Truth prevailing and detecting error, or, An answer to a book mis-called, A friendly conference between a minister and a parishioner of his, inclining to Quakerism, &c. by Thomas Ellwood.

CHAP. IX. Of Tythes. (Book 9)

I Am now come to the Priests Delilah, the very Darling and Minion of the Clergy, TYTHES; which were wont to be claimed as of Divine Right: but I do not find this Priest hardy enough to adventure his Cause upon that Title. No; though he pretends to be a Minister of the Gospel, yet he takes the Law for the surer holding, and therefore betakes himself chiefly to that. Yet some∣thing he would say for the other too, though not so much from himself as others. Let me tell you, sayes he, that those that insist upon the Divine Right of Tythes (as much as to say, I do not) derive them not from Levi, but Melchizedeck. It is then inquirable, Whether or no Tythes were ever due to Melchizedeck That which should make them due, must be a Command. They were not due to the Levitical Priesthood, until they were commanded to be paid; but after they

were commanded to be paid, they be••••me due: and so long as that Command stood ••n force, it was an Evil to detain them. But we do not find, througho••t the Scriptures, any Command from God, that Ty••h••s should be paid unto Melchizedeck. With what Reason then can any affirm ••hat Tythes were due unto him? That he did once receive Tythe of Abraham, I grant; but that it was not a proper Debt or just Due belonging to him, and which Abraham had done Evil in detaining, I offer these Reasons to prove; First, That Moses sayes expres∣ly, He gave him Tythes:* 1.1 He does not say, He paid him Tythes; but He gave him Tythes: which the Apostle referring to,* 1.2 useth al∣so the same Phrase, To whom al∣so Abraham gave a Tenth Part; and again,* 1.3 Vnto whom even the Patriarch Abraham gave the Tenth, &c. To gave, we know, imports one thing; to a•• another. But if Tythes had been really and properly d••e from Abra∣ham to Melchizedeck it is not probable that both these holy men would have said he gave Tythes, but that he paid Tythes. 2. That if Tythes had bin due from Abraham to Melchi∣zedeck

according as they are now demanded, which must be proved before a Divine Right to them, as they are now demanded, can be derived from Melchizedeck) then must A∣braham have paid Melchizedeck Tythes of all his Substance, of all that be possessed. But no such thing appears at all. We do not read that Abraham gave him Tythes of his own Estate: but that which he gave him the tenth of was the spoyles, which he had reco∣vered from the Kings that had plundered So∣dom, Hebr. 7.4. compared with Gen. 14. But 3. The Occasion of Abraham's thus gi∣ving the tenth of the Spoyle to Melchizedeck seems to be altogether Accidental. Abra∣ham returning from the Battel, the King of Sodom came forth to meet him, to congratu∣late his Victory; Melchizedeck also came fo••th, and brought Abraham a Present of Bread and Wine, to refresh him and his Sol∣diers after the Fight, and withal blessed him: So that Abraham's giving him the tenth of the Spoyles, may well be taken for a Thank∣ful Acknowledgment, and Return of Kind∣ness to Melchizedeck, and the rather, seeing he had before determined▪ not to keep any of the Booty to his own Use, and therefore when he had given the tenth to Melchizedeck▪ he returned all the rest to the King of Sodom,

reserving only to his Confederates their parts, Gen. 14.2••, 24.

But the Priest would insinuate, That this was not a Voluntary Gift of Abraham's, but that he paid it as a Tythe, pag. 135.

Answ. If Abraham was not required to pay it, then surely it was a voluntary Gift of him. If he will say, it was required of Abraham, let him shew the Command by which it was required; otherwise his Affirmation is of no force. Besides, he cannot plead (I mean rationally) that Tythes were due to Melchi∣zedeck upon a Right founded in natural Iustice and Equity; since there was not in those dayes any setl••d publick Worship, wherein he could perform any outward Priestly Office or Service, for which Tythes might have been a Compe••sation. Nor do I find any one instance (this single Gift of A∣braham's excepted) of giving or receiving, much less of demanding or paying Tythes, in all that space of Four Hundred Years and more, between this time of Abraham and the Levit••cal Priesthood. If Tythes were then due, how chance Abraham paid them not duly? Nay, how shall the Patriarchs be acquitted, of whom we read not that they paid any at all. ••ut if Tythes were not due to Melchizedeck (which whether they were

or no, I leave to the Reader, from what hath been said, to judge) certainly ••o Right thereto can be derived from him to any other. Nay further, If Tythes had been due to Mel∣chizedeck, yet could not the Clergy of this Age derive any Right from him to them, in∣asmuch as they are not of his Priesthood. For certain it is, that he was not made a Priest after the Law of a Carnal Commandment, but after the Power of an Endless Life. But every one knows, that these men are made Priests after the Law of a Carnal Command∣ment. These therefore, not being of Mel∣chizedeck's Priesthood, could have no colou∣rable Pretence to Tythes from him, if Tythes had ever been due to him. And this the Priest (being in some things a wary man, as much overseen as he is in others) might not improbably fore-see, which made him at first so shye of adventuring his Cause upon that Issue.

But if he has no Right from Melchizedeck, to be s••re he has none from Levi: for he says expresly (pag. 133.) To affirm that the Cler∣gy now claims their Tythes by Vertue of the Ceremonial Law, is a most wretched Vntruth; for (sayes he) we disown all such Titles to them. So that hereby he has saved me the

Pains of proving the Levitical Law for Tythes abrogated, since whether it be or no, he does (for himself and all his Brethren) disclaim any Title by it.

But then he starts a Question, Whether Tythes are not purely Ceremonial, and so abo∣lished by Christ? His Answer is, Tythes can∣not b•• call••d purely Ceremonial, because paid by Abraham to Melchizedeck Four Hundred Years before the Law, &c.

Answ. That Tythes were not paid by A∣braham to Melchizedeck, but given, and that but once, and that too upon an Acciden∣tal Occasion, nor then out of his own proper Estate (but out of the Pillage of Sodom, which he by the Sword had recovered from the Plunderers) I think I need not stick to say I have already proved. But suppose it had been otherwise; imagine Tythes to have been paid by Abraham to Melchizedeck as due, yet would not his Reason at all hold, That they are therefore not purely Ceremonial, because paid before the Law. For that were to suppose, that nothing that was done before the Law was actually given, was purely ce∣remonial, wherein how greatly he deceives himself, I have already shewed (by the In∣stances of Circum••••sion and Sacrifices) in

the Chapter of Swearing, where the Reader may find the Weakness of the Argument more fully discovered. But observe, what in the next words, he granteth concerning it.

That the exact Tenths of the holy Land should be brought in ki••d to Jerusalem, and paid there, was (••aith he) Ceremonial, and confin'd to the legal Dispensation.

Answ. But in what could the Ceremonia∣lity lie, more then in the very Tenth it self (for as to bringing it in kind to Ierusalem, that they were not strictly tied to, but had Liberty to turn it into Money, and when they came there to lay out that Mo••ney in whatsoever their Heart desired) and if its being an exact Tenth made it Ceremonial,* 1.4 then its being an Exact Tenth must needs have made it as much Ceremonial both before and since.

But not to insist long on the Disproof of that, which he dares not undertake at all to prove, namely the divine Right of Tythes, I conclude thus, That the Payment of Tythes having never (that appears) been commanded by God to any Person, or in any time, save on∣ly by the Levitical Law, no man can justl••

plead a divine Right to Tythes, since that Law was abrogated.

Not finding any sure Footing for Tythes upon a divine Right, he urgeth that Main∣tenance in general to the Ministers of the Gos∣pel, is Iust, Reasonable, and established by a Divine Authority (and this he doth in order to prove a humane and temporal Right) for which he quotes 1 Cor. 9. and Gal. 6.6.

Answ. That a Maintenance in general to the Ministers of the Gospel is Iust, Reasona∣ble, and established by a divine Authority, I grant: But the Intent of the Apostle in those Scriptures which the Priest hath quoted, is not so much to set forth what the Mainte∣nance is, as who they are from whom it is to be received, namely, such as receive their Ministry, such as believe them to be true Mi∣nisters, such as are taught by them, such as are fed by them, such as are planted by them, &c. This appears in the several Instances, The Ox that trod out the Corn (in the time of the Law) was not to be muzzeled, but was to be fed by him whose Corn he trod out, but it was not agreeable to the Equity of that Law that while the Ox trod out Corn for one Man, another should be bound to keep him, that had

been unreasonable. The Apostle argues from a Souldier, a Planter, an Herdsman: Who (saith he) goes a Warfare at anytime at his own Charge? Who plants a Vineyard, and eats not of the Fruit thereof? or who feeds a Flock and eats not of the Milk of the Flock? Consi∣der now, at whose Charge ought the Souldi∣er to go, but at his for whose defence he fights? He that plants a Vineyard, may eat of the Fruit, but it must be of the Fruit thereof, that is, of the Fruit of that Vineyard which he hath planted: So he that feeds a Flock may eat of the Milk, but it must be the Milk of the Flock which he feeds. If (saith the Apostle) we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? No, because he had first sown unto them; they had received of him, and therefore he might well expect to receive of them. This still shews that the Ministers of the Gospel are not to reap carnal things of any but those to whom they have first sowed spiritual things. To the same Purpose is that to the Galatians, Let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teacheth in all good things; hence it is plain, that he that teach∣eth can expect this Communication of good things from none, but them that are taught by

him: All therefore that can be inferred from these Instances will amount to no more then this, First, That a Gospel-Minister may ex∣pect and receive a Gospel-Maintenance from such as receive his Ministry. Secondly, That a Gospel-Minister ought not to expect any Maintenance from those that do not receive his Ministry. But what this Gospel-Main∣tenance is, is expresly set down by Christ himself,* 1.5 when he said to his Disciples, Eat such things as are set b••fore you. Eat and drink such ••••i••gs as they give; for the Workman is worthy of his Meat, &c. And this is the very Maintenance which, in the Place fore-quoted by the Priest (1 Cor. 9.) the Apostle asserts he had Power to receive (Have we not Power to eat and to drink, &c. ver. 14.) And again, Having Food (saith he) and Raiment let us therewith be content. This was thought enough in that Day. Thus they who then preacht the Gospel lived of the Gospel; and if these men were in∣deed Ministers of the Gospel they also would be content with this; but this will not satisfie my greedy Adversary, nothing less then Tythes will serve his turn.

He saith (pag. 146) The Gospel commands

a Maintenance be provided for the Ministry, and the Civil Powers and Nursing-Fathers of the Church, have set out Tythes for that Maintenance, so that (saith he) if Tythes were not due by a divine appointment, they are now due by a Voluntary Dedication of them.

Answ. He doth not seem to regard how he comes by them, so he may have them. If the Gospel will not give them to him, he will try what humane Law will do, and if he can get them that way it is all one to him ('Tis suffici∣ent saith he, that our Tythes are setled by the same Laws that your Lands are, page 138.) Though Christ deny them, yet if Men will grant them, it will serve his turn as well, which shews him to be a Minister of Man, not of Christ. If (saith he) Tythes were not due by a Divine Appointment, they are now due by a Voluntary Dedication of them. But how (saith the Parishioner) doth any such Volun∣tary Dedication appear? O! saith he, you need not scruple this Point, would you but give your self the Pains of consulting Antiquaries, or Church-Histories, especially that famous Charter of King Ethelwolfe set down at large by Ingulfe, where you will find the whole Hi∣story of the thing, &c. I am apt, replies the Parishioner, to believe what you say, without any 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Inquisition into the thing. Here's

a Parishioner now! Oh, if he could but get all his Parishioners to be of this Mind, what a petty Pope would he be! But, Reader, that we may not be as fondly Credulous as the Pa∣rishioner, let us a little examine this Volun∣tary Dedication of Tythes, and see how suit∣able it will be for a Gospel-Maintenance to a Christian-Ministry.

He grounds his Claim upon the famous Charter (as he calls it) of King Ethelwolfe, which is so variously reported by Historians, that few agree in the Words; or S••bstance of it, some seeming to restrain it to the Tythes of his own Demeasne Lands only; others to the tenth Part of his Land * 1.6 ••ome to his Kingdom of West Saxony * 1.7 only; othere extend it to all England. But not to insist on things so doubtful, let us en∣quire who this Ethelwolf was, what his Education & Religi∣on, whom he granted this Char∣ter ••o▪ & what were the motiv••s that induced him thereunto.

Our Countryman Speed tells us, That Ethelwolf was the eldest Son of Egbert the Saxon that in his Youth he was committed to the Care of Helmestan Bishop of Winchester, and by him to Swithan a learned Monk of that time, that he took upon him the Vow and Profession of a Monk, was made a Deacon, and shortly after Helmestan dying, was consecra∣ted (at least elected) Bishop of Winchester in his stead, but that after the Death of his Father, by the Intreaty of the Nobles, and Constraint of the Clergy, he was made King, being absolved of his Vows by Pope Gregory the fourth, that about the time of this Grant (which wa•• about the Year eight hundred fif∣ty five) he went him••elf in great D••votion to Rome, abode there a whole Year, co••firm∣ed his former grant of Peter Pence, covenan∣ted furt••er to pay yearly Three Hundred Marks (a great Sum in those Days to Rome, so be thus imployed, One Hundred Marks to St Peter's Church, another hundred to Saint Paul's Light, and the third to the Pope, these Two Hundred Marks a Year that were given to St. Peter's Church, and St. Paul's Light, were to buy Oyl to fill all the Lamps in those Places, and keep them burning. This may be sufficient to shew what the Education and

Religion of this Tythe-giver was. The next Question is, To whom he granted this Char∣ter of Tythes? This must unavoidably be the Popish Clergy, that being his own Religion, and there being at that time no other publick Ministry, or Priesthood for him to give them to, and for the Motives inducing him thereun∣to, the very Words of the Charter are, Pro remissione Animarum et Peccatorum ••estroru••, i. e. For the good of our Souls, and the for∣giveness of our Sins, which shews it to be an Effect of that Popish Doctrine, of meriting Salvation by good Works, and that he granted this, as an Expiation for his Sins.

Here now Reader, thou maist see, what he was, whom this Priest calls a Nursing-Fa∣ther of the Church, and what Church it was he nursed; He was bred a Monk, made a Dea∣con, then a Bishop, absolved from these Vows by the Pope, went in great Devotion to Rome, gave there an Hundred Marks a Year to buy Oyl to keep the Lights burning in St. Peter's Church (as they call it) another Hundred for the same Vse to St. Paul's, and a third to the Pope, and granted this famous Charter (as the Priest calls it) for Tythes to the Idolatrous Priests of the Church of Rome, as an Expia∣tion for his Sins, and a means to merit Hea∣ven,

according to the impious Doctrine of that Idolatrous Church, and yet this is the Basis or Foundation, that my Opponent (a pretended Protestant, and one that would be taken for a Minister of Christ) hath laid whereon to build his Claim to Tythes, as a Gospel Main∣tenance, namely, The famous Charter of King Ethelwolfe, to which he ascribes ••o•• great Virtue and Efficacy, that he saith, If Tythes were not due by a divine Appointment, they are now due by a voluntary Dedication of them. How suitable this Dedication of them is to be pleaded and insisted on by a Prote∣stant Minister (not to say a Minister of the Gospel) in respect both of the Person, dedi∣cating, the Persons to whom, and the End for which the Dedication was made, let every true Protestant judge.

To manifest yet further the Corruption of that time, and Apostacy of that Church, I will here add what the Clergy on their Part undertook in Consideration of the said Char∣ter to perform, accord••ng as I find it set down by Spelman (in his Britti••h Councils) out of Malmsbury and Mat•• Westminster, It plea∣s••d a••so (saith Malmsbury) Alhstan and Swithin, the Bishops of the Churches of Shir∣burne and Winchester, with their Abbots,

and the Servants of God, to appoint that upon the Wednesday in every Week, all our Brethren and Sisters at every Church, should sing fifty Psalms, and every Priest say two Masses, one for King Ethelwolf, and another for his No∣bles that consented to this Gift, for a Reward, and f••r an Abatement of their Offences (Pro mercede et refrigerio delictorum suorum, are the Words: Mat Westm. hath Salu••e instead of Mercede) and that they should say for the King so long as he lived, Oremus D••us qui justificas; for his Nobles also while they lived, Presende Domine, but after they were dead, for the Deceased King by himself, and for the deceased Nobles in common: And be this as firmly appointed during all the Days of Christianity, as that Liberty is appointed, so long as Faith encreasith in the Nation••, the English

And these things (saith Ingulf speaking of the Charter) were done at Winchester in the Church of St. Peter, in the Year of our Lord's Incarnation 855. the third Indiction on the Nones of November, before the great Altar, for the Honour of Mary the glorious Virgin and Mother of God, and of St. Michael the Arch Angel, and of the Prince of the Apostles St. Peter, as also of

our holy Father Pope Gregory.

Malmesbury adds, And of all Saints. And the Charter (saith Ingulf) King Ethelwolf offered upon the Altar of St. Peter the Apostle.

But then▪ saith the Parishioner) they were given in a blind and superstitious Zeal, which makes all void to us: This, saith the Priest, is another mistake, for Tythes being given to God for the Maitenance of his Ministry, no Blemish in the Dedication of them can alter their Property, page 146.

Answ. Here he begins to speak plain (per∣haps before he was aware) He tells us, That by this Dedication Tythes were given unto God for the Maintenance of his Ministry. I have shewed before that they were given for the Maintenance of the Popish Clergy; for there was not at that time any other publick Ministry for them to be given to. Now then, when he shall say they were given to maintain God's Ministry, can any other Construction be made of his Words, then that he calls that I∣dolatrous Priesthood of the Church of Rome, God's Ministers. Next, though it appears they were given by Papists to Papists, for Popish Service (that is in plain Pro∣testant English, by Idolaters, to Idolaters, for Idolatrous Ends) yet he will not allow

that they were given in a blind & superstitious Zeal, no, that's a Mistake, he saith here; and again, page 147. speaking of those Pa∣pists that gave Tythes in an ignorant Zeal, he adds in a Parenthesis, as some suppose, but we do not grant. So th••n it seems the Papists Zeal in providing this Maintenance for those that were to perform their Idolatrous Wor∣ship, was not a blind, and ignorant, & Ido∣latrous Zeal. Is this fit Language for a Pro∣testant-Preacher's Mouth? What Zeal is that I pray, that upholds Idolatry, by main∣tainin•• Idolaters? Is not that a superstitious blind Zeal? And can any hearty P••pres••ar•• ••••ny that to be the End of those Donati∣ons.

But he saith, That no Elem••sh in the Dedi∣cation of them can 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their Property.

Answ. I perceive then he is for having all he can get, be it dedicated by whom it will, or b••••r it will he wants noth••ng but Power, to re∣vive all the old Donations of the Papists, given in the mid••ight dark••s•• of Popery, to redeem th••ir Souls ••ut of a supposed Purgatory; nay so g••neral i•• hi•• Asserti••n (No Blemish, &c.) that no••hing once d••dicated by whomsoever, would seem to come amiss to him; not the Offer∣••ngs of the Gentiles to their Heathenish Dei∣ties,

not the Endowments of the Turks to their Mahumetan Priests, nor yet the Thirty Pie∣ces of Silver (The Price of Innocent Blood) had Iudas chanced to have dedicated it, would upon this Position, have been unwelcome to this man, could he once but have got them into Possession.

To make good his Assertion, he offers a parallel Case (as he calls it) in Scripture, That (sayes he) which comes nearest is the Case of Two Hundred and Fifty Men, who offered Incense; yet there was a vast Diffe∣rence between them: the Two Hundred and Fifty offer'd in a Stubborn Rebellious Manner, and these in an Ignorant Zeal (as some sup∣pose, but we do not grant) p. 147.

Answ. Observe, Reader, that this Case of Corah, Dathan and Abiram, with the Two Hundred & Fifty Men offering Incense, is brought to parallel the Dedication of Tythes, by which he sayes they are now due. The two hundred and fifty offered (he says) in a stubborn rebellious Manner, and he calls it a Damnable Sin; yet makes that a parallel Case to this of offering Tythes, and sayes, it comes most near it. Has he not found out a pretty Parallel) Has he not matcht his Case well?

But that (sayes he) which will give us most Light into our present Case, are the Ce••sers which were so offered, which you will find, not∣withstanding that D••mnable Sin committed in the Consecration of them; yet because they were offered to God, they were not to be al••••na∣ted to common Vses, Numb. ••6.37.

Answ. There was a particular Reason gi∣ven, why the Censers should be taken up and kept, na••ely, to be as a Sign and Memorial, and as a Warning unto the Children of Israel, that no Stranger in time to come, who was not of the Seed of Aaron, should adventure to offer Incense before the Lord▪ lest he should speed as Corah and his Company had done, Vers. 40. Yet thought they were thus taken up, they were not permitted to be used, or imployed in that Service, to and for which they were dedicated or consecrated; but be∣ing wrought out into broad Plates, the Pro∣perty of them was altered before they were allowed to be used.

But he goes on: From hence (says he) you may learn how dangerous a thing it is to m••dd•• with any thing that hath been given to God.

Answ. I need not, I suppose, tell the Im∣propriators, that this concerns them; for it is obvious, that if because Tythes have

been dedicated (as he sayes) to God, it is unlawful to alienate them to Common Uses, then it must needs b•• unlawful for them to hold their Im••ro, nations be••a••se they were offered in like manner as the rest of the Tythes were But let them look to them∣selves Were n••t all the ••bbey Lands and the Revenues belonging to the Religious Houses (as in the time of Popery they were called) offered also to God as well as Tythes? And yet have not all (or most) of these been alienated to Common Vs••••? By whom was this Alienation made? ••as it not by some or other of his N••••••ing-Fathers? And will this Priest, like a sau••y and unthankful Son, take upon him to censure the publick Acts of his Nursing-Fathers, to whom he ow•• ••he Maintenance he has? But ye whose Ance∣stors did at first buy these Lands from the Crown, and into whose Possession they are now come, either by Descent or Purchase, what think ye of this? Are ye satisfied with his Plea, and willing to resign? Ye hear what he sayes, That no Blemish in the Dedication of them can alter their Property, and that (from the Parallel of the Censers) be∣cause they were offered to God, they were

not to be alienated to Common Vses. Nay, he tells you, Hence you may learn how Dan∣gerous a thing it is to meddle with any thing that hath been given to God. And do you think, that if he had Power, you should not hear of this after another Manner? 'Tis not to be doubted, but he that now tells you, they should not have been alienated, will be as ready, if Oportunity serve, to let you know that what should not have been Alienated, must be Restored. But leaving this to your Con∣sideration, that which I shall observe is, that Tythes, and other such like Oblations (not∣withstanding what ••e say•• to the contrary) are alienable, and in this Nation have been legally alienated to Common Uses.

In his Margin he sayes, Factum valet, quod fieri non debuit, i e. That which ought not to be done, is notwithstanding of force (or binding) when it is done.

Answ. 1. I must tell him, his Saying will not hold true in all Ca••es: I instance in that of Herod's Oath (by which Iohn Baptist lost his Head) which as it should not have been taken, so neither ought it to have been kept when taken. 2. Though by this he would infer, that Tythes, being offered & dedicated,

ought to be upheld, which his Factum valet imports; yet he thereby implicitly (and unaware••) acknowledges, that they ough•• not to have been off••r••d or d••dicated at all, which his fieri non d••bu••t implies.

But after all this, he has the Confidence to say, that Tythes had not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Institution from Popery; for sayes he, Tythes were set∣led upon the Church before Popery had made her Incroachments in it, p. 148.

Answ. If he had any Charter or Settle∣ment of Tythes of old••r date th••n that of E∣thelwolf (which was about the year 855.) he should have produced it, and probably so he would. However, since he did ••ut, I have no Reason to think he has any elder. But if he means, that Ethelwolf, who gave this Charter, was not himself a Papist, that the Times he lived in were not Popish, or that Popery had not then made her Incroachments upon the Church, I must then remind my Reader of that Character which our Coun∣try-man Spred out of Hov••d••n, Hunting∣ton, Malmsbury, Mat. Westminster, and o∣thers) gives us of him: He sayes expresly, Ethelwolf was bred up by Swithin the Monk, that he took upon him the Vow and Profession of a Monkish Life; that he was absolve•• ••••d

discharged of his Vows by the Authority of Pope Gregory the fourth, whose Creature (saith Speed) he was in both Professions; That he went himself in great Devotion to Rome; that being there he confirmed his grant of Pe∣ter-Pence, and further covenanted to pay yearly Three Hundred Marks to Rome, whereof One Hundred to St. Peter's Church, One Hun∣dred to St. Paul's Light, and One Hundred to the Pope. And after all this is not Ethelwolf a Papist? then it may be Gregory the fourth was not a Pope neither, although (according to Platina) he was the thirty seventh from Gregory the great.

Or will he say, that in the Time of Ethelwolf Popery had not made her Encroachments in the Church? What he will call Encroachments I know not, but this I find, that well near an Hundred Years before that Charter of Ethel∣wolf was granted, Pope Zacharias the first took upon him to absolve the French from their Oath of Al∣legiance,* 1.8 and deposing Childerick King of France, set up Pipin in his stead.

But seeing he saith that Tythes were setled upon the Church be∣fore Popery had made her Incroachments in it

(referring to Ethelwolfe's Charter for the Setlement) and withal tells us what he means by Popery, namely, such Doctrines, and Superstitious Practices, which by the Cor∣ruption of time, have prevailed in the Church of Rome, contrary to the True, Ancient, Ca∣tholick and Apostolick Church, page 149. Let us a little enquire whether any such Doc∣trines, or Practices had indeed prevailed in the Church at the time of this Grant or before.

The time of the Grant Spelman in his Brittish Councils sets down to be in the Year Eight Hundred Fifty Five: More then Two Hundred and Fifty Years before this, came over Austin the Monk with his ••••rain from Rome. That many Corruptions both in Doctrine and Practice, were before this time crept into the Church of Rome, is clear from History, and that Austin brought them over hither with him, is not to be doubted. The Vse of Holy Water to drive away Devils,* 1.9 is said to be insti∣••uted by Alexander the first. The Consecration of Chrism once a Year, by Fabianus. That all should stand up at the reading of the Gospel (as they call it) by Anastasius. That Wax Tapers should be con∣secrated

on the Holy Sabbath, by Zozimus That Processi••ns should be made on Sundays (as they speak) by Agapetus; All which were long before Austin the Monk came over. But whether this Priest be Protestant enough to call these things Popish Corruptions, and Superstitions, I know not. Let us go on still towards the time of Ethelwolfe's Charter, on which he grounds his Settle∣ment of Tythes.* 1.10 Pope Con∣stantine the first (about the Year Seven Hundred) called a Council, wherein was dec••eed, That the Images of the Fathers should be painted ••pon the Wall of St. Peter's Church Porch. His Successor Pope Gregory the se∣cond, when the Emperor Leo the third, to remove the Cause of Idolatry, set forth an Edict, Commanding that all Statu•••• and Images of Saints,* 1.11 Martyrs and Angels should be wholely ta∣ken away out of their Churches, openly with∣stood the Emperor's Edict, and saith Fasciu••us Temporum, did anathematize the Emperor to boot. And Pope Gregory the third, who came next after, not only called a general Co••ncil to

establish the worshipping of Images, but also took upon him to excom∣municate the Emperor,* 1.12 and which is yet more to depose him. Za¦charias the next Pope took upon him not only to absolve the French from their Oath of Alle∣giance,* 1.13 but also to depose Childe∣rick the French King, and set up Pipin in his Stead, as fitter for his Turn, And had not Popery, will this Priest say, mad•• her Encroachments yet▪ Not long after this (& Fourscore Years or more before Ethelwolfe's Charter) Constantine the Second got the Pope∣dom by evil means, and by as evil keptit, un∣til at length he was pluckt down, and his Eyes put out; nor was he the first Pope of this Stamp. The Author of Fascie. Temp. con∣fesses there were four more such infamous Popes before him. Besides all this, B••da the Saxon (who was dra•• long before Ethelwolf was born (in his Ecclesi••stical History, a bounds with Stories of strange kind of Miracles,* 1.14 wrought by the Reliques of Popish Saints, as Os••wald, Hilda and others, nor on••ly so, but by the Wood of the Cross also, and by holy Water.

But in the 14^th. chap. of his 4^th. Book there is particular mention of an Extraordinary Mi∣racle wrought by the Intercession of Oswald King of Northumberland, who had been dead long before. So that that popish Doctrine of the Intercession of Saints appears by Beda to have been received in the then Church of England, a great while before Ethelwolf's Charter for Tythes was thought on.

Many more Instances of this kind might be produced, but these I judge sufficient to sa∣tisfie the Reader how greatly that Age wherein Ethelwolf lived (and several Ages before) were overcast a••d clouded with the Darkness and Ignorance of Popery, and by what a blind Zeal and Superst••tious Dev••tion, the men of those tim••s 〈…〉〈…〉. Whence it may appear that Doctrines and S••perstiti∣ous practices, contrar to the true, ancient, catholick and ap••tolick Church (which is his Definition of Popery (ad prevailed in the Church of Rome (from which Austin came, & by which he formed his Church here) before Tythes were given▪ and conseq••••ntly that Tythes had their Institution from Popery: Unless the Priest will say, that the Instances I have here produced are not superstitious pra∣ctices, are not Popery, are n••t contrary to the

true, anci••nt, Catholick and Apostolick Church; which if he will say, he need say no more to let us know what Religion he is of, nor tell h••s Name till be come to Rome.

That which I desire the Reader to ob∣serve from this is, that the Institution of Tythes (since Christ's time) the Voluntary Dedication of them, so hig••ly ••alked of (and from which they are claimed to be now due) the f••mous Charter of Ethelwolf (so dearly hug'd by this Priest) was but t••e Grant and Gift of a P••rish Prince, in an ignorant, blind, superstitious Zeal to the Idolatrius Priesthood of the Remish Church, and for an Erroneous End.

But that which he thinks will help him off is this, That Cra••m••r, Hooper, Ridley, La∣timer, Taylor and Bradford received Tythes, page 149.

Answ This will not do his Business. That these were Godly Men, and Worthy Martyrs I grant: Yet will not their receiving Tythes make them either Lawful, or less popish, in the Institution. The Lot of those good men fell in the very Spring and Dawning (as it were) of the Day of Reformation, and it was their Happiness and Honour that they were faithful (even to the Death) to those Disco∣veries

of Truth which they received. But all Truths were not discovered at once, nor all Vntruths neither. But it being a Day of the Infancy of Reformation, it pleased God in his infinite Wisdom and Tender∣ness, to rend the Vail as it were by little and little, and so discover things gradually unto them, that they might go cheerfully on in their Testimony, and not come under those Discouragements, which the gi••t of so many Difficulties at once, might not improb••bly have brought upon them. Nor will this seem strange to any who shall seriously consider, that many of the blessed Martyrs, who sealed their Testimony with their Blood, and entred cheerfully the fiery 〈◊〉〈◊〉, had not so full and clear a Sight of all the Superstitions and Abominations, which in the dark Night of Ignorance, had crept into the Church of Rome, as it has pleased God since to give. Yet they being faithful to the Lord in what they did see, we••e accepted by him, and through D••ath received a Crowe of Life.

Neither is it a fair way of reasoning, be∣cause some who lived but at the Day-break (as it w••re) of Reformation, did not at that early Hour discover the whole Mystery of I∣niquity (although they did a great part) or

bore Testimony against every particular Evil in the Church of Rome (although they did a∣gainst a great many) thence to argue, that the Mystery of Iniquity extended no further then was discovered unto them, or that there was no other Evil in the Church of Rome, but what they testified against, especially since we find divers things which they took little or no Notice of, plainly condemned, and zealously witnessed against by others, who are acknowledged to have been in their re∣spective times, Co••f••sso••s of and true Witnesses for God against the Corruptions and Su∣perstitions of the Romish Church, as well as they; so that what my Opponent saith in an∣other Case (page ••14) You must not interpret one Scripture to overthrow oth•••• plain Scr••ptures the same say ••in this he ought n••t to instance these men•• receiving Tythes to overthrow, or contradict the plain Testimonies of other faithful Se••vants of God, who denied them, but rather as in the Beginning of Christianity the Apostles did not all alike oppose the Ce∣remonies of the Law but Cir••cumcision and other Rites,* 1.15 were born with, and for some time used by some of them, which in process of time were utterly re∣jected

and denyed by all, which yet nei∣ther ought to have been, nor was made use of by the rest of the Apostles or Chur∣ches, as an Argument for the lawfulness and Continuation of Circumcision, or any o∣ther of the Jewish Rites: So in the Testi∣monies of those holy Martyrs and Confessors of Jesus, what was denied by some, and witnessed against as Popish, Superstitious and wicked, ought not to be received, and de∣fended now as not Popish or Superstitious (at least by such as pretend to reverence their te¦stimonies) because the same things were not denied by all; for God is not limitable to Numbers of Witnesses, but he raised up one to bear Testimony against one Corruption, an∣other against another Superstition; some stormed one Part of Babylon, some another, b•••• did not make their Batteries all in one Place: Now that Tythes were denyed by many of those godly men, Fox's Martyrology assures us in the Instances of Thorp, Swinderby, Bruce, Wickliff, &c. Some of whom complained of the Abuse of Tythes, in that they were then fixt and settled as a Payment, whenas but a little before they were a voluntary free Gift, disposeable at the Will and Pleasure of the Giver: Others utterly denying and rejecting

them, as no way lawful at all; nay Thorp saith expresly, That those Priests that do take Tythes, d••••y Christ to be come in the Flesh, urging it as the Opinion of one of the Doc∣tors, and as he thinks of Ierome. And Brute saith▪ not only that no man is bound to pay Tythes in Gospel-times, but that it is manifest and plain, that neither by the Law of Moses; nor by Christ's Law, Christian People are bound to pay Tythes, but by the Traditions of Men. Hence what Opinion these good men had of Tythes, the Reader may judge. but for any now to urge, in Defence and Justifi∣cation of Tythes, that Cranmer, Hooper, Ridley, and other Godly Martyrs received them, what else is this, but to oppose the Martyrs one to another, and render them, as clashing and warring amongst themselves; yea and to endeavour, by the Practices of some, to invalidate and make the Testimony of others utterly void and of no Force, which I am sure does ill become any Protestant to do; and indeed I think none, that were truly such would ever have attempted it. But to go on.

From Divine Right (which he only nib∣bles at, but dares not trust his Cause upon, as having no Place in holy Writ, from whene

he might derive it▪ and from Donation, or Voluntary Dedication of Tythes in former A∣ges (which is here proved to be at best but Pop••sh) he be takes himself to his last and su∣rest ••e••uge, Humane 〈◊〉〈◊〉, making Tythe to be b••t a Temporal Right in the same man∣••e••, a 〈…〉〈…〉 Tenure that other mens. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 are 〈…〉〈…〉 may introduce a Pl•••• to 〈…〉〈…〉 enjoy Tythes by the same Right, and 〈…〉〈…〉 Reason, that any other man enjoye•• 〈…〉〈…〉. For when in page 135▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉. he is prest to sh••w 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a Precept, where God hath commanded Tythes to be paid, or an Example, there the Apo∣stles did receive them (and this urged also from a Th••s•••• of his own, viz. That Pre∣cept or Example in holy Scripture, must cer∣tainly be the Guide of all our Actions) he to a∣void the Force of it, insinuates that he is no more obliged to 〈…〉〈…〉 Precept, or Exam∣ple for his taking 〈…〉〈…〉, then any other man 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for the enjoying of his Temporal Estate. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 shew you the Mistak•• saith he (I thought he had not counted it a Mistake for men to take precept or Example in holy Scripture for the Guide of all their Actions) You, saith he, chall••nge so many Acres of Ground, &c. Now to make you a good property in this Estate, you

must shew either some positive Scripture for your Right to hold the same, or an Example from Christ or the Apostles, that they had Free Holds, &c. To this the Parishioner replies, I shall soon discover your Fallacy, by telling you, that I enjoy my Estate as a Temporal Right.

Answ. But that is not all, I shall discover his Fallacy further, by telling him, not only that I enjoy my Estate as a Temporal Right, but also that I claim it in a Natural and Civil Capacity, without Relation to a Ministerial Function, or Spiritual Office, as a Man, not as a Minister of Christ. But the Priest doth not claim Tythes in this Capacity. He claims in a Spiritual Capacity although his Claim be false) his Claim depends upon a Ministerial Function. He claims not as a Man, but as a Minister of Christ (for such he pretends to be, though he be not) His claim therefore to Tythes, and my claim to my temporal Estate, differing in the very Ground and Nature of them, that which will make good my claim to my Estate, will not make good his claim to Tythes. For my claim to my Estate being grounded upon a Natural, or Temporal Consideration only, a Temporal Right is sufficient to make it good. But his

Claim to Tythes being grounded upon a Spiritual Consideration (as he pretends to be a Minister of Christ) a Temporal Right is no way equal, or suitable to his Claim. So that he hath still need (if he would still take Tythes, and still be reputed a Minister of Christ) to produce a Precept where God hath commanded Tythes to be paid under the Gospel, or an Example, where Christ or his Apostles did receive them. Which if he cannot do, he is justly to be reputed no Mini∣ster of Christ, since they that are indeed his Ministers, are able to shew both Precept and Example for the Maintenance which they receive.

But saith he, page 137. If the Considera∣tion of a Temporal right be sufficient to satisfie your Conscience, in a Temporal Enjoyment, by the same Reason I can hold my Tythes without any Wound to my Conscience.

Answ. How hard his Conscience is (to be wounded) especially in a Case so profitable to him as Tythes, I will not undertake to lay. Yet thus far I will, that if his Co••science were not harder then it should be, I am sure he could not satisfie it in taking Tythes▪ That which gives Sati••fa••••ion to mine, or any other man's Conscience, in the Temporal En∣joyment

of a Temporal Estate, is the Consi∣deration that he claims it only in a Natural and Civil Capacity, as a man (without any respect to a Spiritual Imployment (and that in that Capacity he hath a Temporal Right unto it. But i•• the Case thus with the Priest? Doth he claim Tythes purely in a Natural and Civil capacity, as a man (without any respect to a Spiritual Imployment) or doth he claim them upon a Religious Score, as a Minister of Christ (though not one) and in Consideration of a Ministerial Office, or Spiritual Function, which he pretends to ex∣ecute? If so, how dares he then say, that by the same Reason which satisfies other mens Consciences, in the Enjoyment of their Temporal Estates, he can hold Tythes without any Wound to his Conscience! Certainly, by confounding these so different Considerations of Natural and Spiritual, Ci∣vil and Religious Capa••ities, he hath argued very fallaciously and craf••ily, endeavouring to beguil his Reader with meer Sophistry. And after the same manner he goes on▪

What have you to shew for your Estate, saith he to his Parishioner? I have a good Died, replieth the Parishioner: But what have you to shew for your Gle•••• and Tythes? I have a

good Terrier and Endowment, cries the Priest. Prove that Terr••••r and E••dowment to b•• right by the Law of God, saith the Parishio∣ner. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 I will, quoth the Priest, when your De••d 〈◊〉〈◊〉 made good by the Law of God▪ It i•• sufficient, saith the Parishioner, that my Deed way•• ••oved by the Law of the Land. So it i•• sufficient, replies the Priest, that our Tythes are settled by the same Laws.

Answ. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 where, Reader, how wil∣ling the Priest is, for his own Interest, to parallel his Case with the Parishioner's as if there were no Difference a•• all in the 〈…〉〈…〉 One claims a Temporal Thing, and 〈…〉〈…〉 claims a Temporal Thing. One cla••m b•• a Temporal Right, and the other claim by a Temporal Right. One hath no Ne•••• of a Pre∣cept or Example in holy Scripture for what he claims, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hath the other. Thus he takes his Parishioner by the Nose, and en∣deavours to c••kes him into a Conceit, that their Cases answer pat to one another, that their Right is all one, their Claim one and the same, their pretensions just alike. But then they must not stay there, the priest must also acknowledge, he is no more a Minister of Christ, then the other, at least, that he doth not claim Tythes as a Minister of Christ, any

more then the other doth his Temporal Estate; otherwise the Parallel w••ll not hold. For if he claims Tythes as a Min••ster of Christ, if he demands them in Consideration of a Spiritual Office, I am sure th••n their Claims will not agree; and that which will be sufficient to make good a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the one, will not be so to the other, whatever he thinks on't. A good Deed for a Temporal Estate, sounds some what like; but a Terrier and Endow∣ment for a Minister of Christ, is new and strange Language, which Christians are not acquainted with. And for a Temporal Estate, held in a Civil Capacity, it is sufficient that the Deed be approved by the Laws of the Land, because the Estate it self is claimed, and held upon no other Considerations, then such as are Temporal. But it is otherwise in the case of Tythes: A Temporal Settlement of Tythes is not sufficient, because Tythes are claimed upon Considerations that are not Temporal, but Spiritual.

But the Parishioner puts the Question, If Tythes are Temporal Rights, how come you 〈◊〉〈◊〉 call them spiritual Preferments? The Priest answers, All Tythes are not so called, because all Impropriations are held in a Laity, &c.

Answ. By this then it appears, that if the

Impropriations are held in a Laity, Tythes are not so Sacred a thing, but that they may be and are alienated to common Uses, notwith∣standing the Dedication of them, and what∣ever else he saith elsewhere (page 146, 147.) to the contrary.

But other Tythes, the Priest saith, are cal∣led spiritual Preferments, not in respect of the Profits, but the Persons who are capable of them, and therfore are they vulgarly called spiritual Preferments, because enjoyed by spi∣ritual Persons, page 137.

Answ. So then it seems the Persons injoy∣ing Tythes must be Spiritual, yea so Spiritu∣al as to communicate to the Tythes them∣selves the Denomination of Spiritual Prefer∣ments, and yet they must be held by a Tem∣poral Right; and why? but because they have no Spiritual Right to them. But letting that pass, two things I desire to be resolved in. First, Why these Priests, who hid such Defiance to the Inspiration of the Spirit, should affect to call themselves Spiritual Persons? Secondly, Seeing towards the Beginning of his Book (page 11.) he saith, some men for a corrupt Interest will intrude themselves into these Sacred Offices; and again, near the End of it (pag 160.) He tells us, the Secu∣lar

Care of some of the Clergy, for the Maintenance of their Families, hath been excessive: I would gladly know whether he reckons these for some of his Spiritual Persons, seeing these do injoy the Preferments as well as any.

He tells us (in page 140.) That which no-Body doubts, viz. That Temporal Authori∣ties have Power to establish Temporal Rights; from whence (in page 141.) he infers, That in Temporal Affairs, an Argument drawn from Temporal Authority (where the thing is equitable and Reasonable) is a good and con∣vincing Argument; and in the next page, taking an Occasion to repeat, he saith, I do not say in every Case a Temporal Authority can create a Right to a Temporal Interest, but in such Cases only as are Equitable and Rea∣sonable.

Answ. I observe here he reels from esta∣blishing a Right to creating a Right: I hope he doth not think that to establish & create is one and the same thing. Let him stick to which he please••••, so he will be pleased without confou••ding them. If he will say that Tem∣poral Authority hath created a right to Tythes, he thereby cuts off all Pretensions to any Right antecedent to that Creation. If he will say

that Temporal Authority hath only established a Temporal Right to Tythes, that supposeth a Temporal Right to them before. But that will lye••••: his Door to prove, which hither∣to he hath not in any Degree done; unless to say i••, be a Degree of doing it, and then in∣deed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hath 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it in many Degrees. For he hath said it over and over. If Tythes, saith he, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 an••ther man's Estate and Property, the Ca•••• will be clear agai••st me; but thi••, saith he, is b••gging of the Question: therefore I am ready 〈◊〉〈◊〉 prove that Tythes are mine, not his, from whom I receive them. Here he saith he is ready to prove, but I wonder when he will do it. After a Periphrasis of three pages or more, he brings his Discourse to this Issue, If you will grant, saith he, that Maintenance in general is due by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Gospel, you will sufficiently justifie Tythes from all the idle Cavils which are brought against them (page 145.) I•• not this notably argued to prove Tythes his, not theirs from whom he recei∣veth them, especially from one that was in such Readiness too! Well, I••le grant him that Maintenance in general is due by the Go∣spel to a Gospel Minister, and now let us see what he can make on't. Why, saith he (pag. 146.) The Gospel commands a Maintenace

be provided for the Ministry, and the Civil Powers, and Nursing Fathers of the Church, have set out Tythes for that Maintenance: To prove this, he urges a Voluntary Dedica∣tion of them; and to prove that, offers E∣thelwolfe's Charter. The Dedication and Charter I have already examined, and shew∣ed how little they conduce to this Cause. Therefore not to repeat the same things, let us now inquire what Power those Nursing▪ Fathers had to set 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Tythes for a Mainte∣nance for the Ministry.

He that appointed a Maintenance in gene∣ral, described also that Maintenance in par∣ticular. In the same House, saith Christ, remain, ea••ing and drinking 〈◊〉〈◊〉 things as they give, Luke 10.7. So again, ver. 8. Eat such things as are set before you. For the Workman is worthy of his Ma••, Mat. 10.10. Here was the Maintenance which Christ appointed for his Ministers, which was alto∣gether Free and Voluntary▪ But where hath Christ given Power to any man to alter this Maintenance and set up another in the Room of it? Doubtless if any such Authority were given, it concerns them that claim thereby, to shew it. But if Christ hath given no such Power, whence then doth man take so much

upon him? Yet suppose Magistrates had such a Power to appoint Maintenance, yet for a∣ny Magistrate to set out Tythes for that Maintenance, is a di••ect Opposition to Christ. For Tythes having been commanded by God in the Mosaical Law, to be paid unto the Levitical Priesthood, and Christ having dis∣annulled that Law, and taken away Priests, Tythes and Law altogether (Heb. 7.) what greater Affront can be offered to Christ, what greater Contempt shewed of him, then to see up that which he hath thrown down, to esta∣blish that which he hath abolish••d.

But sayes he (pag. 154.) ••f the Quakers can prove from the Laws ••f God or right Rea∣son, that it is not Lawful for every one to do what he will with his own, and consequently that he may not settle Tythes, Lands or Mo∣nies upon the Clergy, then they do something to the Purpose.

Answ Well then, that I may be sure to do something, even in his Sense, to the pur∣pose, I will prove both from the Laws of God and right Reason, that it is not Lawful for every Man ••o do what he will with his own. The Earth is the Lord's, and the Ful∣nes thereof: whatsoever Man injoyes of it, he holds but in Stewardship from God, and

must give an Account thereof unto his Lord. His Eye must be to his Master, in the Use and Disposing of what he hath received from him, and calls his own. He may not imploy it ••o an Evil Vs. He ought to Honour God with all his Substance; but he ought not to honour the Devil with one Farthing. He may not spend his Substance upon his Lusts, nor bestow it among Harlots. (The Prodigal, that wasted his Portion after that manner, confessed, He had sinned against Heaven, Luke 15.21. And the Steward, that was accused for wasting his Master's Goods, was called to an Account therefore, and turned out of his Office, Chap. 16. see also Eccles. 11.9. & 12.14.) They mi∣stake greatly, that think man so independent and uncontrolable, that he may do what he will with the Goods he possesses, and imploy them to what Use he pleases. He may not make an Idol of them, neither may he uphold Idolatry with them. In these, and very many Cases more it is not lawful for any man (either by the Law of God or right Reason) to do what he will with his own. Will any Protestant be so inconsiderate as to say, that it is lawful for a Man to lay out his Mo∣ney in Beads, Crosses, Crucifixes, Agnus De••'s, and such like Trumpery? Will he

say it is Lawful to buy Masses, Prayers, Par∣dons, Indulgences, &c? Will he say it was lawful, by the Law of God, for Ethelwolf at Rome to give Two Hundred Marks a Year to buy Oyl, to k••ep St. Peters's Lamps and St. Paul's Lamps burning? If he thinks this ju∣stifiable, let him defend it; if not, he may in this very Instance see, both that it is not Lawful for every man to do what he will with his own, and also that Ethelwolf, his great Donor and Patron, did that with his own that was not lawful for him to have done, name∣ly, uphold Superstition and Idolatry. N••r did he transgress in this In••tance only, of gi∣v••ng that Yearly Pension to Rome, but in his Donation of Tythes also: for it is evident he gave them to maintain a Popish Clergy, d••generated from Apostolical Purity, and f••••lly corrupt both in Doctrine and Practice, in upholding of which he did that which was Evil, and therefore to be sure Unlawful.

And if it was not lawful for him to do what he would with his own, how much less law∣ful then was it for him to do what he would with that which was none of his own, but o∣ther mens! If he did not well in giving that which was his own for the Maintenance of a False Ministry, surely then he did worse in gi∣ving, to the same Use, that which was not his

own, but other mens; which yet he must needs do, if indeed he gave the Tythes of the whole Nation, as some alledge, and as they are now received. For though he were a King, yet no man I think will say, that he had thereby Power of disposing or giving a∣way other mens Properties. If as King he had such a Power, then farewel Property to all Subjects. If he had not such Power right∣fully, yet did it, that Deed's unjust, and the Chart••r therefore void. But if he neither had nor used such Power, but only decimated his own Demeasn Lands (as some understand) then cannot any general Claim to Tythes be derived from his Charter.

But suppose that Ethelwolf had an ample Power of disposing what he pleased, or that the People had by Consent joyned with him in the Donation, every man according to the Interest he had; yet neither could he single, nor he and they conjoyned, grant any more then belonged to themselves. They were possest of the Lands, and injoyed the Profits. These they might dispose of (I do not say to an Evil Vse) of these they might have gi∣ven what part they pleased. If they had given the Tenth Part of the Land, the tenth Acre (in which Sense some understand the

words of the Charter [aliquam portionem terrarum haereditariam] in Ingulf) how unrighteous soever it had been in re∣spect of the Use and End to and for which it had been given, yet they to whom it had been so given had thereby had a distinct Property and Possession. If they had had a mind to have given the tenth part of the yearly Profits (which I know is the t••ing aimed at) that, I grant, they might have done for th••mselves, and during their Lives such Gift would have been of force against them, being bound by their own Act. B••t for them to make a g••ant of the 10th part of the Profits of the Land forever, is (to my Understanding) utterly repugnant to Reason, Justice and Equity. For it must be consider'd, that by the Profits of the Land is not under∣stood the natural only, ••ut the artificial Pro∣duct thereof, not what the Earth of her own accord, without any Help of Man, brings forth (which I think would be little, and comparatively little worth) but what by the painful Labour, continual Toyl, daily Sweat, thoughtful Care and great Charge of the di∣ligent and industrious Husbandman, is digged, and as it were torn out of her Bowels. So that in the Profits of the Land (rightly com∣puted)

the Labour, Sweat, Care, Charge, Skill, Industry, Diligence, &c. of the Husband∣man are included, and that inseparably: for these are indeed the Instrumental Causes of Production. To admit then a Power in any man, to give the Tythes of the Profits of his Land, beyond his own Life, were to suppose a Power in that Man to give away the La∣bour, Care, Skill, Charge, Diligence, In∣dustry of another. But that Reason gain∣sayes. For though a man may give away his own Pains, Charge, &c. may make himself a Bondslave, if he will, and devote himself wholely to labour for others: yet can he not impose this Condition upon others. For as till it was voluntarily undertaken by him, he was under no Obligation to it: so in like manner until it be voluntarily undertaken by others, they are under no Obligation to it. Now for any one to plead, that Ethelwolf (or any other man) hath given him, the Tythes of the Profits of that Land that I possess or occupy, is all one as if he should tell me, that Ethelwolf (or some other) hath given him my Labour, Pains, Charges, Care, Skill, Industry, Diligence, Vnderstanding, &c. seven or eight Hundred Years, it may be, before either he or I was born; a thing

most rid••culous, and utterly inconsistent with Reason.

Nor is it more agreeable to Justice and Equity. For if Ethelwolf, a Papist, gave Tythes to the Romish Clergy, he did it upon a Consideration, for the Health of his Soul and Remission of his Sins, * 1.16 which he believed he might ob∣tain in that Church, & by the Help of that Ministry to whom he gave his Tythes, and Mediation of those Saints in Honour of whom he granted this Charter. And on the other hand, the Clergy undertook, that all the Holy Brethren and Sister at every Church (as they called it) should upon e••ery Wednes∣day in the Year sing Fifty Psalms, and say Two Masses, one for the King, and t••other for his Dikes or Nobles▪ Here was a Consi∣deration, and such an one as in that day was thought valuable too. But all that are true Protestants know full well, that this Conside∣ration is of no value now (nor indeed ever was; though, by the ignorance of those

Times, it was then so reputed.) Now if the Consideration (good or bad) be taken away, why should the Charge be continued? If the End, for which Tythes were given, neither be nor can be now answered, with what Justice or Equity can Tythes be now de∣manded? But how much more unjust and un∣equal will it then appear, that Tythes should be now exacted, and extorted by a Protestant Ministry, upon a Donation fraudulently obtained by a Popish Clergy! If Tythes were ever indeed due to any by virtue of this Gift, it must be to the Popish Priests, and all the Rabble of their Religious Men and Women: for to them were they given, and that too upon such Terms, and to such Ends, as the Protestant Religion disowns and rejects. How dishonourable therefore is it for a Prote∣stant. Minister to lay hold, as it were, on the Skirts of a Papist, and endeavour to derive a Right to Tythes from that Church, which hath long since anathematized them for He∣r••ti••ks, and which they also were wont for∣merly to call Antichristian.

Besides, the Reasons urged why Tythes are now due, viz. the voluntary Dedication, Donation and Charter, will be certainly as

strong and cogent (if not somewhat more) for the Payment of Tythes to the Popish Priests, if ever they should be suffered to get up again: for to them were they dedicated, to them were they given, to them was the Charter granted. Nor has this Priest said any thing in Proof of his Claim to Tythes, which might not as reasonably (and in this Respect somewhat more colourably) be said by one of the Popish Clergy. One sayes, a Maintenance in general is appointed in the Gospel: so sayes t'other. One sayes, the Civil Powers, and Nursing-Fathers of the Church have set out Tythes for that Mainte∣nance: so sayes t'other. One sayes, there was a voluntary Dedication of them, a fa∣mous Charter given for them. Aye▪ so there was indeed sayes the other, and which is more, that Dedication was made to our Church (in Honour of Mary the Glorious Vir∣gin and Mother of God, and in Honour of St. Michael the Arch-Angel, and of Saint Peter the Prince of the Apostles, and also in Ho∣nour of our Holy Father Pope Gregory, as the words of the Charter in ••••g••••f are) and that Charter was granted to us. Thus, Reader, thou se••st that the same Reasons this Man

uses to prove Tythes due to him, a Popish Priest may as well use to prove Tythes due to him But as the Author to the Hebrews, speaking of the Levitical Priesthood, saith (chap. 7.12.) The Priesthood being changed (which took Tythes) there is made of Necessi∣ty a Change also of the Law (which comman∣ded Tythes) so I say in this Case. The Church of Rome, and her Priesthood, being cast off, disowned, denied and rejected: There is a Ne∣cessity (if ye will be true Christians, and true Protestants) that all her Ded••cations, O••lati∣ons, Donations, Grants, Charters of Tythes, Glebes, Offerings, Obventions, Collations, Terriers, Endowments, Benefic••s, and what∣soever else is of the like Nature, and crept in under the Corruption of her degenerate State, be utterly renounced, made void and cancell••d to all Intents and Purposes.

Besides, the Injustice, and Vnreasona∣bleness of exacting Tythes will yet more plainly appear, if it be co••sidered, that if Tythes were a suitable Main c••ance for a Pro∣testant Ministry, yet the Clergy now do no∣thing for the People (nor indeed have any thing to do) which can de••erve so great a Compensation. For let it not be soon forgot∣ten,

nay, let the Parishioners in every Parish take notice, that this Priest, speaking of the present Clergy, hath said, Our only Work is to explain the written Word of God, and apply the same, page 86. Yet a little after saith, (page 92, 93.) Whatsoever is necessary to Salvation, either to be believed or done (as the History of Christ's Birth, Death, Resurecti••n and Ascension) the Duties of the first and se∣cond Table, the Love of God and our N••igh∣bour, ••ll the Evangelical Precepts, and the Essentials of Religion, are in some place or o∣ther in holy Scripture, fitted to the most vulgar Cap••c••••y, and shallowest Vnd••rstanding, are mad: such pl••in and easie Doctrines, that he that runs may read them, being sitted to the Capacity of the most unlearned. So that here nothing needs explaining, all things necessary to Salvation are so pl••in already. Whatever then they explain and apply, is by his own Confession not necessary to Salvation, and this he saith is their only Work. But is it not a great Injustice, and extream Vnrighteousness in the Clergy, to exact and tear from the poor Husband-man the Tenth Part of his Crop for only explaining, and applying some thing that is no way necessary to the poor man's

Salvation, nor in that respect can do him a∣ny good? O great Oppression! O foul A∣buse!

But he saith, To put the thing out of all doubt, our Laws have made Tythes a Free∣hold, page 137.

Answ. A Freehold doth he call them! Such a Freehold, I wis, as h••lds the greatest part of the Nation in Bondage. But what Laws are they that have made Tythes a Free-Hold? Where are they to be found? He is peremptory in another Case, Shew the Text, shew the Statute; 'tis the Opponent's part to prove, page 152. I desire him therefore to shew those Laws, produce those Statutes, that have made Tythes a Free-hold to the Clergy, whose Right he insists upon (for if he will say they are a Free-hold to the La••ty, that will be so far from advan••aging his Cause, that it will yet further prove the Lawfulness of alie∣nating Tythes to common Uses, notwithstan∣ding the Solemn Ded••cation of them to God, which he so much brays of That the Charter of Ethelwolf by which Tythes are claimed) was popish, superstitious, wicked, is sufficient∣ly shewed before. What hath been done by succeeding times, in Confirmation of it and them, it more concerned my Opponent to

search, then me: But probably he might designedly omit it, as well knowing that such an Inquiry would no way conduce to the Cre∣dit of his Claim. For if Tythes were born (as I may say) in bad times, to be sure they were brought up in worse. If they were gran∣ted in the dusk of the Evening, they were con∣firmed in the Midnight of popery. And that the Reader may see I speak not this without Ground, I'le here set down the Preamble of a Grant made by King Stephen, about the Year One Thousand One Hundred Thirty Nine.

Inasmuch as by the Providence of divine Mercy, we know that it is appointed, and being published far and near by the Preach∣ing of the Church, it soundeth in all Mens Ears, that by the giving of Alms the Bonds of Sins may be loosed, and the Rewards of Heavenly Ioys obtained: I Stephen by the Grace of God King of the English, desiring to have a Part with them, who by an hap∣py kind of trading, exchange Heavenly things for Earthly, being pricked forward by the Love of God, and for the Salvation of my Soul, and the Souls of my Father and Mother, and of all my Par••nis and Prede∣cessors, &c.

By this Reader, thou mayst see

upon what Gro••nds they went, and by what Principles they were acted in those times; and that the Confirmation was sufficiently su••••able to the Institution.

Long after this, Henry the Eighth, being more Papist then Protestant (though he had transferred the Supremacy from the Pope to himself) and believing, as most of the other Doctrines of the Church of Rome, so that of Tythes being due to God and Holy Church, in the Twenty Seventh Year of his Reign, made a Law for the Payment of Tythes, the Pre∣amble whereof is thus,

For asmuch as di∣vers Numbers of Evil dispos••d Persons, &c. having no Respect to their Duties to Almigh••y God, but against Right and ••o••d Conscience, have attempted to substract and withhold in some places the who••e, and in some places great ••ar••s of the Tythes and Oblations, as w••ll personal as predial, due unto God and ho∣ly Church▪ &c.

This is the fi••st Parliamen∣tary Law that I find amongst our Statutes for the Paiment of Tythes: and this, take no∣tice, was made by a King and Parliament that were Papists, upon a Popish Supposition ••hat Tythes were due to God and holy Church. The same King, in the Thirty Seventh Year of his Reign, upon the Dissolution of

Religious Houses (as they were then called) made another Law for the Payment of Tythes, supposing them still Duties to Almighty God. And in Pursuance of these Laws of his, his Son and Successor Edward the Sixth made a∣nother, grounding it upon those which his la∣ther had made before So that neither of these Kings made any new grant of Tythes; but taking it for granted that th••y were due to God and holy Church, they made Provision for the Payment of them. Yet both the one and the other restrained Suits & Tryals for Tythes to the Ecclesi••stical Courts, which shews they did not und••rstand Tythes to be a Temporal Right.

The••e are all the Statute Laws I have hi∣therto met with concerning Tythes. And the••e being built upon a false Supposition, that Tythes were due to God and holy Church (a Doctrine purely Popish, hatcht at Rome, and here preacht up with thundering Excommuni∣cations by the Pope's Emissaries and Agents) why should they be continued to make that * 1.17 Error which was at first but too great, still greater by per∣sisting in it? However it is too great Weakness in the Clergy to call Tythes a Freehold, and claim to themselves a Tempo∣ral

Right in them by these Sta∣tutes, when the Statutes them∣selves suppose them due by Divine Right: For, 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 Iuggling. Now we see these Statutes did not set up or appoint the Payment of Tythes upon any ci∣vil Ground, but took it for granted that Tythes are ••oue to God and holy Church. But if this were a Mistake, and that it doth really now appear that Tythes are not due to God and holy Church, the Foundation and Reason of the Law being taken away, the Law it self must needs cease to be in Force. * 1.18 For the Law not making them due, but supposing them due by a former Right, if they were not so due, how then can the Law be of Force!

But what is i•• the Priests claim a Property in? Is it the Profits and Encrease of the Lands? that I have shewed doth comprehend and in∣clude the Labour, Sweat, Care, Industry, Charge, Skill and Diligence of the Husband∣man, without which the other would not be: And for any man to pretend a Property in

these, is ridiculous. Who would not smile at (and Pitty) that Priest that should tell his Parishioners he hath a Property in then Vn∣derstandings, in their Strength, in their Care, in their Industry, &c! But if nothing less then a Property will serve the Turn, yet where is this Property rested? In whom doth it lie? Is it in the Person of the Priest? No such matter: For a man may be a Priest in Orders, & yet have no Power to demand Tythes. Nor, how long soever he hath been a Priest, hath he anything to do with Tythes, until by Pre∣sentation, Institution and Induction he is in∣vest••a with Offic••; and w••enever he parts with that Offic••, he parts with the Tythes also. So that the Pr••perty (if there were any) would lie in the Offic••, not in the Pri••st. And what is the Office? It was to be sure a ••••pash Office when Tythes were first paid to it in this Nation, an Office set up by the P••p••, and that not as a Secular Prince, but as a Pope (as a Spiritual Father: For such he pretends to be but if there had been a Property in the Office, yet seeing the Office it s••lf is laid aside, and the Pope, who was the Au∣thor of it cast off; surely whatsoever proper∣ty was in the Office, must needs be gone a∣long with it.

But to manifest yet further the Emptiness of this plea of the Priests Property in Tythes, let it be considered, that the Pri••st after all his Boasting Talk of property and Pr••e••hold, ••ath no power to take One Sheaf or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Husbandman's Corn from off his Gro••nd, un∣til the Owner hath severed it as Tythe from the Remainder, and thereby first disseized himself of that Part, and by his own Act given the Priest a Title thereunto. So that the Priest's Title lies in the Gift of the Owner; nor hath he any Propriety there, unti•• the Owner by setting it out for him hath made him one. Only the Law supposing Tythe d••e to God and holy Church injoyns the Owner to set it out, and that under a penal∣ty, which if he refuse to do, he incurs the penalty, but the property remains intire in himself.

But saith the Priest, I told you before, that Tythes and other Church-Revenues have been settled by those that were actually seized of them in Law, page 154.

Answ. I tell you, and I told you, are his two great Proofs; and he speaks it so confi∣dently, as if he thought it sufficient Demon∣stration to say, I told you. The best on't is, we are not bound to believe all he tells us.

He might have done well to have told us who those Doners were, that were so actually sei∣zed, and what it was they were seized of. What he means by other Church Revenues, neither doth he express, nor I intend to in∣qui••e. Tythe is the present Subject; to that let us ••••ick. If Tythes be the Tenth of the profit, or increase of the Land, and they that setled Tythes (as he saith) were actually sei∣zed of them in Law, then surely they could settle no more then they were so seized of, and they could be actually seized of no other pro∣fits, or increase, then what did grow, increase, or renew upon the Land, while they were a∣ctually seized of it. So that such Settlement, how valid soever while they lived, must needs expire with them. Is any one so void of Rea∣son, as to imagine that they who were possest of Land an hundred Years ago, could then settle and dispose of the profits and increase that shall grow and ari••e upon that Land an hundred Years hence; which profit cannot a∣rise barely from the Land, but from the La∣bour, Industry and Stock of the Occupier? Were ever any actually seized of the Labour of the Husbandman's Hands, of the Sweat of his Brows, of the Iud••••ment, Vnderstan∣ding and Sk••ll that God hath given him, of

the Stock he imploies, the Cost he bestows, the Care, Pains, Industry and Diligence he exercises for the obtaining of a Crop? That all these are i••cluded in the Crop▪ I have shew∣ed, and that without these the Crop comes not. He therefore that undertakes to dis∣pose of any Part of the Crop, takes upon him so far to dispose of these also; but with what Right, let the Reader judge. Indeed, if they who were anciently seiz••d of the Lands had then set out and setled any Part of the Land it self, it had been something to the purpose. But let not any man imagine that they had Power to charge their Posterity with that which was no way theirs, nor which in any true Sense or Construction they could be said to have any Property in, and which is not paid by Reason of that which is derived from them. For indeed, if the Case be right∣ly stated, Tythe is not paid of Land, nor simply by Reason of the Land, but of the Profits and Encrease growing and arising and by Reason of the Labour and Stock imploy'd to the production of that Encrease. This will more plainly appear, if we observe that by the Statute of Edward the sixth, Trades∣men and Handycrafts-men (who possess no Land) are injoined to pay the Tenth of the

Profits, Encrease or Gain, arising by their Trades or Labour, as well as the Husbandman the Encrease of the Land. Which shews, that as they are tythed for the Labour, Industry and Stock which they exercise in their Trades and Callings; so is he also for the ••ains, Care, Skill and Stock which he imploies in his Calling of Husbandry. If therefore, he that hath Land, and he that hath no Land, are both alik•• bound to pay Tythe, how can it be said, that he that hath Land payeth Tythe for the Land? If a man hath never so much Land, and yet no Encrease, no Tythe can be demanded. If he hath no Land at all▪ and yet by any other way hath Encrease, he is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by the Law to pay Tythe. If a man so husband his Land that the Encrease of it is not to be severed from it, as (for Instance) if he convert it to Pasture, and feed Cattel upon it, he shall not be accountable for the Tythes of the Grass so eaten, but if any thing at all be demanded, it can be only a rate Tythe for the Cattel there feeding. But if he feed his Land with Horses, very little, if any thing at all is recoverable for Tythe. And if he plant Wood, and let it grow for Timber, he is not liable to any Tythe at all. From these In∣stances it is manifest, both that it is in the

Power of the Occupant to make the Tythe much, little or nothing at all: And also that those Tythes that are paid, are paid not pure∣ly in Consideration of the Land it self, but with Relation to the Stock & Personal Estate imployed upon the Land, together with the Labour and Industry of him that occupies it. But because it cannot be supposed that any man's Ancestors had a Property in, or were actually seized of that very Stock, and Person∣al Estate which he now possesseth, much less of the Strength, Health, Ability to labour, Wisdom, Iudgement and Vnderstanding which he hath received from God, out of, through and by Reason of which, Tythes are now paid; it could not justly be in the Power of any man's Ancestors, so to settle Tythes, or oblige his Posterity to pay them, according as they are now demanded and received: for that were to charge an Incumberance upon that, which himself had never any Property in.

His Supposition of some charitably disposed Persons, giving certain Lands and Tenements to every Parish for the Maintenance of the poor, is not at all the same Case with this of Tyth••s, although he saith (page 145.) it is the same, and that it will be evident to every understand∣ing

man. But I believe no understanding man can see the Cases to be the same. For in that of the Poor, there is a certain Setlement of Lands and Tenements, in which it is to be supposed the Donor had a Legal Property, or of which he was actually seized, at the time of the Gift. But in the Case of Tythes, here is no Gift of Lands and Tenements, but of the Increase growing and arising through, and by Reason of the Labour, Ca••e, Indu∣stry an•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Occupier, which he that gav•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Tythe n••ither had, nor could have, an•• 〈…〉〈…〉, nor wa•• or could be, actual∣ly 〈…〉〈…〉, and therfore had no Power to 〈…〉〈…〉 at the Cases are no whit alike, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 therefore the Destroying of Tythes hath 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Tendency at all to destroy Hospitals. Nor are the Tenants to such Ho••pital-Lands, thereby discharged from the Payment of their respective Rents: No; but are under the 〈…〉〈…〉 was before, both as they were 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by themselves▪ and so are a free and voluntary 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of their own; and also as the whole Rent they pay is not the f••ll Profit and Encrease of the whole Land they hold; but such a Proportion only, as the Land it self is val••e or rated at. So that the Encrease of t••eir own Labour and Industry, and the

Improvement of their own Stock, is not ex∣acted from them, but left to them to d••fray Charges, and for their own Subsistence and Maintenance. But in the Case of Tythes it is fa•• otherwise: For the Tythe is the full and ••mi••e Profi••s, and Encrease of the whole tenth Part of the Land, without any Allowance for Charges, or regard to the Subsistence of the Occupier: Of which more anon.

He sayes, All Tenants may as reasonably say, that the Payment of Rent to their Respe∣ctive Landlords, is a National Burden and Oppression, as that Tythes are a great Oppres∣sion, &c. page 155.

Answ. No such matter. For, First, The Tenant for his Rent hath of his Landlord the Worth of his Rent. But for his Tythes he receives of the Priest it may be nothing at all, however that which to him is worth nothing, being by the Priest's own Confession (page 92, 93.) not necessary to his Salvation, upon which account it is that he payes his Tythes. Secondly, Rent is a Voluntary Contract, and the Maxim is, Volenti not fit Injuria, i. e. He that willingly undertakes a thing is not injured. But Tythe is not Voluntary now, but taken by Force and Violence. And I doubt not but, if every English Man durst

Freely speak his own Sense, nine Parts of ten of the whole Nation would unanimously cry, TYTHES ARE A GREAT OPPRESSION.

But the main Question he sayes is, Whe∣ther th••y that purchased Lands and Tenements did also purchase the Tythe?

Answ. They p••••chased all that was not ex∣cepted out of the Purchase, but Tythes were not excepted out of the Purchase. If they who have purchased have no Right to the Tenth Part, I seen ••t how they can claim a Right to the Nineth, or indeed to any of the nine parts; for they purchased them all alike. And theref••••e in Deed of Bargain and Sale, it is said, ••••at the Seller doth grant, Bargain, Sell, &c ALL tha••, &c. with its Appur∣tenances, and EVERY PART and parcel th••reof (the tenth as well as the Nine) and also All the Estate, Right, Title, Interest, Prope••ty, Claim and Demand whatsoever, &c. An•• if there be any Rents or Services reser∣ved, they are expresly excepted. But no Ex∣ception of Tythes did I ever yet see (or hear of) in any Deed of Purchase. But sayes he, Will you s••ll more then you bought? No, say 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for I bought all: And therefore if I sell all, I sell no more then I bought. Besides, he

that buyes Land, pays so much Money for the Land only, as Matter for him to work upon: but when he has this Land, if he will have Profit and Increase from it, he must purchase that after another manner; he payes for that (and many 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dear enough too) by the Labour and Charge he bestows in tilling, dressing and manuring it. And if in this Sense he may be said to purchase the Nine Parts of the Crop or Increase, in the same sense he purchaseth the Tenth Part also: for he bestows 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Charge and Pains on all alike▪ and the T••••th Part stands him in as much as any one of the Nine.

But he sayes, Though the Tenant payes Tythes, yet they are no Inconvenience to him, because he payes less Rent in Consideration thereof.

Answ. There is a Fallacy in this: for if it should be granted, that the Tenant doth pay less Rent in Consideration of Tythes (which yet is questionable) yet the Abatement, which he is supposed to have in Rent is not pro∣portionable or answerable to the Value of the Tythes he payes. I demonstrate it thus: Suppose a Landlord le••s a Farm for Ninety Pound a Year, which if it were Tythe free

would yield an Hundred. The Tenant to pay his Rent, defray all his Charge of Hus∣bandry, and have a Comfortable Subsistence and Maintenance for himself and his Family, must (according to the Computation of skilful Husbandmen) by his Care, Industry and ••abour, together with the Imployment of his St••ck, rai••e upon his Farm three Rents, or three times as m••ch as his Rent comes to, which will make Two Hundred and Seventy Pound▪ and the tenth part of Two Hundred & ••eventy Poun••s is Twenty Seven P••unds, so that if the ••enant should have Ten Pounds a Year abated in his Rent because of Tythes, and he pa••es Seu••n and Twenty Pounds a Year for Tythes, then does he pay Seventeen Po••nds a Year in Ninety more then he is sup∣posed to be allowed in his Rent

Besides, observe the Difference between the Landlord's Dealing and the Priest's: The Landlord doth not take or desire the whole Increase and Profit that is made upon his Farm: he knows it would be unreasonable, because the whole Year's Labour and Stock of the Tenant is imployed in it And therefore, seeing he finds only Land, and the Tenant finds all manner of Workmanship, Stock and

Charges, he is contented, by a pretty equal kind of Partition, to divide the Profits be∣tween them, so that he takes no more for the Rent of his Land, then it is supposed the Tenant may make double so much to himself, for the Improvement of his Stock, for his Charge and Labour. But when the merci∣less Priest comes, he does not say, Neigh∣bour, though I claim the Tenth Part, yet see∣ing you have been at the Pains and Charge to get it for me, I'le deal no worse with you then your Landlord d••es; as he takes One Part and leaves you Two, so divide the Tythe into Three Parts, I'le be contented with One of them, and do you keep the other Two, for the Pains and Charges you have been at in procuring it. No, no: Who ever heard a Priest say so? But like the Sabeans and Calde••ns he falls on, and sweeps all away together. He takes the full Tenth Part of the Increase of the whole Farm, and leaves the poor Farmer no Consideration at all for all the Charges and Toyl he has be∣stowed about it. And yet he will wipe his Mouth, and say, This is no Oppression, no Grievance at all: whenas indeed there is none greater in the Nation. But if the Land∣lord should have as little Iustice as the Priest, and should take away all the Increase of the

Nine Parts, as the Priest does all the Increase of the Tenth, what would become of the poor Farmer! He would have nothing left him. Nay, who should sow the Land again? for the unreasonable ••riest does not leave him of the Tythe, where 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the tenth part of the Land against another Year, but keeping him in an Egyptian Bondage, expects he should make Bricks for him, although he al∣low•• him ••o Straw.

And yet this must not be thought hard or g••umbled at, to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a pass is this unhappy N••tion brought Nay, he reckons the Peo∣ple have an ••asi•• tim•• on't now, o're they had in the Time of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉. For when he goes about to clear the Clergy from the Charge of Iud••••sm in taking Tythes, he sayes, Should we chall••nge and receiue our Tythes as they were due to the Levites, our 〈◊〉〈◊〉 would be much fuller then they are, 〈…〉〈…〉 Imposi••ions much heavier upon the Peop••••, pag. 134.

Answ. No•• the Charge is much heavier now upon the People, then it was under the Levitical Priesthood. For, 1. The Tribe of Levi had no Inheritance with their Bre∣thren, no Share in the Division of the Land; but had Tythes assigned them instead of their

Proportion of Land, Numb. 18.20. So th•••• the other eleven Tribes had all the Land 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them. They had so much the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Land, their Lots were the bigger; and this was some Consideration for their Tythes. But now adayes the Priests have not only the Tythes, but their Share a••so of Land, so far as they are able to compass; in which Respect it is harder now with the Peo∣ple then it was then.

2 If the Levitical Priests had offerings, so have these. What mean all the Easter-Reckonings, Midsummer-Dues (as they are called) Smoak-Money; Garden Penny &c. Money for Marrying, Money for Christening, Money for Churching of Women, Money for giving the Communion, Money for Burying, Money for Breaking the Ground, Money for Funeral Sermons, Money for Lectures, and what not? All for Money, and without Mo∣ney or Money's worth nothing will be done, So that their Revenues far exceed those of the Levitical Priesthood, and the Charge falls heavier on the People.

3. Those Tythes and Offerings under the Law maintained all the Officers belonging to that Tabernacle, so that the People were at

no further Charge. But now the Priests a∣lone run away with all this; and their under Officers, as Clarks, Sextons, &c. are fain to be maintained by the People beside; the ring∣ing of the Bell, the reading of the Psalm, saying Amen, and whipping out the Dogs are charged upon the Peoples Account, and they are made to pay it, which still layes greater and heavier Loads upon the People.

4. Out of the Tythes under the Law Pro∣vision was made for the Fatherless, the Wi∣dow and the Stranger, Deut. 14.28, 29. But now the Clergy take all the Tythes to their own use, leaving the Fatherless, the Widow, &c. to shift for themselves as they can. So that the Fatherless and Widow, &c. might, notwithstanding the Tythes, perish for want, did not the People relieve and maintain them at no small Expence besides. Thus it appears, that the Charge is much greater upon th•• People now, then it was then; the Little Fi••ger of the English Clergy be∣ing heavier then the Loy••s of the Levitical Priesthood. But to proceed.

He confesses (page 157.) That the Apo∣stles had not Tythes in their days, and he gives this as one Reason for it, because they could

not have them, if they would, the Levites being in Possession of them.

Answ. But if Tythes ought to have been paid, what hindred their receiving them of the Gentiles that were converted? some of whom were so zealously aff••cted, that they could have pulled out their Eyes, and have given them to the Apostle, Gal. 4.15. And can it be thought, that if he had demanded Tythes of them, or they had understood them to be due unto him, they would not readily have paid them?

Again, he sayes, We ought to consider that Tythes were an Improper Maintenance for the Apostles, because of their Vnfixt State of Life.

Answ. Oh! were Tythes indeed an Im∣pr••p••r Maintenance for the Apostles! If he and his Brethren, who pretend to be the A∣postles Successors, did so walk as they have them f••r an Example, they would find Tythes an improper Maintenance for them also. But seeing the Apostles State of Life was unfixt, who, I pray▪ fixed your State of Life? who divided Provinces into Parishes, & set up Pa∣rish Priests? was it not a Pope? Had you not your fixt State of Life and your Maintenance by Tythes from one and the same power?

But I remember this Priest sayes (pag, 86.) The Apostles and we (the Clergy) act under Different Circumstances. And I do not won∣der at it; for so did the true Ministers and the false 〈◊〉〈◊〉 all Ages. But I wish the Apostles and these differed in Circumstances only.

He has another Reason yet, why the A∣postles had not Tythes, namely, They had no need of them; for as they had their Gifts, so their Maintenance by a Mira••ulous Provi∣dence.

Answ. This is notoriously false. They had their Maintenance in an Ordinary Way, with∣out any Miracle at all. Whatsoever was set before them, by such as did receive them, that they were to eat and drink, Luk. 10 7, 8. Where then was the Miracle? was it in the Believers setting Food before them? or in their eating it, when it was so set before them?

But sayes he, pag. 158. If you conclude that we must be in all things as were the Apo∣stles, then must you of the Laity do now as the Laity did then, who sold their Possessions, and laid them down at the Apostles Feet, Acts 4.

Answ. That does not follow. The Apo∣stles (and in them all Ministers of Christ)

were commanded to preach freely (Freely ye have received, freely give, Mat 10.8.) and for their Maintenance to receive such things only, as by Believers were freely admini∣stred to them, Luke 10.7, 8. But the Belie∣vers were not commanded to sell their Pos∣sessions; that was a voluntary Act in them, as is manifest from the Instance of Ananias, While it remained (saith Peter, Acts 5.4.) was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own Power? So that he might have chosen whether he would have sold his Land or not; and after it was sold, he might yet have chosen, whether he would have brought the Money, or any part of it, into that Common Treasury or no. But the Apostles were not at their own choice, whether they would preach the Gospel or no. But sayes Paul, A Dispensation of the Go∣spel is committed unto me, a Necessity (of prea∣ching it) is laid upon me, yea, Wo is unto me if I preach not the Gospel, 1 Cor. 9.16, 17. And the same Apostle, when he took his Leave of the Elders of the Ephesian Church, did not exhort them to covet other mens Posses∣sions; but told them, I have coveted no man's Silver, or Gold, or Apparel: Yea, you your selves know (said he) that these Hands have mini∣stred unto my Necessities, and to them that

were with me. And I have shewed you all things (adds he) how that so labouring, ye ought to support the Weak; and to remember the words of the Lord Iesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give, then to receive, Acts 20.33, 34, 35.

But he tells us We ought to pay them Tythes for Conscience sake, because the King com∣mands it, p. 158.

Answ. Every Command of a King is not for Conscience sake to be actually obeyed. Histories, both Ecclesiastical and Civil, in∣form us, That many things have been com∣manded by Kings, which for Conscience sake ought not to have been performed. Instances of this kind abound in the Histories of the Kings of Israel and Iudah. And if the King should command this man but to throw up his setled Maintenance, and preach freely; I question how forward he would be in obey∣ing such a Command. But if an active Obe∣dience must for Conscience sake be yielded to every Command of a King, it must be ei∣ther simply as he is a King, or as he is a Chri∣stian King; if simply as a King, then if I lived in Turky, and the Grand Signior command me to maintain his Priests, I must do it. If as a Christian-King, then if I lived in France, and the French King command me to main∣tain

his Priests, it seems by this Man's Do∣ctrine, I must do it, and that for Conscience sake too, how contrary soever it be to Good Conscience.

But he sayes, The First Fruits and Tenths is one of the fairest Flowers belonging to the Crown.

Answ. He greatly mistakes, being herein somewhat like the Crow, which is said to think her own Bird White * 1.19 though others see it to be Black. No Flower can be fair in an En∣glish Crown, which was taken out of a Pope's Mitre. If nothing else could be said against it, but that it once stuck in the Tripple Crown, that alone were enough to make it unworthy to be worn in an English Diadem.

He seems greatly offended that he and his Brethren are counted Hirelings; and to vin∣dicate himself he makes a Comparison be∣tween them and the Judges of the Land: You know (sayes he) the King has Twelve Iudges, &c. and these have an Honourable Allowance from the Exchequer. Will you therefore say that they are Hirelings, and sell Iustice? and is not ours the same Case? pag 159.

Answ. No: for you pretend to be Mini∣sters of Christ; whereas they pretend no higher then to be Ministers of State. You call your selves Spiritual Persons: but you reckon them but Lay Men. You challenge to your selves a Spiritual Function: they claim but a Civil or Temporal Office. They therefore standing in a civil Capacity, may reasonably and fairly, without any Imputati∣on of Injustice, receive what their Master is pleased to bestow upon them. But you, who pretend to be Ministers of Christ Iesus, are therefore justly condemnable as Hirelings, be∣cause ye will not be content with that Main∣tenance, which he (whom ye call, though untruly, your Master) hath appointed, but seek for Hire from others.

Again, He takes it ill, that any should think they would abandon their Profession, if they should be bereaft of their Prefer∣ments. I hope (sayes he) many of us can appeal to the Searcher of Hearts, that we im∣braced the Ministry upon better Grounds, then Temporal Interests, &c. I pray you therefore ask your own Conscience, whether it were like∣ly to be Reason, or rather Envy, that drew up this Charge against us, p. 160.

Answ. I would not think hardly of them

all▪ nor more hardly of any then they deserve. But yet I must tell him, he need not take it ill, if such a thing be questioned, considering what Ground has been given for it. I do not know his standing (because he had not Inge∣nuity enough to give his Name) and there∣fore can say nothing to him particularly. But if he be not a very Young Man, he cannot be ignorant, that once within these Twenty Years, when their Preferments were taken away, chose of his Profession were very scarce to be found, insomuch as at that day the old Proverb began to come in use, No Penny, No Pater Noster. Certain it is, the Shep∣herds were fled, and had left their Flocks to the Mercy of those, whom they accounted no better then Wolves; and many good men thought the Reason to be, because they were but Hirelings, John 10.13. But to pass that by,

There remains yet a material Point to be considered, viz. For what Reason the Qua∣kers should pay Tythes, when by their Separa∣tion they have no Benefit of his Ministry? His Reason is, That the Minister is not to Blame for their Separation, or lack of that Benefit, but desires they would injoy it while he is attending his Office, p. 161.

Answ. If the Minister be one that for cor∣rupt Interest hath intruded himself (as it seems by what he says pag. 11. some such there be) if the Minister be a Man of a Vicious and In∣temperate Life, of a Disorderly Conversati∣on, such as the Apostle has exhorted to with∣draw from, is not the Minister then to Blame for the Separation? Admit he be a man of tolerable Sobriety, yet if his Ministry can do me no good, am I not better without it? That which I am is the Salvation of my Soul. He tells me (pag. 92, 93.) That whatsoever is necessary to my Salvation, is al∣ready so plain in the Scriptures, that I may understand it without his Help. To what End then should I make use of him?

But to come closer to the Point. He pre∣tends to be a Minister of Christ. Where did Christ ever impower his Ministers to make people hear them, whether they will or no? or to exact Wages of them although they did not hear them? His Instruction to his Disciples was, Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, shake off the Dust of your Feet, Mat. 10.14. And Paul sayes to the Iews, It was nec••ssary that the Word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put 〈◊〉〈◊〉 from you, and judge your s••lves

unworthy of Everlasting Life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles; for so hath the Lord command∣ed us, &c. Acts 13.••6. He greatly mistakes, if he thinks it to be the Mind of Christ to im∣pos•• his Gospel upon any, or, as the Spaniards are said to have dealt with the Indians, to make men Christians whether they will or no: Nay, nay; he lovingly invites all; he inward∣ly strives by his Spirit with all; he graciously tenders Mercy to all; but he obtrudes it upon none. And if he gave no Authority to his Apostles to compel any to hear them; to be sure he gave them no Power to Demand, muchless Inforce a Maintenance from such, as did neither receive nor own them. It was e••pecially provided in their Commission, that they should be first received, before they re∣ceived any thing themselves, Luke 10.8. And Paul sayes, He did not eat any man's Bread for nought, 2 Thes. 3.8. And if these men were indeed Ministers of Christ, they would not be so eager and forward to receive of those they call Hereticks.

But as for ••hat he sayes, that he desires we should injoy the Benefit of his Ministry, what is it more then a Popish Priest may say to him? Would he hold himself bound in Reason or Equity to maintain that Popish Priest, or think

the other did justly in Forcing a Maintenance from h••m, because he had Liberty to hear him if he would? It may be he will say No, because a Popish Priest is not a Minister of Christ. A very good Reason against them both. But the Popish Priest no doubt will say He is, and the other does no more. But this man may say, He has Law on his side: so had the other too lately in this Nation, and has it still elsewhere. The Intent of my reasoning thus is to shew, th••t by the same Argument by which he would condemn us, he justifies not only the Practice of the Pa∣pists against the Protestants here of old, but also the Dealings of other Secretaries against his Brethren and himself of late.

Besides, it is most weakly argued, that we must b•• forced to maintain him, because we may hear him if we will. In this he is more unjust then the worst sort of men usually are: for take the most greedy and over-reaching Tradesman that one can find, though he should tell me his Ware is very Good, and that he has such as will fit my turn, yet he will not thrust it upon me, whether I like i•• or no; but leaves me to my own Liberty, ei∣ther to take it or to leave it: and if I do ••ot take it, to be sure he will never demand any

thing of me for it. But this Priest will ei∣ther make us take his Ware▪ though we neither like it, nor have any need of it; or to be sure will make us pay for it, though we never take it. What can be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 unrea∣sonable, what more dishonest then this.

He next undertakes to defend the Priests in sueing for Tythes; If it be (sayes he) their Due they sue for, the Recovering of them by Course of ••aw will have no Injective in it.

Answ. In Civil Cases it is no Injustice for a man to recover his Due by Law. But neither is this a civil Ca••e, nor Tythe his Due. His supposing it so, is but begging of the Que∣stion. If he will say, it appears to be his Due, because upon Tryal he recovers it at Law; I shall answer, that that Argument will no more prove Tythes due to him, then it will, that they were due to the Papists and Presbyterians, both which (the former of old, the latter of late) recovered them by Law. Will he therefore acquit them of In∣justi••e? Will he say, Tythes were their Due? then he and his Brethren had no Wrong, from whom they were (by the latter) taken.

But for a Minister of Christ to sue men at Law for his Belly, is without all Precept, Pre∣cedent or Ground in Scripture, Religion or

Reason. It is contrary to the Nature of a Gospel Maintenance, which is altogether free and voluntary, not at all compulsory. The Ministers of Christ were to take what was given, what was set before them: not to demand, command, comp••l. This Practice is more like that of the Sons of Eli (who were Sons of Belial, and knew not the Lord) who said, We will have this, or We will have that, and if thou wilt not give it, we will take it by Force, 1 Sam. 2. Or like the False Prophets mentioned by Micha, who prepared War against them that put not into their Mouthes, Chap. 3. But when or where did any Minister of Christ ever do thus? Let him search the Holy Scriptures, let him turn over Ecclesiastical Histories, and produce such an Instance if he can.

Yet so little Mod••sty has he as to say, The High-way Thief may as w••ll implead the Iu∣stice of an Hue and-Cry, as the Quakers such a lawful Pros••cu••ion. But this is a Posi∣tion so utterly devo••d of Truth, Reason and Charity, that without further Answer I dare commit it to the Censure of every dis inte∣rested Reader.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Gen. 14.20.
• * 1.2

  Hebr. 7.2.
• * 1.3

  Vers. 4.
• * 1.4

  Deut. 14.25, 26.
• * 1.5

  Luk 10.6, 7, 8, Mat. 10.10.
• * 1.6

  Aliquam portionem ter∣rarum haeredi∣tariam, ••re the words both in Ingulfe & Malmesbury.
• * 1.7

  Aliquam por∣tionem terrae m••a decimam Scil. partem terrae meae, are th•• words in M••tthew of We••••minster. Decimam Hydam terrae totius 〈◊〉〈◊〉-Saxiae, are the words in Jornalensis.
• * 1.8

  Fascic. Temp. in Zach. Pap. Burdegal. Chronog. in eundem.
• * 1.9

  See Fascic. Temporum. Platina & Burdega∣lensis.
• * 1.10

  Platina in Vita ejus.
• * 1.11

  Platina in vita ejus.
• * 1.12

  Platina in vita ejus.
• * 1.13

  Burdegal. Fascicul. Tempor.
• * 1.14

  Lib. 3. c. 11. & 13. Lib. 3. c. 2. Lib. 5. cap. 4.
• * 1.15

  Acts 16.3. & 18.18. & 21 2••.
• * 1.16

  Remissione ani∣marum, & peccato∣rum nostrorum, are the Words of the Charter in I••gulf, as Spelman gives them is his British Coun∣cils. Anno Christi, 855.
• * 1.17

  Error mi∣nimus in principio, fit major in me∣dio, maxi∣mus, in fine.
• * 1.18

  C••ssante Ratione legis c••s∣sat lex.
• * 1.19

  Asinus asino, sus sui pul∣cher.