ra-J.j:3 5 !«•'••»■;» .»73 I Hi •-» »-.«*•*..' 
 
 v^SMS^ 
 
 
10-0 
 
 
 -1/W-- 
 
 I THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, | 
 I Princeton, N. J. f 
 
 ?<^^>e e<^^5>? - ^^^53 s<^^>9 '?<^^>e ^ ' 
 
 IJ C'a.S-e, Division . 01 
 
 " ''^"-ff' -Sec. I 
 
 

 

 c/iafa'^ H E 
 
 iNDAT 
 
 
 f , -i ^ 
 
 And the Four Principal Pofts, viz. Divine 
 
 Inftitmion^ Primitive FraEiice^ V'olHntary Dona- 
 tions^ and Pofitive Laws^ on which the namelefs 
 Author (of a Book, called, The Right of Tythes 
 Jijferted and Proved^) hath fee his pretended Right 
 to Tyfihes, are Removed, in the following Reply. 
 
 By THOMAS^rljLI.wOOD. 
 
 The Prieflhooi being changed^ there is made of necejftty a change afo 
 of the Law J Heb. 7. 12. For there is verily a dij annulling cf 
 the Commandment going before^ &c. verf. 18. 
 
 In Auguftine's Time it was no general Law nor Cuftom in the 
 Church, that Tythes (hould be paid, WilJet's Sjnopfis of po- 
 pery^ 5th Gen. Controv. pag. 314. 
 
 Nemo plus juris ad Alium transferre poteft, quam ipfe habe- 
 ret, Ulpian. i. e. No Man can make a hotter Title to another 
 than he himself hath. 
 
 Id quod noftrum eft, fine fa£to noftro a nobis avelli non poteft 
 Reg. Jur. i. e. That which is our own, may not be taken away 
 from ui without our own a£t» 
 
 ^^t fercouD €biticn. 
 
 L O N D ON: 
 
 Printed and Sold by the Afligns of J, Sowle^ at the 
 Bible in George Tar d J Lombard- flreet^ 1720. 
 

 f! 
 
 
 ^-^i^^ji^^^m^^^*" 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 Reader, 
 
 ONe of the great Faults^ which the witty Erafmns ^leafant" 
 ly taxed Luther tpi>^, was thu^ That he meddled with 
 the Monks Bellies : for indeed^ that zealous Reformer did 
 fmartly inveigh againfi the Pride^ Idlenefs^ Luxury^ FoluptH' 
 oufnefs and greedy Covet oufnefs of the then Clergy. I have of 
 late been alfo drown to meddle a little with the Priefts Bel- 
 lies ; the Occafion for which woi thus offered^ by one of them" 
 felves. 
 
 Somewhat more than two Tears ago^ a Booh was publifhedy by 
 a Namelefs Ptiefi^ bearing the Title of A Friendly Confe- 
 rence between a Minilter and a Parifhioner of his inclin- 
 ing to Qjtahrifm^ &C. In the latter fart of which^ he made 
 Tythes the Subject of his Conference, When I had read that 
 Booky and had obferved^ that^ in fome farts of ity the Author 
 thereof had greatly abufed^ and mifreprefented the People called 
 Quakers^ in others, had endeavoured to deceive his Reader by 
 Sophiftical and Fallacious Arguments : 1 writ an Anfvoer to the 
 whole, under the Title o/Truth Prevailing, &c, which I di^^ 
 vided into fever al Chapters^ according to the various SabjeEls 
 treated of^ the lafh of which wad Tythes. This^ pinching the 
 Priefts in a tender part (the Belly) made them beftir them* 
 felvesy and lay their Heads together^ to confider what was to be 
 done. After divers Debates^ and much Confutation (as I 
 have been informed) about itj another Book (written by ano* 
 ther Hand^ but without a Name too) at length cameforthy en-" 
 tituledj The Right of Tythes AiTerted and Proved, &c, 
 being an Anfwer to that one Chapter only of Tythes, which 
 though it wa4 the laft Chapter in my Book^ yet having the firft 
 ^nd chicfeft place in the Prie[hs Minds and AjfeBions^ obtain-' 
 tdfrom them the firfl: and chiefeft Defence. Some time after 
 
 A 2 cam^ 
 
The Preface. 
 
 came out another Bool^ faid to be written by the Amhor of the 
 Conference, who was not willing yet, it feemsy to truft the 
 World with his Name* This bearing the Title of A Vindica- 
 tion of the Friendly Conference, &c, (and divided ints 
 like number of Chapters with mine) Jeems to be defigned for a 
 general Re fly to my Booh The former (called. The Right 
 of Tythes) came firfi to my Hand, and was about halfdif- 
 patcht before Ifaw the latter, I therefore chofe to take the 
 Chapter of Tythes out of the latter (fo much, I mean, of it as 
 feemed Argumentative^ or pertinent to the purpofe) and clap it 
 to the Book of Tythes, as being of the fame SubjeSL To both 
 thefe the Book in thy Hand is intended for an Anfwer : how 
 well it anfwereth that Intendment^ is left to thee^ Reader, to 
 judge. 
 
 If thou art a Tythe-Receiver of any kind, there is great 
 danger lefi Intereft, mif guiding thy Vnderfianding, jhould 
 hinder thee from difcerning Truth, and fo from judging truly. 
 For that of the Poet. 
 
 Impedife Ira Animum, ne poflit cernere verum, 
 
 ^Anger doth obflruEi the Mind 
 That the 'truth it cannot findr\ 
 
 Is not more true of Anger, than of Intereft. Advan- 
 tage, like the Byafs<?«rf Bowl, is apt tofwaythe Judgment, 
 and draw the Mind to favour that fide, on which the Profit 
 lies. Againft this Danger be pleafed to take this^ Caution : 
 and be entreated to lay afide all Confiderations of Gain or Lofs, 
 Advantage or Difad vantage in this Cafe, not meafuring the 
 Juftice of the Caufe by the Profit, but weighing the Profit by 
 the Juftice. Remember that. Nihil utile, quod non idem 
 honeftum f i. e. Nothing is profitable which is not Honefl) 
 and Nihil honeftum efle poteft, quod juftitia vacat (i. e. 
 Nothing can be Honefl which is not Jufl) were approved Axi- 
 oms amongft the graveft Heathen Philofopers, and deferve 
 much more to bcoifervcdby thofe^ who bear a Name derived 
 Jfrom Chrift. 
 
 Ex 
 
The Preface. 
 
 Ex damno alterius commoda nulla feres, 
 
 {^Account not that for Jnfi and Honeft Gain 
 Which got by thce^ mahs others Lofs fnftain\ 
 
 Is a good Document for Men as wtU as Children. In flmt^ 
 whether thou art a Tythe- Receiver^ or no^ this 1 requefl of 
 thee^ Read without Prejudice, Judge without Partiality ; 
 Examine this Difconrfe fnUy and throughly ; hut give the Rca- 
 fons therein given their due Poiz^t and Weight. 
 
 The Author (7/The Right of Ty thes, in his Epiftle, pag. 2, 
 charges me with bragging in a Letter of mine to a Quaker at 
 Torh^ that I have (hewed fome little Learning in my for- 
 Book ^ and there-afon fays, I dare affirm lie hath but little 
 to fhew. / am ferfmaded He and 1 fhall not fall oHt about my 
 Learning: for he feems willing to allow me a little, and I af- 
 fnre him^ 1 never took my felf to have much. Nor do 1 thinkj 
 when his Difclain is at the highefl, he willdefire to lay me low^ 
 rr, in that refpe^^ than 7, of my felf, am willing to lie. But 
 in charging me with bragging of that little Learning, which his 
 Court efie is fie a fed to allow me, h^ deals difcourteoujly and inju^ 
 rioufly with me. The Letter he mentions wai in Anfwer to on§ 
 from a Friend in York (to me unknown) in which he acquaint' 
 ed me. That my Book having gained Acceptance there. 
 Endeavours were ufed to prevent its further Service, by 
 calling out a Report thai 1 was a Jefuit, at leafl, that I 
 was no Quaker, but had a mind to fliew my Parts and Learn- 
 ing, &c, (The like Rumour alfo, of my being a Jefuic, was 
 craftily fpread in Nottinghamfhire ) Hereupon to fluw thi 
 Vanity of their Slander, / thus writ in that Letter, —-Some 
 (ehou fayeft) will needs have me to be a Jefuit -, and why ? 
 becaufe of a little Learning : muft none then have Learn- 
 ing but they and Jefuits ^ This is the common, but poor 
 fhift of Priefts hard befet •, when they cannot maintain 
 their Ground, they cry out. Their Opponent is a Jefuit^ 
 as if none could be too hard for them, but Jefuits, by 
 whom to be worfted they are not afhamed to think it no 
 Ihame, the more fhame for them. Well, Truth is too 
 hard for them and 'Jefuits too. And a little after. What- 
 ever 
 
The P R B F A c eV 
 
 ever they in their Carnal minds may imagine — I have 
 learnt to know ray felf better, than to afcribc to my felf 
 or my own Abilities any of that Honour, which is due to 
 the Power of Prevailing Truth. — J^^g^^ Reader, whether 
 from thofe Exj^reJJions, my Opponent had any juft Ground to 
 tax me with hragging of my Learning, 
 
 But oi an Argument of my want of Learning (yea, grofs Ig- 
 norance, 06 he u pleafedto term it, Ep. p. 3 J he charges me 
 with miilaking another Bapl for Bafd the Great. This he 
 tales oHt of that Chapter of my Book which treats 0/" Swearing ; 
 and his Brother Prieft in his Vindication of the Conference, 
 objecis the fame againft me, in his Chapter of Swearing in An^ 
 fwer to mine. When J jhall come to that part of the Vindica- 
 tion, / intend to give an Account of that T^ffage, and thm>^ 
 fore (to avoid needlefs Repetitions) omit it here ', yet thought 
 if needful to intimate thm much her^ leji my Opponent Jhould 
 fofar mijiale himfelf as to think I was willing to fhift it. 
 
 Some Teflimonies I have taken out /ff Fox'i Martyrology 
 (or Book of Martyrs) the various Editions of which render 
 Qtiotations out of it very uncertain, and fometimes fufpeBed : 
 the Book which I have ufed is of the fixth Impreffion^ in two Vo» 
 lumes, printed at London in the year i6io. 
 
 Thefe things premifed, I now recommend the following 'Dif' 
 comfe to thy moft feriotfs perufal, and thee to the Guidance of 
 that good Spirit which leads into all Truth, 
 
 Firft Printed in the Year T?78. 
 
 THE 
 
^ \ 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 WHEN Demetrim the Silver-Smith of Ephefut 
 perceived, that by P^^iw/'s preaching hisTradt 
 was like to decay, he call'd his Crafts-men 
 together, and thus befpake them, Te know^ faid he, that 
 by this Craft we have our Wealth ^ Moreover^ ye fee and 
 heary that not alone at Ephefus, but almofl throughout all 
 Afia, this Paul hath fetfuaded and turned away much people^ 
 f^y^^i^ ^^<^ they be no Gods which are made with hands : So 
 that not only this our Craft is in danger to be fct at nought^ 
 but alfothat the Temple of the great Goddefs Diima [houldbc 
 defpifed^ &c, JlSis 19. 25, 26. The Cafe hath fallen out 
 fomewhat alike with our Enghflj Demetrim^ the Author 
 of the Book called. The Right ofTythes fiffenesl^ &c. who 
 finding his Diana totter by a ftroke received from the 
 laft Chapter in a Book of mine, called, Truth Prevailing^ 
 (written it Anfwer to one from his Party, called, j^ 
 Friendly Conference) and apprehenlive of greater Dan- 
 ger, if timely courfe were not taken, he gives the Alarm 
 to his Fellow-crafts-roan, and befpeaks him :much to the 
 fame purpofe, as did ihQ Ephe /tan Silver-Smith of old. 
 He faid then, This is the Craft by which v;e have our 
 Wealth : This fays now. This is the Oyl by which our 
 Lamp is nourifhed^ the Pay by which our Army k maintained,^ 
 page 1 3. He faid then, This Paul hath p<^fwaded and 
 turned away much People, faying, they be no Gods 
 which are made with hands: This faith now. When I 
 confder how eaftly fo flaufible a Difcourfe (meaning that 
 Book of mine) might [educe feme well'Tneaning Men cut 
 ef the right way^ &c, pag. 4. Again, The Obfiinacy which 
 the unhappy Quakers contraSi from fuch falfe Infwuations as 
 thefe of T. E. in this Cafe ofTythes^ &c. pag. 6. Again, Our 
 Changers of Religion mainly feek to overthrow thefe things ^ and 
 to that end have fent out T. E. 06 their Champion^ pag. I 5. 
 with more to the fame purpofe. He laid then. Not onh 
 
 IKtS 
 
(O 
 
 this our Craft Is in danger to he fet at nought^ but alfo that 
 the Temple of the great Goddefs Diana Ihould be defplfed. 
 This fays now, They wonld gladly fiir up the People to take 
 away our Booh and SHbfiftence from m^ pag. 14. To flop 
 the Oyl that nourijhes our Lamp^ and force us ta disband for 
 want of Fay ^ pag. 13. And not only fo, bm wife and pi- 
 en's Men look Hp on them as deftgning to diflnrb the King- 
 dom^ deftroy Learnings and ruin the mofl famom of all Pro- 
 teftant Churches^ pag. 14. Jo overthrow not only the Mi' 
 nifterSy and their Maintenance^ but alfo the Peace of the 
 Chnrch, and Religion^ whofe fafety (be fays) depends upon 
 that Maintenance, pag. 15. He raifed the People into 
 an uproar, and filled the City with Confufion ; crying 
 out for abouiC the fpace of two hours, Gr^at is Diana of 
 the Ep'hefians. This Man abounds with confufion dlfoy hav- 
 ing little fbrength of found Argument or force of fo- 
 Jid Reafonirjg, but crying up the facred Maintenance^ 
 Divine Tribute^ Right of Holy Churchy 6cc. 
 
 And indeed, tne main difference that doth appear 
 between tha i Demetrins and this, is, that he (though he 
 fought the (leftruaion of the Apoftle) did not befpat- 
 ter him with approbrious Language ^ whereas this Man 
 hath endeavoured to befmear my Name with all the ig- 
 nominy, reproach and obloquy his evil Nature could 
 prompE him. to, and his worfe Education furnifh him 
 with, of wh ich thefe that follow are fome ^ This poor 
 I^etader, pag. 3. Our y?r«m>^ Quaker, pag. 16. Ob- 
 fitire and empty Quaker, pag. 1 7. This sknlking Adverfa^ 
 ry^ pag. 19. This poor Quaker is as Bold ad he is Bltnd^ 
 pag. 35. This Quaker hath learnt to Canty pag. 40. He 
 hath the impud cnce, pag. 1 1 3. This ungracious Cham, pag. 
 122. The Quaker is a manifefl Lyar^ pag. 139. Thts 
 infoUnt Quaker, pag. \6i. T. Ellwood is a blafphemous 
 tVretchy pag. .173. ThoughT. E. ufe the name of Popifh 
 Priefts to gull i he People, yet he is one of the^journy-men^ 
 pag. 179. Hi is an Jnfpirado, pag. 182. >4 wild Qua- 
 ker, pag. 190. This double-tongu'd and falfe- hearted Man^ 
 psg, 195. His own bafe humor, pag. 260. Common ex- 
 perience proclaii ns him a Lyar, ibid. This feditiom LtbeUery 
 pag. 201. h not the Quakers Knave, pag. 212. Thts 
 tnalicioHS Slamlerer, pag. 214. Thi^ black-mouthed Slan- 
 derer may pMi9^ his own rmrm/M Jmpietits^ pag. 2 3 3; ^ 
 
 Th», 
 
(3) 
 
 This, Reader, is the Language wherewith he treats 
 me; notwiehftanding which he hath the confidence to 
 Brand me with Railing, for calling Tythes the Pnefts 
 Delilah^ the very Darlw£ and Minion of the Clergy ; This 
 he fays is /// Language^ pag. ii. and Scurrility, pag. 12, 
 which he will not meddle with But if this be ill Lan- 
 guage and Scurrility, by what Name I marvel (hall thaE 
 Language of his pafs, which is before recited! Doubt- 
 lefs if Railing he not Reafotiing (as he truly fays) his 
 Book is fo replete with Railing^ that there is little room 
 for Reafoning in it. And though he terms that expref- 
 fion of mine Scurrility, and fays he will not meddle 
 with it, yet can he not forbear, but in the very nexE 
 page catches up this which himfelf accounts ill Language 
 and Scurrility, and throws it at the Qnakers^ calling 
 Tythes the Quakers Deiilah^ the very DarUng and Minion 
 0} that Se^^ pag. 13. And fo tranfportcd he is with 
 paflion againft the Onakers^ that he fees not the abfur- 
 dity he runs himfelt upon, in taxing the Quakers with 
 railing at Tythes in the very fame Line, wherein he calls 
 Tythes the Quakers Delilah, the very Darling and Mtnion 
 rfthat Ss6l: Is not this contradictory? 
 
 And as he all along looks upon the Qnakers with an' 
 evil Eye of contempt, difdain, and fcorn^ fo he lifts up 
 himfelf and his Brethren of the Clergy, fcarce finding 
 words big enough to exprefs the high conceit, and Ufty 
 Opinion he has of his own and their Abilities. The 
 leading Quakers (fays he) perceiving the Clergy 0/ England 
 fo able and indnfiriom to difcover all their evil Defigns^ &ۥ 
 pag. 12. Again, They know while the Clergy have thefi 
 provifionsj they will have Bsoks^ and leifnre to Study^ and 
 Learning enough to baffle all their filly pretences, pag. 13. 
 Again, Our Adverfaries finding our ftndy of the Law fo de- 
 firnClive of their infpired N^mfenfe^ they would gladly flir up 
 the People to take away oar BoskSy and Subfijlance from hs^ 
 that we might be flarved into Ignorance^ and by our fad Ne- 
 ceffities be brought down to their fc ant ling of Vnderflandirg 5 
 and then they hope their Speakers would be an ejqud match for 
 Us^ pag. 14. Thefe are the Brags^ thefe the Infdrs^ 
 thefe the Faunts^ thefe are fome of the Rodomontadoes 
 of this Polemical Prieft, who in the pride of his Heart, 
 and haughtinefi of his Mind, looks on the poor Q^^.ahrs 
 
(4> 
 
 with the fame Eye of Scorn and Contempt, as did the 
 monflroHs Fhilij^ine of old, upon the little Stripling David, 
 Buc when he takes occalion to mention me, how is he 
 put to it to find words fufficiently iignificant of bis 
 highSfdain! as in pa g. 4. So MEAN a Creature, A- 
 gain in pag. 5. / judge it neceffary to lay afede all Conpder'* 
 ations oj the MEANNESS of the Adverfary. And when 
 he hath a mind to throw dirt on me, rather than want a 
 pretence to do ic on, he will ufe the help of his /«- 
 mention, and fuppofe things not in common fenfe fup- 
 pofable: As when he fays, Dr, Sir, I ferceive oar ft rut* 
 ting Qwdktv looh on yon with a fcornfd Eye^ and fays ^ p. 
 277. Tythes were wont to be claimed as of divine Right ^ 
 but he finds this Triefi is not hardy enough to adventure his 
 cau/e upon that Title : Sure he takes himfelf to be very ter» 
 rible^ for he believes none hut a hardy Man dares fet 
 Mpon him^^ pag. 16, How can it reafonably be fuppofed 
 that I ^id charge the Author of the Friendly Conference 
 With want of hardinefs in refped of my felf ? Can he 
 miagine I took that Book to be defigned as an OnfeE 
 upon me ! nothing is more irrational, Again, he fays 
 pag. 17. It is evident you laid afide this Weapon (of the 
 divine right) not out of any diflruft of the Argument y nor 
 out of any great Opinion of your Adverfaries Skill j How 
 weakly is this argued^ for a Man of fo great Learning! 
 Oac ot my fcamling ofunderftanding might happily have 
 fpoken as pertinently as this. The Author of the Friendly 
 Conference did not lay alide the Weapon of divine 
 Right, out of any great Opinion of his Adverfaries 
 Skill : Why, did he know what Skill his Adverfary had 
 before he trfd it ? Nay, did he know before- hand, or 
 could he fore- fee who his Adverfary fhould be? Sure- 
 ly, either this great Learn'd Man in the ffantonnefs of 
 his Wit, hath over-fhot himfelf, or elfe he muft make 
 his Dr. Sr. a Diviner inflead of a Divine : This he did 
 to fallen on me an imputation of felf-conceie, ancTftick 
 his ftrmting Epithet upon me ; but in page 3. when he 
 ha'd a mind to Badge me with the fcomful Title of a. 
 poor Retailer^ he fays, I gleaned my Quotations out of 
 Fiflier, agairifi Biflwp Gauden, and .that with fo little 
 sjittl^ that when the Printer in FiOier had miftakeny'imi* 
 QMS for Firmicus i this poor Ret aiUr calls ^ A?>w Fimicus. 
 
 dfo^ 
 
(5) 
 
 dfoj page 115. which very Page of my Book deteSs 
 his unfair dealing, and clearly convids him of mamfefi 
 faljhood : for I there quote Canden^s Book of Oaths^ 
 and the very fage in Cauden's Book, out of which I 
 took that Sentence, notwithftanding which, fo little 
 regard has he to fpeaking Truth, that he charges me 
 with gleaning it out of Blher. But this is not the only 
 inftance of his unfair dealing by me, as I fhall have oc- 
 cafion hereafter to fliew. 
 
 He feems highly ofFended that I called Tythes the 
 Tr lefts DeliUhy the very Darlivg and Mtnivn of the Clergy, 
 Whatever Reafons induced me fo to call them, i think 
 he hath fufficiently proved that I therein expreft my felf 
 eiftly enough ^ for he hath not only leapt over all the 
 refi of my Book, md -fagled cm this which was the 
 lad Chapter in it, (hewing thereby how mar and dear 
 this is to him, and that whatever becomes of the refl, 
 this fball have a dtfim^t Treatife for its partiadar De- 
 fence, but in his treating of it alfo^ he delivers himfeif 
 in fuch Pathetical Expreffions, and fpeaks fo feelingly 
 of it, that one may eafily perceive it is one of his near- 
 eft Concerns, if not the neareft of all : Hear what he 
 fays, page ig. fpeaking of the Quakers with-holding 
 Tythes from them, "They fee^ fays he, they cannot qnenci^} 
 the Lawf^ and therefore they would ft op the Oyi that ncu- 
 rijhes it, Tythes then it feems (in his own account) is 
 to the Priefts what Oyl is to the Lamp, that which 
 makes it fhine, that which makes it give any light, that 
 which makes it of any ufe or fcrvice^ can any thing be 
 nearer ? No Oyl^ no Light *, no Tythes^ no Freaching ^ no 
 Tenny^ no Pater nofter. Did ever any, who allumtd the 
 Name of a Minifler of the Gofpel, fpeak after this 
 rate before! ftop the Oyl, the Lamp goes out, the' 
 Lamp hath done Ihining ^ with-hold Tythes, the Frieft 
 gives over, the Priefl hoi done preaching. Without Oyl 
 the Lamp will not burn ^ without Tythes the Trieft will 
 not preach : Methinks this might be enough to let the 
 People fee what a Miniftry they are under, and fericuf- 
 ly to confider. Whether the dim Light their Lamp gii^es^ 
 he worth the Oyl it fpends them ^ Certain ic is, that in 
 thus comparing the Priefts to the Lamp, and tlie Tythes 
 to the Oyl, making Tythes the caufe of the Priefts 
 
 B 2 preach* 
 
preaching, as the Oyl is of the Lamp's burning; this 
 Prieft hath fpbke the very Truth, though fomewhatt 
 uaadvifedly ; and 'tis much if this unwary Expreflion 
 don't lofe him all the Preferment he promifed himfelf 
 for his elaborate Book of the Right of Tythes^ which 
 fmelis fo flroxig of the Lamp. But howfoever he fpeeds 
 in chat, his own Comparifon will juftify me for calling 
 Tythes the Priefts D^///^, the very Darling and Minioa 
 of the Clergy. 
 
 But more fully to difcover his foundation and fland- 
 ing, take another expreflion of his in the fame page^ 
 ^hj bicanfe they dare not engage this jirmy, they at" 
 tempt to force them to diiband for want of ?ay. It feems 
 then this Army of Priefts fight for Pay \ and without 
 Pay fight who will for them, they will disband firft t 
 But! am ofOpinion they will confider twice^ before they 
 disband once. Men once in Arms are feldom forward 
 to disband, while either Tay or Plunder lads. How have 
 they behaved themfelves towards thofe that having no 
 need of fuch an Army, nor expeding benefit by them^ 
 have ConfcienrioHjly refafed to pay them? Did they 
 disband, or threaten it? nothing lefs. They rather 
 Rallied their Forces together, and either by Law, or 
 force without Law, have fallen upon theSpoil,and tak- 
 en fometiraes three, fometiraes five or fix times as much 
 as they pretended to be du£ to them : So that it is noE 
 likely, while Plunder may be had, the want of Pa]^ 
 will disband them. 
 
 But while this Priefl talks of being forc'd to disband 
 for want of Pay. 1 doubt he forgets the iV^^;^;'^ of his 
 Warfare, and the Caufe for which he pretends to be 
 engaged. Is not he one that takes upon him a Cure of 
 Smlsy and can he fo eafily ^nit his Station? Will he 
 leave the Souls of the People for a Prey to the Enemy,, 
 becaufe he has not the p^}' hedefires? Surely then ie is 
 otherwife with him, than it was with the Apofl:leP^;</, 
 who did not fay, If ye Pay me not, yon'li force me to dif" 
 harid'^ if ye flop the Oyl my Lamp will go om\ without 
 Tythes I cannot Preach, but A necejfity ts laid upon me 
 yea, Jf^'o is to me if I preach not the Gofpelj 1 Cor. ix. i6» 
 But this Priefl: does not appear to be under that necef- 
 ficy of Preaching, but rather under the aeceflicy of 
 
 giving 
 
< 7 ) . 
 
 jivlffg 6ver^ if he be not paid to his content , nay, he 
 feems to underftand no other Wo^ but that of having the 
 OylftoppeJ^ and wanting Pay. The Parifhioner ia the 
 Friendly Confer ence^ pag. \6o, was pretty near the 
 mark it feems, when he faid, The Covetoufnefs of the 
 Clergy hath given m occafion to fear^ that bereave you of 
 your preferments^ and you xoould foon abandon your Pre^ 
 fejfion : And that Pried underllood better liow to Var- 
 nifh over his Caufe, than this hath done ^ for he an- 
 fwered more warily, / hope^ faid he, many nf us can 
 appeal to the fearcher of Hearts^ that we embraced tht 
 Aiiniftry Hpon better grounds then temporal Inter efts. 
 
 Whatever the grounds were upon which they em- 
 braced their Miniftry^ temporal Interefls it feems by 
 this Prieft, are the grounds upon which they w\\] qm it, 
 want of Pay will force them to duband, ^ Tis much if 
 this Prieft be not one of thofe, of whom His Dr Sr. the 
 Author of the Friendly Conference fpeaks, when he 
 fays, pag. II. It cannot be expeBed to he otherwife^ 
 hut that jome Men for a corrupt Interefi will intrude them" 
 felves into thefe facred Offices: Or at leaft one of thofe 
 of whom the fame Author complains, in pig. i6o. of 
 his Friend f Conference^ Where he fays, The fecular cars 
 of fome of the Clergy^ for the Maintenance of their Fa-' 
 milies have been excejfive ; fome fuch it feems there are 
 among them, and he is as like to be one as another : for 
 indeed the excefs of his Secular Care beipeaks him J/$ 
 Intruder for a corrupt Interefi, 
 
 The Jews^ he fays, have a Proverb^ Sine farina non 
 eft lexj pag. 1,4. i. e. Without Meal there is no Law. 
 And have not the Priefts a Proverb alfo, Sine faring 
 non eft Evdngelium^ i. e. WithfUt Meal there is no Gof" 
 puL If his Metaphors of the Lamp and the Oyl^ the >4r- 
 my and the Pay be thought too weak to bear my Infe- 
 rence out, I will add what he in the next page tells us 
 Tacitus fays of the State, with his own applica- 
 tion thereof to the Church, There can be no quiet to the 
 Nations mthout Soldiers^ no Soldiers without Pay^ nor 
 no Pay without Tribute^ on which therefore the common 
 fafety doth depend : Even fo^ fays he, no Peace in the 
 Chnrth without Minifters^ no Minifters without Mainte- 
 vmce^ nor no Maintenance without theft publick Cantribu* 
 
 jB 3 iion^ 
 
(8) 
 
 tions^ on which therefore the fafety of Religion doth depend* 
 The plain Englijh of this is. No Tythes^ no Minifters ^ 
 no Meal^ no Gofpel, for all is made to depend upon 
 Tythes. No Minifters without Maintenance, no Main- 
 tenance without thefe publick Contributions (name- 
 ly Tythes, no other Maintenance it feems will ferve the 
 turn) on which therefore, namely Tythes, the fafety 
 of Religion doth depend: So that take away Tythes, 
 and down falls Religion : but that rauft be underftood 
 of their Religion only, wbofe Subfiftance depends upoa 
 Tyches, and I hope not of all theirs neither. 
 
 I am not willing to fpend time in tracing him flep by 
 flep through all his crooked turnings and windings, 
 wherein he often contradiif^s himfeif, one while mak- 
 ing the Qjiakers to be a5led by meer Covet oufnefs (in, 
 denying to pay Tythesj pretending Confcience to fave 
 their Purfes^ feipp'^fi^g this kind of Codlinefs great Gain^ 
 pag. 12. infiauating, that the Qiiakers ^«^ their Ha- 
 rangues againfi Tythes very taking with the Covetous and 
 jitheifiical^ with thofe who care not much for any Religion^ 
 And therefore lih the cheapeft hejl^ pag. 14. Another 
 while, The Qiiakers Ohftinacyin this cafe of Tythes expof- 
 €th them to more Snjfenngs than all their other Errors^ p. 6. 
 One while, I am a bold Antagonifl^ pag. 5. Another 
 while. The Quakers dare not engage the PriejFs Army^ 
 pag. 13. Anon, T. E. fingly provokes the Trieft to take 
 up this Argument^ pag. 18. And f which is beyond all 
 the reftj he calls me both a daring Adverfary^ and a 
 fcHlking Adverfary in one and the fame page. But I pafs 
 over thefe, and many other of like nature, being de- 
 lirous to try what further Strength and Force of Ar- 
 gument this great Warrior hath brought forth in the 
 Defence of Tythes, than the Author of the Friendly 
 Conference had done before him. 
 
 C H A P. I. 
 
 §. I. •TpO make out the Divine Right of Tythes, 
 
 X there are three Periods ("he fays, p. 19.) 
 
 to be confidered ? i. Before the Law j 2. under the 
 
 Law y 3. The Time of the Gofpel. Concerning the 
 
(9) 
 
 ifl Period^ before the LaWy fays he (to his Dr. Sr.) you 
 fnid very little in your Conference^ as not defigning to mm- 
 "nage this Argnment, 
 
 But why did he fay fo little? Was it not becaiife he 
 had but little to fay, and as I obferved in my former An- 
 fwcr, Though he pretended to be a Minifier oftheGofpely 
 yet he took the Law for the fnrer hoLdwg^ and therefore 
 betook himfclf chiefly to fbat? No, fays this Priefl, 
 to excuie him, ^Tis evident you Uid apde this Weapon 
 (of the divine Right) not out of any diftrufi of the Ar- 
 'gumenty but in very Tmth yon feem to have been loth to 
 cafi Pearls before Swine^ wh9 nnderfi^nd not the value of 
 ihem^ pag. 17? 1 8- 
 
 Was his Pari (hioner then a Swine with whom he dif- 
 courfed on that fubjed, whom he called his good Friend 
 and Neighbour, pag. i. to whom he bore fuch true 
 Friendfhip, pag. 2. whofe ferious inclination, Mode- 
 fty and Humility he commeaded, and the Exprefil- 
 ons of whofe Affedion he accepted in all graticude, 
 
 pag. 3- 
 
 He hinted indeed before (pag. 6. of his friendly 
 Conference) that the Priefis People were Beafts, and lean 
 £eafisy no fatter for all the feeding ^ but then they feem- 
 €d to have been Kmey he ftroak'd fo much Milk from 
 them ; but this Pried has explain'd the matter, and 
 declared them arrant Swine^ not confideriog that he 
 hath made his Dr. Sr. a Swineherd inftead of a Shep* 
 herd. 
 
 But what am I concerned in all this ? Will he blame 
 me becaufe his Brother took up his Caufe by the wrong 
 end ! If divine Right (as he fays) be antecedent to 
 any pofitive Conflitution, why began he at the humane 
 Right? Or if he intended only to manage the Argu- 
 ment of humane Right (as this Prieft intimates for 
 him, pag. 20.) why did he meddle with the divine 
 Right ^ but feeing he gave a touch on each, why am I 
 blara'd for anfwering both ? He had Reafon the ra- 
 ther to have begun with the divine Right, and to have 
 infifted on it too, and have managed that Argament^ 
 (if he underftood it) in as much as he began his Dif- 
 courfe upon a Paflage taken out of a Book of £. i?'s, 
 which related to 8he divine Rights noj to the humane. 
 
 B4 Yel 
 
Yet had he faid nothing of Divine Right at all, it may 
 be I mignc have faid the Jefs \ but feeing he thought fif 
 to fay fo much as mighc intimate a referve for a divine 
 Right, I think I had reafon ro examiiU; rhe claim, and 
 not as eafily ora,ntj as he did weakly beg the Queflion. 
 
 But he fays, he perceives his Brother Prieft had 
 jnentioned, x\\zx. the divine Right of Tythes was derived 
 ■from MeJchizf^deck, not from Levi. He's very angry 
 1 fell upon ihis Pafl':ige, and to vent his Paflion beftows 
 upon me the bc^d^e (;f a shlkirjg Adverfary: Why fo? 
 Becdufe thts P^Jfjge (he fays) was jingle^ mt guarded 
 mth 'any Proofs or Reafons^ fiood naked^ was an open 
 flace Whofe Fault was that? Did he exped ( 
 fhould have guarded it with Proofs and Reafons for 
 iiim ? or that I fhould have been fo mannerly as to hav^ 
 pafs'd it by becaufe it was not guarded ? He would not 
 It feems have had me enter there, becaufe it was an o- 
 pen place, furely if I had medled with nothing but what 
 \fyas guarded with Proofs and Reafons, I fhould have 
 had litcle to meddle with \ for his whole Book is ei- 
 ther unguarded, or ill guarded. 
 
 But he would perfwade his Reader, pag, 17, 20; 
 'That 1 had trinrnphed ovtr this naked Sentence^ (as he 
 calls it) and over the j^mhor too'^ nay, that I had boafi" 
 td^ I haa difproyed clearly the divine Right of Tythes j 
 for which, the better to hide himfelf, heafligns no page 
 cfmy Book-, nor do I know any PalTage in it, from 
 Which, without a pofitive Refoiution to abufe me, he 
 could draw fuch an unfair inference. The moll I faid, 
 that 1 remember, was ia pag. 282. and the words? 
 thele, * That Tythes were not paid by Abraham to 
 
 * Melchizedecky buE given, and that but once, and 
 
 * that too upon an Accidental Occafion, nor then out 
 
 * of his own proper Eftate (but out of the Pillage of 
 ^ S^dom^ which he by the Sword had recovered from 
 
 * the Plunderers) I think 1 need not flick to fay I have 
 
 * already prov'd. Whether this was an immodeflEx- 
 preffion, confidering what I had before offer'd in the 
 four preceding pages of my gookj and whether he 
 hath dealt fairly v». it h me from hence, to reprelent me 
 as triumphing, and boafting that I had difproved clear- 
 ly the Divide Right of Tythes, k% the ingenuous Rea- 
 
 ^- jucjgc. §.2. Mj 
 
(II ) 
 
 §. 2. My firfl; Opponent in his Friendly Conference^ 
 pag. r^5. had afHrnied, thac thofe that inpft upon th^ 
 divine Right of 7ythes^ derive them not from J. evi, but 
 IWtlcnizedcLk : In my Anfwer to which, pag. 277. I 
 faifj, *• \t is then iaquirable, whetner or no T ythes were 
 
 * ever due to Melchizedeck : That which fhould irtake 
 ' them due, mufl: be a Command, they were ncn due to 
 ' the Levitical Prieflhood^ until they were commanded 
 ' to be paid ; but after chey were commauded to be 
 ' paid, they became due*, and fo long as the Command 
 
 * flood ir. force, it was an Evil ro detain them. But we 
 do not find, throughout the Scriptures any Command 
 from God that Tythes fhould be paid unto Melchize- 
 deck. Upon this the Author of tfe Right of Tythes 
 fays, pag. 20. My firft w§rds do declare^ J do n.t mder^ 
 fland the Queftion, 
 
 But 1 believe, cither this Prieft doth not underftand 
 theQueftion, as the other ftated it; or Q\k he thinks 
 the other Priefl: did not underftaud how to ftate it as 
 he fiiould do; and therefore he hath undertaken to ftate 
 the Queftion a-new. The Cafe was plain enough to be 
 underftood before ; and I am content to abide the Rea- 
 der's Cenfure, whether by my Anfwer to ic I under- 
 ftood it or not. I confefs, I did not then underftaiid 
 how this Man eighteen Months after would alter it, 
 no more than I now do how another of them eigh;ten 
 Months hence may vary it again, if this Man's work 
 fucceed no better than the former. The former Prieft 
 fjid, Tks divine Right of Tythes woi derived from Mel- 
 chizedeck. Now becaufe no Righe could be derived 
 from Melchiz^edeck to another, which was not firft ia 
 Melchiz^edeck himfelf, I thought \i iuflly inquirable» 
 Whether or no Tythes were ever due to Mel chizedeck ? 
 And becaufe no certain and pofitive Evidence could be 
 produced of Melchize deck's Right to Tythes, I judg'd 
 itncceflary to confider what way Tythes might come 
 to be due to him, and therefore faid, thrit which fhonld 
 make them dne muft be a Command, This alfo I demon- 
 ftrated by an Inftance from the Levitical Priefthood, to 
 whom it is on all hands acknowledged they were due, 
 after they were commanded to be paid to them, not 
 
 before J 
 
(is) 
 
 before ; tlierefore I faid, ' They were not due to the 
 ^ Leviticd Priefthood, lentil they were commanded to 
 * be paid \ buE after they were commanded to be paid 
 ^ they became due : And fo long as that Command 
 ^ Hood in force, h was an Evil to detain them. This 
 the Prieft was willing to dafh out, left as the Right of 
 thQ Leviticd Priefthood to Tythes, depended upon aa 
 exprefs Command, fo an equality of Reafon fhould drive 
 liim to feek a Command, on which to ground Melcki- 
 x.€deck\ Right to them alfo, which he very well knew 
 lie could no where find. 
 
 He attempts therefore to mend the matter by a new 
 flating of the Qiieftion : And whereas the oEher Prieft 
 has alTerted, that the divine Right of Tythes was derived 
 from Melchizedeck, not from Levi ^ this Prieft fays, pag. 
 :20. The Ajfertors of the Divine Right 9f. Tythes do not 
 make them originally due either to Melchizedeck or Levi, 
 hnt to God himfelf^ &c. 
 
 To whom Tythes were originally due, was not the 
 Qpeftion •, but from whom the prefent Priefts dode-. 
 irive a Divine Right in Tythes to themfelves, whereby 
 Tythes may become due to them by a Divine Right, 
 which the former Prieft aflerted to be from Melchize- 
 deck He does not claim Tythes from God, to whoni 
 they were originally due*, but from Melchiz^edeckj to 
 whom how they became due, and from whom how they 
 come to be due to thefe Priefts, had well become him 
 £0 have proved. 
 
 §. 3. He fays, The Tenth belongs to God. 
 
 I fay, M belongs to God^ the Nine Parts as well as 
 the Tenth ^ for the Fulnefs of the Eariih is the Lordsj 
 I>faL xxiv. T. not a part only ^ the Cattel on a thou- 
 fand Hills are his, Pfal, 50. 10. not the Tythes of them 
 only. That Scripture therefore, Prov. iii. 9. Honour 
 she Lord with thy Subftance, is mifapplied by the Prieft, 
 and, as he reftrains it to the Payment of Tythes, is 
 not a binding Rule to C^n7?^'^wi as well as jffWi*, Chri- 
 Jlians being no where commanded by God to pay 
 Tythes, as the Jews exprefly were. But the Chriftian 
 doth then honour God with his Subftance, when thank- 
 fully receiving the Goods of this World from the 
 Hand of the Lord, he doth in God's holy Fear foufe 
 
 £hem,> 
 
them, as no6to abufe them, i Cor. vii. 31. when both 
 in eating and drinking, and whatfoever elfe he does, 
 he does all to the Glory of God, according to the 
 Exhortation of the Apoftle Taul^ i Cor, x. 31. 
 'Tis not to be doubted buc that God, from whofe 
 Bounty and Blefling all is received, might referve to 
 himfelf what (hare he pleafed ^ but what he might do 
 is one thing, what he did another : That he ever did 
 appropriate the tenth part, I find not in Scripture ex- 
 prefs'd, excepting only in the time of the Levltkd 
 Priefthood, for which there was a particular Reafon. 
 He then chofe the 'jewi^ Nation to be his peculiar Peo- 
 ple, which People being divided into twelve Tribes, he 
 feparated one entire Tribe, the Tribe of Levi^ to at- 
 tend the Service of the Tabernacle. The Land of C«- 
 9jaan he divided amongft the other eleven Tribes, but 
 gave ihe Tribe of Levi no Inheritance amongfl: them. 
 Numb, xviii. 20, 23, 24. Dgnt.x.g. for they being 
 wholly imployed in that fervice, could not have leifure 
 to attend the Plough, or other Rural Occupations. See- 
 ing therefore he had excluded them from a Ihare of the 
 Land (the manuring of which would have taken them 
 off from the Service he had defigned them to) and that 
 by this means their Brethren, the other Eleven Tribes, 
 amongft whom their part was fhared, did all fare fo 
 much the better, their refpedive Lots being fo much 
 the greater, he commanded the Eleven Tribes that 
 had the Lands, to pay the Tythes of the increafe there- 
 of, out of which this twelfth Tribe fhould be maintain- 
 ed. And while that Priefthood and Polity ftood, which 
 Tythes were fuitable and appropriated to, this Ty thing 
 Command was in force, and no longer. But that even 
 God did referve the tenth, or command the payment 
 of Tythes to any, before the conftitucion of the Le- 
 vitical Priefthood, or llnce the Diflblution thereof, I 
 no where read in Scripture. This is proper for the 
 Affertors of the Divine Right of Tythes to prove, and 
 indeed foabfolutely neceffiry, that if they fail of this, 
 all they can fay befidc will be too weak to bear their 
 Title up: For in a matter of fo great moment, it is 
 not bare Conjectures or meer Suppoficions, nor Pro- 
 bability neither, will ferve the turn, but politive Pre- 
 cept. 
 
< H ) 
 
 acq3t The Leviticml Priefthood was Hofe left to fuch In- 
 c^rcainties. Though this Priefl is willing to take it for 
 granted, that the Men of that Age wherein Abraham 
 iived, knew and underftood by the Light of Nature, 
 that the tench Part belong'd to God, and was therefore 
 to be paid to his Priefts : yet we find God himfelf did 
 not think fit to hazard the Levitical Priefthood on fuch 
 'uncertain Terms, but fecured their Maintenance to them 
 1)y an exprefs Command, which left no room for any 
 Doubts or Scruples. And can it be imagin'd, that the 
 Omnifcient God, whofe Eye at once fore-fees aH Events^ 
 would leave the Maintenance of his Gofpel- Mini dry, 
 fo much nearer to him than the Levitical Priefthood, to 
 depend upon the ambiguous and doubt^^ulConftitutioa 
 of a (ingle Ad of Abraham^s^ or a Vow of Jacob^s^ un- 
 certain when, or whcre,or how performed ? No, doubt- 
 !efs, it cannot reafonably be fuppofed, tiiat he who took 
 Ibch particular Care of the Legal Priefthood (which 
 was to laft but for a time) and was fo pundual in ap- 
 pointing Tythes for their Maintenance, not thinking 
 cither Abraham's Gift or Jacob's Vow fufHcient Ground 
 for them to claim upon, although they were the chofen 
 Priefts of God, without a plain and pofitive Command, 
 would leave his Royal Priefthood, the Publifhersof his 
 Everlafting Gofpel, fo ill provided of a Claim to Tythes, 
 as to be neceffitated to ftrain a Title out of Abraharns 
 Gift and jacabWovj^ if he had ever intended Tythes 
 Ihould be the Maintenance of his Gofpel- Minifters. 
 
 What elfe doth this Affertor of the divine Right of 
 Tythes offer in proof of his Affertion, but Conjedures 
 and Probabilities, as he calls them, as in page 30. where 
 fpeaking of Abraham^ giving to God the tenth of all 
 the Spoils, he adds, As in all Probability he was wont or^ 
 Snarily to do^ of all that he got by God'^s ordinary Blejfm^, 
 So again, page 31. T. E. cannot prove Abraham did no^ 
 ^(ly Tythes ordinartly^ and lean make it appear very probabl 
 he did. Again, There are ancient Anthors and probabl^ 
 Ikafons to induce ta to believe^ &c, page 33. Again,^ 
 fpeaking of Melchiz,edeck being Sem^ We cannot (fays he) 
 he pofitive in a Matter of fo great Antiquity -^ .but I hope 
 ihefe things may fnffice to make it very probable^ that Mel- 
 ^hizedeck ip^ Abraham^j Prieft in Ordinary^ page 34. 
 
 And - 
 
(i5> 
 
 And though he is able to (bew no better Ground thaa 
 Ibch probable May-be's as thefe, yet he Hicks not to 
 require his Reader's Aflent as fully as if he had produced 
 the moft pofitive Proofs and plain Demonftrauon v for 
 fpeaking of Jbraham'^s pitching upon the Tenths he 
 fays, page 25. In all Reafon we onght to believe it wa4 at 
 firfi revealed by jilmighty Cod to him^ &c. And fpeaking. 
 of Sacrificing being believed to be revealed by God to 
 jidam^ he fays, The like we may believe alfo concerning , 
 ihu of dedicating the tenth Fart^ page 20. Again, fpeak- 
 ing of fome Heathens that vow'd the Tenths to their 
 Gods, he fays, Which therefore we mufi believe they had bf 
 Tradition from the firft Patriarchs^ who received it by Re- 
 relation from God^ page 27. Yet in the next page 
 fays, It is not neceffary (fince the Scripture ufilent) Ijhoftld 
 determine^ whether Abraham was immediately diretled to 
 it^ or whether he learnt it from Melchizedeck. Thus he 
 argues from may be to muft be, and from mull be ta 
 may be back again, finding nothing firm, nothing cer- 
 tain, whereon to build a divine Right to Tythcs. 
 
 Yet fain he would have it fo, and therefore labours 
 to perfuade his Reader^ page 21. that from the Example 
 of jibrahamh Giving and JacoFs Vowing the Tentb^. 
 there was a Claim made of this tenth part^, as being origin 
 nally dne to God long before : And for this Claim he quotes 
 Levit. 27. 30. jid the Tythes of the Land is ths Lord^s^ 
 But he greatly miftakes, and mif-applies that Text \ for 
 though the tenth^ the ninths the eighth^ and the aH was 
 originally due to God long before, yet as a tenth, di- 
 ftind and feparate from the reft, it doth not appear ta 
 have been due long before, nor feems to be here men- 
 tion'd by Mofes^ with relation to any fuch former Re- 
 ferve or Claim, but with refped to the Levitical Prieft- 
 hood, which was then fettled in Aaron^ the Great 
 Grand-child of Levi., for which Priefthood he who was 
 Lord of the whole, when he gave the Lands to the 
 other eleven Tribes, referved this as a Subfiftance more 
 fuitable to their Service, and as a Comfenfatien for their 
 part of the Land. 
 
 But the better to colour this Conceit, of Tythes be- 
 ing claimed in Levit, 27. 30, as due long before, he per- 
 verts another Text, and puts a plain Abufe upon his 
 
 Reader-^ 
 
(i6) 
 
 'ReeidtY \ for he fays, page 22. "the firfi time Tythes 4rd 
 mentioned^ Exod. 22.29. ^hey are not direcily enjoined^ bnt 
 f^ppofed dfiCy and forbid to he whh'hdd : Whereas in £a:^^. 
 22. 2p. Tythes are not mentionM at aU, nor in all the 
 Book of Exodtis, that I obferve, nor eife-where as 
 enjoined, fuppofed due, or forbid to be with-held, un- 
 til the iqth of Levit. 30; mention'd before. The words 
 in Exod, 22. 29. which he fays doth not diredly enjoin, 
 but fuppofes Tythes due, and forbids them to be with- 
 held, are chefe. Thou jhalt not delay to offa the firfi of 
 thy ripe Fruits, and of thy Uqmrs j the Firft-horn of thy 
 Sons JJoalt thoH give unto me. Here is not a word of 
 Tythes i and yet this Prieft bach fo little regard to 
 Truth, and fo much to bis own Intereft, that he Iticks 
 not to fay Tythes are in this place mention'd and fup- 
 pofed due. Neither of one part of that which is here 
 mention'd, namely, the Firft born, which is here com- 
 manded to be given to the Lord, is this the firft men- 
 tion ; but it was both mention'd and exprefly command- 
 ed before, Exod, 13. 2. while the People of IfraelwevQ 
 yet in Egypt : And in Nnmh. 3. 13. the very Day is af- 
 iigned whereon God did appropriate this part to hlm- 
 felf, and from which (with Reverence fo to fpeak) he 
 dates his Claim thereto: Jii the Firfi horn (faith the 
 Lord) are mine ^ for on the Day that I [mote ail the Firft-^ 
 horn in the Latnd of Egypt, I hallowed unto me all the Firfi- 
 horn in Ifrael, hoth Man and Beafi^ mine they jhall he j / 
 am the Lord. Here's the time precifely iet down, here's 
 the day exprefly mention'd, on which God did fandtify 
 the Firft.born to himfelf, on which (and not till which) 
 he afTumed to himfelf a peculiar Right to the Firft- born 
 diftindand feparate from the reft, which yet was above 
 four hundred years after jihraham^s Gift to Mdchi" 
 zedeck. Let the Aflertors of the Divine Right of 
 Tythes, fhew as plainly (if they can) v\^hen God did 
 appropriate to himfelf the Tythe or Tenth Part, di- 
 ft'md. from the other nine, before the time of the Le» 
 vitical Priefthood, for whofe Maintenance he then ap- 
 pointed h. Can it with any colour of Reafon be 
 fuppofed, that he who fo precifely and pundually fefi 
 down the very day whereon he chofe to himfelf the 
 Firft'born, which related but to that typical ftateof 
 
 ihe 
 
( 17 ) 
 the Jem, would have given no hint, nor lefc any Voot^ 
 Heps at all of his Right and Claim to Tythes before the 
 Conftitution of the Levitical Prieflhood, if he had in- 
 deed fandified them to himfelf before, and intended 
 them to be continued after the DifTolution of thaE 
 Priefthood, for a Maintenance to his Gofpel-Miai- 
 fters. 
 
 §. 4. The Priell fay, p3g, 22. Though God hath a 
 right to the tenth fart of our Snhftance^ yet he camiot be 
 hid own Receiver : So that we are to enquire who tnuji bs 
 God's receiver, and for that, even Reafon will teach us, that 
 what is due to the Mafier, ought to he paid to his next and 
 immediate Servants, that is, to his Priefis, 
 
 What he is not able to prove, that he is willing to 
 take for granted. 1 acknowledge that God, who is 
 Lord of all, hath a right to all our Subflance, and may 
 command and difpofe the whole, or what parE there- 
 of he pleafeth : But that God hath a diflind right to 
 the Tenth, more than to all or any of the other nine 
 parts, and that by the Law of Nature, antecedent tcs 
 any pofitive Conftitution ; as this Priefi: makes the Af- 
 fertors of the divine Right of Tythes to afiert,- is more 
 than .1 have yet feen proved either by this, or any other 
 of the Aflertors of the divine Right of Tythes, that 
 I have hitherto met with. And till this be proved, 'tis 
 needlefs to enquire who fhould be the Receiver : Though 
 even in that alfo, the Priefi falls fhort, taking that to 
 be a didate of Reafon, which right Reafon did never 
 didate to him : for what is due to the Mafter, ought to 
 be paid to fuch of his Servants, as he appoints to re- 
 ceive it, whether they be his next and immediate Ser- 
 vants or not : for it is not their being next unto him, 
 that doth authorize them to be his Receivers, but his 
 deputing them unto that Service. 
 
 Again he fays, pag. 23. Abraham, in paying his 
 Tythes (which were God's part) mto Melchizedeck the 
 Prieft of the mofi high God, did confirm this dilate of 
 Reafon, &c. 
 
 What elfe is this but begging the Qiieftion, and that 
 twice in two lines. He fuppofes Abraham paid his 
 Tythes (which the Scripture no where fays he did) 
 
 and 
 
(i8) 
 
 and that Tythes, (as TytHes, as a diftinO: part) wer^ 
 then God's pare, (which the Scripture no where fays 
 ihey were) and it this would be granted him, he would 
 then infer that Melchix^edee had indeed a Right to 
 Tythes, and perhaps alfo that from him a Right to 
 Tythes mighc be derived to a Gofpel Miniftry. Butt 
 he runs too fail to hold, that of which he is willing to 
 make no queftion, is the main Queftion in this pare of 
 the Controverfy, namely, Whether in ^brahatns time, 
 and antecedent to any pofitive Con ili cut ion, Tythes as 
 Tythes, or a Tenth Part diftinB from the reft, was any 
 more God's peculiar Part, than the other Niae : And 
 whether Abraham in giving (as the Texts exprefs it) 
 the Tenth of his Military Spoils unto MdchizedeCy did 
 pay a jaft Debt to MclchizedeCj which he could not with' 
 cm Injujike have with- held*, or whether that Gift of 
 jibrahants was a grateful Acknowledgment, and volnn- 
 tary Return of Kindnefs to MeUhiz^edeCy for his fo friend- 
 ly Congratulation, fatherly BlelTing, and bountiful Pre- 
 fent of Bread and Wine to himfelf and his weary Fol- 
 lowers: This is indeed the Sum of the Matter, the 
 very Hinge on which (and which alone) a Claim of 
 Tythes from Mclchiz^edec to any others, can with any 
 Reafon be fuppofed to turn. And if my Opponents^ 
 either firftor fecond, would flick to this, and (though 
 but for a while) deny themfelves the Pleafure and De- 
 light they feem to take in railing and reviling, deriding 
 and jeering, infulting and boafting, difdaining and fcorn- 
 ing •, and would apply themfelves to manage this Argu- 
 ment with that Gravity and Serioufnefs that becomes 
 the Subject, I fhould not doubt to fee this Cafe brought 
 to a fpeedy and fair Ilfue. But then I fhould exped to 
 meet with more forcible Arguments, more cogent Rea- 
 fons, more evident Proofs, and flainer Demonftratioiis 
 than Suppofitions^ Conjectures, Probabilities, iJkelihoods, 
 and May- he's; and that which is a poorer way of Rea- 
 foning than all the reft, and is indeed too low and mean 
 by much for fuch lofty Pretences to Learning and Scho- 
 larfhip, as my Advcrfary makes for himfelf and his Bre- 
 thren, viz, to puE the Defendent to prove the Nfgative^ 
 as he has done me more than once, and more than con- 
 duces to the Credit of his Caufe. As in page 31. / may 
 
( *9 ) 
 
 /A him (fays he) where he reads ^ that Abraham did not 
 fay them. And a few Lines lower in the fame page, T, E. 
 (annof prove Abraham did not pay Tythes ordinArily^ And I 
 can make it appear very probable he did. 
 
 But he hath fo accuftomed hiinfelf to call Abraham'^ 
 Gift Payment, that forgetting himfelf, he brings me in 
 as ufing the fame Phrafe, as if I alfo admitted that, which 
 1 have offered fo much Reafon againft \ his Words are 
 thefc, page 30. So that T. EV faying he doth not read iti 
 Geriefis thdt Abraham paid his Tythes conftamly^ is no jir- 
 gnmenti &c. 
 
 But where doth T". £. fay this ? He quotes no place^ 
 nor indeed had any to quotes for I no where faid fo; 
 but he hath put a doubk Abufe upon my Words, firfi^ 
 in making me to fay I do not read in Genefis^ &c. As if 
 1 had limited the Story of Abraham and Mdchiz^edet to 
 the Book of Genejis only, or had allowed no Evidence 
 for proof of this pretended Right to Tythes, but what 
 could be foilnd in Gene/is: And adcordingly he plays 
 upon me, T. E^s faying he doth not read in Genefis, — U 
 no Argument^ ftnlefs all that Abraham ordinarily did were 
 recorded there, (to wit, in Genefis) And, / may ask him 
 where he reads there (to wit, in Genefis j that Abraham did 
 not pay themj page 31. whereas my words vttXQ general^ 
 
 * We do not find throughout the Scriptures, (which is 
 
 * more than in Genefis only) any Command from God, 
 
 * that Tythes (hould be paid xx^to Melchiz^edec^ page 
 27S. and, * If Tythes had been due from Abraham ta 
 
 * Melchiz^edecy then mufl Abraham have paid Meichiz^edee 
 
 * Tythes of all his Subllance, of all that he pofleft : 
 
 * But no fuch thing appears at aH^ page 279. What 
 Pretence could the Prieft have to thrufl: in Genefis here ! 
 But his other Abufe in the latter part of the Sentence is 
 fomewhat more grofs. T. £'s faying, he doth not read 
 that Abraham paid his Tythes confiantiy^ is, &c. 
 
 Thefe words are not in my Book, but are a meet* Ar- 
 tifice of his own, to iniinuate as if 1 had yielded that 
 Abraham paid Tythes at that time^ upon that extraordi" 
 nary Occafion, and had only feem'd to doubt whether 
 he paid them confiantly or not: whereas nothing is more 
 plain, than that I all along deny that Abraham ever paid 
 Tythes m aH. This is an art this Prieft is expert at^ 
 
 G bus 
 
< 20 ). 
 
 but ril afiure him 'tis a black one^ and will never credift 
 him or his Caufe. He ferved me B once or iwice be- 
 fore, in his i6rl3 page, quoting me thus, Tythes were 
 wont to be claimed as of divine Right, but I find this 
 Pried is not hardy enough to adventure his Caufe upon 
 that Title. Whereas my Words are not, I find this 
 Prielt is not hardy enough ♦, but I do not find this Prieft 
 hardy enough. Which Variation, how fmall foever it 
 may feem to fome, yet as Illiterate as he takes me to 
 be, I uaderfland the different Senfe of thofe two Ex- 
 preflions, and how little he is to be trufted ^ which I 
 am the more confirm'd in from his next Period, where 
 fpeaking of me, he fays, He perfuades his Qnakers, that 
 tdey who were wont to claim Tythes dc prs divino^ 
 were more bold than wife. 
 
 Thefe words were not in my Book, but a Suggeftion 
 of his to abufe me ^ for which (whatever I think of o- 
 thers) I have caufe enough to think him more bold 
 than honefl. Nor has he only glanced on this Paffage, 
 but infifted deliberately on it, and profecuted his falfe 
 Suggeftion to the highefl Advantage he could make of 
 it. For he fays, Let m therefore fee who and what they 
 were whom T. E. thus Cenfnres : Trnly no lefs (fays he) than 
 Origen, Cyprian, S. Hierom, S.Auguftin, divers Chxi-- 
 fkXdiW Councils of Oldy juftinian, and the Imperial Roman 
 Laws^ Charles the Greaty and the French Capitdars, th^ 
 Saxon Kings and Conncils of this Nation^ and all Monar* 
 chies and Parliaments of later times^ farticularly K, Henry 8. 
 and Edward 6. together with the mof} famom common Law* 
 yersy as alfo the unconcern' d and incomparably learned Sir 
 Hen. Spelman, with divers other excellent Tfritersy too many 
 to recite. 
 
 Xhefe were too many to have recited, unlefs he had 
 had more ca^fe for it : At this rate, he may father whatt 
 Falfhoods he pleafes upon his Adverfary, and then call 
 him an obfcure and empty Quaker ^ as he does me \ but he 
 may withal aflure himfelf, he fhall never by this means 
 acquire the Repute of a jnft Man, or a fair Difputant. 
 
 §. 5. He fays, page 23. T. E. is very impertinent in 
 inquiring what Command there is in Scripture to Abraham 
 to pay his Tythes to Melchizedec : for thcrt was not any 
 
 Scrip" 
 
( 21 ) 
 
 'Scrlpnye at all in Abraham'^ time. No doubt he thinks 
 every body impertinent that calls in quefton hh^beloved 
 Tythes. But wherein doth the Impertinency lie? I 
 hope a divine Command for the Payment of Tythes h^ 
 not been Impertinent to his Claim. 1 am fure a hnman 
 Command for the Payment of them now is the moft per- 
 tinent Point he has to claim by *, and that his Brother 
 Priefl underftood full well, which made him ftep fo 
 lightly over the former, and ftick fo clofe to the latter. ' 
 But I am impertinent it feems for inqniring for a Com- 
 mand in Scripture, 
 
 Where elfe I wonder would he have had me inquire ! 
 Is any other Book fo pertinent as that to feek a divine 
 Command in ? ^y but^ fays the Priefl, there wa6 not any 
 Scripture at all in Abraham'/ time. 
 
 If he means that Writing is not fo ancient, he for- 
 gets himfelf ; but if he intends that the Scriptures we 
 now have, were not then written (which is more pro- 
 bable) that will not render me a whit the more imper- 
 tinent for inquiring what Command there is in Scrip- 
 ture to Abraham to pay Tythes, (ince we find in Scrip- 
 ture many Commands are mentioned, which were of 
 a much elder Date than the Scriptures in which we 
 read them. 
 
 There was as much Scripture to be fure when Abra- 
 ham gave this Gift to Melchizedec^ as there was before 
 when he was called out of his Country, when Circum- 
 cilion was inftituted, and when Jfaac^ the Heir of Pro- 
 mile, was made an Offering : and yet for every of thefe 
 (and many other things befidcs) we have exprefs Com- 
 mand recorded in thofe Scriptures, which afterwards 
 were written. Nay, if we will look back to the times 
 before the Flood, we fhall find a Command to Noah for 
 the making of the Ark, Gen, 6. 14. And indeed the 
 firfl: Command that ever was given to Man, is plainly 
 and fully expreft in Gen. 2. i5, 17. And muff L^ needs 
 be impertinent in inquiring whai Command there is in 
 Scripture to Abraham to pay Tythes, and that upon this 
 only Reafon, that there was not any Scripture at all in 
 Abraham^s time ! If no Command at all had been re- 
 membred in Scripture of elder Date than the Scripture 
 it felfj or than this Aft of Abraham^ this Exception of 
 
( 22 ) P 
 
 the Priefl bad been lefs impertinent : but feeing, cvcft 
 from the very Infancy of the World, the divine Com- 
 mands are recorded, and more efpecially in fo many 
 particular Inflances in Abraham^s own time, and to A 
 braham himfelf, whether is more impertinent, I in cal- 
 ling for a Command in Scripture to prove Melchiz£dec*s 
 Right to Tythes, or the Priefl in fobbing me off with 
 this evafive Anfwer, that there was not any Scripture 
 at all in Jhrnham's time, let the underftanding Reader 
 judge. 
 
 He confefles Mofes indeed did write a brief Hiftory 
 of thofe tknes four hundred Years after : but fince he 
 comprifcs the fpace of two thoufand three hundred 
 Years in one Book of Genefis^ it cannot be expcded he 
 fbould fet down all Particulars; nor in all the Aftions 
 of the Patriarchs, (hew what Reafon they had for, or 
 how they were direded in fuch an Adion, page 24. 
 
 Though it cannot be expeded, that in fo brief an Hi- 
 flory Mofes fhould fet down all Particulars, or fhew 
 what Reafon the Patriarchs had for, and how they were 
 direded in all their Adions: yet in an Adion of fo 
 great moment as this is made, from which fo large a 
 Claim and weighty Title is derived, it may reafonably 
 be expeded he ihould have been more particular, full 
 and plain ; and would no doubt have been fo, had the 
 Divine Wifdom, by which he writ, intended Tythes 
 to be a Gofpel-Mainienance, and to be claimed from 
 hence. 
 
 How many other Paflages, which feem to be lefs ma- 
 terial, doth he infift more largely on, as the Defcrip' 
 tion of Places/the Names of Rivers,, Mountains, Towns, 
 &c ? How exad is he in fetting down the Fafhion and 
 Dimenfions of the Ark, how pundual in computing the 
 time of the Flood's Beginning, Increafe, Continuance 
 and Decreafe, not contenting himfelf with the Year 
 only, or with the Month, but adding even the very 
 Day ? And when he comes to Jhraham*s time, he givss 
 the very Circumftances of the things he treats of, as ia 
 the Account of his going into Egyjft^ and what befel him 
 there, tj^w. 12. his parting with Lor, and the Occafion 
 thereof, Chap, 13. the memorable Battel fought in the 
 Vale of SiMm^ between four Kings and five, the Occa- 
 
 fioa 
 
( «J ) 
 
 l^on of that War, the Names of the Kiags on either 
 fid€y and of the Place where the Battel was pitcht, twice 
 -over, the Succefs of the Fight, the Plunder of Sodom^ 
 and Lot^s Captivity; Abraham^ Mufter, Purfuit, and Re- 
 icue, Gtn. 14. fn every of which he is more particular 
 than in this PaiTage of Abraham's giving Melchiz^edcc 
 Tythes ^ which as it was done upon an accidental Occa- 
 fion, fb Mofes runs over it, as briefly as may be, giving 
 it only a tranfient Touch : And indeed, the whole Paf- 
 fage feem?; *o be but a kind of Farenthefis^ for in the 
 17th Vexk Mofes fays. The King of Sadom went out to 
 meet Abram (after his Return from the Slaughter of 
 ChedorUomer^ and of the Kings that were with him) at 
 the Valley of Shaveh, which is the Kin^s D^le, Then ia 
 the next Verfe, he mentions Melchiz^edec^ j^dMdchi- 
 Zedec, King <?/Sailem, brought forth Bread and Wine : and 
 he was the Priefl of the tnofi high God. Ver. 18. And hi 
 huffed him^ and faid^ Blejfed be Abram of the mofi high 
 God Foffeffor of Heaven and Earth, Ver. 19. And bleffed 
 be the mofi high God, which hath delivered thine Enemies 
 into thine hand. And he gave him Tythe of all . Ver. 20. 
 This is the full and whole Account which Aiofes gives 
 of this matter ; and then immediately in the nexi words 
 refumes his Difcourfe of the King of Sodom^ Ver. 21- 
 And the King of Sodom faid unto Abram, Give me the 
 Perfins^ &c. What could he hare faid lefs ? How could 
 he have meniion'd this Paflage of Abraham^s giving 
 Tythes in fewer Words, and with lefs Renurk? which 
 cannot reaibnably be imputed to the Brevity of his Hi« 
 ftory, by any one that (hall duly conlider how copious 
 he is upon other Subjed^s, fetting down at l^rgeeven the 
 fmalleft Circumftances, as befides the former Inftances, 
 will pkntifully appear in the Story ctf Abr^iham's Ser- 
 vant fetching a Wife for Ifaacy Gen. 24. Of Jacobs 
 fupplanting his Brother, Chap. 27. Of his Service with 
 Labanj Chap. 2p, 30, 3 1 . To omit the Story of Jofeph^s 
 being fold into Egypt^ and what befel both him and his 
 Brethren there. But this is an Art the Prieft hath, to 
 perfuade his Reader there is more in this Paflage thaa 
 the brevity of the Hiftory would give room to exprefs. 
 The Hiftory was written by Mofes, who was infpired 
 ^hemo by God, aad as it is irrmional to imagine thai 
 
 C J this 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 this PafTage of Jhraham's giving Tythes to Melchiz^edecy 
 would have been paft over fo lightly, and left fo bare, 
 if k had had relation to future Ages, and shat in the 
 Times of the Gofpel, a Right to Tythes was to be de- 
 rived from hence (as the Author of the Friendly Confe- 
 rence fays it is, page 135.) fo it is great Impiety to fug- 
 geft that any thing was here omitted, which it was ne- 
 cellary for the Church of God to know or underftand. 
 The Spirit of God hath faid exprefly, Abraham gave 
 Tythes of all. The Spirit of God hath faid exprefly, 
 It was the Spoils which Abraham gave the Tenth of, Heb. 
 7. 4. And who is Man, that he (hould take upon him 
 to add or alter ! Dareft thou fay he paid^ when God 
 fays he gave ! Darelt thou fay, it was of his own Sub- 
 fiance^ wiien God fays it was of the Spoils I Dareft thou 
 fay, he did this ordinarily, when the Spirit of God hath 
 thought fit to mention this one only extraordinary time ! 
 AM thou not mto his Words^ left he reprove thfe^ and thoH 
 be found a Lyar^ Prov. 30. 6. 
 
 §. 5. But he fays, p. 29. To give and to pay is all one 
 in this Cafe^ or elfe the Jpoftle was over-feen^ who not only 
 faith he gave the Tenthy Heb.7. 4. hi^h Levi paid Tythes 
 >*«'Abraham, Ver. 9. 
 
 Neither is to give and to pay all one in this Caf«, nor 
 yet was the Apoftle over-feen : for the AppftLe moll 
 properly accommodates his Speech to the feverd times 
 it had relation to. When he fpeaks in Ver. 4. of Jbra^ 
 ham, in whom it was a free and voluntary C?^/f, he ufes 
 the word Gave, as Mofes had done before him •, bur 
 when in Ver. 9. he fpeaks of Levi (whpm be figuratively 
 mention)?, with an [as I may fo fay] for he fpeaks nott 
 perfo^ially of Les;i himfelf, but of his Off-fpring, the 
 Levitical Pritfthood who rejceived Tythes, which Levi 
 never did himfelf) then \ f^Lyy referring to the time of the 
 Lawy in which God had commanded the Payment of 
 Tythes, he exprelfes himfelf by the word Gave. So 
 ihat it is manifeft he t;^nW his Expreffion according to 
 the Perfons he treated of, and the different times his 
 Speech had relation to. When he fpeaks of Jbrahamy 
 who lived before TyihQS were commanded to be paid, 
 he fays he Gave^ Ver. 4. But when he, fpeaks of the 
 
< 25 ) 
 
 BeHitical Priefthood, who lived after Tythes were com" 
 inanded to be paid, he alters his Phrafe, and fays he 
 Paidy Fer. 9. Abraham gave^ Levi paU^ which Di- 
 ilindion the Apoftle needed not have ufed, had he un- 
 derftood (as this Priefl does) giving and paying to be 
 all one in this cafe. 
 
 Jt is very proper (he fays) to fay^ We give a Man that 
 ■which is his Due^ page 29. 
 
 That mud be unde rflood in fuch Cafes only, where 
 the Due is altogether certain and unqueftionable, fuch 
 as are the inttances he has given of Davtd and Hz.'fkiah^ 
 one whereof faith, Give unto the Lord the Honour due 
 :unto his Name^ PfaL 19. 2. The other commanded the 
 people to give the Priefts their Portions^ 2 Chron 31-4. 
 Neither of wlrich admitted any doubt, llnce every one 
 ;knew that Honour was due to the Name of the Lord, 
 and none could be ignorant that Tythes were due to 
 the Priefts, then the Law of God exprefly fpeaking it. 
 But in a Cafe of fo great Ambiguity as this Claim of 
 Tythes from Melchix^edec^ which is fo utterly void of 
 all Certainty, that the very Terms it is expreil in, muft 
 confirm at leaft, if not conftitute a Title to the thing 
 claimed, to exprefs a Due, by the word Give, would be 
 not only not very proper, but very improper and ob- 
 icure : So that what he fays, page 30. That the word 
 <jive r*«Genefis 14. doth no more prove Tythes were not due 
 to Melchizedec, jure divino, than the fame in Chronicles 
 Jgroves they were not due to the Levites^ jure divino, v^rill 
 not hold. The Difproportion between Mdchiz.edec\ 
 Cafe, and that of the Levites^ is too great ^ unlefs he 
 could (hew as plain a Command for the former, as he 
 knows can be brought for the latter. The word Givt 
 in Chronicles y doth no way prejudice the Leviteh Right, 
 bccaufe it was undeniably grounded upon an indifputa- 
 ble Command : But the word Give in Genefis doth great- 
 ly prejudice the pretended Right oi MeUhiz^edec^ be- 
 caufe there is no Command in Scripture, from which 
 fuch a Right might be derived. After the fame man- 
 ner argues the other Prieft iii his Vindication of the 
 Conference, page 295. urging for an Example the words 
 of Jojhttaj Chap, 7. f^er. 19. ^My Son^ give Glory to God2 
 JSfi^hich being the faraie with that oi Vavid^ Pfal. 29. 2. is 
 
 C 4 anfwer- 
 
( 2^) 
 
 anfwered in thafe. But he feems to take it a little ill, 
 that I took no notice of a GreeJi word he had in his Mar- 
 gin, Conference^ page 1^5. viz.. t^iHrLilrtoKi tov A^^cla^, 
 which he renders He tythed Abraham'^ and fays in his 
 Vindication, page 295. Now fine e T. E. pretends to m- 
 derfiand Greek, and this Fajfage being in my Booky how 
 came he to fafs it by ^ 
 
 I paired it by, as believing it to be of no moment ^t 
 all ; fince if J Ihould allow him even his own rendition, 
 {^He Tythed Abraham'] it imports no more than [^He re- 
 ceived Tphes of Abraham'} as both Bez.ah Latin^ and the 
 vulgar EngU(h have it, Heb, 7. 6. beyond which, fenfe if 
 he would ftrain it, the word will not bear it : verily, it 
 is an Argument of a very weak Caufe, when Men are 
 put to fuch hard ftiifts, as to fpueeze a Title out of one 
 particular and extraordinary Adion, and are fain to 
 firain the words alfo, whereby that Adion is expreft, 
 to give fome countenance to their Claim. But blefTed 
 be God, t\\Q Holy Ghofi hath hedged them oik., and ex*, 
 ther through Propriety of Speech, or divine Firoyidence 
 (let them grant which they pleafe) hath fo worded thi^ 
 Tranfadlion, that in both thofe Texts where it is fpok- 
 en of, there is no mention at all of Due or Payment 
 with relation to Abraham^ but altogether of giving. 
 Thrice over it is faid^ He gave ^ Gen. i^. 20. Heb, J, 2, 
 and 4. but never that he faid. 
 
 §• 7- To prove, that Tylhes were accounted due in 
 this Period before the Law, he urges, The Pra^ice of 
 certain of the Heathens^fi//w^ Tythes to their (7o^/ ^ where- 
 of fome feem more particular, fome more general. The 
 more particular Inftances are, of the Tyriam and Cartha- 
 ginians^ the Iflhabitants of the Illand Syflonu^^ and the 
 Rornans, The more general are of the Creeh ; for 
 which he cites Dydimw the Grammarian^ and of all Hea^ 
 thens in general, for which he quotes Panlifs Diaconns, 
 'Tls true, Dydimus fays, It woi a Greek Caftom to Con^ 
 fecrate the Tenth of their Gain to the Gods : But how that 
 Saying of his is to be underllood, Selden\Xihi% Hiftory 
 of Tythes, c. 3. well obferyes, Jf^ fays he, thofe Gram- 
 marians mean (for he mentioned Suidift alfo) that allMeri 
 faid their Tythes in Greece, and that of every kind of their 
 
 $foil^ 
 
Spoils 0^ Ahundance^ thty deceive mnch^ and are deceived: 
 Ton miift tinder ft and them oi [peaking of what wa4 fometimcf^ 
 and by f^ow^ or fpecial Thankfgiving done. The other out 
 of F aulas Vi^coraUj which fays, The Ancients offered all 
 their Tenths to their Gods ; is rejeded both by Scaliger and 
 Selden aJfo, who fhew that Padiu (Epitomizing Sex'My 
 Tompeius Fejius^ to whom this Saying is Originally afcrib- 
 ed) has mangled and corrupted the Place, and he is fe- 
 verely lafh'd f )r his Pains by them both, efpecially by 
 Scaliger y whofe words are, f^ide quantHm jhyps Barharns 
 ille jibi [Hmpferit in hoc loco mntilando ! i. e. See what Au- 
 thority that Barbarous Man takes upon him in maiming 
 this place. And further calls him home confident tjfimm 
 ac ineptiffimHs, A mofl confident and foolifh Man. And 
 Selden fays plainly. If it he nnder flood of Tyrhes nfed to be 
 given by aS^ or of all things^ it is falfe. Nor did that 
 learned Maa Hick to draw an Argument againfi: this 
 Opinion from Scripture filence, Scripture I mean, noc 
 facred, but prophane, the Writings namely of a Learned 
 Heathen? Had the Offering ofTythfS (fays Selden in his 
 Hiflory of Tytbes, page 29) been nfual of Tearly /«. 
 creafe j Cato, that in his De Re Ruftica, hath fo fully the 
 Ctremonies of Sacrifices to be ufed by the Husband-man in 
 hi^ Harveft^ had never omitted it. Whence by the way 
 obferve, thai Argument from Scripture lilence, though 
 prophane has been held good by Men of Learning, al- 
 though this Prieft, to avoid the ftroke of it, fays it is 
 not valid Right of Tythes, pag. 37. But to the Tellirao- 
 nies brought, all acknowledge, thatfome of the Heathens 
 did zi fome times, and upon /ow^occa lions, Vow, Give, 
 and Confecrate Tythes to their Deities: and Selden 
 proves it wa$ no otherwfe : Nay, he inflances in fomc 
 (the Loprians) who gave not aTenth^ but a Ninth part, 
 C. 3. S. 3. And Diodorw Siculus tells us, (/. 2. c, 2.) 
 The Egyptian friefts had the third part of the Revenue of 
 the Kingdom- From all which, we may gather, tbac 
 thefe Heathenifh Oblations and Confeci ations were nei- 
 thcr general in point of Place, conftant in point of Time, 
 nor certain in point of Quantity. Then for the Ground 
 of tiieir thus doing, if it be ask'd whence they learnt it, 
 the Prieft himfelf anfwers, Jt was propagated by Tradition 
 fifnong the Heathens, Right of Tythes, pag. 26. again, 
 
 which 
 
(28) 
 
 which therefore we mnfi believe^ they had by Tradition frdm 
 the fir ft Patriarchs^ pag. 27. That they received it by 
 Tradition^ is probable enough, though not from the firlt 
 Patriarchs, who are no where in Holy Writ, remera- 
 bred to have paid Tythes. But from the Jewsy by whom 
 Tythes were preceptively and conftaatly paid, there is 
 reafon fufficient to perfwade they might learn it. And 
 fo it feem'd to Selden, The Payment of the Tenth ("fays he, 
 c. 3. pag. 34.J very likely came to them ("the Arabians) 
 from the ufe of it among the Jews, their Neighbours^ as alfe 
 'to the Carthaginians /row their Anceftors the Psenicians, that 
 /pake the fame Language with the Jews, and converfl moft 
 with them. Now if the Gentiles pradifed it in imitation^ 
 and by example of the Jews, what relation has their 
 Pradice to this firfl Period, or Time before the Law f But 
 whether it be more reafonable to think, that the Gen^ 
 tiles received it by Tradition from the firft Patriarchs, 
 by whom we never read that Tythes were above once 
 adually given, and once Vowed to be given, or from the 
 Jews, by whom they were conftantly and pMickly paid, I 
 leave to the Readers Judgment, and will conclude this 
 Paragraph with what concludes the Review of Selden's 
 Chap. 3. pag. 459. where having fhewed, that the Petap 
 gi in Vmbria Sacrificed the Tythe of their Children to 
 Apollo, See now, fays he, (when yon truly know the ancient 
 Ty thing among the Gentiles) how well they conclude here^ 
 that draw an Argument from the general Law of Nature or 
 Nations, as if by that Law any fuch ufe of Payment of Tythes- 
 had been eftablijhed amongfi them, as was continual or c&rf^ 
 pulfory,- 'li^ 
 
 §. 8. In my Anfwerto the former Priefl:, pag. ^7^; 
 amongft other Reafoas which I offer'd to prove, that 
 Tythes was not a proper Debt, or juft Due from Abra^ 
 ham to Melehiz.edec^ this was one, ' That if Tythes had 
 
 * been due from Abraham to Melchiz.edec (according as 
 
 * thjey are now demanded, which muft be proved before 
 
 * a Divine Right to them, as they are now demanded^ 
 
 * can be derived from Melchiz.edec) then muft Abraham 
 
 * have paid Tythes of all his Subftance, of all that he 
 
 * pofTeft. But no fuch thing appears at all. We do 
 
 * not read that Abraham gave hira Tythes of his owa 
 
 * Eftatei 
 
( 29 ) 
 
 * Eftate ; but that which he gave him the tenth of was 
 
 * the Spoils, which he had recover'd from the Kings 
 
 * that had plunder'd Sodom. To this, the Author of the 
 Ri£ht ofTytheSj thus anfwers, p. 30. This. was an extraordi- 
 nary occafion^ wherein Abraham havirfg got a ViEiory by 
 Cod's Buffings did give to God the tenth of all he had now 
 gotten ; as in all probability he was wont ordinarily to do^ oj all 
 that he got by Cod'' s ordinary Blejjmg'^ only this (^ more 
 effecially remarkable) is recorded in this fhort Hiftory, 
 
 Seeing this was an extraordinary Occalion, he fhould 
 not urge it for a Prefident^ much lefs lay fo great a ftrefs 
 upon it as he does. Let him read what his Brother 
 Prieft fays in pag. 1 27. of his Conference^ * When any 
 
 * Text (fays he) hath a relation to a particular Cafe, 
 ' that Text muft not ftand for a general Rule, but muft; 
 
 * be apply'd to a like Occafion \ for it's a mofi: grand 
 
 * Fallacy to draw an uuiverfal Conclufion from paiticu- 
 
 * lar Premifes. Now thefe Texts in Cen. 14. and Heb, 
 7. (wherein Abraham's Gift to Melchiz.edec is mentioned^ 
 have relation to a particular Cafe, to an extraordinary Oc- 
 cafion, as the Prieft himfeif fays, therefore Thefe Texts 
 miifi not ftand for a Central Rtde^ but if he will appljf 
 them at all, he muft apply them to a like Occafion, to 
 wit, a Military Expedition, wherein fome notable Vido- 
 ry is in an extraordinary manner obtained, as this was; 
 not fet them for ^general Rule: For according to his 
 Brother's Pofition, it is a mo ft grand Fallacy from particu- 
 lar Premifes^ as this Gift of Abraham upon an extraordi" 
 nary Occafion was, to draw an miverfal Conclufion^ that 
 Abraham ordinarily did p^yTythes, and that Ghriftians 
 now muft. Thus then he is pincht oiF of his extraordi* 
 nary hold, by his own dear Sir, the Author of the 
 Friendly Conference, And for what he talks of Abraham^s 
 giving the tenth ordinarily^ he hath far lefs ground then 
 for the former ; for in the former, (viz. that Abraham 
 on that extraordinary Occafion did give, and Melchiz,edec 
 receive^ he may as to fa^ be pofitive, though not as to 
 intention: but in the latter, (viz. that Abraham did er^ 
 dinarily give the tenth of his ordinary increafe) he can be 
 hutfuppofitive at moft. His Arguments and Reafons are 
 may-be^s and likelihoods^ and his Proofs but probabilities^ 
 ftrongly inforced with this notable Demonftratiouy that it 
 
( ?o ) 
 
 ii not [aid in Scripttre Abraham did not pay thetfty and thai 
 i cannot fr9Ve the contrary^ pag. 30, 31. Will he take'h 
 then for granted, thac Abraham did whatfoever I caa- 
 ntK prove he did not ? That would be preety indeed. 
 
 After the fame manner the other Prielt alfo-argues 
 <in his Vindication, pag. 295.) where to my Saying, 
 •"'Had Tythes been due to Melchizedecy then muft j^bra^ 
 '-ham have paid him Tythes of all his Subftance, &c. He 
 ceplies. We know nothing to the contrary but that he did fa \ 
 4md / can affirm the one^ as well as he deny the other. 
 
 Is this like a Difputant ? It is enough for a Refpon- 
 dent to deny : But is it enough for the Opponent to af- 
 firm? He fays elfe- where in his Conference, p. 152. hk 
 the Opponent's part to prove. That is fomewhat more I 
 think then bare affirming. And the Maxime is, jlffir^ 
 manti incnmbit prohatio ^ i, e. He that affirms, muft proveo 
 But (in tiis Vindication^ pag. 2pd.) he adds, that Ths 
 Spoils^ were in ftriQnefs Abraham'^ own Eft at e^ having ob' 
 gained them with the haz^ard ofkis Life^ in a Jufi and Righ- 
 teoHS War, 
 
 This is indeed a pmf>/«frfe; yet fo jplain and manl- 
 feft a fetch, that it will not ftaad him in any ftead. 
 Whether the Spoils were ftridly jibraham'% own Eftate 
 by the Law of Arms, I will not undertake to determine ; 
 especially iince it appears by the Story, that Aner^ Efhcoi^ 
 and Mamr€ were his Confederates, and ran equal ha- 
 t^ard of their Lives with him in the fame War, and that 
 fee took not upon him to difpofe of the whole (although 
 to the King of Sodom^ from whom it was taken) but 
 left his Confederates to difpofe of their own Shares as 
 they faw %Qody€en, 14. 13,, 24- However, whether it 
 was in ftridnefs his own Eftate or no, to be fure \t was 
 jiOt his own Eftate in that fenfe wherein I fpake it^ and 
 wherein Tythes are now demanded. So that his urg- 
 mg this here, is altogether belide the bufinefs, and at 
 heft but a fhew of an Anfwer. 
 
 But he carps at my Saying, * The occafion of Abra* 
 • ham's thus giving the tenth of the Spoil to A^elchize- 
 ^decy feems to be altogether accidental This feems to 
 him to be a meer trifle 9 and, he fays, (Hndicationy pag. 
 597.J As meer an accidental Pajfage as the Quaker would 
 have this tohe^ yet the Apoftle draws a [olid Argument frorn, 
 thinct. What 
 
( 3x ) 
 
 What then? May not a folid Argument be drawn 
 from an accidental Paflkge? Let any one confiderately 
 read the Place, (in Cett, 14.) and fee if he can find any 
 Ground to believe, either that Abraham came thither 
 with an intention to pay Tythes, or that Melchiz.€d€c 
 came thither with an expedation to receive Tythes : 
 and not rather, that Melchizedec underllanding Jhra- 
 hdm^s Sticcefs and Return, went forth to meet him, and 
 congratulate his Viftory, bringing with him a Prefenr 
 of Bread and Wine, to refrefti him and his Soldiers af- 
 ter the Fight : In Requital of which Noble and Priaceij 
 Prefent, Abraham gave him the tenth of the Spoils. 
 
 §. 9. The Author of the Riik of Tythes finds fault witfe 
 my arguing, becaufe it is negative, and fays, p. 31. Afy 
 negative argnijig is of no m»re force y than it would be if f 
 fhouldfay^ thofe Antc-diluvian Patriarchs^ did nothing elfe 
 while they lived bnt beget Sons and Daughter Sj becaufe no mors 
 is recorded of many of them^ Gen. 5. 
 
 Negative arguing I thought had been proper for hini^ 
 whofe^part it is to deny ^ as it belongs to him to prove^ 
 who uhdertakes to affirm. But waving that, I thus an- 
 fwer to the i^^bftance of his Objedion. Although the 
 Patriarchs before the Flood, did doubtlefs fomethiag 
 clfe than beget Sons and Daughters, yet nothing tha£ 
 they did which the Spirit of God thought fit to pafs by 
 unrecorded, had any relation to future Times, or was 
 to be Exemplary to the Church of God in after Ages. 
 The like concerning Abraham^ 'Tis not to be doubted^ 
 but he did more than is recorded of him. But that then, 
 whatfoever it was, had no relation to future times, nor 
 was to be Exemplary to the Church of God in after 
 Ages j for if it had, the Spirit of God, who recorded 
 what is written, would not have omitted that. So thae 
 take it which way he will, this Dilemma will attend 
 him y either that Abraham did not pay Tythes ordina- 
 rily, and fo there was nothing of that to be recorded^ 
 or that if he did pay Tythes ordinarily, his fo doing 
 had no relation to future times, nor was to be Exem- 
 plary to the Church of God in after Ages, and there- 
 fore was not recorded. Hence then, I hope, my nega- 
 tive arguing (as he calls ic^ will appear to be cf fuffici- 
 
 ent 
 
<30 
 
 ent force to prove, that a Right lo Tythes now cannot 
 be grounded on, or derived from any Ad that Abraham 
 did, which the divine Spirit did not think fit to record: 
 for what the Prieft fays in another place, pag. 52. Ex^ 
 frejfa nocent^ non exprejfa non nocenty i. e. Thofe things that are 
 exprefi hnrty thofe things that are not expreft hurt not^ is very 
 true, if it be rightly apply'd. But as they hurt not him 
 againft whom they are urged, fo they help not him by 
 whom they are urged ^ which he fhould have done well 
 to have confidcr'd. I'll therefore invert his Axiom 
 (which holds as true the one way as the otherj and pre* 
 fent it to him again ^ Expreffa profHnt^non exprejfa non pro-' 
 fmty i. e. Thofe things that are expreft do help, thofe 
 things which are not expreft do not help. All his Pretences 
 then of Abraham's paying Tythes ordinarily Chow oft 
 foever he repeats themj not being exprefl, but leaning on 
 Conjedure, do him no good at allj they cannot help 
 him, nor ftand him in any ftead. 
 
 §. 10. In his next Sedion he is offended with me for 
 faying, Tythes could not be due to Melchiz.edec upon a 
 Right founded in natural Juftice and Equity \ my Words 
 ("pag. 280.^ are thefe, * He cannot plead that Tythes 
 
 * were due to Mclchiz.edec upon a Right founded in na- 
 
 * tural Juftice and Equity, fince there was not in thofe 
 
 * Days any fettled publick Worfhip, wherein he could 
 
 * perform any outward Prieftly OiRce or Service, for 
 ' which Tythes might have been a Compenfation. He 
 in the reciting of this Sentence, leaves out the Words 
 Outward Service^ that he might have the more room to 
 ftrike at me, and call me ('as he does, pag. 3$.) a poor 
 Quaker, as bold 06 blind ; faying, that / have expofed my 
 felf to the Scorn of all knowing Men by this abfurd Pofition, 
 
 If the Pofition appear abfurd, it is he that hath made 
 it look fo, by mangling it. But as it ftands in my Book 
 I am not afhamed to own it. And if he, or any other 
 can (hew me what fettled piMick Worfhip thefe was in 
 Abraham's Days, in which any outward Prieftly Office or 
 Service was to be perform'd, for which Tythes might 
 ImvQ bQQn a Compenfation^ I will acknowledge him to be 
 a knov^ing Man indeed. 
 
 He 
 
( ??- ) 
 
 He fays, He might confiice this Pofition from that 
 place of Gen, 4. 25. Then hegan Men to call upon the Name 
 cfthe Lord\ which mnfi (he fays) be meant in fMicky for 
 in private they did it before^ ibid. 
 
 Methinks his copious Reading fhould not fufFer him to 
 be ignorant of the various Judgments of Learned Mea 
 concerning this Text> whether it fhould be rendred. 
 Then began Men to call upon^ or then began Men to pro- 
 phane the Name of the Lord : I think it not fafe for me 
 to exercife my fmali Scholarfhip in the Difquilltion. Let 
 h fuffice for my little Reading, to obferve, that Hierem 
 reads it not in the plural (as our EngU^ Tranflation is) 
 Then began Men to call, &c, but in the fingitUr of Enosy 
 Ifte caspit invocare nomen Domini, He (Enos) began t9 
 call upon the Name of the Lord, And Pagnine^ though he 
 turns the Text, Tunc cseptum eft ad invocandum in no- 
 mine Domini \ yet, adds in the Margin, Invocari nomen, 
 Vel polJuli, i, e. To call fipon^ or poUnte the Name^ &c. But 
 TremiUiHs and JmiHs read it down-right prophane^ Tunc 
 caspcum eft profanari in invocando nomine Domini, i. e. 
 Then began Men to pvophane in calling upon the Name of the 
 Lord\ to which Genebrardj Broaghton^ and others aflent. 
 And indeed,the fequel of the Story fhews thofe times more 
 inclined to Frophanenefs than Piety \ for in all thofe fix Ge- 
 nerations between Enos and Noah^ we find but one Man^ 
 Enoch only^ that is faid to have walked with God, Gen. 5, 
 and in the dth and 7th Chapters, we read, the VVicked- 
 nefs of Men was grown to that height^ that God repent- 
 ed he had made Man, and by an univerfal Deluge fwepg 
 all Mankind away, excepting only iV^?^^ and his Family, 
 which were in all but eight Souls. All which being 
 duly weighed, I leave it to the judicious Reader's con- 
 lideration, whether in thofe times there was any fettled 
 fnblick Worfhip, wherein any omward Prieflly Office or 
 Service was to be performed, for which Tythes mighc 
 have been a Compenfation, 
 
 But he argues, that Melchizedec did perform God's 
 pnhlick Worfhip folemnly and confiantly at Salem ; and by that 
 had a Right fonnded in natnral Jiifiice and Equity^ to receive 
 Tythes from all within his JnyifM^ion, 
 
 And this he infers from Mofes'j calling him the Priefi of 
 the moft high GoU^ from St, FaulV makwg him a Type of 
 
 Chnfi's 
 
(J4) 
 
 Chrift'^j Tneflhoo3^ and from loi^ fixed ReJiJence at Salem^ 
 pag. 35. 
 
 This has indeed as fair an appearance as any of the 
 Probabilities he has yett broughi forth j yet this will 
 not do his bulinefs. For here h noi in all this any men- 
 tion of any fettled fublick Worfhipy wherein he could per- 
 form any outward Prieftly Office or Service, for which 
 Tythes might have been a Compenfmion. No fuch thing 
 is here expreft ; and according to the Axiom which the 
 Frieft himfelf ufes (pag. 62) Non exprefla non nocent,- 
 thofe thwgs that are not exprefi^ do not ioUrt. Befides, his 
 being called the Priefl of the mofl: High God, doth not 
 necefiarily infer an Exercife of fuch 2i fettled fuhlick Wor- 
 ship as my Words import, which had relation to exter^ 
 nal Rites and Ceremonies^ as the Word [Ontwdrd Service"} 
 in my Book (which the Priefl: left out) do plainly evi- 
 dence ; fo that he might well enough be called the Priett 
 of the mofl: high God, and yet have no fuch ontmard 
 Prieftly Office or Service to perform in any fettled puhlicM 
 Worlhip, for which Tythes might have been a Compen- 
 fation. And indeed, my Opponent himfelf, defcribing 
 Melchiz.edec^s Worfhip, doth fufficicntly fhew it was of 
 another kind than what my Words had relation to. For^ 
 he fays, pag. 3S^. Hi^ Worship was altogether Spiritualy prat* 
 fing Gody P^^yifJgfpr Abraham ; ^ffit^i^g no bloody Sacrifices^ 
 but ONLY bringing forth Bread and Wine, So alfo fays 
 Sparrow li\ his Rationale of the Common- Prayer^ pag. 338, 
 339. Melchizedec had no other Offering that we read of^ 
 hut Bread and Wine. Whereas it is plain, my Words 
 aimed at fuch a fettled pHblick Worfhip as confifl:ed in ex* 
 ternal Services. But fure he doth not think, that Melchi- 
 zedec did pray for Jbraham^ and bring out Bread and 
 Wine conftantly at Salem : For, that he ever did, either 
 the one or t'other conftantly, or any more than that one 
 time, is NOT EXPREST, nor likely. 
 
 Then for his having a fixed place of Refidence at Salem^ 
 which is another part of my Opponent's Argument, up- 
 on which he grounds his Queftion, What U a Priefi fixed 
 in A City for .<* 
 
 It is to be confidered, that his Refidence at Salem is not 
 mention'd with relation to his Priefthoodj but to his 
 Kingfhip\ he was KingofSalcm^ that was Reafon enough 
 
 for 
 
. (35) 
 
 for bis Refidence there. So ^?/^j calls him, Gtn. 14.18- 
 And foche Apoftle twice together, Hth 7. i, 2. JBuc 
 peitherof them called himPnV/? «>/ Salem, much lefs af- 
 firmed (as my Opponent does) that he had a Right 
 founded in natural Juftice and Equity, ro receive Tythes 
 from all within his Jurifdidioa of Sdem^ for praiiing 
 God, praying for j^brdham^ and only bringing forth 
 Bread and Wine. 
 
 §. II. But my Adyerfary, not content mib MelM* 
 z.edec\ being the Priett of the moft high God, wili «jeeds 
 have him to be dbrahamh Friefl in ordinary too^ pag. 39,34. 
 Not confidering, perhaps, that himfelt had ^tt Abraham 
 (according to St. Hierom^ Computaiion, as he faith^ 
 twenty two Miles from MeUhiz^edec^ a diftant Tome what 
 of the larged tor a Priell in Ordinary ^ and yet he pla- 
 ced them as near together as he could coo. For, though 
 he fays, St. Jerome computes the Plain of Afamre^ which 
 is Hebron^ where Abraham dwdt^ to be biit twenty two 
 Miles diftant from Jerufalem^ yet he (Jbould not be igno- 
 rant of the different Judgments of the Antients about the 
 tlace; fome taking Salem to be jeruJaUm^ others not. 
 And that liierom there delivers the Opinion of others, 
 not his own, which was far otherwife^ 'Viz.. that Salem 
 and Mamre were about eighty Miles afunder, as Sdden 
 notes in the Review of the llirlt Chapter of his Hiftory 
 ofTytheSy pag. 452. Yet to countenance this Conceit 
 of his, that Melcbiz.edec was Abrahamh Prieft in Ordina- 
 ry, he tells us what the J^wj chink, viz., that Melchizc 
 dec didcomime to be the Prieft ef Abraham'^ family Long 
 after : For when the Twins ftrttgled in the Womb of Rebecca, 
 it is faidy She went to inqnire of the Lordj Gen. 25. 22. that 
 is (fays he) by Sem^ fay the Hebrews^ or by Melchizedec, 
 as others, pag. 33, 34. 
 
 For the Opinion of the flebrews^ that fhe inquired by 
 Sem^ he quotes Lyra: And for the Opinion of others, 
 that fl]e inquired by Melchiz,edecy he quotes jHnihs and 
 TremelltHSy upon that place, which isGen. 25. 22. 
 
 Lyra I have not by me, but TremeUins and Junius I 
 tiave. And eonfidering with my felf how greatly he 
 hath abiifed me in the mif-reciting of ray Words, I 
 thought it would not be amifs to examine his Quotation, 
 a&d fee whether be had dealt any fairer with them, k But 
 
 D whea 
 
( ^6 > 
 
 when I had turned to the place, and there read in tfie 
 TexE, Jbiit ad confulendum Jehoram^ and in the Annota- 
 tion upon it, fer aliquam Prophetam fort4[fe fofemmj qtd 
 idem dicitnr Prophet a fupra^ 20. 7. I muft confefs 1 was 
 amazed, and fomewhat troubled, to think I had to da 
 with one of fo great confidence and ^o little honefty. 
 For he affirms exprelly, that Junius and TremeUim upon 
 this place fay, Rebecca went to inqxiire of the Lord bf 
 MeUhiz^edeCy whereas Junius and TremeUita upon this 
 place make no mention at all of Melchizedec, but fay 
 plainly, She went to inquire of the Lord^ by fame Prophet ^ 
 perhaps by her Hmbank's father (which was Jhraham) 
 who himfelf is called a Prophet before^ Ch. 2 a. 7. Who 
 would have thought a Man of his Learning would have 
 been beholding to a falfe Quotation! Who would have 
 fufpeded one of his Abilities would have ferved on^ 
 fuch a flifpery Trick! Did he think, becaufe he had a 
 mean illtterate Adverfary to deal with, he might there- 
 fore quote any thing without danger of difcovery ? Or 
 did he hope no Man of Underllanding would take the 
 pains to Read him ? O lucky Man, at leaft, in this, that 
 be hath not publifh'd his Name with his Book \ which 
 if he had, I am confident he would have expofed him- 
 felf as fully to the Scorn of all fmcere and knowing Men 
 by this Forgery^ as he fancies I have done my felf, by . 
 that which he calls an abfurd Pofition. But for my part, 
 I fliall wonder the lefs hereafter at his unfair Dealing 
 with me, whom he calls a poor Retailer and Cleaner^ lince 
 I find even thofe Pvlen, whom, I fuppofe, be himfelf 
 need not be afhamed to giean after, or receive no better 
 Treatment at his Hands. But concerning the Queftion 
 it felf, Whether Rebecca went to inquire of the Lord by 
 Melchisiedec or fome other ? Not only the Seventy, and 
 Epiphanim (whom he makes to be mif-led by following 
 their Chronology) but Arias Montanus^ in his Chronolo^ 
 gia facta Scriptur<& ; And Hugh Broughton^ in his Confent of 
 Scripture^ make Sem to be dead fome Years before Rebec* 
 ca's Conception-, whofe Computations, if we may cre- 
 dit, we mufl conclude, thhtr th?ii Melchiz^edec was not 
 Sem^ or (which is more likely) that Rebecca went not to 
 inquire of Melchitedec^ her Father in- Law, Abraham^ 
 being a Prophet, and at hand. 
 
 §.12. la 
 
( ?7) 
 
 ^ §. 12. In his 37. page, he charges me with a grofs 
 Miftake, in faying, 1 do not find any one Inftance (this 
 iingle Gift of ^brahamh excepted) of giving or receiving 
 Tythes, in all that Four hundred Years between this 
 time of Abraham and the Levittcal Prieft-hood : For, he 
 fays, There is a plain Inftance in holy Jacob, Gen. 28. 22. 
 vpho made afolemn Vow to give unto God the Tenth of all his 
 Gains, 
 
 If he would have convided me of a Miftake, he Ihould 
 have brought an Inftance of giving Tythes, not of vow^ 
 ing them only. My Words have refped to the a^ of 
 Giving •, his Inftance to the intention chiefly : I was nott 
 ignorant that Jacob had made a Conditional Vow to 
 give i nor did \ queftion his Performance of his Vow : 
 But I obferv'd, tnat the Holy Ghoft had buried it in fi- 
 lence, not vouch-fafeing to Record it for an Inftance. 
 And thereupon I faid, I do not find any one Inftance 
 (thisfingle Gift of Abraham^ excepted^ of givirg or re~ 
 cetving^ much lefs of demanding^ or paying 1 ythes in all 
 that fpace, &c. Which Words of giving or receivings 
 demanding or faying^ have a manifeft Relation to the dti^ 
 mate Adt or Performance, of which the Holy Ghoft hath 
 not thought fit to leave an Inftance; which filent Omif- 
 lion of the Holy Ghoft hath no refledion on Jacrb's Inte- 
 grity, but only argues, that the thing it felf was not by 
 God defign'd for our Example. 
 
 But let him call this a Miftakeof mine; yea, a grofs 
 lyiiftake, if he pleafe, and thereupon exerciie (as he 
 doesj the levity of his Wit, andeafe himfelf ofa frothy 
 jeft, he cannot thereby hurt me, whatever he may him- 
 felf. ril therefore take tne lefs notice of that, and ap- 
 ply my felf to confider Jacobus Vow ; which not being 
 mentioned at all by the former Prieft, I had no occafion 
 to take notice of in my Anfwer to him. 1 find this ^on? 
 of yacob was made upon an extraordinary Occafion, as 
 well as that Gift of Abraham, Jacob being afraid ot r^ngh 
 £faiiy who had threatned to take away his Life^ was 
 fain to leave his Father's Houfe and Country, and with 
 his Stiiff' only to fiee to Padan Aram to his Uncle Labari 
 for Refuge i and being on his way be-nighted, he lay 
 down on the Ground to fleep, having no other Piljowr 
 fei his Head ihea au heap of Stones. In this diftreft Coa- 
 
 D * ditiofii 
 
ditlon did the Lord God appear unto him in a Dreamy 
 and faid, / am the Lord God of Abraham thy Father^ and 
 the God o/ifaac : The Land whereon thou liefl^ to the will I 
 give ity and to thy Seed, And thy Seed (hall he as the Bufi of 
 the Earthy and thoH (halt fpread abroad to the IVeft^ and to 
 the Eafi, and to the Norths and to the South \ and in the9^ 
 and in thy Seed fhall all the Families of the Earth he blejfed : 
 ^ndy behold^ I am with thee^ and will keep thee in aH places 
 whither thoHgoefty and will biding thee again unto this Land: 
 for I will not leave thee^ until ihave done that which I have 
 Jpoken to thee of^ Gen. 28. "Jacob hereupon awaking itt 
 the fenfe of God's Prefence, and feiz'd whh fear at fo 
 wonderful an A ppearance, fet up his ftony Pillow for a 
 Monumental Pillar, and calls that place the Houfe of 
 God. And as the Lord had freely^ unrequejled made himi 
 fo gracious and fo large a Proraife ^ fo he again, ia to- 
 ken of his Thankfulnefs to God, freely and unrequindy 
 did vow a Vow, faying^ If God will be with me^ and wiU' 
 ieep me in this way that 1 go^ and will give me Bread to eat^ 
 and Rayment to put on% fo that 1 come again to my Father\ 
 Houfe in peace : then fhall the Lord be my God, And thii 
 Stone which J have fet for a PiUar^ fhall be God's Houfe ^ 
 And of all that thou fhalt give me^ 1 will fur ely give the Tenth 
 unto thee^ Gen* 28. This is the Vow, and this the occa- 
 fion of making it v which was both voluntary and conditi'* 
 onaly Vdluntary^ in being unrequired \ Conditional^ in de- 
 pending on the performance of God's Promife to him, as 
 the conditional Particle QlQ demonftrates. Had Tythes 
 been then a divine Tribute^ he needed not have vowed to 
 Give them^ Juftice would have obliged him to have paid 
 them, whether he had Vow'd or no. Nor had it then 
 hQta in his Power to have made his Obligation conditio- 
 nal (as he did) but Tythes he muft have paid, whether 
 God had been with him, preferved him in his way, and 
 brought him back in Peace, or no. This Vow of Jacobus 
 therefore, being fpontaneons^ and altogether /rcf, contri- 
 fcutes nothing at all to the making up of a divine Right 
 to Tythes. 
 
 §. 13. Another Paflage in my Book that feems to gall 
 him fore, is this; If Tythes had been due to Mekhizedec, 
 yet could not the Clergy of this Age derive any Right from htm 
 to thim^ in tu much as they are not of hi$ Friefi-hood, To 
 
 this* 
 
iShis, he fays, / hoft T- E. mllgranty that Chrift was ofhm 
 ^riefl'hood : And if he grant tiots^ we mufi atk, Whether or 
 no hU Jpofiles were not his Succefjors ^ And then^ whether 
 m do not derive our Sue ceffion from them ? pag. 39. 
 
 That Chrift was of his Prieft-hood, 1 grant, and that 
 his Apoftles were Followers of him : Bug that chefe 
 Priefts are Followers of the Apoftles, as the Apoftles 
 Were of Chrift, I deny ; and think it would be worth 
 their while to prove. He fays, Melchiz^edec had the fame 
 J^riefi'hood with the Minijiers of the G off el. 
 
 In fome refpeas it may be called the fame; but what's 
 that to him, unlefs he alfo were a LMinifter of the Go- 
 fpel ! He can produce (he fays, pag. 40,) the plain IVords 
 ef many Fathers^ affirming^ that the prefent Mtnijlers oftht 
 Cfcriftian Church are of Melchizedec'i Priefl-hood. 
 
 This is very fmoothly and craftily worded to hguilt 
 an unwary Reader, and make him believe the ^refen$ 
 Minifters have the approbation of thofe Fathers. Wha| 
 Minifters, 1 pray, muft the Word Prefent here be uiider- 
 ftood to relate to, the then prefent^ or the now prefent ? 
 If he intends the then prefent Minifters, that lived in thQ 
 feveral Ages of thofe Fathers (as he calls themj he 
 plainly fhuffles and evades -, for the Queftioa was no6 
 concerning them^ but the Clergy of thi^ Age expreily. 
 But if by prefent he means the /2«i> prefent Minifters, the 
 Clergy of this prefent Age, what could he have faid mor^ 
 abfurd, as well as falfe, than that he can produce the 
 plain Words of St. Hierom, Chryfoftomj Anguftine^ Epi' 
 fhanius and TheophilaEb (xht lateft of whom has beea 
 dead well near a Thoufand Years) affirming that the 
 freftnt Minifters (the Clergy oi this Jge) are of Mdchi" 
 zjidech Prieft-hood. But feeing he team fo hard ipoa 
 the Judgment of certain Fathers fas he calls them) 
 whofe plain Words, he fays, he can produce, but does 
 not ; I will produce hkn the plain Words of one (\ will 
 not fay a Father, but) a great Man in the EngUlh Church, 
 Andrew Willet^ who in his Synopfts of Popery^ hf :h gene- 
 ral Controverfy, pag. 315. fays, ' It is great BU fphemy 
 
 * to fay, that every Popifh Prieft is after the order of 
 
 * Melchiz^edee. And a little after. The Scripture maketh 
 '*■ this difference between the Prieft-hood of Aaron ^ and 
 t ihe Prieft-hood oi Mdchiz.edec, that the Prieltg of the 
 
 O 3 *Law 
 
(4o) 
 
 * Law were many, becaufe they were taken away by 
 
 * Death: bu6 Chrift's Prieft-hood is eternal, becaufe he 
 
 * dieth not, Heb, 7. 25. But, if there fhould be many 
 
 * Priefts after Melchizedec's Order, there fhould herein 
 
 * be no difference at all. Wherefore feeing Melchize-* 
 
 * dec^s Priefl-hood only refleth in Chrift^ and is not 
 
 * Tranllaced co any other, &c. Thus Wiliety and to the 
 fame purpofe faid Fdk before him. Now if the Prieft's 
 Fathers have in plain Words aiKrmed, That the pre- 
 fenc Miniflers of the Chriftian Church are of Mdchizedec^s 
 
 .Priefthood; the Priefl may do well to reconcile thofe 
 Fathers vv ith thcfe Dodors (for fo were thefe alfo Hiled) 
 who fo plainly affirm, that Melchiz.eclec^s Prieft-hood only 
 refteth in Chrift^ and is not Tranflated to any other. But 
 thereafon 1 formerly gave why the Clergy of this Age 
 are not of Melchtzedec'^s Prieft-hood, feems to offend 
 him more than all the refb. It was this, That Melchize- 
 dec was not made a Briefh after the Law of a carnal Com" 
 mandment^ but after the Power of an endlejs Life, But every 
 one knowsy that thefe Men are made Priefts after the Law of 
 a carnal Commandment, This has fo nettled him, that lie 
 is out of all patience, fays, my Reafon is ridiculom^ that 
 / have learned to Cant^ that 1 am an idle and impertinent 
 Many that this is an impudent Slander^ that TE, can prat" 
 tie in Scripture Phrafe^ that J am a boafiing Quaker, and 
 will not fttck to fay any things be it never fo falfe and unrea" 
 fonable. 
 
 This is the Language that this Learned Man (who fays 
 he wiil not meddle with Scptrrility^ becaufe Railing is not 
 Reafoning, pag. 12.) hath upon this occafion, for want 
 of better Arguments, (or breeding, or both) thruft ia 
 to help fwell the Number of his Pages. But over-look- 
 ing this, let us fee what elfe he has to offer that looks at 
 all like Reafon. He fays, pag. 41. The Apoftle fpeahng 
 cfthe]cvfi{h Priefts in that place (Heb. 7. 16.) faith^ They 
 Were made Priefts after the Law of a carnal CommandmentT^ 
 tljat is, according to Mofes'j Law^ which conpfted of out" 
 ward and weak Commandments^ reaching only to the pnrify" 
 ing of the Flefh. Now (fays he) what an idle and imperti- 
 nent Man is this y to fay y we are made Priefts according to 
 Mofes'j LaWy and that every one know this I O impudent 
 Slander ! Are we bound to all the SacrificingSy WaJJoingSy and 
 ether Levitical Fdtes and Ceremonies^ at oht Ordinmon ? \ 
 
( 41 5 
 
 I will not here (as juftly I might) retorfc his idle and 
 hnpertinent Epithets, nor yet his impudent Slander, But 
 I will tell him, he feems very willing to miftake, thaE 
 be might excufe himfelf from a dired Anfwer. He 
 charges me with faying, Tloey are made Priefts according 
 to MofesV Lav^, I no where fay fo, ao where intend ib : 
 For indeed, I do not think their Ordination fo fairly 
 grounded, lince all acknowledge the Law of Mofes^ 
 though now abrogated, to have had a Divine Inditution. 
 I faid, Thefe Men are made Priefts after the Law of a car- 
 nal Commandment. Doth that neceflarily imply Mofes'^ 
 Law? May no Law, no Commandment be called Carnal, 
 but that which did bind to Sacrificings, Wafliings, and 
 other Levitical Ceremonies ? That's (Irange indeed ! Nay, 
 may not every Law, every Commandment, which is not 
 Spiritual, be properly enough called Carnal, as Carnal 
 isunderftood in oppofition to Spiritual? What, though 
 1 ufed the Apoftle's Phrafe, mufl that Allufion tye my 
 Senfe to the Subjed he was upon ? No fuch matter. He 
 oppofes the Leviucd Priefthood to Melchizedec, affirming 
 that they were made Priefts after the La wot a Carnal Com- 
 mandment, but he after the Power of an endlefs Life. [ 
 oppofe the prefent Priefts to Melchizedec^ fhewing that 
 thefe are not of his Order (though for Tythes fake they 
 j)retend it) in as much as he was made a Prieft, not af- 
 ter the Law of a Carnal Commandment, but af^r the 
 Power of an endlefs Life ; whereas thefe Men are made 
 Priefts after the Law of a Carnal Commandment! But 
 it does not follow, that this muft needs be the fame 
 Law by which the Levitical Priefts were made, unlefs 
 lie thinks there can be no other. By what Law then are 
 the Fopijh Priefts made (out of which this Prieft-hood 
 fprang?) By what Law are the Turkiflj Priefts made? I 
 hope he will not fay either of thefe are made Priefts by 
 the Power of an endlefs Life (as was Melchiz.edec) nor 
 yet by the Law of Mofes \ and yet by fome Law or other 
 no doubt they were made : What will he call that Law, 
 Spiritual or Carnal ? Let him call it as he pleafes : I in- 
 iift not fo much on the Names, as on the Natures of 
 things, nor regard fo much Words as Matter. Not- 
 wiihftanding what he hath faid the Difference yet re- 
 Ejains, the Oppofition is ftill as plain between Mto'^^- 
 
 D 4 f^* 
 
(40 
 
 decani thefe Priefts; He was made a Prieft, not after 
 the Law of a Carnal Commandment^ but after the Power 
 of an endlefs 1 ife : Thefe are made Priefts^ not after the 
 Power of an endlefs Life, but atrer the Law of a Carnal 
 Commandment^ which plainly fhews they are not of his 
 Order,a(id fo cannot derive any Right toTythesfrom him, 
 if Tythes could be proved to have ever been due to him/ 
 
 He goes o.*, ibid. ^Tu evident we are not Priefi- aC" 
 cording ^0 that Carnal^ OHtwara^ C^angeahle^ Levitical Lavo. 
 
 Neither did 1 fay ye were : But are ye not Priefts ac- 
 cording to a carnal Law, an outward Law, a chanqeabU 
 Law, though not according to that very Levitical Lav' ? 
 
 Bm (fays he) we are Triefts accordingto the Law of theGofpelf 
 Xffhofe etrrnal Duties have in them the Power of an endlefs Life. 
 
 What a quaint Device is this to avoid the force of a 
 Text! Was not the Scripture Phrafe plain and perti- 
 nent enough ? pr did it not fuit his purpofe? Were he 
 indeed a Prieft after Melchizedec^ Order, he need not 
 haveufed ihh variation. Had he been made a Ptitll by 
 the fame Power of an endlefs Life, by which Alelchiz^edeq 
 was, the fame Words would have very well ferved to 
 have expreft the fame thing. But he being confcious to 
 himfelf, that be came to his Prieft-hood by another way^ 
 boggles at the Text, and inflead of the Power of an end- 
 lefs Life^ puts in the L^n? of the Coffel\ which the more 
 to co^rtv from the Reader's Obfervation, he mif cites my 
 Words alfo, making me fay, Melchizedec was made a 
 Prieft after the Law of an Endlefs Life; whereas my 
 Words (agreeing with the Text) are, He was made a 
 Prieft after the Power of an Endlefs Life, pag. 281. This 
 Tower of an Endlefs Life, is a heavy Stone to all thefe car- 
 nal Man-made Priefts •, and therefore they ftruggle to 
 gee from under the weight of it, and endeavour to put 
 it from them, as we fee in this Prieft, who thrufts this 
 Power from himfelf, and places it ia the Duties. He 
 durft not fay, the P(?trfr of an Endlefs Life had made him 
 a Prieft : But he fays, he is a Prieft according to the 
 ^^n? of the Gofpel (in which he fpcaks falfly alfo) whofc 
 Eternal Duties, fays he, have in them the Power of an End" 
 lefs Life. If he has this Power no nearer him then in the. 
 Duty, hy what Power then fhall he perform thj^Duty? 
 How vaft a Difference is there between thefe Prftfts and 
 
 thofe 
 
(4? ) 
 
 ihofc w^om thcfe pretend to be SuccefTors to ! Paul was 
 90 Apoftle^ not of Men^ neither by Man bat by Jeftu Chrifi^ 
 4nd God the Father^ Gal. i . i. He did noc turn the Power 
 off from himfelf to the Duties of tiie Gofpel (as this 
 Prieft docs) but he declar'd he receiv'd the Gofpel it 
 felf, and his A^poftleftiip or Miniftry therein, hy the Re- 
 velation of the Son of Cod (Chrift, the Power of God, 
 I Cor, 1.24.) in himy Gal. 1. 12. 15, \6, 
 
 The Prieft adds, And as thu Law mnfi ne^er change.^ fa 
 neif'^'fr mnfh our priefihoodf buty like that of Melchi;fcdec, 
 Jhall endure J or ever. 
 
 The Law of the Gofpel is indeed unchutigeable^ and 
 fo is Melchiz^edec^S Priefthood -^ hmc the chavgeablenefs of 
 thefe Priefts and their Priefthood is an evident Token 
 that they are not Priefts of his Order, nor made accord- 
 ing to the unchangeable Law of ti^^ GofpeL How many 
 Turns and Changes has here been araongft them withia 
 little more tnan the laft Century ? One while a Pofifh 
 Priefthood, another while a Proteftant^ then Popi/h jjgain, 
 anon a Proteflant ^ and in later times, among the Prote^ 
 fiants by themfelves, one while an Eplfcopal Priefthood, 
 by and by a Presbyterial, anon an Independent j and now 
 an Epifcopal again, is this the unchangeable Priefthood 
 be talks of, that, like Melchiz.edec% ftiall endure for ever ? 
 Metbinks the remembrance of former Times fhould con- 
 vince him of his weaknefs. If this Man himfelf was not 
 then a Changer, and trudg'd with his Lamp that way 
 which he faw the Oyl was likely to run (which the con- 
 cealing his Name gives caufe to fufpedt.) I would ask 
 him, where he, and the Priefts, whofe Caufe he advo- 
 cates, were Blejfwgj and bringing forth their Bread and 
 their Wine between twenry and thirty Years ago, when 
 a Common-Prayer Prieft was rare to be feen ? 
 
 He goes on thus : And as we bear the fame Office with him 
 (Melchizedec) and do the like ff^ork we deferve the fame 
 Reward^ and may expeci Tythes as well as he^ pag. 42. 
 
 I do not find he ever expcfted any. However, fince 
 thefe Priefts pretend to bear the fame Office with Adelchi^ 
 zedecy it will not be amifs to obferve what they them- 
 felyes make his Office to be. This Prieft fays, pag. 39. 
 His IV^rjhip was altogether Spiritual^ P^^'fi^g ^^^t f^^y^^g f^^ 
 Abraftam, only bringing forth Br tad md Wine. Sparrow^ 
 
 Bilhop 
 
(44) 
 
 Bifhop of Exon^ in his Rationale of the Common-Prayer^ 
 fays much-whaC the fame, Melcloiz.edec had no other Of- 
 fering^ that we read of, but Bread and Wine^ pag. 339, 
 
 Now if this was the OlBce of Aielchiz^edec^ and thefe 
 Prieils pretend to bear the fame Office with him, how 
 comes it to pafs that they have fo much other Work to 
 <io, as Marrying^ Burying^ Sprinklings Chnrching of Women^ 
 and much more, which it doth not appear Melchiz^edec 
 4id at all concern himfelf with ? Surely, either their 
 Office is larger than Melchizedec\ and fb not the fame 
 with his ^ or elfe, they go beyond their Office^ when they 
 Intermeddle with thefe Matters. 
 
 But however, he fays, They do the like Work as Mclchi- 
 Z^d^c did. His Work was to bring forth Bread and 
 Wine, which he did freely like a King, not pntting Abra- 
 liam to the Charge to pay for it. But thcfe bring forth »«- 
 «fctfr Bread nor Wiae, but put the People to the Charge to hfty 
 4hem'^ and if any be left, though the People pay for it, yet 
 the Priefis will be Aire to have it. And, He not only 
 |?refented Abraham with Bread and Wine, but he blefled 
 Irim tooybefore Abraham gave him the Tythes : but thefe 
 Priefts are ten-fold forwarder to cnrfe than to blefsj ef- 
 pecially if it be in a Cafe of Tythes, as the numerous Ex- 
 communications witnefs. Nor are they content with Cur- 
 ling only, but many a godly confcientiom Mar^s Life ha've 
 they taken away by long and hard Imprifonments^ and many 
 4m honefl<f induflrious Family have they rnin^d by their frequent 
 Rapines, Is this like Melchpz.edec ^ Surely no^ it more 
 refembles thofe blind Watch-men, whom the Propheft 
 Ifaiah inveighs againd. Chap. 55. who all looked to their 
 cvon way J every one for his Gain from his Quarter : And thofe 
 falfe Prophets, againft whom the true denounced the 
 Judgment of God, that bite with their Teeth^ and cry Peace:: 
 ^nd he that putteth not into their Months^ they even prepare 
 War again j} him^ Mic. 3.5. in whofe nature and pradice 
 ithefe being lo apparently found, may juftly exped the 
 fame Reward that thofe blind Watch-men and falfe Pro- 
 |)hets received. 
 
 I have now attended him through bis fir 11 Period, the 
 'time before the Law, and, 1 hope, havefatisfied the Rea- 
 der, that nothing he hath produced from thence caa 
 warrant him any Right to Tythes. In the foregoing 
 
 Dif- 
 
i 45 ; 
 
 Difcourfe upon this Period, I have (hewed, That there is 
 m command extant for the Payment of Tythes before the Le- 
 vitical Law j Thac Jt is not at all abfurd^ but altogether rea- 
 fonable and jftfiy to demand andinfifi on a pofitive Precept for 
 the Payment of them ^ That h is a meer evafion to pretend 
 there wofj or might be a Command^ though not recorded ^ and 
 to aUedge the jhortnefs of the Story as a reafon why it was omit-* • 
 tedy fince fo many other things of far lefs moment than this^ 
 are fo particularly and circHmfiantially dilivered'^ That 7^ is 
 an empty jhift to fay^ A Command in Scripture for the paying 
 of Tythes in thofe TimeSj is not to be expetJed^ becaitfe the 
 Scriptures were not then written \ fo many Commands being 
 txemplified in Scripture of elder date than the Ififlance oj Abra- 
 ham and ]2LC0h giving and vowing Tythes ; Ti'-at The Priefi^s 
 Plea of a tenth part being OriglnaLy ane to God^ is but a pre- 
 cariotis Plea^ a begging of the Qjaftion \ and ij cvnfiderea as 
 a peculiar part difitnti from the other nine^ is altrgetherjalfe^ 
 ifnotfo conpdered^ conduces not at all to his purp Je i That To 
 fuppofe a tenth party as a tenth diftinB from the refty to be due 
 to God Originally y is to clip the Wing of his Svveraign Prero" 
 gativey and turn him off' with a part only^ who isy and ought 
 to be acknowledged Lord of all \ That If it were pojfible to be 
 proved that Tythes were due to Melchizedec, yet that no right 
 could defcendfrcm him to thefe Priefisj they being no kin at all 
 to him^ in point of Pr left hood. In fine, That The whole Fa^ 
 brickj which this Priefi has raijed in this Period^ how much 
 white-waflj^d and varnifli^d foever it may appear^ is built upon 
 a Sandy Foundation of meer Suppofitionsy ConjeBureSy Gueffes^ 
 Probabilities y Likely hoodsy May^be^s ^ not having in it one 
 folid Stone of demonfirative Truth or firm Pillar of found Rea* 
 fin to fupport it. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 Hitherto no Right to Tythes appears. I now follow 
 him to his fecond Period, comprehending the 
 whole time of the Mofaic Law, under which the Right 
 of Tythes to the Levitical Priell-hood is recognized by 
 all. But in as much as thefe Priefts difclaim all Right and 
 Title by that Law, it cannot be expeded this Period 
 fhould produce any thing to the advantage of their 
 Claim, chough fomething it may againft it. Here 
 
( 4^ ) 
 
 ^ere I muff: crave the Reader's leave to make a fhort 
 ^igreflion, Eo remove a Cavil urged by the Author of 
 the Conference, the occafion whereof was thus ^ At his 
 ^entrance upon the Difcourfe of Tyches, ia his Confe- 
 Tcnce, pag. 131. he mentioned a Book of Edward Bur-^ 
 rough's^ call'd, ^ Juft and Righteota Flea^ &C. Out of 
 which he colle6:ed a Quotation in thefe Words, pag. 
 132 Tythes are now not to he paid according to thefi^fl Co-' 
 venant^ neither is the firfi Priefl hood to be upheld that once 
 gave and received Tythes. N'jw fhouid we pay Tythes accord" 
 ing to the firfl Covenant^ and uphold any part of that Prieft" 
 hood^ which took Tythes^ &c. thenjhould we deny Je/ks Chrifi 
 to he come in the Flejh. Hereupon he »ojk occafion to 
 quarrel abouc the r'rief^ hood, ignorantlv taxing £• B. 
 with ignorance in the Nature of che ^^ft Prieft-hood, 
 and alledging, that // hy the firfl Prieft'h<;od he meant that 
 •of Aaron, then he had prefented to the King and Council no» 
 tortoHS falfityy affirmir.git to he the firfi Prtefi; hoody there be* 
 ing before him a Frieji^ to whom Levi himfelf paid Tythes^ 
 Mtb. 7. 9. &c. This, becaufe 1 faw k co be a meer Qnib'- 
 hle^ a catch at Words, not pertiaenr to the fu >j-:Ct he 
 was upon, but tending only to a Jangle, I tooic ^ki no- 
 tice of in my Ajifwer, Dut ftepped as diredly as well 
 i could into the matter it fell: of Tvtbes. Hereupon ia 
 fiis Vindication, pag. 294. he boail^iigly vau 's and in- 
 fults over me /or paffwg hy fo confidnahle a Pajfage^ as he 
 St feems^t^es it to he. But I allure him I therefore paf- 
 fed it by, becaufe I looked upon ic as a very in<;onfidera* 
 Ue Pafiag'C, and d© M\, Nor fhouid I have thought it 
 now deferved my notice, but that his unfair Inferences 
 therefrom defervei;eproof. He intimates that my filence 
 hath given the World an occafion to look upon E. B. as a meer 
 Cheat and Impoftory and fays. He had not that Infpiratlon^ 
 ^hich himfelf and hU Par iijffiioner had be^n difcourfing of. 
 
 Poor weak Man! He may foon at this rate give the 
 World an occafi®n to look upon himfelf as a Slanderer 
 and Back- biter ^ but will never gain belief to his falfc 
 Suggeftions with any, to whom E. B. was known, whofe 
 Name is honourable amongft the Righteous, and his Me- 
 imory fweet as a precious Oyntmcnt. As to the Cavil 
 it felf, which the Prieft hath raifed, it is altogether 
 groundkfsL For, is is evident that £. B, did there call 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 the levitical ?rkit'hood the flill Priefl-hood, whb re- 
 fyc^ to that Prieft-hood that fucceeded it, which is the 
 Gofpel Miniftry. In which Senfe, it is both generally 
 underftood, and commonly called the firft Prieft-hood. 
 And as well might the Prieft blame the Apoftle for call- 
 ing that Covenant which was made with the Jews^ thft 
 firll Covenant (^which he doth more than once in his Epi- 
 ftle to the Hebrews^ Chap. 8. 7. and p. i.) as find fault 
 with £. B. for calling the Jewtfli Prieft-hood the firft 
 Prieft-hood. There needs not much be faid in this cafe, 
 tofhew theemptinefs of this Cavil, which of it felfis 
 obvious to every Eye. But he takes notice that £. -& 
 was an occafion of ray Convincement ; and thence bim- 
 felf takes frefh occafion to raife his wonder, at my not 
 anfwering this Paflage before. He may for that reafoa 
 the rather believe, that I did not efteem it worthy of am 
 Anfwer, fince if I had, he may reafonably conclude I 
 would not have been backward to vindicate one to whom 
 I was fo greatly obliged. It is very true indeed, tha« 
 the Lord made E. B» inftrumental to the turning me 
 from the Darknefs (wherein I once fate under the teach» 
 ing of the National Miniftry) unto the true Light of 
 Chrift Jefus ; which with Joy of Heart, and a Thaakful 
 Mind, i acknowledge, and my Soul blefles the Lord in 
 the Senfe of bis Mercy extended to me therein. And of 
 that faithful Servant of God (whom the Prieft in deri- 
 fion calls my Patriarch) this certain Teftimony I hav« 
 to bear. That he was endued with Power from on higb^ 
 and the Spirit of the Almighty refted on him \ of which 
 amongft many thoufands I am a witnefs. But to pro.- 
 ceed : 
 
 In the fame place. Vindication, pag. 295. the Prieft 
 charges me with cunningly pajfivg over his ArgHmcnts^ and 
 skipping fonr pages at the entrance of his Difcourfe of 7ythes. 
 
 This Accufation is utterly falfe, as will appear by 
 comparing my Book with his. He began with Tythes 
 in his Conference at the bottom of pag. J31. He (pent 
 pag. 132. in quibbling about the firft Prieft-hood. Thea 
 in pag. 133. having difowned all Titles to Tythes, by 
 vertue of the Ceremonial Law, he ftarted a Qiieftion, 
 Whether Tythes are not purely Ceremonial ? &c. which 
 he anfwered in the Negative, and withal ihewcd how 
 
 far 
 
(4S) 
 
 far he imdcrflood them to be Ceremonial : To all this, I 
 anfwered in my former Book , called, Trnth prevailing^ 
 bellowing cwo Pages thereon, pag. 282, 283. Then 
 in pag. 154. of his Conference^ he drew a Comparifon be- 
 tween the Prophets of the Leviticd Prieft-hood, and 
 the prefent Clergy: To which I anfwered in pag. 948,' 
 549, and 350. of my faid Book. Judge now Reader whe- 
 ther this was skipping over four pages, and pafling by 
 his Arguments. But of this let this fuffice. I now re- 
 turn to the former Subjed, from which the unfair deal- 
 ing of my difingenuous Adverfary hatfa occafioned this 
 digreflion. 
 
 §. I. That which is chiefly to be inquired in, our 
 Parfage through his fecond Period, viz., the time under 
 the Law, is, i. Whether Tythes were a part of the Ce- 
 remonial Law ? 2. Whether they were abrogated by 
 Chtift t The Prieft begins with the laft of thefe, and of- 
 fers to prove, after his manner, that Tythes were not 
 abrogattd by Chrift:, Let not the Quaker (fays he) fo far 
 fTjiftakey as to thinks that the Abrogation of the Levitical 
 i^iip concerning Tythes y was an Abrogation of Tythes them" 
 felves^ pag. 4^. 
 
 I aiifwer, fo to think is no miftake, but a certain 
 Truth They were commanded by that Law, and ne- 
 ver commanded by any other: While that Law flood 
 in force, they were upheld by it •,.but when that Law was 
 difannull'd, they fell together with it. 
 
 He fays, ibid. Onr Lord abrogated the Levitical LarVj 
 concerning the modes of God^s Worjhip^ but he did not abrO" 
 gate God's Worfliip. 
 
 In abrogating the Levitical Lawy he abrogated whatfo- 
 cver had dependance on that Law, which Tythes had. 
 The Worfhip of God, confidcred fimply, had no depen- 
 dance on that Temporary Law, but was grounded upon 
 the Law of Nature, in the beft acception thereof, and fo 
 was not fubject to an Abrogation : But the Modes, Man- 
 ners, or Ways of Worfhip, being of the Nature of thai 
 Levitical Polity, and Inftituted by the Law thereof, 
 were abrogated by its Repeal. Now the Parallel holds 
 mt between the Worfhip of God and Tythes, but be- 
 rweea the Worjhlp of God, and the Maimenance of hi^ 
 
(49^) ^ 
 Priefts or Minifters: For, as the Worlhip of God h 
 grounded on the Divine Law of Nature^ fo the Mainte- 
 nance of his Minifters is founded upon a Principle of na- 
 tural Juftice and Equity. And as God by the Leviticai 
 Law, Inftituted divers Modes, Manners, or Ways of 
 this Wor/hip, fo by the fame Law he appointed the 
 Mode, Manner, or Way of this Maintenance, whicb 
 was by Tythes. Sacrifice, Burnt-Offerings, Wafhings-, 
 and other External Obfervances, were the A-io^es of thac 
 Worfhip^ that is, they were the Means or Ways by 
 which that Worfiiip was performed: And Tythes were 
 the Moiies of that Maintenance ^ that is, they were the 
 Means and Jf^ays by which that Maintenance was raifed. 
 As therefore the Worjhlp it felf was the Suhftance, whicli 
 was grounded on the Law of Nature, and the Sacrifices, 
 and other outward Services, which were the Modes of 
 it, were Ceremonial^ and as fuch abrogated by Chrilt: 
 So the Maintenance it felf was the Suhftanee^ which wa^ 
 founded on natural Juftice and Equity, and Tythes, which 
 were the Modes of it, were Ceremonial, and as fuch by 
 Chrift aholtfhed. Yet fo, that as the Worfhip it felf re^ 
 mains, though the Sacrifices which were the Modes of it 
 are abolifhed : So the Maintenance itfelj fliiJ abides, though 
 thQ Tythes, which were the Modes of it, are abrogated: 
 Neither let any think, that Jythes are any whit lefs 
 Ceremonial, becaufc of that fmall mention of them in the 
 Stories of Abraham, fo long before the Levitical La?e 
 was given : For many things done by thofe, and other 
 Patriarchs before them, were as certainly, and plainly 
 in their own Natures Ceremonial then, as they were af- 
 terwards, when Commanded by Mofes. Certainly were 
 this thing rightly underflood and wei? confidered', thas 
 Tythes u but a Mode, a Way, Mean or Manner of Main- 
 tenance, and confequently Ceremonial, it would greatly 
 conduce to the clearing this Cafe, and determining this 
 Controverfie. And could Men be perfwaded to lay afide 
 Faffion and Imerefl, and come fairly and unbyajfed to the 
 conllderation hereof, there might yet be hopes of a fair- 
 er Iflue than the prefent face of things befpeaks. Doubt» 
 lefs the great Ground of thefe Men's Error, who ftickle 
 10 much for Tythes, is there not diftinguiihing between 
 tti^ Mmtenance it felf^ and the r^^;, Mmwer^ Means, or 
 
 Modt 
 
( 50 ) 
 
 Mode by which that Maintenance is raifed. My pftfen* 
 Adverfary, Anchor of the Divine Right of Tythes^ ac- 
 knowledges, pag. 43. That all the Modes and Circumfian* 
 ces of God's H^orftiip^ enj^yned by the Levitical Law^ and fro-- 
 per to that diffenfation^ and^ relating to Chrifl to come^fcll with 
 that Polity y and were abrogated by Chrift : But the main Dut^ 
 of Worfhifping God^ continued in force fii/l^ fays he. 
 
 And fo fay I alfo. But then he falls into his former 
 Error, comparing tythes with the Worjhip of God, to 
 which they are by no means a fuitable Parallel. Even 
 Jo (fays hej in the Cafe ofiythes^ they had not their Foun^ 
 dation upon, nor their Original from the LeVltical La>W : God 
 had a Right to them beforCy &C. 
 
 Thus he runs on in his old flrain, repeating his for- 
 mer gromdltfs fuppofition for a whole page or more, and 
 then concludes, pag. 45. thus. Now when thrift did abro-* 
 gate that Miniftry (namely, of the Law J thefe Appendixes 
 muft needs be abrogated with it j but the main Duty (which 
 was fo before the Ceremonial Law) remains ftiU» 
 
 The main Duty does indeed remain ftilf, which is a 
 Maintenance to God's Minifters ^ but his miftake is iit 
 making Tythes to be this main Duty, whereas Tythei 
 heing but the Mode^ Means or Way of performing the main 
 Duty of Maintenance were really Appendixes of thai 
 Jewish Polity, and though known (and fometimcs but 
 rarely ufed) before the Ceremonial Law was aaually 
 given forth, were yet even then, in their own Nature 
 Ceremonial^ aS well as thofe other Modes and Ways of 
 Worfljipping by Sacrifice, c^e. which, though in fre- 
 quent ufe with the Patriarchs long before the Promulga- 
 tion of the Ceremonial Law, or mention made of Tythes, 
 are yet acknowledged to be of the Nature of that Dif- 
 penfation and Polity, and by Chrift to be abrogated 
 with it. 
 
 §. 2. But here I cannot omit to take notice, that la 
 his repetition of his former fancy of a divine Right to 
 Tythes before the Law, he abufes the holy Text, Firft^ 
 in faying. The Father of the Ifraelites had made a fpectal 
 Vow to pay this Divine Tribute^ meaning Tythes, hereby 
 infinuating that Jacob underftood Tythes to be a known 
 Due or Tribm^ which he was before obliged to pay ^ whext 
 
(50 
 
 ais both his W/^«/4r),unrcquired and eondtuonal Vow plain- 
 ly fpeaks the contrary, and the Words of the Vow ex- 
 prefly are, I will furely ^*Ve fhe doth not fay fay} the 
 tenth unto thee. Secondly^ in faying, Tloere wa6 no need 
 for God to infiitute Tythes anew^ and that accordingly he claims 
 them J and fnfpofes them to be his due by a right antecedent ta 
 the Levitical Law ^ for proof of which, he cites (as be« 
 fore) Exod. ii. 29. where Tythes are fo far from being 
 claimed and fuppofed due, that they are not fo much as 
 mentioned at all He adds, Levit. 27. 30. which thus fpeaks, 
 And all the Tythes of the Landy whether of the Seed of the Land^ 
 or of the Fruit of the Tree^ is the Lord's-^ it is holy unto the Lord* 
 This does not at all prove an antecedent Right or Claim 
 to Tythes diftind from the reft -, for he had but a little 
 before aflerted his Right to the whole Land, when giving 
 a reafon why he would not have any one fell his Poflef- 
 fion for ever ^ he fays ; For the Land is miney for ye arc 
 Stranger Sy and fo-Journers withme^ Chap. 25. 23. So there 
 he claims the whole Land as his own i and here he firft ap- 
 propriates the Tythis to his own ufe. 
 
 §. 3. But thePrieft hopes to demonftrate, thatTythes 
 were not abrogated by this Comparifoih •, The putting on 
 (fays he) a new Snte^ doth not make one a new Man^ nor 
 doth the pulling it off again kiHhim. 
 
 This is very true, but falfly applied : for he makes 
 Tythes to be the Man-, but what then (hall be the Sftte^ 
 If he would apply his Gomparifon rightly, he Ihould mate 
 Maintenance to be as the Man^ and Tythes to be as the 
 Bute ; and then he might infer aptly enough, that as the 
 pulling ofTtheSwrr doth not kill the Man^ fo the putting 
 qS Tythes doth not deftroy the Maintenance. And plainly^ 
 Tythes, though (to purfue his Comparifdn) it was once 
 made and worn at a Sttte, yet when it wdiS grown old, and 
 had done its Service^ it was caft off, and laid afide, never 
 to be worn again. 
 
 He adds. There may be many alterations inCircHmfianceSy 
 the EJfentials ftill remaining the fame. I pray, confider now, 
 Js not Tythes a CircHmflance , of Maintenance ? Can any one 
 imagine Tythes to be an EJfentials Eflfentialis that which 
 belongs to the Being of a thing, without which, that 
 thing eanaos bf, Bui that Maintiriancc may be without 
 
 t Tythes., 
 
( 52 > 
 
 Tythes^ and conlequently Tythes not Ejfential to Maifjtgmnee^ 
 not only the loweft Degree of Reafon will teach, but 
 Experience alfo of former and the prefent Age confirm : 
 The Apoftlesof our Lord had Maintenance fufficient ^ye£ 
 no Man (with a Name) darcs fay, they had it by Tythes. 
 And in other Countries, at this Day, among Protefiams^ 
 the Clergy receive their Maintenance by a Standing Sal- 
 lary from the State, without any mention of Tythes, 
 
 §. 4. From the Levitical Lam^ he fays, they may learn 
 fomething to clear that Title which they have to Tythes from 
 other Laws ', and one of his LefTons is, That the Levitical 
 Law was a Pattern for Chrifi to imitate^ in his Frovifion for 
 C off el Mlnifiers^ as St, Paul teacheth ns \ xohere^ he fays^ 
 Know ye not^ that they which Miniver about holy things Q. e. 
 the Levites3 live of the things of the Ttmple. (i, e. TythesJ 
 and they which wait at the Mtar^ {l, e. the Jewijh Priefts^l 
 are partakers with the Mtar^ {{, e. the Sacrifices and Obla- 
 tions] Even fo hath the Lord ordained^ that they which preach 
 the Gofpelj jhould live of the Gofpel^ I Cor. 9. 13, 14. which 
 Words [Even fo] do manifeft (faith he) that Chrift hath in 
 the mainy and for the Effential party made like Frovifion for 
 Gofpel Miniftersy as God the Father did for the Jewifh Frieft^ 
 hoody pag.45. 
 
 In thinking, Chrift took the Leviticd Law as a Pattern 
 for himfelf to imitate, in his Provifion for Gofpel Mini- 
 Iters •, this Man very much miftakes. The very contrary 
 appears molt plain in Sacred Story. Freely ye have received^ 
 freely givey was our Lord's Command to his Difciples when 
 he fent them forth to preach, Mat. 10. 8. and freely re- 
 ceive what is freely given by thofe that receive you and 
 your Meflage, was the Provifion he allowed them, Luh 
 10. 7, 8. And a fufficient Provifion too it proved, even 
 though they went oi Lambs amongft Wolvesy ver. 3. for 
 when they returned, he asked them. Lacked ye any thing ? 
 And their Anfwer was, Nothingy Luke 22. 95. Had Chrift 
 Intended to follow the Levitical Law, and by that Pat- 
 tern to beftow Tythes on his Gofpel Minifters, it cannot 
 be doubted but he would, by a plain and pofitive Pre- 
 cept, have fix'd and fettled tbat Maintenance on his, as 
 Iiis Father before had done on the Levitical Priefthood, 
 and not have left it to the uncertain conftruftion of an 
 
 Even 
 
C 53 ) 
 
 Evenfo. If the place it felf {Ovtuv.a)'] fhould be allowed 
 to ht Even fo rendered, which Baz^aturas by [_Ua} only; 
 Hieronty Montanm^ and others by \ltA d-] and Tompfon 
 that Englifh'd 5<ez.<i's Latin, reads ifi (not [^Evert foT] from 
 which Word, even the Prieft would hook in an Identity 
 of Maintenance, but) fo alfo. But, fuppofe ifi allowable 
 to read it. Even fo^ as the vulgar Tranflation hath it, yet 
 will the Particle {^Even'\ in that place appear to every ju- 
 dicious and diflnterelted Reader to have relation to the 
 tn4tterj not the manner^ livelihood it felf, not the way or 
 means of livelihood ; implying, that Chrift was not lefs 
 careful of his Minifters under the Gofpel, than God had 
 been of his Priefts under the Law, which, I hope, it will 
 be granted he might very well be, though he did not ap- 
 apoint them the felf* fame Maintenance. And, indeed, 
 when this Priefl: fays, page 47. Thefe words QEven fo] 
 do manifeft^ that Chrift hath in the main^ and for the ejfential 
 fart^ made like Provifion for Gofpel Minifters^ 06 God the Fa- 
 ther did for the]tm{h Trieflhood'^ he is not much befide the 
 Mark, if he rightly underftands the main and effential part, 
 which is limply a Maintenance^ without refped to the 
 Mode or Wayy by which it fhould be raifed. 
 
 Again, he fays, This wot alfo a Pattern for the devout 
 Chriftians of Old^ and did intimate to them^ that they fhohld 
 not do lefs for their Minifters than would afford them an honour ^ 
 Me Maintenance, It is not to be doubted the Levitical 
 Law, in the Ages fucceeding that of the Apoflles, was 
 but too much imitated by the Chriftians, He that reads the 
 Writings of thofe Times, and obferves the Bulk of Jewi/b 
 Ceremonies, that have gradually crept into the publicfc 
 Worfhip of Profefled Chriftians^ will find no caufe to que- 
 ftion it. And though the Chriftians in thofe Times were 
 very commendable for providing honourably for Chrill's 
 Minifters ; yet, in recurring to the Levmcal Law, thea 
 abrogated, and fetching Examples from thence, they did 
 not deferve Commendation, Nor is there any need for Chri» 
 ftians now to look back to the antiquated Ceremonies of the 
 Law, for Example or Incitement to their Duty herein^ 
 lince fuch is the Power and Efficacy of the Gofpel, that it opens 
 the Hearts of thofe who receive it^ to Commuiiicate freely of 
 their Carnalsy to thofe from whom they receive Spirituals^ 
 Thus was it with Lydia^ the Thyatirefs, when her Hears 
 
 E a waa 
 
(54) 
 ^as opened : She was not backward to entertain tfiem^ 
 who were Inflrumental to her Converfion, but evtn con- 
 firaltted them to come to her Hottfe and abide there^ Afts i &. 
 
 Thefe Men, paradventure, may think fuch a Mainte- 
 nance noE honourable enough: But they fhould remember, 
 that it was honourable enough for the holy Apoftles, and for 
 our Saviour himfelf alfo^ who, though he were Lord of 
 all, yet did not difdain to be thus provided for, but by his 
 own Example laid the Foundation of this Gofpel Mainte- 
 nance, as we read in Luh 8. 2, 3. where Mary Magdalen.^ 
 Joanna^ the Wife of Chufa^ Herod^s Steward, and Sufanna^ 
 and many others are remembred to have miniflred to 
 him of their Subftance. Was this accepted by the Ma- 
 iler, and will it not content them who call themfelves his 
 Servants? They had need then be put in mind, that The 
 Difciple is not above his Mafter^ nor the Servant above his 
 Lord, And that, It is enough for the Difciple that he is as his 
 Mafter^ and the Servant oi his Lord^ Mat. 10. 24, 25. And 
 were thefe Men, indeed, what they pretend to be, they 
 would not think Jlightly of that Maintenance which our 
 blefTed Saviour was contented with. But, verily, their 
 defpijing and rejeding this, and creeping to the Magiftrate 
 for another, is Argument enough, that for all their pre- 
 sences, they are not the Servants of humble Jefas. 
 
 §. 5. To Ihew that the Levitical Law for Tythes was a 
 Pattern for the Chriftians of old, he gives us a Quotation 
 out oi Origin ^ thus. Our Lord faith in the Gofpel (fpeaking of 
 tything Mint^ &c.) Thefe things ought ye to have done. If you 
 replyy He faid this to the Pharifees, not to his Difciples : then 
 hear what he faith to his Difciples % Except your Righteoufnefs 
 exceed the Righteoufnefs of the Scribes and Pharifees^ ye (haU not 
 enter into the Kingdom of Heaven^ Matt. 5. Therefore that 
 rohich he would have done by the Pharifees^ more abundantly 
 tookld he have it done by his Difciples^^^ NoWj how doth my 
 Righteoufnefs exceed that of the Pharifees ? // they durft not 
 tafie of the Fruits of the Earthy before they had feparated the 
 Priefts and Levites parts ^ and I devour the Fruits of the 
 Earthy fo that the Prieft knows not ofit^ the Levite is aftran- 
 ger to it, and God^s Altar receives nothing. Herein (fays the 
 Prieff) Origin fpeaks my SenfefuHy^ page 47, 
 
 By 
 
( 55 ) 
 
 By this then vrt knovf fnlly what the Priell's Senfe is ia 
 this cafe; let us fee now how mnchj or rather how ImU 
 this Semt of his agrees with Truth. When Chrift faid to 
 the Pharifees (concerning tyfihing Mint, &c,) Thefe things 
 ye ought to have done^ &c. the Law, by which Tythes were 
 commanded to be paid, wa^ in force, and therefore the 
 Tharifees in obferving the Law, did but what they ought 
 to do. But though they were in that part fo obfervant 
 of the Law, yet in other parts, more material, they were 
 wholly negligent. Now as that caution of our Saviour to 
 his Difciples, Except your Righteoufnefs exceed the Righteauf" 
 nefs of the Scribes and Pharifees, &c. was not given with 
 particular relation to the Pharifees's punctuality in tything 
 Mint, &c. being fpoken long before, and upon another 
 pccalion; fo neither can it, with any colour of reafon, 
 be fuppofed, that the excefs or fuper-abounding of tiie 
 Difciples Righteoufnefs, above and beyond the Righce- 
 oufnefs of the Scribes and Pharifees^ was to confift in a more 
 cxad obfervance of the Ceremonies of the Law, which 
 were then even expiring, and the Difciples daily ficting 
 for the manifeftation of a more glorious and lafting Admi- 
 liiftration. But the Scribes and Pharifees, who were fo ex- 
 ad in thofe fmaSer and lighter Matters of tything Mint,c^r. 
 did brtBk great and weighty Commands of God, and taught 
 Men fo, as appears in Matt. 15. 6. where Chrift tells 
 them, ToH have made the Command of God (for honouiing 
 of Parents) of no effe^ by your Tradition ; and in Mark 7. 
 1 5. (where the fame PalFage is recorded) He adds. And 
 manyfuch like things do ye, of which ther« is a large Bed- 
 roll in the 23d of Matthew. For thefe Pharifaical Tythcrs 
 did (hut tht Kingdom of Heaven againfi Men, neither entring 
 themfelves, nor fuffering others. They devoured Widows Houfes^ 
 were full of Extortion; and while they were fo exaft ia 
 tything the very Pot-herbs, they omitted the weightier 
 matters of the Law, Judgment, Mercy and Faith. Now^ 
 while the Righteoufnefs of the Pharifees ftood in a nice and 
 exa5l Performance of thofe lejfer Matters, the Difciples 
 Righteoufnefs was to fhine forth in the Performance of 
 thofe weightier Matters, Judgment, Mercy, Faith, &cc 
 wherein as they were exercifed, their Righteoufnefs would 
 as really exceed the Righteoufnefs of the Pharifees, as the 
 J^hiogs themfelves in which they were converfant (yiz^ 
 
 E 3 Judgf 
 
( ) 
 
 Judgment, Mercy, Faith, &c.) did excel thofe things 
 which the Pharifees were bufied about, (to wit, tything 
 of Mint and Annife) And how great a preheminence and 
 preference the one fort has of the other, may fufEciently 
 appear in the Verfe 23. where Judgment, Mercy and Faith 
 are comparatively to Tythes, called the weightier Matters. 
 Bui the Mfproportion is more clearly fet forth in the next 
 Verfe, where Tythes are compared to tht Gttat (one of the 
 leafi of infeds) but jH^gmenty Mercy and Faith to the Ca^ 
 mel (one of the greateft of Animals) which Metaphors, 
 drawn from the two Extreams, do evidently enough de- 
 note the different Natures of the things there handled ^ one 
 fort of which {viz.. Judgment, Mercy, &c,) is plainly 
 Morale the other (v/^. tything of Mint, &c.) as clearly 
 CeremomaL Now, to fuppofe Chrifl: intended his Difci- 
 ples fhould exceed the Righteoufnefs of the Pharifees ia 
 the Ceremonial and lejfer parts of the Law, in which the 
 Pharifees were themfeives but too apt to exceed; and that 
 he fliould enjoyn this too on no lefs Penalty than Exclu- 
 fion from the Kingdom of Heaven, is contrary both to 
 Reafon and true fpiritual Senfe : What, therefore, the 
 Priefi: quotes from Origen^ and fays, is fnily his own Senfe 
 too, may not by any means be received, at leafl: as he un- 
 derflands it. For, he fays. That which Chrift would have 
 done by the Pharifees, more abundantly would he have it done 
 by his Difciples, But, who can admit this in fuch general 
 Terms as it is here laid down. Chrift would have the 
 Pharifees have kept the whole Law^ even every Ceremony and 
 Circumflance therein commanded ('which, being then ia 
 force^ they ought to have done^ but would he have his 
 Difciples do this more abundantly, now that himfelf hath 
 Nailed them to his Crofs ^ that were to deny him come in 
 the Flefh. What Origin himfelf therefore faith, That it is 
 the part of a wife Interpreter to find out what things in the Lam 
 are to be literally obfervedj and what not ; the fame may well 
 be faid of his Writings, There is need of great Cautioa 
 and found Judgment in quoting what he has written: For, 
 though he was a Man of great Learning, yet was he too 
 apt to run the wrong way, for which he has been not 
 lightly cenfured by many. And, indeed, his aptnefs to 
 allegorize the Scriptures, makes it feem the more flrange 
 that he fliould take this place literally ^ and yet he hath 
 
 evea 
 
< 57 ) 
 
 ^vm here exprefl: himfelf fo darkly too, tliat ie would 
 puzzle, I think, a wife Citator to find out who that Le- 
 vite is, to whom under the Gofpel, Tythes fhould be paid 
 according to the Letter of the Law. 
 
 But leaving the Priefl to untie that Knot, I here pre- 
 fent thee Reader wifih ^-he Judgment ot Walter Brute upon 
 this Text, whom, though I know before-hand the Prielfc 
 defpifes and difdains (reproachfully, calling him Remgado^ 
 Right ofTythesy pag. 139O becaufe he ftrikes a* their i^i-. 
 ^w/i Tythes^ yet I make no doubt, but amoagil honeH: 
 Men, he will at leaft be never the worfe, if aot the bet- 
 ter thought of. He having fhewed that Tythes v^er^ Ce- 
 remonial, and the Law abrogated by which tliey were 
 due to the Levkes, goes on to difprove the pretences of 
 thofe who claim a Right from thofe words of Chrifl to 
 the Pharifees, His words are thefe* ' Whereupon Tome 
 
 * do fay, that by the Gofpel we are bound to pay Tythes, 
 
 * becaufe Chrift faid to the Phurifees^ Macth. 23. Wo be 
 
 * to you Scribts and Pharifies^ which pay your Tythes of 
 
 * Mint, Annife-Seed, and of Cummin, and leave Judg- 
 
 * ment, Mercy and Truth undone, being tlie mightier 
 
 * things of the Law, both fhould ye have done thefe thir^gs^ 
 
 * and alfo not have left the other undone, O ye blind 
 
 * Guides that ftrain at a Gnat and fwallow up a Camel. 
 
 * This word found^th not as a Commandment or Manner 
 
 * of bidding, whereby Chrift did command Tythes to be 
 
 < given; but it is a word of difallowing the Hypocrifie of 
 
 * the Fharifees^ whoof Covetoufnefsdid rather weigh and 
 
 * efteem Tythes, becaufe of their own fingular Commo* 
 
 < <3ity, rather than other great and weighty Command- 
 « ments of the Law. And me feemeth that our Men are 
 
 * in the fame predicament of the Phdnfees^ which do leave 
 « off all the Ceremonies of the old Law, keeping only the 
 
 * Commandment of Tything. It is manifeft and plain 
 « enough by the Prcmifes, and by other places of Scrip- 
 
 * ture, that Chrift was a Prieft after the order of Melchi^ 
 
 * z.edec^ of the Tribe of Juda^ not of the Tribe of Levi ; 
 
 * who gave nonew Commandment of tything any thing to 
 
 * him and to his Priefts, whom he would place after him; 
 » but when his Apoftles faid to* him. Behold, we have 
 ' left all things, and have followed thee, what then fliall 
 ^ Wig have ? He did not anfwer them thus, Tythes (hall be 
 
 E 4 paid 
 
( S8 ) 
 
 ^ paid you, neither did he promife them a temporal, but 
 *an everlafling Reward in Heaven: For he, both for 
 ' Food, and aifo for Apparel, taught his Difciples not 
 
 * CO be careful — - And Pad^ right- well femembring this 
 ^ Doi^rine, inftrudeth Timothy, and faith thus, But we 
 
 * having Food, and wherewithal to be covered, let us 
 
 * therewith be content, i Tim. 6. Thus far Brmt^ whom 
 ¥ox enrolls amongft: the holy Confeflbrs of Jefus, Marty^ 
 rol. Vol. I. pag, 446. ErafmusMo^ in his Paraphrafe on 
 Luke II. Upon the words lye Tythe Mimj &C.3 fays 
 thus, * Thefe things which God commanded for a time 
 
 * to be kept according to the Flefh, ye ought not to omit ^ 
 
 * but thofe things which God would have chiefly to be 
 
 * done, which are perpetually good, and acceptable to 
 
 * him, ought firll of all to be performed. Obferve here 
 how he accounts of Tythes ^ not as things perpmaliy good 
 and acceptable to God, but as things commanded for a 
 time^ to be kept according to the Flejh: To which the Jews 
 (IfraeL after the Flefh) were bound \ but the Chnfitans 
 (Ifrael after the Spirit) arc free from that Bond. With 
 thefe, take the Judgment of Andrew Willet^ in his Synofps 
 of topery^ and in the fifth general Controverfy, pag. 3. 4. 
 where fetting down the Jefuits Argument for the Mora- 
 lity of Tythes, out of Mmh. 23. 2^ He thus anfwers 
 it, * We mufl confider in what time our Saviour Chrift 
 
 * fo fpake unto the Pharifees\ for, as yet, neither the Law, 
 ' nor the Ceremonies thereof v^ere fully abrogated : Chrifb 
 
 * was Circumcifed, and Mary his Mother Purified accord- 
 
 * ing to the Law, Lnke 2. 2 1, 22. Our Saviour alfo bid- 
 
 * deth the Leper to fhew himfelf to the Prieft, and offer 
 
 * a Gift as Mofes commanded, Mmk 8. 4. Yet none of 
 
 * all thefe Ceremonies now ftand in force, though Chrift 
 
 * did them at that time, and bad them to be done. The 
 
 * fame Anfwer may ferve alfo, concerning his InjunSion 
 
 * to the Pharifees\ as touching their Tythes. Thus he, by 
 which it is paft doubt, that, although he was a zealous 
 Advocate for Tythes as a Maintenance, yet he accounted 
 them hot Moral, buE Ceremonial. 
 
 §. 6. The Prieil hath yet another document from the 
 Levitical Law, namely. That the fubftance of that which v^as 
 required then, is due ftill, not by venue of that Lnw^ but becanfc 
 there, is an inherent Eq^aity in the things pag. 48. The 
 
(59) 
 
 The Subftance is a Maintenance in which there is an 
 inherent Equity, that the Labourers (hould be rewarded, 
 but chat this Maintenance ihould be by Ty thes : Was not 
 the Subftance in which the inherent Equity ftoocf, but a 
 Circumftance, Ceremony or Mode^ due only by vertue of 
 that Law while it flood, and no longer ? For, though ic 
 be equal, that the Labourer ihould be rewarded for his 
 Labour, yet the equality of the Reward ftands not ia 
 Tythes, or a tenth pan, which may either fATfr^, or fall 
 fhoYt of the Labourers jufl Defer!, and fo not prove an 
 adequate Reward to his Work. That the Stthftance of that 
 which WM required in the Law^ is due fttll^ he fays, pag. 48. 
 li Origin'j meaning in the aforefaid place ^ andfo (he fays) Wi 
 niiifl interpret St, Hierom, when he faith^ That which we have 
 fad of Tythes andfi^ft Fruits^ whi^h were once given by the Peo' 
 fie to the Priefts and Levites j you mufi under ft and alfo of the 
 C^rif^ia^ People^ to whom it is commanded^ not only to give 
 Tphes^ but tc fell all. 
 
 But where is there a Com»naad to Chriftlans^tkhtv to give 
 Tythes^ or to fell all? I^ierom prefl it fr^m, Mai, ^. wnich 
 had cired reference to the Jewsy and can ot poffibly be 
 made a Cooiinand to Chrifiians. And for Chnjhans felling 
 all, there is mention indeed in holy Writ of fome that 
 did fo, but not that they were commanded fo todoj that 
 was voluntary. 
 
 But the Prieffc explains Hierom\ meaning, that is (fays 
 he, pag. 4.9.) fo much of the Command oi was Morale fo much 
 06 was grounded upon eternal Reafon^ ought to fland. 
 
 That is not fpecifically Tythes^ but a Maintenance in ge- 
 neraL It is the Maintenance chat is Moral, and grounded 
 upon eternal Reafon; but no Man methinks Ihould have 
 fo little a reafon, as to think Tythes, as Tythes, as a cer- 
 tain and definite part, are grounded upon eternal Rea- 
 fon. It was not an eternal, but temporal Reafon (fuitable 
 %o the Jmjfe Polity) on which Tythes were grounded un- 
 der the Law, and that was the reafon they did not remain, 
 but/#5 together with that Law. 
 
 He argues further, That Cod is eternally Lord of the Worlds 
 And muft always be worfljipped, and always have Minifiers^ and 
 thefe muil always be maintained out of their Mafier'^sFortion^^,^^, 
 
 So they may, and yet not by Tythes^ if God be Lord 
 9f the World: for then aU being his, neiiher he nor his 
 
 Mini- 
 
(6o) 
 
 Minifters need to be tied to a Tenth, Why not a Nlmh^ 
 ao Eighth^ a Sixths or any other part it he pleafes ? Has 
 the eiernal Reafoa of Tythes tied God, who is Lord of all 
 she World, to the Tenth part only. Plainly thefe Men, 
 while they pretend to honour God as the eternal Lord of 
 the World, would make hiiti in reallity Lord but of a 
 Tenth part of it. That they make his Portion, which he 
 mufl: take or none. And if they might be believed, all 
 ihould depend upon this Tenth ; without Tythes no Main- 
 tenance, without Maintenance no Miniflers, without Mi- 
 nivers no Worfhip. This I'm fure is not Gofpel Lan- 
 guage. But this is like his former comparifon of the Oyl 
 and the Lamf, 
 
 But whatever this Priefl talks of the Law of Nature 
 and eternal Reafon (to beget a Reverance in People's 
 Minds to Tythes, and make them bow their Necks the more 
 willingly to his hard and heavy Toke) we may fee that 
 Tythes were not reputed of Divine Right by the Eternal 
 Bloral Law, if we confider the Alienations that have been 
 made of them to common Ufes in Hen. 8. Time. And 
 though the Priefl: may think to wipe off the Objedion by 
 exclaiming againft Hen. 8. and his Parliament, and by 
 branding them with the horrible Name of Sacriledge, as 
 he does in his f^indication, pag. 305. Yet when he fliall 
 come to confider that thofe Alienations have been con- 
 firmed by Edw. 6. and Queen Eliz, and allowed by all Suc- 
 ceeding Kings and Parliaments ever fince^ and that the 
 Statutes made for thofe Alienations ftand yet in force : I 
 take him to be too great a Time-ferver to purfue his Ar- 
 gument of Sacriledge, at leaf!: with his Name to it. How- 
 ever, if he will charge Sacriledge on all the Princes and 
 Parliaments from Hen, 8. to this day, that will not re- 
 move the Objedion, but ftill it will appear, that what- 
 ever he thinks of them, they have not thought Tythes to 
 be due by the Eternal, Moral Law. And, indeed, if we 
 look upon the Praftice of the Priefts themfelves, we Ihall 
 have reafon to think, that they themfelves do not really 
 believe that Tythes are due by the Eternal, Moral Law; 
 (whatever they pretend to keep fimple People in awej 
 for do not they alienate Tythes themfelves ? Do not they 
 pay Tenths (which are the Tythes of the TythesJ to the 
 Crown? See Right of Tythes^ page 231. If Tythes, as 
 
 they 
 
(6i ) 
 
 they pretend, may not be alienated to common llfes ; 
 and if fuch Alienation be Sacriledge, Wny tien do they 
 themfelves alienate them? Doth not this plainly fhew, 
 that either they do not believe Tythes to be due by the 
 Eternal, Moral Law, or elfe that they herein fin againft 
 their own Confcienccs and Knowledge ? 
 
 §. 7. But that which comes next, is fuch a piece of 
 Logick, as would make a ferions Man fmile. When the 
 LeviEical Friefthood failed (fays he, pag. 49.) there mitfl: 
 he another^ and a better 5 and therefr e we may claim Tythes at 
 Cod^s dne^ and as his Minifter'^s Portion, &c 
 
 What a pretty Pair of Non-fequiters is here. Becaufe 
 there muft be another and a better Priellhood, when the 
 Levitical h'lltd^ doth it therefore follow, thefe muft needs 
 be they ? Upon which of the Premifes, I wonder, doth 
 this Conclufion lean, that there muft be another Prieft* 
 hood, or that it muft be a better? If it reft on the for- 
 mer, that there muft be another Priefthood, that nodoubg 
 there may be, and yet not be thefe: If on the latter^ that 
 it muft be better, then paft all doubt it cannot be thefe, 
 fince thefe are fo far from being better, that they are noc 
 a little worfe. But if upon the failure of the Levitical 
 Priefthood, there muft be another, a better, and it were 
 poflibly to fuppofe thefe to be that. Doth it thence fol- 
 low that thefe may claim Tythes ? What empty arguing 
 is this ! Right Reafon would rather have inferred, that if, 
 indeed, the eld Friefthood had ftood, the old Maintenance 
 by Tythes might alfo have continued ; but the old Frieft" 
 hood being ended^ the old Maintenance by Tythes is end- 
 ed alfo. And as there was to be another Priefthood 
 (wholly another, not the fame correded or reformed) 
 fo there ftiould alfo be another Maintenance (wholly 
 another, not the fame a little variated j which ihould 
 excel the old Maintenance, as this other Priefthood was 
 to be a better Priefthood than the former, and that in the 
 fame Notion of Meliority. This, I am fure, would be 
 not only more rational, but more agreeable alfo to the 
 Words of the Apoftle, 2 Cor, 5. 17. Old things are puffed 
 away^ beheld all things are become new. So alfo the Divine, 
 John^ Rev. 21.5. Behold I make all things new. Which 
 Words are there delivered, with a very remarkable Em- 
 
 phafis. 
 
( 62 ) 
 
 |?]ialiS, He th4t fate upon the 7hrone^ fa id, Behold^ 1 maU 
 all things new. And he faid unto me, IVrite : for theft words 
 4ire trne and faithful. How Vnfaithfid then are thefe Priefls, 
 who endeavour to make thefe trne words untrue^ by claim- 
 ing and contending for the old legal Maintenance by 
 Tythes, which long lince is dejure pafled away ? 
 
 But he hath yet another fetch \ They need not, he 
 fays, claim them by the Levitical Law as it is Ceremonial. 
 What then, will they claim them by the Levitical Law^ buft 
 under fome other Notion ? How dosh he twift and twine 
 about to get a claim by the Levitical Law, to which alas! 
 his dear Brother has foreclofed his way, by faying plainly, 
 2nd in general terms, they derive them not from Levi f 
 Conference, pag. 135. 
 
 §. 8. And now (fays the Priefl: to his Brother) 1 hope 
 T. E. mitfi confefsy that your fecond Pojitian^ viz. JiThaf 
 *Tythes are not purely CeremoniaQ is made good alfo \ fince I 
 have {hewed they were grounded on the Law of Nature^ andPri' 
 mitive Revelation^ relying on an Internal Re5iitude in th^ thing 
 it felfy and an Eternal Reafon of it^ and were f,*id by thofe Pa- 
 Sriarchs, who lived long before the Ceremonial Law^ by P^erttic 
 ef the preceding Declaration of the Divine Right finto them^ 
 
 Pag-4P- 
 
 If his Faith hath no better Foundation than his Hope^ the 
 IWaa is in an ill cafe ^ f#r I alTure him, I am fo far from 
 being brought to confefs he hath made good the fecond 
 Portion alfo, that I declare, I am fully fatisfied, he hath 
 xnade good, neither firfl nor fecond yet. And though he 
 enumerates many and great Matters which he pretends he 
 foas Ihewed, yet, unlefe he means, that faying is fliewing, 
 ht hath not Ihewed any one particular of thofe many which 
 lie fpeaks of. He fays, he has fhewed, that Tythes were 
 grounded on the Law of Nature and Primitive Revelation : but 
 ije has no othcrwife ihewed it than by faying fo. In pag^ 
 21. he begins with it^ and fays, God's Right to Tythes it 
 founded primarily upon the Law of Nature, &c. and four 
 or five Lines lower, he adds. Natural Reafon teacheth us to 
 give God fome part of his Gifts back again^ &c. Then in 
 the fame page, he concludes, Some part of our Snbfiance be^ 
 i^g therefore due to God^ &c. So that at firft he begs the 
 Qliefiiony and on that frecarious Bottom fets his Building. 
 
 He 
 
(<5j) 
 
 He takes for granted that which is denied, and then crys 
 out he has fhewed : and fo indeed he has the weaknefs of 
 his Caufe, or his own inability to manage if. If to find 
 God's Right, he would look into the Law of Nature, he 
 fhall ihere find that God has a Right to AU^ and to jiU <t- 
 lih. He is the God of Nature, the Univerfal Power, by 
 which all things were made, and by which all things fab- 
 fift. An equal Right he has, by the Law of Nature, to 
 all that his Hands have made, or ever was brought forth 
 by his productive FIAT. But nothing can conftitute to 
 him a diftinH: and particnlar Right to a temh^ or any other 
 part, fo as to make that part (fer exceUemiam) more p«« 
 culiarly and eminently his than the reft, but his own Jppro" 
 friction and JJfnmption thereof to himfelf, which cannot 
 be proved of Tythes before the Leviticai Law. ThaE 
 a tenth part (or Tythes, which is the fame) is not dae 
 by the Law of Nature, MelanBon affirms, faying, The 
 Quota (the tenth part) is not Natural, but the jiUquottt 
 (fome part) that ftands in Equity, founded on the Law 
 of Nature: but the Qnota (or tenth part) is founded o« 
 the Ceremonial and Judicial Law, which Law, fays he, 
 is proper to Mofes's Polity, and belongs not to us, fee- 
 ing God hath utterly deftroy'd it, i Tom. pag. 303. Deli* 
 ben Chrifiiana. 
 
 And for Tythes being founded on Primitive Revela- 
 tion, he Ihews it much after the fame manner as he doth, 
 that they are grounded on the Law of Nature : For, he 
 fays, ti^e enght to believe it, pag. 25. We may believe it, 
 pag. 25. We mnfi believe it, pag. 27. &c» But 1 would 
 know of him whence he has his Revelation^ that Tythes 
 were founded on Primitive Revelation ? He is too great 
 a Scoffer at Infpiration to pretend to know it that way. 
 Doth he read it any where in the holy Scriptures? He 
 Ihould then have done well to have given us the Text. 
 But if it be not recorded there. Why makes he himfelf fo 
 over mfe ? Ecclef. 7. i5. And yet, if he could prove, or 
 I (hould grant, that Tythes had been commanded to be 
 paid before Mofes's time, yet would not that prove Tythes 
 any whit lefs Ceremonial, fince many things that were 
 revealed to, and required of the Patriarchs before the Mo- 
 fate Law, were clearly Ceremonial, and afterward both 
 required by the Ceremonial Law, and Univerfaily acknow- 
 ledged 
 
( 64 ) 
 
 ledged to be abrogated with it, as Bloody Sacrifices, Cir- 
 cumcifion, &c. Yea, the diftindion between Clean and 
 Unclean Beafts, was obferved before the Flood, as ap- 
 pears, Gtn 7. 2. which yet, I think, the Priefl: will not 
 deny to be Ceremonial and ended. 
 
 He has indeed a notable knack oifu^pfmg what he knows 
 would be difficHlt to prove. For in his pag. 22. he fays, 
 IhoHgh God hath a right to the tenth part of our Subfiance 
 yetj Bcc. And pag. 24. We know from the Light of Nature^ 
 that part of our Snftance is due to God : and this he repeats 
 frequently. But what Nature is it he talks fo much of, 
 by the Light and Reafon whereof he has learnt to make 
 Man's part nine times 04 big as GOD's, and yet fays, God 
 is eternally Lord of the World ? Surely it is a corrupt and 
 felfi^i Nature, whofe counterfeit Light gives him fo falfe 
 a fight of things. 
 
 He hath (hewed, he fays. That Tythes rely on an Internal 
 IR^eBitude in the thing it felf and an Eternal Reafon of it. 
 
 How can that be ? He plunges himfelf into thefe ahfur^ 
 dities^ by not diftinguifhing between Maintenance in gene- 
 ral, and Tythes which are but a particular Mode or Jf^ay 
 of raifing Maintenance, by confounding which, he thus 
 confounds his own Senfe. If he were pleading for a Main- 
 tenance in general, his Argument there were good and 
 pertinent: For there is no doubt, an Internal Red^itude 
 in the thing it felf, that he that Labours ftiould be reward- 
 ed for his Labour, and an Eternal Reafon of it from the 
 Equit7 of the thing. But to fuppofe an Eternal Reafon 
 that the tenth part only, and no other muft be this Re- 
 ward, is utterly repugnant to all Reafon and Equity, fince 
 pofFibly the fifth part may be too fmaU^ or the fifteenth too 
 great a compenfation for the Work. In the time of the 
 Law, by which Tythes were commanded, though there 
 was an Internal Reditude for a Maintenance, and an Eter- 
 nal Reafon of it; yet the providing and raifing that Main- 
 tenance by the way of Tythes, did not rely on ao: Internal 
 EeBitude^ but on an E^TTERNAL: nor was there then an 
 Eternal Reafon for raifing the Maintenance by that par- 
 ticular way of Tythes, but a temporal^ fuitable to the 
 Polity of that State. The Ox that trod out the Corn 
 was not to be muzzled, but for the Labour and Service 
 he did he was to be fed , and this depended on an Internal 
 
 ReaU 
 
(65 ) 
 
 Keftifiude in the thing it felf ; but he that fhould thence 
 infer, that the certain qHamity of Meat wbich fhould be 
 given to the Ox, or the Spccifick kinds of Food he fhould 
 eat, did rely alfo on an Internal Reditude la the things 
 themfelves, would hereby fufficiently convince the Worid^ 
 that he himfelf had but too much need to have his owa 
 Underftanding reBtped, From what has been faid, the 
 Reader, I prefume, may cd]e(9:, that my Opponent hath 
 much miftaken the matter, in making Tythes (which is 
 not the Subftance, the Maintenance it feU, but a Circum- 
 ftance of the quantity of Maintenance) to rely on an In- 
 ternal Reditude in the thing it felf, and an Eternal Rea- 
 fon of it. 
 
 He adds, that he has fhewed Tythes were paid by thofc 
 Patriarchs, who lived long before the Ceremonial Law^ by f^tr* 
 tHe of the preceding Declarations of the divine Right nnto them<. 
 Indeed, the Man is much to be blamed. He leems to have 
 abandoned all Regard to Truth and Modefty, and to be 
 xt^ol^^di to fay any thing ihdit may^fuit his purpofe. Where 
 hath he fhewed, that the Patriarchs before the Ceremonial 
 Law did pay Tythes ? Or how, indeed, is it poffible he 
 jhould fhew this? when as before that Law, Tythes are 
 but twice mentioned at all in holy Writ, and in each place 
 exprefly faid to be given^ without any word of Payment. 
 But that he fhould not only fay they paid what the holy 
 Text fays plainly they^^t/^, but alfo affirm they paid it, 
 by Virtue of the Preceding Declarations of the Divine Right nn- 
 to them^ when as no fuch Preceding Declarations, or any 
 Declaration at all of the Divine Right, appears in the Di- 
 vine Record, but the Holy Ghoft hath been altogether filcnt 
 therein, and not thought fit to leave any Monument or 
 Footftep of a Divine Right to Tythes in thofe Times, is 
 an arrogant and prefumptuous piece of Confidence. 
 
 He confcfles, pag. 50. That all things done by the Patri- 
 archs, were not Eternal Duties^ inflancing in Circumctfion^ 
 whichy he fays, was not grounded on the Law of Nature ^ nor 
 impofed for any eternal Reafon or internal Reditude in the things. 
 But if Tythes, as Tythe, that is, as it is a certain and 
 determinate quantity, not the aliquot a^ but the quotaj not 
 the Mainttnaiice fimply, but a proportion of Maintenance, 
 is not grouiided on the Law of Nature (as MelanUon is 
 before remembred to obferve) nor was injoyned for any 
 
 eternal 
 
(65> 
 
 eternal (but temporary) Reafon, or internal (but exter- 
 nal) Reditude in the thing (which, whether in was or no, 
 let the judicious Reader, from what hath been faid judge) 
 then furely there is no more Ground for Tythes to fland 
 and remain upon now, than for Circumcifion. And that 
 Tythes and Circumcifion were a like Ceremonial Epipha- 
 nius intimates, when, lib. i. ord, 8. he gives Tenths for one 
 of his I nftances of S^<i^on>j contained in the Law, making 
 them equal with Circumcifion. And Oecolampadm on Ez.th 
 44.. ranks Sacrifices, firft Fruits and Tythes altogether, 
 and calls them exprefly Ceremonial. He inftances alfo ia 
 bloody Sacrifices^ which^ he fays, ibid, were purely Ceremonialy 
 and ceafe when that Law ceafetk And yet thele very bloody 
 Sacrifices^ which he acknowledges Ceremonial^ and ceas^d^ 
 were a great, if not the greateft part of the Maintenance 
 of the Priefts under the Law : For, the Priefts themfelves 
 had not the Tythes^ but the Tythe of the Tythes, that iSj 
 the hundred pat^ which the Levites paid them out of the 
 Tythes which they received. From which Initance, it is 
 evident, that, although Maintenance it felf be moral, and 
 grounded on the Law of Nature, yet the Mode or Matt' 
 tier of that Maintenance may be Ceremonial^ yea, purely 
 Ceremonial^ as he acknowledges thofe bloody Sacrifices to 
 have been, which are ceaCd. 
 
 He fays, ibid, he might add. That the Prophets (who are 
 not wont to reprove the People for omijfion of things purely Cere-' 
 tnonial) declaim again fl the Jews for detaining their Tythes \ 
 for whidr he cites, MaL 3. 10. But he might fee (if he 
 pleas'dj in the eighth Verfe, where the Reproof is, that 
 the Prophet joyning Tythes and OfTerings together, re- 
 proves the Jews alike for the omillion of each ^ whence I 
 may better argue, that Tythes are of the fame nature 
 with thofe "Jewifh Offerings, which, I think, the Prieft 
 will not deny were ceremonial and ceas*d. And does not 
 the fame Prophet, Chap. i. ver. 7, 8. reprove the Jewifh 
 Priefts for offering ;?o//«rtf^ (i.e. commony Breads and for 
 offering the Blind^ the Lame and the Sick for Sacrifices ? 
 What elfe were thefe things but Ceremonial^ purely Ceremo" 
 nial .? And yet this Prieft, that he might ftill keep Tythes 
 on foot, fays. The Prophets were not wont to reprove 
 the People for omiffioa of things purely CeremoniaL 
 
 Hi 
 
C 6? ) 
 
 He adds, ibid, that Nehemiah calls his Care in this (viZ. 
 Tyches) a good Dsed^ dc firing God to remember him for i'ty 
 Nehem. 13. 14. It was no doubd a good Deed in Neht- 
 rniah^ to take care that Tythes fhould be duly paid ac- 
 cording to the Law which required them, which in his 
 time was \i\ fnH force. But what is this to the purpofe: 
 Doth this argue that Tythes were not Ceremonial^ or that 
 it is a good Deed to pay them now, when the Law that 
 required them hath been fo long aboUJhedrWsiS nothing 
 Ceremonial that Nehemiah took care of ? No Man with a 
 Namej I think, will affirm it. 
 
 But Tythes^ he fays, pag. 51. in all the New Tefiamentj 
 are not reckoned Hp among things purely Ceremonial^ or declared 
 to be repealed^ as CircHmcifion^ Sacrifices^ Wajhing, Jewifh 
 difference of MeatSy ^«^ Jewilh Feafls^ &c. are. Thife (he 
 fays) are repealed by Name^ but fo are not Tythes^ 04 being a 
 thing that never were purely Ceremonial^ pag. 5 1 . 
 
 There was no need that Tythes (hould be repealed by 
 Name. It was fufficient, that the Law^ by which alone 
 they were due, was repealed : which that it was, the Au- 
 thor to the Hebrews^ plainly (hews, Chap. 7. For hav- 
 ing faid, Ver. 5. That they that are of the Sons of Levi, who 
 receive the Office of the Priefthood^ have a Commandment to 
 take Tythes of the People according to the Law\ and having 
 next ihewed, that that Priefthood, which had a Law to 
 take Tythes by, was at an endi he thence conculdes plain- 
 ly and pofitively, ver. 1 2. that the Priefthood being changed^ 
 there is made ofnecejfity a change alfo of the Law. Here now 
 is a plain Repeal of that Law, by which Tythes were given, 
 as well as of that Priefthood to which they were given. 
 And Tythes ftanding by this Law, and the reafon of them 
 depending on the Jewish Polity \ the Repeal of this Law 
 took away the Right of Tythes, as the removing that Po- 
 lity did the Reafoil of tbem. 
 
 That Tythes are indeed Ceremonial^ and were fo reputed 
 by Men of Note in feveral Ages, cannot realbnably be 
 doubted by any who are acquainted with Books. Take 
 a few of many Evidenced that might be brought to prove 
 it. 
 
 Epiphanius ranks Circumcifion, Tythes and Offerings at 
 jernfalem altogether, inaking the Payment of Tythes as 
 much a part of thtCeremomd Law as the other two. His 
 
 F words 
 
( 6% J 
 
 words (fpeaking of fome who kept the Feaft of Eajier am 
 the fourteenth Moon, according to the Jewijh Law tor the 
 Paflbver, fearing left otherwife they might incur the 
 Curfe of that Law) are thefe. ' If they avoid one Curfe^ 
 
 * they fall under another. For fuch Hiall be alfo found 
 
 * accurfed as are not Circumcifed ^ fuch accurfed as da 
 ' not pay Tythes, and they alfo are accurfed that do not 
 
 * Offer at Jemfalem. H^ref 50. (fee SeUen's Hiftory of 
 Tythes, Review, cap. 4. pag. 461.) As if he had faid. If 
 they have regard to the Ceremomal Law, then have they 
 as much reafon to be Circumcifed^ to fay Tythes^ and to 
 cffer at Jerufalem^ as to obferve Eafter^ according to thai 
 Law. But if they are not hound to Circumcifion^ Tythivg 
 and Offering at Jerufdlemy then neither are they bound to 
 keep that Feafi on the fourteenth Moon, fince all thefe 
 things are alike CeremoniaL This I take to be the fair 
 Senfe of Epiphaniu^ his Argument ; which plainly fhews, 
 both that Tythes were not paid in his time (which was about 
 the Year 380.) and alfo that he efteemed Tythes to be of 
 the fame Nature with CircumciHon and Jewi^ Offerings, 
 to have had their dependance on the fame Law^ and to have 
 flood and fallen together : for he compares Tythes to Cir- 
 cumcifion and Jewiflj Offerings, which are undoubtedly 
 abrogated. And thus Selden underftood him. 
 
 Oecolampadi^ on Ez.eL 44. calls Tythes exprefly Ceremo^ 
 niaL His words are, * Priefts, that are Chriftians, (hould 
 ' not be greedy of filthy Lucre, neither fhall they have 
 
 * their Lot upon this Earth, but a free Inheritance in Hea- 
 
 * ven, and the Lord himfelf will be their Reward and In- 
 ' heritance; what fhall be wanting to them, whofe own, 
 
 * God is, the very Fountain of good things. So they fhall 
 
 * be free in their Minds ^ neverthelefs to them that ferve 
 
 * at the Altar, it is given to live of the Altar, and they 
 
 * may eat of the Sacrifices, receive firft Fruits, receive 
 '* Tythes. Thefe things arc Ceremonial -^ but Paul fhews 
 
 * thereby, that it is lawful to receive Food and Rayment^ 
 
 * for God addeth a Blefling to his Minifters that do well, 
 
 * They did receive therefore of the Sacrifices, i. e. The 
 
 * Apoftles have Spiritual Joy of thefe, who Sacrifice them- 
 
 * felves to God, and the Growth of the Church is their 
 
 * Glory; their firft Born and other things are blefled. 
 Thus he. 
 
 • ' Walter 
 
( 69 ) 
 
 tValter Brute (who, in the Reign of K. Richard the fe- 
 cond, about the Year 1400, was Perfecuted for his Te- 
 ilimony againft Popery) plainly calls the Payment of 
 Tythes a Ceremony, His VVords (fpeaking of the ceafing 
 of Shadows and Ceremonies, and of the ending of the 
 vi<<r(?«;V4/ Priefthood) are thefe, ' Whereupon I marvel 
 
 * that your learned Men do fay, that Chrijlian Folk are 
 
 * bound to this fma/l Ceremony of the Payment of Tythes, 
 
 * and care nothing at all for other, as well the great as the 
 
 * foiall Ceremonies of the Law. And a little after (hav- 
 ing (hewed, thai Circumcifion was one of the greater Ce^ 
 remonies of the Law, and yet that Paul told the Galatians^ 
 Whofoever was Circumcifed, was bound to keep the whole 
 Law) he fays, * In like manner we may reafon, If we be 
 
 * hoHnd to Tythw£y we are Debtors^ and bound to keep ail the 
 ' whole Law, For to fay, that Men are bound to one Cere- 
 
 * mony of the Law, and not to others, is no reafonable 
 
 * thing. Either therefore we are bound to them all, or to 
 
 * none. Alfo, that by the fame old Law, Men are not 
 
 * bound to pay Tythesy it may be /hewed by many Reafons, 
 
 * which we need not any more to multiply and increafe, 
 
 * becaufe the things that be faid are fufficient. For he 
 had faid a pretty deal before upon this SubjedV, fiiewing 
 the end both of that Priefthood, to whom, and of that 
 Service for which Tythes were appointed. ' Forafmuch, 
 
 * (fays he) as the Labour of thofe Sacrifices did ceafe ac 
 
 * the Coming of Chrift, how fhould thofe things be de-^ 
 
 * manded, which were ordained for that Labour.^ And 
 ' feeing (adds he) that the firfl Fruits were not demand- 
 
 * ed of Chrifiiansy which firfl Fruits were then (in the 
 
 * time of the Law) rather and fooner demanded than the 
 ' Tythes: why muft the Tythes be demanded, except ic 
 ' be therefore peradventure, becaufe that the Tythes be 
 
 * more worth in value than the firft Fruits. In the end, 
 he concludes, * Wherefore feeing, that neither Chrift, 
 *nor any of the Apoftles, commanded to pay Tythes ^ it 
 ' is manifefl and plain, neither by the Law of Mofes^ nor 
 
 * by Chrifl's Law, Chriftian People are bound to pay 
 
 * Tythes : but by the Tradition of Men, they are bound, 
 J Martyr oL vol. i. pag. 446, 447. 
 
 F ^ * Thg 
 
( 70 ) 
 
 The Bohemian's alfo noE long after, in ibeit 15th Artr- 
 cle againft the Popijlj Clergy, fay thus, * They receive 
 
 * Tythes of Men, and will of Right have them, and preach 
 
 * and fay, that Men are bound to give them Tythes, and 
 
 * therein they fay falfly. For they cannot prove by the Nev^ 
 ' Teflamentj that our Lord Jefus Chrift commanded it, and 
 
 * his Difciples warned no Man to do fo, neither did them- 
 
 * felves receive them. But, although ia the Old Tefta^ 
 
 * merit it were commanded to give Tythes, yet it cannott 
 
 * thereby be proved, that Chrtfiian Men arc bound there- 
 
 * to. For this Precept of the old Law had an end in the 
 
 * firfl: Year of our Lord Jefus Chrift, like as the Precept 
 
 * of Circumciiion. Wherefore, well- beloved, confider, 
 
 * and fee how your Bifhops fednce yon^ and fhut your Eyes 
 
 * with things that have no proof, Chrift faith, in the nth 
 
 * of Luh^ G'v^^ Alms of thofe things that remain ; but 
 
 * he faid not : Give the Tenth of the Goods which ye 
 
 * poflefs, but give Alms, &c, 
 
 William Fdk^ in his Annotations on the Rhemifts^s Tranfla^- 
 tion of the Bible, in anfwer to thofe Jefuits^ who, wich 
 this Priefiy would needs have Tythes to be due by the Mo- 
 ral Law, faith thus, (§. 4. on Heb. 7.) * The Payment of 
 
 * Tythes, as it was a Ceremonial Duty^ is abrogated with 
 ^ other Ceremonies by the Death of Chrift. But as it is 
 
 * a neceflary Maintenance of them that ferve in the Church 
 
 * it MAY be retained, or ANY OTHER ftipend appoint-^ 
 
 * ed, that may be fufficient for their Maintenance, be 
 *it MORE or LESS than the tenth part. But that there 
 ' is any facrificing Piiefthood, to whom it h due in the 
 ' New Tefiament^ the old Payment of Tythes doth not prove: 
 
 * Neither did Chrift hirafelf, our high Prieft, ever make 
 
 * claim unto them ; nor his Apoftles, the Minifters of 
 
 * the Church, but only to a fufficient Living by the Gof- 
 
 * pel, to be allowed of their temporal Goods, to whom 
 
 * they miniftred fpiritual Goods, i Cor. 9. 14. Gal. 6. 6. 
 Thus he (a Man of no fmall Note in the Engli^ Church in 
 Q. £liz,ahethh Time) by which it is evident, that he ac- 
 counted Tythes a part of the Ceremonial Law, abrogated 
 by Chiift. And, although he thought they might be re- 
 tained as a neceffary Maintenance of them that ferve in 
 the Church, yet he lays no more or greater ftrefs onTythes, 
 «han on any other fufficient Stipend, whether it were more 
 
 or 
 
<70^ 
 
 cr lefs than the tenth part, which is diredVly contrary (fo 
 this Priefl's Aflertion of Tythes, being due by the Eter- 
 jaal, Moral Law, which the Jefuits maintained, and ¥dk 
 denyed. 
 
 Of the fame Judgment withiv^/)^, was Andrtvo WiUtt (a 
 Man of great Accouni in the EngUJh Church, in K. Jameses 
 Time.) He, in his Synopfis Paptfmi^ fifch general Contro- 
 verfie, pag. 313. fays, in the Name of the EvgUjh Church, 
 
 * We alfo acknowledge (as Biilarm'me feemech to granf, 
 
 * Chap. 25.) thac to pay precifely the tenth, h nat mm 
 
 * commanded hy the Law of God : as though chat order 
 
 * could not be changed by any human Law, as the Cano- 
 
 * nifts hold, but Men neceflarily were bound to pay 
 
 * Tythes. And a little after, ^ Though (fays he) the 
 
 * Law of Tenths be not now necejfary^ -as it was ceremonious: 
 
 * but it is lawful, either to keep thac, or ANY OTHER. 
 
 * Conftitution for the fufficient Maintenance of the Church, 
 
 * whether it be MORE or LESS than the tenth pare: yet 
 
 * we doubt not to fay, that this Provifion for the Church- 
 
 * Maintenance, by paying of Tythes, is the moll fate, ibid. 
 Here he plainly calls the Law of Tythes Ceremonial, ac- 
 knowledging, that Men are not neceflarily bound by the 
 Lawof God /a pay Tythes now: And although he accounts 
 «he paying of Tythes, grounded upon human Laws, the 
 fafeft Provifion for the Church- Maintenance \ yet he holds 
 it equally lawful (with refped to the Law of God) to ap- 
 point any other fufficient Maintenance, although it be n&t 
 frecifely the tenth^ but either mort or lefs than the tenth 
 part, which is utterly deftrudive of the Morality of 
 Tythes. And, indeed, he makes Minifters Maintenance 
 in general to be grounded in Equity upon the Moral Law : 
 but Tythes to depend upon pofiti'Ve Laws, and he (hews he 
 underftood the Mogmtine Synod fo. But for the Levitical 
 Law of Tything, he calls it plainly a politick Conftitution 
 of that Country. His own Words are, * The Levitical 
 
 * Priefthood being one whole Tribe, it was thought rea- 
 
 * fonable, that the tenth part of their Brethren's Goods 
 
 * ftiould be allotted to them \ which being a judicial and 
 
 * politick Conftitution of that Country, doth neither necef- 
 
 * farily bind Chriftians now^ neither is forbidden, but left 
 
 * in that refped indifferent. And a little after, 'Although 
 
 * it be a wife and politick Conftitution, that the People 
 
 F 3 ftiouid 
 
(72) 
 w fhould pay their Tythes, and MAY conveniently bere- 
 ' tained, yet it is not now of neceffuy im^ofed upon Clorijiians^ 
 
 * as though no other Provilion for the Church could ferve 
 
 * but that, pag. 514. 
 
 Much more might be alledged out of thefe Men's Writ- 
 ings to this purpofe : but this in this place may fuffice to 
 fhew, that the Judgment of the Church of England^m thofe 
 Times, was quite another thing in this cafe, than it is 
 now reprefented by this Prieft to be. But leaving thefe 
 Teflinionies to the Reader's confideration, return we to 
 the Author of the Right ofTythes, 
 
 §. 9. He comes now to conclude his fecond Period 
 in the ciofe of which he again repeats his fo oft reiterated 
 Suppofitions. / conclude^ fays he, pag. 5 1 . that part of 
 our Stthfiance being due to God by the Natural and Divtne Law. 
 (For he will yet allow God to have Right but to a part: 
 and it were worth inquiry, how God, who is Eternally 
 Lord oj the Worldy pag. 49. came to be dijfeized of his 
 Right to the whoUy and who h was that was fo compaffio- 
 nace to make him a Tide to forne part again, j And the 
 Infpired Patriarchs (fays he) bewg taught by Revelation. 
 (Of which Revelation (fay I) there is no Revelation, 
 but a bold prefumption of his own) That the tenth (fays 
 he) was his party and the Priefts of God were his Receivers 
 (which, if it were true, fay I, had been Title fufficient 
 for the Levitical Priefts, without a particular Law on pur- 
 pofe to make them due.) God himfelf (adds he) having 
 approved alfo this Payment (which, fay i) was noE a Pay- 
 ment, but a free and voluntary Gift) by a renewed Clairrij 
 fays he, (though never claim'd before, fay I) and an 
 exprefs Jffignation (fays he) of his Right under the Levitical 
 Law to the Priefts for the time being (but not to any other 
 Priefts, fay I, without a new Aflignation) and the fame 
 God, fays he, having the fame Right flill to his part (and 
 the fame Lord of ^U^ fay I, having the fame Right ftill to 
 All) and the fame occafton, fays he, to ufe it for the Mainte- 
 nance of his Minifters^^ this day, not fo, fay I, for he nei- 
 ther hath fuch a Tribe to maintain, nor fuch Service to 
 imploy them in at this day as then.) Hence, fays he, / 
 fuppofe, it will follow. That (unlefs an exprefs Repeal can be 
 jhewed) the Gofpel Minifters, in God's Name, mayjuftly claim 
 
 Tythes 
 
( 73 ) 
 
 Tythes as due to God and them flill', and that hy a Divine 
 Right too. 
 
 What a Series of Fremifes hath he drawn his Difconrfe 
 through, to l[fne it at lall: in a Suppofitive Conchfion ! Bug 
 IE is the lefs to be wonder'd at, fince his Fremifes are molt- 
 iy Suppofitive alfo, leaning on Conje^inre^ and relying at 
 beft but on Frobality. But in this lad: Claufe, I muft needs 
 fay, he has expreft himfelf with more Caution and lefs 
 Confidence than ufually : For he fpeaks with a Referve 
 Znniefs an exp^pefs Repeal can he fhewed'] to which I retura 
 him a two-fold Anfwer. i. That an exprefs Repeal isnoc 
 of abfolute neceffity, and that for two Reafons, i. Be- 
 caufe, the Right which he pretends, and infifts fo much 
 on, antecedent to the Leviticd Law^ is not grounded upon 
 an exprefs Command ; and what is not exprefly commanded, 
 needs not be exprefly repealed : And therefore he might 
 very well allow me the fame Liberty (if I either needed 
 or lifted to ufe it) of arguing a Repeal from Suppofitions, 
 GuefTes, Conjedures and May-be's, which himfelf ufes to 
 prove a Right. And not only fo, but I might alfo urge 
 ^rgumentHm ad hominemj and put him Ihrewdly to it, by 
 asking him, TThere he reads^ that Tythes are not repealed ., and 
 telling him (as he doth me, pag 31 J That he cannot 
 prove Tythes are not repealed^ and 1 can make it appear very 
 probable they are. But having noted this as a weaknefs in 
 him, I will not anfwer him after this manner, becaufe I 
 would not be like unto him. 2. Becaufe the exprefs Ajfig' 
 nation of the Right of Tythes under the Levetical Law, 
 was (as himfelf words it, pag. 51.) to the Friefts for the 
 time being J and common Reafon and Experience tell us, 
 that when a Deed, or Allignment is made to a Man for 
 Ms Life, there is no need, upon the Death of the Afligne 
 of a new Deed to declare the old One void-, the Death 
 of him fulEciently declaring that, to the Term of whofe 
 Life the Aflignment was at firft reftrained. Now the 
 Aflignation of Tythes to the Priefts, under the Leviticd 
 Law, was for, a'nd during the Life of that Priefthood 
 (if 1 may fo exprefs it) and had that Aflignment beea 
 made void while that Priefthood liv'd, there had then in- 
 deed been need of an exprefs Repeal. But feeing it was 
 not made void in the life time of that Priefthood, buE 
 eoaiinued in force as long as that Priefthood liv'd, the 
 
 F 4 Death 
 
(74) 
 Death or Diflblutioa of thafi Priefthood did vacate the 
 Affignacion in courfe. And there is no more reafon to 
 expedt an exprefs Repfal of it, than there would be, if 
 the Parliament ihould make a Law to continue for three 
 T^ars^ to exped that, at the three Tears end, they fhould 
 make another Law on purpofe to declare the firft void. 
 
 Thus it appears, that an exprefs Repeal of Tythes, ^y 
 Name^ was not of abfolute neceffity, in relation to either 
 Claim. Not in relation to the Ante'Leviticd Claim, thai 
 Claim it felf not being grounded upon any e^yprefs Command : 
 nor with refped to the Affignation he fpeaks ot under the 
 Levitical Law, that Affignation being at firft limited to a 
 certain time^ to the Prielts for the time being, as himfelf 
 exprefles it, pag. 51. Yet, Secondly^ to put ii out of all 
 doubt, that Tythes are indeed ended with that legal Prieft- 
 hood, the holy Apoftle, by the Divine Spirit, nach mof|: 
 plainly and exprejly affirmed, That the Priefthood being change, 
 fd^ there is made of neceffity a change alfo of the Law^ Heb. 7. 
 1 2. Here is an exprefs Repeal of the Law, by which thp 
 Affignation of Tythes to that Priefthood was made. 
 
 Thus have I brought him to the end of his fecond Pe- 
 riod, and in the way have made it evident, that Tythes 
 were not Jcanded on the Law of Nature^ but on the Levitical^ 
 Ceremonial Law ^ that they had not an inherent Equity \\\ 
 them, nor did rely on an internal Re&itude^ or eternal Rea* 
 Jon^ but on an external KeUitude and temporal Reafon^ fuita- 
 ble CO tne Polity of that State. That as the Sacrifices and 
 other Ceremonies of the Law, were not the Worfhip of 
 God it felf, which was founded upon the Law of Nature \ 
 but Modes and CircHmftances of performing that Worfhip, 
 proper to that Difpenfation, which fell with that Polity, 
 and were abrogated by Chrift : So Tythes were not the Main- 
 tenance it felf ^ which was founded upon the Law of Na- 
 ture^ but a Circiimftance of the quantity or frof onion of 
 Maintenance^ a Mode^ Manner^ Means or Way^ by which 
 the Maintenance was then provided and raifed, which 
 being proper to that Difpenfation, fell together with the 
 other Ceremonies of that Polity, and were abrogated with 
 them by Chrift ^ That Tythes are not Effential to Mainte- 
 tenance, but that Maintenance hath been, and is with- 
 out them \ that Chrift did not make the Levitical Law a 
 Pattern for himfelf, to imitate in providing for Gofpel 
 
 Mini- 
 
(75) 
 
 fters^ that the Righteoufnefs of the Difciples, exceeding 
 that of the Scribes and Pharifeesj had fiot relation to Ty th- 
 ing, but to the weightier Matrers of the Law, Judg- 
 ment, Mercy and Faith ^ that Tythes being affigned by 
 the Levitical Law, to the Priefls for the time being (/. e. 
 for the time of that Priefthood's continuance only) the 
 DlfTolution of chat Priefthood hath vacated the Ailign- 
 ments, andpnt an end to Tythes. 
 
 Thus far then my way is clear^d^ and nothing left ua- 
 removed, on which, with any colour of Reafon, a Claiin 
 to Tythes may be grounded. 
 
 CHAP. iir. 
 
 §. I. T Now go oa to his third and laft Period, the 
 
 X Times of the GofpeL He begins it with a 
 
 ConcefTion of mine, That a Maintenance in general to the 
 
 Miniflt^s of the Goffcl is jufi^ reafonahle, and efiabliJFd by 
 
 a Divine Authority. 
 
 With this Grant he is greatly pleafed, and hopes from 
 bence to fcrew a Right to Tythes^ but he is as greatly 
 miHaken alfo, for Tythes, 1 am fure, can never h^fljuees^d 
 put of Ehat Conceffion. He attempts it thus, Let him 
 (fays he, pag. 52.) but ftand to this grant ^ and then it wiU 
 follow^ That the Minifters of the Gofpel may claim a Maintt^ 
 nance in general^ jure divino, for that Maintenance which is 
 efiablifh'*d by Divine Authority it due^ jure divino. 
 
 This might very well have been fpared, being no more 
 than is contained in the Grant it feif : I expedt his Infe- 
 jrence, which fuch an one as it is ^ here, follows, And why 
 then (fays he) fhoidd not that Maintenance fiill he fo due^ 
 which God direEled before the Law, approved under the Law, 
 and never repealed after the Law ? pag. 52. 
 
 Tro thefauro carbones ! 1 expedled he would have drawn 
 lip fome notable Conclufion from my Conceflion j but in- 
 (lead thereof, he a Petition ! Petitio Principii^ a begging of 
 the Queftion, namely, that Tythes were direBed by God be- 
 fore the Law, and never repealed after the Law (for their 
 being approved under the Law, conduces nothing to their 
 continuance under the Gofpel) He would very fain all 
 along have n granted^ that Tythes were grounded on the 
 
 Law 
 
(70 
 
 Law of Natnre, that the temh part was always God's par- 
 iknlar part, as he is eternally Lord of the World, and 
 chat the Patriarchs before the Law were by fpecial ReveU' 
 tidu commanded to pay Tythcs, but this cannot be grant- 
 ed. He knows the Proverb, Win it and wear it. If he 
 can prove it, Jet him; if not, he mud be content to fore- 
 goe \u And for the Repeal ofTythes after the Law, it is 
 before denionftratively argued, both from the Diffolmion 
 cf the FrieJfhooJy to which the expiration of the Term fov 
 which, and the exprefs Repeal of the Law by which they 
 ivere granted. 
 
 He adds, ibid. If the Divine Authority hath eflablijhed a 
 Malmenance^ that fitppofeth it was fuck a Maintenance as mas 
 due before^ according to T. E. pag. 318. 
 
 I deny chat. The edablifhing a Maintenance, doth fup- 
 pofe there was a Maintenance due before, but it doth not 
 mhv a parity of Maintenance, h doth not follow, that 
 becaufe there was a Maintenance due before, therefore the 
 Maintenance thus ellablifhed mufl needs be the fame ^ or 
 iQch a Maintenance as was before due. Neither is this 
 according to me, as he fays, but according to himfelf, 
 and his perverfon of my words, pag. 318. Where not- 
 ing my Opponent of infiabiUty in his Poficion, I obferve 
 that he ufes the Words CGreate and EftabliflO promif- 
 cuoufly, as if they were fynonimous. And to fhew their 
 differenE acceptions, I tell him, That if he will fay, Tem^ 
 f&ral Authority hath created ('tis his own words) a Right to 
 TytheSj he thereby cms off all pretentions to any right antece^ 
 dent to that Creation. If he will fay^ that temporal Authority 
 Bath only eftablifhed a temporal Right to Tythes^ that fiippofes a 
 temporal Right to them before. 
 
 Obferve, I did not fay, that fuppofes fnch a temporal 
 Right to them as was before; but that fuppofes a tempo- 
 ral Right to them before. So here when I fay. Divine 
 Aiithority hath efiablijhed a Maintenance in general^ &:c. the 
 Word [ESTABLISH] doth not fuppofe it to h^ fuch 
 a Maintenance as was due before, but fuppofes only,^ that 
 Eher^was a Maintenance in general due before^ which is far 
 enough from retraining it to a particular kind of Mainte- 
 nance. Thus he at once abufes me and his Reader, and 
 makes good the Saying, Fofito mo Errore^ feqmntur Mille, 
 For upon this falfe and weak Suppofition, ttiaS the efta- 
 
 blifliing 
 
( 77 ) 
 
 blifting of a Maintenance fuppofes it to be fnch a Main- 
 tenance as was due before, he beflirs himfelf to prove 
 that Tythes were due before. In order whereunto, after 
 his wonted manner, fupplying his Defeds with Confi- 
 dence, he peremtorily affirms, pag. 5^. that the Maimer 
 nance paid to God^s Mimfters before the Law^ and under it^ 
 X9a4 Tythes, The Payment of Tythes under the La'/y-, is noE 
 queftionable, as well as not imitahle. But for che time be- 
 fore the Law, I defire him to be lefs peremtory, and more 
 demonftrative. If he pleafe, I would gladly know, who 
 thofe Minifters were to whom Tythes as a Maintenance were 
 paid before the Law ^ feeing the Scripture ren.cmbreth 
 Melchizedec only to have received Tythes, and that but 
 oncey nor then as a PAYMENT, but a GIFT. And when 
 he is upon this Subjed, he may feafonably explain his 
 next Sentence alfo, which is this, The Priefihood of Mel- 
 chizedec, and c/Levi, both were fo maintained^ namely, by 
 Tythes. The Inftance of Levi is clear, but not to this p«r- 
 fofe. But that the Priefihood of Afelchizedec was main- 
 tained by Tythes, will be hardy I think, for him to prove. 
 Melchiz,edec himfelf, as I noted before, never received 
 Tythes bnt once^ that we read of, and then he was at a 
 confiderable charge too (for it cannot be thought, fo great 
 a Troop as Abraham led with him, three hundred and 
 eighteen of his own Domellicks, bclides his Confederates 
 jiner^ Efcol and Mamre^ could be refrefh'd with Bread 
 and Wine, for a fmaU matter) which "Expence, deduded 
 out of the Tythe he received, unlikely it is, the remain- 
 der fhould be enough 10 maintain him all the time of his 
 Priefthood, if he, who was a King, and by the Apoftles 
 Comparifon, Heb. 7, greater than Abraham had needed 
 fuch a Maintenance. And for Jaeoby though it is not to 
 be doubted but he perform'd his Vow, yet after what 
 manner he perform'd it, is not agreed on ^ fome thinking 
 he paid his Tythes in kind to they know not whom (of which 
 number this Prieft is one, pag. 38.) Others with greater 
 probability and better Authority, that he offered them 
 by way of Sacrifice immediately to God. However it 
 was, Melchiz.edec could not have them, if we underftand 
 him to be Semy (ince moft agree, that Sem was buried long 
 before. So that the holy Text affords no countenance as 
 
 all 
 
(78) 
 
 all to this over bold AfTertion, that Melchiudec^s Prieft- 
 hood was maiatained by Tythes. 
 
 §. 2. He charges me, pag. 5^. with driving to pervert 
 two Texts (i Cor. 9. and Gal. 6. 6.) by Bwo Limitations. 
 Flrfi^ in faying. The Apoftie's intent in thofe Scriptures 
 is not fo much to fet forth what the Maintenance is, as 
 who they are from whom it is to be received, namely, 
 fuch as receive their Miniftry, fuch as believe them to be 
 true Miniiters, fuch as are taught by them, &c. This^ 
 he fays, is a notoriopu faljhood •, for in \ Cor. 9. St. Paul is 
 all along fpeaking of the Minifier^s Right to he maintained. 
 
 This is far enough from proving my yvords a notorious 
 falfhood, namely, that his Intent is not fo much to fes 
 forth what the Maintenance is, at who they are from 
 whom it is to be received : for his fpeaking of the Mini- 
 fter's Right to be maintained, is not a fetting forth what 
 the Maintenance is. But he would perfwade his Reader, 
 that the Apoftie's drift was chiefly to fet forth what the 
 Maintenance is : For, fays oe. He Jhews what Maintenance 
 was due to the Jewifli Mini ft en ^ affirming^ that Chirfl had oY' 
 dained £evenf(^\ that we fhould live of the Gofpely that isj 
 the Rights of God under the Go/pel^ and the acknowledgments 
 made to him for the Mercy therein revealed. The things of the 
 Chrillian Temple and Altar were to be our Maintenance. And 
 is not this to fay what the Maintenance is ? Not a Word in all 
 this., who fhould pay it ? 
 
 This, yet even as he has worded it, though he has add- 
 ed his own divination to the Text, doth not fo much ex- 
 prefs what the Maintenance is, as from whom to be re- 
 ceived. He fays, The Apoflle Jhews what Maintenance was 
 dne to the Jewifh Minifters, affirming.^ that Chrift had ordain" 
 td Ceven fo] that we fhould live of the GofpeL 
 
 What [_Even fo2 as the Jewijh Priefts lived under the 
 Law ? What ! JHJl the very fame Maintenance as they had in 
 every refped ? Not fo, I trow, then this doth not exprefs 
 what the Maintenance is., although it doth that there is a 
 Maintenance. But the Prieft explains his {jvenfo"} that is, 
 fays he, the Rights of God under the Gofpel \ What are they ? 
 Has not God a Right to ALL under the Gofpel, as well 
 as he had under the Law and before it? How then doth 
 Shis exprefs what the Maintenance is.^ unlefs he means that 
 
 he 
 
( 79 ) 
 
 he would have all ? Befides, he adds another Branch of thi^ 
 Maintenance, viz^ j^cknoxoledgmcnts made to Cod for the 
 Mercy revealed in the Goffelj and thefe he feems to make 
 diftinSl from the Rights of God : For, Firft^ He reckons 
 the Rights of God, and then thefe acknowledgments 
 made lo him. But what are thefe? Are they not volnn^ 
 tary^ arbitrary, mcertain ^ And is this to fee forth a cer* 
 tain Maintenance ? How doth this Man darken Counfel 
 by words withoHt Vnderfiandivg ? Job 38. 2. 
 
 But while he charges n:ie with notorious falfliood, in 
 faying, the Apoftle's intent in this place, is not fo mnch 
 to fet forth what the Maintenance is, as who they are 
 from whom it is to be received, which is indeed a plain 
 Truth •, Is not he himfelf guilty of the notorious falihood 
 he labours fo much to fallen on me ? in faying here. Not 
 a word in aB this who \\ioHid fay it *, when as from the very 
 entrance of his Difcourfe upon this Subjeft, the Apollle 
 labours to convince the believing Corinthians^ that it was 
 from THEM he might receive Maintenance, And he 
 grounded his Argument on this efpecially, that THEY 
 had been taught by him^ and had received his Miniftry. 
 Jre not YOV my fVork in the Lord? faith he, verf i. If I 
 be not an jlpofile unto other Sy yet donhtlefs 1 am to TOV: for 
 the Seal of my Jpofllefhip are TE in the Lord^ ver. 2. Then 
 belides the inftances he ufes of a Soldier^ a Planter^ a Shep- 
 herdj he argues plainly from THEIR having received firfi 
 of him, ver. 11. If we have fown mto TOV Spiritual things^ 
 is it a great thing if we {hall reap TOVR carnal things ? and 
 ver. 12. Jf others he partakers of this Tower over YOVj are 
 not we rather,^ From all which it is molt apparent, that 
 he makes his labour amongft THEM and THEIR receiv- 
 ing his Miniftry, the Ground and Reafon of his Demand. 
 Is not his Expoftulation with THEM particularly, who 
 had received the Gofpel through his Miniftry ? Saith he 
 not exprefly. Is it a great thing if we ftiall reap YOUR 
 Carnah? YOURS, who are my Work in the Lordj 
 YOURS, who are the Seal of my Apoftlefbip in the Lord-, 
 YOURS, unto whom I have already fo wed Spiritual 
 things : And w there not a word in all this who fhonld pay^ er 
 who they are from whom the Maintenance fheuld be received. 
 Was this Man well advifed to tax me with a notorious falf' 
 hoodj for but faying, The intent of the Apoltle is not /# 
 
 tnnch 
 
( So ) 
 
 much to fet forth what the Maintenance is, as who they 
 are from whom it is to be received ? (By which words 
 Zrjot fo mHc\f\ it appears I did not wholly exclude the Main- 
 tenance, but fhewed that the Maintenance was not in this 
 place ib particularly and plainly deicribed as the Maintai- 
 ners) and yet himfelf not blufh to fay. There is not a word 
 in all this who [honld pay it : Let him Ihew me from this 
 Text if he can, as plainly and particnlarly what the Main- 
 tenance is, as I have done him, who they are from whom it 
 is to be received. Then in the inftancesof the Ox, the 
 Soldier, the Shepherd, and Vinedrefler, he abufes me 
 not a little. Canthefe^ fays he, fas St. Pad brings them 
 in) belong to thofe who pay the Maintenance ^ Doth the Ox pay 
 his Mafier Maintenance f* Or the Soldier give his Prince a 
 Stipends 
 
 Can he (fay I) believe that this was my meaning ? Or 
 do my words admit fuch a Conftrudion ? Doth not my 
 Application of each of thofe Inftances convid him evi- 
 dently of difhoneft Dealing? Do I not fay exprefly, the 
 Ox was to he fed by him whofe Corn he trod out^ pag. 284. - Is 
 this to make the Ox pay his Mafter Maintenance ? Do Inot 
 make the Soldier maintainable by him for whofe defence he fights? 
 pag. 285. Is this to make the Soldier give his Prince a 
 Stipend ? Say I, not mod plainly. He that plants a Vine- 
 yard^ may eat of the Fruity bm it mnfl be the Fruit of the Vine' 
 yard which he hath planted : And, that he that feeds a Flock, 
 may eat of the Milky bm it mufl be the Milk of the Flock which 
 he feeds: ibid, i^nd doth not the Apoftle fay the fame ? 
 Is not this the free and unconftrained fenle of the place ? 
 With what Face then can this Man call me an Abnfer of 
 Scripture^ and affirm, that aU the Injiances do Jhew the con- 
 trary to what 1 would fqueez.e out of them ? Have Men that 
 have no Names^ no Fore-heads neither ! The Ox (he fays) 
 mnfi not be ftarved^ who is willing to work^ though he be not 
 a^ually imphyed by him that feedeth him^ pag. 55. 
 
 Whofaid he muft? Was it likely I would have the Ox 
 ftarved, wlien I faid exprefly. The Ox was tpfedl Is feed- 
 ing the way to ftarve him? Doth not this unjuft Man 
 know ful-we.l, that the Queflion was, not whether the Ox 
 fhould be fed or no j but who in equity are bound to feed 
 him, they by whom he is imployed, they for whom he 
 iabours, thej whofe Corn he treadeth out, or they who 
 
 d© 
 
( so , 
 
 do fiot imploy him at all^ they for whom he n^ver labours^ 
 they whofe Cora he doth not tread out, nor can^ and 
 whofe Bufinefs or Service he is riot at ^11 fit for ? This was 
 the plain cafe, as my Words mauifefl: ^ The Ox ((aid I, 
 pag. 284.) that trod oat the Corn (in the time of the Law) waa 
 not to be mnzz-lecl^ but xcas to be fed by him whofe Corn he 
 trod oHt : bnt it woa not agreeable to the Equity oj that Law^ 
 that while the Ox trod out Corn for one M^n^ another fhould bt 
 bound to keep him^ that had been nnreafonable. Now ho^ 
 mrighteom is this Man, from hence to in (innate that i 
 would have the Ox fiarvedf And how impertinent^ to ar- 
 gue, that the Ox m.itfl not be fiarved^ though he be not aUnally 
 imfloyed by him that feeds him? thcr Qby jaliacioi^fly intimat- 
 ing, that the Controverfy reded upon that Point, whe- 
 ther the Ox (hould be fed, though by him for whom he la^ 
 boHred^ any longer than he was in aBnal Imployment, 
 which was no part at all of the Controverfy \ bat whe- 
 ther, while he was imployed in one Man^s Service^ while he 
 was treading out Corn /or one Afan^ another^ for whom he 
 6'id no fervice^ (liould be bonnd to keep him. This 1 faid 
 was mreafonable^ and not agreeable to Equity. The fame 
 I now again affirm, and dare expofe it to the ilrongefl af- 
 fault my Opponent is able to make againft it. Now for 
 the latter place, Gal, 6. The Prieft fays, St. Paul te^j 
 them^ they mnfi give the Minifiers a part of all their good 
 things ; and is not that (faith he) a declaring what the Main- 
 tenance is ? By this he would again infinuate that I had al-* 
 together denied there was any kind of Charader or De- 
 fcriptionat all of the Maintenance in thefe Texts, whicli 
 is very unworthily done of him : For he knows fnll well 
 my words art not poftive^ but comparative. I do not idy 
 the Apoftle doth not at allkt forth what the Maintenance 
 is, but that the intent of the Apoftle in thofe Scriptures, 
 is not fo mnch to fet forth what the Maintenance is, as 
 who they are from whom it is to be received. And that 
 the Maintenance it felf is not fo much fet forth, not/o ^lain- 
 ht f^lfy% particnlarly^ and pojitivdy declared, and defcribed 
 in thefe Texts, as the Maintainers, the Perfons from 
 whom it is to be received, 1 have already lliewed on the 
 former Scripture, and (hall do now on thisalfo. Let him 
 (faith the Apoftle) that is taught in the wordy communicate 
 unto him that teachith^ in all good things. Here now is mo ft 
 
 plainly 
 
( 28 ) 
 
 plainly and fully declared who it u that is thus to communi- 
 cate, who it is from whom the Maintenance is to be re- 
 ceived, namely^ he that is taught in the Word: But what 
 the Mainteoance is to be is not/^ plainly, /o fully, /o par- 
 ticularly fet forth-, but in a general term, In all good 
 things. No quantity expreft, whether a tenths 2l fifth, ^fif- 
 teenth^ or a twentieth part, but left to the free will of the 
 Giver, which renders the proportion! uncertain. In which 
 rcfped, the Maintenance here is not fo fUinly^ farticularljf 
 and certainly expreft:, as it is from whom it fhould come, 
 which is pofitivrely and certainly bounded and limited to 
 him that is taught in the Word* 
 
 ^ §. 3. He confefTes, pag. 55. (for he cannot avoid it) thai 
 the Apoflle fays indeed. He that is taught in the word mn/t 
 give this j but that (fays he) is to dijiinguip) Chriflians from 
 Heathens, of which the World was then full. The Heathens 
 (he acknowledges) was not bound to maintain the Gofpel Mi- 
 nifltrsy but the Catechumen, the Chriftian who was, or might be 
 t aught y if his own Laz.inefsy or Pride^ or Objiinacy hindeK- 
 id not, 
 
 !s this according to the Text? Doth the Apoflle fay. 
 Let him that is, or might be taught, if his own Lazinefsy or 
 Fridcy or Obfiinacy kindred noty communicate, &c ? He who 
 was fo careful to preach the Gofpel of Chrift without charge^ 
 I Cor, 9. 18. He that would not reap Carnalsy but where 
 he had before f own Spiritualsy nor there neither always i 
 Ke who was fo wary, whom he received of, that he would 
 not ufe the juft Power he had of receiving Maintenance 
 from them who were his own work in the Lord, and the 
 very Seal of his Apofllefhip *, can it be thought that he 
 would be maintained by the Laz.yy the Proudy the Ohflinate! 
 May it be fuppofed, that he, who fays, Let them that are 
 taught in the Word Communicate, &c. would have them 
 alfo communicate, who are not taught y but are hindered from 
 being taught by their own Lazinefs, or Pride, or Obfiina- 
 cy! \i aU fuch {hoxM be drawn in to maintain the Gofpel 
 Miniflers, who then (hould be left out? Upon what rea- 
 fon then were the Heathens exempted ? Might not they 
 have been taughty if their own Lazinefs, Pride, or Obfiinacy 
 had not hindered} So that, althouh the Priefl fays. The 
 Heathen was not bomd to maintain the Gofpel Miniflers -y yet 
 
 accord- 
 
(8? ) 
 
 according as he has^/o/? the Texc, and by the fame reafon 
 upon which he would bring in fuch as might: be taught, 
 buE are not; the very Heathen is liable to be brought in 
 alfo to this Communication for the Miniftei's Mainte- 
 nance, becaufe, though he is not^ he might be taught^ if hii 
 own Lazjinefs^ Pride or Obfiinacy did net hinder. This is in- 
 deed a notable way to advance the Priefl's Maintenance: 
 but neither is this way agreeable to Natural Reafon or 
 Gofpel'Trmhy nor are they Miniflers of the Gofpel, who 
 can receive, much lefs exa^ a Maintenance after this man- 
 ner. 
 
 He fays, ibid. That ftill this (fpeaking of Gal, 6. 6.) 
 f roves ^ot T. E's fooUflj Inference^ That none mnfi contribnte 
 to a Minifter^s Maintenance^ bnt thofe that are taught by hirri 
 a^ually. What Quirk he couches under the Word {^AEIh- 
 Aliy] I know not. Sure I am, he found it not in any In- 
 ference of mine : However, if he intend no more by be- 
 ing a^uaUy taught than the Apoltle exprefTes, C^^^ ^''^ 
 that is taught J &c.3 I fliall not think much of his calling mc 
 Fool^ having Cogood and fo wife a Man as the Apoftle faul 
 to bear me company in this Reproach, And indeed, I had 
 rather be thought a Fool^ for flicking to the Apoftle's Senfe^ 
 than found a Knave by perverting his Senfe, to uphold a 
 felfijli Intereft. But if the Prieft had been defirous of aa 
 Inference of mine to confute, he needed not have formed 
 an Inference for me : For in pag. 226. of my Book, he 
 might have found a Pair together, very pertinent to this 
 purpofe, as having refpedt not to this Text only, but that 
 of, I Cor, 9. alfo, in thefe Words, Jll therefore that can be 
 inferred from thefe In jiances^ wili amount to no mote than this'^ 
 Firft, That a Gofpel Minifler may expe^ and receive a Gofpel 
 Maintenance from fuch as receive his Miniflry. Secondly^ 
 That a Gofpel Minifier ought not to expe^ any Maintenance from 
 thofe that do not receive his Minifiry, This is plain and full; 
 and as I take it, clofe to the Point ; and it may be, he takes 
 ie fo too, which made him not willing to undertake it^ 
 but fairly pafs it by. 
 
 He adds, ibid. That thefe places fay nothing agaivfi d 
 Gofpel Minifier^s receiving Maintenance from all profejfed 
 Ghrillians. 
 
 This is fomewhat like his Saying, before that I could 
 not make it appear Abraham did not pay Tythes, If from 
 
 G fihef« 
 
(84> 
 
 thefc places he would derive his Cfaim, it will not be e- 
 nough, that they fpeak not agaitifi what he claims, but it is- 
 requifite they (hould fpakjor it^ and that plainly too. Butt 
 thefe places are fo far from fpeaking for fuch a Latitude as> 
 beainisat, of/rr^p/w^ Maintenance from all, taugk or ««- 
 taught^ that do but bear the Name of Chrijiiansj that they 
 fpeak againfi it. The Inflances of the Oxy the Soldier^ the 
 fUnter^^ the Shepherdy do fufficiently (hew^ that as Mainte- 
 nance is due to thofe that labour^ fight, take pains and care 
 for others, fo it's due from them for whofe Jakes the Labour, 
 Hazard, Pains and Care is undergone, and to whofe benefit 
 it redounds. And in the two laft Inftances of the Planter 
 and Shepherd (which may explain the other two, being of 
 like Application) the Apoftle fends the Planter for Fruit 
 dircdly to the Vineyard of his own planting', aad the Shep- 
 herd /<?r Milk, to the Flock of his own feeding. The Shep- 
 herd was not to go to another Flock, and fay, "thefe are 
 Sheep too, and therefore 77/ Milk them, VU Fleece them : But 
 he was to confider, whether he had fed them\ and if he 
 had not fed them, he had no reafon to exped Milk from 
 them : For if Fanl had not Jowed unto the Corinthians fpirp- 
 tml things, it had then been a great matter for him to 
 have reaped their carnal things. But he grounds the rea- 
 fonablenefs and equity of his Right to their carnal things, 
 upon the labour he had beftowed on them, and benefit they 
 had received by him in fpiritual things. And in his other 
 Epiftle to the Galatians, he plainly fhews, thai as he that 
 teaches was to be communicated to, fo the Communica- 
 tion was to he from him that woi taught. And as this was 
 the Dodtrine, fuch alfo was the Pradice of the Apoftle. 
 He was not forward to pick i^p a Maintenance from every 
 one that profeft Chrifliamty, as appears in the cafe of jLy- 
 dia, who was fain to ufe more forcible Arguments, than 
 her bare Profefljon of Chriflianity, but to get him to her 
 Houfe, befeeching him, and thofe that were with him, if 
 they judged her faithfid to the Lord, to come into her Boufe, 
 and abide there, ji^s i6. 15. Neither were the Dif- 
 cipks, when they were fent forth to Preach, permitted 
 by their Mafter to receive fo much as Food from any but 
 'thofe that received their Meffjge, Luke 10. 8, 10, 1 1. So 
 that all along the New Teftamem^ wberefoever there is men- 
 
 tioa 
 
( 85 ) 
 
 tion of Minifter's Maiatenance, it is wich relation to theni 
 that own the Miniftry. 
 
 But this the Prieft doth by no means like^ well know- 
 ing the lofs that he and his Brechren would fuflain, if 
 none fhould be bound to maintain them, but fuch as own 
 their Miniftry ; and therefore he ufes ail his endeavour to 
 avoid the force of this Argument. He would put it by, 
 firft, by urging, pag. 55. that according to the Quaker's 
 Frinciples, the Chriftians of old were all immediately tanght by 
 inward Revelation ; and iffo (fays he) what need any Gofpel^ 
 Miniftry at all ? What need ofomward 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 oc- 
 caflon for his teaching at all? 
 
 If the Chriftians of Old were all immediately taught by 
 Inward Revelation, yet it doth not thereon follow, thaE 
 there was no need of any Gofpel Miniftry at all, as he 
 fuppofes. For if the Chriftians of old were all immedi- 
 ately taught by Inward Revelation \ yet a time there wat 
 when they were not fo taught^ but were unconverted to the 
 Faieh of Chrift:. The Apoftle PW, in his Epiftle to the 
 Ephefians^ Chap. 5. Ver. 8. teUs them, Te are now Light in 
 the Lord, But withal he adds, Te were fomettmes Darknef, 
 Now how came thefe Ephefians to be changed from Dark- 
 nefs to Light? Was it not by the means of a Gofpel Mi- 
 niftry ? Doth not the fame Apoftle, fpeaking of the Mi- 
 niftry committed to him, AEis 26. id, 17, 18. fay ex- 
 prefly that he was made a Minifter, to open the Eyes of the 
 Gentiles, and to turn them from Darknefs to Eighty and from 
 the Dower of Satan unto God ? Thus the Ephefians^ who were 
 fometimes Darknefs, came to be Light in the Lord, hav- 
 ing their Eyes opened, and being by this Miniftry turned 
 from the IDarknefs to the Light. Nor was it thus with 
 the Ephefians only, but with both Jews and Gentdes in ge- 
 neral. The work of the Gofpel Miniftry was to tura 
 both Jews and Gentiles from the Darknefs and Unbelief of 
 Judaifm and Gentilifm to the Light and Faith of Chrift 
 Jefus. Now, if after they were fo turn'd from the Dark- 
 nefs to the Light, and from the Unbelief to the Faith, 
 they were immediately taught by Inward Revelation 5 yes 
 it cannot poflibly be fuppofed they were fo taught before 
 they were fo turned, while they were in the Darknefs^ and 
 
 G 2 in 
 
in the 'OnhtlUf. So that there was need of that Miniffry 
 to turn them from Darknefs to the Light, and from llnbe^ 
 lief to the Faith, in order to bring them lo that Inward 
 Revelation by which they might be taught. Hence it ap- 
 pears, that if what he aflerts to be according to the Qua" 
 key's Principles, fhould be granted, viz. That the Chri- 
 ftians of old were ^if immediately taught by Inward Reve- 
 lation •, yet his Inference from thence of no need of a Go- 
 ffel Minifiry at allj is falfe, fince thera was need of a Go- 
 fpel Miniftry to bring them to that State wherein they 
 might h^fo taught. And though this work of gathering 
 People out of the Jewifl] and Heathenijh States to the Chri^ 
 pian Faith, of turning them from the Darknefs (in which 
 they could not fee) to the Light of the Gofpel (by which 
 they might fee the Divine Myfteries of the heavenly King- 
 dom^ was the firfl: and chief Work of the Miniftry ; yet 
 was it not the only End or Service to which that Miniftry 
 was appointed, and for which it was indned with Power 
 from on High. For when Chrift afcended up on High, 
 and led Captivity Captive, he gave Gifts unto Men^ for the 
 perfelling of the Saints^ for the Work of the Miniftry^ for the 
 edifying of the Body of Chrift^ Eph. 4. So that the Work 
 of the Miniftry was not only to bring to the Faith, but to 
 build up the Saints in the Faith, whereuiito they were 
 brought by it : which twice in oneEpiftle theApoftleP^' 
 affirms, 2 Cor. 10. 8. and 13. to. And very ferviceable 
 to the Saints was the Miniftry of that day, even to them 
 T^ho knew the Trnth^ and were eftablijhed in it^ them that 
 had received the Anointings had it abidirg in fhem^ and were 
 taught By it J by exhorting them to keep to it, and to abide 
 in it ^ by panting them frequently in Remembrance of their 
 Duty, and ftirring up their pure Minds thereto, in which 
 they were helper t of the Saint's Joy. Here then the Prieft 
 is found rn an Error, in inferring a Conclufion which doth 
 not follow, from his own Premifes. For if it were grant- 
 ed him, that the Chrifiians of old were all immediately 
 taught by Inward Revelation ^ yet it doth not thence fol- 
 low, that there was no need of any Gofpel Miniftry at alJv 
 lince it is evident a Gofpel Miniftry was altogether ntedfnt^ 
 to gather them to the true Faith, and dired them to the 
 Sflward Teaching 5, and very nfeftd and ferviceable to confirm 
 
 and 
 
(87) 
 
 end biiild up in the Faith, even thofe who were come to 
 the anointing in themfelves, and were taught by it. 
 
 But feeing the Prieft upon a falfe hope that he had got- 
 ten an advantage, adventures fo far as to argue Equity, 
 a thing rare to be found amongfl them ; and upon a wrong 
 Conclulion asks, ffith what Equity could this Teacher require 
 Aiaintenance ofthem^ that had no occafion for his Teaching at 
 all^ I will afllire both him and his Brethren (in the name 
 of all my fellow Quakers^ as he calls them, the meane/l of 
 which (that is truly fuch) I heartily embrace as my fel- 
 low) that the Quakers^ as they have no good Opinion of 
 his or his Brethren's Teaching, fo they have no define to 
 be taught by them, nor have any occafion for their Teaching 
 at aHy being far better taught without them. And hereupon I 
 ask him in his own words, With what Equity he and hts fel- 
 low Priefts can require Maintenance ofthem^ that havt no oc- 
 cafion jor their teaching at alii 
 
 His fecond Shift, to avoid the force of thofe Texts which 
 rellrain the Miniller's Maintenance to them that receive 
 and own the Miniftry, and to jullify the Friend's Pradice 
 of extorting Ty thes from thofe that are not taught by 
 them, is an exad Parallel Cafe, as he calls it, which he 
 thus brings in, ,pag. 57. Suppofe a piom Man, fays he, an 
 hundred Tears Ago did endow a Free-School with 20 1. per an- 
 num, to be raifed out of the Profits of a parcel of Ground^worth 
 :20oL per annum, (that is, the tenth part of the Profits) on 
 Condition, that all the Boys in fuch a Town fhould be taught 
 gratis. Now, fuppofe there be a Mafter legally invefted in this 
 School, refident at it, and ready to teach all the Boys of that Town^ 
 if they will come ^i$ being the fame trouble to him to teach 10 as 20, 
 but it may be^not above 10 of2oBQys within that Town wiRcomt 
 to be taught, the r^ft are Truants, and do not, come* If T > £. 
 himfelfwere the Heir or Tenant to this 200 1. per annum, 
 would he think it jufi or reafonable to flop 10 1. of the 20 1. be^ 
 caufe half the Boys do not come to be taught. This, he fay?, is 
 the very cafe between the prefent Clergy and the Quakers. 
 
 But he miftakcs in this as well as the reft. His Parallel 
 will not hold between the Quakers and the Boys *, for the 
 Boys in this cafe, whether they come to School or flay 
 away, are not concerned in the Maintenance of the Mafler; 
 but the Quakers, whether they hear the Priefl^ or flay a- 
 way jure conccrtud (more than they fhould be) in the 
 
 p 3 MaiA* 
 
( 88 ) 
 
 Maintenance of the Prieft. The School-Mafler has tjo ad- 
 vantage at all from the Boys^ if they come to be taught^ for he 
 receives his fli pend from another hand, without any depend" 
 ance on the Boys. And if the Boys come not to be taught, 
 they [uffeir nothings they lofs nothings for as they receive no^ 
 things they fay nothing. But the cafe is far olherwife be- 
 tween the Priefl and the Quakers : For the Prieft comes for 
 his Maintenance to the Quakers, and has his dependance on 
 their Labour^ and whether the Quakers come to hear or noy 
 to be fure he makes them pay, that is, he tears away their 
 Subftance from them. See now the difference between 
 the Boys and the Quakers •, the Boys pay nothing, though 
 they are Caught, but the Quakers mufl pay, though they are 
 not taught. The B^ys are taught for nothing : the Quakers 
 pay for nothwg. Is this his exa^ Parallel, his very Gait ! If 
 he would have made the Boy's Cafe Parallel with the Qua* 
 hers, he fhould have fuppofed the Mafter's Stipend was to 
 be raifed out of the Boys Earnings, as the Priefl's Mainte- 
 nance is extorted out of the Quakers Labours \ and then, if 
 the Boys had found the Mafter as uncapable of teaching 
 Crammer, as the Quakers have found the Priefts uncapable 
 of Preaching the Gofpel ', or if the Boys had found the Ma- 
 fter had taught falje Latin, as the Quakers have found by 
 fad experience, the Priefts have taught falfe DoBrine, I 
 think the Boys would have been much more commendable 
 for feeking out an abler Teacher, then the Mafter could 
 have been excufable for taking away the Poor Boys Money ^ 
 when he neither did, nor could do them any good* I might 
 here (hew the difparity and unaptnefs of his Compatifon 
 in many other particulars alfo, both as to the Donation, 
 the certainty of Stipend, &c. But this which is faid, will, 
 I doubt not, fufficiently manifeft, that inftead of fhewing 
 the //?//^ry of my arguing (which by this Parallel he under- 
 took to do) he hath but (hewed his own wealnefs, 
 
 §. 4. In his loth Sedion, pag. 58. He charges me thus, 
 5". E's. fecond device to take off his former Grant of a general 
 Maintenance efiahlijh^d by Divine Authority, is pag. 2.85. 
 That Chrift hath expreflyfet down what this Gofpel Maintenance 
 is, viz. only Meat and Drink, Matt. 10. 10. Luke lO. 6, 7, 
 8. I Cor. 9. 4. Upon which he thus comments. Trnly this 
 fiemsfomC'What ftrange, fays he, that T. E. fhould firft fay^ 
 
 Divine 
 
( 89 ) 
 
 Divine Amhority hath only eftahlifh^d a Maintenance m general'^ 
 ^ndin ths next page bptt oncy affirm^ That the fume Amhority 
 had farticaUrly exprefi what this Maintenance muft he. If 
 (fays he) Chrift have allotted the particular Maintenance^ then 
 he hath not left it to generals ; if he have eftablijlied it only in 
 general^ then hath he not exprefi the Particulars. One of thefe 
 (adds he) muft be falfe^ for indeed there is a manifeft contra^ 
 di^ion. 
 
 [n his Parallel but now I noted him of Weaknefs^ but 
 here I cannot excufe him from IVickednefs^ in thrufting in 
 words as miney which he certainly knows are not mine^ 
 that he might thereby pervert my meaning. Difmgenmy 
 is too mild a word to exprefs fuch dealing as this is by ^ 
 this is plain di (hone ily. JrHly^ fays he, this feems fome-what 
 ftrange^ that T. E. fhonld firft fay^ Divine Anthority had only 
 efiablijh^d a Maintenance in general^ and in the next page but 
 one^ affirm J that the fame Authority hath particularly expreffed 
 what this Maintenance muft be. Here he affirms, that in 
 one page I fay, Divine Authority had ordy ellablifhed a 
 Maintenance in general, and that in the next page but one^ 
 I affirm, the fame Authority hath particularly exprelTed 
 what this Maintenance mull be ; where the words C^w/y] 
 in the firft place, and {jparticularly"] in the fecond, are not 
 my words, but his own, thruft in on purpofe to abufe me, 
 and render ray Sayings abfurd and contradidory. In the 
 iirft of thofe places, pag. 284. he refers to, my words are 
 plainly thus. That a Maintenance in general to the Minifters 
 i>fthe Gofpely is Juft^ Reafonable^ and eftabli[hed by a Divine 
 Authority., 1 grant. Here's no fuch word as [ynly'} and yet 
 he affirms, that I here fay, Divine Authority had only ella- 
 blifhed a Maintenance in general. In the other place, pag. 
 285. My words are, But what this Gofpel Maintenance is^ is 
 expreflyfet down by Chrift himfelf. Here's not the word [_par- 
 ticHlarly2 and yet he fays, I here affirm, That the fame 
 Authority hath particularly expreffed what this Mainte- 
 nance is. And the better to perfwade the Reader that I 
 had fo written as he reports me, when he firft repeats my 
 Saying, that Chrift hath exprefly fet down v/hat this 
 Maintenance is, he adds, in the fame Charader C^iz. only 
 Meat and Drink"} as if he had taken thefe words alfo oui 
 of my Book together with the other ; and then fays, 7>«//, 
 ihis feems fome-whatfttange. Doth it fo ? more jj^ame for him 
 
 G 4 thiit 
 
(90) 
 that made it [eem fo : Truly it would feem the more ftrange 
 to me alfo, that he (hould deal fo unjuftly by me, bad he 
 not feryed me in the like manner more than, once before. 
 Nor can it be fuppofed this happened by chance, fince he 
 infifts deliberately on it, and argues from it. For he fays. 
 If Chrifi have allotted the particular Maintenance^ then he hath 
 not left it to Generals ^ if he have efiablifhed it only in general^ 
 then he hath not expreffed the farticnlars. And he improves 
 his Argument to this conclufion, One ofthefe mnfi: he falfe^ 
 for indeed there is a marjifefl ContradiElton, But does he noE 
 know which of them is falfe ? I will tell him then, 'Tis 
 that which he hoi falffitd^ to make the ContradiUion, But till 
 he had tnus corrupted -them, there was neither falfliood 
 nor contradiction in them, nor any thing t¥x that might 
 feem ftrange. For, it the firft part had been a Fofuion^ as 
 it was but a Conceffion^ yet I hope it had been no Contra- 
 didion to fay, firll. That a Maintenance in general is 
 eftabliihed by a Divine Authority ^ and afterwa,rds. Thai 
 Chrift hath exprefly fet down what this Maintenance is. 
 
 But he goes on upon this wilful miftake, that I fay, The 
 Maintenance is only Meat and Drink. And having firft 
 befl^owed his ulual Livery of Folly upon me, he yields, pag. 
 6q. that in thofe Texts which I cited out of St. Matthew 
 and St. Luke^ the Maintenance fet down is Meac and Drink, 
 When the u^pofiles (fays he) went to the prejudiced and unbe* 
 lieving Jews, with the firfi news of the Gofpel^ Meat and Drink 
 was as much 04 they could expeU j and Chrifi bids them to tah 
 that and be contented. But this, he fays, was upon a parti* 
 cular occafion^ and to apply thefe Rules to all Minifters, or te the 
 general Commiffion he gave them afterwards-, is the mofi ridi-? 
 ChIohs and ah fur d thing imaginable. 
 
 Though the Difciples were then fent but into the Cities 
 olfadea. yet the Service they went upon was the fam^ 
 then as after, viz^. Preaching the Gofpel. And if the 
 Jews^ araongft whom they then went, were prejudiced 
 and unbelieving, both Jews and Gentiles^ amongft whom 
 they went afterwards, were prejudiced and unbelieving 
 alfo. ' So that to urge this as a reafon why Meat and 
 Drink was as much as they could exped, and therefore 
 Jihat they were to take that and be contented, is weak ar- 
 guing ; for id fuppofes they were to be content with th^t, 
 hefanfe they could get no mcrcj whereas they were not to 
 
 take 
 
(91 ) 
 
 takefo much as that, uiilefs it were freely given, and by 
 them that were worthy ; he who opened the Hearts of 
 any to give that, could have enlarged their Hearts to give 
 much more, had he pleafed. But if to apply the Main- 
 tenances in thefe places exprefl, to the general Commiffi- 
 on given afterward be abfurd (as he fays) where fhali we 
 find any other Maintenance to apply to that CommiflTion, 
 fince he that gave the Commiflion mentions no other 
 Maintenance but this ? 
 
 But he fays, pag. 60. When Chrift bids his AfoftUs to take 
 Meat and Drink, and he content, he doth no where forbid them 
 to receive more, if good Men freely gave it to them, 
 
 I do not fay he did. But the Queftion is not what free- 
 dom they might ufe in receiving what good Men freely gave 
 them : But what was due unco them for their Service, and 
 what they might juftly expeH:, Which, although my inju- 
 rious Opponent would in my Name limit to Meat and 
 Drink only -, yet as I ufed not thofe terms [Only Meat and 
 DrinK] fo neither do I think the intent of our Saviour 
 was to tye up his Minifters to Meat and Drink only^ in the 
 flridt and literal Senfe of the words, but by the l^hrafe of 
 eating and drinking, to intimate the neceffary Convemencie$ 
 of Ufe. And fo the Apoftle Paul feems to underftand it, 
 when fpeaking of Maintenance, with reference to thefc 
 Texts, as his Phrafe gives Ground to believe, he fays, 
 Have we not power to eat and to drink, I Cor. 9. 4. and ia 
 another place. Having Food and Raymetit let hs be therewith 
 content, i Tim. 5. 8. Which Phrafe [^Food and Raymem'} 
 is commonly underftood to exprefs the necejfaries of Man's 
 Life. What therefore he urges hereupon {viz.. that If 
 Chrifi had determined Meat and Drink for the ONLTGofpel^ 
 Maintenance, then the Apoflles had been great Sinners in receiv- 
 ing the Price of Poffejfionsfold and dedicated, and that they muft 
 have returned them back again, as mufi alfo St, Paul have done 
 the Wages he took of other Churches, and thofe liberal Prefents 
 he received from the Philippians) is all grounded on a millake 
 that I reflrain the Gofpel-Maintenance to Meat and Drink 
 only, as if it were not lawful for a Gofpel-Minifter to re- 
 ceive any thing but Meat and Drink only, though never fi 
 freely ojfered by fuch as receive his Miniftry, and reap the ben§ ^ 
 fit of it. Whereas he that (hall impartially read whas I 
 have there written, and not ftrain my words to a Con* 
 
 flrudi- 
 
( 92 ) 
 
 flruftion, which the fcope and drift of them cannot fairly 
 bear, may clearly fee, chat I do noc ftridlly tye the Mainte- 
 nance to Meat and Drink onlyfiticc I there quote and apply 
 the words of the A^ioiik^ Having Food and Rayment (which is 
 more than Meat and Drink only J let ui therewith be content. 
 Befides, the (cope of my Argument in that place was noE 
 to fliew \N\\2Lt freedom a Gofpel-Minifter may have, or how 
 far it may become him to nfe that liberty, in receiving 
 what \s freely and voluntarily given by thofe that own and em- 
 brace his MefTdge : but whae he may juftly look for, and 
 exped to receive oi his Rights ^nd from whom. Now we 
 know there is a great difference between expeding or 
 looking for a thing as a jnfi due^ and receiving or accept- 
 ing a tiling as a free Gift or Benevolence : Which diftin*^!- 
 on the Prieil not obferving, hath argued thus loofly and 
 at random, urging the freg Gifts and voluntary PrefentSy 
 iTjade to the Apoftle by feme Churches whom he had 
 Planted, Watered, and bellowed much of his labour upon, 
 as Examples and Prelidents for himfelfand his Brethren of 
 the Clergy to demand, require, exa5}^ extort and by force 
 take from People now their Goods and Subftance, not 
 only agairyft the Owner's Wtll^ but even from fuch as they 
 have neither Planted, Watered, nor Laboured forj fuch 
 as receive not^ nor own their Miniflry. 
 
 Here the other Prieft in his Vindication, pag. 301. hath 
 t particular Crotchet, from my faying, What this Gofpel 
 iMaiutenance is, is exprefly fet down by Chrifl: himfelf, 
 when he faid to his Difciples, Eat fuch things as are fet bc" 
 fore you. Eat and Drink fuch things as they give^ &c. he infers, 
 According to this Rtde^ Tythes are a Gofpel Maintenance^ which 
 have been exprefly fet before us^ exfrefly given hs, A pretty 
 ^uirk! Becaufe thofe things which were freely^ chearfully 
 and wirhout any conftraint^ fet before the Apoftles, or given 
 to them, were the proper maintenance appointed for 
 them-, therefore Tythes, which ^oor mtn^ full fore again^ 
 their Wills fas well as beyond their AbiliciesJ are compeU- 
 W,. by the three Corded Whip of treble damages^ to fet 
 out for, the Priefls, is a Gofpel-maintenance alfo. Is it 
 not a fign they have an ill caufe 10 manage, who arc fain 
 to make ufe of fuch pitiful fhifts as thefe ? But if he can 
 fatisfie himfdf that Tythes are a Gofpel-maintenance be- 
 caufe fet before them f although they who fo fet them are 
 
(9?) 
 
 tonfirained thereto) yet what will he fay to the cafe of thofc 
 ethers^ who preferring their Chriflian freedom before out- 
 ward Liberty, and an undefiUa Confcience before all woildjy 
 Priviledges and Advantages, cannot by any Terrors be in- 
 duced to fet the Tythes before the Priefts, or give ic to 
 them fas well knowing, that neither are thofe Pr lefts the Mi' 
 vifters ofChrifiy nor Tythes aGofpel'mairitenance) but for their 
 faithful Teflimony againlt them, have their Bodies (hue up 
 in r^afly Holes and ft inking Dungeons, and their Goods made 
 Havock of by the Prieil's means, and forcibly taken tr jm 
 them? Will he call this a Gofpel maintenance alfo? Such 
 a Maintenance mayfUafe fuch a Mimftry ; but they who know 
 the Gofpel, underlland betcer, and cannot be fo delud- 
 ed. But the Prieft adds, That if Tythes were not Melchi- 
 Zedec's^/^ff before f^ch time as Abraham gave him them\ yet 
 when they were fo given him. they were withoptt all difpMe^ which 
 (fay*? he) willfujjicisntly make good onr Title to Tythes (conld 
 we lav no other claim untothem) wherefore it rp^-(fays he) njat 
 J faid befoyey That tf they were not due by a divtne Apf ointment^ 
 yet are they now dne by a voluntary dedication oj them. 
 
 That thofe Tythes whicli Abraham gave Melchizedec^ 
 were Melchiz^edec^s after Jbraham had given iiim them, 
 is indeed without difpute*, but for the Priefc thence to 
 infer, That that will fufficiently make good their claim to 
 Tythes, is an abfurd and very irrational Inference. Tho* 
 thatUiftof j^braham^sdld intitle Melchiz.edec to the things 
 thereby given; yet it did not entitle him to any thing elte^ 
 either from Abraham or any other Perfon. So that if tne 
 Prieft had any right to claim from Mdchiz^edec, yet could 
 lie not thereby extend his claim any further than to thofe 
 f articular Spoils which Abraham gave Melchiz^edec, For if 
 MelchiTLedec himfelf could not by vertue of that Gift claim 
 any thing elfe, much lefs then can any other. And though 
 the Prieft finding Ethelwolfs Donation not fo credible as 
 he hoped it would have been, would now make as if ia 
 his former words, G?w/<rr. pag. 145. [viz. That if Tythes 
 were not due by a divine Appointment, they are now 
 due by a voluntary dedication of them] he had reference 
 to this Gift of jibrahamh^ yet is it but a meer (hift and 
 evalion : For it is manifeft, that by the Civil Powers and 
 Nurfing Fathers of the Church, he had dired relation to 
 Ethdwolf aad others, who lived near his time. But Men, 
 
 who 
 
( 94 ) 
 
 «vfio account their Tongues their own, will take the liber* 
 ty to fay any thing. 
 
 •§.5. In his TTth Se^icn^ he undertakes to fhew, thdt$ 
 cur Lord Tefm and his Jfofiles have fufficiently eftablijhed Tythes 
 far the Maintenance of the Gofpel Mimfiers '^ and that they may 
 he proved alfo out of the New T^ftament to be dne Jure divi- 
 tjo, pag. 61. 
 
 This indeed is fame what to the purpofe. If he prove 
 this, the Cancroverfie is ended. Buc if he has no better 
 Evidence to prove Tyches due jure divino under the Gofpel^ 
 than he has offered to prove them fo due before the Leviti- 
 cal Lavo^ he will fall very much fhort of his Undertaking. 
 Ln us fee however what he has to offer in this place, 
 where his greateft ftrengch may be expeded. 
 
 His firil medium, to prove that our Lord Jefus and his 
 Apoflles have fufficiently eilablifhed Tythes for the Main- 
 ienanxre^f the Gofpel Miuifters, is this, Thn there is no 
 Repal of Tythes in all the New- Telia ment. 
 
 This is no more than he hath faid before over and over^ 
 and which I have already difcovered the weaknefs and 
 cmptinefs of, having plainly (hewed, thai there was no 
 fiecellky of an exprefs Repeal of Tythes by name, either in 
 .relation to the Claim made to them from a pretcfnded 
 •Right before the Law, that pretended Right not being 
 grounded upon an exprefs Command ^ or with refped to 
 the Aflignacion of them to the Leviticd Priellhood by the 
 Levitical Law, that Aflignation being but temporary^ and 
 limited to the continuance of that Priefthood, made ("as 
 this Pried fays exprefly, pag. 5 i.J f(? the Friefis for the time 
 being ; and fo to expire in courfe with that Priefthood. 
 And yet, to put the matter out of all doubt, that Tythes 
 are ended with thai Priefthood, where the Apoftle men- 
 tions the change of the Priefthood, in the very fame place 
 fte affirms, that the Law is changed alfo, which he argues as 
 a neceifary Inference from the change of the Priefthood 
 For the Friefihood being changed (fays he, Heb, 7. 11.) there 
 is made of neceffity a change alfo of the Law, And that he 
 fpeaks there with relation to the Law of Tythes, as well 
 as the other parts of the Levitical Law, is moft clear from 
 Ver. 5. where he faith, .And verily, they that are of the Sons 
 of Levi^ whd receive, tht Office of the Friefihoody have a Cam'" 
 
 mand* 
 
( 9S ) 
 
 fnandmtnt to take the Tythcs of the People according to the Law^ 
 ^c. But now> the Sons of Levi being difcharged front 
 the Office of the Priefthood, and that Prieflhood, which 
 flood in that Tribe of Levi^ being changed, that Law alft> 
 is changed, according to which, thofe Sons of Levi^ who 
 executed the Office of that Priefthood, had a Command- 
 ment to take Tythcs of the People. I appeal to everyr 
 judicious Reader, whether this be not the free and natural 
 fenfe of the Apoftle's Words. And may not this be cabl- 
 ed, A Repeal of Tythes ? Then neither may the other be 
 called a Repeal of the Priefthood : For neither here, nor 
 el'fewhere, that I remember, is it faid in fo many Syllables^ 
 The Triefiioood is repealed. Yet as there is enough faid here^ 
 to warrant a Conclufion, that the Priefthood is endediihovi^h 
 the word \_Repear} be not ufed •, fo is there in like manner 
 enough faid here, to warrant a Conclufion that Tythcs are 
 ended alfo, though the word {^Repeal'] is not ufed. 
 
 He adds under this Head, That Our Saviour did not re» 
 'Soke Tythes^ fo far as they were Morale and a necejfdry provi- 
 fionfor his Minifters '^ fo far as they were founded on the Law 
 of Nature^ and Primitive Revelation^ andgronndcd on an eter^ 
 nal Reafon^ pag. 61, 
 
 All this is but a new beggirg of the old Qtteftion. I den/ 
 that Tythes were Morale founded on the Law of Nature^ 
 or grounded on an eternal Reafon. This is true of Maitw 
 tcnance in general, but it is not true of the Modes and GV- 
 c/<w3i//^wctfi of Maintenance, whereof Tythes is one. For 
 Tythe (as I have faid before^ is a mode or way of railing 
 Maintenance, a Circnrnftance of the quantity or proportioa 
 of Maintenance. And though it be a didate of the Law 
 of Nature and eternalReafon that there fhoald be a Mainte- 
 nance, that the Labourer (hould be rewarded ^ yet doth not the 
 Law of Nature prefcribe the certain quantity or proportion 
 of Maintenance, nor the way or means by which it muft be 
 raifed. Thefe depend not on an eternal, but on a tempos 
 ral Reafon, variable according to the diverfity of times, 
 places and occafions. 
 
 He adds further. If Tythes had been the only thing of this 
 hnd to be aholi/J)edy it feems neceffary there [hould have bren an 
 exprefs Revocation of them ^ which we are fur e there is not j and 
 thertforttx^Tt^noQ^ikiy non exprelTa non nocent. 
 
 TytiKS 
 
(9^) 
 
 Tythes were not the only thing of this kind to be abo- 
 lifhed : for all the other Ceremonies of the Law were abolifh* 
 ed as well as Tythes ; and yet, as neceflary as it feems to 
 him, he fhall not find an exprefs Revocation of the one half 
 of thera. Will he thence infer that they are not all revok- 
 ed, or that thofe remain Hill in force^ of which there is 
 jioE an exprefs Revocation ? He underflands better I hope: 
 But if he will admit other Ceremonies of the Law to be abo- 
 lifhed, notwithllanding there appears no exprefs Revoca- 
 tion of them, he cannot with Reafon infift that Tythes are 
 therefore not abolifhed, becaufe no exprefs Revocation of 
 thefti appears. But how ftrangely partial is he, and mif- 
 ghided by a felfifh Intereft, who would have Tythes due 
 without an exprefs Command^ but will not allow them to be 
 ended without an exprefs Revocation ? His Rule, exprejfa 
 nocent non exprejfa non nocent^ is fo far from confirming him, 
 that it utterly overthrows his Caufe, and raifes the con- 
 jedural and luppoficory Foundation of a Right to Tythes 
 before the Law. For there's his Non exprejffa (things nos 
 expreft) which do not at ail hurt me, nor help him. And 
 for his exprejfa nocent^ I have already found him enough 
 expreft, even in point of Repeal and Revocation, in thofe 
 words of the Apoflle Pad [^The Priefthood being chajig- 
 ed, there is made of neceflicy a change alfo of the Law] 
 Beh, 7. 1 2. 
 
 He concludes this firfl part of his proof thus. We may 
 reafonably believe^ That yefns intended they jhould remain of 
 Divine Right as they had been reputed always before* 
 
 Is this cogent ^ Nay, is it indeed urgent or perfwafive ? 
 How does he prove that Tythes had always before been re- 
 puted of Divine Right? Without begging the Queftion he 
 can do nothing. But why fhould we reafonably believe 
 Jefus intended Tythes fhould remain of Divine Right , 
 becaufe he took away the Law, by which they were due, and 
 the Priefihood to which they were due ? Were thefe Argu- 
 ments of his Intention that Tythes fhould remain ! With 
 much more reafon may we believe that Jefus intended 
 they fhould not remain^ feeing he f who knew as well as this 
 . Prieft, that the j^ffignation of them was made but to the Priefts 
 for the time being:, and that therefore, withouc a new In- 
 llitution, they would be void in courfe at the DifT^lution 
 of that Priefthood) did not think fie, either by hirafelf or 
 
 his 
 
. ( 97 ) 
 
 his Apoftles^ to give fo much as nn wtimatiorr^ either by 
 word or pradice, that Tythes ihould remain for the Main- 
 tenance of Gofpel Miniftcrs. Had Chrift: intended a con- 
 tinuance of Tythes, it is not to be doubted but he would 
 have fignified his Intention. But feeing no fuch things is 
 expreft^ the Prieft muil remember his own ^xiom {non ex- 
 frefa non nocenty 1. e. things not exprcft, do not hurt^ and 
 be content. 
 
 §. 6. Thus I have gone through the feveral parts of his 
 f.rft Medium^ in which there is no ftrength at all to prove 
 his Pofition, that our Lord Jefus and his Apoftles have fuf- 
 ficiently cftablifhed Tythes for the Maintenance of the Go- 
 fpel Minifters. I come now to his fecond, which runs 
 thus *, Bm this is not ally for there are pojitive Laws which do 
 fairly intimate^ that Tythes were to he the Maintenance of the 
 Cofpel MinifierSy when the Chnrch was fettled^ pag, 52. 
 
 'Twas well Vi?hat he faid before was not all, for if it had, 
 he had as good have faid nothing. And truly, 1 fome- 
 what Queftion whether what he fays now will be much 
 more to the purpofe. There are pofuive Laws, he fays, 
 which do fairly intimate^ &:c. 
 
 Are Intimations the proper Re fults of pofitive Laws? If the 
 Laws are pofitive^ methinks they fhould declare pofitivcr 
 not only him things by intimation. But waving that, (^and 
 his other lefs pofitive Proofs, fuch as our Saviour's affirm- 
 ing, Tythes ought to be paid, in the Time of the Law^ 
 when all Men grant they were due, &c, Whichy he fays, 
 plead only a probabilityy and which I deny to plead fo mnch 
 as a probability^ I haflen after him to thofc two plain 
 places fas he calls them^ which I take to be the pofitive 
 Laws mentioned before, which, he fays, do fairly inti- 
 mate, that Tythes were to be the Maintenance of the Gofpel 
 Minifters, when the Church was fettled. The firfi of tbefc 
 two plain places, is That fhe fays) of St, Paul, i Cor. 9. 
 14. affirming. That like as the Jewifh Priefls and Levites 
 lived of the Tythes and Oblations nnder the LaWy even fo there 
 masafpecial Ordinance of Chrift y that they who preach the Co- 
 fpely fljoHld live of the Gofpel\ that isy fays he, of thofe good 
 things which fhould be dedicated and offered in gratitude for the 
 Gofpely pag. 63. 
 
 How 
 
(98) 
 
 How hard is this poor Man puc to it, to piece up fome- 
 thlng that might look a little like a proof. This is at leafl 
 the thtrd time, that he has been driven to his [^Even fo} 
 and yet he is even at a lofs (111). For, fuppofing Ehe Par- 
 ticle 'Ot/Tfi) to be neceflkily rendred {Evenfo~\ as it is, what 
 can be thence inferred, that Gofpel Minifters fhould live 
 of the Gofpel, Even fo^ as the Jewiflj Priejls and Levites 
 lived of the Tythes and Oblations under the Law ? What, 
 jnfi Mthey lived^ exalily after the fame manner? Why thea 
 Ehe Minifters of the Gofpel fhould not have the Tythes^ but 
 the TyJhes of theTythes, that is, but the hundredth part •, 
 for even fo the Jexvipj Priefts had, the Levites had theTythes, 
 and paid this hundredth part, or Tythe of Tythe to the 
 Priefts, and the reft of the Prieft's Maintenance was made 
 lap by Oblations. So that if the Priefts now, will needs, 
 as Gofpel Minifters be maintained, and live even jttfi fo as 
 the yewi/h Priefts lived, they muft introduce the Jewifh 
 Oblations again ^ the Burnt -Offerings and Bloody- SacrificeSy aS 
 in the time of the Law, and fo deny the one Offerings and 
 become Debtors to the whole Law, This looks ftrangelyj 
 and yet I fee not how it can be avoided, if they will ftrain 
 the Particle {_Even'} to an exa^i parity of Maintenance be- 
 tween "fewi^i Priefts and Gofpel Minifters, and if they do 
 not ftrain it to fuch a parity, they cannot fqueefe Tythes 
 out of it •, for then they that preach the Gofpel, may live 
 efthe Gofpely as well as the Jewifh Priefts and Levites lived 
 of the things of the Temple, and of the Altar, and yei 
 not by Tythes. And indeed, notwithftanding his \lEven 
 fo'2 that he fays to explain what it is to live of the Go- 
 fpel, that is (fays he) ofthofe things which fhould he dedicated 
 and ojfered in gratitude for the Gofpel^ is far enough from 
 proving it muft be Tythet : For this fhews the Mainte- 
 nance was to be what Believers w^ere mWmg freely to give^ 
 which might as well be a Sixth, or a Twelfth, a Fifth, or 
 a Fifteenth part, as a Tenth, according as their Ability 
 would permit, or the occaiion fhould require. And if it 
 were in the Donor's Choice what part to give, that leaves 
 no place for a Divine Right to Tythes. Thus then we fee 
 ihhfirfl of his plain places, and pofitive Laws, is fo far from 
 affording a pofitive proof, that Tythes were to be the Main- 
 tenance of the Gofpel Minifters, that it doth not fo much 
 as fairly intimate it. 
 
( ^9 ) 
 
 But to help out the matter, he adds, pag. 54. That 
 the blejfsd Jcfu^t tvho ordained thisy did incline the Hearts 
 of fiom Chriftians to dedicate Tythes and other Oblations 
 made ingratitude for the Gofpel. 
 
 This I fhall have occaiion to take further notice of, 
 when I fhall come anon to examine his Dedications, Do- 
 nations and Charters. In this place let it fuffice, that 
 what he takes for granted, I deny ^ and exped proof of. 
 The World is not ignorant what heaps of Oblations and 
 Dedications have been made, under pretence of grati- 
 tude for the Gofpel, by many, whofe Hearts the Bleiled 
 Jefus did never incline thereto. 
 
 I come now to his fecond plain place or pofitive Law, as 
 he calls it, which he thus brings in, Lefl any fhonU fay^ 
 This Text fnppofes fomething will be given ^ but doth not enjoyn 
 the Chriftians to give^ we have another Law direBed to the 
 People, containing both their Duty, and the Aimifier^s Rights 
 Gal. 6. 6, Let him that is taught in the word commnnicate un* 
 to him that teacheth in all good things. 
 
 His former Text, he fays, fuppofes fomething will be 
 given, and this enjoy ns fomething (hall be given, but nei- 
 ther one nor t'other exprefTes what part. What proof 
 then can either of thefe places afford, that Tythes, or the 
 tenth part, was to be the Maintenance of the Gofpel Mi- 
 nifters, and that our Lord Jefus and his Apoftles, have 
 fufficiently eftabliihed Tythes for the Maintenance of the 
 Gofpel Minifters, when as neither of thefe places menti- 
 on Tythes or any certain quantity? He that is taught in the 
 word is to communicate unto him that teacheth in all good 
 things. That he doth as really, though not fo largely, who 
 giveth but an -hundreth part, as he that giveth a tenth. 
 And on the other hand, if he that is to be the receiver may 
 take the liberty of fixing the quantity, he may, if he pleafe, 
 make it a third part or a half, as well as a tenth. We fee 
 then no certain Conclufion can be drawn from thefe Texts 
 as to the proportion or ^«4«r?ry of Maintenance, that being 
 Idt wholly free, and at thedifpofal of the Giver. Confe- 
 quently Tfihes^ which are a certain quantity, cannot be 
 proved by thefe Scriptures to be eflablifljed by our Lord Jefpa 
 ^nd his Apoflles for the Maintenance of the Gofpel Mmifiers. 
 Thus thefe two plain places and pofitive Laws (as the Prieft 
 calls them) are plain and poficive enough ag4iriji him and 
 
 H hk 
 
( lOO ) 
 
 his Brethren^ to prove, that they onght not to exaU Mainte^ 
 tenance from thofe that deny their Minifiry: but will not 
 prove what he would have, 'viz., Tyihes for the Gofpel 
 Maintenance, either p^y?^^x;^/y, ov h'j fair intimation. 
 
 To back his infufficient Proofs, he runs over again his 
 €veYVPorn Stories of the Antiquity of the tenth part, how \t 
 was made known by God to he his part by Reveiation^ and 
 learn d by the Heathens by Primitive Tradition^ and mucli 
 more of the fame Rank. In all which, his Conclufions 
 are no more forcible than that in all reafon it ought to be 
 that fart ^ and there is no reafon to donbtj bm that this is the 
 Jhare or portion of Gofpel Minifiers^ pag. 66, 
 
 But this being fo groundlefs, and having been fo often 
 anfwered, I think it not worth my while to ftay uponv 
 but proceed to an Objedion he makes, pag. (S7. There 
 is (fays he) bnt one Obje^ion againfi this^ viz. That Tythes are 
 not mentioned in the Gofpel or Epiftles to be the very part. 
 
 If there were no other Objedion but this, yet this is 
 fuch an one as he can never be able to remove. A grand 
 Qbjedion indeed, ftrongly inforced againft himfclf ^by 
 the Maxim urged by himfelf, (pag. 62.) Non expreffa non 
 nocentj Thofe things which are not expreft, do not hurt. 
 This (huts out all his Conjedures, and Suppofitions, and 
 reftrains him clofely to what is expreft. But feeing (by 
 his own confeffion, pag. 67.) Tythes are not expreft, 
 not mentioned in the New Teftament to be the Gofpel- 
 Maintenance, how rafh and over-confident was he in the 
 entrance of his nth Se^ion to aflert (pag. 61.) That ou^r 
 Lord Jefus and his Apoltles have fufficiently eftablifhed 
 Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gofpel- Mimjlers^ and 
 that they may be proved alfo out of the New Teftament to 
 be due, jure divino <* Will he undertake to prove that out 
 of the New Teflamenty which he confefles is not mentioned 
 in the New Teftament^ and yet at the fame time tell us, 
 Non expreffa non nocent ? What Man of Reafon, Modefty 
 or Name would not be afhamed of this ! But belides this 
 which he hath brought, there are other Ohj^dions againft 
 Tythes being the Maintenance of Gofpel- Minifters, name- 
 ly. That Tythes, or a tenth part is a Ceremony^ Mode, 
 or Circumftance of Maintenance, and^s fuch, was a part 
 of the Ceremonial Law, which being abrogated by Chrift, 
 .was not fit to be received amongft Chriftians y That a 
 
 Main- 
 
( loi ) 
 
 Maintenance by Tyfehes, or any other certain, fixed and 
 determinate quantity, is not agreeable with the Nature 
 of the Gofpely which as it felf is free^ fo ought the JMain- 
 tenance alfo to be j this being one of the Believers Privi- 
 ledges under the Go/pel: The Law was a State of Bondage-, 
 the Gofpel is a State of Liberty, The Law reprefented the 
 condition of Servants ^ the Gofpel that of Sons, The Law 
 treated thofe that were under it, as Children in Nonage 
 under Tutors and Governours; the Gofpel treats them 
 that receive it, as Men arrived to an addt Age. Befides, 
 under the Gofpel, Tythes are not an equal way of Main- 
 tenance, in refpedt either of the Giver y or of the Receiver ^ 
 or of the Service. 
 
 Many other Objedions might alfo be urged againfl: 
 Tythes being a Gofpel Maintenance^ but thefe may ferve 
 to convince the Prieft, that he was toohafiym concluding 
 there is but this one Objedion which he has brought. Bus 
 leaving thefe, at leafl: at prefent, let us fee how he at- 
 tempts to remove that one Objeftion which himfelf has 
 urged, viz.. That Tythes are not mentioned in the Gofpel or 
 Epiftles to be the very part. To this, fays he, I reply, There 
 are very good Reafons why Tythes are not mentioned in the New 
 Tellament, by Name-, His firfl reafon is, To avoid all oc- 
 cajion of Scandal to the Jews, whofe Priefis were then in Pof" 
 fejfion of them. 
 
 There is no weight at all in this Reafon ; for we fee 
 that in that very Epiflle which was written to the He^ 
 brews or Jews themfelves, the Apollle tells them exprefly 
 (and argues it forcibly and undeniably) that the Jewijh 
 Prieflhood, and the Law by which they took Tythes, 
 together with that Covenant, and the whole JewiJ?) Po- 
 lity, were abrogated and ended by Chrift. And he that 
 had written all this fo Plain^ fo Fnll^ fo Home^ needed he 
 avoid mentioning Tythes as a Gofpel-Maintenance, for 
 fear of giving Offence to thcjews ^ What can be more irra- 
 tional ? What could have been faid more Offenlive to the 
 Jews than he in that Epiftle writ ? Befides, whatfoever 
 was written by the Evangelifts or Apoftles, whether it 
 were Hiftorical or Epiftolary, it was written for, and 
 dedicated to the Believers in Chrift Jefus; not to Uncon- 
 verted jf^ewsy but to thofe who were turned from Judaifm 
 I© Ihc ChrijU^n Faith j which whofoever truly was, mull 
 
 H i needs 
 
( I<52 ) 
 
 needs be brought from off the Jewijf) Priefls, and fee tlie 
 end of that Priefthood^ by the Springing up of a new one. 
 It cannot then with Reafon be fuppoled, that they who 
 believed the Jewijh Pfiefthood endedj and confequently 
 that Tythes were no longer due unto it, would in zeal to 
 that Priefthood have taken Offence at the mentioning of 
 Tythes for a Gofpel-Maintenance, or that the holy Pen- 
 men did for that reafon omit the mention of them. But 
 further, If it mightwith any Ihewof Reafon be allowed, 
 that in not mentioning Tythes as a Gofpel-Maintenance, 
 Regard was had to the Jews : Yet what Relation at all 
 could this Reafon have to the Gentiles^ unto whom the far 
 greater part of the Epiftles were written? Will he fup- 
 pofe the Gentiles would have been offended at the tranf- 
 ferring of Tythes from the^^vp^y^ Priefls to the Gofpel- 
 Miniflers? That indeed may well be fuppofed •, but not 
 upon the Score on which he grounds his Reafon. They 
 might juftly indeed have been fcandaliz'd, had the Jewips 
 Ceremonial Maintenance by Tythes been introduced among 
 Chriftians *, but not out of any Love or Zeal for the Jewi/h 
 Priefts, of whom they had not fo great efteem, and to 
 whom they bear not fo much good Will. Neither is this 
 all, but the emptinefs and lightnefs of this Reafon will 
 more fully yet appear to him that fhall confider, that fome 
 of the Apoflles lived to fee the Jewijh Priefts aBuaUy dif- 
 pojfeft of Tythes, and that Nation difperfed and fcattered, 
 the Synagogue not only dead^ but hnried, and the whole 
 Jewijh Polity deflroyed^ and yet after all this, no Claim 
 piit in to Tythes, no Extortion to pay them, no Mention of 
 ihem as a Gofpel Maintenance. If therefore one fhould 
 fuppofe the Apoftles forbore to claim Tythes as the Go- 
 fpel Maintenance, while the Jewijh Priefts were polleft of 
 them, and that Polity had yet fome (hew of (landing, in 
 condefcention to the Jews, and to avoid all occafion of Scan- 
 dal to them j yet furely he muft abandon all Reafon, and 
 tltterly renounce his Underftanding, that can believe they 
 fdrbore upon this Reafon to c\^\mTyiht% afterwards al- 
 fo, when they had feen the Temple rafed to the Ground^ the 
 Jewiih Priefts actually difpoffeffed, and that whole Polity 
 totally fnbverted. If Tythes had been intended for the 
 Gofpel Alimfter's Maintenance, and in tendernefs to the 
 3fewsy ('as he fancies) had teen Jn^red ^ while to rm in their 
 
 M 
 
( loj ) 
 
 eld Channel-, till the whole Jewifh P^HfJI had been deflroyed^ 
 yet what lliew of Reafon can be given, why thofe Apo- 
 itles that lived to fee the whole Jewl^ Polity deflroyed, 
 did not then turn Tythes into their New and proper Chan- 
 nel, and ex]^rejly declare. That Tythes were the Mainti- 
 nanct eflablifhed by Chrift for the Gofpel Minifters? 
 
 Hi5 fecond Reafon why Tythes are not mentioned in 
 the New Tefiament to be the Maintenance of Gofpel Mini- 
 fters is this, There woi not any need for Jefm to make any nevi> 
 Law for Tythes^ fence they were fufficiently declared to be due to 
 -God before^ by Revelation^ andExamfle^ by Reafon^andtjod^s 
 own Choice-^ by the Grounds on which they were givetiy and the 
 ends for which they were imployed^ pag. 68. 
 
 If his Panicle Zbefore^ refers to his fecond Period, the 
 time oftheLm^/c^/ Law, he then fpeaks to no pttrpofe at 
 all^ that Law being ended^ and any Title thereby difclaim^d 
 -by the prefent Clergy. And if it relate to hhfirfl Period, 
 the time before the Levitical Law, I have then already re- 
 futed this Reafon oihh over and over., and doubtlefs were 
 he not at a great (trait, he would not thus nauftat his 
 Reader with Tamoiogies, That Tythes were^ue to God 
 before the Levitical Law, and fufficiently declared fo to 
 be by Revelation, Example, Reafon, &c. he has be£d^ 
 Conceffion oi^ beyond all degrees ofModefty^ but notoner'd 
 me foiid Reafon to prove. Of the Ground on which they 
 were given, and the end for which they were imployed 
 before the Law, there is nothing expreft, and he knows 
 who faid, Non exprejfa non mcent^ i, e. Things not ex- 
 preft, hurt not. 
 
 His third Reafon why Tythes are not mentioned in the 
 New Tefiament to be the Maintenance of Gofpel MiiV fters, 
 is, Becaufe tht Devotion of the Chriftians in thofe days ti^as fa 
 ^reaty that they gave more than a tenth freely^ Selling all and 
 following Chrif^j and beflowing on the jifofiles more than they 
 were in a condition to receive^ pag. 69. 
 
 That the Chriftians m thofe days gave more than a 
 tenth, is more than he can prove. For though fome of them 
 fold their Pofleffions, and laid the price thereof at the 
 Apoftle's Feet, yet was not thztgiven to the Apoftles for 
 their proper ufe, but depofeted as in a common Stock or Trea- 
 fury, for the common Supply and Maintenance of them aU^ 
 while they lived together in that Community, which was 
 
 H 3 xm 
 
( 104 ) 
 
 not lofig; But what part foever it was that they gave, it 
 is enough for my purpofe that it was a Gift^ a free Gift. 
 And if our Lord Jefus did not think fit to make any nevif 
 determination of the tenth part by Name^ pag.(J9. after that 
 the old determination thereof under the Law was determi- 
 tied and ended by his Death ; but committed his Mini- 
 fters to the Chriflian^s Devotion for Maintenance, how 
 comes this Prieft fo confidently to aiBrm, pag. 6u That 
 cur Lord Jefus and his j4poftles have fnfficiently eflablifhed 
 Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gofpel Minifters ^ How 
 ftrangely doth he contradi5i himfelf herein, when in one 
 place he is pofitive that our Lord Jefm and his Apofiles have 
 fufficiently eftabUfhed Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gofpel 
 Minifiers^ pag. 6i.in the other as exprefsy That onr Lord 
 and his j^poftles did not mah a new determination of the tenth 
 fart by Name^ p. 69. and urges Reafons to prove thac they 
 neither did nor needed make any new Law for Tythes ^ as 
 firfl. The great Devotion of Chviiians in thofe days^ pag. 69. 
 Secondly, The expectation our Lord Jefns might have^ that 
 the joyful Meffage of his Gofpel Jhould he fo thankfully received^ 
 that thofe to whom it was fent^ jhould do as much freely to the 
 gratifying his Meffengers^ M the fervile Jews did by the com" 
 fHlfion of apofirivt LaWy pag. 70. Thirdly, The fore" fight 
 €Hr Lord Jefus had^ that his Grace would open the Hearts of 
 Kings and Princes^ and other devout Perfons to give more than 
 a tenth part of their good things^ to thofe in his Name^ and for 
 hisfakey who were fent to Preach the Gofpel. Fourthly, That 
 fince fuch times were comings our Lord might prvbably on pnr'^ 
 pofe decline determining the proportion too exprefly^ that Chri- 
 ftians mtght have the opportunity of a voluntary Charity, 
 Fifthly, That this was more agreeable to the freedom and inge^ 
 nuity of Sons, which Chriftians are compared to. Sixthly, 
 That pofitive Laws were likely to be made^ when the decays of 
 Piety and Charity did require thefn^ pag. 71. Thefe are the 
 Reafons he offers for proof, that our Lord Jefus and his 
 Apoftles did not make a new determination of the tenth part by 
 namej -and that in the very fame Sedion, wherein he fo 
 confidently affirmed, That our Lord Jefus and his jipoflles 
 have fufficiently eflablifhed Tythes for the Maintenance of the 
 Gofpd Minifiers. If they have eftablifhed Tythes^ they 
 have then eftablifhed a tenth part by name ; for Tythes are 
 denominated, or take their Name, from the number 
 
 Tmh^ 
 
< 105 ) 
 
 Temk (Declma a decimo) Buc that neither Chrifl: nor 
 his Apollies have eftablifhed a tenth part by Name, 
 and confequently have not eftablifhed Tythes for the 
 Maintenc>:c.^ of she Gofpel Minifters, the Reafons before 
 recited^ which 'he Priefl himfelf hath given, do plainly 
 'enough prove. For, befides, the great and prompt De^ 
 *VGtion of Chriflians in thofc days^ oht Lord Jefm (he fays) 
 might expeEi that the joyfd Meffage of his Gofpel fhould be fa 
 thankfully received-, that thofe to whom it was fent Jhould do as 
 much freely to the gratifying his MeJfengerSj as the fervile Jews 
 4iid by the compidfion of a pofitive Law. 
 
 So then it feems our Lord Jefus did not think fit to com» 
 pel Chriftians by a pofitive Law to pay Tythes^ but left the 
 gratifying his MefTengers to that freedom^ which he fore- 
 law his Grace would open their Hearts to : ioT to maintain 
 Chrifl's Minifters by the compulfeon of a pofitive Law, was 
 (as thePrieil rightly obferves) fuitable to the furvile ^atQ 
 of the Jews^ which Chriftians ^ who are compared to Sons, 
 ought not to be /^^;>^f^ to, but left to theexercife of a 
 voluntary Charity, which is more agreeable to the freedom 
 and ingenuity of Sons. Therefore he fays, Since fuch times 
 were comings our Lord might probably on purpofe decline deter* 
 mining the proportion too exprefty. In all which, he hath 
 notably argued againfl himfelf, and fufKciently proved, 
 that the Maintenance of the Gofpel Miniflry ought to be 
 by free Gifty voluntary Charity^ uncompelled^ that the com- 
 pulfion of pofitive Law in this cafe, is a Badge of jfewijh 
 Servility^ not agreeable to the Chriflian State, which 
 (lands in, and ads from the freedom and ingennity of Sons, 
 and that therefore our Lord Jefm and his jipofiUs did not 
 make any new Law for Tythes, did not make any new deter mi* 
 nation of a tenth part by name, and that our Lord might 
 probably on purpofe decline determining the proportoin too 
 cxprefly. But what now is become of his firft Affertion, 
 That our Lord Jefus and his Jpo files have fuffciently eftablifh' 
 td Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gofpel Mnifters ? Did 
 Chrifl eflablifh Tythes, and yet on purpofe decline de- 
 termining the proportion exprefly ? Is not Tythe, or a 
 tenth part an exprefs determinaton of the proportion ? 
 What manifefl contradiction has this over-hafly Man run 
 himfelf into J Again, if (as he fays, pag. 68.) There 
 was no need for Jefus to make any mw Law for Tythes, 
 
 H4 »f 
 
( io6 ) 
 
 If our Lord and his Apoftles did not make a new deteimU 
 nation of a tenth part by name, pag. 69, If our Lord 
 might probably on purpofe decline determining the propor- 
 tion too exprefly, that Chriftians might have the oppor- 
 tuaity of a voluntary Charity, pag. 70. If he expeded 
 they 10 who his Gofpel was fent, ftiould do as much 
 freely to the gratifying his MefTengers, as the fervile ^ews 
 did by the compulfion of a politive Law. And it this free^ 
 gratmtom and voluntary Charity was more agreeable to the 
 freedom and ingenuity of Sons, which Chriftians are compa- 
 red to, than the fervile compulfton of a pofitive Law. And 
 if pofitive Laws were likely to be made when the decays 
 of Piecy and Charity did require them, pag. 71. which 
 could not be in the Apollles days, when the devotion of 
 Chriftians was fo great^ that they gave (as the Prieft fays, 
 tnore than a tenth freely, and beftowed on the jf^. poftles 
 more than they were in a condition to receive, pag. 69. 
 I fay, if all this may ferve to prove, that our Lord Jefus 
 and his Apoftles left the Maintenance of the Gofpd Mi- 
 nifters to the free and voluntary Charity of Chriftians^ fore- 
 feeing that his Grace would open their Hearts thereto, pag. 
 70. and therefore made no pofitive Law to compel them 
 to the Jewifh Servility of paying Tythes, what then be- 
 comes of thofe pofitive Laws he (peaks of, pag. 62. which 
 he fays do fairly intimate^ that Tythes were to be the 
 Maintenance of the Gofpel Minifters, when the Church 
 was fettled > Is there any thing in this but contradidtioa 
 and confufion ? 
 
 He has yet one Reafon more, why Tytbe -• e not men- 
 tioned in the New Teftament to be the I j nntenance of 
 the Gofpel Minifters, and that is, That tKie State of the 
 Chftrch in thofe days was fuch^ that Believers^ though they 
 were willing^ could not have opportunity to pay Tythes regular ' 
 ly 'j nor could the Gcfpel Minifters receive them^ pag. 71 . 
 
 Had he afligned this for a general Reafon, why Tythes 
 Ihould not be paid at all under the Gofpel, be had faid 
 fomething to the purpofe. But in reftraining his Reafon 
 to the State of the Church in thofe days only^ he falls 
 fhort. B'efides, how knows he that Beli^:vers then were 
 '^tiling to have paid, and Gofpel Minifters to have receiv- 
 ed Tythes, had opportunity ferved ? I believe the con- 
 trary, and have many Reafons inducing me thereunto ; 
 
 but 
 
. ( »o7 ) 
 
 but fince he affirms it, let him prove it. However, if 
 Tythes (as he dreams) were to be the Maintenance of 
 the Gofpel Minifters, when the Church was fettled, the 
 want of opportunity for the paying and receiving them 
 regularly at that inflant, could be ao good Reafon why 
 they were wholly pafled over in filence, and no mention 
 made of them to that purpofe in ail the New Teftamenty 
 unlefs he would fuppofe, that all that was mentioned in 
 the New Teftamem had Relation to the then prefenc State 
 of the Church, and nothing to the future. But if feme 
 things relating to the future State of the Church are men- 
 tioned in the New Teflamem^ then furely fo might Tythes 
 have beenalfo., had they been intended for a Gofpel Mi- 
 niflry's Maintenance, when the Church was fettled. 
 
 He adds, ThaE as it was no prejudice to the Jewifh Friejls^ 
 that there was little or no tythes paidj during their Fore-Fa^ 
 then wandring tn the Wildernefs ^ no more is it to m^ th'^t they 
 were not paid regularly in the Times of Perfecution^ pag. 7 1 . 
 
 That could be no prejudice to the Jewifh Priefts, be- 
 caufe Tythes were not due to them, or required to be 
 paid, till their wandring in the Wildernefs was over, and 
 they fettled in the Land of Canaan:, and an exprefs Com- 
 mand there was for the Payment of Tythes to them when 
 they were fo fettled. But thefe Priefts can produce no 
 Command for the Payment of Tythes to them either he^ 
 fore the Times of Perfecution, in thofe Times, nor after 
 them. It is not then a non-payment of Tythes regularly 
 in the Times of Perfecution that prejudices thefe Priells: 
 but that which prejudices, their Claim is, That Tythes were 
 never dkte to them at all ^ they have no Command, nor ever 
 had, to claimTythes by. 
 
 Yet he fays, Our Lord Jefm and the Apofiles [aid fo much 
 in the New-Tellament, that the Trimitive Chriflians ««- 
 derftood them to intend Tythes for the Gofpel Maintenance^ 
 pag. 71. 
 
 How knows he this, feeing the Scripture is filenft of 
 it? Had the Primitive Chriftians underllood Tythes to be 
 intended by Chrifl for the Maintenance of his Minifters, 
 no doubt they would have paid them : for they knew full 
 well that Saying of our Lord, He that knows his Mafler^s 
 WiUy and doth it ngt^ Jhallhe beaten with many flripes. Their 
 non-payment of Tythes, therefore is a fufficient Argu- 
 ment 
 
( loS ) 
 
 ment that they did not iinderftand Tythes to be appoint- 
 ed by ChriH for the Maintenance of his MiniHers. 
 
 He adds. That they (to wit our Lord jefus and the Apo- 
 Ules) fald enongh to Jhew^ that the Ancient Divine Right to 
 $he tenth fart [hoald he continued, 
 
 i wifh he had quoted his Text for this, that I might 
 have known whence he had it: for I have read theiV^n?- 
 Tefiament more than once, and yet I fokmnly profefs, I 
 never read this there* 
 
 But fays he, pag. 72. It was neither neceffary^ nor conve-^ 
 ment they fhodd fpeak more plainly in this matter : This being 
 ftffcient to eflabliflj the Divine Eight of Tythes under the Co' 
 /pel, &C. 
 
 This! Which? What means he here hyThis^ Did 
 the not mentioning Tythes aE all in the Nsw-Teftament for 
 a Gofpel Maintenance, eftablijh (thinks he) the Divine 
 Right of Tythes under the Gofpel ? Or did our Lord and 
 his Apoftles not making a new Determination of the tenth 
 part by name, do this ? Or did his parpofely declining to de- 
 termine the proportion too exprefly ? Or what elfe may 
 we fuppofe his [This'} can relate to, which may be thought 
 Efficient to eftablifli the Divine Right of Tythes under 
 the Gofpel. Certainly either he is very Dark^ or 1 ara 
 very DuU: for in good earnell, I do not underftand, wha6 
 to refer his Particle [This'} unto. But whatever it is, I 
 perceive he would have it iufficient, not only to eftablijh a 
 Divine Right of Tythes under the Gofpel^ but alfo, to teach us 
 that Tythes being Originally due to God^ and hy Chrift ajfigned 
 to the Gofpel Minifiers^ are now due to them^ jure divino, 
 pag. 72. 
 
 This is much to the fame purpofe, as if he Ihould have 
 laid that Tythes being due^ jure divino, are due^ jure di- 
 vino. If ever Popery iliould prevail here, and this Man 
 turn Fryar^ 'tis lit he fhould be of the Mendicant Order, 
 lie is fo ready at begging. Two Quellions has he very 
 confidently begged in thefe two Liaes. Firft, That Tythes 
 arc Originally due to God^ which that they are as Tythes, 
 as a tenth part diftind from the other nine, or more pe- 
 culiarly than the reft, I have before more than once deni- 
 ed and difproved. Secondly, That Chrift hath ajfigned 
 Tythes to the Gofpel Minifters. Hath he fo ? and yet Tythes 
 not mentioned in the Gofpel or Eplftles to be the very 
 
 part, 
 
( 109 ) 
 
 part, pag. 67. Tythes not mentioned in the New Tefla^ 
 iwtfwf, by name, /^/^. That methinks is flrange. What! 
 an Aflignation pleaded, wherein the thing pretended to 
 be afligned, is not fo much as named^ nor the cc taia 
 quantity defer i bed ! Who ever heard of fuch an Alfigua- 
 tion before ? But how doth it appear there is fuch an Af- 
 lignation ? for we have hitherto but his bare word for it. 
 Before, when he fpakeof the L<?v;m/i/ Pried hood's Righc 
 to Tythes (of which nobody doubted) he was very for- 
 ward to produce an exprefs Aflignation, and a Fexc with- 
 al to atteftit. But now, when he fpeak? of the Gofpel 
 Minifter's Right to Tythes, (which needs cne clearelt 
 Proof, and plained Demonflration) his Aflignation and 
 Evidence are both to feek. Is this to fhew. th^r our Lord 
 Jefus and his Apoille^ have fufficiemly eflMtfhca Tythes 
 for the Maintenance of the Gofpel IVlinifters? is this to 
 fhew, that Tythes may be proved out of the New J^^fiamen^ 
 lo be due, jure divino ^ pag. 61. Is this to prove t; e Di- 
 vine Right of Tyihtsfujfictintly efiablifhed under tlu Go- 
 fpel, (pag. 72.) EG fay that Tythes being originally due to 
 God, and by Chrifl ajfigned to the Gofpel ^jinilU!^.: are 
 now due to ihem, pire divino ? Can any one doubv, bus 
 Ihat ^/Tythes yNcre indeed afljgned to thG Minifte'sot tnc 
 Gofpel, they were then unqueftionabiy due to them jnrc 
 dtmnoi Or can is be imagined, that I, or any Man elfe 
 would grant the firfi of thcfe, and deny the Utter ? Was 
 the Queftion whether, // Chrifl had affigned Tythes to the 
 Gofpel Mtnifters^ Tythes would thereby have been aue to them ? 
 Or was it not. Whether Chrifl had indeed ajjigned Tythes ta 
 the Gofpel Minifters or no? Tliis belonged to him to prove ; 
 and does bethink to carry it without proof, by a fly fap"^ 
 popng it ? He deceives himfelf. He fays of me, pag. 2i 
 I write to pleafe an illiterate SeB ; and I may gnU the unlearn^ 
 «^ Quakers ?»/(? a Belief y &c. But I wonder what learned 
 Se6i he wrote to pleafe, and wh^t fort of Readers he hoped 
 to meet with, or ?/hat fcantUng of Vnder ft ending (as hlS 
 Phrafeis) he fuited his Difcourfe to, when he laid, Tythes 
 being Originally due to Godj and by Chrifl ajfigned to the Go^ 
 fpel Miniflersy are now due to them^ jure divino ! Did he 
 hope to perfwade his Reader by begging inilead of proving^ 
 and by taking that for granted^ which is indeed the main 
 Queftiou in Controverlle, and which requires the mo^ 
 
 evident 
 
( "o ) 
 
 cWif/?t DemonRration ? He might perhaps by this means 
 ^i&li fame haily heedlefs Reader ; but Men of Senfe and 
 Oaderftand.ing are not fatisfied with fuch put-off's. Fair 
 W&rJs may pleafe Fools, buc Wife Men look for fair Proofs. 
 WoBld he chink I dealt fairly with him, if I Ihould fay, 
 thac he being a Deceiver ^ is not a Mini(ler ofClorifl f The Con^ 
 €hpon is Erue,if it be drawn from a trmRropoJition. It is clear 
 enough, that he is not a Minifter ofChrill, if he be a De- 
 ceifer^ but whether he be a Deceiver or no, is the Que- 
 Hfon, on the proof of which, the Truth of the Conclnfion 
 depends. Now if infiead of proving this Propofitioa 
 CThat he k a Deceiver^ I fhould take it for granted^ and 
 without more ado infer from thence, that he is no Mini' 
 0ir of Chrifi^ 1 Ibould do by him juft as he has done by his 
 Reader, He fays, Jythes being by Chrift affigned to the Go" 
 ffsl Minifters^ are novo due to them by Divine Right, The 
 Conclitfion here is undoubtedly true, if the Propofition be 
 true from which it is drawn. No Man in his wits will 
 deay, that Tyth.es are due to Gofpel Minifters, if Chrift 
 have af^gned Tythes to them: But that's the Queftion ia 
 Coatroverfije ; that's the Prapofuion to be proved, on the 
 proof of which the Truth of the Cvnclttfion depends. Now 
 infead of proving this Proposition [That Chrift hath alEgn- 
 ed Tythes to the Gofpel Minifters] he takes it for granted^ 
 snd with no more ado infers from thence, that Tythes 
 are now due to Gofpel Minifters, jure divino. Is this like 
 a Difpmant i Doth this become a Man of his high pretences 
 to Scholarfhip and Learning ? Let the intelligent Reader 
 judge. 
 
 §. 7. I am now come to the end of his iitb SeBion^ iti 
 which he undertook to fhew, That our Lord Jefus and his 
 Apoftles have fufficiently eftablifhed Tythes for the Main- 
 tenance of the Gofpel Minifters \ and that they may be 
 proved out of the New Teftament to be due, jure divino. 
 Before I proceed to his next Setlion, I defire the Reader 
 10 obferve, Firfi^ that my Opponent hath fall' n fo far (iwrt 
 of proving the Eftablifhment of Tythes by Chrift and his 
 .Apoftles for the Maintenance of Gofpel Mtnijltrs^ that he 
 fcath plainly acknowledged Tythes are not fo much as named ia 
 the New Tefiamenty pag. 67. (as indeed they are not, with 
 tdalion to Gofpel Minifters) Secondly^ That though he 
 
 fays, 
 
Q III ) 
 
 ;, there are pofinvf Lnws^ pag. 62. yet he dares not 
 fay, thofe Laws fpeak pofitively^ biU only tlias ihey do 
 fairly intimate^ thai Tythes were to be the Maintenance cf 
 jhe Gofpel Minifters, pag. 63. And to take off the fores 
 of his pojttive Laws more fully, and (hew how little pofi. 
 five they were with refped to Tythes, he himfelf proves 
 at large, that Jefu^ did not make any new Law for Tythes^ pag. 
 68, 69. and gives among others, this Reafon for it, Tfeat 
 Jefm might expeSi his Mcfjcngers fljould be gratified fredy. 
 Nay, fo eager he is to (hew why Jefus made no new Lasr 
 for Tythes, that not confidering how deflrudive it woti!<l 
 prove to his former talk of pofoive Laws, pag. 61^ 63, 54, 
 he fairly argues ihe compulfton of a pofuive Law to be '^^'^^ 
 and Servile j and voluntary Charity to be more agrt€^k zn 
 th^ freedom and ingenmty of Sons, which Chrifiiam are cosi*- 
 pared to, pag. 70, 71. Thirdly^ That thofe two Texts, 
 thofe two plain Places, as he calls them, i Con, 9. 14, aa-d 
 Gal. 6. 6. make no mention at all of Tythes or any certain parr. 
 They (hew that fame Maintenance is due, they (hew to whvm 
 it is due, zn^ frori$ whom^ but they fbew not^i!?^ quantity of 
 thai Maintenance, and confequently do not prwt Tythes 
 to be it. Befides, he fays, pag. 69. Our Lerd md im 
 Apofiles did not make a new Determination of the tenth fan hy 
 name \ and pag. 70. Our Lord might probably on ptirpivfe At^ 
 dine determining the proportion too exprejly^ 6cc. Now Tythes 
 being an exprefs Determination of the tenth part by name^ kis 
 evident even from his own Policions, that Tythes or a 
 tenth part was not determined by our Lord and bis ApoftlcT'^ 
 to be the Maintenance of Gofpel Minifters. Fourthly^ That 
 although my Opponent begins this Sedion with a great 
 deal of confidence, and feeming Refolution, undertaking 
 to (hew, that optr Lord Jefus and his j4pofiles have fufficiently 
 eflahlifhed Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gofpel Mwifier^^ 
 and that they may be proved out of the New Teftament to ht 
 due J jure divino. Yet in the Profecution of this Argu- 
 ment he flags and (inks^ he is not poftive and plain^ buc 
 delivers himfelf doubtfully and fearfully, (We may reafon- 
 ably believe^ fays he, that Jefm intended they jhould remain 
 of Divine Rights pag. 62.) and in the clofe of the Sedioa 
 miferably begs the Queilion^ that Chrift hath affignedTythes 
 to the Gofpel Minifters, and on that precariam bottom 
 wo^d fee the Divine Right of Tythes. Thus far then 
 
 wc 
 
(112)1 
 
 we have gone, and find no firm Fomdation for a Divine 
 Righc to Tythes under the Golpel. No InflitHtion of 
 them ; No New Determinatiim of them*, No Ejtahlifhment 
 of them \ No Mention of them in all the New Teflament^ 
 as a Maintenance for Gofpel Miniflers. 
 
 Nov/ Reader, in the clofe of this Section take the Judg- 
 ment of two eminent Divines (fo called) of the Church 
 of England^ and fee how contrary this Prieft is to them. 
 The firll is Fdk in Q.. Eliz,abethh time, the other Willet ia 
 K. James's time. Fdk on Heb, 7. §. 4. having fbewed 
 that the Payment of Tythes^ as it was a Ceremonial Pnty^ is 
 abrogated with other Ceremonies by the Death of Chrifiy and 
 that any other fafficient Stipend^ whether it be more orlefs\than 
 €t tenth party may be appointed as well as Tythes, adds, * But 
 
 * that there is any Sacrificing Priefthood, to whom it 
 
 * (namely Tythes) is due in the New Teftamentj the old 
 
 * Payment of Tythes doth not prove. Neither did Chrift 
 
 * himfelf our high Prieft, ever make claim unto them : nor 
 
 * his Apoftles the Minifters of the Church, but only to a 
 *fuiiicient living by the Gofpel, to be allowed of their 
 
 * temporal Goods, to whom they rainiftred fpiritual 
 
 * Goods, I Cor, 9. 14. GaL (5. 6. Thus he, by which we 
 may fee he was far enough from thinking what this Priefl 
 affirms, viz. That Chrift and his Apoftles have fufficient- 
 ly eftablifhed Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gofpel 
 JMinifters, and that they may be proved out of the New 
 Tefiament to be due, jnre divino^ and that Chrift hath af- 
 iigned Tythes to the Gofpel Minifters, &c. feeing, he fays 
 plainly, both that the old Ceremonial Payment of them is 
 abrogated^ and no new Claim made either by Chrift or his 
 Apoftles to Tythes, but only to a fufficient living by the 
 Gofpel, and that too to be allowed of their temporal 
 Goods, to whom they miniftred fpiritual Goods. And he 
 quotes the very fame Texts, to prove the ApoflUs did not 
 claim Tythes^ but only a fufficient Maintenance, which this 
 Prieft has brought to prove, that that Maintenance ought 
 to be Tythes, namely, i Cor. 9. 14. GaL 6. 6. 
 
 Willet in his Synopfis of Popery^ fifth general Controverlie, 
 pag. 315. repeating a Canon of the Council of Orleans, 
 thus, ' As itis in the Will of the Giver to give what plea- 
 
 * fes him, fo if he ^nd him ftubborn and froward which 
 
 * receiveth it, it is in his power to revoke the Gift^ lays 
 
 * there- 
 
( It? ) 
 
 * thereupon, * We fee then thai the Word of God hath 
 
 * laid no fuch rtecejftty upon Tythes, for then this Council 
 
 * would not have permitted fuch Liberty. And a little af- 
 ter, fetting down the fifteenth Article of the Bohemians a- 
 gainftTythes, he adds, ^ Therefore Tythes are not necfjft^ 
 
 * rily due by the Word of God. And a few lines lower, ' This 
 
 * (fays he) may further appear by the Pradice of other 
 
 * Churches, that the Payment of Tythes (though of all 
 
 * other moft fit) is not impofed as a neceflary Law. Then 
 inftancing feveral Churches other ways maintained, he 
 adds, * I alledge not the Pradice of thefe Churches, as al- 
 
 * lowing the fame (for I prefer the condition of thofe 
 
 * Churches, which yet do enjoy the antient Proviiion of 
 
 * the Miniftry by Tythes^ but only to (hew, that the cu" 
 ^ ftom ofTything is not impofed by any neceffity. And fpeak- 
 ing of /V<r/cfc/z.f^^(r's Priefthood, he fays, ' Wherefore fee- 
 
 * ing Melchizedec^s Priefthood only refteth in Chrift, and 
 
 * is not tranflated to any other, and that there is now no 
 
 * Sacrifice left but Spiritual, of Praife and Thankfgiving, 
 
 * Heb. 13. 1 S- '^ follows, that by reafon of any fuch exter- 
 
 * nal Priefthood or Sacrifice, Tythes are not now due unta 
 
 * the Church, neither in any fuch regard ought to be chal- 
 
 * lenged. Again, pag. 315. Mf there were any fucb 
 
 * Priefthood, and Tythes in that Right did appertain to 
 
 * the Church-, it is moft like that our Saviour Chrift and 
 
 * his Apofties would have challenged them : But there is no 
 
 * one precept in rkNewTeftament concerning paying of Tythes^ 
 
 * but only for a fufficient Maintenance for the Minifters 
 
 * of the Gofpel. Judge now, Reader, whether this Man 
 thought (as the Prieft does) That our Lord Jefus and his 
 Apofties have fufficiently eftablilhed Tythes for the Main- 
 tenance of the Gofpel Minifters*, That Chrift hath aflign- 
 ed Tythes to the Gofpel Minifters^ and that they may 
 be proved out of the Nexo Teftament to be due jnre divino. 
 But leaving thefe Teftimonies to the Reader's Cenfure, 
 I proceed now to examine his Right to Tythes by Dona- 
 tion, and voluntary Dedication, which in his next Sedt- 
 on he makes way for, but does not diredly enter upon, 
 being diverted by a Paflage or two in my Book, which it 
 feems lay in his way. 
 
 §. 8. Firfl 
 
( *i4 ) 
 
 §. 8. Firfl: he falls with greai anger upon me, for fay- 
 ing in pag. 287. of my Book, called. Truth IPrevaiUngy 
 Though Chrift deny Tythesy yet if Men will grant them^ it will 
 ftrve the Prteft^s turn. This he calls a rnofi mdiciom hfe^ 
 rence^ pag. 72. 
 
 But who fees not the Truth of it? Care they (I fpeak 
 of the generality of them) how they come by them, fo 
 they can get them? Regard they whether they have them 
 from God or Man ? If fome among them do, yet that this 
 Priell doth not, no Man that indifferenily reads his Book, 
 can doubt. But he thinks to pinch me clofer upon this 
 point *, / know^ fays he to his dear Brother,jf<7;/ never [aid nor 
 thought that Chrift denied Tythes^ and fine e the Quaker affirms^ 
 that Chrift doth deny them^ let him produce the place of Scrips 
 tnre where Chrift doth deny Tythes to be given or granted to Go" 
 [pel MinifterSy or elft he is a manifeft Slanderer of Chrift in this 
 Suggeftion^ pag. 73- 
 
 I (hould not have thought this Paflage worth tranfcrib- 
 ing, but to deted his weaknefs, and fhew him how fe- 
 verely he jerh himfelf, while he thinks to lafh me. If I 
 do not produce the place of Scripture, where Chrift doth 
 deny Tythes to be given to Gofpel Minifters, he Brands 
 me for a manifeft Slanderer of Chrift. He himfelf fays^ 
 Our Lord J^f^ ^^d his Apoftles have fufjiciently eftablijhed 
 Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gofpel Minifters^ pag. 6 1 . 
 yet produces no place of Scripture where our Lord Jefus 
 and his Apoftles have fufficiently eftablifhed Tythes for 
 the Maintenance of the Gofpel Minifters ; but on the 
 contrary confefles, Tythes are not mentioned in the (jofpel or 
 Bpiftles to be the very party pag. 67. and that Tythes are not 
 mentioned in the New Teftament ^jj name^ ibid. Not only 
 fo, but afSrms, Onr Lord and his Apoftles did not make a 
 new Determination of the tenth part by name^ pag. 69, and 
 that Oar Lord might probably on purpofe decline determining 
 the proportion too exprejly^ pag. 70. Now after all this, he 
 that can fo freely ftigmatiz.e me for a manifeft Slanderer of 
 Chrift, what will he think St to call himfelf? Whdii Badge 
 will hrmfelf vouchfafe to wear ? He fays, Chrift hath affign- 
 id Tythes to the Gofpel Minifters^ pag. 72. but himfelf hath 
 not ajfigned any place of Scripture for the proof thereof. 
 Shall I take the libertf to fay by Retortion, Let him pro- 
 dnce the place of Scripture where Chrift hath afftgned Tythes to the 
 
 Cofpei 
 
("5 ) 
 
 &o/pei MirtifterSj or elfe he is a manifeft Slanderer of Chrifi in 
 thi^, Snggeftion. 
 
 The nex6 occafion he takes to fall iipon me, is for taking 
 King Ethelwolfs for the oldefl: Charter. And here (ac- 
 cording to his ufual Incivility) he liberally bellows upoa 
 me the Liveries of Folly and F^ljhood^ Ton did (fays he to 
 hisjBrothcr, pag, 75.) frove this voluntary Dedication (with 
 refpe^ to this Nation) by King Ethelwolfs Charter. Not be'- 
 caiife that was the firfi or oldefl Donation of TytheSj as T . £. 
 foolifhly and Ulfly frggffts^ pag. 299. 
 
 To the fame purpofe, pag. 74. Jnd becanfe the Qpa- 
 ker dreading all higher antiquity y and omitting all inquiry into 
 preceding Church Hiftory^ doth cunningly fu^fofe Tythes no older 
 amongft Ghriflians than this Charter^ &c. 
 
 This is his charge ^ how juftly grounded will appear 
 by comparing it with that part of my Book, out of which 
 he feems to draw it. My Words are thefe, pag. 299. // 
 he had any Charter or Settlement of Tythes of Older Date than 
 that o/'Ethelwolf (which woi about the Tear 855.^ he (hould 
 have produced it^ and probably fo he would. However^ fines 
 he did not^ 1 have no reafan to think he has any elder. Where 
 now i^ myfoffyy where my faljhood in this? Was IfooUfh 
 in thinking he would have produced an older Charter if he 
 could, when his bufinefs was to clear the Donation from 
 all fufpicion of Poperyj and his intereft led him, in order 
 thereto, to produce the r^ofl antient Charter he could find ? 
 Or was I falfe in faying, I had no reafon to think he had 
 any elder Charter, fince he, whofe main concern it was, 
 did not bring forth an older ? Or was it an Argument I 
 dreaded all higher Antiquity^ becaufe I only refuted the 
 highefi Antiquity ht brought, and did not make it my bufi- 
 nefs to fcek out for him an higher Antiquity than he could 
 find for himfelf ? Belong'd it to me to fearch into preced- 
 ing Church-Hiftory to helj) him to a more authentick Char- 
 ter ? What weakj what childtjhy what trifling work is this ! 
 Let him not lay his Brother's Wealnefs at ray door j but 
 let him take his Brother to Task, and teach him to man- 
 nage his Caufe m$re warily hereafter. 
 
 1 CHAR 
 
Cn6> 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 HE now purpofes a Method, in which he promifes t& 
 proceed in his following Difcourfe. Firfl^ he fays, 
 jh/e wili look hack into the Ages before K. Ethelwolf, and (hew 
 by what Authority and Prefidents he made this Donation. Se- 
 condly, He will confider the Donation it felfj and the State of 
 thofe Times in which it was made. Thirdly, He will note how 
 it hath been confirmed fince. And then^ Fourthly, ffipe off 
 T. E's. particidar Blots thrown upn thisfstcred Maintenance^ 
 pag. 74. 
 
 In this Method I intend to fallow him, with what bre- 
 vity I can, not infifting on every particular which might 
 be fpoken to in this pari of his Difcourfe, becaufe the X«- 
 f?tan Right neceflarily depending on the Divine^ and the 
 Divine Right hitherto remaining altogether unprovedyVf hat 
 can be urged in Defence of the Human Right, will have 
 the lefs Weight, and need the lefs Anfwer. 
 
 §. I. He begins with the Apoftle's Times^ and fays^^ 
 pag. 75. The Apofiles having given a general Rule for the Faith" 
 fnl to Commnnicate mto their Teachers in aU good things^ th§ 
 Primitive Chrillians did always make liberal Oblations to their 
 ^aflors^ not only of Houfes and Lands ^ as we read in holy Scrip" 
 inres, but alfo of many and other things^ which being CoBeBed 
 0very Lord^s Day^ was delivered to the Bifliop^ faith Juftin 
 Alartyr. 
 
 Should I now take the liberty to deal by him, as he ia 
 his 10th Se(^ion (pag. 59;) dealt by me, I might bere 
 help him to as foul a Contradidion, as he did there make 
 for me. I did but grant my Adverfaries Pofition, that a 
 Maintenance in general to the Minifters of the Gofpel i« 
 •— *eftablifted by Divine Authority, pag. 284. and after 
 faid. What this Maintenance is, is exprefly ikt down by 
 Chrift himfelf, pag. 285. He ihiufls the Word lOnlyJ 
 into my Grant, and reports me to fty. Divine Authority 
 Jiad <>w/y eftabliihed a Maintenance in general, and there- 
 upon infers, if he have eftablifhed it only in general, then 
 hath he not exprefled the Partiaelars ^ not flicking at a 
 49wn-rig^t Forgery^ shas he might rendei? me contradidory 
 
( 117 ) 
 
 to my felf. Now if I would be fo unworthy and dljhoneji 
 as to imitate him herein, how ftrange a contradidion might 
 here be made by adding the word only to his general Rule, 
 and making him fay here. The Apollles had given only a 
 general Rule for the Faithful to Communicate, &c. when 
 as he had faid exprelly but a little before. The Apollles 
 had eftablifhed Tythes (which is a particular quantity) for 
 tht Maintenance oi the Gofpel Minifters^ pag. 6i. But his 
 unfair Dealing by me fhall not, 1 hope, make me forgec 
 how to behave my felf towards him. Nor would I in 
 this place have mentioned this (having noted it before) 
 but to fet more clearly before his Eye the Crimfon Dye of 
 hi^ own Crime, But leaving this, let us inquire what Truth 
 there is in his Allegation. Upon this general Rule of the 
 Apoftle, he fays, The Primitive Chriftians did always make 
 liberal Oblations to their Pafiors^ not only of Honfes and Lands y 
 as we read in holy Scripture^ hut alfo of Money and other 
 things. 
 
 In what part of holy Scripture did he ever read, that 
 the Chriftians gave Honfes and Lands to their Paftors ? ThaE 
 Text had been worth quoting. St. Luke indeed, in his 
 Hi/lory of the ASls of the Apoftles^ doth mention fome 
 th^t fold their Houfes^ and Landsj and brought the Prices 
 thereof^ and laid them down a£ the Apoftle's Feet. But 
 he canaot be fuppofed to refer to this for two Reafons. 
 I. Becaufe he makes this Oblation of Houfes and Lands 
 by the Chriftians to their Paftors, to be the effect of that 
 general Rule^ given by the Apoftle to the Faithful, to 
 communicate unto their Teachers in all good things, men- 
 tioned in the Epiftle to the Galatians^ whereas this feSin^ 
 ofPofTefllons, and living in a Community, was not only 
 long before that Epiftle was written, but fometime alfo 
 before he thai writ it was himfelf converted to the Chri^ 
 ftian Faith ^ and therefore could not be done in Ohfervanc& 
 of that general Rule, 2. Becaufe in that Hiftory of the 
 Apofiles A^s^ St. Lnke doth not fay, that any made Obla- 
 tions of Honfes and Lands -^ but the clean contrary, viz. 
 thai as many as were PoiTefTors of Lands or Houfes, fold 
 themy and brought the Prices of the things that were fold, 
 and laid them down at the Apoftles Feet, A5ls 4. 34* to 
 the «nd. So that here was not an Offering of Honfes and 
 Lmds^ but of Momy^ which the Prieft mentions befides, 
 
 I 2 1^ 
 
( "8 ) 
 
 as MfiinEf from the Oblations of Houfes and Lands, and 
 a§ lieaning upon another Authority : for he refers the Ob- 
 lation of Houfes and Lands to the proof of holy Scripture j 
 but the Oblation of Money and other things to the Tefti- 
 mony of Jnftin Martyr, The Apoftle (he faysj having 
 given a general Rule for the Faithful to communicate un-^ 
 to their Teachers in all good things, the Primitive Chri* 
 ftians did always make liberal Oblations to their Paftors, 
 not only of Houfes and Lands as we read in holy Serif ture^ but 
 alfo of Money and other things \ which being Colleded 
 every Lord's Day was delivered to the Biihop, faith Jw 
 fiin Martyr. Here it's plain, he makes the Oblations of 
 Houfes and Lands diftinB from that of Money and other 
 things. ThQ former y he fays, we read in holy. Scripture^ the 
 latter^ he tells us, Jaftin Martyr faith. If he has read' in 
 holy Scripture this Oblation of Houfes and Lands^ I defirc 
 he would dired to the place, that I may read it alfo. But 
 If he no where reads this in holy Scripture, but,adds this 
 amplification as a Flourijh to his Difcourfe, he is the more 
 to be blamed in this, and the lefs to be credited in the reft* 
 How lean a Cafe doth he advocate, that needs the help of 
 fuch forry jhifts ! 
 
 Befidcs, he abufes his Reader in his Application as well 
 as in his Allegation •, for he intimates, as if thofe liberal Ob- 
 lations had been made by the Primitive Chriftiansj to their 
 Paftors for their proper Ufe and Maintenance •, whereas it 
 h evident in holy Scripture, that they who fold their Pof- 
 feflions, and laid the Prices at the Apoflles Feet, did de^ 
 fopt that Money in a common Stock or Treafury, for the 
 Maintenance of aU fuch as were gathered into that Com- 
 munity ; out of which Stock Dljiribmon was made unto 
 tvery Man according oi he had needy Ads 4. 35. So that 
 thofe Oblations were not made as a peculiar Maintenance 
 for the Apoflles or Paftors, but for the common Mainte- 
 nance of all the Faithful, as well Hearers as Teachers^ ijx 
 that phce. And when afterwards the inconvenience of 
 that Way appearing, they came to make Weekly and 
 Montfily Contributions, the Money fo Colleded was not 
 appropriated to'the ufe of the Apofties, Paftors or Teachers, 
 but both intended for, and imployed to the Relief of thcj 
 por Saints in general^ as may be feen in divers places of 
 Sjcripture, particularly m t Cor. t6. where concerning the 
 
 Coi- 
 
( 1^9 ; 
 
 Colledion for the Saints, the Apoftle adWfes, that upon 
 the firft Day of the Week, every one fhould lay by him 
 in Score, as God had profpered him, prcmlling withal, 
 that when he came to them, whomfoever they by their 
 Letters ihould a;pprove, he would fend to carry this Gift 
 of theirs tojaufalem^ yjea, and to 8;o himfelf with it, 
 if need require ' Aud ia his fecond Epiftle to the fam^ 
 Church, Chap. 9. he reminds them of this Charitable 
 Work, which io general terms, htx:^\ha Mni(tringtothe 
 Saints \ and though he exhorts them to Liberality and 
 Bouncy, yet fo far is he from prefcribing any certain quafi? 
 tity, that he leaves all to this abfoluce Liberty, Every Man 
 according as he ,pHrpofeth in his HeMrt^ fo let him ^ive^ VeiH 
 7. and in the 9th Verfe, alluding to the Words of the 
 Pfalmift, he plainly fhews, this charitable Contribution 
 was for the ^f/^>/of the ¥oor\ He hath differfed abroad^ he 
 hath given to the Poor^ &c. And that thefe Contributions 
 were for the Foor^ he fpeaks exprefly, Rom. 15. 25, 26. 
 But now 1 £0 ««^^ Jerulalem, to Minifier unto the Saints ; for 
 it hath fleafed them of Macedonia and Achaia, to make a 
 certain Contribmion for the poor Slants which are at Jerufalcm. 
 ll was not therefore fairly done of the Priefl: to perfwade 
 Iris Reader, thai thefe weekly Colledions made by the 
 Chriftians for the Relief of their Poor Brethren^ were Ob- 
 lations or Offerings to their Pallors and Teachers for 
 their fecnliarMfSy as he feems to do: Which yet if they 
 had been,ic would not in any meafure have proved Ty thes, 
 fince no certain quantity is expreft, much lefs a tenth \ nor 
 zny forced Maintenance, thej being altogether /rr^ and va» 
 Inntary, 
 
 §. 2. But he is willing to haften from Scripture Evi- 
 dence, finding nothing there that may ferve his purpofe ; 
 therefore he fays, pag. 75. Not to expatiate into the whole 
 Maintenance of the Chriftian Bishops and Priefl s in the firfi 
 J^ges^ he will come to enquire whether they had nothing in that 
 Maintenance anfwering to Tythes\ yea^ Whether they had ne 
 Tythes given them by a voluntary Devotion. 
 
 For this he offers the Teftimony of Jrendtns^ thus, pag. 
 75. We ought to offer to God thefirft Fruits of his Creatures^ of 
 Mofes faith^ Thoujhalt not appear before the Lord empty: for 
 •fjot all kind of Oblations are abrogated ^ there were Oblations a*, 
 ^ong thtm^ andihsre are Qblations among m. 
 
C 129. ) 
 
 And a little after, thus, Js the Jews ^41/^ their tenths] fa 
 the Chriftians^^'z/^ all they had freely and chear fully to the Lord^s 
 ZJfes^ not giving lefs than they^ as having a greater hope. 
 
 In the firfl of thefe places no mention at all is made of 
 Tythes, but of firfl Fruics, and that with refpedt to the 
 Law of Moks^ noE binding to Chriftians. In the latter, it 
 is evident, the Chriftians did not give Tythes^ or any thing 
 anfwering Tythes : for the Words are exprefs, they gave 
 all they had freely and chearfully to the Lord's llfes. So 
 that neither of thefe places ferve his end. 
 
 But becaufe he here (and elfewhere in Ancient: Writers) 
 reads the word firft Fruits^ be would perfwade nis Reader, 
 that firfl Fruits and Tythes are all one^ the fame thi^g un- 
 der divers Names ; and that the very firfi Chriflians dedi" 
 cated their firfi Fruits of all the EartWs FroduUions to God^ 
 pag- 77. 
 
 Were this true, that the. very firft Chriftians dedicated 
 their firll Fruits of all the Earth's Produdions to God, 
 methinks fome mention of it fhould have been in holy 
 Scripture. But neither any hint at all do I there find that 
 they did fo, nor any Exhortation to them, in any of the 
 Epiflles fo to do. Since therefore no proof of this can be 
 drawn from Scripture, and that Irenam and others that 
 writ after him, fpeak of the times in which they lived, I 
 conclude, the Prieft was fomewhat miftaken in fathering 
 this Dedication of firfl Fruits upon the very firfi Chri^_ 
 fiians. 
 
 Then for his other Conceit, That firll Fruits and Tythes 
 iignifie the fame thing, the Evidence he offers, are. The 
 Apoftolical Canonsj which (he fays, pag. 77.) were the D^- 
 crees of divers Chriflian Synods made in the times ofFerfecHtion^ 
 and of great Authority in the Chriflian Church. 
 
 But doubtlefs were he not at a very low Ebb, he would 
 never have mentioned the ApoftoUcal Canons (as they are 
 called) which though to credit his Caufe, he pretends to 
 have been of great Authority in the Chriflian Church, yet 
 he mufl not be the Man he would willingly pafs for in 
 Point of Knowledge and Reading, if he be now to learn 
 that many learned and knowing Men have long fince ex-^ 
 ploded and rejeded them, as Supfofitions and falfe. Berlins 
 againfl Coccius^ m his Problem of the Church of Rome^ pag, 
 7. iSyS| fhc Siool of thi Cmons of the AfofiUs is faid to be 
 
C "X > 
 
 "j^pocryfhal^ and quotes I/tdore affirming the fame. The 
 firll that mentioned them, he fays, was Epiph^mus (who 
 wrote about the Year 380.) and in the fixth Council of 
 ConftantinopU they were condemned, Selden alfb in his Hiflory 
 of Tythes, cap 4. pag. 43. calls them plainly counterfeit 
 rCanons y and in his Review o<i thai Chapter, (hews more 
 at large that they are fou 
 
 §. 5. Th€ Priefl quotes here a Sentence out ot Origen^ 
 wherein firft Fruits are mentioned, but not a word ofTythes-^ 
 yet in his Application of it, pag. 79. he makes Ort^en 
 conclude from hence, that the Law of Tythes and nrfl: 
 Fruits ought to ftand in force among Chriftians ^ but there- 
 in he wrongs Origtn^ whofe words are, H«c diximus affe- 
 rentes mandatus de primitijs frugum vel pecorum debere 
 «tiam fecundum literam flare, i. e. ^hefc things we have 
 faidy affirming^ that the Commandment concerning the firfi 
 Fruits of Bruits and of Cattle^ ought to fiand even according to 
 the Letter. Thefe are Origenh words, into which th^ Prieft 
 (for his own end) hath flyly thrufl the word ^Tythes^ and 
 made him fay, the Law ol Tythes and firft Fruits ought to 
 ftand. What Credit is to be given to fuch a Man ! 
 
 Nor deals he much better with Cyprian^ whom he quotes 
 next, after this manner, To him (fays he, pag. 79.) we may 
 add St, Cyprian, who lived about forty years after ^ who coni^ 
 trending the Noblenefs of the firji Chnftis^ns^ blames thofe, wha 
 did net give the Tythes out of their Inheritance^ which (fays the 
 Priefl) Cyprian would not have done^ but that he believed 
 Chriji intended Tythes for the Maintenance of a Gofpet Mi* 
 niftry. 
 
 He that fhall fairly confultthe place, will eafily fee thai 
 the Frieft hath quite miffed Cyprian's meaning : for he doth 
 not blame them for not giving Tythes ^ but comparing 
 the Oblations of the Fvhmtivc Chrijlians^ with thofe of th€ 
 time wherein he lived, he (hews the decay of Devotion to 
 be fuch, that they did not then give fo much as the tenth 
 part of what the firft Chrijiians gave. His words, as I 
 find them in Selden\ Review, ^ap. 4. are, Domos tunc & 
 fundos venundabant^ & thefauros fibi in cdo reponentes, dijlri-* 
 hnenda in ufas indigentium prma Apoflolis offerebant. At nun^ 
 fatrimonio nee decimasdamm\ & cum vender e jub eat Vominui^ 
 <minw potim & augemi\i^ i. e. Tih%n they jQld tionfes and 
 
 1 4 l^^m 
 
( J22 ) 
 
 Farms^, and Uyittg up Tre^fnres for themfehes in fleavett^ they 
 ejfered the Prices to the j^poflles^ to be diftributed for the Vfes 
 of the Poor, But now we do not give fo much as the Tenths of 
 cur Patrimony ; and whereas the Lord commandeth to felly we 
 rather buy and increafe. Whence it is plain, Cyprian doth 
 not either reqnire Tythes^ or blame them that did not give 
 Tythes, But ufes the word Degimoi Rhetorically^ to per- 
 fwade the Chriftiam of his time to greater Liberality and 
 Charity, by the Exampl^^of the firft Chriftians, to whofe 
 free Bounty ^ what thefe gave, would not (if compar'd) 
 be fo much as a tenth part. And thus Selden^ in the place 
 fore-quoted underftood him. But no more reafon is there 
 to fuppofe Cyprian did here blame the Chrifttans for not 
 giving Tythes out of their Patrimonies, then there would 
 be CO imagine he blamed them for mcreafing .hetr Bftates by 
 Vnrfhafe^ which jthe Chriftian Relriion doth in no wife pro- 
 hibit (Chriflians by juft and lawful mean^ to do. And for 
 that Book it felf of Cyprians^ de Vnitate Bcclefia^ out of 
 which the Prieft makes this Quotation for Tythes, al- 
 though it be not wholly rejedcd, yet is it fufpeded to have 
 been corrupted in more places than one. Perkins againft 
 Coccins fays expreily of it, CyprianHiker de unitate Eccleji<^ 
 corruptm eft ad ftahiliendum Prjmatum Petri^ Problem, pag. 
 14. i. e. Cyprian's Book of the Vnity of the Churchy is corrupt^ 
 edtq efiablijh the Primacy of Peter j of which he gives di- 
 vers inftances. 
 
 The Prieft goes on, To this (fays he, of Cyprian) we 
 tnay add the Tejlimony of that amient Book which bears the 
 JSJarne c?/ Clement's Conflitmions, What would not he ftick 
 to add, how adulterate foever^ that might ftem to add fome 
 frefh Colour to his decayed and dying Caufe i Thefe Cow 
 ftitutions which bear the Name of Clement^ are lefs Au- 
 thentick (if lefs can be) than lihofe fore-mentioned Canons 
 which are called j^poftolical, Perkins^ in his Problem againft 
 Cocciu6y pag. 8. proves from EufebiHf, Ruffinus and others, 
 that There are many things feigned under the Name of Clemen^ 
 Roirianps -, of which having given divers Inftances he 
 adds, The eight Books alfo of ApoftolicalConftitutions^ written 
 hy the fame Clement, deferve no greater credit, Aud fpr 
 ^eldens Opinion of them, take it in his own words, For 
 Conflitutions of the Church \ if you could believe thofe fuppofed 
 fo ffe made by thj JpoftUs, and te be CoUtUed by Poje ClemenI 
 
 M 
 
( I2J ) 
 
 ih^flrfty you might he fur e both of Payrnem in the Atopies tim§$^ 
 AS alfo of an exprefs Opinion M antient for the Right of Tenths* 
 -—^Btit no Mtzn that willingly and moft grofy dtceives not him* 
 felfy can believe that this Confiitution^ or divers others there^ 
 are of any time near the Age of the ApoflleSy b'M many hundred 
 Tears after. The little worthy and IcfsTrmhy of the whole ^o^ 
 lume is enough difcovered by divers of the Learned: af d it woe 
 long fince branded for a Counterfeit in an OecHmenical ConncUj 
 Synod. 6. in Trullo. Thus he, in his Hiftory ot Tythes, 
 cap. 4. pag. 42. and much more to the fame purpoft, ia 
 his Review of that Chapter, but this 1 take to be fuffici? 
 .ent to deted^ the falfenefs of thofe Confticutiocs, and my 
 Opponent's weaknefs in urging them. 
 
 His next Author is Ambrofe^ out of whofe Sermons, 33. 
 and ^4. he takes two Qiiotations. The firft thus, It is 
 tiot fufficient foY^HS to bear the Name of Chrijliansy tf we da not 
 the vVorks of Chriftians ; now the Lord commands hs to pay onr 
 Tythei yearly of all our Fruits and Cattle^ pag. 80. 
 
 The Particle \inow2 in J^his Quota? ion is not L Ambrofe^ 
 but added by the Priefi. The otner Qnccation is ong, bun 
 to the farne purpofe ^ and that whic i cms mot mateii- 
 al in it, is the lacter Claufe, t^at ^f ill the v»ubii:a:ice 
 which Gpd gives a Man, he hath refervcd the tenth par« 
 to hin^felf, and therefore it is not lawful rcr a Man to re- 
 tain it. 
 
 Here he fays, The Lord Commands us to pay Tythes 
 yearly, and that he hath referveo ttie tench of aJ] to him- 
 (elf ; but the Text he offers in proof thereof, he fetches 
 from the Levitical Law, which neither is obliging to Ck/- 
 fiians^ nor do the Priefts themfelves claim by it •, nay, they 
 renounce it, as may be feen both in the Conference^ pag. 
 1 33- and in the Right of Tythes^ pag. ^6. What avail thefe 
 Teftimonies then to their Caufe, which are drawn from 
 that Law which they themfelves dtfclaiml were it never fo 
 undoubted that the Quotations themfelves were genuine 5 
 which yet there is very great caufe to queflion : For what 
 likelihood is there, that Amkrofe^ or any other of thofe an- 
 cient Writers, could fo far forget himlelf, as from a par- 
 ticular Precept given to the People of the Jews^ to infer, 
 that God hath commanded Chrtfiians to pay Tythes year- 
 ly ? &c. But that the Writings of thofe Fathers (as they 
 are called) have beea corrupted ia general, Men conver- 
 
 fant 
 
( 124 ) 
 
 fa at in Hiflory are not ignorant ; and in particularly ^m- 
 ^rofe his Sermons are by Perkint accounted Spurious or 
 'Counterfeit, Problem^ pag. 2o. 
 
 Next to Ambrofe he brings Epiphamiis^ pag. 8i. faying, 
 T^ff Scripture exhorteth the People^ that out of their jftft Labours 
 they jhoddgive to the Pnefts for their Maintenance^ fir ft Frnifs^ 
 Oblations^ and other Things. 
 
 To this a twofold Anf^ver is to be given, i. That here 
 is no mention ofTythes ^ and though the Prieft, for want of 
 better proof, would fain have fiift Fruits underftood for 
 Tythes, yet fo contrary is it to all Reafon, that no Maa 
 of Judgment can be in danger to be fo miOed. 2. When 
 tie faich, the Scripture exhorteth the People to give the 
 Priefl's firfl Fruits for their Maintenance, fince we are 
 certain no Scripture of the New Tefiament doth fo exhort, 
 he mult neceflarily be underftood to fpeak this with rela- 
 tion to the Leviticd Law, which as ic was defigned for, 
 and given to, fo it did particularly concern the Jewish 
 Nation, not the Chriftians, And that the Payment of 
 Tythes were not in ufe in Epiphanias his time, nor ac- 
 counted nellary, Selden proves from Epiphanius his own 
 words (in Heref 50.) The whole PalTage, as it lies in 
 Selden $ Hiftory of Tythes, Review^ cap. 4. pag. 4(51. take 
 as followeth *, ' When he {viz.. Epiphamus) tells us (fays 
 
 * Selden) of the Tejfarefdecatitay or thofe which thought 
 
 * the holy Eafler muft be kept on the 14th Moon, accord- 
 ^ ing to the Law given to the Jews for their Paflbver, and 
 
 * that becaufe they apprehended, that the keeping it other- 
 
 * wife was fubject to the curfe of the Law ^ he fays, thai 
 
 * '^dvTA tx^fftv ai w 'E;c;cAHV/it, that is, they do all things, or 
 
 * agree generally with the Church, faving that they were 
 
 * too much herein addicted to the Jewi^ Cuftom. And 
 
 * in his Argument agafnfi: them, he fhews, that the Curfe 
 
 * hath not reference only to the Paflbver, but alfo to Cir^ 
 
 * cumcifion to Tythes (^ef) ^S^inArdtricoi) to Offerings. Where- 
 
 * fore (as he goes on) if they efcape one Curfe, by keep- 
 
 * ing their Eafler according to the Law of the Paflbver, 
 
 * they thruft themfelves into many other. For (faith he) 
 --* they fliall find them alfo accurfed that are not Circumci- 
 
 * fed, and them curfed that pay not Tythes, and them 
 
 * curfed that Offer not at Jemfahm. Let any Man now 
 
 * (fays Sdden^ coafider if this Biftiop, that was leafl: unac- 
 
 ijuaint- 
 
( "5 > 
 
 * quainted with the Cuftoms of che Chrifiian Ckurcb^ un-^ 
 
 * derftood not clearly, Ehat no necejfary or known itfe of Fay- 
 ' trtent was among Chrifiiam in his time, ofTythts^ no more 
 
 * than of Circunicilion> or Offering at 'jerufdem. Doth 
 
 * he not plainly reckoti it as a thing not only not in Ckri" 
 ^ ftian fife^ but even equals it with what was certainly abro'^ 
 ^ gated? Is not his Objedion (hortly thus? Why do you 
 
 * not obferve Circumcilion and Ty thing, a. id Offerings 
 ' alfo at Jeriifdem^ which are all fubjed to the like Curfe ? 
 
 * And becaufe fome kind of Offerings indeed were in ufe 
 
 * among Chriftians^ therefore in the Objedion he provi- 
 ' dently ties them to Jerttfalem. But of Tyching he fpeaks 
 
 * as generally as of Circumcifion. Thus far SeUen of Epi- 
 fhanius. By which the Reader may jiJdge, Whether Chri^ 
 ft tarn paid Tythes in Epiphanius his time, or whether Epl- 
 phanifis actc unfed the Payment of Tythes a Chrtftian Duty, 
 who fo plainly equals Tythes wicn Circumcifion aud JcW" 
 ijh Offerings, which are mofl: certainly abrogated. 
 
 To Epiphanius the Priefl: joius Chryfoftom^ wnom he re- 
 pof'd rolpeak after this manner, h is lawfd and fimm for 
 C'riitlans to pay Tythes^ and that MelchizeJec xmas onr^dor 
 in this matter^ pag. 8 1 . 
 
 Doth this found at all like C^ryf^lhrn^ Is it likcl;^ he 
 Wouid fay Melchizedec was our Tv;^a; in paying I yCi^es ? 
 t)id Melchiz.^dec then pay Tythes ? Jc whv.n 1 wouuv; ? Or 
 did l€ teach that Tythes are to be pjid ' Where 1 pray? 
 That Golden mouthed Dodor (as his name imports) un- 
 derilood the Text and himfelf better thcjn to ha^'e let fall 
 fuch an expreflion. But his Writings have run ihe fame 
 fate with ochers of thofe earlier times, being in ma ly pla- 
 ces partly through inadvertency, partly through delign, 
 corrupted. And Terkins out of Sixtus Senenfis the Lihra y^ 
 keeper^ reckons above a hundred Homilies that bear the 
 Name of Chryfoflom^ which yet are reputed Spurious. Pro^ 
 hlemy pag. 14, &c. And Selden^ in his Hiftory of Tythes, 
 C. 5. pag. 55. giving the Opiaions of the Fathers of that 
 Age, fays Chryfofiom^ perfwading even Labourers and Ar- 
 tHicers to give bountifully their Offerings to the Church 
 for holy Ufes, according to the Apoftolical Ordinance ia 
 the Churches oi Corinth and Galatia-^ brings the 3^^»7iyZ? Li- 
 berality in the Payment of their tenths for Example (be- 
 neath which he would not have Ck>/?^<«/?i deter min their /^ 
 
 Charity/ 
 
( 126 ) 
 
 Charity) adding, that he fpeaks thefe things notascom- 
 fnanding or forbidding that t^ey fhould give more, yet as 
 thinking h fif, that they fhould not give lefs than a tenth 
 part. Whence it is plain, that Tythes were not generally paid 
 nor held dne % but the Miniflers and the Poor were alike 
 maintained by the free Gifts and voluntary Oblations of the 
 People, whkh through the coldnefs of Devotion, falling 
 ihort of anfwering the neceflary ends, as formerly, gave 
 occafion to chefe Men to excite their Charity, and pro- 
 voke them to more Liberality by the Example of the J^n?/, 
 who paid the tenth of their Increafe. Bence it is, that ia 
 fome of their Writings the word tDecin>2e3 fometimes 
 occurs And from their frequent Inculcation of this, as 
 a Provocation to the Chrtftians to equal at leafl, if not ex- 
 ceed, in Charity and Bounty the "Jewsy an Opinion about 
 this time, ignorance and Superftition Co-operating there- 
 to., began in fome places to enter the Church, that Tythes 
 were due. But then they were claimed and received in 
 $he name of the Poor^ and the Claim derived from the Mo" 
 faical Law, as Sdden proves at large, C. 5. Bui for the 
 iirfi: four hundred years after Chrift, Seldenis politive. No 
 ttfe of Tythes occnrs till about the end of this four hundred years ^ 
 are his words, C. 4. pag. 35. And again, Till towards 
 the end of the firft four hundred years, no Payment of 
 ^hem can be proved to have been in life, ibid. 
 
 The Prieft's next Quotation is of Herom^ whom he 
 apjakes to fay, That as a Priefl or Levlte, he hirnf elf lived uf^^ 
 €n Tythes and Oblations^ pag. 81. 
 
 in this he deals not well with his Reader : for he gives 
 l!ot Hierom^^ own words fairly, but taking a piece only, 
 reprefencs his fenfe far oiherwife than it is. Hierom\ 
 words are thefe. Si ego pars Domini fum^ & funic him h^re- 
 Mtatis ejpd, nee accipio par tern, mer cater m trihtts^ fed QV A SI 
 Levita & Sacerdos vivo de decimUj & altari ferviens altarU 
 Oblatione fuflentor^ habens viBum & veftitum^ his contem/a 
 tro^ & enudam crucemnudtis fequar^ i. e. Ifl am the hordes 
 part^ and a Cord of his Inheritance^ and receive nojhare among(l 
 the refi of the Tribes^ hm live LIKE AS a Lcvite and a 
 ^Frieft of the Tythes^ and ferving a,t the Altar^ amfuftained by 
 ^the Offering of the Altar^ having Food and Raymentj with thefe 
 will I be content^ and naked follow the naked Crofs. It's plain, 
 thac Hicrom here alludes to ihe Jewish Priefts and their 
 
 Main- 
 
( 127 ) 
 
 Maintenance, and therefore ufes the word Tythes as fuitfng" 
 his Comparifon of a Levitt. But it doth no more follow 
 from hence that Hlerom really lived upon Tythes^ than it doth 
 that he was really a Levite^ of a certain Tribe, and neither 
 bad, nor might have any Patrimonial Eftate amongft his 
 Brethren-, adl which might with like reafon be inferr'd 
 from thefe words, by him that would take them literally 
 and ftridly, not comparatively and with allufioni Anit 
 it may be obferved, that though in the firft part of hh 
 Sentence, purfuing his Simile of a Levite having no para 
 among the other Tribes, he mentions Tythes which was 
 the Levite^s Maintenance, yet in the latter part he hath a 
 plain reference to the words of the Apollle Fanl, r Tim. 
 6. 8. Having Food and Rayment^ let as theremth be content. 
 Another Quotation he gives out of Hierom^ upon Mmlj. 
 22. where he fays^ Hierom calls Tythes the things that b^ 
 Cod's, 
 
 But that Homily upon Matthew is rejeSed by Perkirtr 
 inpag. 23. of his Trohlem^ and ranked amongft feveral o- 
 ther Works, which he fays, by the common judgment of aS! 
 Men arefalfly afcrihedto Hierom. 
 
 His next Author is Augnftiny who, he fays, pag. 82. fW 
 timates it was no new Oifiomy nor Opinion to pay Tythes as 
 Cor^s due. 
 
 His words, as he cites them, are, for our Fore-fatherr 
 therefore abounded in all plenty ^ becanfe they gave God hu Tythc^ 
 and Cajfar his Tribute. 
 
 That Tythes were not paid in the Apoftles times, is both 
 evident from Scripture, and granted by thePriefl: That 
 Tythes were not paid in the Srft Two hundred Years after 
 Chrift, may be fairly Colleded from Tertnllian^ who fpeak- 
 ing of the Chrifiian Monthly Contributions in his time, 
 fays, Modicam unHfquifq'^ftipem menfirua die^ vel cum velit^ &" 
 fimodovelitj & fimodo poffit^ apponit : Nam nemo compe Hit er^ 
 fed fponte confert^ i. e. Every one lays down a fmall piece of 
 Money on the Monthly Day^ or when he willy and if fo be he b» 
 willing^ and if fo be he be able : For no Man is compelled^ but 
 heftows freely^ Apol. c. 39. Then for the nexfi fifty years^ 
 tliofe words of Cyprian cited, but mifapplied by the 
 Frieft (if the place be not depraved) (hew that Tythes were 
 not then paid. For he noting the coldnefs of their Charity 
 then, compared with the Liberality of the firft Chrifiians^^ 
 
 fays^ 
 
(I2S) 
 
 fay§. They then fold Honfes andLandSj andhreuiht the Priced 
 to thi j^pofilej to be difpofed for the ufe of the Poor: hnt now 
 we t^^ not give Co ^ach m the Tenths^ which plainly fhews, 
 that Tenths or Tyth^s were not paid in his time. 
 
 And about the Year 380. What Epi^hanius writes of 
 the T^Jftrefdecatkaj cited but now out of Selden^ puts ic 
 out of doubt that Tythes were not paid in his time, at 
 leafl in the Greek Eaftern Church. And if Tythes were 
 not paid in Epiphanins his time, certainly the Cuftom of 
 paying of them, and Opinion of their being due (if any fuch 
 Cuftom or Opinion had been general) inAHghftinh lime (who 
 Was Born berore Epiphanim died) muft needs be fomewhat 
 new. But if Andrew WiUet^s Judgment be of any force with 
 the Prieft, he is very plain and pofitive as to this Cafe. In 
 Auguftin'j time (fays he) k woi no general Law nor Cuftom 
 in the Churchy that Tythes Jhould he paid, Synop. Papifm. 5. 
 gen. Controv. pag. 3 14. And yet there is ground to fup- 
 pofe, that in Auguflinh time, in fome places, and at fome 
 limes, fome Perfons did give Tythes ; but not that there 
 "was any General fettled, or conftant Payment of them. - 
 
 He adds another Qiioiation from Auguflin^s Sermon de 
 Tempore^ 219. thus, Tythes are required as due Deht^ and he 
 that will not give them^ invades another Maris Right-— ^ What" 
 foever Art fuftaineth thee^ it is Go£s : and he requireth Tythes 
 €Ht ofwhatfoever thou live ft by. 
 
 He gives us more of him, but this the moft material, and 
 lays, The whole Sermon is moft worthy to be read — being an 
 evident Proof of the Antients Opinion that Tythes were of dtvinc 
 Right, 
 
 Whether that Sermon were Anguftin^ or no, is a great 
 Qiieftion. Selden (a curious Searcher into Antiquity) fuf- 
 peds it, his words of it are. About Harveft he made it^ if it 
 be his ; for it hath been doubted whether it be his or no. And 
 in the Margin, he fays. The very words of this Sermon are in 
 that counterfeit Treatife falfty attributed to St. Auguftin, and in* 
 fcribed^ Be ReBitudine Catholica Converfationis^ Hiftory of 
 Tythes, c. 5. pag. 54. Which Treatife, Perkins places a- 
 mongft thofe Writings of his, which by the common judg^ 
 went of all Men are reputed fpurious or counterfeit. But be it 
 true or falfe, the Priefl hath not given his Quotation out 
 of it fairly \ but hath omitted thofe Texts which (htvf 
 Vfhence he derived the claim 10 Tythes, namely from Ma-^ 
 
 lachjf 
 
( 129 J 
 tdchy 3. and other Texts of the Old Teflamm relatiirg to 
 Tythes and firft Fruits among the Jews^ but not obliging 
 Chriftiansy yea, difckimed by this very Priefl, pag. 45. 
 And hath alfo left out feveral PalTages, which Ihew tnac 
 Tythes were then claimed mt for the Priefts^ but the Poor. 
 Decima Tribnta fitnt egemimn Ammarum : redde ergo Tribma 
 Patiperibffs^ i. e. Tythts are the Tributes of needy Souts : there- 
 fore fay the Poor their Tributes, And in that very place 
 from which the Prieft gives us thefe words [Tythes ^re re- 
 quired as due Debty and he that will not give them invades ano^ 
 
 ther Man^s Right2 ^nd there leaves offwicha it follows 
 
 thus^ Et qnanti pattperes in locis ubi ipfe habitat^ illo decimal 
 non dante^ fame mortui fuerinty t ant or urn homicidiorum reus> 
 ante tribunal eterni Judicis apparebit^ quia Domino Paji-peribus- 
 delegatum fuis uftbus refervavtt^ i. e. And look how many 
 Poor, in the places where he lives, fhall perifh through 
 Hunger, by reafon of his not giving Tythes, of fo many 
 Murders fhall he be found guilty before the Tribunal of the 
 eternal Judge, becaufe he hath kept to his own ufe that 
 which was appointed by the Lord for the Poor. From 
 thefe PalTages, it is manifeft both whence the Opinion of 
 the Right of Tythes, thenentring the Church, wastakei> 
 Cvit:. the Levitical Law) and to whom they were then fup- 
 pofed to be due, viz. the Poor. And he might alfo (had 
 it fuited his Intereft) have added another PaiTage in the 
 feme place, which gives a tafte of the State of thofe Times^ 
 (if the Sermon be allowed genurne> in point of Dodtrine, 
 The words are thefe, Qui ergo fibi aut premium comparare^. 
 am feccatorum defiderat indulgemiam promereri^ reddat Beci^ 
 tnamj i. e. He therefore that defires either to purchafe ar 
 Reward to hirafelf, or to merit Pardon of his Sins, let 
 him pay Tythe. By which the Reader may obferve, how 
 far the Myfitry of Iniquity had by that time wrought, and 
 to what pafs the State of Chrifiianity was then come, when 
 Tythes began to be preach'd up and paid. 
 
 The Prieft fays, he could further prove the Opinion of 
 the Ancients, that Tythes were of divine Right, by many 
 more Inftances. But (faith he) ' I will end thefe Telli- 
 ^ monies of fingle Eminent Fathers, with that of Profper 
 of Jqtiitainy who fpeaking to the Clergy of his Days, 
 . Uith, We do willingly receive the daily Oblations and 
 
 ' Tythes 
 
( ijo ) 
 
 * Tythes of the Faithful, and lliall we lay alide the care of 
 
 * the Flock ? peg. 83. 
 
 That Tythes by the private Devotion of Tome began to 
 be given in duguftinh time, is already noted \ and that 
 fuch GilCs were more frequent in Frofperh time (which was 
 about filty Years after) is not unlikely. Nor need we 
 queflion, biu the Clergy then did mtlwgly fas he fays) re- 
 ceive them^ efpecially if we confider how much even in thofe 
 times, they were departed frorii the purity and feundnefs oi 
 the Gofpcl. Of which occafion will offer to /peak at large 
 hereafter. At prefent therefore take only a touch of Prof- 
 fer himfelf in his Book, De proraiffionibus &: praedidioni- 
 bus Dei, Orationihus fanSiornm (fays he) me ejcpiari oh omi* 
 fia peccato pojfe confido^ i. e. I firmly believe j that hy the Pray* 
 trs af the Saints^ 1 may he purged from all Sin, 
 
 But this Saying of Frofper^ That the Priefts did willing- 
 ly receive what the People offered, although ii may prove 
 that Tythes were fometimes given ; yet it cannot prove 
 any general or conflant Payment of Tythes. 
 
 I have now gone through the Teftimonies he hath 
 brought, of which fome are reputed /^//^ and coimterfeitj as- 
 the Apoflolical Canons, Clement^ Conftitutions, and the 
 Sermons attributed to Ambrofe. Some fnfpeHed^ as that 
 of Angiifiin de tempore. Some not j airly cited j as Origen^ Cy^ 
 priarty and Hierom, Some mifapplyed^ as jHJiin Martyr^ Ire- 
 TjattSj and Epiphanius, Some fpeak of Tythes by way of 
 comparifon only, and with allulion to the Jewifh State. 
 Some mention Tythes by way of Provocation^ to ftir up the 
 People to greater Charity and Liberality, Some about 
 four hundred Years after Chrift, preach up Tythes to be 
 due but to the Poor', and enforce the Claim from the Mofai-^ 
 cat Law, and other Writings of the Old Tefiament, But 
 none of them, (I except thofe Spurious Conftitutions and Ca- 
 nons) fay. That Chrift Appointed, Eftablifhed, Confirm- 
 ed Tythes, or that the Apoftles either injoin'd or appro- 
 ved the Payment of them, or that they were at all paid in 
 the fir fi Ages of Cloriftianity, So that; hitherto we have found 
 -00 Divine Right to Tythes under the^ Gofpel, unlefs any will 
 ib far deceive themfelves, as to acknowledge that for a di- 
 vine Right now in force, which depended on the Levitical 
 l^aw, and by its Abrogation ceafed. 
 
 §. 4* Al 
 
( I?I ) 
 
 §. 4 At the clofe of his Teflimonies, the Prielt fays, 
 ^ Now I hope the Quaker will doc fay all thefe were Pa- 
 
 * pifis ; or that the Church was Fofijh as early as Ircn^^us 
 
 * and Origtn: and if not, then he mufl recanc his falfe 
 *'\Affenion^ that Tythes came in with /'<:'j?f7, pag- 84. 
 
 That which in my former Book, I faid of Tythes hav- 
 ing their Inftitution from Popery^ was with reiicion to 
 that Charter of Ethelwolf^ which the Priefl grounded their 
 Dedication on, and to the Definition of Popery which he 
 then gave, cf which more hereafter. However, I fee 
 iioneceflicy either to affirm, the Church was Popijl} as ear- 
 ly as Irenaus and Origen^ or to recant v?hac I have faid in 
 my former Book concerning the Inflitiition of Tythes. 
 For he hath not proved, and I deny, that Tythes were 
 inftituted, required or paid in the times oi lren£iis ox 0,i^ 
 gen^ or well-nigh two hundred Years after. But of the 
 times in and about which Tythes began to be thought 
 due, and as fo paid (which SeUen is pofitive, was not till 
 about the end of the fourth Century, and the beginning 
 of the fifth) and of the State of the Church then, and 
 fome-what earlier a!fo, not to fpeak my own fenfe, I will 
 give the Reader a (hort View, and fubmic it to his judg- 
 aent. 
 
 About the Year of Chriil, two hundred (as early as 
 Origen) Prayers^ Offerings and Sacrifices for the Dead began 
 to be in ufe in the Church. Tertulhan^ who lived in chac 
 time, mentions thefe things in his Book, De Corona MiU^ 
 tisy and fays, They fprang from Tradition. 
 
 Asearly alfo was the Opinion of Purgatory receiv^ed in 
 the Church, and believed. Both Tertullian and Origcrt 
 held it, as Perkins confefles, Problem^ pag. 175. 
 
 Much about the fame time crept in the Opinion of the 
 Jntercejfion of Saints departed this life, from which fprang 
 the Cuftom of Praying to Saints. And though for fome 
 time this was difpuced amongft the Learned of thofe times, 
 yet towards the latter end of the fourth Century (much 
 about the fame time that Tythes began to be thought 
 on) this Cuftom of^ Praying to Saints grew in ufe in the 
 Church, And Perkins acknowledges, that the Jntients, 
 efpecially after the Tear four hundred^ did not only fin in pray- 
 ing to Saints^ but were guilty of S^cr Hedge '^ for thsy fometimes 
 
 K placs 
 
place (fays he) their Hope^ Fmth and Confidence in the Saints:^ 
 of which he gives diveis inftances, pag. 95. 
 
 Reliqnes began to be had in veneration, and to be car- 
 ried up and down, and flocked afcer about the Year three 
 hundred, idem.'pcig. 81. 
 
 The going on Pilgrimage came in fafhion about the 
 Year three hundred and twenty, and prevailed fo faft,. 
 that about the end of that Century, it was made a part 
 of the Worlhip of God, idem, pag. T19, 
 
 The ufe of Chrifme was inftituted by Pope Sylvefier^ 
 about the Year 330. 
 
 Exiream VnSlion was Decreed by Pope Innocent the firft, 
 in the Year 402. 
 
 M'jnhjh Ltfe^ began about the Year 260. idem. pag. 
 226. 
 
 The Cdibate^ or fingle Life of Triefis^ began to be 
 preach'd up, by or before the Year 300. And abouE 
 the Year ?8o. it was commanded by the publick judg- 
 ment of the Church, and a Vow of perpetnd Chafiiiy decla-' 
 red necejjayy\ and injoined^ idem. pag. 192. 
 
 By thefe few inftances, the Reader may give a guefs a« 
 the State of the Church in thofe days, wherein Tythes 
 began to get up. How much worfe it grew afterwards 
 in the following Ages, when Tythes came to be fettled 
 and eftablifhed by Laws, I (hall have further occafion a- 
 non to fhew. In the mean time I proceed to examine 
 the Authorities the Prieil: urges from the Decrees of 
 Councils. 
 
 §. 5. As an Introdudion to his ConciUary TeflimonieSy 
 he gives his Reader a Note, pag. 84. ' Firft, (fays he) 
 
 * Let it be noted. That though it be certain Tythes were 
 
 * paid from the earliefl Days of Chrifiiamty\ yet it was 
 ' not for a long time dire^iy injoined by any human 
 ' Law, either EccUfiafiical or Civil: which fhews the firft 
 
 * Chrifiians believed, they were obliged to pay tbem by 
 
 * the Law of God, pag. 84. 
 
 This is a Note worth the noting. He fays, It is cer- 
 tain Tythes were paid from the earlieft days of Chriftia- 
 vity. The earliefl days of Chriflianity ! Why did he no6 
 Tay, pag. 6^. *• One Reafon why Tythes are not menti- 
 * oned in tlie Nm Tefiamem by Name, is, To avoid all 
 
 occar 
 
( I?? ) 
 
 * bccafion of Scandal to the Jews^ wliofe Priells were 
 
 * tiren m. Pofleffion of them ? Would the Jevos have been 
 offended at the mention of Tythes in the New Tefiamem^ 
 which they were not Like to fee \ and would they not have 
 been offended at feeing Tythes paid by the Chriftians to 
 their Minifters ? Did he not there fay, Afany things were 
 fuffered a while to run in their old channel^ till the whole Jew- 
 ifh Polity wM Deftroyed? And will he now make Tythes 
 to be turned out of their old Channel, and to run in a new 
 one from the earliefi days of Chrijlianity^ before the whole 
 Jewijh Polity was deftroyed? Did he not there fay, ' It 
 
 * would have been ufed as a prejudice to the young be- 
 
 * ginnings of the Gofpel, if the Preachers had prefently 
 
 * claimed the Maintenance, which others were legally 
 
 * inftituted in ? And will he here fay, The Chrijlians did 
 pay to their Preachers the Maintenance which others 
 were legally inflated in, and that from the earlieft days 
 of Chriftianicy ? Did he not fay, pag. 71. ' The State of 
 ' the Church in the Apoftles days was fuch, that Believ- 
 
 * ers, though they were willing, could not have op- 
 ' portunity to pay Tythes regularly ; nor could the 
 
 * Gofpel Minifters receive them ? And will he here fay, 
 Tythes were paid from the earliejl days of Chriflians ^ 
 And that this is certain too? Certainly this deferves to 
 be [ntgro carbone notatunf] Noted with a black Coal, He 
 had forgot herhaps, that his Brother Prieft (whom he 
 defends) had faid in his Conference, pag. 157. M con- 
 ' fcfs the Apoftles had not the Tythes in their days -— : 
 
 * the Levitts themfelves were in Pofleffion of them, which 
 
 * they kept, during the continuance of their Nation and 
 
 * Temple. Befides, you ought to confider, that Tythes, 
 
 * or any other fixed Maintenance, was utterly inconfifl- 
 
 * cat with their unfixed State of Life •, being to Preach 
 
 * the Gofpel in all Nations, they became an improper 
 
 * Maintenance for them •, and befides, you are to confi- 
 
 * der, that the Apoftles needed them not, for as they had 
 
 * their Gifts, fo their Maintenance by a miraculous Pro- 
 
 * videnc^. 
 
 Here one of the Priefts fays, Tythes, or any other fixed 
 Maintenance, was improper for the Apoflles, and ntterly 
 inconfiflent with their State ^ that the Apoftles neither 
 needed Tythes, nor hud Tythes, nor csdd hsvs had them 
 
 K 2 if 
 
( 1J4 > 
 
 rf they would, becaufe the Lfcvites Pofleft and kept Tythe^v 
 during the continuance of their Nation andTeniple,which 
 was not utterly deftroyed till about thirty feven Years 
 afcer Chrifl's Death. The other Prieft fays. It is certain 
 Tythes were paid from the eartieft days (?/Chriftianty. Is not 
 this pretty ? How juftly might I here retort what he 
 mofl unjultly threw at me, pag. 59. One of thefe mnfi he 
 falfe^ for indeed there is a manifefi contradiEiion, Let theni 
 lay their Heads together again, and fee if they can re- 
 concile it. 
 
 But it feems however, this early Payment of Tythes 
 was not for a long time diredly enjoined •, which was fca- 
 fonably noted by him to cxcufe himfclf from giving fome 
 e^rdy Conflitution either Ecclefiaflical or Civil for the fo 
 early Payment of them. But this Non-lnjunEHony he fays, 
 fhews. The firfi Chriflians believed they were obliged to pay 
 them by the Law of God, 
 
 He's very much out. For, Firfl^ That the firft Chri^ 
 flUns paid Tythes at all, is not only denied, but learnedly 
 difproved, and Tythes provtd not only improper for, 
 bututterly inconfiltent with the Apoftolical State, by^^' 
 own dear Brother the other Priefl in his Conference, pag. 
 157. And, Secondly y If Tythes had been as certainly paid 
 in the next Ages to the Apofties, as ic is certain they 
 were nn paid m the Apoflles Time, yet would not fuch 
 a Practice any more have proved, that the Chriflians be- 
 lieved they were obliged to pay them by the Law of God^ 
 then it would have proved the Chriflians in Tertullian^s 
 tim.e, who Prayed and Sacrificed for the Dead, without 
 the InjmEiion of any Human Law, either Ecclefiaftical or 
 Civil, for along tim.e, did believe they were obliged fo 
 to Pray, and fo to Sacrifice, by the Law of God \ which 
 that they were far enough from Believing, Tertnllian fuf- 
 ficiently fhews, when fpeaking of thofe things, he fays, 
 ' If thou demandefl: the Lawsof thefe and other fach like 
 
 * Difciplines, thou wilt find none in the Scriptures. Thou 
 
 * wik find Tradition pretended for the Author, Cuftom 
 'for theConfirmer, and Faith for the Obferver, lib. de 
 
 * coron, mil'. 
 
 He adds, ibid. ' That according to St. Mgnflin's Rule 
 ^ viz.. [That fuch things as were Univerfally obferved, 
 *" and owed aot their beginning to any Council,, were to- 
 
 * b« 
 
< ^?5 ) 
 
 * be thought to have been ordained by the ApoHIes^'* 
 
 * Tythes and liril Fruits mull at leaft: be of Apoilolical 
 
 * Inilkution. 
 
 This is grounded on a Suppoficion (at which he is ve- 
 ry notable) that Tythcs and firft Fruits were Vmverfa/Iy 
 paid, I deny it, both as to time and place. Let him fii ft 
 prove that, and then he may exped a further Anfwer, 
 Now to his Councils. 
 
 §. 6. la his firfl:^<r^/^f«^ of Councils, that which leads 
 the rar7y pag. 85. is the Counterfeit Canons fafly afcrib- 
 ed to the Apoftles^ of which enough hath been faid be- 
 fore to dete5i them, and Jhame him for urging them. Next 
 comes up the Council ofGan^ra held about the Year 524. 
 in the leven:h and eighth Canons of which, Tythes (he 
 fays) are caHed \jtet§7ro^o^Ui'EKKMJictiTiKa,f'] which he Eng- 
 lifhes (but HI) Ecdefiafiical Tribme of Frmts- But bear- 
 ing with the Tranflation, let him (hew, (if he can) that 
 Tythes are mentioned, by name, in any Canon of thae 
 Council. If not. Why abufes he his Reader in faying, 
 Tythes are there called Ecclefiaftical Tribute of Fruits ? A 
 like falQiood he impofes on his Reader in his next Qiiota- 
 tion of the Council of Jmioch^ held in the Year 34 «• (as 
 he fays, but in the Year 345. fays BurdegaUnfis) in the 
 twenty fourth and twenty fifth Canons, of which he 
 reads (he fays) The profits of the Churchy or the Fruits of the 
 Fields. 
 
 But what is that to the proof of Tythes ? Could the 
 Church have no Profits or Fruits of the Fields but is 
 mufl needs be Tythes ? If Tythes had been named in that 
 Council, why did he not (hew that? But if they were 
 not named there, why does he play upon his Reader, 
 and endeavour to perfwade him they were ? Is he not a- 
 fhamed to fay, he finds many Antient Councils fuppofe 
 Tythes to have been paid, and ordering how Tythes 
 ihould be diftributed by the Bilhops, and yet cannot fhew 
 out of thofe antient Councils (as he calls them) that 
 Tythes were fo much as once named in them ? 
 
 To thefe Councils (for credit fake, and to increafe 
 the number) he adds, the Canonical Epifile (as he calls itj 
 of St. Cyril of Alexandria to Domnus, wh^re, he fays, 
 be finds, mention of Ecdefiafiical Revenneu 
 
 K 3 What 
 
What then, is nothing an Ecclefiaftical Revenue but 
 Tythes ? If be had found that Revenue there called 
 Tythes, he had then found fomething to his purpofe; 
 but as it is, it helps him not at all. See now what his 
 great bOaft of MANY Antient Councils, which fu^^ofe 
 Tythes to have been paU^ &c. is come to. The firft has 
 long fince been branded for a Counterfeit^ the two nextt 
 have not a, word of Tythes^ the fourth and laft is not the 
 Decree of a Counct), but the Epiflle of a fwgle Perfon, 
 and that fays nothing oj Tythes neither. And vet, fuch is 
 the immodefl Confidence of the ^iaa, thac he doth not 
 flick to fay, pag. 85. In the fore cited places it appears^ 
 that Tythes and Firit Fruits were given to the Church long 
 before the Tear of Ck//? 324. So indeed 1 think they had 
 need to have been, if tney had been paid (as he boldly 
 fays, 'tis certain they were) from the earlieft days o/Chri- 
 ftianity, pag. 84. But as that is very fairly difproved, 
 by his own dear Brother, in his Friendly Conference^ pag. 
 157. So this remains yet to be proved by himfclf, or 
 any other, that like himfelf, has fo much confidence and 
 fo little credit, as to undertake it. 
 
 But how comes it we have no more of thefe dintient 
 Councils produced ? Why brought he not forth the Coun- 
 cil oiCafaria (holden about the Year 200.) which Bur- 
 degaUnfis calls the firfi Council after the Apolbles times? 
 Wiiy paft he over the feverai Councils of Carthage^ held 
 about the Years 236, and 253 ? Why flipt he thofe hol- 
 den at jlntioch about the Year 270 ? Why mentioned he 
 not the Council of Sinaeffa in Campania^ nor the firft of 
 uincyra^ held about the Year 290 ? Why took he no no- 
 tice of the Council holden at (jCirtes) in Nnmidia^ about 
 the Year 304? Of the fecond of Ancyra^ about the Year 
 309? Or of the Neo-Cafarian^ about the Year 313? And 
 (to pafs by the Roman and Elibertine Councils under 5>/- 
 "vefler) how came he to omit that great and univerfal 
 Council (as fome call it) holden at Nice^ about the Year 
 320 ? Were fome of thefe Councils rejected ? So vicvefomc 
 of them he urged. Was there no mention of Tythes in 
 thefe ^ 'No more was there in thofe he alledged. And doth 
 IE not look ftrangely that fo many Councils, held in feve* 
 ral Parts of the World, fhould not have a word of Tythes'^ 
 and yet this Man fhould talk of Tythes being certainly paid 
 
 from 
 
^em the earltefl days ofChriflianity! Pray hear what Selden 
 fays upon this fubjed, Chap 4. of his Hiftory of Tyches, 
 pag. 43. fpeaking of the Opinion of them that would 
 have Tythes to be an Ordinance of the Apoflles, ' Had 
 ' it been {fays he) the Apollles Ordinance, or the ufe of 
 
 * the Church in the Primitive Times, Origen^ Terthlllar?^ 
 
 * and Cyprian (having fuch occalion to mention itj could 
 
 * not have been fo filent of it. And is it likely (adds 
 "^ he) that all the old Councils from thence, till near fix 
 ' hundred Years after Chrifl; (which being authentick be- 
 
 * yond exception, have fpecial Canons for the Lands and 
 
 * Goods pollelt by the Church, the Offerings, Revenues, 
 
 * and fuch more) could have omitted the name of Tenths^ 
 
 * if either fuch ufe or Apoflolical Law had preceded ? 
 ^ They (^fays he) talk of iKuKmtAirtKd <7rfA>/uaT*, the 
 ^ Goods of the Church, JCfitfTa^ofU/ haAiKnccfTiKotit or Of- 
 
 * ferings of firfl Fruits ^ but have not a word any where 
 
 * of the tenth part. And {adds he) in thofe counterfeit 
 Canons alfo (meaning thofe called the Jpofiles Canons) one 
 
 * is indeed of firft Fruits (although, touching them by 
 
 * that Name, certainly no Law was made under the Apa- 
 t Hies) but no words of tenths \ Thus he. 
 
 §. 7. Thu^ far of tho^ Councils which he fuppofes, 
 fiippofe Tythes to have been paid. Come we now to thofe 
 other, which he fays, dire^ly enjoin them^ of which the 
 firft he gives is, The Decree of a Roman Council m the 
 Year 374- commanding, That Tythes and firfi Frmts (Imtld 
 he paid by the Chriftians, and they which withhold them fljottld 
 be anathematiz^edj pag. 85. 
 
 This is the firft of his dire^i Injundlions for the Payment 
 of Tythes^ and he had no fooner fet down this, but he 
 began to betliink himfelf, that this Council, if it came to 
 be examined, would fcarce ftand the tryal^ and therefore 
 without more ado, in the very next words he fays, * But 
 ' there is fome Queftion whether this Council be genuine 
 
 * or no ? I fliail therefore (fays he) omit this, and all 
 
 * thofe other Councils which fuppofe them, bat do noi 
 ' enjoin them, pag. 85. 
 
 The Proverb fays, we may judge of a Man by the Com- 
 pany he keeps. But if we fhould judge of his Caufe, by 
 the Evidences he brings to prove it, what may the Caufe 
 be thought to be, when the WitnefFes are ConnterfeitSy 
 
 K 4 ChfMs^ 
 
Cheats, corrupted and falfe^ What fliameful Work is 
 
 this ? 
 
 Buc now he comes to one which he calls apofitlve Eccle- 
 fi^ftical Law, andthefiyfi too; and yet th^c was nofi made 
 til) Che Jear 560, as he fays, but. SeUen places it in the 
 Year 586. It is the Council of Mmfcon (a Bifhoprick in 
 the Diocefs of Lyons) which ho fays, pag. 87. fpeaks 
 thus, * The Divine Laws caking care of the Priefts and 
 
 * Miniflers of che Churches, for their Inheritance, have 
 ' injon^.ed all the People to pay the Tyches of their Fruits 
 
 * to holy pLices, that being hindred by no labour, they 
 ' may more duly actend fpiritnal Miniftries, which Laws 
 ' the whole company of Chr,fttans have for a long time 
 ' kept iaviobte. 
 
 Thus far his EngliOi differs licde from the Latin, as 
 SeUen has it, faving that where his Engliih is, Tbzi being 
 hinJred by no labour : The Latin adds, fer res ilie£ittma4y 
 I e. by Hnlawfiil things. But in the latter pirt of his Quo- 
 ration, whith contains the Decree it felf, there is no cor- 
 refpondence between the Latin and his Eoglifh ; fo great 
 a Liberty of variation doth he take. The Latin in Set- 
 dsnh (Hillory of Tythes, cap. 5. §. 5.) goes on thus, Vn-> ' 
 de ftatmmm m Decimal Ecdefiafiicoi omnis Vopdm infer at^ 
 qtubm Sac er dotes, am in PatffgrHm nfim^ aut tn Captivorum re- 
 demptionem^ erogatis, fuis oratiombpn pacem Popdo ac Salutem 
 impetrent, I e. ^ Whereupon we ordain, that all the Peo- 
 ' pie bring in the Ecckliafticai Tythes, which being be- 
 
 * flowed either for the iife of the Poor, or for the Re- 
 
 * demption of Captives, tke Priefts by their Prayers may 
 
 * obtain Peace and Safety for the People. Inftead of 
 which hisEnglifh runs thus, * Wherefore we decree and 
 ' ordain, that the Antient Cuflom be obferved ftill among 
 
 * the Faithful, and that all the People bring in the Tythes 
 ' which maintain the Worfhip of God. Let the Under- 
 landing Reader compare now, and fee what he can find 
 in this Engiifli to anfwer that in the Latin [/iinbtii Sacer^ 
 dotes, am in pauper km ufum, ant in captivorum redemptionem 
 erogatis, fuis orationthm pacem popuio acfalmem impetrent'} or 
 What in the Latin to Anfwer this in the Englifli [That the 
 Antient Cufiom be cbfervtd ftill among the Faithful ; hW'di^ 
 
 JThat Tythes maintain the Worjhip of God.'} This is a fauU 
 this Priefl is too frequently guilty of: He gives not his 
 
 Quota- 
 
(M9) 
 
 Quotations in the Author's words, but in his own, con- 
 cealing the Author's, that he may the more fafely and 
 undifcerned twifi his Quotations to his purpofe,and there- 
 by lead his Reader's Judgment Captive Hoodwinkt, His 
 defign here was to prove the Amiquity of Tytiies in 
 the Clorijlian Church, to countenance which, he is noE 
 content with what is faid in the Decree, vi^. That the 
 Chriilians have kept thefe Laws inviolate for a long time ^ 
 but adds, The ant lent Cujiom, And became the words of 
 the Decree fhew what Service Tythes were then put to, - 
 namely, the ttfe of the Poor^ or Redemption of Captives^ he 
 leaves that out, and inftead thereof puts in {which main-- 
 tain the Worjliip of God'} And having thus formed it for 
 his purpofe, he thinks now he has got enough to ferve 
 - his turn. Thefe words (he fays) do fully prove our Jffer- 
 tion oj Tythes having been paid from the beginnings jure di vi- 
 no, pag. 87. 
 
 But he miflakes in this too, and that not a little. This 
 Council ^alls a great deal too low to prove his Aflertion, 
 For how /hould thefe, who lived fo near the tn(i of tiie 
 fixth Century, underlland the Practice of the fiifl times, 
 what was done in the beginning, ar.d what was paid m 
 the earlie/^ days of Chrijlianity^ hstter than they whole loi 
 fell nearer to the fir!!: times by well-nigh the one half ? 
 Or what likelihood is there, that if Tythes had been paid 
 from the beginning, from the earlleft days of Chriflianity^ 
 no one of thofe many Councils before remembred, (liould 
 fo much as (?«(7<r have mentioned Tythes, efpecially feeing 
 divers of them fpeak particularly of the Offerings, Ob- 
 lations, Revenues and Treafure of the Church ? But 
 this Council intimates, that Tythes had been paid for a long 
 time. 
 
 What then, mud that long time be extended to the 
 very beginnings to the ear Heft days of Chriftiamty f No fuch 
 matter. Selden fay?, ' That long tim'e they fpeak of, 
 ' might have had perhaps beginning from the Dodrine 
 * of thofe two great Fathers St. Ambrofe and St. .Aitqti^ 
 ^ ftine^ about the Year 400. Hiftory of Tythes, pag. 48, 
 From which time to this Council, there having pafFed 
 about one hundred and eighty years, might not impro- 
 perly be called a long time The common ufe of Speech 
 will jultifie ic. But the Decree mentions Divine Laws^ 
 
 from 
 
( HO ) 
 
 fi'om whence the Priefl infers, Tythes were f aid from the 
 hfginmng^ jure divino. 
 
 But Sdden^ in the place fore-quoted, fhews, that the 
 Laws there called Divine, were but the Mofaical ^Lzws^ 
 which thefe Prieils, both one and 'tother, refufe to 
 claim by, Friendly Conference^ pag. 13;. Right of Tythes^ 
 pag. 46. Thus much of the particular pares of the De- 
 cree. Now of the Council, ic felf, it is obfervable, thatt 
 as it was but a provincial Council, Qnd fo affords no gene ' 
 ?'«/ Determination •, fo (as Selden Notes, pag. 58.) *• Noe 
 
 * fo much as any Canon of it is found mentioned, as of 
 *- received Authority, in any of the more antieat Com- 
 
 * pilcTs of Synodal Decrees : which he there fhews ae 
 i:irge. But leaving what hath been fa id of this to the 
 Reader's Obfervation and Judgment, i goon to examine 
 his next Quotation cut of the Council of Hifpdis^ which 
 he daces in the Year 590. and delivers in thefe words, 
 ' VVe ordain that all the Fruits and Tythes, as well of 
 ^ Cattle as of Fruits, be rightly offered to their feveral 
 *• Churches, by Rich and Poor, according to the faying 
 ^ of the Lord by the Prophet, Bring ye all the Tythes 
 
 * into the Store- Houle, &c For as God hath given us 
 
 * ail, fo of all he requireth Tythe of the Profits of the 
 *' Field, and all Provifions, of Bee's and Honey, Lambs, 
 
 * &c. And he that pays not Tythes of all thefe, is a 
 
 * Thief to God himfelf, pag. 88. His Obfervation on 
 this by That they all declare Tythes to be dae^ jure divino. 
 
 But whence fetcht they their Opinion of the Divine 
 Right of Tythes ? Do they not deduce it from the Words 
 of the Prophet^ and ground their Decree thereupon? And 
 had not thofe Words of the Prophet a diredt reference 
 to the Ceremonial Law ? And is not the Ceremonial Law 
 ^nded and abrogated by Chrifl? And do not thefe Prieds 
 ciifown any claim from it? Friendly Conference^ pag. T33, 
 Right ofTythesy pag. 46. What trifling then is it thus to 
 argue ! Behdes, there is great ground to fufped the Cre- 
 dit of his (Quotation. Selden noting the falfliood which 
 fom^ commie, who out of Juo, attributed an exprefs 
 Canon for the Payment of ^rft Fruits and Tenths, to the 
 provincial Synod of 5m7, an^ giving the words of than 
 "Canon, little different from thefe quoted by the Priefl, 
 fays, The old Manufcript Copy of Jno hath it, ex conciUo 
 
 Spancnjfj 
 
. ( I4t ) 
 
 Spamnfi^ and the Printed Book, ex concHlo Hifpdenfi, 
 Then {ticking a little aE the word [_Spaner:fi'} he adds, 
 
 * Whatever he ineanE by it, dearly the whole Canon is 
 
 * of much later time, the firfl words of it alfo being no- 
 
 * thing but the Syllables of one of CharUmains Laws, tliac 
 
 * was not made ti!l 780. years from Chrifl. He obfcrves 
 alfo, That * Granan warily abftaiued from uling theie 
 ' Canons^ and a little after concludes pofitively, ' That 
 ' among che known and certain Monuments of Truth, till 
 
 * about the end of 800 years, no Law Pontifical o-^ Sy- 
 
 * nodal (Taving that of Mafcon) Determins or Commands 
 
 * any thing concerning Tenths, akhouj.ih very many are, 
 
 * which, fpeaking purpofely and largely of Church Reve- 
 
 * nues, Oblations, and fuch like, could not have been 
 
 * lilent of them, if that qaanticy had been then eftabliOi- 
 
 * ed for a certain Duty. He then (hews, that the Cano" 
 nifts and others in later Ages, compiling 'heir Decrees, 
 have made thofe words, by which the Offerings of the 
 Chriftians were exprefled, to ferve as if they had exprelly 
 named Tythes (in which Obfervations he feems to take 
 this very Prieft by the Nofe) and concludes thus, *■ Ke 
 
 * that reads thofe old Canons only, as they are fo applied, 
 
 * in late Authority, to Tythes, might perhaps fooa think 
 ' that at firll they were made fpecially and by name for 
 
 * them. The matter (fays he) is plainly otherwife. Whac 
 ' was ordained in them about Tythes, is out of them in 
 *■ later times (Tythes and Oblations being then fuppofcd 
 
 * of equal right) exprefly extended alfo to Tythes. And 
 to this purpofe, he cites Friar Crab^ (in Frolegont, ad 
 Tom. 1. CoHncil.') thus. Licet for fan falfo tali fmt Fomifici^ 
 vel certe tali Concilio per fcriptorum incuriam adfcripi^ i. e, 
 jiltloough^ perhaps (fpeaking of fuch Canons) they arefaljly 
 afcribed to fuch a Pope^ or to fuch a Council by the carelefnefs 
 of Writers, Thus far Selden^ Hiftory of Tythes, c. 5. §. 5. 
 
 ^ And in his flxth Sedlion of the fame Chapter, mentio- 
 ning again the Decree of Mafcon^ which was but Provin- 
 cial, he fays, ' No Canon as yet was received in the 
 
 * Church generally, as a binding Law, for Payment of a 
 
 * any certain quantity ^ which not only appears (fays he) 
 
 * in that we find none fuch now remaining, but alfo is 
 
 * confirmed by the Tellimony of a great and learned 
 ^French Bifhop (in whofe Province alh Mafcon was) that 
 
 could 
 
( M2 ) 
 
 * coBld not be ignorant of the received Law of his time. 
 
 * He lived and wrote very near the end of this Four hun- 
 ' dred Years (I think (fays he) in the very beginning 
 ^ of the next, which, according to SeUen^s Divilioa, 
 
 * muft be the Year 900.) And, in a Treatife about the 
 
 * Difpenfation of Church Revenues, exprefly denies, that 
 ^ before his time any Synod or general Doftrine of the 
 
 * Church had determined or ordained any thing touching 
 ' the quantity that (hould be given, either for Mainte- 
 
 * nance or building of Churches. H=e gives the Teftimo- 
 ny of this Bifhop in his own words, thus, ' Jam vero de 
 ^donandis rebus & ordinandis Ecclefijs nihil unquam in 
 
 * Synodiscoaftitutum eft, nihil a Sandis Patribus publice 
 
 * pr^dieatum. Nulla enim compulit neceflltas, fervente 
 
 * ubique religiofa devotione, & amore illuftrandi Eccle- 
 
 * fias ultro aeftruante, &c. (i e. But now concerning 
 
 * endowing and ordaining Churches, there has never been 
 *' any thing decreed in Synods, nor publickly preached 
 ' by the Holy Fathers. For there has not been any ne- 
 
 * ceflity for that, religious Devotion being every where 
 
 * warm, and the deiire of adorning Churches burning of 
 
 * its own accord. And then adds, * This Author is Jgo^ 
 ' bard Bilhop of Lyo»s (very learned and of great Judg- 
 
 * ment) and had not fo confidently denied what you fee 
 
 * he doth, if any Decree, Canon, or Council, generally 
 
 * received, had before his time commanded the Payment 
 ^ or OiTering of any certain part. And to confirm the 
 
 * Truth of this Bifhop's Teflimony herein, he adds, thaE 
 
 * Neither in the Codex EccleftiC tmiverfalis^ or the Codex 
 
 * Ecclefia Roma??a, or Africayi£^ Fulgent if44 Ferrandm^ Crefo" 
 ^ coniui^ or I ftdori s CoW^^ion (all which, in thofe elder 
 
 * Ages, were as parts of the Body of the Canon Law) is 
 ^ once any mention of the name of Tenths. Thus far 
 Selden. By which it may appear that Tythes had not fo 
 rarly a fettlement in the Church as the Prieft would per- 
 fwade his Reader. 
 
 The PrieH: feems now to have dane for the prefent 
 withiCouncils, and betakes himfelfto the Laws of Kir?gs 
 and Emperors, To which before I pafs, 1 defire the Rea- 
 der to take notice to what a nothing hh great talk of Coun- 
 cils is come •, and that after all his great Brags^ he hath 
 produced but one Council that -exprefly names Tythes, and 
 
 thai 
 
( H3 ) 
 
 that hut a Provincial one neither, and falling fo much jhort of 
 that .Antiquity^ that Jmient Date^ the Beginmng and earli' 
 eft days ot Chrifiianity^ which he fo frequently and va^^nt^ 
 ingly repeats, that ic was not much leis than 600. years 
 after Chrift, before it was made, and then too in proba- 
 bility little regarded, 
 
 §. 8. Now let us obferve the Laws he offers, made by 
 Kings and Emperors concerning Tythes. The firft he in- 
 fiances is of Cc;?/?^m>?ff the Great, i^'ho he (fays, pag. 89.) 
 being fettled in his Empire^ in the Lands under his Dominiofty 
 out of every City gave a certain Tribute^ to he difirihuted a- 
 mong the Church and Clergy of the Frovinees^ and confirrfs^ 
 ed this Donation to fiand for ever. 
 
 If this be true, yet what relation hath this to Tythes? If 
 Conftantine gave a Tribute out of every City, doth it thence 
 follow that that Tribute was Tythes or the Tenth part of 
 the Revenue of thofe Cities? Or if that fhouid be fup- 
 pofed, would the Prieft thence infer, that the Countrj^ 
 People, the Farmers, the Husband-men, who lived noE 
 in the Cities, but in the Country Towns and Villages^ 
 were by this Donation obliged to pay the Tythes of the 
 Jncre a fe oi ihQ Lands, which they manured and occupied ? 
 What need had there been of fuch a Tnhute out of the 
 Cities? This Indance of Conflamineh Donation, if it be 
 allowed to prove any thing, will rather prove that Tytins 
 were not then paid^ than that they were. But the Truth of 
 the Donation is queflioned. Cufanpu fays thus of it, ' Sunt 
 ' meo judicio ilia de Confl"antino Jpocrypha^ 1. e. Thofe^ 
 ' things concerning Conftantine are in my Judgment Jpccry^ 
 ' phal^ that is, obfcure and doubtful. Many other Autho- 
 rities Perkins produces to prove the Donation of Conflan- 
 tine falfe. Problem, pag. 1 5. But whether it be falfe or 
 true, it fpeaks nothing of Tythes^ and therefore is the kfs 
 to be regarded. 
 
 The Prieft goes on thus. It were endltfs to relate all the 
 Confiitutions of pious Emperors either to enlarge the Revenues of 
 the Churchy to preferve its Liberties^ or to fccure the Donations^ 
 made by others. Let that one Law which is fo full jor the 
 Divine Right of Tyth.s^ ferve inftead of many hflanceSy 
 
( 144 ) 
 
 1 cannot but take notice, hovt fhort-winded this Prieft 
 is when 'be comes in eAm^lt to produce his Authorities. 
 He r^/x.t big before-hand, nd gives greaE expedtation of 
 v;haE he will co, but when he comes to the Point, how 
 mean (Alas!) is his Performance in refpedt of thePrf;>4- 
 ration he makes ? What a Noife did he make of Councils 
 ere now ? Who that heard him would noE have almoft 
 thought, ihil All the Anttent Councils had been called on 
 pHrpoje to fettle Tythes upon the Clergy ? And yet after 
 all this heaving and fwellir?g^ the great Mountain hath bronght 
 forth but one Afoufe^ and that a little one too^ I mean liis 
 high Talk and great Preparation hath produced at lafl: but 
 cne Authentick Council thac mentions Tythes (if that 
 one be Authentick) and that hm a Provincial neither. 
 And now that he is flipl from ConncUs to the Laws of 
 Kings and Emperors, he inftances one of Confiamine the 
 Great, oi fuffeEled Credit, that has no mention of, nor re- 
 lation to Tythes \ and then immediately ^a^^^ It were endlefs 
 Po relate ALL the Conftitutions of piom Emperors^ &C. as 
 if he had almoll: wearied himfelf with relating /<> many be- 
 fore, when as indeed this was the firfl and only one that 
 he had fo much as named. And how poorly afterwards 
 doth he come off, when he fays, Let that ONE Law 
 which is fo full for the Divine Right of 'tythes^ ferve inflead of 
 MANX infiances? Can any one doubt (who obferves 
 his manner of writing) that this is only a Flourijh to hide 
 his penury ^ It had been worth his while (though he had 
 taken a little the more time for itj to have given us fome 
 of the moft material of thofe MANY Conftitutions of Pi- 
 ous Emperors, which he fays it were E N DLE SS to re- 
 late^ and it is not to be quellioned but fo he would, 
 could he have found amongft them AU. any that had fpo- 
 ken but favourable of Tythes. But fmce no more are to be 
 hady let us look the more intently on this he doth give, 
 and fee whether it deferves to ferve inllead of Many in^ 
 fiances. He words \t thus, pag. 89. 71?^ Tythe.t hy God^s 
 Command are feparated for the Priefls^ that they which are of 
 Cod^s Family may bf fufiained by his Portion^ and therefore 
 they cannot by any human Priviledge be given to Lay- men ; lefi 
 ^he Supream Aut horny pjould therein prejudice the Divine Com^ 
 mandmentm 
 
 I 
 
( 145 ) 
 
 I fee no rcafon for his calling this a Law^ which 1$ ra- 
 ther a Declaration by Doolnne^ than a Conftttntion by Fr<r- 
 ff/jf. If it be a Law^ he might have done well to have 
 acquainted his Reader who woi the Law-maker, He neithec 
 tells us who was the Author of it, nor in wha( Age 'twas 
 made^ but fets it down bare and naked^ as ! have here 
 Tranfcribed it : only in the Margin he hath this refe- 
 rence [Cod. L 7. lit. de prefcripri But though hc conceals 
 the date of it, yet that Paflage in h [^therefore they cannot 
 by any human Priviledge he given to Lay men"^ fpeaks it to 
 be of much later Birth than he would willingly have it pafs 
 for. However, let the Age and Author of it he as they 
 are, it deferves not the name of a Law^ much lefs of fach 
 a Law^ as in the Cafe of Tythes may ferve inltead of ma- 
 ny inftances: for it injoins nothing, but only f^ppofes 
 Tythes feparated for the Priefts by God's Command, and 
 declares they therefore cannot by any Human Priviledge 
 be given to Lay- men. This perad venture may fome- 
 what concern the Civil Magiftrate and the Impropriators^ 
 but not the Cafe m hand. 
 
 In the fame place, he fays, j4 parallel Law to this we find 
 in Ant hemic is ^ ti.eod. 
 
 It may be k. E3ut where hefonnd ft, there it feems 
 he thought fit to leave it, for he fays not a word more of 
 it. But going on nearer to King Ethelwolfh time, he fays, 
 K. Echelwolf w/^^^ know how the religiom K. Riccaredus h^d 
 confirmed the Decrees ofthefirfi Council oj Hifpalis about payirjg 
 Tythes^ Anno 500. Nor could he be ignorant ir/;^f Charles 
 the great had done in fettling Tythes on the Church about lOO' 
 Tears before 7C. Ethelwolfj Donation^ pag. 90. 
 
 The Story of Riccaredus I am a llranger to, and like to 
 be for him ; for he has not been fo fair as to acquaint his 
 Reader whence he took it. That of Charles the Great was 
 about the year 780. far enough flmt of his boajied yinti" 
 quity^ and of the earitefi days f/Chriilianity, falling indeed 
 in a time when the Church was miferably depraved and 
 corrupted^ and growing every day worfe and worfe^as I (hall 
 haveoccafion more particularly to fhew when I come to 
 Ethelwolf's time. And though the Priell fays, 'This Lm- 
 peror (vfho gave Tythes) was fa far from Idolatry^ that he 
 called a Council to condemn the ufe of Image Sy and vprite againft 
 them himfelf 
 
 Tea 
 
( 146 ) 
 
 Yet Corruptions enough were there then in the Church, 
 befide theufe of Images to prove the Religion he profeft 
 to be Popijh^ according to the definition of Popery given 
 by the other Priefl in his FnenMy Conference^ pag. 149. 
 v-vhere he fays, ' I cannot give you a more brief and true 
 
 * Account of Popery than this, That it is fuch Doctrines 
 ' and Superflitious Pradices, which by the Corruption of 
 ' time have prevailed in the Church of Rome, contra- 
 
 * ry to the True, Antient, Catholick, and Apoflo- 
 
 * lick Church. Now that the Dodrine of Purgatory, of 
 the Inter cejfiofi of Saints deceafed, of Monkiflo life and the 
 Cdibate (or unmarried life of Priefts) and that the Pra- 
 ctice of Praying for the Dead, of Sacrificing for the Dead^ of 
 praying to Sai?its^ of Going Religionfly on Pilgrimage as a part 
 of Divine Wolhip, that the ufe of Chrifm and of Extream 
 VnEiion^ were received in the Church long before this Charles 
 his time, I have already (hewed. That thefe DoBrines and 
 TraBices by the corruption of time have prevailed in the Chnrch 
 </Rome, I have proved before by the unqueftionable Evi- 
 dence of Prctefiam Authors: and whether thefe Dodrines 
 be true or fdfe^ whether thefe Pradices be Snperfiitiom or 
 no, whether or no both the Dodrines and Pradices be 
 contrary to the Trne^ Antient^ Catholick and jipoftolick Church, 
 let the true Protejlant judge, if thefe Dodrines and Pra- 
 dices are not Superflitions, if they have not prevailed by 
 the corruption ot time, if they are not contrary to the True, 
 Antient, Catholick and Apoftolick Church, then am I 
 under a miflake. But it they are Superfiitions^ if they 
 have prevailed through the corruption of time, if they are 
 contrary to the True, Antient, Catholick and Apoftolick 
 Church, then are they Popiflj (according to the Prieft's 
 own definition of Popery) and confequently Tythes, fo far 
 as he derives their Inftitution from thofe who were in the 
 Belief and Ufe of thefe Superflitious Dodrines and Pra- 
 dices, had their InftitHtion from Popery. But of this more 
 when I come to Ethelwolfh time. 
 
 What hath been faid in this place with relation to 
 Charks the Great, may opportunely alfo give a check to 
 the Priefl's over bold Allertion in his following words, 
 jvhen he faith, that Before the time of King Echelwolf, Tythes 
 were fettled on the Church in mofi parts of the Chriftian fJ^orld, 
 
 even 
 
( 147 ) 
 
 even hy Civil and Ecclefiafticd Conftitutiom^ as well as P^olnrt- 
 tary Donations^ &C. pag. 90. 
 
 I call this an over-bold Aflertion, becaufe, Firft^ I know 
 he herein affirms mort by a great deal than he is able to 
 frove\ and Secondly^ If he could make fuch a general Set- 
 ilement appear, yet would not that acqnic Tythes from 
 the blemiih of a Pofifl) Inllicution, in as much as I have 
 proved before, even by the Prieft's own Definition of Po- 
 pery, that Popery had made her encroachments in the 
 Church before the time of Charles the Great. 
 
 §. p. Hitherto he has travelled K?m;^« Countries to y^f it 
 a Right to Tythes, and has taken much pains to little pur- 
 pofe. Now he begins to look Homeward^ where I am of 
 Opinion he will fpeed no better. He had a mind in his 
 way to brand me with ignorance ^ but he wanted an occa- 
 fion for it. Where therefore he could not find a way, he 
 rcfolved (like the Carthaginian Captain) to make one. 
 Hereupon, he fays, pag. 91. He perceives aO, along I date 
 the very Birth of Tythes in the Tear 855. For this Sugge- 
 ftion he has not the leaft colour of rcafon. For if the 
 Birth of Tythes were dated (as he fays) in that Year, it 
 vi2iSnot /, but his Brother Priefl that gave them that date, 
 by fixing on Ethelwolf's Charter for the ground of his 
 Claim to Tythes, which was made in that Year. The 
 Argument was his own^ the Method and Order of his Dif- 
 courfe was at his own Choice, Had he defigned an elder 
 Birth to Tythes, he might have given them an elder Date 
 if he could. But he thought fit to Date his Claim to 
 Tythes from Ethelwolfh Donation, which, out of Spel^ 
 inan\ I (hewed was made in the Year 855, and thereupoa 
 1 faid (pag. 299.) // he had any Charter or Settlement of Tythes 
 of older Date than rW 0/ Ethelwolf (which was about the 
 year 855.) he Jhonld have prodnced it, and probably fo he 
 voould. However J /wee he did not^ I have no reafon to think 
 he has any elder. I look the olde/i^ he thought fit to give, 
 and did not take upon my felf to Date the Birth of Tythes, 
 but (hewed the Reader in what year my Opponent had 
 dated his Claim. 
 
 But having liberally btftowed his Brother's Ignorance up- 
 on me, and thereby got anoccallon to infinuace that I am 
 miferably miftaken, he goes about to fet forth a more an-^ 
 
 L xient 
 
( mS ) 
 
 uem Date of the Birth of Tythes, than that of Bthelmlf^^ 
 Charter. And firft: he brings in Fleta the Lawyer ex- 
 pounding the word {Church- effet"} to lignifie a certain mea- 
 fnre of Corn ^ which every one of Old gave to the holy Chnrchy 
 aboHt the time of St, Martin'i Feafi:^ as well in the time of the 
 Britains as the Englilh \ adding, that it was after called firfi 
 Frmts. From hence he infers. That by this account^ there 
 was a kind of Tythes paid by the Britains before the coming of 
 Auftin. 
 
 Pray mark his word {a kind of Tythes^ he himfelf, ir 
 feems, for all his ufnal confidence^ would not adventure 
 to call lifimfly Tythes, but a kind of Tythes, What means 
 he by this? Was this certain Meafme of Corn^ the tenth 
 part of the Crop? He fays^ Every one of Old gave this 
 certain Meafure of Corn, but doubtlefs every one had noC 
 a Crop of Corn growing. But waving this and hU other 
 Conceits of the Saxon words Ciric-fceat^ or Ciric-fet^ fignify- 
 ing the Tribute of the Church, or the Church Seed ^ with 
 what elfe he urges out of Malmsbury^ Sfelman arid Linden- 
 brogim^ concerning ^r/? Fruits of Seed and Tribute of Cornj, 
 together with the Law he cites of K. Ina^ commanding, 
 the Payment of the Giric-fceat on the Feaft of St. Martin^ 
 under a fevere penalty. (aU which are nothing to the prefent 
 purpofe^ unlefs he could prove that this Church-effet and 
 Ciric-fceat were really and properly Tythes,^ which 1 deny^' 
 1 go on to his next Quotation, the Epiltle of Boniface to 
 Cuthbert Arch-Bifiiop of Canterbury^ in which he tells me, 
 Jjhallfind Tythes by Name, Only by the way, feeing he 
 hath mentioned K. Ina for a Patron of Church Revenues,. 
 I defire the Reader to take a little notice of the Corruption 
 and Superflition of that Age and Church in which K. In^ 
 lived, and for whofe fake he made that Law. * He buill 
 
 * ry^>.j Speed) the Abbey of Glajenbury^ and garnifhed the 
 ' Chappel thereof with Gold and Silver, and gave rich 
 
 * Ornaments thereto-, as Altar, Chalice, Cenfer, Can- 
 ' dlellicks, Bafon and holy Water, Bucket, Images and- 
 
 * Pale for the Altar. He inftituted alfo a certain yearly 
 
 * Payment to the See of Rome^ known afterwards and 
 ' challenged by the name of Peter Pence, and cafiing cff 
 ^ at lafl his Regal Authority^ he went to Rome^ where in the 
 ^ habit of a religious Man-he fpent the remainder of his 
 ^ Life. By this tli^ Reader may perceive what Religion 
 
( i49 ) 
 
 K. Ina was of, who, befides his other SHperftitiorts^ was a 
 fetter up of Images in the Churchy and declared his Com- 
 raunion with the Church of Rome^ not only by his Dona- 
 tion to h^ but by entring and leading a Monkifh Life in 
 it. And what the Church of Rome at that time was, in 
 point of Idolatry^ is notorious to all that have converfed 
 in the Hiftories of thofe times, and obferved the great 
 Contentions occafioncd about Images and Imags-worfhip 
 between the Emperors PhUippkus and Leo the third on the 
 one hand, and the Popes Ccnftantine^ Gregory the fecond, 
 and Gregory the third (midcr one of whofe Popedoms Ina 
 went to Rome) on the other hand *, the Emperors endea- 
 vouring the deftrH^iion of Images -, the Popes with the Cler^ 
 gy as ftoutly maintaining and defending them. And un- 
 der two of thefe Popes were two Conncilf called in Rome on 
 pupofe to eftablifh Image IVorfhip, Now to his Qjiotation 
 out of Boniface^ he fays, pag. 92. If I dcfire to have the 
 Tiame of Tythesy as well at the things among the Antiem Sax- 
 ons, / may find in the Epiflle <7/Boniface to Cuthbert, Arch^ 
 2»^yfc^/> (/Canterbury, Anno 745. That the Eng\\(h Priefis 
 in thofe days were maintained by the taking the daily Oblations 
 md Tythes of the Faithful, 
 
 Hitherto he has found neither the thing nor the name a- 
 mong his Saxon Evidences, but has given only fome ill- 
 grounded ConjeEhnres^ that Chnrch^effet and Ciricfceat might 
 fignifie a kind of Tythes. And what he has now found ia 
 the Epiflle of this Arch-Bi(hop Boniface^ comes much too 
 late to clear Tythes from the blemifh of Popifh Inftituti- 
 on. For if he could prove an hflltution of Tythes in this 
 Nation, a general Dedication of Tythes or any pofitive 
 Law commanding the Payment of Tythes here, as early 
 as this Epiftle of Boniface-^ which yet \s far from early m 
 comparifon of the earlieft days of Chriflianicyy yet unlefs 
 he could alfo wipe away (for covering will not ferve) thofe 
 foul Spots and filthy Stains^ thofe grofs Corruptions and 5^- 
 ferftitionsy wherewith the Church was at that tlme^ and 
 before, miferably polluted and deformed , all he can fay, 
 will not acquit Tythes from a Poptflj I fittution^ even accord- 
 ing to the Notion his Brother Prieft has given of Popery, 
 But though through the hlind Devotion of that Age, fomt 
 of the mo^ fuperflitiotijly Zealous might not improbably 
 give Tythes, yet hath not he given, or I met with any 
 
 I. 2 LaT9 
 
( 150 > 
 
 Law^ ConftitHtioftj or Synodal Decree of that tmt (of iin2 
 doubted Credil) injoyaing the Payment of Ty thes. This 
 very Cnthben^ to whom the fore-cited Epiftle of Boniface 
 was written, being then Arch-Bifliopof Canterbury^ called 
 together the Bifhops and Prelates, and held a great Synod 
 near a place called Clomefhoy the Decrees of which Synod 
 John Fox hath fet down particularly, in his J^s and Mon'^ 
 uments of the Church, upon the Year 747. (in which Year 
 that Synod was held.) But in all thofe Decrees there is 
 not the leafl mention of Tythes : No Conftitution yet 
 appears, Civil or Ecclefiaftical, for the payment of Tythes. 
 And as for Boniface himieU^ from whofe Epiftle the Prieft 
 would prove the fettlement of Tythes in England before 
 Popery^ take but the Charafter that Fox gives of him ia 
 the place fore- quoted, and then think as thou canft of 
 him, the Religion and times he lived in. Firft he taxes 
 him with maintaining fuferftitious Orders of lafcivioHS Nuns 
 nd other Religions j and reflraining the fame from UspfnlMar^ 
 iage. Then he adds, * For fo we fiivd of him in Steries, 
 that he was a great fetter up and upholder of fuch blind 
 Super flition and all Popery, Who being^ admitted by 
 ?o^G Gregory the fecond, Arch-Bifhop of Magunce, and 
 indued with full Authority legantine over the Germans^ 
 builded Monafteries, Canonized Saints, commanded Re* 
 licks to be worfhipped, &c. Item ((ays he) by the Au- 
 thority of the faid Arch-Bifhop Boniface^ which he re- 
 ceived from Pope Zacharyy Childerictu King of France^ 
 was depofed from the Right of his Crowo, and Pipinm^ 
 betrayer of hk Mafter was confirmed, &c. From this 
 Boniface (adds he) proceeded that deteftable Doftrine 
 which now ftandeth Regiftred in the Popes Decrees^ 
 Difi. 40. Cap, Si papa, which ia a certain Epiftle of his, 
 is this. That in cafe the Pope wereof moft filthy living, 
 and forgetful or negligent othimfelf^ and of the whole 
 ChrifHanity^ in fuch fort, that he led innumerable Souls 
 with hira to Hell, yet ought there no Man to rebuke 
 him in fo 'doing, for he hath Power to judge all Men, 
 and Ought of no Man to be judged again. Now Rea- 
 " der weigh and confider with thy felf, what manner of Bi" 
 fltop this Boniface was, what a Religion he profeft, what times 
 he lived in *, and then tell mc,. whether or no popery had 
 
 not 
 
('ISO 
 
 Hot made her Encroaehments in the Church, in the time of 
 this B/<hop Boniface, 
 
 Next to the Epiftle of Boniface before-mentioned, the 
 Priefl offers a Colledion made by Egbert^ Arch-Bi(hop of 
 Tork, in the Year, as he fays, 750. of all the Canons that 
 were in the Councils before hie time^ and which were in force in 
 England \ among which Canons^ he (ays, pag. 93. there is 
 frequent mention of Tythes^ as particularly in the 4. 5. 99. 
 and 100. The words of thefourth Canon he gives thus, 
 7%ar the People he inftruEied in the right manner of Offering 
 them t9 Cod's Church, The words of the fifth Canon he 
 fetS down thus. That the Prieft Jhall< t^ke them^ and fet down 
 the names of thofe who gave them. There he ftops, omitting 
 the reft of that Canon, which in the Latin thus follows, 
 Ji& fecundum Autoritatem Canonicam. coram teftibta dividant^ 
 C^ ad ornamentum ecclefia primam eligant partem^ fechndam 
 OHtem ad ufum panpemm auj\ peregrinorum per eorum manus^ 
 mifericorditer cum omni humilitatt difpenfent'^ tertiam vera fi^ 
 himet ifjis Sacer dotes refervent^ l. e. ' and according to Ca- 
 *Donical Authority (ball divide them before Witnefles, 
 ' and (hall chufe the firft part for the Ornament of the 
 
 * Church ^ The fecond part they (hall with all humility 
 
 * moft mercifully diftribute with their own hands to the 
 
 * ufe of the Poor and of Strangers^ but the third part 
 
 * the Priefts (hall keep for themfelves.] I have Tran- 
 fcribed this only to (hew the Prieft's Crafc in concealing 
 it. He would have the beneifit of this Canon ; he would 
 ufe the Authority of it to prove his Claim to Tyches ; but 
 he would not have the People underftand how, and to what 
 fifes Tyihcs were appointed by this Canon to be imploy- 
 ed. How great a C^^r^r are the People now at in main- 
 taining the Poor, and in repairing and adorning tho(e Hpu« 
 fes which they call Churches, over and abo'v^ their Tytnes 
 to the Priefts, whereas this Canon which rhe Prieft urg^es 
 for the proof of his Claim to Tythes, commands exprefly, 
 that the Tythes being divided into three parts, two parts 
 of the three (hould be beftowed upon thofe publick ufes^ 
 and the Priefts to have but the one third part that remained. 
 But now, alafs! the Priefis fwallow the whole tenths^ the two 
 parts as well as the third -, and the People are fain to make 
 New Levites to defray thofe publick Charges, from which 
 by- this Canon they were to be freed, fiut be this fpokea 
 
 L 3 by 
 
by the way only. Now to the Canons tbemfelves. He 
 fays, they were collecied by Egbert, about the Year 750. 
 but by whom and when were they made ? Doobtlefs that 
 had been very material, but he h^s not aSyHahle oiit^ but 
 delivers it in rhe Grofs, for a Collection made by E^hen 
 of all the Canons that were made in the Councils before 
 his time, &c. But by what Art did Egbert celleEh Canons 
 that were not made till after his Deaths For that feme fuch 
 3re in that Colledtion which bare his Name, SeUen gives 
 more than probable Reafons. Br/?, he fays, '" The Au- 
 
 * thority of the Title mufl: undergo a Cenfure. Then he 
 adds, *• Who ever made it, fuppofed, that E^ert gather- 
 ' ed that Law, and the reft joyn'd with it out of fomp 
 
 * former Church-Conltitutions, neither doth the name 
 
 * XExcer^tiones^ denote other wife. But in that Coiledion, 
 
 * fome whole Conllitutions occur in the fame Syllables as 
 
 * they are in the Capitularies of OoarUs the Great. Of 
 which heinfl:anceso«<f, and fays, ^ There are fome oibers 
 
 * which could not be known to Egbert that died in the laft 
 
 * year of P/p/w, Father to Charles. How (fays he) came 
 
 * he then by that? And how may we believe that Egbert 
 
 * was the Author of any part of thofe Excerptions ? Un- 
 
 * lefs you would excufe it with that ufe of the middle times, 
 
 * which often inferted into one Body, and under one 
 ' name. Laws of different Ages. (But that excufe will 
 not help, fince there would ftill remain the fame doubt 
 and ground for jealoufie that thefe Canons about Tythes wer^ 
 vtade in fome of the latter Ages^ not in (much lefs before) 
 that which Egbert lived in) ' But admit that (fays Selden) 
 
 * yet what is {Secundum canonicam autoritatem coram tefii' 
 
 * bus dividant ^ The Antienteft canonica amoritas (fays he) 
 
 * for dividing Tythes before Witnelfes, is an old Impe- 
 
 * rial attributed in fome Editions to the eleventh year of 
 ' the Reign of Charles the Great, being King of France ; 
 
 * in others, to the Emperor Lothar the firft. But refer it 
 
 * to either of them, and it will be divers years later than 
 
 * Egbert^ Death. And (adds he) other mix'd Paffages 
 ^ there plainly (hew, that whofe foever the Colledion 
 
 * was, much of it was taken out of the Imperial Capitu- 
 '^^ laries, none of which were made in Egbert's time. Per- 
 
 ^ haps (fays he) the greatnefs of Egbert's Name was the 
 
 * caufe why fome later Compiler of thofe Excerptions 
 
 * might 
 
(15?) 
 
 * might Co infcribe it, to gain it Authority. And a little 
 lower, he fajjs, * The Heads of a Synod holden in Egbert's 
 
 * time, under King EthelhaU and Cuthbert Arch-Bifhop of 
 
 * CamerbHry^ are yet extant; but not any exprefs menti- 
 
 * on is found in them of Tythes, although moft of the 
 
 * Particulars of Church-Government are touched there. 
 Thus i2irSelden^ in his Hiftsry ojTythes^ cap. 8. §. i. whofe 
 words I have here fet down the more ac large, that the 
 Reader may fee not only his Judgment of this Colledioii, 
 but theReafons alfo, on which his Judgment was ground-, 
 ed ; which I doubt not will fatisfie the judicious and difm^ 
 terefted Reader, that neither was that Colledion of Ca- 
 nons made by Egbert^ nor are thofe Canons themfclves of 
 rfo great Antiquity as the Prieft pretends, and would glad- 
 ly have them taken to be. 
 
 To thcfe fore-mentioned Canons, he adds another of 
 the Council o( Chalcnth^ which he dates in the year 787. 
 and gives in thefe words, ^li Men are ftriUly charged to 
 give Tythes of all that they po/Jefs^ hecaufe it is the Propriety 
 of the Lord God^ or the part that fpecially belongs to him^ 
 pag. 93. 
 
 Whether this Canon be genuine or no, is fomewhat 
 doubtful. Some Objedions lie againfl: it, as the making 
 ^tnulphy King oiWeft'Saxony^ to joyn with Offa in calling 
 the Council, which feems not well to agree with Renulph's 
 time ; and fome other variation of Names, which poflibl/ 
 the miftake of Tranfcribers might occafion. But that 
 which is more material is, that the very Syllables of this Ca- 
 non are found among fome Conflitktions made by ©do, Jrch^ 
 Bifhop of C^Lnttrbury^ abont 150 Tears after the Date of thi^ 
 Canon. See Seldon's Hiftory of Tythes, cap. 8. § 8. But 
 not to infill on things doubtful, that which I obfere is, 
 that this Council (or Synod rather) of Chalcuth was held 
 under two Legates fent from Rome by Tope Hadrian the firfi^ 
 which plainly /hews, both that the Popes Primacy and ^«- 
 thority was before that time received and own'd in England, 
 that this Council was held in Subje^ion to him, and than 
 the Church of England was then in Communion with the 
 Church of Rome, Ail which is deduceable from ihat Epi- 
 ftle written by the faid Legates to the Pope, in which, gi- 
 ving him a particular Account of the Tranfadions of that 
 Synod, they have thefe words, * Hgsg Dscreca, bcatifllme 
 
 L 4 "^ JPapa 
 
(154) 
 
 * Papa Hadriarte^ in Concilio publico coram Rege c/£lfwal* 
 ^ do 6s: Archiepifcopo Eanhaldo & Omnibus Epifcopis & 
 ' Abbatibus Regionis feu fenatoribus Ducibus & Popnlo 
 ' Terras propofuimus; & ilU ut fuperius fati fumus cum 
 
 * omni devotione mentis juxta poflibilicatem virium fua- 
 ' rum, adjurante fuperna dementia, fe in omnibus cufto- 
 
 * dire devoverunt, & figno SanQae Crucis in vice veftra, 
 
 * in manu noflra confirmaverunt, &c, i. e. Thefe De- 
 crees, moft blefled Father Hadria^i, WE PROPOSED 
 in the publick Council before K. Alfwald and Arch-Bifhop 
 Eanhald^ and all the Bilhops and Abbots of the Country, 
 as alfo the Senators, Dukes and People of the Land j and 
 they with all Devotion of Mind, as we faid before, did 
 folemnly promife. That by the help of God's Mercy, they 
 would obferve them in all things according t^their ut- 
 moft Ability, and they confirmed them in OUR Hand 
 in YOUR STEAD with the Sign of the Crofs, &c. 
 And a little after, acquainting the Pope that the fame 
 Decrees were forthwith carried to the Council, held the 
 fame time under Offa for the Weftern pan (for the Le- 
 gates, it ffems, divided, and went, one to MfwaU in the 
 North, 'eother to Offa \a the Weft) adds, that upon the 
 reading thereof, ' Omnes confona voce & alacri animo 
 
 * gratiam referentes Apoftolatus veftri admonitionibus, 
 
 * promiferunt, &c, i, e. They all with one Voice and 
 chearful Mind, returning Thanks for the Admonitions of 
 YOUR APOSTLESWIP, did Promife, &c. What the 
 Church of Rome at that time was, hath been fomewhat 
 declared before, and may be more hereafter. But of Pope 
 Adrian himfelf, who font thofe Lev^tes hither, and by 
 whofe Procurement and Authority that Council was held, 
 take a Charafter from John Fox^ in his Book of the AEif 
 and Monnments of the Churchy Vol. I. pag. 117. * Adrian 
 
 * the firft likewife following (fays he) the fleps of his 
 ' Fore-Fathers the Popes, added and attributed to the ve- 
 
 * neration of Images more than all the other had done be*- 
 ' fore, writiug a Book for the ADORATION and Uti- 
 
 * licy proceeding of them. Commanding them to be ta- 
 ' ken for Lay-men's Kalenders, holding moreover a Sy- 
 S^flod at Rome againft Felix^ and all others that fpoke a- 
 
 * gainft the fetting upof fuch Stocks and Images. Judge 
 now Reader, whether this Council of Chalcuth be a fit In- 
 
 itaace. 
 
( M? ) 
 
 ftancc to prove that Tyihes were fettled on the Ghurcli 
 before Popery had made her Jncroachments in it^ and that 
 Tythes had not their Inftitution from Popery, wlicn this 
 Viry Council xoM held by Legates fent by the Pope on purpofe for 
 that end. 
 
 §. lo. Having faid what he can from Councils and Ca- 
 nons, he makes a (hew as if he would bring forth fomc 
 temporal Laws alfo for the fettlement of Tythes in England 
 before Etheiwoljh time. His words are thefe, pag. 94. Jf 
 it be inquired what Laws our Princes made in this matter : 
 Jt^ot to mention all thofe Charters which from thefi'ft bt ginning 
 o/Chriftianity, do confirm all the Liberties^ and all the Reve- 
 nues of the Church (among which were Tythes) we wiU only 
 notej that Ethelbald King of Mercia, Anno 794,. confirms 
 to all the Clergy of his Ktngdom the Liberty which they had out 
 of the Woods ^ the Fruit of the Groundy and the taking of Fjfh» 
 And this (being after that Epiftle of the German Boniface, 
 which ajfured w, Tythes were then in joyed by the Clergy) mufi 
 (he fays) be meant of Tythes, 
 
 In the former part of thefe words there is a flourijh and 
 zfalfhood. The flourifh in thefe words \jiot to mention all 
 the Charters which from the beginning ^/Chrillianity, do con^ 
 firmy &C.3 what elfe is this but an empty found of words 
 without matter ? The falfbood in thefe words [Tythes were 
 among the Revenues of the Church from the firfi beginning of 
 Chriftianity] this I tax for a down-right falflmdy let him 
 clear it as he can. Then for the Donation or Confirma- 
 tion of Ethelbald: It fpe ah nothing of Tythes^ but difcharges 
 the Monafteries and Churches ot his Kingdom from pub- 
 lick Taxes, Burdens and Services (Tome few excepted) 
 and then fays, Let the Servants of God (it fpeaks generally, 
 not the Priefts or Clergy only) have their own liberty in th$ 
 Fruits of the Woods and Fields^ and in taking Fifhy that they 
 need not make Prefents to the Kwg or to the Ft tncesy Hnlefs they 
 do it of their own accord^ but being free^ let them ferve Cod^ 
 &c. Here's no mention ofTythesy and if there had, yet I 
 think the Priefl would have been hard beftead, to have 
 acquitted them by this Donation from a Popifh inftitution, 
 or to have proved this Charter made before Popery had 
 made her Encroachments in the Church; efpecially if we 
 coftfider that Fox in his Book of Martyrs, gives this very 
 
 Charter 
 
'Charter oi m inflance of the Popifh blindmfs of that Age, His 
 words (fpeaking of them that builded and endowed 
 Churches, Monafteries, Abbies, &c) are thefe, ' The 
 
 * caufe and end of their Deeds and Buildings cannot be 
 
 * excufcd, being contrary to the Rule of Chrift's Gofpel, 
 
 * for fo oiuch as they did thefe things, fecking thereby Me- 
 ^ fits with God, aod for remedy of their Souls, and re- 
 " milTion of their Sins, as may appear teflified in their 
 ^ own Records, whereof one here 1 thought to fcC forth 
 ^ for probation of the fame. Then he fets down this 
 ^ery Charter of EtMbdd^ and after adds, ' By the Con- 
 
 * tents hereof may well be underftood (as where he faith^ 
 
 * Pro amore cxleftis Patriie, pro remedio anime, pro li- 
 ^ heratione anime, & abfolucione delidtorum, &c, i. e* 
 *■ For the love of the heavenly Country, for the remedy 
 
 * of my Sou!, for the deliverance of my Soul, and pardoa 
 
 * of my Sins ^^■) ^''^w great the ignorance and blind- 
 •* oefs of thefe Men was, who lacking no Zeal, only lack- 
 
 * ed Knowledge to rule it withal : Seeking their Salvation, 
 
 * not by Chrift only, but by their own defervings and me- 
 
 * rkorious Oeeds. Thus fai Fox^ in his JSls and Monu* 
 mtnts of the Church, Vol, i. /. 2. toward the end. From 
 which the Reader may obferve how contrary his Opinio^ 
 ^f tbofe times was to this Pried, who brings the very 
 fame Charter for proof, thatTythes were fettled on the 
 ■Church befere Popery had made her Encroachments in il, 
 which Fox gave as an in(iance of Popifh hlindnefs and igno" 
 rarscr. And belides the general corruption of that time. 
 The Author of this Charter EthelhaU himfelf was a lewd 
 .andvinom Per fan. Speed m his Chronicle, pag. 254. calls 
 iiim> J mofi Ufci'viom Adulterer^ and the Arch-Bifhop of 
 Mmtz^ in an Epiflle to him, taxes him with wallomng in 
 JjitXHYj and Adultery with Nuns. 
 
 To this EthelbaU, the Priefl: joyns K. Ofa^ who, he 
 la^s, in the Year 793. did give the tenth of all he had to the 
 ^bftreh. 
 
 Why did he not add the occafon of this Gift? Was he 
 ^fltamed of it ? So let him then be of the Gift too. It was 
 ^ mofi execrable Murder^ aggravated with the violation of 
 JHofpitality. The Story Fox fets down out of Jornalenps 
 and Malmshury^ to this effed ^ ' Ethelbert^ King of Eaft- 
 ^ angles came to the Court of 0/^, with a Princely Train 
 
 to 
 
c 157 ; 
 
 * to fue for bis Daughter in Marriage, Offa's Queen fuf- 
 
 * peding £^^r/^^rf had feme other defign, perfwaded her 
 
 * Husband to kill him : Offk thereupon the next day caufed 
 
 * him to be trained into his Palace alone from his Compa- 
 ' ny by one called Guimhenus^ who took him and bound 
 ' him, and there Ilruck offtiis Head, which torth with he 
 
 * prefented to the King and Queen Offa at lenth un- 
 
 ' derftanding ihe Innocency of this King, and the heinous 
 
 * Cruelty of the Fad, gave the tenth part of his Goods 
 
 * to holy Church, and to the Church ot Hereford^ in re- 
 
 * membrance of this Ethelben^ he beftowed great Lands 
 
 * « and afterwards went up to Rome for his Pennance, 
 
 * where he gave to the Church of St. Peter a Penny througli 
 
 * every Houfe in his Dominion and there at length 
 
 * was tranflated from a King to a Monk, Martyrol. vol. 1. 
 pag. 117. Here now we fee the canfe of this Gift was a 
 mofi barbarous Murder^ and the Gift the price of innocent 
 Blood, Yet this Gift of Ojfa\ was buc particular^ the tenth 
 of his own Goods, noc 2l general ad, nor find we that he 
 made any Law cocoirpel others to do the like. But the 
 Prieft urges, that this O/4 fc^^, with all his Clergy^ condemn^ 
 id the Adoration 0] Imfiges^ and fo woi no Idolater. That he 
 and all his Clergy did condemn the Adoration of Images, 
 is more 1 think than the Prieft can prove \ but fuppoie 
 that, doth it therefore follow that he was no Idolater ? 
 Js nothing then Idolatry but worshipping of Images ? What's 
 the praytng to Saints .^ What's the worshipping of Relich ? 
 Will the Priell fay that Offa and all his Clergy had con- 
 demned this alfo ? He'll fay perhaps he was no Tapijl nei- 
 ther. What went he up to Rome /or f What made him fo 
 obfervant and bountiful to the Fope^ What made him 
 before receive the Popes Legates ? Are not thefe plain Ar- 
 guments of his Communion with the Church of Rome^ ia 
 which befides all other Idolatries., the Adoration of Images 
 Was then mofi: zealoully maintained ? 
 
 From Offah Gift he takes a ftep of about fixty Years to 
 Ethelwoips Charter, finding noching in the way to coun- 
 tenance Tythes. Now before we enter upon Ethelwolfs 
 Charter, I intreat thee Reader to caft thy Eye a liiile 
 back, and take a fhorE Review of the Anthorities he has 
 urged to prove the fettlement of Tythes in England be- 
 fore Ethelwolfs time. His firft out of Fleta has nothing of 
 
 Tythes* 
 
(m8) 
 
 ^yihes. His fecond of Ina has nothing ofTythes. His third 
 <}t Boniface proves not any Settlement of Tythcs, nor that 
 the Priells were maintained by Tythes ; but only that they 
 did receive Tythes of fuch as did freely offer them. His 
 fourth of Egbert's Colle&ion of Canons, is proved by 
 :SeUen not to he CoSeEied by Egbert^ but by feme other of 
 later times. His fifth of a Canon of the CouncH of Chal^ 
 €mh^ is by Selden upon reafonahle Grounds fufpeded to 
 be a Conftitution of Odo Arch-Bifhop of Canterbury^ above 
 m hnndred Tears after EthelwolP/ time. His llxth of EtheU 
 hald\ grant fpeaks mtWmg m all of Tythes. His feventh and 
 •$3(1 of Offa was not any general Settlement^ but a f articular 
 Gift of the tenth of his own Goods. So that amongft all 
 thefe chere is not any oaie pofitive Law, Ecclefiaflical or 
 Civil, undoubtedly genuine, and certainly made within 
 xhe time pretended, that expnjly commands the payment 
 of Tythes, or dearly declares that Tythes in thofe times 
 viecQ generally and confiantly paid. Then for the Qualifi- 
 cations of the Pcrfoas by whom he fains Tythes were 
 lettled, one was A fetter up of Images in the Church ; ano- 
 ther, A tafcivioHs Adulterer ; a third, A treacherous and 
 ■crttet Mii^'derer^ and all fnperftitioujly devoted to the Idola- 
 f ram Chttrch of Rome. All which duly confidercd, what 
 jtdvantage I pray has he got at laft? What additional 
 Jirength has he gained ? What further difcovery has he made ? 
 What antienter Evidence has he found ? What more m* 
 themkl Charter has he produced for the Settlement of 
 Tythes on the Englijh Church, than that of Ethelwolff 
 Whereas now his great boafl of Anti^uity^ and his vaunt 
 of the early Settlement of Tythes? when after fo long a 
 fearch, and narrow a Terming among all the old Records 
 he could find, he is able at length to fhew no Charter 
 for the Settlement of Tythes in England^ of elder date 
 than that of Ethelwolf., in the Year 855. nor any Concili- 
 ary Canon for the Payment of any tolerable Reputation, 
 iave that oiChalcuth in the Year 787. (if at leaft that may 
 be reputed tolerable) which was held and governed by 
 tbe Legates of Pope Adrian fa ftout maintainer of Image- 
 worfhip, and (o in the Prieft's own Notion an Idolater) 
 Sent \Atbtv iiom RomM on purjpofe. 
 
 ^. it.^Now 
 
( M9 ). 
 
 §, I T. Now come we after this far-fetcht crompafs t<» 
 K, Ethclwolf's Charter at lalt, which the former Pihft 
 had thewUto begia with at firfly and not trouble him- 
 felf with zfrmtUp Search after what was not to be found; 
 as this wife Man- has done to little purpofe. The occa- 
 fion of the Donation, he tells us, pag. ^6, was th« Danif^ 
 Invalions, which made K. Ethelwolf confuh his Clergy 
 and Nobles, by whai means they might bed avert the 
 anger of God, &c. Whereupon (he fays) it was b^ 
 general confent there determined^ JhM theJythes through* 
 CHt all England PjohU be granted to God and the Church, 
 
 He faid in the page next before. That K. Ethelwolf in 
 this Donation^ doth rather confirm the Right of TytheSy thati 
 Originally make thtm due. Here he fays, it was detcrmi*- 
 ned thai Tythes throughout all England (hould \>t grants 
 tdy &c. Which of thefe muft ftand ? Was it a Grant or 
 a Confirmation^. Were Tythes throughout all England 
 granted before ? What need had there then been of a Gram 
 novp^ Were Tythes throughout all England not granted 
 before^ What was there then for K. Ethelwolf to confirm^ 
 This hangs not well together. But 1 obferve his Ea- 
 ger deiirc to Jay enough^ caufes him fometimes ta fayt^ 
 much. 
 
 I expeSed now we (hould have forthwith entred upo© 
 the Examination of this Donation, But, whatever th« 
 mattei* is^ he interpofes another Sedion, to fnpply (as it 
 feems) the dtfecis of the Charter, Thus he begins it^ pag^ 
 97. But leji there fhodd be any defied in this Chart er^ wc wi^ 
 [hew how it hath been confirmed fince in all Ages, HcreiipOft 
 he takes occafion to mention Alnred and Cuthrmn^ Edward 
 the Elder, Atheljlon^ EdmtmJty Edger^ Canute and Ed-^ 
 ward the ConfefTor. All which he might very well have 
 fpared v the Queftion not being how late Tythes were fet- 
 tled,, but how early f for if Ethelwolf '% Donation be im- 
 pugned as Popilh, I think he takes but an indired conrfe 
 10 vindicate that by inftancing others more apparently F.O" 
 pi[h than it felf. Yet as if he had no fenfe of this he 
 runs en net only to, but through the Norman Conquclls, 
 as far as the time of the Reformation^ and out of Spelman 
 concludes, Thefe Grants had been ratified in thirty nine [eve- 
 ral great Conncils and Parliaments btfort the Reformation, But 
 of whom, I pray, did thofe Councils coiilift before the 
 
 Rcfor. 
 
( i6o ) 
 
 Reformation ? Were they not the Poprjh Clergy, the very 
 fame (or of the fame) that drank the Blood of fo many 
 godly Martyrs; and Decreed Tythes to themfelves ? 
 
 Here he lakes occafion to touch again upon his Old 
 String of Divine Eighty and Tythes being Originally due to 
 God, &c, pag. 9^, Which becaufc 1 would not (like 
 him) be found always finging the fame Song, I forbear 
 to reply to, referring the Reader to what hath been al- 
 ready faid in anfwer thereunto in the former part of this 
 Difcourfe upon his firft Period. But there is another 
 PafTage in this Scdion, pag. 99. which I am not willing 
 to pretermit. Amongfl: other great things which he 
 fpeaks of this Donation, one is, That the benefit thereof 
 hath been enjoyed for eight hundred Tears by thofe to whom the 
 Donation wm made. For this, I confefs, I am beholding 
 to him. He has helped me to a notable Medium^ to prove 
 what fort of Priefts this Donation was made to, by af- 
 furing me it was made to them, who for fo long a time 
 enjoyed the Benefit ofitj which isaCharader not at all 
 applicable to the prefcnt EngUfh Clergy, nor to any o- 
 thcr fo aptly as to the Popifh Priefts, who injoyed the 
 benefit of it by far the longeft of any,^ Though confider- 
 ing the date of the Charter and the' time of Reforma- 
 tion (between which, fcarce full feven hundred Years 
 did intervene) I fee not how the Popifh Priefts neither, 
 can be faid to have enjoyed the benefit of that Donation 
 for eight hundred Years, unlefs he intend that he and 
 his Brethren are fundamentally, and in the ground a part 
 cfthe fame Priefthood with theni, though in fome minuter 
 Circumftances difagreeing ; and fo would reckon the be- 
 nefit of this Donation to have been enjoyed for eight hun- 
 dred years by thofe and thefe in common. But then he Ihould 
 confider, that this infers the Donation to be made to 
 thofe and thefe in common, the confequence of which 
 will be, that thefe and they are Minifters of Chrifi alike. 
 But becaufe this Palfage feems fomewhat enigmatical, if f 
 have not fully reach'd his Senfe, I defire he will explain 
 it in his next. Mean while 1 go on to bis next Se(aion, 
 in which he notes three general Exceptions that I take 
 at this Charter of Ethelwolf which in fo many Sedions 
 he intends, 1 perceive, to avoid tsitbQv than anfwer. 
 
 §. 12. Mf 
 
( I5l ) 
 
 §. 12. My firfi exception^ he fays^ Isin refpeil of the Aa^ 
 thor of that Charter^ pag. 289. And here, he lays, / af-^ 
 firm K. Ethelwolf ir^ a Papift, 
 
 I not only affirnaed, but proved it from Hiflory, and 
 gave fuch demonftrations of it, as he chofe rather Co over- 
 hok than anfwcr. It had become him £0 have (hewed (if 
 he could) that the inH-ances I gave of Ethelwoljh being a- 
 Papift^ were either not tnis^ or not concUifive, But he has 
 not fo much as attempted either of thefe. I fhewed from*' 
 good Authority, that Ethclwolf wot bred a Adonk^ took tip- 
 en him the Voxo of finglc Life^ accordit^g to the FrofeJJlon ef 
 that Order^ was afterward made Deacon and Bifl)op in ths 
 then Clergy j but upon the Death of his Father^ was in order fo 
 the Civil Government^ ahfolved of hii f^ows by Pope Gregory 
 the fourth^ wenthimfelf in grent Devotion fa Rom, e, confirm^ 
 td his former grant 0/ Peter- pence to the Pope^ obliged him- 
 felf further to the yearly Payment of three hundred Marks ta 
 Rome, whereof two hundred were appointed by him to buy OyF 
 to keep all the Lamps burning in St, Peter's and St, Paul's 
 Churches at Rome, and the other hundred Marks was a yearly 
 Frefent to the Pope^ and that he was the Pope^s Creature, 
 
 All this fpoken of Ethelwolf particularly, the Pneft 
 pafles filently over, without the leaft touch or note, and 
 as one that is afJiamed to confefs, and afraid to deny, he- 
 puts me off with this forry Jhift^ pag. 100. IfT, E. had 
 known what gives a Man the juft denomination of a P^tfi^ ht^ 
 would not have difcourfed fo abfurdly. 
 
 What a pitiful come offis this 1 Is this like a Difputant ^ 
 Why did he not take up the Difcourfe, and lay open the 
 abfurdity of it? Would a Man of hh fc ant ling of under- 
 Handing and difcretion let flip To fair an advantage ? Who 
 could have thought it ! Well, that Difcourfe however^ 
 abfurd or not, remains unanfwered^ and the inftances 
 there given to prove Ethelwolf a Papift are not difprovedy, 
 or any way removed by the Prieft. He tells us, it is not 
 every one that agrees in fome Opinions with the Roman Churchy 
 who is a Papift ', ftnce then all Ghriftians in the World woultt 
 bePapifis, ibid. 
 
 But what's this to the purpofe? Is not this another de- 
 vice to avoid the matter ? Are the Inftanees i gave of 
 Ethelwolf sbt'ing a Papift common fo ^// Chriftians as well 
 as Papifts ? 'Tis true indeed, there are fome Tenets com- 
 
( l62 ) 
 
 man to Papifts and all Chriltians, as that there is a God, 
 that Chrift is come, and hath fufFered for Mankind, &c. 
 But are thofe things mentioned before of £r^r/ipo//of the 
 Nature of thefe ? Are they received in common by all 
 Chriftians, as well as by Papifts ? Let me come a little 
 nearer him. He reckons himfelf not only a Chriftian^ 
 but a Miaifter of Chrift alfoi Is what is related before of 
 Ethelwolf confiftenr with his Chriftianity ? If not, why 
 does he thus abufe both his Reader and me, by fuggeft- 
 ing that what I there fpake of £f^r/tP^// Is-agrceable to 
 all Chriftians, as well as Papifts? But if what is fpoken 
 before of Ethel^oif be not agreeable to all Chriftians, but 
 to Papifts only^ I hope it will be fufEcient proof that Ethtl- 
 wolf was a Papift. 
 
 Having faid who is not a Papift, he now gives us the 
 definition of a Papift thus, Hi is a Papift who profefcs him- 
 felf a Member of the Roman Church, and acknowledges the 
 Popes Supremacy^ htlieving all the Articles of the Roman 
 ChmcW s Faithy pag. loi. 
 
 This definition would exclude a great number of pro- 
 fcft Papifts from being Papifls \ for many that have lived 
 and died in the Profeflion of that Religion, and in Com- 
 munion with the Roman Church, did not believe all ths 
 Articles of the Roman Church's Faith. Moft notorious^ 
 are the Controverjiesy which for many Ages have beea 
 maintained amongft the Religious Orders of that Church, 
 one fort moft hotly and violently impugning the Faith 
 and Opinions of the other, yet all Papifts, So that to 
 the conftituting a P^p//?, it is not of abfolute neccflity 
 that he believes all the Articles of the Roman Church's 
 Faith. But if he profefs himfelf a Member of that Church, 
 and be in Commnnion with it, that's enough to denote hint 
 a Papift. The other Prieft in his friendly Conference^ 
 pag. 149. gave his Parifhioner a Definition of Popery; 
 His words are thefe, 1 cannot give yon a more brief and true 
 account <>/ Popery than thisy That it is fuch Dodlrines andfu* 
 ferftitiotu PraEticeSy which by the corruption of time have fre* 
 vaihd in the Church of Rome, contrary to the True^ Anti^ 
 entj Catholick and Apoftolick Church. Now if this be a true 
 '^account of Popery, and fo true an one that he cannot, as 
 he fays, give a more true \ what truer account then caa 
 be given of a Papift than to fay^ he is a Papift that holds 
 
 fucb 
 
( I6j ) 
 
 Tuch Doftrines and Superllicious Prad^ices, &c. Or, he 
 is a Papift that holds Popery : But Popery is fuch Do- 
 drines and Superfliiious Practices, which by the Cor- 
 ruption of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome^ 
 contrary to the True, Ancient, Catholick and Apoflo- 
 lick Church. Therefore he that holds fuch Dodriaes 
 and Superftitious Pradices, which by the corruption of 
 time have prevailed in the Church of Rome^ contrary to 
 the True, Antieni, Catholick and Apoftolick Church, is 
 a Papift. Now let us nieafure Ethelwolf by the Prieft's 
 Definition of Popery, and fee how far Ethelwolf wi\] fall • 
 fliort of being a Papift. That Ethelwolf hM the Doftrine 
 of the C<6libate^ or finale Life of Priells, is clear from his 
 taking upon him the Vow of flngle Life, when he entrcd 
 his Monkifh Order. He held the Dodrine, that the 
 Pope had power to abfolve and releafe him from his Vows^ and 
 accordingly received an Abfolution from the Pope. He 
 held the Pradice of burning Lamps continHally day and 
 night in the houfes they called Churches, and according- 
 ly gave two hundred Marks a year to buy Oyl to feed che 
 Lamps in two of thofe Churches, and that in Rome, Now 
 if thefe Dodrines and Pradices were S^perflitious ; if they 
 were fuch as by the Corrnption of time prevailed in the 
 Church of ^(?wf *, if they were contrary to the True, 
 Antienc, Catholick and Apoftolick Church (which none 
 I think but a Papift will deny) then according to the 
 Prieft's Definition they are Popery^ and confequently Ethel' 
 wolf in holding them was a Papifi, 
 
 But the Prieft fays, King Ethehvolf did never profefs 
 himfelf a Member of the Roman Churchy ibid. 
 
 Is not this ftrange ! What made him then feek Jhfdu- 
 UonQi\\\s VoYfsfrom the Pope? What caufed him to go 
 in (uch great Devotion to Rome? What moved him id 
 give two hundred Marks a year to maintain the Lamp' 
 Religion of the Roman Church ? W^hat induced him to fet- 
 tle a hundred Marks a year upon the Pope ? What led 
 him to re-build the En^Ufh School in Rome^ founded at 
 firft by Offa^ for a Seminary to train up the Englifh Youth 
 in the Religion of the Roman Church? And how I won- 
 der was he the Pope's Creature fas in Hiftory is recorded 
 of him) if he never profeft himfelf a Member of the P^^o^ 
 man Church ? 
 
( 164 ) 
 
 He adds, that Ethelwolf and his Succejfors were VicArioi 
 Chrifli^ owning no Supream in their Kingdoms but Chrift, 
 ibid. 
 
 Certain it is, that the Top'^s Sufremacy was received 
 long before Ethelwolf s time. Perkins againfb Coccins ac- 
 knowledges, it begun openly and manifeftly in Boniface, 
 Anno 607. which was near two hundred and fifty years 
 before the Charter of Ethelwolf for Tythes ^ and he 
 quotes Sigebert upon the Year 607. thus, * Boniface ob- 
 ' tained of the Emperor Fhocasy that the Church of Roms 
 * fhould be the Head of all Churches. This was withia 
 a few years after jinftin's coming from Rome hither, and 
 planting the Roman Religion here. From which time, for 
 the fpace of well nigh a hundred years, all the Arch-Bi- 
 fhops oi Canterbury^ feven in number fucceffively, were 
 Italians and Forrreigners, as Fox notes in his Martyrology^ 
 vol. I. pag. 121. (hewing particularly in one of them, The^ 
 odorm by Name, that he v/^sfent into England ijr Vitelli- 
 anus the Pope, to be Arch-Bifhop of Canterbury^ where- 
 upon this Theodorus took upon him the placing and difpla- 
 cing the Bifhops at his Pleafure. He turned out Cedda 
 and JVilfride the Arch- Bifhops of Tork^ under pretence 
 they were not lawfully confecrated^ notwithftanding (fays 
 Fox) they vitxt fufficiently authoriz.ed by their Kings. IVil- 
 fride hereupon went to Rome to complain (but without re- 
 drefs.) Why did he not complain to his King, if he 
 was accounted Vicarios Chrifli ^ Why made he his A^fU^ 
 cation to the Pope, if the Pope's Supremacy was not then 
 owned ? Befides, if Ethelwolf and his Succeflcrs were Fi" 
 carij Chrifli^ owning no Supream in their Kingdoms but 
 Ghrift; how came it that they fubjcBed themfelves and 
 their Kingdoms to the See of Rome, making them tributa* 
 ry to the Pope, by the yearly Payment oi Rome-fcot^ or 
 Feter-pencej which was a Penny Tax laid upon every 
 Houfe in England^ and paid to the Popes Treafury at 
 Rome > 
 
 He adds further. That Ethelwolf ^^'^ tiot hold all the 
 Opinions of the Church of KomQ^ and therefore woe no Papift, 
 pag. 10 1. 
 
 That Ethelwolf was a Papift, according to the account 
 which the other Prieft gives of Popery (which, he fays, 
 is the truef^ Accouni he can give of ii) 1 have proved be- 
 fore. 
 
before. That the holding every Opinion of the Church 
 of Rome^ is abfolutely neceflary to the denominating a 
 Papift, I deny. A great part of the profefled Papifls do 
 not hold aa ihe Opinions of the Church of Rome, His 
 Confequence therefore is falfe, although he ihould prove his 
 Propolidon. Suppofe a Man hold Purgatory^ Indulgences^ 
 fraying to Saints^ tpor/hifping of Saints, praying for the Deadj 
 facrificing for the Dead-, werjhipping of Relicksy Auricular 
 Confejfion, Fennance^ Ahfolmion^ Pilgrimages^ Single Life of, 
 Triejis^ Latin Services^ Maffes^ Merits^ and abundance 
 more of fuchlike Romifh Ware-^ (hall this Man be denied 
 to be a Papift becaufe he holds not every particular of the 
 Church of Rome ? How abfurd were that ? Verily I can- 
 not fee what fhould induce this Prieft thus to argue, un- 
 lefs he fhould have appreheniion, that the account which 
 his Brother Prieft has given of Popery, will take in him 
 and his Brethren too^ as holding fuch Dodrines and fuper- 
 Jtitiopts Pradices, which by the corruption of time have 
 .prevailed in the Church of Rome^ contrary to the True, 
 Antient, Catholick and Apoftolick Church;, and has 
 therefore to fecure himfelf from the Imputation of Po- 
 pery, invented this new Definition of a Papift. 
 
 But when he cannot clear £r^e/ip^// from being a Pa- 
 pift, he attempts to juftifie his Donation of Tythes 
 though a Papift, and therefore fays, pag. lor. Jf we 
 fhould grant'----- that Ethelwolf rvod a Papift, yet neither 
 would that make his Donation of Tythes 'ucid \ for an err one 
 OHS Opinion in the perfon who doth a thing good in it felf (as 
 we have proved Tythes to be) doth not make the AEi void. 
 
 How //^ibr/)i doth he fpeak oi Popery! how willing he is 
 to extenuate it! An erroneous Opinion! It feems then Popery 
 in his Opinbn, is but an erroneous Opinion. I always 
 thought Popery had been at leaft one degree worfe than a 
 bare Erroneous Opinion. But fuppofe it for the prefent 
 to be but an erroneous Opinion ; yet may hoc an erroneous 
 Opinion be fufficieat to make void an A<^ which flows 
 from that Erroneous Opinion, and is dellgned to uphold 
 that Erroneous Opinion, as this Donation of Tythes 
 did ? The Opinion which was the caufe of this D jnacion, 
 was this, That this Gift would be a means to appeafe the An* 
 ger of God-, obtain remijfion of Sins and Salvation of his Ssul, 
 This was (to fay no more of it) a very erroneous Opinion^ 
 
 M 2 aQ(^ 
 
( 166 ) 
 
 and from this errotteous Opinion did fpring the Donatio® 
 of Tythes. Now this Opinion (which was the caufe)' 
 being thrown afide and rejedted, the Donation (which 
 was the Effed) is void of it felf ^ according to that 
 known Maxim, Snblata Canfa tollitur effeBus ^ i. c. When 
 the Caufe is taken away^ the EffeB is taken away alfo. Nor 
 was this Donation erroneoufly grounded in refpeft only 
 of the Remiffion and Salvation expefted by it ^ but alfo in 
 refped of the Perfons to whom^ and the Service jor which 
 it was given. They to whom Tythes were then given, 
 were not the Minifters ofChriflj bat his Enemies-, and that 
 Religion which Tythes were given to fupport, was 
 not the true mdefiled Religion and Hnconufted Worjhip ofCod^ 
 but the falfe corrupted Religion and Worfhip of the de- 
 generate Church of Rome. What he fays of the Aft or 
 Thing being good in it felf, hath no place here, unlefs 
 he could as really prove, as readily fay, that Tythes arc 
 good in themfelves. How Tythes or T enths are good 
 in themfelves, any more than Ninths, Eights, Sevenths, 
 or any other number, I confefs I do not underftand. 
 But fays he, pag. loi. Mf all the good Afts of Papifls 
 
 * (in the true fenie) and all their Charters and Donati- 
 ' onsbe void, meerlybecaufemade and done by Papifis-^ 
 
 * then all theChartersof our Kings, all the Endowments 
 
 * of Kofpitals and Schools, Magna Charta^ and all pub- 
 ' lick Ads for fome Hundreds of Years before K. Henry 
 ' the eight, would be void : Which Principle (fays he) 
 ' would deftroy the Maintenance of the Poor, the Privi- 
 
 * ledges of Cities, and the Freedom of all EngUjh Sub- 
 
 * jeds. (With him in this part agrees the other Priell 
 in his Vindication, pag. 303. urging for inftance Magna 
 Charta^ to both which one and the fame Anfwer may 
 ferve.) 
 
 This is all grounded upon a miftake, and I doubt a 
 wilful one too. His Intereft difwades him from diftin- 
 guifhing, as he ought, between Religions and Civil Ads. 
 What the Papifts did as Men, as Members of a Body Foli* 
 tick is one thing •, what they did as Chriftians^ as Members 
 of a ReligioHs Society is another. Though in their Religions 
 ^Capacity they were wrongs yet in their Civil Capacity they 
 weren^k: They were really Men^ they were truly 
 Members of the political Body^ though they were not trdy 
 
 MtTfi' 
 
( 1^7 ) 
 
 Memhers of the Body of Chrift : Their Kings were tr»e 
 Kings^ their Parliaments were true Parliaments^ their Ci- 
 vil Government, a trtie Government^ though their Church 
 was not the true Church. The making void therefore this 
 Charter of Tythes, which had dire^ Relation to their Re 
 ligionj and was deligned to fnpport their Church and Wor- 
 ftip, which was falfe^ doth noE at all (hake, much lefs 
 overthrow thofe civil Ads, Laws, Charters and Privi- 
 ledges, which in a civil Capacity, oi Members of the Body 
 foliticJi^ and with relation to the cm/ Government, which 
 was trucj were made or enaded by them. He grounds 
 his Thefis on a falfe Hypothefis^ when he fays, Jfall the good 
 jiBs of Papills (in the true fenfe) and ali their Charters and 
 Donations be voidj meerly becaufe made and done by Papifts, 
 &c. For 1 do not fay that all the good Ads of Papifts 
 (in the true ^&[i^t) are void ^ but I fay tiiat this Ad (the 
 Donation of Tythes) was not a ^W Ad, being given to 
 Maintain that Minillry, which was not the true Miniftry of 
 Chrill, but a falfe Miniftry, and to uphold that Worfliip 
 which was not the true Worlhip of God, but di falfe Wor- 
 Ihip. Nor were all iheir Charters and Donations void, 
 vxieerly becaufe made and done by Papifts ^ but this Charter 
 of Tythes is therefore void, becaufe made to fupport and 
 fuflain a Religion and Worfhip by which God was dijhonoured* 
 So that I impunge not all the good ji^s of Papifts^ meerly 
 becaufe done by Papifts (nor indeed any good v^(^ of theirs 
 in the true fenfe) neither feek \ to evacuate aH their Char- 
 ters and Donations (or indeed any of them) meerly ^^- 
 caufe made by Papifts : but I impunge this Donation and 
 Charter of Tythes as an evil Ad, proceeding from the 
 trroneoHSy unfound and corrupt judgment of Papifts, and 
 tending to uphold and maintain an erroneous^ unfound and 
 corrupt Religion and Worfhip. Safe then and found may all 
 the good Ji^s of Papifls in the true fenfe, all their Civil 
 and Political Ads, Laws, Charters, Grants and Donati- 
 ons, the Maintenance of the Poor, the Priviledges of 
 Cities, and the Freedom of all Englifh Subjeds, ftand 
 and remain inviolate and mtoucWdy notwithftanding the 
 enervation of this Charier for Tythes. 
 
 §. 13. The fecond Objedion which he offers in my 
 Name is this, That Tythes were given to maintain th$ Popifh 
 
 M 3 Cltrgy^ 
 
Ct6S) 
 
 Clergy, This he fays is a miftake, pag. 102. for, fays 
 he, h WM for the Maintenance of the Englilh Clergy^ who had 
 a P^itriarch of their own in thofe days^ and were a Church of 
 themfelves^ not holding all the Opinions of the Roman Churchy 
 nor frof effing any Canonical obedience to the Pope— — <iw<^ theri' 
 fore they cannot jtifily be called a Popifll Clergy, 
 
 That Tythes were given to maintain the EngUfh Cler- 
 gy is not doubted. But what then ? Does their being an 
 Englifh Clergy acquit them from being a Popijh Clergy? 
 Cannot an EngUfh Clergy be Popifh? I wilh with all my 
 Heart it could not. But what, I pray, was that Clergy 
 that drank fuch great Draughts of Protefiant Blood in Q. 
 Mary*% time ? Was it not both EngUjh and Popi/h, Since 
 then an EngUfh Clergy has been Popifh^ how vain a Ihift 
 is it in him to fay Tythes were not given to maintaia 
 the Popifh Clergy, becaufe they were given to maintain 
 the EngUjh Clergy. But this Englifh Clergy had (Ine fays) 
 in tboie days (of Ethflw4j- ? a Patriarch of their own. Had 
 they fo? How much was Ethelwolf then overfeen in fend- 
 ing to Pope Gregory for Abfolfition from his Vows^ when he 
 plight as well have had it from his own Patriarch at home ? 
 What was the matter ! Was the Patriarch buiie, or out 
 of the way, or did not Ethelwolf know there was one> 
 Put who, I pray, was Patriarch in his time? What was 
 his Name? When began the Patriarchat of England^ and 
 how long flood it ? Out of what Legend^ 1 wonder, did 
 the Prieft take this Fable^ that he quotes no Authority 
 for it ? This Patriarch, doubtlefs, muft be a Man of a 
 veryfoft and eafe temper^ to let the Pope fend over his Ita^ 
 lians hitherto be ArclvBilhops oi Canterbnry^ the chief 
 Seat of his Patriarchat-^ and fend his Legates hither to call 
 and govern Councils. And when Theodoras the Italian 
 Arch-Bifhop of Canterbury took upon him to difplace 
 Wilfrids Arch Bifhop of Torl^ was not Wilfride very 
 much to blame to negled his own Patriarch, and go to 
 l^ome to complain to the Pope ? What Patriarch alive, but 
 a very good natared ^lan would have endured all this ? But 
 I am partly ot the Opinion, when it comes to the up- 
 ftot, w'e (hall find no other Patriarch oi England but the 
 'Pope, for fome Deputy of his) who being in the time 
 of the Council at Nice, one of the four Patriarchs of the 
 Chrifiian World (as it was then called) took in thefe 
 
 Weftera 
 
( i'59 ) 
 Weftern Parts into his Patriarchat. And when Gregory 
 Bifhop of Rome difpenced wich the EttgUfh in the cafe of 
 Degrees prohibited, he did it (fays Perkins) as Patriarch, 
 froblem. pag. 504. Whence it appears, that England 
 was then fobjed to the Patriarch of Romcy which it would 
 not have been, if it had had a Patriarch of its own. 
 
 He adds. They wert a Church of thtmfelves^ not holding all 
 the Opinions of the Roman Churchy nor prvfejfmg 4riy Canoni- 
 cal obedience to the Pope. What he means by their being 
 a Church of themfelves I underftand not. They were 
 ftch a Church of themfelves, as the Pope fent his Crea- 
 tures to be Arch-Bifhops in. They were ftich a Church 
 of themfelves, as whofe ComcHs the Pope fent his Legates 
 to govern. They were fuch a Church of themfelves as in 
 cafe of grievance had recourfe to the Pope /or redrefs. And 
 for the Opinions of the Roman Church, that they held 
 them all, I will not fay, but I dare afSrm they held enough 
 to juftly denominate them a Foji^ Clergy. Whatever 
 the Opinions of the Church of Rome then were, that thefc 
 were in Communion with that Church is notorious, and 
 that feme time before Ethelwolfy Pope ViteUianm fent Ihe- 
 cdorm over into England^ and divers Monh of Italy with 
 him, to fetHf herein England Latin Service^ M^jfes^ Cere- 
 monies^ Letanies^ and fuch other Romifll fVare^ &c. if Fox 
 and his Teftimony may be taken, whofe very words thefe 
 are, MartyroL vol. i. pag. 112, And what Obfervance 
 they paid to the Pope, may be not only gathered from 
 that Palfage in Arch-Bilhop IVilfred's Addrefs to the Pope^ 
 wherein fpeaking of Theodore^ by whom he was turned 
 out, he fays, * Quem quidera, pro eo quod abhac Apofto- 
 
 * lies fedis fummitate diredus eft, accufare, non audeo, 
 
 * i. e. Whom in as much as he hath been direded by this 
 
 * high Apoftolical See, I dare not accufe. And from 
 Rainolds de Rom. Ecclef. Idolataria^ where in his Epiftle, 
 pag. 13. He tells the Englifh Seminaries^ that about the 
 Year 800. the Kings of England reverencing the Pope at 
 St. Peter's Vicar, gave him Xearly a Penny out of every Fa^ 
 tnilyy &c. But alfo moft plainly concluded from the 
 words of FloriUguSy cited by Camden in his Britannia^ pag. 
 411. where mentioning divers Priviledges of the Mona- 
 ftery of St. jilban\ founded by K. O/4, and endowed 
 by him and his Succeflbrs, he giveth this for one, that 
 
 M 4 t The 
 
( lyo ) 
 
 ' The Abbot or Monk appointed Arch-Deacon under 
 
 * him, hath pontifical Jurifdifiion over the Priefts and 
 ^ Lay-men, of all the Poflefljons belonging to this Church, 
 
 * fo as he yieldeth Subjection to no Arch-Bi(hop, Bifhop 
 
 * cr Legate, fave only to the Pope of Rome. To the 
 Pope of Rome^ then it appears, this Abbot, notwith- 
 ftanding all his Priviledges, did yield SubjeBion : How 
 much more then did the reft of the Clergy, who were 
 not priviledged as he was, yield obedience to the Pope ? The 
 fame Author there likewife adds, * That Ofa^ the mag- 
 nificent King, granfed out of his Kingdom a fet Rent 
 or impofKion, called Rome-fcot to St. Peterh Vicar, the 
 Bifhop of Rome^ and himfelf obtained of the faid Bi- 
 fhop of Rome^ that the Church of St. Albm^ the Pro- 
 toroartyr of the Engliflo Nacion, might faithfully colled 
 and referve to their ownufe the fame Rome-fcot through- 
 out all the Province of Hertford^ &:c. We fee now 
 
 what RefpeEl. what Regard^ what Obfervancey what Vene* 
 ration^ what Snbje^ion and Obedience was ufed tov^ards .ihe 
 Popes of Rome by the Kings and Clergy of England^ evea 
 hdox Q Ethelwolfs time^ much more was it increaied af- 
 terwards, as Times grew worfe^ and Topes higher. That 
 the Church of Rome was then Jdolatrons^ and that grofly 
 too in the Worlhip of Images, 1 have fheyv/ed before \ as 
 alfo, that divers Monks werefent into England by the Pope^ 
 to fet up their Latin Service^ Majfes^ Litanies^ Ceremonies^ 
 and other Romifli iVare here. That this Romifh Ware was 
 fet up here, cannot be doubted, fince 'Theodore (one of 
 thofe Monks which the Pope thus fent) was made Arch- 
 Bifhop of Canterbury. From all which, Itt the Reader 
 judge, whether jhe Clprgy of thofe Times was Popifh 
 or no. 
 
 But if they were, 'tis much alike, for ought I fee to 
 the Priefl^ For he fays, pag. 102. Suppofe again the Saxoa 
 Priefts had been Papifts, that tpould not have made the Dona^ 
 tion of Tythes invalid, becanfe Tythes are Co£s Right, and 
 the Gram was intended to God* 
 
 So that how bad foever the Clergy was to whom 
 Tythes were given, 'tis all one, the Donation (if he 
 jnay have his will) muft (land. Bui why ? Becanfe, fays 
 he, Tythes arp God^s Right, 
 
 But 
 
( ^7^ ) 
 
 But bow come Tythes or Tenths to be God's Right 
 more than Ninths or Eighths ? He begs the Queftion^ and 
 gives it for proof. 
 
 He adds, The grant was intended to God, 
 
 He faid himfelf but a few Lines before, It was for tht 
 Maintenance of the Englilh Clergy^ ufing the words of In- 
 giilf^ CUniverfam dotaverat Erdefiam Anglicanam \ i. e. 
 //<? endowed the whole Church of England] But fuppofe 
 the Grant intended to God, muft all Grants (land then 
 that were intended to God ? A notable way indeed to 
 revive all the old Grants and Donations, which in the 
 thickefi Darknefs of Pofifh Ignorance were by blind Zeal 
 and fuperfiitioM Devotion given to Holy Church (as they 
 called it) and intended to God. 
 
 Buc what thinkell rhou, Reader, makes this Priefl 
 play the Advocate thus for God, and ftickle fo hard for 
 God's part ? Is it his Care for Gody or his Love to himfelf? 
 Thou (halt fee anon the Reafon. He intends to make 
 himfelf God^s Receiver, and therefore no wonder if he talk 
 fo much of God's pan. 
 
 Buc he fays, The Clergy of that ^ge were God^s only fub" 
 lick Minifiers, 
 
 it feems then he can be content to call the Popifh 
 Clergy God's publick Minifters : But I hope he fees the 
 confequent, that then the popifh Church was God's pub- 
 lick Church, and the popifh Worfhip God's publick 
 Worfbip alfo '^ and where then was the Church, Worfhip 
 and Miniftry of Antichrift, fo much cried out againfl: by 
 God's ConfefTors and holy Witneffes in almoft every 
 Age? Were they the publick Miaiflers of God, who be- 
 lieved and held the Dodrine of Purgatory, of praying 
 for the Dead, of facrificing for the Dead, of praying to 
 Samts, of worfhipping Relicks, of Auricular Confeffion, 
 of Pilgrimages, of Confecrations of Water, Oyl, Salt, 
 Crifm, of Latin Service, MalFes, Litanies, and other 
 Ceremonies of the Church of Rome ? By this. Reader, 
 thou may'fl guefs what a kind of Minifter he him- 
 felf is. 
 
 He adds. The Donors fuppofed them a good Miniflry, and 
 as fiich endowed them 3 for they efteemed them to be God^s Rir 
 ceiversj pag. 103, 
 
 There's 
 
( 172 ) 
 
 There's no doubt buc the Donors fuppofed them a 
 good Miniftry j but that Suppolition doth neither make 
 jivor prove them fo. And feeing they were not what the 
 Donors fuppofed them to be, there is no reafon why 
 that Donation fhould (land, which was made upon fuch 
 a miitake, and without which it had not been made. For 
 k cannot be fuppofed the Donors would have made fuch 
 a Donation, had they not by miflake fuppofed that Mi- 
 n'lRry (ro which they made it) to be what it was not: 
 And Reafon would, that what was done upon a miftakea 
 Suppolition, fhould, when the Miflake appears, be void. 
 But if all that has been giv^n upon wrong Sppofitions 
 fault Hand, hi6 Office of Receiver may ia time grow very 
 confiderable : For, not here to mention all other popifh 
 Gifts, What does he imagine the Turks think of their 
 Priefts ? Do not they fnppofe them co be a good Miniflry, 
 sad oiJUch endow them ? Do not they efleem them to ue 
 God's Receivers ? Whatever Donations then amongfl: 
 them have been made, or fiiall be, upon this Suppoliti- 
 on, fliail be valid and in force, according to his Argu- 
 ment, in fucceeding Ages ^ and if ever the Turks fhould 
 be prevailed upon to aflume the Name and Profeflion of 
 ChrijUanity (though otherwife fufEciently erroneous and 
 corrupt) this Prieft Hands ready to be the Receiver of 
 what was given to the Turhfli Priefls, upon the fame 
 Reafons by which he claims what was given to the popifh 
 Priefts, Viz.. That the Donors fnppofed them to he a good 
 Mimftry, and as fuch endowed them ; that they efleemed 
 them to be God's Receivers; that the Grant was intend- 
 ed to God ^ that if there had been a Fault in the Servant, 
 that would not prejudice the Mailer's Title ; and that if 
 they had been a Tnrkijh Clergy, and forfeited their own 
 Right, they could not forfeit his. The other Priefl one 
 may fee has the Office in his Eye already, for he fays, 
 Siipp&fe the Turkifh Empire (through God^s Mercy) fhould be 
 converted to Chrillianity, may not the Muffti himfelf., and 
 thofe whom T. E. calls Emaums f which are the Turkifh 
 PrieflsJ together with all the Mofche ("which are their 
 TemplesJ and Revenues now belonging to them^ be reconfe" 
 ^crated to Chrillianity? Vindic. pag. 314. Judge now. 
 Reader, whether with thefe Men all he not Fi[h that come 
 60 Net j and whether it is likely they would ftickat any 
 
 thing 
 
( m ) 
 
 thing that is like to be gainful, who have alreacly con- 
 trived a Reconfecration of the THrkiJh Prieft's Reve* 
 nues. 
 
 But to go on ', The Author of the Right of Tythes pur- 
 fues his Argument to the fame purpofe again, pag. 104. 
 (fays he of Etioelwolfs Clergy) ' If they were errone- 
 
 * ous, neither Prince nor People knew it ; and they did 
 
 * not give thefe to maintain their Errors, but to main- 
 
 * tain that which they believed to be a good Miniftry, 
 
 * and the true Worfhip of God ^ aad therefore the Do- 
 f nation remains good. 
 
 May not all this be faid of the worflftate of the Roman 
 Church ? Nay, may it not be faid of the very Turk (whom 
 I mention, not for comparifon, but Illultration fake.) 
 Does either Prince or People know that their Priefls are 
 erroneous ? Or do they endow them to maintain their 
 Errors ? Nay, do they not give tneir Endowments to 
 maintain that which they believe to be a good Minillry, 
 and the true Worfhip of God ? But mull: thofe Endow- 
 ments therefore remain good, and Chriftian Minifters 
 claim and exad them ? 
 
 He adds further. That thongh that Clergy were erroneous^ 
 yet Ethel wolf ought to huv.^ given them God^s due^ and thg 
 people ought to have paid it to tioem^ which he argues ab ex^ 
 emplo from the Example of the Jewijh Priefts, who, tho* 
 very erroneous, had a Right to Tythes. 
 
 But is it as certain, that the popifh Clergy in Ethels 
 wolf's time was chofen and ordained by God, as the JeW" 
 ijh Priefts were? And is it as certain, that Tythes were 
 appointed by Chrift for the Maintenance of Chriftian Mi- 
 nifters, as it is that they were appointed by God for the 
 Maintenance of the Jewifh Priefts? He might do well to 
 obferve a Difference between the States of Law and Go- 
 fpel. God then chofe that whole Nation to be his pe- 
 culiar People : Hath he ever chofe a whole Nation to be 
 his peculiar People fince ? Nay, hath he not chofe hira- 
 felf a peculiar People out of all Nations, Kindreds, 
 Tongue^ and Peoples, picking here one, and there one, 
 one of aTribe^ and two of a Family ? Out of that Peo- 
 ple he feparated ^ne entire Tribe to the Service of the 
 Tabernacle, who in a natural and lineal Succeffion were 
 appointed to carry on and continue that Pricfthood 10 
 
 the 
 
( 174 ) 
 
 the -end of that Polity : but under the Gofpel it is not fbl 
 His Argument therefore from the Example of the Jewijh 
 Prieils will not hold. But if Ethelwolf and the People 
 ought to have given and paid Tythes as God's due to 
 that Clergy, thouah erroneous^ then furely he and they 
 wereunjall: in not giving them fooner, and fo were alfo 
 Lis Predecelibrs : For, if as God's Due they ought to 
 have given them at all, they ought then to have given 
 them from the firfl, and upon that Suppolition were guil- 
 ty of Sacriledge in detaining them, which the Prieft, it 
 may be, did not fore- fee when he called Ethglmlfa reli" 
 gioKS and mild Prince^ pag. 95. a good King^ pag 107. and 
 tbQClergfs Bene(a&:or^ pag. 109. But to what end doth 
 he argue the validity of ihe Donation from the ignorance 
 of the Donors, faying. If the Clergy mere erroneous^ nei" 
 rijcr Prince nor People hiew it^ &c. feeing it bad been all 
 one if they had known it. For if Ethelwolf owght to have 
 given Tythes to tl>at Clergy, and the People ought to 
 have paid them, though that Clergy were erroneous. 
 What odds had there been if both Prince and People 
 had known them to be erroneous ? They muft, it feems, 
 have given and paid them Tythes however. How 111 do 
 thefe £wo Periods agree ! In th€ firft, he fays, ' Though 
 
 * -that Clergy were erroneous, yet Ethelwolf ought to 
 
 * have given them God's Due, and the People ought to 
 
 * have paid \t to them, in the fecond he fays, ' The 
 ^ Donation is therefore good, becaufe if they were erro- 
 
 * Jieous, neither Prince nor People knew it. Thus one 
 labile, their Ignorance of the Clergy's Errors, and Be- 
 lief that they were a good Miniftry, makes the Donation 
 af Tyches to them good. Another while, though they 
 were ^rreneous, yet the Prince onght to give them, and 
 tbe People ought to pay them. What would it have a- 
 vaiied then for either Prince or People to have known 
 tiie Clergy was erroneous, if whether they knew it or 
 knew it not, they were obliged to pay them ? 
 
 , But whatever that Clergy was, he fays, jilmighty God 
 hath now provided himfelf of Minifters that are no Papifts, 
 hnt the mofl confiderabU Enemies to Popery in aH the IVorldj 
 pag. 102. 
 
 I verily believe it indeed, and wirbai; that thofe Mini- 
 fkrs whom God hath now provided for himfelf, neither 
 
 do 
 
(^75) 
 
 do nor dare receive Tythes. And though he cries out, 
 Jt is from a Frotefiant Clergy that the Quakers would takt 
 Tythes : I dare engage the Quakers Ihall never ferve the 
 Frotefiam Clergy as the Protefiatit Clergy has ferved the 
 Fopfh^ who have cried out, and that pfily, agaiuft the 
 Popi/h Clergy, and thrufl: them out, but have goc th« 
 Tythes which were given unto them, and keep them for 
 themfelves. The Protefiams in protefling jgaiuft the 
 Topifh Clergy, did well and very commendably : But their 
 taking Tythes from the popijh Clergy to themfelves U their 
 blemijh^ and will be, fo long as they retain them. 
 
 §. 14. The third Objedion which the Prieft gives in 
 my Name is this, * That £r^f/ip<?// gran ted this Chartesr 
 
 * for Tythes upon evil Motives. For the Good of cur 
 
 * Souls, and the Forgivenefs of our Sins, are the words 
 
 * of the Charter^ which (hews it to be an effed of thas 
 
 * popijh Dodrine of meriting Salvation by good Works ; 
 
 * and that he gave this as an expiation for his Sins. Up- 
 on this, he fays, pag. 105. ' 'Tis fome what flrange that 
 
 * T. E. fhould reckon both thefe for evil Motives ^ and 
 
 * it is the firft time that I ever heard it called an evil 
 
 * Motive, to be moved to do a good Work, for the 
 
 * Good of our Souls. 
 
 'Tis very ftrange this Fried (hould think to avoid the 
 force of the Objedion by a Qnibhle only. To be moved 
 to do a Good Work Jimply^ is not an Evil Aiotive^ but 
 to be moved to do a good Work 04 an expiation for Sii^^ 
 or with an eipedation of meriting Salvation thereby^ is aa 
 evil Motive. 
 
 * Again (fays the Priefl) The defire of Remifllon of 
 ' his Sins was a good Motive in it felf, only he took an 
 
 * ill courfe ta obtain it, if he fought expiation by Good 
 
 * Works, tbtd. 
 
 The Defire of Remifllon of his Sins was a good De- 
 fire \ but what was it a Motive to? If it was a Motive 
 to him to give Tythes, thatargwes heexpedkd Remifllon 
 of his Sins by this Donation, and that he did fo the words 
 of the Charter confirm CPio remifllone animarum & pec- 
 catorum nollrorum] And though the Charter be by di- 
 vers diverfly reported, yet in this part they generafly 
 agree either in words or fubftance. 
 
 Florin' 
 
(176) 
 
 BorenttHs of Worcefier hath. Pro Redemptione anime 
 fue & Antecefibrum fuorum ; i. e. For the Redemftion of 
 his Sonly and of the Souls of his A»cefiors» With him agrees 
 Hovedon, And Huntingdon does noE much differ, whofe 
 words are [Propter amorem Dei & redemptionem fui ; 
 L e. For the Love of God and his own Redemption.'}' And 
 the Bifliop and Clergy then on their part undertaking, 
 that fuch a number of Pfalms and Mafles fhould be fung 
 and faid for the King and his Nobles, exprefs themfelves 
 to the fame parpofe^ as having refped to the fame end^ 
 namely, [Pro falute (as Matthew Weflmtnfter hath ii) pro 
 mercede & refrigerio delidorum fuorum, (as in Malms^ 
 bury) i. e. For their Salvation^ for their Reward^ and an 
 Abatement of their Offences,} So that it is plain, they eX' 
 feEied by this Donation to obtain the Salvation and Redemption 
 of their Sods^ the Remijfion and Forglvenefs of their Sins, 
 
 And that it was the common Opinion of thofe Times, 
 that Sins might be expiated by Ads of Piety and Charity 
 (as they accounted themj the Examples of Offa and Al" 
 frida (the one falling fomewhat before, the other fome- 
 what after Ethelwolf's time) perfwade. The firft whereof 
 having moft treacheroufly and inhumanly murdered Ethel- 
 bert King of Kent^ did thereupon give the tenth part of 
 his Goods to the Church, and founded Monafteries. The 
 latter having occafioned the Death of her Husband, Earl 
 Ethelwold^ and murdered her Son in Law King Edward^ 
 did found Religious Houfes for Monks and Nuns, * To 
 
 * EXPIATE (that I may ufe the words of a great and 
 learned Antiquary) ' and make SATISFACTION for 
 
 * that mod foul and heinous Fadt, wherewith fo wicked- 
 ' ly Ihe had charged her Soul, by making away King Ed^ 
 
 * ward her Husband's Son^ as alfo to walh out the mur- 
 
 * dering of her former Husband Ethelwold^ a moft No- 
 
 * ble Earl, &c, Camden^s Brittan. pag. 262. 
 
 And that thefe Ads, and fuch like, of thofe and other 
 Princes of thofe times, have been thus taken and under- 
 ftpod by Men of Note and Learning, appears not only 
 by the iaft quoted Authority, but alfo by the Teftimony 
 of Fox^ who compiled the Book of Martyrs : He in his 
 firft Volume, pag. 120. enumerating the many Mona- 
 fteries and other Religious Houfes, founded and endowed 
 before Ethelwolfs time, fays thereupon, J The End and 
 
 Cauf^ 
 
( ^77 ) 
 
 ^ Caufe of their Deeds and Buildings cannot be excufecJ, 
 
 * being contrary to the Rule of Chrift's Gofpel, for fo 
 
 * much as they did thefe things,* feeking thereby ME- 
 
 * RITS with God, and for Remedy of their Souls, and 
 
 * REMISSION of their Sins. For Proof whereof he pro- 
 duces a Charter of King Ethelhald (above fifty years older 
 than that of Ethelwolf) granting certain Priviiedges to 
 Religious Men, in which after the Preamble are chefe 
 words, ' Qua propter, ego EthdhaUtis Rex Mcrdorum^ 
 
 * pro amore cseleftis Patrie, & remedio anim^ mex ftu- 
 
 * dendum efTe previdi, ut earn per bona opera liberam 
 
 * efficerem in orani vinculo delidorum : i,e. *• Where- 
 
 * fore 1 EthelbaU, King of the Mercians^ for the Love of 
 
 * the Heavenly Country, and for the Remedy of my Soul, 
 ' have forefeen it needful to endeavour by good Works 
 
 * to make my Soul free from all bond of Sin. From whicti 
 
 * Sentence Fox obferves, how great the ignorance and 
 ' blindnefsof thofe Men were, who lacking no Zeal, on- 
 ' ly lacked Knowledge to rule it withal, feeking (fays 
 ' he) Salvation, not by Chrift only, but by their own 
 
 * Defervings and MERITORIOUS Deeds. And \a pag. 
 123. fetting down the Charter of Ethelwolf (Jo dear and 
 precious to the Priefts) upon thefe words in it [_Pro re-* 
 miffione animarHm & peccatorum Nojirorum~\ he hath this 
 Note, ' Hereby (fays he) it may apppear, how whea 
 
 * the Churches of England began firft to be indued with 
 ' Temporalities and Lands-, alfo with Privileges and 
 
 * Exemptions inlarged : Moreover (and that which fpe- 
 
 * cially is to be confidered and lamented) what PERNI- 
 
 * CIOUS Do6:rine was this, wherewith they were led, 
 
 * thus to fet Remiflion of their Sins and Remedy of their 
 
 * Souls, in this Donation and fuch other Deeds of their 
 
 * Donation, contrary 10 the Information of God's word, 
 
 * and no fmall derogation to the Crofs of Chrift. Thus 
 far Eox'^ by which the Reader may at once fee both the 
 Opinion and Pradice of Ethelwdfh Age in this matter, 
 and alfo the Cenfure of this Eccleliaftical Writer in the 
 early Age of Froteftancy, 
 
 Yet the Prieft lays, pag. \o6, Thif Popifb Doflnne of 
 Merit and Expiation by good Works is not fo old m that Jige \ 
 which he infers from fome Diredions given by Anfdm 
 to thofe who vifited the Sick, in which is mention of 
 
( lys ) 
 
 being faved by the Death of Chrift -, as alfo from the words 
 of Pope yidrUrtj who calls (as he fays) Merits a broken 
 Reedj &c. 
 
 The Fofifh Dodrine of Merits and Expiation by good 
 Works was noc on a fudden and at once received in the 
 groflefl: fenfe in which it hath fince been held, but by de- 
 grees ^ and for a while remiflion of Sins was attributed 
 to the Death of Chrift, and good ^^oxk% jointly \ which 
 is the reafon that in the Writings of thofe elder times, 
 mention is made of the Death of Chrift, and of good 
 Works fYomifcHQHJly^ and the Work of Redemption, Sal- 
 vation, Remiflion indifferently afcribed to each. This 
 the Prieft feems not ignorant of, when he fays, pag. 
 1 08. We may perceive they did not think this good Work 
 ALONE cotild expiate their Sinsy or merit Salvation without 
 Cod's Mercy. 
 
 As for the Judgment of Jnfelm^ Adrian^ or any other 
 fuch, it is not conclufive in this cafe : For we are not fo 
 much to regard what was the private Judgment of feme 
 one or few particular Perfons, as what was the general 
 Opinion of the then Church. We find in Queen Mary's 
 time, when Popery was at its height ^ when Dr. Day^ Bi- 
 fhop of Chichefter came to vifit Stephen Gardiner the bloody 
 Bifhop oi Winchefier^ lying then at point of Death, and 
 began (as Fox relates) *• to comfort him with Words of 
 
 * God's Promife, and with the free Juftification in the 
 ' Blood of Chrift our Lord, repeating the Scriptures to 
 
 * him, Winchefler^ hearing that, What my Lord (quoth 
 
 * he) will you open that Gap now ? Then farewel all 
 
 * together : To me and fuch other in my cafe you may 
 
 * fpeak it ^ but open this Window unto the People, then 
 
 * farewel all together, ManyroL vol. 2. pag. 1522. None 
 1 think can doubt but the Dodrine of mericing Salvation, 
 and of Expiating Sins by good Works, was then general* 
 ly believed in the grojfefl fenfe by the Church of Rome^ and 
 yet we fee by this Inftance fome of that Church had a 
 private Judgment otherwife, and fome of the worfi^ of 
 that Church too. For fcarce did Bonner himfelf fend 
 more Sheep to the Roman Shambles^ than did this Bmcher- 
 
 ^ ly Bifhop of Wtnchefier^ who (as Fox obferves in the place 
 fore cited) on the day that Ridley and Latimer were burnt 
 at Oxford^ deferred his Dinner till about four of the 
 
 Clocls 
 
( 179 ; 
 
 Clock in the afternoon, refuilng to taty till by a Pofl 
 from Oxford he had certain Intelligence, thaE che Fire 
 was kindled upon thofe godly Martyrs. Thus wc fee 
 fcme of the rvorfi of the Romanifts did not hold all the 
 Opinions of the Church of Rome \ yet neither doth thac 
 prove either that thofe Romanics were no Papijlsj nor 
 yet that che Church of which they were Members did 
 not hold thofe Opinions. 
 
 But the Prieft, as if he hoped to wind himfelf offfroni 
 the Objedion by crimmating the QHahrs^ fays. To merit 
 Far don and Salvatim by good Worh^ is novo a Do^rinc of the 
 gro/fer KomanlitSj and I fear of fome Quakers ^/p, wha 
 (lighting merit and neceffity of Chrift^s Death) afcribe Salva- 
 tion to the following the Light within^ pag. io6. 
 
 In this hcjl(tnders the Quakers, I rejed his Charge, and 
 in the Name of the Quahrs deny it. Let him name thofe 
 Quakers that flight the Merit and Neceffity of Chrift^s Death. 
 I Iblemnly declare, I know no fach -^ and yet I think, if any 
 fuch there were, 1 might as well pretend to know them 
 as he. Nor do the Quakers afcribe Salvation to the follow- 
 ing the Light within, but they afcribe Salvation to Chrifi 
 Jefusy to whom the Light within doth lead thofe that tru- 
 ly follow it. Herein he hath wronged the Quakersy as in 
 his next words he abufes me ; T. E. (fays he) himfelf 
 pleads, that there is no Salvation unlefs we have a finlefs Per" 
 feElion^ and (as if Chrifi had never died) pofitively affirms^ 
 Wherejoever there is Sin, there is alfo Condemnation \ for 
 which he fets, pag. 97. of my Book, in which no fuch 
 words are to be found as he has put down in the firll part 
 of this Sentence {y\Z. That there is no Salvation^ unlefs wc 
 have a finlefs Perfection'] thefe not being my words, but hi^ 
 own. And the latter part he hath groQy perverted, mak- 
 ing thofe words [ffherefoever there ^ 5;>, there is alfo Con- 
 demnation] to import, as if Chrifi had never died \ for 
 which there is no colour at all. For the End of Chrill's 
 Coming and tailing Death, was not to take away the 
 Condemnation only^ and leave the Sm remaining ^ but hs 
 was manifefied to take away our Sins, i John 3. 5. to defiroy 
 the Works of the Devily verf. 8. Not only to take off the 
 Condemnation due for thofe Works, and leave the Worki 
 ftandingy but to deftroy the Works themfelves. And where 
 Sins are not taken away, where the Works of the Devil 
 
( i8o ) 
 
 are not deffroyed, there the Condemnation is not takeii 
 off, but remains, as the Apoflle proves, JRom. 2. 9. Now 
 this Dodrine doth not at all deny the Death of Chrifi^ nor 
 derogate any thing from the Vertue and Power thereof^ 
 but conjeffss and exdts it, in that it afcribes to him the 
 whole Work of taking away not only the Condemnation^, 
 but the Sin alfo^ of not only taking off the Gmlt^ but de- 
 ftroying the Worh of the Devil too : Whereas the con- 
 trary Dodrine doth import, that Chrift hath not com- 
 pleated the Works he came to do, while it fuppofes hin^ 
 to take away the Condemnation^ but leave the Sin remaining^ 
 when as he was manifefted on purpofe to take away the Sin^ 
 and to defiroy the Worh of the Devil. 
 
 But as if the Priefl thought ic not enough to pervert 
 Hiy words, and fallen on them a fuggeftion by no means 
 deducible from them, he thus goes on *, Now he that looks- 
 for Salvation by hii PerjcBion^ doth hold that Fop[h BoEirins 
 cf meriting Salvation by good Works, 
 
 But who is he that looks for Salvation by his Perfedi- 
 on? 71?^ Quaker does not: Who does? It is one thing to 
 believe PerfeBion attainable^ to aim at it, and prefs after 
 it, but it is another thing to look for Salvation by it* Pa- 
 tience, Humility, Meeknefs, Temperance, Charity^ and 
 other Chri^ian Vertues, are not only defirabUj but (I fup- 
 pofe he']] grant) attainable. But raufl: they whofeek after 
 and obtain thefe Vertues, needs look for Salvation bf 
 shem? It is no fair confequent: And had he had the lafi 
 of thefe Vertues, he would not have fuggefted this fod 
 flander. 
 
 He adds there, jind he that proudly fays^ he hath no Sifi 
 to be remitted^ renders Chrtfl^s Death as ufeUfs^ at he that be 
 lieves he jhall obtain remijfion by his good Works, 
 
 He that Ipeaks proudly. Sins in fo fpeaking : But that 
 muft not be charged on him who fpeaks the Trmh in humi- 
 lity. That remiflion of Sins is to be received through ths 
 Blood ofChrifi ^ the Apoflle Panl exprelly fays to the £pk- 
 fans J c. I. 7. and Colojfiansy c. 1. vcr. 14. Now he who 
 kath thm received remiflion of his Sins, and with an humbU 
 aad thankful Heart acknowledges it, can he be faid to ren- 
 der Chrifl's Death ufelefs^ when he attributes the rerniffion 
 of his Sms to Chriji^i Death ^ if any one fays his Sins are 
 remitted, when they are not, he is to blame and de- 
 ceives* 
 
( i8» ) 
 
 ceives himfelf. If any one expeds remiffion of Sins b;. 
 any other way than the Death of Chrift, he renders the 
 Death of Chrifl ufelefs. Buc furely, he that in Truth 
 and Humility^ acknowledges he hath received reraiflioa 
 of Sins through the Death of Chrifl^ doth not thereby ren- 
 der the Death of Chrift ufelefs^ butt altogether nfcfnl ; 
 fmcQ without it his Sins had not been remitted. And thm the 
 Quaker does^ to the refutation of the Prieft's (lander^ and 
 the difcovery of his evil mind in fuggefling the Quaker 
 will be found more a Fa^fift than K. Ethelwolf, 
 
 But whether Ethelwolf were a Papift or no, it is much 
 aliki to the Prieft, for he fays, ' We conclude therefore, 
 ' that the Qftaker falfly accufes our Anceftors in calling 
 ' them Papiftsj and their Clergy Popifh, and in affirming 
 
 * they were aded by evil Motives. And yet (fays he) 
 
 * if all thefe had been as true as they are falfe, it had 
 
 * been hurtful only to themfelves, but doth not at all 
 
 * make their pious Donations of Tythes to God and his 
 ' Minifters to be void,pag. 109. What £f^ff/]Po//was, who 
 gave Tythes, (viz. firft a Monk in Orders,^ then ahfolved from 
 his rows by the Pope^ a great BenefaEior to ih^Pope^ and to 
 the Church of Rome in particular, and in a word the 
 Tope's Creature.) What Motives induced him to give 
 Tythes (viz. to obtain thereby remiffion of his Sinsy and the 
 redemption of his Soul.) What Clergy that was to whom 
 he gave Tythes (viz. Popifh Priefls and Monks ^ corrnpt 
 in Dodrine, corrupt in Pradice, corrupt in Life, corrupt in 
 Manners.) What the Religion of thofe times was, (viz. 
 praying to Saints^ P^^y^^i f^^ ^he Dead^ facrificing for the 
 Deadj worjhipping ofRelicksy Auricular Confeffiony going on 
 Pilgrimages J extrem Vn^ion^ Chrifm^ holy Water^ Purga- 
 tory^ Latine Service^ and faying Mafsj with abundance more 
 of the like nature) hath been related before. And what 
 a kind of Protefiant that Prieft is, who will deny this to 
 be Popery^ and them to be Papi(ls that held them, I leave 
 to the Reader's Judgment, Many more inftances might 
 be given to (hew how foully the Church of that Age was 
 over-run with the Romifh Leprofy ; but thefe I take to be 
 fufficient to fatisfy any true Protefiant. And, indeed, to 
 what purpofe were it to add more, when the Prieft here* 
 fays, That ;/ all this had been true fthat they that gave 
 Tythes had been Papiftsy and the Clergy to whom they 
 
 N 2 gave 
 
( IS2 ) 
 
 gave them had been P<?p//fc, and the motives on which 
 they gave them had been Evil) yet it had been hurtful only 
 to thcmfelveSy hut doth not at all make their picm Donatiom of 
 Tythes to God and his Minifters to be void. So that it feems 
 be they good or bad that gave, be they good or had to 
 whom they gave, be the motives good or had which in^ 
 duced them lo give, he regards none of all this ^ 'tis the 
 Gift he looks at, and fo long as he can enjoy thaty he mar- 
 ters not whence or how it came. But feeing he having proftl- 
 tmed his boEh Reafon and Confcience to the libidious de» 
 pre of Advantage and Inter eft ^ regards not how he comes 
 by it : I will only recommend to the Reader's Conlidera- 
 tion how ill it becomes them, who pretend to be Prote* 
 ftam Mini(lersy to lay claim to the Gift of a pfifh Prince^ 
 given to maintain a popijh Clergy and IVorjhip^ and upon 
 fuch Motives as are not only evil^ but diredly contrary 
 to Proteftant Principles* 
 
 §. 15. In the former Objeftions which the Priefl; made 
 in my Name againft the Donation of Tythes, he left out 
 the Jnftances I had given to prove the Donation popifh^ and 
 took no notice oflhem. In this which next follows, he 
 leaves out fome^ and gives the others falfe : I to manifeft 
 further the corruption of that time, and Apoftacy of that 
 Church, did fet down what the Clergy 6h Eheir part un- 
 dertook, in conlideration of the faid Charter, to per- 
 form, as in Spelmans Britijh Councils I found it thus, * It 
 ' pleafed alfo Alhftan and Swithin^ the Bifhops of the 
 ^ Churches ofShirbom and Winchefter^ with their Abbots^ 
 
 * and the Servants of God, to appoint, that upon the 
 
 * Wednefday in every Week, all our Brethren and Sifters 
 ^ in every Church, fliould ling Fifty Pfalms^ and every 
 ^ Prieft fay two Maffes^ one for K. Ethelwolf and ano- 
 *- ther for his Nobles that confented to this Gift, for a 
 
 * Reward, and for an Abatement of their Offences : And 
 
 * that they fhould fay for the King fo long as he lived, 
 ^ Or emus y D^hs^ qui juftificas '^ for his Nobles alfo while 
 
 * they lived, Pretende I>omine\ but after they were dead, 
 
 * for the deceased King by himfelf, and for the deceafed 
 ^ Nobles in common, &c, Inftead of this he hath thefe 
 words, pag. 109. * Some iltghter Cavils he hath, pag. 
 \ 292, 293. As. firft, his calling the Clergy of that Ag9 
 
< 1^3 ) 
 
 '* Apoffiafees and corrupt, for being Co grateful to their 
 
 * Benefactors, as to engage to fing David's Pfalms, and 
 
 * Eo make Prayers twice a Week for them, that God 
 
 * would reward their Bounty and pardon their Sins* 
 What is there in this at all like my Qiiotaxion, unkfs it 
 be the word C Pfalms ^2 Do I c^l^ them Apoftates and 
 corrupz for being grateful to their Benefactors ? Or do I not 
 note the mamier of their exprefling their gratitude, as aa 
 inftance of their Apoftacy and Corruption ? In that they 
 undercook to fay Maffes for themy both Living and D^, ;■ i ^ 
 Inilead of which he (ays, they engaged to mah Vr^py, jor 
 them. Yet he is fain to confefs, pag. hq. •li^y called 
 thefe Prayers {^Mifja6'} but fays, they r^cti. far diffident 
 from the Mijfal of the Cmrch of Rome, whofe Offices (he fays) 
 were firft brought in here hy Ofmund Bifhap of Salisbury, 
 jinno 1096^. 
 
 But in that he fpeaks wrong. For long before Of- 
 mund'^s time (300, Years at leafl) under Pope Adrian^ 
 wjio (according to Gembrand) entred ihe Popedom ia 
 the Year 772. (about eighty years before Ethelwolfh Do- 
 nation) the Roman Miffal (made, as they fay, by Pope 
 Gregory) was (by Decree of a Council at Rome^ with the 
 help of a Popifh Miracle) commanded to be Hniverfally re* 
 ceived and ufed. The Story whereof (for brevity her-e 
 omitted) is fee down at large by Dnrandm in his Ratio-^ 
 nale I, 5. c. 2. and out ot him and other Authors, by 
 John Foxy in his firft Volume of the Book of Martyrs, 
 pag. 117. This Decree for the eftablifhing Gregory'% 
 MiiFal, and making it miverfal^ was vigoroufly profecut- 
 ed by Charles the Emperor, not only threaining, but pu- 
 nilhing thofe that refufed it, and burning the other Service^ 
 Books where-ever he found them, infomuch that, as Foj^ 
 obferves, Gregorys Service had only the flace^ and hath 
 (adds he) to this day in the greateft ^art of Europe. And 
 Ihat it was received and ufed here in England as well as 
 in other Countries, not only the Devotion this Nation 
 then had to the Church of Rome^ and the influence Charles 
 the Emperor had upon the EngUfli^ may make it proba- 
 ble: But the occafion of Ofmnnd's bringing in that Ser- 
 vice which was called the life oiSarum^ fet down at large 
 both by Fox and Stow^ doih fully and plainly prove. Foxi 
 vol. I. pag. i65. fays, J Thnrfian coming QUE of Norman^'. 
 
 N 3 4^ 
 
( i84 ) 
 
 ' dy with William the Conqueror, and being made Abbofe 
 ' of GlaftenbHry^ fell out with his Monks to fuch an height 
 ' that from Words they went to Blows, by which di- 
 ' vers were Wounded, and fome Slain*, the occafion 
 
 * whereof was, that Tmrflan contemning their Quire- 
 ' Service, chea called the Ufe of St. Greaory^ compelled 
 
 * his Monks to the ufe of one William a Monk of Fifcam 
 ' in Normanay. Srow in his Annals of England^ pag. 157, 
 upon the Year T083. relating the fame macter, fays thus, 
 
 * This Man {Thar flan) among oeher nis Fellows, de- 
 ' fpiling the Song called Grt;garyh Song, began to counfel 
 
 * the Monks to learn tbe Song of one William of Feftamps, 
 ' and to iiQg it in the Churcn, which to do when they 
 
 * retufed, as they that had been ever ufed, not only in 
 
 * this, but in other Service of the Church, to follow the 
 
 * manner of the Roman Church, fuddenly on a day with 
 
 * a Company of Armed Men brake into the Chapter- 
 
 * houfe, &c. and fo goes on to relate the Skirmilh which 
 being befide my purpofe, I omit, and only obferve from 
 thefe Teftimonies, firll, that this Roman Mafs^ inftitut-^ 
 ed by Gregory and bearing his Name, and by Pope Adri* 
 an and his Roman Council appointed to be ufed in all pla- 
 ces, was received and ufed here in England before the 
 Conqueft j fecondly, that the EngUjh Clergy had been 
 ever ufed, not only in this^ but in other Service of the 
 Church to follow the manner of the Church of Rome ; 
 thirdly, that this Mt(fal of Gregory^ thus by Decree of 
 Council made Vniverfd^ and then received and ufed here 
 In England^ was in fubftance the fame that was ufed after- 
 wards, both here and elfewhere until the time of Refor- 
 mation V Fi^x faying exprefly, that Gregory^ Service had 
 only the place, and yet hath to this day in the greatefl part 
 of Enrope. But that the Reader may the better judge 
 whether thefe Malfes were fuch innocent things as the 
 Prieft doth here reprefent them, whether the Priefts that 
 faid them were the right Mlnifters of God, as pag. 112. 
 he makes no doubt they were j whether the People that 
 ufed them were nearer in Opinion to the Proteftant Church of 
 England than to the prefent Fapifls^ as pag. 135. he fays 
 ihey were: And whether if they were fo, it isnot^re^t- 
 lyto he lamented-^ take here a Story out of ^^^^'s Ecclef. 
 Hift. lib. 4. cap. 22. fliewing what Opinion they had in 
 
 thofe 
 
< i85 ) 
 
 tliofe times of the vertue of their Majfes, * In the Wars 
 
 * between Ecgfrid and Edilred Kings of Northumberland 
 '^ and Mercia^ a Young Man named Imma^ one of Ecg^ 
 
 * frid^s Soldiers, was left for dead among the Slain ^ 
 ' where, after he had lain a Day and Night, recovering 
 
 * feiife and ftrength, he got up, intending to efcape to 
 
 * his Friends, but falling into his Enemies hands, he was 
 
 * made a Prifoner, and after his Wounds were cured, he 
 
 * was bound, that be might not get away: But no Bonds 
 
 * would flay upon him, but always at acertam hour fell 
 
 * off. Of which Bede gives this Reafon \ This Young 
 
 * Man had a Brother, a Prieft, named Tunna^ who was 
 
 * at chat time Abbot of a Monallery, called from his 
 
 * Name Tmnaceftir. This Abbot hearing his Brother 
 
 * was llain, went to fearch out his Body among the dead, 
 
 * and found a Corps fo like his Brother's, that not doubc- 
 
 * ing it to be the fame, he took it up and buried it in his 
 
 * Monaftery -, and took care that Mafes were faid often to 
 ^ obtain fardon for his Soul: By the Celebration of which 
 
 * Maffesj fays Bede^ it happened that no Man had pwer 
 
 * to bind him^ but frefently Ins Bonds were loofed. And he 
 
 * reports the Young Man himfdf to give this Anfwer to 
 ^ the Earl that had him in cuftody, inquiring the reafoa 
 ' why he could not be kept bound, I have (faid he)^ 
 
 * Br other y a Priefl in my Country ; and I know that k, fttp- 
 
 * pofing me to be flain^ doth often fay Mafs for me, and if 1 
 s were now in the other Worlds there my Soul, through his In- 
 ' tercejfions, would be releafed from punijhments. After- 
 
 * wards, when this Young Man, being Ranfomed, re* 
 
 * turned home, and recounted what had befallen him, 
 ' many (fays the Hiftorian) by the Report hereof were 
 
 * ftirred up in Faith and Devotion to Pray, or to give 
 ' Alms, or to offer the Sacrifices of an holy Oblation to 
 
 * the Lord, for the REDEMPTION of their Relations who 
 
 * were departed out of this World. For they under flood (fays 
 
 * Bede) that the healthful Sacrifice wa4 available to the EVER- 
 
 * LASTING REDEMPTION both of SOUL and BO- 
 
 * DY. Thus haft thou Reader a brief difcovery both 
 what fort of Majfes were then in ufe, and what they attri^ 
 buted to them \ no lefs than the Redemption of Souls^ for 
 which Chrift died. Now for a Clofe, take withal the 
 Account which Fcrhm in his ProbUm a^mitCocciH^, pagJ 
 
 N 4 I4S« gives 
 
( i86 ) 
 
 145. givesof the Rife of theMafs, thus, * Firft, (fays 
 ^ he) The Lord's Supper was celebrated in a mofl plain 
 ^ manner Secondly, it was increafed with Ceremonies, 
 ' and firfr wich Oblations tor the Dead, which was a 
 
 * Gratulacion or Thankfgiving for them, and this was 
 ' two hundred Years after Chrilt. Thirdly, Prayers 
 ' for the Dead were added about the Year 400. Then 
 
 * Purgatory, and Redemption ot Souls out of Purgarory 
 
 * by MafTes. Then about the Year 780. Gregory^ Mafs 
 
 * began to be ufed in the Churches of Italy^ where before 
 ' the Liturgy of Amhrofe had been more in ufe Fourth- 
 ^ ly, They began to difpute of Tranfubftantiation about 
 
 * the Year 840. So that ic feems, not onl'j faying ofMaf^ 
 fes for the Redemption of Souls out of Purgatory was in ufe, 
 but Tranfubftantiation alfo was on Foot before this famous 
 Charter of Ethelwolf for Tythes was granted. Judge now 
 Reader, if thou art a Proteftant^ whether Popery had noli 
 made her Incroachments in the Church before Ethel wolf 'y 
 time ^ whether the Clergy to whom he gave Tythes were 
 not Fopijld^ who undertook to fay thefe Majfes for him 
 and his Nobles both Living and Dead, and whether the 
 Priefb has not grojiy ahufed his Reader in fuggeiling that 
 thefe Mafles were only innocent Prayers^ and in affirming 
 they were far different from the MilTal of the Church of 
 Rome, 
 
 §. 16. Next, he fays, pag. no. I quarrel with the 
 Charter for the Names of the Saints annex'd to it^ in 
 whofe Honour its faid to have been made. 
 
 I gave the words of hgdfthus^ ' — for the Honour 
 ^ of Afrf)')' the glorious Virgin and Mother of God, and 
 ^ of St. Michael the Arch- Angel, and of the Prince of 
 
 * the ApoHles St. Peter^ as alfo of our Holy Father Pope 
 -^ Gregory, To take off this Note of Popery^ the Priell 
 
 fays, pag. no. ' T*. £. may note, that there is not one 
 
 * of the three Mentioners of this Claufe that agree in it, 
 ^ fo that it is very probable, the Hiftorians living fome 
 
 * Ages after, might (as their manner is) put in this lefs 
 
 * material PafTage in the Phrafe of their own times, of 
 ' which Dealing in other Qfes I could give many In- 
 I ftanccs. 
 
 To 
 
( iS? ) 
 To lefe pafs his Solecifm, or Incongruity of Speech, 
 
 Jjloat there is not one of the three Mentioners of this Claufe that 
 agree in it'} more tolerable in one fo illiterate as my felf, 
 than in fuch a profound Rabbi : I defire him and the Rea- 
 der alfo to take notice, that the fame Objedion, upon the 
 fame Reafon,lies as forcibly againft the Extent of the Char- 
 ter it felf, there being as great variety and ilttU agree- 
 ment in that part amongft the Mentioners of the Charter, 
 as there is in the mention of the Saints, for whole Ho- 
 nour the Charter is faid to be made \ fo that upon than 
 Score, it may as well be queftioned, whether the Graas 
 was general of JU England, or not : For fome of the Hi- 
 ftorians give it in fuch words as feem to fpeak ^nly of his 
 Demeafne Lands, fome of his Kingdom oi Wefi- Saxony 
 cnly : So that it is as pfobable, that the Hiftorians than 
 extend Donation to AU England, might therein follow 
 the Humour of their own times, of which dealing in 
 other cafes 1 could give fome inftances alfo. !n the mean 
 time the Prieft had beft have a care how he adventures to 
 raz,e the Images of the Saints carved upon his beloved 
 Charter, left before he be aware he fhake and weaken 
 the Foundation of the Charter it felf. 
 
 But he fays, However^ it was given to God in the flrfl 
 place^ and no mention of the Saints in all the body of the 
 Charter. 
 
 But fure he had forgotten that Matthew of Weflminfier 
 hath in the very Body of the Charter [_Beo & heata Ma- 
 riae & omnihus SanUis-^ i. e. To God and blefled Mary^ 
 and to all Saints.] 
 
 In his next page, he fays, / quarrel with the other Priefi^ 
 becaufe he will not grant they gave Tythes in a blind and fu-- 
 ferflitioHs Zeal ', and he takes upon him to defend it, mif- 
 applyingthe Words of the Apoftle, It is good to be z^eaU 
 cw always in a good thing. 
 
 But the Prieft has not proved their giving of Tythes a 
 good thing ^ and I have prov'd, they were blind and fiiperfii^' 
 tiofis in this^^ as well as in other things, and therefore iheip 
 Zeal therein was not commendable, but condemnable. 
 
 But his Brother Prieft feems to be now of another Mind^ 
 and to underftand the Cafe better ^ for in his Findication^ 
 pag. 303. acknowledging, * there might be fome Corrup- 
 ; tions and great Defcfts in Ethelwolfs Charter, yet with- 
 al- 
 
< iSS ) 
 al endeaYonring to excufe him, as * having no idolatrotss 
 
 * Pellgn, but an honell: Zeal, that thole whom heefleem- 
 ^ ed Minifters of Chrifl, mignc be provided for; he adds, 
 
 * What can be more uncharitable than to make a damna- 
 
 * bie Idolater of him for doing fJjraething, mough it were 
 
 * in an ill manner, through invincible ignorance? Thus he, 
 who in \(v?i Conference^ pag. 147. would b^ no means ad- 
 cnit that l^ythes were given in an h^ncrmt Zeal^ doth 
 liere, m Gontradidion both to his Brother Pried and to 
 tiimfelf, acknowledge this Donation of Tythes was made 
 in an ill manner^ and through invincibU ignorance. Nor 
 <3oth he attempt to wipe offthofe Staim^ whicti I had 
 <Jircovered \a his Charter, but rather endeavours to co- 
 ver them again, by drawing the Cu-^tnin of Ignorance 
 before them. This however he is forced to grant. 
 That this Donation of Tythes proceeded from Ignorance^ 
 yea, ivom invincible Ignorance ^ So ihd^t tgn or ance^ at leaf!:, 
 (to fay no worfej wm^ in this particular, the Mother of 
 Ethelvvolt'j Devotion- 
 
 Again, fays the Author of the Right of Tythes to his 
 Brother Priell, ** Whereas you had faid, Tythes were 
 ' given to God for the Maintenance of his Miniflry, T. E. 
 ' iocerprecs this to be a calling the Idolatrous Priefl- 
 
 * hood of the Church of Rome^ God's Miniflers, which 
 ^ (fays he) is a malicious and falfe Inference, fince the 
 
 * Pricilhood, to whole Maintenance thefe Tythes were 
 ^ given, was neither Idoiairows nor the Prieflhood of the 
 
 * Church of Rome^ pag. 1 1 1 , 
 
 The Inference is neither malicious nor falfe ^ but plain 
 and true. Thefe Priells, both one and t'other, affirm 
 that Prieflhood, to whofe Maintenance Ethelwolf gave 
 Tythes, to be God's Mioiftry I have proved they were 
 a Fopifl} Prieflhood by the Teftimonies of divers approv- 
 ed Authors, by the tenour of the Char- er it felf, and by 
 the Definition the former Priefl gave of Popery^ viz. That 
 it u ficb Do^rines and fitter ft itiom FraBices^ which by the 
 corruption ofti^me have prevailed in the Church of Rome, con* 
 trary to the Trite^ Antient^ Catholick and ApoftoUcJi Churchy 
 I have fbewed at large, that thofe Priells, to whole 
 IMaintenance frWn?^?// granted Tythes, did hold and ufe 
 fuch DoEhrines and fuperftitious Trad^ices^ as by the corrup- 
 tion of time have prevailed in the Church of Rome^ con- 
 trary 
 
( 9^9) 
 
 trary to the true, Antient, Catholick and Apoflolick 
 Church, of which I have given many Inftances. I have 
 alfo proved that Priefthood p'ptjh by the AiTertion of this 
 latter Prieft my prefenc Opponent, who ia hh Ri^hc of 
 Tytloes^ pag. 99. fays. The Benefit of this Donation hath been 
 enjoyed for Eight hundred l^ears by thoje to whom the Donation 
 vpoi made^ which mull ot nccelTitv be uaderftooci of fo^ifh 
 Prtefisy otherwife the Aflertion is utterly falfe. For he is 
 a meer Stranger to Hiftory, who doch not know, triaE 
 from Ethelwolfs time until ttic Reformation, which ia 
 this Nation began little more than a hundred years ago, 
 Romi(h Snperfiitionsy Corruptions and Idolatries^ encreafed 
 daily and prevailed, and the EngUJh Clergy in every Age 
 grew more devoted to the Obfervance of the Set ot Rome. 
 Now when I liave fo fully proved thac ?to wa6 a popi(h 
 Trief^hooa^ to whofe Maintenance King Etkeiwolf gave 
 Tytnes, and yet thefe Priefts plainly affirm^ that thap 
 frtefthood woi God's Minijiry \ what IntereDve can be more 
 plain and true, than that they call that Idolatrous Prieft- 
 looodofthQ Church of Rome God's Minifters ? This Prieft 
 fays, pag. 102. The Clergy oj that Age was God^s only puh^ 
 lick Mmfters ; and pag. 99. The Benefit of the Donation 
 had been enjoyed for eight hundred years by thofe to whom the 
 Donation was made. The Donation was made in the year 
 Eight hundred fifty five, to which 800 years of enjoy- 
 ment being added, brings to the year One thoufand, 
 fix hundred, fifty five. 1 defire thee Reader to com- 
 pare thefe two Sayings of this Prieft together, and to 
 examine well the account of time, and then judge whe- 
 ther this very Prieft, who cries out fo vehemently againft 
 me, for inferring that the other Prieft call'd the Idola- 
 trous Priefthood of the Church of Rome God's Minifters, 
 calling it a malicious and falfe Inference ; doth not him- 
 felf call that Idolatrous Priefihood of the Church of Rome 
 God'^s only fublick Minifters. When he fays, ' The Clergy 
 
 * of that Age, to v;hom this Donation of Tythes was 
 
 * made, was God's only publick Minifters, and that the 
 
 * Benefit of this Donation was enjoyed for eight hundred 
 ' years by thofe to whom the Donation was made ; Doth 
 it not clearly follow, that he accounts 4// the popitt) Clergy 
 in Englandy in the blackeft and bloodieft times of Popery^ 
 even Bonner himfelf and his Brethren, God's only publick 
 
 Mini- 
 
( 19X5 ) 
 
 Miniflers, vvTio were indeed the pHhlick Mimflers of Jnti^ 
 cbrifi^ and the greateil Enemies of God ^ Nay, he adds, 
 pag. 112. ' h is certain the Donors intended them (viz. 
 ' Tythes) to the right Miniflers of God *, and I make 
 
 * no doubt (fays he) they were fuch to wham they gave 
 
 * rhem *, and they to whom they were given enjoyed 
 
 * (fays he) fag, 99. the Benefit thereof for eight hundred 
 
 * years. What's the Gonfequent ? That he makes no 
 doubt they were the right Miniflers of Chrifl, who en- 
 fayed the Tythes for eight hundred years after Ethelwolfj 
 which cooiprehends the Popifh Priefthocd in its mofl fil- 
 thy and poluted flare. Gan any one believe tliis Prieft 
 m be himfelf a Minifler of Chrifl ? Let him clear himfelf 
 hereof if he can, and fhew how the Benefit of this Do- 
 DBtioii of Tythes was enjoyed for eight hundred years 
 i^ya^sy Friefihood that wm not popifh and JdoUtrous. 
 
 §. 17. hi his next Sedion he falls foully upon me ; and 
 lie that was fo fifje-mouciied, that he vpohU not meddle 
 with Scnrriltty^ becanfs Railing is not Reafoning^ pag. 1 2. 
 bellows here again on me his ufital Rhetorick of Difljo- 
 fiefyj Ignorance and Impudence. The Occafion he takes 
 from hence. The former Priefl had faid in his Friendly 
 Conference^ pag. 145. ' Tythes being !^i veil to God for 
 ^ the Maintenance of his Miniflry, no blemifh in the De- 
 
 * dkation of them can alter their property. Hereupon 
 In my Anfwer, pag. 294 1 obferved he was for having 
 4iiUhe could get^ be it dedicated by whom it will, or hoxo \t 
 will, and that he wanted nothing but power to revive all th^ 
 4sid Deflation; of the Papifls, given in the mid-night Darknefs 
 -fitf Popery, t^) redeem their Souls out of a fuppofed Purgatory^ 
 then 1 added, N^iy^ fe general is his Affertion (no Blemifh, 
 .&C.} that nothing once dedicated by whomfoever^ would feem 
 t^ come amifs to him \ not the Offerings of the Gentiles to their 
 heathemfh Deities ^ not the Endowments of the Turks to their 
 illahometaa Priefis^ nor yet the thirty pieces of Silver (the 
 price jsf Innocent Blood) had Jndas chanced to have dedicated 
 pt^ would t^pon thk Pofition^ have been unwelcome to this Man^ 
 could he once but have got ttsem into poffsffion. To this the 
 
 'letter Priefl fays, pag. 113. ' Were thefe given to the 
 *■ iirue God ? Or were thefe Offerings Tythes? If they 
 
 * were not both of tfiefe, Why doth this Quahr menti- 
 ^ on them here I To 
 
( 19^ ) 
 
 To jultify Ethelwolfs Donation of Tythes to the pa- 
 pi(h Clergy, the Prieft often urges the intention of the 
 Donors, as pag. 103. * The Donors fuppofcd them m 
 ' good Miniltry, and as fuch endowed them ; for they 
 
 * efteeraed them to be God's Receivers. Again, pag. 
 III. * lE k certain the Donors intended them to ch& 
 
 * right Minifters of God. And pag. 104. ' They gav5 
 
 * Tythes to maintain that which they believed to be a 
 
 * good Miniftry, and the true Worfliip of God ^ and 
 
 * therefore the Donation remains good. Here it's evi- 
 dent, he makes the validity of the Donation to d€per4d 
 upon the Intention of the Donors. But when the Gentiles 
 ofiered to their Heatheni{h Deities, did they not fuppofs 
 and believe thofe Deities to be trne Gods^ and the Prieds 
 of thofe Deities to he a good and a ri^lot Prieftbood ? And 
 did not fome of them offer Tythts alfo, as the Pried: has 
 taken fome neediefs pains to prove ? Now if as he argues, 
 pag. 104* The Donation therefore remains good, becauff 
 the Donors gave Tythes to maintain that ^hkh they be^ 
 lieved to be a good Miniftry, and the true Worfliip of 
 God (although in very deed it was a bad Miniftry, and a 
 falfe Wordiip) 1 appeal to the judicious Reader, whethes^ 
 the fame Argnment doth not ferve, and the fame Reafu;t 
 reach to fetch in the Gentiles Donations of Tythes to 
 their Heathenifh Priells. And for the Turks, who arts 
 faid to profefs the true God (though not to worfhip him 
 truly) can any one doubt but they believe their Maka^ 
 metan Friefls to be a good Miniftry, and their Jlcoran-wor-^ 
 fhip the true Worfhip'of God ? Hov/ plain k it then, thai 
 according to this Priefl's Argument, their Endowments 
 to their Priefls remain good ? And that thefe Priefti 
 could be well content to receive them, if they knew but 
 how to come by them, and the rather becaufe the Reve- 
 nues of the Twr^/'/fc Prielts confift partly in Tythes alfo» 
 Nay, hefticksnot to fay, pag. 117. * If the things wera 
 
 * offered to maintain an evil way of Worfhip, they may 
 
 * be applied to maintain a right way of Worfhip •, bux 
 ftill they mull remain facred : But the other Priefl hath 
 lince cleared the Cafe. For in his Vindic. pag. 314. he 
 fays, ' Suppofe the Turhfl) Empire (through God's mer- 
 
 * cy) (hould be converted 10 Chrifttanity^ may not the 
 J Mhffd hirafelf, and thofe whom T. E, calls Ermnms'y 
 
 t toge* 
 
(192) 
 
 • together with all the Mosks and Revenues now belong- 
 
 * ing to them, be re-confecrated to Chriftianity ? WbaE 
 therefore 1 obferved from the words of the former Pried, 
 is confirmed and proved by them both ; and no imputa- 
 tion of MJhonefty or ignorance can be juflly charged on me 
 therein. But he taxes me with Impudence^ in calling that 
 A general jifftrtion which (he fays) had three Limitations ; 
 Tythes^ the true Godj and the Maintenance of his Mimftry^ 
 pag. 113. 
 
 But he might have taken notice, that I call'd his Afler- 
 tion general^ with relation to thofe words [_No hlemifljj 
 &c.] which is fpoken without any limitation \ be the Ble- 
 mifhes in the Dedication never fo many^ never fo great ^ ne" 
 'ver fo foul^ yet with them it matters not \ No hlemijh in 
 ' the Dedication of them can alter their property^ laid the 
 firft Priefl , and To^r words I will ftand to (fays the laft 
 Priefl) and make it appear^ That fuch things as Tythes are^ 
 being given to the true God for a good endj NO BLEMISH 
 in the Dedicutien can alter their property. Tnis he under- 
 takes to prove by the inftance of the Cenfers offered by 
 Corah^ Company, pag. 1 14. And he blames me for ob- 
 ferving what a pretty Parallel the other Prieft had found 
 out, and how well he had matched his cafe, in bringing 
 this rebellious Confecration^ attended with a damnable Sin, to 
 parallel the Dedication of Tythes. But doubtlefs, he that 
 ihall well conlider it, will find he has by this Parallel ra- 
 ther hurt than help*d^ difgraced than credited his Caufe. It 
 is the difference'^ he fays, between thefe two Cafes^ that makes 
 the Argument good^ Why then did he call it a parallel 
 Cafe? Is this Cafe parallel to his, and yet doth his Argu- 
 ment receive its ftrength, not from the parity^ bat the 
 difparity or difference of the Cafe ? That's ftrange indeed ! 
 Where was his Logick^ and common Senfe^ when he writ 
 that ? He quarrels alfo at the reafon given, why thofe 
 Cenfers were commanded to be kept, namely. To be a 
 Sign and Memorial to the Children (?/Ifrael, that no ftrang" 
 *r, &c. Numb. i<5. 40. This Reafon, though given in the 
 Text, he rejeds, and fays, * If we dare believe Almigh- 
 
 * ty God, rather than this igaorans Quaker^ this was 
 
 * not the Reafon why they were to be kept 5 for, fays he^ 
 
 * God gives another Reafon of thaf, ver 37. Becaufe 
 
 * they are hallowed, and ver. 38. For they offered Ihem 
 ^ before the Lord, therefore they are hallowed. Ir 
 
( I9J ) 
 
 In the iame 38. verfe, the partieuUr Reafoa was given 
 alfo, ' The Cenfers of thefe Sinners againfl their owr^ 
 
 * Souls, let them make them broad Places for a covering 
 
 * of the Altar: For they offered them before the Lord, 
 
 * therefore they are hallowed ^ and they fliall be a Siga 
 
 * unto the Children of Jfrael. Here was both a general 
 Reafon, aad a partic^ilar, the general Reafon was, their be- 
 ing hallowed J the partictilar Reafon was, that they might be 
 a Sign and Alemorial unto the Children of Ifrael, as the TexS. 
 exprefles. Now ihQ general Reafon doth not exclude the 
 farticular^ any more than the particnUr doth defiroy the 
 
 feneral. But here we fee plainly that God would no£ fuf- 
 er thefe Cenfers to be ufed in the Service to which thejr 
 were dedicated, but caufed them to be wrought out, and 
 put to another ufe ^ which becaufe I exprell before by 
 \the altering of their proferty"} he makes himfelf prophanelf 
 merry *, and having ironically call'd it an ingenious Note of 
 T. E's, he asks. ' Hath not his immediate teaching 
 
 * learnt him to fpeak fenfe ? The Form of the Cenfers 
 
 * was altered indeed, but the property (fays he) was not 
 
 * altered at all. 
 
 What manner of teaching he hath had is fufficiently 
 difcovered by his frcqHent Scurrilities and prophane Jefis. 
 But for all his Conceit^ he may take notice, that the word 
 {Property'^ having variom Significations, relates to Vfe as 
 well as to Poffeffion •, fo that thofe Cenfers being turned- 
 into Plates, and thereby loiing with their Form the Vfc 
 to which they had been appropriated, it is not impropesr 
 to fay, the property of them (in that refped) was alter-* 
 ed. But not to regard fuch trifiing Cavils^ wherein thsr 
 other Prielt alfo concurs with him in his Vindicatioa^ 
 pag. 304, 305. kt usexamine how far the inftance of th« 
 Cfw/ir J may patronize this Donation of Tythes. In the 
 time of the Law, among the Vellels and Utenfils of th@ 
 Tabernable, Cenfers had a place and fervice by God's Com'- 
 mand'y and they, as well as the reft of the holy Veffels^ 
 were hallowed and confecrated to the Service of God. 
 And while that Tabernacle or Temple, and the Cere- 
 monial Worfhip thereof remained, thefe Veffels were nos 
 to be put to any prophane or common ufe. Yet had not 
 •thofe Veffels any intrinfisk and perfetud HoJinefs, but only 
 an QHtward and temporal Sandicy, as Veffels fet apart for 
 
 that 
 
( 194 ) 
 
 that Service. But when that Service was at an end, that 
 Temple forfaken, that Worfliip, and all its dependencies, 
 laid afide, thofe VefTeis ceafed to be Holy, and became 
 fubjed to common ufe. Arid though, while that Typicd 
 Worfhip flood, in the Service of which Cenfers were by 
 divine Appointment ufed, the Offering of Genfers beford the 
 Lord did hullow and exempt them from common ufe : yeE 
 fince that Worfhip is ended, and Law abrogated, in and 
 by which Cenfers were appointed to be ufed, the Offering 
 of Cenfers now would not have that effed. For if a Maa 
 fhould now dedicate to the Lord all fuch Veflels as were 
 formerly ufed in the Jewi^ Worfhip, what would fuch a 
 Dedication fignify ? Muft the things fo dedicated be re- 
 puted Holy^ and exempted from all common ufe ? That 
 were indeed a ready way to extirpate Chriflianity^ and re- 
 duce the World toj^daifm : But who would not declaim 
 againit that ? As in the cafe of the Genfers, fo in the cafe 
 of Tythesj which was another part of the Ceremonial Law, 
 and appurtenant to that Typical State. While the Cere-* 
 monial Law was in force, if a Man made an Oblation of 
 Tyihesy or any other part of his Eftate, it was thenceforth 
 hallowed to the Lord, and might not be converted to com- 
 mon ufes. But fince Chrifl hath abrogated thc'Ceremonial 
 Law, by which Tythes were commanded, a Dedication of 
 Tythes is no mort facred NOJf^y than a Dedication of Cenfers 
 jNOW wouldbe. When therefore the Prieft fays, pag. 114. 
 Thefe Cenfers were by God^s fpecial Order declared holy^ and 
 forbidden to be ufed to any common ufe afterwards \ it muft be 
 underftood of the time of the Law^ when Genfers were in 
 ufe-j not of the time of the Gofpel^ wherein they have na 
 place. And when he fays, pag. 1 17. The Cenfers being once 
 given to God J mufi remain to be his ftill : If he extends the 
 Particle Zftill2 to the prefent time, he errs egregioufly ; if 
 he do not fo extend it, he doth not obtain his end. And 
 when he fays, pag. 1 14. If the Cenfers might not be alienate 
 td^ much lefs fhould Tythes ', he argues faUacion/ly : For it 
 doth not follow, that becaufe the Cenfers might not be 
 alienated then^ Tythes (hould not be alienated now. But, 
 as if the Cenfers dedicated under th^ Law might not be alie- 
 nated then^ neither might Tythes be alienated then : So if 
 Cenfers dedicated under the Gofpel may be alienated now^ 
 Tjthss dedicated mder the Gofpel^ may in like manner be 
 
 alienai- 
 
( 195 ) 
 
 alienated now. This he cannot avoid, if he grant that 
 Cenfers and other VefTels of the Jewifh Worfliip dedicated 
 under the Gofpel, may be alienated : But if he do not grant 
 this, he fets open, not a Wicket^ but the broadGates co Juda* 
 ifm. For if it be in Man's Power to dedicate what he pleafis 
 to God, and the thing fo dedicated muft be reputed hoiy^ 
 and feparate to a Religious ufe, what bar is the'ie to hin- 
 der che bringing in of all the Jewifh Ceremonies ? In fhort. 
 The hallowed Cenfers not being alienable then (in the 
 time of the Law) (hew that Tythes might not be alienat- 
 ed then (in the time of the Law) but it doth not provd 
 that Tythes might never be alienated, any more than it 
 proves that Cenfers might never be alienated, but muft 
 remain feparated to holy ufes to che World's End. Though 
 Cenfers offered in the time of the Law, when they were 
 in ufe by divine Appointment, were hallowed, and nod 
 alienable to common ufes ^ yet after that Laxp wm abrogat-- 
 €dy and the ufe of Cenfers ended, the offering of Cenfers 
 would not have hallowed them, but they might nocwith- 
 ftanding fuch Oblation be put to common ufes. And if 
 the offering of Cenfers then will not patronize the offer- 
 ing of Cenfers now, nor their being hallowed then infer 
 their being hallowed now j to be fure the ofi^ering and 
 hallowing of Cenfers then, will not juftifie the offering 
 and hallowing of Tythes now ; nor the unlawfulnefs of 
 alienating thofe haUowed Cenfers then, infer it unlawful 
 to alienate Tythes now. The offering of Cenfers then^ 
 while that Worlhip ftood to which they ferved, will no 
 more authorize any to dedicate Tythes now, when that 
 Priefihood is ended to which they did peculiarly belong, 
 than it will warrant the offering of Cenfers now, when 
 that Worftip to which they ferved is ended. Neither 
 doth It any more follow, that becaufe the Cenfers then 
 offered were hallowed, and might not then be alienated 
 to common ufes, therefore Tythes now offered are hal- 
 lowed, and may not now be alienated to common ufes 5 
 then it doth that if Cenfers fliould be now cff«red they 
 would be hallowed now alfo, and might not now be- aliea- 
 nated to common ufes. Thus then we fee hisinffjance of 
 the Cenfers will not make good the Donation of Tythes, 
 but thatTyrk/, notwithftanding the Dedication he talks 
 ©f, may fafely be Mienated to common ufes. Aod indeed, if 
 
 Q ihi9 
 
(196) 
 this matter be rightly confidered, it will appear the World- 
 has been grievoufly gnlFd in this cafe of Dedications. For 
 firfl it was hammered into the Peoples Heads, that ta 
 make Dedications of Monies, Lands, Tythes, &c. to 
 God and holy Church, was a thing very plealingand^c- 
 ceptahle unto God^ a means to appeafe and pacific his IVrath, 
 to obtain Pardon and Remijfion of Sins^ and the ready way 
 to get oHt of Purgatory, When once the People had drank 
 in this Perfwaiion, hoiv vDa4 their dedicating Zeal inflamed ^ 
 What AUrder or other horrid C itfte was committed ! the 
 expiation whereof was not fought by a Gift ta holy Church 
 (as it was then called.) They needed not any other SfWy 
 and had not the Statute of Mortmain at length been pro- 
 vided as a Bit to reftrain and curb the immoderAte Heat of 
 their mifguided Devotion, it may well be doubted, that 
 inftead of the temh-^ nine parts of ten had been given to 
 the Church, fo willing were Men to go the nearefi way 
 to Heaven, as they mifapprehended this to be. * It was 
 
 * (faith Andrew Willet in his Synopps of Popery^ fifth gene- 
 ral Controverlie, pag. 509) ' a common Pradice in time 
 ' of Popery^ fo the Priefts might be enriched, they cared 
 ' nol gready, though all the Stock of their Patrons and 
 
 * Founders were undone. The Statute of Mortmain (fays 
 
 * he) was made to reflraia this. And now although 
 thofe Priells, by whofe/^/yc Infinuations and cr^//> Allure- 
 ments the moft of thefe Donations were fraudulently pro- 
 cured, are turned out of doors and rejeded, yet another 
 fort are come up in their rooms, who, though they pre- 
 tend to be the moft conftderahls Enemies to the former in ths^ 
 Worlds yet are well content to reap what the others had 
 thus [owed. Thefe Men tell us, that thefe Donations 
 (Tythes, and fuch things as Tythes are) muft remain fa* 
 sredy may not be alienated to common ufts. And if any on©^ 
 would objedt that they were gotton indireEHy^ obtained 
 fer dolum malum^ by Fraud and Cozin, it avails not ^ they 
 make no jjiatter of that^ No Blemifh in the Dedication carf 
 alter ihc property-^ fay they, who make themfelvts the Re* 
 seivers, FaUum valet^ quod fieri non debrnt^ faid the Prind* 
 iy Conference^ pag. 147. in Margin j i. e. Though they oughi 
 not to have been dedicated at aR^ yet being once dedicate d^ the 
 Dedication ftands good. Thus, Reader, thou may'ft fee 
 how mifsrably the World has been abufed by their Priefts, 
 
( 197 ) 
 
 who taking advantage to work upon their Devotion^ enti- 
 ced the People to make chefe Donations, and now cry outt 
 they are irreverfible^ being once dedicated they cannot he at' 
 teredy nor alienated to common ufes. Who fee not now, 
 than by th^ fame Art they might have gotten, and wjth 
 the fame Reafon have held nine parts of ten, as well as t'he 
 tenth ? And well was it for the Nation that a Hop was 
 put to this Ecclefiajiical Vrein^ before the Chnrch-Corhan 
 had fwallowed up all j out ofwhich^ it feems, there is no 
 Redemption. 
 
 §. 1 8. In his next Seftion, pag. 117. he charges me 
 with exafperating the Impropriators againfi the Triefts^ and 
 endeavouring to get thm on my fide , which is altogether 
 falfe. I am not fo tender of the Impropriators Right (as 
 he fuggefts) as not believing the Impropriators have any 
 Right to the Tythes of another Man's Crop ^ It is notori- 
 ous enough that the Qnakers Puffer by Impropriators as well 
 as by Priefts ; and my Argument lies againji both, Bui 
 he that fhall read that place in my Book which the Prieffc 
 hath quoced, pag. 297. may plainly fee my aim is to 
 fliew, that even according to the Tricft^s Argument, the 
 Impropriators have no Right to Tythes, My words are, h 
 is obvioHiy that if beeaufe Tythes have been dedicated (as he 
 fays) to Gody it is nnlawful to alienate them to common ufes^ 
 then it mufi needs be Hnlaxvfd for them to hold their Impropri" 
 ationsy becanfe they were offered in like manner as the refi of 
 the Tythes were. But (fay I there) let them look to them^ 
 felves. Whether this be flattering and clawing the Impro- 
 priators ('as he unhandfomly fuggeftsj let the Reader 
 judge. Then for thofe Lands given to Ahbies and other 
 Religious Houfes (as they were once called j and upoa 
 the Diffoludon of thofe Houfes fettled on the Cro^^^ itc 
 is manifeft: his Argument impeaches that Settleme^it,,* dnd 
 all the fubfequent Titles to thofe Lands derived there- 
 from, and aims ae reducing thofe Lands into the Clergies 
 Hands again. For if, as he argues, ' being once dedi- 
 
 * cated, they cannot be alienated to common ufe •, and 
 
 * that it is a dangerous thing to meddle with any thing 
 ' that hath been given to God, Friend, Confer, pag. 147- 
 And again, ' as the Cenfers being once given co God, mufl: 
 ' remain to be his ftill— — fo we may learn it ought to be 
 
 * in other facred Dedications, — - they muft remain fa- 
 
 O 2 * ered 
 
( 198 > 
 
 * crcdftill, Right of tythes^ pag, 117. Then feeing thele 
 Abbey Lands were once dedicated to God as well as 
 Tytloei^ ic follows unavoidably from his Argument, that 
 they cannot be alienated to common ufes, but mutt re- 
 main facred ftill. Thus we fee at once both the aim of 
 his unfatiahU Eye, and the weaknefs of his Argument, 
 which in my former Book, pag. 297. is detefted at large,, 
 and the difcovery thereof hath fo nettUd the Man, thai 
 by way of Revenge^ and to vent his Anger, he calls me 
 poor C^aker, flattering Qpaker, doHhlt-tongt^d and falfe^ 
 hearted Man^ with more to the fame purpofe •, and what 
 \ fpeak with reference to thofe who poffefs the Ahbef 
 Landsy he perverts and diredls to the Imfropriators. But 
 he fhould have confidered, that his criminating me^ doth 
 not at all acquit bimfelf. For if he will infer from my rea* 
 foning, that I deny the Impropriators Right to Tythesj which 
 I readily enough acknowledge 1 do, yet what is that to 
 hps Jnflification\ whofe Argument (\i true) would /?n> 
 jiot Impropriators only, but all others alfo who pofTels 
 Abbey Landsj or any other Revenues once dedicated to 
 God and Holy Church, as the Phrafe was : Yet he would 
 hide hU own Teethy and fniooth the matter over, as if the 
 Priefts were the moft refigned and fubmijftve Men imagi- 
 nable to the Law, and very good Friends to the Impropri* 
 ators. For our parts (fays he, pag. 118. like the Pharifee^ 
 Ltih. f 8. II.) we do not (like the Quakers) tah upon us to 
 tenfnre the Anions of our Princes and Parliaments^ ~ What' 
 iver Opinions the Priefts hold in this matter^ they do not oppoji 
 the Laws J and go about to perjnade any to tah away the Impro" 
 priators Eftates from them. Do they not ? Fray hear now 
 what the Author of the Conference, in his Vindication^ pag^ 
 305. fays, I confefs that U^axy ^. did alienate them (fpeak- 
 ingof Tythes, &c.) And fo did he alfo eftablijh the fix 
 bloody^ J^rictesy tojhew himfelf as ill a Friend to Protettants 
 as toTythii': But is not this (fays he) a wife Argument^ to 
 prove that Sacriledge may^ de jure, be committed^ becaufty 
 de fadto, it hath been committed ? Judge now, Reader,^ 
 the truth of that faying of the other Prieft {y'lZ. We da 
 not tah upon m to cenfure the ABions of our Princes and Par^ 
 Jliament'2 when this Prieft charges H^nry 8. and his Parli^ 
 ament with down-right Sacriledge. He:mightjhave confide. 
 fed, that how iti a Friend foever Hemy 8* was to Urot^^ 
 
 fiam^ 
 
( 199 ) 
 
 fiants, he was not fo ill a Friend to Ty thes, as the Priett 
 reprefents him, lince tkefirfi Statute Law extant for thepay' 
 ment of Tythes wm made under his Reign, 
 
 But further, fays the Author of the Right of Tythes^ 
 pag. 1 1 8. We do not pretend Confcience to fave ChargeSy m 
 /^^ Quakers manner is. 
 
 Doth he know any Quaker that pretends Confcience to 
 fave Charges? If he does know any fuch, I defire he will 
 name him. But if he knows no fuch, what has he told ? 
 If he would needs raife a Slander on the Quakers^ could he 
 find nothing that would have look'd more likely? Do 
 not the Quakers know before-hand, that^f they refufe 
 to pay Tythe, they incur the penalty of treble dammage, 
 which by that time It is levied, feldom comes to lefs 
 than five or fix times the fingle value of the Tythes de- 
 manded, befides In^prifonment ? // this the way to fave 
 Charges ? What Reader could he exped to find out of 
 Bedlam^ {o much befide his Wits, as to receive a fugge- 
 ftion fo utterly repugnant to common Senfe and Reafon^ 
 as this is ? But to proceed. 
 
 §. ip. The Priell is troubled that Tythes are reputed 
 of fopijifi Inftitution^ and fain he would clear them if he 
 inew how. He tries all the ways he can, and leaves no 
 Stone unturnM. His firfl: attempt is to defame me^ thaC 
 my Difcourfe might have the lefs acceptance : In order 
 whereunto, he tells his Reader, pag. 120. T. E. now falls 
 to work for the Jefuits in good earneft^ labouring to make ou$ 
 the Popfs Title /tf England, by a Prefcription o/ eight or nim 
 Hundred Tears. 
 
 In this he is very faulty : For (befides his having re- 
 prefented me ail along as a meer piece of Ignorance and 
 Folly, and thereby rendred me a very unfit Agent to 
 carry on the deep Defigns of thofe crafty and politick 
 Statiils) he knows full well, that I labour not to make 
 the Pope a Tide to England \ but to raz,e out all Monu- 
 ments of his ufurped Authority, that no print nor Foot-' 
 ftep may appear of his power having been exercifed here 
 by the continuance of any Cuflomy which received either 
 Life or Growth from him, m this of Tythes did. And 
 iince it may be lamented^ but cannot be denied^ that the 
 Saj>al Authority haih had too tong^ as w«U as tQo grut a 
 
 Q I fwajr 
 
( 200 ) 
 
 fway here: Whether, I pray, doth befl become a Tro- 
 tefiam^ to acknowledge freely its full time^ and rejcB fully 
 all its Inflitmions ^ or to mince the matter, reprefent the 
 limQ porter than ic was, and x^VaXVi fome of the Voplh In* 
 ft it mom ^ which like the H^e^Ige of Gold and Bahylonijb 
 Garment^ both defile the Camp, and deform the Refoi'- 
 niation ? Fofery is now i'oj^ftly abljord^ by the generality 
 of EngUlh^ that it were a vain attempt to kt up any 
 thing apparently and avowedly Popijh. Therefore the Ene- 
 my of true Religion invents other ways to keep up ^^opilh 
 IfifiitHtionSj and one is to date tiie Rife of Popery fn low\, as 
 Tiuy leave room to iiuruduce or continue fome Popijh Cu- 
 ftom?, upon a pretence t'nat they are antecedent to PopC" 
 ry. Buc he tiiat Ihall duly couiiOer the ftate of the Church, 
 in and irom the Apofties times^ will find that ihQ My 
 fiery of Irtiqiiity^ which began to work in their days, hath 
 (Continued working ever fince^ and in every Age fuccef- 
 lively hath brought iorth more and more of its work. So 
 that Popery was not Ml brought forth in a Day, nor in 
 an Age, but was introduced gradnaliy. And as the true 
 Religion of Chrift was inflitutt^d, profeffed and pradifed 
 fome time before it was diftiaguifhed by the Nsme Chri- 
 ftian-j fo l\[t falfe Religion was received alfo before h was 
 denominated Popijh: Yet this falfe Religion was really /« 
 its Nature Popijh^ before it obtained to be called Popiflj^ as 
 the true Religion was really in its Nature Chrifimn^ be- 
 "fore it received the Name Chrifiian. He therefore 
 that will receive whatfoever he finds pradifed or com- 
 mended in the Church before the Name of Popery pre- 
 vailed, may be very likely to receive fomething which 
 was brought forth by the working of the Myfiery of Ini* 
 quity^ and is reaDy and truly of the Nature of Popery. 
 
 But the Prieft fays (as he has faid before, more thaa 
 once) If the Saxons in IC Ethelwolf 's time were Papifts, 
 it will not follow that all their Donations are void, 
 
 I fay fo too. Some of their Donations were meerly ci' 
 vily made by them as Men and Members of a civil Society % 
 but thi$ of Tythes was the Produd of their Religion^ and 
 of that part of it wherein they were mo ft corrupt. So 
 that although All their Donations are not void, yet if 
 any at all 6i their Donations are void, there is none which 
 '^ with more reafoa Ihould be fo than this of Tythes, 
 
'( 201 ) 
 Again he fays, Sup^ofe they were Papifls in fome thingi^ 
 yet it follows not that giving Tythes was a popifli ji^i^ for aM 
 the Mi of Pa pi lis are not popi(h. 
 
 Buc I have proved that the giving ofTythes wot a popifh 
 j4El^ proceeding from fuch Motives, and attended with 
 fuch Circumftaiices as are repugnant to true Proteftant /??'<«• 
 ■ciples. 
 
 But fays he, pag. 121. ihe Proteftants have difpnted at 
 -mtich and oa well for Tythes^ as ever the Papifls did. 
 
 If by Frotefiants he means his Brethren the Priefls, I 
 wonder not at ail at it : Tythes are their Diana, the Oyl that ,. 
 ftoHriJhes their Lamp^ pag. \ 3. No wonder then if they 
 difpute for Tythes, and that much too, but how well lefi 
 others judge. Ye£ commonly the Difpute ends on theii^ 
 parts with Club-Law^ and the cafe of Tythes an Imprifon* 
 . ment and trthle damages are Ratio ultima Cleri^ the Clergy* s 
 lafi Argument^ and many times their ^r/? too, bu? always 
 the flrongef^^ and that they moft rely on. 
 
 He adds. It is a Popilh Opinion^ That the Bl[hpp of RomQ 
 'Can exempt Men from payir?g Tythes. 
 
 'Tis fo indeed : But it is the fubfequent of another p^- 
 pijh Opinion, That the Biihop of Rome can injoyn Men to 
 pay Tythes. So that the particular exemption from 
 Tythes and th€ Inflitution of Tythes are derived froai , 
 one and the fame power. And if the Payment of TythQ3^ 
 had not been fettled and eftablilhed by the Authority of 
 the Bifhop oi Rome^ the Opinion of his pbwer £0 exempt 
 Men from paying Tythes had not prevailed as it did. But 
 do not thefe popifh Exemptions remain Itill among tde 
 frotefiants ^ Thofe Lands which the Pope made Tytkefree^ 
 zxeihe^xiolTythefrtefliU? What figiiifies that I pray ? Is 
 •that an Argument of the divine Right of Tythes^ and that 
 Tythes are due by the moral eternal Law ^ Or is it not ra- 
 ther 2i fair intimation^ that Tythes are indeed bulof ib«- 
 man Infticution, and that from the Bifhops of Rorm too ; 
 whofe Exemptions are in force, and obferved here, evea 
 to this day ? 
 
 Then he fays, ' I begun too low by far \ for if Vofetf 
 
 * came not into the Church, till about Seven hundred 
 
 * Years after Chrift faccording to T, E^s proofj thea 
 t Tythes w^re much ajitienter than Popery j for they 
 
 O 4 J were 
 
( 202 ) 
 
 ^ were paid (fays he) and declared to be due to the 
 
 * Chriltian Church at leaft Five hundred Years before. 
 In all this he is wrong : For firft, 1 have proved Foperj 
 
 did come into the Church before Seven hundred Years af- 
 ter Chrift, and before any fettled Payment of Tythes. 
 Next, he neither hath proved, nor can prove by any Te- 
 ftimony of Credit in this cafe, that Tythes were paid 
 and declared to be due to the Chriftian Church, at leaft 
 Five hundred years before. He may talk of the j^poflles Ca- 
 nons and dementis Conflitutions^ and be laugh'd at for his 
 pains : Bot no Auchentick Evidence of thofe Times can 
 be produced to prove the Payment of Tythes. The old- 
 eft of his Authors that mentions Tythes is Origen ; who 
 grounded his Judgment on the LeviticalLaWj and thought 
 it necefl^ry that that Law fhould ftand in force according to 
 the Letter^ which could not be confiftent with Chrifliani' 
 ty. But although Or igen was a learned Man, yet Perkins^ 
 fays he was, Ermrnm flenusy full of Errors^ and Hierom 
 calls his Writings, Fenenata^ Venemous : And among the 
 r^ft of his Errors, Purgatory woi oney as witnefTeth the 
 {amt Perkins agamic CocciHSy ProbL pag. 175. So that if 
 he will fetch Tythes from Origen^ he may take Purgatory 
 along with them^ if he pleafe. However, he Ihall find that 
 fome of thofe Opinions which afterwards were moft right- 
 ly denominated Popifh, were by the Myflery of Iniquity 
 brought into the Church as early as his earliefi mention of 
 fTythes, let him climb at high oa he can, 
 
 §. 20. But to clear Tythes from a p^ijh Inftitution, 
 he fays, pag. 122. That mofi of thofe DoArines which are 
 properly caUcd Popery, and which firft caufedj and ftill jnftify 
 the Proteftants Separation from Rome, were not maintained 
 as Articles of Faith^ no not in the Church of Rome it felf, at 
 the time of this Donation^ Anno 855. 
 
 For this he cites, Polid. Virgil de Rev, invent, I. 5. c. 4. 
 But how unfairly he has quoted his Author, and how foul- 
 ly hp hath abufed his Reader, let Polydoreh own words 
 (hew in the place cited, where having declared how it 
 farecj with the Eaftern Priefls in that cafe, he adds, * At 
 
 * occidentalibus paulatim eft Connubium abrogatura. Sy- 
 
 * ricim enim primus facerdotibus & diaconis, ut ait Gra* 
 f tianm difiinftione 82. conjugio interdicit qui circiter an- 
 num 
 
( 20J ) 
 
 num falutis humane 387. Tedere csepit : i.e. Bnt Marriage 
 was taken from the Priefts in the Wefl by degrees For Syri- 
 CUS, ^who began to fit (in the Roman Chair) about the Tear of 
 Man^s Salvation^ 387. was the flrfi that forbad Marriage to 
 Trie ft s and Deacons^ as Gx2ii\2in fays in his Z7 Diftinltion. 
 
 * Idem inftituit (fays Polydore) ut quicunq-, auE viduam aui 
 
 * fecundam duxiflet uxorem, ab ordine facerdotali pelle- 
 
 * retur ; fie per hoc voluit ut deinceps Digamus ad offi- 
 
 * cium facerdotis non admittertur: i. e. The fame Syrici- 
 US ordained^ that whatfoever Priefi had married a Widow or ' 
 a Second Wife^ Jhodd be pnt out of his Triefthood •, fo by this 
 he would not have any one that had had two Wives be admitted 
 from that time forward to the Prieft^s Office, Then fays he, 
 
 * PelagtHs fecundus deinde ftatuit, ut fubdiaconi vel uxo- 
 
 * res a fe fepararent, vel illis content), facerdotioruni 
 
 * pofleffione cederent, & cum neutrum admififlent, juf^ 
 
 * fit, ut omnino uxores, ab fe ablegarent : i. e, j^fter^ 
 ward Pelagius the Second (who fat about the Year 580.) 
 appointed that Sub- deacons fhould either put their Wives from 
 them^ or contenting themfelves with them fhould quit their Be^ 
 nefices ^ and when they would admit of neither^ he commanded 
 that by all means they jhould put their Wives away from them 
 ' Verum id decretura (adds he) Gregoritis qui Pelagio fuc- 
 
 * cefliE, im'quum cenfuit, — »& idcirco fanxit, us nullus 
 
 * amplius fieret fubdiaconus, nifi fe cafte vidurum prius 
 ' promiflifret, quo fie cundis legem continentis impone- 
 ' ret, i. e. But Gregory, whofucceeded Pelagius (the fame 
 who fent Auflin the Monk over hither) thought that De» 
 cree anjuft^ — and therefore he made a Decree^ that from 
 thtPCi^forth none fhould be made a Sub'deacon^ until he hadfirfi 
 pro: (fed to live chaftely, that fo he might impofe the Law of 
 Cof?fmency upon them aQ, And fays Polydore^ * Voluit, 
 ' e ^inor, Gregorim minores coercere, ut illorum exem- 
 
 * pio majores ex Syricij decreto mox fua Iponte Matrimc- 
 ^ nia fpernerent : i.e. Gregory, I thinks wot willing to rt'*, 
 firam the lejfcr Orders^ that by their Example^ the greater af" 
 ter 4 while might of their own accord defpife Marriage accord^ 
 ing to the Decree c/Syricius. Then a little lower he adds, 
 ' Ceterum non tenuit quempiam turn primum ifta Grego* 
 ' r^zna lex, ficut ante Cdefti decretum non eft fervatum, 
 
 * q iem idem Gratianus aui^or eft, primura facerdotibus 
 J u/;iverfis indixifle C«libatum. Alij id Eugenio poft Gre* 
 
 ' goHtim 
 
( 204 ) 
 
 * goYtum attribuunt. Pr^terea illiid ipfum turn MeUenfi 
 
 * fynodo turn Canhaginenfi cd: magno omnium confenfu 
 *^ ftatuium, ficuE in Caiionicis Decretis diflindione 32 & 
 
 * 84. legimus. Ita alijs deinq^ fuper alijs promulgatis le- 
 
 * gibus, non ante Pontificatum Gregorij 7. qui anno falu- 
 
 * tis 1074. eft Pontifcx creatus, conjugiura adimi Occi- 
 ^ dentaiibus facerdotibus potuit: i.e. Bnt that Law of 
 Gregory's did not at firfl reftraitt any of them ^ Oi the Decree 
 cf Califtus before was not kepr^ whom the fame Gratian reports 
 to be the fir j} that injoyned Jingle Life to all Friefis. Which 
 others attribute to Eugenius after Gregory. Moreover the 
 wery thing (viz that Priefts fhould not marry) was ordain- 
 €d both in the Synod of Meldenfis and Comcil £?/ Carthage, 
 mth the full confent of ally as we read in the Canonical Decrees^ 
 DiflinBion 32. and 84. "this one Law being made upon the 
 I^eck of another^ Ai^rriage could not be taken from the Wefiertt 
 Friefls before the time of Pope Gregory the Seventh^ who was 
 made Pope in the year of Salvation 1074. Thus Polydore, 
 Judge now. Reader, the honefty of this Pj-ieft, who brings 
 Folydore for a Witnefs, that the Marriage of Priefts was 
 mot forbidden iiW VaQXwwQ oi Gregory the Seventh, above a 
 thoufand years after Ghrift ; when as Polydore there fays 
 €xprefly, The Marriage of Priefis was forbidden by Syricius 
 /zbotit the year 387. and afterwards by other Popes and 
 Councils, although their Decrees could not fofar prevail 
 as to takeaway Priefts Marriage wholly, until the time 
 of Gregory the Seventh. But though Priefts Marriage was 
 ziot wholly taken away btiovQ Gregory the Seventh's time, yet 
 evident it is, the Opinion that it ought to be taken away was 
 received, and according thereunto Endeavours ufed to 
 take it away many hundred years before Gregory the Se- 
 venth's time, or King Ethelwolfs either. ' The Marri- 
 
 * age of Priefts (fays Polydore) was forbidden long be- 
 ^ fore, and Laws made againft it, althoush they were 
 '* not obeyed. The Marriage of Priefts was not forbid- 
 
 * den (fays this Prieft) till the time of Gregory the Se- 
 
 * venth, and brings Polydore for his Vouchers Shame- 
 lefs Man ! Is this the way to prove Tythes amienter than 
 Popery ? What Credit can be given to any Quotation 
 ahatt this Man brings, who makes no Gonfcience of fpeak- 
 pngfalft^y? But that Priefts Marriage was indeed forbid- 
 
 '^den long before either Gregory th€ Seventh or Ethelwolfd- 
 
 ther 
 
( 205 ) 
 
 tber was born, Terlins againft Coccius plainly acknow- 
 ledges; firft he fays, Problem pag. 190. ' Conjugium 
 
 * Giericorum ante treceutos a Chrifto annos fuit ubiq; 
 
 * fine interdido^ & fine vota condnentise perpetuo, li- 
 
 * berum : i. e. The Marriage of Priefis for Three hwdred 
 years after Chrifl^ was every where free^ without InterdiElion^ 
 and without perpetual Vow of Continency, Then pag. 1 92. 
 ' Continentise votiim necellarium & perpetuum, videcur 
 ' in occidentali Ecclefia ftatucum prirno, & annexum or- 
 
 * dinibus, circa annum 380. a Chrido. AnEe quidera re- 
 ' ceptum fuit, fed privata quorundam devotione, non 
 ' publico Ecclefix judicio. Turn ancem primum commu- 
 ' ni decteto (fi non eft fiditium decretum iftud) in occi- 
 
 * dentalibus Ecclefijs interdidum dicitur conjugium Cle- 
 
 * ricorurn, ut impurum, a Syricio Papa: i. e. Iheneceffa* 
 ry and perpetnalVow of Continency feems to have been ordained 
 §>rfi in the Wfilern -Churchy and annexed to Orders^ about the 
 year from Chi ft 380. It was indeed received before^ but by 
 the private Devotion offome^ not by the pnblick Judgment of 
 the Church, But that is the firf} time that by a common Decree 
 (if that Decree be not forged) the Marriage of Priefis is f aid 
 to have beenforbidden by P<?/?^ Syricius intheWeftern Church- 
 es^ as impure. And there is the more reafon to believe 
 this Decree of Syricius genuine, becaufe it is evident thaC 
 this was the Opinion of thofe times. Origen above 150 
 years before, faid, ' Videtur niihi quod illius folius eft 
 ' offerre facrificium, qui indefinenti & perpetuse fe devo- 
 
 * vie caftitati : / think tt belongs to him only to offer Sacrifice, 
 who hath devoted himfelfto unceffant and perpetual Chaftityy 
 Horn. 13. upon Numb. Pope Syricius himfelf in an Epiftle 
 to Hymerius Bilhop of Tarracon^ fays, ' That they who 
 
 * are in the Fielh, that is, they who are Married, can- 
 
 * not pleafe God. And Leo the firft, in an Epiftle to 
 jinafiatius^ fays, ' Tofet forth the purity of perfed Con- 
 ' tinency. Marriage is not allowed fo much as to Sub- 
 
 * Deacons. By all which it appears, that Priefts Marri- 
 ages were denied and forbidden in thofe early Jges of the 
 Church, the Myftery of Iniquity even then working. And 
 this 'being one of thofe Dodrines, which by his own con- 
 feflion, are properly called Popery^ may ferve to convince 
 him of the Corruption of thofe times to which he refers 
 therifeofTythes. 
 
 His 
 
( 2o6 ) 
 
 f^is next Inftance is of the Seven Sacraments ; the Nnm- 
 %er of which, he fays, was not defined till Peter Lorn* 
 shard's Days, Anno 1140. He quotes Caffander de Sacra' 
 mentis. 
 
 The Book I have not, and therefore cannot examine his 
 Qootations. But if he hath dealt in this as in the for- 
 mer, he is not at all to be regarded. However, if it be, 
 ^s he fays* that the Number of the Seven Sacraments was 
 not defined till Feter Lombards days, yet were there fo 
 many other popifh Doftrines and Opinions received in 
 the Church long before, as fufliciently prove thofe times 
 €0 be Pqpiih, from which lie fetches his Donation of 
 .Tythes. 
 
 Next, he fays, * The Do(9:rine of Tranfubflantiation 
 
 * was not received for a point of Faith, till the Later an 
 
 * Ck)uncil above One thoufand two hundred years after 
 f Chrifl. 
 
 Although Tranfubftantiation was not h^fuhUcl Decree 
 impofed as an Article of Faith, until the Council of La- 
 $eran^ yet was it received and believed by many fome hun^ 
 ^reds of years before. Perkins fays, Problem pag. 145. 
 
 * Difputat ons began concerning Tranfubftantiation a- 
 
 * bout the year 840. So that Tranfubftantiation^ it feems, 
 was a hatching bef{)re Ethelwolf's Charter for Tyihes was 
 granted* And as the Council of Lateran^ fomewhat after 
 the year 1^00. was the firft that made Tranfubftantiation 
 an Article of Faith \ fo the fame Council of Later an was 
 the firft general Council that decreed parochial Right to 
 Tythes, as SeUen proves in his Hiftory of Tythes, ch. 6. 
 §. 7. and ch. 10 §. 2. towards the end. So thct the ge» 
 neral parochial Payment of Tythes, and the general be- 
 lief of Tranfubftantiation, were decreed and eftablifh- 
 ed at one and the fame time^ in one and the fame general 
 Council. 
 
 * Purgatory it fdf (be fays) was but a private Opini- 
 
 * on, and affirmed only by fome. Anno 1146. and Indul- 
 
 * gences can be no older : yea, their Application to Souls 
 *- in Purgatory was firft brought in (he fays) by Boniface 
 I ihe Eighth. 
 
 * Purgatory (faith Perkins, pag. I7S) was firft receiv- 
 J' in the Church by TertuUian and Origen, who both ^ved 
 "j about Two hundred years after Chrift. That it was 
 
 lield 
 
( 207 ) 
 
 field by AHgufline alfo, and others of the Fathers^ though m 
 fomewhat a different Notion from what it afterwards ob- 
 tained, he (hews, pag. 176, and 178. and concludes, 
 pag. 180. * Ergo Purgatorium, quod eft inter Mortem &: 
 *• ultimum judicium, quodq; tantum infervit expurgan- 
 
 * dis peccatis venialibus, p^nis temporalibus, non fuit 
 
 * receptuni apud veteres nifi forte poft annum 600. u e«. 
 Therefore Purgatory which is between Death and the lafi 
 Jud^ent^ arid which ferves only to purge venial Sinsj and take 
 away temporal PHnifhmems^ was not received among the An^* 
 tients^ miefs happily after the year 600, Whence by Implr* 
 calion is granted^ that after the year 600. (which was 
 Two hundred and fifty years before Ethelwolf% Donation 
 of Tythes) Purgatory was received^ even in this fenfe a- 
 mong the Antients. 'Tis true, Indulgences can be no 
 oldtr than Purgatory^ nor heed they ; for that is old c- 
 nough to prove thofe times Popilh wherein Tythes were 
 granted. Poly dor e Virgil de Invent* Rer, L 8. c, i. fearch^ 
 ing the Original of them, fays, * Non reperio ante fuifle» 
 
 * quod fciam, quam D. Gregorius ad fuas ftationes id pra> 
 
 * mij propofuerit r i, e. I do not find, fo far at I knoWy thaf 
 Indulgences were before St, Gregory propofed that Reward t(f 
 hk Statkns : which was about the year 600. Then uiing 
 the Teftimony of the Bilhop of Rochefter to the fame pur- 
 pofe, he adds, ' Atque hoe pado poft Gregorium vcnia- 
 
 * rum Seges paulatim erevit, cujus meflem non cxiguaoj 
 
 * permulti interdum colligerunt, &c. i. e. And ly tht^ 
 means after Gregorys time^ the Crop of Pardons or Indulgen-' 
 €ei grew Hp by little and little^ of which very many have fame'* 
 times reapt a large Harveft \ whence it .appears Indulgen- 
 €cs were in ufe much earlier than the Prieft delivers. But 
 to proceed, the Prieft fays, That the half Communion began 
 but a little before the Council of Conftance, and was never 
 decreed till then\ Th^t the putting the Apocripha into the 
 Canon of Scripture^ and divers other point s^ were never de-* 
 creed till the Council 0/ Trent; And that, if it were not to 
 avoid prolixity y he couLd mahe it evident j That the Pope^s uni" 
 verfal Si'premacy and Infallibility^ Jhftification by the Merit of 
 Good Worh^ Auricular Confejfion^ Formal Invocation of Saints^ 
 and other Corruptions of the modern Papifts, were not determi^ 
 9ted 4is Articles of Faithy no r^t in Rome it Jelf in Ethelwolf 'j 
 time* 
 
 That 
 
( 2g8 ) 
 
 That many, if not molt of thefe were believed, and 
 pnblickiy held in the Church of Rome^ long before £?/?;/ 
 ivolfs time, is uadoubced. Concerning the Pop'^s Sapre- 
 macyy Perkins fays, Problem^ pag. 202. ' Primatus Domi- 
 
 * nij vel authoritativns in Romano Pontifice, ante 6qo. 
 ^ an ignotus, publice & manifefte csepic in Bonifacio anno 
 
 * 607. i. e. The Primacy of Dominion or /Authority in the 
 Pope <>/Rome, which was not known hefore the year 600. he 
 gan pnblickiy and matnfefily in Boniface in the year 6qj, (a- 
 bouE Two hundred and fifty year3 before EchelwolPi 
 Charter.) And of Confefiony he fays, pag. 180. ' Con- 
 ' feffio auricularis, id eft, confeffio fpecialis omnium mor- 
 
 * talium peccacorum, ad eorundem remiffionem neceila- 
 
 * ria, 6c facerdoti occuke fada, cepit in Eccleiia urgeri 
 
 * & prascipi circa annos a Chrifto odingentos : i. e. jdn- 
 ricular Confejfwn^ that ^, particular Confejfion of all mortal 
 Sinsy held necejfary for the obtaining Retniffion of them^ and 
 which is made in private to the Brief} ^ began to be enforc^ 
 ed and commanded in the Church about Eight hundred 
 Tears after Chrifi (which was about Fifty years before 
 Ethelwolfh Charter.) And of Invocation ofSaints^ he fays, 
 pag. 89. ' No Invocation of the Dead can be fhewed ia 
 ' the Church for Three iiundred and fifty years after 
 
 * Chrift. Then pag. 90. he fays, ' This Invocation be- 
 ' gan to be brought into the ufe of the Catholick Church 
 
 * about the year 380. by common Cuftom and private 
 
 * Devotion. And pag. 93. he affirms that, ' After the 
 ' year 400. the Antients did commit Sin, yea, and were 
 ' guilty of Sacriledgein the Invocation of Saints: of which 
 he gives many Inftances full of grofs Impiety, and then 
 adds, pag. 94. ' The Invocation which in former Ages 
 ' was of private Devotion began to be publick about the 
 
 * year 500. for then Petrns Gnaph^eas mingled the Invoca- 
 
 * tion of Saints with the publick Prayers of the Church. 
 
 * For he is faid to, have invented this, that in every Prayer 
 
 * the Mother of God fhould be named, and her divine 
 
 * Name called upon. And about the year 600. Pope Gre* 
 ^ gory the great commanded a Litany^ which was made for 
 
 * the Invocation of Saints, to be fung publickly. 
 
 - Thus we fee that thefe Dodrines, which he fays arc 
 properly called Popery were received, held, believed and 
 publickly profeffed many a year before Ethelwolf was born. 
 
 And 
 
( 209 ) . 
 
 And were it not to avoid Proxility, 1 could make it evi- 
 dent, that Che greateft fart of the Errors, Corruptions^ 
 Superftitions and Idolatries of the Church of Rome y were 
 received, believed and openly maintained lorjg heforer 
 Echelwolf made his Donation of Tythes. Butluppofe 
 the Particulars he has inftanced were not determined as 
 Articles of Faith in Ethelwolf's time, bud without any 
 fuch formal Determination were received and commonly 
 believed, are they therefore not fopfh ^ Doth Popery lie 
 Qi7ly in the Betermination of them ? If they are Errors^ if 
 they are Corruptions^ if they are Superftitions^ if they are 
 Idolatries^ after they are determined as Articles of Faich^ 
 then furely they were fuch before^ elfe the bare determina- 
 tion of them would not have made them fuch. BeOdes, 
 if there were Truth in what he fays, that the Particulais 
 he has mentioned had not been determined as Articles of 
 Faith before £f^/f/tP^// 's time, nor could have b^Qn fopijh 
 without fuch a Determination^ yet very many other In- 
 flances may be given of Dodrines and Pradices properly 
 popifh^ fufficient to prove noi the Church of Rome in ge- 
 neral (7;7/y, but the then Church of Epgla^id alfo f which 
 was a Member of that, and for at leaft feven continued 
 Succejflions, received her Metropolican Bilhop out of the 
 RomifijC\\wxQ\\) to be popifh, according to the Definicioa 
 his Brother Prieft has given of Popery, in his Friendly Con^ 
 ference^ pag. 149. 
 
 §. 21. But to clear thofe times from the imputation of 
 Popery^ he undertakes to reply to the Inftance I had givea 
 in my former Book. Firft, he fays, ' For thofe, pag. 301 . 
 ' the Quaker lays not much itrefs upon them, and there 
 
 * are fbme of them allowed by the bed Protefiantt^ and all 
 
 * Men that underfland Antiquity know thofe decretal 
 
 * Epiftles to be forged, which hrft attributed thefe Con- 
 
 * ftitutioris to thofe early Popes. 
 
 Isnot this a pretty way of replying, to fay his Opponent 
 lays not much firefs en them? What! may one not anfwer 
 after this race ? Next he fays, thtre are fame of them allow^ 
 edhy the heft Protellants: But which are they ? Why did 
 he not diftinguifh betwixt thofe he doth allow, and tfiofe 
 he doth not allow ? The Inftanccs were. The afe of holy 
 Water to drive away Devils^ faid to be Inftituted by Alex^ 
 mdir the firft. Tht Confecration of Chrifm once a year^ by 
 
 Fabia* 
 
( 2IO ) 
 
 PaHavHS. 7hat all {hoHld fland up at the Reading of theGa' 
 fpel^ by Anaftatm, That Wax Tapers fljottld be Confecrated 
 0n the holy Sabbath^ by ZozSmM. That Froceffions jhould he 
 made on Sundays^ h^ jigapetw. Some of the fe^ he fays, are 
 Allowed by the befi Proteftants, but which ihey are he keeps 
 to himfelf. Laftly he fays, * All Men that underftand 
 
 * Antiquity know thofe Decretal Epiftles to be forged, 
 
 * which attribute thofe Conftitutions to thefe early Popes, 
 Whether thofe Epiftles be forged or no, I will not un- 
 dertake to determin-, nor need I: For I delivered not 
 thofe Inftances upon my own Authority, but gave the 
 Authors out of whom I gathered them, namely Fafcic 
 Temp, Platina and BnrdegaUnfis \ to which more might be 
 added, if need were. But fuppofe what he fays, that 
 thofe Decretal Epiftles are forged: yet all Men that under- 
 ftand Antiquity know that the things there inflamed were 
 in hfe before Ethelwolf 'i time^ and therefore mnft needs be 
 inflitmed before. So that his exception againfl the Decre- 
 tal Epiftles is but an idle (hift : For if it fliould be granted 
 that thofe Conftitutions were not made by thofe early 
 Popes to whom they are attributed, yet certain it is they 
 were made by Popes earlier than Ethelwolf s Charter for 
 Tythes; which is enough to prove that Poi>ery had made 
 her Encroachments in the Church before this dear Dona- 
 tion and famous Charter was made. Thus we lee his rr«- 
 fartite Anfwer comes to juft nothing •, and doubtlefs he 
 fpake confiderately, when hefaid, pag. 124. Iwill content 
 my ftlf to reply to t^r Quaker's Inftances-^ for it can hardly 
 be fuppofed he could exped by this Reply to content any 
 body but himfelf. 
 
 But perhaps he look'd upon thole things as too imma- 
 terial to defer ve his notice, and therefore contented himfelf 
 to pafs over them as lightly as he could •, as before he did 
 Ethelwolf 's being abfolvedfrom his Vows by the Popgy going 
 on Pilgrimage to Rome^ and making fuch liberal Donations 
 to uphold Sfiperftition there. But now that he comes to in- 
 ftances which he accounts more material, it is to be hoped 
 he will give a more maurial Reply. Firft, faith he, * con- 
 
 * cerning depofing of Kings, T. £. faith. Pope Zachary 
 
 * took upon him to depofe K. Chilperici, and abfolved his 
 
 * Subjeds from their Allegiance, This (he fay?) is a For- 
 J gery invented by the Champioqs of the Pope's Supre- 
 
 J macy. 
 
(2n) 
 
 fhacy, bnt denied by the French, who do ajfnre us^ tt^at the 
 depofing of K. Chilperick was done by Pipin himfelf^ by the 
 confent of the whole Kingdom of France^ before any notice was 
 given to the Pope aboHt it^ pag. 125. 
 
 That the Reader may be the more able to judge of the 
 Truth of this matter, I will give him the words of the 
 Authors themfelves by whom it is delivered (fo many of 
 them as I have by me, which are but a few in refped of 
 the many by whom this PafTage is recounted.) Firft 
 therefore the Author of Fafcic, Temp, (ad annum 744.) 
 fays thus of Pope Zacharim^ ' Ipfe Regem Francornmj 
 
 * fcilicet HyldericHm^ depofuit, & in locum ejus Tippinum 
 
 * inftituit, quia utiiior fuit. Et hie patet poteftas Eccle- 
 
 * Use quanta fuerit hoc tempore qui regaum illud famofifli- 
 
 * mum tranftulit de veris h^redibus ad genus Pippiniy 
 
 * propter legitimam caufam. i. e. He depofed the King of 
 France, namely Hylderick, andfet Pippin in his place^ be' 
 canfe he was more ufefnl. And here (fays he) it appears how 
 great the power of the Church was in this time^ in that he Tfan» 
 fluted the mofi famotfs Kingdom from the true Heirs to the Race 
 ^Pippin, for a lawful Ca^fe, Platina^ though he menti- 
 ons not the depofing of Childerick^ yet the fetting up of 
 Fippin by the Pope he does in thefe words, ' At Fippinm 
 
 * regnandi cupidus,legatus fuosad Pontificem mittit,eum- 
 ' que rogat, ut Regnum Francis, fibi audoricate fua con- 
 
 * firtticti Anuit Pdntifex ejus poftulatis, — atque ita 
 
 * ejus auftoritatc regnUm Francis Pippino ad judicature 
 i. e. Bm Pippin having a defire to Reign^ fends his Ambaffa- 
 dors to the PopCj and intreats him to confirm the Kingdom of 
 France to him BY HIS AUTHORITY. The Fo^c grants 
 his Requeftsj and fo BY HIS AUTHORITY the Kingdom 
 <?/ France was adjudged to Pippin. Burdegdenfis fays of 
 Pope Zachary (Chronograph, L 2. ad annum 741.) * Hic 
 
 * primus caepit Francos juramento fidelitatis abfolvere. 
 i. e. This Pope was the firfi that abfolved the French from^ 
 their Oath of AUegeance : Fo- which he quotes zy£mil. lib, 2« 
 And a little aher^ of Childertck, he l^jath thefe words, 
 
 * Childertco Francorum Rcge ia Monafterium trufo, Plppi-- 
 
 * nns concilio Poncifici* a Galj^a^ Proceribus Rex de- 
 
 * claracur et a S. Bomfacto—^ Germanorum Apoftolo inun- 
 
 * gitur. i. c. Childerick the French Kirg being thrafi im0 
 fl Mfm fiery ^ Pippin is by the Comfel of the Fope declared King 
 
 E ^3 
 
( tl'Z ) 
 by the Nobility of France, and ajtointed hy St. Boniface the 
 jifcfilc of the Germans. John Fox in his Book of Martyrs^ 
 Vol. I. pag. ii5. hath it thus, * By the Authority of 
 
 * the faid Arch-Bifho^ Boniface^ which he received from 
 
 * Pope Zctchary^ ChUdericm King of France was depofed 
 ' from the Right of his Crown, and Pippintts the betrayer 
 
 * of his Mafler was confirmed or rather intruded in. Per-^ 
 hns againft Coccius^ prob. pag. 223. fays, ' Depofito 
 
 * Childerici Francorum Regis fuit a Proceribus & Populo 
 ' confilium vero deponendi, Papas fuit, i. e. The depopng 
 of Chiiderick the French King^ was done hy the Nobles and 
 People 'j hut the Connfel that he fhonld he depofedy was given 
 by the Pope. He quotes there SabellicHSj Blondus^ and from 
 him Alcu,nHs Panlm^ and many others, all agreeing that 
 Chiiderick was depofed by the Counfel of the Pope. Did all 
 thefe combine to invent a Forgery ? Or where all thefeC^^w 
 pions of the Fope^s SHpremacy \ fome whereof were Prote* 
 fiants ? The Priefl: fays, ChHperick was depofed before any 
 notice was given to the Fope about it, and that he did only 
 approve of the deed after it was done, pag. 125. 
 
 But befides popifa Authors, Fox fays, he was depofed 
 by the Pope^s Authority : And Perkins^ though he makes the 
 ^^ of depofing to be the People's, yet he acknowledges 
 the Pope advifed them thereunto ; both which muft be falfe^ 
 if what the Priefl: fays be true. But Perkins proves by di- 
 vers WitnefFes of Credit, that tfSe Popes Counfel was fir fi 
 had [Zacharia Romano Pontificie PRIUS confulto] he^ 
 fore Chiiderick was depofed^ or Pippin made King. So that 
 1 conclude the Priefl wrong in faying, it was done before 
 any notice was given to the Pope about it. But of that 
 let the Reader judge. 
 
 He offers another Evidence againft this Depofition of 
 Chiiderick by the Pope's Authority, which is part of aa 
 Epiftle from Hinc-Marus^ Arch-Bifhop of Rhemes to Pope 
 Adrian the fecond, who (he fays) had written to him to 
 Excommunicate the King of France. The wards he give» 
 thus. There was never any fuch precept before fentfrom Rome 
 tikany of my Predecejfors^ pag. 125. 
 
 That might be without any injury to the former Rela- 
 tion oi Chiiderick^ being depofed by the Pope. For Fo^ 
 fays, he was depofed by the Authory of Boniface^ Arch-Bi- 
 Ihop of Mmz.y which he received from the Pope. Now 
 
(21?) 
 
 this Boniface had a power Legamine f com the Pope, and is 
 called by BHrdegaUnfis the Apoflle of the Germans : So thaE 
 it may very well be, that the Pope by this Legate of his 
 might depofe the French King, and yet fend no preceptt 
 about it to Ihe Arch-Bi(hop of Rhemes^ who were Hinc- 
 Marus's Predeceflbrs. But however from thefe very 
 words oiHinc'Mams^ it is evident, that Po^e Adrian took 
 upon him to Excommmicate the King of France^ however 
 he fucceeded in it. And from another Claufe in the 
 fame Epiftie, there is great Ground to fufped:, that he 
 purpofed to depofe as well as Excommunicate him, and to 
 fet up another in his ftead : Why elfe doth Hinc-Mams^ 
 in the Name of the French^ fay there, * Let him not 
 ' command us Franks to ferve him that we will not ferve? 
 Hence I think may well be gathered, that the Pope did 
 not only require the Arch-Bifhop of Rhemes to Excommu- 
 nicate the French King, but alfo commanded the French 
 Men or Franks to ferve another ^ which fufficiently fhews 
 how much the Popes even then took upon them, although 
 the Franks would not fo lofe their King. 
 
 But he fays, There is as little truth in Gregory the third's 
 depofingof Leo Ifaurus about Images^ pag. 126. 
 
 The very words of Platina in the Life of Gregory the 
 third, are thefe, ' Hie ftatim ubi Pontificatum iniit, Cleri 
 
 * Romani confenfu, Leonem tertium Imperatorem Ott/^^^- 
 
 * tinopolitanum imperio fimul & communione fidelium pri- 
 ' vat, quod fand^as imagines e facr is sedibus abrafiflet, & 
 
 * ftatuas demolicus eflet, &c. i. e. He^as foon as he was made 
 Pope J with the confent of the Roman Clergy^ Excommunicates 
 Leo the thirds the Emperor of Conftantinople, and withal 
 deprives him ofhi4 Empire^ becaufe he had razeed the holy Jma-^ 
 ges out of the Churches^ and had demoUfhed the Statues, Fox 
 fays, f^oL I. pag. 116. Leo was Excommunicated by GrC' 
 gory the third. And Perkins^ pag. 210. qnotQS Jugufio 
 Stench, cent, vallam in thefe words, ' Gregorius tertius Ex- 
 
 * communicavit Leonem^ & ab ejus Imperils Romam Italic 
 
 * amque avertit, omnibus juramento fidelitatis abfolutis. 
 i. e. Gregory the third Excommunicated Lto^ and withdrew 
 Rome and Italy from his Government^ fitting them all free 
 from their Oath of Allegiance. From thefe TeftimonieSj 
 whether Gregory the third, did depofe the Emperor Lea 
 ®r got, let the Reader judge. Befides, this fame Empe- 
 
 P 2 ro^ 
 
( 2H ) 
 
 TOY s had becft Amthematiz^ed before by Pope Gregory the 
 fecond, as the Author of FafcicHlm Temper urn affirms, who 
 alfo notes (ad anmm, 714.) that * About ihofe times 
 
 * the Popes began to fei ihemfelves againfl: the Emperors 
 
 * more than ordinarily, even in temporal matters, and to 
 
 * transfer the Empire from one Nation to another, as 
 
 * the time required. 
 
 The next Inftance of Popery which he carps at, is the 
 worjhip of Ima^esy which he fays, pag. 1 28. is another w^- 
 fjifefl Slander^ not that £he Saxons had no Images^ for thaE 
 iie acknowledges they had^ but fays^ $hey had them only for 
 Ornamentj Memoryy Reverence and Example^ bnt not for 
 Worfliipy pag. 1 2p. 
 
 Perkins Ihewing the gradual Introduftion of Images, 
 fays, Prohlem. pag. 77. ^ They were not ufed otherwife 
 
 * than for Ornament for Three hundred and eighty Years 
 
 * after Chrid. Then pag. 78. about the Year 400. the 
 ' Hiftorical ufe of them began to come up, not in private 
 
 * Houfes only, but alfo in the Churches of the Chrifiians. 
 
 * But (adds he) as Superflition increafed, the worfhip- 
 
 * ping of Images took place, yet it was not received by 
 
 * Learned and Godly Men, nor were Images fet forth to 
 
 * be worfbipped openly before the Year 600, And if 
 (fays he) * the Worfhip of Images gained Ground any 
 
 * where before thefe times, it was not among the 
 
 ' Learned, but the fuperftitious People. But after the 
 
 Year 600. the WorQiip of Images grew more common, 
 
 efpecially among the common People, who by Superftition 
 
 were eaftly led into Idolatry, And although upon the fe- 
 
 cond Council of Nice's Decreeing the Worfhip of Images^ a 
 
 Book was Written contradictory thereunto, and a Synod 
 
 holden at Frankfordy wherein the Ads of that Council 
 
 were condemned, yet was not that Synod ckar in the cafe 
 
 of Images: For it condemned the Council of Conftantino- 
 
 fie alfo held a little before, under the Emperor Coprony- 
 
 mns for the abolifhing of Images \ and as Perkins obferves 
 
 went a middle way between that and the Council of Nice^ 
 
 giving a certain Veneration to Images, which was at leaft 
 
 Superftition and Popery. But for the Church of Rome it 
 
 felf, of which the Saxon Church was a Member^ with 
 
 which k was in C ommnniony and to which it was in Suh^^ 
 
 je^ion^ if we ijiiquirc how is flood with Her in thofe times,, 
 
( 215 ) 
 
 with refpeS to Image-worfhip^ Fox in his MartyroL vcL i. 
 pag. 1 1 5, and 117. cells us, ' Thac not only Pope Gre- 
 ' ^ory Che fecond and third, with Pope Zxcharias and Ceti-^ 
 
 * ftamine the firfl, wrought great Mafterics againft the 
 
 * Greek Emperors, PhilippkHs and Leo^ and others, for 
 
 * the maintaining of Images to be fet up in Churches: 
 But alfo that ' Pope Pad the firft, thundred out great 
 
 * Excommunications againft Conftantine the Emperor of 
 
 * ConfiamnopUj for abrogating and plucking down Ima- 
 
 * ges fet up in Temples *, And that Stephen the third, not 
 
 * only maintained the filthy Idolatry of Images in Chri' 
 ' ftian Temples, but alfo advanced their Veneration, 
 
 * commanding them moftethenically to beincenfed, &c. 
 This was about One hundred Tears before Ethelwolf 'i Do- 
 nation of Ty the s : And if the Church of Rome^ which was 
 then the Mother Church to England^ was fo Idolatrous 
 then^ what may we think (he was in Ethtlvoolfs lime, One 
 hundred Tears after f And what may we fuppofe that King 
 himlelf to be, who was {q great an Admirer of her, and 
 bamtiful Benefa^or to her T 
 
 He fays. Thirdly, * I inftance in Miracles and Inter- 
 
 * ceflion of Saints, laxmgBede with thefe Points of Tope-^ 
 
 * r>, and the Saxons of his time. To this, fays he, pag, 
 
 * 131. 1 reply. That if the belief of Miracles make Men 
 
 * Papijisj then T. E. and his Quakers are all Papifis'^ for 
 
 * they believe they are immediately taught, which is 
 
 * a ftranger and greater Miracle than any they can find 
 
 * in all Bede\ Hiftory. 
 
 What a miferable jhift is this ! Is this Reafoning^ or Rail* 
 ingf Would any Man, that bad either ^^^o^C^^/^ or ^W 
 Farts^ have fhewed fo much weaknefs to give a meer 
 Quibble inflead of 2i foUd Reply? In his 28. SeSi, pag. i6i» 
 He charges me (though very unjuflly, as in its place, c. 5. 
 §. 4. I fhall (hew with evading all ferious Anfwers by fomc 
 petty Cavil. Judge novwReader,if himfelf be not here guil- 
 ty of what he there charges upon me. Hath he not in this 
 very place evaded a ferious Anfwer by a petty Cavil? 
 But this is an ufual way with him, when he is hard fet^ 
 and willing to avoid the matter. I alledged, that long be* 
 fore Ethelwolf was born, Fopery had made her Encroach* 
 tnents in the Church, among many Inflances whereof that 
 I brought, one was the belief of firange kind of Miracles 
 
 f ^ wroughl 
 
( 216 ) 
 
 wrought by the Relich of popifh Saints; nor only fo, but 
 by the Wood of the Crofs^ and by Holy Water alfo : This 
 I proved by divers Quotations out of the Ecclefiallical Hi- 
 ftory of Bede the Saxon. To which, after his prophane Jefij 
 he replies, ' It is not unlikely but fome extraordinary Mi- 
 ' racles might be wrought at the firft Gonveriion of the 
 
 * Saxonsy the more eafily to convince that rugged Pco- 
 
 * pie; and the want of human Learning in that Age, 
 
 * might occafion the credulous Reception of more than 
 
 * was true ; and yet we mull not condemn them prefently 
 i for Papifts, ibid. 
 
 He that will take the pains to read Bede\ Hiflory (par- 
 ticularly his ttjird Book, 2, 11, 13, and 15. Chap, and 
 his fifth Book, 4. Chap.) may there find relation of Mi- 
 racles 2i% palpably popifh as any in the Roman Legend, And 
 if it fhould be granted, that Miracles were then wrought 
 to convince that People, it muft be fuppofed, that thofe 
 Miracles (if wrought by the Power of God) were wrought 
 to convince them of the true Faith and Worfhip of God, 
 and to eftablifti them in it. But the Miracles mentioned 
 in thofe Chapters of Bede'i Hiftory, to which I have a- 
 above referr'd, tend not to the fetting up of the true 
 Worfhip of God, but Vifalfe Worfhip, even the Worfhip 
 of the Church of Rome^ in the Veneration and Adoration of 
 Relich of popish Saints, of the Wood of the Crofs^ of holy 
 Water ^ and of vonfecrated Oyly which all Men know to be 
 a part (and a corrupt part too) of the prefent Romifh Re- 
 ligion. So that in thefe things the Saxon Church then 
 appears to have been in the fame Condition, in which the 
 Church of Rome both then was and now is. 
 
 He fays, They might he creddoHS and aft to be impofed up" 
 cn^ bm that was their Infirmity^ and amonnts bm to Saperfti" 
 tion^ not to Popery^ ibid. 
 
 Be4brgets his Brother's Definition of Popery^ Friendly 
 Confer, pag. 149. ' That it is fuch Doftrines and SVPER- 
 
 * STITIOVS Pradices, which by the corruption of time 
 
 * have prevailed in the Church of Romcj contrary to the 
 ^true, Antient, Catholick and Apoftolick Church. So 
 that if thofe things recorded by Bede^ to be wrought and 
 believed by, and among the Saxons ^ were fuch fuperfiitions 
 Pradices, as by the corruption of time have prevailed in 
 Ihe Church of RQme^ contrary to the True, Antient, Ca- 
 tholick, 
 
( 217 ) 
 
 tholickj and Apoftolick Church, then they are Popery^ and 
 they by and amongfl: whom they were fo wrought, believ- 
 ed and received were Fapifts j but no Froteflam^ I hope, 
 will deny the inftances above given to be ftperfiitious Fra* 
 Eiicesy to have prevailed in the Church of Rome through 
 the corrnption of time, and to be contrary to the True, 
 Antient, Catholick and Apoftolick Church. Befides, if 
 (as he fays) they might he creduloiis^ and apt to he impofed 
 ftponj and Co could be excufed (as he would have them) 
 upon the fcore of their Infirmity ; yet who, I pray, were 
 they that took the advantage of their credulity^ and did 
 impofe upon them ? Were they not their Triefts^ their 
 Clergy ? And what were they mean while ? If the People 
 were creddotts and eafie to be begmled and impojed upon ; 
 the Priefts were not lefs crafty and ready to impofe upoa 
 them and beguile them. But was not this the fame Trieft- 
 hood to which Tythes vi eve afterwards given ^ who thus 
 impofed upon the creddous People, and deluded them with 
 lying Wonders ? 
 
 As for Inter cejjton of Saints^ he fays, If 1 mean that the 
 Saxons prayed to the Saints m their Interceffors with God^ I 
 do egregioftjly wrong them^ pag. 132. 
 
 About what time the Opinion of the htercefton of Saints 
 was received in the Church, and how underltood, Per^ 
 kins in his Problem of the Church of Rome^ pag. 87. &c. 
 fhews, * Firft, (he fays) it was altogether unknown ia 
 
 * the Church of God for the fpace of Two hundred Years 
 
 * after Chrift. After which time Origen (he fays) and 
 
 * other Fathers difputed concerning the Saints Intercefli- 
 
 * on for us, but very diverfly and doubtfully, until the 
 ' Year 400. From that time it feems to have been a re- 
 cieved Opinion. For the Amients^he fays, pag. 89. teach that 
 the Saints do interceed^ not only openly by Prayings but inter" 
 pretatively alfo by meriting or defer ving *, of which he there 
 gives many inftances, and concludes, that amongShe An^ 
 tientSy the Saints are made immediate Intercejfors to God for 
 us. From this Belief of the Saints Intercejfion^ fprang the 
 Cuftom of Invocation or Praying to Saints^ which Perkins 
 Ihews was not in the Church for Three hundred and fifty Tears 
 4ifter Chrift^ but began to creep in about the Tear 380. andaf* 
 ter the Tear ^00. he fays, the Antients finned, and Were guil" 
 ty of Sacriledge in praying to the Saints j of which he gives 
 
 P 4 many 
 
( "8 ) 
 
 many Inflances, fome whereof fhew, that the Saints were 
 prayed to ^ Intercejfors to Gody yea, as Mediators between 
 God and M^^' For PaHlinus in natali. 5. in Fdicem^ f3ys» 
 
 * Exora, ut precibns plenis Meritifque redonet Debita 
 ' noftra tyis. i. e. Fray (O Faelix !) that he would forgive 
 us onr Sins j or the fake of thy j nil Prayers and Merits, And 
 FortunatHs in 'vita Martini^ lib, 2. thus intreats Martin^ 
 
 * Inter me & Dominum Mediator ad efto benigne. i. e. 
 JBe thoH (O Martin !) a favourable Mediator between the l>or^ 
 and me. Nor was this Opinion of the Jmercejfiort of the 
 Saincs, and confequently the cuflom of praying to the Saints 
 the private Belief and Pradiceonly of fome ^ but the fame 
 Terkiris, pag 94. tells qs, that ^ The Invocation which 
 ' in former Ages was of private Devouon^ began to be 
 
 * publick abouL the Year 500. For then, fays he, Tetrus 
 ' G»aph£H!i x^\^iid the invocation of Saints with the pub- 
 
 * lick Prayers of the Church, for he is faid to have in- 
 
 * vented this, that in every Prayer the Mother of God 
 
 * fhould be named, and her divine Name called upon ; 
 
 * And Gregory the great (adds he) about the Year 600. 
 
 * commanded that a Litany of Prayers to Saints fhould 
 
 * be fung publickly : This is fpoken of the Church ia 
 general. Now concerning the Church in this Nation, it 
 is to be noted, that this is that Gregory who fent over An' 
 [tin the Monk to plant the Romifh Religion here^ and whofe 
 Succeflbrs for many Years after had the ordering of the 
 E^'gltfh Church, and making Bifhops in it, and for the 
 fpace of One hundred and fifty Years, at leafl, the Arch- 
 Bifhops of Canterbury were Italians or other Foreigners of 
 the Pope's placing. How thofe Italian Prelates, that came 
 out ot the B.fom of the Roman Church, did form the 
 Church here, 1 leave to the Reader's judicious Confidera- 
 tion^ adding only, to fhew the Devotion of the Englifb 
 then to the Raman Church, that Bede in his EcclefHift. L 4. 
 r. 5. ^ fays, Ofvpi King of Northumberland was fo greatly 
 
 * in love with the Roman siud Apoflolical Inftiiution, that 
 
 * had lie recovered of an Infirmity whereof he died, he 
 
 * intended himfelf to have gone to Rome^ an|l there to 
 ^ have ended his days, as Jna^ Offa^ Kenredus^ with other 
 ' of the Kings of this Land afterward did in Monkijh Or- 
 ^ dtTSj diiFux reports. And that Stow in his Annals^ pag. 
 
 tS7« fpeaiing of the EngU^ Monks ynwillir^gnefs to 
 
 ^ ' "' changf 
 
(219) 
 
 change their manner of finging, which thy had recehtd 
 from Rome, fays, CAs they chac had been ever ufed not 
 only in this, but in other Service of the Church to follow 
 the manner of the Roman Church.] Now inafmuch as 
 the Church of Rome did pray to Saints as their Incercef- 
 fors with God, and the then Church of England wa$ ia 
 [nhjeElion to the Church of Rome^ and had the Roman 
 Church in fo great veneration and efleera : Since the fame 
 Vo^t Gregory that feni Jujiin to fee up the popij^) Worfhip 
 here, did appoint a Litany of Prayers to Saints to be fung 
 publickly ; and fince it appears by Bede and others, chaE 
 the Opinion and Belief of the Saims Inter ceffion was re- 
 ceived and held by the Saxons in thofe times, what rea- 
 ion can there be to doubt of the Saxons praying to Saints^ 
 as their Interceffors with God ? If they believed them /«- 
 tercejfors at all^ with whom could they think they incer- 
 ceeded but with God ? And if they believed ihey imerceed" 
 td with God for them^ what (hould hinder their praying to 
 them 06 their Interctjfors with God ? Efpecially feeing chat 
 Church from which they received both Doctrine and Dif- 
 cipline did {o. But a PafFage there is in Bede'% EccleC 
 Hift. 1. 5. c. 22. from which the Judgment of tht Saxon 
 Church, in the point of Interceflion and Mediation of 
 Saints, may pretty well be gufied at. ' Adamnan a Scotch 
 
 * Abbot coming Ambafladour into England^ about the 
 
 * Year 720. vificed the Abbey of Wire in the Biihoprick of 
 ^ Burham^ of which Ceolfride was then Abbot. The Scot 
 ' it feems had the wrong cut on his Crown, not after the 
 ' Mode of St. Peter^ but after the falhion of Simori Ma-* 
 
 * giis\ which the EngU^ Abbot obferved, and reproved 
 
 * the Scot for. He excufed it by the cuftom of his Coun- 
 ' try, procefting, that although he was Shorn like Simon 
 , MagHSy yet in bis Heart he abhorred Simon'^s Infidelity, 
 ' and defired to follow the Steps of the blefled Prince of 
 ' the Apoftles, St. Peter : To which the Englijh Abbot 
 ^ replied. Thai as he defired to follow St. Peterh Deeds 
 
 * or Admonitions, fo it became him to imitate his man- 
 
 * ner of Habit, whom he defired to have for his Advo- 
 
 * cate with God the Father £cjiHem apttd Deum patrem habe* 
 re Patronum quArii} or, as Fox renders it, Whom yon 
 defire to have a Mediator between God and you. On which 
 gprd l^Mediator'^ Fox in his Margin, fvol. i. pag, 114 J 
 
 gives 
 
( 220 ) 
 
 gives this Note, There is but one Mediator between God and 
 Man^ Chrift Jefm j plainly fliewing he underftood by this 
 Sentence, the Saxons made other Mediators between God 
 and Man, belides Chrift Jefus. But leaving this to the 
 Reader's Cenfure, I proceed. 
 
 The Prieft fays, pag. 152. ' There is but one thing 
 
 * more wherein the prefent Church of Rome is charged 
 ^ with Idolatry, and that is in adoring the Hoft or Body 
 ' of Chrill:, (whjch they fay is Tranfubftantiate) in the 
 
 * Sacrament i but neither in this (fays he) were the 
 
 * Saxons guilty, for they did not believe Tranfubftanti- 
 f atiop, no not in K. £^^<«r'sdays, Anno 975. 
 
 He faid before, pag. 123. the Dodrine of Tranfub- 
 flantiation was not received for a point of Faith till the 
 Lateran Conncil^ above One thoufand two hundred Years 
 after Chrift ^ No wonder then if it were not believed by 
 the Saxons, But that will not acquit the Engli[h Saxon 
 Church from the^charge of Idolatry, any more than it 
 will the Church of Romey which hath been by many fujfE- 
 cientiy convided of Idolatry, long before that Lateran Com' 
 €il in the Year 121 5. wherein Tranfubfiantiation was made 
 a point of Faith. And though the Prieft fays, This is 
 she only thing more wherein the prefent Church of Romt 
 is charged with Idolatry : yet doubtlefs he muft be very 
 forgetful, or much too favourable to the Roman Church. 
 For Rainoldsy de Romane Eccle/i<e Idolatria^ againft Bellar" 
 mine and others of the Po^ijh Patrons, doth charge the 
 Church of Rome down-right with Idolatry, not only in 
 the worfhipping of Saint s^ Images^ and t\\Q Sacrament of the 
 Eticharifl'^ but of Relicls a\[o^ and of Water^ Salt ^ OyL and 
 other Conjecrated Things^ which out of the Papifis OWn 
 Books he proves in the alTumption of his Argument, 1. 2. 
 c. I . And that the Saxons followed the Church of Rome in 
 thefe things, is too well known to be denied. 
 
 §.22. More InftanceSy he fays, he could give to prove 
 that the Saxons were like the Protectants in the mofi fmda- 
 mental Mutter s'j but that two {hall fuffice at prefent. I. Of 
 the Merit of good Works. 2. Of the Canon of Scripture. For 
 the firft: of thefe, he offers feme Sentences out of Bede 
 and j^lcuin.againfi the Merit ofWorhy which, if faithfully 
 given, may ferve to fliew the Judgment of thofe particu- 
 lar 
 
( 221 ) 
 
 lar Men, but are nofe fufficient to prove the general receiv- 
 ed Opimon of thofe timeSy much lefs of the after times 
 wherein Ethelwolf lived and gaveTythes-, ior Bede died 
 in the Year 735* (120. Years ^r/or^ Ethel wolf j Donati- 
 on) as the Epitome of his Eccleliaflicai Hiftory (hews; 
 and AlcHin was one of Bede\ Hearers, as BHrdegalenfts 
 teftifies. And if the private Judgment of fome particular 
 Men be made the meafure oi the general Opinion, he may 
 thereby excufe the Church of Rome all along from this 
 and other unfound Dodrines, fince there is fcarce a Cen- 
 tury wherein fome or other have not delivered themfelves 
 contrary to the common received Opinions of that Church. 
 Stephen Gardiner himfelf in Q,. Mary^'sdaySj difcovered to 
 Dr. Day^ Biihop of Winchefler^ how he underilood the 
 ©odrine oifree Jftftification by Chrifl, as out of the Book 
 of Martyrs is noted before, yet no Man, 1 think, will 
 queftion whether the Church was then Popifh or no, or 
 whether the Popi/h Dodrine of Merits was not then com- 
 monly and generally received. That very Pope Leo the 
 fourth, whom Ethelwolf went in fuch Devotion to fee, 
 towards whom he was fo liberal, and to whom he com- 
 mitted his Son Jlfred to be brought up, being ready to 
 joyn Battle with the Saracens at Ofiia^ thus prayed, O God 
 whofe right Hand lifted up St. Peter, that he wot not drowned 
 when he walked upon the IVaves, and delivered the Apoflle Paul 
 from the bottom of the Sea in his third Shipwracky hear us fa^ 
 voarahlyy and for the MERITS OF THEM BOTH, 
 granty &c. Plat, in vita. Leon, ^ lib. But what the common 
 Opinion was of the merit of good Works among the Sax' 
 onsy may be colleded from the Tenour of the Charters of 
 their religious Endowment Sy which as they often fprang 
 from fome ^<«^^rj'oi/* Wicked nefs, fo they ufually declare 
 the intendment of the Gift to be for the Salvation or Re 
 demption of the Donor's Souly or for the Remijfton of his 
 and his Anceftor's finsy or fome fuch-like Expreflion as 
 plainly imports an expiation ox fatisfaBoin for Sin. And 
 that this is not my Judgment only, but that they were 
 thus underftood by Men of note in former times, hear 
 the judicious Camdeny who in his Britanniay pag. 162, 
 fpeakiuR of a Monallery founded by Q. ^y£lfruhy faith, 
 * Q: 9/£lfrith built a Monaftery to EX P J ATE and make 
 t SATISFACTION for that moll foul and hainous Fadt, 
 
 ' where- 
 
( ^22 ) 
 
 '^ wherewith fo wickedly fhe had charged her Soul by 
 
 * making away K. Edward her Husband's Son \ as alfo to 
 
 * waffe autthe Murthering of her former Husbaad EtheU 
 
 * wold^ &c. And elfewhere (pag. 254.) fpeaking of ^aw- 
 hreibury in Tftltjhirey he laith, ' In that place afterward 
 
 * Alfritha K. f^J^^^r's Wife, by Repentance and fome good 
 ' Deed to EXPIATE and make SATISFACTION for 
 ' Murthering of K. Edward her Son in Law, built a ftate- 
 
 * ly Nunnery, &c. And Fax in his Adts of the Church, 
 Vol. I. pag. 120 enumerating the many Religious Houfes 
 that were built in England in the lixth, feventh and eighth 
 Centuries, hath thefe words thereupon, ' Thus ye fee 
 
 * what Monafleries, and in what time begun to be found- 
 ' ed by the Saxon Kings, newly converted to tht Clorifli" 
 ^ an Faith, within the fpace of Two hundred Years; 
 ^ who, as they Teemed then to have a certain Zeal and 
 
 * Devotion to God ward, according to the leading and 
 
 * teaching that then was : So it feemeth again to me two 
 
 * things to be wifhed in thefe forefaid Kings \ firll, thaK 
 
 * they which begun to ered thefe Monafteries -— ^ had 
 
 * forefeen the danger, &c. Secondly, that unto this, 
 
 * their Zeal and Devotion nad been joyned like Know- 
 
 * ledge and Dodrine in ChrijFs Gofpel, efpecially in the 
 
 * Article of our free Juftification by the Faith of Jefus 
 
 * Chrifl:; becaufe of the LACK whereof, as well the 
 
 * Builders and Founders thereof, as they that were pro- 
 
 * feffed In the fame, feem both to have run the WROl^JG 
 
 * way, and to have been DECEIVED. For albeit in 
 
 * them there was a Devotion and Zeal of Mind ; yet 
 
 * the end and caufe of their Deeds and Buildings cannofe 
 
 * beexcufed, being contrary to the Rule of Chriil's Go- 
 
 * Jpel, forfo much as they did theie things, feeking there- 
 « by MERITS with God, and for REMEDY of their 
 
 * Souls, and REMISSION of their Sins, as may appear 
 
 * teftified in their own Records, &c. Thus he. Whence 
 its plain that he (who undertook to write an Hiftory of 
 the Ads and Monuments of the Church, and may well be 
 thought to underftand fomething of thofe times as well 
 as this Prieft) concluded, that although the Saxons in 
 «;hofe days (whom the Prieft fo often calls his pious An- 
 
 jceftors, and famons Tythe-givers) were zealous according 
 Bo ihe teaching that then woi^ yet they had nol iht trm 
 
 hnow^ 
 
( 223 > 
 
 InovpUdge and Doctrine of Chrifl's Gofpel, efpecially in 
 the point of Juftification^ but for lack thereof were dcceiv 
 edy and ran the wrong way, feeking remedy of their Sculs^ 
 and remijfion of their 5/«/, by the merits of their Works, 
 And for proof that they fo did. Fox there fets down the 
 very fame Charter of Ethelbaldy which this Prieft brings 
 to prove the Right of Tythes, pag. 94. which Charter 
 being by Fox fee down, in the place tore- cited, toward 
 the end of his fecond Book, he there adds as foUoweth, 
 
 * By the Contents hereof, fays he, may well be under- 
 
 * flood (as where he faith. Pro amore cdeftis partite, pro 
 
 * remedio anima^ pro liberatione amma^ et abfelutione delith- 
 
 * rum^ &c. i. e. For the love of the heavenly Country, 
 
 * for the remedy of my Soul, for the delivering of my 
 
 * Soul, and for the pardon of my Sins, &c.) how greac 
 
 * the IGNORANCE and BLINDNESS of thefe Men, 
 
 * waSi who lacking no Zeal, only LACKED KNOW- 
 
 * LEDGE to rule it withal : feeking their Salvation 
 
 * NOT BY CHRIST ONLY, but by their OWN DE- 
 
 * SERVINGS and MERITORIOUS Deeds. And the 
 fame Fox but two Pages further, entring upon the Reiga 
 of King Ethelwolf, fays, ^ This Ethelmlf (as being him- 
 
 * felf once muzzled in that order) was always good and 
 
 * devout to holy Church and religious Orders, infomucli 
 
 * that he gave to them the Tythe of all his Goods and 
 
 * Lands in Weft- Saxony^ with liberty and freedom from 
 ' all Servage and civil Charge. Whereof this Charter 
 ' Inftrument beareth Teftimony after this tenor proceed- 
 
 * ing, much like to the Donation of Ethelbald above- men- 
 ' tioned. Then reciting the Charter (even that very 
 Charter fo hugg'd, and fo extoll'd by thefe Priefts) and 
 therein finding thefe words [^Pro remijjione animarum et 
 peccatomm noflrHm^ I e. For the deliverance of our Souls, 
 and the remiflionof our Sins3 he adds, ' Hereby it may 
 
 * appear, how and when th^ Churches of England began 
 ' firft to be indued with Temporalities and Lands j alfo 
 ' with Priviledges and Exemptions enlarged : Moreover 
 J (and that which fpecialjy is to be confidered and LA- 
 MENTED) what PERNICIOUS Dodrine was this, 
 
 ' wherewith they were led, thus to fet REMISSION 
 
 * of theix SINS, and REMEDY of their Souls, in this 
 I Donalion and fuch other Deeds of their Donation^ 
 
 CON- 
 
( 224 ) 
 
 * CONTRARY to the Information of God's Word, and 
 
 * no fmall derogation to the Crofs of Chrifl:. Thus far 
 Fex'^ which I have fes down the more largely, that the 
 Reader may fee what his Judgment was of the Religion 
 of thofe times, wherein this Donation of Tythes was 
 made ^ and may himfelf be the better able to judge, whe- 
 ther I here wronged the People and Clergy of thofe times 
 in calling them Papifis, 
 
 The Prieft's next and lafl inflance ol the Saxons not 
 being Papifis^ is their keeping the Canon of Scripture entire^ 
 and rejeEiing the Apocrypha /row being of divine Authority* 
 
 But this {if they did fo) will not clear them from be- 
 ing Papifis^ fince many of the Church of Rome^ yea, 
 fome of the Cardinals have done the like, as Perkins ftiews, 
 Proh, pag. 48. And if it be true that he himfelf fays, 
 pag. 123. that the putting the Apocrypha into the Canon of 
 Scripture^ was never decreed till the Council «>/Tren6, about a 
 Hundred and Ten Years ago^ then before that time the Church 
 of Rome it felf had not the Jpochrypha in the Canon of 
 Scripture, any more than the Saxo»s had ^ and yet I think 
 he will not fay the Church of Rome was not popifh or Ido- 
 latrous before the Council of Trent. 
 
 In the clofe of this Sefftion, he fays, Finally^ if T. E. 
 have either fhame or grace ^ let him repent of this foul Slander^ 
 which he hath asfalfly^ as malicioufly cafi upon our Fore- fathers 
 the piom Saxons — But ifT* E. wiH not recant j 1 jhall leave 
 it to the Reader to judge of his ignorance and impudence.^ 
 pag. 135. 
 
 Becaufe there is nothing in this hutScurrillity^ and RaiU 
 ing inftead of Reafon, I intend no Reply to it : but will 
 take notice of another PaiTage or two in the fame page. 
 
 §. 23. Firft he fays, The Saxons TP^r^ more Orthodox in 
 SOME points than Rome it felf then was. 
 
 A goodly Commendation! Was Rome it felf fo Ortho- 
 dox then in his account, that he makes her the fiandard 
 to meafure oihers by ? Rome it felf no doubt was fome- 
 wbat lefs corrupt then than in after Ages (he grew to be; 
 yet he^that with an impartial Eye (hall view tbeftate of 
 the Romifij Church in thofe time, will find her far enough 
 from being Orthodox. And if the Saxon Church was not in 
 ALL Points fo depraved as Rome it felf thea was, yet was 
 
( 225 ) 
 
 fte alfb too unfomd in Faith to be reputed Orthodox. But 
 Secondly, the Saxons^ fays he, differed jrom the prcfent Fa- 
 pilts in all the moft material Articles of Faithy being nearer it» 
 Opinion to the Proteflant Church of England. 
 
 It feems then they were not one with the Froteflanf 
 Church of England^ but only nearer in Opinion to ic, tbaOi 
 to the prefent Papifls. Yet in pag. 102. he fays, The 
 Clergy of that Age were God^s onlypMick Minifiers *, and pag» 
 112. he makes no doubt but they were the right Minifiers of 
 God: Which if they were, how comes it that they were 
 not pofitively one with the Proteftant Church of England^ 
 but only nearer to it, than to the prefent Pafifis / Bin 
 wherein were they nearer to the Trotefiam Church of Eng- 
 land than to the prefent Tapifls ? Not, I hope in their 
 fhaven Crowns^ not in their Monkijh Ltfe^ not in their 
 Vows ofContinency^ not in their going on Pilgrimages^ noE 
 in their Belief of Purgatory^ no5 in their praying for tha 
 Beadj not in their fMrificing for the Deady not in the 
 worfhipping of Relieksj not in the praying to Saint s^ not ia 
 faying Mafs^ not in Latin Service^ not m auricula^ Confeffion^ 
 not in extream VnEhion^ not in the nfe of Chrifm^ not ia 
 the ufe of holy Water to drive away Devils^ or of confecrated 
 Oyl to aMay Storms and Tempefts. In thefe, I trow, and 
 fuch like things as thefe, they were nearer the prefenE 
 Fapifts than the Proteftant Church of England, But third- 
 ly, ' He charges me with ignorance and impudence, m 
 
 * fuppofing the Church fo much corrupted wieh Poperj^ 
 
 * then, that their very Donations were not fit to ftand 
 J good or be enjoyed, no not by a Proteftant Miniftry. 
 
 Nofure, not by ^Proteftant Miniftry of all other: For 
 fince it is denominated Proteftant from protefting againji 
 Popery^ what can be more unfuitable to h^ than to fubfiffe 
 by a Donation which was made to uphold that which it 
 hath protefted againfi^ By a Proteftant Miniftry he means^ 
 no doubt, a true Gofpel Miniftry, the nature and qualifi- 
 cations whereof if he rightly underftood, he would noE 
 think that fuch a Miniftry hath a greater liberty to enjoy 
 SLpopifh Donation than another, but alefs : in as much as 
 fuch a Miniftry ought more efpecially to abftain, not only 
 from known and certain Evil, but even from every appear-- 
 ance of Evil '^ and not only to avoid the Works of the 
 F^eJb, but to hate even ths Garment fpoued with the Flefhc 
 
( 226 ) 
 
 SO that I account the Church fo corrupted itith Popery 
 then, chaE their Donations of Tythes are not fit to be 
 enjoyed by any Miniftry afi alJ, much kfs by a Frotefidnt 
 Miniftry. 
 
 That the Church then was indeed greatly corrupted 
 with Fofery^ is evident by the many inftances given of 
 Dodrines and Pradices received and held therein, which 
 beyond all contradidion, have through the corruption of 
 time prevailed in the Church of Rome, contrary to the True^ 
 jintient^ Catholick and j4pofiolick Church: NOr is it likely 
 IE Ihould be otherwife, if we confider the Gonftitution of 
 the Church here in thofe times. For when jiuflin the 
 Monk came hither from Rome^ and found fome reception 
 here, he fent to the Pope for Advice and Dircdion how 
 to form, fettle and govern that Church which he then 
 was gathering ^ and from the Pope he received Inftrudion 
 in all Particulars he defired to be informed in. From the 
 Tope he received the Power he here exercifed, and the Pall 
 of his Arch'Bilhoprick, as his Succeflbrs generally did. 
 And the Religion and Worfliip which he brought with 
 him from Rome^ grew by degrees to be the general Religi- 
 on and Worfhip of the Nation : For although the Profef- 
 lion of Chriftianity had been in this Ifland long before j^h^ 
 ftin came hither, yet had it been much deprefi by Heathe- 
 nifm^ and the remains of it (hortly after exiinguijhed by 
 ^njfin and his Sedators. j4ufiin being dead, his Succeflbrs 
 for a long time after were fuch, as the fucceedihg Popes 
 
 fent over hither, Fox reckons them in 
 £ede, 1. 3. c. 2p. this order, Lauremiuij Mellitus^ Juftm^ 
 
 Honorim^ Deufdedit\ which lad being 
 dead, Ofwi and Egbert^ Kings of Northumberlaad and Can* 
 terbury^ fent Wighard a Presbyter to Rome^ (with great 
 Gifts and Prefents of Silver and Golden VelTels to Pope 
 Vitalianm) to be by him ordained Arch-Bifliop \ but he 
 delivering his Meflage and Prefents to the Pope died at 
 Rome before he could be confecrated^ whereupon the 
 Pope writes a Letter to King 0/w/, commending his Zeal 
 and care, and fends him fome Relicks of Che ApoflleSjPtf- 
 ter and Paul^ and of other Saints (as he calls them) and 
 to the (iueen his Wife the Pope fent a Crofs with a Golden 
 Nail in it: Withal he acquaints the King, that fo foon 
 9S he could fiiid a Man fit for the place, he would not 
 
 fail 
 
( 2^7 ) 
 fail to fend him an Arch-Billiop. Accordingly, after 
 much inquiry Theodorus ad length was found ^ 
 but he being born at Tharfns of CUicia^ had 1. 4. c. i. 
 his Crown dipt after the Eaflern manner^ in imi- 
 tation (as they pretended) of St. Panl^ ^0 that he was 
 fain to wait four Months till his Hair was grown, that he 
 might have the right Cut as they accounted it : That doae 
 he was ordained Arch-Bifhop of Canterbury by Pope Hta- 
 liamsj and foori after he fct forward for England^ accom- 
 panied with Adrian and other Monks, about the Year 
 ^58. This is that Theodorus who Fox fays was fent into 
 England by the Pope, and with him divers other Monks of 
 Jtaly to fet tip herein England Latin Service^ Aiaffes^ Cere" 
 monies^ Litanies^ with fuch other Romiflj Ware^ &c. Vol. i. 
 pag. 1 1 2. And Adrian^ the chief of thofe Monks, was 
 fent (as Bede obferves) not only to aflift Theodore^ but to 
 have an Eye alfo over him, that he introduced nothing 
 after the (?r*f^ manner intb the Church contrary to the Truth 
 oj the Faith received then from Rome, Not long after, in 
 the time of this Theodore^ came over from 
 Rome^ John the Arch- Chanter or Chief Singer^ 1. 4. c. i8i 
 fent hither by Pope Agatho^ to teach them 
 how to ling here after the fame manner as they fang in 
 St. Feter^ (as they called it) at Rome : Befides which, he 
 had particular Inftrudions from the Pope, to inform him- 
 felf fully of the Faith of the Englifi} Church, and at his 
 return to Rome to give the Pope an account thereof. 
 Great care we fee was taken by the Popes to frame the 
 Church of England by the Romijh Square \ and 
 that the EngUflo Saxons did imitate the L 5. c. 22* 
 Church of Rome^ Bede fhews, when he fays 
 that ' Natian King of the FiEhs having a defire to re- 
 
 * form the Church in his own Dominion, that he might 
 
 * do it the more eafily and with greater Authority, 
 ' fought the adiftance of the EngUfh Nation, who he 
 ' knew long before had ordered their Religion according 
 
 * to the Example of the Holy and Apoftolick Church of 
 
 * Rome : Which was then had in fo great veneration with 
 the Saxons^ that many of the Ring§ of this (Hand laid 
 down their Scepters, and went in Devotion to Rome^ de- 
 firing to fojoHrn a while as Filgrims on Earthy as near the holy 
 places oi they cauld^ that they might afterward be received thi 
 
 Q, morg 
 
( 228 > 
 
 more familiarly in Heaven hy the Saints: An3 
 /. 5. c. 7. this fays Bede was fo cafiomary in thofe times ^ 
 
 that many of the Englifll Nation^ both Noble and 
 Ignoble y Laity and Clergy^ Men and Women feemed to firivc 
 who jhonld get thither firft. And thai it was thus in Ethe^ 
 wolf's time, may appear by his going in great Devotion (as 
 Speed faith) to Rome^ and there committing his youngefl 
 Son Alfrid to the Pofes bringing up (as Fox Records) toge- 
 ther with his liberal Prefents made to that Church. Thus 
 fee'ft thou Reader how devoutt the Saxous were to the 
 Church of Rome, and how folicitous and careful thafi 
 their own Church might follow its example. Ifthouwouldft 
 further know what the Church of Rome then was, which 
 was cried up for the Mother Chnrch, fhe was full of SHper-* 
 ffiriony Idolatry^ Blafphemy^ Sht was a worfhipper of Images^ 
 of Saints^ and of Relicks ; {he prayed to Saints as Interceffors 
 and Mediators between God and Man ; She prayed andfa" 
 crificedfor the Dead \ She held the Dodrines of Purgatory^ 
 Indulgences^ Merits^ Ear-Confeffion^ Pilgrimages^ and fingU 
 Life ofPriefls, To mention all her Corruptions and Su- 
 perflitions were to write a Volume. Then for the Popes 
 themfelves, fit Heads enough they were for fuch a Body. 
 Their own Writers are not able to cover the infamy of 
 their Lives. The Author of FafcicttL Temp, confefTes 
 Confiantine the fecond (whom he makes to have fate. 
 Anno 754.) to have been the fifth infamom Pope, and 
 Pope Joan he reckons for the fixth, who, fo far as I can 
 gather, poflefl the RomandvdSx within a Year or two af- 
 ter Ethelwolf was there, to the irreparable imfamy of the 
 Roman Church. And for the other Popes who fate in the 
 latter end of that Century in which Pope Joanfell^ and ia 
 the beginning of the next, nothing but what is fcanda- 
 hm can be faid of them, as Eafcic. Temp, confefTes. If 
 we feek a Charader of thofe times, not only Fox in his 
 Ads of the Church, dividing the time from Chrift's In- 
 carnation into divers Periods or Ages, reckons the third 
 Peffod of time from about 600. to about the Year 900. 
 (which comprehends mofl of the Saxons Reign, and the 
 carlielt Tythe Donatioas) the declining time of the Church 
 and of trus Religion, But even Platina in vita Stepk 3. 
 (well nigh a hundred Years before Ethelmlfs Donation) 
 laments the Wickednefs of J&e times^^ in thefe words, 
 
 ' Mum 
 
( 229 ) 
 
 * Nunc ViYo adeo refrixit fietas et religio non^ d'tco undis 
 
 * pedlhHs^ &c. i. e. BuE now Devotion and Religion is 
 
 * grown fo cold, that Men can fcarce find in their Hearts 
 
 * to pray, I do not fay bare-Footed, but even with their 
 
 * Hofe and Soes on. They do not now weep as they go, 
 
 * or while they are Sacrificing, as did the holy Fathers 
 
 * of Old, but they Laugh, and that impudently. I fpeak 
 
 * even of thofe of the Purple Robe ^ they do not iing 
 
 * the Hymns, for that they account Servile •, but they 
 ' entertain one another with Jefls and Stories to ftir up 
 
 * Laughter. In a word, the more prone any one is to 
 
 * Jelling and Wantonnefs, the greater praife he hath ia 
 
 * fuch corrupt manners. This Clergy of ours dreads and 
 
 * fhuns the Company of fevere and grave Men. Why 
 ' fo ? Becaufe they had rather live ia ib great Licenti- 
 
 * Gufnefs, than be fubjed to one that counfels or go- 
 
 * verns well ; and by that means the ChriflUn Religion 
 
 * grows every day worfe and worfe. Thus Platina of 
 the times before Ethelwolf, And of the times a little 
 after, another po^i[h Writer cries out, Hett^ heu^ heUy Do" 
 mine Dem^ &c. i. e. *• Alas, alas, alas! O Lord God, how 
 
 * is the Gold darkned, how is the bed Colour changed ! 
 
 * What Scandals do we read to have happened about 
 
 * thefe times even in the holy Apoflolick feat! — What 
 ' Contentions, Emulations, Seds, Envyings, Ambitt- 
 
 * ons, Intrulions, Perfecutions! O worft of times! in 
 ' which Kolinefs fails, and Truth is cut off from the 
 
 * Sons of Men, Fafcic. Temp, ad anno 884. 
 
 Thus hail thou Reader, a Ihort view of thofe times,- 
 thofe Popes, thofe Churches : by which thou may'fl per- 
 ceive both the Degeneration and Apoftacy of the Roman 
 Church from the Simplicity and Turtty of the Gofpel ^ as 
 alfo the dependance of the Saxon Church upon the Church 
 of Romcy its continual Recourfe and Application to her^ 
 as to its Mother and Narfe^ from whofe Breafts it fucked 
 that corrupt Milk^ which filled it with putreja^ion and ««- 
 foundnsfs ever after. And very little (if any whit at all) 
 did the Saxcn Church differ from the Church of Rome^ buE 
 as Superftitions and Idolatries encreafed in the Church of 
 Rome^ fo they were brought over hither and received 
 here, as fall as the diflance of place v^^ould well permit, 
 jodge then whether the Saxon Church be no'c rightly call- 
 
 Q 2 ed 
 
( 230 ) 
 
 tdpopi[h^ whether Eihelwolf^ who gave Tythes was not ^ 
 Papifl, wheiher the Clergy to which he gave them was 
 noE popifh, whether the Religion which Tythes were giv- 
 en to uphold was not the foft^h Religion, and whether id 
 becomes a Froteftant Miniftry, who arc fo denominated 
 from frote fling again ft Popery, to receive and txaEh that 
 f^aintenance which was given by a popifh Prince to po- 
 pifll Priefts to uphold Popery. 
 
 §. 24. In his next Seftion, the Priefl: urges, that Tythes 
 ivere not Popifh, becanfe received by fome of the Martyr s^ 
 pag. 135. 
 
 This being offered by the former Priefl^ I had anfwer- 
 ed in my former Book, and therein fhewed by plain de- 
 mcnfiration the tm\)mt^s of that Argument, which be- 
 caufe this Prieft has hut fuperficiaUy touch'd, and not en- 
 deavoured by any found Rerfon to refidte^ I think meet to 
 tranfcribe hither. ^ That thefe were godly Men^ and 
 
 * worthy Martyrs^ I grant : Yet will not their receiving 
 
 * Tythes make them either lawful^ or Ufs popifh in the In- 
 
 * ititution. The Lot ofthofe good 1\1 en fell in thtverf 
 
 * 5/?n>7^, and dawning (as it were) of the Day of Refor- 
 
 * mation, and it was their Happinefs and Honour that 
 
 * they were faithful (even to the Death) to thofe Dif- 
 
 * coveries of Truth which they received. But all Truths 
 
 * were not dtfcovered at once^ nor all Vmrnths neither, Buf 
 ' it being a day of the Infancy of Reformation, it pleafed 
 
 * God, in his infinite Wifdom and Tender r^ef 5^ to rend the 
 
 * Vail as it were by little and little^ and fo difcover things 
 
 * gradually unto them, that they might go cheerfully on in 
 ' their Teftimony, and not come under thofc Difcourage* 
 ' memsy which the fight of Jo many Difficulties at once, 
 
 * might not improbably have brought upon them. Nor 
 
 * will this fecm ftrange to any who fhajl ferioufly confi- 
 
 * der, that many of the blefTed Martyrs, who fealed their 
 
 * Teftimony with their Blood, and entred cheerfully the 
 
 * fiery Chariot., had not fo full and clear a light of j^H 
 
 * the Siiperftitions and Abominations^ which in the dark 
 
 < Night of Ignorance had crept into the Chmch oi Rome^ 
 
 < as it hach pleafed God ftnce to give. Yet they being 
 
 * faithful to the Lord in what they did fee, were accepted 
 
 * by him^ and through Death received a Crown of Life, 
 
 t Nei* 
 
( 2?I ) 
 
 * Neither is h a fair ip^>' of Reafoning, becaufe fome 
 who lived but aC the Day-break (as it were) of Refor- 
 mation, did not, at that early Hciir^ difcover the whoU 
 Myftery of Iniquity (although they did a^r^^r part) or 
 bore Teftimony againfl: every particular Evil in the 
 Church of Rome (although they did againfl a great ma- 
 ny) thence to argue, that the Myftery of Iniquity ex- 
 tended no further than was dlfcovered unto them, or 
 that there was no other Evil in the Church of Kome^ btic 
 whattliey teftified againft, efpecially fmce we find di- 
 vers things which thjey took little or no notice of, 
 plainly condemned, and 'zealoully witnefled againft by 
 others, who are acknowledged to have been in their 
 refpedive times, Confejfors of, and true Whneffes for 
 God againft the Corrnpttons and Sft^rfihions of the Ro" 
 mifh Church, as well as they j fo that what ray Oppo- 
 nent faith in another cafe (pag. 114.) Ton mnfi not In* 
 terpret one Script me to overthrow other plain Scriptures : The 
 fame fay I in this. He ought not to inftance thefe Men's 
 receiving Tythes to overthrow or contradid: the plaia 
 Teftimonies of other faithful Servants of God, who 
 denied them, but rather as in the beginning of Chrifti" 
 anityj the Apoftles did not all alike op- 
 pofe the Ceremonies of the Law, but ASis \6. 3. 
 Circumcilion and other Rites were born & 18. 18. & 
 with, and for fome time ufed by feme of 21. i6, 
 them, which in procefs of time were ut- 
 terly rejected and denied by all, which yet neither 
 ought to have been, nor was made ufe of by the reft 
 of the Apoftles or Churches, as an Argument for the 
 lawfulnefs and continuation of Circumcifion, or any 
 other of the Jewish Rites : So in the Teftimonies of 
 thpfe holy Martyrs and ConfelTors of Jefus, what was 
 denied by fome, and witnefled againft as popifhj fuperftim 
 tiotu and wickedy ought not to be received, and defend- 
 ed now as not popifh or Superftitlous (at leaft by fuch as 
 pretend to reverence their Teftimonies) becaufe the 
 ftme things were not denied by all ; for God is not li- 
 milable tommhers of Witnefles, but he raifed up one to 
 bear Teftimony againft one Corruption, another againft 
 another Superftition ; fome ftormed one part of Babylon, 
 ^ fome another^ but did not make their Batteries all tn om 
 
 0.3 'P^^^^' 
 
( 2^2 ) 
 
 ' place. Now that Tythes were denied by many of thofe 
 
 * godly Men, Fox's Manyrology aflures us in the inftances 
 
 * of Thorp, Swinderhy^ Brnte^ Wickliffey^Q. feme of whom 
 
 * complained of the abufe of Tythes, in that they were 
 
 * then px^d and fettled as a Payment, when as but a little 
 
 * before they were a voluntary free Gift, difpofable at the 
 
 * wi//and pleafare of the Giver : Others utterly denying and 
 
 * rejeding them, as no way lawful at all. Nay, Thorp 
 ^ faith exprefly. That thofe Friefts that do take Tythes deny 
 
 * Chnfi to be come in the Fujh, urging it as the Opinion of 
 
 * one of the Dodors, and as he thinks of Jerome. And 
 
 * Brute faith, not only that no Man is bonnd to pay Tythes 
 
 * in Gofpel'times, but that it is manifefl and plain, that nei- 
 
 * ther by the Law of Mofes nor by Chrift^s Law, Chriftian 
 ^ People are bound to pay Tythes^ but by the Traditions of Men, 
 ^ Hence what Opinion thefe^W Men had of Tythes, the 
 
 * Reader may judge. But for any now to urge, in de« 
 
 * fence and juflification of Tyches, that Cranmer^ Hooper^ 
 
 * Ridley^ and other goldy Martyrs received them, what 
 
 * elfe is this, but to oppofe the Martyrs one to another, 
 
 * and render them as clafhing and warring amongft them- 
 
 * felves, yea, and to endeavour, by the Pradices of fome, 
 ^ to invalidate and make the Teftimony of others utterly 
 
 * void^ and of no force, which I am fure does ill become 
 
 * any Proteftani to do \ and indeed I think none, that 
 
 * were truly fuch, would ever have attempted it. This 
 was ray Anfwer to the former Priefl, which this latter 
 Prieft hath not by any folid Arguments attempted to 
 refute, but catching here and there at a word, he quib" 
 hies on it to fhev7 his Wit and Levity, and befides that 
 doth little elfe but revile me, and vilify them whofe Te- 
 ftimonles I ufed againft Tythes. Firft he carps at thofe 
 words {jill Truths were not difcovered at once^ nor aU Vn^ 
 truths neither, 2 Upon this he fays, pag. 135. ' It is 
 ' ftrange the Quaker fhould fay fo, who before declared 
 
 * himfelf to be for immediate teaching, and who, pag. 
 
 * 22p. affirms, The very Babes in Chrift by the Anoint- 
 ^ ing knew all things. In the firft part of this Quirk he 
 only -plays upon the word l^lmmediate"} which (being 
 oppofed to mediate teaching, as mediate fignifies means and 
 helps) is underflood of the inward Teaching, or fpeaking 
 pf She iioly Spirit in fhe Hem of Marfy without fhe help 
 
 or 
 
( 2?3 ) 
 
 or ^fe of outward means : and fo is called immediate in re- 
 fped of manner^ noi in refpedt of time. But he, that he 
 might feem to fay fomething, applies the word Hlmmedi- 
 ate2 to time^ making immedtate Teaching to found, not a 
 Teaching withaat Means and outward Htlps, but a Teach- 
 ing in an infianf^ or on a fudden. But if he pleafe co be 
 iefs diJingtnHoHs^ and remove his own miflake^ he will find 
 no incongruity in my words. In the other part, he does 
 not fo much Carp at me, as Cavil at the Apoftle John.^ 
 whofe the words are, i John i. i8, 20. But if in the 
 fore-going Paflage he dealt not fairly with me^ in the fol- 
 lowing he deals moft fouHy : For he affirms that I fay, pag. 
 230. If the Saints have not the Sprit in them^ fo as to teach 
 them all things^ they have not the Spirit at all, Thefe are not 
 my words (as he that will confuh the place, may fee) 
 but an inference of his own, made on purpofe to abufe 
 me. And the other Priefl (in his Vindication^ pag. 284.) 
 though he nibbles at the fame Paflage, yet neither doth 
 he quote ic as this Prieft doth, nor charge me with af- 
 firming, that. If the Saints have not the Spirit in them, 
 io as to teacli them all things, they have not the Spirit 
 at all: But fays. The Quaker /f^w/ to fancy^ that if the 
 Spirit he not with Believers in this immediate manner^ he 
 is not with them at all, Obferve now Reader , how I 
 am dealt with between thefe two Priefls. One of them 
 fays politively, that / agirm : The other fays, The Qua- 
 ker feems to fancy. The one fays I affirm, // ths Saints have 
 not the Spirit in themy fo Oi to teach them all things^ they have 
 not the Spirit at all. The other fays, The Quaker feems 
 to fancy, that if the Spirit he not with Believers tn this imme-- 
 Mate manner y he is not with them at all. And yet thefe 
 Priefts, both one and t'other pretend to repeat the felf^ 
 fame Sentence out of my Book, and that in my own words. 
 is this fair dealing? Yet ispon this and his foimer miltakc 
 of ^Vwwtf^^'^ftf Teaching, he fays, pag. 137. Jli that T.E. 
 allows for Saints J got their Knowledge in an inflanty as the j4pQ* 
 files did. 
 
 This alfo I rejei^: for a flanden Nor do I believe that 
 the j^poflles got their Knowledge, as he fays, in an infant* 
 But that they grew in Grace, and (by the Grace) in the 
 Knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jefm Chrifl, as the Apo- 
 ftle Feter exhorted the Saints, 2 Pet, 3, 18. aad as Faul 
 
 0.4 ' M 
 
( 2J4 ) 
 
 did the Colojfians^ chap. i. ver. lo. But from thefe fdfe 
 Premifes he d* dws this lame Ccnclufion, * Either there- 
 
 * fore he muft deny thefe holy Men were taught imme- 
 ^ d lately (and then by his Rule they could have no 
 
 * Knowledge in divine things) or dfe he muft confefs 
 
 * Truths t^ere not revealed to them by degrees. 
 
 But there is no neceflity for this. For 1 will fuppofe 
 thofe holy Mea were taught immediately in refped of the 
 manner of Teaching., not in refped of time. They might 
 be taug.t by the Spirit of God in their own Hearts^ with- 
 cm the htlp of outward Means^ and yet thofe Truths which 
 they were thus taught might be revealed to them by di* 
 grea, Tht Wind that bloweth tri^tfr^ it lifleth, bloweth 
 aifo when it lifteth : and he that turns the Key of David^ 
 opens and lllutb at hin own pleafure, 
 
 Upoij my faying, Thofe good Men and godly Martyrs liv-' 
 ed at ckft very dawning of the D^y of Reformation ^ He thuS 
 fports nir.-fejf Very fleafant ! fays he, Let me then a^k 
 I e QiiaKer what Howr of the Morning it woa when his other 
 M**rtyrs fas he falfly calls them) Thorp, Swinderby^ 
 Bruce and Wickliffe lived ? If it was hut Day-break in Cran- 
 jmer'i ttme^ it was dark at mid-night in WicklifF'^ ; if Cran* 
 nier and Bradford had but little Lights Wickcliffe and 
 Thorp had none at all j and therefore mlefs they had Cat's 
 f yes they f odd not fee then^ pag. 138. 
 
 Surely hhfloming hnmour was up when he writ this, and 
 he ifidi% refolved tp indulge his Genius, whomfoever ha 
 fpatter'oi. But letting his unhandfome Expreffion pafs, 
 vvrijich is obvious enough to every Reader that has not 
 Cats Eyes^ I reply to his Queftion, that what ever Hour 
 Thorpe Swinderby^ Brute and Wickliffe lived in, or how dark 
 foever it then was, they had light enough given them to 
 4ifcover that Tythes were but an human Infiitution^ and 
 i>ught not to be paid. And though they lived before 
 Cranmer^ in times of greater Darknefsj and did not fee fa 
 many of the Corruptions of she Church of Rome as Cran- 
 t»ty and his AfFociates did, yet they fa w Tome, and what 
 they did fee w^s 4^ really a Corruption, and Iheir Tefti- 
 inonies againll it ought ^ well to be received, as the Te- 
 jftimbnies of thofe other Martyrs, againft other Corrup- 
 ?:ions afterwards. Nor ought thofe earlier Teftimonie§ 
 tp te weaki^ed (much lefs rejeded) by ^he example pr 
 
( 235 ) 
 
 prafticcof //irr Martyrs, fince both the former and Ut$r 
 are, by the fame Hlftorian^ recorded to be good and godl^ 
 Men, ftout Champions and valiant Soldiers tor the Truth 
 of Jefus Chrill, all bearing Teftimony againft the Cor^ 
 ruptions and Superllitions of the Church of Rorjtey though 
 not all againft the felffame particular Corruption. For 
 Wichrffe inveighed againft the Fride^ Fomp^ Luxury and 
 temporal Foffejfions of the Clergy j Br me denied aU Swear^ 
 ing-^ and TW/? denied to Swear upon the Bible -^ the evil of 
 which was not feen by many of the Martyrs that came 
 after. And even among thofe of greateft note, and emi- 
 nency in point of Learning, who were not only Contempo- 
 raries^ but Co'fujferers (as I may fay) with refpeCt both to 
 caiife and timey there was not in all thtngs an equal Difco- 
 very, and fight of Corruptions and Romifh Supejftiuons. 
 For Hooper being Eleded Bilhop of GioucejUr^ in King 
 Edward the fixth days, vihenCranmer himkXf was Arch- 
 Bifhop of Canterhnry^ refufed to he confecrated in the Epif- 
 copal f^efiiments or Hahit^ and to take the Oath njed in 
 the Confecration of BijhopSy both which he complained were 
 a^aipfi his Confcience^ and therefore Petitioned the King 
 either to difcharge him of his Bifhoprick, or to difpence 
 with him in thofe things which were ofenfive and burden^ 
 fame to hhConfcience. And although he thereupon ob- 
 tained Letters from the King and the Earl oiWarwick to 
 the Arch-Bifhop in his behalf, yec fo little did Cranmer 
 and the other Bifliops difcern the Superftition and Evil 
 of thofe things, that as Fox obferves, they flood earneft- 
 ly in defence of the aforefaid Ceremonies^ Joying, * it was 
 ? but a fmall matter; that the fault was in the abufe of 
 
 * the things, not in the things themfelvesi that he ought 
 
 * not to be fo ftubborn in fo light a matter j and that his 
 
 * wilfulnefs therein was not to be fuffered. Nor would 
 they yield to his Confecration, but upon condition, that 
 fometimes he fhould in his Sermon (hew himfelf Apparel- 
 led as the other Bifhops were, which Fox in plain terms 
 CdAhapopifh attire^ and fays, that ' Notwithftanding that 
 ^ godly Reformation of Religion that began in the Church 
 ^ of Englandy befides other Ceremonies more ambitious 
 
 * than profitable, or lending to Edification, they ufed 
 ^ to wear fuch Garments and Apparel as the popijh Bi- 
 
 * Ihops were wont to do, which (he fays) tended more 
 
 *to 
 
( 2J6 ) 
 
 * to Superftition than otherwife; and (fays he) wfiea 
 ^ Hooker was appointed to Preach before the King, he 
 
 * came forth as a new Player in a flrange Apparel oa 
 
 * the Stage, having for his upper Garment a long Scar- 
 
 * let Chymere down to the Feet, and under that a white 
 
 * Linnen Rochet that covered all his Shoulders , upoa 
 
 * his Head h€ had a Geometrial, that is, a four-lquared 
 
 * Cap, albeit that his Head was round. What caufe of 
 
 * fhame (fays Fox) the ftrangenefs hereof was that day 
 
 * to that good Preacher, every Man may easily judge, 
 
 * Martyr, Vol, 2. pag. 156(5. Thus feeft thou Reader, 
 chat what /f(?opdfr confcientioufly/crwp/f^ and refuied, as 
 an offence and bur den to his Confcience^ and Vihdiltox who 
 wrote the Story affirms to be Poi^ilh and Superftitiom^ Cran- 
 mer and other of his AITociate Bifhops fam no Evil in^ 
 which 1 mention not with any defign to detraEh the Fame 
 of th ofe worthy Men, (whofe honour and true excellen- 
 cy flood not fo much in knowing muck (though much they 
 knew) as in being faithful to what they knewj nor to 
 intimate any difcordance among them fwho 1 make no 
 doubt agreed full well m a good refolution to oppofe afl 
 pp/'/fc Errors, fo far as they had a dear difceming of them;^ 
 which Apology, to Men of Candor needlefs, I am in 
 fome fort conHrained here to make, to obviate, and if it 
 eiay be to prevent the unjull Caviljations of my very dif- 
 ingenuous and captious AdverfariesJ But 1 therefore in- 
 flance this cafe of Bifhop Hooper^ to manifeft, that a- 
 mongft fuch as to be fure were no Renegadoes, but real 
 Martyrs, all the Superflitions and Corruptions of the 
 Romijh Church were not equally difcovered to all-^ but that 
 fome faro that to he Popifh, and rejeSted it^ which others^ not 
 ieeing to be fo, continued in : but their continuing in it 
 Eiakes not the thing it felf lefs evil^ or the Teftimony of 
 others who have feen and decry 'd it, lefs conftderahle with 
 fthofe who look through the Eye of Reafon^ not oiintereft ; 
 the like is to be faid in the cafe of Tythes. If fome of 
 Ihe Martyrs did not fee Tythes to be of popif}} Inftitution, 
 and therefore did continue the ufe of them ^ that practice 
 of theirs doth no more prove that Tythes are not of po» 
 pHh fnflitution, than their ufing and wearing the pontifci' 
 al Garments^ doth prove thofc Garments were not of fc- 
 fijh Ittftitution, which Bifliop fiooper denied as fopifh, 
 
 ^c25.Th€ 
 
( 237 ) 
 
 §. 25. The Author of the Friendly Conference^ in his 
 Vindication, pag. 306. fays, The Quaker fhould have told 
 Hi what thofe many things are^ which were allowed by them 
 fCranmer, Ridley, Latimer, &c.) and fince plainly con- 
 demned by others, 
 
 I confefs I did not think h needful, in a thing fo obvi- 
 cHs^ to have inftanced Particulars; but fince it feems he 
 expeded it, he may take if he pleafe the fore-mentioned 
 for fome. But withal I would have him know I take no- 
 tice how unfairly he deals with me, altering my words 
 that he may male an occafion to abufe me. For where- 
 as I faid, pag. 307. We find divers things which they took 
 little or no notice of^ plainly condemned^ and zeaUnJly witnef- 
 fed againfl by others : He pretending to repeat my words, 
 lays. The Qnak^r Jhonld have told hs what thofe MANY 
 things are^ which were allowed by them^ and SINCE plainly 
 condemned by others. Where befides the manikit alterati^ 
 on of my words, be thurfl: in the w ord Zfince^ only that 
 he might have a Stone to throw at me ; for thereupon he 
 fays, 1 fufpofe by thefe £others2 he means ftich as himfelf or 
 ether f anions and fchifmatick Spirits, 
 
 Whereas my words in the place fore-cited, do evident- 
 ly refer to former times : For after I had faid, fVe find 
 divers things which they took little or no notice of^ plainly con* 
 demned^ and z.ealoHfiy witnejfed again ft by others^ I immedi- 
 ately added, Who are acknowledged to HAVE BEEN in 
 their refpeElive times^ Confejfors of and trne Wttnejfes for 
 Cod againft the Corruptions and Super ft itions of the Romifh 
 Churchy OA well as they. How is it poflible this Man could 
 thus have abufed me, if he had not defignedly fet himfelf to 
 it. Yet this is the Man that in his Epillle complains of 
 my difhonefty in mif-ftating his Book. 
 
 But he will not allow WickUfe, Swinderby^ Brute and 
 Thorp^ the Name of Martyrs, but fays, pag. 509. of his 
 Vindication, * Never a Man of thefe was a Martyr. Bui 
 
 * why ? Becaufe a Martyr is one that feals his Teftimony 
 
 * of the Truth with his Blood ; and Wickliffe not being 
 
 * burned till Forty one Years after his Death, what Blood 
 
 * I pray (fays he) was left in Wickliffe's Bones, after 
 
 * they had been buried Forty one Years ? The others he 
 ^ alfo denies to have been Martyrs, becaufe Cas he fays^ 
 t ^heir ends were uncertain, pag 308. 
 
 The 
 
( 2j8 ) 
 
 Tlie word Martyr properly fignifies a Witrtefs^ and is 
 applicable to them, who make Confejfion of the Truth, 
 aud hfi.tr witnefs to it, but more efpecially ("and ^er excel- 
 lentiam) to them that [nffer for the Truth. And though 
 it is coaimoaly underftood of them that fuffer /i«f^ Deathj 
 yet inafmuch as many Sufferings which extend not unto 
 Death, are as grievous and cruel as Deacb it felf\ I fee 
 no reafon why fuch as faithfully and conftantly undergo 
 fuch Sufferings, not baulking their Teftimony for fear of 
 Death, Ihouid be deprived of their Palms^ and excluded 
 from the Catologue of Martyrs, who it may be were as 
 fully religned to Death, and could as willingly and chear- 
 fully have undergone it fif it had been inflidtedj as they 
 did thofe other hardfhips they endured, or as others, 
 who adually fuffered Death. However, jEnce no Maa 
 ought to execute himfelf, the7 who boldly confefl the 
 Truth, and faithfully bore witnefs to it, patiently fnffering 
 whatfoever was laid upon them for the fake thereof^ 
 whether he will allow them to be called Martyrs or not, 
 their Teftimony^ I hope, onght not to be rejeUed^ nor them- 
 felves defpifed^ reproached and villifiedj as we fhall fee anon 
 Ihey are. As for WtcWfey K?^ calls him a valiant Cham" 
 pirn y aad though he died quietly at Lutterworth in Lei- 
 ceflerjhirs^ y(gt great and grievous Troubles underwent he^ as 
 Fox in his Story reports, and as Cambden in h\% Britarini^i 
 intimates, pag. -gi8. Swmderby^ the Pried denies to be 
 a Martyr ^ becaufe Pox fays, ff^hether he died in Prifon^ or 
 whether he efcaped their Hmds^ or was burned, there is no Cfr-^ 
 tain relation made. But he conceals, that Fox in thefattie 
 place adds, that a Law being made, in she beginning of 
 the Reign of Hen. 4. again^fl the Favourers of WickUffe^ un- 
 der the Name of Lollards^ a certain Prieft was thereupon burnt 
 in Smithfield, who by divers conjectures appears to him to be 
 this Swinderby, ManyroL pag* 438. who was before con- 
 dtmned by the Biftiop of Hereford^ pag. 436. Brute is by 
 the Prieft denied to be a Martyr, becaufe Fox fays. What 
 end he had I find not Regiftred. But Fox Ihews, that al- 
 though at that time when he appeared before the Bifhop 
 of Hereford it is likely he efcaped^ yet a year or two after, 
 fcy the- inftigation of the Bifhops, the King iffued forth 
 - his Gommiflion with great (harpnefs and feverity agdiinft th^ 
 faid Brute and his Abbettors, which argues that the fai^ 
 
 lValt§K 
 
( 239 ) 
 
 Waltar Brnte did perfift in his leftimeny againfl: the Church 
 of Rome, Thorp he will not adrnie to be a Martyr^ becaufe 
 Fox fays, his end wot mcenain : But Fox leaves not the 
 matter fo. For he fays, * By all Conjedures it is to be 
 
 * thought, that the Arch-Bifhop, Tho. Arundel being fo 
 
 * hard an Adverfary againfl: thofe Men, would not lee 
 
 * him go. Much lefs is it to be fuppofed, that he would 
 
 * ever retra£t his Sentence and Opinion, which he fo 
 
 * valiantly maintained before the Bifbop^ neither doth iE 
 
 * feem that he had any fuch recanting Spirit. Again, nei- 
 
 * ther is it found that he was burned : Wherefore (fays 
 
 * Fox) it remaineth mofl: like to be true, that he being 
 
 * committed to forae ftrait Prifon (according as the Arch- 
 
 * Bifhop in his Examination before did threaten him) 
 
 * there (as Thorp confefFeth himfclf) was foftraitly kept, 
 ' that either he was fecretly made away, or elfe there he 
 
 * died by Sicknefs ^ as he infl:ances in John Ajhton ano- 
 ther of PF/d/#'s Followers, who was fo fervedy Martyrol, 
 pag. 500. Now though the wanner of thefe Men's Deaths 
 cannot be certainiy known, yet certain k is that they were 
 devout and godly Men, and z^ealons againfl the Romijh Er- 
 rors fo far as they difcerned them. And if we may take 
 his Charafter of them, who writ their Story, he call^ 
 Swinderhy a worthy Prieft ^ and tr^ie Servant of Chnft^ Mar- 
 tyrol. pag. 437. Of BrnUy he fays, that ' In the tra- 
 
 * dlation of his Difcourfe may appear the mighty Opera- 
 
 * tion of God's Spirit in him, his ripe Knowledge, mo- 
 
 * defl: Simplicity, his valiant Conftancy, his learned 
 ' Tradations, and manifold Conflids fuftained againft 
 
 * God's Enemies, pag. 438. Thorp he calls a good Man 
 and hleffed Servant of God^ pag. 500. A Warriom valiant 
 nnder the trmmphant Banner of Chrifi, pag. 485. A nd tells 
 his Reader, He jhali behold in this Man the marvelcus forcff 
 and ftrength of the Lord's Might, Spirit and Grace, working 
 And fighting in his Soaldters, and alfo fpeaking in thetr Mmhsy 
 according to the word of his promife^ Luk. 21. ibid. In all 
 which, either Fox was much mifiaken in the Men, or this 
 Priefl: in his Right of Tythes has mofl: exceedingly wmred 
 them: For he renders them ^p/^r^i, calls them Rtnega- 
 does, feoffs at their Knowledge, and fays, Cranmer, Hocptr^ 
 Rtdleyj &c. are much dtfgraced by the paraUd, pag. 139, 
 140- Surely if the Men (the times wherein they lived 
 
 confi- 
 
( 240 ) 
 
 confidered) were guilty of fome weahejffls or infirmities, 
 it had much better become this pretended Proteftant, to 
 have mentioned them at leaft with common civility^ had is 
 been but for the Canfe fake in which they were engaged, 
 than thus to fall on them in revilwg Language, and defame 
 them for jipojlates and Renegadoes, In which he feems ra- 
 ther to exceed than imitate the fooUfh out-rage of the Pa- 
 pifts againft Wtcklife : For they burnt the Bones oiWich* 
 life only Forty one Years after he was dead j but this 
 Prieft feeks to diftain and blemifh the Name^ the Memory^ 
 and the teftimonies oithQ^Q four Men together, which have 
 fioHriJhed well nigh Three hundred Years : And fo angry 
 is he at them, that I fpeed the worfe at his Hands for 
 having mentioned them. For forgetting m his heat that 
 he faid at the beginning he would not meddle with Scnr- 
 rility^ he here falls down-right upon me, and fays, I am 
 a mamfefl Lyar in giving fuch Renegadoes the Name of Mar* 
 tyrs ^ which Language, as it credits not him that gave it 
 (withouE any provocation that I know of from me) fo it 
 hurts not me to whom is is given; nor would I have taken 
 notice of it at all, but to manifeft the temfer of my Ad- 
 verfary, and the liberty of mmelefs Writers. But he fa- 
 thers one part of his calumny upon Fox^ and fays, Mofi 
 of thefe Oppofers of Jythes recanted openly^ and proved jipo» 
 ftatesj 06 Mr, Fox himfelf confe[feth. But in this he does 
 Fox wrong : For, firft, he no where calls them Apoftates^ 
 nor is it likely he thought them fo by the CharaEter he 
 gave of them. Neither, fecondly, doth he confefs that 
 moft of them recanted openly \ for of Wickliffe and Thorp he 
 mentions no fuch thing at all. And what he fpeaks of 
 Swmderhy^ it was not fo properly (if well confidered) a 
 Recantation of what he held, as a Denial of Articles laid 
 to his Charge in fuch terms as he did not hold them j 
 which afterward himfelf explained and maintained. As 
 for Brute., F>x doth not tax him with recrading any thing 
 at all; butoaly (hews, that ' he fubmitted himfelf prin- 
 ^ vJpilly to the Gofpei of Jefus Chrilt, and to the deter- 
 ^Caiiuation of Holy i^ar;^, and to the general Councils of 
 ^ Boiy Kirk \ and to the Sentence and Determination of 
 *. Che four Doctors of holy Writ, that is, ^ugufiir.e., Am* 
 ^ hrofe..^ ferom and Gregory.^ and to the Corredtion of the 
 ' diillop of Hereford.^ pa^. 461. Aud furely the Cha-- 
 
c HI } 
 
 ra^er which Fox gives of Brnte^ and of the mrgk^ Operau^ 
 on of Go£s Spirit in him^ doth not imply he thought Brute 
 either an Apoftate^ or Renegado. But fuppofe it had beea fo, 
 as he opprohrioHfly objeds, that mofl: of thefe Oppofers of 
 Tythes had recanted their Opinions ^ yet if afterwards 
 they returned and fiood to their Teflimony^ muft it not be 
 received? If they hail fallen by Infirmity^ might they not 
 rife again by Repentance^ And mull their after Teftimony 
 be rejeded becaufe oi 2l former flip ? I could name him the 
 Man (if I judg'd it necefTary) who for his Teftimony a- 
 gainft the Church of Rome endured divers Tears Impri- 
 fonment, fuftained many a (harp Conflid, and bore the 
 brunt of many an hard Battle againft the popifli Bifhops, 
 yea, flood his ground againft them, even to Sentence and 
 Degradation ; and after all this, was drawn, either by 
 threats or flattery, to fgn a Recantation^ to the great diP 
 honour of his Caufe, and wounding of his Coafcience: 
 Yet this Man fliortly after retraced chat Recantation^ re- 
 fumed hi^ tefiimoy againft the Church of Rome^ and died a 
 famom Martyr^ doing himfelf an exemplary piece of Jn- 
 ftice upon that Hand with which he had fubfcribed the 
 Recantation. But notwithanding this Man's /?//?, his 
 Teftiraony for God againft the Idolatries and Corrupti- 
 ons of the Roman Church, are juflly had in very greae 
 ifieem. But tc proceed. 
 
 The Prieft fays, Right of Tythes^ pag. 139. * As for 
 ' the Knowledge of T. E's Martyrs, we may guefs at the 
 ' fiZe thereof by that fenfelefs Saying of o.ie of them, 
 
 * Viz.. That one of the antient Dodors, St. Jerom (he 
 
 * thought; did affirm, that thofe Priefts who take I ythes^ 
 f deny Chrift to be come in the Flelh. 
 
 This which was fpoken by Wtlliam Thorp (whom Fox 
 calls a good Man and bleffed Servant of God^ yca^ a valiant 
 Warriour under the triumphant Banner of Chrift) the Priefl 
 c^Ws a fenfelefs faying^ an idle things and in derilion fcof- 
 fingly fays. We may guefs at the fizx of their Knowledge by 
 this. But does this become him ? Is this at all like a Pre 
 tefiant^ What could Harpsfield^ Harding, or any other 
 of the popijh CharKfions have faid more contemtuoufl)/ ? But: 
 he not only denies this Sentence to be Hlerom's^ but thai 
 ^ny amitm DoUoy did ever fay fo idle a thing. 
 
 In 
 
Id which he deals worfe with Thorpe than did AriinM the 
 Popifh Arch-Bifhop, to whom Thorp urged it fand un- 
 der whom he fufferedj for the Arch-Bifliop did not deny 
 his Quotation^ but blam'd him for ^xckmg fnclo jharj> Sen- 
 fences out of the Scriptures^ and out of the DoEiors againfi the 
 Priefisy which was an implicie acknowledgement of the 
 Truth of his Allegation. Thus, Reaider, thou feed the 
 contempt thefe Priefts have of any that fpeak againft their 
 corrupt Inter efi^ as ihefe good Men (for Martyrs^ ic feems, 
 we muft not call them) plainly did: And yet the Author 
 of the Cenference^ in his Vindication, pag. 307, 309. 
 makes as if they held no other Opinion of Tythes^ than Irepri* 
 fent him to hold. 
 
 In all which he wrongs both them and me, and tells his 
 Reader a great untruth. For neither did they hold Tythes 
 to be due in that notion of a temporal Right in which he 
 claims them, nor did I reprefent him to hold that Tythes 
 are pure and meer Almsy as they affirmed thefn to be. 
 Wicklijfey he confefles denied the Jh6 divinum^ or divine 
 Right of Tythes. 
 
 'Tis true indeed he did {oy and the human Right too in 
 that ^Qnik wherein this Prieft claims them, and therefore 
 is a very proper witnefs againft him. For WicUijfe held 
 Tythes to be pure Alms^ difpofable at the will and pleafttre 
 of the giver. But this Prieft calls Tythes his Free-hold^; 
 and fays, he looks upon himfelfto be no more obliged to the People 
 for the Payment of them^ then a Landlord is to his Tenant for 
 the Payment of his Rent^ Conference, pag. i5r. (To the 
 fame purpofe alfo he fpeaks in his Vindication^ pag. 315.) 
 which is fomewhat different, I wis, from meer Mms. 
 And how contemptibly foever thefe Priefts think of John 
 WicUiffe^ it appears that the llniverfity of Oxford in their 
 publick Teftimonial, gave high commendation of him^ 
 not only as a Man oi profound Learnings but as a fiout and 
 valiant Champion of the Faithy Martyrol. pag, 412. And 
 that John Hh6 the Bohemiany by publick Dili^utation in 
 the U;iiverfity of Prauge^ did maintain and defend the 
 . Articles of WicUtffey and particularly, that Tythes were 
 fure Almsy and might be taken from the Clergy^ pag. 425. 
 And though IVickUffcy it feems, be not thought worthy the 
 Name of a Martyr ^ yet Husy I hope, I may adventure to 
 liile one, without the danger of being called again a ma- 
 
( 24J ) 
 mamfefi Lyar^ fince Hpu was aElaally burnt at Conftance, by 
 Sentence of the fame Council which commanded the burn- 
 ing of Wicklijfch Bones, and for maintatning Wiekliife'j 
 Articles, 
 
 Neither did Swinderhy^ Brnte^ or Thorp hold Tythes in 
 that Notion of temporal Right that thefe Priefls do. For 
 Swinderby held Tythes to be meer Alms^ which might law 
 fully be taken from the Prieft. And in his feventh Article, 
 he fays, Na Priefi ought by bargaining and Covenant to fell 
 his ghoftly Travel (that is, his fpiritual Service or Mini- 
 ftryj of which among many Particulars he names Pr^j/^r/, 
 Baptifm^ Confirming^ Marrying^ &c. MartyroL pag. 431. 
 Which Hhs alfo maintained, laying ' It is no Argument, 
 ' that if the Curate do perform his corporal IMinillry, 
 
 * that he ought therefore to challenge Tythes by a civil 
 ' Title, becaufe, that as well on the behalf of him which 
 
 * giveth the Tythes, as alfo in the behalf of the Curate^ 
 
 * every fuch Miniftry ought freely to be given, and no£ 
 ' by any civil exchange, pag. 426'. Brute alfo not onl/ 
 denied the divine Right of Tythes, which hejudiciouily and 
 plainly difproves, (hewing that Tythes under the Law were 
 Ceremonial^ and therefore ended by Chrifiy and not being 
 afterwards comnfanded by Chrifl or his Apoftles, Chriflian 
 People ar^ not bound to fay Tythes^ either by the Law of 
 Mofes or of Ch rift, pag. 446,447- f^ut accounted Tythes 
 rrteer Alms^ as it feems by the Articles exhibited againft 
 him, pag. 4^8. although he fays. By the Tradition of Men 
 they are bound to pay them, pag. 447. yefi by the word Tra^ 
 kitior^ that feerns rather meant defa5io than ds jure. As 
 for Thorpe he denied not only the divine Right of Tythes, 
 but the temporal Right alfo that thefe Priefts plead for^ 
 »for he (hews that the Parijhioners hav4 power to detain their 
 Tythes^ ^ The Pari(honers (fays he) that pay their tem- 
 ' poral Goods (be they Tythes or Offeringsj to Priefts 
 ' thafi do not their Office among them juftly, are Part- 
 ' ners of every Sin of thofe Priefts, becaufe that they fu- 
 ' ftain thofe Prieft's folly in their Sin, by their temporal 
 
 * Good?, pag. 494. And being rebuked by the Arch- 
 Bi(hop for expugning the freedom of holy Church,, he fa id, 
 ' Sir, Why call ye the taking of Tythes, riiid of fuch 
 ' other Duties that Priefts cballeD^e now (WRONG- 
 J FULLY) the freedom of holy Church: liace neither 
 
 R ' ^ 'Chrift 
 
( ^4 y 
 
 ' Chriff nor his Apoflles challenged nor took fuch Du^ 
 ^ tm. Therefore thefe takings of Priefts now are N OT 
 'called JUSTLY the freedom of holy Church, hnt 
 
 * all fuch giving and taking ought to be called and hold- 
 ' en the SLANDEROUS COVETOUSNESS 
 
 * of Men of the holy Church, pag. 495. 
 
 Thus haft thou, Reader, in pan^ the Opinions of thefe 
 Men concerning Tythes, which it may be, the Prieft will 
 call fenfeUfs Sayings^ as he did before. However, h is 
 nianifeft by thefe Sayings, that his was not a true Sayings 
 when he faid, thofe Men were no more againft Tythes 
 than I reprefent the Prieft himfelf to be. 
 
 C H A P. V. 
 
 HAving fliewed that Tythss were of popijh Inftitmiony 
 and as fuch denied by many good Men (not un- 
 worthy the Name of Martyrs) whom God raifed up in 
 former Ages to bear witnefs againft the Corruptions of 
 the Church of ^^wf, and who for fuch their witnefs- 
 bearing did TiifTer under that Church ^ 1 come in the next 
 place to confider what thefe tv7o Priefts have further of- 
 fered concerning a temporal Right to Tythes, 
 
 §, I. The Author of the Right of Tythes^ to fliew on 
 what Ground our Kings and Parliaments proceeded ia 
 eftating Tythes on the Clergy, fets down (pag. 141.) a 
 Rule or Axiom of K. Edward the Confefibr, viz.. That 
 it is the dnty of a King to prefer ve^ cherijhy maintain and go* 
 vern the Churches cf their Dominions^ accordin<r t^ the Confii" 
 tutions of their fathers and Predeceffors, 
 
 If this was the Rule by which our Kings and Parlia- 
 ments in the Reformation have fettled Tythes upon the 
 Clergy ^ then are Tythes no clearer from Popery in their 
 Settlement^ than in their Jnfiitution t; For if Edward 6. fet- 
 tled Tythes according to the Conftitutions of his Father 
 Henry i. and if Henry 8, fettled Tythes according to the 
 Conftitutions of his Father Henry 7. and fo back ^ then 
 feeing it is certain that Henry 7. and his PredecefFors were 
 profepd Papifisy and devoted to the Church of Rome^ and 
 eonfequently thu the €onfittmi<fns for ths^ Maimsnancc of 
 
( 245 ) 
 
 the Church made by or under them wox^ffilly and abfoluteJy 
 popifhy it will follow that the fettlement of Tythes^ by whfch 
 the Priefts now claim a temporal Right to them, was rnade 
 according to Popilh Conftitmions^ which I think is not for 
 the Credit of their Claim. 
 
 But he fays, * If I would fairly have difproved this tem- 
 
 * poral Right, I fiiould have (hewed there were no hu- 
 
 * man Laws to ellate Tythcs on the Church, nor ho 
 
 * remedies in the Courts of Juftice againft any that de- 
 J tained them, &c, pag. 142. 
 
 That's his miilake. If I had argued a^ainfi FaEi^ the 
 way he propofes had not been improper : But arguing a- 
 gainft his pretended Rights 1 conceive I took the right me- 
 thod, and am well concent to fubmit it to the cenfure of 
 every judicious and impartial Reader, That they have 
 Remedies in Courts againft fuch as do not give themTythes, 
 and that they are not backward to ufe thofe Remedies to the 
 utmoft degree of Severity and Rigour, is a known and 
 certain Truth, confirmed by the rnin of many an indnftrioHS 
 Family y andfealed with the innocent Blood of many a confcien- 
 tioHS Many who has died a Prifoner at their Snit for Tythes, 
 But I hope he will not argue from Fa^ to Rights and infer 
 that it oHght to be fo^ becaufe it is fo. The popi/J) Priefts 
 (as I (hew'd him in my former Book, pag. 960.) had Law 
 on their fides once^ in this Nation^ 04 w til as he^ and have it 
 fiill elfewhere j and others of another Name, within our 
 own remembrance, had Law on their fides and the fam& 
 Law too (and were forward enough to ufe it) by which 
 the prefent Priefts recover Tythes. Had thefe therefore^ 
 will he fay, a right to Tythfs ? If he affirms it, he knows 
 what follows; If he denies it, the confequence is plain. 
 That Law and Right are not infeparable. He fays, To 
 cotitrive by Sofhifry and Probabilities to fhew a thing can- 
 not bey which we fee with onr Byes^ is to nibble^ not dif' 
 pute. 
 
 I did not go about to fhew that what he fees with his 
 Eyes cannot be ^ but 1 endeavoured fairly and without So- 
 phiftry to prove, that what he fees with his Eyes fin this 
 cafe) ^fhould not be : not that it cannot be *, but that it 
 tannot rightly andjnflly be. And \ipon the Prielt's compar- 
 ing his Right with the Parifhioners, and making them to 
 ftand upon the fame bottom, I argued for four or five pa- 
 il 2 &\ 
 
(246) 
 
 ges together, (hewing the ground of their Claims- to be 
 different^ the onQ temporal^ ihe other fpirit Hal '^ and plain- 
 ly proving, that a temporal Settlement of Tythes u not 
 fHfficknt to give the Priefts a Right thereto, becaufe 
 Tythes are claimed upon confideracions that are not tern-- 
 poraly but fpirit Hal 'j kc "fr nth prevailing^ pag. 311, 312, 
 313, 914, 315. To all which, the Auehor of the Friend- 
 ly Conference in his Vindication^ repeating ihefe words of 
 miae, ^ That I claim my Eflate in a natural and civil 
 
 * Capacity, without relation to a minifterial Fundion, 
 *^ returns this Reply, pag. 310. ' This will pafs for an 
 
 * Argumentr, when he can prove that the Minifters of 
 
 * the Gofpel ought to be reputed Out-laws, and what is 
 
 * fee a pars for fuch ought to be expofed to the Rapine of 
 
 * every facriligious Ruffian. And if human Laws be a 
 
 * good Plea for other Men, I do not know why they 
 
 * fhould be a bad Plea for us, and this (fays he) may 
 
 * ferve to anfwer feveral of his Pages, where he beats 
 
 * the Air with a repetition of a company of vain and 
 
 * empty words. 
 
 Is not this a ftrange Anfwer > What part of it is either 
 fober^ or at all pertinent to the matter ? But letting pafi 
 Jhe former part of this Anfwer (which befpeaks him a 
 fitter Man to wrangle with Ruffians, than difcourfe with 
 fober and civil People) fince in the latter part he fays, 
 Jf human Laws he a good Plea for other Men, he does not know 
 why they [honld be a bad Flea for them j I will adventure 
 once more to incur his Difpleafurc, by telling him that 
 one Reafon is, becaufe his Plea being fpiritual, grounded 
 upon a fpiritual Conlideration, is not futable to thofe hu- 
 man and temporal Laws, as other Men's Pleas, which 
 are not fpiritual, but temporal, are. And when his 
 Brother Prieft infills on the Divine Right of Tythes, 
 and claims them by the Law of God, if one of his Parifhi- 
 oners (or any Lay-man) fhould fay as this Prieft does, 
 Jf Divine Laws may be a good Plea for other IVlen^ I do 
 not know why they fhould be a bad Plea for me; and 
 thereupon produce either the Law of Mofes, or fome Text 
 in the New Tefiament to prove his Title co the Eftate he 
 claims^ would not he be apt to fmilc be his Panfhioner, 
 and inform him, that he claiming in a ai/// capacity, not 
 upon fpiritual but temporal Conliderasions, mult have t e- 
 
 courfe 
 
( 247 ) . . 
 
 courfe to human Laws for the Confirniatron of his Chmi 
 and not exped to have a civil Claim grounded on human 
 and temporal Confiderations, fecured and made good un- 
 to him by the fpiritual and Mvine Law of God ? With how 
 much more Reafon might his Parifhioner even laugh ouc- 
 right at him, who precending to be a Minifler ot Ghrift, 
 and in that Capacity or Qualification claiming Tythes as 
 due to him, not upon temporal bm fpiritual Gonfiderati- 
 ons, betakes himfelf to human Laws to make his Title 
 good? 
 
 But leaving this as a fufficient R^ply to that little piece 
 of infufficient Anfwcr, which he is pleafed to afford to 
 fo many pages of mine, I turn me to the other Prieft, 
 who I find ufes many more words, though not much more 
 to the purpofe. ^ 
 
 §, 2. In my Anfwer to the firft Prieft, pag. 3 1 t« I 
 faid, ' I (hall difcover his Fallacy further, by telling 
 ' him, not only that I enjoy my Eftate as a temporal 
 
 * Right, but alfo that I claim it in a natural and civil 
 
 * Capacity, without relation to a minifterial Fund^ion or 
 
 * fpiritual Office, as a Man, not as a Minifter of Chrifl. 
 ' But the Prieft doth not claim Tythes in this Capacity, 
 ^ He claims in a fpiritual Capacity (although his Claim 
 
 * be falfe) his Claim depends upon a minifterial Fundt^- 
 ' on. He claims not as a Man, but as a Minilter of Chrifl 
 
 * (for fucb he pretends to be, though he be not.) His 
 ' Claim therefore to Tythes, and my Claim to my tem^ 
 
 * poral Eftate, differing in the very Ground and Nature 
 
 * of them, that which will make good my Claim to my 
 
 * Eftate, will not make good his Claim to Tyihes. For 
 
 * my Claim to my Eftate being grounded upon a naturai 
 
 * or temporal Confideration only, a temporal Right i^ 
 
 * fufficient to make it good. But his Claim to Tythes 
 
 * being grounded upon a fpiritual Confideration (as he 
 
 * pretends to be a Minifter of Chrifl) a temporal Right 
 
 * is no way equal or fuitable to his Claim. The firft part 
 of thefe words the Prieft recites, and thereto thus re- 
 plies, (Right of Tythes, pag. 14^) * T. E. doth not 
 ' claim meerly in his natural Capacity, nor barely as a 
 ' Man (for all his talking) fince many wifer and better 
 t Men tban r. £. have no Eftate at all, nor no Right to 
 
 R 3 tany; 
 
( 248 ) 
 ' any : Every Man hath a natural Capacity, but that a- 
 
 * lone gives no Title to an Eftate ^ it is therefore as a 
 ^ Man fo qualified that T. E. claims, that is, as a Purcha- 
 
 * fer, or one to whom an Eftate hath been given, or as 
 
 * being defcended from fome fo qualified, or elfe as in- 
 
 * vefted with fome civil Office or Employment to which 
 J fuch an Eftate is annex'd. 
 
 What I meant by a natural Capacity is explained by 
 the word {CivW} as alfo by the following words {with- 
 cut relation to a minift trial FmtRion or fptrnnal OfficeJi which 
 plainly fhews, I there oppofed not a natHrd Capacity to 
 a ciVil Capacity (for / joyn them together) but a natural 
 Capaciry to a fpiritual Capacity \ aad therefore when I 
 mention the Prieft's Claim, a by he claims in a fpiritud 
 Capacity, his Claim depends upon a miniflerial FunUion. 
 in like manner., when 1 fay, I claim as a Man^ it is clear 
 I there intend Man in that fenfe wherein Man is oppofed 
 to a Minifler of Chrift *, and therefore atterwards fpeak- 
 ing of the Prieft's Claim, i fay, he claims not as a Man^ 
 but M a Minifter of Chrift. Neither did 1 fay as the Prieft 
 replies, that 1 claim mesrly in my natural Capacity, or 
 barely as a Man ; nor could the Prieft, in his right Wits, 
 underftand me fo to mean. But this is a meer Catch of 
 his, to avoid the force of my Argument^ and make his /f/}- 
 chfervant Readers think he has faid fomcthing^ when as in* 
 deed what he has faid is nothing at all to thepHrpofe. When 
 I fay I claim in a natural and civil Capacity, I include 
 thofe civil Qualifications which may juftly entitle to fuch a 
 Claim, whether they arife from Purchafe^ Beirjhip^ Free- 
 Ciftj Civil Office^ or any other o( like nature : And I ftiew 
 that the Prieft not claiming in this Capacity, nor by ver- 
 4ue of any ofthefe or fnch like Qualifications, his Claim to 
 !Tythes,aHd mine to my temporal Eftate differ in the ve- 
 ry Ground and Nature of them ^ not in the feveral forts of 
 civil Claims^ as if one claimed by Purchafe^ t'other by De- 
 fcent^ &c. but in the nature of the Claims themfelves ^ one 
 being natural ov civil^ toother fpir it ual or religiom. Now 
 the Prieft claiming Tythes, not in a civil Capacity, not up- 
 on az/i/ Qualifications, but in afpiritual or re Ugiopes Capa^ 
 city, upon religious Qualifications, as a Prieft and (pre- 
 tended) Minifler of Chrift, that which will make good 
 my civil Claim to my Eftate, will not make good bis reli- 
 
 giom 
 
( 249 ) 
 
 '^ioMs Claim to Tythes. The difference between aW and 
 •religious Capacities and Qualifications, and the Claims 
 arih'ng therefrom may appear the more clearly, if we con- 
 iider them both in one and the fame Perfon. Suppofe all 
 this time (as was formerly frequent) a Clergy-man or 
 Prieft were Chancellor of England^ or invefted with any 
 other civil Office ^ he by vertue oif that civil Qualificati- 
 on, would have a good Claim to fuch temporal Eftate as 
 Ihould be annex'd to that civil Office with which he is fo 
 invefted ; but he could not claim that Eftate by vertue of 
 his Priefthoody or as a Man religioHJly qualified, any more 
 than he could claim Tythes by vertue of his Chancellor fiiip^ 
 or as a Man civilly qualified. Hence the neceflary and un- 
 avoidable diftindion between civil and religious Qualifica- 
 tions and Claims is manifell. Now as he that makes 
 Claim to an Eflate by vertue of a civil Qiialification ought 
 to prove, maintain, defend his Claim by human Laws, as 
 hQing fuitable to the nature of his Claim 'j fo he that makes 
 Claim to Tythes by vertue of a religions Qualification, 
 ought to prove, maintain, defend his Claim by divine 
 Laws, as helngfuitable to the nature of his Claim, 
 
 But the Prieft, having wrefted my words from a r.atn* 
 rat and civil Capacity^ to a M E E R natural Capacity ^ void 
 of all civil Qualifications, goes onto make what Advan- 
 tage he can by this unworthy Pervertion. * SN^^^fayshe.^ 
 
 * the Prieft hath a natural Capacity alfo, as well as T. £. 
 
 * is as much and as good a Man as he \ but this alone gives 
 
 * him no Title to Ws Tythes ^ he claims them in a fpiri- 
 
 * tual Capacity, as T. £. claims his Eftate in a civil Capa- 
 
 * city: And now, why is not a fpiritual Capacity as 
 
 * good a Ground of Claim to an Eftate legally fettled 
 \ upon it, as^a civil Capacity ? pag. 144. 
 
 If he means by Lleg^Uy fettledj fettled by divine and yp/- 
 ritud Laws, as Tythes were on the 'jewijh Priefts, a fpi- 
 ritual Capacity is as good a Ground of Claim to an Eftate 
 fo fettled, as a civil Capacity is of Claim to an Eftate 
 fettled by human Laws*, but z fpiritual Capacity is not fo 
 good a Ground of Claim to an Eftate fettled by human 
 Laws, as a civil Capacity, becaufc a Claim grounded oa 
 a civil Capacity is of the fame nature with human Laws, and 
 properly determinable by them ^ but in a Claim ground- 
 ed on a fpiritual Capacity it is notfo, 
 
 R 4 He 
 
( 250 ) 
 
 He fays, pag. 145. 'An Eftate in Land, Rent-charge, 
 ' or Toils and Cufloms, may be fettled en the Mayor of 
 ' fiich a City, and on his Succeflbrs for ever ; and then, 
 ' whofo fuilains that Charge, and bears that Office, hath 
 ' as good a Claim by Law to that In-come, as T. E. hath 
 ' to the Eftate he is born to. They claim (fays he) un- 
 
 * der different Qualifications ^ but one hath as good a 
 
 * Temporal Right for his lime as the other. 
 
 He (hould have done well to have fhewed the different 
 'pudtfi cations^ under which the Mayors of a City fuccef- 
 iively claim an Eftate fettled upon their Office, I confef^ 
 I do not fee now they can claim under different QHalificati' 
 ons^ fii*ce each of them claims oa he u Mayor, But if the 
 Prieft has any Crotchet in bis Head (as his own Phrafe is) 
 to help him out (as he feldom is V'?rhout a Meufe) and 
 can find any difference in their Qualifications, as Mayors, 
 or by which chey claim, yet furely he will nofi find the 
 difference between Civil and Religions Qualifications among 
 them ^ whatever Qjjalificaiion^ the Mayors of a City 
 may claim by, they are a// CivU I trow -, he does noc 
 mean, 1 fuppofe, that feme of the Mayors claim their 
 Toil, &c, under civtl Qualifications, and fome under 
 ^eLigii^Hs Qualifications, If not, how impertinent is it to 
 the purpofc ! how irrelative to the Cafe in hand ! Neither 
 18 what ibilows of any more force, or any whit more to 
 the purpcfe. Why (fays he, j^/^.) is not a Religious Office 
 oi endovp<^hlt as a CivU Office .? Sure hu being a Minifler of 
 Chrift- makes him not uncaf^ble of a temporal Right \for St. Paul 
 fahh^ the King is ©£» J\iA}(.Qvh the Minifter of Cod^ Rom. 
 
 J3-4- 
 
 One's being a Minifter of Chrift doth not make him 
 uneatable of a temporal Right, nor any whit more capable 
 of a temporal Right. \i he that is a Minifter of Chrift 
 has right to a temporal Eftate (patrimonial or other) 
 which he claims and holds in a civil Capacity, his being 
 a Minifter of Chrift doth not divefi him of his Right to 
 that temporal Eftate, as it would not inveft him with fuch 
 a Right, if he were not in fuch a civil Capacity, and un- 
 ^der fiicb a Qualification, as doth entitle him to it. Thus 
 we fee many of the Clergy have temporal Eftates, which 
 they claim and hold in a civil Capacity, as Men under 
 ftct aivil Qiialificatlons, withom any regard to their Priefilji 
 
(251 ) 
 
 FunBion'^ gnd in their enjoyment of thofc Eftates, no Man 
 I fuppofe impugns them. Bue to what end doth the 
 Priell: urge the words of Sfi. Paul^ that the Kijig is 0|? 
 JitAKovU the Mimfter of God ? Methluks he fliould not mean^ 
 that ihe King is the Minifter of God in the fame fenfe 
 wherein he himlelf pretends to be a Minifter oi Chrifl. 
 But if he would needs make the King a Clergy Mm^ he 
 might, one would think, have holpen him to an higher 
 Office among them than a Beaconfhi^. The King is in- 
 deed the Minifter of God, but his minifterial Fundion is 
 civil '^ and therefore he is called the civil Magiflrate. And 
 if we confider the time wherein that Epiflle to the ^^- 
 mans was written, we fhall hnd no caufe to fuppofe the 
 Apoftle call'd the Magiftrate the Minifter of God ia 
 a religious and fpiritnal Senfe : It being written probably 
 about the beginning of Nero^s Reign, than whom tha£ 
 Age did not bring forth a greater Enemy to the Chrifiian 
 Religion. And being fpoken of Magiftracy in general, 
 it cannot without iheoreatefi abfurdity be underftood in a 
 religtow Senfe. But if the Ma^iflerisil Office be a civil 
 Office and Fundion, to what end ferves the mention of 
 it here ? The Prieji's is not fuh , it helps not him at all. 
 He fays. By vertne of that Mmifterial FmBion^ kis Majejiy 
 claims many temporal Righs . b:jidcs the antiem Patrimony of 
 hi^ Family:) And wtH ^ddds he) this fakcy Quaker fay^ he 
 hath A better Title to hi^ Ejiate^ than the King hath to the 
 Rights and Revenues of his Crown, 
 
 No, No : The Qnaker will not be fo faucy as the Prieft 
 — would gladly have him. The Quaker knows the 
 Ktng^s Temporal Rights are Built upon a bottom as firm 
 and ftable as the Prieft^s Claim to Tythes is weak and feeble. 
 And the Prieft knows too, that the King claims his 
 Rights upon Confiderations of 4«ofi!3<?^' w^j/zi/^, than chofe 
 upon which the Prieft claims Tythes ; For the King 
 claims his Rights in a civil Capacity, and under a civil 
 Qualification, by vertue of the Adminiftration of a civil 
 Office i but the Prieft claims Tythes in a religious Capa- 
 city, and upon the account of a fpiritital Office. Judge 
 now Reader, how very impertinently the Prieft has urged 
 this Inftance, and how far it is from helping him : After 
 the fame rate goes he on for feveral pages together, of- 
 fering nothing of fclid Argument, but meer Sophtfiry. He 
 
 under- 
 
( 252 ) 
 
 undertakes (pag. 146.) to evidence the Priefl's Claim by 
 a Parellel. Si^ppofe^ fays he, fame Prince or great Man did 
 om of hu own Inheritance make a Donation of fame certain 
 Lands or Rents to an Ell wood, and entail it on the Family 
 of Eil wood's for ever \ ifT. E. be the Heir of that Family^ 
 he Will fay he hath as good a Right to this oi if he had purcha' 
 fed it. And why may notj fays he, the Prieft claim hisTythes 
 
 ^ j'^'fth ^ ^* ^' '^^^^^^ ^^^^ Donative ? 
 
 There are many Reafons why he fhould not (both 
 wich relation to the Giver^ to thtGift it felf, and to the 
 €on{iderations on which it is given) but that which is moft 
 dired to the prefent cafe, is the different Capacities of the 
 Claimers. T. E. if he Ihould claim fuch a Donative, muft 
 claim it in a civil Capacity, under a civil Qualification, 
 without refped to any rdtgiom Office 9 but the Prieft 
 .claims not Tythes fo^ but quite contrary : he claims on 
 the fcore of a reUgiom Office without refped to any civil 
 Capacicy or Qualification at all. What can be more <^i/- 
 ferent ti'.an two fuch Claims, whereof one is meerly Civile 
 the other meerly religiota ^ Now that Claim that is civil 
 falls properly uader the Cogni2ance of human Laws,which 
 are of the fame nature with it \ but fo doth not the 
 other. Nor were the religious Donations of Tythes ac- 
 counted cognizable by the civil Magiftrate, or fubjeded 
 ^o human Laws for many hundred Years after they were 
 given. 
 
 in the winding up of this Sedion, he Ihews himfelf to 
 be a Man of a hafe unworthy Mindj who becaufe he finds 
 me fenced by Truth againft the force of his Arguments, lets 
 Hy one of his envenomed Darts to wound the honour of my 
 deceafed Mother. And rather than want an opportunity 
 lie (licks not to make a down-right fal[hood by which to 
 make way for his flanderous infinuation. His words are 
 thele, pag. 147. Though this bold Quaker do often fay {we 
 are no Priefls^ 1 mufi tell him, there is more fear he is no 
 Ell wood, than we no Priefis'^ and our Ordination is e after to 
 prpve^ thanT, E's Mother'^s Honefly, 
 
 FalfeManand moft unworthy! Let him produce if he 
 can that place in my Book, where I fay they are no Priefts, 
 bo I not frequently call them Priefis^ and feldom any thing 
 clfe ? And is this Man fo void of fhame as well as hone- 
 Hy* to charge me that I often fay^ They are no Priefts ! 
 
 But 
 
( 25? ) 
 
 But it is obvious that he forged this falfhood only to 
 ufher in his flanderopis Suggeflion, But I would have him 
 know. he has hereby only difcovered his own bafe and ««- 
 generous Nature (in attempting to defame the Memory of 
 one whom probably he never knew^ much lefs had ever 
 provocation from) but is not able to hlemiflj her Reputa- 
 tion^ who was well known to be a mode ft ^ chafte and ver^ 
 tuous Woman, unftain^d throughout her Life with any fpot 
 of Infamy, and having Jlept in Peace about twenty 
 Years, her Memory is ftill frefli and fweet to all that knew 
 her, and h^v good Name above the reach of this Detrac 
 tor'*s Tongue. 
 
 §. 9. In his next Seftion, pag. 148. The Priefl quotes 
 me, faying thus, pag. 314. Mf the cafe of the Priefl 
 
 * and of T. £. as to temporal Right be equal, then the 
 
 * Priefl mufl acknowledge he is no more a JMinifler of 
 ' Chrifl than T. £. at leafl, that he doth not claim them 
 ^ as a Minifler of Chrilt, any more than T. £. doth his 
 J temporal Eflate ^ otherwife the Parallel will not hold. 
 
 What a lame Quotation hath he here given! In the 
 page out of which he has taken this, I obferved ' how 
 
 * willing the Priefl was, for his own interefl, to paral- 
 ' lei his cafe with the Parifhioners, as if there were no 
 
 * difference at all in their Claim?. One claims a tempo- 
 
 * ral thing, and the other claims a temporal thing. One 
 ' claims by a temporal Right, and the other claims by a 
 
 * temporal Right. One hath no need of a Precept or 
 
 * Example in holy Scripture for what he claims, no more 
 ' hath the other. Thus he takes his Parifhioner by the 
 
 * Nofe, and endeavours to cokes him into a conceit, 
 
 * that their cafes anfwer pat to one another, that their 
 
 * Right is all one, their Claim one and the fame, their 
 
 * Pretenfions jufl alike. But then (fay I) they mufl not 
 
 * ftay there, the Priefl mufl alfo acknowledge, he is no 
 ' more a Minifter of Chrift than the other, at leafl that 
 
 * he doth not claim Tythes as a Minifler of Chrifl, any 
 
 * more than the other doth his temporal Eftate \ other- 
 
 * wife the parallel will not hold. For if he claims Tythes 
 
 * as a Minifler of Chrifl, if he demands them in conlide- 
 
 * ration of a fpiritual Office, I am fure then their Claims 
 
 * will not agree •, and that which will be fufficient to make 
 
 ' good 
 
( M4 ) 
 
 * good a Title to the one, will not be fo to the other.' 
 This I recite the larger, that the Reader may fee upoa 
 what Grounds \ make this Conclufion, The Prieft fays, The 
 Maxim on which this inference is groundedy is this wretched 
 ahfurdityy That none can have equal temporal Rights by the 
 Laws^ unlefs they he equal in all Capacities, 
 
 But this (to ufe his own term) is a wretched untruth \ 
 for my Inference is not grounded on fuch a Maxim: I faid 
 FiOt, That they muft be eqmlin ^Zf Capacities ^ but, That if 
 one claimed in a civil Capacity and the other in afpiritnalj 
 their Claims then would not agree^ nor the pretended Pa^ 
 rallel hold. There is a difference between being equal in a^ 
 Capacicies, and claiming in qmte contrary Capacities. If one 
 Man claims in a civil Capacity, and another in a fpiritual 
 Capacity, and both by the fame human Laws^ furely he 
 that claims in a fpiritual Capacity, is therein oppopte not 
 only to him that claims \n a civil Capacity, but to the 
 Laws alfo by which himfelf claims, which are of a civil 
 Nature, and therefore cannot properly and rightly be 
 made ufe of to maintain a religiota and fpiritual Claim. 
 But he fays. The fame Laws do give equal temporal Rights to 
 Ferfons of all kind of Capacities \ for the fame Efiate^ he fays, 
 may be enjoyed by a Judge firfl^ then by a Soldier ^ then by a 
 Merchant^ then by a Woman j and all thefe in their feveral 
 ittrns may have an equal temporal Right to this Eflate^ though 
 they be everyone of different Capacities^ pag. 149. 
 
 Though he fays, the fame Laws give equal temporal 
 Rights to Perfons of all kind of Capacities, yet among 
 the fnftances he gives to deraonftrate his Affertion, there 
 is never an one of his Capacity ; and therefore it reaches 
 FiOt his cafe. His Inftances of a Judge, a Soldier, a Mer- 
 chanty a Woman^ are all civile of the fame Nature with the 
 Laws by which they claim: but fo is not the Priefl, he 
 ciaims in a Capacity of a contrary Nature to the Laws by 
 which he claims : for the Laws are human and civil, but 
 t-he Capacity he claims in is Spiritual and Religious. He 
 has one Inftance more, but that no more to the purpofe 
 than tjie former. ' Suppofe (fays he, pag. 149.) the 
 
 * King have by the Law a temporal Right to one Eftate, 
 
 * and fome of his Subjeds an equal Right to another 
 
 * Eftate J you fhall hear (fays he) T". E^s wife way of ar- 
 t ping : The King claims a temporal thing 5 fo d&th 
 
(255) 
 
 * IheSubjeft: The King claims by a temporal Right; 
 
 * So doth the Subjed : The King hath no need of Scrip- 
 
 * ture to prove his Right ^ no more hath the Subject : 
 
 * yet for all this, their Claim is not one and the fame, 
 
 * they muft ftay there ^ the King muft acknowledge him- 
 ' felf no more a King than the Subjedt, or elfe the cafes 
 
 * are not parallel. 
 
 In this, as in the refl-, his Sophi/rry is evident. This is 
 not (as hefioHtwgly calls it) my wife way of arguing, but 
 his /o;// n?/(> of perverting Arguments. I argued not be- 
 tween a King and a SubjeBj but between a Prirft and a P4- 
 rijhionery fhewing the contrariety of the Capacities in which 
 they claimed. This he turns off from the Frieft to the 
 King^ as if the Kin£s cafe and the Prieft^s were fo JHff 
 alike^ that whatfoever is faid of the Frieft's cafe muft needs 
 agree to the King's-^ whereas the Priefi's cafe is as con- 
 trary to the Kirjg\ as it is to the Farifhioners : for the 
 King claims in a civil Capacity as well as the Parifhioner^ 
 but the Friefi claims in a Religion Capacity contrary to both, 
 KKivg^Tid Stibje^ may well have equal Right to their re- 
 fpedive Eftates by the fame Laws, becaufe though the 
 Qiiaiifications under which they claim, differ in degrees^ yee 
 they differ not in Natnre \ they are both avil^ and both of 
 the fame Nature with thofe Laws by which they claim. 
 But with the Priefi it is quite otherwife : The Qualificadoa 
 under which he claims Tythes, is quite contrary to thai 
 under which the Parifhioner claims his Eftate, and no lefs 
 to ihe Laws alfo by which himfelf claims Tythes. 
 
 The reft of this Sedion he fpends in Railing, and moft 
 part alfo of the reft of his Book*, in which I do not intend 
 to encounter bim, as being neither able nor willing to 
 match him therein. His following Sedions therefore, be- 
 ing fuller of reviling Language than /olid Arguments^ and 
 more replete with ^^/7w^ than with Reafon^ i Ihall make 
 the fewer Remarks upon *, and the rather for that I have, 
 in a deliberate Progrefs through all his three Periods of 
 time, fufficiently difproved already all his pretences of a 
 divine Right to Tythes ^ and made it manifeft that the 
 Inftitution of Tythes^ fince the times of the Gofpel, was Fo' 
 fijhy that Popery had made her Encroachments in the 
 Church before Tythes were fettled on it j that thofe Settle- 
 ments of Tythes that were afterwards made, proceeded 
 
 from 
 
( 256 ) 
 
 from a blM Zed and fuferftitiotts Devotion^ grounded on 
 Principles repngnantto the trne Chriftlan Religion^ which I 
 recommend co the Confideration and Cofcience of every 
 ferious Reader, and proceed. 
 
 In his 27th Sedion, he quarrels at three Paflages of 
 mine ^ One is the defcription of a Minifter's Maintenance 
 from Luke 10. 7, 8, and Matth. 10. 10. Againfb which 
 he objects, pag. 155. That if this order of taking Meat 
 and Drink then^ were a ferpctnal and general rnle to all Afini- 
 fiers to the If or Id'' s endj fo muft alfo all the reft of the rules 
 their rnent toned be* 
 
 That does not follow. If fome of thofe Rules had re- 
 lation to that particular Service only^ yet thii of Mainte- 
 nance was more general'^ and therefore he may obferve, 
 that when our Saviour afterwards gave his more general 
 Commiflion for the preaching of the Gofpel to all Nati- 
 ons, he made no new Provilion for their Maintenance, 
 which argues he intended the continuance of that which 
 he had before appointed 9 and this alfo is confirmed by the 
 practice of the Apoflles afterward, efpecially of the Apo- 
 ftk Panl^ who, though he was not imployed in that partis 
 cula- Tvicflage on which the other Apoftles were fent (for 
 he was noE conve»*ted till fome Years after) yet refers di- 
 redly to the Maintenance there appointed {_Have we not 
 Power to Eat and to Drink ? i Cor. 9. 4.] So that we fee 
 the Apoftle underllood that Maintenance which Chrift 
 had ar. firft appointed was to continne^ (and accordingly 
 aflerts his power to receive it, long after that particular 
 occaiion, on which it was firfl: given, was over) and yet 
 he did not obferve thofe other Diredions which weregivea 
 on rhat particular occafion : For he both preached to the 
 Gentiles J and had Money m his Purfe, and that of his own 
 earning too. 
 
 The next Paflage is this, He fays, pag. 157. I faucily 
 4^\ Kitgs and Princes where Chrift gctve thein power to alter 
 that ALtpitenar.ce.^ and fa Hp another in the room of it f J^r^ 
 rcgunly lelUng them in Corah's Phrafe^ they take too mnch 
 upon (hem^ &:c. 
 
 T:'e Sauce is of his own making-^ the Queflion only 
 mi e^ drA tiidt made not to Kings and Princes^ but to the 
 fncj i F;*?r when 1 had asked, Where hath Chrift giveri 
 fower H' any Mm to alter th^ Maintenance^ andfet tip another 
 
 im 
 
( 257 ) 
 
 in the room of it ? I add, Douhtlefs if any fnch j^tithority 
 were given^ it concerns them that claim thereby to jheiv it^ and 
 they to be fure are the Priefts. The other part <{\io of 
 the Sentence he carps at, (wherein he fays, I arrogantly 
 tell them in Corah'/ Phrafe they take too much upon them^ im^ 
 lefs they can [hew where Chrift gave them fnch j^mhority) is o£ 
 hii own Cooking : for I told them not in Corah's Phrafe, 
 They take too much upon them*, but mo deftly ask'' d^ If 
 Chrift hath given no fuch power^ whence then doth Man take fo 
 much upon him ? And this Inquiry too related to the Set* 
 dement ofTythes in the time oj'Fovery, But. fays he, pag, 
 154. let me oik this bold Oueftiomft^ VV^jne Chr-'ft forbid 
 them to give a better Maintenance ? He bid t^je ^poftles bs 
 content with Meat and Drink \ but he did not J or bid them to 
 take more, if it were freely given. 
 
 Can a better Maintenance be given, than that which 
 Chrift himfelf appointed ? He who was Lord of all, if 
 he had thought Tythes, or any other Maintenance better 
 than this, could as well have appointed that. This 
 Prieft, I perceive, meafures the Goodnefs of the Mainte- 
 nance by the Greatnefs, and accounts that befi that is big^ 
 gefi,' But doubdefs the Apoftle Paul went by anotlotr 
 Rule •, for he accounted that befl^ which was leaft chargea^ 
 ble to the Church, i Cor, p. 18. To (hew there needed 
 no exprefs command for making the Maintenance better^ 
 be tells me (pag. 1 59.) That an Hint is a Command to a Soul 
 that loves God, Be it fo: yet notfo much as an Hint fhall 
 he find throughout all the New Teflament for the Payment 
 of Tythes. But feeing, he fays, Chrift bid the Apollles 
 be content with Meat and Drink (which was fomev7hat 
 more than a bare hint) methinks, if he (who pretends to 
 be one of the Apoftles Succeflbrs) were a Soul that truly 
 Jov'dGodjhe fhould content himfelf vvith what he fays Chrift 
 bid his Apoftles be content with •, and not thus fcrabble af- 
 ter more. See now the Man's Partiality, An HinE mufl 
 pafs for a Command to the People tor giving : But an ex- 
 prefs Command will not fuifice to make the Prieft con- 
 tent with what the People give, is this a iiga of a Soul 
 that truly loves God ? 'Tis true, the Apoftles were nos 
 forbidden to receive more, nor Believers to give more: 
 Neither lies the Objeftion ia my Book againft ^»V/^/^ more^ 
 
 bus 
 
( 258 ) 
 
 bat againft altering the nature of the Maintenance, and let- 
 ting up another Majritena-Ke of a different Nature froni 
 that which Ghrifl appointed: For than Maintenance was 
 free and voluntary^ and fo ought the Maintenance of Chri- 
 ftian Minifters to be always \ but a Pijainttnance lettUd by 
 human Laws ceafes to be/rf<r, and To is noE fuitable to 
 the Gofpel, which it felf is fcee. 
 
 But to render me ridiculous, the Priefl fays, ihiL No 
 doubt he will ask the primitive Believers^ who gave them order 
 to fell their Efiates^ and give them to the .Apo files f He will fay^ 
 They took too much upon them. And hereupon he fays, iVas 
 iver fo much Folly and Impudence cotijoyned ? 
 
 No doubt he had had one Sin lefs to anfwer for, had he 
 left out this Ahufe. The Primitive Believers needed no 
 Order for felling their Eflates, any more than Believers 
 do now, nor in difpofing the Money as they did. But if 
 the Primitive Believers (hould have taken upon them to 
 hav€ injoyr^ed all Other Believers afterwards to fell their 
 Eflates too, and give the Money to their Minifters, they 
 would therein have taken too much upon them. Believ- 
 ers in all Ages might be as liberal as they pleafed to their 
 IVIinifters , but they might not make that which was Li- 
 herality in themfelves, an Impofnion ^n^ Burden upon them 
 that came after, who may juftly and reafonably expect to 
 enjoy the fame Liberty and Freedom to exprefs their Libera' 
 lity^ as the others did who went before. For as the Go- 
 fpelit felf, in its own nature, is equally free in all Ages, 
 and the Minillers of the Gofpel are fo too, in refped of 
 its Publication (fo as not to preach the Gofpel becaufe 
 human Laws command, nor to forbear to preach it be- 
 caufe human Laws forbid) fo ought the GoQDel Mainte- 
 nance alio, or the Maintenance of this Gofpel Miniftry^ 
 to be in all Ages equally free -^ elfe is it not fuitable to the 
 Miniflry, and the Gofpel to which it appertains. And 
 whenfoever it ceafes to be free^ by the interpofed InjunBi^ 
 on of penal Laws, it thenceforth ceafes to be a Gofpel Main" 
 tenance. Now if we Ihould fuppofe Ty thes a lawful Main- 
 tenance, and that the Donation of them was an Act of 
 pure Liberality and perfed Freedom in the firll Donors 
 (which univerfally confidered is far enough from proba- 
 bility) and upon that Suppofition (hould admit Tythes to 
 have been thea a free Maintenance j yel the fettling of 
 
 them* 
 
( 259 ) 
 
 thtm as a (landing Maintenance, and compelling afrer Ages 
 hy Penalties to pay them, makes them rjot now a free Main- 
 tenance, if they had been fo then j but the true Gofpel- 
 Maintenance oughc to h^ free in its Continuation as well as 
 in its Beginning'^ and Chriftians now may juftly exped as 
 much Chriftian Liberty and Freedom as others in former 
 Ages had, which they do not enjoy who now Hand bonnd 
 to the Performance of that which others were at liber" 
 ty to. 
 
 The third Paflage that he cavils at in this Sedion, he 
 thus gives, pag. i5o. For any Magifirate to fit out Tythes 
 for a Maimenance^ is a direEl Oppofition to Chrifi^ hecaufe they 
 were commanded in the Levitical Law^ and Chrift hath taken 
 away Prieft^ Lav? and Tythes altogether. How proves he this^ 
 faith he ? by Heb. 7. The f^erfe^ faith he, he cunningly leaves 
 Oiitj being conjcioas to himfelf he had fathered a Lye on that 
 Chapter^ in which there is not one word of Chrifl'^s taking away 
 Tythes^ no nor in any place of the New Teftamerit. 
 
 What himfelf is guilty of, that he charges upon me, 
 vit, the cunningly leaving out of things : For he has cHn- 
 ningly left out a material Claufe in that Sentence of mine 
 which he quoted, namely, that Chriji hath difannnlled that 
 Law by which Tythes had been commanded to be paid unto ths 
 Levitical Priejihood -, which makes the taking away of Tythes 
 a neceflary confequent, when the Law was taken away h^ 
 which they flood. 'Tis true, I added not the Verfe in 
 Heb. 7. becaufe the greateft part of the whole Chapter 
 tends to the proof of my Ailbrtion, which therefore t 
 was willing the Reader Ihould read throughout. But fee- 
 ing my unfair Adverfary haih made fo ill an ufe of my 
 good Meanings I will add the verfes, to let the Reader 
 lee how much I am abufed ; Heb, 7. verf. 5. compared 
 with verf. 12. and verf 18. In the 5th verfe, the Apo- 
 ftle (hews, that the Sons of Levi, who received the Office of 
 the Priefthoody had a Commandment to take Tythes of the Peo^ 
 fie according to the Law. In the 12th verfe, he fays, The 
 Priefthood being changed^ there is made of necejjity a change 
 alfoofthe Law^ fo that here the Commandment, by which 
 they took Tythes, was taken away^ and there remained 
 no Commandment to take Tythes by. Then in the iStti 
 verfe, he fays exprefly, There is verily a difanmlling of the 
 Commandment going before^ for the Weakrtefs and Vnpro^td- 
 
 S blenef^ 
 
( 26o ) 
 
 hlenefs thereof: Now the difannuUing the Commandment by 
 which Tythes were due, is a SfanntiUing of Tythes. How 
 did Chrift take away the Levittcd Triefthood^ buC by tak- 
 ing away the Lnvo by which that Priefthood was made, and 
 letting up another Priefthood in its room ? In like manner 
 he took away the Maintenance by Tythes^ by taking away the 
 Law by which that Maintenance was commanded, and 
 fetting up another Maintenance in its room. And as the 
 Apoftles exercifed the New Priefthood without regard to 
 the Oldy fo they alfo received the New Maintenance^ and 
 looked not after the Old-^ plainly intimating they under- 
 ftood the Old Maintenance to be ended^ as well as the Old 
 Priefthood. And Andrew Jfillet fairly argues it in his 5>- 
 nopfis of Popery^ fifth General Controverfy, pag. 314* 
 
 * St. Pad (faith he) faith in flat words, // the Priefthood 
 
 * be changed J ofnecejfuy there muft alfo be a change of the Law^ 
 
 * Heb. 7. 12. But the Priefthood of the Law is altered and 
 
 * changed, Ergo alfo the Law of the Priefthood^ and fo 
 *' confequently the Ceremonial Duty of Tythes, Thus he, 
 wherein at once he both acknowledges Tythes to be Ce- 
 remonial, and proves them ended with the Legal Prieft- 
 hood. 
 
 §. 4. In his next Sedion, pag. 161. the Prieft charges 
 me with evading all feriom Anfwers by fome petty Cavil^ for 
 proof of which^'he gives this Inftance i That the Author 
 of the Friendly Conference having asked. If Men might not 
 do what they would with their own ^ 1 faid^ No : They might 
 not fpend it upon Harlots^ nor wafte it frodigally^ nor make an 
 Idol of it. 
 
 That it may the better appear whether this was a pet" 
 ty Cavil to evade a fericm Anfwer,^ I will briefly fet down 
 the manner of it : The Author of the Friendly Conference^ 
 pag. 154. having affirmed (not proved) ' that Tythes 
 ® and other Church-Revenues have been fettled by thofe 
 ^* that were adually feized of them in Law, adds thus ^ 
 
 * Now if the Qnahrs can prove from the Laws of God 
 
 * or right Reafon, that it is not lawful for every one to 
 
 * do what he will with his own, and confequently, that 
 
 * he may not fettle Tythes, Lands or Monies upon the 
 ^ Clergy, then they do fomething to the purpofe. Here- 
 upon in my Anfwer^ pag. 320. I fay,. \ That I may be 
 
 * far^ 
 
( 26l ) 
 
 * fure to do fomething, even in his Senft, to the pur- 
 
 * pofe, I will prove both from the Law<5 of God and 
 
 * right Reafon, thai it is not lawful for every Man to do 
 
 * what he will with his own. Accordingly I there prove 
 (pag. 321.) firfl in general^ * That a Man may not im- 
 
 * ploy his Eftate to an evil life : Then mare particularly, 
 
 * That he may not fpend his Subftance upon his Lufls ^ 
 
 * That he may not bellow it among Harlots \ That he 
 ' may not make an Idol of id, nor uphold Idolatry with 
 
 * it. Now in the General Exception and thislaO: Parti- 
 cular, I had dired relation to the Settlement of Tythes, 
 having proved before, that Tythes were imployed to an 
 evilUfe in maintaining a corrupt Clergy, and that it was 
 an Idolatrous Worfhip which Tythes were given to up- 
 hold. And to manifeft, that I did not leave my Argu- 
 ment to catch at or play upon a Word or Phrafe fas the 
 Author of the Friendly Conference^ fallly charges me in his 
 Vindication^ pag. 310.) but profecuted my Argument fair- 
 ly, to prove that the Settlement of Tythes on the Clergy was 
 evilj in order thereunto I thus reafoned, (pag. ?2t, 322.) 
 
 * Will any Protejiant be fo inconfiderate as to fay, that ic 
 
 * is lawful for a Man to lay out his Money in Beads, 
 
 * Croiles, Crucifixes, Jgnm Dei's^ and fuch like trumpe- 
 
 * ry ? Will he fay it is lawful to buy MafTes, Prayers, 
 
 * Pardons, Indulgences, &c ? Will he fay it was lawful, 
 
 * by the Law of God, for Ethelwolfat Rome to give two 
 ' hundred Marks a year to buy Oyl, to keep St. Peter's 
 
 * Lamps and St. Faurs Lamps burning? if he thinks this 
 
 * juflifiable, let him defend it ^ if not, he may in this 
 ' very inftance fee, both that it is not lawful for every 
 ' Man to do what he will with his own ^ and alfo, that 
 ' Ethelwolfj his great Donor and Patron, did that with 
 
 * his own that was not lawful for him to have done, 
 
 * namely, uphold Superflition and Idolatry. Thus having 
 proved both that a Man may not do what he will with bis 
 own, as alfo that Ethelwolf in his other Church-Donati- 
 ons did that with his own which it was not lawful for him 
 to have done (and in which the Priefts, neither one nor 
 t'other, fays any thing in his Defence (though fairly invit- 
 ed to it) but leave him under the Judgment of having 
 done Evil therein.) 1 go on there to fiiew, that ' He 
 J did not trangrefs in this Inflance only, of giving that 
 
 S 2 * yearly 
 
( 262 ) 
 
 ^ yearly Penilon to Rome ^ but in his Donation of Tythss 
 ^ alio : For it is evident lie gave them to maintain a Po- 
 
 * pijJ} Clergy, degenerated from Apoftolical Purity, and 
 
 * foully corrupt both in Dodrine and Pradice, in up- 
 
 * holding of which he did that which was Evil, and 
 
 * therefore to be fure unlawful. Judge now. Reader, 
 whether this be leaving my Argument to catch at or play 
 tfpon a Word or Phrafe, whether this be to evade all feri- 
 CHS Anfwers by fome petty Cavil (as my cavilling Adverfa- 
 ries cry out^ or whether it be a jair Profecution of my 
 Argument, and a foVidfericHs Anfwer^ proving, thaE it is 
 not lawful for every Man to do what he will with his own^ and 
 that by an Inftance in Ethelwolf hmklt 
 
 But 1 perceive the Pried had covertly grounded his Pro- 
 poficion upon the words in the Parable, Matt, 20. 15. L 
 it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own ^ Which, 
 becaufe fpoken by our Saviour, he expeded, perhaps, 
 "^ fliould have born out his Mifapplicatim of them : But find- 
 ing his Expedation difappointed in the Anfwer, both he 
 and his Brother Prieft are enraged, and fly upon me with ' 
 open Mouth : One faying. If the Quaker can hut fpit his 
 Malice againfl me^ he cares not^ though it fly in our Saviour^ s 
 own Face^ whofe very words I ufed"*^ Is it not lawful for me 
 to do what I will with my own f &c. Vindication, pag. 3 1 1. 
 
 The other faying, If the Quaker had been one of the La* 
 bourers in the Vineyard^ ^tis like he might have drolled thm up-- 
 on the Mafier thereof^ who (in the Perfon of God) faith. Is it 
 not lawful for me to do what I will with my own? Right of 
 Tythes, pag. 162. 
 
 But I would wifh the firft of thefe Priefls to take no- 
 tice, that his TongHe flipt^ when he faid juft now, heufed 
 the very words of our Saviour ; for our Saviour faid, Js it 
 not lawful for ME to do what 1 will with mine ownf But in- 
 Head of {^Mi} the Prieft put in [jevery one"} If the Qho^ 
 hers can prove — that it is not lawful j or EVERY ONE 
 ** to do what he will with his own. 
 
 There is fome difference fure between him of whom 
 that Parable was fpcken, and every one, Becaufe God (ia 
 whofe Perfon, as the latter Prieft fays, the Mafter of 
 the Vineyard fpeaks) may do what he will with his own, to 
 whomN it is impoffible to do amifs ^ may every one there- 
 ' fcrs challenge to himrtlf the f^m§ Liberty and Tower I 
 
 Thai'^ 
 
That's not to make Men Servants and Stewards to thz 
 great Houfholdcr, but L9rds and Maflers. But as to the 
 Cafe of Tythes, I have proved, chat £f^?/W/in the Set- 
 tlement of Tythes, did that with his own, which was 
 Evil^ \n upholding a falfe Religion^ which it more concerns 
 the Priefl to clear him from, than thus wichout caufe to 
 cavil. 
 
 §. 5. In my Anfwer to the Friendly Conference^ I faid, 
 pag. 32;. ' Suppofe that Ethelwolf had an ample Power 
 
 * of difpofing what he pleafed, or that the People had 
 ' by confenfi joyned wiih him in the Donation, every 
 
 * Man according to the Interefl: he had ; yet neither 
 
 * Gould he fingle, nor he and they conjoyned, grant any 
 
 * more than belonged to themfelves. This was too plain 
 to be denied, being grounded on a firm Maxim, Nemo 
 flus juris ad alium transferre potefi^ quam ipfe haberet ^ i. e. 
 No Man can transfer more Right to another than he himfelf 
 hath \ therefore they feek ways to evade it. The Author 
 of the Conference fays, Suppofe I grant if^ What then? His 
 Parifhioner anfwers in my Name, To make a Gram of the 
 tenth part for ever^ is (in his under (landing) utterly repug- 
 nam to Reafon, The Priefl replies, Is it reafonahle -wholly 
 to pafs an JBftate from them and their Heirs for ever^ and yet 
 repugnant to Reafon^ to grant but a part of that Eflate for 
 ever ? 
 
 By this I perceive he has taught his Parifhioner to ufe 
 as little Honefiy as himfelf. The Parifhioner has learn'd 
 of the Pried to chop and mangle Sentences^ and cunning- 
 ly leave out what he likes not. He maketh me here fay. 
 To make a Grant of the tenth part for ever is (in my Vnder" 
 fianding) utterly repugnant to Reafon, This goes clever 
 with the Prieft, as if 1 had faid it was repugnant to Rea- 
 fon to grant the temh part of an Eftate for ever \ and ac- 
 cordingly he argues; Whereas 1 fay plainly, They mights 
 have dtfpofed of what part of the Land they pleafedj they might 
 have given the tenth part of the Land, the tenth Acre^ &c. 
 But that which 1 faid ^ is (co my Underftanding) repugnant 
 to Reafon^ 'Juftice and Equity^ is for them to make a Grant of 
 the temh part of the PROFITS of the Land for ever. 
 (Thefe words {_of the Profits of the Land^ he leaves out ia 
 reciting my words, thereby drawing it from the Vroflt.s 
 
 S3 of 
 
( 264 ) 
 
 of the Land to the Land it felf) which alters the cafe : 
 For as I fhewed, the Profits of the Land for ever could not 
 be faid to belong to them, becaufe it depended on the 
 Stock, Labour, &c. of another, which they had no In- 
 tereft in nor Right unco. But if the Profits of the Land for 
 ever did not belong to them^ and they had no power to grant 
 any more than did belong to themftlves, it follows that they had 
 no fower to grant the Tythes of the Profits of the Land for ever, 
 CThey endeavour to weaken the force of this Argument 
 by comparing Tythes with a Rent-charge, urging, That 
 the Owners might oi well make a Grant of Tythes for ever^ as 
 fet a Rent-charge upon their Lands for ever,'2 This the Au- 
 thor of the Right of Tythes talks much of, and fills many 
 pages within Section 30. and 38. fhifting the fame matter 
 into divers Drejfes by variety of Expreflions, to make the 
 fairer Shew and ^r^^f^r Appearance of faying fomething. 
 But he that fhali impartially confider the nature of each, 
 will find a vaft difference between a Rent-charge and 
 Tythes : For a Rent-charge is paid by reafon of the Land on 
 which it is charged, which it is to be fiippofed he that 
 charged it had at that time a Property in \ but Tythes are 
 not paid by reafon of the Land^ but by reafon of the fiock 
 and labour^ &c. imploy'd thereon by him that occupies 
 it, which appears by this, that they who have no Lands, 
 are as well charged with the Payment of Tythes out of the 
 improvement or increafe of thdr flocks and labcfirs in their 
 Trades and manual Occupations^ as they are who occupy 
 Lands, So that Tythes lie properly on the flock^ not on 
 the Land J but a Rent-charge lies properly on the Land^ 
 not on the fiock \ and therefore, although there (hould be 
 no increafe at all^ no profit made^ no Crop planted^ nor any 
 thing renewing upon the Land^ yet the Rent-charge muft be 
 paid, becaufe it is charged in confideration of the Land it 
 felf: But it is not fo in the cafe of Tythes. If there be 
 no increafe J no profit made, no Crop planted, nor any thing re- 
 newing upon the Land, no Tythe can be demanded, becaufe 
 lythe IS charged in confideration of the Increafe and Improvement 
 made of the Stock, And for the Non-payment of a Rent-- 
 charge, he on whom it is fettled, may enter upon and pof- 
 fefs the Land which is charged with the Payment of it. 
 But in the cafe of Tythes it is otherwife. For Non-pay^ 
 went of Tythes, he who claims them, cannot enter upon or 
 
 rJPfi 
 
pojfefs the Land^ but is made whole out of the Stock of the 
 Occupier. All which demonftrates that it is the Stocky 
 not the Land^ of which the 'Tythe is paid. If a Trades- 
 man hold a Farm (as many do) and dividing his Stock, 
 lie Imploys one part of it in his Farm^ and the other in his 
 Trade, he is liable to the Payment of Tythes out of each. 
 But if he fhould draw his Stock out of his Farwj and im- 
 ploy k ail in his Trade^ letting his Farm //> ntiftock'dy and 
 fo receive no profit from it, he would not be chargeable 
 with Tyfihes for his Farm^ but only for the Improvemene 
 of his Stock in his Trade: Yet if there be a Rent-charge 
 upon his Farm, he is chargeable with that neverthelefs^ 
 and liable to pay it, whether he imploy his Farm or not. 
 Whence it is dill more evident, that a Rent-charge being 
 a charge upon the Land^ not upon the Stock ; and Tythes 
 being a charge upon the Stocky not upon the Landy though 
 our Anceftors had power to lay a Rent-charge upon their 
 own Landsy in which they had a property, yet they could 
 not have power to grant Tythes out of other Men's Stocks^ 
 in which they had no property. Now fince Tythes is noE 
 the tenth part of the Land, but the tenth part of the /«- 
 creafe of the Stocky howfoever imployed, whether upon 
 Land or otherwifey and feeing the Laboury Carey Skilly In- 
 dfiftry and Diligence of the Occupanty whether Husband- 
 man or Trades-man is involved and neceflarily included in 
 the Stocky as injlrumental Means and Caufes of producing 
 the Increafey a perpetual Grant of Tythes implies a GranE 
 not only of other Men's Stocks, in which the Cramers had 
 no propertyy but of other Men's Laboursy Carey Skilly Dili- 
 gence and Indujiry alfo, long before they were begotten ; 
 upon which fuppofition, aU Men but Priefts, fince EtheU 
 Wolffs time, miift be born Slavesy under an Obligation to 
 imploy their Time, Pains, Induftry and Skill in working 
 for the Priefts, But whether it be rational to admit ia 
 Ethelwolfy or any other, a power to impofe the necejfity 
 of fuch afervile Condition on their Pollericy, let the free* 
 fpirited Reader judge. Againft this the Priefl objedts 
 thus, Doth not the raifing the Sum of Money (fettled by Rent" 
 charge) include the Labonry Sweaty Carey Chargey Skill and 
 Induflry of the Hmbandmany a^ well oa the preparing of Tythe^ 
 pag. 1 68. 
 
 S 4 The 
 
( 266 ) 
 
 The cafe of a Rent-charge even in this refpeft is greatly 
 dijferent ixom that of Tythes, For a Rent-charge is a bur- 
 den, fix''cl upon the Land, and according to the Maxim, 
 The Burden defc ending with the Inheritance^ he that (as the 
 Priell: fays, pag. ijo.) will not have the Incumbrance^ mufi 
 not have the Benefit, He therefore to whom fuch Land de- 
 fcends, on which the burden of a Rent-charge lies, finding 
 he cannot enjoy the Land without performing the condi- 
 tion (which is to pay the Rent-charge) fnhjeSts himfelf xxti' 
 to the burden, and that he may enjoy the Eflate, under- 
 takes the Performance of the Condition, which thus be- 
 comes his own AEi, So that this Man's Anceftors do not 
 take upon them to give away his Stocky Labour^ Skill and /«- 
 duftry (for they only charge a burden on their own Land^ 
 which he is at liberty to take or leave.) But he himfelf 
 gives away his own Stocky Labour^ Skill and Induftry^ that he 
 may enjoy the Eftate. But it is far otherwife in the cafe 
 of Tythes: For Tythe (though a Burden and a grievous 
 one too) is not fix d n^on the Land^ nor defcends with the In- 
 heritance : For they who have no Lands nor Inheritances^ 
 are liable, if they have perfonal Efiates^ to pa/ Tythes as 
 well as they that have Lands ^ and they that have Lands 
 are not liable to pay Tythes, unlefs by imploying a Stock 
 or ferfonal Eflate upon them, they maice an Increafe, or 
 have Something renewed upon the Land. Nay, it hath 
 been held poflible fo to order the matter, as to reap the 
 benefit of the Lands, and yet be free from the Incum- 
 brance of Tythes. However, if he to whom the Land 
 defcends refufe to pay the Tythes, yet he is in no dan- 
 ger of lofing the Land, So that he hath not the Land «»- 
 der condition of faying Tythes^ as the other has under condi" 
 tion of paying a Rent-charge^ and therefore neither needs, 
 nor doth fnbjeB himfelf to the Burden and Incumbrance of 
 Tythes. Here then in fhort lies the civil difference be- 
 tween a Rent' charge and Tythes, A Rent-charge is a Bur- 
 den charged upon the Land^ Tythe is a Burden lies upon 
 the Stock, A Rent-charge is laid upon the Lands by them 
 that had a juft Property therein ^ Tythe is laid upon the 
 Stock by them that had no Property at all therein ; the Stock 
 and Labour^ &C. of the prefent Poffeffor is not fubjeBed to 
 the Rent-charge unlefs by ijis own confent and undertaking; 
 but l]xt Stock and Labour^ &<;. of the prefent Pcfftffor isfub- 
 
 jeae4 
 
(267 ) 
 
 jeSied to the Burden of Tythes^ without his own con fen fe or 
 undertaking, yea againfl it. By this it appears, both 
 that a Rtnt'chargc and Tythes are 'very unlike^ and that it is 
 utterly repngrtavt to Reafortj to fuppofe that Ethelwolf and 
 his People had power to load their Poflerity with the Biir^ 
 den of Tythes for ever. And indeed if we confider the Pra^ 
 6iice of our Anceftors, in their Donations of Tythes, we 
 may find, that they did not look upon Tythes to be as all 
 of the Nature of a Rent-charge \ for they took great care 
 by legal Settlements to fecure and afliire thofe Rent-charges \ 
 but made no provifion (for fome hundred Years) for the pay- 
 ment of Tythes^ fave by Ecclefiaftical Cenfnres \ nor was the 
 knack of Sueing for Tythes in temporal Courts found out, 
 till of late Years. Which argues, thai as they^^i/e Tythes 
 at firft in a religious (though blind) Devotion, fo they 
 intended the continuance of them fhould have depended 
 on Devotion alfo. 
 
 Ke objeds again in pag. 170. Th^it feeing the prefent Pof 
 feffor derives his Right to his Land from his Jore-Fathers^ who 
 might have fold off what part of the Land they pleafed ', and 
 fince they tranfmit it imire^ may they not leave a charge upon, 
 it ? And if the Heir will not pay the charge^ he miifi renounce 
 the Land alfo. 
 
 As they might have fold ofTwhat part of the Land they 
 pleafed, fo they might have laid a Charge upon the Land, 
 becaufe the property of the Land refted in themfelves, 
 but they could not have fuhjeSled the Stock and Labour of the 
 prefent Occupant to that Charge^ becaufe they had not a pro- 
 perty in the Stock and Labour of the prefent Occupant. 
 And though he fays. If the Heir will not pay the Charge^ he 
 muft renounce the Land alfo ; yet in the cafe of Tythes, he 
 knows full well it is not fo : For if the Heir will not pay 
 Tythes^ he is not bound to renounce the Landj nor does he for- 
 feit it by the Non-payment of Tythes. But he pofleffes and 
 injoys the Land, whether he pay Tythes or no. Which 
 fhews, he did not receive the Land under any condition ofpay- 
 ing Tythes ^ for then he could not injoy the Land with- 
 out performing the condition. 
 
 But he fays, pag. 171. The Oitaker's Argument is, Vro- 
 teftatio contra fa^um (i. e. A Protefiation againfi FaSl) and 
 fofignifies nothing at all: It is an attempt to prove that cannot 
 be doney which is done^ as well in tbis^ as in the like cafes ^ And 
 
 that 
 
( 268 ) 
 
 that ought not to he done^ which hath been done a thoufand 
 times^ and that by the Approbation oj all Chriflian Lavps, 
 
 That Ft ot eft atio contra faBnm iignifies nothing aC all, is 
 more than i underftood before. The intent of my Ar- 
 gument is not to prove that that cannot be done, which is 
 done^ but that that jhonld not be done, which fe^done; 
 or, as his after words are, That ought not to he done^ which 
 u done^ although it had been done ten thoufand times, 
 and approved as oft by fuch Laws as he, for his profit fake^ 
 will call Chriflian, 
 
 §. 6, For want of flrength of Reafon and force of Ar- 
 gument, he fails now to down-right Railings having a mind 
 (I fuppofe) to try if he can damt me with hlnftring words, 
 and therefore exhibits a Charge againfi; me of no lefs na- 
 ture than Blafphemy. He grounds it upon my faying. 
 That for any one to tell me that Ethelwolf (or fome other) 
 hath given him my Labour^ Tains ^ Charges^ Care^ Skittj /«- 
 ditftry^ Diligence^ Vnderftanding^ 6cc. Seven or eight hun- 
 dred Tears^ it may he^ before either he or I was born, is a 
 thing mcfi ridiculous^ and utterly inconfiftent with Reafon, Up- 
 on which he fays, pag. 172. It is no great wonder he (hould 
 call all Men Fools^ when as this blafphemous Argument flies in 
 the Face of God himfelf^ who (even by the Quaker's own Con- 
 feffton) in the Levitical Law did affame a Power to enjoyn aU 
 the Owners e^/ Canaan to pay to the Priefts the tenth part of 
 thofe Profits which did arife from their Sweat and Pains j Charge 
 ^nd Care^ and that from one Generation to another. God (fays 
 he) did make over to his Priefts thefe Tenths of the Profits of 
 many Mens Sweat and Labour^ &c. many Hundred Tears 
 before they were born* Now (fays he) this^ the Qyxdiktv faith^ is 
 a ridiculous and unreafonable thing. O hold Blafphemer ! &C. 
 
 And in pag. 173. he adds, Becaufe God once made this 
 Crant, we dare he confident the AB is lawful^ and wife^ and 
 juft \ and that T. E. is a blafphemopts Wretch^ to cenfure it by 
 this wicked and filly way of reafoning. 
 
 In this Charge it is hard to fay whether he ihews more 
 Env^ ov Ignorance^ However to be fure there's hxxi too 
 much of .both. He fays, God made over to h^ Priefts the 
 ^Tenths of the Profits of many Men's Sweat and Labour^ many 
 Hundred Tears before they were horny and that 1 call this a ri^ 
 diculoHS aud unreafonable things and thereupon he calls me a 
 hold Blafphemer I But what a bQld-^^::;;::Slanderer is he to 
 
 fay 
 
( 2^9 ) 
 
 lay 1 call it a riMculom and unreafonahle thing for God to 
 do thui't when I fpake it oj Ethelwolf by Name ! Can no- 
 thing then be ridiculous and mreafonahU in Man^ but it 
 muft be fo in God alfo .? Or mufb the fame thing needs 
 be ridiculous and unreanfonahU in God^ which is ridi" 
 ridiculom and unreafonabU in Man ? Has Man then an eqnal 
 Power with God, and is his Sovereignty as univerfal ? Let 
 me tell him, 'tis a ridicnlom and mreafonable thing in Men 
 to take upon them the diffofmg of any thing which is not 
 in their fower to difpofe : But it were impiety to infer the 
 fame of God^ lince nothing can be above his Power ^ who is 
 himfelf the higheft Power. It was jufi and reafonable ia 
 God^ to alTume a Power to injoyn all the Owners of Ca^ 
 fiaan to pay to the Priefts the tenth part of thofe Profits 
 which did arife from their Sweat and Pains, Charge and 
 Care, and that from one Generation to another ^ becaufe 
 he had a Right to all the Sweat and Pains^ Charge and Care of 
 all the Owners of Canaan throughout all Generations, And 
 as he gave that People their Land^ fo he gave them alfo 
 their Life^ their Healthy their Strength, their Wealthy their 
 Skilly their Care^ jibility and Vnderjianding^ and whatfoever 
 elfe was neceflary or conduci>le to the producing thofe 
 Profits, of which he enjoyned them to pay the Tythes. 
 They received all of him, they owed ali to him : Ji^ftly 
 therefore, and very reafonably might he require of them 
 vphat he pleafed, and lay upon them what Charge he pleafed^ 
 in refped either of their Landy or of their Stocks^ or or 
 their Labour^ or of their Skilly Sec, all which were his free 
 Gifts to them. But I pray now, had Ethelwolf or any other 
 of the Tythe-givers, the fame power over their Pofterity 
 as God had over the Jews ? Do we owe our Healthy Strength^ 
 Ability to Labour, Skilly Vnderfi an dings ^ Stocks, Sec to 
 them, as the Jews did theirs to God ^ if not, then let the 
 Prieffc know, That for any one to fay Ethelwolf (or fome 
 ether) hath given him my Labour ^ Pains, Cloar^es, Care^ &c. 
 Seven or eight hundred Tears before either he or 1 woi born^ is 
 a thing moji ridiculous and unreafonable, and for him to call 
 this Blafphemy is ridiculous and unreafonable alfo. And ic is 
 fo much the more unreafonable in him, in that hefird- calls 
 me a bold Blafphemer, and ^^f« examines whether 1 am fo 
 cr no. For after his faying this blafphemous Argument 
 flies in the Face of God himfelf, and after his vehement 
 Exclamation IP bold Blafphemer 12 he adds, If he faith the 
 
 thing 
 
( 270 ) 
 
 thing be ridiculous and unreafonahle in it fflf^ then this Qua- 
 ker chargeth God with Folly and injuftice^ who doth ivjoyn it. 
 
 If he faith, why does he go upon Ips then} Sure it had 
 become him to have inquired that, and been certain of 
 it too, before he bad fhot his over-hafty Bolt^ and fet bis 
 foul Brand of bold Blafphemer on me. But he hath learnt, 
 it feems, to Hang Men fir ft , and try them afterwards : Nor 
 Jlipt this from him through inadvertency only, but premc 
 Mtatdy and with a maliciom Defign of Mifchief-^ for he faw 
 the reafon on which I grounded my Saying, as his follow- 
 ing Words manifefb, which are thefe : Nor can he be ex' 
 cufed by faying^ God hath more power than Men. 
 
 Which words declare he underflood well enough in 
 what fenfe I fpake, and that I therefore called it a ridi- 
 €ulom and unreafonable thing, becaufe it fuppofed a Grant 
 of that, which the Granter had no Right in^ nor Power 
 over. Wilfully therefore, and againfl the Light of his own 
 Vnderflanding and Confcience^^ hath he thus abufed me, per- 
 verting my Words to a quite contrary Senfe to what he 
 knew I fpake them in. He fays. In evil^ fooHjhj and un- 
 juft things God hath no power at all. % 
 
 But Man hath: Elfe had?noK this Man dealt fo evilly^ 
 foolifhly and unjuftly by me, as he hath done in this mat- 
 ter. God (he fays) cannot Lye^ he cannot do any thing ridi^ 
 €uloHs cr unjpifl. 
 
 Doth it therefore follow that Men cannot lye neither? 
 or that Men cannot do any thing ridiculous or unjufll And 
 may not Men be charged with doing a thing ridiculous 
 and unjuft, but prefently the Charge mufl be transferred 
 from Men to God ? How ridiculous and unjufl is fuch an /«- 
 ference! But fays he, ' Becaufe God once made this Grant, 
 
 * we dare be confident the Ad is lawful, and wife, and 
 ^ jufl ^ and thatT. E. is a blafphemous Wretch, to cen- 
 ^ fure it by this wicked and lilly way of reafoning, which 
 
 * Gondems Almighty God, as much as it doth King 
 f Ethelwolf, 
 
 He's very daring fure, and wants modefty more than 
 confidence.. Becaufe God once made this Grant, May 
 Jlden take upon them to make fuch another ^ And is the ji^ 
 lawful^ wife and juft in Men ^ becaufe it was lawful, wile 
 and jufl: in God ? May Men then lawfully, wifely and 
 \\x&\v ^0 whatfoever God hath lawfully, wifely, and juftly 
 
 .done^ 
 
( 271 ) 
 
 done ? A notable ? option to bring in Jndaifm I And a fin^ 
 Defence he has helped the Pope to, for the many Jewijh 
 Rights^ and Ceremonies wherewith the Romifh Religion a- 
 bounds, who may learn of this Prieft to fay, We dare be 
 confident the ufe of thefe things is lawful, and wife, and 
 juft, becaufe God once commanded the ufe of them. And 
 on the fame reafon alfo might Men return to Circumcifi- 
 on and Sacrifices^ and judifie the A<fl. But to come a lit- 
 tle clofer to the Priefl's Imerefi (in which, how dull foe- 
 ver they are in other parts, they are ufually very quick of 
 Senfe.) I would ask this Prieft, whether if the King ihould 
 make a Law that no Priefl jhonld have any Inheritance a* 
 mongft the People^ he would dare to be confident that that 
 were a law/nl^ wife and jufi AEi^ hecaufe God once made fuch 
 A Law amongfi the People of\\x^d ? 1 am apt to think if he 
 were put to the tryal, he would tell another Story. His 
 calling me a hlafphemons Wretch^ and my way of reafoning 
 wicked and fiUy^ difcovers the rancour of his own Spirit^ 
 but no way weakens my Argument. But in faying, my 
 way of reafoning condemns Almighty God^ oi much m it 
 doth King Ethelwolf, he either prefamptrnHfly exalts King 
 Ethelwolf into an eqnal power with God, or impioujly debafes 
 God to fuch a fcantling of power as Ethelwolfhad^ or was 
 capable of, in either of which he has been too darings and 
 a great deal over confident. My Argument however f that 
 it is a ridtculoHs and unreafonable thing for any Man to UU' 
 dertake the difpofing of that which himjelf hath nothing to da 
 with ; and that that Man^ who takes upon him to make a per" 
 petual Grant ofTythes^ doth thereby undertake to difpofs of 
 that which himfelf hath nothing to do with^ namely^ the La^ 
 bour^ Pains ^ Charges^ Carey Skilly Indnfiry^ Diligence and 
 Vnderfianding of another. 
 
 This Argument, I fay, remains firm and founds not 
 weakened or any way impaired^ by any thing the Prieft 
 hathallcdged againft it^ but his falfe Application of it to 
 God, and his malicious RefieBions upon me, are fufficiently 
 expofedy to make him afhamed of what he has writ, if he 
 be not wholly pafi fljame, 
 
 §. 7. As I argued it unreafonable that fuch a Grant 
 fliould be madey fo Ilhewed it was not agreeable to Juflice 
 md Eqmty that it fliould becominnedy becaufe the Confident- 
 
 tion 
 
( 272 ) 
 
 tion was taken away for which the Grant was made. * If 
 
 * (faid I, pag. 325, 327.) Ethelwolf a Papift gave Tythes 
 
 * to the Romifl) Clergy, he did it upon a Gonfideration, 
 
 * for the Health of his Soul and Remiflion of his Sins, 
 
 * which he believed he might obtain in that Ghurch, and 
 ' by the help of that Miniftry to whom he gave his 
 ' Tythes, and Mediation of thofe Saints in honour of 
 
 * whom he granted this Gharter. — «• Now if the Confi- 
 
 * deration be taken away, why fhould the Gharge be 
 
 * continued ? To this the Prieft anfwers (Right of Tythes^ 
 pag. 1 74.) / have already proved^ that T. E. falfly fuppofes 
 King Ethelwolf to have held all the Opinions of the prefent 
 Church of Rome. 
 
 I reply, that the Priefl; falfly charges me with fuppof- 
 ing fo, and cunningly urges this both here and elfewhere 
 to acquiE Ethelwolf from being a Tapift ; as if a Man could 
 not have been a Fapifi unlefs he held ALL the Opinions 
 of the prefent Ghurch oi Rome ; whereas ALL the Opi- 
 nions of the prefent Ghurch of Rome^ were not then held 
 in the Church of Rome it felf : But there were enough 
 held then in the Church of Rome (of which Ethelwolf was 
 a zealous Member^ and to which he was a liberal Benefa^ior) 
 to make it an Erroneous^ Corrupt^ Super ft itious and Idola- 
 trous Ghurch. He endeavours alfo to clear Ethelwolf and 
 the Saxons from the popijh Dodrine of Merits \ ufing there- 
 to, as before, the Teftimony of Alcuin. Butt he does 
 but, for his profit fake, fet a fair glofs on a fod matter* 
 That they were corrupt in the Dodrine of Merits^ both 
 the exprefs Words of their own publick Inftruments do de- 
 clare, and the Teflimonies of learned Men concerning 
 them do confirm^ which having indited on largely before. 
 Chap. 4. §.14. I refer the Reader thicher for a more full 
 Anfwer, that I may not too much fwell this Treatife by 
 needlefs Repetitions. 
 
 Concerning Ethelwolf 's obtaining Remiflion by the help 
 of that Miniftry to which he gave his Tythes, the Prieft: 
 fays, pag. 175. ' No wife Man will deny, but that 
 ^-* there was a true Church in England in thofe days : And 
 ' if in that Church, and by that Miniftry, no pardon 
 'could be had from God, then there was no Salvation 
 
 * to be had in this Naiion at all in that Age, no nor in 
 
 * any Nation ia Chrifiendom •, which is a ftrange Afterti- 
 
( 27? ) 
 
 A RrangeJJfertion indeed ! Becaufe there was a true Church 
 in England in thofe days, muft the fo^ifh Church needs be 
 it ? He'll fay perhaps. There was no other : How knows 
 he thafi ? If there were but two or three that held the 
 Faith of Jefus Chrill in a pure Confcience, and did noc 
 joyn with the Abominations of the Times, in which they 
 lived, they were a true Church : For neither nnmhers nor 
 viftbility make a true Church, as himfelf knows, if he un- 
 derftands proteflant Principles, God had a trtte Church all 
 along the Apoftacy, even in the thickep time of popifh dark- 
 ntfsy before Lmher began to reform \ will the Prieft thence 
 infer, that the Church of Rome was a true Church all tha^ 
 time^ Let him carry on his Argument from Ethelwolfs 
 time to Lnther\ and fay no wife Man will deny, but that 
 there was a crue Church in Engla?id all that while : And 
 if in rW Church (referring to the National Church) and 
 by that Miniftry, no Pardon could be had from Gcd ; 
 then there was no Salvation to be had m this Nation at 
 all in thofe Ages, no nor in any Nation in Chrifiendom ; 
 which is a ftrange Aflertion indeed. Salvation doubtlefs 
 was obtained in thofe times, as we!] in this as other Nations 
 in Chriftendom ^ (though not by the help of a falfe Miniftry) 
 but what then ? Muft thofe indireEi and wrong Means, con- 
 trived to obtain Salvation by in thofe times, be therefore 
 ftill kept tip? And ought the Charge to be llill continued^ 
 when the Confideration for which it was given, is taken 
 away ? But the Prieft, I think, is almoft ajloamed of the 
 Confideration for which Tythes were given; and there- 
 fore he fhms it as much as he may, and when he cannot 
 avoid i>, hcfmooths it over as fairly as he can. * Did thafi 
 ' good King (fays he, pag. 176.) Covenant with God, 
 
 • or his Priefts, that they ihould give him Remiffion, or 
 
 * elfethis Gift to be of no efFed ? Was it infer ted as a 
 
 * Condition or Provifo ? He hoped indeed Remidion of 
 
 * Sins might follow, through Chrift's Merits, God's Mer- 
 
 • cy, and the Churches Prayers ; but he did not indent 
 
 • with God for it. 
 
 By his leave, there is not a word ofChrift^s Merits in all 
 the Charter, nor of God'' s Mercy neither^ in any of the Co- 
 pies that I have feen \ but that he gave Tythes for the 
 Remiffion of his Sins ^ is exprefly fet down. And the 5i- 
 /bops with their jibbots and the reft of the Clergy engaged 
 
 on 
 
( 274 ) 
 
 on their part to fing fifty Tfalms^ and fay two Majfes eV^- 
 ry Wednefday for the King and his Nobles, both during 
 their Lives, and after their Deaths. By this Reader thou 
 may'ft a little judge vf\\2itt\\t Religion of thofe times was, 
 and what it was he calls the Churches prayers^ which were 
 fopifh Majfes to he faid for his Soul after he wot deadj which 
 the Priefl confefles he hoped Remiffion of his Sins might foU 
 low. As for the Saints^ he fays, T. £. is miflaken, in think" 
 ing they then did believe the Saints ufurped Chrifi^s Office, 
 
 Whether they thought fo or no, let Perkins fpeak Prok 
 pag* 939 94- * Veteres (fays he) prsefertim poft ann. 
 
 * 400. Invocatione Sandorum peccarunt, imo facrilegij 
 
 * funt rei. Nam aliqu^iido fpem, fidem, fiduciam in ijs 
 ' collocant, i. e. The Ancients^ efpecially fmce the Year 400. 
 ' have finned, yea, and are guilty of Sacriledge too, in praying 
 ' to Saints, For fometimes they place their Hope, Faith and 
 
 * Confidence in them •, of which he there gives very many 
 Inftances, (hewing that the Saints were prayed to as /«- 
 terceffors and Mediators, which is Chrift's OiBce, which 
 having mentioned before, c. 4. §. 14. I omit here. But 
 in the Charter it felf, the Grant is made to God, and St, 
 Mary and all Saints together •, and Ingulf (who relates it) 
 fays, it was made /or the honour of Mary the glorious f^irgin 
 and Mother of God, and of St. Mlch^d the Arch- Angel, and 
 of the Prince of the Apoflles St. Peter, as alfo of our holy Fa^ 
 ther Pope Gregory, of whofe Saint (hip let the Reader judge. 
 But fays the Priefl, pag. 177. * If we fuppofe Ethelwolf 
 
 * as much a Papift as King Stephen, yet his Donations to 
 ' pious Ufes muft Hand good, even though the Opinion 
 ' of Merit had been the motive to him to make them •, or 
 
 * elfe (fays he) T. E. revokes all the Charters and Dona- 
 
 * tions made in thofe really popifh times, to never fo good 
 
 * and pious Ufes, 
 
 The Donation of Tythes was not to a pions life, un- 
 lefs he will call it a piom U^c to' uphold Impiety : For it was 
 given to maintain and uphold a corrupt and falfe Worfhip and 
 Miniftry, For (not to run over again all the Errors, 
 Corruptions, Superftitions and Idolatries, that were then 
 crept into and received in the Church) were not faying 
 Majfes for the Souls of the Dead, one of the ufes he calls 
 fioHs^ ¥or Ethelwolf to give Two hundred Marks a Year 
 to burn Day-light at Rome, and One hundred Marks more 
 
 t0 
 
C 275 ) 
 
 to the Pope ; were not thefe piotts llfes indeed ? Thou 
 iDay'ft judge Reader by thefe, of what kind and nature 
 hhpioHs Ufes were, which he fo often talks of. Bun this 
 is an old popifh Tricky to cry ou£ holy Churchy holy Chiireh^ 
 anci pious Ufes, to keep limple People in awe^ that the 
 matter might not be inquired into. Thus, no doubt, all 
 the reft of the like kind of Donations, given in old time to 
 the popish Priefts, CO pray for the Souls of the Donors^ and de- 
 liver them oHt of Purgatory^ were fet off by the Prieds with 
 t.Ae fpecioits Titles of Donations to pions Ufes, and Endow- 
 menis to holy Church : But, as many of them, notwith- 
 llanding their /pecioHs pretences, have been long iince alie^ 
 nated from thofe llfes, and ytt other Donations that were 
 niiie to Ufes trdy good and pions, although by Papifts^ 
 were no way thereby hurt or impaired-^ fo likewife may 
 this Donation of Tythes, given to an evil life, be rightly 
 and jiiftly made void, and yet other Grants, Donations, 
 and Charters, made by Papifts alfo, to uks truly good and 
 pions^ not thereby be revoked^ or any way infringed. 
 
 §. 8. The foul Stains of popish Corruption and Snperftition^ 
 which flick upon this Donation and Charter of Tythes, 
 are fo vifible and obvious to every Eye, that the Piieft is 
 greatly troubled at them, and fain would he wipe them ojf^ 
 if he could. He rubs and fcrapes hard to get them out, 
 but ftill the Spots remain. And indeed, as well might he 
 undertake to wajh a Brick white, or change the Cdonr of art 
 Ethiopian's Skin, as hope to clear the Donation of Tythes 
 from the jafl Imputation of popijli Corruption. Fain he 
 would perfwade his Reader th^t Ethelwolf's Clergy was 
 9iot pjpifh. But. Popery is writ upon them in fuch Capital Let- 
 ters, by Hiftorians of all forts that fpeak of thofe times, 
 that if he expeds to gain belief, he muft firii; perfwade 
 IVlen to fhm their Eyes, and wil^xX'j abandon the ufe of their 
 Vnder [landings. The gradual creeping in of thofe /^//f Do- 
 driaes and fuperflitious Pradices, in almofl every Century 
 after che Apollle's Days, which afterward obtained the 
 Name Popery, is fo particularly fet down, and plainly prov- 
 ed by Proteftant Writers of no mean Credit, that there is 
 no room left to doubt it. Nay, the other Prieft, in his 
 Vindication of the Friendly Conference, pag. 277. forgsc- 
 ting perhaps that EthHmlps Donation b^ars date in the 
 
 T Yeat 
 
( 276 ) 
 
 Year 855. has mlucUly dated the entrance of Fopry in the 
 Year 700. no lefs ihan 155. Tears before Ethelwolfs CW- 
 er ofTythes woi made. His words are thefe, ' We may 
 obferve, fays he, that when by the furious Inundation 
 of the barbarous Nations into the Roman Empire, Learn- 
 ing itW into decay •, and when Arts and Sciences were 
 difcouraged and negleded, at the fame time all manner 
 ot Corrupuons crept into the Church-, and as Igno- 
 rance increafed, Errors multiplied •, So that moft of 
 the prefent evil Opinions of the Church of Rome^ had 
 their Original in thofe unlearned Ages, from about the 
 Year ofChriftvoo. till about the Year 1400. about the 
 midnight of which Darknefs,there wasfcarceany Learn- 
 ing lefc in the World— -Thefe were (fays he) the un- 
 happy times, which bred and nurfed up Invocation of 
 Saints, Worfhip of Images, Purgatory, with all the 
 Fanatical Vifions and Revelations, Miracles, &c. Then 
 began Shrines, Pilgrimages, Relicks, purchafing of 
 Pardons, and the Pope's attempts for an univerfal Mo- 
 narchy. 
 
 Thus he. Wherein, though he mention hwtfew of the 
 many particular Errors and Corruptions which in thofe 
 times were grown up in the Church 9 and though he mi- 
 flake in point oftime^ in faying, thefe which he hath men- 
 tioned were bred and nurfed up about or after the Year 
 700. rnofi of ihem, if not all being of older Handing, as f 
 have already fhewed *, yet ^^ hath faid enough to difprove all 
 his Brother Pricfi hath faid or can fay towardrs clearing EihcU 
 wolf's Clergy from being popljh. For if thefe Errors* 
 and Corruptions had fprung up no earlier thzn the Year 
 700. yet confider, I pray, to what a height fuch Weeds 
 were like to grow, in the frmtful Soil of fuperfiitious De» 
 votiony and cheri/hed with the warmtb of a blind and 
 mif guided Zeal^ in the fpace of an Hundred and fifty 
 Years. 
 
 ^ Yet the Author of the Rl^m ofTythes^ pag. 178. denies 
 again^ that Tythss were given to the Popifh Friefls j and fays. 
 King Echelwoit's Clergy agreed with the Proteftant Church 
 of England in more points than with the modern corrupt Church 
 ef Rome. 
 
 If this were true, tt were more to the difcredit of the 
 Frctefiant Clergy, than to the Credit of Ethelwolj 's Cler- 
 
( 277 ) 
 
 gy. But I deny bis Aflertioa, unlefs he mean it of thofe, 
 who, as his Brother fays, (Friendly Conference^ pag. ii.) 
 for a corrnpt hitereft intrude themlclvec into the Miniftry ^ 
 of which number himfelf is very likely to be one, Buc 
 he that diligently flia!l obferve the Accounts thefePriefls 
 themfelves give of chofe times, will fee chey wrtte'^noc 
 plainly and fairly, but ftrive to colour over a corruiJ In-^ 
 tereft^ and thai's the Reafon they neither agree oue .'with 
 another, nor with themfelves. The Author of the ir/>«^- 
 ly Conference^ pag. 1 48. fayS, Tythes were fettled upon the 
 Chnrch^ before Popery had made her Encroachment x in it\ 
 for Popery U not of that Antiquity^ &c. And he refers to 
 Ethelwolfh Donation for the Settlement, pag. \^6. which 
 was made in the Year 855. Yet the fame Man (if he be 
 the fame that writ the Findication^ as is pretended) makes 
 Popery as antient a6 the Tear 700. above One hundred and 
 fifty Years older than Ethelwolf's Charter. ' Mofl (fays 
 * he) of the prefent Evil Opinions of the Church of Rome, 
 ' had their Original in thofe unlearned Ages, from abouE 
 *• the Year 700. till about the Year 1400. Findic. pag. 
 277. Thus he one while makes the Settlement of Tythes 
 cider than Popery, another while Popery older than the 
 Settlement of Tythes, In like manner the other Priefl in his 
 Right of Tythes^ pag. 102. fays, The Clergy of that Jge were 
 God's only phblick Minifiers, And pag. 112. The Donors 
 intended Tythes to the right Mi?iifters of God ^ and 1 make no 
 doubt they were fuch to whom they gave them. Again, pag. 
 178. King Ethelwolf'j Clergy agreed with the Proteltant 
 Church of England in more Points^ than with the modern cor^ 
 r4ipf Church of Rome. And yet the fame Priefl: fays, pag. 
 pp. The Benefit' of this Donation of Tythes hath been enjoyed 
 for Eight hundred Tears by thofe to whom the Donation was 
 made. Now certain it is, that the Benefit of this Dona- 
 tion was enjoyed by the Popifh Clergy all the time of Pope- 
 ry, till the very latter-end of Hen. 8. or the beginning of 
 Edw, 6. and afterward again in Qiieen Aiary'% time ^ and 
 if all this while Tythes were enjoyed by them to whom 
 the Donation was made, then it muft needs be made to 
 a fopifh Clergy, or elfe there never was fuch a thing as a 
 popi\h Clergy in England. Now thoupji it be thus plainly 
 proved from his own words, that Tythes were given to a 
 Popilh CUrgy.^ yet fo daringly confident is he, to fay they 
 
 X 2 w<r« 
 
( 278 ) 
 
 were Gof's only puhlick Mimfiers, and that he makes mo 
 doubt they were the right Mmifters of God, Were they 
 God\ own publick Mmifters? Were they the right Mini* 
 fters of God who enjoyed the Benefit of this Donation of 
 Tyches, all along ixom Ethdwolfh time to the Reformati- 
 on )^ if fo, then the popifhChrgy all that while, even in 
 the-^oft Idolatrom times ; yea, Bonner^ Gardner^ and their 
 Aflbciates, who drunk fo deep of Proteftant Blood, were 
 in his account r/gk Minillers of God. But if they who 
 enjoyed the Benefit of this Donation of Tythes all along 
 from Ethelrvoirs time until the Reformation, were not 
 the right Miniflers of God, but a corrupt pvpijh Clergy ; 
 then were not they (even by his own Argument) the 
 right Miniilers of God, but a corrupt popijh Clergy to 
 whom this Donation of Tythes was made ; for he fays 
 exprefly, the Benefit of it was enjoyed for Eight hundred 
 Years by thofe to whom the Donation was made. This 
 is unavoidable : and therefore his faying King Ethelwolfy 
 Clergy agreed with the Proteftant Church of England in 
 more Points, than with the modern corrupt Church of 
 Rome^ may caft an imputation on him and his Brethren, 
 but cannot clear Ethelwolf his Clergy from Popery. 
 
 But what he cannot prove^ he is very forward to tale 
 for granted^ and therefore fays, pag. 178. *• Since the 
 ' Donors gave them not to a popilh Clergy, but to God 
 ' and his true Miniflers ^ our Kings and Parliaments, 
 ' that took them away from the corrupt Clergy (who 
 ' were fallen into Popery) and fettled them on the true 
 ^Proteftant Miniftery^ did obferve therein the Intention 
 * of the Donors, and did apply Tythes to the Right life 
 ' for which God intended them. 
 
 He talks idly. God never intended Tythes to any 
 fuch ufe in the times of the Gofpel *, let him prove it if 
 lie can. And for obfervfng the Intention of the Donors, 
 it is manifeft^^^ Donors intended their Tythes to fnch a Cler" 
 gjy oi would SAY MASS for their Souls when they were 
 DEAD. Is he one of them, or are his Brethren fuch, 
 or was that one of the Points in which he brags King 
 Ethelwolf h Clergy agreed more with the Proteftant Church 
 of E^jgland^ than with the modern corrupt Church of 
 Rome ? However, by his own confeffion here, that Cler- 
 gy from whom Tythes were taken, was corrupt and fall- 
 
 m 
 
 i 
 
< 279 ) 
 
 en into Popery. Seeing then Tythes were taken from the 
 fame Clergy to which they were given (for the benefit, 
 he fays, was enjoyed eight hnndred Tears by thofe to xohom the 
 Donation was made^ pag. 99.) was not Ethelwolfs Clergy 
 corrupt and fallen into Popery too ? 
 
 Again, he fays, pag. 178. Since the fir fl Donors did not 
 fettle them on the popifh Clergy^ and the prefent Laws have 
 given them to the Protellant Clergy, 7 know not what Title 
 the Popifh Priefts can jnflly have to them. 
 
 Nor I neither; not that the firjft Donors did not fet- 
 tle them on them (as he begs) but becanfe that Settlement 
 was not jufi^ and with what Qith^vjitftice X}y Credit a Pro^ 
 teftant Mtnifter can thus creep in^ and plead a Right to 
 Tythes by a Donation Fraudulently obtained by a popifh 
 Clergy, I leave the Reader 10 judge. 
 
 To fupply his defed of Argument, he betakes himfelf 
 here again to his ujual Courfe of Railings and becaufe he 
 cannot fairly anfwer, he fets himfelf /?«//y to befpatter nie 
 and Xh^ Quaker s^]}^^. 179 calling us the very Darlings of the 
 great Agents for P*.ome; faying,!re learn onr Leffonfrom the Pa- 
 fpifts^ and are doingthcir Work for them^ calling nie a Journey^ 
 man to the Popifh Priefts, and much more of ih^ fame bran. 
 All which favouring fo flrong oi Ignorance and Envy^ and 
 being as far from Truth as from ail manner of likelihood 
 and probability, I will not give fo much Countenance to 
 liis Charge as to think it worth an Anfwer. 
 
 And whereas he fays, Their DoEirine of PerfeElion-, de^ 
 fpifing the Letter of Scripture^ pleading for lonorance^ relying 
 on the merit of following the Light within^ &c. are Popery in 
 4ijgnife. 
 
 I fhall only tell him at this time, that his fo faying is 
 dowft-right Falfldoodj and open Slander without difgmfe'^ a 
 further Account of which he may exped in Reply to his 
 Brother's Vindication. 
 
 §. 9. He is offended at my faying. That // Tythes 
 pere a fititable Maintenance for a Protcflant Miniftry, yet 
 the Clergy now do nothing for the People (nor indeed have any 
 $0 do) which can deferve fo great a Compenfaticn. This was 
 fpoken upon occafion of the other Priefl's Saying, Friend- 
 ly Conference, pag. 85. ' Their only Work is to explain 
 * the written Word of God, and apply the fame j and 
 
 T 3 ye? 
 
( 2So ) 
 
 yet a little after, pag. 92, 93. acknowledged, * that what- 
 ' foever is neceffary to Salvation, either to be believed 
 
 * or done, are in fome place or other in holy Scripture 
 
 * fitted to the moft vulgar Capacity and fhalloweft Under- 
 
 * ftanding, &c. But this Pi ieft not willing to take no- 
 tice of this, which he knew would be an hard knot to 
 untie, looks over it, as if he bad not feen it, and fays, 
 pag. 180. ' Certainly we do as much tor the People as 
 ' ever was done by any Clergy in the World : We pray 
 
 * for them, preach to them, adminifler the Sacraments 
 ' duly among them, we marry and bury, we vifit the 
 ' Sick, relieve the Poor, comforE the Sad, reprove Sin- 
 ' ners, confute Hereticks, and (hew the Folly of Eli- 
 f wood^ &c. 
 
 If they perform the reft no better than this laft, they 
 little deferve the Wages they receive. But do they per- 
 form thefe particular Services for the Tythes whicli they 
 receive ? If not, it is but a falfe pretence to urge thefe as 
 the Works for which Tythe is a Com^enfation, Let us ex- 
 amine the matter a little. They Adminifter, he fays, ' 
 the Sacraments \ bm are they not paid for it befides ? \A^ili 
 they baptise the Child of him that pays Tythes without 
 being paid difiinBly for that ? Do they not make their Pa- 
 riihioners that pay Tythes, pay them over and above tor 
 giving them Bread and Wine, though the Farifhioners bny 
 the Bread and Wine themfelves^ and pay for it befides optt 
 of their own Furfes ^ WMll they marry a Man that pays 
 Tythes, unlefs he gives them a Sum of Money on pmpoft ? 
 Or will they bnry any of the moft zealous Tythe-payers, 
 and not be paid difiin^ly for it ? What meer deceit is it 
 then to name thefe things as Services, for which they de- 
 ferve Tythes, when, let their Tythes be never fo great, 
 they will not do any of all thefe without being paid for it 
 over and above. Then for the other Particulars named, as 
 Viftting the poor^ &c. It is too notorious that many of them 
 fpend more time and Money in Taverns and AU-houfes 
 than,in vifiting the Sick and relieving the Poor. Inftead 
 of comforting the Sad, they make many fad by their Ex- 
 adioRS and Extortions upon the People, under the fpeci- 
 ous Pretences and gilded Names of Sacred Revem^s and 
 'Rights of holy Church. If ihey reprove fome Sinners by 
 'Words, they encmrage more by Example j and what he 
 
 calls 
 
(281) 
 
 calls Confuting of Herefies^ proves often times Oppofing of 
 Truths. Laftly^ He fays, Theyfhew the Folly ^/Ellvvood, &c. 
 Indeed ! Is this then one of che Works for which they re- 
 ceive Tythes? Is it th^ general Service and univcrfd La- 
 bour of the Clergy ? I confefs I have heard they liad p-i- 
 vate Cabals^ and feveral little Committees about my Book 
 (wherein he that gave the Occafion of writing ic, receiv- 
 ed no Thanks for his Labour, and wifhc he had never 
 medled) and that after many Confnkations and Debates 
 about it, they at length refolved to divide it into feve- 
 ral parts, fome being appointed to anfwer one part, and 
 fome another *, which the Event doth fomewhat confirm. 
 But I never underltood before that they had a general 
 Convocation about it, and that it was undertaken as a Na- 
 tional Service^ for which all the Parifh Priefts in the Na- 
 tion muft have Tythes. But truly, had I thought there 
 had been fo many Heads engaged in the Work, I (hould 
 haveexpeded ftronger Reafons, and more forcible Argu- 
 ments than I find in the Replies. But we muft take them 
 as they are now. 
 
 He fays, pag. i8i. They are always ready to perform 
 any divine Office which their people need or require. 
 
 He fiiould have added CM MoneyJ for notwithftand- 
 ing their Tythes, thofe other Offices which he calls Di- 
 vine, muft be fure to be paid for difiin^. 
 
 Here the other Prieft puts in a word, Findicat, pag. 
 314. where his Parifhioner citing thofe words of mine, 
 ' If Tythes were a fuitable Maintenance, the Clergy now 
 ' does nothing for the People, which can deferve fo great 
 * a Compenfation \ h€ replies, That is^ if his f^orjhip may 
 be judge. 
 
 Is not this a learned Anfwer, and a notable Demon- 
 ftration that the Clergy doth fomething for the People, 
 which deferves Tythes for a Compenfation? The Rea- 
 der perhaps may think this is not the Anfwer it felf, but 
 a Preparative only to an Anfwer^ take therefore his fol- 
 lowing words, thus, B^n what 1 wonder do the Impropri- 
 ators for the people^ which deferves fo great a Compenfa- 
 tion ^ 
 
 Truly nothing that I know of; nor do they pretend 
 to do any thing : But what is that to the purpofe ? Dotli 
 that excufe the Prieft ? Or is this any Anfwer at all to my 
 
 T 4 Objedi- 
 
( 282 ) 
 
 Ob)e6:ion ? He adds, Befides^ it^s aUonetothe peopUy trfcc- 
 ther they pay Tythes or no : As 1 jhall fhew yon anon. 
 
 This is his Anfwer to a fyllable : In which, judge 
 Reader whether there be any thing ferious, anv thing 
 argumentative, any thing pertenent to the purpoie; and 
 whether he hath not here evaded a ferious Anfwer by a 
 petty Cavil againft the Impropriators. 
 
 Again, The Parifhioner urging that from his Saying^" 
 Our only Work is to explain the written Word of God, 
 and to apply the fame \ I concluded, that what they do 
 for the People is not fuitabie to the Reward of Tythes; 
 the Priefl replies, Both not this Quaker (thtnk you) in- 
 flrfiSl the People very gr act GHJly^ as if Tythes were of m re real 
 value to them^ than the Word of God explained ar.d applied ^ 
 
 That's not my Inftrudion, but hh Mi f confer hB ion of 
 my Words. 1 neither fay nor intimate that Tythts are 
 of more real value to the People than the Word of God 
 explained and applied. But that Tythes are of more real 
 value to the People than the Triefih Labour^ in explain- 
 ing that which he tells them himfelf, is fo pl<^in already 
 that it needs no Explanation ; which if it be not true, 
 he was to blame to fay it ; but if it be true, then have 
 they no need of his help therein, and confequently pay 
 him Tythes for nothing, or at leafl for that which doth 
 not deferve fo great a Compenfation. 
 
 But he complains I have done him wrong, and fays, 
 ' I muft not let the Abufe pafs, which he hath put upoa 
 ' me in this Quotation. He fo Hates my words, as his 
 
 * Reader mufl underftand him, that 1 make explaining 
 ' and applying the Word of Godj the fole and the only 
 ' Work of a Minifter— And a little after, — Qonly 
 ^ Work] related to the particular which I was there dif- 
 
 * courfing of, and not to the general Office of a Mi- 
 t nider. 
 
 Neither did I fo reprefent it : For I know there are fe- 
 veral other things which they take into their Office; but 
 then they have diflinB Rates and Trices fet on them, and 
 they are paid for them in Money over and above the 
 Tythes. 
 
 But to return to the other Prieft, the Author of the 
 ^ight of Tythes, 
 
 f. 10. la 
 
( 28? ) 
 
 §, 10. In his next Seftion he taxes me with many Mi- 
 ftakes in point of Law^ wherein if I am defedtive it is no 
 great wonder, having never been educated in that Stu- 
 dy. He begins with a great deal of Mirth and Joke^ ac- 
 cording to the levity of his Mind, and by and by flips into 
 his ufual drain oi prophane Jeering and Boutirjg at Revda^ 
 tiofiy and immediate Teaching, calling me an Jnfpira- 
 do^ &c. All which I let pafs as the froth of his Wit, in 
 which no Argument lies. The firft Miftake he charges 
 me with is in faying. The Statute of 27th of Heti. 8. is 
 the firfl: Parliamentary Law for Payment of Tythes; 
 whereas (fays he, pag. 183.J the very firfl Law in the Std^ 
 tute Book ii a Grant for the Churches injoying her Rights mvia" 
 table, 
 
 I was not altogether fo confident and pofitive as he re- 
 ports me, but ,f^id, This is the firfl Parliamentary Law that 
 I find amongfl our Statutes for the Payment of Tythes\ wliictl 
 words £that I find among our Statutes] he leaves out in 
 reciting my words. Now if it had fo happened that his 
 Sagacity and induftrious Diligence had chanted to have 
 found out another Statute of elder date than I gave, yet 
 methinks the Modefly and Warinefs of my Expreilion, 
 might have won upon him to have pardoned fuch an 
 Omiflion, and thereby have obliged me to have done him 
 the like Kindnefs another time. But fince he Hands fo 
 upon it, let us fee what other Statute he has brought, 
 and whether I am guilty indeed of a Miftake in this 
 cafe or no. He fays, The very fir ft Law in the Statute-Book 
 is a Grant for the Church"* s injoying her Rights inviolable. 
 
 What then? Is there any mention of Tythes in thafe 
 Gram ? or was it a Law made for the Payment of Tythes ? 
 Not a tittle of Tythes is in it. How then was this a Parlia- 
 mentary Law made for the payment of Tythes, when nei- 
 ther Tyr^^i nor Payment are fo much as mentioned in it? 
 This was a Confirmation of Liberties to the Church, bul 
 not a Law made for the payment of Tythes \ nor do I yet 
 think the Prieft will find (though he turn the Statute- 
 Book over again) any Law made diredly for the pay- 
 ment of Tythes, before that which I have quoted j which 
 if he do not, inflead of faftning a Miftake in this cafe up- 
 on me, he'll find a Charge of a worfe nature return upon 
 hlmfdf. 
 
 The 
 
( 284 ) 
 
 The n€xti Miftake he charges me with is, that I fay, 
 
 * This Stacute of 27. Hen. 8. was made by a popifii King 
 
 * and Parliament, Whereas (fays he) that very Statute 
 
 * declares the King Supream Head of the Church of Eng- 
 
 * land^ as T, E may fee if he reads it over : And how 
 
 * they can be Pa^ifts that have renounced the Pope's Au- 
 
 * thority, I cannot well underftand, fays he^ ibid. 
 
 He needed not have taken the pains to inform me that 
 Hen. 8 had aflum'd th€ Supremacy before the making of 
 that Statute, fince i had advertifed him of that in the 
 fame page out; of which he pretends to pick thefe mi- 
 ftakes (pag. 333.) where I fay, ^ Hen. 8, being moreP^i- 
 
 * fifi chdn Protefiant (though he had transferr'd the Su- 
 ' premacy from the Pope to himfelf) and believing, as 
 ' mofl of the other Dodrines of the Church of Rome.^ fo 
 ^ thatof Tythes being due to God and holy Church, ia 
 
 * fhe twenty feventh Year of his Reign, made a Law for 
 
 * the payment of Tythes, &c. But that which he either 
 cannot or will not underftand is, how they cm be Papills 
 that have renounced the Pope's Authority. 
 
 Truly though he has not deferved much kindnefs of me, 
 yet I will take a little pains to inform him how this may 
 be \ and in order thereunto I will begin with the defini- 
 tion of Popery^ which his Brother gives in his Conference, 
 pag. 149. FopQty is fuch DoBrines and fuperfiitiom PraEhi" 
 cesy which by the Corruption of time^ have prevailed in the 
 Church of Rome, contrary to the True^ Antient^ Catholickj and 
 ^Apoftolicl Church. As this is Popery .^ fo he that holds, 
 believes and ufes fuch Doctrines and Pradices is a Papifi 5 
 but fo did Hen. 8. after he had renounced the Pope's Au- 
 thority, and afliim'd the Supremacy, to himfelf. And if 
 Herbert (who writ his Life) may find Credit with the 
 Prielt, he will tell him, pag. 359. that though he fepa- 
 rated from the Obedience of the Roman Church, yet not 
 from the Religion thereof, fome few Articles excepted : 
 Of which more full Teftimonies we may find in Ptx\ Jl^s 
 and Monuments., and in Spee£% Chronicle. The fix Arti* 
 cles were enaded after the Pope's Authority was renoun- 
 ced, (and after this Law for the payment of Tythes was 
 made alfo) which Articles were for the eftablifliing of 
 Dodrines grofly popi^.^ viz. Tranfubfiantiation^ the half 
 
 Com" 
 
( 285 ) 
 
 Communion^ the (ingle Life oi ?r\t^s, Fows of perpetual Cha* 
 fiity, private M^ffes^ and auricular Cohfejfion^ and flood in 
 force all his time. And many fufTci ed Martyrdom under 
 him, ^fttr he had renounced the Pope's Supremacy, as 
 Lahhert^ Barms^ Askew^ and many others, who to be fure 
 were no Renegadoes^ but fuch as certainly fealed their Te* 
 Itimony with their Blood. Befides, he might have leanrE 
 from his Brother Prieft, that Hen. 8. did eftablifh the fx 
 bloody Articles^ to jhew himfelf oa ill a Friend to Proteftants 
 m to Tythes^ Vindication, pag. 305. which if he had con- 
 fidered, might perhaps have helped to open his Under- 
 flanding a little in this dark and difpcult Point, However, 
 by that time he has read and weighed what has now 
 been offered concerning it, 1 hope he may begin to un- 
 der/land how they could be Tapifts that had renounced 
 the Pope's Authority j and then I expect he fhould with- 
 draw his AShioriy and not charge me with a miftake^ in fay- 
 ing the Statute of 27. Hen. 8. for the payment ot Tythes, 
 was made by a popijh King and Parliament. But he fays, 
 J rmftake a Statute made in 32. Hen. 8. c. 7. for a Statute 
 made in 57. Hen. 8. 
 
 Who but would take this Man to have been Domitian\ 
 Schollar, he is fo ready-handed at catching Flies ? What 
 a grand millake was this to fet 37. for 32 ! A miflake is 
 was however. But common ingenuity would rather have 
 imputed it to the Printer than tht Author^ efpecially con- 
 iidering how ill the Book is printed throughout. He 
 knows well enough that till he had imde a fecond Corre5ii' 
 en of Errors, his own Book was not free from fuch mi- 
 ftakes, if it be yet. And if I could have taken the fame 
 Courfe, he had not had this Straw to flumble at. 
 
 He adds, t\[2it 1 bring in Proteftant Kwg Edw. 6, for a 
 popifh Con firmer ofTythes. 
 
 He wrongs me in that. My words are thefe (pag. 
 334.) Jn purfuance of thefe Laws o/Hen. 8. his Son and Suc- 
 cejfor Edw. 6. made another^ grounding it upon thefe which his 
 father had made before. This is not calling Edw, 6. a poptjh 
 Confirraer ofTythes. 
 
 §. 1 1 . But he takes great pains to prove Tythes a Free- 
 hold, and fpends feveral pages about it, uiing great ear- 
 neftnefs therein, and calling me Heretick for but fo much 
 
 as 
 
( 286 ) 
 
 as queflioning it. I do not profefs my felf a Lawytr^ and 
 cherefore will not take upon me to Anfwer all his Law^ 
 Quotations, left I fhould need ihe fame excufe that he at 
 5aft is fain to make, pag. 188. {^Ne fut or ultra, crepidamJ} 
 But I obferve, he fays, pag. 185. thsit Jn the very Statute of 
 32. Hen. 8. There is mention made of an Efiate of Inheritance 
 or Free-hdd in Tythes, 
 
 By this I perceive he confounds the Claims of Priefl 
 and Impropriator: For that Claufe in the Statute hath 
 plain Relation to the Impropriators, direding how and 
 where /.^j/-w3tf« pofTefling Tythes, and being thereof dif- 
 feized, may have their Remedy. The words of the Sta- 
 tute run thus, ' And be it further enaded, &c. that all 
 
 * Cafes, where any Perfon or Perfons, which now have, 
 
 * or which hereafter fhall have any Eftate of Inheritance, 
 
 * Free-hold, Term, Right, or Intereft, of, in or to any 
 
 * Perfonage, Vicarage, Portion, Penfion, Tythes, Obla- 
 ' tions, or other Ecclefiaftical or Spiritual Profit, which 
 
 * now be, or which hereafter fhall be made Temporal, 
 
 * or admitted to be, abide and go to, or in Temporal 
 ^ Hands, and Lay Ufes and Profits by the Law and Sta- 
 ^ tutes of this Re?- Ira, (hall hereafter fortune to be dif- 
 
 * feized, &c. It is plain, that by an Efiate of Inheritance 
 or Freehold^ the Statute here intends thofe Tythes that 
 then were or after fhould come to be in the PeflefTion of 
 Lay- men ^ and appropriated to temporal or Lay Ufes ; 
 which Implies it did not account Tythes an Efiate of In- 
 heritance or Free-hood to the Priells, for then this di- 
 itindion had been needlefs. Befides, the Statute fays, 
 The Perfon or Perfons fo dilTeized, &c, their Heirs, 
 Wives J S:c. fhall have remedy in the King's Temporal 
 Courts, &c. and, amongft other Writs by which they 
 may proceed, direds Writs of Dower -^ All which haviJ 
 manifefl Relation to the Impropriator's Title, not to the 
 Priefl's : For what Priefl (as a Priefl) can make his Wife 
 a Dower of Tythes ? Or what hath a Priefl's Heir or ff^ifi 
 to do with Tythes, when he is dead ? But this Priefl 
 would' gladly flrengthen his Claim, by twilling i^ the 
 
 ^ Impropriator's with it. Therefore he fays, pag. i85. 
 ' Thofe very Laws which made the Alienation, did not 
 ' give the Laity any other Efiate in Tythes, than fuch as 
 t the Clergy had before, and fuch as the reft of the Cler- 
 
( 287 ) 
 
 * gy had then to the Tythes remaining in Ecclefiallkal 
 
 * Hands. 
 
 This is difproved by an Inflance which himfelf gives, 
 pag. 185. which is of a Writ of Dower of pr a dial Tythes 
 broHght in the Conntefs of Oxford'^ Cafe^ 5 , 'Jacob, 
 
 By which it appears that Tythes were fettled in Dower 
 upon that Countefs (as he ftiles her) which they could 
 not have been, if her Husband had not had another Eftate 
 in Tythes than fuch as the Clergy then had or now have. 
 For no body, I fuppofe, imagines thai the Clergy have 
 fuch an Eflate in Tythes as by vertue of which tr>ey can 
 fettle Tythes in Dower upon their Wives. He that will 
 take the pains to confult that Statute (32. Hen. 8. 7) will 
 find that what it fpeaks of Ellates of Inheritance^ Free- 
 hold^ &c. hath refped to Lay-men^ not to the Clergy. 
 For although, in the fecond and laft Paragraphs, where 
 it direds the Remedy for recovery of Tythes, in cafe of 
 Subllradion or Detention thereof, it exprefly mentions 
 Ecclefiaftical as well as Lay Perfons, retraining the Re- 
 medy for both to Ecclelia ft ical Courts and Laws ^ yet in 
 the feventh Paragraph, where an Eftate of Inheritance or 
 Free-hold in Tythes is fpoken of, there is no mention made 
 or notice taken of the Clergy, not a word of any Ecclefi- 
 aftical Perfon, but thofe Terms [_Eftate of Inheritance^ Free- 
 holdy &c.] are exprefly there applied to fnch Tythes^ ore. 
 Oi then were or fljoM afterward be made temporal^ or admit' 
 ted to be^ abide^ and go to^ or in temporal Hands and Lay Vfes 
 and Profits^ &c. And in cafe of diOeizure of fuch Eftate 
 of Inheritance^ Free-hold^ &c. the Remedy was not re- 
 ftrained 10 the Ecclefiaftical Courts (as in the other cafe 
 wherein Ecclefiaftical Perfons were concerned) but left 
 to the King's temporal Courts. From all which 1 gather, 
 that thofe words in the Statute [_Efiate of Inheritance^ 
 Free-hold, &:c.3 have no relation at all to the Clergy, nor 
 do any way concern Ecclefiaftical Perfons, but were in- 
 ferted purpofely for the fakes of thofe Lay perfons^ into 
 whofe Hands fuch Eftaces were then already come, or 
 likely to come: And that the Law-makers then did un- 
 derftand the Laity to have another Eftate in Tythes than 
 the Clergy had. 
 
 The 
 
( 288 ) 
 
 The Author of the Conference^ m his Vindication, pag^ 
 gid. hath another trick to prove Tythes a Free-hold, 
 and that is this; He asks his Parifhioaer, Who Ele5i the 
 Parliament Men that ferve for the County .<* TheParifhioner an- 
 fwers, The Free-holders. And did yon never (rayshe)/*^ Clergy 
 Mer?s Votes entred at one of thofe EleEiions i Tes many a time^ 
 quoth the Parifliioner. That very thing (replies he) proves 
 them Free-holders, 
 
 But, by his leave, the proving fome Priefl's Free-hold- 
 ers doth not prove Tythes a Free-hold, Many of the 
 Prieils have temporal Eflates, Lands of Inheritance or Pur- 
 chafe, wrhich gives them a Right of Suffrage in fuch Ele- 
 dions. But then it muft be confidered, that in fuch ca- 
 fes, though they are Clergy-^Men, they do not Vote as 
 Clergy-Men, but as Men poffeft of fuch temporal Eftales 
 or Free-holds. Belldes, moft of the Priefts have Glebe- 
 Lands, which may with lefs repugnancy to reafon be call- 
 ed a Free-hold^ than Tythes. And this Prieft hath not 
 expreHed upon which of thefe Confiderations it is that his 
 Clergy-Men's Votes are entred. Now if he intended to' 
 have proved, by this Medium, that Tythes are a Free- 
 hold to the Clergy, he fliould have demonftrated, that 
 every Priefl that cakes Tythes is thereby inabled to give 
 a Voice in the£Ie<flion of Parliament Men : Which if they 
 are not, it is rather an Argument againft: him then for 
 him, and fhews that Tythes are not a Free-hold to the 
 Clergy. But of that, let Lawyers judge: I only add. 
 That as the Priefts are unlike the Minifters of the Gofpel 
 in taking Tythes at all, fo they are much more unlike 
 them in claiming a legal Property and Free hold therein : 
 And if Tythes may m any Notion or Law be called a 
 Free*hold, they are (as I faid in my former Book, pag. 
 351.) fuch a Free-hold, as holds the greateft part of the 
 Nation in Bondage. 
 
 But he is angry that I fay, Thefe Statutes for Tythes 
 were grounded on a falfe Suppofltion, That Tythes were 
 due do God and Holy Church. This he calls a repeating 
 of old' baffled Faljhoods ', pag. 1 88. and fays, ' He has prov- 
 ' ed this was a true Suppofltion, and maintained by the 
 
 * Primitive Orthodox Fathers ; adding that nothing is 
 
 * more falfe than my Saying, This was a Dodrine pure- 
 
 * ly ^opijb^ and hatch'd at Rome^ Q^e leaves out [and here 
 
 * preach'd 
 
( 289 ) 
 
 * preach'd up with thundring Excommunications by the 
 ' Pope's Emmiflaries and Agents] which he knew could 
 not be denied, and would help to difcover where the 
 Dodrine was hatch'd.) However, he makes the validity 
 and force of the Statutes to depend on the Truth of this 
 Suppofition, That Tythes are due to God and Holy 
 Church : For he fays, Since thefe Statmss were grounded on 
 a Trimitive and Troteftant DoElrine^ the Statutes are therefore 
 goodj pag. i8p. BuE by the rule of contraries, it thefe 
 Statutes were not grounded on a Primitive and ProtejUnt 
 Doftrine, the Statutes are not therefore good. Now 
 that this Dodrine of Tythes being due to God and Holy 
 Church, was not a Primitive Dudrine appears, in thai 
 there is no mention of this Dodrine in any of the Writ- 
 ings of the NeW'Teftamenty wherein the Primitive Do- 
 drines of Chrifiianity are delivered. This Dodrine is no 
 where there to be found. Nor in the more fimple^ and 
 lefs corrupted Ages of the Church, and neareft to the 
 Apoftles times, was this Dodrine received. But in the 
 more diHant Ages from the Apoftles, when the Churcb 
 became greatly corrupted both in Dodrine and Pradice, 
 fprung up this Dodrine of Tythes being due to God 
 and Holy Church, and may truly be reckoned amongd 
 thofe Dodrines and fuperftitious Pradices, which by the 
 corruption of time, have prevailed in the Church of 
 Rome^ contrary to the True, Antient, Catholick and 
 Apoftolick Church ^ which the Friefl calls Popery, Confe^ 
 renccy pag. 149. And as this Dodrine fprang up in cor- 
 rupt times, fo it grew up together with the Corruptions of 
 thofe times; and the more corrupt the Church grew, and 
 fartheji: off from the Purity and Truth of the Gofpel, the 
 more Credit and Belief this Dodrine obtained, and was 
 the more generally received. And when, through ih^pre^ 
 valency ot Popery ^ the Church was r/iofi of all defiled and 
 polluted with Idolatry and Superftition, and in its worft 
 Eftate, then was this Dodrine in greateft repute, and in 
 JHlleji force and ftrength. By all which, let the Reader 
 judge whether this was a primitive Dodrine. And as 
 this was not a primitive Dodrine, fo neither was it a PrO" 
 teftant Dodrine: For the Bohemians (whom Fox calls Pro- 
 iejiams) when they renounced the Pope's Yoke, took 4- 
 way Tythes from thf Clergy^ and reduced them to certain 
 
 Stipends, 
 
( 290 ) 
 
 Stipends, as SeUen out of Jo, Major Nofees, Hifl. Tythes^^ 
 pag. 167. which they would not have done, if they had 
 believed that Tythes were due to God and Holy Church* 
 Thus it appears, that this Dodrine of Tythes being due 
 to God and Holy Church, is neither a Primitive nor Prote* 
 flam Doarine ^ and tha£ the Statutes grounded thereon,- 
 are buih upon a /^//c SuppofiEion. 
 
 He excepts againll my Saying, For a Man to claim 
 that by a temporal Right, from a temporal Law, which 
 the Law he claims by Commands to be paid as due by a; 
 divine Right^ is meer juggling. To which he replies, 
 pag. 189. All the World knows^ ttpo Titles to the fame things 
 being fiibordinate to cne another ^ do flrerjgthen each other, 
 
 1 his is a meer jhift : For it is evident, thofe Statutes 
 do not intend to make the Prielts another Tide then Vi^hat 
 they claimed by before, but only to appoint the PaymenE 
 of Tythes upon the old Title of being due to God. So 
 that thefe Statutes do nol make the Priefts a temporal 
 Right , nor was it the defign of thera fo to do, for the 
 Statute of SI, Hen, S. 7. fpeaking of Tythes impropriated^ 
 fays, Which now be^ or which hereafter {hall be made tempO' 
 ral'^ which implies plainly, They underftood ^Z/ Tythes,' 
 before fuch Impropriations, in no other Notion than Ec- 
 clefiaftical or Spiritml : And that they accounted aH other 
 Tythes, which were not fo impropriated, but remained 
 in the Hands of the Clergy y Ecclefiaftical or Spiritual Pro* 
 fits dill, not temporal. Now for the Priefts to claim a 
 temporal Right to Tythes by thofe Laws which declare 
 the Right they have to be Spiritual-^ this is the Juggle. 
 If they will claim Tythes by thefe Seatutes, they fhould 
 claim them in that Notion wherein the Statutes fuppofe 
 them due, which is as a Spiritual Right, not as a Tempo- 
 ral. The Priell fays, ' A Father (having a Maintenance 
 
 * referved out of his Son's Eftate, mentioned in thofe 
 
 * Deeds which fettle the faid Eflate on the Son) though 
 ' he had a Right to be maintained by his Son, j^re divino^ 
 ' m'ay claim a Maintenance by Vertue of thefe Deeds, 
 '-rjnre h'nmano ; and the fecond Title ftrengthens, but 
 
 ."€; doth not deilroy the firft. 
 
 This is quite befide the Cafe : For (befides that the com- 
 parifon will not hold between a Father and a Prieft, un- 
 lefs any in the darknefs of their Ignoraace fliould fo far 
 
 miftake 
 
C 291 ) 
 
 miftake as to own the Priefls for their Spiritual Father? 
 Nor in that cafe neither with refpedl: coTythes, but to a 
 Maintenance only) here are (m the cafe of a Father) two 
 Sfiin^ Titles, independent one of the other ; and the Deed 
 of Settlement, in which fuch Maintenance is referved, 
 doth not exprefs the referved Maintenance to be due^ 
 jure divino^ but declares it to be a temporal Right fettled 
 upon civil and temporal Confiderations. But how re- 
 mote is this from the Priefl's cafe ! The Statutes mention 
 no temporal Right of Tythes to the Priefls, but fiippofe a di- 
 vine Right, and upon that Suppofit ion command the Paymenfi 
 of them, as fo due : This Deed of Settlement mentions 
 nothing of a divine Right, but acknowledges a civil and 
 temporal Right to the Maintenance therein referved. As 
 well then may the Father claim a divine Right to this Main- 
 tenance by vertue of this Deed ^ as the Prielt claim a tem- 
 poral Right to Tythes by vertue oithefe Statutes j and both 
 alike ftnreafonahle* 
 
 §. 1 2. In my former Book, I inquired two things, pag. 
 335i 35^- firft, What it is the Priefl claims a Property 
 in ? Secondly, Where this Property is veiled, in the 
 Perfon of the Priefl, or in the Office? To the firfl, the 
 Priefl gives no Anfwer here, only in another place, pag* 
 196, he fays. We grant Tythes are due out of the profits only 
 and with this anfwer he contents himfdf^ over- looking the 
 Arguments I offered in pag. 355, 335, 338, 339. to prove 
 the unreafonablenefs of fuch a Claim •, particularly, Tha£ 
 // Tythes he the tenth ef the profit^ or increafe of the Landy and 
 they that fettled Tythes (as he faith) were a^ually feiz.ed, of 
 them in Law^ then furely they could fettle no more than they 
 were fo feiz^ed of] and they could be a^ual/y feiz.ed of no other 
 profits^ or Increafe^ than what did grow^ increafe^ or renew 
 ttpon the Land J while they were actually feiz^ed of it. So that 
 fuch Settlement^ how valid foever^ while they livedo mufi needs 
 expire with them. This and much more fuch plain and fe- 
 rious Argumentation, tending to prove the emptinefs 
 and unreafonablenefs of their Plea to Tythes from the 
 Donation of Ethelwolf and others, the Priefls, both one 
 and t'other, pafs by unanfwered. The Reader may guefs 
 why, 
 
 U Ths 
 
( 292 ) 
 
 The fecond thing inquired was, Inhere this Property is 
 *vejled^ in the. Perfon of the Priefl", or in the Office ? This I 
 perceive they are wonderful wary how they aiifwer. One 
 Prieft fays. An Office is capable of being vefled in a Proper- 
 iy^ and the prefent Perfon who fnflaws that Office^ hath this 
 property vefied tn him during his Life^ with remainder to his 
 Skueffors for ever^ Right ot Tythes, pag. 190. 
 
 This, as doubtfully and darkly delivered as might be, 
 feems in the firfl part, to affix the Property to the Office-^ 
 but in the latter part, to the Perfon that fuftains the Of- 
 fice : For he fays, The prefent Perfon who fuftains that 
 Office, hath this Property vefted in him (not during his 
 Office only, butj d^^ring his Life^ which may extend far 
 beyond his Office. For if the prefent Perfon who fuftains 
 the Office, be an igrtoram^ vicionsj debauched^ fcandalous 
 Prieft (as, alas ! too many of them are) if he be one of 
 them, who. the Author of the Conference fays, pag. 11. 
 will for a corrupt Intereft intrude themfelves into the fe f acred 
 Offices^ be not only may, but ought to beejedted. They 
 that for corrupt Intereft thruft themfelves in, Ihould for 
 their Corruption be thruft out again. But what mean 
 while becomes of the Property ? If (as this Prieft fays) 
 the prefent Perfon who fuftains the Office hath this Pro- 
 geny vefted in him during his Ufe^ the divefting him of 
 the Office doth not diveft him of the Property, becaufe 
 (according to this Prieft) the Property depends not on 
 the Office, but on the Perfon s Life thas bears the Office. 
 And the Remainder of this Property, which the Prieft: 
 fays, is to his Succtffors for ever^ can take no place till the 
 Death of the prefent Perfon who fuftains the Office. So 
 that when he who fuftains the Office comes to be turned 
 out of his Office, his SuccefFor in the Office can have no 
 Property at all^ until he that is fo turned out be dead, be- 
 caufe he hath the Property vefted in him during his Life, 
 Thus ftands the cafe according to this Prieft, wherein 
 how confiftent he is to himfelf, the Reader may obferve. 
 ISlow let us hear what the other Prieft fays to this mat- 
 ter, 'in his rindicatiou of the Conference^ pag. 317. This 
 Property (fays he) doth not belong to either of them apart^ but 
 the Property belongs to the Perfon^ as qualified by holy Orders^ 
 and put into a^ual Poffijfion by Inflitution and IndnHion, This 
 quite contradids the other Prieft : For if the Property 
 
 doth 
 
( 29? ) 
 
 doth not belong to eitheir 6i them apart, then the pre- 
 fent Perfon who luftains the Office cannot have the Pro- 
 perty vefted in him dnriyfg bis Life^ but during his O^cc 
 cnly. For \i he might have it danng his Life^ he mighE 
 then have it apart from his Office \ which this Prieft de- 
 nies, in faying, This Property doth not belong to either of 
 them apart. But if the Property doth not belong co ei- 
 ther of them apart, what becomes of the Property when 
 they are parted ^ The Prieft, it Teems, (according to this 
 Prieft) has no Property any longer than he is in Office 
 (though, according to the other Prieft, he hath it vefted 
 in him during his Life) turn him out of Office, and his 
 Property is gone, becaufe this Property doth ngt belong 
 to either the Perfon or Office apart. On the otjier hand. 
 The Office has no Property any longer than ifi hath a Prieft 
 in it, becaufe the Property doth not belong to either of 
 chem apart. Where then refteth the Property when the 
 Office is void^ Doth the Property ceafef They had beft 
 have a care of that, for that will ihrewdly endanger the 
 Title. Thus, Reader, thou feeft, after all their bhift- 
 ring big words for a Property in Tythes, they cannot agiee 
 where to fix it. A Property they v/ould fain have (and 
 nothing lefs^ fays ^ne of the Priefts, will fervs my turn, Vin- 
 dication, pag. 317.) but where to place it they do noE 
 know. To leave it in the Office they know is dangerous, 
 becaufe the Office v;as notorioufiy popijh^ when Tythe$ 
 were firft fettled on it. To fix it to the Perfon-s fuilain- 
 ing the Office is no lefs hazardous, becaufe /^w/, at leaft, 
 of thofe Perfons are acknowledged by the Prieft to be /«- 
 truders for a corrupt Inter eft. But leaving the P.riefts to 
 confuh anew about the Settlement of their conceited Pro- 
 perty, fince Tythes have fo great a dependance on the 
 Office, let us again conlider the nature of that Office when 
 Tythes were fettled on it. The Prieft fays. Right of 
 Tythes^ pag. 190. / make my felf fare of that, which nonebhf 
 a Wild Qjiaker wonld ever fo much as oncefnppofe^ viz. Ta 
 he fare the Office of the Priefl-hood was Popifhi and the 
 Office it felf being now laid aftde^ the property vefted in it rnuft 
 begone along with it. Thus he quotes my words ^ but, as 
 his ufual manner is, very defedtively, that he may there- 
 by find means either to abufe me, or avoid an Anfwer. 
 My words are thefe, pag. 335. It wm to be far 6 a Popifh 
 
( 294 ) , 
 
 Ojflce when Tythes were firft paid to it in this Nation^ an Offce 
 fet f4p by the Pope, and that not a6 a fecular Prince^ bnt as a 
 Pope (as a fpiritnal Father : For Jitch he pretends to he) bnt 
 if there had been a property in the Office^ yet feeing the Office it 
 felf u laid afide^ and the Pope, who was the Author ofity cafi 
 cj}\ fnrely whatever property was in the Office^ muft needs bt 
 gone along with it. This has, it feems, puc him fo out of 
 patience, that he retiirns this Anlwer, He muft be under 
 fotne degree of frenjic'^ who can per [wade himfelf^ that there ars 
 no Priejis now^ or that the Reformation laid the Office afide, 
 *th4t had been a Reformation ai wild as a Quaker conld pro^ 
 jfB, Doth he think that any body will grant thefe doting Falf- 
 hoodi ? No Proteftants (that ever I knew) held the Office of 
 Friefthood to be Popifll. j4nd truly^ T. E. thy, Suppofitions 
 will not be granted by anyy but thofe who are as fenfelefs as thy 
 /f//, pag. I9f. 
 
 This is his full Anfwer; in which, I think, no fenfibU 
 IVIan can find any thing Argmnentative^ Reafonable^ or Ci^ 
 *uiL Wherefore waving this, 1 will firft inquire fome- 
 what more particularly into that Office on which it is 
 pretended Tythes were fettled, and then take notice of 
 his Anfwer. 
 
 Firft then for the Office. It was (I faid) to be fnre a 
 popifh Office^ when Tythes were firfi paid to it in this Nation^ 
 an Office fet up by the Pope, &c. Aafiin the Monk coming 
 over hither from Rome^ by Authority which he received 
 from Pope Gregory ordained Bifhops and Priefts here. 
 And this was long before Tythes were paid in England. 
 After Aaflinh Death, his Succeflbrs were confecrated 
 Arch-Bi(hops of Canterbury by the fucceeding Popes^ or by 
 their Authortity, by vertue of which popifh Confecration 
 received themfelves, they took upon them to ordain new 
 Friefts as occafion Teemed to them to require. Thus was 
 that Priefthood in its Ordination entirely popifh : A prieft- 
 ly Office fet up and held up by the Power and Authority 
 qf the Popes of Rome. And as its Inftitmon, ib its Work 
 and Service^ the End and Intention of it was popifli : and 
 fo much worfe was it in its progrefs^ than in its Infiitmi^ 
 cn^ as the latter times were worfe than the former^ and 
 as the Church of Rome grew daily more depraved and cor- 
 rupt, om of which it fprang, by which it was nurfed up, and 
 u which ic was fubfervient. And at the time when Tythes 
 
 wer^ 
 
< 295 ) 
 
 ^et e fettled on this Office (and before) the Work and 
 
 Service of it was to fay Mafjes for the Souls of the Dead 
 
 (thus did the Clergy engage to do, even in thae very 
 
 Charter of Ethelwolf) to pray for the Dead^ that their Souls 
 
 might be delivered cue of Purgatory^ to receive Mricular 
 
 Cotifejfion^ to abfolve the people jrom their Sins^ Scc, Thel« 
 
 things are too certain and Icnown to be doubted, much 
 
 left denied, and too plain and evident to leave any (Jue- 
 
 ftion, whether this Office was at that time popijh or no. 
 
 Now though this Office continued long, yet at length ic 
 
 came to an end in this Nation. The Pope^ who fet this 
 
 Office up, was caft ojf-^ the Service of this Office (z/z<c. the 
 
 IVlailes and popifh Prayers) ceafed \ the Opinions of Pttrga' 
 
 toryy Auricular ConfeJJior?^ &c. were difownedy and the Of- 
 
 fee it felf was laid aftde. 
 
 Now let us take notice of the Priell's Anfwer, He mufh 
 he (fays he) under fame degree of Frenfie^ who can perfwade 
 himfelf that there are no Priefis mxQ^ or that the Reformation 
 laid the Office afide. 
 
 If Ihe Reformation did not lay the Office afide, the 
 Reformation was therein too jhort'^ for the Office was un- 
 doubtedly evil, and did deferve to be laid afide. But the 
 laying of that Office afide, doth not infer that there are 
 no Priefts now : Unlefs he thinks that all Priefts are of 
 ^me and the fame Office, and fo puts no difference betwixt 
 Light and Darknefs, Good and Evil. If he think fo^ I 
 muft then ask him whether he exercifes the fame Office 
 that the popijh Priefts novf do at Rome and elfewhere. 
 What theirs is, is pretty well known, and if his be the 
 ^ery fame with their s^ it will not be hard to guefs what hU 
 IS. But if he will reckon his not the fame with theirs, 
 bue another and better Office, he may thereby fee that 
 there may be Priefis now, although that Office which 
 was once exerclfed here, and is ftill in divers popr/fc Coun- 
 tries, be laid afide. Doth the ereding of a falfe Office 
 make void the true ? Or cannot the right Office of Priefts 
 remain, xiiht wrong be taken away ? Or will he fay that 
 was a right and true Office which was exercifed here by 
 the popiih Priefts, till the time of the Reformation ? Then 
 he juftifiesthe fame Office ftill, which is yet exercifed by 
 the popi^ Priefts in Italy^ Spain^ and other Countries. 
 C^ertaia it is that no fnch Office was ever appointed by 
 
 Ui Chrift, 
 
( 296 ) 
 
 Chrifl, or known among the Apoftles. They had rib 
 Office for ftying of Maffes^ for flaying for the Dead^ that 
 their Souls might be delivered out of Purgatory^ for re- 
 ceiving AuricnUr ConfeJJion^ and for many other things 
 which were the pecdtar Services of this Office. Thefe 
 things were not known amongft them, but fprang up af- 
 ter the Apoftolical times, in the Apoftacy, and conti- 
 nued till the Reformation. But if, as he fays, the Re- 
 formation did not lay the Office afide, what is become of 
 it ? By whom is it executed ? Do the PrieJJ:s who receive 
 Tythes now in England perform the fame Office that thofe 
 popifh Priefts did then f Do thefe fay A4ajfes, and pray for 
 the Dead? Do thefe receive jiHricidar Confeffion^ and take 
 upon them to ahfdve the people from their Sins ? This was 
 the Office of thofe Priefts ^ but none, I hope, of thefe 
 Priefts will acknowledge this to be their Office : How then 
 are the Offices the fame? But that that Office of Prieft- 
 hood to which Tythes were given, and by vertue of which 
 Tythes were fo long held and enjoyed in England before 
 the Reformation, was a popifh Office, and as fuch laid 
 afide by the Reformation, no Man, I think, that under- 
 flands thofe times, and has not an Interefl to ferve^ can 
 doubt. And if the Office was laid afide in which the 
 pretended Property was vefted, how ftiould the Property 
 remain, and not be laid afide together with the Oftice ? 
 But what Shifts will not Pricfis make for their Prcft^s fah ! 
 
 §. 13. His next Cavil is at my faying. The Friefi^s Ti' 
 tie lies in the Gift of the Owner ^ which I (hewed by this, 
 ' That the Prieft hath no power to take one Sheaf or Ear 
 
 * of the Husband-man's Corn from off his Ground, until 
 ' the Owner hath fevered it as Tythe from the remain- 
 
 * der, and thereby firft difteized himfelf of that part, 
 
 * and by his own Ad given the Prieft a Title thereun- 
 
 * to. And although the Law, fuppofing Tythe due to 
 ^ God and Holy Church, enjoyns the Owner to fet it 
 
 * out, yet if he refufe, he incurs the Penalty of that Law 
 
 * for his refufal, but the Property of the Tythe remains 
 ' intire in himfelf, ' To this the Prieft fays, pag. ipr.. 
 It is an odd kind of Property which we have to a things that 
 m may not keep in oftr Pofftffion \ and a fir awe Giftj which 
 
 we 
 
( 297 > 
 
 we tnufi give whether we will or no^ and be pfinifljed if we d9 
 not give it. 
 
 He might better fay, It is an odd hnd of Property the 
 Prieft claims to a thing he never had in pofejjiofjy nor they 
 from whom he claims it ; and which there is no certainty 
 in, nor knows he whether it be mnch or little. As for the 
 Owner, he may keep in his pojfejfwn the thing in which he 
 hath a Propriety, viz. Tythss^ and the Priefi cannot dif- 
 pojfefs him thereof^ although by Laws grounded on a Keli- 
 gioHS Miflake he may caufe him otherwife to fuffer for not 
 difpojfejjing himfelf. 
 
 But he fays, pag. 192. He will give a parallel Cafe, 
 There are (fays he) many free Rents and Cnftomary Payments^ 
 which the Perfon charged with them muft bring to fuch an 
 Honfe^ in fuch a Town^ at ftch a day^ and then and there dif'- 
 feiz^e himfelf of the [aid Money^ by a Tender thereof to the Lord 
 or his Ajjigm \ which Lord need never demand this Money ^ 
 and yet may take the Forfeiture^ if it be not brought to him^ and 
 tendered. 
 
 This is not a parallel Cafe to Tythes : For in this Cafe 
 o^ Rents and Cuftomary Payments^ the Lord or other Perfoa 
 claiming them, may for default of Payment either ent£r 
 upon the Lands out of which fuch Rents and Payments ifTue, 
 or bring hh ABion of Debt againll the Perfon charged 
 therewith j which argues he has a Property in the thing 
 he claims. But it is not fo in the Cafe of Tythes. If the 
 Owner refufe to fet them out, the Priefi cannot enter 
 upon the Land^ nor regularly bring an Adion of Debt a- 
 gainll the Owner \ but can only recover the Penalty of 
 the Statute for his not making him a Property by fetting 
 them out. VVhich plainly (hews, the Prieft hath not any 
 property in Tythes^ nor is by the Statutes themfelves un- 
 derflood to have any civil or temporal Right thereto ; but 
 is only fuppofed to have a divine Right, and upon that 
 miffuppofition the Statutes injoyn the Owners to make the 
 Prieft a temporal Right by fetting out of Tythes. Be- 
 iides. Free Rents and Cuftomary Payments are certain^ 
 and not in the power of the Occupant to extinguifl) or alter. 
 But it is far otherwife in the Cafe of Tythes, it is in the 
 power of the Occupant to make the Tythes much^ little j or 
 nothing (and that without any fraud to his Anccftors) for if 
 a Man flock his Land with Horfes, he is liable to very 
 
 U 4 little 
 
( 298 ) 
 
 little Tytbes, if any (and I think not to any, unlefs it 
 be by particular Cuftom of the place.) Bus if he plant 
 Woods J and let them ftand for Timber^ no Tythe at all 
 can be demanded ^ and what then becomes of the PriefFs 
 Profeny f Has not he a fine Property the mean while, 
 which another Man, without any Fraud or indired Deal- 
 ing, may extingmjh when he pleafes ? Is it not plain by 
 this, that the frie/fs Title lies tn the Gift of the prejent Own^ 
 er^ who may chufe whether the Prieft (hall have anything 
 or nothing.^ And is the Cafe of Free-Rents and Cuflo- 
 mary Payments a parallel to this ? Can he who ftands 
 charged with thofe Payments extinguifh or alter them at 
 his pleafure ? Can he make them more or lefs as he fees 
 good ? If not, how then is that a parallel Cafe to this of 
 Jythes ? 
 
 ' The Parfon (fays Shepherd in his Grand Abridgement^ Tit. 
 Tythes, pag. lOi.) ' hath a good Property in the Tythes where 
 
 * they are fet out by the Owner ^ not where they are fet out by a 
 
 * Stranger. Doth not this prove that the Parfon's Title 
 lies in the Gift of the Owner ? If the Owner fets ouE 
 the Tythes, he thereby difleizes himfelf thereof, and 
 gives the Parfon a Property in the Tythes fo by him fet 
 out : But if the Tythes are not fet out, the Parfon hath 
 no Property therein ; nay, if they be fet out, and not by 
 the Owner, but by a Stranger, the Parfon will be to feek 
 of a Property, notwithftanding fuch fetting out. By all 
 which it appears, That the Parfon has no Property in 
 the tenth part of another's Crop, until the Owner fets 
 out that tenth part, and thereby gives the Parfon a Pro- 
 perty in it. Nay further, fays Shepherd^ ibid. ' Jythes are 
 
 * not due J nor is it Tythe within the Statute of 2. Edw. 6". uri' 
 
 * til fever ance be made of the nine parts from the tenth part. So 
 that to make it Tythe within the Statute, it muft be fe- 
 vered : And to make the Prieft a Property in it, it mufl 
 be fet out as Tythe by the Owner. Judge now Reader, 
 whether the Prieft hath any other Property in Tythes 
 than what the prefent Owner gives him. 
 
 §. 14. Here again, pag. 193. the Prieft is gravelled 
 with an Argument, which he knows not how to anfwer, 
 and therefore having firft fluck an ugly Epithete or two 
 upon it, to fcare common Readers from obferving it, he 
 
 makes 
 
( 299 ) 
 
 makes a Ihew as if he would repeat it, and fets dow n 
 fomething thac looks a little like it, and then withouc 
 more ado cries, Ihave /nfficiemly baffled it before^ §. 30. and 
 fb takes his leave of ic. He fees it down thus, Tisat it is 
 ridicHlopts and Hnreafonable for any to pretend a Power to difpofe 
 oj thofe Profits^ or any part of them^ which arife from the La^ 
 bottr^ Stock and Care of another^ efpecially after thsir own de-^ 
 €eafe j for which he quotes pag. 338. of my Book. 
 
 This he calls an old^ fitly and bUfphemcus Argument^ and 
 fo lets it fall. But queftionlefs the Man being confciom 
 to himfelf, that his Claim to Tythes is ridicnhiu and un- 
 reafonabUj thefe two words did fo run in his mind, thaC 
 he fancied he read them in that place of my Book out of 
 which he pretends to take this Quotation: Whereas in- 
 deed neither of thofe w^ords is to be found in all that 
 page, nor any Argument in thofe terms wherein he gives 
 this. But that the Reader may fee there was in that page 
 fuch matter as might juftly deferve^ as well as require aa 
 Anfwer (and which he in his 30th Sedtion, to which he 
 refer, did not reply unto) I will repeat an Argument 
 out of that page, with the occalion of it, which was this. 
 The Author of the Conference had faid, pag. 154. That 
 Tythes were fettled by thofe that were a^nally feiz^ed of them in 
 Law, Whereupon I thus argued, ' \{ Tythes be the 
 
 * tenth of the Profit, or Increafe of the Land, and they 
 ^ that fettled Tythes (as he faith) were ad^ually feized 
 
 * of them in Law, then furely they could fettle no more 
 
 * than they were adually feized of, and they could be 
 
 * adually feized of no other Profits, or Increafe, thaa 
 
 * what did grow, increafe, or renew upon the Land, 
 ' while they were adtually fei;^ed of it. So chat fuch Set- 
 ' tlement, how valid foever, while they lived, muft needis 
 ' expire with them. Hence I further reafoned thus, * Is 
 
 * any one fo void of Reafon, as to imagine, that they, 
 
 * who were pofFeft of Land a Hundred Years ago, could 
 
 * then fettle and difpofe of the Profits and Increafe thaf 
 
 * fhall grow and arife upon the Land a Hundred Years 
 
 * hence *, which Profit cannot arife barely from the Land, 
 
 * but from the Labour, Induftry and Stock of the Occu- 
 
 * pier. Were ever any actually feized of the Labour of 
 *' the Husband-man's Hands, of the Sweat of his Brows, 
 ^ of the Judgment, Underftanding and Skill that God 
 
 * hath 
 
( 3©o ) 
 
 * hath given him, of the Stock he imploys, the Coft he 
 
 * bellows, the Care, Pains, Induftry and Diligence he 
 
 * exercifes for the obtaining of a Crop? &c. This fo- 
 lid Argument and fober reafoning he calls an old^ fdly^ 
 and bUfphemoui Argument. But whether it be either filly^ 
 or bUffhemom^ i willingly fubmit to the impartial Rea- 
 der's Judgment. And whereas he pretends he has fuf- 
 ficiently baffled it before in Sedion 30. I defire the Rea- 
 der to compare that Sedion with my Reply to \ty Chap. 
 5, Sed. 5, 6, and judge as he finds caufe. 
 
 But though the Pried was noE willing to handle this 
 Argument, yet he gladly catches an occalion from hence 
 to complain again of me to the Impropriators ; and he 
 takes a great deal of needlefs pains to inform them, of 
 what their own experience hath long fince taught them, 
 viz.. that the Quakers deny their Right to Tythes, The Qua- 
 hers do indeed deny Tythes to be due to any one under the Go^ 
 fielftate'y And for that caufe have fuffered and do, by 
 Impropriators as well as by Priefis, Nor is there any thing 
 in my Book, relating to the Impropriators^ which may any 
 whit excufe, much lefs juftifie, his ilanderous Reflexions 
 on me. Well may I pitty them, but never (hall I flatter^ 
 much lefs claw them, at leaft in that fenfe wherein they 
 are fure enough to be clawed^ if ever they come under 
 the Prieft's Claws^ or fall within their Clutches, His /cr^r- 
 rilom Language, and foul Epithets of double-tongued and 
 falfe-hearted^ with his fly e Infinuations oi my flattering and 
 clawing the Impropriators, argue nothing elfe to me, but 
 that he wanted other Arguments to fill up this Sedion, and 
 thought it befl to male a noife^ that vulgar Readers might 
 think he had faid fomething. But for all his Clamour^ 
 many of the Impropriators I doubt not difcern, both that 
 it is Confcience makes the Quaker refufe to pay Tythes^ and 
 Covetoufnefs makes the Triefi fo greedy to get Tythes j not oar 
 iy (rem the Quaker but Impropriator alfo. 
 
 §. 15'. He fays, pag. 195. As for Artificers paying Tythes 
 ef their Gains^ it is no more than what they are obliged to by 
 St. Paul'i Rule^ Gal. (5. 6, to give their Pafior a fhare of all 
 good things. 
 
 This 
 
( 301 ) 
 
 This is not true. That Rule of St. ?aul doth not Jeter- 
 mine the proportion^ but leaves j^rtificers and all others to 
 their Chrifiian liberty in point of quantity. Therefore to 
 oblige Artificers to pay the Tythes of their Gains, is more 
 than St. PWs Rule obliges them to ; Finally^ fays the 
 Prieft at the clofe of this Sedion, pag. 196. We ^rant 
 to T. E. Tythes are due cm of the Profits only ; and therefore 
 if God give no Increafe^ or the Hptiband-man have nothing ' 
 groWy we expert no Tythes at all. 
 
 Where's his Free-hold then ! But if Tythes are due out 
 of the profits only^ why are you Priefls fo unreafonable to 
 require Tythes where there is no profit f Yea, where in- 
 llead of profit^ there is apparent Lofs^ as it is certain you 
 frequently do. The Prieft here fays, If Cod give no In- 
 creafe^ they expeU no Tythe at all \ but it is ea lie to per- 
 ceive what he means by Increafcy by his adding {_or the 
 Husband-man have nothing gr 0x0"} There is fome difference 
 fure between hcreafe^^ and having fomething grow. He 
 that fows ten Bushels of Seed in a Field, and receives but 
 eight again (which that it often proves fo many Men to 
 their lofs know to be true) is far enough from having 
 Increafe^ when he decreafes two in ten. Yet fuch is the 
 Confidence of thefe Priefls^ that they will have the Tythes 
 of that Crop, though they fee apparently there is not on- 
 ly no Profit or Increafe^ but a certain Lofs and Decreafe even 
 of the Seed, befides all the Husband-man's other Charge 
 and Pains. So that it is not as the Priefl fays, If God 
 gives no Jncreafe^ that they expedt no Tythes at all ; but if 
 there be an utter and total Decreafe^ if the Husband-man 
 have nothing grow, i. e, if there be nothing m all for them 
 to have, then they exped nothings but if there be any 
 thing at all., if the Husband-man have any thing grow, tho* 
 never fo little., \ihis Lofs be never fo great., and he reap not 
 again the one halfoi what he fowed, and clearly lofe the 0- 
 ther W/with all his Charge and Labour, yet will the 
 Priefi^ make his Lofs fo much the greater., by taking from 
 him iht tenth part of that little Crop he has, and have the 
 Face when he has done to look the poor Man in the Face, 
 and tell him this is according to St. PauCs Rule. But long 
 enough may the Prieft fay fo before any wife Man will be- 
 lieve him. 
 
 §. 16. In 
 
< 302 ) 
 
 §. t6. In his next Sedion, pag. 196. he alledges that 
 my Argnments for taking away TytheSy tend to deftroy Hofpi' 
 tab and Donations to the Poor \ which Suppofition in my 
 former Book I had denied, and difproved by feveral Rea- 
 fons, one whereof he, after his imperfed manner of quot- 
 ing, thus fets down, Becaufs in that of the foor there is a 
 Stttlsmem of certain Lands^ in which the Donor had a legal 
 Froperty at the time of the Gift ; hm in the Increafe of the Oc" 
 cupiers Stocky he that gave Ty the s neither had^ nor never could 
 have a Froperty^ and therefore no power to give. This is the 
 Reafon, as be has maimed it, but in my Book il ftands 
 thus ^ ' In that of the Poor, there is a certain Settle- 
 
 * ment of Lands and Tenements, in which it is to be 
 ' fi^ppofed, the Donor had a legal Property, or of which 
 
 * he was aduaily fcized at the time of the Gift. But ia 
 
 * the cafe of Tythes, here is no Gift of Lands and Tene- 
 ^ meats, but of the Increafe growing and arifing through, 
 ^ and by reafon of the Labour, Care, Induftry and Stock 
 ^ of the Occupier, which he that gave the Tythes, nei- 
 
 * ther had, nor could have any Property in, nor was, or 
 ^ could be adually feized of, and therefore had nopow- 
 
 * er to give. This Reafon is firm and folidj and will en- 
 dorea Shock '^ And I obferve, that though he had peeled 
 it as much as he could, and brought it in too, with a 
 fcornfd [_forfooth'} yet he was quickly contented to leave 
 if, and take up one of his old Notes \ for he immediately 
 -^ys* pag. 1 97. We have noted before^ That by his Rules 
 framed again ft Tythes^ all Donations made by Papifts, on con^ 
 f deration of meriting^ and expiating their Sins thereby^ art 
 ^ofd : jind this will deftroy a great many of thefe Hofpitals^ 
 ^nd Gifts to the Toor. 
 
 That is not the confequent of my Arguments againft 
 Tythes, but an inference of his own making to fhelter 
 Tythes under. All Donations made by Tapifts are not 
 Tjoid, becaufe fome are. The Donations of Tythes were 
 defigned'to uphold and maintain a Worftiip and Miniftry that 
 'vstVG falfe and Antichriftian : But Donations to Hofpitals 
 for the Suflenance of the Foor^ had no fuch intendment. 
 Th^ Papifts (as I obferved before. Chap. 4. Sed. 12.) in 
 their civpl siixd politick Capacity, did many things wcllani 
 
 com" 
 
( joj ) 
 
 tommendahiy^ but what they did in their rdlgiom Capacity 
 was fi ark naught, \ 
 
 But he faySy ibid. By my own confefjion^ ail Hofpitals en» 
 dowed out of Tytloes^ and all Gifts to the Poor granted out of 
 Tythes for perpetuity^ are void. 
 
 What then ? If Men will give that which belongs no4 
 to them, the faulc is in themfelves. Though Chanty be 
 an excellent Venue, yet it may not patronize InjulUce : 
 Nor indeed is that to be accounted Charity which is .re- 
 pugnant to Jufiice. Now if the Donors of Tythes had 
 no Power nor Right to make>c^ perpetual Donations of 
 Tythes as are now claimed, but that fuch Donations do 
 vivlate the Rights of others^ (as in my former Book, I have 
 argued at large, pag. 323, ^24, 325, 338, 339, 34^- and 
 alfo in this, Chap. 5. Sed. 5. then may not any prctencs 
 of Charity be urged to jufiife fiich Fi^olation, 
 
 ui third fort ^ he fays, ibid, of thefe charitable Donations, 
 confifi of perpetual Rem- charges^ and certain Sftms of Money 10 
 he paid yearly for ever^ out of the Profits of fame certain Efiate* 
 Now^ he fays, the Occupiers of the Lands thus charged^ mufh 
 fell fuch part of thi Profits produced by their Labour^ Sweaty 
 Stocky Skill and Indufiry^ and when it is turned into Money^ 
 mufi pay it intirelyto the Poor^ &c. pag. T98. 
 
 This he would make a parallel Cafe to Tythes ; but it is 
 not, as I have already fhewed, Chap. 5. Scd. 5. For thi^ 
 Rent' charge doth not lie upon the Stocky nor upon the Oc- 
 cupier^ unlefs he be Proprietor of the Lands, or by parti- 
 cular ConiraEh with the Proprietor hath taken it upon him- 
 felf. But it lies upon the Land^ being charged thereon bjjr 
 him that was then aUually fetz^ed of the Land, or had as 
 that time ^ legal Property therein, and the burden defcend- 
 ing with the inheritance, the Heir is fain to undertake 
 the burden, becaufe he cannot elfe enjoy the Land. BuE 
 the Tenant who occupies this Land and imploys his Stock 
 upon it, is no way at all concerned in this Payment^ becauie 
 it goes out of the Rent, unlefs it be otherwife provided 
 by private Agreement between the Landlord and him. Buc 
 there is no Proportion between Tythes and this, for Tythei 
 is a burden lies upon the Stocky (which the Donors of 
 Tythes were not adualJy feized of, nor had a legal Pro- 
 perty in) and goes not out of the Rent, but out of the 
 Stock, and the Landlord is not concerned in it, but the 
 
 Tenant, 
 
( ?o4 ) 
 
 Tenant. And if the Proprietor occupy the Land him- 
 felf, h is by reafon of the Stock he ufes upon the Land 
 that he pays Tythes, not by reafon of the Land ^ for if 
 he hath the Land in his Hands, and hath m Stock upon 
 it, but lets it lie and makes no Profit of it, he has no Tyths 
 to pay for the Land^ though if at the fame time he imploy 
 his Stock zny other way, he is liable to pay Tythe of the 
 Profit of his Stock. But though he make no Profit of his 
 Land at all^ yet the Rent-charge he mufl pay. 
 
 The Priell fays, He knows an Eft ate of forty Pounds per 
 annum, charged with the Payment of ten Pounds per annum 
 for ever^ to the Foor, 
 
 Suppofe the utmofl Profits of that Eflate (hould fome 
 Years (^through ill Seafons, Bladings, or other accidents) 
 fall Hnder ten Pounds, fhall the Owner be excufed from 
 paying ?«« Pounds? If not, he may fee thereby that the 
 Charge lies upon the Lands^ not upon the profits : For 
 what if the Owner make no Profits at allj that will not 
 deftroy the Rent-charge. If be can improve his forty Pounds 
 a Year to an hundred, he fhall pay but ten Pounds out: 
 And if he fhould make lefs than ten Pounds of it, yet ten 
 Pounds he muft: pay. This fliews it to be of a quite diffe- 
 rent Nature from Tythes, and therefore not (as the Prieft 
 fuggefls) in any danger of being deflroyed by the downfall 
 of Tythes. 
 
 Having now removed the Prieft's Objections, and 
 clear'd my Argument againft: Tythes from being deftruc- 
 tive of Rent-charges, and other Sums of Money given 
 to relieve the Poor, I cannot but take notice of the feem- 
 ing Compaffion the Prieft fliews of the Poor, and the Care 
 he pretends to have of their Rights : And conlidering with- 
 al, how great a fdf inter eft lies at the bottom, it brings 
 to my remembrance the Story of Judoi^ Joh. 12. 3 ,4, 5. 
 and the account the holy Pen-man gives of him, ver. 6. 
 viz^. This hefaidy Not that he cared for the Poor^ but becaufc 
 Ac. 
 
 §. 17.' The next thing the Prieft quarrels with, is a 
 Toption (he fays of mine) That Tythes are a greater Burden 
 than Rents. 
 
 This he pretends to take out of pag, :543. of my Book, 
 in which there is no fuch. Pofiibly he might deduce it 
 
 from 
 
( ?o5) 
 
 from my Arguments in thac place : but then he fhould 
 have fo reprefented it, and noc have called it my PofuioTj. 
 The truth is, the Pofition is in it felf fo true (f^ving thac 
 it feems to make Rents a Burden, which (imply they are 
 not) thac I cannot but like and defend it ; chough 1 blame 
 his over-forward and unwelcom»c boldnefs in making Po- 
 jitions for me. But hear what he fays to this Portion, of 
 his own making, pag. 199. It would feem a Paradox^ that 
 Two Shillings is a greater Burden than Twenty^ but only that 
 nothing ts fo eafie^ but it feems difficulty when it is done un- 
 willingly. 
 
 As he has flated it, it may well feem a Paradox : Bu6 
 ftate it a-right, and it will not feem any Paradox at all. 
 It is not the unwillingnefs in paying, but the injtiflice ia 
 requiring, that makes the Payment a Burden. In claims 
 equally unjuft^ the greateft Claim is the greatefl Burden : 
 But where one Claim isjuft^ and t'other unjiifl (as in the 
 cafe of Rent and Tythes) the nnjuji Claim is the greatefi 
 Burden, be the Sum more or lefs. Two Shillings exaded, 
 where it is not due^ is a greater Burden than twenty Shil- 
 lings demanded where it is due. Two Shillings for nothing 
 is a greater Burden, than Twenty Shillings for Twenty Shil- 
 lings worth. This is no Paradox at all, but plain to every 
 common Capacity. And thus ftands the cafe between 
 Tythes and Rents. Tythes are a Burden, becaufe they are 
 not juft^ not due: Rents avQ not ^ Burden, becaufe they are 
 jufi, they are due. Tythes are a Burden., becaufe they are 
 exaEled (of the ^«<2^<;rj at leafl) for nothing: Refits are nos 
 a Burden, becaufe they are demanded for a valuable Con- 
 ftderation. Thus his Paradox is opened. 
 
 But he is highly offended with me, for faying, J douht 
 not but., if every Englifh-man durfl freely fpeak his own fenfe^ 
 JNine parts of Ten of the whole Nation would unanimonfiy cry^ 
 TYTHES ARE A GREAT OPPRESSION. This 
 has fo incenfed him, that, not able to contain, he calls 
 me a fedttioas Libeller (forgetting perhaps, that his own 
 Book is name lefs ) and fays, pag. 200. T. E, not content 
 to difcover his own bafe humour.^ meafures all Mens Corn by 
 his own Bufhel \ and (tn it is the manner offuch as are Evil 
 themfelves) he fancies all Men pay their Tythes with oi tU wiU 
 m tht Quakers, and impudently /landers the whole Nation. 
 
 I Hep 
 
( 3o6 ) 
 
 I (Icp over his Scurrility and ill Language, and tell him, 
 flrft^ If this be, as he fays, a Slander^ himfelf hath made 
 it a tenth fart bigger than 16 was, by flrecching it Co All 
 MQn, and the whde Nation, which he himfelf acknow- 
 ledges was fpoken of but nine parts of che Nation. I did 
 not fay, All Men and the whole Nation would call Tythes 
 a great Oppieflion : For, I fuppofe fome, in a devout mi* 
 ftake^ may be as ready to pay, as the Priell is greedy to 
 receive them. Secondly^ I am not at all convinced that ic 
 is a Slander, but do believe it a real truth. And though 
 he fays. Common experience proclaims me a Liar herein^ there 
 being very fevo Parijhes^ where Nineteen parts of Twenty^ de 
 not pay their Tythes freely m any other Due. 
 
 I dare appeal to Eighteen parts of his Nineteen^ whether 
 this be true or no. But fmce it is hard to take a right 
 meafure of People's freedom and willingnefs herein, while 
 the La^7 of the Law hangs over them, it were greatly to 
 be widied that our Legiflatorsy in whofe power it is to 
 decide the doubt, would be pleafed to determine the 
 Controverjje, by taktng off" thofe Laws and Penalties^ by 
 which the People are compelled to pay Tythes, and leave 
 them wholly free in this cafe, to exercife their Liberality 
 towards their Minifters^ Oi God (hall incline and inlarge 
 their Hearts, And truly if the Pried; diflikes this Propo- 
 lltion, it is a very great Argument, either that he doth 
 not believe what himfelf faid but now {viz.. that nineteen 
 parts of twenty pay Tythes freely) or that he doth great- 
 ly diflriifi the goodnefs of his Miniftry. 
 
 At length he takes notice of the Reafons I gave why 
 Rents are not a Burden as Tythes. The firfl Reafon he 
 thus gives, The Tenant hath the worth of his Rent of the Land' 
 lord^ but of the Priefl he receiveth nothing at all. To this, 
 fays he, / anfwer^ The Heir of an Efiate charged with a per- 
 petual payment to the poor^ receives nothing from the poor t9 
 whom he pays the Moneys yet this is no OppreJJion^ pag. 201. 
 
 Though the Heir receives nothing from the Poor, yet 
 he^receives the Eftate which is fo charged, under that Cow 
 dition of paying fo much Money to the Poor, which Efiate 
 ocherwife he ftiould not have had. The Heir then doth 
 not pay for nothing, although he hath nothing from the 
 Poor to whom he pays j for he hath that very Land im 
 conficleration, on which the payment to the Poor is charg- 
 ed. 
 
( 3^7 ) 
 ed. Thus the Heir is fafe. Then for the Tenant, he is 
 not at alJ concerned in the matter (unlefs it be by pri- 
 vate Gontrad) it goes out of the Landlord's Rent, noc 
 out of the Tenant's Stock. And if the Tenant, by the 
 Landlord's order, pays it to the Poor, he doth it in his 
 Landlord's Name, by whom it is accepted as fo much Rene 
 paid. But Tythe is qme another th'w^. For firft, the 
 Heir doth not receive the Land under condition of pay- 
 ing Tythe, nor forfeits he the Land for not paying it, 
 neither is Tythe charged upon the Land, as the pay- 
 ment to the poor is, (of which fee before, Chap. 5. and 
 Sect. 1 5.) Then Secondly, The Tenant is liable to the 
 payment of the Tythe, not out of his Rent, but out of 
 his Stock, over and above his Rent, and the Land-lord is 
 not concerned about it, unlefs any private Agreement 
 antecede. Thus it appears, his Inftance of a Rent-charge 
 to the Poor is quite befide the bafinefs^ and his Anfwer is no 
 Anfwer to the Reafoa I offered. 
 
 But he feems to have another, Jgain^ faith he. The 
 Tenant receives as much from God^ oa he doth from his Land' 
 lord : For we think-, that Land is not more necejfary to the In- 
 creafe^ than God's Blejfmg^ ibid. 
 
 Nor fo neceflary neither, fay I, lince Increafe may be 
 without Land, but not without God's Bleiling. The 
 Tenant therefore receives more from God^ than he doth 
 from his Landlord : For from his Landlord he receives 
 Land only, and that upon a Rent^ but from God he re- 
 ceives All he hath, his Stock, his Crop, his Health, his 
 Strength, &c. and that freely. As therefore he receives 
 JU from God, fo unto God ought All to be returned. 
 God's VVifdom, Counfel, and holy Fear ought to be wait- 
 ed for, and regarded in difpoling and imploying thofe 
 things, which God hath been pleafed to give. But what 
 is this to the Prieit or to Tythes ? Why, fays he, upon 
 that Confideration oar piopis A^iceftors obliged their Hdrs for 
 ever to give God his part of the Profits^ becaafe both they and 
 their Heirs were Tearly to receive all their Increafe from his Blef- 
 fing^ ibid. 
 
 \A^hat is God's part of the Profits ? If all the Increafe 
 be received from his Bleffing, How comes he to have bat 
 a part of the Profits ? Where hath God, under the Go- 
 fpel, declared the tenth part particularly to be his ? O' 
 
( ?o8 ) 
 
 who bad power to affign that part to him that is Lord'^f 
 all ? He urges for a Law, the Saying of King Edward the 
 ConfefTor, Of all things which Cod gives, the tenth fart is to 
 he refioredto him, who gave m the nine farts together with the 
 tenths pag. 202. 
 
 Whence Edward the ConfelTor learnt that Doc^rine^raay 
 ealily be gufled, if we confider in what time he lived. 
 Sfeed fays, he was Crowned King of England in the Year 
 1042. And fays, the Author of the Conference, in his 
 Vindication, pag. 277. A^oft of the frefent evil Opinions of 
 the Chi&Ych of Rome^ had their Original in thofe unlearned 
 Ages, from about the Tear 700. to about the Tear 1400. About 
 the mid-night of which Darknefs, there wa4 fcarce any Learning 
 left in the fford', — Thefe (iays he) were the mhappy timesj 
 which bred and nnrfed up Invocation of Saints, Iforfhip of Ima- 
 ges, Purgatory, with all the Fanatical Vtfions and Revelations^ 
 Miracles, &c. Then began Shrines, Pilgrimages, Reliqaes^ 
 purchafwg of Pardons, and the Pope'^s j^ tempts for an miver^ 
 fal Monarchy, And though he here mentions fome Par- 
 ticulars, yet he faid but a few Lines before, At the fame 
 time (that Learning fell into decay) all manner of Corrup- 
 tions crspt into the Churchy &c. Now according to iiis com- 
 putation of time (for the Rife and Growth oi Popery, and 
 of all manner of Corruptions) from about the Year 700. 
 to about the Year 1400. his mid-night <f Darknefs rauft fall 
 about the Year 1050. and this K. Edward the Confellbr 
 entring his Reign in the Year 1042. it is manifeft that 
 thi^ Law of his for Tythes wm made in the very mid night of 
 Darkntfs. Hence the Reader may obferve, that although 
 this K. Edward, to whom (as Camden obferves (^Britania^ 
 pag, 377.) our Anceflors and the Popes voHchfafed the Name 
 of St, Edward the Confejfar, was a Man of great Juflice, 
 Temperance and Vertue, but efpecially Continency (for 
 which it feems, in that incontinent Age, he was fainted) 
 yet that he 'learnt this Opinion (of the tenth part being 
 due to God) in the mid-night of Darkntfs, when there was 
 fcarce any Learning left in the World, when all manner of 
 Corruptions were either crept or creeping into the Church, 
 and wherein moft of the prefent evil Opinions of the 
 Church of Rome had their Original ^ which makes the 
 Quotation not much for the Priell's Credit. And truly, 
 li ii had been, as he intimateSj an adt of Piety in our Aa- 
 
 ceftors 
 
( 309 ) 
 ceftors to give Tythes, and that upon that con fid era t ion, 
 that both they and their Heirs were yearly to receive all 
 their Increafe from God's Blefling: They had done, I 
 think, but equally, to have left their Foflerity at liberty^ to 
 have aded iu like manner from the Imprejfions of Piety^ ra- 
 ther than from the neceffity ot paternal Obligations^ fbppo-^ 
 ling their Injundions {\^ this cafe) obligatory. As for 
 what the Priell here takes for granted, that: the tenth is 
 God's peculiar part, it is but an old ^opifh opinion (by 
 which the World hath been too long gull'd) which never 
 was, nor ever can be proved, with refped to Goffd 
 Timss, And to be fure, when ever he pleads God's Right, 
 he makes himfelf God's Steward and Receiver. He lays 
 here. Now the Prieft is but Cod's Steward and Receiver \ and 
 if it were true^ that the Tenant did receive nothing from the 
 Steward ofGod^ yet he might jujlly pay him Tythes for hii M^' 
 fier^s fake^ from whom he receives alL 
 
 There were fome of old, who, with as much confi- 
 dence and little truth, affirmed themfelves to be the 
 Children of God, as this Prieft doth, that he and his 
 Brethren are God's Stewards and Receivers. But the 
 Anfwer which Ghfift gave unto them, "John 8. 44. is ve- 
 ry obfervable, and no lefs applicable. The Tenant (fays 
 the Prieft) receives nothing from his Landlord"* s Steward^ and 
 yet he pays hts Rent to him^ (^r to any other whom his Landlord 
 aligns to recive it. 
 
 True : but two things firft he makes himfelf fure of. 
 One, that the Sum demanded is indeed his Landlord's 
 due. The other, that the Perfon demanding is indeed 
 his Landlord's Steward, or by him affigned to receive 
 it. The Tenant, though he pays his Rent to the Stew- 
 ard, CQntrads with the Landlord \ and if at any time 
 any doubi arifes about che Rent, they recur to the Leafe 
 for Decillon. Now if the Prieft would make any advan- 
 tage of his Simile f he (hould prove, if he could) that God 
 hath any where declared under the Gofpel the tenth to 
 be his peculiar part, which the Prieft hath often btgd a 
 Conceflion of, but has no v;ay to prove: For if we have 
 recourfe to the holy Records, the Scriptures of the New- 
 Teftament, from thence, to be fure, he can fetch no 
 proof that Tythes are God's peculiar part, fince by his 
 own confeffion, pag. 67. Tythes are ?iOt mentioned in the Go- 
 
 X 2 [pi 
 
( Jio ) 
 
 /pel or Bpifiles to he the very part. Befides, the TeflaDt, 
 though r.he llent be certain and acknowledged, is not for- 
 ward, if wife, to part with his Money to every one that 
 calls himfelf a Si f^'ard^ and takes upon him to be his Land- 
 lord's Receiver. Buc he exped\s a plain and fatisfadory 
 proof that the Perfcn fo pretending is indeed deputed by 
 his Lmdlord to that Service. Now then, if, accord- 
 ing to this Simile, the Prieft would fay or do any 
 thing ta the purpofe, let him firfl: prove Tythes or the 
 tenth part to be God^s psculiar due under the Gofpel ^ and when 
 that fhal] be agreed on, we will, if he pleafe, in the next 
 place examine his Deputation, and fee how well he caa 
 make it appear that God hath appointed him for his Stew- 
 ard and Receiver. In the mean time, his precanotis and 
 fetitiofiary Pleas are neither helffd to him nov creditable to 
 his Caufe. 
 
 Bm (he fays, pag. 202,) after all thls^ the Qiiaker is a 
 notorious Fdftfier^ in f'^yi'^g-^ the Tenant receives nothing from 
 the Prieft : For he receives his trayers and his Blejfmg^ hk 
 Preachings and other Adminifirations. 
 
 If the Tenant be a Quaker^ the Pried is a notoriopu Fat- 
 fifier ; for he knows full well the Quaker receives none of 
 Ml thefe of the Prieft. The Quaker doth not believe the 
 Prieft's Prayers or his Preaching either to be worth receive 
 ing. And for his BUjfyng^ as the Quaker doth not defire it, 
 fo he is io far from receiving it, that he feldom goes with- 
 om his Curfe. Then for his other Adminiftraiions (as he 
 calls them) 'tis well knowa, they that receive them, pay 
 roundly for them J over and btfide their Ty the. 
 
 He comes now to my fecond Re i Ton, which he thus 
 gives, pag, 203. Rent is a voluntary ContraSt^ & volenti 
 non fit injuria ^ bat Tythe is not voluntary now^ but taken by 
 force. To this he thus anfwers, Fery good: By this Rule 
 then it appears^ that Tythes are not (as he faljly affirmed^ but 
 now they were) a general Opprejfion : for the generallity fay 
 them willingly ^ and many thoufands contra^ with their Land- 
 tord and thetr Parfon to fay them m voluntarily.^ as they do to 
 fay thetr Rents. 
 
 That the Generality pay them w^iJIingly, is a confi- 
 dent AHertion contradided by common Experience, 
 fcarce any one thing producing fo many Suits at Law, 
 and fo much flrife and contention as Tythes. In one 
 
 fenle^, 
 
( 3'i ) 
 
 fenfc, I confefs, they may be faid to pay willingly \ that 
 is, they are willing to pay the tench, rather than have 
 three tenths taken from them. So that being under a ne- 
 cefTity o{ bearing one, they chufe that which they take to 
 be the Ughteft Burden, and leaji Suffering, Arid if in this 
 fenfe he "means they j>ay willingly and contraEh volnnttirtlyi, 
 fuch Gontradts and Payments are much-what 06 voluntas 
 rilyas a Traveller's delivering his Fmfe to an High- way 
 Man, prefenting a PiftoL to his Brcaft : Or 35 fome School- 
 Boys putting down their own Breeches^ not out ot any gi eaC 
 wiljingnefs fure, they have to be whipt, but becaufe they 
 had rather by that means come off with three Lajhes, than 
 by refufing fo to do, luffer three times as many. 
 
 But fays the Prielt, ibid. All things are not Opprejfions 
 that are paid involuntarily *, for fome Knaves will pay no juft 
 Dues to any without compulfion, &c. 
 
 It is not the unwillingnefs to pay, that makes the Op- 
 preffion^ buE the injuftice and inequality of the Payment. 
 Jufi Dues are no Opprejfion : But his fuppofing Tythes a 
 jult Due, is a begging of the Queflion. Rent is ^ jufi 
 and equal Payment, for which the Tenant receives the 
 value of whae he pays. And though the Prieft fays, pag. 
 205. No donht the Quakers could wijh rather there were no 
 Rent to bs paid neither, and they voluntarily Covenant to pay 
 Rent, becaufe they cannot enjoy the Farm without that Charge, 
 
 Yet no doubt he is confcious to himfelf that he /landers 
 the Quakers m this alfo : For it is very well known the 
 Quakers are as willing to pay their Rents, (or any other 
 jufi Dues) and are as good Tenants to their Landlords, 
 as any others are, to fay no more. The Quakers know 
 Rents to be juft and reafonable : And ihey do not defire 
 to reap the benefit of other Men's Lands /or nothing, as they 
 are not willing the Priefls fhould reap the benefit of their 
 Labour /or nothing. In (hort, the Quahrs do confcienti- 
 oufly pay Rents (and all other juft Dues) from a Princi- 
 ple of Equity and Juftice ', as well as from the fame Princi- 
 ple they do confcientioully refufe to pay Tythes, which 
 are againfi Equity and Juftice, 
 
 The Prieft undertakes to make it appear, that the 
 Qitukers did voluntarily contrad to pay Tyihes. // (fays 
 ke, pag. 204.) Tythes be not mentioned in ih^ Contra^, then 
 
the Laws of England fnppofe that the Tenant confents to pay 
 them. 
 
 This is a Suppofltion of his own fuppofing, which he 
 grounds upon this Reafon, chat Tythesare a known Charge 
 Hpon all Land ^ whereas Tythes (as I have proved before) 
 are a Charge upon the Stock, not upon the Land^ and are 
 paid ouE ot the Profits of the Stock, not out of the Rem of 
 the Land, But if Tythes were a Charge upon the Land, 
 as Rentcharges, Annuities and other cullomary Pay- 
 ments are, they would then iflue out of the Rents, and 
 the Landlords, not the Tenants, would be liable there- 
 to. Thus his Reafon being removed, his Suppofition falls 
 together with what was built upon it. 
 
 §. 1 8. In his next Section the Priefi: fays, T. E, coma 
 to his lafi Referve. 
 
 I wifh he were come to his lafl; Faljhood^ that after that 
 I might expert Tmth from him. That which he calls my 
 lafl Referve, he thus gives, pag. 205. viz. That Tythes 
 were really pur chafed by the Owners of Eflates : For which he' 
 quotes pag. ^44, of ray Book, and gives this for my 
 proof, viz. They purchased all that was not excepted out of the 
 Fnr chafe ; te Tythes were net excepted : Therefore the Par- 
 chafers bought them^ and may fell them again ^ and lays, Jf 
 J can make thi<s oitt^ this alone will do my hnfinefs. 
 
 Although I doubt not, this Paflage in my former Book 
 will give fatisfadion to any indifferent Reader, yet fee- 
 ing the matter is propofed anew, I will endeavour to 
 open it a little further. Firft, therefore I defire the Rea- 
 der to confider. What it is the Furchafer bnys, 2. What it 14 
 Tythes are demanded of. The Purchafer buys the Land^ and 
 that he buys incire: No Tythe-Land, no tenth Acre is 
 ever excepted exprefly or implicitly \ but he buys the 
 whole Field or Farm, the tenth pare as well as the nine. 
 But in this Purchafe he buys the Land, not the Profits or 
 Increafe which by Husbandry and Manuring may arife 
 upon the Land in time to come ; for they are uncertain^ 
 and the Seller who makes him an Aflurance of the Land, 
 will not undertake to afiTure him a future Increafe and 
 Profit from the Land; nor were it reafonable to expedt 
 it. Since then this is a Purchafe of Lands which the 
 PrieJl doth not lay any Claim to, let us next enquire 
 
 wha^ 
 
what it is the Priefl demands Tythcs of. The Piieft 
 himfelf fhall anf/.^er this, who in hh Ri^ht cfTythes^ pag. 
 195. fays expreily, We grant toT. E. Tythes are line out of 
 the profits only , and therefore if God give no Increafe, or the 
 Hmbandman have nothing groWy we expeB no Tythe at all. 
 Hence then it is clear, he claims no Tythes of that which 
 the Buyer hath thus purchafed \ he lays no Claim to any 
 part of the Land. Tiius far then the Buyer hath purcha- 
 fed ally the whole^ every part : and the Priefl: doth not fo 
 much as pretend a Right to any of the Land he hath 
 bought. Now then let us come to the other Purchafe 
 (if I may fo call it) that out of which the Priefl; claims 
 Tythes, viz.. the Profits and hcreafe. Of this, in my 
 former Book, pag. 345. I faid thus, ' When he has this 
 
 * Land, if he will have Profit and Increafe from it, he 
 
 * mufl: purchafe that after another manner. He pays for 
 
 * that (and many times dear enough too) by the Labour 
 ' and Charge he befliows in Tilling, Dreflingand Manur- 
 
 * ing it. And if in this fenfe he may be faid to pur- 
 
 * chafe the nine parts of the Crop or lacreafe, in the 
 ' fame fenfe he purchafeth the tenth part aire : For he 
 
 * befliows his Charge and Pains en all alike •, and the tenth 
 
 * part ftands him in as much as any one of the nine. Thus 
 then the Buyer firfl: purchafeth the Land: and afterward 
 tht Occupier^ whether Owner or Tenant, purchafeth the 
 Crop. The one buys the Land by laying down fo much 
 Money ^ the other obtains the Crop by befl:owing fo"* 
 much Charge, and fo much Labour, &c. And as in the 
 Purchafe of the Lands, the Buyer doth as really buy the 
 tenth Acre^ or tenth part of the Lands, as the nintb, or 
 any other part of the nine: So in the Purchafe of the 
 Crop, the Occupier doth as really purchafe the tenth part 
 of the Profits and Increafe, as he doth the ninth, or any 
 other part of the nine ^ and after the fame manner he lays 
 bis Dung on all alike: he fows his Seed on all altke^ he 
 Plows all alike, he bellows his Pains and Cnar^j;e, and ex- 
 ercifes his Skill and Care equally on all. * Thus it appears, 
 that Tythes are really purchafed by them, by whom the nine 
 parts are purchaied, and do really belong to them to 
 whom the nine parts do belong ^ whether Tythes be un- 
 derfliood of Lands, or of Profits. If of Lands, the Pur- 
 chafer doCa as really buy the temh Acr:^ as any of the nine, 
 
 X 4 and 
 
(?i4) 
 
 and gives oa much for in : Nor doth the Priefl claim any 
 Property therein. If of Profits, the tenth Sheafs or tenth 
 part of the Crop, doth colh the Occupier as much to the 
 full, as any other of the luae parts. Now feeing the 
 Priefl: fays, If J can make out this^ this done will do my bufi' 
 nefs : 1 hope the Reader will ^pA h here fo plainly made 
 out, that he will be fatisfied my buf^nefs is done. 
 
 What the Priefb urges, as the Opinions of fome Law- 
 yers concerning Tythes, is ot che lefs weight, becaufe 
 they are grounded on this Miftake, That Tythes are of 
 Divine Inditution ; which Error hath miQed too many. 
 His Refledions on me (of Jnfolence and Novice) I regard 
 not at all *, but pafs from his Railing to fee if 1 can find 
 any Reafon from him. He puts a Cafe (pag. 206,) thus, 
 A. purchafes an Efiate in B, of Q, the Tythes vphereof are im^ 
 propriate^ and belong to D : Now will the Quaker fay that A. 
 piirchafes D'j Efiate in the Tythes^ without his Knowledge or 
 Confent^ by vertue of the general words in the Conveyance 
 from C ? 
 
 He takes for granted what I deny, viz^, that the Tythes 
 belong to D, The lythes belong to the Occupier oj the Land^ 
 to him to whom the other nine parts belongs and he 
 hath the fame Rtght^ in Juftice and Equicy, to the tenth 
 part as to the other nine, if C. fells his Land^ what is 
 that to D? D. doth not claim the Tythe of that Land^ 
 nor pretend a Right to any part of it. What wrong doth 
 C. do then to D. in this Sale ? Or how can C be taxed 
 with felling D\ Right, when as J), neither hath, nor 
 pretends to have a Right to any part of the Land which 
 C. felis ? The Claim that D. makes, is not to the Tythe 
 of the Land^ but to the Tythe of the Profits-^ which Pro- 
 fits C neither did fell nor could. But after A, hath 
 bought the Land, he muft to purchaling anew for a Crop, 
 If he expeds to have one •, elfe he may be fure to go with- 
 out. He therefore to obtain a Crop, lays out his Stock, 
 bellows his Labour, takes Pains and Care, early and late ; 
 and in due time, by God's Blefl^ing upon his honeft En- 
 deavours, receives a Crop, fometimes with Advantage, 
 *- fometimes with Lofs. But although the Priefl fays (pag. 
 196,) Tythes are due out of the Profits orily^ yet whether there 
 he gain or Icfs^ whether there be increafe or decreafe^ whe- 
 ther there he pmft or no profit^ no fooner is the Crop made 
 
 ready, 
 
(3X5) 
 
 ready, but in fleps the Priell or Impropriator, and 
 fweeps the tenth part of it clear away, although ^. had 
 laid out his Money and Labour upon all the parts of his 
 Crop alih^ had paid as dear for the tenth part as for any 
 of the nine, and hath thereby, in Juflice and Equity, as 
 good a Right to that whieh is thus taken from him, as to 
 any of the reft which is left behind. Thus the Priefl's 
 Cafe being opened and anfwered, it appears that neither 
 A, nor C. do any wrong to X)^ but that JD. doth wrong 
 to A, in taking from him that which he hath hone(lly earn' 
 td and dearly paid for. And now the Prieft may return, 
 if he pleafe, to his A. B. C. anew. 
 
 But he fays, The Q\r3ktx fraudulently leaves mt thofe words 
 of the Conveyance^ xvhich would have dtfcovered his Knavery 
 in this falfe AJfcrtion. 
 
 1 thus expreft the words of the Deed, viz,. ' That the 
 
 * Seller doth grant, bargain, fell, &c. ALL that, &c, 
 
 * with its Appurtenances, and EVERY PART and 
 
 * Parcel thereof (the tenth, faid A as well as the nine) 
 ' and alfo ALL the Eftate, Rights Title, Intereft, 
 
 * Property, Claim and Demand whatfoever, &c. There 
 (fays the Prieft) he flops with an C&c] hecaafe his jhallow 
 Reader (hodd not fee what follows in the Deed^ viz. Q * Eftate^ 
 *" Right~\ "^which J the faid A. have or ought to have in the 
 ' Tremifes : which words (fays he) do rnanifefl^ that the 
 
 * Pnrchafer buys no more Eftate^ or Right^ than the Seller had 
 tOy or in the Fremifes^ pag. 208. 
 
 He niuft doubtlefs have been a ^hallow Reader indeed, 
 that fhould have thought I intended the Purchafer had 
 bought more of the Seller, than the Seller had to fell ; 
 and I take- it to be no Argument of the Prieft's depth to 
 fuggeft it. The Seller had a fufficient Right to the 
 whole Eftate, to every Foot of the Land he fold j and the 
 Buyer hath the fame. 
 
 Bat (fays the Prieft) the Seller did not purchafe the Tythes 
 himfelf^ nor did they defend to him from Icis Anceftors^ &C. 
 
 Tythes are not claimed of the Land, but of the Profits 
 only, or of the yearly Increafe of renewing, which the Oc- 
 cupier of the Land purchafes another way. If the Seller, 
 before he fold, had the Land in his own Occupation, he 
 then purchafed the Tythes himfelf, 06 much as he did the 
 other nine parts of his Crop. But to talk of Ty thes de- 
 
 fcend- 
 
fc€iifJing from Anceflors, argues, the Prieft doth not 
 well underitand whac ic is himfelf claims. Tythes did 
 defcend to the Seller from his Anceftors, m wuch as the 
 other nine parts of the Profits. But neither one nor the 
 other can properly be faid to defcend from the Anceftors 
 to the prefenc PoflefTor, feeing both the nine parts and 
 the tenth are the yearly Increafe, produced (inflrumen- 
 tally) by th€ yearly Labour, Charge and Care of the 
 prefent Poileflbr. That which defcends to a Man from 
 his Anceftors, is what his Anceftors were poileft of, or 
 had a Right unto : But no Man's Anceftors could be pof- 
 feft of, or have a Right unto thofe Profits of yearly In- 
 creafe, which in their times were not in beings but are fence 
 produced by the Labour and Charge of anocher. 
 
 But, he fays, pag. 209. //T. E. would know the Reafon 
 why Tythes are not excepted in the Pnrchafe by name^ ^ Free^ 
 Rents and Rent-Charges fornetimes are^ 1 anfwer^ fays he, 
 Wree- Rents and Rent-^Charges^ &:c, are laid upon Land by pri^ 
 i^ate ContraEis^ and coM not be known (unlefs they were by 
 Name excepted) to be due out offuch an Efiate'^ whereas Tythes 
 were a publick Donation^ &'C. 
 
 This, with fome may pafs for a Reafon \ but if he were 
 billing to give the true Reafon, he knows that as Free- 
 Rents and Rent-Charges are laid upon Land, and are paid 
 out of the Rent of the Land, without regard to the In- 
 creafe that is made : So the Bnrden of Tythes lies upon Stocky 
 and is due (as he fays) am of the Profits only (without re- 
 gard to the Rent of the Land) which Profits are the Im- 
 frovement of the Hmbandmari s Stock, through God's BleP 
 ling on his induftrious Diligence and Labour : It were 
 very improper therefore to except Tythes out of a Pur- 
 chafe of Land, feeing Tythes are not charged on the 
 Land, nor claimed of the Land. 
 
 §. 19. He quarrels next with a Demonftration of mine, 
 the occafion whereof was this. The Author of the C(?«- 
 ferenctf pag. 155. faid. Though the Tenant pays Tythes., yet 
 /ure they no inconvenience to him^ becaufe he pays lefs Rem in 
 Cmfideration thereof. To /hew the Fallacy of this Pofiti- 
 on, I urged, that if it fhould be granted, that the Tenant 
 pays lefs Rent in confideratioa of Tythes (which yet I 
 faid is queftionable) yet the abatement, which he is fup- 
 
 pofed 
 
( 317 ) 
 
 pofed to have in Rent, is not proportionable or anfwe- 
 rable to the value of the Tythes he pays; and thus I im- 
 dercook to demonftrate it. Suppole a Landlord lets a 
 Farm of 90 1. a year, which if it were Tythe-free would 
 yield lool. the Tenant, to pay his Rent, defray all his 
 Charge of Husbandry, and have a comfortable Subfifl- 
 ence and Maintenance for hinifelf and his Family, mull 
 (according to the computation of skilful Husbandmen) 
 by his Care, Indnllry and Labour, together with the Im- 
 ployraenn of his Scock, raife upon his Farm three R€nts» 
 or three times as much as his Rent comes to, which will 
 make 270 1. and the tenth pare of 270 1. is 27 I. fo that 
 if the Tenant fliould have 10 1. a year abated in his Rent 
 becaufe of Tythes, and he pays 27. 1 a year becaufe of 
 Tythes, then does he pay 17 1. a year in 90 1. more than 
 he is fuppoft'd to be allowed in his Rent. Againfl this 
 the Prielts both cry out, and make no little Noife. And 
 firfl:, the Author of the Conference^ in his Ftndicmion^ pag. 
 321. would fain from hence infer, That Tenants have 
 really Abatements in their Rents in lieu of Tythes: And 
 therefore having firll (to (hew how copiom he can be iu 
 ScHrrilities^ and "^hdit variety of ill Language he has to ex- 
 prefs himfelf by) faid, I perceive the Quaker begins to fneak\ 
 he adds. An abatement it feems there is. 
 
 But how doth it feem there is an Abatement ? Why 
 he is willing to turn my [z/] to an C^D ^nd llrain a 
 Fofition out of my Suppofit^on. But tbefe fhifts dilcover 
 the ft rait he was in, and how near he was fmking^ thaS 
 would catch at fuch a twig to hang by. Then he excepts 
 at the Demonflration for mcenamty^ becaufe 1 did nol 
 fay whether the Farm of 90 1. a year confifted in Tillage, 
 or in Palturage : yet he acknowledges, that the Tythes of a 
 Farm of that value (90 I. a year^ eonftfting in Tillage may 
 he worth 27 i. a Tear, On the other hand, the other Prieft, 
 in his Right of Tythes^ pag. 212. fays, I believe all the Par- 
 Jons in England would compound with the (Quakers after this 
 rate that the Landlord allows (that is, fuppofing the Land- 
 lord did really allow 10 I. in 100 1. Rent.) And in pag. 
 213. he fays. What Parfon did ever receive 2j. I. per an- 
 num for a 90 /. Farm /* Experience, fays he, teacheth us^ 
 
 that we fcarce ever get fo much as 20 s. for 10/. Rent, 
 
 mlefs where there ii very much Corn^ but take the Church-Liv^ 
 
 mgs 
 
( ?i8 ) . 
 
 i^igs one with another^ and there is not above 9L a Year made 
 ef a F^rm u^ort the improved Rent of ninety Pounds per an- 
 num. 
 
 Thus they contradid another. Neither is this laft 
 Prieitany more coiififlenfi with himfeif: For among the 
 Reafons he gives why they fcarce ever get fo much as 
 20 s. for 10 1. Rent, he mentions ill Payments^ and Con- 
 cealment \ forgetting, it |eems, that he had faid but a 
 few Leaves before, Then are very few Parifijesy where nine- 
 teen farts of twenty do not fay their Tythes freely as any other 
 Dms^ pag. 200. How ill do thefe two Sayings hang to- 
 gether ! Nineteen farts in twenty fay their Tythes freely a* any 
 ether Dues^ and yet the Prifis can fcarce ever get fo much as 
 20 s. for I o /. Renty by reafon of ill Payments and Conceal^ 
 mem. Thus he contradids himfeif, as before he did his 
 Brother. But he fays, pag. 214. I will not like T. E. make 
 Snffofitions at Random^ but give an Infiance of my own know* 
 ledge, 
 
 it feems then he underflood the Cafe I propofed to be 
 hm a Stiff option^ and accounted it a Suppofition at random 
 too\ yetfo litde ingenuity had both his Brother and he, 
 and fo much need of Shifts and Contrivances, that they 
 were willing to take this random Suffofition (as he calls it) 
 for a fojitive concUfion that the Landlord doth abate 10 L 
 in 100 1. in confideration of Tythes, and make what ad* 
 vantages they could there-from, as if it were a real and 
 certain thing. Nay, he thereupon asks, if the Qiiaker be 
 not a Knave^ for futting thk JoL per annum in his own 
 pockety which the Landlord abated in confideration of Tythes 
 to be faid. 
 
 But did he ever know a Quaker that defired an Abate- 
 ment of Rent in confideration of Tythe to be paid, or 
 that accepted an Abatement from his Landlord, upon 
 that confideration ? If he knows any fuch, let him nott 
 fpare to name him : If not, it will appear his Snggeftion is 
 hoih falfe^ and proceeded from an evil Mind'. The In- 
 flance he fets againft my Suppofition, is this, pag. 214. 
 The ParifJj of A. yields in Rents to the Landlords at leaft 1 000 /. 
 per annum .* but in the beft Tears ^ the Tythes there are not 
 worth 80 /. per annum. 
 
 He did warily not to name this Parifli, left he fhould 
 be convided of falfhood. But feeing he fays, they fcarce 
 
 ever 
 
( ?^9) 
 
 ever ge£ fo much as 20 s. for 10 1. Rent, unlefs where 
 there is very much Corn : And that, take the Church- 
 livings one with another, there is not above 9 I. a year 
 made of a Farm upon the improved Rent of 90 1. a year, 
 and gives the Parifh of A. for an Inftance : To anfwer his 
 Inftance, i return him a Cafe which his Brother Parfoa 
 gives in his ymdication^ pag. 322. and fays it is a real 
 Cafe, if they dare believe one another. It is of a Farm 
 Rented at 30 1. a year, v;hich the Priefl himfelf (as he 
 fays) being to purchafe for another chofe two Neighbours 
 to view and value. They, comparing it with other Farms 
 in the fame Village, found it worth but 25 1. a year, ac- 
 cording to the Rates that other Men paid. This being 
 objeded to the Seller, he replied, that he who paid 30 1. 
 a year was difcharged from Tythes, where as he chat paid 
 but 25 1. had Tythes to pay. Hence it appears, that 
 the Tyfihe of this 30 1. a year was rated at 5 1. by which 
 proportion (according as the Prieft himfelf hath (laced 
 his Cafe) the Tythes of a Farm of 90 1. a year come to 
 1 5 1. So that the difference is but 6 1. in 1 5 1. between 
 one Prieft's Account and the other's, unlefs we take in 
 the Parifh of A^ and then the odds is above half in half. 
 Some other trifling Objedions the Pi iefl urges againft my 
 fuppofed Cafe, as fird", that I fuppofe Landlords better 
 than ufually they are. Secondly, that I fuppofe the Te- 
 nants get more profit than any of them adually gain, or 
 then (fays the Priefl) it is reafonable they fhould : For 
 (fays he, Right of Tythes^ pag, 212.) if the Landlord receive 
 only one 90 /. the Tenant hath another 90 /. to repay him far 
 his Charge^ Care^ and Pains in managing^ and a third 90 L 
 the Tenant h^th remaining clear Profit to himfelf^ &C. 
 
 Ke reckons wrong : For if he thinks 90 I. will repay 
 the Tenant his Charge, Care and Pains in managing a 
 Farm of 90 1. a year in Tillage, and keep his Houfe be- 
 iide, he is greatly miftaken ^ but if he would have it tha£ 
 this 90 1. will defray his Charge of Hmbandry ordyy and 
 lay the Charge of his Houfe- keeping on the third 90 1. 
 which he fancies the Tenant hath remaining clear Profis 
 to himfelf, he will find that by that time all Houfhold 
 Expences are defraid, for the maintaining fuch a Fami- 
 ly as the management of fuch a Farm will require, there 
 will not be much clear profit remaining. And yet i think, 
 
 how 
 
( J20 ) 
 
 how unreafonable foever k nnay feem to the Priefl, all 
 reafonable Mea will judge it reafonable, that the Tenant: 
 fhould have fome clear profit remaining to himfelf, to 
 fupport him againft accidental Lojfes^ to enable him to 
 exercife Charity towards others, and to make fuch necef- 
 fary Provifions for his Family, as may be fuitable to his 
 condition. But not to infill too particularly hereon, I 
 let the Priell know, that his Brother Parfoa (the Author 
 of t\\Q Conference) is in this Cafe on ray (ide, and againft 
 him. For he fay S (in XmFtndkation^ pag. 921') A Farm 
 <?/ that VaUie (vItl. 90 1. a Year) confijlwg in Tillage^ may 
 he worth (as he favs, meaning me) 27 1. per annum to 
 the Parfon. This fii ft^ confirms my Computation, name- 
 ly, that upon a Rent of 90 1. a Tenant had need make 
 270 L how elfe fhould the Tythe be worth 27 1. which is 
 but the tenth part of 270 1. ualefs the Prieit takes more 
 for the Tythe than the /mII tenth part of the Profits ? Se- 
 condly, this (hews the/^///j'^cJof the other Priefl:, in fet- 
 ting the Tythe of a 90 !. Farm at but 9 1, a year. Thus 
 thefe Prieflsfall one againft another. 
 
 But (fays the Author of the Conference) Sftppofe a Qiia- 
 ker er^joy a Farm of 90 /. per annum Rent^ and the Landlord 
 abate 10 1, a Tear in confederation ofTythes. Or be it qaefiion- 
 able whether he abate any thing upon that confideration, Fil 
 tell you what is not cjHeflionable-^ thai the Qjiaker will pay no-* 
 thingy and will pay thii neither to the Landlord nor Prieft^ Vin- 
 dication, pag. 323. 
 
 This : What thi^^ This abatement f \A/hy himfelf makes 
 it queftionable whether there be any Abatement M^^on con- 
 iideracion of Tythes, or no : And if there be not an 
 Abatement upon that confideration, what hath t\{Q Qua- 
 her to pay f Or how is either the Landlord or the Prieft 
 coz^ened by the Quaker (as he unfairly fuggefls one of them 
 fhallhe fare tobT?) The Landlord is not cozened by the 
 Quaker's not giving Tythes to the Priefl: : Since the Qna- 
 ker^(M^ not receive any Abatement from the Landlord 
 upon confideration of fuch a Gift. Nor would the Qua- 
 ^ her accept an Abatement upon thofe terms, were the 
 Landlord never ^o willing to make one. The Landlord, 
 if he hath a mind to beftow any thing on the Priefl:, may 
 take his own courfe therein, but the Quaker will have na 
 hand in it. The Priefl; is not cozened by the Quaker's 
 
 nos 
 
( ?2I ) 
 
 not giving him Tythes, and indeed it were llrange to 
 think he fhould, fince in that refped he has nothing to 
 be cozened of ^ for the Quahr owes him nothings nor has 
 any trading with him, by means whereof he might come 
 into his Debt. Thus neither Landlord nor Priell fuflains 
 any wrong by the Quaker : For the Onaker pays the Land- 
 lord duely for what he receives of hTm, according to the 
 Contrad: between them. And if he pays nothwg co the 
 Prieft, it is becaufe he owes him nothing, nor receives any 
 thing of him. But if no gentler word than Coz.enage will 
 ferve the Prieft's turn, I leave it to the Reader's Confide- 
 ration, whether of the two is in reallicy the Ccz^emr, the 
 Quaker in refufing to give away the tenth part of his La- 
 bour and juft Profits to the Priefl, to whom he knows he 
 ewes nothings and from whom he receives nothing^ : Or the 
 Prieft in getting away, by one means or other," ihc tenth 
 part of the Quaker's Crop, and yearly Increafe of his 
 Stock and Labour, for nothing. But to return to the 
 other Prieft, Author of the Right ofTythes, 
 
 §. 20. He in his 42. Sed. pag. 215. frames a Qiiota- 
 tion out of pag. 347. of my Book, and gives it thus, "ths- 
 Landlords Dealing is far more mercifd than the Priefi's • foy 
 the Landlord allows two parts to the Tenant for his Chaigc and 
 Subfijlerice , but the Priefi takes the full tenth part vf the In-- 
 creafe of the whole Farm^ and leaves the poor Farmer no coj^ft" 
 deration for his Toyl and Charge. To this he gives feveral 
 forts of Anfwers, whereof the (irft is this, That there arg 
 few Landlords who take fo little Rent as one pan of three, and 
 few Priefisget fo much as a full tenth part of all manner of Fro* 
 fits : So that (fays he) thi^ Argument is faulty on both fides-y 
 and halts on both Legs. 
 
 To the firft part of this [viz. That there are few Land^ 
 lords who take fo little Rent as one part of threi} his Brother 
 Prieft fhall reply for me, who in his Findication, p^g. 92 k 
 fays, A Farm of 90 /. a Tear conffling m Tillage may be 
 worth 27 /. a Tear to the Parfon. That it cannot be, un- 
 lefs it be worth 270 1. a year to the Tenant, which be- 
 ing thrice as much as the Rent, plainly (hews the Land- 
 lord takes no more than one part of three. To the latter 
 part [viz. That few Prieft'' s get fo much oa .<i full tenth pare 
 of all manner of profits'} this"^ Prieft himfelf (hall Anfwer 
 himfelf, who in his Right of Tythes^ pag, 200, fays, There 
 
 are 
 
( 322 ) 
 
 are very few Par I flits ^ where nineteen parts oftWem^ do not 
 nay their Tythes freely as any other Dues. If this be true, 
 Chen chere are very few Parifhes, wherein the Priefts do 
 not get of nineteen farts of twenty the f nil tenth part of all man' 
 net of Profits : For what fhould hinder their getting it of 
 ali them that pay Tythes fo freely! Thus, if this Prieffe 
 dares believe his Brother Priefl for the firft part, and him- 
 felf for the fecond, he will find my Argument is not faul- 
 ty on either fide, nor halts on etther Leg ; but that his 
 Brother and himfelf, by their often interfering^ and hit- 
 ting one Leg againft t'other, are themfelves become lame^ 
 and halt of both Legs. 
 
 Another Anfwer that he gives, is this, 71?^ very fame 
 thing is done in Annuities^ Free-Rents^ Rent-Charges^ Dona-" 
 tions to the Foor^ &c. the Money is paid intire^ and no fatis' 
 faction is made to the Occupant for his pains in raifing it ^ yet 
 none ever called thefe Oppre/fiony till T. E. appeared^ pag* 
 21 6. 
 
 Here he thwarts himfelf lagam. He faid but in pag. 201. 
 There are fome indeed who cry out againfi all puhlick Payments ^ 
 and thefe do call not only Tythes^ but the Landlords Rents^ and 
 Affeffme?its to the Ktng^ and Relief to the poor^ great Oppref- 
 fwnsy What could he have faid more plainly oppofite to 
 his other Sentence ! Though for my part, I do not be- 
 lieve hefpake truth in this AiTercion, nor that he is able 
 to prove it by any Inilance : Nor Hiould I have thought k 
 worth mentioning, but to let him fee, that when Men 
 take the liberty to write any thing, trne orfalfe^ they fei- 
 dom come oft' without contradi5iion and jhame. But to pals 
 by his Contradictions (which are too common with him 
 to be much taken notice of) let us examine his Anfwer. 
 He fays, in Annuities^ Free-Rent s^ Rent-Charges and Donati" 
 ons to the pocr^ the Money is paid intire^ and no fatisfaEiion 
 made to the Occupant for bis pains in raifing it. 
 
 This is falfe. For if the Occupant be the Owner^ he re- 
 ceives the Land under the Condition of fuch Payments, 
 and the Inheritance h fatisfa5iion to him : But if he be but 
 Tef7arity he either is not at ail concern'^d in thofe Payments, 
 but the Landlord difcharges them out of his Rents or 
 otherwife) or if by Contract he pays them at all, it is 
 but as part of hii Rent^ for which he has proportionably 
 
 the 
 
^ 3^3 ) 
 the fame fatisfaaion from his Crop, as he hath for the 
 other parts of his Rent. 
 
 Another Anfwer he gives thus, abid, We labour Spirit 
 tuallyfor them^ who take bodily pains for iu : And indeed tht 
 Parijhioners give us nothing at ally but only this fains they taki 
 in making God's part ready. 
 
 Doth he think that nineteen parts of twenty in moft Pa- 
 rifhes, or nine parts either, beiieVe Tythes to bs God^^ 
 part, or make it ready as fuch ? Let him noc fo deceive 
 himfelf. The World hath been too long gull'd already 
 with fuch pretences; which might pafs for currant in 
 former Ages, when Darknefs covered the Earthy and grofs 
 Darknefs the people : But now thac Light is broken forth, 
 which difcovers they are but Counterfeit^ and as really 
 falfe as feemingly fair. His triple Plea of Divine, Dona- 
 tive and Human Right (which here again he mentions) 
 taken out of the triple Crown (I mean derived from a popilh 
 Power) is already fo fully anfwered in feveral parts of the 
 fore-going Difcourfe, that it would be improper here to 
 difcufs them again. But feeing he fays, We (the Priefts) 
 labour Spiritually for them^ who take bodily pains for us. 
 
 If he fpeak it with refped to the Q^akers^ 1 muft take 
 the liberty to tell him, he fpeaks thae which is not true : 
 For the Priefts do not labour Spiritually for the Quakers^ 
 but in an evil Spirit do often labour againfl them, tlirough 
 Covetiiotifnefs and Envy^ calling them into Prifon^ sindfpoil- 
 ing them of their Goods for Nothing : by which means m^'^ 
 uy irtdH(irioH6Fami\k$y hQing firipped of thofe neceffaries, 
 which by the bJeiling of God on their honed Labours and 
 diligent Endeavours were provided for their Subfifience^ 
 have been reduced to great Wants^ and became Objeds 
 of good Men's Charity^ as well as Examples of the CLER- 
 GY's CRUELTY. And hence have the Groans of 
 many a diftreffed Widow^ and the Cries of many a Father^ 
 lefs and helplefs Child (made fo by the Priefi^s means) en- 
 tred the Ear of the God of Fengeance^ who certainly will 
 repay, With refped then to the Qnahrs the Prieft's Po- 
 lilion h falfe '^ and truly with refpedt to his own Hearers 
 the reafon of it will not hold. For fuppofmg him to labour 
 Spiritually for them, as they take bodily pains for him, 
 yet inafmuch as he is not tied to any certain proportion 
 of Labour for them (for though the Prieft preach and 
 
 Y prar 
 
( 324 ), . 
 
 |)ray by the Hour-glafs, yet I never heard they were 
 ftridiy bound to make their Prayer or Sermon jufl an 
 Hour long, neither mt)re nor lefs) there is no reafon they 
 ihould be tied to a certain proportion and quantity of La- 
 bour for him (which they are, when the exad tenth is 
 required of them) but that they fliould be free, and at li- 
 berty in their labour for him, as far at leaf!: as he is in his 
 labour for ihem. But he fays, ibid, If our Anceftors epjoyn- 
 ed their Succejfors to give the Priefi the tenth part without his 
 taking fains^ it was no more injiiftice in them^ than in King 
 David, who made his part who tarried by the fthffl equal to 
 his who went down into the Battle^ I Sam. 30. 25. 
 
 The Comparifon is not equal, nor the Cafes alike. l>a* 
 'vid in diflributing the Spoils, difpofed but of thae which 
 was his own: For the Spoils belonged unto him, both as 
 lie was anointed King, and as he was Captain General of 
 she whole Army *, Therefore we read in the Text, verfe 
 20, And Ddi\\d took 'd\\ the Floch-f and the Herds^ which they 
 drave before thofe other Cattle^ and faidy THIS IS DA^ 
 FID'S SPOIL. Bue will any Man (pretending to^ 
 underftand himfdf) fay of the Husband-man's Crop ae 
 this day, Thefe are Ethelwolf 'j Profits^ who has been dead 
 above 800. Years before thefe Profits were in Being ? Be- 
 lides, thofe ;2oo. Men whom David left at the Brook 
 Befor^ were riot like any of the lazy Clergy, that through 
 Pride or Idlenefs refufe to work, expeding to be maintain- 
 ed by other Men's Labours : But they \nqvq fellow-Soldiers 
 with the other 4C0. that went, a part of the fame Army, 
 engaged in the fame Service, and kt forward with the 
 reft in the fame Expedition, and went on together as far 
 as they were able ^ but having fpenc their ftrength in the 
 three days march from Aphek to Ziklag before, and now 
 again in a hot Purfuit of the AmaUkites^ they fainted en the 
 wayy and could not go over the Brook Beforj and there- 
 fore were fain to abide there. How unlike is this to 
 the Cafe of thefe Lordly Priefls ! And how irrelative to 
 ihe prefent purpofe ! 
 
 Bot, fays the Priefi, finally y Will T. E.fay, It is Oppref^ 
 fion in the Priefi to take his full tenths and make the Country^ 
 man no fatisfMion for his pains F If this be Oppreffion^ then 
 Cod was (ht Amhor (according to T. EJ and ths Levites 
 
 th$ 
 
( 325 ) 
 
 the InfirHments of Opprejp.on^ face they were ordered to tah 
 the full Tenth without any Campenfitiony pag. 217. 
 
 That doth not follow, nor can be fairly inferred, un- 
 hfi the Friefis now were under the fame Circuinitances 
 that the Levites were under, unlefs England were as fruits 
 ful as was the Land oi Canaan^ unlefs our Laws and Polit/ 
 were the fame with rk/r^,and nnlefs we had as plaii^ and po- 
 fitive a Command to pay Tythes as the Jews had. Tythes 
 WQTQ fiiited to the Itacc and condition of that Country 
 and People, and exprfjly commanded by God : but neither 
 are they at all fnit able to the Hate and condition of this 
 Country and People, nor any where commanded by God to 
 be now paid. There was an equality la the Jews paying 
 Tythes to the Levites^ becaufe the Jews enjoyed the Levices 
 fhare of the Land^ and e'vsry Family of the other Tribes 
 had their Lot enlarged by the div.ifion of the Levites Part 
 amongd them \ fo that Tythe with them was bat a kind 
 of Commmation Of Excliange for Land. LJut it is not fo 
 in England : the Priefti here are ros debarr'd from hav- 
 ing Lands as well as other Men, but are eqn^Jy capable, of 
 enjoying temporal Eftates, by Defcent, Purchafe, or other- 
 wife, as the reft of the People are. Befidec, the Land 
 of Canaan was fa frmifd^ thac with lefs than half the 
 Charge which the EngU^} Husband-man is now at, they 
 frequently received fix or eighty and fometimes ten times 
 as much increafeas Lands in England ufually produce ^ by 
 means whereof they might with mote eafc pay the fall 
 tenth to the Levites^ than the- £^^//Pj Farmers now cam 
 the twentieth fart to the Prieils. Thefe Coniiderations, 
 duly weighed, will make it evidently appear, that al- 
 though Tythes were »or an OpprefTion to the Jews^ yea 
 they may be (and are) fo to iHy who have neither the 
 fame (nor any) Command from God to pay them, nor 
 the fame (nor any) Compenfation for them, nor eqnal abi- 
 lity to undergo them, as had the Jews, And though the 
 Priell fays, The Levites were ordered to take the full tenth 
 without any Compenfation^ yet therein he fpeaks not the 
 truth : for they that paid the Tythes had the Levites 
 Lands (viz, thofe Lands which would otherwife have 
 fallen to the LmV^^ (hare) divided amongft them: ^o 
 that they had a Compenfation^ Lands for Tythes^ The 
 Prieft's Argument therefore is fallacioa^^ and his Conclu- 
 
 y 2 fi^a 
 
( J26 ) 
 
 fion utterly falfe. He infers not rightly, when he fays, 
 Jf it be Oppreffion in the Prieft to take the fnll tenths &-C. then 
 Cod was the Author of Oppreffion, The Confequence is no6 
 true: for in Canaan^ where God was the Author bf tak- 
 ing the full tenth, there it was no Opprejfion ^ and in Eng- 
 land^ where it is an Opprefiion, here God was not the An- 
 ther of taking the full tenth. Thus we fee, that for the 
 Prieft to take the full tenth without making the Country- 
 man any fatisfadion for his pains, may be truly called an 
 Oppreffion, and yet God not be thereby taxed with be- 
 ing the Author of it. But thefe grofs Ahfurdities the 
 Prieft runs himfelf into by over-haftily and inconfide- 
 rately catching up a wrong Conclufion, that what was 
 lawful, juft and equal between the "jews and Levites^ in 
 the time of the Law, and in the Land oi Canaan only^ muft 
 needs be fo in all times and places between other People 
 and their Priefts ^ not duly weighing the diferem Circum- 
 fiances under which the Jiws then flood, and others now 
 fland. 
 
 Let us here now how the Prieft fays the Country-man 
 is compenfated for his pains. St. Auguftine y^/r^, (if the 
 Prieft fays true) God gives us aH the nine parts^ in compenfa" 
 tionfor our pains^ in frovidivg the tenth for him^ ibid. 
 
 What a pretty Notion is this, neither confirmed by 
 Scripture-Evidence, nor backed with any Reafon. He 
 thought (it feems) St. AugHJ^ine^ ipfe dixit would have 
 pafFed, but it will not, at leaft with me. God gives us 
 all the nine parts, 'tis true, but not to reward us for pro- 
 viding him the tenth ; for he gives tu the Tenth as well as 
 the Nine, And as he gives us all^ fo he expedts we fhould 
 ufe it all in his Fear, and imploy it all to his Honour, the 
 vine parts as well as the tenths and the tenth part as well 
 as the nine. But he that thinks God gives him the nine 
 parts upon condition that he fhall provide the tenth for 
 him, may be in danger to be begged, and fo lofe the nine 
 ^parts too. 
 
 Another Conceit the Prieft has to this purpofe, which 
 he pretends to fetch from Sr. Hen. Spelman-^ and that Is 
 of the facrednefs of the number Seven^ and that by right 
 Godfljohld have had a full feventh part of our Profits^ but that 
 in cornpenfation far onr pains he remits three farts^ andfo is son* 
 tent with a tenth. 
 
 If 
 
( 3^7 ) 
 
 If this be tme^ St Mftin was out : for he (accoriing 
 to the Priell) fays, God gives m all the nine parts^ in com- 
 fenfationfor our fains ^ in providing the tenth for him: BuK 
 this (taking no notice at all of the nine parts) fays, God 
 gives 1(4 back three parts of our Profits inKompenfation for onr 
 painsy and infiead of a feventh^ is contented with a tenth pan 
 of our Eftate. Methinks the Prielt might have confidered, 
 before he had brought thefc two Sentences together, that 
 thtr€ is fame odds between giving nine parts in compenfa- 
 tion for the pains in providing the tenths and giving back 
 three parts in compenfation for the pains in providing the 
 feventh'^ wherein not only the Claims^ but the Allowances 
 alfo for painsy are very difproportionable. However, if (as 
 he fancies) God did give back to the Jews three parts^ of 
 their Profits, in compenfation for their pains ^ then feeing 
 the Husband-men here, in many places, are at well nigh 
 three times'the pains and charge the Jews were at, it might 
 juftly be expeded, that if God did now require any fucb 
 Tribute, he, who is perfed Juftice, would make his 
 Abatements proportionable to the pains j which muft necefla- 
 riiy be taken in providing his part, whence the fame 
 Reafon that is fuppofed to have brought it from afevemh 
 to a tenthj on account of Reward for pains, would long 
 lince have drawn it from a Tenth to a Fifteenth, as a more 
 ample Reward for greater pains. But leaving thefe petty 
 Conceits to the Judgment of thofe fober Men to whom 
 he propounds them, I will go on to that which the Prieft 
 offers as a further Anfwer yet to my Objeftion. 
 
 / will only add, (fays he, pag. 21 8.) That the Prieft's Pay- 
 mentis more mercifnl than the Landlord's', for the Landlord 
 expeBs his fnll Rent, be the Tear never fo bad, or the trofits 
 never fo few or fmall \ but the Priefis part cannot exceed the 
 Increafe ', if it be little, he hath hut little \ if God gives muchj 
 the Country-man is able to pay more. 
 
 The Landlord, I grant, doth exped his full Rent in 
 bad Years, as well as in good -, but he never expeds more 
 than his Rent, be the year never fo good. Though he 
 often confider the Tenant's Lofles in bad years, yet if 
 the belt years happen within the term of his Contrad:, he 
 expeds no Advance of Rent thereby. Now, if there were 
 Truth in what the Prieft fays of his own parr, it were 
 fomething to the purpofe, but alas 1 it is ntttrlyfalfe. 
 
 y ^ he 
 
He fays, The PriejFs f.^trt cannot exceed the hicreafe. 
 It may be he means, it fijodd not % but then the Priefls 
 are the more too bUme in exceeding what they account 
 their part : For certain it is, that where there is no in* 
 creafe^ nay, where there is a plain and manik JH Deere afe, 
 where the Crop is not fo much as the Seed that was Town, 
 even there do the Prielts claim and take a tenth fart. Now 
 why do they thus, if their part cannot exceed the In- 
 creafe f Doih not this convift them of taking a fart where 
 themfelves confefs they fhould have no fart Mf a Maa 
 Sow twtmy Bufhels of Wheat, and receive at Harveil bun 
 ten Bufhels again, would any Man but a Tythe Taker call 
 this an Increafe ^ Yet thefe Priefrs have learned new Figures 
 of Speech, and will call it an Increafe from twenty to ten ^ 
 and though the foor Farmer lofe W/his Seed, and all his 
 plowing and other Charge, (which feldom comes to iefs 
 than thirty Shillings an Acre) yet fhall he not efcape fo ; 
 the Fried: will have a bout with him too, and make him 
 porer yet, by taking from him the tenth part of the Re- 
 mainder oi his Decreafe. Yea, though the Seed that was 
 fown was tythed the year before^ and hath not now pro- 
 duced its own valiie^ yet is it now tythed over again, and 
 thus the Prieft takes Tythes of one thing mice. Judge 
 now. Reader, if this be not JnJHJiice^ if this be not Vn- 
 merctfulmfs^ if this be not great Opprejfton. Yet doth the 
 Priell footh up the poor Husband- man, and fawns upon 
 him Viilh flattering words. Indeed (fays he) the Priefl is 
 hereby obliged to fympathize with his Neighbours^ Jince he is a 
 Sharer in their Gain's and Lojfes^ pag. 2 1 8. 
 
 In their Gains to be fure he'll be a Sharer, and in one 
 refpedt in their Lofes too, that is. Let them lofe what 
 they will, if they ^o not lofe al!^ to be fure he^il have a 
 prnre of what -is left^ how little foever it be. Thus he hath 
 a fijare in making them lofc^ 10 that he fets both his hands ; 
 bu6 to bear a part of the Husband-man's Lofs, he will not 
 ftretch out t\\^ leaft of his Fingers. Does he bear a fhare 
 ©f the Husband-man's Lofs, who when the Husband-man 
 reaps but half the Seed he fowed, and lofeth three times 
 the value of his Crop befide, takes from him the Tythe 
 of that lictie that remains, although is was tythed the 
 year before, and no increafe, but fo much lofs upon it 
 nace? Sfich Sharers m Loffes the Kusband-man had better 
 
 be 
 
( 329 ) 
 
 be without, than have. Yea, it were far better for him 
 thac the Priefl would only fhare in his Gainsy and never 
 pretend to (hare in his Lojfes : for when-ever he comes 
 under that pretence^ to be fure he makes him th^ greater 
 lofer: And yet he cries, The Priefi and the Hniband-mar^ 
 ought to have the fame care for one another. 
 
 If the Husband-man had no more care of the Prieft, 
 than the Priefl has of the Husband-man, there would 
 not be fomany fat Priefts, and lean Farmers, as there 
 are. The Husband-man indeed takes care and pains all 
 the year round ^ but what care doEh the Prieft take, unleft 
 it be when Harvefl: comes to get as much from the Hus- 
 band-man as he can ? Thus indeed they both take care, 
 though not both the fame Care. The Husband- man's 
 Care inriches the Prieft, but the Prieft's Care imfoverifljcs 
 the Husbaad-man. 
 
 §. 21. He is loth to confefs that the Charge is much 
 heavier now upon the People, than it was under the Le* 
 viticd Priefthood ; and ejpdeavours to perfwade the con- 
 trary by a fieppofitive Commutation of the Charge then, 
 which he borrows from Godwyn^ as he from others \ the 
 fum of which is, That the JevviOi Husband-man paid One 
 thoufand two hundred and twenty one Bujhels out of Six thoH' 
 fandy that u^ above a ftxth part of his Crop, pag. 219, 220. 
 
 To which I reply, firfi^ That the Computacion is 
 doubtful: for it fuppofes the Tythe of the whole Crop was 
 to be paid to the Levites^ after ihe firfl Fruits were tak- 
 en out, which the Text feems not to allow. The ex- 
 prefs words are, Deut. 14. 22. Thou fljalt truly Tythe all 
 the Increafe of thy Seedy that the Field bringeth forth year by 
 year. There was the Seedy and the Increafe of the Seed, 
 The Seed was part of the former years Jncreafcy and fo was 
 tythed before : but if ic fhould now have been tythed a- 
 gain, together with its own Increafe, ic would then have 
 been tythed twice. In order then to a right Computation, 
 it feems, the Seed fhould firft be deduced, and the In- 
 creafe only computed ^ which will make a conliderable al- 
 teration in the Account : for it mult be no very fraall 
 quantity of Seed, that produces 6coo. Bufheis of Grain. 
 
 Y ^ But 
 
( ?3o ) 
 
 But 2. This w^rf than a fixth part^ as he accompts k, 
 was not all paid to the Priefts and Levites^ nor all appro- 
 priated to their Maintenance ^ but the Fatherlefs, the IVi- 
 dovp^ and the Stranger were provided for out of this. The 
 Husband-man did not raife a new Stock to maintain the 
 Poor (as now he is fain to do) but this defrayed all thofe 
 Charges, and he and his Family had their (hare of it too. 
 But if the Husband-men now fiiould compute their 
 Charge, and take an exad: Account of what they pay both 
 to the Prieft and his Sub- Officers, and alfo to the Poor 
 upon all Occafions, I am perswaded many of them would 
 find a Jjxth part of their Crop doth not excufe them. 
 
 Again, 3. The Husband-man now pays Ty the of many 
 more things than the Jews did, as Hay, Wool, Milk, 
 Wood, &c, to omit things of lefs value, as Honey, 
 Wax, Eggs, &c, yea the Priefts now have the Tythes 
 even of the Husband-man's Straw and Chaff as well as of 
 his Hay, to the great Damage of the Husband-man, who 
 often wants thefe to maintain his Cattle, always to make 
 Dung to keep his Land in Heart. 
 
 But, 4. If nothing of all this were to be alledged : if 
 the Jews had paid a full lixth part to the Levites, and that 
 for the Levites proper ufe, and had undertaken the Relief 
 of Fatherlefs, Widow and Stranger belide; and if the 
 Husband-men now paid Tythes of no more things than 
 what the Jews paid Tythes of, yet comparing the great 
 Charge and fmall Increafe the Husband-man now hath, 
 with the fmall Charge and great Increafe the Jews thea 
 had, It will ftill appear that the People are under a great- 
 er Burden, and the Charge lies heavier on the People 
 liow, wh6 pay the tenth part to the Priefb, than it did, 
 or would have done on the Jewsj had they paid, as they 
 did not, a full fixth part to the Levites. 
 
 To what I urged before, to prove the Charge heavier 
 on the People now, than it was on the Jews^ viz, Thatt 
 the Levites having no Inheritance with their Brethren, the 
 Lots of the other Tribes were the bigger, which was 
 fome Gonfideration for their Tythes, &c. The Prieft 
 anfwers, That though the Levites had not any intire Coun^ 
 try fet om together^ yet they had fair fojfejjions in every Tribe^ 
 having Forty e^ght Cities^ with Tvpo thohfand Cubits ronnd with' 
 mtihf¥d^^ ^f^fintid thtm byGod'^ which (fays he, pag, 
 
 ' ' ' Z10.)W4S§ 
 
(J30 
 
 220.) VDM a tetter proportion than our Gltbe-lanA^ and in 
 'Value might he efieemed the twelfth part of the Land of Ca» 
 naan. 
 
 He computes ftrangely to make the Levites Cities with 
 their Suburbs a twelfth part in value of the Land of C4- 
 naan. Was that the way for the Levites to have No Inhe- 
 ritance (Numb. 18. 23, 24.) No Part with iheir Brethren 
 (Dem. 10 9.) to give ih^m 2i greater part than any of chcir 
 Brethren had ? For if (according to the Prieft) they had 
 had in Cities and Suburbs a twelfth part in value of the 
 Land of Canaan ; and they were in number (as Selden 
 computes) fcarce a fiftieth part of the People, they had 
 had a notable Advantage by being (as I may fay) difm- 
 herited of the Land, although they had received neither 
 Tythcs nor Oblations, but ihofe Cities and Suburbs on- 
 ly. But what value foever thofe Cides were of, the Le^ 
 vites had them, and that by God's Appointment : But by 
 whofe Appointment have the Priefts now their Parfonage- 
 Houfes and Vicarage- Honfes^ with their Clehe- Lands f Or 
 what value may we fuppofe them to amount unto ? If 
 there be in England and Wales about ten thoufand Parifh- 
 cs, to each of which a Parfonage or Vicar age- houfe belongs, 
 thefe, could they be reduced into Towns, would make 
 as many, and probably as fair, as thofe the Levites had. 
 For ten thoufand Houfes divided into Forty eight parts^ 
 afford above two hundred unto each : and doubtlefs two 
 hundred fuch Houfes, as moft of thefe are, with their 
 great Tythe-Barns and other appurtenant Buildings, would 
 make as large a Town as moft, if not as any of them. 
 Then for the Glebe- lands belonging to thefe Houfes, there 
 is no queftion but their extent doth far exceed the iwo 
 thoufand Cubits of Land allotted to the Levites round each 
 City. For fuppofe there be but twenty Acres of Glebe- 
 land to every Parfonage or Vicarage-honfe^ one with ano- 
 ther, yet that (not to make an exadl calculation) calls 
 about four thoufand Acres to every two hundred Houfes, 
 which probably would furpafs the Limits of the Levites 
 Suburbs, at leafl: a fourth part. This in fhort, only to 
 fiiew, that if the Levttes had Houfes and Lands about 
 them, fo have the Priefts now alfb, and that (fo far as 
 may be gathered) in mnch greater quantity. So that the 
 Invites having Cities and Suburbs doth flot at all abate the 
 
 force 
 
( ?30 
 
 force of my Argument, buE llill it appears, that the 
 Charge is t?2iich heavier upon the People now, than it was 
 under the Ltvitical Prieilhood : For if the Levites received 
 Tythes of the People, fo do the Friefisy and that of mere 
 thwgs than the Levites did; if the Levites had Houfes of 
 the People to dwell in, and fome Lands about them for 
 their Cattel, fo have the Priefts of the People noWj and that 
 (probably) in greater proportion than the Levites had. 
 Thus far then the People now have the word of it, but 
 much more in that which follows: for if the Levites had 
 Cities and Suburbs, they had not Inheritance with their 
 Brethren ^ they had not thofe Cities and Suburbs and the 
 Share of the Lmd befider. But the Priefts now have not 
 only Cities and Suburbs (as I may call them) but Inherit 
 tances alfo with their Brethren. They have not only 
 Eloufes and Lands equivalent^ at leafl, if not fnperioHr^ to 
 what the Levites had, but their jhare alfo of the reft of the 
 Land, bei??£ equally capable of holding Eftates by Civil 
 Title, as any other of the People are. And how much 
 foever the Priefts thus poflefs, fo much the lefs the Peo- 
 ple have, and fo much the heavier lies the Burden on them, 
 than it did upon the Jews. Befides, Let it be confider- 
 ed what vafi Revenues, what great and rich PofFeflions 
 (fufficient to defray the publick Charge of the Nation) 
 SLTQ grafped into the hands of Arch-Bijhops^ Bijhops^ Pre- 
 bends ^ Deans and Chapters^ 5cc. From whence, I pray, 
 were th^k ffteezi'd ^ Was it not from the People ? jirenot 
 the People hereby impoverished to make the Clergy rich f Were 
 ever the Jews fo ferved by their Priefthood ? Had their 
 Priefts or Levetes Lands or Pofteffions in the Land of Gi- 
 naatiy befides their Cities and Suburbs ? Judge then, Rea- 
 der, whether the Charge lies not heavier on the People 
 now, than it did under the Levitical Priefthood, feeing 
 t\i^ People now pay more and enjoy lefs than the Jews did. 
 
 Then for their Offer ings^ If the Levites had a part of thQ 
 Sacrifices, a jhare of the Feaft, a part of the voluntary 
 Oblations, the firfi Born of Cattd, ^««f<r^ for the redemp- 
 tion of the firft Born of Men, and of Perfons dedicated 
 by Vow ; The Priefis now have many more ways of drayning 
 Money from the People^ and fuch as are more burdenfom to 
 People too. In the Sacrifices, Feafts and voluntary Ob- 
 lations, as the Priefts and Lmtes had a part, fo the People 
 
 df9 
 
(???) 
 
 dfo had their (hare. But in the Offerings and Payments 
 which the Priefts now claim and receive, the People have 
 nofjare at all: fo much Money is demanded and paid, with 
 which the Prieft feafts hirnfelf, but the People neither 
 eat nor drink for it. But it there happen to be a Feaft ia 
 theParifh, at a Chriftening (as they call it) or any other 
 Golliping Bout, who hut the Farfon <* Tlie price for Re* 
 dempcion of Perfons dedicated by Vow was very uncer- 
 tain. The Prieft fets down fifty Shekels^ which was the 
 highefl price that it could at any time amount unto. Bui 
 in other Cafes (more likely to happen) the price was 
 fometinies thirty^ fometimes twenty^ fometimes ten^ Ibme- 
 tinies five^ and fometimes but three Shekels •, and if 
 the Party vowing was poor, then was he to pay but ac- 
 cording to his ability^ Levit. 27. But thefe in general 
 happened fo rarely, that little comparatively could come 
 to the Priefts thereby. And indeed, if the many Arts 
 and Engines vi\[\Q\\ the Priefts have and ufe, to [crew Mo- 
 ney out of the People by, were reckoned up together 
 (fome of which in my former Book, pag. 7,^9. are pre- 
 fented to the Reader's view) the "jewijh Offerings to their 
 Priefts would feem fmaU in comparifon of what the Cler^ 
 gy now hath. 
 
 Two Paffages more out of my Bock he quarrels with 
 in this Se(^ion, one is, that Thofe Jythes and Offerings nn^ 
 der the Law maintained all the Officers belonging to that Taber-^ 
 nacle^ fo that the People were at no further Charge. To this 
 he fays, pag. 222. Pray what C-^^D ^^ (here to be main* 
 tained f None bepde the Levites, except the poor Nethinims, 
 who were Gibeonites, and did the Drudgery of the Temple, 
 
 It matters not what \iAir\ there was 5 It is fufficient 
 that all the Officers (Priefts^ Levites and Nethinims) were 
 maintained by thofe Tythes and Offerings, and the Peo- 
 ple not put upon any new charge. Whereas now not- 
 witbftanding the heavy Charge the People are at in main* 
 taining their Priefts, they are fain to begin again, and 
 make new Provifions for the Maintenance of the Nethi^ 
 nims of thefe times (the Clerks and Sextons^ &c.) to do 
 the Prieft's drudgery^ which the Priefts are either too fins 
 or too idle to do themfeives, and too Covetow to pay for 
 doing. This Charge therefore, be it more or lefs, is fo 
 much more thau the Jews were liable to. 
 
 The 
 
.(334) 
 
 The other PalTage is, That out of the Tythes under the 
 Law Provifion was made^ for the Fatherlefs^ the Widow^ and 
 the Stranger^ Deut, 14, 28, 29. Thu^ he fays, is another 
 mi flake J if J mean thefe were provided for out of the Levites 
 Tythe. 
 
 He may fee what Tythe I meant by the Text I quoted, 
 which ipeaks of the third Year's Tythe,^ thus, Deut, 14. 
 2.8, 29. At the end of three Tears thou [halt bring forth AH the 
 'tythe of thine Increafe the fame Tear^ and jhalt lay it up within 
 thy Gates, And the Levite (hecaufe he hath no fart nor Inhe^ 
 ritance with thee) and the Stranger^ and the Fatherlefsj and 
 the Wtdow^ which are within thy GateSj ffjali come^ and fljaU 
 eat and be fatijfied, &c. Now whether he will call this 
 the Levites Tythe or no, which was thus to be laid up for 
 the Levice, Stranger^ Fatherlefs and Widow in common (and 
 was it feeras to be ALL the Tythe of the Increafe of that 
 tear) yet to be fure it was included in that, which he 
 fays, was more than afixth part of the Husband- man's Pro- 
 fits. So that thofe Tythes which the Husband-man paid, 
 were not for the Maincence of the Priefts and Levites on^ 
 fyj but of the Stranger^ the Fatherlefs and the IVidow alfo ; 
 aad the Husband- man was at no further charge. And as 
 Tythes were at firfl: introduced in this and other Nati- 
 ons, under the fpeciom pretences of Charity and Alms to 
 to the Poor, fo in the Settlement of them in this Nation, 
 efpecial regard was had to the Poor, and particular Pro- 
 viiion made for their Maintenance out of the Tythes, as 
 appears by the Statutes of 15. Rich, 2. 6. and 4. Hen, 4. 
 J 2. Of thenegled of which, William Thorp (who lived 
 under both thefe Kings, and is by Fox recorded for an 
 boly Confeffor of Jefus, though by this Prieft branded 
 with the ignominious Name of a Renegado) thus coni- 
 plaineth to the Arch-Bjfhop of Canterbury : * It is now 
 
 * no wonder though the People grudge to give the Priefts 
 
 * the Livelode that they ask. Mekii People now know, 
 
 * how that Priefts fhould live, and how that they live 
 *" contrary to Chrift and to his Apofiles, And therefore the 
 
 * People is full heavy to pay (as they do) their tempo- 
 
 * ral Goods to Parfons and to other Vicars and Priefts, 
 
 * which fhould be faithful Difpenfators of the Parishes 
 ' Goods : taking to themfelves no more but a fcarce Liv- 
 ' ing of Tythes, nor of Offerings, by the Ordinance of 
 
 !l;hf 
 
* the common Law. For whatfoever Priefls take of the 
 
 * People (be it Tythe or Offering, or any other Duty or 
 
 * Service) the Priefls ought not to have thereof no more, 
 
 * but a hare Living ; and to depart the refidue to the 
 
 * poor Men and Women, efpecially of the Parifh of 
 
 * whom they take this temporal Living. But the moft 
 
 * deal of Priefls now wafleth the Parjjhes Goods, and 
 
 * fpcndeth them at their own Will after the World, in 
 
 * their vain Lnfts : So that in few places foor Men have 
 
 * duly (as they Ihould have) their own Sudenance, neither 
 
 * of Tythes nor of Offerings, nor of other large Wages 
 
 * and Foundations, that Priells take of the People in di- 
 
 * vers manners above, that they need for needful Sufle- 
 
 * nance of Meat and Clothing: But the poor needy Peoplt 
 
 * arcforfaken and lejt of Priefls to ^be fnfiained of the Parijhi-' 
 
 * onerSy as if the Pnejls took nothi?jg vf the Fanpoioners to help 
 
 * the People with. And thus Sir, into over great Charges 
 
 * of the Parifhioners, they pay their temporal Goods 
 ' twice^ where once might fuffice, if Priefls were true Dif- 
 
 * penfators. Thus he, Martyrol. Vol i. pag. 494. By 
 which it doth appear that in former times Tythes were rr- 
 puted to the Parijh's Goods (not the Priefl's Freehold and 
 Property^ as thefe confident Priefls now a-days have iearnX 
 to talk) of which the Priefts were but Difpenfators oc 
 Stewards, to receive a bare Living for themfelves, and 
 diftribute the refl to the poor of the Parifh, by which the 
 Parifhoners were exempted from further Charge in thas: 
 refpecl, till the Covetous Priefls took all to themfelves, 
 and fhut the Poor quite out ; which was gradually done, 
 as by degrees the Payment of Tythes was at firfl broughs 
 in on the Poor's behalf, and nnder pretence of relieving the 
 poor. Nor do I remember 1 have read of any other Provi^ 
 (ion made for the Poor, or fo much as the Name of Over-- 
 feer of the Poor in any of our Statutes mentioned, until 
 the Forty third Year of Q: Eliz,abethy not full Eighty 
 Years ago. For in the beginning of her Reign, Tythes 
 (under the Name of the Goods of the Church) were re- 
 puted the Goods of the Poor, and a Maintenance for the 
 Poor expeded from the Clergy, as appears by the Injunc- 
 tions given by the Queen in the Year 1559- ^^ which the 
 Eleventh runs thus, ' Furthermore, becaufe the Goods 
 •^ oi the Church are called the Goods of the Poor, and as 
 
 ^ ' thefe 
 
(33^ 
 
 * thefe days nothing is lefs feen than the Poor to be fa- 
 
 * ftained with the fame, all Parfons, Vicars, PenCona- 
 
 * ries, Prebendaries, and other beneficed Men, within 
 
 * this Deanrie, not being refidenfi upon their Benefices, 
 
 * which may difpend yearly twenty Pounds or above, ei- 
 
 * ther within this Deanrie, or elfewhere, fhall diftribute 
 
 * hereafter among their poor Parifhioners, or other In- 
 
 * habitants there, in the prefence of the Church- War- 
 
 * dens, or fome other honeft Men of the Paridi, the/<?y- 
 
 * tieth part of the Fruits and Revenues of their faid Bene- 
 
 * fice, left they be worthily noted of Ingratitptdc^ which 
 
 * referving fo many parts to themfelves, cannot vouch- 
 
 * fafe to impart the fortieth Portion thereof among the 
 
 * poor people of that Furiflj^ that is fo fruitful and pro- 
 
 * iitable unto them. It appears then, the Foor wer^ main^ 
 tamed out of the Tythes^ not only among the Jews in the 
 time of the Law, but in this Nation, alfo till of late, that 
 the Priefis have joftled out the poors (whofe Names they 
 made ufe of to get Tythes by at firfl) and now ingrofs, 
 all the Tythes to themfelves, leaving the Poor upon the 
 Parifh's Charge. So that the Parifh, though they pay 
 their Tythes never fo exad^ly, and to the full, are fain 
 when that is done to begin again, and make nerv Levies 
 upon every Man's Eftate, to fupply the wants of the 
 Poor. And whether in this refped alfo, the charge is 
 not heavier on the people now, lee the indifferent Rea- 
 der judge. 
 
 §. 22. He fpends his next Seftion in quarrelling with 
 me, for asking, Whether it was not a Pope that fet up Pa^ 
 rijh'Friefis ? The occafion of the Queftion was this. The 
 Author of the Conference (as this Priefl in his Right of 
 Tythes^ pag. 223. reports him) had given two Reafons 
 why the Apoftles took no Tythes : i. Not of the Jews^ 
 becaufe their own Priefts were in pofieffion of them : 
 2. Not of the Gentiles^ becaufe of their unfixt Station. 
 ^o each of thefe I returned an Anfwer in my former Book, 
 j)ag- 551. then askt this Queftion, Seeing the j^poftks ftate 
 of Life wa6 nnfixt^ who^ I pray^ fixed pHrJtate of Life ? Who 
 di'uided Provinces into Parifhes^ and fet ftp Fari^- Priefts ? 
 Woi it not a Pope ? For this Queftion the Prieft derides 
 me with a great deal of fcorn, and fays, (Right of Tythes, 
 
 pag. 
 
( 337 ) 
 
 pag. 224.) Never did any AUn pretend to vi>r{te sf things he 
 underftood fo little^ as T. E. doth of EccUfiaflical matters. 
 Thi-s All'knowing Quaker (fays lie) doth not undcvjland^ that 
 the Apoftles them/elves fixed Bijhops and Faflors in the fever al 
 Cities they had converted^ Timothy at Ephefus, Titus in 
 Cr^tC^ giving thern Commijfion to ordain and fix others in 
 Uffer Cities, 
 
 He were a knowing Man himfelf, if he were able to 
 prove this. Was Timothy fixed at Ephefm ? Titui in Crete ? 
 By whom ? The Apcfihs themfelves^ he fays: Bi^si how does 
 he prove it? He fays it, and that's all. Methinks Unce 
 he judg'd I do not underftand this, he might have beea 
 fo cmteow to have ofter'd fome proof of it. By which of 
 the Apoftles may it be fuppofed that Timothy and Titm 
 wtxQ fixt (as he exprefles) at Ephefm and in Crete? Paul 
 was as likely to have been the Man, as any other : For 
 by his Miniftry they both were converted to the Faith 
 of the Gofpel, with him they feem to have molt conver- 
 fed, and from him they received thofe Epiftles which arc 
 infcribed to them. Yet fo far was Pad from fixing Tirno^ 
 thy^ or Timothy from being fixed at Ephefus^ that we find 
 he was fenc by the Apoflle into Macedonia^ Acts 19. 22. 
 To Corinth^ I Cor. 4. 17. That he was with him a£ 
 j4tkens^ when he writ to the Theffdonians^ i Thef. i. i. 
 and 2 Thef. f. i. That he was fent to Theffalonica^ i Thef 
 5. 2. 6. to Philippic Phil. 2. 19. That he was with the 
 Apoflle at Reme^ when he writ to the CoUffians^ CoL i. i. 
 In Prifon with him there, and releafed, Heb. 13. 23. and 
 fent for by the Apoflle to Rome again, not long before his 
 Death, 2 Tim. 4. p? 2 1. So alfo for Titus^ he was fent by 
 the Apoftle to vifit the Corinthians^ after the firft Epiftle 
 was written to them, 2 Cor. 2. 12. and 7. 6. and 12. 18. 
 went afterwards again to vilit the Corinthians^ and carri- 
 ed the fccond Epiftle to them, was fent for by the Apo- 
 flle to come to him to Ntcopolis^ where he intended to 
 winter, Tit. 3. 12. And after all this we find him gone' 
 into Dalmatian 2 Ttm 4. 10. If thefe be Arguments of 
 their being ^at^ at Ephefus and in Crete^ I confefs 1 do not 
 under fland what he means by the word fixed. Will he 
 ground the Fixation of Timothy at Ephefus^ on the words of 
 the Apoflle Panl^ i Tim. i. 3. (As J befought thee to abide 
 fHItin Ephefus, &c,) or oiTitm in Crtte^ on the words 
 
 0^ 
 
( 338 ) 
 
 of the fame Apoilic, Tit. 1.5. (Forthu cdufe left Itheiin 
 CreteJ he will find them both quickly unfixt again, and 
 travelling from Country to Country to viiit the Churches, to 
 preach the Gofpel, or to minifter to the Apoftles j and 
 that after thefe Epiftles were written to them. 
 
 But let us fuppofe, for the prefent, his Pofition to be 
 true [y'lZ. That the Apjiles themfelves fixed Bijhops and Fa- 
 fiors in the fever d Cities they had Converted^ Timothy at 
 Ephefus, Titus in Crete, giving them Commijfion to ordain 
 and fix others in leffer Cities'^ and fee how miferably he wounds 
 himfelf, and his Brother too^ with his own iVeapon. The 
 jipofileSy he fays, took no Tythes of the Gentiles, hecaufe of 
 their unfixt Station, Tythes^ or any other fixed Maintenance ^ 
 was utterly inconfifient with their unfixed Ji ate of Life, Confer* 
 pag. 157. Yet the Jpoftles themfelves fixed Bijhops and Pa- 
 ftors in the feveral Cities they had Converted^ Timothy at 
 Ephefus, Titus in Crete, &c. Did ever Man that pre- 
 tended to underftanding fo contradid and confound him- 
 himfelf! He gives their unfixt Station^ for the reafon why 
 they did not take Tythes, yec in the fame Breath fays, 
 Timothy was fixed at Ephefus ^ Titus was fixed in Crete ; 
 the Jpoftles themfelves fixed Bijhops and Paftors in the feveral 
 Cities they had converted, A fixed State then (according to 
 him) it feems there was amongft them in the ieveral con- 
 verted Cities, and yet notwithflanding this, their unfixt 
 State was the reafon why they did not take Tythes. This 
 is the Man that in derilion calls me the All-knowing Qua- 
 ker. This is he that fays of me, Never did any Alan pre* 
 tend to write of things he under fiood fo little j as T. E. doth of 
 Ecclepafiical Matters, Let him fee now, and be afijamed 
 of his own weaknefs, and learn for the future to fpeak 
 with more modefty of others. 
 
 He goes on thus concerning me, pag. 224. He knows 
 not how Eufebius and other Hifiorians^ reckon up the very 
 Terfons in aU eminent Churches^ ordained and fixed there by 
 the Apoftles, 
 
 ^ Is he fure he fpeaks truth in this ? How knows he but 
 that 1 do know what Eufebius^ and other Hiftorians fay ia 
 this cafe, as well as himfelf? Without offence 10 him,^bc 
 it fpoken, I know no reafon why I may not. But hov/ 
 much or little foever I know, I'll aflure him I know more 
 both in Eufebim and other Hiftorians alfo, than I could 
 
 ever 
 
( 339 ) 
 
 €^r yet find Faith to believe: A ad if I miftook him not, 
 he feem'd to be fomewhat of the fame mind m p.ig. 131. 
 
 AgaiiJ, he fays, ibid, h wUl he News to him to tell him^ 
 That in the very beginmr,gs of ChxiitumtJ^ whcrefo ever the 
 Gofpel woi once planted^ there were firj5i Canons made a<rainft 
 the Clergy of one Diacejs going into another to officiate. 
 
 This is News to me indeed, and which is worfe, falfe 
 News too. How chance he quoted WQ Attthor of his News f 
 Is iioc that a lign 'cis News ^~ h 14 own .making f I coufefs I, 
 never heard before, that in the very beginnings of Chrifli- 
 anity^ there were any fuch Canont made, or any fuch Di- 
 ocejfesj as he dreams of. U behoves him therefore to fet 
 forth his Jnthor^ left- himfelf he reputed^ and that deferved- 
 ly^ a Raifer and Sp-^eader of falfe News. But in the mean 
 time let us (ift his Nws a lictle, and fee how well it hangs 
 together. He told us but now, that Timothy and Titus 
 were fixed at Ephefus and in Crete, and that by the Apo* 
 files themfelves (chough he (ices aoc know by whom) yet 
 we find not only the Apoflle Paul fending Tychictu (a 
 dear Brother, and faithful Minifler in the Lord, Ephef,6. 
 21 J to the Ephefians^ 2 T/w. 4. 12. But Timothy alfo aC 
 Corintbj at Athens^ at Thejfalonicay at Philippic at Romcy &:c. 
 So likewife for TiV?/^, 'whom he fixes in Crete: Doth nos 
 the Apoftle fpeak of fending Anema^ and Tychici^i-s thither, 
 and of fending for Titm to Nicopolis^ Tit. ^. 12 ? Doth he 
 not intimate, that Zena^ and Jppolh (one of whom wa^ 
 an Expounder of the Law, the other an eloquent Preacher 
 of the Gofpel) were at Cr^^c, ver. 13? And did notTlf'r^ 
 himfelf travel tip^ and down into divers Cities and Countries 
 in the labour of the Gofpel ? Was he not at Corinth once 
 and again ? And went he not alfo unto Dalmatia^ 2 Tim. 
 4. 10? Now if Timothy and Titus had been fixt (as he fan- 
 cies) at Ephefus^ and in Crete -^ if Bifhops and Pallors had 
 been fixt by the Apoflles in all eminent Churches, and in 
 the feveral Cities they had converted *, and if in thofc 
 times, in which fell the very beginnings of Chriftianity^ there 
 had been any fuch Diocefes as he dreams of, or any fuch 
 flrift Canons^ as he conjectures, made againfl the Clergy 
 of one Diocefs going into another to officiate-. Pray how 
 did Tychicm^ Apollo and others obferve thofe Canons^ when 
 they went (as they did) to Ephefits and Crete? Or how 
 well did Timothy and Titns obey them, when they went 
 
 Z ^^ 
 
( 340 ) 
 
 to officiate at Corinth^ Theffabnica^ Phtlipfi^ Rorrte^ d?ld 
 other places, which (according to this Priefl) were di- 
 Rhiti Dtocejfes belonging to other Men, into which by the 
 Canon they were ftrictly forbidden to go to oliiciate ? 
 Doth no5 this difcover the emptwefs of hhStory^ and ma- 
 nlkH the falfenefs of his News ? 
 
 But we may guefs^t his date of Clrifiiamty^ by the af- 
 ter- In Ranee he gives of a Ca^on of the General Gouacil 
 o^ Chalcedony the date of which he willingly leaves out : 
 but that Council was held (according to Genebrard) un- 
 der Fofs Lto the firfl in the Year 454. Wm this in the very 
 beginnings o/Chriflianity ? No^ nor of the jipoftacy from 
 Chriflianity neither : for much Corruption, both of Doc- 
 trine and Practice, was in the Church before that time. 
 'Thus Reader, thop may'fl: fee what his confident talk, of 
 flrict Canons and Dioceiics in the very btginnings of Chri- 
 fiiamty, is come to. Would any Man of honefty, inge- 
 nuity or modefLy impofe fuch falfhoods upon ignorant Rea- 
 ders, or exporefach/5//y to judicious Eyes ! 
 
 He talks alio pag. 225. of a Synod among the Britains, 
 held by St. Patrick, anno 456. but without any mention of 
 Parijhes'^ and very confidently takes for granted, that 
 long before the Topes of Rome fo much as directed any thi?i^ 
 here^ the Brilains had fixed Jrch-Bifiops^ Bifhops and 
 Priefis •, by which if he means thofe Priells were fixed to 
 Parifhes (as now they are) which I obferve he dosh not 
 cxprefly fay, but only that they were fixed ^ they may 
 believe it, that dare take his word for it, but prove it 
 he never can. Selden'm his Hifcory of Tythes, Chap. 9. 
 Sed. I. fhews the contrary. But the Divifion ofParifnes 
 among the Saxons^ the Prieft afcribes to Hononus the fifth 
 jirch'Bijhop o/Canterbury, iibotu the Tear 6^0. or to Theo- 
 dorus (Che next but one m that See) abom twenty vr thirty 
 Tears after. 
 
 Hence I perceive he thinks he hath fuificient Ground 
 to deride me, for asking, If it was not a Pope that divided 
 provinces into Parifljes^ and fet tip Pariflj-Priefts, Whether 
 Parilhes were divided by HonoriHs^ TheodoruSj or fome 
 other of later time, I think not worth Inquiry. I know 
 the common Opinion attributes this work to Honorins^ 
 which yet is doubted by many, and fome of great Judg- 
 meiit. It fufficeth iny purpofe, that whether Parifhes 
 
 were 
 
( 341 ) 
 
 were fetoutj and Parifli-Prieftsfixt thereto, by Havoriiit 
 or TheodoTHs^ it was done hy the Papers power : for either 
 of thefe received his Archiepifcopal Authority from Rome^ 
 Hon onus (fays Bede^ Ecclef. Hi ft 1. 2. c. i 8J received the 
 Fall of his Arch-Bijhoprick from Honor i us at that time Pcpe 
 c?/Rome, and withal a Letter^ in which the Pope arants to 
 this Honorius Anh-Bifljop of Canterbury, and to Paulinus 
 then Arch'Bijhop of York (to whom alfo he fent a Pall) this 
 power, at their reqHefi:^ that which foever of them jhonld die 
 fir ft ^ the fitrviver mighty by the Authority of the Pope^s Com^ 
 tnand, make fuch an Ordination of another in hi^ room Oi Jhonld 
 he fleafing to Cod, This Ibews they received their Autho- 
 rity /r£?/» f/;? Po/jf ^ and what they adled by that Autho- 
 rity, was done by the Fope^s power. If therefore Honorius^ 
 as Arch-Bifhop of Canterbury divided that Province into 
 Parifhes, and fet up Parifh-Priefts therein, it cannot be 
 denied but thofe Parifhes were divided, and Priefls fee 
 up, by the Pope^ vvhofe Inllruraent Honorius was therein, 
 and by whofe power it was done. And thus feems Camb^ 
 den to underfland it, in his Britannia^ pag. i5o. where, 
 he fays, When the Bifhops of Rome had afjigned feveral 
 Churches to feveral Priefls, and laid Parishes nnto them, Ho- 
 norius, Arch'Bijhop o/ Canterbury, about the Tear of our 
 Redemption 6^6^ began fir ft to ^mVf England into Pariftjest, 
 as we read in the Htftory o/ Canterbury. So that he refers 
 this Ad of //i7«or//// to the Biflmp c/Rome, not only in 
 point of power, but of example alfo. In imitation then of 
 what the Popes had done, and by vertue of Authority 
 received from the Pope, were thefe Parifhes fet out, and 
 were Parifh-Priells at firft fet up, whoever was the Pcpe'': 
 Agent therein. 
 
 The Pried concludes this Sedion thus ; And now (fcjys 
 he) we fee T. E. hath neither Learning nor Truth in him^ who 
 attributes our fixing to a Pope, when the Jpoftles themjtlves 
 fhewed the way in this Pra^tice^ not intending that any Vaga- 
 bond Speakers jhcuid be allowed, after once the Chriltian Church 
 was fettled^ pag. 2 25. 
 
 I am better acquainted with my felf, than to pretend 
 to any great ftore of Learning, and with his manner of 
 writing, than to regard his Reficdions on the Truth of 
 what I have written. With grent readinefs 1 fubmit both 
 So sh€ Cenfure of the judicious and impartial Reader. But 
 
 Z 2 25 
 
( ?42 1 
 
 as little Learning as he is pleafed to allow mey I have 
 enough at lealt to let him fee, that, for all his great 
 fleck of Learning (with the Conceit of which he is fo 
 over-blown) he hath in this very Period exprefled him- 
 lelf very unlearnedly and inconfiderately. The Apoftles 
 (he fays) (hewed the way in this Pradice, not intending 
 that any Vagabond Speakers fhould be allowed, after once 
 the Chriflian Church was fettled. Fagabond Speakers I Ic 
 feems then with him, thofe Speakers that are not fixt to 
 a Parilh or Place are (Vagabonds -^ and though fuch were 
 allowed in the Chriflian Church before it was fetted, yet 
 after once it was fettled, no Fagahond Speakers were to be 
 allowed. Doth he not already begin to perceive, how 
 for want of a little coriiideration, he h-d'?, (ligmatizld t\\Q 
 ^pojflles and Difciples of our Lord with the infamous 
 Brand of /^'^^^^jK^^^i f Could all his Learning furnifh him 
 no better than with fuch a R^gmfi Epithet (for to Rogues 
 the word Fagahond is ufually now applied ?) How little 
 Reafon has this boafting Man to vaunt of his own Learn- 
 ing, or undervalue another's ! 
 
 §. 2?. In his next Se^ion he makes a faint attempt to 
 liclp the other Pried off, who had fo far over-lhot him- 
 felf in his Conferenee^ pag. 1 57. that among other Reafons 
 why the Apoilles had not Tythes, he gave this for one, 
 That they needed them not^ for 04 they had their Gifts fo their 
 Miiimenance by a miractdons providffice i which he grounded 
 upon Luke 22. 35. The falfenefs of this Argument I plain- 
 ly fhewed in my former Book, called, Trmh Prevailing^ 
 pag. 552. Whereupon this Priell, in his Right of Tythes^ 
 pag. 226. fays, J hope when T. E. confiders how wonderfully 
 God opened the hearts of the prfi Chriflians, not only to give 
 the Apoflles Meat and Drink^ bite to fell ally and give the price 
 to them^ he will Hpon fee on d 7 heights ccrreEl that Pajfage^ pag. 
 552, and allow this to be an extraordinary and mtracHloHS 
 J^rovidence oj God^Sy to encourage their fi^f} beginnings. 
 
 The ether Priefl grounded his Miracle upon the Apo- 
 flles wanting nothing when they were ^^nl forth with- 
 out Piirfe and Scrip, Luke 22. 55. This Priefl find- 
 ing that too weak to bear him up, adds to it the believ- 
 ers felling their Eflates, AEis 4, 34, 35. and to ferve his 
 End corrupts the Text too, hfin^ they fold all^ and gavt 
 
 th^ 
 
( 34?) 
 
 the prke to the JpoftUs^ as ii they had transferred their 
 Own property to the Apoflles, which they did not, butt 
 depoficed it as in a common Bank, which was committed 
 to ihe Care and Truft of the Apoflles to djflribute, buE 
 wherein the Apoflles themfclves had no more propriety 
 than any other of the Church. Therefore the Text fays, 
 not that they brought the Prices of the things fold and 
 gave them to the Apoflles (which would imply an invefl- 
 ing the Apoflles with a peculiar propriety therein) but 
 that they brought the Prices of the things that were fold, 
 din^ laid them down at the Apoflles Feet, which imports 
 no more than a committing it to their Care, in whom 
 the Trufl was repofed, as Treafurers of the common Stock 
 for the Maintenance of the whole Society ^ Whence it fol- 
 lows in the Text, And diftrihution wot made unto every 
 Man^ according oi he had need. In all which, I confefs, ( 
 do.EOt fee the Miracle he talks of, and if he himfelf will 
 have this to be a Miracle, he muft then acknowledge A//- 
 racles are not ceafed, the lame thing having been pradifed 
 by others of late Years, and I think by fume yet in Ger- 
 many, But if the felling of PoncfTions, and living in a 
 Community had been a Miracle, yet it could not reafon- 
 ably be alTigned for a Reafon why the Apoflles did not 
 take Tythes: for we read not that h was ufed in any of 
 the Genttle Cities that were conve^rted to Chnftianity^ but 
 only at Jerufalem, and there too for a (hort time. So thaE 
 if ihis bad been a Reafon why the Apoflles took no 
 Tythes at Jumfalem^ yet it could not be a Reafon why 
 they took none at Rome^ at Corinth^ at Ephefns^ at Colofsf 
 at Thejfalonica^ at Philippic and other places where they 
 preached the Gofpel, and where this PracVice was never 
 ufed ^ nor at Jerujalem neither, after it was difufed. Nei- 
 ther is it true which the other Priefl fays, viz^. That the 
 Apoflles needed them not: for the Apcflle l^aul tcflifies of 
 himfelf that he had leamt to f;ffer Need^ Phil. 4. 1 2. and 
 amongfl other Hardfhips reckons his Neceffities, 2 Cor. 6. 4. 
 and 12. 10. And it appears he ufed to work for his livings 
 Adis 20. 34. which the fme fingered Priefls now a-days 
 fcorn to do. Thus all thefe feeming Reafons appear to 
 be indeed but empty Shews and vain Pretences, and the 
 very, true and right Reafon why the Apoflles did ncE 
 take Tythes, was becaufe they knew that Tythes were ^ 
 
 Z 3 part 
 
( ?44 ) 
 
 part of the Ceremomal LarVy given to the Jews, and abrogated 
 hy Chrijj;, 
 
 The other Pried in his Covference^ pag. 158. faid, If yon 
 conclude that me^tnptfi be in ailthingSy 04 were the jipoftles^ then 
 miifi you of the Laity^ now do m the Laity did then^ who fold 
 their ?■ U'ffons^ and laid them down at the jifcfllcs Fect^ Afts 
 4. ^tid J can argue the one with the fame Rcafon yon can the 
 ether. This I plainly difproved in my former Book, call- 
 ed, Truth Prevaili?7£y pag. 353. fhevvlRg the different 
 Grounds on which the ApoHles and other Believers then 
 adted ^ the one being politively bounds and under a necef- 
 pty to preach the Gofpel ; the other being altogether JreCj 
 and under no neceffity to fell their EJlates^ but did it volunta' 
 riiy. So that, what-ever the Priefl at firft thought, the 
 fame Reafon will not ferve to argue the one as the other ; 
 and that may probably be the Reafon, that he, having 
 no other Reafon, was fain to leE his Argument wholly 
 fall, and take no further notice of it. Nor makes the 
 other Prielt, in his Right of Tythesj any other Reply to lE 
 than this, T. E. faith indeed^ they fold their Eftates volun^ 
 tarily^ pag. 355. which is mofi true ^ and we do not defire 
 any to fell them involuntarily now. But (adds he, pag. 227.) 
 whsn our People fell all voluntarily 04 they did^ we will quit our 
 Claim to Tythes, 
 
 Indeed ! will ye fo ! what, after all this Bufle and don- 
 tefl" for a Divine Right of Tythes, will ye quit your Claim 
 thereto, upon condition the People will fell all, as once 
 Believers did ! Sev% Reader, now the horrible Deceit 
 and falfe Dealing of this Man in the Management of this 
 Controverfie, and how contrary he has argued to his 
 own Judgment. Hath he not faid over and over, Thae 
 Tythes are God'^s part^ God^s due ? How oft hath he called 
 Tythes z facred Maintenance^ a divine Tribute^ z f acred Re^ 
 venue ! &c. Did he not affirm, they were grounded on the 
 Law of Nature^ and Primitive Revelation \ sud that they re* 
 ly on an internal Ri 51 it tide and an eternal Re a fon^ pag. 49? 
 Did he not aflert. That our Lord Jefpu and his Jpoflles have 
 fuffici'emly eftablifhed T'ythes for the Maintenance of the Gofpel 
 MiniJIers, pag. 6 1 ? Was he not pofitive, That our Lord 
 Jefuj and the Jlpofiles faid enough to jloeWy that the antient di- 
 vine Right to the tenth part jhould he continued^ and the Gofpel^ 
 Mmiftersjhould be the Receivers of it^ pag. 71 ? Who thatt 
 
 bad 
 
I 345 ; 
 
 iiad read all this could have thought any other, but that 
 he verily believed Tythes were Co ordained and fettled by 
 God, that they were an immutable, unalterable Mainte- 
 nance ? Nay, K. Hen. 8. is, by the other Priefl, charged 
 with SHcriledge^iox but alienating fome part of the Tythes, 
 (Vindicat, pag. 305.) And yet he now fays, irhen our peo- 
 ple feli all voluntarily Ai the) d'ld^ we will quit our Claim to 
 Tythes ? Doth not this manifeft that what he hath writ- 
 ten before of the divine Right of Tythes was in Hypocrifie 
 and DijfimHlation^ to blind the Eyes of ignorant People ? 
 Had he fincerely believed Tythes to be fo due, as in the 
 places fore-quoted, he plainly affirms^ had he faithfully 
 believed that our Lord Jefjs and the Apoflles intend- 
 ed the antient divine Right to the tenth part fhould be 
 continued, and that the Gofpel-Miniflers fhould be the 
 Receivers of it^ how could he (pretending, as he doth, 
 to be himfelf a Gofpel-Minifler) quit his Claim to Tythes 
 for any other Maintenance ! Would he quit that which 
 himfelf fays our Lord Jefus intended (Ijould be continued^ if 
 he believed in earneft that Jefus ever intended fo ! And if 
 he did noc fo indeed believe, how falfe was he, and how 
 devoid of Truth, fo to affirm ! But what will not Inte- 
 refb and Advantage work, in Men of corrupt Mmdsl Tythes 
 then hov/ever, are not, it feems, fofacred a Maincenance, 
 fo divine a Tribute, but that the Priefls will qnit their 
 Claim thereto, when-ever they find they can mend their 
 Market. Till then (fays the Prieft, viz.. Till the People 
 fell all voluntarily) Jfe dtfire the Quakers will let us quietly 
 enjoy our ordinary Maintenance^ and we are well content. 
 
 No wonder. Fill them fuU^ give them what they would 
 kavej and they are well content ^ but no longer. How like 
 are thefe to fome of them of old, that (as the PropheE 
 words it, Mic. 3. 5.) bite with their Teeth^ and cry. Peace: 
 and he that putteth not into their Mouths, they even prepare 
 War againfl himJ Juil thus it is with the Priefts now : 
 feed them, fill them, hep them biting ; labour, toil and 
 drudge for them •, and make it thy Care that they be 
 maintained in Pride, Idlenefs and Fullnefs of Bread, al- 
 though thy own Family want, and they are well content, 
 and will cry. Peace , Peace, and fow a foft Pillow under each 
 Arm-hole. But if once thou beginneft to flack thy Hand, 
 iook tQ thy fdf If once thou forbeareft to put into their 
 
 2 4 Mouths, 
 
( 346 ) 
 
 Months, they will not only prepare War againfi thee^ but 
 will quickly too make War upon thee-, wil] take thee 
 Prifoner^ and fp oil thy Goods, In a word, if thou givefl 
 them not what they would have to bice, tiey will bite 
 Thee, 
 
 §. 24. As he would be very well content to be main- 
 tained by the Ouahrs^ fo he would fain perfvvade the 
 Qnahrs to be as well content to maintain him ^ and the 
 chief medium he ufcsto perfvvade by is this, That to pay 
 Tythes (efpecially imwillingly) is a piece of pajfive Ohetiience^ to 
 which a Mm ought to fuhmit quietly for Confcicnce fake^ and in 
 point of Obedience to the jiitthority irnpofmg ity though it be ns" 
 Ver fo much againft his Judgment^ pag. 1 27. 
 
 Doth this Man regard what he writes, who puts fuch a 
 GuU^iS this upon his Reader j Where any thing is impo- 
 fed by Authority, which is contrary to a Man's Confci- 
 ence, no doubt the Man is as weli obliged, on the one 
 hand, to [nbrnit quietly^ for Conrcience fake, by a paffive 
 Obedience, to what is fo impofed ^ as, on the other hand, 
 not to aBagainfi Conference, But who till now ever heard, 
 that aB^ally to pay Tythes is a piece of pa f five Obedience f Doth 
 not the Law injoyn Men to fet out their Tythes, to fepa^ 
 rate the tenth part from the nine ? Is not that JSiton ? 
 If thus to do be a paffive Obedience, I would fain know 
 what is a^live^ Why, fays he, If the King fh odd bid the 
 Quaker turn Minifler^ and take Tythes^ his doing that were 
 ^A^ive Obedience, 
 
 So it were indeed : but then his refufwg do it, and faf- 
 fering quietly for fo refufing^ w^ere paffive Obedience, la 
 like manner, if Authority command a Man to fet cm his 
 Tythes, to feparate the tenth part of his Corn from the 
 nine, his doing that, were a5iive Obedience : but his refn* 
 fing to do it, and fuffering quietly for fo refnpng^ is pajfivc 
 Obedience. 
 
 But, he fays, pag. 228. Our Saviour fubrnitted to pay Tri^ 
 hute^ which ought not to have been exaSled of him. And St, 
 P^ul commands the Chriftians to pay Tribute and Cufiom to 
 the Heathen Emperors^ though they ufed it to idolatrous and 
 wichd purpofes, 
 
 Thofe were Taxes purely civil -^ which Tythes are 
 not : And they were levied for a Civil life, however af- 
 terwards difpcfcd of j which Tythes are not He thinks 
 
 tks 
 
( 347 ) 
 
 the Qjiakers may at well fubmit to (what they account) an m- 
 juft Paymtnt^ oa to (what they call) an Vnjiift Im^nfonment^ 
 pag. 22p. 
 
 So they^'do : and much after the fame manner. In the 
 Cafe of an Unjuft ImpiifonmcnE (oi that for lythes is) they 
 do not imprifon themfelves ^ but if the SherifTor his Ser- 
 vants come, and take them to Prifon, they make no Re- 
 ftjlance^ but qnietly fubmic. So alfo in the Cafe of Uujull 
 Payment (as that ofTythes is) they do not pay it, nor 
 dare they : but if the Sheriff, or any other Authorized 
 come, and take away their Tythes, or their Goods for 
 refofmg to pay them, they make «o R'/jfianccy but qnutly 
 fubmit. Thus they [nhmit alike to an h?7jiift Payment and 
 and to an unjuft Imprifonment, by a fuffivc Obedience 
 in each. 
 
 He begins to Cogg with the Quakers^ and fays, Jfl were 
 in their cafe^ 1 could pay my Tythes in Obedience to the Laws 
 of the Nation^ though 1 did believe the Law never fa unjufl-^ 
 hecaufethis Payment (to one f& opinionated) is a Penalty^ and 
 his Obedience therein meerly p^JJive. 
 
 He fpeaks very like a temponz^ing Fried ^ but if he were 
 in the Quaker^ Cafe, he would be of another Mind ; for 
 indeed he could not be in their cafe, unlefs he were better 
 minded th2iVihQh. hMt are Tythes a Penalty? What Of- 
 fence are they a Penalty for ? Were Tythes then impofed 
 as a Fine or MulU for fome Tranfgreffion ? The Party then, 
 of whom they are demanded, ought in Juftice to be firft 
 convided of that Tranfgreffion^ before the Penalty [^Tythes] 
 be required of him. This is a new Crotchet concerning 
 Tythes. I have beard indeed of a Penalty for not pay- 
 ing Tythes*, but I never heard that Tythes themfelves 
 were a Penalty before. The Quakers perhaps might be 
 fomewhat beholding to him, if he would inform them 
 what the Tranfgreffion was, for which Tythes were made 
 a Penalty^ that by keeping out of the Offence, they mighc 
 avoid the Venalty, But is the Payment of Tythes a Penal- 
 ty only to one chat believes the Payment unjufl (for fo I 
 underlland him by the word [Opinionated'] It muft then 
 be the Belief of the Injuflice of the Payment that makes 
 it a Penalty i and if fo, then he that, fo believing, pays 
 it, infliEls a Penalty fiponhimfelf which, befide the InjuHice 
 is contrary to Nature, 
 
 Again 
 
( 348 ) 
 
 Again^ fays he, / cannot remember ever to have read of 
 ^nyfort of People in the World before^ who counted it a Sin to 
 pay an Imfofitior? fufp^fed uJijufi j which is no more a Sin^ than 
 to be Stoch or IVhipt, to be Fined or Imprifoned j all nvhich we 
 may fubmit to x»ithout Sin. 
 
 To fi^bmit CO Stocking, Whipping, Fining or Imprifon- 
 ing is one thing *, buK for a Maa to Stock, Whip, Fine 
 or Imprifon ^/w/f// is another : fo tofufferfor not paying 
 Tyches is one thing, and to pay Tythes is another. This 
 he fays, and therefore cunningly changes his Voice from 
 JBive in paying Tythes, to Paffive in being Stockt, 
 Whipt, &c. When he fpeaks of the Payment, he fays. 
 If 1 were in their Cafe, I would p^y my Tythes, &c. And, 
 I never read of any who counted it a Sin to pay an Impo- 
 lition, &c. Here he ufes the Adive [?<? pay 2 But whea 
 he lays it is no more a Sin, than to be Stockt or Whipt, to 
 ife Fined or Imprifoned, he turns from j^Slive to Paffive c 
 for to pay is Adive^ to be fined or Imprifoned is Palfive. 
 ThisJfvi^^^of his he thought perhaps the unlearr/ed Qjia- 
 Iter would not find out. He fays, We may f^hmit to Stochng^ 
 Whippings Fining and Jmprtfonment without Sin. 'Tis Very' 
 true ^ and fo we may to Death alfo : but doth it thence 
 follow that a Man may without Sin put himfelf to death, 
 fee his own Executioner, and kill himfelf ? if ic t>e evil 
 tor a Man to do this, how can he without evil do the 
 other? If he may not pat himfelf to deaths by the fame 
 reafon he may not fiock-i ^hipy imprifon or fine himfelf. 
 And if Tythes be a penalty (as the Priefl fays they are, 
 to one that believes the PaymenJ of them unjuft) he may 
 BO more execute that penalty on himfelf^ by paying Tythes, 
 than he may execute the other Penalties of Stocking, Whip- 
 ping, Imprifonment or Death, by putting himfelf in the 
 Stocks, by Vv'hipping himfelf, by clapping himfelf into 
 Prifon, or by putting himfelf to Death. But feeing the 
 Prieil fays. If he were in our Cafe he would pay his 
 Tythes, &c. Lee me put him the Queftion, Whether if 
 .he were in our Cafe, and were fentenced to be Hanged (as 
 fome of t\\Q Quaker Sy purely for their Religion^ and confcienti- 
 ma Obedience to God^ have been) he would forth-with take 
 an Halter, and hang himfelf? 
 
( 349 ) 
 
 He concludes, That it ts no Sh to fay TytheSy though it 
 were a Sin in the Lam to command them^ and in the Fnejh to 
 take them^ pag. 2:?o. 
 
 The other Pried alfo in his Conference^ pag. 151. fays^ 
 Jfter all this Out-cry againft Tythes^ do the Quakers think the 
 faying and receiving of them to he a Sin ? And in his Vindi- 
 cation^ pag. 3C0. he complains that this Qiiellion was 
 not anfvvered, and fays, h was the moft confiderable Fajfjgt 
 that he had. 
 
 That Tythes were a part of the Ceremonial Law givea 
 tothe jF«zp;, and taken away by Chrift's death, is large- 
 ly proved before. They were a part of thofe Offsrings 
 which by the One Offering were ended, and fo ended as 
 never to he offered again^ becaufe che Offering of them a- 
 gain would have been a denial of that one Offering by which 
 ihey were taken away. Now as it would be a Sin to of- 
 fer the other Offerings of the Law, the Bftrnt- Offer ingSj 
 Me at -Offerings^ Drink-Offerings^ &c. although command- 
 ed, fo is is alfo a Sin to offer the Offering of Tythes^ although 
 commanded thereunto. If all the Offerings^ Sacrtfices and 
 Ceremonies of the Law fhould now be fet up agam, as ic 
 would be Sin in them that Iliould fet them up, or com- 
 mand the performance of them, fo would it be fm in 
 them alfo that fhould aEi therein, or confcnt thereto. If 
 a Man fhould bring forth his Oxen, Bullocks or Sheep to 
 be made a Sacrifice or Burnt- Offering as of Old, this 
 would be Sin in him that fhould fo do^ although com- 
 manded, as well as in him or them that fhould fo com- 
 mand. But if a iMan being fo commanded fhould rejnfe, 
 and his Oxen or Sheep be taken from him by force, or 
 againft: his will, and made a Sacrifxe or Burnt- Offering, 
 the Sin would lie upon them that thus command or acr, 
 and the Man fo refufwg would h^ gniltlefs before the Lotd. 
 If a Man fhould be commanded to Circumcife himfelf, or 
 to offer himfelf to be Circumcifed, that Man if he fhould 
 a^nally Circnmcife himfelf, or co^ifcnt to be Circumcifed 
 by another, would be guilty oi fm before the Lord, not- 
 withftanding his being commanded : But if he, who is 
 thus commanded, (hall refnfe to Circumcife himfelf or to 
 confent that another fhall Circumcife him, and he be tak- 
 en by force and Circumcifed againft his Will^ the Sin will 
 lie at their door who thus command or ad, and the Maa 
 
 him- 
 
c 350 ) I 
 
 fcimfelf, thus refufwg to act, or to confent isnto the kdif 1 
 m'lW be gyultlefs before the Lord. Now T^^^ej ^<?z>?^ ended ^ 
 ^^^ C/?r//?, as well as the other Offering of the Law, and 
 as Gircumcilion ; ic h^Lpn to pay Tythes now (and a de- 
 nial of the one Offering Chrifi Jefus) as it would be a fin tO 
 offer the odier Offerings of the Law now, or to be Cir- | 
 curacifed. And as in thofe Cafes, the being commanded \ 
 would not excufe them from Sin that (hould perform thofe ' 
 things^ fo neither in this cafe of Tythes, will the being 
 commanded excufe them from Sin that pay them. But if 
 a Man confcientioufly refufes to pay them, and dares not » 
 ^El therein, nor confent thereto, though his Tythes fhould 
 be forcibly taken from him, or any Penalty be infiided 
 on him, he in his thus confcientioufly refufing to aSt 
 therein ov confent thereto (yet not rejifiing, but quietly fuf- 
 fering) will be found giiiltlefs in the fight of the Lord. 
 Hence it appears, that to pay Tythes is a Sin^ as well as to 
 receive them. And thus the one Priefl:'s falfe Pofition^ and 
 the other Priefl's moft confidsrabie P^Jf^ge^ are plainly and 
 iully aafwered. 
 
 §. 25. His next Se^flion treats of the Firft Fruits and 
 Tenths paid by the Clergy to the Crown, againji which^ 
 belays, //?5 Qiiaker hath nothing to fay^ but only that this 
 power once fiuck tn the Tripple Crown. 
 
 Where he found this he might havefotind more : for 
 In the fame place (pag. 355.) in Aniwer to the other 
 Prieft, who called Firft Fruits and Tenths one of the fair^ 
 €Jl Flowers belonging to the Crown, I faid, * No Flower 
 ' can be fair in an English Crown, which was taken out 
 
 * of a Pope's Mitre. And if nothing elfe could be faid 
 
 * againft it, but that it once ftuck in the Tripple Crown, 
 ^ that alone were enough to make it unworthy to be 
 
 * worn in an English Diadem. Hence it appears, I noE 
 only bad more to fay, but faid more alfo againft this Flow- 
 er (as they account it) of Firft Fruits and Tenths, than 
 only that it once ftuck in the Tripple Crown : for I ftiew- 
 eU, that being taken out of a Pope's Mitre, it could not 
 be a fair Flower in an Englijh Crown, and that having 
 once ftuck in the Tripple Crown, it was unworthy to be 
 worn in an English Diadem. Befides, thofe words [jf 
 nothing elfe codd be faid 4gainfi it'} imply there was mor^ 
 
 to 
 
( 35' ) 
 
 to be faid againll it, it need require, and opportunity 
 ferve. But this which was faid was more than he was 
 willing to take notice of, and that iltiU he did take no- 
 tice of, was more it feems, than he either knew how, cr, 
 at leaft, thought fit to Anfwer, He fays upon it, pag, 
 22|0. His Majcfly will not fo eafily be wheadled out of fo great 
 a fart of hps Revenue^ and fo clear an acknowledment oj lots 
 Clergy s fHhjcUion to him. What if he w;ll not ? Has this 
 any appearance of an Anfwer ? or carries it in it the 
 leafl Ihew of an Argument ? 
 
 The other Prieft, Author of thQ^Conference^ feems to 
 have fomething to fay here, Vindication^ paii. 325. Firft, 
 he fays, 1 do not find that T. E. anfivers the Argument^ hni 
 catches at a Phrafe^ &c. 
 
 For my part, I fee no Argument there to Anfwer, un- 
 lefs he will call it an Argument for Tythes, that the 
 King hath a Revenue out of Tythes. And if that were 
 his meaning, I take it to be Anfwer fufficient to fuch an 
 Argument, to Ihew that the Tythes themfelves, out of. 
 which that Revenue arifes, are contrary to the Gofpel oi 
 our Lord Jefus Chrifb ? But can either of thefe Priefts 
 (or any Man elfe, ufing his underftanding) think it an 
 Argument of any force for the lawfulnefs or Equity of 
 Tythes, that a Reyenue arifes out of them to the Crown?" 
 What £i//7 might not, in other Nations, be patronizeci 
 by fuch an Argument ? May not the Pa^ifls argue their 
 Indulgences are right and good, becaufe they bring in a 
 coniiderable Revenue to the CathoUck Chair, as they call 
 it ? Unhappy Lnther ! who faw not the force of this Ar- 
 gument, but zealoully notwithltanding exclaimed agamfb 
 Indulgences, May they not from the fame Argument in- 
 fer the lawfulnefs of SffTTi 2lI Rome^ fince from them ari- 
 ses a confiderablt Revenue to fupport the Tripple Crown ? 
 But though he is offended that himfelf is compared to 
 the Crow^ for calling firlt Fruits and Tenths fo/*;;r a Flow 
 *r, yet he cannot deny but this Flower fiuck once in the 
 Tripple Crown \ hnt then^ he fays, it wa4 fiole from the EDg-- 
 lifh Diadem^ ibid. 
 
 Was it fo ? Did it ever flick in the Engli(l} Diadem be- 
 fore Hen. 8. Stuck it theie ? That's more indeed than 
 •ever I read ^ and more 1 think than he is able to prove* 
 But both thefe Priefts urge the Payment of Firft Fruits 
 
 and 
 
( 352 ) 
 
 and Tenths to be an acknowledgement of the Clergy* s Sub' 
 jeEiion. 
 
 It may be it is fo ; but there is no neceflity it tmfi be fo. 
 Is there no other way for the Clergy to acknowledge their 
 Subje(f^ion but by paying firft Fruits and Tenths ? The 
 Payment of Tribute is I confefs an acknowledgement of 
 Subjedion ; yes not lb, but that Subjedtion may be ac- 
 knowledged other ways without h'^ what acknowledge- 
 ment elfe would all fuch be capable of making of their 
 Subjedion, v/ho are not in a condition to fay Tribme, ia 
 which Rank a great part of the Nation will be found ? 
 
 Now to return to the Author of che Right of Tythes ; 
 he fpends the reil of his 47th Sedion in computing the 
 Revenue the King receives from the Clergy, which yet 
 he doth fo confufedly, that it is bard to colled from 
 thence any certain Sum for the Total of that Revenue. 
 The befl; account I can gather from him is, that it is near 
 30000 1. per anmm. Be it more or lefs, it is not much 
 material. No doub<f it is a largeSum (if fu!]y paid.) BuC, 
 what a vafl: Sum is that then, which the Priefts receive of 
 the People, of which perhaps this may be fcarce the twen-^ 
 tieth part, being lifually paid by Compofidon and at low 
 Rates ! But the ftrefs of the Objedion I take to be this. 
 That if Tythes be taken away^ the Revenue of the Crown is fo 
 much diminijhed as this amonntsto. The Anfwer is, Confci" 
 ence and Honour ought to be preferred before worldly jid- 
 vantages. If the Revenues of the Crown are not found 
 fuiEcient without this, there are other ^nd far better Ways 
 of enlarging them than by this. Were this hon-Toke buc 
 once taken off from the galled Necks of the People, they 
 would be certainly far more ahle^ as well as probably more 
 willing^ to bear the publick Charges of the Nation. And 
 it were not difficult to demonflrate that the Crown would 
 be rather a Gainer thereby, than a Lofer. 
 
 ^ §. 16. He fays in his next Sedion, pag. 231. / [hall not 
 need' now to confute that frequent and unjufi Reproach of the 
 QnaktiS calling Minifiers Hirelings^ pag. 25^, &c. pnce I 
 have [Jjswed^ the only Revenues they have are no other than 
 what they have a three- fold Title to ; firit, by the Laws of God 
 and Nature : fecondly, by the Donation of the right Owners : 
 thirdly, by the Laws of this Land, 
 
( ?53 ) 
 
 He has as much need now as ever to cicar himfelf and 
 his Brethren (if he can) from the Charge of being Hire^ 
 Urigs^ fince his Tripple Title is difproved, and he cannot make 
 out a Right to Tythes. He talks much of the Law of God^ 
 but No Law of God can he (hew for the Payment of 
 Tythes now. He talks alfo of Tythes being due by the 
 Law of Nature : but that's a Pofition fo extreamly ridicu- 
 lous^ that it is enough to render him fufpeded tor a Nmh- 
 raL Thefe two make the firft part of his three-fold Ti- 
 tle. Thefecond part is the Donation of the Right Owners, 
 This is fo far from being true, that it is utterly impoffible 
 it fhould be true : for Tythes being due (as himfelf fays, 
 pag. 196.) out of the Prcfits cnly^ they to whom he 
 afcribes the Donation of Tythes neither were nor could be 
 the right Owners of thofe Profits^ out of which the Priefts 
 now claim and take Tythes. They were the right Own- 
 ers of thofe Profits that arofe while they were pofl'eft of 
 the Lands, and might difpofe of thofe Profits, as they 
 pleafed (fo it were not to an evil ufe.) But the prefenc 
 Proprietors or Occupiers of Land now, are as really the 
 right Owners of all fuch Profits as are raifed upon the 
 Lands now, as they of old then v/ere of the Profits thaE 
 were raifed in their times. Seeing then thofe antienc 
 Donors of Tythes could not make thefe PrieRs any Title 
 to the prefent Profits, becaufe they themfelves were noc 
 the right Owners of thefe Profits. And the prefent Pro- 
 prietors or Occupants, who are the right Ow'ners of the 
 prefent Profits, have not made any Donation of Tythes 
 to the Priefts j It h evident that thsy have no Ttle at aH 
 by Donation. Thus his fee on d String alfo has given him the 
 flip. His third'h the Laws of this Land. But he mufb 
 take notice, that the Laws do not give a M.^ii a Right 
 either to Lands, Tythes or any thin'^^ dfc ^ but do only 
 conferve unto him that Right which he hath already, whe- 
 ther by defcent, purchafe or gift, andj^cz/^^ him, in the 
 injoymerit thereof, from Violence or Injury from others. 
 If therefore he could have proved a Right, he might well 
 have urged the Laws of the [^and to ccnferve that P,.!ghc : 
 but if he has not othenvife a Right, he in vain expscis the 
 Laws fhould make him one. Nor do thofe Laws which 
 injoyn the Payment of Tythes, pretend 10 give a Right 
 to Tythes \ but fuppofe the Prieils to have a Riehr, and 
 
 there- 
 
( 354 ) 
 
 therefore take care to fecure that fnppofed Right unto 
 them. But now h appears, that chat Suppofition was 
 grounded upon a M/fiake^ and that the Prlefis have no Right 
 At all to Tythes^ but that all their Claims are falfe. ThaE 
 they have no Right by the Law of God, no Right by the 
 Law of Nature, no Right by any Donation or Gift from 
 the Right Owners of ihQ Profits^ out of which (and which 
 cnly) they claim Tythes. Now the Reafon and Ground 
 of toe Law being, not to make a Right, but to conferve 
 and fecure to Men that Right they have, if the Priells 
 have no Right to Tythes (as I have proved they have not) 
 then is there nothing for the Law to conferve or fecure 
 to them, and fo that Law, with relation £o them, is at 
 an end: for the Rule in Law being, Ceffante Ratione Le- 
 gis, ceifat Lex (i. e. Where the Reafon of the Law ceafeth^ 
 there the Law it felf ceafeth alfo) the Reafon of the Law 
 ceaftrjg in this Cafe, where it hath nothing to conferve, 
 the Law it felf muil needs alfo ceafe {de jnre) according 
 to that Rule. Thus the Prieft's threefold Cord is broken, 
 and down falls he and his pretended Right of Tythes to-' 
 get her. 
 
 But in order to clear (if it were poUible) the Priefts 
 from the jufl: imputation of Hirelings, he fays, pag. 232. 
 Ihe People do-not hire them^ they fet them not on work^ nor 
 do they^ cut of their nwn^ give them any Usages, 
 
 This doth but further difcover the Vnrigkeoufnefs of 
 the Prieifs : for if the People do neither hire them, nor fee 
 them on work, how unreafonahle and unjujl are they to 
 demmd^ yea, and force Wages from them, that neither hired 
 iheni nor fet them on work 1 Is this to do as they would be 
 done unto! Would the Priefls think it equal that any of 
 their Parilhioners, who are hired and let on work by 
 others^ fhould come and demand Wages oi them^ when as 
 they neither hired them, nor fee them on work? The 
 latter part of his Sentence is a pofitive untruth. The w^ords 
 ^are thefc. Nor do they (the People) out of their own^ give 
 them (the Priefls) any W^ges. This is utterly falfe. The 
 Wages which People give them is truly and properly out 
 of the Peoples own : for it (s out of the yearly Profits, 
 and the yearly Profits are truly and properly the Peoples 
 own, and belong not to any [Vlaa elfe. 
 
 Next 
 
(?55) 
 
 Next he fays, They ( che Prie/ls) are im^loyed by God, 
 and he hath provided for them. 
 
 I deny that they are imployed by God : let him prove 
 it if he can. If they were imployed by God, they would 
 be content with fuch Proviiion as he hath made for them 
 whom he iniploys, and not thus fcrape and fcratch, rend 
 and teir, and never think they have enough, 
 
 in the reft of this Sedioa he charges me with loading 
 the Loyal and Suffering Clergy with a fold Calitmtjy^ in laying, 
 Theyfledy and left their Flocks to the Mercy of thofe whom they 
 accounted no better than Wolves^ &C. 
 
 This is matter of Fad, of which the whole Nation wss 
 then a Witnefs •, and there is fcarce a Parifh wherein fome 
 are not yet living who are able to judge whether this be 
 a foul Calumny or a ;«/ Charge^ to vvhofe Cenfure I fub- 
 mit it. 
 
 He fays, They were fequfflred^ irnfrifoncdy filericed^ and by 
 armed Soldiers violently torn from their Cures. 
 
 This may be true of fome of rhem, whofe llnhappinefs 
 it feems it was to lofe what was none of their oxen. But if 
 they had indeed been imployed by God, and had taken the 
 ApoHles for their Example ( ^Us 4. 18, 19, 20. and 5. 
 28, 29, 40, 41, 42.) Though they had been fequdred, im- 
 prifonecj, and by armed Soldiers violently torn from their 
 Cures, yet they would noc have fo bcQu Jilenced. If fuch 
 things as thefe could have filenced tht Apoflles and thofe 
 others that were impUfd by God^ in the firfb appearance 
 of Chrifiianity in the World, the found of the Gofpel had 
 not rung/o loud nor fo far as it then did. 
 
 In conclusion, as he raifes to them Trophies of Praife, 
 and celebrates their Names with the highefl: Eulogies his 
 fancy could fur ni(h him with : fo on me he cafts up the 
 overflowing of his Gaily and with it the moft reproachful 
 and fcurrilous Expreflions his imbittered Mind did fuggelt 
 unto him. Them he calls the Loyal and Suffering Clergy — 
 
 Thefe NMe Sufferers Such Jlluftrous Names — whom All 
 
 the World Admires and V^enerates, Of me, he fays, This 
 black-mouthed Slanderer may publilh his own venomom Impie- 
 ties. But as this putrid matter doth only difcover thejoul- 
 nefs of the Stomach from whence it came, but doth not at 
 all defile ms: fo I envy not them all the Odours and ?er- 
 
 A a /«^** 
 
fttmss he has provided tofweeten their Names wi£hal,whkh 
 perhaps there may be need enough of. 
 
 The Author of the Conference took another Courfe to 
 acquit the Priefls from the Charge of being Hirelings^ by 
 compaYi?:g the Friefis with the Judges of the Landy and Tythes 
 with the Kin£s AUowances to the Judges, In my AnlWer 
 to him, i (hewed his falUcy in this fo plain, that this 
 other Priefl (who came in for hh fecond) was not will- 
 ing to meddle at all with the macter, but left him to get 
 off as well as he could. He faid in his Conference^ pag. 
 1 59. Ton know the King has twelve Judges^ &C. And thefe 
 have an honourable Allowance from the Exchequer^ will yon 
 therefore fay that they are Hirelings^ and feU Jufiice ^ And is 
 not ours the fame Cafe i I anfwered (in Truth Prevailing^ 
 pag. ^55.) ' No: for you pretend to be Miniflers of 
 
 * Chriit ^ whereas they pretend no higher than to be Mi- 
 ' nillers of State. You call your felves Spiritual Per- 
 
 * Tons : but you reckon them bus Lay-men. You chal- 
 
 * lenge to your felves a Spiritual Fundion : they claim 
 
 * but a civil or temporal Office. They therefore Hand- 
 
 * ing in a civil Capacity, may reafonably and fairly, v«ith- 
 
 * out any imputation of Injuftice, receive what their 
 
 * Mailer is pleafed to bellow upon them. But you, who 
 
 * pretend to be Minifters of Ghrifl Jefus, are therefore 
 
 * juflly condemnable as Hirelings, becaufe ye will not be 
 
 * content with that Maintenance, which he (vi?hom ye 
 ' call, though untruly, your Mafter) hath appointed^ 
 ' but feek for Hire from others. Out of this he takes 
 
 ,the firll: Sentence only, which was this [Toh pretend to be 
 Mnifl-ers of Chrift^ whereas thay pretend no higher^ than to be 
 Mwtfters ofStateJ and pafling by all the refl, makes this 
 Reply to that. / thought (fays he, Findication^ pag. 326.) 
 that every M^giftrate had been a Minifler of God : St, Paul 
 had ill luck, that he had nat our infpired Eilwood to correal 
 himy when he faid^ Hz is the Mmifler of Cod to thee for 
 
 ^ goody &c. and beareth not the Sword in vain^ Rom. 13. I, 4. 
 That he may not have as ilUuck in wanting Corrections 
 as he fancies St. Fad bad, it will noa be amils to correB 
 him before we go any further. He fays, He thought every 
 Magifirate had been a Minifter of God. In what ienfe did 
 heunderftand the word Miniflery when he thought fo? 
 
 . Did lie think every Magifirats was a Minifter of God in 
 
 the 
 
( ?57 ), 
 
 the fame Sen fe and Notion wherein he himfelf pretends 
 to be a Minifier oi Chrifl ? If he thought fo, he mult 
 think again. If he did noE think fo, he doth but collude 
 and urges this Text with a deiign to deceive his Pvcader. 
 However his Com pari fon between the Priefts and Judges 
 will not hold, their Cafes are not the fame. 'lis true 
 that Magiftrates are Minillers of God, but chat is as they 
 are Minifltrs of State ^ as they bear the Sword. They are 
 Minifters of God in a ^oinicd and civil Adminiftration, 
 and fo are called Civil Magiftrates, But the Priefts pre- 
 tend to be Minillers of the Gofpel of Chrift Jefus, which 
 is a fpiritud Adniiniftration. So that neither are the 
 Priefts Minifters of God in the fame knk that the Magi- 
 flrates are^ nor are the Magiftrates Minifters of God in 
 the fame fenfe that the Priefts pretend to be. Yet this 
 Prieft fays, Is not our Cafe the fame with theirs ? Not at all, 
 fay I : for firft, The Judges are what they pretend to be : 
 fo are not you. They pretend to be civil Magiftrates, Mi- 
 nifters ot State \ and fo they are indeed : but you pretend 
 to be Minifters of the Gofpel of Jefus Chrift, and are not, 
 2. They are contented with that Maintenance which their 
 Mafter, the fupream Civil Magiftrace, hach allotted them, 
 and fcek no further : but you are not contented with 
 that Maintenance which the fupream Spiritual Magiftrate, 
 Chrift jefus, whom you (though untruly) call your Ma- 
 fter, hath alloted for the Minifters of his Gofpel, but hunS 
 about for more. And indeed, fuch very Hirelings ^lvq the 
 Priefts grown, that thas Pariih which is able to give mo^ 
 Wages^ may have their choice of Priefts, take them upon 
 Tryal and hire which they will. I do not herein difcover 
 a Secret, but write that which almoft every body knows. 
 In ftiort, whether the Priefts are Hirelings or no, let them 
 judge who are fain to hire them, to bargain with them, 
 and in fraall Pariilics, and little Vicarages, to engage and 
 enter into Covenants to them to make their fi'ages worth fo 
 much a Year, or clfe they would not ftay with them, nor 
 Preach to them. Nay, are not the Priefts Hirelings to 
 one another, as well as to the People ? Do not many of 
 the rich Priefts get three ox fottr Benefices into their Hands 
 together, and ii/>f other poor Pi iefts (whom they call Cu- 
 ratesy but the People call them Journey men) to preach 
 for them? And many of thefe Vr.derling Priefts are no5 
 
 A a ^ -Srwf- 
 
( 35S ) 
 
 Beneficed Mm (as they term it) but only drlvt a fmaS 
 Trade^ by Preaching for others that either are not will- 
 ing £0 take the pains^ or cannot pofTibly themfelves fup- 
 ply fo many places, as they have engrolTed into their 
 Hands. Thus thefe f$or Cnrates have fome of them^ two 
 or three Maders a-piece, by whom they are plainly and 
 poficively hired^ from whom they receive certain ftandwg 
 IVages^ and are engaged to Preach or read Prayers fo ma- 
 ny times in the (Vlonth. Now what will the Priefls fay 
 of thefe? May not thefe be juftly cd\\^^ Hirelings ^ Yes 
 fare, and very Canonical Hirelings I think \ for they are 
 Triers hired by Priefis to do Pr left's work: and if fuch Priefts 
 be not Hirelings^ I coiifefs I know not what an Hireling 
 is. But leaving this to others judgment, 1 return to the 
 Author of the Right ofTythes. 
 
 §. 27. He begins in his 49. SeiJlion thus. T. E, once 
 more attempts to jaftific the Qiiakers in detaining Tythes^ al- 
 though their fepetration be voluntarily ^ bm this is fuficiently 
 confmed before^ Sedt. 9. And I defire the Reader only to re* 
 member the Inftmce of the Truant- Boy es wilful abfence from an 
 endowed Free-School^ pag. 233. 
 
 This which is a chief part of the Controverfie (at lead 
 between the Priefts and the Quakers) the Priefts have lit- 
 tle mind to meddle with, fo tar as I perceive. Whether 
 Tythes are due at all from any, even from thofe that hear 
 the Priefts, and receive their Miniftry, isthe^fw^r^/Que- 
 . ftion. But if Tythes were due from thofe that receive 
 the Prieft's Miniftry and hear them, yet whether they 
 are due from the Quakers (and others) who neither hear 
 them, nor receive their Miniftry, is the particular Qiie- 
 ftion. The concluding the general Queftion in the Ntga- 
 tive^ concludes the particular Qiieftion in it: But tiie 
 concludiu,^ the general Qiieftion in the Affirmative^ doth 
 not include the particular Qiieftion. If Tythes are not due 
 jn all from any (even from thofe that hear the Priefts, and 
 receive their Miniftry) then to be fare they are not due 
 from the Quakers^ who Utterly difown them and their Mi- 
 niftry. But if Tythes could be proved to be due from 
 fuch as hear the Priefts and receive their Miniftry : yet it 
 follows not that they are due from the Quakers^ who nei- 
 .iher hear them nor receive them. So that the Priefts 
 
 have 
 
( JS9) 
 
 liave a double Task to perform : firft to prove Tythes due 
 to them from fuch as do hear them; fecondJy (whea 
 that's done, which can never be done) to prove Tythf:s 
 due to them from fnch, as are fo far from hearing them, 
 that they altogether difown them. Now the litter of 
 thefe (which is the dired and immediate Cafe between 
 the Priefts and the Qjtaken) the Priefts have been very 
 backward to come to, and have as feebly performed (if 
 what they have faid in this Cafe miy deferve to be call- 
 ed a Performance) asfalmly undertaken. The firft Pricffc 
 cafl it off to the Fag-end of hh Cjr3f.'fa7:e, pag. i(5i. and 
 then too faid as little to it, as well he could : yec ro that 
 little that he faid (fcarce fifteen Lines) I returned hihi 
 more than three Pages in Anfwer ; lo which he ws^i more 
 wary than to Reply a word. And the other Pried, in 
 his Right of Tythes^ when he came to this parE, wliereit 
 behoved him to have fhewed hhmmoft skill and llrength, 
 chofe rather it feems to let it flip with a Reference to ano- 
 ther Sedion, faying, This is fnffici€ntly confnted before^ Sed. 
 p. In which place too he only touches it by the by, and 
 gives an Inflance of certain Truant- Boys wilful abfence 
 from an endowed Free-School, which is the only thing he 
 here deilres his Reader to remember. But what the Prieft 
 hath faid in that Sedion, and particularly his boyilh Li- 
 fiance^ the Reader may find fully anfwered, and I make 
 no doubt to hisfatisfa(iti)n in the third Sedion of the third 
 Chapter of this Book, to which, for avoiding needlefs 
 Repetitions, I refer him. 
 
 But although the Author of the Right of Tythes had tio 
 edge (as it appears) to meddle with this part of the Con- 
 troverlie : yet that he might not be fentenced by the Rea- 
 der for a Mi4te'^ if he fhould have wholly paded ic by \ he 
 thought it expedient to make a fliew of faying fomething, 
 and therefore pickt out a PafTage or two, on which he 
 nibbles a little. Firft, he fays, pag. 234. T- £- f^i^^^ P^^g- 
 358. Some Mimfters are f^icinui^ and fuch as the JpoJiU huth 
 exhorted h6 to xvnh-draw our [elves from. 
 
 He is willing 1 perceive to make my Qjieflioa a Poflci- 
 on, and I do not much matter if he do. The Occafion 
 of my words was this, The Prieft, in his Cunference^ pag. 
 I(Si. faid, The Minijter is not to blame for their Separate 
 
 on, &c. Hereupon \ asked, ' If the Miaifler be one that 
 
 A a 3 *or 
 
( 36o) 
 
 ^ for Corrupt Interefl: hath intruded himfeif (as ife feems 
 
 * by what he fays in the Conference^ pag. ii. fome fuch 
 
 * there be) If the Minifter be a Man of Vicious and In- 
 ' temperate Life, of a diforderly Converfation, fuch as 
 
 * the Apofile has exhorted to with-draw from, is not" 
 
 * the ^iiaifler then to blame for the Separation ? Now I 
 obfervethis Priefl: is {ocmning^ that he neither attempts 
 to clear the Priefls, nor at all undertakes to refolve the 
 Qaeflion. Clear the Vriefts he could not^ their Corruption 
 being confefTed by his Brother Priefl in the i ith page of 
 his Copference^ and that Confeflion confirmed alfo even by 
 National Experience. To have anAvered the Queflioa 
 had been no iefs difficult *, for to deny that a corrnft Inte- 
 reil, a 'vicious and internferate Life, and fuch a diforderly 
 Gonverfadon as the ApoRle has exhorted to with-draw 
 from, are a fufficient and juflifiable Caufe of Separation, 
 were to exceed all bounds of Modefly : and yet to grant, 
 that, Vv'here this Caufe is, the Miniflsr is to blame for the 
 Sefaratioriy had been not only a ComradiBion to his Bro- 
 ther Priefl, affirming the contrary (which yet between^ 
 them two had been no new thing) but even a cutting with 
 his own hand the Throat of his own Caufe. To avoid 
 all thefe Dangers at once, he turns my Qnefiion. into an 
 ^ffertion^ and then inllead of an jinfwer to it, gives me 
 a Queftion to anfwer ^ which is this. But do net the Qua- 
 kers y^-p^r^fir/rowafiJi?*^ Miniffers tif much and as well as from 
 had? 
 
 This I confefs is a pretty Device to beg a Concelfion 
 tMufome ofthsmaregood'y but I will not grant him that, 
 Yec I would not hei-e be mif-underflood ; I fpeak not of 
 them now as M^h^ but as Minijlers. I reflednot (in this 
 place) on their Convey fationsy but on their Minifiry, Some 
 of them perhaps may be fober, temperate and of orderly 
 Converfation ; but none of them are Good Miniftersy be- 
 caufe they are not the true Mimjlers of the Gofpel of 
 Chrift Jefus, though they all pretend fb to be. This 
 ^premifed, my Anfwer is plain and fhorr, in the Negative^ 
 I deny that the Quakers do feparate from good Mlni^ 
 ffers. 
 
 He adds, A yicioni Minifier may he a pretence to them who 
 vefolved to fif urate hovpsver j to his Vict is not the true Caufe 
 ofthsir Se^araiisn, 
 
 The 
 
( 3^1 ) 
 
 The Caufes of Separation may be to divers different. 
 The rice of the Mimfters to foine, the Fice of the Mini- 
 ftry to others ; a debauchsd Pr iefl: to fome, a /«//« and an^ 
 tichriflian Miiiiflry to others *, and cither of thefe is Caufe 
 fufficient to feparate upon. A Priefl's Debauchery is Caufe 
 enough to juflifie a Separation from that Pncfi : a Mini- 
 ilry's bdtiQfalfe and amkhriftian is Caufe fufficient to ju- 
 flifie a Separation from that Miniftry, And as that Mini- 
 fter is to blame, whofe Debauchery is the Caufe of Se par a^ 
 tion from him: fo that Miniftry is to blame alfo, whofe 
 falfe and antichriftian State is the Caufe of Separation from 
 it. 
 
 But he fays, I hely St. Paul, irt faying^ he exhorts the Tco- 
 fie td with' draw from abad Adinifter ; hs bids them not (fays 
 the Priefl:, pag. 234.) wtth- draw from a Father^ hut a Bro' 
 ther walking diforderly^ 2 Theff. 3. 5. 
 
 Was ever poor Man fo hard put to it ! Ho^^v great a 
 ftrait muft he be in, that would make ufe of fuch a piti' 
 fid jhift as this! Are the Priefts got fo high^ they difdain 
 to acknowledge the People for their Brethren? They 
 learnt not that from Chrifi Jefm^ nor any of his Jpofiles, 
 For Chrifi was not afhamed to call them Brethren^ unto 
 whom he declared the Name of his Father, Heb. 2. i r, 
 12. And the Apoflles in their Eplilles falute the Saints 
 by the Title oi Brethren, Thus fW, Rom. 1 2. i. and in 
 almofl all his Epiltles. Thus James^ chap r. verf 2. Thus 
 Feter^ 2 Epift. i. 10. Thus John^ i EpiH. 2.7. Nor is 
 any Compellation more frequent in their Writings, than 
 this of Brethren. Yea, in that very pLice wherein Paul 
 gives this monitory Counfel to the Thtffdoniamy he calls 
 them Brethren. And fays the Divine John to the Churches 
 ofj^Jia^ I am your Brother^ &c. Rev. i. 9. The Apoftles 
 then and the reft of the Saints were Brethren it feems, 
 and yet faith Taul to the Tejfalonians^ Now we command 
 you^ Brethren^ in the Name of our Lord Jeftu Chrift^ that ye 
 with' draw your felves from every Brother that wdketh difor^ 
 derly^ &:c. From every Brother ! Either then the Minifter 
 muft not be a Brother^ or, if he walk difordsrly^ mufl be 
 with' drawn from, although he be a Mimfter. Befides, 
 What were thofe falfe Teachers that troubled the Church- 
 es of Galatia and Corinth ? Were they not bad Minifters ? 
 Did 1X06 Fad wilhrk--^ wsre even cm off^ Gal. 5. 12 ? And 
 
 A a 4 can 
 
( 5^2 ) 
 
 can any one th'mk he would noc hare had the Gdations 
 wich-draw from them ? Bui: 1 do not at all wonder this 
 Priefi is fo uawiliing the People fiiould wish-draw from a 
 bad Mi^ifter, 
 
 Next he fays, 1 ran again into my eld Miftah^ ^PPh^^^ 
 'Chrifi^s Directions to his Difciplcs on a. private Mifjion to Vn^ 
 believers^ as if it were a fiandittg Rale for Minifiers amongfh 
 Relievers, 
 
 This he draws from a clofe Expollulation with the 
 other Priell hlmfelf^ thus, *- He pretends to be a iMini- 
 
 * fter of Chrifl. Where did Chrilt e're impower his Mi- 
 
 * nifters to make People hear them, whether they will or 
 
 * no? or to exad Wages of them although they did not 
 
 * hear Ihem ? His Inftrudioa to his Difciples was, Who- 
 
 * foever fhall not receive you, nor hear your Words, 
 
 * (hake off the Dult of your Feet, Mm. lo. 14, The 
 firit part of this the Pricffc fleps over. The latter part, 
 he fays, is my old Miftake. Whether it be a Miftake or 
 no will appear. I urged it to Ihew thai the Apoftles 
 were not direded to prefs and pin their preaching upon 
 ^ny^ but to fkah off the Diifi of their Feet againfl thofe that 
 ihould not receive nor hear their Words. This, he fays, 
 was Chrift^s DireEiion to his Difciples upon a private Mljjion to 
 Vnhilievers^ and he calls it my Miftake to apply this as if it 
 were a fianding Rnle for MMifiers among Believers, Had 
 this Dlredion belonged only to that private Miflion, as 
 he calls it^ Fad and Barnabas who were not imployed in 
 that Million, nor converted to God till afterward, had 
 had no (hare in this Diredion, nor any Gommiflion to 
 ufe it. Yet they, we fee, long after Chrift's Afcention, 
 did pundually obferve this Diredion, jhakwg off the Dtift 
 sff their Feet at Antioch againft thofe that rejcded their 
 Teflimony, ^^f; 13. 51. So that this Diredion had re- 
 lation to the ^*«^r^/ Gommiflion, as well as to that parti* 
 cdar Mi^ion^ which he calls private'^ and the Miftake, 
 whether eld or new^ is his own, in reltraining it to that 
 parrticular Million. 
 
 In the next place, he fays^ / compare the Quakers, in 
 rejcBing their Mlmjlry, to the Jews Tpho rejeBed the jipo- 
 files^ and jpidged themfelv^s unworthy of eternal JLife^ Ads 
 IS. 45. 
 
 This 
 
This is a very filly Catchy and hath neither Truth nor 
 Wit in it. I made no Comparion ai all ; but fhcwcd from 
 that Text, that the Pra^ice of the Apoftles was confouant 
 to the InftruUion of their Mafler. They preach the Go- 
 fpel to the Jews, The Jews rejfSi it. They do not fay. 
 Ton Jhall hear it whether yon will or no *, or however, ycu {hall 
 pay us for preachirjg it : but they turn from them, and offer 
 their Mcllage unto others. Hereupon I faid (in Truth Pre- 
 vailing^ pag. 359.) ' He greatly miftakes, if he thinks ie 
 
 * to be the mind of Chrilt to impofe his Gofpel upon any, 
 ' or, as the Spaniards are faid to have dealt with the Indi- 
 ' ans^'lQ make Men Chrifiians whether they will or no: 
 ' Nay, nay •, he lovingly invites all ; he inwardly flrives 
 
 * by his Spirit with all ^ he gracioufly tenders Mercy to 
 
 * all ; but he obtrudes it upon none. And if he gave no 
 ' Authority to his Apoflles to compel any to hear them; 
 ' to be fure he gave them no power to demand, much 
 
 * lefs inforce a Maintenance from fuch, as did neither 
 
 * receive nor own them. Out of this laft Sentence (paf- 
 fing over the reft) he frames this Quotation for me^ Chrift 
 gave his Apoflles no Authority to compel any to hear them. He 
 replies, Tes furely^ he bid them go into the High-ways and 
 Hedges^ and compel thofe whom they found there to come in^ 
 Luke 14. 23. 
 
 His Catch here is upon the word lComper\ and a meer 
 Catch It is. Ccmpulfion or Conftrainiug is twofold; by 
 /<2ir means, and by foul. By fair means, as by Entreaty, 
 Perfwafion, Reafon, Love, &c. By foul means, as by 
 the feverity and fharpnefs of Penalties, whether corporal 
 or pecuniary. He that obferves net thisdiftiniftion may 
 eafily err. Of the fir fl fort of Compulfion, Inftances in 
 Scripture are frequent. When Chrift, immediately after 
 his Refurreftion, appeared to thofe two Difciples of his 
 that were going to Emaia^ and they drew nigh to the 
 Village, it is faid, Luke 24. 28, 29. He made as though 
 he would have gone further ; but they CONSTRAINED 
 him^^"-^ and he went in to tarry with them. Now what 
 manner of Compulfion was this ? How did they conftrain 
 him, hy fair means or by foul ^ The Text exprefTes how. 
 Firft, by a hnd Invitation^ faying, Abide with as. Se- 
 condly, by urging ^^4/off/ why he fliould abide with them, 
 for it it toward Evenings and the day is far fpent. In like 
 
 man- 
 
( 364 ) 
 
 nianner, when LydWs Heart was opened, fhe conftrained 
 the Apoftle Vaal and his Company to come into her 
 Houfe, and bide there. Here again we fee is compulpon\ 
 but of what kind, what nature ? By what means ? fair ? 
 €r foul f By entreaty. Read the Text, AUs i5. 15. And 
 whgn jJoe was hapiz^sd^ and her HoUjhold^ fl^e befonght hs^ fay* 
 ingy Ifya have judged me to be faithfnl to the Lord^ come into 
 my Ho^ifs and abide there. >4«^/fcff CONSTRAINED 
 r^, iMany more like Examples might be added from 
 2 Cor. 5. 14. and 12. 11. Gd. 2. 14. Matth. 14. 22. Mark 
 6. 4^. But thefe are fufiicient to fliew that the words 
 Compel and Co??JIrain (wiiich are Synonomous, and indif- 
 fierently ukd) do not always import cmwa/d force and 
 violence^ ox penal Severity slu^ Rigour '^ but frequently (and 
 in holy Writ molt frequently) kind Invitations^ loving In* 
 treaties^ gentle Perfwafionsy and demonftrative Reafons, Now 
 let US examine the Text; he urges, Lnle 14,23. and fee 
 what is there intended by the word Compel. The Para- 
 ble is of a certain Man, that made a great Supper, and 
 bad (or invited) many Guejfts. They urge Excufes, but 
 come not. The Mailer therefore of the Houfe bids hia 
 Servant go into the Streets and Lanes of the City, and 
 bring in the Poor^ the Maimed^ the Halt and the Blind. 
 That done, and yet there being room for more, the Ma- 
 fter fends his Servant again, faying. Go out into the High' 
 ways arid Htdges^ and compel thcrn to come in^ that my Houfe 
 may he filled. For I fay unto yoUy that none ofthofe Men which 
 mre bidden jhall tafie of my Sfipper.^ Confider now, I pray, 
 what manner of Compnlfion was either needful or proper to 
 beafed £o fuch Perfons as are here defcribed. Is it proper 
 to force Cmfti to a Feafij or fend them to Goal if they do not 
 comei Is it needful to Whip poor hungry Beggars to a Supper^ 
 cr hale them in by the Head and Shoulders ? Such Perfons as 
 thefe, that had no better Proviflon thaa they could get 
 from the High ways and Hedges^ would not need, one 
 would think, to be dragged byforce^ or driven by Blows to 
 ^good Sy^pper. U outward force and violence had been to be 
 iifed^ \t feems more reafonable that it fhould have been 
 ezerclfed on them that were invited and did not come s 
 but they we fee were fo far from fiiffering any fuch violent 
 and penal Compulfion^ that after refufal, they were utterly 
 exckd&dkom the Fcaftj the Mailer of the Houfe faying 
 
 cxprefly, 
 
( ?65 ) 
 
 cxprelly, None ofthofe Men whith were bidJerr^ fhall tafle of 
 my Slipper^ ver. 24. So that they that refufeii to come to 
 the Feaft, were not fetched in by force : their pmifhrnent 
 was to be flmt out. And if the others who were brought 
 out of the Streets, Lanes, High-ways and Hedges, had 
 rnade Excufes and rejufed to come, as thofe did, there 
 had been the fame reafon to have fhm them out alfo, as 
 there was to (hut out the former : but no more reafon to 
 have exercifed violence towards thefe, than towards the 
 former, upon whom for refufingto come, we do not find 
 that any was ufed. But if thefe, that were brought from 
 the High- ways and Hedges, did not refnfe^ but readily 
 came at the Call, there was then no need of (nor room 
 for) any fuch forcible^ vident and fend Compulfion^ as the 
 Prieft here fpeaks of. 
 
 But to make it more evident that our Saviour in this 
 Parable did not intend any fuch violent or penal Compul- 
 iion as the Prieft would fain be at^ let us confult the 22. 
 Chapter of Matthew^ where the fame Parable in fubftance 
 (though fomewhac different in Circumftances) is deliver- 
 ed. There we read, that after they who were firft in- 
 vited had refufed to come to the Wedding Dinner, the 
 King faid to his Servants, ver. 9. Go ye therefore into the 
 Highways^ and as many at ye (Imll fitfd^ bid to the Marriage, 
 Thefe were the fame fort of Gucfts, mentioned by huke^ 
 who were in the Highways and Hedges^ and yet we fee 
 this great King did not command, or impower bis Servants 
 to ufe any other Compidfion to them, than an Invitation - 
 As many 04 ye fljall find^ bid [KaMettretli^ to the Marriage, 
 Thus that place in Luke being aptly explained by this in 
 Matthew^ it appears that tho!^ words [Compel them ta 
 come in"] import no more than, Bid^ or Invite, them r» 
 the Mar rt age. 
 
 Befides, if we look further into the Parable, we fhall 
 find that when the King, taking a view of his Guefts,pii? 
 one there which had not on a Wedding Garment^ and asked 
 him, Friend^ how cameft thoH in hither^ not havino on a Wed* 
 ding Garment, The Man wa^ fpeechlefsy and the King com- 
 manded his Servants to bind that Man Hand and Foot^ and 
 cafl him into utter Darkvefs, Which plainly proves he was 
 not brought in againfi his JFilly he was not driven in by 
 foreey nor dragged in by Head and Shoulders, for if he had, 
 
 he 
 
( ?66) 
 
 fie had thea had a fair Pled to make, a re^dy Anfwer to re- 
 turn to the Qiieilion, How cameji thou in hither^ &c. 1 
 wod driven in by Strifes^ I was drawn in hyforce^ I wai brought 
 in againfi my will, might he have faid. Had it been fo, he 
 needed noc have httnf^esMefs^ as it feems he was. And 
 haw, again, could it have flood with the divine Juflice 
 of thaE great King to feutence a Man to be bo^.nd and caft 
 into mter Da'rknefs^ for coming in thither without a Wed- 
 ding Garment, if the Man had been brought in by force, a- 
 ^ain^ his own mind^ aud that too by his Command, But is 
 IS manifefl that no fuch forcible^ violent^ penal Compnl{ion as 
 the Pdeft aims at, was commanded or intended by our 
 Saviour in this Parable ^ and confequently that the word 
 IJCompeQ in this place (Luke 14 23.) is mifunderflood^ at 
 leafl mifappliedh^ the Priell:, and his Tes farelyls furely 
 falfe. ^ 
 
 But he urges the Judgment of AHgufline^ That to compel 
 Men to that which is goodj is very lawful, and an ,Atl of ne- 
 ceffjtry Charity to their Souls^ yea, a Dmy of GhriHiaii 
 Trinces^ &CC. pag. 235. 
 
 Isitfo ? How chanced it then that they, who, being 
 invited to the Supper, came not, were not competed to 
 come ? Doth the Prieft think the Mafter of the Houfe, 
 who made the Invitation, did not know what Charity was 
 fjfceffivy to their Souls, or was ignorant of the Duty of a 
 Clniklm Prince ? Would he have omitted an Ad of fuch 
 necejfiry Charity (had it indeed been Charity) or negled- 
 ed a Dnty, had it been a Duty ? But let us examine this 
 Po/idofi, and fee if there be any thing of Truth or Reafon 
 m it. The Polition is, That to compel Men to that which is 
 good, is very lawful, and an AEi of necejfary Charity to their 
 Souls, yea, a Duty of Chriflian Priaces, Firft, who ihall 
 judge whether the thing to be compelled to, is good or 
 ho; The^ that are to be compelled, or he that is to compel ? 
 If they that are to be compelled may judge, it is not like- 
 ly that they fhould judge that good which they mull: be 
 cpmpelled to ; for if they judged it good, they would not 
 need to be compelled to it. If he that is to compel muft 
 |udge, then whatfoever he fhall judge to be good (be ifi 
 never fo bad) that mult bear the name of Good, and all 
 mud: be compelled to receive it. Secondly, Concerning 
 Chrijlum Princes the like diflatisfaif^ion may arife. Poffi- 
 
 bly 
 
( 1^1) 
 
 bly they who are compelled to that as Good, which they 
 belive is not good, may queftioa whether they arc Chri- 
 ftian Princes that fo compel. On the other hand, wlias 
 Prince is there throughout that part of the World which is 
 called Chriftendom^ that is not ready on all Occafions to 
 aflert himlelf a Chriftian Prince ? Now therefore if every 
 one that holds himfelf a Chrifiian Prince, not only lawluily 
 may,but alfo, both in point of Duty,and as an A ft of necef- 
 fary Charity to the Souls of others, ought to compel Men 
 to that which he judges good, what hinders then but he, 
 whofe Anceilors received from Rome the Title of, Mofi 
 Chriftian King^ and who profcilech himfelf a 5o» of the Church 
 o/Rome, lawfully may^ yea, miiji (according to r' v> Po- 
 lition) both as his own Dutyy and as an Ad of tejfary 
 Charity to their Souls, compel all Prcteftams in his Domi- 
 nions to the Romifh Religion, which he judges good ? 
 Thus, Reader, thou feeft the horrid Confcquence of this 
 falfeand Jntichriftian Podtion. But this is the eld A>'gH^ 
 merit of the Papifls, long fince exploded and dcteiled by 
 MenofReafon and Ingenuity, though fomecimes, as now, 
 made ufe of at a pinch of Need^ to countenance a corrnpt 
 and felfifh Interefl. 
 
 But he fhews himfelf a right Romanifi, He hath not 
 only the Popifh Argument for Perfecution, but the j>opt[h 
 Cloak alfo CO cover himfelf wichal. h is not^ fays he, pag. 
 2?6. the Priefts compel thcm^ but the Laws of the L-^vd. 7 he 
 Priefts indeed fee them in defperate Herefies and moj} wicked 
 Schifm^ and in pity to their Souls ^ admonifh them^ warn them^ 
 I Their 5. 14. and Ubjitr to convince them by Argument^ 
 yea^ at length they ufe the Cenfures of the Churchy and finally^ 
 oi the laji remirdy complain to the fecidar Magiftrate^ &c. 
 
 What did Bonner more, or the worft of pnpijh Bifliops? 
 They did not ufe to burn Men themfelves : but they goc 
 a Law made, that fach as they declared Hereticks Should 
 be burnt, and then they fentenced thofe for Hereticks, 
 that would not bow to them and their Inventions, and 
 prayed the Magiftrates to hmn them. What odds in all this 
 between the popi^lj Priefts and thefe^ fdVQ only that thefe 
 are not yet come to popijh Fire and F^ggot^ as himfelf well 
 obferves, pag. 237 ? v 
 
 But 
 
( ?<58 ) 
 
 But belides this, is ic all true that the Prieft fays here ? 
 Do they deflcnd by thefe fteps to their Church-Cenfures 
 and fecnlar Complaint ? Do they admonijh ? Do they 
 warn ? Do they ever attempt to convince by Arguments ? 
 Whom of a thoiifand is he able to name for an hflance of 
 fuch procedure ? Yet, he fays. This is no more than S. Paul 
 threatned^ 2 Cor. lo. 5. and aUed alfo^ in delivering the in- 
 ceftuoHs Corinthian to Satan^ pHnijhi/tg his ontward Man for 
 the health of his Soul^ i Cor. 5. 5. 
 
 S. Paul indeed, did admoniih often, did warn frequent- 
 ly, did labour to convince by Arguments, and that 
 earneftly ; but I never read before that he complained to 
 thefecdar Magifirate^ or fo much as threatned fo to do. 
 I am fare the ScripEures he hath quoted will not juftifk 
 this AfTertion. But if S. Fanl did not complain to the 
 fecular Magiflrate, then this, which the Priefts confefTes 
 they do, is more than St, Paul did^ and the Priefl, in fay- 
 ing it is no more, is found in a down-right Faljhood, But 
 to proceed. 
 
 1 faid in Anfwer to the former Priefc. ' If Chrifl gave 
 
 * no Authority to his Apoilles to compel any to hear 
 
 * them 'j to be fare he gave them no power to demand, 
 ' much lefs inforce a Maintenance from fuch as did nei- 
 ' ther receive nor own them. This the latter Prieft 
 transfers from the Apoilles to himfelf and his Brethren, 
 and makes a Quotation out of it, with which he begins 
 his 50th Sedion thus, Headds^ pag. 559. Chrifj: gave m . 
 no power to demand a Aiaintenance from thofe who do not rt' 
 ceive Hs> 
 
 I perceive he is willing to creep in any how : but un- 
 lefs he had come in fairer, he is like to turn om again, I 
 do not admit that Chrift hath given him power to de- 
 mand Maintenance of any body, no not of them that da 
 receive him : for Chrift gives Power to none in this Cafe, 
 but thofe whom he fends, of which number he is none, 
 however, 1 obferve he doth not deny what I faid {y\t. 
 That Chrift gave his Jpofiles no power to demand a Mainte^ 
 nance from JHch^ as did neither receive nor own them'} but ra- 
 ther feems to grant it : for he replies, Nor do we demand 
 of the Quakers to give tu one fmgle hnny more than what was 
 given to m^ and fettled on m many hundred years ago : we 
 only Oik our own j wc only ask that which the Quaker did not 
 
 take 
 
( 3^9 ) 
 
 tale of his Landlord^ that which was or ought to hdve been 
 abated in his Rent^ pag. 338. 
 
 Don't you demand ot the Quahrs the tenth part of 
 their yearly Profits? Could thcfe be fettled on you many 
 hundred years ago ! The Folly of this pretence is obvious 
 of it feif. But how many hundred years is it, I pray, 
 fince Tythes were fettled on you? 'Tis but about 140 
 years ago lince the fiyfi Statute- Law for Tythes was made, 
 and that too was made both by Papifis and for P^pifts. 
 
 BuC, he fays, Thsy only ask that which the Quaker did nut 
 take of his LmdLrd. 
 
 They not only ask that which the Ouahr did not take 
 of his Landlord, but they alfo ask it out of that which 
 the Quaker did not take of his Landlord, viz^, cut of the 
 Profits : for out of the Profits only are Tythes due, fays 
 this Priefl, pag. 196. Now the Ouahr took the Land 
 only of his Landlord, not the Profits. He knew well enough 
 what Land he took, but he knew not, when he took the 
 Land, what Profits he fiiould have. The Profits he re- 
 ceives afterwards by the Blefling of God on his Labour 
 and honeft Endeavours, with the Ufeand Imployment of 
 his Stock, which his Landlord hath nothing to do with. So 
 that it the Priefl: will needs claim the tenth part of the 
 Quaker'^s Profits^ becaufe the Oitaker did not take it of his 
 Landlord, he may by the fame Reafon claim the other nine 
 parts of the Profits too, becaufe the Quaker did not take 
 them of his Landlord neither. 
 
 Again, he fays, Jhey only ask that which was^ or ought to 
 have been abated in his Rent. 
 
 I deny that. That which they demand, {viz.. the tenth 
 part of the Profits) neither was nor ought to have been 
 abated in the Rent. If it fiiould be fuppofed that any 
 thing is abated, yet the mofl; that could be expe(^ed 
 would be but the tenth part of the Rent. And if the 
 tenth part of the Profits be no more than the tenth pare 
 of the Rent, then muft the whole Profit be no more than 
 the whole Rent ^ and what then fliall the Farmer have 
 to defray his Charge, and maintain his Family ? But if 
 the tenth part of the Profits, which the Priefl: claims, be 
 more than the tenth part of the Rent, then (according 
 to the Priefl:''s own way of reafoning) he demands more 
 of the Quaker thaa either is or ouglit to be abated. And 
 
 indeed, 
 
(37^) 
 
 indeed, what reafon has a Landlord to abate of his Rent 
 in conlideration of Ty thes, which are noE demanded out 
 of the Land, which he lets, but out of the Profits only, 
 which the Tenant by his own Labour, Stock and Induftry 
 (through the Bkffing of God) acquires? However, how 
 could the tenth part of the Profics be abated in the Rent, 
 when as the Rent is certain and fixed for twenty years or 
 more together, and the Profits always uncertain, never 
 it may be of equal value two years together throughout 
 the whole term, and fometimes perhaps in two years 
 time may rife or fink half in half. 
 
 Again, he fays, pag. 239. 0//r Right to Tythes depends 
 not at all Hpon Mens being willing or unwilling to come and 
 hear m. 
 
 You are fo much the more mlike the Jpoftles^ whom ye 
 pretend to be SuccefTors to. 
 
 j^nd the Quaker (fays he) isfadly tniftaken^ to thinl we 
 come to fell them our Sermons^ or that Tythes are a price which 
 is the Quaker'^ own to give. 
 
 The Quakers are not at all miHaken ia thinking yoii 
 come loJellyoHr Sermons. They have known you of old^ 
 and before they were ()^Liakers they traded with yon^ and 
 bought your Ware^ and paid full dearly for your Sermons ; 
 but they U never trade with you more : for they fee >(?«r Ware 
 is naughty and they find you the worfl fort of Chapmen of 
 any they have to do with. For (as I formerly obferved) 
 take the moll greedy and over-reaching Tradefman that 
 one can find, though he (hould tell me his Ware is very 
 good, and that he has fuch as will fit my turn, yet he 
 will not thrufi it upon me^ whether I like it or no •, but 
 leaves me to my own liberty^ either to take it or to leave 
 it ; and if I do not take it, to be fure he will never demand 
 any thing of me for it. But this Prielt will either make us 
 take his Ware, though we neither like it, nor have any 
 need of it; or to be fure will make us pay for it, though 
 we never take it. What can be more Vnreafonahle^ what 
 more Difhoneft than this ! 
 
 §. 28. j^sfor going to Law for Tythes, you have (fays he 
 to his Brother Prielt, §.51.) M> proved it lawful in the 
 Conference, and the Quaker anfwers not one of your Argu- 
 ments 9 
 
( IV ) 
 
 ments 5 fo that ttli he reply to that^ 1 will only notCj That it is 
 mnch again ft our' WtU^ <Scc. 
 
 I anfwered all his Arguments for going to Law for 
 Tythes, ia proving aC large that Tythes are not due j tor 
 no Argument can jnftifie going to Law for that which is not due 5 
 and it Tythes were due from the Onaker to the Priell, he 
 fliould not need to go to Law for them ^ the Quaker would 
 be as ready to pay them, as the Prieft fhould be to receive 
 them. I alfo fhewed (in my former Anfwer, pag. 361, 
 -2,62.) That ^ for a Minifler of Chrift to fue Men at Law 
 
 * for his Belly, is without alj Precept, Pre(ident, or 
 ' Ground in Scripture, Religion or Reafon^ and that, it is 
 
 * contrary to the nature of a Gofpel-LMaintenance, which 
 
 * is altogether free and voluntary, not at all compul- 
 fory. But this the Priefls, both one and t'other, chofe 
 rather to let pafs tmtouch^dy than give occafioa for fur- 
 ther inquiry into it. 
 
 But the other Prieft (in his Vindication of the Conference^ 
 pag. 327.) though he filently flips over what I faid againft 
 Priefts going to Law for Maintenance, yet to blemifll 
 (if he could) the Quakers^ he fays, Whereas the Qjiakers 
 (to make M^giflrates as nfelcfs as Minifters) nfed to declaim 
 againft going to Law upon any eccafion whatfoever^ T. E. in 
 contradiction to his Brethren ^ fays^ In Civil Cafes it is no In- 
 juftice for a Man to recover his due by Law, Hereupon the 
 Prieft asks, Have the Quakers received fome new Difpenfa- 
 tion from Heaven? If not ^ how comes it to he lawful to go to 
 Law now in Civil Cafes^ when 20 years ago the fame thing wai 
 denied by them as unlawful f 
 
 Had -he intended to have convicted me of contradiding 
 my Brethren, it had behoved him to have proved (not 
 only faid) that the Oiiakers did ufe to declaim againft go- 
 ing to Law upon any occafton whatfoever. Not only Honejly 
 would have obliged him fo to do, but common Prudena 
 would have led him to it. But feeing he has (o confi- 
 dently faid it, without offering any Proof, 1 put him upon 
 the Proof of it ^ and leave him ufider the Imputation of 
 Slander^ Until he Ihall give a Proof of his Aflertion. 
 
 Upon this/rfZ/ir Infiniiation^ he thus proceeds. The Spirit 
 then by which the Qjiakersprcr^w^ to be i.^fpired^ either differs 
 from it felf or is nst the fame S:lrit which the Q^iakers/tf 
 iateh pretended to. • 
 
 B b Thq 
 
(no ■. 
 
 The Spiril by which the Quakers are infpired^ neither 
 differs from iE'felf, nor is any other Spirit than that, which i 
 the Quakers have always not only pretended to, but in- 1 
 joyed. The Quakers are led by the fame Spirit that ever 
 they were, and their Teftimony is the fame that ever it 
 was. And truly I do not fee but the Priefts alfo are led 
 by the fame Spirit, by which they were led twenty years 
 ago : for they belyed the Qiiakers twenty Tears ago^ and fo 
 they dofiill. Of this black Art this Prieft is Mafter^ and 
 as one refolved by falfe Reports to defame (if he could) 
 them, whom by Fair Reafoning and Plain Arguments he 
 is not able to withlland ^ he tells his Stories of the Qjfa- 
 hrs with as great Confidence as if he himfelf believed 
 them. 
 
 , One of them (fays he, Vindication, pag. 328.) told me 
 very lately^ That I acc^fed the Quakers /^//?y, in faying that 
 they negUEied to crave a Blejfwg ifpon their Meat^ which ts now 
 frequently pra^lifed among them : Whereupon he fays, If thi^ 
 be their Minds now^ formerly they talked at another rate : What 
 (faid they) we crave a BleJftTig when w^ go to Meat? That*s 
 jiintirig the Spirit to a Meal^ to a Breakfafi^ a Dinner^ or 
 a Supper. 
 
 The Quakers Practice in this cafe now is no other than 
 it always wm. They never negleded to crave a Blefling 
 upon their Meat, but have always ufed to waiE upon the 
 Lord, in an holy Bar and Reverence^ both to crave and re- 
 ceive his Blelling. So that the Prieft is indeed a Falfe 
 Accufer of the Ofi^kers^ in faying, They formerly talked at 
 another Rate, Let him name thofe Quakers (if he can) 
 that have faid, (as he reports the words) What we crave 
 a Bleffmg when we go to Meat ? And to provoke him to it, 
 let him take notice, that the Charge of Slander is left at 
 his Door, 
 
 Again, He blames the Quakers for making their .Appeals 
 to Sejfions and Affiz.es ^ bringing AUions^ &c. though they 
 know there can be no proceeding tn any Court but that both Wit-' 
 neffts and "Juries muft give their Evidences and VerdiUs upon 
 Oath, If then it be truly fo (fays he) why will they be any Oc- 
 cafion to bring a Difgracs and Reproach upon ChrlHianity ? 
 Vindicat. pag. 3251. 
 
 That 
 
( J7J ) 
 
 That Chriflianity is difgraced and rcproaclied by 0.^ths 
 is too true, but that the Occafioii thereof is brought by 
 the Quakers is as falfe. The Quakers do not defire, that 
 either Wicnefles or Juries fhould give their Evidences or 
 Verdids upon Oath\ buG that both the one and the ocher 
 fhould fpeak the plain and naked Truth roithout an OAth^ 
 and thaE under the fame Penalty as by Oath^ to which the 
 Ouakersy with all readinefs of Mind fubjedt themfelves, if 
 they be found guilty of giving Falfe Evidence. It is net 
 then the Quakers fauh that Chriftianity is difhonoured b/ 
 Oaths, but it is the Priefi's Envy ctiat calls this Falfe Af- 
 perfion on them. 
 
 But he charges the Quakers not only with occafio.Ting 
 others to Swear, but with taking Oaths themfclvcs too, 
 and he fays he is able to make it out. 
 
 He fliould have done in then \ and I make no doubt 
 but he would, if he had any ground for what he faith : 
 for ic cannot be fuppofed, that he who hath fo groftyahu- 
 fed the Quakers without all Ground, would have /pared 
 them an inch in any thing for which he had had a real 
 Ground. 
 
 He adds a couple of Siories which he pretends to have 
 heard from others. The one is of two Quakers, that took 
 their Oaths in anfwer to an Exchequer Bill^ and very formally 
 too^ put off their Hats^ and kifs'd the Book : and this he fays, 
 was lately told him by an Attorney oj great Account and Prac^ 
 tice. His other Tale is of a Quaker, who at a Commijfton^ 
 came very formally to Swear againft the late Bifliop of Lincoln, 
 in a Chancery Suit. And that being asked by one of the Cum- 
 miffioners (from whom, he fays, he had the Account.) How 
 it came topafsthat he being a Quaker would Swear .? He told 
 him. Thou knoweji that among Hunts-men it was never thought 
 amifs to kill a Fox or Badger by any means \ fuch being allow 
 id no fair play^ &c. leaving it to himfelfto make the Appli' 
 cation. 
 
 Thefe are matters of FaBy depending upon perfonat 
 Evidences^ which the Priefl ought to have produced, if 
 he had intended to have dealt honeftly. Had he named 
 the Quakers whom he here accufes, or thofe Pcrfons 
 from whom he pretends to have received his Informati- 
 on, I would have taken the pains to have fifted his Re- 
 
 B b 2 * por", 
 
( 374 ) . 
 poets, and tried the Ti unh ot his Stories : and that I 
 lapppfe he fore-favv, and feareJ. But feeing he hath cho- 
 Icn fo Jark a Path to walk in, to fecure himfelf from 
 being naccdy I think it fufficient at prefent to tell him, 
 firll, That if any who bear the Name of Quakers have 
 done as he reports of them, they have therein done 'very 
 wickedly and evilly^ and deferve as grcdt condemnation and 
 (hame^ as he himfelf does for thus belying them^ if they have 
 not fodone. But fecondly, for my own part, I do not 
 believe his Stories to be true, but that they are either 
 foraed by himfelf^ or taken upon trnft from others orf his own 
 temper, and thus caffc abroad with an evil defign to defame 
 the Quakers, and blaft the Reputation God has given 
 thcam. And therefore I fairly provoke my Adverfary to 
 give over Creeping^ and ftand up like a Man^ and to bring 
 forth his Proofs and make good his Charges againft the 
 Quakers^ if he be able: So I alfo make this juit Requefl 
 to my Reader, that he will not pre judge us for fuch 
 gromdUfs Reports, raifed or fpread abroad by our projef- 
 Jed and avowed Enemies, but will fufpend his Judgment 
 till he fees a Proof. \f I had a mind to retaliate my Ad- 
 verfary, I could do it very effectually, and give him a 
 large Catalogue otfcandalous and injamom Priefts *, but at 
 prefent I forbear, intending to let tht World fse I de- 
 fend a Caufe that has no need of fuch (hifts. 
 
 §. 29. I am now come to the Conclufion of each of my 
 Adverfaries Books, in which i find neither any thing re- 
 lating to the Subjed of the Controverfie, Tythes^ nor 
 ought elfe that deferves to be taken notice of. They 
 both take pains to juftifie the ill Language^ which the firfl; 
 Prieft gave in his Conference^ and indeed have fo far out- 
 done it fince, that that may comparatively be thought 
 modefi. 5ome few Inflances of which I gave before 
 (pag. q.) out of the Right of Tythes-^ a few more 1 will add 
 here out of the fame Book, that the Prieft may fee his 
 own Complexion^ as well at going off as coming on, viz. 
 The fe' Rebels in Religion^ pag. 15. Such wretched Pretenders 
 cii T. E. and his Crew^ pag. I 53. T. E's head fwimming 
 with repeated Revelation s^ pag. I 54. His Seditious Followers ^ 
 ipag, i8r. Thii ml licky way of immediate Teachings psgiSz, 
 
 Jgno^ 
 
K STi ) 
 
 Ignorance and Confidence can wfpire a raw Qii^kcr, pag. i 87. 
 
 jbotingFAllhoods Js fenfufs m thy ftlf^ p^g. Ipr. 'What 
 
 Jnfolence is it fcr this Novice^ p2g. 206. Would have di [co- 
 vered his Knavery in this falfe jijfatio'^^ pag. 2c8. Vaga- 
 bond Speakers^ pag. 225. 
 
 It is not to be wondred that he fhonld defend his Bro- 
 ther's «;//e^w/> ExpreHions, who knew himfclf {o deeply 
 guilty in the like kind. But whether it becomes either 
 one of them or the other, let the Reader judge. 
 
 The Author of the Right of Tythes fpends the greateft 
 part of his 5id Sedion (which is the ConLluHon of his 
 Book) in Flouting and Jeering, Deriding and Scoffing, 
 Difdaining and Scorning me ; but in all that \ fee no Ar- 
 gument (unlefs it be of a bid Caafe and Afmd) therefore 
 1 let it pafs. But he obferves that the former Pried had 
 faid, The Primitive Chriflians were cjaite different front the 
 Quakers, and that I had called it an old over-worn Objec- 
 tion : Whereupon he fay!-. The Qiiakeis may be afl)amcd to 
 let the ObjeElion grow old and over-worn^ before they have fi- 
 ther conftffed the "tntth^ or made fome fatiffa^tory Reply there- 
 tOy pag. 240. 
 
 But let him know, The Objcdion is over- worn with 
 being often replied to already ^ It is worn wuh being anfwer^ 
 ed over and over. So that the Priefts may rather be afliam- 
 ed to urge an Objedion tliac is fo over- worn with an- 
 fwering. Befides, he may remember that his Brother 
 Priell urged this Objedion with reference to a future de- 
 hate^ as Providence fhould give Occafion and j^ffi [lance (Confe' 
 renccy pag. lad) which I took notice of in my former An- 
 fwer, pag. 363. and gave as the Reafon why / xvould not 
 anticipate his wi)rk : But Providence^ it feems, has not yet 
 affjied him in that attempt \ and Indead, if he never begin 
 it till Providerice afijfts him, I never exped to Ae it. Not 
 only the Objedion, but himftlf alfo will ere then be old 
 and over- worn. But 1 perceive by this Pried, it was ex- 
 peded that I (hould forthwith have entred upon the work, 
 and have proved that the antient Chriflians had not this, 
 that and the other Rice: for he fays, pa^. 241. If he 
 (meaning me) can prove that th.'fe antient Chridians had no 
 difiinfl Order of Men^ no Sacrament^ no Catechidng^ &C. 
 
 ^nd fo goes on to reckon up a matter of ten NaV, with an 
 
 B b 3 Et 
 
( 376 ) 
 
 Et Cxtera^ for me to prove. Bud where all this while 
 was his Learning afleep, when he put his Opponent to 
 prove not only Negatives but EtC^fjerd's alfo ? Was this 
 like a Diffutanti His mind, it feems, was up in ih^ jol- 
 lity, lai4ghwg at the ijnorant Qitaker (as may be gathered 
 from his own words at the entrance of this Scdion) till 
 ke could not fee the j^hfiirduy\\Q ran into, but expos'd him- 
 felf to the laughter of others that are not more ferious 
 than himfelf. Nor did he perhaps perceive the grofs 
 ContradiEiion he brought forth in his Mirth^ when telling 
 his Brother the cccafion he took to fmile^ he fays it was, 
 To ohferve what rare EffeUs the hd^ipy ConjunBion of Ignorance 
 and Folly have produced in yntr jidverfary, (meaning me) 
 And yet a little after, adds, / am apt to hope^ when they 
 (the Quahrs) jhall fee how plainly the Ignorance and Afaltce^ 
 the Hypocrtfie and Mijiahs of this their hold Champion (mean- 
 ing me) are detdled^ they will begin to perceive^ that their 
 principles are not to he defended^ no not by the mofl politick 
 Equivocation and Sophifiry. 
 
 But are not the mofl politick Equivocation and Sophifiry 
 rare Effeds indeed of a Conjundion of Ignorance and Folly i 
 So rare I think that they were never yet known to pro- 
 CQ^^d from fuch a Conjundion. What unhappy Con- 
 junction was it then of Alirjh and fomewhat elfe that 
 produced thi^rare EjfcU in him, to make the mofl politick 
 Eq-:ivocaticn and Sophifiry the EffeEls of Ignorance and Folly, 
 But leaving him to recover himfelf I wi{| wipe of! an jif- 
 perfion which the other Prleft hath caft upon the Quakers -^ 
 which, having no relation to the Cafe of Tythes, I thought 
 fit to refer to this place, that I might not by inter-v^cav- 
 ing it (as he has done) with the fubjed of Tythes, in- 
 terrupt the Courfe of the preceding Difccurfe: and the 
 rather, becaufe, though he brings in his Cavil towards 
 the beginning of his Chapter of Tythes, pag. 300. he re- 
 peats it ia the Conclaiion of his Book, pag, 339. The 
 matter is this. 
 
 ^ The Author of the Conference^ amongfl: his many Abu- 
 fes, charged the Q^dkers with mif-applying that Text, 
 yer. 5. 3 r. The Prufis bear Rule by their Means, jAj nd be- 
 caufe I took no notice of it m my former Anfwer, he (in 
 his rindfcation^ pag. 300, 30!.) begins to i>//«/r and boafiy 
 
 as 
 
( 377 ) 
 as if I had therefore pafled it by, bccaufe 7* hiew neither 
 how to anfwer his Argnment^ nor vindicate the Reputation of 
 my own Party \ and that, not knowing how to exciije thify J 
 had pnt it into the Catalngve of minute Paffages. 
 
 Minute enough ie certainly is to be put into fucb a Ca- 
 talogue. BuE to let him fee he glories in a falfe Reafon, 
 I will give him the true Reafons why 1 did not think ie 
 deferved an Anfwer. Firft, becaufe he brought it in 
 with an idle Scory (as himfelf calls it, pag. 153.) of the 
 Invention of Guns and Powder, no way pertinent to the 
 fubjed he was upon, but a very filly digreffian from the 
 matter, which 1 have obferved frequent in him, and take 
 for an Indication of a difcompored Brain. Secondly, be- 
 caufe though he charged the Quakers with mif applying 
 that Text, Jer, <^, 31. yet he neither named any Quaker 
 by whom, nor any Book in which that Text was any v/ay 
 applied, or ^o much as at all mentioned : So that bis 
 Charge had neither Top nor Bottom, Head nor Tail. 
 Who then could have thought the Man h idle to ex|)ed 
 an Anfwer to fuch an idle Charge ! But now (in his f^/«- 
 dication, pag. ;oi.) he quotes, after sn odd manner, a 
 Tra^i (Co he /files it) called^ Some of the Quakers Princi- 
 flesy put forsh (he fay s) byKaac Penington, and the fecond 
 Quaker there (he tells us) ha4 this P^'Jf^ge. 
 
 But I can teil him there is no fuch Trdd: put forth by 
 Jfaac Fenington:^ although a Book there is beaiing this 
 Title, Some Principles of the ElcU People ofGodinfcorn call- 
 ed Quakers (which is a Colledion of fome parri-wuhr Paf- 
 fages, relating to our Principles, taken out of feveral 
 Books of divers Menj and publifhed together.) But nei- 
 ther was this put forth by Ifaac Penvigton^ although his 
 Name be to fome parts of it. This i take to be the Book 
 which the Priefl refers to : And though he cites no page 
 thereof, yet finding in the fith page that Pafi'age (I fup- 
 pofe) which he cavils at, \ wil] fet it down at large as it 
 there ftands. The Title of that page is this, Grounds and 
 Reafons why we deny the V/orld'^s Teachers \ And the third 
 Reafon is thus given, vi<,. ' They are fuch Priefts as 
 ' bear rule by their means, which was a horrible and 
 ' filthy thing committed in the Law, which the Lord fent 
 ' Jeremiah to cry out againfl ^ while we had Eyes and did 
 
 B b 4 ' not 
 
( ?78 ) 
 
 ^ not fee, we held up fuch Pritfls, but the Lord hath 
 ' opeiied our Eyes, and we fee them now in the fame 
 ' Eftate chac they were in, which Jeremiah cried out 
 ' again^, who did not bear Rule by his means •, and there- 
 ^ fore we deny them, Jer, 5. 31. This is thaE Paragraph 
 to a Syllable ^ ia which there is no Foundation for the 
 iPriefl's Cavil : for the Quaker doth nol fay (as the Prieft 
 fuggefts) that thofe Prieits, mencioned by Jeremiah^ did 
 bear Rule by their Eilates^ bus that thefe Priefts, whom 
 we deny, are fuch as bear Rule by their Means or Eftates. 
 Thofe Prieils, in the time of the Prophet Jeremiah^ did 
 bear Rule by means of the falfe Prophets : Tiiefe Priells 
 now a-days do bear Rule by means or help of thofe Eflaces 
 v/hich they get from the People. TW was an horrible 
 and filthy thing then : This is an horrible and filthy thing 
 now. For the horriblnefs and filthinefs of the thing muffc 
 not be rellrained to their bearing Rule by thofe particu- 
 lar means only, and no other: for if they had born Rule 
 by any other falfe and indlreU means, it would have been 
 an horrible and filthy thing, as well as it was in their 
 bearing Rule by means of the falfe Prophets. For the 
 only means by which the Priells of God ought to bear 
 Rule is the Spirit and Power of Gcd, the Vertue and In- 
 fluence of the divine Truth; and thofe Priefts that take 
 tipoa thera to bear Rule by any other means than this, 
 commie an horrible and filthy thing. Thus did thofe 
 Priefts in Jeremiahh time \ They bore Rule, not by means 
 of the divine Spirit and Power, not by means of the Hea- 
 venly Vertue and influence of Truth, but by other means, 
 vii., by means of the falfe Prophets, and therefore the 
 true Prophet cried out againft them. And thus do Priefts 
 now a-daysj They bear Rule, not by means of the Spirit 
 and Power of God; not by means of the divine Vertue 
 and Influence of Truth, but by other means, viz.. by means 
 of thofe Efiates which they get from the People, and 
 therefore do we, in the Name of the Lord, deny them. 
 Now it ismanifeil-, that the Author of that Book, cue 
 .of ^which this Paflage is taken, did not fay thaE thofe 
 Priefts Of old and thefe of Ute did both bear Rule by one 
 -^ and the fame means ; but the fcope and drift of his words 
 shere is to fnew, that they ^\^ both bear Rule h^ falfe and 
 
 mlm* 
 
( 379 ) 
 
 unlawful means: for he fays (in the place fore- quoted) 
 *• While we had Eyes and did not fee, we held up fuch 
 
 * Priells, but the Lord hath opened our Eyes, and we 
 ' fee them now in the fame Eflate that they were in, 
 
 * which Jeremiah cried out againfl, who did not bear 
 
 * Rule by his means. So that herein it is that he fhews 
 they agree \ in this it is that he draws the Comparifon be- 
 tween them, vi7i.. in that they did not hear Rule by Code's 
 means. In this they were both in the fame Eftate^ name- 
 ly, in that they did boch bear Rule by wrong means, al- 
 though they did not both bear Rule by one and the fame 
 wrong means. The Identity or Samenefs is not referred 
 to the f articular means by which they did and do bear 
 Rule, but to the Efiate which they were and are in, who 
 did and do bear Rule by indired: means. Therefore, ob- 
 ferve, He doth not fay, We fee them now bear Rule by 
 the fame means that they bore Rule by which Jeremiah 
 cried out again ft : but he fays, * We fee them now ia 
 ' ihtfame Eftate that they were in which Jeremiah cried 
 ' againft, who did not bear Rule by his (viz. God'is) 
 means; which was an Efiate of j^pofiacy and Degeneration^ 
 an Eftate of Alienation from God, and of RebelUun againft 
 him, uftrping to themfelves an Jmhority^ and bearing Rule 
 over the People, but not by God'is meansy not by thofc 
 means which God had appointed, viz. by the divine Ver-, 
 tue and heavenly Power of his holy Spirit, but having 
 recourfe to other means to get up, and to keep up a Do- 
 mination and Rule. Now although the means, by which 
 thofe Priefts then did, and thefe now do bear Rule, are 
 not Specifically the very fame ; yet are they one and the 
 fame in Nature, that is, they are both wrong means^ both 
 mlaxvful means y both fuch means as God neither appoint- 
 ed nor allowed, which is the Ground of their being dif- 
 claimed, and declaimed againft both by the Prophet of 
 old, and by us now. So that they are the famey in thaE 
 refpedt, in and for which they were and are difowned: 
 and in that part it is that the Comparifon lies *, with re- 
 fpect to that part the Parallel is arawn. Nor doth the 
 jillnfion to the Prophet's words ftridly tie the yilluder to 
 aa exacl Comparilon in every Point and Circumftance; 
 but it is fafficient-f that the Comparifon holds in that party up- 
 on 
 
(58o) 
 
 cn which the Argamnit is grounded. Now the Quakey\ Ar- 
 gument here againlt the Priefts is grounded on their bear- 
 ing Rule by faljeand indireB means, by fuch means as are 
 not God's Means: and thefe Priefts being compared (in. 
 this refpedt) wich chofe Priefts in Jeremiah'^ time, the 
 Comparifon is found to be true and good '^ fot thofe Priefts 
 then did bear Rule by means alike unlawful. And the 
 Prophet's crying out againft thofe Priefts thm for com- 
 mitting this horrible and filthy thing, doth juftifie the 
 Qnahfs in crying out againft thefe Priefts noWy for com- 
 iiiiting a thing of t\\t like Nature. By this time I doubt 
 not but I have fatisfied the Reader, that the Quakers do 
 neither mif interpret nor mif-apply that Text of the 
 Prophet, Jer. 5. 31. but that the Prieft has grcjly abufed 
 the OM.akcrs.f and manifefted an envious and foul mind, in 
 charging them hereupon wich fottif^ Ignorance^ and call- 
 ing them Cheats and Impoftors. And feeing the Prieft fays 
 in his Firidication^ pag. 933. Had T. E. cleared his Brethren 
 from the Imfoflure^ he had efft^ualiy convitied me ofvirulen- 
 cy ; 1 hope the ReatJer will here find my Brethren fo e/- 
 fcciually cleared from the Preft's fal/e Charge of Impofinre^ 
 that he win fee the Prieft effectually conviEled ofvirnUncy^ 
 fitn according to his own confellion. 
 
 But leaving that to the Reader's judgment, let me now 
 take the liberty to Expoftulate a little wi«h the Prieft, and 
 ask him why he did not anfwer thofe Grounds and Rea- 
 sons, which (in the Book before quoted, out of which 
 he ficVt this Pailage to cavtl at) the Quaker gave why we 
 fd^tr,'^ the World's Teachers ? He charges me with leav- 
 ing my Argumsra to catch at, or play upon a ff^ord or Phrafe^ 
 Vindicat. pag. 311. But has not he charged his own guik 
 upon me ? Has he not here catched at and plaid upon a 
 Word or Pharfe, and \ct the Arguments pafs untouched f 
 Again, his Brother Prieft fays, in another Cafe (though 
 without Caufe, as I have already ftiewed) The Quakers 
 may he afljamed to let the Ohje^iion grew old and over-won^ 
 before they have either confjfed the Truth^ or made fome fatis' 
 factory. Rtply thereunto^ Right of Tythes, pag. 240. ^ But 
 how long have thefe Objedions lain againft the Priefts ! 
 (it is little lefs than twenty years fince they were firft 
 printed) Mighl net they well be afiiamed (if they were 
 
 not 
 
( jSi ) 
 
 not pafl: fhame) who, in all this time, have neither con- 
 fefTed the Truth, nor made any Satisfaaory Reply to the 
 Objeaions ? This Priell could find in his heart to look a- 
 mong the Grounds and Rcafons there given, to fee if he 
 could find any thing to carp at ; but let whofo will an- 
 fwer them for him. He had not, it feems, Ingenuity enough 
 to confefs the Truth \ nor Courage enough to undertake a 
 Refiy to the Reafons. Nay, he did not fo much as at- 
 tempt to anfwtr that one reafon, out of which he took his 
 Cavil, viz.. That they are fnch Friefts oi hear Rule by their 
 Means, That they are indeed fuch, is too notcrius to be 
 denied : and according as their Means are greater or lefs, 
 fo do they bear more or lefs Rule over the People. What 
 Parifh is ic that knows not this by fad Experience? Yet 
 bath he neither confe/Ted the Truth of this, nor made 
 any (much lefs a fatisfadory) Reply thereunto. Belides, 
 in that very page, out of which he catched that word he 
 hath fo played upon, the Priefls are charged to be fuch 
 Shepherds that fetk for their Gain from their Quarters^ and 
 can never have enough^ which the Lord fern Jfaiah to cry eut 
 figainfl^ &:c. Ifa. 56. 11. They arc charged to he fnch 
 Shepherds that feek after the Fleece^ and clothe with the IVooly 
 and feed en the Fat^ which the Lord fent Ezekiel to cry out 
 againft^ &:c. Ezck. ^4. They are charged to he fnch Pro^ 
 phets and Priefts that Divine fur Money and Preach for Hire^ 
 which the Lord fent Micah to cry again ft ^ and whilft we pHt 
 into their Months^ they preached Peace to tis:^ bin now we do 
 not put into their A^omhs^ they prepare War againft tu^ M\c. 3. 
 II. May not thefePriefbs be afhamed to lee thefe Objec- 
 tions (and many more in the fame Book) lie near Twen- 
 ty Years againfl them, and neither^^^/<r/r the Truth, nor 
 make any fatufaElory Reply thereunto ? Kad it not been more 
 for this Priefl's Credit, to have endeavour'd, at leafl, to 
 remove thefe Objedions, by a fober Anfwer to the 
 Grundsand Reaibns in the fore-mentioned Book given, 
 than to catch at a word, as he has done, and only play upon a 
 Phrafe, to exercife upon it his ab^five Wtt and Snphiftry, as he 
 mofi: fafly charges me to have done ? But let this fuffice 
 to manifefl the Injuflice of thefe Priefls, in charging the 
 Quakers and me with thofe very things, which they them- 
 felves are fo deeply guilty of. 
 
 §. 30. Now 
 
( 3^2 ) 
 
 §. go. Now, for a Conclufion of this Treatile, I re- 
 commend to the Readers's diligent Obfervation, the fol- 
 lowing Particulars, as a brief Recapitnlation of the whole, 
 
 1 . That Tythes (or an exaifl tenth part) were never due 
 hy the L^ri? of Nature \ by the eternal^ moral Law ', That 
 there is no Eternal Reafon for that part, nor Internal Rec- 
 titnde in JC. 
 
 2. That -/^c'r^.^j^ij^'s^/t/i*/^ the Tythes of the Spoils to 
 Mdchiz.edic^ and Jacob's Moving togivet\\Q tenth part of 
 l)is Increafe to God, being both of them fpomaneous and 
 free Ads, are no obliging Frecedents to any to give Tythes 
 
 3. That Tythes are not now due by Venue of that Mofaick 
 l.*^ip,by which they once were due, that Law being peculiar 
 to the '^€wH)i Polity, and taken away by Ghrifl; at the ^'ii!^0' 
 iution of that Polity. 
 
 4. That Tythes were never commanded by Chrift Jefm to 
 he paid nnder the Gofpel^ nor ever demanded by any of the 
 ^pofiles^ or other iMiaiflers, in their time; That there- 
 h r.o DireElion^ no Exhortation^ in any of the Apoflolick 
 Eplftles, to the Churches then gathered, for the Payment 
 of Tythes either then, or in after times ; That there is no 
 tnention at all of Tythss (they are not fo much as named) 
 m any of the New-Teftament Writiugs, xvuh refptci to 
 Gcfpel-Ai,untenance, although the Maintenance of Gofpel- 
 MiaiHers be therein treated of. In a word, That Tythes 
 were not either demanded or paid in the firfi and purefi jiges of 
 the Chriftian Church. 
 
 5. That thofe Donations of Tythes which are urged by 
 the Priefts from Ethdwolf and others, were made by Pa- 
 fifts (not in their Civil^ but Religiom Capacity) and were 
 the EffeUs of the Corrnption of Religion. 
 
 €. That Tythes being claimed as due out of the Profits on- 
 lyy thofe Donors couid extend their Donations no further 
 than to the Tythes of thofe Profits that did belong ro them- 
 fejvesy and of which they were the right Ovpners. But the 
 prefent^ Profits not belonging to them, bus to the prefent 
 Occupants (who are as really the right Owners oithefe Pro- 
 fits that arife now^ as they then were of thofe Profits that 
 sLXokthen) and the fr^/iw^ Occupants, v^ho are the right 
 
 Owners 
 
(38?) • 
 
 Owf^srs of the prefem Profits, not having made any Doni- 
 tion of Tythes, it follows, that Tythej are not how dht by 
 vertfie of any Donation jrctn the right Owners, 
 
 7. That the Laws^ which have been made for the Pay- 
 ment of Tythes, not making nor intending to make the 
 Priefts a right to Tythes^ but fnffoftng they had a Kighc 10 
 Tythes before, if that Sufpofition prove to be falje (as it 
 plainly and evidently doth) and it now appears that in 
 very deed the Priefts had no right to Tythes be/ore^ then have 
 the Priefts no right to Tythes now by vertite of thofe Laws. For 
 thofe Laws not intending to make the Priefls a new Right, 
 but (by miftakc) i'ppoling they had an old out \ that old 
 one being tried and proved falfe^ they have now neither 
 old nor new. Thus it appears, that ths Priefts have no Eight: 
 to Tythes by the Law of God^ no Right to Tythes by the Gijt of 
 the right Owners^ no Right to Tythes by the Laws 0} the Land. 
 
 8. That Tyr/j^/, as taken in this Nation, are a very great 
 OppreJJion^ an unreafonabU and unequal Irapoficion. Vnrea^ 
 fonable^ in that, under pretence of taking the tenth 
 part of the Profit Sy the Priefts take the tenth part where 
 there is no Profit^ hui Lofs ^ in that, under colour of 
 taking the tench part of the Increafe^ they cake the 
 tenth part wliere there is no hcreafe^ but Decreafe-^ and 
 the fame Seed is tythed twice. Vnequal^ in refped both of 
 the Payers and of the Receivers. In refped of the Payers^ 
 in that the burden lies chiefly on the poor Farmers and 
 Hi4sbandmen^ and Men oigreateft Eflates pay leaft : So that 
 he that has ma?2y Thoajands a Year fcaice pays ib much 
 Tythes, as he that Rcms a Farm of fifty Pounds a year. 
 In refpect of the Receivtrs^ in that one Pi iell hath as much 
 as ten others. -For Tome of the Priefts engrofs to them- 
 felves the Tyrhes of three or four Parifhes, amounting to 
 pdHr or five hundred Pounds a Tear (and fome to more) 
 when as others are glad of a Ihiall Vicarage of thirty or 
 forty Pounds a year •, and fome are fain to play the Curates 
 for twenty Pounds a year, if they can get it. And yet 
 ihefe laft are oi much Priefts, as much Minifters, take as 
 much Pains, (to as little purpofe) are at good Men, and 
 perhaps as well Learned, as many of the others \ only 
 ihey are not able to make fo good Friends to the Bififjo^' 
 or the Patron, 
 
 9. Thar. 
 
' (?§4); 
 
 9. That Tythes being claimed by the Priefls au wages for Worky 
 it is the highefl Injufitce in the Priefls to take Tythes from the 
 Qiiakers, who neither fet the Friefts on worky nor like their 
 TPorky nor receive their work. 
 
 10. And laftly, ThaC Tythes are utterly inconfiflent with 
 the Go/pel ftate^ and with the Chriftian Religion, For Tythes 
 being a part of Ihe Ceremonial Law, and pecnUarly belong- 
 ing to the yewiflj Polity, which Chrifl came to end and 
 takeaway^ the continuing, or refloring of Tythes, is equal- 
 ly a denial that Chrifl is come in the Flelh^ as the continuing 
 or refloring of any other part of the Ceremonial Law (as 
 oi CircHmcifion^ bloody Sacrifices^ 6cc.) would be. 
 
 Thefe things I requeft every fober Reader to weigh wett^ 
 and conftder ferionfly of ; that he may no longer confent to 
 or aU in a thing ^o greatly dishonourable to our Lord Jefai 
 Chrifl^ and to the true Chriftian Religion ; but in patient 
 Suffering, contentedly fit down amongfl: them, who con- 
 fcientionfly refufing to pay Tythes, do Peaceably and Quietly^ 
 by apajffive Obedience, ^te/t to what Authority requires, 
 waiting in flUlnefs and patient Hope, till God fhall be plea- ' 
 fed to open further the Eyes of Princes, and incline their 
 Hearts to break this painful Toke^ and eafe the People of this 
 heavy brnden, under which the Nation groans* 
 
 FINIS. 
 
BOOKS Trinted and Sold by the ^Jfigns 
 of y Sowlc, at the Bible in George - 
 Yard in Lombard-ftreet, lyao. 
 
 TH E Spirit of che Martyrs Reviv'd, in a brirf Com- 
 pendious Colledlion of the mofl: remarkable Paflages 
 and Livrng Teflimonies of the True Churchy Seed oi COD^ 
 and FatthfHl Martyrs in All Ages: Contained in feveral 
 Ecclefiaftical Hiftories, and Chronological Accounts, of the 
 Sitcceffion of the True Church, from the Creatto?j^ the 
 Times of the F^hers^ PatrUrchsy Prophets^ Chrift and the 
 j4poftles, 8vo. 3d Edit, price 5 s. 
 
 A Journal of the Life, Travels, SufTerings, and La- 
 bour of Love in the Work of the Miuiftry, of that wor- 
 thy Elder, and Faithful Servant of Jefus Chrilt, IViIiiam 
 Edmimdfcn^ price 3 s. 
 
 Truch Triumphant, through the Spiritual Warfare, 
 Chriflian Labours and Writings of that Able and Faithful 
 Servant of Jefus Chrift, Robert Barclay^ In 3 Vol 11 s, 
 
 Lavideis, The Life ofD^WKing of Ifrael : A Sacred 
 Poem. In Five Books. By Thorns Ellwood^ price 2s:6d. 
 
 A Journal, or Hiftorical Account of the Life, Tra- 
 vels, Sufferings, Chriftian Experiences, and Labour of 
 Love in the Work of the Minillry, of that Ancient, Emi- 
 nent and Faithful Servant of Jefus Chrift, George Fjx\ 
 The Second Edition, in two Volumes, price 10 /. 
 
 A Colledion of many Seled and Chriftian Epiftles, 
 Letters and Teftimonies, written on fundry Occalions, 
 by that Ancient, Em.inent, Faithful Friend and Miaiftcr 
 of Jefus Chirft, George Fox^ price to /. 
 
 The Works. of William Dell, Minifter of the Gofpel, 
 and Mafter of GonvH and Cains Colledge in Cambridge, All 
 reprinted in 1 Vol. 8vo. price 5 s. 
 
 The Works of the Long Mournful and Sorely Diftref- 
 fed Ifaac Pennington^ whom the Lord in his tender Mercy 
 at length vilited and relieved, by the Miniftry of that def- 
 pifed People, called Quakers ; and in the fpringings of 
 that Light, Life and Holy Power in him, which ihey had 
 truly and faithfully teftified of, anddireclcd his Mind to, 
 were thefe things written, and nowpublifhed as a thank- 
 ful 
 
BOOKS Printed and Sold hy the JJJtgns 0/ J. Sowle. 
 
 ful Teflimony of the goodnefs of the Lord to him, and 
 tor the Benefit of oihers. In Folio, price 10 s. 
 
 The Glorious Brightnefs of the Gofpel-Day, Difpel- 
 ling the Shadows of the Legal Difpenfation : and what- 
 foever elfe of Human Invention hath been fuper-added 
 thereunto. Set forth, in fome Obfervations made on d 
 Jate Phumplet called a Divine Treatife^ (written by way of 
 Ejfay^ and pretending to Demonftrate, according to the 
 M^fiical PhUofophjy that Water- Baftifm^ Impofition of Hands ^ 
 and the Commemoration of the Death and Paffion of our 
 ever Blefled Lord and Saviour, under the Species of Bread 
 and Wine, were all of them fuitably and Homo-generally 
 adapted to the prefent imperfeft State of Nature, as Man 
 coniifts of Body, Soul and Spirit,) By Thomas EUwoodj 
 price is. 
 
 A New Difcourfe of Trade, wherein is Recommended 
 feveral weighty Points relating to the Companies of Mer- 
 chants. The Aifl of Navigation, Naturalization of Strang- 
 ers, and our Woollen Manufadures. The bailance of 
 Trade, &c. By Sir Jofiah Child^ price bound 2 /. 
 
 Popery Expofed by its own Authors, and Two Romifh 
 Champions Check'd^ for their hot and rafh Onfets and At- 
 tempts againft the People called Quakers : Being an An- 
 fwer to the large Demands and falfe Accufations, Aflerti- 
 ons and Dodtrines contained in the feveral Manufcripts of 
 James Watmough of Blackroad in Lancajhtre^ and his Abet- 
 tor Af^rr^fW Hall^ Papifis-^ approved of (as they report) 
 by fome of their Ghoftly Fathers (as they call them.) And 
 herein is alfo a Defence of fome printed Books, formerly 
 written by Francis HowgiU^ (one of the People called Qua' 
 hrs) Deceas'd, concerning which the faid J. W. hath 
 written, as is in this Treatife manifefled. By Henry 
 Moliineuxl pt'lCQ i s. 6 d. 
 
 Piety Promoted, in a Colledion of Dying Sayings of 
 many of the People called Qiiakers. With a Brief Ac- 
 count of fome of their Labours in the Gofpel, and Suffer- 
 ings for the fame. The Fourth Part. By John Feild, i /. 
 
 Piety Promoted, in a Colledion of Dying Sayings of 
 many of the People calFd Quakers. With fome Memori- 
 als of their Virtuous Lives. The Fifth Part. The Second 
 Edition. By John Feild^ price i s. 
 
'J*.'r^-<i' -•TSST'iTXSSS- 
 
 ***** 
 
 f^W 
 
 y-cecc^ccctf^eictitft^ccr.circt&ifi 
 
 wm