have the Tythe even of the Husbandman's Straw and Chaff as well as of his Hay to the great Dammage of the Husbandman who often wants these to maintain his Cattel alwayes to make Dung to keep his Land in heart But 4. If nothing of all this were to be alledged if the Iews had paid a full sixth part to the Levitâ—s and that for the Levites proper use and had undertaken the Relief of Fatherâ—ess Widow and Strangers besideâ— and if the Husbandmen now paid Tytheâ— of no more things than what the Iews paid Tythes of yet comparing the great Charge and small Increase the Huâ—bandman now hath with the small Charge and great â—ncrease the Iews then â—ad it will still appear that tâ—e people are under a greater Burden and the Charge lies heavier on the people now who pay thâ— tâ—nth part to the Priest than it did or would have done on the Iews had they paid as they did not a 〈…〉 part to the Levites To what I urged before to prove the Charge heavier on the people now tâ—an it was on the Iews viz. That the Levitâ—s having no Inheritance with their Brethren the Lots of the other Tribes were the bigger which was some Consideration for their Tythes c. The Priest answers That though the Levites had not any intire Country set out together yet they had fair Possessions in every Tribe having forty eight Cities with two thousand Cubits round without the Wall appointed them by God which says he pag. 220. was a better proportion then our Glâ—be-land and in value might be esteemed the twelfth part of the Land of Canaan He computes strangely to make the Levites Cities with their Suburbs a twelfth part in value oâ— the Land of Canaan Was that the way for the Levites to have No Inheritance Numb 18. 23 24. No Part with their Brethren Deut. 10. 9. to give them a greater part thaâ— any of their Brethren had For if according to the Priest they had had in Cities and Suburbs a twelfth part in value of the Land of Canaan and they were in number as Selden computes scarce a fiftieth part of the peopâ—e they had had a notable Advantage by being as I may say disinherited of the Land although they had received neither Tythes nor Oblationâ— but those Cities and Suburbs only But what value soever those Cities were of the Levites had them and that by Godâ—â— aâ—poâ—ntment But by whose appointment have tâ—e Priests now their Parsorage-houses Vicarage-houses with their Glebe-lands or what value may we suppose them to amount unto If there be in England and Wales about ten thousand Parishe to â—ach of which a Parsonage or Vicarage-house belongs these could tâ—ey be reduced into Town would make as many and probably as fair aâ— those tâ—e Levites had For ten thousand Houses divided into forty eight parts afford above two hundred unto each and doubtless two hundred such Houses as most of these are with their great Tythe-Barns and other appurtenant Buildings would make as laâ—ge a Town as most if not as any of them Then for the Glebe-lands belonging to these Houses there is no question but their extent doth far exceed the two thousand Cubits of Land alotted to the Levites round each â—â—ty For suppose there be but twenty Acres of Glebe-land to every Parsonage or Vicarage-house one with another yet that not to make an exact calcâ—lation casts about four thousand Acres to every two hundred Houses which probably would surpass the Limits of the Lâ—vites Suburbs at least a fourth part This in short only to shew that if the Levites had Houses and Lands about them so have the Priests now also and that so far as may be gathered in much greater quantity So that the Levites having Cities and Suburbs doth not at all abate the force of my Argument but still it appears that the Charge is much heavier upon the people now than it was under the Levitical Priesthood for if the Levites received Tythes of the people so do the Priests and that of more things than the Levites did if the Levites had Houses of the people to dwell in and some Lands about them for their Cattel so have the Priests of thâ— people now and that probably in greater proportion then the Leâ—ites had Thus far then the people now have the worst of it but much more in that which follows for if the Levites had Cities and Suburbs they had not Inheritances with their Brethren they had not those Cities and Suburbs and the Share of the Land besides But the Priests now have not only Cities and Suburbs as I may call them but Inheritances also with their Brethren They have not only Houses and Lands equivalent at lâ—ast if not superiour to what the Levites had but their share also of the rest of the Land being equally capable of holding Estates by Civil Title as any other of the people are And how much soever the Priests thus possess so much the less the people have and so much thâ— heavier lieâ— the Burden on them than it did upon the Iews Besides Let it be considered what vast Revenues what grâ—at and rich Possessiâ—ns sufficient to deâ—ray the publick Charge of the Nation are grasped into the hands of Arch-Bishops Bishops Prâ—bends Deans and Chapters c. From whence I pray were these squeezed was it not from the people Are not the people hereby impoverished to make the Clergy rich Were ever the Iews so served by their Priesthood Had their Priests or Levites Lands or Possâ—ssions in the Land of Canaan besides their Cities and Suburbs Judge then Reader whether the Charge lies not heavier on the people now than it did under the Levitical Priesthood seeing the people now pay more and injoy less than the Ieâ—s did Then for their Offerings If the Levites had a part of the Sacrifices a share of the Feast a part of the voluntary Oblations the first Born of Cattel Râ—tes for the redemption of the first Born of men and of persons dedicated by Vow The Priests now have many more wayes of drayning Mâ—ney from the People and such as are more burdensom to the People too In the Sacrifices Feasts and voluntary Obâ—ations as the Priests and Levites had a part so the people also had their share But in the Offâ—rings and Payments which the Priests now claim and receive the People have no share at all so much money is demanded and paid with which the Prieâ—t feasts himself but thâ— People neither â—at nor drink for it But if there happen to be a Feast in the Parish at a Christening as they call it or any other Gossipiâ—g Bout who but the Parsâ—n there The price for Redemption of Persons dedicated by Vow was very uncertain The Priest sets down fiâ—ty Shâ—kels which was the higheâ—â— â—rice that it could at any time amount unto But in other Cases more likely to happen the price was sometimes thiâ—ty sometimes twenty sometimes â—en sometimes five and
thousaâ—d Hills arâ— his Psal. â—0 12. not the Tythes of them only That Scripture therefore Prov. 3. 9. Honour the Lord with thy Suâ—stance is misapplyed by the Priest and as he restrains it to the Payment of Tythes is not a binding Rule to Christians as well as Iews Câ—ristians being no where commanded by God to pay Tythes as the Iews expresly were But the Christian doth then honour God with his Substance when thankfully receiving the Goods of this World from the Hand of the Lord he doth in God's holy Fear so use them as not to abuse them 1 Cor. 7. 31. when both in eating and drinking and whatsoever else he does he does all to the Glory of God according to the Exhortation of the Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 10 31. 'T is not to be doubted but that God from whose Bounty and Blessing all is received might reserve to himself what share he pleased but what he might do is one thing what he did another That he ever did appropriate the tenth part I find not in Scripture exprest excepting only in the time of the Levitical Priesthood for which there was a particular Reason He then chose the Iewish Nation to be his peculiar People which People being divided into twelve Tribes he separated one entire Tribe the Tribe of Levi to attend the Service of the Tabernacle â— The Land of Canaan he divided amongst the other eâ—eaven Tribes but gave the Tribe of Levi no Inheritance amongst them Numb 18. 20 23 24. Deut. 10. 9. for they being wholely imployed in that service could not have leisure to attend the Plough or other Rural Occupations Seeing therefore he had excluded them from a share of the Land the manuring of which would have taken them off from the Service he had designed them to and that by this means their Brethren the other Eleaven Tribes amongst whom their part was shared did all fare so much the better their respective Lots beinâ— so much the greater he commanded the Eleaven Tribes that had the Lands to pay the Tythes of the increase thereof out of whicâ— this twelf Tribe should be maintained And while that Priesthood and Polity stood which Tythes were suitable and appropriated to this Tything Command was in force and no longer But that eveâ— God did reserve the tenth or command the payment of Tythes to any before the constitution of the Levitical Priesthood or since the Dissolution thereof I no where read in Scripture This is proper for the Assertors of the Divine Right of Tythes to prove and indeed so absolutely necessary that if they fail of this all they can say beside will be too weak to bear their Title up For in a matter of so great moment it is not â—are Conjectures or meer Suppositions nor Probability neither will serve the turn but positive Precept The Levitical Priesthood was not left to such Incertainties Though this Priest is willing to take it for granted that the men of that Age wherein Abraham lived knew and understood by the Light of Nature that the tenth part belong'd to God and was therefore to be paid to his Priests yet we find God himself did not think fit to hazard the Levitical Priesthood on such uncertain terms but secured their Maintenance to them by an express Command which left no room for any Doubts or Scruples And can it be imagin'd that the Ommâ—scient God whose Eye at once fore-sees all Events would leave the Maintenance of his Gospel-Ministry so much nearer to him then the Levitical Priesthood to depend upon the ambiguous and doubtful Constitution of a single Act of Abraham's or a Vow of Iacob's uncertain when or where or how performed No doubtless it cannot reasonably be supposed that he who took such particular Care of the Legal Priesthood which was to last but for a 〈◊〉 and was so punctual in appointing Tythes for their Maintenance not thinking either Abraham ' Gift or Iacob's Vow sufficient ground for them to claim upon although they were the choâ—en Priests of God without a plain and positive Command would leave his Royal Priesthood the Publishers of his Everlasting Gospel so ill provided of a Claim to Tythes as to be necessitated to strain a Title out of Abraham's Gift and Iacob's Vow if he had ever intended Tythes should be the Maintenance of his Gospel-Ministers What else doth this Assertor of the divine Right of Tythes offer in proof of his Assertion but Conjectures and Probabilities as he calls them as in page 30. where speaking of Abraham's giving to God the tenth of all the Spoils he adds As in all Probability he was wont ordinarily to do of all that he got by God's ordinary Blessing So again pag. 31. T. E. cannot prove Abraham did not pay Tythes 〈◊〉 and I can make it appear very probable he did Again There are ancient Authors and probable Reasons to induce us to beliâ—ve c. pag. 33. Again speaking of 〈◊〉 being Sem We cannot sayâ— he be 〈◊〉 iâ— a matter of so great antiquity but I hoâ—e these things may suffice to make it very probable that Melchizedeâ— was Abraham ' s Priest in Ordinary pag. 34. And though he is able to shew no better ground then such probable Maybâ—'s as these yet he sticks not to require his Reader 's Assent as fully as if he had produced the most positive Proofs and plain Demonstratâ—on for speaking of Abraham's pitching upon the Tenth he says p. 25. In all Râ—ason we ought to belâ—â—ve it was first revealed by almighty God to him c. And speaking of Sacrificing beinâ— believed to be revealed by God to Adam he says The like we may believe also concerning this of dedicating the tenth part pag. 26. Again speaking of soâ—e Heathens that vow'd the Tenths to their Gods he says Which therefore we muâ—t believe they had by Tradition from the first Patriarchs who received it by Revelation from God pag. 27. Yet in the next page sayes It is not necessary since the Scripture is silent I should deterâ—ine whether Abraham was immediately directed to it or whether he learnt it from Melchizedec Thus he argues from may be to must be and from must be to may be back again finding nothing firm nothing certaâ—n whereon to build a divine Right to Tythes Yet fain he would have it so and therefore labours to perswade his Reader pag. 21. that from the Example of Abraham's Giving and Iacob's Vowing the Tenth there was a Claim made of this teâ—th part as being originally due to God long before And for thiâ— Claim he quoteâ— Levit. 27. 30. All the Tythes of the Land is the Lord's But he greatly mistakes and mis-applyes that Text for thought the teâ—th the nineth the Eighth and the all was originally due to God long before yet as a tenth distinct and separate from the rest it doth not appear to have been due long before nor seems to be here mention'd by Moses with relation to any such former Reâ—erve or Claim
note that Ethelbald King of Mercia Anno. 794. confirms to all the Clergy of his Kingdom the Liberty which they had out of the Woods the Fruit of the Ground and the taking of Fish And this being after that Epistle of the German Boniface which assured us Tythes were then enjoyed by the Clergy must he sayes be meant of Tythes In the former part of these words there is a flourish and a falshood The flourish in these words not to mention all the Charters which from the beginning of Christianity do â—onfirm c. what else is this but an empty found of words without matter The falshood in these words Tythes were among the Revenues of the Church from the first beginning of Christianity this â— tax for a down-right falshood let him clear it as he can Then for the Donation or Confirmation of Ethelbald It speaks nothing of Tythes but discharges the Monasteries and Churches of his Kingdom from publick Taxes Burdens and Services some few excepted and then sayes Let the Servants of God it speaks generally not the Priestâ— or Clergy only have their own liberty in the Fruits of the Woods and Fields and in taking Fish that they need not make presents to the King or to the Princes unless they do it of their own accord but being free let them serve God c. Here 's no mention of Tythes and if there had yet I think the Priest would have been hard bestead to have acquitted them by this Donation from a Popish Institution or to have proved this Charter made before Popery had made her encroachments in the Church especially if we consider that Fox in his Book of Martyrs gives this very Charter as an instance of the Popish blindness of that Age. His words speaking of them that builded endowed Churches Monasteries Abbies c. are these The cause and end of their Deeds and Buildings cannot be excused being contrary to the Rule of Christ's Gospel for so much as they did these things seeking thereby Merits with God and for remedy of their Souls and remission of their Sins as may appear testified in their own Records whereof one here I thought to set forth for probation of the same Then he sets down this very Charter of Ethelbald and after adds By the Contents hereof may well be understood as where he saith Pro amore celestis Petriae pro remedio anime pro liberatione animâ— et absolutione delictorum c. i. e. For the love of the Heavenly Country for the remedy of my Soul for the deliverance of my Soul and pardon of my Sins c. how great the ignorance and blindness of these men was who lacking no Zeal only lacked Knowledge to rule it withal Seeking their Salvation not by Christ only but by their own deservings and meritorious Deeds Thus far Fox in his Acts and Monuments of the Church Vol. 1. l. 2. toward the end From which the Reader may observe how contrary his Opinion of those times was to this Priest who brings the very same Charter for proof that Tythes were settled on the Church before Popery had made her encroachments in it which Fox gave as an iâ—stance of Popish blindness and ignorance And besides the general corruption of that time The Author of this Charter Ethelbald himself was a lewd and vitious person Speed in his Chronicle pag. 254. calls him A most lascivious Adulterer and the Arch-Bishop of Mentâ— in an Epistle to him taxes him with wallowing in Luxury and Adultery with Nuns To this Ethelbald the Priest â—oyns K. Offa who he sayes in the Year 793. did give the tenth of all he had to the Câ—urch Why did he not add the occasion of this Gift Was he asâ—amed of it so let him then be of the gift too It was a most exâ—â—rable Murder aggâ—aâ—ated with the violation of Hospitality Tâ—e Story Fox sets down out of Iorâ—alensis and Malmsbury to this effect Ethelbert King of Eastangles came to the Court of Offa with a Princely Train to sue for his Daughter in Marriage Offa's Queen suspecting Ethelbert had some other design perswaded her Husband to kill him Offa thereupon the next day caused him to be trained into his Palace alone from his Company by one called Guimbertus who took him and bound him and there struck off his Head which forth-with he presented to the King and Queen Offa length understanding the Innocency of thus King and the heinous Cruelty of the Fact gave the tenth part of his Goods to holy Church and to the Church of Hereford in remembrance of this Ethelbert he bestowed great Lands and afterwards went up to Rome for his Pennance where he gave to the Church of St. Peter a Penny through every House in his Dominion and there at length was translated from a King to a Monk Martyrol vol. 1. pag. 117. Here now we see the cause of this Gift was a most barbarous Murder and the Gift the price of innocent Blood Yet this Gift of Offa's was but particular the tenth of his own Goods not a general act nor find we that he made any Law to compel others to do the like But the Priest urges that this Offa had with all his Clergy condemned the adoration of Images and so was no Idolater That he and all his Clergy did condemn the adoration of Images is more I think then the Priest can prove but suppose that doth it therefore follow that he was no Idolater Is nothing then Idolatry but worshipping of Images What 's the praying to Saints What 's the worshipping of Relicks Will the Priest say that Offa and all his Clergy had condemned this also Hee 'l say perhaps he was no Papist neither What went he up to Rome for What made him so observant and bountiful to the Pope What made him before receive the Popes Legates are not these plain Arguments of his communion with the Church of Rome in which besides all other Idolatries the adoration of Images was then most zealously maintained From Offa's Gift he takes a step of about sixty Years to Ethelwolf's Charter finding nothing in the way to countenance Tythes Now before we enter upon Ethelwolf's Charter I intreat thee Reader to cast thy Eye a little back and take a short Review of the â—uthorities he has urged to prove the settlement of Tythes in England before Ethelwâ—lf's time His first out of Flâ—ta has nothing of Tythes His second of Ina has nothing of Tythes His third of Boniface proves not any settlement of Tythes nor that the Priests were maintained by Tythes but only that they did receive Tythes of such as did freely offer them His fourth of Egberts Collâ—ction of Canons is proved by Selden not to be Collected by Egbert but by some other of later times His fifth of a Canon of the Council of Chalcuth is by Selden upon reasonable grounds suspected to be a Constitution of Odo Arch-Bishop of Canterbury above a Hundred Years after Ethelwolf's time His sixth of
Argument lies against both But he that shall read that place in my Book which the Priest hath quoted pag. 297. may plainly see my aim is to shew that even according to the Priest's Argument the Impropriators have no right to Tythes My words are It is obvious that if because Tythes have been dedicated as he sayes to God it is unlawful to alienate them to common uses then it must needs be unlawful for them to hold their Impropriations because they were offered in like manner as the rest of the Tythes were But say I there let them look to themselves Whether this be flattering and clâ—â—ing the Impropriators as he unhandsomly suggests let the Reader judge Then for those Lands given to Abbies and other Religious Houses as they were once called and upon the dissolution of those Houses settled on the Crown it is manifest his Argument impeaches that settlement and all the subequent Tittles to those Lands derived therefrom and aims at reducing those Lands into the Clergyes hands again For if as he argues being once dedicated they cannot be alienated to common use and that it is a dangerous thing to medle with any thing that hath given been to God Fr. Confer pag. 147. And again as the Censers being once given to God must remain to be his still so we may learn it ought to be in other sacred dedications they must remain sacred still Right of Tythes pag. 117. Then seeing these Abbey Lands were once dedicated to God as well as Tythes it follows unavoidably from his Argument that they cannot be alienated to common uses but must remain sacred still Thus we see at once both the aim of his unsatiable Eye and the weakness of his Argument which in my former Book pag. 297. is detected at large and the discovery thereof hath so â—ettled the man that by way of revenge and to vent his Anger he calls me poor Quaker â—lattering Quaker double-tongued and false-hearted man with more to the same purpose and what I speak with reference to those who possess the Abbey Lands he pâ—rverts and directs to the Iâ—propriators But he should have â—onsidered that his criminating me doth not at all acquit himself For if he will infer from my reasoning that I deny the Impropriators Right to Tythes which I readily enough acknowledge I do yet what is that to his Iustification whose Argument if true would strip not Impropriators only but all others also who possess Abbey Lands or any other Revenues once dedicated to God and Holy Church as the Phrase was Yet he would hide his own Teâ—th and smooth the matter over as if the Priests were the most resigned and submissive Men imaginable to the Law and very good Friends to the Impropriators For our parts sayes he pag. 118. like the Pharisâ—â— Luk. 18. 11. we do not like the Quakers take upon us to censure the actions of our Princes and Parliaments Whatever Opinions the Priests hold in this matter they do not oppose the Laws and go about to perswade any to take away the Impropriators Estates from them Do they not Pray hear now what the Author of the Conâ—erence in his Vindication pag. 305. sayes I confess that Henry 8. did alienate them speaking of Tythes c. And so did he also establish the six bloody Articles to shew himself as ill a friend to Protestants as to Tythes but is not this sayes he a wise Argument to prove that Sacriledge may de jure be câ—mmitted because de facto it hath been committed judge now Reader the truth of that saying of the other Priest viz. We do not take upon us to censure the Actions of our Princes and Parliament when this Priest charges Henry 8. and his Parliament with downright Sacriledge He might have considered that how ill a Friend soever Henry 8. was to Protestants he was not so ill a Friend to Tythes as the Priest represents him since the first Statute Law extanâ— for the payment of Tythes was made under his Reign But further sayes the Author of the Right of Tythes pag. 118. We do not pretend Conscience to save charges as the Quakers manner is Doth he know any Quaker that pretends Conscience to save charges If he does know any such I desire he will name him But if he knows no such what has he told If he would needs raise a Slander on the Quakers could he find nothing that would have look't more likely Do not the Quakers know before hand that if they refuse to pay Tythe they incur the penalty of treble dammage which by that time it is levied seldom comes to less then five or six times the single value of the Tythes demanded besides Imprisonment Is this the way to save Charges What Reader could he expect to find out of Bedlaâ— so much beside his Wits as to receive a suggestion so utterly repugnant to common sense and reason as this is But to proceed § 19. The Priest is troubled that Tythes are reputed of Popisâ— Institution and â—ain he would clear them if he knew how He tryes all the wayes he can and leaves no Stone unturned His first attempt is to defame me that my discourse might have the less acceptance In order whereunto he tells his Reader pag. 120. T. E. now falls to work for the Iesuits in good earnest labouring to make out the Pope's Title to England by a Prescription of eight or nine Hundred Years In this he is very faulty for besides his having represented me all along as a meer piece of Ignorance and Folly and thereby rendred me a very unfit Agent to carry on the deep designs of those crafty and politick Statists he knows full well that I labour not to make the Pope a Title to England but to raize out all Monuments of his usurped Authority that no print nor Foot-step may appear of his power having been exercised here by the continuance of any Custom which received either life or growth from him as this of Tythes did And since it may be lamented but cannot be denyed that the Papal Authority hath had too long as well as too great a sway here whether I pray doth best become a Protestant to acknowledge freely its full time and reject fully all its Institutions or to mince the matter represent the time shorter then it was and retain some of the Popish Institutions which like the Wedge of Gold and Babylonish Garment both deâ—ile the Camp and deform the Reformation Popery is now so justly abhor'd by the generality of English that it were a vain attempt to set up any thing apparently and avowedly Popish Therefore the Enemy of true Religion invents other wayes to keep up Popish Institutions and one is to date the Riâ—e of Popery so low as may leave room to introduce or continue some Popish Customs upon a pretence that they are antecâ—dent to Popery But he that shall duly consider the state of the Church in and from the Apostles times will find
whose Person as the latter Priest sayes the Master of the Vineyard speaks may do what he will with his own to whom it is impossible to do amiss may every one therefore challenge to himself the same Liberty and Power That 's not to make meâ— Servants and Stewards to the great Housholder but Lords and Masters But aâ— to the Case of Tythes I have proved that Ethelwolf in the settlement of Tythes did that with his own which was evil in upholing a false Religion which it more concerns the Priest to clear him from then thus without cause to cavil § 5. In my Answer to the Friendly Conference I said pag. 323. Suppose that Ethelwolf had an ample Power of disposing what he pleased or that the People had by consent joyned with him in the Dâ—nation every man according to the Interest he had yet neither could he single nor he and they conjoyned grant any more then belonged to themselves This was too plain to be denyed being grounded on a firm Maxim Nemo plus juris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse haberet i. e. No man can transfer more Right to another then he himself hath therefore they seek wayes to evade it The Author of the Conferenâ—e sayes Suppose I grant it whâ—â— then His Parishioner answers in my Name To make â— Grant of the tenth part forever is in his understanding utterly 〈◊〉 to Reason The Priest replieâ— Is it reasonable wholly to pass an Estatâ— from theâ— and their Heirs forever and yet repugnant to 〈…〉 grant but a part of that Estate forever By this I perceive he has taught his Parishioner to use as little Honesty as himself The Parishioner has learnt of the Priest to chop and mangle Sentences and cunningly leave out what he likes not He maketh me here say To make a Grant of the tenth 〈◊〉 forever is in my understanding utterly repugnant to Reason This goes clearer with the Priest as if I had said it was repugnant to Reason to grant the tenth part of an Estate forever and accordingly he argueâ— whereas I say plainly They might have disposed of what part of the Land they pleased they might have given the tenth part of the Land the tenth Acre c. But that which I said is to my understanding repugnant to Reason Iustice and Equity is for theâ— to make a grant of the tenth part of the PROFITS of the Land forever These words of the profits of the Land he leaves out in reciting my words thereby drawing it from the profits of the Land to the Land it self which alters the case for as I shewed the profits of the Land forever could not be said to belong to them because it depended on the stock labour c. of another which they had no interest in noâ— right unto But if the profits of the Land forever did not belong to them and they had no power to grant any more then did belong to themselves it follows that they had no power to grant the Tythes of the profits of the Land forever They endeavour to weaken the force of this Argument by comparing Tythes with a Rent-charge urging That the owners might as well make a grant of Tythes forever as set a Rent-charge upon their Lands forever This the Author of the of Tytth Rhgies talks much of and fills many pages 〈◊〉 in Sect. 30. and 38. shifting the same matter into divers dresses by variety of expressions to make the fairer shew and greater appearance of saying something But he that shall impartially consider the nature of each will find a vast difference between a Rent-charge and Tythes for a Rent-charge is paid by reason of the Land on which it is charged which it is to be supposed â—e that charged it had at that time â— property in but Tythes are not paid by reason of the Land but by reason of the stock and labour c. imploy'd thereon by him that occupies it which appears by this that they who have no Lands are as well charged with the payment of Tythes out of the improvement or increase of their stocks and labours in their Trades and manual Occupations as they are who occupy Lands So that Tythes lie properly on the stock not on the Land but a Rent-charge lies properly on the Land not on the stock and therefore although there should be no increase at all no profit made no Crop plâ—nted nor any thing renewing upon the Land yet the Rent-charge must be paid because it is charged in consideration of the Land it self but it is not so in the case of Tythes If there be no increase no profit made no Crop planted nor any thing renewing upon the Land no Tythe can be demanded because Tythe is charged in consideration of the increase and improvement made of the Stock And for the Non-payment of a Rent-charge he on whom it is settled may enter upon and possess the Land which is charged with the payment of it But in the case of Tythes it is otherwise For non-payment of Tythes he who claims them cannot enter upon or possess the land but is made whole out of the stock of the Occupier All which demonstrates that it is the stock not the land of which the Tythe is paid If a Trades-man hold a â—arm as many dâ— and dividing his 〈◊〉 he 〈◊〉 one part of it in his Farm â—nd the other in hiâ— Trade he is liable to the payment of Tythes out oâ— each But if he should draw his Stock out of 〈◊〉 Farm and imploy it all in his Trade letting his Farm lie unstocked and so receive no profit from it he would not be chargeable with Tythes for his Farm but only for the improvement of his Stock 〈◊〉 his Trade Yet if there be a Rent-charge upon 〈◊〉 Farm he is chargeable with that nevertheless and liable to pay it whether he imploy his Farm or not Whence it is still more evident that a Rent-charge being a charge upon the Land â—ot upon the Stock and Tythes being a charge upon the stock not upon the land though our Ancestors had power to lay a Rent-charge upon their own Lands in which they had a property yet they could not have power to grant Tythes out of other mens Stocks in which they had no property Now since Tythe is not the tenth part of the Land but the tenth part of the increase of the Stock howsoever imployed whether upon Land or otherwise and seeing the labour care skill industry and diligence of the Occupant whether Husband man or Trades-man is involved and necessarily included in the Stock as instrumental means and causes of producing the increase a perpetual grant of Tythes implies a grant not only of other mens Stocks in which the Granters had no property but of other mens labours care skill diligence and industry also long before they were begotten upon which supposition all men but Priests since Ethelwolf's time 〈◊〉 be born Slaves under an obligation to imploy
paying Tythe nor forfeits â—e the Land for not paying it neither is Tythe charged upon the Land as the payment to the Poor is of which see before Chap. 5. Sect. 5. and Sect. 13. Then secondly The Tenant is liable to the payment of the Tythe not out of his Rent but out of his Stock over and above his Rent and the Land-lord is not concerned about it unless any private agreement antecede Thus it appears his Instance of a Rent charge to the Poor is quite beside the business and his Answer is no Answer to the Reason I offered But he seems to have another Again saith he The Tenant receives as much from God as he doth from his Landlord for we think that Land is not more necessary to the increase than God's blessing ibid. Nor so necessary neither say I since increase may be without Land but not without God's blessing The Tenant therefore receives more from God than he doth from his Landlord for from his Landlord he receives Land only and that upon a Rent but from God he receives All he hath his Stock his Crop his Health his Strength c. and that freely As therefore he receives All from God so unto God ought All to be returned God's wisdom counsel and holy fear ought to be waited for and regarded in disposing and imploying those things which God hath been pleased to give But what is this to the Priest or to Tythes Why says he upon that consideration our pious Aâ—câ—stors obliged their Hâ—irs forever to give God his part of the Prâ—fits because both they and their Heirs were Yearly to receive all their Increase from his Blessing ibid. What is God's part of the Profits If all the Increase be received from his blessing how comes he to have but a part of the Profits Where hath God under the Gospel declared the tenth part partiâ—ularly to be his or who had power to assign that pâ—rt to him that is Lord of all He urges for a Law the saying of King Edward the Confessor Of all things which God gives the tenth part is to be restored to him who gave us the nine parts together with the tenth pag. 202. Whence â—dward the Confessor learnt that Doâ—trine may easily be guessed if we consider in what time he lived Speed says he was Crowned King of England in the Year 1042. And says the Author of the Conference in his Vindication pag. 277. Moâ—â— of the present evil Opinions of the Church of Rome had their Original in those unlearned Ages from about the Year 700. to about the Year 1400. About the mid-night of which darkness there was scarce any Learning left in the World These says he were the unhappy times which bred and nursed up Invocation of Saints Worship of Images Purgatory 〈◊〉 all the Fanatical Visions and Revelations Miracles c. Then began Shrines Pilgrimages Reliques purchasing of Pardons and the Popes attempts for aâ— universal Monarchy And though he here mentions some particulars yet he said but a few Lines before At the same time that Learning fell into decay all manner of Corruptions crept into the Church c. Now according to his computation of time for the Rise and growth of Popery and of all manner of Corruptions from about the Year 700. to about the Year 1400. his mid-night of Darkness must fall about the Year 1050. and this K. Edward the Confessor entring his Reign in the Year 1042. it is manifest that this Law of his for Tythes was made in the very mid-night of Darkness Hence the Reader may observe that although this K. Edward to whom as Camden observes Brittania pag. 377. our Ancestors and the Popes vouchsafed the Name of St. Edward the Confessor was a man of great justice temperance and vertue but especially Continency for which it seems in that incontinent Age he was Sainted yet that he learnt this Opinion of the tenth part being due to God in the mid-night of Darkness when there was scarce any learningâ— est in the World when all manner of Corruptions were either crept or creeping into the Church and wherein most of the present â—vil Opinions of the Church of Rome had their Original which makes the quotation not much for the Priest's credit And truly if it had been as he intimates an act of Piety in our Ancestors to give Tythes and that upon that consideration that both they and their Heirs were Yearly to receive all their Increase from God's blessing they had done I think but equally to have left their Poâ—â—erity at liberty to have acted in like manner from the Impressions of Piety rather than for the necessity of Paternal Obligations supposing their Injunctions in this case obligatory As for what the Priest here takes for granted that the tenth is God's peculiar part it is but an old Popish Opinion by which the World hath been too long gulled which never was nor ever can be proved with respect to Gospel-times And to be sure when ever he pleads God's Right he makes himself God's Steward and Receiver He says here Now the Priest is but God's Steward and Receiver and if it were true that the Tenant did receive nothing from the Steward of God yet he might justly pay him Tythes for his Masters sake from whom he receives all There were some of Old who with as much conâ—idence and little Truth affirmed themselves to be the Children of God as this Priest doth that he and his Brethren are God's Stewards and Receivers But the Answer which Christ gave unto them Iohn 8. 44. is very observable and no less applicable The Tenant says the Priest receives nothing from his Landlords Steward and yet he pays his Rent to him or to any other whom his Landlord assigns to reâ—eive it True but two things first he makes himself sure of One that the sum demanded is indeed his Landlords due The other that the person demanding is indeed his Landlord's Steward or by him assigned to receive it The Tenant though he pays his Rent to the Steward contracts with the Landlord and if at any time any doubt arises about the Rent they recâ—â—â— to the Lease for Decision Now if the Priest would make any advantage of his Sâ—mile he should prove if he could that God hath any where declared under the Gospel the tenth to be his peculiar part which the Priest hath often bâ—g'd a Concession of but has no way to prove for if we have recourse to the holy Records the Scriptures of the New Testament from thence to be sure he can fetch no proof that Tythes are God's peculiar part since by his own confession pag. 67. Tythes are not mentioned in the Gospel or Epistles to be the very part Besides the Tenant though the Rent be certain and acknowledged is not forward if wiâ—e to part with his Money to every one that calls himself a Steward and takes upon him to be his Landlord's Receiver But he expects a plain and satisfactory proof that
then purchased the Tythes himself as much as he did the other nine parts of his Crop But to talk of Tythes descending from Ancestors argues the Priest doth not well understand what it is himself claims Tythes did descend to the Seller from his Ancestors as much as the other nine parts of the Profits But neither one nor the other can properly be said to descend from the Ancestors to the present Possessor seeing both the nine parts and the tenth are the yearly increase produced instrumentally by the yearly Labour Charge and Care of the present Possessor That which descends to a man from his Ancestors is what his Ancestors were possest of or had a Right unto But no man's Ancestors could be possest of or have a Right unto those Profits of yearly increase which in their times were not in being but are since produced by the Labour and Charge of another But he says pag. 209. If T. E. would know the Reason why Tythes are not excepted in the Purchase by name as Free Rents and Rent Charges sometimes are I answer says he Free Rents and Rent Charges c. are laid upon Land by private Contracts and could not be known unless they were by Name excepted to be due out of such an Estate whereas Tythes were a publick Donation c. This with some may pass for a Reason but if he were willing to give the true Reason he knows that as Free Rents and Rent Charges are laid upon Land and are paid out of the Rent of the Land without regard to the Increase that is made so the Burden of Tythes lies upon Stock and is due as he says out of the Profits only without regard to the Rent of the Land which Profits are the Improvement of the Husbandman's Stock through God's Bâ—essing on his industrious Diligence and Labour It were very improper therefore to except Tythes out of a Purchase of Land seeing Tythes are not charged on the Land nor claimed of the Land §19 He quarrels next with a Demonstration of mine the occasion whereof was this The Author of the Conference pag. 156. said Though the Tenant pays Tythes yet are they no inconvenience to him because he pays less Rent in Consideration thereof To shew the Fallacy of this Position I urged that if it should be granted that the Tenant payes less Rent in consideration of Tythes which yet I said is questionable yet the abaâ—eâ—ent which â—e is supposed to have in Rent is not proportionable or answerable to the value of the Tythes he pays and thus I undertook to demonstrate it Suppose a Landlord lets a Farm for 90 l. a year which if it were Tythe-free would yield 100 l. the Tenant to pay his Rent defray all his Charge of Husbandry and have a comfortable Subsistence and Maintenance for himself and his Family must according to the computation of skilful Husbandmen by his Care Industry and Labour together with the Imployment of his Stock raise upon his Farm three Rents or three times as much as his Rent comes to which will make 270 l. and the tenth part of 270 l. is 27 l. so that if the Tenant should have 10 l. a year abated in his Rent because of Tythes and he payes 27 l. a year because of Tythes then does he pay 17 l. a year in 90 l. more than he is supposed to be allowed in his Rent Against this the Priest both cry out and make no little Noise And first the Author of the Conference in his Vindication pag. 321. would â—ain from hence infer That Tenants have really Abatements in their Rents in lieu of Tythes and therefore having first to shew how copious he can be in Scurrilities and what variety of ill Language he has to express himself by said I perceive the Quaker begins to sneak he adds An Abatement it seems there is But how doth it seem there is an Abatement why he is willing to turn my if to an is and strain a Position out of my Supposition But these shifts discover the strait he was in and how near he was sinking that would catch at such a twig to hang by Then he excepts at the Demonstration for uncertainty because I did not say whether the Farm of 90 l. a year consisted in Tillage or in Pasturage yet he acknowledges that the Tythes of a Farm of that value 90 l. a Year consiâ—â—ing in Tillage may be worth 27 l. a year On the other hand the other Priest in his Right of Tythes pag. 212. says I believe all the Parsons in England would compound with the Quakers after this rate that the Landlord allows that is supposing the Landlord did really allow 10 l. in 100 l. Rent And in pag. 213. he says What Parson did ever receive 27 l. per annum for a 90 l. Farm Experience says he teacheth us that we scarce every get so much as 20s for 10 l. Rent unless where there is very much Corn but take the Church-Livings one with another and there is not above 9 l. a Year made of a Farm upon the improved Rent of ninety Pound per annum Thus they contradict one another Neither is this last Priest any more consistent with himself for among the reasons he gives why they scarce ever get so much as 20 s. for 10 l. Rent he mentions ill payments and concâ—alment forgetting it seems that he had said but a few Leaves before There are very few Parishes where nineteen parts of 〈◊〉 do not pay their Tythes freely as any other dues pag. 200. How ill do these two sayings hang together Nineteen parts in twenty pay their Tythes frâ—â—ly as any other dâ—es and yet the Priests can scarce ever get so much as 20 s. for 10 l. Rent by reason of ill â—ayments and concâ—alment Thus he contradicts himself as before he did his Brother But he sayes pag. 214. I will not like T. E. make suppositions at Random but give an Instance of my own knowledge It seems then he understood the Case I proposed to be but a supposition and accounted it a supposition at random too yet so little ingenuity had both his Brother and he and so much need of Shifts and contriviances that they were willing to take this random supposition as he calls it for a positive conâ—lusion that the Landlord doth abate 10 l. in 100 l. in coâ—sideration of Tythes and make what advantages they could there-from as if it were a real and certain thing Nay he thereupon asks if the Quaker be nâ—t a Knave for putting this 10 l. per annum in his own Pocket which the Landlord abated in consideration of be paid But did he ever know a Quaker that desired an abatement of Rent in consideration of Tythe to be paid or that accepted an abatement from his Landlord upon that consideration If he knows any such let him not spare to name him if not it will appear his suggestion is both false and proâ—eeded from an evil mind The
not be a fair Flower in an English Crown and that having once stuck in the Triple Crown it was unworthy to be worn in an English Diadem Besides those words if nothing else could le said against it imply there was more to be said against it if need require and opportunity serve But this which was said was more than he was willing to take notice of and that little he did take notice of was more it seems tâ—an he either knew how oâ— at least thought fit to Answer He says upon it pag. 230. His Majesty will not so easily be wheadled out of so great a part of his Revenue and so clear an acknowledgment of his Clergies subjection to him What if he will not Has this any appearance of an Answer or carries it in it the least shew of an Argument The other Priest Author of the Conference seems to have something to say here Vindication pag. 325. First he says I do not â—ind that T. E. answers the Argument but catches at a phrase c. For my part I see no Argument there to Answer unless he will call it an Argument for Tythes that the â—ing hath a Revenue out of Tythes And if that were his meaning I take it to be Answer sufficient to such an Argument to shew that the Tythes themselves out of which that Revenue arises are contrary to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ But can either of these Priests or any man else using his understanding think it an argument of any force for the lawfulness or Equity of Tythes that a Revenue arises out of them to the Crown What Evil might not in other Nations be patronized by such an Argument May not the Papists argue their Indulgences are right and good because they bring in a considerable Revenue to the Catholick Chair as they call it Unhappy Luther who saw not the force of this Argument but zealously notwithstanding exclaimed against Indulgences May they not from the same Argument infer the lawfulness of Stews at Rome since from them arises a considerable Revenue to support the Triple Crown But though he is offended that himself is compared to the Crow for calling fiâ—st Fruits and Tenths so fair a Flower yet he cannot deny but this Flower stuck once in the Triple Crown â—ut then he says it was stole from the English Diadâ—m ibid. Was it so Did it ever stick in the English Dâ—adem before Hen. 8. Stuck it there That 's more indeed then ever I read and more I think than he is able to prove But both these Priestâ— urge the payment of first-Fruits and Tenths to be an acknowledgment of the Clergies subjection It may be it is so but there is no necessity it must be so Is there no other way for the Clergy to acknowledge their Subjection but by paying fiâ—st Fruits and Tenths The payment of Tribute is I confess an acknowledgement of Subjection yet not so but that subjection may be acknowledged other wayeâ— without it what acknowledgement else would all such be capable of making of their subjection who are not in a condition to pay Tribute in which rank a great part of the Nation will be found Now to return to the Author of the Right of Tythes he spends the rest of his 47th Section in computing the Revenue the King receives from the Clergy which yet he doth so confusedly that it is â—ard to collect from thence any certain Sum for the Total of that Revenue The best account I can gather from his is that it is near 30000 l. per annum Be it more or less it is not much material No doubt it is a large sum if fully paid But what a vast sum is that then which the Priests receive of the People of which perhaps this may be scarce the twentiâ—th part being usually paid by Composition and at low Rates But the stress of the Objection I take to be this That if Tythes be taken away the Revenue of the Crown is so much diminished as this amounts to The Answer is Conscience Honour ought to be preferred before Worldly Advantages If the Revâ—nues of the Crown are not found sufficient without tâ—is there are other and far better Wayes of enlarging them than by this Were this Iron-Yoke but once taken off from the galled Necks of the people they would be certainly far more able as well as probably more willing to bear the publick Charges of the Nation Anâ— it were not difficult to demonstrate that the Crown would be rather a Gainer thereby than a Loser § 26. He says in his next Section pag. 231. I shall not need now to confute that frequent and unjust Reâ—roach of the Quakers calling Ministers Hirelings pag. 356 c. since I have shewed the only Reveâ—uâ—s they have are no other than what they have a three-fold Title to first by the Laws of God and Nature secondly by the Donation of the right Owners thirdly by the Laâ—s of this Land He has as much need now as ever to clear himself and his Brethren if he can from the Charge of being Hirelings since his Triple Title is disproved and he cannot make out a Right to Tythes He talks much of the Law of God but No Law of God can he shew for the payment of Tythes now He talks also of Tythes being due by the Law of Nature but that 's a Position so extreamly ridiculous that it is enough to render him suspected for a Naâ—uâ—al These two make the first part of his threefold Title The second part is the Donation of the Right Owners This is so far from being true that it is utterly impossible it should be true for Tythes being due as himself says pag. 196. out of the Profits only they to whom he ascribes the Donation of Tythe neither were nor could be the right Owners of those Profits out of which the Priests now claim and take Tythes They were the right Owners of those Profits tâ—at arose while they were possest of the Lands and might dispose of those Profits as they pleased so 〈◊〉 were not to an evil use But the present Propâ—â—etors or Occupiers of Land now are as really the Right Owners of all such Profits as are â—aised upon the Lands now as they of old then were of the Profits that were raiâ—ed in their times Seeing then those ancient Dâ—â—ors of Tyâ—â—hes could not make these Priestâ— any Title to the prâ—sent Profits because they themselves were not the right Owners of these Profits And the present Proprietors or Occupants who are the right Owners of the present Profits have not made any Donation of Tythes to the Priests It is evident that they have no Tâ—tlâ— at all by Donation Thus his sâ—cond string also has given him the slip His third is the Laws of 〈◊〉 Land But he must take notice that the Laws do not give a man a Right either to Lands Tythes or any thing else but do only conserve unto him that Right which he
Marrâ—age These were the same sort of Guests mentioned by Luke who were in the Highways and Hedges and yet we see this great King did not command or impower his Servants to use any other Compulsion to them than an Invitation As many as ye shall find â—id 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Marriage Thuâ— that place in Luke being aptly explained by this in Matthew it appears that those words Compel them to come in import no more than Bid or Invite them to the Marriage Besides if we look further into the Parable we shall find that when the King taking a view of his Guests saw one there which had not on a wedding Garment and asked him Friend how camest thou in hither not having on a Wedding Garment The man was speechless and the King commanded his Servants to bind that man Hand and Foot and cast him into utter Darkness Which plainly proves he was not brought in against his Will he was not driven in by force nor dragged in by Head and Shoulders for if he had he had then had a fair Plea to make a ready Answer to return to the Question How camest thou in hither c I was driven in by stripes I was drawn in by force I was brought in against my will might he have said Had it been so he needed not have been speechless as it seems he was And how again could it have stood with the divine justice of that great King to sentence a man to be bound and cast into utter Darkness for coming in thither without a Wedding Garment if the man had been brought in by force against his own mind and that too by his Command But it is manifest that no such forcible violent penal Compulsion as the Priest aims at was commanded or intended by our Saviour in this Parable and consequently that the word compel in this place Luke 14. 23. is misunderstood at least misapplied by the Priest and his Yes surely is surely false But he urges the Judgment of Augustine That to compel Men to that which is good is very lawful and an Act of necessary Charity to their Souls yea a duty of Christian-Princes c. pag. 235. Is it so How chanced it then that they who being invited to the Supper came not were not â—ompelled to come Doth the Priest think the Maâ—teâ— of the House who made the Invitation did not know what Charity was necessary to thâ—ir Souls or was ignorant of the duty of a Christian Prince Would he have omitted an Act of such necessary Charity had it indeed been Charity or neglected a duty had it been a duty But let us examin this Position and see if there be any thing of truth or reason iâ— it The Position is That to compel men to that which is good is very lawful and an Act of nâ—cessary Charity to their Souls yea a duty of Christian Princes First who shall judge whether the thing to be compelled to is good or no They that are to be compelled or he that is to compel If they that are to be compelled may judge it is not likely that they should judge that good which they must be compelled to for if they judged it good they would not need to be compelled to it If he that is to compel must judge then whatsoever he shall judge to be good be it never so bad that must bear the name of Good and all must be compelled to receive it Secondly concerning Christian Princes the like dissatisfaction may arise Possibly they who are compelled to that as Good which they believe is not good may question whether they are Christian Princes that so compel On the other hand what Prince is there throughout that part of the World which is called Christendom that is not ready on all Occasions to assert himself a Christian Prince Now therefoâ—e if every one that holds himself a Christian Prince not only lawfully may but also both in point of duty and as an Act of necessary Charity to the Souls of others ought to compel men to that which he judges good what hinders then but he whose Ancestors received from Rome the Title of Most Christian King and who professeth himself a Son of the Church of Rome lawfully may yea must according to this Position both as his own duty and as an Act of necessary Charity to their Souls compel all Protestants in his Dominions to the Romish Religion which he judges good Thus Reader thou seest the horrid Consequence of this false and Antichristian Position But this is the old Argument of the Papists long since exploded and detested by men of Reason and Ingenuity though sometimes as now made use of at a pinch of need to countenance a corrupt and selfish Interest But he shews himâ—â—lf a right Romanist He hath not only the Popish Argument for Persecution but the Popish Cloak also to cover himself withal It is not says he pag. 236. the Priests compel them but the Laws of the Land The Priests indeed see them in desperate Heresies and most wicked Sâ—hism and in pity to their Souls admonish them warn them 1 Thess. 5. 14. and labour to convince them by Arguments yea at length they use the Censures of the Church and finally as the last remedy complain to the secular Magistrate c. What did Bonner more or the worst of Popish Bishops They did not use to Burn meâ— themselves but they got a Law made that such as they declared Hereticks should be Burnt and then they sentenced those for Hereticks that would not bow to them and their Inventions and prayed the Magistrates to burn them What odds in all this between the Popish Priests and these save only that these are not yet come to Popish Fire and Fagot as himself well observes pag. 237 But besides this is it all true that the Priest says here Do they descend by these steps to their Church-Censures and secular Complaint Do they admonish Do they warn Do they ever attempt to convince by Arguments Whom of a thousand is lie able to name for an Instance of such procedure yet he says This is no more than S. Paul threatned 2 Cor. â—0 6. and acted also in delivering the incestuous Corinthian to Satan punishing his outward man for the health of his Soul 1 Cor. 5. 5. S. Paul indeed did admonish often did warn frequently did labour to convince by Arguments and that earnestly but I never read before that he complained to the secular Magâ—â—â—rate or so much as threatned so to do I am sure the Scriptures he hath quoted will not justifie this Assertion But if S. Paul did not complain to the secular Magistrate then this which the Priests confesses they do is more than S. Paul did and the Priest in saying it is no more is found in a downright Falshood But to proceed I said in Answer to the former Priest If Christ gave no Authority to his Apostles to compel any to hear them to be sure
he quotes after an odd manner a Tract so he stiles it called Some of the Quakers Principles put forth he says by Isaac Penington and the second Quaker there he tells us has this passage But I can tell him there is no such Tract put forth by Isaac Penington although a Book there is bearing this Title Some Principles of the Elect People of God in scorn called Quakers which is a Collection of some particular passages relating to our Principles taken out of several Books of divers Men and published together But neither was this put forth by Isaac Penington although his Name be to some parts of it This I take to be the Book which the Priest refers to And though he cites no page thereof yet finding in the fifth page that Passage I suppose which he cavils at I will set it down at large as it there stands The Title of that Page is this Grounds and Reasons why we deny the World's Teachers And the third Reason is thus given viz. They are such Priests as beaâ— rule by their means which was a horrible and filthy tâ—ing committed in the Land which the Lord sent Ieremiah to cry out against while we â—ad Eye and did not see we held up such Priests but the Lord hath opened our Eyes and we see them now in the same Estate that they were in which Ieremiah cryed out against who did not bear rule by his means and therefore we deny them Ier. 5. 31. This is that Paragraph to a Syllable in which there is no Foundation for the Priest's Cavil for the Quaker doth not say as the Priest suggests that those Priests mentioned by Ieremiah did bear Rule by their Estates but that these Priests whom we deny are such as bear Rule by their Means or Estates Those Priests in the time of the Prophet Ieremiah did bear Rule by means of the false Prophets These Priests now adays do bear Rule by means or help of those Estates which they get from the People That was an horrible and filthy thing then This is an horrible and filthy thing now For the horribleness and filthiness of the thing must not be restrained to their bearing Rule by those particular means only and no other for if they had born Rule by any other false and indirect means it would have been an horrible and filthy thing as well as it was in their bearing rule by means of the false Prophets For the only means by which the Priests of God ought to bear Rule is the Spirit and Power of God the vertue and influence of the divine Truth and those Priests that take upon them to bear Rule by any other means than this commit an horrible and filthy thing Thus did those Priests in Ieremiah's time They bore Rule not by means of the divine Spirit and Power not by means of the Heavenly vertue and influence of Tâ—uth but by â—ther means viz. by means of the false Pâ—ophets and therefore the true Prophet cryed out against them And thus do Priests now adayes They bear Rule not by means of the Spirit and Power of God not by means of the divine vertue and influence of Truth but by other means viz. by means of those Estates which they get from the People and therefore do we in the Name of the Lord deny them Now it is manifest that the Author of that Book out of which this passage is taken did not say that those Priests of old and these of late did both bear Rule by one and the same means but the scope and driâ—t of his words there is to shew that they did both bear Rule by false and unlawful means for he says in the place fore-quoted While we had Eyes and did not see we held up such Priests but the Lord hath opened our Eyes and we see them now in the same Estate that they were in which Ieremiah cryed out against who did not bear Rule by his means So that herein it is that he shews they agree in this it is that he draws the Comparison between them viz. in that they did not bear Rule by God's means In this they were both in the same Estate namely in that they did both bear Rule by wrong means although they did not both bear Rule by one and the same wrong means The Identity or Saâ—eness is not refer'd to the particular means by which they did and do bear Rule but to the Estate which they were and are in who did and do bear Rule by indirect meanâ— Therefore observe He doth not say We see them now bear Rule by the same means that they bore Rule by which Ieremiah cryed out against but he says We see them now in the same Estate that they were in which Ieremiah cryed against who did not bear Rule by his viz. God's means which was an estate of Apostacy and Degeneration an estate of Alienation from God and of Rebellion against him usurping to themselves an Authority and bearing Rule over the People but not by God's means not by those means which God had appointed viz. by the divine Vertue and heavenly Power of his holy Spirit but having recourse to other means to get up and to keep up a Domination and Rule Now although the means by which those Priests then did and these now do bear Rule are not Specifically the very same yet are they one and the same in Nature that is they are both wrong means both unlawful means both such means as God neither appointed nor allowed which is the ground of their being disclaimed and declamed against both by the Prophet of Old and by us now So that they are the same in that respect in and for which they were and are disowned and in that part it is that the Comparison lies with respect to that part the Parallel is drawn Nor doth the Allusion to the Prophet's words strictly tye the Alluder to an exact Comparison in every point and circumstance but it is sufficient that the Comparison holds in that part upon which the Argument is grounded Now the Quaker's Argument here against the Priests is grounded on their bearing Rule by false and indirect means by such means as are not God's means and these Priests being compared in this respect with those Priests in Ieremiah's time the Comparison is found to be true and good for those Priests then did bear Rule by means alike unlawful And the Prophet's crying out against those Priests then for committing thiâ— horrible and filthy thing doth justifie the Quakers in crying out against these Priestâ— now for committing a thing of the like Nature By this time I doubt not but I have satisfied the Reader that the Quakers do neither mis-interpret nor mis-apply that Text of the Propheâ— Ier. 5. 31. but that the Priest has grosly abused the Quakers and manifested an envious and foul mind in charging them hereupon with sottish Ignorance and calling them Cheaâ—s and Impostors And seeing the Priest says in his Vindication
forty Pounds per annum charged with the payment of ten Pounds per annum forever to the Poor Suppose the utmost Profits of that Estate should some Years through ill Seasons Blastings or other accidents fall under ten Pounds shall the Owner be excused from paying ten Pounds If not he may see thereby that the charge lies upon the Lands not upon the Profits for what if the Owner make no Profits at all that will not destroy the Rent-charge If he can improve his forty Pounds a Year to an hundred he shall pay but ten Pounds out And if he should make less then ten Pounds of it yet ten Poundâ— he must pay This shews it to be of a quite different Nature from Tythes and therefore not as the Priest suggests in any danger of being destroyed by the downfall of Tythes Having now removed the Priest's Objections and â—lear'd my Argument against Tythes from being destructive of Rent-charges and other sums of Money given to relieve the Poor I cannot but take notice of the seeming compassion the Priest shews of the Poor and the care he pretends to have of their Rights And considering withal how great a self-interest â—â—es at the bottom it brings to my remembrance the Story of Iudas Ioh. 12. 3 4 5. and the account the holy Pen-man gives of him ver 6. viz. This he said Not that he cared for the Poor but because c. §17 The next thing the Priest quarrels with is a Position he sayes of mine That Tythes are a greater Burden than Rents This he pretends to take out of pag. 343. of my Book in which there is no such Possibly he might deduce it from my Arguments in that place but then he should have so represented it and not have called it my Position The truth is the Position is in it self so 〈◊〉 saving that it seems to make Rents a Burden which simply they are not that I cannot but like and defend it though I blame his over-forward and unwelcome boldness in making Positions for me But hear what he sayes to this Position of his own making pag. 199. It would seem a Paradox that Two Shiâ—â—ings is a greater Burden than Twenty but only that nothing is so easie but it seems difficult when it is done unwillingly As he has stated it it may well seem a Paradox but state it aright and it will not seem any Paradox at all It is not the unwillingness in paying but the injustice in requiring that makes the payment a Burden In claims equally unjust the greatest Claim is the greatest Burden but where one Claim is just and t'other unjust as in the case of Rent and Tythes the unjust Claim is the greatest burden be the sum more or less Two Shillings exacted where it is not due is a greater burden than twenty Shillings demanded where it is due Two Shillings for nothing is a greater burden than Twenty Shillings for Twenty Shillings-worth This is no Paradox at all but plain to every common capacity And thus stands the case between Tythes and Rents Tythes are a Burden because they are not just not duc Rents are not a Burden because they are just they are due Tythes are a Burden because they are exacted of the Quakers at least for nothing Rents are not a Burden because they are demanded for a valuable consideration Thus his Paradox is opened But he is highly offended with me for saying I doubt not but if every English-man durst freely speak his own sense Nine parts of Ten of the whole Nation would unanimously cry TYTHES ARE A GREAT OPPRESSION This has so incensed him that not able to contain he calls me a seditious Libeller forgetting perhaps that his own Book is nameless and sayes pag. 200. T. E. not content to discover his own base humour measures all mens Corn by his own Bushel and as it is the manner of such as are Evil themselves he fanciâ—s all men pay their Tythes with as ill will as the Quakers and impudently slanders the whole Nation I step over his Scurrillity and ill Language and tell him first If this be as he sayes a Slander himself hath made it a tenth part bigger than it was by stretching it to All men and the whole Nation which he himself acknowledges waâ— spoken of but nine parts of the Nation I did not say All men and the whole Nation would call Tythes a great Oppression for I suppose some in a devout mistake may be as ready to pay as the Priest is greedy to receive them Secondly I am not at all Convinced that it is a Slander but do believe it a real Truth And though he sayes Common experience proclaims me a Lyar herein there being very few Parishes where Nineteen parts of Twenty do not pay their Tythes freely as any other due I dare appeal to eighteen parts of his Nineteen whether this be true or no. But since it is hard to take a right measure of Peoples freedom and willingness herein while the Lash of the Law hangs over them it were greatly to be wished that our Legislators in whose power it is to decide the doubt would be pleased to determine the Controversie by taking off those Laws and Penalties by which the People are compelled to pay Tythes and leave them wholly free in this case to exercise their Liberality towards their Ministers as God shall incline and inlarge their Hearts And truly if the Priest dislikes this Proposition it is a very great Argument either that he doth not believe what himself said but now viz. that nineteen parts of twenty pay Tythes freely or that he doth greatly distrust the goodness of his Ministry At length he takes notice of the Reasonâ— I gave why Rents are not a Burden as Tythes The first Reason he thus gives The Tenant hath the worth of his Rent of the Landlord but of the Priest he receiveth nothing at all To this says he I answer The Heir of an Estate charged with a perpetual payment to the Poor receives nothing from the Poor to whom he pays the Money yet this is no Oppression pag. 201. Though the Heir receives nothing from the Poor yet he receives the Estate which is so charged under that Condition of paying so much Money to the Poor which Estate otherwise he should not have had The Heâ—â— then doth not pay foâ— nothing although he hath nothing from the Poor to whom he pays for he hath that very Land in consideration on which the payment to the Poor is charged Thus the Heir is safe Then for the Tenant he is not at all concerned in the matter unless it be by private contract it goes out of the Landlord's Rent not out of the Tenant's Stock And if the Tenant by the Landlord's oâ—der pays it to the Poor he doth it in his Landlord's name by whom it is accepted as so much Rent paid But Tythe is quite another thing For first the Heir doth not receive the Land undeâ— condition of