foul Abuse, as he insolently brags; that he hath proved nothing but his own Ignorance and Dishonesty. The serious consideration of which Particulars, may convince all that are not blinded with wilful prejudice, That Tithes are a pious, just, and reasonable Payment, which were Religiously settled upon, are Rightfully to be claimed by, and ought conscientiously to be paid unto the Ministers of the Gospel. But I will not detain you longer in this general Account, nor divert you from the perusal of the Observations themselves, where all these Things are more fully made out.   

THE RIGHT OF TITHES Asserted & Proved.  

§. 1. WHEN I first cast my eyes upon Thomas Elwood's Chapter concerning Tithes, I could not but take notice, that the Subject did so raise his Passion, that he throws off the usual Formality of that Patience and Meekness which those of his Party generally pretend to, and flies out into ill Language at the entrance into his Discourse upon them: for he calls them, The Priests Delilah,; the very Darling and Minion of the Clergy. Now since Railing is not Reasoning, I will not meddle with his Scurrility, but rather inquire into the Causes why he and his Party are so bitter against Tithes. The ruder sort (it may be) are acted by mere Covetousness, pretending Conscience to save their Purses, supposing this kind of Godliness is great Gain: But T. E. and the more Politic Managers of this Sect, have higher Designs: And as King Philip of Macedon, perceiving the Athenian Orators obstructed his Projects to get the Dominion over that City, persuaded that People to banish those needless Members (as he called them); so the leading Quakers perceiving the Clergy of England so able and industrious to discover all their evil Designs, use their utmost Art to enrage the People against them; railing at their Profession, slandering their Persons, undervaluing their Sacred Administrations, disputing against their Learning, and especially seeking to deprive them of their Maintenance, which they take to be one main part of their Support. They know, while the Clergy have these Provisions, they will have Books, and leisure to Study, and Learning enough to baffle all their silly Pretences, which can gain no ground as long as a Priesthood stands. And therefore it is one part of Conversion, in the Quakers account, to make Men hate their Ministers Persons, and withhold their Deuce; Railing at Tithes, being the Quakers Delilah, the very Darling and Minion of that Sect. They see they cannot quench the Lamp, and therefore they would stop the Oil that nourishes it; and because they dare not engage this Army, they attempt to force them to disband for want of Pay. Hezekiah commanded his People to give the portion of the Priests and Levit●s, that they might be encouraged in the Law of the Lord, 2 Chron. xxxi. 4. And the Jews have a Proverb, Sine farina non est lex. But 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 Subsistence from us, 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 us. And truly our Quakers find their Harangues against Tithes are very taking with the Covetous and Atheistical, with those who care not much for any Religion, and therefore like the cheapest best. They please such as do not understand the Clergies Right to them, nor discern the ground of the Quakers spite against them: But wise and pious Men, who know what Benefit both Church and State receive by this disposal of Tithes, do despise such Railers, and look upon them as designing to disturb the Kingdom, destroy Learning, and ruin the most famous of all Protestant Churches. 'Tis a Policy of Secular Rebels to complain of Tributes and Public Payments; not so much in pity to the People, as malice to the King; that his Treasury being empty, he may be exposed to their Fury, and unable to resist their Force: And these Rebels in Religion take the same Method. But what Tacitus saith of the State, may be applied to the Church in this Case; There can be no Quiet to the Nations without Soldiers, no Soldiers without Pay, nor no Pay without Tribute, on which therefore the Common Safety doth depend. Even so, No Peace in the Church without Ministers, no Ministers without Maintenance, nor no Maintenance without these public Contributions, on which therefore the Safety of Religion doth depend. So that our Changers of Religion mainly seek to overthrow these things, and to that end have sent out T. E. as their Champion: But I doubt not to show, he is armed with more Malice than Reason; and that his Arguments are as weak, as his Designs are base.  
§. 2. And first, Dear Sir, I perceive our strutting Quaker looks on you with a scornful eye, and says, p. 277. Tithes were wont to be claimed as of Divine Right, but he finds this Priest is not hardy enough to adventure his Cause upon that Title. Sure he takes himself to be very terrible, for he believes none but a hardy Man dare set upon him: yea, he persuades his Quakers, that they who were wont to claim Tithes de jure Divino, were more bold than wise. Let us therefore see who and what they were whom T. E. thus censures: Truly no less than Origen, Hom. 11. in Num. 18. Cyprian de Vnitate Eccles. S. Hierom. in Malac. 3. S. Augustin Hom. 48. divers Christian Councils of old, Justinian, and the Imperial Roman Laws, Charles the Great, and the French Capitulars; the Saxon Kings and Councils of this Nation, and all Monarches and Parliaments of later times; particularly, King Henry VIII. and Edward VI (as T. E. confesses, p. 333, 334, 335.) together with the most famous Common Lawyers, agreeing, That Dimes sont choses spiritual, & due de Jure Divino. Le Evesq. de Winch. Case. L. Cook's Reports, part 2. pag. 45. as also the unconcerned and incomparably Learned Sir Henry Spelman, with divers other excellent Writers, too many to recite. All these were so hardy as to adventure this Cause of Tithes on that Title: And when this obscure and empty Quaker hath confuted all these, he may then have some pretence to boasting; but till then, he hath no reason to triumph over you, who did not decline this Argument wholly, but only said, you would not insist upon it, pag. 142. So that 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; but in very truth, you seem to have been loath to cast Pearls before Swine, who understand not the value of them; and you were hardy enough to have insisted on it, if you had been to deal with nobler Antagonists. But to treat of things done three or four thousand Years ago, to those who know not the History of the last Century; to discourse of the difference between Natural and Instituted Religion; to inquire how far the Acts of inspired Patriarches, approved by God the Father, and not disapproved by God the Son, together with the Suffrages of Christians, and the Consent of the wisest Gentiles; the general Rules of Scripture, expounded by the Practice of all Ages; How far (I say) all these will extend to the Constitution of a Jus Divinum, I suppose you thought things a little too high for the Quakers capacity; and therefore you wisely chose to insist upon plain matters of fact, as more apt to instruct and convince this kind of Men. Yet since T. E. provokes the Priests to the taking up this Argument again, I hope to demonstrate, That they need not be ashamed of the Weapon, nor afraid of this daring Adversary.  
§. 3. To make out the Divine Right of Tithes, there are three Periods to be considered: 

1. Before the Law.  
2. Under the Law.  
3. The Times of the Gospel.    
Concerning the first Period, Before the Law, you said very little in your Conference, as not designing to manage this Argument; only I perceive you had mentioned, That the Divine Right of Tithes was derived from Melchisedec, not from Levi. Which Passage being single, and not guarded with any Proofs or Reasons, this skulking Adversary falls upon very fiercely, fancying, if he can run down this one Sentence, which stood naked, he shall then confute the Divine Right of Tithes. Here (thinks the Quaker) is an open place; he is driving at the Humane Right, and I find no Arguments to grieve me in my opposing the Divine Right: I will therefore triumph over this little occasional touch, and then proclaim, I have confuted the Jus Divinum; and upon that Supposition, I shall more easily find out an Answer to his Arguments de Jure Humano, by asserting, That all his Humane Laws rely on a false Foundation. But if T. E. had been a noble Enemy, he should first have disproved the Jus Humanum, which was the Argument you managed; and not from a transient Speech have boasted, he had disproved clearly the Divine Right of Tithes; which he is so far from being able to confute, that his first words do declare, he doth not understand the Question: For this Quaker thus gins; It is then inquirable, Whether or no Tithes were ever due to Melchisedec? That which should make them due, must be a Command— but we do not find any Command in Scripture that they should be paid to Melchisedec. The Assertors of the Divine Right of Tithes do not make them originally due either to Melchisedec, or Levi; but to God himself, whose Right to them is founded primarily upon the Law of Nature, antecedent to any positive Constitution: For since the earth is the Lords, and the fullness thereof, Psal. xxiv. 1. and that all we enjoy is derived from his Bounty and Blessing, Natural Reason teacheth us to give God some part of his Gifts back again, as a token of our gratitude; which is but the giving him of his own, 1 Chron. xxix. 14. And this Natural Law we have transcribed into the Scripture: Honour the Lord with thy substance, Prov. iii. 9 which Rule obligeth Christians, as well as Jews. Some part of our Substance being therefore due to God, and Abraham and Jacob (before any positive Law) having by their Examples declared, that the Tenth was that Part; there was a claim made of this Tenth part, as being originally due to God long before. All the Tithe of the land is the Lords, Levit. xxvii. 30. And the first time they are mentioned, Exod. xxii. 29. they are not directly enjoined, but supposed due, and forbidden to be withheld. And hence those who paid not this Homage and Service, are said (not to rob the Priests, but) to rob God, Mal. iii. 8. And when our Saviour saith, we must give unto God the things that are Gods, S. Hierom reckons Tithes among the things which are Gods 
(a) Hieron. in Mat. 22. . The Lord, saith S. Augustin, claimeth the Tenth to himself, permitting to us all the rest 
(b) August. de Tempore, serm. 219. . The like say many others: even Plutarch, a Heathen, calls the Tenth part 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God's Tribute. But now though God have a right to the Tenth part of our Substance, yet he cannot be his own Receiver; for he needs not our Goods himself, Psal. xuj. 2. So that we are to inquire, who must be God's Receiver; and for that, even Reason will teach us, That what is due to the Master, aught to be paid to his next and immediate Servants, that is, to his Priests. And Abraham, in paying his Tithes (which were God's part) unto Melchisedec the Priest of the most High God, did confirm this Dictate of Reason, That the Priests should be God's Receivers: and God himself gave more full proof of it in the Mosaical Law, when he made so plain an Assignation of Tithes to those who were his Ministers then; Behold, I have given the Children of Levi all the Tenth in Israel, Numb. xviii. 21. Yea, the Light of Nature taught the Gentiles to bestow that upon their Priests, which they had vowed to their Gods: And Origen gives us the Christians sense of this matter; That is said to be offered to God (saith he) which is given to his Priests 
(c) Orig. Hom. 11. in Num. . We see then how Abraham might know that part of his Substance was due to God, and that Melchisedec was to be the Receiver thereof, without any express written Rule to direct him. And indeed T. E. is very impertinent in enquiring, What Command there is in Scripture to Abraham to pay his Tithes to Melchisedec: For, there was not any Scripture at all in Abraham's time, nor was he directed (as we are) by a written Word, but by the Light of Nature, by the Tradition of the preceding Patriarches, by Inspiration of the Spirit, and sometimes by special Revelation. Moses indeed did write a brief History of those Times 400 years after: but since he comprises the space of 2300 years in one Book of Genesis, it cannot be expected he should set down all Particulars, nor in all the Actions of the Patriarches show what Reason they had for, or how they were directed in such an Action. We know from the Light of Nature, that part of our Substance is due to God; and we gather from the Act of Abraham (an inspired Patriarch) that the Tenth is that part, and the Priest the Receiver thereof. Yet if any would be satisfied how Abraham came to know, that the Tenth part, and no other, was that which should be given to God, I answer, That in all reason we ought to believe it was at first revealed by Almighty God to him, or to some of the first Patriarches, who were directed by the Divine Spirit to pitch upon this Part, which the Patriarches are recorded to have fixed upon: For, if it had been a mere Humane Invention, it is unlikely God should have imitated them, in choosing the same Part: And by this after-Act the Divine Majesty did approve that Number, and declare the Patriarches were at first guided by his Spirit in the choice thereof. And if the Quakers (now that there is a Written Rule) pretend to be guided by the Spirit of God, at least in their Solemn Actions; how much more ought we to believe, that the holy Patriarches were so guided, before there was any Written Word to manifest Gods Will? Thus the way of honouring God by Oblation of Sacrifice, is believed to have been first revealed to Adam, although the particular Command for it be not recorded. The like we may believe also concerning this of Dedicating a Tenth part, especially if we consider how it was propagated by Tradition among the Heathens, of whose Practices we have any Histories to inform us. The Tyrians gave the Tenth Part to their Gods: And by their Example the Carthaginians (a Colony of Tyrians) sent their Tithes yearly to Hercules Tyrius; and finding themselves unfortunate when they for a while had omitted it, they restored the Tithes as before 
(d) Diodor. Sicul. . Dydimus the Grammarian saith, It was the custom of the Greeks to consecrate the Tenth of their Gains to the Gods. And the Inhabitants of the Island Syphnus are remembered by Pausanias to have had their Mines swallowed up by the Sea, upon their neglect of paying the Tithes to them, as formerly to Apollo 
(e) Pausanias' Histor. Graec. . For the Romans, it is well known, they vowed the Tenth of their Fruits to Hercules: And Lucullus was believed to grow rich by his punctual payment of these Deuce 
(f) Alexand. ab Alexand. lib. 3. cap. 22. . And that this was not done only by them of extraordinary Devotion, we learn from Plutarch, who saith, The careful Father of a Family divides his Years Profits into Ten parts; Six to be spent on his Household, Two to be laid up, One for the Seed of the next Year, and the Tenth is the Tribute of the Gods 
(g) Apud Episc. Winton. Theol. Determ. . And Paulus Diaconus speaks generally of all Heathens, Of old they offered all the Tenth to their Gods. And Alexander ab Alexandro, The Tenth part of the Fruits were every where vowed to Hercules 
(h) Alex. ab Alexand. lib. 3. cap. 22. . There are more Proofs of this kind in Sir Henry Spelman's larger Work of Tithes: But these may suffice to show, that the most distant Nations did consent in giving this Tenth part to their Gods; which therefore we must believe they had by Tradition from the first Patriarches, who received it by Revelation from God. This is a sufficient account by what Authority Abraham might proceed in the choice of the Tenth part: And it is not necessary (since the Scripture is silent) I should determine, whether Abraham was immediately directed to it, or whether he learned it from Melchisedec, (who, St. Paul saith, Tythed Abraham) or whether they did not both learn it from the first Patriarches, which is most likely; it being sufficient, that God hath Recorded it with approbation, and afterwards Ratified it by following this Example. Even as in the Case of putting an Adulteress to death, Judah proceeds upon that, as being a just Punishment: And though we read of no Command before to enact it into a Law, yet we believe Judah received that Law by Tradition from the Patriarches, who were taught it by God, Gen. xxxviii. 35. And we are the more confirmed this Law came from God at first, because he approved it, and writ it down afterwards, Levit. xx. 10. And when T. E. shows me a Command before Judah's time to put an Adulteress to death, I may show him a Command for Tithes before Abraham.  
§. 4. But our Quaker goes on, pag. 278. Moses saith expressly, he gave him Tithes, he doth not say he paid him Tithes: And the Apostle saith, Abraham gave the Tenth, Heb. seven. 4. To give is one thing, to pay another. I answer, To give and to pay is all one in this case, or else the Apostle was overseen, who not only saith he gave the Tenth, ver. 4. but (which T. E. concealed) ver. 9 Levi paid Tithes in Abraham: the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intimating, that Melchisedec Tythed him. Nor will the Quakers critical distinction between to give and to pay, hold in other cases; for it is very proper to say, we give a Man that which is his due. I hope he will not accuse David of improper speaking, when he saith, Give unto the Lord the honour due unto his Name, Psal. xxxix. 2. But however T. E. will grant Tithes were due to be paid under the Law; and yet we read, Hezekiah commanded the People to give the Priests their Portion, etc. 2 Chron. xxxi. 4. So that the word give in Gen. xiv. doth no more prove Tithes were not due to Melchisedec Jure Divino, than the same in Chron. proves they were not due to the Levites Jure Divino. Yet if the Quakers like this Criticism of T. E. I hope it will persuade them to give us our Tithes, though they will not pay them.  
§. 5. His next Objection, pag. 279. is, If they were due to Melchisedec, than Abraham must have paid him Tithes of all his Substance, and not only of the Spoils, Hebr. seven. 4. This 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. So that T. Is saying he doth not read in Genesis that Abraham paid his Tithes constantly, is no Argument, unless all that Abraham ordinarily did were recorded there. And I may ask him where he reads there, that Abraham did not pay them. His Negative arguing is of no more force, than it would be if he should say, Those Ante-diluvian Patriarches did nothing else while they lived but beget Sons and Daughters, because no more is recorded of many of them, Gen. v. T. E. therefore cannot prove Abraham did not pay Tithes ordinarily; and I can make it appear very probable he did: For, first, It is very probable Melchisedec was the same with Sem, the Son of Noah: so the ancient Hebrew Traditions said 
(i) Hieron. ad Evagrium Epist. 126. & Quest. Hebr. in Gen. ; and so Lyra, Tostatus, and others do prove. Epiphanius indeed thought Sem must be dead before; but he was led into this mistake by following the Chronology of the LXX. And S. Hierom computing according to the Hebrew Account, makes it appear, that Sem did live 35 years after Abraham's death 
(k) Id. Epist. ad Evagr. . And concerning the Occasion of his coming to Salem, there is a very notable Account in Saidas Batricides, (who yet makes Melchisedec not Sem himself, but one of his Family, and allied to Abraham's Ancestors) viz. That Noah being about to die, commanded his Son Sem to take Adam's Body (which his Father Lamech had ordered him to bury in the middle of the Earth), and to take with him Bread and Wine for his Journey, and also to take Melchisedec the Son of Phaleg along with him, and go to the place where that Body was to be buried, which the Angel (saith Noah) will show you; and command Melchisedec that he shall place his Seat there, and that he shall not marry, but lead a Religious Life, because God had chosen him to minister before him; for from that place shall come the Saviour of Adam 
(l) Vid. Selden de Jure not. Haebraeorum, lib. 3. cap. 2. . But the Targum of Jerusalem 
(m) In Gen. xiv.  saith expressly, Melchisedec, that is, Sem the Son of Noah. Yet whether he were Sem or no, this is agreed by all, taht he was the Priest of the True God: and being the eldest of the Family living (if he were Sem), or being elder than Abraham however, he had good reason to be his Priest in Ordinary. Yea, there are ancient Authors, and probable Reasons to induce us to believe, that Abraham was called out from amongst his Idolatrous Countrymen, by God, on purpose to send him into Canaan, to be instructed by Melchisedec in the Worship of the True God. And hence he chose his Habitation near unto Salem, viz. in the Plain of Mamre, which is Hebron, being (as S. Hierom computeth) but 22 Miles distant from Jerusalem, whither he might easily repair with his Oblations and Tithes, to the more Solemn Worship of God. And the Jews think, that Melchisedec did continue to be the Priest of Abraham's Family long after: For when the Twins struggled in the Womb of Rebecca, it is said, She went to inquire of the Lord, Gen. xxv. 22. that is, by Sem, say the Hebrews 
(n) Lyra. , or by Melchisedec, as others 
(o) Jun. & Tremel. in loc. . We cannot be positive in a matter of so great Antiquity: but I hope these things may suffice to make it very probable, that Melchisedec was Abraham's Priest in Ordinary. And doubtless Abraham and he were acquainted before, yea, in League together, as appears from his being so glad of Abraham's Victory, presenting him with Bread and Wine for his Refreshment, or (as some have thought) offering a Sacrifice of Praise to God, in thankfulness for the same. And since all Abraham's Increase came as much by God's Blessing, as these Spoils, why should he not pay Tithes of his ordinary Gains, as well as of his extraordinary? And it is very likely Jacob had seen this Custom in his Father's House, because he vows to give unto God the Tenth of all the Goods that God should give him, even in that strange Land to which he was then going, Gen. xxviii. 22. And when T. E. can bring as great Authorities, and as good Probabilities to the contrary, it will then be time enough for him to say, that Abraham paid not Tithes of any thing but the Spoils.  
§. 6. Another bolder pretence of T. E. is, pag. 280. viz. That Tithes could not be due to Melchisedec upon a Right founded in Natural Justice and Equity, since there was not in those days any settled Public Worship, wherein he could perform any Priestly Office, for which Tithes could be due to him. This poor Quaker is as bold, as he is blind; and hath exposed himself to the scorn of all knowing Men by this absurd Position, which I might confute from that place of Gen. iv. 26. Then began men to call upon the Name of the Lord: which must be meant in public, for in private they did it before; unless T. E. will assert, they were all Atheists before Enos time. I might also show his mistake from other Instances: but I will keep myself to Melchisedec. Doth not Moses say expressly, He was the Priest of the most high God? Gen. xiv. 18. And doth not S. Paul make him a Type of Christ's Priesthood? And had he not a fixed place of Residence at Salem? Now what is a Priest fixed in a City for? Not for private Worship, that every man may perform at home: It was then for performing public Worship that he resided there. And we cannot suspect so holy a man as Melchisedec would be negligent in his Office: wherefore we ought to believe, he did perform God's public Worship solemnly at Salem, and constantly also. And by that he had a Right founded in Natural Justice and Equity, to receive Tithes from all within his Jurisdiction. It is very likely the Tyrians, who were of the ancient Phoenician Inhabitants of Canaan, learned to pay Tithes to their Priests (which they are observed to have done) from the Tithes paid to Melchisedec, when he was a Priest here among the Phoenicians. And as to this occasion, it is apparent, that he did perform the Office of a Priest now to Abraham, in blessing the most High God for his Victory, with suitable Hymns (saith Josephus); and in blessing Abraham himself at this time: And so he deserved those extraordinary Tithes, as justly as he did his ordinary Tithes for his daily Administrations.  
He proceeds in his gross mistakes, saying, ibid. I find not one Instance (this single gift of Abraham's excepted) of giving or receiving Tithes, in all that 400 years between Abraham's time and the Levitical Priesthood. If this were true, that the Scripture did not mention any more Instances of paying Tithes, it doth not at all prove, they were never paid at other times: For an Argument from Scripture-silence in matters of Fact is not valid, as we noted before. But alas! this inspired Man's Reading and Revelation both fail him in this matter; for there is a plain Instance in holy Jacob, Gen. xxviii. 22. who made a solemn Vow to give unto God the Tenth of all his Gains: And Josephus tells us 
(p) Joseph. Antiq. li. 1. cap. 18. , he did perform it. Now if Jacob did perform this Vow, than there is another Instance of giving Tithes: And if T. E. say Jacob did not perform his Vow, than he charges that blessed Patriarch with Perjury and Ingratitude. It is true, the Book of Genesis doth not tell us who was God's Receiver then; but no doubt there were some performed that Office, though it be not expressed who. However, if Jacob gave them immediately to God by way of Sacrifice (which is all that T. E. can pretend), yet still he gave the Tithes; and so this is another Instance of giving Tithes before the Levitical Priesthood. Therefore the Quaker hath not a Repetition of all Revelations, or not a good Memory to retain them.  
§. 7. He hath yet another fetch more, pag. 281. That if Tithes were due to Melchisedec, yet could not the Clergy of this Age derive any Right from him to them, inasmuch as they are not of his Priesthood. I hope T. E. will grant, that Christ was of his Priesthood; or else he contradicts the Scripture, Psal. cx. 4. 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? Besides, Aaron's Priesthood was only Temporal; but Melchisedec's was to continue to the end of the World. And indeed all the Father's note, That Melchisedec had the same Priesthood with the Ministers of the Gospel: He was not derived from Levi, nor admitted to his Office by the Catalogue of his Parents, (whence he is called, without father and mother, that is, of such a certain Tribe): His Worship was altogether Spiritual, Praising God, Praying for Abraham; offering no bloody Sacrifices, but only bringing forth Bread and Wine, which some have thought to be the Types of the great Gospel-Sacrament of the Lords Supper. And hence it is plain, That we are Priests after Melchisedec's Order. And if Authority of Fathers be of as much credit, as the single Testimony of T. E. I can produce the plain words of S. Hierom, S. Chrysostom, S. Augustin, Epiphanius, Theophylact, and many more, affirming, That the present Ministers of the Christian Church are of Melchisedec's Priesthood: And none (that ever I heard of) before, did deny it, but the Jews, and this Quaker. But his Assertion is not more strange, than his Reason is ridiculous: For if we ask him, why he denies us to be of Melchisedec's Priesthood, he answers, Every one knows, that these men are made Priests after the Law of a Carnal Commandment; whereas Melchisedec was made a Priest after the Law of an endless Life. Doth every one know this? No sure: for every one knows not the meaning of this Phrase, [To be made a Priest after the Law of a Carnal Commandment, Hebr. seven. 16.] no not this Quaker himself, who hath learned to cant in this Language; which if he had known the meaning of, he would not have misapplied so grossly: For the Apostle speaking of the Jewish Priests in that place, saith, They were made Priests after the Law of a Carnal Commandment; that is, according to Moses Law, which consisted of outward and weak Commandments, reaching only to the purifying of the Flesh. Now what an idle and impertinent man is this, to say, we are made Priest, according to Moses Law, and that every one knows this! O impudent Slander! Are we bound to all the Sacrificing, Washings, and other Levitical Rites and Ceremonies, at our Ordination? Every one will know by this, that T. E. can prattle in Scripture-phrase, without any knowledge of its meaning. 'Tis evident we are not Priests according to that carnal, outward, changeable, Levitical Law; but according to the Law of the Gospel, whose Eternal Duties have in them the power of an Endless Life. And as this Law must never change, so neither must our Priesthood; but, like that of Melchisedec, shall endure for ever. And as we bear the same Office with him, and do the like Work, we deserve the same Reward, and may expect Tithes as well as he. And now whereas the boasting Quaker saith, He thinks he need not stick to say, he hath proved Tithes were not due to Melchisedec; the sober Reader will believe his only Reason is, because he will not stick to say any thing, be it never so false and unreasonable.  
§. 8. Concerning the Second Period or Time, Under the Law, you had affirmed two things in the Conference. 1. That we did not claim Tithes now by virtue of the Levitical Law. 2. That they were not purely Ceremonial. In your first Concession, That Tithes are not now claimed by virtue of the Levitical Law, T. E. rejoices, saying, pag. 282. That you have saved him the pains of proving the Levitical Law for Tithes was abrogated by Christ. But let not the Quaker so far mistake, as to think that the abrogation of the Levitical Law concerning Tithes, was an abrogation of Tithes themselves. Our Lord abrogated the Levitical Law concerning the Modes of God's Worship; but he did not abrogate God's Worship. The Worship of God was founded upon the Law of Nature, and Divine Revelation; and was performed by the Patriarches before there was any written Law about it. The Levitical Law enjoined many Modes and Circumstances proper to that Dispensation, and relating to Christ to come; all which fell with that Polity, and were abrogated by Christ: But the main Duty of Worshipping God continued in force still. Even so in the Case of Tithes, they had not their Foundation upon, nor their Original from the Levitical Law: God had a Right to them before; and in his Right (jure Divino) they had been paid to his Receiver. The Law of Nature, assisted by particular Inspiration, had so fully declared the Divine Right of Tithes, that holy Men had recognized Gods due to them; and the Father of the Israelites had made a special Vow to pay this Divine Tribute. So that there was no need for God to Institute Tithes anew; and accordingly he claims them, and supposes them to be his Due by a Right antecedent to the Levitical Law, Exod. xxii. 29. Levit. xxvii. 30. And having chosen the Jews for his peculiar People, and established a Polity among them proper to that Dispensation; as his Church was confined to that one Nation, so his Priests were fixed to one Tribe; and on that Tribe he settles his own Demesnes, Tithes, by a plain Assignation of them to the Levites, as his Receivers, Numb. xviii. 21. and so they were to continue so long as that Polity stood. Now the restraining these Tithes to the Tribe of Levi, and all the Circumstances of Tything which related to the Ceremonial Worship, such as the bringing the first or Levites Tithe in specie to Jerusalem, or to some of the Levites Cities; and likewise the second Tithe, (which only might be changed into Money, and laid out in a Feast at Jerusalem 
(q) Vide Deut. xiv. 22, 23. Tob. l. 7. & Scal. de Decimis in Crit. sacr. Deut. xxvi. , and not the first Tithe, as T. E. mistakes); as also the Tything of the Levites Tithe for the Priests, Numb. xviii. 26. the Redemption of the Firstborn of all Men, and unclean Beasts: These, with some other Circumstances, were wholly Ceremonial, Appendices to the Original Right of Tithes, and proper to that Ministry and Dispensation. Now when Christ did abrogate that Ministry, these Appendices must needs be abrogated with it; but the main Duty (which was so before the Ceremonial Law) remains still. The putting on a new Suit, doth not make one a new Man; nor doth the pulling it off again kill him: And there may be many alterations in Circumstances, the Essentials still remaining the same. But some may say, Is the Levitical Law of no use to prove Tithes to be of Divine Right now? I answer, Though we do not claim by it, yet we may learn something from it, to clear that Title which we have from other Laws. For, First, This shows how God continued his Claim to those Tithes which were his due before: And this shows his approbation of the Payment of them by the Patriarches. This also confirms the disposal of them to those that bear the Office of God's Ministers, and makes good the Prescription against those who are not Gods Ministers. Secondly, This was a Pattern for Christ to imitate, in his Provision for Gospel-Ministers, as S. Paul teacheth us, where he saith, Know ye not, that they which minister about holy things, [i. e. the Levites] live of the things of the Temple, [i. e Tithes]? and they which wait at the Altar, [i. e. the Jewish Priests] are partakers with the Altar [i. e. in the Sacrifices and Oblations]? Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel, 1 Cor. ix. 13, 14. Which 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. Thirdly, 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 than would afford them an honourable Maintenance: Wherein Origen speaks my sense fully 
(r) Orig. in Num. Hom. 2. ; Our Lord saith in the Gospel, (speaking of Tything Mint, etc.) These things ought ye to have done. If you reply, He said this to the Pharisees, not to his Disciples; then hear what he saith to his Disciples, Except your Righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat. v. 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 do devour the Fruits of the Earth, so that the Priest knows not of it, the Levite is a stranger to it, and God's Altar receives nothing. Fourthly, The Substance of that which was required then, is due still; not by virtue of that Law, but because there is an inherent Equity in the thing. And this is Origen's meaning in the aforesaid place, when he saith, Therefore I think it necessary that this Law [of Paying Tithes of the Fruits of the Earth] and some others, should stand in force according to the Letter. And so we must interpret S. Hierom, when he saith, That which we have said of Tithes 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 Tithes, but to sell all 
(s) Hieron. in Mal. 3. : That is, so much of the Command as was moral, so much as was grounded upon Eternal Reason, aught to stand. God is eternally Lord of the World, and must always be worshipped, and always have Ministers, and these must always be maintained out of their Master's Portion. When the Levitical Priesthood failed, there must be another and a better; and therefore we may claim Tithes as God's Due, and as his Minister's Portion, (as they were declared to be both before the Levitical Law, and under it,) and yet need not claim them by the Levitical Law, as it is Ceremonial.  
And now I hope T. E. must confess, that your second Position, viz. [That Tithes are not purely Ceremonial] is made good also; since I have showed they were grounded on the Law of Nature, and Primitive Revelation, relying on an Internal Rectitude in the thing itself, and an Eternal Reason of it; and were paid by those Patriarches who lived long before the Ceremonial Law, by virtue of the preceding Declarations of the Divine Right unto them. 'tis true, all things done by the Patriarches were not Eternal Duties, because all things they did relied not on these Principles, which the Payment of Thythes rely upon. Circumcision was not grounded on the Law of Nature, nor imposed for any Eternal Reason or Internal Rectitude in the thing. Bloody Sacrifices were also purely Types of Christ to come; and therefore these were purely Ceremonial, and cease when that Law ceaseth: But Tithes as to the main, were not such, and therefore remain in force still. I might add, That the Prophets (who are not wont to reprove the People for omission of things purely Ceremonial) declaim against the Jews for detaining their Tithes; see Mal. iii. 10. And Nehemiah calls his care in this, a Good Deed, desiring God to remember him for it, Nehem. xiii. 14. Nor are Tithes in all the New Testament reckoned up among things purely Ceremonial, or declared to be repealed, as Circumcision, Sacrifices, Washing, Jewish Difference of Meats, and Jewish Feasts, etc. are. These are repealed by Name, but so are not Tithes, as being a thing that never were purely Ceremonial. I conclude, that part of our Substance being due to God, by the Natural and Divine Law; and the Inspired Patriarches being taught by Revelation, That the Tenth was this part, and the Priests of God were his Receivers: God himself having approved also this payment by a renewed claim, and an express Assignation of his Right under the Levitical Law to the Priests for the time being: and the same God having the same Right still to his part, and the same occasion to use it, for the maintenance of his Ministers at this Day: Hence I suppose it will follow, That (unless an express repeal can be showed) the Gospel Ministers in God's Name may justly claim Tithes as due to God and them still, and that by a Divine Right too, which I will now more fully prove.  
§. 9 Having found sure footing for the Divine Right of Tithes thus far; we will now go on with T. E. to consider the third Period of time, viz. Under the Gospel. And first, we will begin with what the Quaker grants pag. 284. viz. That a Maintenance in general to the Ministers of the Gospel is Just, Reasonable, and established by a Divine Authority. Let him 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. And why then should not that Maintenance still be so Due, which God directed before the Law, approved under the Law, and never repealed after the Law? If the Divine Authority hath established a Maintenance, that supposeth it was such a Maintenance as was due before (according to T. E. p. 318.) Now before the Gospel times, the Maintenance paid to God's Ministers before the Law and under it, was Tithes. The Priesthood of Melchisedec, and of Levi, both were so maintained. And therefore if a new maintenance was (as T. E. speaks) created, it might be somewhat else; But if a Maintenance be establisted, methinks it should be Tithes. But to proceed: The places which you produced out of the New Testament for this Establishment were 1 Cor. ix. and Gal. vi. 6. Now our Quaker, (as if he did already repent of his Concession) strives to pervert these Texts by two Limitations. First, The Apostle speaks not so much (saith he) what the Maintenance is, as who they are from whom it is to be received, viz. Such as receive their Ministry, such as believe them to be true Ministers, such as are taught by them. This is a notorious falsehood; for in the former place, viz. 1 Cor. ix. S. Paul is all along speaking of the Ministers Right to be maintained. And he shows what Maintenance was due to the Jewish Ministers, affirming, that Christ had ordained [even so] that we should live of the Gospel; that is, the Rights of God under the Gospel, and the acknowledgements made to him for the mercy therein revealed. The things of the Christian Temple and Altar were to be our Maintenance. And is not this to say, What the Maintenance is? not a word in all this who should pay it. And for the Instances of the Ox, the Soldier, the Shepherd, and Vine-dresser, Can these (as S. Paul brings them in) belong to those who pay the Maintenance? Doth the Ox pay his Master Maintenance? or the Soldier give his Prince a Stipend? It is the Ministers whom S. Paul compares to the Ox for profitableness, to the Soldier for hazards to be undergon, to the Vine-dresser and Shepherd for pains and care. And all the Instances do show the contrary to what this Abuser of Scripture would squeeze out of them. The Ox must not be starved, who is willing to work, though he be not actually employed by him that feeds him: and so of the rest. As for the latter place, Gal. vi. S. Paul tells them, they must give the Ministers a part of all their good things; And is not that a declaring what the Maintenance is? The Apostle saith indeed, He that is taught in the Work must give this; But that is to distinguish Christians from Heathens, of which the World was then full. The Heathen was not bound to maintain the Gospel Ministers, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Catechumen, the Christian who was or might be taught, if his own laziness, or pride, or obstinacy hindered not: He was to give the Catechist or Minister, a part of all his goods. So that still this proves not T. Is foolish Inference, That none must contribute to a Ministers Maintenance, but those that are taught by him actually; for these Places say nothing against a Gospel Ministers receiving Maintenance from all professed Christians; so that unless the Quakers will own themselves Heathens, they cannot be excused from paying Tithes. And because T. E. puts in this device merely to excuse his Fellow- Quakers from paying our Deuce, I will let him see the fallacy of this Arguing: First, considering the state of things then; and secondly, with respect to the condition they are in now. First, According to the Quakers Principles, the Christians of old were all immediately taught by inward Revelation; And if so, what need any Gospel Ministry at all? what need of outward Means? what need had they to have any Teachers of the Word? Or with what equity could this Teacher require maintenance of them, that had no occasion for his Teaching at all? The Quaker forgot himself, when he granted a Gospel Ministry, and a general Maintenance for such; since being taught without Means, overthrows all this. And the Christians to whom S. Paul writ, might (upon these Principles) have pleaded an exemption from giving any Maintenance at all. Secondly, But now that there is (according to T. E.) a General Maintenance established by Divine Authority; and that pious Men have given a certain part of the profits of their own Lands for this maintenance; How unjust a thing is it for the Quakers to withhold this Maintenance upon pretence they are not (that is, They will not) be taught? Let this exact Parallel Case show their dishonesty herein: Suppose a Pious Man an hundred Years ago, did endow a Free-School with twenty pounds per Annum, to be raised out of the Profits of a parcel of Ground, worth two hundred pounds per Annum; (that is, the Tenth part of the Profits) on condition that all the Boys in such a Town should be taught gratis. Now suppose there be a Master legally invested in this School, resident at it, and ready to teach all the Boys of that Town, if they will come; it being the same trouble to him to teach ten as twenty: But it may be not above ten of twenty Boys within that Town will come to be taught, the rest are Truants, and do not come. If T. E. himself were the Heir or Tenant to this two hundred pounds per Annum, would he think it just or reasonable to stop ten pounds of the twenty, because half the Boys do not come to be taught? Doth not the Master's legal Title, and willingness to teach, give him a just right to the whole stipend? And will not all Men say, the Occupier of the two hundred pounds per Annum is a Knave to withhold any part of it on this pretence? And yet this is the very case between the present Clergy and the Quakers; and surely none will think Christ or his Apostles would countenance the unjust detaining of other men's Dues upon such weak pretences.  
§. 10. T. Is second device to take off his former Grant of a General Maintenance established by Divine Authority, is pag. 286. That Christ hath expressly set down what this Gospel Maintenance is, viz. only meat and drink, Matth. x. 10. Luke x. 6, 7, 8. 1 Cor. ix. 4. Truly this seems somewhat strange, that T. E. should first say, Divine Authority had only established a Maintenance in general, and in the next page but one, affirm, That the same Authority hath particularly expressed what this maintenance must be. If Christ have allotted the particular Maintenance, than he hath not left it to generals; If he have established it only in general, then hath he not expressed the particulars. One of these must be false, for indeed there is a manifest contradiction. But moreover, this unfortunate Interpreter never meddles with any place of Scripture without abusing it, and betraying the folly of that Spirit which is in him: For these places of S. Matthew and S. Luke were spoken upon a particular occasion, of sending Disciples into the Neighbouring Cities of Judea, and Christ gave them special Rules appropriate to that Mesiage only; and to apply these Rules to all Ministers, or to the general Commission he gave them afterwards, is the most ridiculous and absurd thing imaginable. When the Apostles went to the prejudiced and unbelieving Jews with the first news of the Gospel, Meat and Drink was as much as they could expect; and Christ bids them to take that and be contented. But he doth no where forbidden them to receive more, if good Men freely gave it to them. And if Christ (according to T. Is fancy) had determined Meat and Drink for the only Gospel Maintenance, than the Apostles had been great Sinners in receiving the price of Possessions sold and dedicated, Acts iv. & Chap. v. If they had been taught by T. Is Spirit, they must have returned them back again; and so must S. Paul have done the wages he took of other Churches, 2 Cor. xi. 9 and those liberal Presents he received from the Philippians, Phil. iv. 18. Yea, and our Quaker must needs exclaim against S. Paul for daring to be so bold, that when his Master had expressly set down Meat and Drink for the Gospel Maintenance, He should ordain that Believers should give their Teacher's part of all their Goods or good things, Gal. vi. 6. But we shall rather believe T. E. contradicts himself, than that the Apostles contradicted their Master; and therefore shall conclude, That the Quaker abuses our Lords words, in apylying them to be a determination of the only Gospel Maintenance; and especially if he would make them a standing Rule for the succeeding Ministry, after the Church was settled; the folly whereof I shall show more fully §. 27.  
§. 11. And now having removed his vain exceptions, I shall go on to show, That our Lord Jesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tithes for the maintenance of the the Gospel Ministers; and that they may be proved also out of the Now Testament to be due Jure Divino. First, in regard there is no repeal of Tithes in all the New Testament, which shows that our Lord left these in the same state as he found them, (excepting only so far as concerned that Priesthood which was to be abolished) so far as they were Gods Right, and an acknowledgement of his Supremacy and Bounty; 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, our Saviour did not revoke them; no, nor any thing else so established: And if Tithes 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 
(t) Reg. Jur. 195. . And we may reasonably believe, That Jesus intended they should remain of Divine Right as they had been reputed always before. Secondly, But this is not all, for there are positive Laws which do fairly intimate, that Tithes were to be the Maintenance of the Gospel-Ministers, when the Church was settled. For besides our Saviour's affirming Tithes ought to be paid, Math. xxiii. 23. The Double Honour, or the Elder Brother's Portion due to the Presbyters, 1 Tim. v. 17. The Order for a Bishop to be given to Hospitality, which cannot be maintained without a large Income, 1 Tim three 2. The remark of Melchisedec's receiving Thythes, of whose Order Christ and the Gospel-Ministers are, Hebr. seven. I say, besides these (which plead only a probability) there are two plain places; first, that of S. Paul, 1 Cor. ix. 14. affirming, That like as the Jewish Priests and Levites lived of the Tithes and Oblations under the Law, even so there was a special Ordinance of Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (either by word of mouth, or Revelation) That they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel: that is, of those good things which should be dedicated and offered in gratitude for the Gospel. For this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only a Good Message, but the Reward given for it, as well in LXX. 2 Sam. iv. 10. as in other Authors, as Mr. Mede hath fully proved 
(u) Med. Diatr. in loc. . And the Blessed JESUS who ordained this, did incline the hearts of Pious Christians to dedicate Tithes and other Oblations, made in gratitude for the Gospel. And now that such Dedications are made, we enjoy them as well by the Ordinance, as the Grace and Providence of Christ, and therefore Jure Divino. What was given in acknowledgement for the love of Jesus shown in the Gospel, was Jesus his Part; and he (who hath now all power given him in Heaven and Earth) hath here assigned his and his Father's Part to the Ministers of the Gospel; and this Assignation gives them a Right thereunto Jure Divino. But secondly, Lest any should say, This Text supposeth something will be given, but doth not enjoin the Christians to give, We have another Law directed to the People, containing both their Duty and the Ministers Right, Gal. vi. 6. Let him that is taught in the Word communicate unto him that teacheth in all Good things. Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that is, Let the Christians make the Ministers of the Gospel partakers or sharers with them in all their Goods. For [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] signifies to distribute or give some part to another, so that he may participate with us. Rom. xii. 13. Phil. iv. 15. and [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] signifies Earthly goods Luke xuj. 25. Yea, the Fruits of the Earth are called [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Luke xii. 18. and hence Beza interprets it [Ex omnibus bonis]. Now surely T. E. will not say, We have no other Goods or good things but Meat and Drink: If we be so poor, some excuse may be made; but if we have any other Good things, Corn, Hay, Wool, increase of Flocks and Herds, etc. we must not appropriate them all to our own use, but we are enjoined [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to distribute some part of all these Good things or Goods, to God's Ministers. Some part he must have of all our Goods, and in all reason that part ought to be the Tenth. For a Tenth was given by the Patriarches before the Law: a Tenth (at least) by the Jews under the Law: This was the Part which God made known to be his by Revelation; the part which the Heathens had learned by Primitive tradition to dedicate to their Gods: The Part which God approved in the Jewish Polity, and which Christ never disapproved. The Tenth was a part so reasonable and so known, so acceptable to God, so acknowledged by Men, and so certainly due to God before, that there is no reason to doubt but that this is the share or portion of Gospel-Ministers. And so good Men of old understood it to be, and therefore communicated this Tenth Part to God and his Ministers; and therein both expounded and obeyed this Apostolical Injunction. The People must Communicate, and that to the Gospel-Ministers; and they may claim Jure Divino to have a part of all their Good things; even the same part which was always known to be God's Part, and so need not be particularly expressed here. There is but one Objection against this, viz. That Tithes are not mentioned in the Gospel or Epistles to be the very Part: To this therefore I reply, thirdly, There are very good Reasons why Tithes are not mentioned in the New Testament by Name; viz. First, To avoid all occasion of scandal to the Jews, whose Priests were then in possession of them; and though the Synagogue was dead, yet it was to be decently buried; whereupon many things were suffered a while to run in their old Channel, till the whole Jewish Polity was destroyed. And 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 instated in. And we see in S. Paul, 1 Cor. ix. that even where they had a right and authority, in the first and unsettled times of Christianity, they did forbear to use it, that they might avoid offence. Secondly, Nor was there any need for JESUS to make any new Law for Tithes, since they were sufficiently declared to be due to God before, by Revelation, and Example, by Reason and Gods own choice; by the grounds on which they were given, and the ends for which they were employed. The World knew there was a Jus Divinum to the tenth part; so that our Lord was only to declare what Priests it was to be paid unto, and who were to be his Receivers. And this he doth, 1 Cor. ix. and Gal. vi. And thus it was in the case of God's part of our Time under the Gospel, as well as of his part of our Estate: One day in seven being sufficiently declared to be God's part, Jesus made no new Law about that at all; but left it on those firm foundations upon which he found it settled. For, all which our Lord was to alter, was not in the proportion, (for a seventh part is still required) but in the Assignation of the day; and even for that he made no express Law, but 'tis likely privately instructed his Disciples herein; who brought in the Sunday Sabbath into the Church, by Example rather than Constitution: And by degrees they did establish it, carrying in the mean time so fair a respect to the Jewish-Sabbath, that for many years they observed both the Saturday and Sunday also. Thirdly, Our Lord and his Apostles did not make a new Determination of the Tenth part by Name, because the Devotion of the Christians in those days was so great, that they gave more than a Tenth freely, selling all and following Christ, and bestowing on the Apostles more than they were in a condition to receive. And as it were impertinent to make a Law for that Man to spend one day in seven religiously, who spends all his very Week days in Devotion and Religion; so it was in this case, our Lord JESUS might expect that the joyful Message of his Gospel should be so thankful 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. And he foresaw that his Grace would open the hearts of Kings and Princes, and other devout Persons, to give more than a Tenth part of their good things, to those in his Name, and for his sake, who were sent to preach the Gospel, Isa. lx. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, etc. And this accordingly came to pass: for though our narrow-spirited Quakers think the smallest matters too much to be contributed to God's Service; those Noble and large Souls thought the greatest gifts too little in acknowledgement for the Mercies of the Gospel. And since such times were coming, our Lord might probably on purpose decline determining the proportion too expressly, that Christians might have the opportunity of a voluntary Charity, and as S. Paul speaks, might not do it grudgingly or of necessity; because God loveth a cheerful giver, 2 Cor. ix. 7. And this was more agreeable to the freedom and ingenuity of Sons, which Christians are compared to. And positive Laws were likely to be made when the decays of Piety and Charity did require them. Fourthly, I add, That the state of the Church in those days was such, that Believers, though they were willing, could not have opportunity to pay Tithes regularly; nor could the Gospel-Ministers receive them. And as it was no prejudice to the Jewish-Priests, that there was little or no Tithes paid during their Forefathers wand'ring in the Wilderness; no more is it to us, that they were not paid regularly in the times of Persecution. Finally, our Lord JESUS and the Apostles said so much in the New Testament, that the Primitive Christians understood them to intent Tithes for the Gospel-maintenance; and they said enough to show, that the Ancient Divine Right to the Tenth part should be continued, and the Gospel-Ministers should be the Receivers of it: And it was neither necessary nor convenient they should speak more plainly in this matter: This being sufficient to establish the Divine Right of Tithes under the Gospel, and to teach us that Tithes being originally due to God, and by Christ assigned to the Gospel-Ministers, are now due to them Jure Divino.  
§. 12. Now this Divine Right is much confirmed by the Voluntary dedication of the Tenth part to God by the Christians afterwards. For what a Man dedicates to God and his Service, God hath a Right to it by that Dedication, though it were a thing which was no way appropriate to God before, Acts v. 3, 4. Num. xxx. 2. As you do very well say in the Conference: That if Tithes were not due by Divine appointment, this Dedication will make them due. Which the Quaker fancies to be a Relinquishing of the Divine Right, most maliciously inferring, pag. 287. That he perceives, though Christ deny them, yet if Men will grant them, it is enough to serve our turns. I know you never said nor thought that Christ denied Tithes, and since the Quaker affirms, that Christ doth deny them, let him produce the place of Scripture where Christ doth deny Tithes to be given or granted to Gospel-Ministers, or else he is a manifest Slanderer of Christ in this suggestion. But to proceed: You did prove this Voluntary dedication (with respect to this Nation) by King Ethelwolph's Charter. Not because that was the first or oldest Donation of Tithes (as T. E. foolishly and falsely suggests p. 299.) for there were elder Dedications of Tithes than this, as well in this Nation as in other parts of Christendom, as you intimated in the Conference, when you said, That as to this matter there was abundant satisfaction to be had, by consulting Antiquaries and Church-Histories, but especially by King Ethelwolph's Charter, etc. 'Tis plain you knew there were other evidences, but you instanced in this as the fullest, (to this purpose, and for this Nation,) which remains at large upon Record. And because the Quaker, dreading all higher Antiquity, and omitting all Inquiry into preceding Church-History, doth cunningly suppose Tithes no older among Christians than this Charter, or however to have arisen from Popery, and accordingly bends all his force to evacuate this Charter, and prove those times Popish; I shall crave leave to lay open his weakness and lamentable mistakes in this following Method, which will continue the account of Tithes I have begun, baffle the Adversary I have undertaken, and free you my worthy Friend from his aspersions.  
First, I will look back into the Ages before K. Ethelwolph, and show by what Authorities and Precedents he made this Donation. Secondly, I will consider the Donation itself, and the state of those times in which it was made. Thirdly, I will note how it hath been confirmed since. And then fourthly, wipe off T. E.'s particular Blots thrown upon this Sacred Maintenance.  
§. 13. First, To look back into the Primitive Times: The Apostles having given a general Rule for the Faithful to communicate unto their Teachers in all good things; the Primitive Christians did always 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 Lord's day was delivered to the Bishop, saith Justin Martyr 
(x) Just. Mart. Apol. 2. An. 150. . But not to expatiate into the whole Maintenance of the Christian Bishops and Priests in the first Ages, which was so plentiful that they had enough for themselves, and also for entertainment of Strangers, Relief of the Poor and suffering Brethren, and for furnishing God's Worship with all things necessary, even then when the Christians were so harrassed with Persecutions: I will come to inquire whether they had nothing in that Maintenance answering to Tithes; yea, whether they had not Tithes given them, by a Voluntary Devotion. I will begin with the Testimony of Irenaeus, S. Polycarp's Disciple, who was the Scholar of S. John, and lived An. 170. We ought (saith he) 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 Oblations among them, and there are Oblations among us 
(z) Irenaeus advers. Haer. lib. 5. c. 34. . And a little after he saith, That as the the Jews gave their Tenths, so the Christians gave all they had freely and cheerfully to the Lords uses, not giving less than they, as having a greater hope. And here we must note, That these First-fruits which we find often mentioned in the Ancients as paid to the Christian Priests, were one sort of Voluntary Tithe, prescribed by Moses Law, being the first and best part of the Fruits of the Earth, offered solemny to God by the owner: And if Tithes had been unlawful because they were spoken of in Moses Law, First-fruits must have been so also. But we shall see the very first Christians dedicated their First-fruits of all the Earth's productions to God: And what was this but a Voluntary Tithe? Yea, I find the Names First-fruits and Tithes frequently joined, as signifying the same thing; only the Greek Churches call these parts of the Earth's productions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Latins more usually term Decimae. And it will be more evident that First-fruits among the Christians were but another Name for Tithes, when we hear what follows. The Apostolical Canons (which were the Decrees of divers Christian Synods, made in the times of Persecution, and of great Authority in the Christian Church) take notice of the Christians in those times, to bring their First-fruits to the place of Assembly, and by the Priest to offer them at the Altar; which looking somewhat like a Sacrifice, it was ordered, That neither Honey, Milk, strong Liquors, Birds, nor living Creatures, nor any other sorts of Pulse, but only some of the first ripe ears of of Corn, and Grapes, should be offered at the Altar 
(a) Apostol. Can. 3. . But all other Fruits should be sent to the Bishop's house, as First-fruits for the Bishop and Presbyters 
(b) Can. 4. . From whence it is plain, That those Christians did dedicate a part of all their Profits to God and his Ministers. And the ancient Greek Church hath an excellent Prayer, which the Priest said for those who thus offered their Tithes or First-fruits 
(c) Eucholo. pag. 655.  And S. Gregory's Sacramentary hath another. In these times of Persecution also lived Origen, Anno 210. whose opinion concerning these Dedications of Tithes and First-fruits we heard before §. 8. And out of the same Homily 
(d) Origen. in Numer. Hom. 11.  we have transcribed these words, It is an undecent, unworthy and wicked thing, for one that worships God and enters into the Church, and knowing that the Priests and Ministers wait at the Altar, serving either to the Word of God, or the Ministeries of the Church, doth not offer to the Priests the First part of those Fruits of the Earth, which God gives by making his Sun to shine, and his Rain to fall. Such a Soul seems to me neither to remember God nor think of him, nor yet to believe that God gave those Fruits, which he takes and lays up, as if God had nothing to do with them. And hence (as is noted before,) he concludes, the Law of Tithes and First-fruits ought to stand in force among Christians. To him we may add S. Cyprian, who lived about 40 Years after, who commending the Nobleness of the first Christians, blames those who did not give the Tithes out of their Inheritance 
(e) Cypri. de Vnit. Eccle.  Which he would not have done, but that he believed Christ intented Tithes for the maintenance of a Gospel-Ministry. To this we mad the Testimony of that ancient Book which bears the name of Clement's Constitutions 
(f) Lib. 8.30. : Let all the First-fruits be delivered to the Bishop, and to the Presbyters and the Deacons. So that we see Tithes and First-fruits were paid and thought lawful even in the times of Persecution; and since no Humane Law enjoined them, they must needs be moved hereunto by esteeming them due by God's Law. But we proceed to consider the Opinion of the succeeding Times; and (to omit the less considerable) S. Ambrose is very plain: It is not (saith he) 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 Tithes yearly of all our Fruits and  
(g) S. Ambr. Serm. 33. in Quadrag. . And again, saith he, 
(h) Id. Ser. 34. An. 380.  What is it faithfully to give Tithes? but that we never give the worst or least parts to God of our Grain, our Wine, of the Fruits of our Trees, of our Flocks, our Garden, our Merchandise; yea, of our very Hunting, because of all the Substance which God gives a Man, he hath reserved the Tenth part to himself: and therefore it is not lawful for a Man to retain that which God hath reserved to himself. Epiphanius, his contemporary, a Bishop in Cyprus, saith: The Scripture exhorteth the People, that out of their just labours they shall give to the Priests for their maintenance, First-fruits, Oblations, and other things 
(i) Epiphan. Panar. lib. 3. to. 2. haer. 80. . Note still the Greek Fathers call the same thing First-fruits which the Latin call Tithes. Only in S. Chrysostom we find both words: for this great Patriarch (who is a zealous opposer of all Jewish Ceremonies, yet) affirms, It is lawful and fitting for Christian to pay Tithes 
(k) Chrys. in Gen. Hom. 35. & in Ep. ad Hebr. Hom. 12. . Yea, he saith Melchisedec was our Tutor in this matter. S. Hierom also in many places declareth they were generally paid in his time. He tells us, That as a Priest or Levite, he himself lived upon Tithes and Oblations 
(l) Hieron. Epist. 2. . And again, under the name of First-fruits, The First-fruits, saith he, 
(m) in Ezek. 45.  of all our Provisions are offered to the Priests, so that we taste nothing of New-fruits till the Priest hath first tasted thereof; and this we do, that the Priest may lay up our bounty and Oblation in his house, so that through his prayers God may bless our houses. Hence he affirms the Law for Tithes doth oblige Christians as to the Substance, as was noted before. And he calls Tithes, the things that be God's 
(n) Id. in Matth. 22. . Yea, he adviseth the Clergy that are in the Towns, to send part of their Tithes to those who served God in desert places: which plainly proveth they were paid to the Priests in his days. S. Augustin (who next follows) is full in many places of his Works for the proof of this: And he intimates, it was no new Custom nor Opinion to to pay Tithes as God's due. For our Forefathers (saith he) therefore abounded in all plenty, because they gave God his Tithes and Caesar his Tribute 
(o) August. Hom. 48. . And again: Tithes are required as due debt, and he that will not give them invades another Man's Right— Whatsoever Art sustaineth thee, it is God's: and he requireth Tithes out of whatsoever thou livest by: May not God say, The Man that I made is mine, the Seed that thou sowest is mine, the  that thou weariest in thy work are mine, the Showers, the Rain and the gentle Winds are mine, the heat of the Sun is mine— and thou that lendest thy hand deservest only the tenth part,— but God gives us a liberal reward for our pains, reserving only the Tenth part to himself 
(p) Aug. de Temp. Ser. 219. . The whole Sermon is most worthy to be read. and is translated into English, in Sir Henry Spelman de non Temerandis Ecclesiis: being an evident Proof of the Ancients opinion that Tithes were of Divine Right; which I might further prove by many more Instances: But I will end these Testimonies of single Eminent Fathers, with that of Prosper of Aquitain, who speaking to the Clergy of his days, saith, We do willingly receive the daily Oblations and Tithes of the Faithful, and shall we lay aside the care of the Flock 
(q) Prosp. de Vit. Contempl. lib. 1. c. 21. ? 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, than he must recant his false Assertion, That Tithes came in with Popery. But to go on: In the next place we will show, That the Decrees of Councils did confirm our Assertion, That Tithes are due jure Divino. And first, let it be noted, That though it be certain Tithes were paid from the earliest days of Christianity; yet it was not for a long time directly enjoined by any Humane Law, either Ecclesiastical or Civil: which shows the first Christians believed they were obliged to pay them by the Law of God. And according to S. Augustin's Rule, viz. [That such things as were universally observed, and owed not their beginning to any Council, were to be thought to have been ordained by the Apostles] Tithes and First-fruits must at least be of Apostolical Institution. I find indeed many Ancient Councils suppose them to have been paid, and ordering how they should be distributed by the Bishops: as Can. Apostolic. 38, & 41. Concil. Gangrenes. Can. 7 & 8. An. 324. where they are called [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Ecclesiastical Tribute of Fruits: And Concil. Antiochen. Can. 24, 25. An. 341. where we read of [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the Profits of the Church, or the Fruits of the Fields. And also in the Canonical Epistle of S. Cyril of Alexandr. to Domnus, where we find mention [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] of Ecclesiastical Revenues, etc. Among all these Instances, that of the  Council of Gangra deserves more largely to be described, as containing a full proof of the Ancient Donation of this Tribute of Fruits to the Church. For, this Synod complaining of the several mischiefs wrought by the Schismatics of Eustathius his party, mention these among the rest: That they left the Houses of God, and contemned the Church, holding private Conventicles, and teaching strange Doctrines there, as well against the Church, as those things that were done in it: and despising the usual Garments, did put on new and strange Habits: And then they add, The Ecclesiastical Tribute also of Fruits, which of old time was given to the Church, they challenge to themselves, and those with them, as being Saints 
(r) Bevereg. Concil. To. 1. p. 416. Conc. Gangrenes. Bin. ibid. p. 376. . For which, and other Quaker-like practices, the Synod pronounces them to be accursed. In this and the forecited places it appears, That Tithes and First-fruits were given to the Church long before the Year of Christ 324. and paid by the People without any Laws to compel them so to do: And the first Law which directly enjoins them, is the Decree of a Roman Council, Anno 374. commanding, That Tithes and First-fruits should be paid by the Christians, and they which withheld them should be anathematised. But there is some question whether that Council be genuine or no; I shall therefore omit this, and all those other Councils 
(s) Concil. Tarracon. Ann. 516. Cone. Aurel. 1. An. 520. Conc. Brita. sub S. Patricio, etc.  which suppose them, but do not enjoin them; and take notice, that the first positive Ecclesiastical Law was made in the Council of Matiscon, almost 300 years before K. Ethelwolph's Donation, Anno 560. whose words do fully prove our Assertion, of their having been paid from the beginning jure Divino. For thus that Council speaks 
(t) Concil. Matisc. Can. 5. : The Divine Laws taking care of the Priests and Ministers of the Churches, for their Inheritance, have enjoined all the People to pay the Tithes of their Fruits to Holy Places; that being hindered by no labour, they may more duly attend Spiritual Ministeries: which Laws the whole Company of Christians have for a long time kept inviolate: wherefore we decree and ordain, That the Ancient Custom be observed still among the Faithful, and that all the People bring in the Tithes, which maintain the Worship of God. And the like Decree was made in Spain about thirty years after, in the first Council of Hispalis, An. 590. under the Famous Bishop Leander, (the Reformer of that Nation from Arrianism), We ordain, say they 
(u) Concil. Hispal. ap. Ivon. p. 2. c. 174. , That all the Fruits and Tithes as well of  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 Tithes into the Storehouse, etc.— For as God hath given us all, so of all he requireth Tithe, of the profits of the Field, and all Provisions, of Bees and Honey, Lambs, etc. And he that pays not Tithes of all these, is a Thief to God himself. On which we may note, they all declare Tithes to be due jure Divino. It would be too tedious to add the numerous confirmation of these Canons, which were made afterwards in the Councils of Toledo, Bracara, Mentz, Colen, etc. besides our English Councils, of which more hereafter. Now we will briefly observe what the Laws of other Kings and Emperors had done, as to this matter, before King Ethelwolph's Time. The Famous Constantine the Great, being settled in his Empire; In the Lands under his Dominion, out of every City, he gave a certain Tribute, to be distributed among the Churches and Clergy of the Provinces, and confirmed this Donation to stand for ever 
(x) Hist. Trip. l. 1. c. 10. ▪ It were endless to relate all the Constitutions of Pious Emperors, 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 Tithes, serve instead of many Instances. The Tithes by God's Command are separated for the Priests, that they which are of God's Famtly may be sustained by his Portion, and therefore they cannot by any Humane Privilege be given to Laymen; lest the Supreme Authority should therein prejudice the Divine Commandment 
(y) Cod. l. 7. Tit. de Praescrip. . A parallel Law to this we find in Authenticis, tit. eod. But to come still nearer to King Ethelwolph, he might know how the Religious King Riccaredus had confirmed the Decrees of the first Council of Hispalis about paying Tithes, An. 590. Nor could he be ignorant what (that most glorious Prince of his times) Charles the Great, (Emperor of the West,) had done in settling Tithes on the Church about 100 years before King Ethelwolph's Donation. This Emperor was so far from Idolatry, that he called a Council to condemn the use of Images, and writ against them himself: And yet he in an Assembly of all his People offered and gave all his Tithes to God and his Ministers in a most solemn manner, and obliged all his People to do the like. And the form of the Dedication, with the Curses against the Infringers thereof, is set down at large in the Capitulars of Charles the Great 
(z) Wormat. l. 6. p. 285. . And indeed before the time of King Ethelwolph, Tithes were settled on the Church in most parts of the Christian World, even by Civil and Ecclesiastical Constitutions, as well as Voluntary Donation, and all grounded on this Principle, That Tithes were due jure Divino. But it may be our Quaker's ignorance may persuade him that Ethelwolph was the first who gave Tithes in this Nation; and I perceive all along he dates the very Birth of Tithes in the year 855. Wherefore I will show him that he is miserably mistaken in that also. Our Famous Lawyer Fleta expounding the word [Churchesset,] saith 
(a) Lib. 1. cap. 17. , It signifies a certain Measure of Corn which every one of old gave to the Holy Church, about the time of S. Martin 's Feast, as well in the time of the Britain's as the English. Adding, that it was after called First-fruits. So that by this Account, there was a kind of Tithes paid by the Britain's before the coming of Austin: For the Saxon word Ciric-sceat signifies the Tribute of the Church. Or else Ciric-set or sat, that is, The Church-seed, as Mr. Lambert expounds it. And also Malmsbury 
(b) Lib. 2. the gest. Reg. c. 11. , calls it The First-fruits of the Seed. Another old MSS. in Spelman, The First-fruits of the Seed belonging to the Church of that place where a Man dwells. And Lindenbrogius calls it, A Tribute of Corn out of the Fields. I give the larger Account of this, because that above 160 years before King Ethelwolph's time, one of his Predecessors, King Ina, had made a strict Law about this matter: Let the Caeric-sceat be paid on the Feast of S. Martin, (saith he) and if any Man neglects it, he shall forfeit sixty Shillings, and restore his Caeric-sceat twelve times over 
(c) Spelm. p. 192. , Anno 692. It seems that here in England, as well as in other Christian Countries, the People had paid it voluntarily before: And it was some decays of Piety, that occasioned these Laws. Now if T. E. desire to have the Name of Tithes, as well as the thing, among the Ancient Saxons, he may find in the Epistle of Boniface to Cuthbert Archbishop of Canterbury 
(d) Apud Spelm. T. 1. p. 240. , Ann. 745. That the English Priests in those days were maintained by the taking the Daily Oblations and Tithes of the Faithful. Moreover, about the year 750. Egbert Archbishop of York, of the Saxon Blood-Royal, made a Collection of all Canons that were made in the Councils before his time, and which were in force in England And these Collections seem to have been a Compendium of the Canon-Law among the Saxons. Now among these Canons there is frequent mention of Tithes: viz. That the People be instructed in the right manner of Offering them to God's Church, Can. 4. That the Priest shall take them, and set down the Names of those who gave them, Can. 5. That the People should not change that which fell out to be the Tenth, Can. 99 That the Lord requires Tithes out of that which we get our living by, Can. 100 Again, in the Council of Chalcuth, A. 787. All Men are strictly charged to give Tithes of all that they possess: Because it is the Propriety of the Lord God, or the Part that specially belongs to him, Canon 17. 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 Tithes) we will only note, that Ethelbald King of Mercia, An. 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 Germane Boniface, which assured us Tithes were then enjoyed by the Clergy) must be meant of Tithes. Again, K. Offa, (who had with all his Clergy condemned the Adoration of Images, and so was no Idolater,) An. 793. did give the Tenth of all that he had to the Church. By all which it appears, That from the time of the first general Conversion of the Saxons, Tithes were generally paid by the People, and received by the Clergy, even before any special Laws were made about them. And when Councils or Princes did make any Laws about them, they always do suppose them paid before. So that King Ethelwolph in this Donation doth rather confirm the Right of Tithes, than originally make them due. And it is to be noted, that till this time, the Saxons being divided into so many petty Kingdoms, were in continual broils; and there was no one King who had power to collect all the scattered Laws about Tithes, and confirm them for the whole Kingdom of England, till he, who was the first Hereditary Monarch of the Saxon Blood. He therefore, guided by these foreign Authorities and Examples, and led by the Custom, Canons and Laws of the several petty Kingdoms and Kings, doth now make this most famous Charter, to oblige the whole Kingdom to this Religious Payment, whose rise and original we have thus far seen.  
§. 14. 2ly, As to the Donation itself, the immediate occasion of it was the Compassion of this Religious and mild Prince towards his Subjects, sorely infested and harrassed with the Danish Invasions. Whereupon he summons a General Council of all England, at Winchester, Anno 855. wherein were present Beorred King of Mercia, and Edmund King of the East-Angles (his Tributaries) with the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury and York, and all the Bishops, and the Nobles of England: with whom King Ethelwolph consulted by what means they might best avert the anger of God, and obtain a removal of the sore Judgements with which the Nation was scourged at that time. Whereupon it was by general consent there determined, That the Tithes throughout all England should be granted to God and the Church; as this Charter of K. Ethelwolph, yet extant in Ancient Historians, doth testify: which was subscribed by the two Tributary Kings, the Bishops, Abbots, Dukes, Earls and Noblemen: and consented unto by an infinite Multitude of other faithful People, saith Ingulphus.  
§. 15. 3ly, But lest there should be any defect in this Charter, we will show how it hath been confirmed since in all Ages. First, it was confirmed in that famous League between the Danes and Saxons, by Alfred or Alured the Great, Son of Ethelwolph, and Guthum the first Baptised King of the Danes, An. 887. and a Penalty added for such as should detain their Tithes 
(e) Leg: Eccles. Alured & Guth. c. 9 . And again, by Edward the Elder, who was Son of Alured, An. 906. And again, by Athelstan, (Son of the said Edward,) in the Council of Gratelane, An. 928. Tithes also, by the Name of [Decimas seminum Primitias], are again enjoined by Edmund Brother of Athelstane, in a great Council of the Clergy and Laity at London, An. 944. King Edgar in open Senate renewed the Law for Tithes; and made it a forfeiture of Nine parts to detain the Tenth, An. 967. And in his Canons he calls Tithes, [Things which by Right are to be paid to God] As they are also by Ethelred [The Rights due to God] when he confirmed the Donation of Tithes in the General Council at Aenham, An. 1009. The same ratified also by Canutus, and King Edgar's Penalty revived, An. 1032. And lastly, by King Edward the Confessor, in those Laws of his which were collected and confirmed by King William the Conqueror at his Entering upon the English Crown; as all other Kings of England since have done. The particulars are too many to mention, and the Thing is sufficiently known. Wherefore we will only add, that the very first words of Magna Charta, (the foundation of the English Liberties,) confirms all that had been given to the Church. And Sir Hen. Spelman affirms, these Grants had been ratified in thirty nine several great Councils and Parliaments before the Reformation. And we all know, that our Protestant Princes have confirmed the Right of Tithes as fully as any of their Predecessors; and with their Protestant Parliaments have given greater strength and security to the Clergy in possession of them, than ever they had before; and made better Laws for punishing those who do detain them. Now if all this, added to the antecedent Divine Right, will not amount to make a valid Deed of Gift, than no Man can secure any thing to his Posterity. For this Donation hath been advised by Fathers, enjoined by Councils, practised by foreign Princes, solemny made by the general Consent of the three Estates with the King, frequently confirmed by as general Consent in every Age, and the benefit thereof enjoyed for 800 Years by those to whom the Donation was made. And thus the Clergy have a second Title to the Tithes: They were originally due to God, and afterwards freely given by the right Owners, and that Gift confirmed by their Posterity. Due by the Laws of God, due by the Gift of the Owners, and allowed by the Laws of Man: which being thus far proved, I hope our Quaker's trifling Objections will now easily be dispelled.  
§. 16. Three general Exceptions T. E. takes at this Charter. First, In respect of the Author of it, pag. 289. And here he affirms King Ethelwolph was a Papist. If T. E. had known what gives a Man the just denomination of a Papist, he would not have discoursed so absurdly: For it is not every one that agrees in some opinions with the Roman Church, who is a Papist; since then all Christians in the World would be Papists: but he is a Papist, who professes himself a Member of the Roman Church, and acknowledges the Pope's Supremacy, believing all the Articles of the Roman Churches Faith: Now K. Ethelwolph did never profess himself a Member of the Roman Church, but he and his Successors were Vicarios Christi 
(f) Leg. Hydens. cap. 8. , owning no Supreme in their Kingdoms but Christ, as is learnedly made out against the Papists, in Dr. Basire's Liberty of the Britain Church, and Sir Roger Twisden's Histor. Vindication: and we shall fully prove on pag. 300. that he did not hold all the opinions of the Church of Rome, and therefore was no Papist. But if we should grant so much to the Quaker, That Ethelwolph was a Papist; yet neither would that make his Donation of Tithes void: For an erroneous Opinion in the Person who doth a thing good in itself (as we have proved Tithes to be) doth not make the Act void. And if all the good Acts of Papists (in the true sense) and all their Charters and Donations be void, merely because made and done by Papists; then all the Charters of our Kings, all the Endowments of Hospitals and Schools, Magna Charta, and all Public Acts for some hundreds of years before K. Henry VIII. would be void: Which Principle would destroy the Maintenance of the Poor, the Privileges of Cities, and the Freedom of all English Subjects. But this Quaker must be more wary than thus to unhinge all Establishments; and let him note, That if Ethelwolph had been a Papist in other things, yet in this Act he was none, unless Abraham were a Papist before Christ's time, and Origen with the Fathers afterwards; yea, unless our Protestant Princes and Parliaments be Papists also.  
§. 17. Secondly, he objects, p. 290. That Tithes were given to maintain the Popish Clergy]. This is a mistake also; for Ingulphus saith, Vniversam dotaverat Ecclesiam Anglicanam: it was for the Maintenance of the English Clergy, who had a Patriarch of their own in those days, and were a Church of themselves, not holding all the opinions of the Roman Church, nor professing any Canonical obedience to the Pope (which was first done by Ralph Archbishop of Canterbury, Anno 1115.) and therefore they cannot justly be called a Popish Clergy. But suppose again, the Saxon Priests had been Papists; that would not have made a Donation of Tithes invalid: because Tithes are God's Right, and the Grant was intended to God 
(g) Ad serviendum Deo soli, Ingulph. Deo contulit. Math. West. . The Clergy of that Age were God's only public Ministers (and the Quaker's private Teaching was not then invented); the Donors supposed them a good Ministry, and as such endowed them, for they esteemed them to be God's Receivers: and since there is no fault in God, if there had been a fault in the Servant, that could not prejudice the Master's Title. Besides, Almighty God hath now provided himself of Ministers that are no Papists, but the most considerable Enemies to Popery in all the World; so that if they had been a Popish Clergy, and forfeited their own Right, they could not forfeit ours; and yet it is from a Protestant Clergy that the Quakers would take the Tithes. Again, T. E. must know, that erroneous opinions in the Clergy do not make void the Rights which they have by the Laws of God or Man: For the Jewish Priests in Christ's time were very erroneous in judgement, and yet Christ pronounces they had a Right to Tithes, even to those small Tithes not expressed in God's Law, but Dedicated by the Pharisees; for, saith he, These things ye ought have done, Matth. xxiii. 23. so doubtless we may say, Though that Clergy were erroneous, yet Ethelwolph ought to have given them God's due, and the People ought to have paid it to them: If they were erroneous, neither Prince nor People knew it, and they did not give these to maintain their Errors (as T. E. maliciously insinuates) but to maintain that which they believed to be a good Ministry, and the true Worship of God: and therefore the Donation remains good. If I give alms to a poor Turk, Papist or Quaker, he is malicious who says I do it to maintain his Errors, when I do it to relieve his wants 
(h) Misericordia solet juvare paup●rem, non examinare justitiam. Ambros. de Nabeth. . However, will any plead, if I endow an Alms-house, and suppose the Beadsmen to be good Men, but am mistaken, and after my decease it appears the Persons which were chosen were of evil Principles or wicked Life; that this makes my Donation to be wholly void? We may say, such evil Persons ought to be put out, and better put in; but be the Persons good or bad, the Gift given to God stands good and is irrevocable.  
§. 18. Thirdly, The Quaker objects, ibid. That he did it upon evil motives. For the good of our Souls, and the forgiveness of our sins (are the words of the Charter); which shows it to be an effect of that Popish Doctrine of meriting Salvation by Good works, and that he gave this as an expiation for his sins.] 'Tis somewhat strange that T. E. should reckon both these for evil motives; and it is the first time that I ever heard it called an evil motive, to be moved to do a good work, For the good of our Souls. Again, the desire of Remission of his sins was a good motive in itself, only he took an ill course to obtain it, if he sought Expiation by Good works; to merit pardon and salvation by good works, is now a Doctrine of the grosser Romanists, and I fear of some Quakers also, who (slighting the merit and necessity of Christ's death) ascribe Salvation to the following the Light within; yea, T. E. himself pleads, that there is no Salvation unless we have a sinless perfection, and (as if Christ had never died) positively affirms, Wheresoever there is sin, there is also condemnation, p. 97. Now he that looks for Salvation by his perfection, doth hold that Popish Doctrine of meriting Salvation by Good works; and he that proudly says, he hath no sin to be remitted, renders Christ's death as useless, as he that believes he shall obtain remission by his Good works. And therefore I doubt the Quaker will be found to be more a Papist than K. Ethelwolph: For this Popish Doctrine of Merit and Expiation by Good works is not so old as that Age; yea, the learned Bishop Usher proves, that this Doctrine was not received here in Alselm's days; for in his Directions to those who visited the Sick are these Questions and Answers, A. Brother, dost thou believe thou canst not be saved but by the death of Christ? B. Yes. A. Give him thanks for this with all thine heart. B. I do. A. If the Lord would judge thee, say, O Lord, I set the death of my Lord JESUS between me and thy Judgement, otherwise I cannot stand before thee 
(i) Usher. de Success. Eccles. c. 7. §. 21. . Yea, Pope Adrian our Countryman calls Merits a broken Reed, on which if we lean, it will pierce our hand 
(k) Adrian. in 4. Sent. . And 'tis evident from S. Bernard, Durandus, and others, that the Church of Rome itself was not for Merits in this gross sense, of 300 or 400 years after Ethelwolph's time: And for his words in this Charter, and some such like as are to be found among the most Orthodox Fathers, they mean no more, than that they hoped these good fruits meet for Repentance would be acceptable to God, so that he perceiving their purposes of well-doing, might of his great mercy bestow that pardon on them, which Christ alone merited: And hence the good King adds, that they gave these also, That the Priests might so much the more fervently pour out their Prayers to God without ceasing for them: So that we may perceive, they did not think this good work alone could expiate their sins, or merit Salvation, without God's mercy; and to that end, they desired the daily and importunate Prayers of the Church for them, since they had learned from S. James, That the Prayers of God's Ministers were a good means to obtain Remission, James v. 14, 15. But let us here also suppose they were led by those evil motives which T. Is malice falsely lays to their charge; will he say, that all the Donations of Papists (who really are led by these Motives) are invalid to those to whom they are made? If so, than all the Schools, Hospitals, and other charitable Gifts of Popish Donation are void; which is a ridiculous Assertion. The giving any thing to a pious use upon evil motives, may endanger the Giver's losing his Reward in Heaven, but it will not deprive the Receivers of the benefit of such a Gift on Earth; and if we might not lawfully enjoy a Gift, unless the Giver were moved by just and good motives to give it, we could scarce enjoy any Donation of Papist or Protestant; since we cannot certainly know whether they were induced to it by good or bad motives. We conclude therefore, That the Quaker falsely accuses our Ancestors, in calling them Papists, and their Clergy Popish, and in affirming they were acted by evil motives. And yet 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 Tithes to God and his Ministers to be void.  
Some slighter Cavils he hath, p. 292, 293. As first, 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. 'Tis true, they called these Prayers [Missas] a name used very innocently and anciently by the Latin Fathers; but these Prayers were far different from the Missal of the Church of Rome, whose Offices were first brought in here by Osmund Bishop of Salisbury, An. 1096. there being great variety before. Again, he quarrels with the Charter, for the Names of the Saints annexed to it, in whose honour it is said to have been made: But T.E. may note, 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 material passage in the Phrase of their own Times, of which dealing in other cases I could give many Instances: however, it was given to God in the first place, and no mention of the Saints in all the body of the Charter; and it is certain they did not worship the Saints in those days: and sure it is no great crime in the second place to give a respect and honour to them, even the same we do to such as are alive: But our Quakers despise all the old Saints, and think no Saints deserve so much honour as themselves. In the next place, he quarrels at you, for that you will not grant They gave Tithes in a blind and superstitious zeal;] whereas we have learned from S. Paul, It is good to be zealous always in a good thing, Gal. iv. Now I have made it evident, It is a good thing to grant Tithes to God's Service; and therefore though our Ancestors were blind and superstitious in other things, yet not in this Donation, herein their zeal was commendable. Again, whereas you had said, Tithes were given to God for the maintenance of his Ministry, T. E. interprets this to be A calling the Idolatrous Priesthood of the Church of Rome God's Ministers;] which is a malicious and false inference, since the Priesthood to whose maintenance these Tithes were given, was neither Idolatrous, nor the Priesthood of the Church of Rome; but it is certain the Donors intended them to the right Ministers of God; and I make no doubt they were such to whom they gave them: and if there were some errors among them, that takes not away the Character of their Office, nor their Title to Tithes, since Christ himself declared, Tithes ought to be paid to the Jewish Priests, Matth. xxiii. 23. and sent Judas out to preach the Gospel.  
§ 1.9. The Quaker proceeds p. 294, 295. to give us some proofs of his dishonesty, as he has done of his ignorance before; for whereas you affirmed, That Tithes being given to God for the maintenance of his Ministry, no blemish in the Dedication of them could alter their property:] This being spoken particularly of Tithes, T. E. thus descants upon it, His Assertion is so general [no blemish, etc.] that nothing once dedicated, by whomsoever, would seem to come amiss to him, not the offerings of the Gentiles to their Heathenish Deities, not the Turks endowments to their Mahometan Priests, nor Judas his 30 pieces of silver]. Were these given to the true God? or were these Offerings Tithes? If they were not both of these, why doth this Quaker mention them here? or with what face can he say your Assertion was general, when you were speaking of a good thing [Tithes] given to the [True God] and that for a good end [the maintenance of his Ministry?] Here are three limitations, and yet he hath the impudence to call this a general Assertion, and parallel it with evil things, or things given to false gods: But your words I will stand to, and make it appear, That such things as Tithes are, being given to the True God for a good end, no blemish in the Dedication can alter their property: Which I might prove by the Jews receiving the Donations, Charters and Oblations of the Heathen Princes of Persia, as we read in Ezra and Nehemiah, as also the Gifts and Presents which Augustus Caesar made to the Temple at Jerusalem 
(k) Joseph. Bell. Jud. . But I will stick to your first Instance of the Censers offered by Korah's company, Num. xuj. These were by God's special order declared holy, and forbidden to be used to any common use afterward. The Quaker replies to this, That you have found out a pretty parallel, and matched your Case well, in bringing this rebellious Consecration, attended with a damnable sin, to parallel the Dedication of Tithes.] Methinks if T. E. have not so much Logic, he might have so much common sense to discern, that it is the difference between these two Cases that makes your Argument good; for you are arguing a majori ad minus, That if a Dedication, though made in so wicked a manner, by such damnable sinners, doth make the thing offered sacred, and not to be alienated; then no blemish in the Dedication of a good thing to the true God, can make the thing become unconsecrate: And if the Censers might not be alienated, much less should Tithes: Yea, and T. E. saw this well enough; for you had said expressly, There was a vast difference between that Dedication, and this of Tithes: but this he overlookt wilfully, that he might take an occasion to make the Reader believe, that you had made these two Cases to be alike in all respects.  
Well, but T. E. will give you an account why the Censers of Korah might not be used to common uses, p. 296. The Censers were to be kept (saith he) for a particular Reason, viz. to be a sign and memorial that no stranger should come near to offer Incense.] If we dare believe Almighty God, rather than this ignorant Quaker, this was not the reason why they were to be kept; for God gives another reason of that, ver. 37. Because they are hallowed, and ver. 38. For they offered them before the Lord, therefore they are hallowed: Where we see it was the Dedication that made them uncapable of being used to any common use afterwards; but the Quaker's Reason was not a Reason why they were kept, but why they were put to that particular holy use, and to no other: And would God the Quaking Speakers would remember these Censers at this day, when they usurp the Priest's Office. Another ingenious note of T. Is is this, That The Censers were not permitted to be used as Censers, but being made into broad plates for the covering of the Altar, the property of them was altered before they were allowed to be used.] The property altered! hath not his immediate Teaching learned him to speak sense? the form of the Censers was altered indeed, but the property was not altered at all. The Lord had the property of them when they were Censers, and he had the same property in them when they are made into Plates. The property of a a thing is not altered, unless it change its Master. If I have a property in a piece of Gold by a Friend's Gift, and after see fit to melt it into a Ring for my own use; the form is changed, but the property is the same. But to the Case before us: As the Censers being once given to God, must remain to be his still; and though they might be used to another holy use, yet they could not be alienated to a profane or common use; so we may learn, it ought to be in other sacred Dedications: If the things were offered to maintain an evil way of Worship, they may be applied to maintain a right way of Worship; but still they must remain sacred, God's property in them should not be altered.  
§. 20. The poor Quaker finding his Arguments will not be able to wrest Tithes out of the Clergys' hands, attempts to get more forces on his side, and pag. 297. makes a fine Speech to exasperate the Impropriators against the Priests, persuading them that we are about to take their Estates from them; but I shall make it evident very shortly §. 37. That this very flattering Quaker, that seems so tender of their Rights here, doth labour to his utmost skill to prove, they neither have, nor can have any   

Right to, or Estate in Tithes at all; and that it is ridiculous, unjust and unreasonable in them to pretend to have any such Estate; so that I hope the Impropriators, and all others, will see the falseness of his dealing, and observe that he will say any thing to serve a present turn, and make the Priests odious: For our parts, we do not (like the Quakers) take upon us to censure the Actions of our Princes and Parliaments, nor yet (where Priests have temporal Estates, the Tithes whereof belong to Lay-Impropriators) do we refuse to pay those Tithes, as the Laws of the Land appoint; we do not pretend Conscience to save Charges, as the Quakers manner is: Whatever opinions therefore the Priests hold in this matter, they do not oppose the Laws, nor go about to persuade any to take away the Impropriators Estates from them. There are some indeed, not only of the Clergy but the Laity also, who have been of opinion, That in point of Conscience, and as far as concerns the Divine Laws, these Alienations were not allowable; and they have persuaded such as can spare them, freely to return them to pious uses, or however to make provision for a Minister out of them, sufficient to instruct the People where the profits do arise; but none of us ever used the Impropriators as the Quakers have done us: we know the present Laws give them a legal Title to them, and where we are liable we pay cheerfully to them; if their own Consciences be satisfied to keep them, we do not molest them; but if we do say, It is more pious and more Christian freely to restore them, I hope this is no just cause of offence: But for this matter, see Dr. Basier's Sacrilege arraigned, and that excellent Book called The larger Work about Tithes, written by Sir Henry Spelman, whose Example answered his Instructions; for he gave an Impropriation back to the Church out of his own Estate, and persuaded divers Great Men to do the like; and many other excellent Men since that time have followed the same Pattern.  
§. 21. T.E. is pag. 300. again harping upon the old string of Popery; and now he falls to work for the Jesuits in good earnest, labouring to make out the Pope's Title to England, by a Prescription of eight or nine hundred years, and all this merely to persuade the World, that the Saxons were Papists when Tithes were given, and consequently that they are Popish, and aught to be abolished: But how impertinent and untrue all this is, I will examine.] For first, if the Saxons in K. Ethelwolph's time were Papists, it will not follow that all their Donations are void; so that if he could make this out, it would not prove his Position, viz. That this Donation of Tithes is invalid. Secondly, and suppose they were Papists in some things, yet it follows not that giving Tithes was a Popish Act; for all the Acts of Papists are not Popish. The Saxons of those days observed the Lords Day, and made good Laws for its observation, enjoined all Persons to learn the Creed and the Lords Prayer; they gave Alms to the poor, protested against Adoration of Images, etc. and in these they were no Papists; yea, those of the present Roman Church do many Acts of Piety and Charity, but sure those Acts are not Popish: The Protestants have disputed as much and as well for Tithes, as ever the Papists did; and T. E. must know, it is a Popish opinion, That the Bishop of Rome can exempt Men from paying Tithes. And therefore if our Ancestors who gave Tithes had been Papists, in this Act they had been good Christians, and differed not from the opinion of the Reformed Church. Thirdly, he gins too low by far; for if Popery came not into the Church till about seven hundred years after Christ (according to T. E.'s proofs) than Tithes were much ancienter than Popery; for they were paid and declared to be due to the Christian Church at least five hundred years before: and T. E. must prove Origen, Cyprian, S. Ambrose, Chrysostom, Hierome and Augustine to have been Papists, if he will make out, that Tithes came into the Church with Popery: Or if he pretend he meant it only of this Church of England, we have showed Tithes were paid generally, and specially granted in some parts of this Kingdom, long before Ethelwolph's time; so that he may twattle thus to please his ignorant Quakers, but we discern the emptiness and impertinence of these Allegations, which are so nothing to the purpose, that they deserve not to be considered at all. Yet because the poor Man hath taken so much pains, we will give him the hearing: But it is rather to clear our Pious Ancestors from the Reproaches of this ungracious Cham, than out of any necessity in order to the Case of Tithes. First therefore let us note, That most of those Doctrines which are properly called Popery, and which first caused and still justify the Protestants Separation from Rome, were not maintained as Articles of Faith, no not in the Church of Rome itself, at the time of this Donation, Anno 855. The Marriage of Priests was not forbidden till the time of Greg. VII. above 200 years after 
(l) Polyd. Virgil derer. invent. l. 5. c. 4. . The number of the Seven Sacraments was not defined till Peter Lombard's days, Anno 1140 
(m) Cassand. de Sacram. . The Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not received for a point of Faith till the Lateran Council, above 1200 years after Christ 
(n) Scotus in 4. Sent. didst 11. q. 3. . Purgatory itself was but a private Opinion, and affirmed only by some, An. 1146 
(o) Otto Frising. l. 8. Chr. c. 26. . And Indulgences can be no older 
(p) Polyd. Virgil. l. 8. cap. 8. & Fish. Roffens. contra Luther. Ar. 18. : Yea, their Application to Souls in Purgatory was first brought in by Boniface VIII. 
(q) Agrip. de Vanit. Scien. c. 61. . The Half Communion began but a little before the Council of Constance, and was never decreed till then 
(r) Gregor. de Valent. de Legit. usu Eucha. c. 10. An. 1415. . Yea, the putting the Apocrypha into the Canon of Scripture, and divers other Points, were never decreed till the Council of Trent, about 110 years ago: And if it were not to avoid prolixity, I could make it evident, That the Pope's Universal Supremacy and Infallibility, Justification by the merit of Good works, Auricular Confession, Formal Invocation of Saints, and other corruptions of the modern Papists, were not determined as Articles of Faith, no not in Rome itself, in Ethelwolph's time: and then how can he be called a Papist, supposing he had agreed with the than Roman Church in all points? But I must not launch out into this Ocean, wherefore I will content myself to reply to the Quaker's Instances. 1. For those pag. 301. the Quaker lays not much stress upon them, and there are some of them allowed by the best Protestants, and all Men that understand Antiquity know those Decretal Epistles to be forged, which first attributed these Constitutions to those early Popes. Proceed we therefore to his more material Instances: And first, concerning Deposing of Kings, T. E. saith, Pope Zachary I. took upon him to depose King Chilperic, and absolved his Subjects from their Allegiance.] This is a Forgery invented by the Champions of the Pope's Supremacy, but denied by the French, who do assure us, That the deposing of King Chilperic was done by Pepin himself, by the consent of the whole Kingdom of France, before any notice was given to the Pope about it, who did not pretend to any such Authority over the French King (nor is he allowed it at this day,) but only approved of the deed after it was done, and advised to put him into a Monastery 
(s) Centur. Magdeburg. ; and the ancient Historians words thus describing this matter, may be seen in Widrington Apol. pro jure Princip. And to let T. E. see how unlikely this feigned Deposition of Chilperic by the Pope's Authority is, I will set down the Reply of Hincmarus Arch Bishop of Rheims to Pope Adrian the Second, who had written to him to Excommunicate the King of France, Anno 870. (which was less than deposing) There was never (saith Hinc marus) any such precept before sent from Rome, to any of my Predecessors— And going on, he tells the Pope, That the French assembled in Council, did desire his Holiness, according to the Example of his Predecessors, to meddle with Ecclesiastical matters which belonged to him, and not with the Commonwealth, which was the King's part to dispose of— And let him not (say they) command us Franks to serve him that we will not serve, for his Predecessors did never put this yoke upon our Predecessors, neither can we endure it 
(t) Hincmar. ap. L. Boch. Decret. Ecc. Gal. l. 2. Tit. 2. p. 317. . I cite this the more largely, because our Ethelwolph married the Daughter of this very King of France, whom the Pope could not so much as Excommunicate, much less Depose; and no doubt Ethelwolph was as free from the Pope's Authority in this matter, as the King of France his Father-in-law. Secondly, There is as little truth in Gregory the Third's Deposing of Leo Isaurus about Images: which Deposition Onuphrius, a judicious Historian, calls a mere Fable 
(u) Onuphr. in Vit. Greg. VII. . Indeed no Bishop did ever depose a King or Emperor till Hildebrand's time, An. 1074. which is confirmed by the best Historians of that Age 
(x) Chron. Hirsaug. Otto Frising. l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 Godfr. Viter. part. 17. Trithemius, etc. . Let Onuphrius speak for all: Gregory the Seventh did first of all the Popes of Rome— despising the Imperial Authority and power— not only Excommunicate, but presume to deprive the Emperor of his Kingdom and Empire; a thing never heard of in the World before 
(y) Onuphr. Vit. Gregor. VII. . And Sigebertus, Chr. An. 1088. calls it A Novelty and a Heresy: Yea, the whole Church of Liege, in their Epistle to Paschal II. tell him to his face, That no Pope, before this Gregory, did ever use the Temporal Sword 
(z) Epist. Leodens. Eccles. ad Paschal. 2. . So that this piece of Popery was not crept into any part of the Christian Church, much less into England, when Tithes were given to the Church; nor was the Pope's Supremacy or Infallibility owned here in those days, as I will undertake to prove against this Quaker, and the Jesuits, whose part he takes in this matter: So that I will only note, That if T. E. refer the first Original of Tithes to Ethelwolph's Donation in this Kingdom, than he should have produced an Example of the Pope's power to depose the Kings of England, which if he can show to have then been a Doctrine received here, it will make somewhat to his purpose; but these foreign Instances, if they were as true as they are false, do not prove the Saxons were Papists in this point. Secondly, The Quaker Instances in the Worship of Images, and upon presumption that our Saxon-Ancestors worshipped them, he frequently call them Idolaters;] which is another manifest slander: For though the Saxons had some few Images and Pictures for ornament and memory, yet they did not worship them in this Age, nor long after; and though the second Council of Nice did attempt to establish Image-worship, we may see in Dr. Stillingfleet's last Book of the Idolatry of the Roman Church, That the greatest part of the Christian World rejected that Council, and detested the practice thereof; yea, that Council was almost by all so much contemned, that it was scarce counted worth the Reading by him that translated it 
(a) Anastas. Bibliothec. Praef. ad 7. Synod. . But to show what was the opinion of the Saxons and Gallican Churches (generally agreeing in their opinions) where the most famous Tythe-givers of this Age lived; let it be noted, that Sir Henry Spelman proves, That the Saxons from Augustin's time had Images only for ornament, memory, reverence and example, but not for worship 
(b) Concil. tom. 1. not. ad Council. Lond. An. 712. . And about 60 years before K. Ethelwolph's Donation, we read a full Account of the English Churches opinion about Images, Anno 792. For Charles the Great of France (saith the Historian) sent the Constitutions of a Synod which he had received from Constantinople, into Britain, in which, alas, were many inconvenient things, and contrary to the Catholic Faith, especially that Images ought to be worshipped, which is altogether accursed by the Church of God; against which Alcuinus writ an Epistle, wonderfully proved by the Authority of Divine Scripture, which in the name of our Princes and Bishops he carried with the Constitutions back to the King of France 
(c) Hoveden Annal. p. 232 Sim. Dunel. Col. 111. Math. West. An. 793. . And upon this a Synod was called at Frankfort, wherein by the Gallican, English and Germane Churches, the worship of Images was condemned, and a Book written in the Name of Charles the Great against the second Council of Nice 
(d) Vid. Eiginharti Annal. An. 794. : and that this opinion continued long after, may be seen in Dr. Stillingfleet, pag. 832. who instances in Famous Authors, that in the name of the Gallican Church opposed all Image-worship; such as Ionas Aurelianensis, Anno 842. and Agobardus Bishop of Lyens, An. 850. Hincmarus' Bishop of Rheims, An. 880. etc. And that the English remained free from this Idolatry a long time after, is showed by Sir Roger Twysden 
(e) Histor. Vindic. c. 9 p. 184. . Thirdly, He instances in Miracles and Intercession of Saints, taxing Bede with these points of Popery, and the Saxons of his time.] I reply, That if the 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 Miracle than any they can find in all Bede's History: Again, It is not unlikely but some extraordinary Miracles might be wrought at the first Conversion of the Saxons, the more easily to convince that rugged People; and the want of Humane Learning in that Age, might occasion the credulous reception of more than was true; and yet we must not condemn them presently for Papists: they might be credulous and apt to be imposed upon, but that was their infirmity, and amounts but to Superstition, not to Popery. I add, That in Eusebius, and other old Church-Histories, there are many Miracles recorded; which yet doth not prove either the Authors relating them, or the People believing them, to be Papists. As for Intercession of Saints, if he mean, that the Saxons prayed to the Saints as their Intercessors with God, he doth egregiously wrong them; for the old Saxon Psalters, in which are their Private Devotions, have no mention of any Saints at all; as is attested by Spelman and Twysden, who had perused several Originals; and Bishop Usher affirms the like of a Prayer Book which he had seen, as old as K. Athelstan's time, An. 940. Nor were the Saints Names added in their Litanies with [Ora pro nobis] till about the time of K. Canutus almost 200 years after K. Ethelwolph's time: So that neither in this matter were our Tythe-givers Idolaters, nor Papists neither. There is but one thing more wherein the present Church of Rome is charged with Idolatry, and that is in Adoring the Host, or Body of Christ, (which they say is transubstantiate) in the Sacrament; but neither in this were the Saxons guilty, for they did not believe Transubstantiation, no not in King Edgar's days, An. 975. as appears by the Saxon Paschal Homily, which Aelfricus then translated into Saxon, being appointed to be publicly read: There is (saith he) much difference between the Body of Christ which suffered for us, and that which is consecrated in the Eucharist; that was born of the Virgin's flesh— but his Spiritual Body, which we call the Host, is composed of many grains, without blood or bones, or any member, or any Soul— This Mystery is a pledge and figure, but the Body of Christ is Truth itself 
(f) Homily Pasch. Sax. . And another Discourse of his to a Saxon Bishop of those Times, saith; The Host is the Body of Christ, not corporally, but spiritually 
(g) B. Usher de Success. 〈◊〉 Eccles. c. 〈◊〉 §. 21. : Which proves they were of the same opinion with Protestants in this main point, and could be no Idolaters at all. I could give more Instances to prove that the Saxons were like the Protestants in the most fundamental matters; but two Instances more shall suffice at present: 1. As to the merit of Good works; The Lord teacheth us (saith V. Bede) that no Man is sufficiently able to save himself, either by his own , or his own merits 
(h) Bed. in Psal. 31. . And by the Righteousness of his deeds shall no Man be saved, but only by the Righteousness of Faith 
(i) Id. in Psal. 77. . By the mercy of God in the Name of our Saviour, and not by our merits, we obtain Life, saith Alcuinus, An. 800. 
(k) In Psal. 142.  And long after, even in Anselm's time, this was the opinion of the Church of England, as we have proved before; so that in this point the Quakers (with their Perfection) are more Popish than the Saxons were. I shall conclude with the Canon of Scripture, which the Saxons kept entire as we have it, rejecting the Apocrypha from being of Divine Authority, even as the present Protestants Church doth; see of old Beda 
(l) Comm in Apoc. c. 4. , Alcuinus 
(m) Advers. Elipantum. , Gislebertus' Westmonast. 
(n) Alterc. inter Synag. & Eccl. c. 1. An. 1090.  and since that, Johannes Sarisburiensis 
(o) Ep. 172. An. 1180. , and Guliel. Occam 
(p) Dial. part. 3. tract. 1. l. 3. c. 16. An. 1330. , to name no more: Finally then, if T. E. have either shame or grace, let him repent of this foul slander, which he hath as falsely as maliciously cast upon our Forefathers, the pious Saxons, who were more Orthodox in some Points than Rome itself than was, and differred from the present Papists in all the most material Articles of Faith, being nearer in opinion to the Protestant Church of England: And although they were in some lesser matter inclining to Superstition, yet they were very devout according to their knowledge, and may shame the present Age, who do not so many good things, though they have more Understanding: But if T. E. will not recant, I shall leave it to the Reader to judge of his Ignorance and Impudence, in saying, Tithes were given by Papists and Idolaters, to Idolaters, for Idolatrous uses, and in supposing the Church so much corrupted with Popery then, that their very Donations were not fit to stand good or be enjoyed, no not by a Protestant Ministry.  
§. 22. To manifest that the Donation of Tithes is not Popery, we have already proved, they were given to the Church before Popery came in; and now we shall show they were allowed, received and confirmed after Popery was turned out, and that (as you noted in the Conference) even by those who were Martyrs for the Protestant Faith, Cranmer, Hooper, Ridley, Latimer, Taylor and Bradford. The Quaker's Exceptions to this Argument pag. 305. are as frivolous as can be; for first, All truths were not (saith he) discovered at once, nor all untruths neither.] It is strange the Quaker should say so, who before declared himself to be for Immediate Teaching, and who p. 229. affirms, The very Babes in Christ by the anointing knew all things: Yea, if the Saints have not the Spirit in them, so as to teach them all things, they have not the Spirit at all, p. 230. What then doth T. E. make of these Martyrs, not so much as little Children? were they wholly without the Spirit? or were they taught mediately? since mediate and carnal Knowledge (as he calls it) comes by degrees; but all that T. E. allows for Saints, got their Knowledge in an instant, as the Apostles did: 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. We add, That the Quaker thought Bradford a very Spiritual and knowing Man, (with some others of that time) when he fancied he spoke on his side, p. 275. but now when he speaks against him, he rejects his Testimony, on pretence That he and the rest of his Fellow-Martyrs lived at the very dawning of the day of Reformation. Very pleasant! Let me then ask the Quaker what hour of the Morning it was when his other Martyrs (as he falsely calls them) Thorp, Swinderby, Brute, and Wickliff lived? If it was but daybreak in Cranmers time, it was dark as midnight in Wickliffe's; if Cranmer and Bradford had but little light, Wickliff and Thorp had none at all; and therefore unless they had Cats-eyes they could not see them; So that 'tis wonder T. E. should prefer their Judgements before these. But further, If to reject Tithes had been a Truth, it was discovered (according to T. E.) long before Cranmers time, and he with his Associates who lived nearer Sun-rise, and so could see better than Thorpe, etc. were not ignorant of this Opinion, but esteemed it erroneous; and though they followed Wickliff in some things, yet in this they receded from him: so that it cannot be said they saw not this opinion; but seeing it, they rejected it: And I am sure their judgement herein is far more considerable than Wickliffe's or his followers, being both better Men, and of far greater understanding; for these Martyrs were constant to the death, and sealed our Faith with their Blood; whereas most of those Opposers of Tithes recanted openly, and proved Apostates, as Mr. Fox himself confesseth: So that the Quaker is a manifest Liar in giving such Renegadoes the Name of Martyrs: and as for Wickliff himself, he himself received Tithes, and died quietly Parson of Lutterworth in Leicestershire, and so was no Martyr: nor did he absolutely reject Tithes as T. E. doth, but only affirmed, they were purae Eleemosynae 
(q) Vide Spelm. Conc. Tom. 2. . And as for the Knowledge of T. E.'s Martyrs, we may guests at the size thereof by that senseless Saying of one of them (which our Quaker citys) viz. That one of the Ancient Doctors, S. Hierome, (he thought) did affirm, That those Priests who take Tithes, deny Christ to be come in the flesh. How could S. Hierome say thus, who professeth he received Tithes, and lived on them himself; yea, that the Law of Tithes obliged the Christian People, as we shown before: nor did ever any ancient Doctor say so idle a thing as this: Now for Cranmer, Hooper, Ridley, etc. their vast Learning is sufficiently known to all the World, and truly they are much disgraced by the Parallel, and all sober Readers will admire at the pride and vanity of T. E. and his Quakers, who really know nothing, and yet fancy they are as much above Cranmer, Hooper, etc. in point of Knowledge, as the noonday light is above the dawning of the day: But if the Quakers be above them in Knowledge, are they also above all our Protestant Kings, Bishops, Lawyers, Parliaments, Privy-Councellors, and Writers ever since? for all these have declared Tithes to be no Popery, and confirmed the first Donation.  
§. 23. Having proved God's Original Right to Tithes, and his Assignation of this Right to his Ministers, and also showed the piety and validity of the Donation, which dedicated them to God for that end to which he had assigned them; I come, thirdly, to prove the Clergy have a Temporal Right to Tithes also: For, it being the duty of a King (as saith King Edward the Confessor) to preserve, cherish, maintain and govern the Churches of their Dominions, according to the Constitutions of their Fathers and Predecessors 
(r) Leg. Edu. Confess. cap. 17. : Therefore our Kings, with the Advice of their Council, their Nobles, and People, by their Representatives in Parliament, have by many Temporal Laws estated these possessions on the Clergy; and esteeming them to be as profitable Members of the Commonwealth as any other Subjects, they have taken the same care of them, as of other Men, and what they found so rightly conveyed to them, and in their Actual possession, they have given them a Legal Title to, in foro Soli; securing the Clergy in the enjoyment of Tithes, by as many and as firm Laws, as do secure the Laiety in their Estates, and allowing them the like benefit of the Law and Justice, in case of any injury offered them in these Rights, as other Subjects have; and thus the Clergies antecedent Jus Divinum is established and confirmed Jure Humano. Now if the Quaker would fairly have disproved this Temporal Right, he should have showed there were no Humane Laws to estate Tithes on the Church, nor no Remedies in the Courts of Justice against any that detained them; or have made it appear, that our Princes, Parliaments, Judges and Lawyers had declared against the Clergyes Right to these, or denied them their protection in the enjoyment of them, which other Subjects have; this had been to the purpose: And being matter of Fact is the only just way of arguing, for to contrive by Sophistry and probabilities to show a thing cannot be, which we see with our Eyes, is, as T.E. calls it, to nibble, not dispute: yet such Cavils as he hath, we will suffer him to produce against the Clergyes Temporal Right to Tithes: and first, though the whole Bench of our Reverend Judges will declare it for Law, That a Clergyman hath as good Right in Law to his Tithes, as a Layman hath to his Estate: T. E. tells them pag. 311. there is a fallacy in that, the Case is far different; For I enjoy my Estate not only as a Temporal Right (saith he) but I claim it in a Natural and Civil capacity, without Relation to a Ministerial Function; but the Priest claims in a Spiritual capacity, his claim depends upon a Ministerial Function.] T. E. doth not claim merely in his Natural capacity, nor barely as a Man (for all his talking) since many wiser and better Men than T. E. have no Estate at all, nor no Right to any: Every Man hath a Natural Capacity, but that alone gives no Title to an Estate; it is therefore as a Man so Qualified that T. E. claims, that is, as a Purchaser, 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 annexed. Well, 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 Tithes, 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: Men in this Spiritual capacity are Men, and need provisions as much as those in Civil capacities: They are Subjects as well as the other, and as useful Members of the Commonwealth as any, and so deserve protection and defence by the Laws as well as others: And all the Lawgivers under Heaven have believed Men in Spiritual capacity were as capable of Temporal Rites and Privileges, as those in Civil capacities were; and accordingly they have been endowed, and their Endowments confirmed by the Laws of all Nations; so that I wonder what Crotchet came in the Quaker's head, to fancy a Minister of Christ could not have the benefit of the Temporal Laws, as well as the Mayor of a Corporation. An Estate in Land, Rent-charge, or Tolls and Customs, may be settled on the Mayor of such a City, and on his Successors, for ever; and then, whoso sustains that Charge, and bears that Office, hath as good a Claim by Law to that Income, as T. E. hath to the Estate he is born to. They claim under different Qualifications; but one hath as good a Temporal Right for his Time, as the other. Now why is not a Minister in as good a capacity as either of these? Why 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 S. Paul saith, the King is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. xiii. 4. the Minister of God: And by virtue of that Ministerial Function, His Majesty claims many Temporal Rights, (besides the ancient Patrimony of His Family): And will this saucy Quaker say, he hath a better Title to his Estate, than the King hath to the Rights and Revenues of His Crown? But as to the Claim of a Priest, it will be made evident by this Parallel. Suppose 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 for ever; if T. E. be the Heir of that Family, he will say he hath as good a Right to this, as if he purchased it. And why may not the Priest claim his Tithes as justly as T. E. claims this Donative? Was his Estate given by the Right Owners? So were Tithes. Was his given to the Family of Elwoods? So were Tithes to the Order of Priests. Was his given for Valuable Considerations? That may be some question; for who knows, some hundred years after, but it might be for doing some evil deed to please the gr●●t Donor, such as that Donation to P. de Mawley was 
(s) Dugd. Baronage of Engl. vol. 1. p. 733. . However, the Law finds him in possession, and presumes the Considerations were good, and so secures his Title: But the Priests can, and have made it appear, that the Tithes were settled upon them by virtue of the best Considerations imaginable; and therefore the Priests Claim is better than the Elwoods, on this account, that we can be sure we came well to our Right at first. Now the Law finding a Priest and an Elwood both claiming by virtue of several ancient Donations, and both in possession of their several Estates; and looking on them as both Subjects, and both Persons whose Rights the Government and Laws should defend: the Law, I say, confirms both their Estates and Rights to them and their Successors. Now if T. E. be descended from the Elwoods in a natural way of sucession, so are we from the Priests in a spiritual succession: and though this bold Quaker do often say [we are no Priests], I must tell him, there is more fear he is no Elwood, than we no Priests; and our Ordination is easier to prove, than T. Is Mother's Honesty: But however, the Law takes him for an Elwood, and us for Priests, and equally confirms our Claims: So that I think all rational Men must say, the Priests Claim and Temporal Right is as good as the Elwoods; it differs not at all as to strength and validity, unless the Priest have the better Temporal Right of the two.  
§. 24. He goes on in his folly, and saith, pag. 314. If the Case of the Priest and of T. E. as to Temporal Right be equal, than the Priest must acknowledge he is no more a Minister of Christ than T. E. at least, that he doth not claim them as a Minister of Christ, any more than T. E. doth his Temporal Estate; otherwise the Parallel will not hold.] 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: Whenas all the World sees, the same Laws do give equal Temporal Rights to Persons of all kind of Capacities; for the same Estate may be enjoyed by a Judge first, then by a Soldier, then by a Merchant, then by a Woman; and all these in their several turns may have an equal Temporal right to this Estate, though they be every one of different Capacities. And if it be several Estates, and the Persons enjoying them as different as can be in their Capacities, the same Laws may give an equal Right to them all, without altering their various Capacities. Suppose the King have by the Law a Temporal Right to one Estate, and some of His Subjects an equal Right to another Estate; you shall hear T. Is 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 than the Subject, or else the Cases are not parallel. Thus he takes his Quakers by the nose, and would coke's them into a conceit, That all Priests must be Elwoods, or all Elwoods' Priests, before they can have equal Temporal Rights. This is the inspired Oracle of Law and Gospel, who doth not know how a Judge and a Ploughman, a Man and a Woman, a Priest and an Elwood, can have equal Rights and Claims, unless the Judge be no more a Judge than the Ploughman, or the Manno more a Man than the Woman, or the Priest no more a Priest than the Elwood. This is the rare Logician, who can distinguish so nicely between the Man and the Capacity, that one would think he had learned of the Jesuits, or been educated among the Murderers of our late Blessed King, who fought against the Man, and put him to death, but yet did not oppose the King all the while; which our Laws call a Traitorous Position. At this rate one might strip T. E. of his Elwoodship, and require him to divest himself of that Capacity, and to claim merely as a Man, or else he could have no good Temporal Right; as well as to strip the Priest of his Spiritual Capacity, whenever he claims a Temporal Right: And yet for aught I see, the Quakers will not pay us our Deuce, neither as Priests, nor as Men. But why should this Puisne talk of Law? whenas, pag. 315, & 316. it appears he never heard of a Lay-fee; but twice together (lest we should think it was the Printers mistake) he talks of holding [in a Laity], and that Impropriators [hold in a Laity]; which is such a gross piece of Ignorance, that a Clerk of a weeks standing would hiss at it.  
§. 25. Ignorance is the Mother of Admiration; and therefore it is not strange to find T. E. wondering at the following Particulars, pag. 316. First, Why Spiritual Preferments should be held by a Temporal Right, unless it be because we have no Spiritual Right to them?] The Clergy had a Spiritual Right to Tithes, before any Humane Laws gave them a Temporal Right to them; or else S. Hierom, and other Primitive Fathers, who lived on Tithes, did live upon that which they had no Right to at all. Now the Humane Laws finding the Clergy had a Spiritual Right to Tithes, did confirm that first Title, by adding a second; for when they give the Clergy a Temporal Right to Tithes, the Lawgivers and Laws suppose their antecedent Right, which T. E. confesses, pag. 333. And our Elwood hath an equitable Right to his Estate, antecedent to the Legal Right which the Laws of the Land give him to it: now the addition of this Legal Right doth suppose and confirm, not deny or destroy his Equitable Right. If he ask, what moved our Temporal Governors more especially to add this Legal Right to the Priest's antecedent Spiritual and Divine Right; it may be it was on purpose to prevent the knavery of such who will pay nothing for Conscience-sake, and of such as would pervert the Scripture by Inspired Expositions, and call the Fathers, Councils, and Princes, who gave or approved Tithes, Papists and Idolaters; and the Ministers of God, to whom Tithes were given, Idolatrous, Popish, etc. merely under this pretence, to defraud them of their Deuce. Hence they made Laws, that Spiritual Donations should be held also by Temporal Right, that Humane Penalties might compel those to be honest, who neither valued nor feared other things. And this is the Reason given by Hen. VIII. in T. E. pag. 333. yea, by S. Paul, when he saith, The Law is not made for a Righteous man, 1 Tim. i 9 To his second Question, Why the Priests are called Spiritual, who bid such defiance to the Inspiration of the Spirit?] I answer, We do unfeignedly reverence the true Inspirations of the Spirit; and that very esteem we have for so divine a thing, makes us bid defiance to such wretched Pretenders to it as T. E. and his Crew, who boast of a false Gift, and belie the Holy-Ghost. To his third Quaery, Why all Priests are called Spiritual Persons, when some answer not their Profession?] I reply, He had best examine the Evangelists why they call all the Twelve by the name of Apostles, when one of them was a Devil; and ask S. Paul why he styles the Corinthians sanctified and called Saints, 1 Cor. i 2. when many of them were carnal. T. E. it seems hath not yet learned, that Names are given according to men's Profession and Duty, showing rather what they ought to be, than proving what they are. It is enough to justify our Name, if not all, or not the most, contradict it: for Names are so instituted, as to suppose a distance between the Title and the Qualification. How many are called Philosophers, which fulfil not the Rules of Philosophy? All may bear Names according to their Professions. So Tertullian sets out the folly of this Cavil 
(t) Tertul. l. ad Nation. 1. c. 5. .  
§. 26. T. Is Head swimming with repeated Revelations, he fancies all that are about him reel and stagger; which occasions him to say, pag. 317. That you reel from Creating a Right, to Establishing it.] Whenas you never affirmed, that any Temporal Authority did Create the Original Right of the Priests to Tithes; only that they did establish that Right which the Clergy had to Tithes before, by Creating a Temporal Right, and superadding it to their former Title; and thus by both Claims Tithes are ours, and not his who pays them: Which when you offer to prove 
(u) Confer. p. 142. , the Quaker leaving out all the intermediate Arguments, skips three pages together, and then bringing in only your Conclusion from those Premises which he hath omitted, Confer. pag. 145. he most dishonestly insults, Is not this notably argued, saith the Quaker, when he had suppressed all your Arguments, and not suffered you to argue at all. But when we have observed the injustice of this dealing, we may proceed to new Instances of his audacious Ignorance.  
§. 27. Pag. 319, 320. affords us three notable Passages. First, That Christ who appointed Maintenance in general, doth describe what it shall be in particular, viz. Meat and Drink, Luke x. 7, 8. Mat. x. 10.] Unless T. E. have some new Revelation concerning this Commission of Christ to his Disciples, the old words of Scripture will not bear this sense: For, as we read the place, this was a particular Direction for that private and particular Message on which the Apostles were to be sent to the Cities of Judea; and 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 there mentioned be: and if so, than it will follow, 1. That Ministers may not preach to any Gentiles or Samaritans, Mat. x. 5. 2. That they must still heal the Sick, cleanse the Lepers, raise the Dead, cast out Devils, v. 8. 3. That they must not have two Coats, nor walk with Staves in their Hands, nor Shoes on their Feet, nor have any Money in their Purses, ver. 9, 10. which are Rules that the most superstitious Speakers do scarce now observe: But these are the Consequences of pretended Inspirations, which make Men expound Scripture at such a rate, as to make the Apostles break their Master's Rules when they preached to the Gentiles. We must not think (saith Calvin on this place) that there is a standing fixed Law prescribed to all Ministers of the Word, while the Lord is commanding the Preachers of his Doctrine what he would have them do for a little time; which piece of Ignorance hath deceived many so far, that they would reduce all Ministers to this Rule without distinction 
(x) Calv. Com. in Harm. Evang. p. 218. . Yet our Quaker is so confident of his absurd Exposition, that, secondly, He saucily asks Kings and Princes, where Christ gave them power to alter that Maintenance, and set up another in the room of it? arrogantly telling them in Corah's phrase (having forgot the Censers already, Numb. xuj.), They take too much upon them, unless they can show where Christ gave them such Authority.] But let me ask this bold Questionist, where Christ forbidden 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: nor did Christ any where forbidden those to whom the Gospel should be preached, to give them any more. It seems by T. E. that whatever any gave, more than Meat and Drink, was a contradicting Christ's Command, if it were but a Coat to cover their nakedness (which is not mentioned in Christ's Command): 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. Was ever so much Folly and Impudence conjoined? Is it any affront to Christ to give nobly to his Service? Or did Solomon do any injury to God, to take away the ambulatory Tabernacle, fit for the unfixed State of the Church, and build a stately Temple? Such exchange can be no robbery. But because T. E. so pertly calls for a Command, I shall tell him, that an Hint is a Command to a Soul that loves God: There is enough in that Divine Precept to put the forward Charity of a devout Christian upon giving Tithes at least, Gal. vi. 6. to give their Teachers a share of all their good things; and 'tis sure they will not give a little share, who read, They that sow plentifully shall reap plentifully, 2 Cor. ix. 6. The Tenth part was given by the Patriarches, chosen by God the Father, paid by the Jews, and not repealed by Christ: and why should they give any less or other part? Here then was their Authority to give Tithes to God's Ministers. Thirdly, He says, For any Magistrate to set out Tithes for a Maintenance, is a direct opposition to Christ; because they were commanded by God in the Levitical Law, and Christ hath taken away Priests, Law, and Tithes all together.] How proves he this? By Hebr. seven.] The Verse he cunningly leaves out, being conscious to himself he had fathered a Lie on that Chapter, in which there is not one word of Christ's taking away Tithes, no nor in any place of the New Testament. Christ took away that Priesthood; but he left another Priesthood, which needs as much, and deserves as good a Maintenance as that of Levi; and therefore he never repealed the Law of Tithes. And since it was so likely, that Christians should pitch upon this same Tenth part, which Jews and Gentiles had known to be consecrated to these Uses; if Christ had disallowed this part, it seems necessary there should have been an express Caution in Scripture against Tithes: but since there is no such thing, but only a pretended Revelation to T. E. and the rest of his Quakers, no body will believe Tithes were designed by Christ to be repealed. And indeed T. Is Revelations will be of as little credit, since it is likely he will not scruple to belie the Holy Ghost, who hath forged Christ's Hand twice in this Paragraph; first, in saying, He appointed that for a general and constant Maintenance, which was only on a special occasion: secondly, in affirming, Christ had taken away Tithes, which he never did repeal. Thus this insolent Quaker makes our Lord to seal and cancel whatever pleases his Party.  
§. 28. We noted before, it was his usual way to evade all serious Answers, by some petty Cavil; of which we have another Instance here: For you having proved Tithes might be lawfully given, and shown that the Givers were the Right Owners of them; asked, If they might not do what they would with their own? No, saith T. E. pa 321. they might not spend it upon Harlots, nor waste it prodigally, nor make an Idol of it.] If the Quaker had been one of the Labourers in the Vineyard, 'tis 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? Matth. xx. 15. T. E. would have answered, No, he might not put it to an evil use, etc. Whereas it is evident, that as God there is speaking generally, but is to be understood of Just uses; so is it with your words here. And this is to be understood in all general Expressions: As if one promise his Friend, that he will do for him whatever he will; it must not be extended to oblige him to lie, forswear, steal, or kill at his desire. Those Deeds (saith the Civil Law) which hurt our Piety, Reputation, or Modesty, and generally all things contrary to good Manners, are to be reckoned Impossibilities, and it is to be supposed we cannot do them 
(y) Papin. L. Filius 15. de inst. Conned. . How wilfully therefore doth the Quaker pervert your meaning, which plainly was, That a Man may do any thing fit or just with his own? Why doth he instance in things manifestly evil, and positively forbidden, to make a Parallel for Tithes? Can he prove Tithes as evil as Whoredom, as Idolatry or Prodigality, and as positively forbidden? If so, we will grant the Owners could not give their Estates to such an Use: But till then, he talks at random, merely to avoid the force of this Argument, viz. The Owners were legally possessed to Tithes, and might dispose them to so pious an Use as the Maintenance of God's Service is: They might put their whole Estate to what just Use they pleased, and therefore might give Tithes to so just an Use as God's Service.  
§. 29. On the former Foundation T. E. saith, pag. 322. If Ethelwolph might not do what he would with his own, much less might he give away other men's.] It is affirmed by our most knowing Men, That the Saxon Kings had all the Land in England in Demesn; and therefore in charging all England with Tithes, they charged no more than their own: which is the reason of that seeming difference among the Historians who record this Charter, [Terrae meae] and [Regni mei], since the whole Kingdom was his own Land in Demesn. But to let that pass: T. E. must needs be an egregious Dissembler, to pretend here that Ethelwolph did this alone; since he confessed, pag. 285. that his Nobles consented to the Gift: and if he have read the Charter (as he pretends), he must know, that Ingulph saith it was made, All the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of England being present, and subscribing to it; as also Beorred King of Mercia, and Edmund King of the East-Angles, before the Abbots, Abbesses, Dukes, Earls, and Nobles of the whole Land, and an infinite multitude of other Faithful People, who all consented to the King's Charter, and the Men of Dignity subscribed their Names 
(z) Ingulph. apud Spelm. p. 350. . We have also noted before, how often this Donation hath been confirmed by the whole Nations Representative since that time, which T. E. could not be ignorant of; but to serve his ends, he conceals all this, merely to get an occasion to Indite good King Ethelwolph of Invading his Subjects Properties.  
§. 30. But his Conscience accusing him for this Slander, in pag. 323. he supposes that Ethelwolph did it by general consent, and then says, If it were so, yet neither could he single, nor they all conjoined, give any more than belonged to themselves, viz the Tenth part of their Land, or of the Yearly Profits, for their own Lives; but to make a Grant of the Tenth part of the Profits of the Land for ever, is (to my understanding, saith he) utterly repugnant to Reason.] It may be repugnant to his Understanding, so sadly corrupted by Prejudice; but it is agreeable enough to the Reason and the Practice of all other Men, for the Lords in Fee to give what part of the Profits of their Estate they please for ever. Is it not usual for such as settle their Estates, to oblige their Heirs for ever to pay out of it a Sixth, Eighth, or Tenth part of the Rents of that Estate, which the Heirs many hundred years after are obliged to pay to the Uses appointed by the first Donor? Are not all perpetual Rent-charges and Grants, with reservation of Free-Rents, with many Donations of certain yearly Sums to Colleges, Schools, and Hospitals, etc. are not these Grants of such a part of the Profits of a Man's Estate for ever? The Lawyers will deride T. Is Understanding in the Law, as much as we do his skill in the Gospel; and they will inform him, That a Man is not absolute Master of his Estate, unless he can make such Grants as these. But that which stumbles T.E. is, That In the Profits of the Land, rightly computed, the Labour, Sweat, Care, Charge, Skill, Industry, Diligence, etc. of the Husbandman are included, and that inseparably; for these are the Instrumental Causes of Production.— To admit then a Power in any Man to give the Tithes of the Profit beyond his own Life, were to suppose a Power in that Man to give away the Labour, Care, Skill, Charge, Diligence, and Industry of another; which Reason gainsays.— And a little after,— It is most ridiculous.] This is his main Argument, which he glories in much, and repeats often; but there is nothing at all in it, but Mistake, Falsehood, and Impiety. For, if T. E. will grant, That it is lawful for a Lord to lay a perpetual Rent-charge upon his Estate, to be paid in Money, (than which, nothing is more common, or more legal) he must grant it is as lawful for this Lord to charge his Estate with paying the Tenth part of the Profits in specie: For, doth not the raising the Sum of Money (settled by Rent-charge), suppose 10 l. or 20 l. per Annum, include the Labour, Sweat, Care, Charge, Skill, and Industry of the Husbandman, as well as the preparing the Tithe? Nay, the paying a Rent-charge in Money requires more Labour, Charge, and Pains, than paying Tithes in specie; for the Husbandman must not only get his Profits together, but carry (suppose) his Corn into the Barn, thresh it, winnow it, and carry it out again and sell it; and after all this, he must pay this Money, for which such a proportion of his Profits were sold: Whereas Tithe being paid in specie, needs only be got together, and the Husbandman hath no more charge nor trouble with it. And besides, Tithe is a more equitable Payment by far, than a certain Sum of Money settled by Rent-charge; for if the Land yield little Profit, the Priest hath but little Tithes: but Rent-charges must be paid in full, even when the worst Years come, without any Consideration. If the whole Profits of the Land do not yield twice as much, the utmost Farthing of the Rent-charge must be paid. Now let any rational Man judge, whether the granting of a perpetual Rent-charge, be not to give away the Labour, Charge, and Industry of another, as well as the granting of Tithes: And yet I think T. E. is not so bereft of all sense, that he will say, such Rent-charges are ridiculous or unreasonable. Besides, we see that all Landlords who let long Leases, and settle the Rents on their younger Children, or more distant Relations, do give away the Profits of the Husbandman's Labour, Charge, and Industry; not only the Tenth, but the Third part of them at least. But T. E. will reply, A Man may charge his Tenants successively with such a Payment of the Part of the Profits of their Labour, because he affords them Land to work upon; but he cannot charge his Heirs successively. I answer, That the Lord also doth afford his Heirs Land to raise this Payment out of. Pray how came this present Possessor to have any Right to this Land? Doth he not derive his Right from his Forefathers? T. E. grants they might have sold off what part of the Land they pleased; and since they transmit it entire, may they not leave a Charge upon it? And if the Heir will not pay the Charge, he must renounce the Land also: For, it is a Maxim in all Laws, That the Burden descends with the Inheritance: And he that will not have the Encumbrance, must not have the Benefit. And in point of Reason, why hath not the Father as good Right to oblige his Posterity, as they have to possess his Lands? Why should not the Father be obeyed by the Sons, as well as the Sons provided for by the Father? He might have charged his Posterity with the Tenth part of the best Years Profits in Money; but now the Charge is only the bare Tenth of the Years Profits, be it less or more, which all Men (but Quakers) will grant is an easy Charge. If T. E. shall say, The Land hath gone through many Hands since: I answer, Whoever bought this Land, or howsoever it was conveyed, no following Owner can sell that part of the Profits which he never had conveyed to him; of which more hereafter: At present it shall suffice to note, this Argument of the Quakers is Protestatio contra factum, and so signifies nothing at all: It is an attempt to prove, That cannot be done, which is done, as well in this, as in other like Cases; and, That ought not to be done, which hath been done a thousand times, and that by the approbation of all Christian Laws: And the Quaker, in saying these things are ridiculous and unreasonable, doth call all the Christian World Fools, and pass his Censure upon Kings and Nobles, Parliaments and Judges, who have allowed such Grants to be just and reasonable, and either made them, or confirmed and approved them divers times: It seems all these were a company of ridiculous and unreasonable Men, or else T. E. is such an one himself; and whether be the more likely, let the Reader judge. But it is no great wonder he should call all Men Fools, whenas this blasphemous Argument flies in the face of God himself, who (even by the Quakers own confession) in the Levitical Law did assume a Power to enjoin all the Owners of Canaan to pay to the Priests the Tenth part of those Profits which did arise from their Sweat & Pains, Charge & Care, and that from one generation to another. God did make over to his Priests these Tenths of the Profits of many men's Sweat and Labour, etc. many hundred years before they were born: Now this (the Quaker saith) is a ridiculous and unreasonable thing. O bold Blasphemer! If he saith the thing be ridiculous and unreasonable in itself, than this Quaker chargeth God with Folly and Injustice, who doth enjoin it: Nor can he be excused by saying, God hath more power than Men; for in evil, foolish, and unjust things, God hath no power at all: God cannot lie, He cannot do any thing ridiculous or unjust: And because God once made this Grant, we dare be confident the Act is lawful, and wise, and just; and that T. E. is a blasphemous Wretch, to censure it by this wicked and silly way of reasoning, which condemns Almighty God, as much as it doth King Ehtelwolph. I will not insist now upon the Atheistical denial of Providence which is couched in this Argument also; for I shall shortly have occasion to show, how the Quaker supposes his Husbandman deserves all the Profits for his Labour; and as if God contributed nothing, he excludes him from any share of them when they are produced. But this false and impious Argument is sufficiently exposed already, to make any Man recant it, that hath any spark of Grace or Understanding in him.  
§. 31. In the next place he affirms, pag. 326. The Consideration on which Tithes were given, is taken away; for Ethelwolph gave them for the Health of his Soul, and the Remission of his Sins, which he believed might be obtained in that Church, by the help of that Ministry to whom he gave his Tithes, and the Mediation of those Saints in honour of whom he granted the Charter.] I have already proved, That T. E. falsely supposes King Ethelwolph to have held all the Opinions of the present Church of Rome; and particularly, That he did not expect Pardon of his Sins by the Merits of his Good Works. Alcuinus gives us the sense of the English Church in those days, who saith, He only can deliver us from sin, who came without sin, and was made a Sacrifice for sin 
(a) Alcuin. l. 4. in Joh. 8. . The Saxons believed that Pardon was merited only by Christ's Death; only they did esteem Good Works a good evidence of their Repentance, and a Motive to God to accept them to that Pardon which was merited only by Christ's Death: which Opinion is much favoured by those Scriptures, Prov. xuj. 6. Dan. iv. 27. Mat. iii. 8. Luke xi. 41. and maintained by the most Orthodox Fathers: For instance, Lactantius (no Papist for certain, as living An. 310.) saith, Great is the reward of Mercy, to which God hath promised the Remission of all sins 
(b) Lactant. Inst. l. 6. . And for obtaining this Remission by the help of that Ministry (viz. the Saxon-Ministry) to which he gave his Tithes; no wise Man will deny, but that there was a True Church in England in those days: and if in that Church, and by that Ministry, no Pardon could be had from God, then there was no Salvation to be had in this Nation at all in that Age, no nor in any Nation in Christendom; which is a strange Assertion. As for the Saints, we have showed, T. E. is mistaken, in thinking they then did believe the Saints usurped Christ's Office. Ethelwolph honoured the Saints, and so do we now; but neither he nor we worship them, or expect Pardon by them. But we need not plead thus, since T. E. falsely makes this a Consideration for which he gave Tithes. Did that good King covenant with God, or his Priests, that they should give him Remission, or else this Gift to be of no effect? Was it inserted as a Condition or Proviso? He hoped indeed Remission of Sins might follow, through Christ's Merits, God's Mercy, and the Church's Prayers; but he did not Indent with God for it. And indeed, the main Consideration was, That the Clergy might pray for the whole Kingdom, without the hindrances of Want and Worldly Care, as the words of the Charter show: And this Consideration is not taken away, but observed to this day. Again, If the King did fail of his Hope, and could not finally get Remission in that Church (which is a malicious Supposition), this will not make his Charter void: For, if a Father, in consideration of his affection to his Son, and for his Provision, settle part of his Estate on him, being inwardly moved thereto by the hopes he will be dutiful; the Son's undutifulness may disappoint the father's hopes, but doth not vacate his Settlement, unless it were expressed and provided, That the Deed should be void upon the Son's disobedience. Finally, If we suppose Ethelwolph as much a Papist as King Stephen, mentioned by T. E. pag. 332. yet his Donations to Pious Uses must stand good, even though the Opinion of Merit had been the Motive to him to make them; or else T. E. revokes all the Charters and Donations made in those really Popish Times, to never so good and pious Uses; which all Men will confess is most absurd. So that let us grant the Quaker all his own ask, and still his malicious Conclusions will not follow.  
§. 32. I hope by this time the Reader will see how little truth is in that Saying, pa. 327. If Tithes were ever due to any by virtue of this Gift, it must be to the Popish Priests; for to them they were given.] This we have showed to be a gross mistake before, §. 17. and we will only note, That King Ethelwolph's Clergy agreed with the Protestant Church of England in more Points, than with the modern corrupt Church of Rome: And since the Donors gave them not to a Popish Clergy, but to God and his true Ministers; our Kings and Parliaments, that took them away from the corrupt Clergy (who were fallen into Popery), and settled them on the true Protestant Ministry, did observe therein the Intention of the Donors, and did apply Tithes to the right use for which God intended them. And 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 what Title the Popish Priests can justly have to them. And now one would think T. E. were some great Enemy to the Popish Priests, and one that was concerned for the Protestant Religion; but he and his Quakers are renounced by all sound Protestants, and are the very Darlings of the great Agents for Rome: Their Doctrine of Perfection, despising the Letter of Scripture, pleading for Ignorance, relying on the Merit of following the Light within them, etc. are Popery in disguise; they learn their Lesson from the Papists, and are doing their work for them, while they dig up the very Foundations of the Protestant Religion, and set Protestants one against another, since this is the way to give Rome an easy Victory. So that though T. E. use the Name of Popish Priests to gull the People, yet he is one of their Journeymen, and, with his Party, are the most desperate Foes of the Protestant Interest, next to their Popish Masters who set them on. And truly he deserves a Fee from the Popish Priests, for pleading so earnestly that the Tithes are due to them; but since, like the rest of his Arguings, it proceeds upon a mistake, it will do us no harm. Proceed we therefore to his Charge against us.  
§. 33. However, he will by no means allow the Protestant Clergy have any Right to them, since pag. 329. The Clergy now do nothing for the People (nor indeed have nothing to do) which can deserve such compensation.] The Quaker-Speakers have nothing to do indeed for their People, because they are all taught of God immediately: but our People profess they need outward and mediate teaching, so that we have enough to do; and certainly we do as 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 Mary, and Bury; we visit the Sick, relieve the Poor, comfort the Sad, reprove Sinners, confute Heretics, and show the folly of Elwoods, etc. We do all that the Laws of God, of the Church, or of the Land require of us; and (as Foreign Protestants have said) are generally as laborious a Clergy as ever was in any Age since the Settlement of Christianity; being always ready to perform any Divine Office which our People need or require. And if a Quaker say, All this is nothing at all, or worth nothing to him.] I reply, That the Jewel was worth a great deal in itself, which yet Aesop's Cock counted worth nothing, and preferred a Barley-corn before it: And Divine Administrations are not less worth in themselves, because such Cocks prefer a Tythe-sheaf before them all.  
§. 34. To revile those things which are established by Law, is to reproach the Law itself, and accuse as well the Makers as the Executors of that Law: wherefore T. E. in calling Tithes a great Oppression, and a foul Abuse, pag. 331. insinuates to his seditious Followers, That our Laws are Oppression, and our Lawmakers Oppressors and Abusers of the People. And to make it still more evident that he is one of those Heretics which S. Peter and S. Judas prophecy of, he that is not afraid to despise Dominions and speak evil of Dignities, in the very next words shows, he speaks evil of the things he understands not, 2 Pet. two. 10, 12. Judas ver. 8. & 10. For, being ignorant under what Notion our Laws do establish Tithes, he asks, ibid. What Laws are they that have made Tithes a ? Methinks if he doth not know the sense of our Laws and Lawyers in this Point, he is scarce fit to dipute this matter; but the Lawyers must consider, he is an Inspirado, and knows all things by immediate Teaching, and therefore thinks his Revelations will enable him to expound the Laws of Man, as well as the Laws of God; so that he is a Councillor, as well as a Divine. Yet alas! this unlucky way of Teaching cannot secure him from gross mistakes; for pag. 333. he saith, The Statute of 27 Hen. 8. is the first Parliament-Law for Payment of Tithes; whereas the very first Law in the Statute-Book is a Grant for the Churches enjoying her Rights inviolable; which Law was repeated and confirmed in very many Parliaments after, as the Statute-Book declareth. Again, He saith, That Law of 27 Hen. 8. was made by a Popish King and Parliament, whenas that very Statute declares the King Supreme 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. Again, pag. 333, 334. he mistakes a Statute made in 32 H. 8. cap. 7. for a Statute made in 37 H. 8. and after a while he brings in Protestant King Edward VI for a Popish Confirmer of Tithes: But still he knows not, that our Laws do make Tithes a . Wherefore I shall first tell him what a  is in the sense of our Law, and then I shall examine whether Tithes be not such an Estate." A  (according to the Definition of our famous and ancient Lawyer Britton) is a Possession of the Soil, or Services issuing out of the Soil, which a Freeman holdeth in Fee to him and his Heirs, or at least for term of his Life 
(c) Brit. c. 33. . Cowel's Interpr. verb. . Exposition of Law-Terms saith the same. Now Tithes are a Possession of a Service issuing out of the Soil, which a Free man holdeth for term of his life: Ergo, Tithes are a . Again, Another later Author saith, Franktenement, or , is an Estate that a Man hath in Lands or Tenements, or other Profits, to be taken in Fee-simple , for Term of his own Life, or for Term of another's Life in Dower, or by the Courtesy of England: and under that there is no ; for he that hath an Estate for Years, or holdeth at will, hath no  of those Estates 
(d) Sheph. Grand Abridgm. tit. Frank ten. §. 1. . Now Tithes are an Estate that a Man hath in certain Profits issuing out of the Land, to to be taken for term of his own life; and are not an Estate holden for years, nor at will: Ergo, They are a . Besides, I shall prove, §. 40. That they are an Ecclesiastical Inheritance, collateral to the Estate of the Land out of which they come. See also Shepherd's Abridgement, tit. Tithes, pag. 99 & 100 Now an Inheritance is generally taken for a : And that the Practice of our Laws do manifest the same thing, may be seen in that famous Case in Dyer, fol. 83. n. 77. of 7 Edw. 6. where (upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. c. 7.) an Assize was brought De libero tenemento de quadam portione deeimarum, of a  for a certain portion of Tithes. And in the very Statute of 32 H. 8. there is mention made of an Estate of Inheritance or Freehold in Tithes. And in the Countess of Oxford's Case. 5 Jacob. a Writ of Dower was brought of Predial Tithes, Cook 2 part, in Priddle and Nappers Case 
(e) See Hughs' Abridgement, tit. Dimes, §. 1. num. 9 . But Tenure in Dower is one kind of , as was showed before. It appears therefore, that Tithes may be sued for at Law in the same manner as other Free-holds may; and therefore our Laws do esteem them no other than a Freehold. And it is a miserable shift of the baffled Quaker, to pretend they are only a  to the Laity, and not to the Clergy; since it is evident, that when some of the Tithes were alienated, those very Laws which made the Alienation, did not give the Laity any other Estate in Tithes than such as the Clergy had before, and such as the rest of the Clergy had then to the Tithes remaining in Ecclesiastical hands. And though the Clergy have a better Right to Tithes in foro Coeli, yet in foro Soli they have not a less Right to them than the Laity now have, by the Laws of this Land: Nor hath a Layman, who is an Impropriator, any more, better, or other ways to recover his Tithes, than the Clergy have: So that either the Quaker must grant the Law makes them both Freeholds, or neither of them, since the same Laws and Method of Prosecution are concerned in the Security of both these sorts of Free-holds. We may see therefore what rare Effects Ignorance and Confidence can produce, since they can inspire a raw Quaker to give his Opinion contrary to the most famous Oracles of the Law, and to fancy he can confute the whole Bench of Judges by his empty Fallacies. I will only tell this puisne Man of Law, That if he can prove Tithes to be no , he will discharge thereby the Clergy from divers Public Burdens which they lie under, as other Freeholders' do; from which they have far more reason to be exempted, than the Quakers have from paying Tithes: yet they quietly submit to the payment of these Impositions for their  in Tithes, neither do they call these Customs by the odious Names of Oppression and foul Abuses; by which it may be seen, whether are the patienter Men of the two, the Priests, or the Quakers; and which are the better Subjects and juster Persons, those who submit to the Laws and Customs of their Country, and give unto all their Deuce; or those who revile the Laws, and detain men's Rights from them. But, Ne suitor ultra crepidam: I must not imitate T. Is Extravagances, while I do reprove them; nor dare I say any thing in the Profession of other Men, but with all due submission to such as are better learned in our Laws than I can pretend to be, to whom I shall freely confess my Errors, if I have said any thing on this Subject that they shall not approve for Law and Reason.  
§. 35. The Quaker, p. 334. thinks to overthrow these Laws and Statutes, by repeating his old baffled Falsehoods, viz. That they were grounded on this false Supposition, That Tithes were due to God and Holy Church.] But we have proved this was a true Supposition, and maintained by the Primitive Orthodox Fathers; so that nothing is more false than his saying again here, This was a Doctrine purely Popish, and hatched at Rome. And since these Statutes were grounded on a Primitive and a Protestant Doctrine, the Statutes are therefore good. Again, He saith, pag. 335. A Man cannot claim that by a Temporal Law, as a Temporal Right, which that Law commands to be paid as a Divine Right.] Whereas all the World knows, two Titles to the same thing, being subordinate to one another, do strengthen each other. As a Father (having a Maintenance reserved out of the Profits of his Son's 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 virtue of these Deeds Jure Humano; and the second Title strengthens, but doth not destroy the first. He goes on to ask, pag. 336. Whether the Property be vested in the Person of the Priest, or the Office?] I reply, 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 for ever: As the Elwoods' Family may be endowed with an Estate in Tail, the Property of which belongs to that Family, and is specially vested in the present Heir; but whether in the Man, or the Elwood, is hard to tell. Again, He makes himself sure of that which none but a wild Quaker could ever so much as once suppose; viz. To be sure (saith he) the Office of Priesthood was Popish; and the Office itself being now laid aside, the Property vested in it must be gone along with it.] He must be under some degree of Frenzy, who can persuade 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 these doting Falsehoods? No Protestant's (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 thyself.  
§. 36. I should tyre the Reader, if I followed him in the examining all his Mistakes; but one piece of his Skill in Law must not be omitted, p. 337. That whereas the Law hath ordered the Husbandman to set out his own Tithes, before the Priest take them; This shows (saith T. E.) That the Priest's Title to Tithes lies in the Gift of the Owner: And yet he confesses, That the Law enjoins him to set it out under a Penalty, which Penalty he incurs if he do not so set it out.] It is an odd kind of Property which we have to a thing, that we may not keep in our possession; and a strange Gift, which we must give whether we will or no, and be punished if we do not give it. T. E. might as well have argued, The Husbandman had a Property in his Tythe-Hay and Corn, because he must mow and reap it; whenas all these, Moweing, Making, Reaping, Binding, etc. are only designed by the Law to ease the Ministers of Secular trouble, that they may have their Tithes made ready to their Hands, and so have more leisure to attend Sacred things. But we will give him a parallel Case. There are many Free-Rents and Customary Payments, which the Person charged with them must bring to such a House, in such a Town, at such a Day, and then and there disseise himself of the said Money, by a Tender thereof to the Lord or his Assigns; which Lord need never demand this Money, and yet may take the Forfeiture, if it be not brought to him, and tendered. Now will the Quaker say, This shows, That the Lords Title to this Free-Rent lies in the Gift of him that is bound to pay it, and that the Property of it is vested in him who incurs a Penalty if he do not make it ready, and come and tender it? T. E. is a rare Lawyer, and can make the worst Tenors to seem the best, and the Badges of having no Right at all to a thing, to be the Marks of Property. If I delighted to talk like T. E. I might pretend it to be a Sign that the Husbandman had no Property in the Nine parts, but by the Gift of the Parson, because the Law forbids him to lead away any of the Nine parts, till the Parson have notice to come and take his Tenth. But I scorn such fooling.  
§. 37. And now he is forced, pag. 338. to supply his emptiness of Matter by repeating his old, silly, and blasphemous Argument, That it is ridiculous and unreasonable for any to pretend a Power to dispose of those Profits, or any part of them, which arise from the Labour, Stock, and Care of another, especially after their own Decease; which I have sufficiently baffled before, §. 30. And here I will only remark, how that this Argument, if it were good, doth utterly take away all the Impropriators Right to their Estates in Tithes, how much soever he flattered them before, pag. 299. For, are not their Tithes (granted to their Ancestors long ago, and by them settled on their Children) a part of the Profits of another Man's Labour, Stock, Care, etc. and do they not claim a Property in them? And doth not Elwood tell them, they are ridiculous and unreasonable Men, to think any could grant such a Property to them, or that they have any Right to them at present, or can convey them to their Posterity? T. Is own words will serve to set out this matter: Let any Impropriators read his Book, pag. 225, 335, 336, 338, 339. and then let me bespeak them in T. Is own phrase, Look to yourselves, you whose Ancestors first did buy these Tithes of the Crown, or into whose Possession they are come now by Descent or Purchase: Are you satisfied with the Quaker 's Plea, and willing to resign? You hear what he says:— And do you not think, if T. E. had Power, you should not hear of this after another manner? He that tells you, Tithes cannot be granted or conveyed; if opportunity served, would force you to restore them to his painful Husbandman. See Elwood, p. 297, 298. And now you may discern the Genius of this double-tongued and falsehearted Man, who talks backward or forward, as may best serve his turn; clawing the Impropriators, to engage them to take his part against the Clergy; and again, laying down Assertions, that make the Levites of old, the Clergy and Impropriators now, to be a company of ridiculous and unreasonable Men, to pretend a Right to Tithes, to which none could ever grant them any Right at all. As for Artificers paying Tithes of their Gains, it is no more than what they are obliged to by S. Paul's Rule, Galat. vi. 6. to give their Pastor a share of all good things; and it is enjoined by S. Augustine, and by S. Ambrose, and by divers Saxon Laws cited before. And since they have Souls to save, as well as others, they seem obliged to it in Reason and Conscience. But this is seldom demanded, except in great Cities, where the Laws of the Land enjoin it. Finally, We grant to T. E. Tithes are due out of the Profits only; and therefore if God give no Increase, or the Husbandman have nothing grow, we expect no Tithe at all: And how is this unreasonable?  
§. 38. The Quaker will not grant, that his Arguments for taking away Tithes tend to destroy Hospitals and Donations to the Poor, for this Reason, sorsooth, pag. 542. Because in that of the Poor there is (saith he) 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 Tithes neither had, nor never could have a Property, and therefore no power to give.] We have noted before, That by his Rules framed against Tithes, 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. Again, By his own confession, all Hospitals endowed out of Tithes, and all Gifts to the Poor granted out of Tithes for perpetuity, are void: And since in King Henry the Eighth's time there are several such Instances, and the famous Hospital of Sutton, called the Charterhouse, hath one part of its Revenue in Tithes; now if T. Is Argument be good, these Hospitals and Gifts also must necessarily be destroyed, or much impaired. A third sort of these Charitable Donations consist of perpetual Rent-charges, and certain Sum; of Money to be paid yearly for ever, out of the Profits of some certain Estate. I myself know an Estate of 40 l. per Annum, the Heirs whereof for ever are charged to pay 10 l. per Annum out of the Profits of that Estate, to the Poor of three Parishes, by the Grant of a pious Person deceased: And there are hundreds of such Instances in England. Now the Occupiers of the Lands thus charged, must sell the Fourth or other part of the Profits produced by their Labour, Sweat, Stock, Skill, and Industry, and when it is turned into Money, must pay it entirely to the Poor of those Parishes and Hospitals, who never did any thing for this Occupant; only because he inherits or is possessed of the Land formerly thus charged by its ancient pious Owner, he must pay such a part of the said Profits. Now T. E. overthrows all these Donations also, in affirming▪ That no Man can charge his Heirs for ever with such a part of the Profits arising out of their or their Tenants Charge, Stock, Care, Skill, many years after the death of the Donor: The Money for these Payments are raised out of the Increase of the Occupiers Stock, wherein, according to T. E. no Man (now deceased) ever had or could have a Property, and therefore no power to give: That these Donations also are made void by T. Is wicked and sophistical Arguings. So that however, the Quaker destroys all Charitable Donations, excepting such as are made in Lands given wholly to the Hospitals, or other Poor. And truly these will not stand long neither; for all other Men believe the ancient Donors had not more or better Right to give away the Land itself, than they have to dispose of such a part of the Profits thereof: T. E. who questions the one, may question the other also: And thus, that he may starve the Clergy, he attempts to starve all the Poor in England also in their company.  
§. 39 His next Position, pag. 343. is, That Tithes are a greater Burden than Rents.] It would seem a Paradox, That Two shillings is a greater Burden than Twenty, but only that Nothing is so easy, but it seems difficult, when it is done unwillingly, as S. Ambrose speaks 
(f) Hexam. lib. 5. . The Quakers pay Tithes grudgingly, and of necessity, and therefore they are a Burden to them, for the same Reason that Alms are a Burden to the Covetous, and Tribute to the Disloyal Subject. But T. E. not content to discover his own base Humour, measures all men's Corn by his own Bushel; and (as it is the manner of such as are evil themselves) he fancies all Men pay their Tithes with as ill will as the Quakers, and impudently slanders the whole Nation, saying, He doubts not but if every Englishman durst speak his mind, Nine parts of the Nation would cry, Tithes are a great Oppression.] Wherein common Experience proclaims him a Liar; there being very few Parishes, where Nineteen parts of Twenty do not pay their Tithes freely as any other Deuce: and those who are refractory, are only such as this Seditious Libeler and his Party have stirred up. There are some indeed who cry out against all Public Payments; and these do call not only Tithes, but the Landlord's Rents, and Assessments to the King, and Relief to the Poor, great Oppressions: But such Persons Clamours are no Argument, since the best and wisest part of the Nation pay their Tithes freely. But T. E. alleges, he hath Reasons to prove his Assertion by; viz. 1. The Tenant hath the worth of his Rent of the Landlord, but of the Priest he receiveth nothing at all.] 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. Again, 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; and upon that Consideration our pious Ancestors obliged their Heirs for ever to give God his part of the Profits, because both they and their Heirs were yearly to receive all their Increase from his Blessing. Of all things which God gives (saith King Edward the Confessor) the Tenth part is to be restored to him, who gave us the Nine parts together with the Tenth 
(g) Leg. c. 9 . 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 Tithes for his Master's sake, from whom he receives all. The Tenant receives nothing from his Landlord's Steward, and yet he pays his Rent to him, or to any other whom his Landlord assigns to receive it. But after all this, the Quaker is a notorious Falsifyer, in saying, The Tenant receives nothing from the Priest: for he receives his Prayers and his Blessing, his Preaching, and other Administrations, which in S. Paul's account are worth more than ever can be compensated for on Earth, 1 Cor. ix. 11.2. But, saith T. E. Rend is a voluntary Contract, and Volenti non fit injuria; but Tithe is not voluntary now, but taken by force]. Very good! By this Rule than it appears, That Tithes are not (as he falsely affirmed 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: To all these therefore Tithes are no Oppression, by T. Is own Rule. Nor are they indeed any Oppression in themselves; only they seem so to such as pay them unwillingly, to Quakers, Atheists, and Covetous Persons. Yet all things are not Oppressions that are paid involuntarily; for some Knaves will pay no just Dues to any without compulsion, and yet such Payments are just, though we be necessitated to take them by force. Nor are all Payment Oppressions, which we do not voluntarily contract for; T. E. must beware of that Assertion: for he never contracted with the King to pay him Hearth-money, Custom, Tribute, etc. and yet these are no Oppression. But not to destroy his Rule, Will T. E. be content with his Quakers to pay Tithes, if I can prove they did voluntarily contract to pay them? If so, I thus make it appear. Whoever takes a Farm, either Tithes are mentioned in the Contract, or they are not: If they be mentioned, than care is taken expressly, that either the Landlord or the Tenant shall pay them: If Tithes be not mentioned, than the Laws of England suppose that the Tenant consents to pay them: For Tithes are so known a Charge upon all Land, the Laws have settled them so firmly, and the Nation paid them so long, that none can be supposed ignorant there is such a Charge upon the Land he takes to Farm; and therefore if he take the Land liable to this known Charge, and doth not expressly covenant his Landlord shall pay the Tithes, both Law and Reason will interpret this a Consent and Contract to pay them; it being to be presumed, if he had not consented to this Charge, he would have left the Land and it together. The Quakers therefore must either take no Farms; or if they voluntarily contract for the Land, they voluntarily make themselves liable to Tithes; and so they are no Oppression, no not to them who had rather there were none to be paid: For no doubt the Quakers could wish rather there were no Rent to be paid neither; and they voluntarily covenant to pay Rend, because they cannot enjoy the Farm without that Charge: no more can they enjoy it without this of Tithes neither, which, like the very Rent, is a kind of forced voluntary Contract also, even to the very Quakers.  
§. 40. T. E. comes, pag. 344. to his last Reserve, viz. That Tithes were really purchased by the Owners of Estates: Which if he can make out, that alone will do his business: and he thus proves it. They purchased (saith he) all that was not excepted out of the Purchase: but Tithes were not excepted; therefore the Purchasers bought them, and may sell them again.] This is the Quakers Law; but if our greatest Lawyers have any skill, this is a notorious falsehood: for they say, Tithes are an Ecclesiastical Inheritance, collateral to the Estate of the Lands 
(h) C. 2. par. 13 b. in Priddle & Napper's Case. . And more plainly, Tithes are not extinguished by a Feoffment made of the Lands; by a Demise of the Lands, with all Profits belonging unto, or out of the same, they will not pass 
(i) 7 Ed. 6. Dy. 84.31 Eliz. in C. B. Parkins case adjudged. . Now what insolence is it for this Novice to make his Quakers believe that for Law, which is contrary to the best Opinions, and to plain adjudged Cases? But his mistake will more fully appear by this Case. A purchases an Estate in B, of C, the Tithes whereof are Impropriate, and belong to D: Now will the Quaker say, That A purchases D's Estate in the Tithes, without his knowledge or consent, by virtue of the general Words in the Conveyance from C? If so, the poor Impropriator hath an ill Bargain; for then C may sell D's Estate in Tithes, and A buy it, and he receive nothing for it. Now if the Impropriators Estate in Tithes do not pass by the general Words in the Conveyance from the Seller of the Land, no more doth the Clergie-mans' Estate in Tithes so pass. Yea, T. E. is so far mistaken in thinking general Words include Tithes, that if the Lord of a Manor, whose Tithes belonged to the Clergy, should expressly declare in his Deed of Sale, That he did sell the Tithes, such a Clause would not give the Buyer the least Right to them: For, private Contracts can make no alteration in things determined by the public Laws: Ex solenni Jure, privatorum conventione nihil quicquam immutandum est 
(k) Reg. Jur. 27. . But this matter is so plain, that the Quaker fraudulently leaves out those Words of the Conveyance which would have discovered his Knavery in this false Assertion: for thus he citys the words of the Deed (to prove that the Purchaser buys the Tithes with the Land). The said A grants, bargains, sells, etc. all that, etc. with its Appurtenances, and every Part and Parcel thereof, and also all the Estate, Right, Title, Interest, Property, Claim, and Demand whatsoever, etc. There he stops with an [&c.], because his shallow Reader should not see what follows in the Deed, viz. [Estate, Right,]— which I the said A have or aught to have in the Premises: Which Words do manifest, that the Purchaser buys no more Estate or Right than the Seller had to or in the Premises: And indeed he could purchase no more; for, Nemo plus Juris ad alium transferre potest, quam ipse haberet 
(l) Vlp. l. 46. ad Edict. . The Seller did not purchase the Tithes himself, nor did they descend to him from his Ancestors, but have been a distinct collateral Estate this many hundred Years, which never passed between Father and Son, Buyers and Sellers, but remained in statu quo prius, how many times soever the Land changed its Owners. They were not capable of being sold nor alienated, no not by the consent of the Incumbent himself; since they are an Entailed Estate; and, The Church (saith my Lord Coke) is always a Minor, and in the State of one under Age 
(m) In Mag. Chart. p. 3. : And none can alienate a Minors Land. And if T. E. would know the Reason why they are not excepted in the Purchase by name, as Free-Rents and Rent-charges sometimes are, I answer, Free-Rents and Rent-charges, etc. 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 Tithes were a public Donation, and are sufficiently known to the whole Nation, and confirmed by the consent of Kings and Parliaments, and so need not be excepted by name, as private Charges are. And yet T. E. must know, That if an Owner should sell an Estate in general words, and not except nor mention a Free-Rent or Rend charge, this would not discharge the Buyer from paying it, nor destroy his Right to whom the said Rent was due. Caveat Emptor. Much less can the not excepting Tithes, prejudice the Churches Right. And thus T. Is Law comes to nothing.  
§. 41. In the next place, he presents us, pag. 346. with a Demonstration, to prove, That though the Tenant be abated by his Landlord in consideration of his Tithe, yet the Abatements (saith T. E.) made in the Rents, in respect of Tithes, are not so great as the Tithes.] I answer, That is none of the Priest's fault, who is not a Party to their Bargain; But if there be not an Abatement proportionable to so known a Payment, it is either the fault of the Landlord who will abate no more, or the folly of the Tenant who consents to pay so much. The Tithes are the known Interest of a third person, so that the Landlord cannot justly demand any thing for them, nor the Tenant prudently yield to pay any thing on account of them. But let us hear his Demonstration, or rather Supposition. Suppose a Farm of the value of 100 l. per Annum, if Tythe-free, the Landlord abating 10 l. in consideration of the Tithe, lets it for 90 l. per Annum: Now the whole Profits of this Farm he supposes worth three times 90 l. that is, 270 l. per Annum, the full Tithe whereof is 27 l. per Annum; so that the Tenant being only abated 10 l. in consideratton of Tithes, pays 27 l. for them.] Now all this is a mere Chimaera, as I will show, when I have asked T. E. two Questions: First, Why did not his wise Tenant (knowing such a Payment as 27 l. must go out of his Farm) expect, and stand upon more Abatement? He should have yielded to pay only 73 l. per Annum, and then all had been right. Secondly, If the Landlord abates the Quaker 10 l. per Annum in consideration of Tithe to be paid, Whether is not the Quaker a Knave, who puts this 10 l. per Ann. in his own Pocket, and will pay no Tithe at all? I believe all the Parsons in England would compound with the Quakers after this rate that the Landlord allows. But to examine his Device; we find three faults with this Supposition of T. E.'s. First, He supposes the Landlords to be better than usually they are; for I fear there are few Landlords who will or do let a Farm for 90 l. per Annum, out of which they know may be made 270 l. Secondly, He supposes the Tenants to get more Profit than any of them actually gain, or than indeed it is reasonable they should: For, 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; which is as much Profit as the Landlord himself gets by his own Estate which he purchased: so that the Tenant hath as much benefit by another Man's Estate, as the right Owner. Thirdly, And both these Suppositions are merely to accuse the Parson of taking more for Tithe than ever he is likely to receive: for what Parson did ever receive 27 l. per Annum for a 90 l. Farm? Experience teacheth us, that (considering the small profit of Pasture-grounds, together with Customs, ill Payments, and Concealment, etc.) we scarce ever get so much as 20 s. for 10 l. Rent, unless where there is very much Corn: but take the Church-living one with another, and there is not above 9 l. a Year made of a Farm upon the improved Rent of 90 l. per Annum. Now if the Landlord abates 10 l. a year in respect of Tithes, and the Tenant pays but 9 l. a year, than Tithes are so far from being an Oppression, that the Tenant really gains 20 s. a year by them. But I will not, as T. E. make Suppositions at random, but give an Instance of my own knowledge. The Parish of A yields in Rents to the Landlords at least 1000 l. per Annum: Now, by T. Is account, the Tenants clear Profits (being generally well used) must be 3000 l. per Annum; and the Tithe of this, according to T. E. comes to 300 l. per Annum: But there are credible Witnesses to attest it, That in the best Years the Tithes there are not worth 80 l. per Annum, which is 20 l. per Annum less than 2 s. in the Pound Rent: which 20 l. the Tenants clearly gain of the Priest; for their Landlords (according to T. E.) allow them 100 l. per Annum out of 1000 l. to pay Tithes: And yet there is store of Corn and Hay in this Parish, and not many Customs. So that I dare affirm, this Account will hold throughout England, in all Live taken one with another. So little Honesty or Truth is there in this malicious Slanderer, who cares not what he says, so it may make Tithes seem a Burden, and the Priests become odious. But from such Religion, Libera nos!  
§. 42. The like appears from his next Saying, pag. 347. The Landlords Dealing is far more merciful than the Priests; for the Landlord allows Two parts to the Tenant for his Charge and Subsistence; but the Priest takes the full Tenth part of the Increase of the whole Farm, and leaves the poor Farmer no consideration for his Toil and Charge.] To which I answer, 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 this Argument is faulty on both sides, and halts of both Legs. Secondly, If all T. Is Falsehoods were supposed true, yet the very same thing is done in Annuities, Free-Rents, Rent-charges, Donations to the Poor, etc. the Money is paid entire, and no satisfaction is made to the Occupant for his pains in raising it; yet none ever called these Oppression, till T. E. appeared 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 Gods part ready. The Tenth part of the Profits is ours Jure Divine, Jure Donationis, and Jure Humano, and was given to us long before these Occupants were born: And if our Ancestors enjoined their Successors 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 Battle, 1 Sam. xxx. 25. their Employment being as useful to the Public as the others; though not so full of Bodily pains. But finally, Will T. E. say, It is Oppression in the Priest to take his full Tenth, and make the Countryman no satisfaction for his pains? If this be Oppression, than God was the Author (according to T.E.) and the Levites the Instruments of Oppression, since they were ordered to take the full Tenth without any Compensation: He must call the Levites Chaldeans and Sabeans as well as us; for they fell on (as he calls it) and swept all the Tenth away: And now the Servant is not above his Master; if he call All nighty God, the Master of the House, ridiculous, unreasonable, unjust, and an Oppressor, we will sit down quietly under the same Reproaches, lamenting to see whither his rage against us hath carried him, even to the height of Blasphemy; so that to him may be applied that of the Prophet, Surely the spiritual man is mad, Hosea ix. 7. To let him alone therefore, I will tell more sober Men how the Countryman is compensated for his pains. S. Augustine saith, God gives us all the Nine parts, in compensation for our pains, in providing the Tenth for him. But Sir Henry Spelman is more particular, who observe, That Seven is the Sacred Number, and the part often appropriate to God: wherefore as God hath the Seventh part of our Time in his Sabbaths, so he should have had a full Seventh part of our Profits also, but only that we contribute our pains towards the raising these Profits, whereas toward our Time we contribute nothing (Life and Time being God's immediate Gift): whereupon God takes his full Seventh part of our Time, but gives us back Three parts of our Profits in compensation for our pains, and in stead of a Seventh, he is contented with a Tenth part of our Estate. I will only add, That the Priest's Payment is more merciful than the Landlords; for the Landlord expects his full Rent, be the Year never so bad, or the Profits never so few and small; but the Priest's part cannot exceed the Increase; if it be little, he hath but little; if God gives much, the Countryman is able to pay more. And indeed the Priest is hereby obliged to sympathise with his Neighbours, since he is a Sharer in their Gains and Losses; and so the Husbandman and the Priest ought to have the same care for one another.  
§. 43. If the Quakers were not an ignorant and credulous sort of Men, they would not believe so gross an Untruth as his next Assertion is, pag. 348. viz. That the Charge is much heavier upon the People now, than it was under the Levitical Priesthood.] For the Learned Selden computes, That the Tribe of Levi had three times as much Annual Revenue as the greatest of the Twelve Tribes. And first, for their Tithes, Scaliger thus computes it: Suppose a Man had 6000 Bushels of Grain in one year; out of this was to be taken the First-fruits, which must be 100 Bushels at least, and then remains 5900 Bushels; out of which was paid the First Tithe to the Levites in kind, 590 Bushels: then remained only 5310 Bushels, out of which was taken the Second Tithe for a Feast at Jerusalem, 53● Bushels: So that the Husbandman had but 4779 Bushels remaining to his own Use, having paid 1221 Bushels out of 6000, that is, above a Sixth part, and 19 Bushels out of every 100, which is near twice as much as is now paid to the Christian Priests: which Account T. E. may find in one of his Country Authors, Godwin. Antiq. lib. 6. cap. 3. which shows his falsehood a● to Tithes. Secondly, He objects, The Levites had no share in the Division of the Land; so that the other Eleven Tribes had all the Land between them, which was some compensation for their Tithes.] The Levites had not any entire Country set out together, as the other Tribes had; but for convenience of instructing the People, they were dispersed so as to have fair Possessions in every Tribe; for God himself appointed them xlviii Cities, with 2000 Cubits round without the Walls, for Pasture for their , Numb. xxxv. of which Six were Cities of Refuge, which was a better proportion than our Glebe-Land, and in value might be esteemed the Twelft part of the Land of Canaan: Wherefore T. E. is mistaken again, in affirming the Levites had no share in the Land. Thirdly, He alleges, That the present Clergy have Offerings, as well as the Levitical Priests.] And here he hath a large Bill of Names, some of which we never heard of; and yet he ends with an &c. as he uses to do when he can reckon no more: but after all this, the Sums paid for some of these are so small, and the others are so occasional, that the present Clergy get not half so much in one year by these, as the Levites and Jewish Priests did in a few Months by their Offerings: For, 1. They had their part of all their Sacrifices and Offerings made in the Temple. 2. Their share of all the Feasts made there. 3. A part of all  Offerings and voluntary Oblations, three times a year all the Jews coming up to Jerusalem, and none coming empty. 4. The Firstborn of , or the Price; as also the Price for Redemption of all the Firstborn of Men, at Five Shekels apiece, i. e. 12 s. 6 d. of our Money, Numbers xviii. 16.5. The Price of Persons dedicated by Vow, coming sometimes for one Person to Fifty Shekels, i. e. 6 l. 5 s. of our Money, Levit. xxvii. 2. with other things there mentioned: So that our Offerings are not valuable in respect of theirs. Fourthly, He urges, That all the Officers of the Temple were maintained out of these.] Pray what [all] was there to be maintained? None besides the Levites, except the poor Nethinims, who were Gibeonites, and did the drudgery of the Temple: All other Officers of the Temple were Levites, who had none to keep but these Nethinims, which were their Servants for all mean Offices. Fifthly, He says, Out of the Tithes provision was made for the fatherless, the widow, and the stranger, Deut. xiv. 28, 29.] This is another mistake, if he mean these were provided for out of the Levites Tithe. T. E. had need go and read over Godwins Antiquities 
(n) Lib. 6. c. 3. , where he will find this Provision was not made out of the first or Levites Tithe, but out of the second Tithe, which was to be spent in Feasts at Jerusalem two years, and the third to be laid up at home for the Levite, the fatherless, the widow, and the stranger; so that the first Tithe was still paid entire, and the Maintenance of these indigent Persons went out of the People's Profits: So full of ignorance and mistakes is this Man in every thing he deals with. We conclude therefore, That the Charge is much easier now to our People, than it was to the Jews under the Levitical Law.  
§. 44. In the Conference you had given two Reasons why the Apostles took no Tithes: 1. Not of the Jews, because their own Priests were in possession of them: 2. Not of the Gentiles, because of their unfixt Station. To this T. E. replies, pag. 351. I pray who fixed your state of life? who divided Provinces into Parishes, and set up Parish-Priests? Was it not a Pope?] Never did any Man pretend to write of things he understood so little, as T. E. doth of Ecclesiastical Matters. This all-knowing Quaker doth not understand, that the Apostles themselves fixed Bishops and Pastors in the several Cities they had converted, Timothy at Ephesus, Titus in Crete; giving them Commission to ordain and fix others in lesser Cities. He knows not how Eusebius, and other Historians, reckon up the very Persons in all eminent Churches, ordained and fixed there by the Apostles. 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 against the Clergy of one Diocese going into another to Officiate. Let it suffice to tell him, That the General Council of Chalcedon ordains, That whatever Clergyman was ordained without a Nomination to some certain Church wherein he was fixed, his Orders should be null 
(o) Can. 6. . And to let him see we had a fixed Clergy in Britain long before Augustine's coming over, he may read in a Synod held by S. Patrick among the Britain's, Anno 456. this Canon: Let there be no wandering Clergyman among the People 
(p) Can 3. ap. Spelm. . The Britain's also had fixed Archbishops, and Bishops, and Priests, long before the Popes of Rome so much as directed any thing here: And when the Saxon Heathens (who had disordered all things) were converted to Christianity, Honorius fifth Archbishop of Canterbury first divided all the Country in his Province into Parishes, that he might allot to every several Minister a several Flock to take care of 
(q) Godwin. de Praesul. Angl. p. 59 circa annum 640. ; though Spelman attribute this to Theodorus, about twenty or thirty years after: But none can suppose this was the first fixing of Parish-Priests, only the first after the sad Inundation of Saxon Paganism. And now we see T. E. hath neither Learning nor Truth in him, who attributes our fixing to a Pope, when the Apostles themselves shown the way in this Practice, not intending that any vagabond Speakers should be allowed, after once the Christian Church was settled.  
§. 45. 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 Gods, to encourage their first Beginnings. And since all those fervors and excesses of Charity are now ceased, I think we have reason to admire the Wisdom of our Ancestors, who provided a fixed and certain Maintenance, because there was no likelihood of such Miracles of Charity to be found in aftertimes. T. E. saith indeed they sold their Estates voluntarily, pag. 353. which is most true; and we do not desire any to sell them involuntarily now: But when our People sell all voluntarily as they did, we will quit our Claim to Tithes; till then, we desire the Quaker will let us quietly enjoy our ordinary Maintenance, and we are well content.  
§. 46. When you soberly advise the Quakers to pay their Tithes for Conscience-sake, in Obedience to the King's Command, T. E. replies, pag. 354. We must not for Conscience-sake yield an Active Obedience to every Command of a King.] He misses the Mark again: for the paying of Money, or Money-worth, when our Lawful Governors impose it, is a piece of Passive Obedience. If the King should bid the Quaker turn Minister, and take Tithes, his doing that, were Active Obedience: but to pay them (especially unwillingly, as the Quakers do) 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 Judgement. Thus our Saviour submitted to pay Tribute, which ought not to have been exacted of him, Mat. xvii. 24. And S. Paul commands the Christians to pay Tribute and Custom to the Heathen Emperors, though they used it to Idolatrous and wicked purposes: The Christians liked not the use they put their Tributes unto, but yet they submitted to the Payment. Thus the poor Greeks pay great Contributibutions to the Grand Signior; and, if I mistake not, the Protestants of France pay Tithes to the Popish Clergy; and the late oppressed Royalists paid Assessments to the Parliament, and paid Tithes to Men invested in Live according to the Laws then in being, though they did not esteem all of them Lawful Ministers. If the Payment imposed be never so unjust, I do not sin in paying it; he sins that imposeth it: but if he be my Governor, I will submit for Conscience-sake, and suffer this Payment as I am obliged to do other Penalties and unjust Impositions laid on by just Authority. So that doubtless the Quakers are in a great mistake, in fancying they shall sin in the paying Tithes in obedience to Humane Laws, and choosing rather to go to Prison; since they may as well submit (I think) to (what they account) an unjust Payment, as to (what they call) an unjust Imprisonment. If I were in their case, I could pay my Tithes in obedience to the Laws of the Nation, though I did believe the Law never so unjust; because this Payment (to one so opinionated) is a Penalty, and his Obedience therein merely passive. And truly 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 Stocked or Whipped, to be Fined or Imprisoned; all which we may submit to without sin. Which Point I have been the larger in, because the not understanding of this, hath brought much trouble on these deluded People: This may show them, it is no sin to pay Tithes, though it were a sin in the Law to command them, and in us to take them: But I hope I have now sufficiently shown it is none; and I wish I might rectify their Opinion, and then they might pay them freely.  
§. 47. The Quaker hath nothing to say against the First-fruits and Tenths, which are a Revenue to the Crown, paid by the Clergy out of the Tithes, but only that, pag. 355. This Flower once stuck in the Triple Crown.] But His Majesty will not so easily be wheadled out of so great a part of His Revenue, and so clear an Acknowledgement of Hi● Clergies Subjection to him. And that the Quakers may know what Injury they do to His Majesty, in attempting to take away the Maintenance of the Clergy, let them know, That the First-fruits of the Bishoprics of England, paid to the King, are above 23000 l. and the Tenths of them, paid yearly, are 2300 l. But the inferior Clergies Tenths (arising merely out of Tithes) do pay to the Exchequer yearly 1376. l. their First-fruits being 137610 l. besides all the Tenths and First-fruits of Prebendaries, and other Dignities. And though it cannot be exactly told how much this Revenue is yearly, yet as nigh as we can compute, His Majesty receives near 30000 l. per Annum out of the Revenues of the Clergy. And supposing all the Live in England to be void but once in Twenty years, by that rate His Majesty receives from the inferior Clergy alone, out of the Tithes, above 20000 l. per Annum. All which, these inconsiderate Men would deprive His Majesty of; so that they wound the King through our sides: but no doubt He will defend both us and Himself from all their Attempts.  
§. 48. I shall not need now to confute that frequent and unjust reproach of the Quakers calling Ministers Hirelings, pag. 356, etc. since I have showed, the only Revenues they have are no other than what they have a threefold Title to; first, By the Laws of God and Nature: secondly, By the Donation of the right Owners: thirdly, By the Laws of this Land. The People do not hire them, they set them not on work, nor do they, out of their own, give them any Wages: They are employed by God, and he hath provided for them, and will one day requite all the malicious Slanders that are cast upon them, and particularly that foul Calumny wherewith T. E. hath loaded the Loyal and Suffering Clergy of the Church of England, who lost their Lives, or their Fortunes, for their Fidelity to the Church, and Allegiance to their Prince, the Glorious Martyr King CHARLES I. These noble Sufferers, who attended their Flocks till they were Sequestered, Imprisoned, Silenced, and by Armed Soldiers violently torn from their Cures; These he most wickedly accuses of flying, and leaving their Flocks to the Wolves; and brands them with the name of Hirelings: But this blackmouthed Slanderer may publish his own venomous Impieties, by blaspheming God, reviling our Forefathers, speaking evil of Kings, despising Laws, and reproaching the best of Men: but his Dirt will never stick upon such Illustrious Names; and therefore if he do not repent from a sense of the wickedness of these Crimes, yet he ought in common Prudence to desist from so vain an Attempt, considering he doth blast his own Name, with unsuccessful endeavours to reproach those whom all the World admires and venerates.  
§. 49. T. E. once more attempts to justify the Quakers in detaining Tithes, although their separation be voluntary; but this is sufficiently confuted before, §. 9 And I desire the Reader only to remember the Instance of the Truant Boys wilful absence from an Endowed Free-School. But, saith T. E. pag. 358. Some Ministers are vicious, and such as the Apostle hath exhorted us to withdraw ourselves from.] But do not Quakers separate from good Ministers as much and as well as from bad? 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. Besides, He belies S. Paul, in saying he exhorts the People to withdraw from a bad Minister; he bids them not withdraw from a Father, but a Brother walking disorderly, 2 Thess. iii. 6. The People may do that to one another, which they may not do to their Governors Spiritual or Temporal. Secondly, He runs again into his old mistake, applying Christ's Directions to his Disciples on a private Mission to Unbelievers, as if it were a standing Rule for Ministers among Believers, Mat. x. 14. Thirdly, He compares the Quakers, in rejecting our Ministry, to the Jews who rejected the Apostles, and judged themselves unworthy of Eternal Life, Acts xiii. 46. Fourthly, He saith, Christ gave his Apostles not Authorito compel any to hear them.] Yes surely, he bid them go into the Highways and Hedges, and compel those whom they found there to come in, Luke xiv. 23. And these among the Highways and Hedges are such as are in Heresies, and Schismatics, saith S. Augustine 
(r) August. 50 Epist. ad Bonif. Com.  to Bonifacius, where he observes, the Donatists used this very Objection which our Quakers now use; and he learnedly proves, That Gentiles were first to be invited in, but when the Church is settled, whatever straying Sheep wilfully leave the Fold, these are to be compelled by Laws and moderate Penalties to return into the Fold; alleging, 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, and a means which had brought many to see their Errors, and repent. Let T. E. read and answer the excellent Arguments in that Epistle, if he can: And withal, let him observe, it is not the Priests compel them, but the Laws of the Land. The Priests indeed see them in desperate Heresies and most wicked Schism, and in pity to their Souls, admonish them, warn them, 1 Thess. v. 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, to try if any thing will bring them to a better mind, knowing, that sometimes the rod and reproof give wisdom: And this is no more than S. Paul threatened, 2 Cor. x. 6. and acted also, in delivering the incestuous Corinthian to Satan, punshing his outward Man for the health of his Soul, 1 Cor. v. 5. 'Tis no more than a careful Father doth to his refractory Son. Let not them therefore (saith S. Augustine) who being in Heresy and Schism are compelled to come in, reprove us that they are compelled; but consider whither we would compel them 
(s) August. Epist. 50. ut supra. ; to Unity and Peace, to a right Faith, and to submission to their Governors; to the Service of God, and the Salvation of their Souls. Nor doth our State use any Capital Punishments, any Spanish Cruelties, or Popish Fire and Faggot toward them; but by moderate Penalties labours to reduce them: which is no more than the first Christian Emperors did to reduce the Heretics of those days, by Fines, Imprisonment, banishing them out of eminent Cities, burning their Books, and prohibiting their Assemblies; but still preserving their Lives, in hopes of their Repentance. And when our Magistrates imitate Holy Constantine and Theodosius herein, the Quakers most unjustly call it Persecution.  
§. 50. He adds, pag. 359. Christ gave us no power to demand a Maintenance from those who do not receive us.] Nor do we demand of the Quakers to give us one single Penny more than what was given to us, and settled 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. If a Tenant be to pay an Annuity to a Lord as Free-Rent, or to an Hospital, or other Person, will his saying he doth not receive him or them, excuse him from paying the Money? Our Lord JESUS owns us for his Ministers, and the Laws of the Land own us, and declare we are the Persons to whom this Estate belongs; and what have the Quakers to do to dispute our Title, any more than they do their Lord's Title to his Estate? The Papists pay us Tithes here in England, and we should pay them if we lived in France. If the State assign Tithes to a wrong Order of Men, it is their fault: But I am sure Tithes are not the Countryman's, he may not keep them, but must pay them as the Laws direct, and is innocent in so doing. Our Right to Tithes depends not at all upon men's being willing or unwilling to come and hear us; and the Quaker is sadly mistaken, to think we come to sell them our Sermons, or that Tithes are a Price which is the Quakers own to give. The folly of all these Pretences was showed before.  
§. 51. As for Going to Law for Tithes, you have 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 will, that we are forced to sue for our just Deuce; and where a Legal Right is demanded, the Sin lies at the Defendants door, who will maintain an unjust Cause, and force the Plaintiff to use this uneasy and ungrateful Method. If it would not be too tedious, I could show him Examples of Primitive Gospel-Ministers, upon the Churches Settlement, requiring Justice of the Emperors against the Sacrilegious Invaders of the Sacred Revenue: but it is time enough to produce Examples, when he hath answered your Reasons already produced.  
§. 52. His Conclusion, pag. 363. admonisheth me, that 'tis time for me to conclude also, when I have made a Remark or two upon his pleasant Epilogue, which I dare say would afford you, as it did me, the just occasion for a smile, to observe what rare effects the happy conjunction of Ignorance and Folly have produced in your Adversary. You said, That the Quakers were quite different from the Primitive Christians: which he thinks to avoid, by calling it an old overworn Objection: And truly, as an Objection, it is as old as the Quakers first appearance in the World; but the Answer to it, will be an unheard of Novelty. And indeed the Quakers may be ashamed to let the Objection grow old and overworn, before they have either confessed the Truth, or made some satisfactory Reply thereunto. But the merriest passage is, that T.E. who knows nothing of Ecclesiastical History and Antiquity, and is a perfect Stranger to the Judgement and Practice of the Primitive Christians, having scarce heard of the Names of the most Eminent Fathers, as he hath abundantly manifested in this Book; that he should challenge the poor ignorant Priests, and attempt to threaten you into silence, by daring you to dispute on this Question,— Risum teneatis Amici? Doubtless, if T. E. (without going down to the Philistines of Rome) should of a sudden become able to dispute well about the Doctrine, and Discipline, and Rights of the Primitive Church, it would be the most famous Instance of immediately inspired Teaching that this Age ever saw: And if he can prove that these Ancient Christians had no distinct Order of Men to Officiate in Divine things, no Sacrament of the Lords Supper, no Baptism with Water, no Catechising, no Oblations at the Altar, no separate Places for Worship, and Set Forms for Sacred Administrations, no Festival and Fasting Days, no Kneeling at Prayers, no singing of Praises, nor answering of Amen, etc. he hath some rare Revelations sure about those Times, and is able to confute S. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, and the rest of those Eldest Fathers, in Matters done in their own time: A very grand Undertaking! which none would have boasted of, but T. E. and none but an undiscerning Quaker can be persuaded it is possible to be effected. And now, finally, he would gladly render you as odious, as he hath made himself ridiculous; by collecting out of your whole Book all the just Titles you have bestowed upon their Fancies and enormous Errors: but since you have never used any of these Epithets, without proving in the same place there was good reason for it, I cannot think they need any excuse: nor was it possible for you to express a sufficient detestation of their mischievous Opinions & Practices in any gentler Phrases: Crudelem medicum intemperans aeger facit, Pub. Syr. If T. E. had been to act the part of Porphyry, or Julian the Apostate, he might have made a notable Collection of the severe Expressions of our Lord JESUS concerning the Scribes and Pharisees, and made some Blasphemous Inferences from thence of the Temper of His Spirit: but no wise and good Christian will think it inconsistent with Evangelical Meekness, to give Crimes their Right Names, and to bestow upon evil Persons their deserved Characters. But as for T. E. I have made it evident, That he hath blasphemed God the Father, Son, and Holy-Ghost; charged the Primitive Fathers, Councils, and Emperors abroad, the Saxon Kings and Parliaments at home, and all the Patrons of Tithes since the Reformation, with Judaisme, Popery, and Idolatry; representing them all as a company of ridiculous and unreasonable Men. He hath reviled the Laws, and never spoken of the Priests but with all the contempt imaginable. And now he puts on his Vizor again, and would gladly go off from the Stage in all the Formalities of a demure Quaker, pretending he will not return railing for railing; and truly he had done it sufficiently before, to show he neither fears God nor reuerences Man, and to spoil all the Pretences he would make to Meekness at his plausible Exit.  
And now (Dear Sir) I shall leave these Observations to your disposal, who are best able to judge whether they are material, and whether they will be useful, or no. If you (who have so well considered this Subject) think they may be serviceable to undeceive the unhappy and deluded Quakers, I will not oppose their Publication: If otherwise, provided you accept them as a Testimony of my Affection to you and the Truth you defend, I am well pleased with their remaining Private: For all that I aim at, is to see these miserable and misguided Men rescued from their Heresy and Schism, and reduced into the ways of Truth and Soberness: And I am apt to hope, when they shall see how plainly the Ignorance and Malice, the Hypocrisy and Mistakes of this their bold Champion are detected, they will begin to perceive, that their Principles are not to be defended, no not by the most Politic Equivocation and Sophistry; and therefore they ought to be deserted by all that do not love to be deceived: For their Delusion is sincerely lamented, and their Conversion will be hearty congratulated by   
(SIR) Your affectionate Brother, and unfeigned Friend.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 10. line 14. deal to be. p. 26. l. 22. r. Tithes of them. p. 28. l. 15. r. being a just. p. 29. l. 13. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 45. marg. l. 4. r. Tobit ●. 7. p. 55. l. 9 r. in the Word. p. 79. l. 23. r. may add. p. 86. marg. l. 5. r. Binius Tom. 1. p. 367. p. 97. l. 8. r. Guthrun. p. 128. l. 17. r. calls them. p. 130. l. 22. r. of Lions. p. 135. l. 7. r. in all their. p. 138. l. 5. r. not see then. p. 161. l. 5. deal as. p. 203. l. 26. r. payments. p. 241. l. 17. r. Rites of the.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 55. line 9 read Word. p. 79. l. 24. r. may add. p. 82. l. 16. deal to. p. 89. l. 16. r. Family. p. 99 l. 11. r. solemnly.