general Account nor divert you from the perusal of the Observations themselves where all these Things are more fully made out THE RIGHT OF TYTHES Asserted Proved § 1. WHEN I first cast my eyes upon Thomas Elwood's Chapter concerning Tythes I could not but take notice that the Subject did so raise his Passion that he throws off the usual Formality of that Patience and Meekness which those of his Party generally pretend to and flies out into ill Language at the entrance into his Discourse upon them for he calls them The Priests Delilah the very Darling and Minion of the Clergy Now since Railing is not Reasoning I will not meddle with his Scurrility but rather inquire into the Causes why he and his Party are so bitter against Tythes The ruder sort it may be are acted by meer Covetousness pretending Conscience to save their Purses supposing this kind of Godliness is great Gain But T. E. and the more Politick Managers of this Sect have higher Designs And as King Philip of Macedon perceiving the Athenian Orators obstructed his Projects to get the Dominion over that City perswaded that People to banish those needless Members as he called them so the leading Quakers perceiving the Clergy of England so able and industrious to discover all their evil Designs use their utmost Art to enrage the People against them railing at their Profession slandering their Persons undervaluing their Sacred Administrations disputing against their Learning and especially seeking to deprive them of their Maintenance which they take to be one main part of their Support They know while the Clergy have these Provisions they will have Books and leisure to Study and Learning enough to baffle all their silly Pretenses which can gain no ground as long as a Priesthood stands And therefore it is one part of Conversion in the Quakers account to make Men hate their Ministers Persons and withhold their Dues Railing at Tythes being the Quakers Delilah the very Darling and Minion of that Sect. They see they cannot quench the Lamp and therefore they would stop the Oyle that nourishes it and because they dare not engage this Army they attempt to force them to disband for want of Pay Hezekiah commanded his People to give the portion of the Priests and Levitâ—s that they might be encouraged in the Law of the Lord 2 Chron. xxxi 4. And the Jews have a Proverb Sine farina non est lex But our Adversaries finding our Study of the Law so destructive of their inspired Nonsense they would gladly stir up the People to take away our Books and Subsistence from us that we might be starved into Ignorance and by our sad Necessities be brought down to their scantling of Understanding and then they hope their Speakers would be an equal Match for us And truly our Quakers find their Harangues against Tythes are very taking with the Covetous and Atheistical with those who care not much for any Religion and therefore like the cheapest best They please such as do not understand the Clergies Right to them nor discern the ground of the Quakers spite against them But wise and pious Men who know what Benefit both Church and State receive by this disposal of Tythes do despise such Railers and look upon them as designing to disturb the Kingdom destroy Learning and ruine the most famous of all Protestant Churches 'T is a Policy of Secular Rebels to complain of Tributes and Publick Payments not so much in pity to the People as malice to the King that his Treasury being empty he may be exposed to their Fury and unable to resist their Force And these Rebels in Religion take the same Method But what Tacitus saith of the State may be applied to the Church in this Case There can be no Quiet to the Nations without Souldiers no Souldiers without Pay nor no Pay without Tribute on which therefore the Common Safety doth depend Even so No Peace in the Church without Ministers no Ministers without Maintenance nor no Maintenance without these publick Contributions on which therefore the Safety of Religion doth depend So that our Changers of Religion mainly seek to overthrow these things and to that end have sent out T. E. as their Champion But I doubt not to shew he is armed with more Malice than Reason and that his Arguments are as weak as his Designs are base § 2. And first Dear Sir I perceive our strutting Quaker looks on you with a scornful eye and says p. 277. Tythes were wont to be claimed as of Divine Right but he finds this Priest is not hardy enough to adventure his Cause upon that Title Sure he takes himself to be very terrible for he believes none but a hardy Man dare set upon him yea he persuades his Quakers that they who were wont to claim Tythes de jure Divino were more bold than wise Let us therefore see who and what they were whom T. E. thus censures Truly no less than Origen Hom. 11. in Num. 18. Cyprian de Vnitate Eccles S. Hierom. in Malac. 3. S. Augustin Hom. 48. divers Christian Councils of old Justinian and the Imperial Roman Laws Charles the Great and the French Capitulars the Saxon Kings and Councils of this Nation and all Monarchs and Parliaments of later times particularly King Henry VIII and Edward VI. as T. E. confesses p. 333 334 335. together with the most famous Common Lawyers agreeing That Dismes sont choses spiritual due de Jure Divino Le Evesq de Winch. Case L. Cook 's Reports part 2. pag. 45. as also the unconcerned and incomparably Learned Sir Henry Spelman with divers other excellent Writers too many to recite All these were so hardy as to adventure this Cause of Tythes on that Title And when this obscure and empty Quaker hath confuted all these he may then have some pretence to boasting but till then he hath no reason to triumph over you who did not decline this Argument wholly but onely said you would not insist upon it pag. 142. So that it is evident you laid aside this Weapon of the Divine Right not out of any distrust of the Argument nor out of any great Opinion of your Adversaries Skill but in very truth you seem to have been loth to cast Pearls before Swine who understand not the value of them and you were hardy enough to have insisted on it if you had been to deal with nobler Antagonists But to treat of things done three or four thousand Years ago to those who know not the History of the last Century to discourse of the difference between Natural and Instituted Religion to inquire how far the Acts of inspired Patriarchs approved by God the Father and not disapproved by God the Son together with the Suffrages of Christians and the Consent of the wisest Gentiles the general Rules of Scripture expounded by the Practise of all Ages How far I say all these will extend to the Constitution of a Jus Divinum I
a Thief to God himself On which we may note they all declare Tythes to be due jure Divino It would be too tedious to add the numerous confirmation of these Canons which were made afterwards in the Councils of Toledo Bracara Mentz Colen c. besides our English Councils of which more hereafter Now we will briefly observe what the Laws of other Kings and Emperours had done as to this matter before King Ethelwolph's Time The Famous Constantine the Great being settled in his Empire In the Lands under his Dominion out of every City he gave a certain Tribute to be distributed among the Churches and Clergy of the Provinces and confirmed this Donation to stand for ever (x) Hist Trip. l. 1. c. 10. It were endless to relate all the Constitutions of Pious Emperours either to enlarge the Revenues of the Church to preserve its Liberties or to secure the Donations made by others Let that one Law which is so full for the Divine Right of Tythes serve instead of many Instances The Tythes by God's Command are separated for the Priests that they which are of God's Famtly may be sustained by his Portion and therefore they cannot by any Humane Priviledge be given to Lay-men lest the Supreme Authority should therein prejudice the Divine Commandment (y) Cod. l. 7. Tit. de Praescrip A parallel Law to this we find in Authenticis tit eod But to come still nearer to King Ethelwolph he might know how the Religious King Riccaredus had confirmed the Decrees of the first Council of Hispalis about paying Tythes An. 590. Nor could he be ignorant what that most glorious Prince of his times Charles the Great Emperour of the West had done in settling Tythes on the Church about 100 years before King Ethelwolph's Donation This Emperour was so far from Idolatry that he called a Council to condemn the use of Images and writ against them himself And yet he in an Assembly of all his People offered and gave all his Tythes to God and his Ministers in a most solemn manner and obliged all his People to do the like And the form of the Dedication with the Curses against the Infringers thereof is set down at large in the Capitulars of Charles the Great (z) Wormat. l. 6. p. 285. And indeed before the time of King Ethelwolph Tythes were settled on the Church in most parts of the Christian World even by Civil and Ecclesiastical Constitutions as well as Voluntary Donation and all grounded on this Principle That Tythes were due jure Divino But it may be our Quaker's ignorance may perswade him that Ethelwolph was the first who gave Tythes in this Nation and I perceive all along he dates the very Birth of Tythes in the year 855. Wherefore I will shew him that he is miserably mistaken in that also Our Famous Lawyer Fleta expounding the word Church-esset saith (a) Lib. 1. cap. 17. It signifies a certain Measure of Corn which every one of old gave to the Holy Church about the time of S. Martin 's Feast as well in the time of the Britains as the English Adding that it was after called First-fruits So that by this Account there was a kind of Tythes paid by the Britains before the coming of Austin For the Saxon word Ciric-sceat signifies the Tribute of the Church Or else Ciric-set or sat that is The Church-seed as Mr. Lambert expounds it And also Malmsbury (b) Lib. 2. de gest Reg. c. 11. calls it The First-fruits of the Seed Another old MSS. in Spelman The First-fruits of the Seed belonging to the Church of that place where a Man dwells And Lindenbrogius calls it A Tribute of Corn out of the Fields I give the larger Account of this because that above 160 years before King Ethelwolph's time one of his Predecessors King Ina had made a strict Law about this matter Let the Caeric-sceat be paid on the Feast of S. Martin saith he and if any Man neglects it he shall for feit sixty Shillings and restore his Caeric-sceat twelve times over (c) Spelm. p. 192. Anno 692. It seems that here in England as well as in other Christian Countries the People had paid it voluntarily before And it was some decays of Piety that occasioned these Laws Now if T. E. desire to have the Name of Tythes as well as the thing among the Ancient Saxons he may find in the Epistle of Boniface to Cuthbert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury (d) Apud Spelm. T. 1. p. 240. Ann. 745. That the English Priests in those dayes were maintained by the taking the Daily Oblations and Tythes of the Faithful Moreover about the year 750. Egbert Arch-Bishop of York of the Saxon Blood-Royal made a Collection of all Canons that were made in the Councils before his time and which were in force in England And these Collections seem to have been a Compendium of the Canon-Law among the Saxons Now among these Canons there is frequent mention of Tythes viz. That the People be instructed in the right manner of Offering them to God's Church Can. 4. That the Priest shall take them and set down the Names of those who gave them Can. 5. That the People should not change that which fell out to be the Tenth Can. 99. That the Lord requires Tythes out of that which we get our living by Can. 100. Again in the Council of Chalcuth A. 787. All Men are strictly charged to give Tythes of all that they possess Because it is the Propriety of the Lord God or the Part that specially belongs to him Canon 17. If it be inquired what Laws our Princes made in this matter Not to mention all those Charters which from the first beginning of Christianity do confirm all the Liberties and all the Revenues of the Church among which were Tythes we will only note that Ethelbald King of Mercia An. 794. confirms to all the Clergy of his Kingdom the Liberty which they had out of the Woods the Fruit of the Ground and the taking of Fish And this being after that Epistle of the German Boniface which assured us Tythes were then enjoy'd by the Clergy must be meant of Tythes Again K. Offa who had with all his Clergy condemned the Adoration of Images and so was no Idolater An. 793. did give the Tenth of all that he had to the Church By all which it appears That from the time of the first general Conversion of the Saxons Tythes were generally paid by the People and received by the Clergy even before any special Laws were made about them And when Councils or Princes did make any Laws about them they always do suppose them paid before So that King Ethelwolph in this Donation doth rather confirm the Right of Tythes than originally make them due And it is to be noted that till this time the Saxons being divided into so many petty Kingdoms were in continual broiles and there was no one King who had power to collect
4. The number of the Seven Sacraments was not defined till Peter Lombard's dayes Anno 1140 (m) Cassand de Sacram. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not received for a point of Faith till the Lateran Council above 1200 years after Christ (n) Scotus in 4. Sent. dist 11. q. 3. Purgatory it self was but a private Opinion and affirmed onely by some An. 1146 (o) Otto Frising l. 8. Chr. c. 26. And Indulgences can be no older (p) Polyd. Virgil. l. 8. cap. 8. Fish Roffens contra Luther Ar. 18. Yea their Application to Souls in Purgatory was first brought in by Boniface VIII (q) Agrip. de Vanit Scien c. 61. The Half Communion began but a little before the Council of Constance and was never decreed till then (r) Gregor de Valent. de Legit. usu Eucha c. 10. An. 1415. Yea the putting the Apocrypha into the Canon of Scripture and divers other Points were never decreed till the Council of Trent about 110 years ago And if it were not to avoid prolixity I could make it evident That the Pope's Vniversal Supremacy and Infallibility Justification by the merit of Good works Auricular Confession Formal Invocation of Saints and other corruptions of the modern Papists were not determined as Articles of Faith no not in Rome it self in Ethelwolph's time and then how can he be called a Papist supposing he had agreed with the then Roman Church in all points But I must not lanch out into this Ocean wherefore I will content my self to reply to the Quaker's Instances 1. For those pag. 301. the Quaker lays not much stress upon them and there are some of them allowed by the best Protestants and all Men that understand Antiquity know those Decretal Epistles to be forged which first attributed these Constitutions to those early Popes Proceed we therefore to his more material Instances And first concerning Deposing of Kings T. E. saith Pope Zachary I. took upon him to depose King Chilperic and absolved his Subjects from their Allegiance This is a Forgery invented by the Champions of the Pope's Supremacy but denied by the French who do assure us That the deposing of King Chilperic was done by Pepin himself by the consent of the whole Kingdom of France before any notice was given to the Pope about it who did not pretend to any such Authority over the French King nor is he allowed it at this day but only approved of the deed after it was done and advised to put him into a Monastery (ſ) Centur. Magdeburg and the ancient Historians words thus describing this matter may be seen in Widrington Apol. pro jure Princip And to let T. E. see how unlikely this feigned Deposition of Chilperic by the Pope's Authority is I will set down the Reply of Hinc-marus Arch Bishop of Rhemes to Pope Adrian the Second who had written to him to Excommunicate the King of France Anno 870. which was less than deposing There was never saith Hinc marus any such precept before sent from Rome to any of my Predecessors And going on he tells the Pope That the French assembled in Council did desire his Holiness according to the Example of his Predecessors to meddle with Ecclesiastical matters which belonged to him and not with the Common-wealth which was the Kings part to dispose of And let him not say they command us Franks to serve him that we will not serve for his Predecessors did never put this yoke upon our Predecessors neither can we endure it (t) Hincmar ap L. Boch Decret Ecc. Gal. l. 2. Tit. 2. p. 317. I cite this the more largely because our Ethelwolph married the Daughter of this very King of France whom the Pope could not so much as Excommunicate much less Depose and no doubt Ethelwolph was as free from the Pope's Authority in this matter as the King of France his father-in-Father-in-law Secondly There is as little truth in Gregory the Third's Deposing of Leo Isaurus about Images which Deposition Onuphrius a judicious Historian calls a meer Fable (u) Onuphr in Vit. Greg. VII Indeed no Bishop did ever depose a King or Emperour till Hildebrand's time An. 1074. which is confirmed by the best Historians of that Age (x) Chron. Hirsaug Otto Frising l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 Godfr Viter part 17. Trithemius c. Let Onuphrius speak for all Gregory the Seventh did first of all the Popes of Rome despising the Imperial Authority and power not only Excommunicate but presume to deprive the Emperour of his Kingdom and Empire a thing never heard of in the World before (y) Onuphr Vit. Gregor VII And Sigebertus Chr. An. 1088. calls it A Novelty and a Heresie Yea the whole Church of Liege in their Epistle to Paschal II. tell him to his face That no Pope before this Gregory did ever use the Temporal Sword (z) Epist Leodens Eccles ad Paschal 2. So that this piece of Popery was not crept into any part of the Christian Church much less into England when Tythes were given to the Church nor was the Pope's Supremacy or Infallibility owned here in those dayes as I will undertake to prove against this Quaker and the Jesuits whose part he takes in this matter So that I will only note That if T. E. referre the first Original of Tythes to Ethelwolph's Donation in this Kingdom then he should have produced an Example of the Pope's power to depose the Kings of England which if he can shew to have then been a Doctrine received here it will make somewhat to his purpose but these forreign Instances if they were as true as they are false do not prove the Saxons were Papists in this point Secondly The Quaker Instances in the Worship of Images and upon presumption that our Saxon-Ancestors worshipped them he frequently call them Idolaters which is another manifest slander For though the Saxons had some few Images and Pictures for ornament and memory yet they did not worship them in this Age nor long after and though the second Council of Nice did attempt to establish Image-worship we may see in Dr. Stillingfleet's last Book of the Idolatry of the Roman Church That the greatest part of the Christian World rejected that Council and detested the practice thereof yea that Council was almost by all so much contemned that it was scarce counted worth the Reading by him that translated it (a) Anastas Bibliothec. Praef. ad 7. Synod But to shew what was the opinion of the Saxons and Gallican Churches generally agreeing in their opinions where the most famous Tythe-givers of this Age lived let it be noted that Sir Henry Spelman proves That the Saxons from Augustin's time had Images only for ornament memory reverence and example but not for worship (b) Concil tom 1. not ad Concil Lond. An. 712. And about 60 years before K. Ethelwolph's Donation we read a full Account of the English Churches opinion about Images Anno 792.
done which hath been done a thousand times and that by the approbation of all Christian Laws And the Quaker in saying these things are ridiculous and unreasonable doth call all the Christian World Fools and pass his Censure upon Kings and Nobles Parliaments and Judges who have allowed such Grants to be just and reasonable and either made them or confirmed and approved them divers times It seems all these were a company of ridiculous and unreasonable Men or else T. E. is such an one himself and whether be the more likely let the Reader judge But it is no great wonder he should call all Men Fools whenas this blasphemous Argument flies in the face of God himself who even by the Quakers own confession in the Levitical Law did assume a Power to enjoyn all the Owners of Canaan to pay to the Priests the Tenth part of those Profits which did arise from their Sweat Pains Charge Care and that from one generation to another God did make over to his Priests these Tenths of the Profits of many Mens Sweat and Labour c. many hundred years before they were born Now this the Quaker saith is a ridiculous and unreasonable thing O bold Blasphemer If he saith the thing be ridiculous and unreasonable in it self then this Quaker chargeth God with Folly and Injustice who doth enjoyn it Nor can he be excused by saying God hath more power than Men for in evil foolish and unjust things God hath no power at all God cannot lie He cannot do any thing ridiculous or unjust And because God once made this Grant we dare be confident the Act is lawful and wise and just and that T. E. is a blasphemous Wretch to censure it by this wicked and silly way of reasoning which condemns Almighty God as much as it doth King Ehtelwolph I will not insist now upon the Atheistical denial of Providence which is couched in this Argument also for I shall shortly have occasion to shew how the Quaker supposes his Husbandman deserves all the Profits for his Labour and as if God contributed nothing he excludes him from any share of them when they are produced But this false and impious Argument is sufficiently exposed already to make any Man recant it that hath any spark of Grace or Understanding in him § 31. In the next place he affirms pag. 326. The Consideration on which Tythes were given is taken away for Ethelwolph gave them for the Health of his Soul and the Remission of his Sins which he believed might be obtained in that Church by the help of that Ministry to whom he gave his Tythes and the Mediation of those Saints in honour of whom he granted the Charter I have already proved That T. E. falsly supposes King Ethelwolph to have held all the Opinions of the present Church of Rome and particularly That he did not expect Pardon of his Sins by the Merits of his Good Works Alcuinus gives us the sense of the English Church in those days who saith He onely can deliver us from sin who came without sin and was made a Sacrifice for sin (a) Alcuin l. 4. in Joh. 8. The Saxons believed that Pardon was merited onely by Christ's Death onely they did esteem Good Works a good evidence of their Repentance and a Motive to God to accept them to that Pardon which was merited onely by Christ's Death which Opinion is much favoured by those Scriptures Prov. xvi 6. Dan. iv 27. Mat. iii. 8. Luke xi 41. and maintained by the most Orthodox Fathers For instance Lactantius no Papist for certain as living An. 310. saith Great is the reward of Mercy to which God hath promised the Remission of all sins (b) Lactant. Inst l. 6. And for obtaining this Remission by the help of that Ministry viz. the Saxon-Ministry to which he gave his Tythes no wise Man will deny but that there was a True Church in England in those days and if in that Church and by that Ministry no Pardon could be had from God then there was no Salvation to be had in this Nation at all in that Age no nor in any Nation in Christendom which is a strange Assertion As for the Saints we have shewed T. E. is mistaken in thinking they then did believe the Saints usurped Christs Office Ethelwolph honoured the Saints and so do we now but neither he nor we worship them or expect Pardon by them But we need not plead thus since T. E. falsly makes this a Consideration for which he gave Tythes Did that good King covenant with God or his Priests that they should give him Remission or else this Gift to be of no effect Was it inserted as a Condition or Proviso He hoped indeed Remission of Sins might follow through Christs Merits Gods Mercy and the Churches Prayers but he did not Indent with God for it And indeed the main Consideration was That the Clergy might pray for the whole Kingdom without the hinderances of Want and Worldly Care as the words of the Charter shew And this Consideration is not taken away but observed to this day Again If the King did fail of his Hope and could not finally get Remission in that Church which is a malicious Supposition this will not make his Charter void For if a Father in consideration of his affection to his Son and for his Provision settle part of his Estate on him being inwardly moved thereto by the hopes he will be dutiful the Sons undutifulness may disappoint the fathers hopes but doth not vacate his Settlement unless it were expressed and provided That the Deed should be void upon the Sons disobedience Finally If we suppose Ethelwolph as much a Papist as King Stephen mentioned by T. E. pag. 332. yet his Donations to Pious Uses must stand good even though the Opinion of Merit had been the Motive to him to make them or else T. E. revokes all the Charters and Donations made in those really Popish Times to never so good and pious Uses which all Men will confess is most absurd So that let us grant the Quaker all his own asking and still his malicious Conclusions will not follow § 32. I hope by this time the Reader will see how little truth is in that Saying pa. 327. If Tythes were ever due to any by vertue of this Gift it must be to the Popish Priests for to them they were given This we have shewed to be a gross mistake before § 17. and we will onely note That King Ethelwolph's Clergy agreed with the Protestant Church of England in more Points than with the modern corrupt Church of Rome And since the Donors gave them not to a Popish Clergy but to God and his true Ministers our Kings and Parliaments that took them away from the corrupt Clergy who were fallen into Popery and setled them on the true Protestant Ministry did observe therein the Intention of the Donors and did apply Tythes to the right use for which
THE Right of Tythes ASSERTED PROVED FROM Divine Institution Primitive Practice Voluntary Donations and Positive Laws WITH A JUST VINDICATION OF THAT SACRED MAINTENANCE From the Cavils of THOMAS ELWOOD In his Pretended Answer to the FRIENDLY CONFERENCE LONDON Printed for E. Croft at the Three Golden Lions in the Poultry over against the Stocks-Market 1677. To the Worthy AUTHOR OF THE Friendly Conference SIR IF I had not perused your Adversaries Book I should have thought it impossible for the most implacable Malice to have so basely misrepresented the Pious Design and Modest Expressions of your Friendly Conference But now I see that Quakers as well as Jesuits can make use of Equivocation and positive Vntruths when they dispute onely to uphold a Faction His mangling your Sentences and mistaking your Sense his forcing of Consequences from your misconstrued Words and taking his own wild Suppositions for acknowledged Truths are so obvious to an observing Reader that the Man is generally believed to have more of Confidence and crafty Wit than either of solid Learning or sincere Honesty And though in a Letter of his to a Quaker at York he brags that he hath shewed some little Learning in this Piece I dare affirm he hath but little to shew being onely happy in this that he writes to please an illiterate Sect. He may gull his unlearned Quakers into the belief that he hath read all those Fathers whose Names he cites but the Priests whom he reproaches are wise enough to discover he gleaned his Quotations up at the second hand out of Fisher against Bishop Gauden and some other obscure English VVriters which he hath also done with so little skill that when the Printer in Fisher had mistaken Fimicus for Firmicus this poor Retailer calls him Fimicus also pag. 115. And what he read in the same Fisher of one Basil his gross ignorance applies to Basil the Great involving himself thereby in the absurdity of asserting this monstrous and ridiculous untruth That Basil the Great refused to swear at a Council which was called above threescore years after he was dead pag. 165. But I will not anticipate your discoveries of his Ignorance by any more Instances because I doubt not but you will sufficiently convince the world that there is no reason why T. Elwood should pass for a Scholar among his own Party but onely because as himself saith p. 355. Asinus Asino Sus sui pulcher And when you have pulled off his Vizard his very Friends doubtless will begin to blush that they have adored so mean a Creature while he was covered with a Lions skin And I hope the discovery may tend to reduce them to the Protestant Church where they will find more ingenuous more honest and more able Guides I confess I once thought the justest return to his Ignorance and Malice his unjust Accusations and notorious Falacies was to answer them with silence But when I consider how easily so plausible a Discourse might seduce some well-meaning Men out of the right way or harden them in the wrong I judge it necessary to lay aside all consideration of the meanness of the Adversary and will not onely encourage you to publish the Answer which I hear you have prepared against this bold Antagonist but shall venture to cast in my Symbol also upon his last Chapter of Tythes Not that I delight to put my Sickle into anothers Harvest nor that I esteem you will need any Second against so easie and obnoxious an Opponent Your own Skill is so great your Cause so good and your fair Advantages against this Man are so very many that I make no doubt but you have already prepared a solid and judicious Confutation of all his Pretences as well in this as the other Chapters Yet I deem it not unfit to add these Papers for the following Reasons First Because I think this Subject of Tythes deserves a fuller and more particular Consideration than the brevity of your general Answer will allow Secondly Because the Argument of this Chapter is T. E's main device to alienate Mens minds from the Church of England and so to heighten our unfortunate Divisions wherein therefore he ought to be prevented by all just means Thirdly The obstinacy which the unhappy Quakers contract from such false Insinuations as these of T. E. in this Case of Tythes exposes them to more Sufferings than all their other Errors So that in pity to these ill-instructed Persons I would attempt their full satisfaction in this matter Lastly I think it not inconvenient to try whether it be not possible by variety of Methods and Arguments for us both to advance the same Charitable End viz. to rescue all mistaken Dissenters from their Prejudices against so pious a Donation for so necessary an End These were my Motives to this Undertaking And the Method by which I have proceeded therein is this First I have deduced the History of Tythes through Three eminent Periods of Time viz. Before the Law Under the Law and The Times of the Gospel wherein I have made it evident That Tythes were paid among the Patriarchs by Revelation among the Gentiles by Tradition and the Light of Nature among the Jews by a written Command from God the Father among the Primitive Christians by the Establishment of Christ and his Apostles I have shewed also That the most Ancient Fathers assert them to be Due to Christian Ministers That many Councils do suppose them and others enjoyn them to be Paid and That the Laws of divers Christian Princes did of old Confirm them Secondly I have vindicated the Donations and Confirmations of Tythes in this Kingdom proving that the Donors of them our pious Saxon Ancestors were neither Papists nor Idolaters but that they were Given long before Popery came in Confirmed by divers Princes and Parliaments in every Age and secured by good Laws after Popery was cast out So that they were as freely and rightly Granted as frequently and fully Confirmed and have been as long and as quietly Enjoyed as any Possessions in the whole Nation Thirdly I have considered all the particular Objections urged by T. E. against the Reasonableness and Lawfulness of Tythes and have made it appear that he hath blasphemed Almighty God reviled our Law-givers perverted our Laws slandred the whole Nation and contradicted himself and that he is mistaken in Scripture History Matter of Fact and every thing he meddles with So far is he from proving Tythes to be Jewish or Popish unreasonable or ridiculous a horrible Oppression or a foul Abuse as he insolently brags that he hath proved nothing but his own Ignorance and Dishonesty The serious consideration of which Particulars may convince all that are not blinded with wilful prejudice That Tythes are a pious just and reasonable Payment which were Religiously setled upon are Rightfully to be claimed by and ought Conscienciously to be paid unto the Ministers of the Gospel But I will not detain you longer in this
suppose you thought things a little too high for the Quakers capacity and therefore you wisely chose to insist upon plain matters of fact as more apt to instruct and convince this kind of Men. Yet since T. E. provokes the Priests to the taking up this Argument again I hope to demonstrate That they need not be ashamed of the Weapon nor afraid of this daring Adversary § 3. To make out the Divine Right of Tythes there are three Periods to be considered 1. Before the Law 2. Vnder the Law 3. The Times of the Gospel Concerning the first Period Before the Law you said very little in your Conference as not designing to manage this Argument onely I perceive you had mentioned That the Divine Right of Tythes was derived from Melchisedec not from Levi. Which Passage being single and not guarded with any Proofs or Reasons this sculking Adversary falls upon very fiercely fancying if he can run down this one Sentence which stood naked he shall then confute the Divine Right of Tythes Here thinks the Quaker is an open place he is driving at the Humane Right and I find no Arguments to grieve me in my opposing the Divine Right I will therefore triumph over this little occasional touch and then proclaim I have confuted the Jus Divinum and upon that Supposition I shall more easily find out an Answer to his Arguments de Jure Humano by asserting That all his Humane Laws rely on a false Foundation But if T. E. had been a noble Enemy he should first have disproved the Jus Humanum which was the Argument you managed and not from a transient Speech have boasted he had disproved clearly the Divine Right of Tythes which he is so far from being able to confute that his first words do declare he doth not understand the Question For this Quaker thus begins It is then inquirable Whether or no Tythes were ever due to Melchisedec That which should make them due must be a Command but we do not find any Command in Scripture that they should be paid to Melchisedec The Assertors of the Divine Right of Tythes do not make them originally due either to Melchisedec or Levi but to God himself whose Right to them is founded primarily upon the Law of Nature antecedent to any positive Constitution For since the earth is the Lords and the fulness thereof Psal xxiv 1. and that all we enjoy is derived from his Bounty and Blessing Natural Reason teacheth us to give God some part of his Gifts back again as a token of our gratitude which is but the giving him of his own 1 Chron. xxix 14. And this Natural Law we have transcribed into the Scripture Honour the Lord with thy substance Prov. iii. 9. which Rule obligeth Christians as well as Jews Some part of our Substance being therefore due to God and Abraham and Jacob before any positive Law having by their Examples declared that the Tenth was that Part there was a claim made of this Tenth part as being originally due to God long before All the Tythe of the land is the Lords Levit. xxvii 30. And the first time they are mentioned Exod. xxii 29. they are not directly enjoyned but supposed due and forbid to be with-held And hence those who paid not this Homage and Service are said not to rob the Priests but to rob God Mal. iii. 8. And when our Saviour saith we must give unto God the things that are Gods S. Hierom reckons Tythes among the things which are Gods (a) Hieron in Mat. 22. The Lord saith S. Augustin claimeth the Tenth to himself permitting to us all the rest (b) August de Tempore serm 219. The like say many others even Plutarch a Heathen calls the Tenth part 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods Tribute But now though God have a right to the Tenth part of our Substance yet he cannot be his own Receiver for he needs not our Goods himself Psal xvi 2. So that we are to inquire who must be Gods Receiver and for that even Reason will teach us That what is due to the Master ought to be paid to his next and immediate Servants that is to his Priests And Abraham in paying his Tythes which were Gods part unto Melchisedec the Priest of the most High God did confirm this Dictate of Reason That the Priests should be Gods Receivers and God himself gave more full proof of it in the Mosaical Law when he made so plain an Assignation of Tythes to those who were his Ministers then Behold I have given the Children of Levi all the Tenth in Israel Numb xviii 21. Yea the Light of Nature taught the Gentiles to bestow that upon their Priests which they had vowed to their Gods And Origen gives us the Christians sense of this matter That is said to be offered to God saith he which is given to his Priests (c) Orig. Hom. 11. in Num. We see then how Abraham might know that part of his Substance was due to God and that Melchisedec was to be the Receiver thereof without any express written Rule to direct him And indeâ—d T. E. is very impertinent in inquiring What Command there is in Scripture to Abraham to pay his Tythes to Melchisedec For there was not any Scripture at all in Abraham's time nor was he directed as we are by a written Word but by the Light of Nature by the Tradition of the preceding Patriarchs by Inspiration of the Spirit and sometimes by special Revelation Moses indeed did write a brief History of those Times 400 years after but since he comprises the space of 2300 years in one Book of Genesis it cannot be expected he should set down all Particulars nor in all the Actions of the Patriarchs shew what Reason they had for or how they were directed in such an Action We know from the Light of Nature that part of our Substance is due to God and we gather from the Act of Abraham an inspired Patriarch that the Tenth is that part and the Priest the Receiver thereof Yet if any would be satisfied how Abraham came to know that the Tenth part and no other was that which should be given to God I answer That in all reason we ought to believe it was at first revealed by Almighty God to him or to some of the first Patriarchs who were directed by the Divine Spirit to pitch upon this Part which the Patriarchs are recorded to have fixed upon For if it had been a meer Humane Invention it is unlikely God should have imitated them in chusing the same Part And by this after-Act the Divine Majesty did approve that Number and declare the Patriarchs were at first guided by his Spirit in the choyce thereof And if the Quakers now that there is a Written Rule pretend to be guided by the Spirit of God at least in their Solemn Actions how much more ought we to believe that the holy Patriarchs were so guided before there was any Written
Word to manifest Gods Will Thus the way of honouring God by Oblation of Sacrifice is believed to have been first revealed to Adam although the particular Command for it be not recorded The like we may believe also concerning this of Dedicating a Tenth part especially if we consider how it was propagated by Tradition among the Heathens of whose Practices we have any Histories to inform us The Tyrians gave the Tenth Part to their Gods And by their Example the Carthaginians a Colony of Tyrians sent their Tythes yearly to Hercules Tyrius and finding themselves unfortunate when they for a while had omitted it they restor'd the Tythes as before (d) Diodor. Sicul. Dydimus the Grammarian saith It was the custom of the Greeks to consecrate the Tenth of their Gains to the Gods And the Inhabitants of the Island Syphnus are remembred by Pausanias to have had their Mines swallowed up by the Sea upon their neglect of paying the Tythes to them as formerly to Apollo (e) Pausanias Histor Graec. For the Romans it is well known they vowed the Tenth of their Fruits to Hercules And Lucullus was believed to grow rich by his punctual payment of these Dues (f) Alexand. ab Alexand. lib. 3. cap. 22. And that this was not done onely by them of extraordinary Devotion we learn from Plutarch who saith The careful Father of a Family divides his Years Profits into Ten parts Six to be spent on his Houshold Two to be laid up One for the Seed of the next Year and the Tenth is the Tribute of the Gods (g) Apud Episc Winton Theol. Determ And Paulus Diaconus speaks generally of all Heathens Of old they offered all the Tenth to their Gods And Alexander ab Alexandro The Tenth part of the Fruits were every where vowed to Hercules (h) Alex. ab Alexand. lib. 3. cap. 22. There are more Proofs of this kind in Sir Henry Spelman's larger Work of Tythes But these may suffice to shew that the most distant Nations did consent in giving this Tenth part to their Gods which therefore we must believe they had by Tradition from the first Patriarchs who received it by Revelation from God This is a sufficient account by what Authority Abraham might proceed in the choyce of the Tenth part And it is not necessary since the Scripture is silent I should determine whether Abraham was immediately directed to it or whether he learned it from Melchisedec who St. Paul saith Tythed Abraham or whether they did not both learn it from the first Patriarchs which is most likely it being sufficient that God hath Recorded it with approbation and afterwards Ratified it by following this Example Even as in the Case of putting an Adulteress to death Judah proceeds upon that as being a just Punishment And though we read of no Command before to enact it into a Law yet we believe Judah received that Law by Tradition from the Patriarchs who were taught it by God Gen. xxxviii 35. And we are the more confirmed this Law came from God at first because he approved it and writ it down afterwards Levit. xx 10. And when T. E. shews me a Command before Judah's time to put an Adulteress to death I may shew him a Command for Tythes before Abraham § 4. But our Quaker goes on pag. 278. Moses saith expresly he gave him Tythes he doth not say he paid him Tythes And the Apostle saith Abraham gave the Tenth Heb. vii 4. To give is one thing to pay another I answer To give and to pay is all one in this case or else the Apostle was overseen who not onely saith he gave the Tenth ver 4. but which T. E. concealed ver 9. Levi paid Tythes in Abraham the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intimating that Melchisedec Tythed him Nor will the Quakers critical distinction between to give and to pay hold in other cases for it is very proper to say we give a Man that which is his due I hope he will not accuse David of improper speaking when he saith Give unto the Lord the honour due unto his Name Psal xxxix 2. But however T. E. will grant Tythes were due to be paid under the Law and yet we read Hezekiah commanded the People to give the Priests their Portion c. 2 Chron. xxxi 4. So that the word give in Gen. xiv doth no more prove Tythes were not due to Melchisedec Jure Divino than the same in Chron. proves they were not due to the Levites Jure Divino Yet if the Quakers like this Criticism of T. E. I hope it will persuade them to give us our Tythes though they will not pay them § 5. His next Objection pag. 279. is If they were due to Melchisedec then Abraham must have paid him Tythes of all his Substance and not onely of the Spoils Hebr. vii 4. This was an extraordinary Occasion wherein Abraham having got a Victory by Gods Blessing did give to God the Tenth of all he had now gotten as in all probability he was wont ordinarily to do of all that he got by Gods ordinary Blessing onely this as more especially remarkable is recorded in this short History So that T. E's saying he doth not read in Genesis that Abraham paid his Tythes constantly is no Argument unless all that Abraham ordinarily did were recorded there And I may ask him where he reads there that Abraham did not pay them His Negative arguing is of no more force than it would be if he should say Those Ante-diluvian Patriarchs did nothing else while they lived but beget Sons and Daughters because no more is recorded of many of them Gen. v. T. E. therefore cannot prove Abraham did not pay Tythes ordinarily and I can make it appear very probable he did For first It is very probable Melchisedec was the same with Sem the Son of Noah so the ancient Hebrew Traditions said (i) Hieron ad Evagrium Epist 126. Quest Hebr. in Gen. and so Lyra Tostatus and others do prove Epiphanius indeed thought Sem must be dead before but he was led into this mistake by following the Chronology of the LXX And S. Hierom computing according to the Hebrew Account makes it appear that Sem did live 35 years after Abraham's death (k) Id. Epist ad Evagr. And concerning the Occasion of his coming to Salem there is a very notable Account in Saidas Batricides who yet makes Melchisedec not Sem himself but one of his Family and allied to Abraham's Ancestors viz. That Noah being about to die commanded his Son Sem to take Adam's Body which his Father Lamech had ordered him to bury in the middle of the Earth and to take with him Bread and Wine for his Journey and also to take Melchisedec the Son of Phaleg along with him and go to the place where that Body was to be buried which the Angel saith Noah will shew you and command Melchisedec that he shall place his Seat
which wait at the Altar i. e. the Jewish Priests are partakers with the Altar i. e. in the Sacrifices and Oblations Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel 1 Cor. ix 13 14. Which words Even so do manifest that Christ hath in the main and for the essential part made like Provision for Gospel-Ministers as God the Father did for the Jewish Priesthood Thirdly This was also a Pattern for the Devout Christians of old and did intimate to them that they should not do less for their Ministers than would afford them an honourable Maintenance Wherein Origen speaks my sense fully (r) Orig. in Num. Hom. 2. Our Lord saith in the Gospel speaking of Tything Mint c. These things ought ye to have done If you reply He said this to the Pharisees not to his Disciples then hear what he saith to his Disciples Except your Righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. v. Therefore that which he would have done by the Pharisees more abundantly would he have it done by his Disciples Now how doth my Righteousness exceed that of the Pharisees if they durst not taste of the Fruits of the Earth before they had separated the Priests and Levites parts and I do devour the Fruits of the Earth so that the Priest knows not of it the Levite is a stranger to it and Gods Altar receives nothing Fourthly The Substance of that which was required then is due still not by vertue of that Law but because there is an inherent Equity in the thing And this is Origen's meaning in the aforesaid place when he saith Therefore I think it necessary that this Law of Paying Tythes of the Fruits of the Earth and some others should stand in force according to the Letter And so we must interpret S. Hierom when he saith That which we have said of Tythes and First-fruits which were once given by the People to the Priests and Levites you must understand also of the Christian People to whom it is commanded not onely to give Tythes but to sell all (ſ) Hieron in Mal. 3. That is so much of the Command as was moral so much as was grounded upon Eternal Reason ought to stand God is eternally Lord of the World and must alwaies be worshipped and alwaies have Ministers and these must alwaies be maintained out of their Masters Portion When the Levitical Priesthood failed there must be another and a better and therefore we may claim Tythes as God's Due and as his Ministers Portion as they were declared to be both before the Levitical Law and under it and yet need not claim them by the Levitical Law as it is Ceremonial And now I hope T. E. must confess that your second Position viz. That Tythes are not purely Ceremonial is made good also since I have shewed they were grounded on the Law of Nature and Primitive Revelation relying on an Internal Rectitude in the thing it self and an Eternal Reason of it and were paid by those Patriarchs who lived long before the Ceremonial Law by vertue of the preceding Declarations of the Divine Right unto them T is true all things done by the Patriarchs were not Eternal Duties because all things they did relyed not on these Principles which the Payment of Thythes rely upon Circumcision was not grounded on the Law of Nature nor imposed for any Eternal Reason or Internal Rectitude in the thing Bloody Sacrifices were also purely Types of Christ to come and therefore these were purely Ceremonial and cease when that Law ceaseth But Tythes as to the main were not such and therefore remain in force still I might add That the Prophets who are not wont to reprove the People for omission of things purely Ceremonial declaim against the Jews for detaining their Tythes see Mal. iii. 10. And Nehemiah calls his care in this a Good Deed desiring God to remember him for it Nehem. xiii 14. Nor are Tythes in all the New Testament reckon'd up among things purely Ceremonial or declared to be repealed as Circumcision Sacrifices Washing Jewish Difference of Meats and Jewish Feasts c. are These are repealed by Name but so are not Tythes as being a thing that never were purely Ceremonial I conclude that part of our Substance being due to God by the Natural and Divine Law and the Inspired Patriarchs being taught by Revelation That the Tenth was this part and the Priests of God were his Receivers God himself having approv'd also this payment by a renew'd claim and an express Assignation of his Right under the Levitical Law to the Priests for the time being and the same God having the same Right still to his part and the same occasion to use it for the maintenance of his Ministers at this Day Hence I suppose it will follow That unless an express repeal can be shewed the Gospel Ministers in God's Name may justly claim Tythes as due to God and them still and that by a Divine Right too which I will now more fully prove § 9. Having found sure footing for the Divine Right of Tythes thus far we will now go on with T. E. to consider the third Period of time viz. Vnder the Gospel And first we will begin with what the Quaker grants pag. 284. viz. That a Maintenance in general to the Ministers of the Gospel is Just Reasonable and established by a Divine Authority Let him but stand to this Grant and then it will follow That the Ministers of the Gospel may claim a Maintenance in general Jure Divino For that Maintenance which is established by Divine Authority is due Jure Divino And why then should not that Maintenance still be so Due which God directed before the Law approved under the Law and never repealed after the Law If the Divine Authority hath established a Maintenance that supposeth it was such a Maintenance as was due before according to T. E. p. 318. Now before the Gospel times the Maintenance paid to Gods Ministers before the Law and under it was Tythes The Priesthood of Melchisedec and of Levi both were so maintained And therefore if a new maintenance was as T. E. speaks created it might be somewhat else But if a Maintenance be establisted methinks it should be Tythes But to proceed The places which you produced out of the New Testament for this Establishment were 1 Cor. ix and Gal. vi 6. Now our Quaker as if he did already repent of his Concession strives to pervert these Texts by two Limitations First The Apostle speaks not so much saith he what the Maintenance is as who they are from whom it is to be received viz. Such as receive their Ministry such as believe them to be true Ministers such as are taught by them This is a notorious falshood for in the former place viz. 1 Cor. ix S. Paul is all along speaking of the Ministers
unsettled times of Christianity they did forbear to use it that they might avoid offence Secondly Nor was there any need for JESVS to make any new Law for Tythes since they were sufficiently declared to be due to God before by Revelation and Example by Reason and Gods own choice by the grounds on which they were given and the ends for which they were employ'd The World knew there was a Jus Divinum to the tenth part so that our Lord was onely to declare what Priests it was to be paid unto and who were to be his Receivers And this he doth 1 Cor. ix and Gal. vi And thus it was in the case of Gods part of our Time under the Gospel as well as of his part of our Estate One day in seven being sufficiently declared to be Gods part Jesus made no new Law about that at all but left it on those firm foundations upon which he found it settled For all which our Lord was to alter was not in the proportion for a seventh part is still required but in the Assignation of the day and even for that he made no express Law but 't is likely privately instructed his Disciples herein who brought in the Sunday Sabbath into the Church by Example rather than Constitution And by degrees they did establish it carrying in the mean time so fair a respect to the Jewish-Sabbath that for many years they observed both the Saturday and Sunday also Thirdly Our Lord and his Apostles did not make a new Determination of the Tenth part by Name because the Devotion of the Christians in those dayes was so great that they gave more than a Tenth freely selling all and following Christ and bestowing on the Apostles more than they were in a condition to receive And as it were impertinent to make a Law for that Man to spend one day in seven religiously who spends all his very Week dayes in Devotion and Religion so it was in this case our Lord JESVS might expect that the joyful Message of his Gospel should be so thankfull received that those to whom it was sent should do as much freely to the gratifying his Messengers as the servile Jews did by the compulsion of a positive Law And he fore-saw that his Grace would open the hearts of Kings and Princes and other devout Persons to give more than a Tenth part of their good things to those in his Name and for his sake who were sent to preach the Gospel Isa lx 5 6 7 8 9 c. And this accordingly came to pass for though our narrow-spirited Quakers think the smallest matters too much to be contributed to God's Service those Noble and large Souls thought the greatest gifts too little in acknowledgement for the Mercies of the Gospel And since such times were coming our Lord might probably on purpose decline determining the proportion too expresly that Christians might have the opportunity of a voluntary Charity and as S. Paul speaks might not do it grudgingly or of necessity because God loveth a chearful giver 2 Cor. ix 7. And this was more agreeable to the freedom and ingenuity of Sons which Christians are compared to And positive Laws were likely to be made when the decays of Piety and Charity did require them Fourthly I add That the state of the Church in those dayes was such that Believers though they were willing could not have opportunity to pay Tythes regularly nor could the Gospel-Ministers receive them And as it was no prejudice to the Jewish-Priests that there was little or no Tythes paid during their Fore-fathers wandring in the Wilderness no more is it to us that they were not paid regularly in the times of Persecution Finally our Lord JESVS and the Apostles said so much in the New Testament that the Primitive Christians understood them to intend Tythes for the Gospel-maintenance and they said enough to shew that the Ancient Divine Right to the Tenth part should be continued and the Gospel-Ministers should be the Receivers of it And it was neither necessary nor convenient they should speak more plainly in this matter This being sufficient to establish the Divine Right of Tythes under the Gospel and to teach us that Tythes being originally due to God and by Christ assigned to the Gospel-Ministers are now due to them Jure Divino § 12. Now this Divine Right is much confirmed by the Voluntary dedication of the Tenth part to God by the Christians afterwards For what a Man dedicates to God and his Service God hath a Right to it by that Dedication though it were a thing which was no way appropriate to God before Acts v. 3 4. Num. xxx 2. As you do very well say in the Conference That if Tythes were not due by Divine appointment this Dedication will make them due Which the Quaker fancies to be a Relinquishing of the Divine Right most maliciously inferring pag. 287. That he perceives though Christ deny them yet if Men will grant them it is enough to serve our turns I know you never said nor thought that Christ denyed Tythes and since the Quaker affirms that Christ doth deny them let him produce the place of Scripture where Christ doth deny Tythes to be given or granted to Gospel-Ministers or else he is a manifest Slanderer of Christ in this suggestion But to proceed You did prove this Voluntary dedication with respect to this Nation by King Ethelwolph's Charter Not because that was the first or oldest Donation of Tythes as T. E. foolishly and falsly suggests p. 299. for there were elder Dedications of Tythes than this as well in this Nation as in other parts of Christendom as you intimated in the Conference when you said That as to this matter there was abundant satisfaction to be had by consulting Antiquaries and Church-Histories but especially by King Ethelwolph's Charter c. 'T is plain you knew there were other evidences but you instanced in this as the fullest to this purpose and for this Nation which remains at large upon Record And because the Quaker dreading all higher Antiquity and omitting all Inquiry into preceding Church-History doth cunningly suppose Tythes no older among Christians than this Charter or however to have arisen from Popery and accordingly bends all his force to evacuate this Charter and prove those times Popish I shall crave leave to lay open his weakness and lamentable mistakes in this following Method which will continue the account of Tythes I have begun baffle the Adversary I have undertaken and free you my worthy Friend from his aspersions First I will look back into the Ages before K. Ethelwolph and shew by what Authorities and Presidents he made this Donation Secondly I will consider the Donation it self and the state of those times in which it was made Thirdly I will note how it hath been confirmed since And then fourthly wipe off T. E.'s particular Blots thrown upon this Sacred Maintenance § 13. First To look back into the Primitive Times
The Apostles having given a general Rule for the Faithful to communicate unto their Teachers in all good things the Primitive Christians did alwayes make liberal Oblations to their Pastors not only of Houses and Lands as we read in Holy Scripture but also of Money and other things which being collected every Lords day was delivered to the Bishop saith Justin Martyr (x) Just Mart. Apol. 2. An. 150. But not to expatiate into the whole Maintenance of the Christian Bishops and Priests in the first Ages which was so plentiful that they had enough for themselves and also for entertainment of Strangers Relief of the Poor and suffering Brethren and for furnishing God's Worship with all things necessary even then when the Christians were so harrassed with Persecutions I will come to inquire whether they had nothing in that Maintenance answering to Tythes yea whether they had not Tythes given them by a Voluntary Devotion I will begin with the Testimony of Irenaeus S. Polycarp's Disciple who was the Scholar of S. John and lived An. 170. We ought saith he to offer to God the First-fruits of his Creatures as Moses saith Thou shalt not appear before the Lord empty for not all kind of Oblations are abrogated there were Oblations among them and there are Oblations among us (z) Irenaeus advers Haer. lib. 5. c. 34. And a little after he saith That as the the Jews gave their Tenths so the Christians gave all they had freely and chearfully to the Lords uses not giving less than they as having a greater hope And here we must note That these First-fruits which we find often mentioned in the Ancients as paid to the Christian Priests were one sort of Voluntary Tythe prescribed by Moses Law being the first and best part of the Fruits of the Earth offered solemny to God by the owner And if Tythes had been unlawful because they were spoken of in Moses Law First-fruits must have been so also But we shall see the very first Christians dedicated their First-fruits of all the Earths productions to God And what was this but a Voluntary Tythe Yea I find the Names First-fruits and Tythes frequently joyn'd as signifying the same thing only the Greek Churches call these parts of the Earths productions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Latins more usually term Decimae And it will be more evident that First-fruits among the Christians were but another Name for Tythes when we hear what follows The Apostolical Canons which were the Decrees of divers Christian Synods made in the times of Persecution and of great Authority in the Christian Church take notice of the Christians in those times to bring their First-fruits to the place of Assembly and by the Priest to offer them at the Altar which looking somewhat like a Sacrifice it was ordered That neither Honey Milk strong Liquors Birds nor living Creatures nor any other sorts of Pulse but only some of the first ripe ears of of Corn and Grapes should be offered at the Altar (a) Apostol Can. 3. But all other Fruits should be sent to the Bishop's house as First-fruits for the Bishop and Presbyters (b) Can. 4. From whence it is plain That those Christians did dedicate a part of all their Profits to God and his Ministers And the ancient Greek Church hath an excellent Prayer which the Priest said for those who thus offered their Tythes or First-fruits (c) Eucholo pag. 655. And S. Gregory's Sacramentary hath another In these times of Persecution also lived Origen Anno 210. whose opinion concerning these Dedications of Tythes and First-fruits we heard before § 8. And out of the same Homily (d) Origen in Numer Hom. 11. we have transcrib'd these words It is an undecent unworthy and wicked thing for one that worships God and enters into the Church and knowing that the Priests and Ministers wait at the Altar serving either to the Word of God or the Ministeries of the Church doth not offer to the Priests the First part of those Fruits of the Earth which God gives by making his Sun to shine and his Rain to fall Such a Soul seems to me neither to remember God nor think of him nor yet to believe that God gave those Fruits which he takes and layes up as if God had nothing to do with them And hence as is noted before he concludes the Law of Tythes and First-fruits ought to stand in force among Christians To him we may add S. Cyprian who lived about 40 Years after who commending the Nobleness of the first Christians blames those who did not give the Tythes out of their Inheritance (e) Cypri de Vnit Eccle. Which he would not have done but that he believed Christ intented Tythes for the maintenance of a Gospel-Ministry To this we madd the Testimony of that ancient Book which bears the name of Clement's Constitutions (f) Lib. 8.30 Let all the First-fruits be delivered to the Bishop and to the Presbyters and the Deacons So that we see Tythes and First-fruits were paid and thought lawful even in the times of Persecution and since no Humane Law enjoin'd them they must needs be mov'd hereunto by esteeming them due by God's Law But we proceed to consider the Opinion of the succeeding Times and to omit the less considerable S. Ambrose is very plain It is not saith he sufficient for us to bear the name of Christians if we do not the works of Christians now the Lord commands us to pay our Tythes yearly of all our Fruits and Cattel (g) S. Ambr. Serm. 33. in Quadrag And again saith he (h) Id. Ser. 34. An. 380. What is it faithfully to give Tythes but that we never give the worst or least parts to God of our Grain our Wine of the Fruits of our Trees of our Flocks our Garden our Merchandise yea of our very Hunting because of all the Substance which God gives a Man he hath reserved the Tenth part to himself and therefore it is not lawful for a Man to retain that which God hath reserved to himself Epiphanius his contemporary a Bishop in Cyprus saith The Scripture exhorteth the People that out of their just labours they shall give to the Priests for their maintenance First-fruits Oblations and other things (i) Epiphan Panar lib. 3. to 2. haer 80. Note still the Greek Fathers call the same thing First-fruits which the Latin call Tythes Only in S. Chrysostom we find both words for this great Patriarch who is a zealous opposer of all Jewish Ceremonies yet affirms It is lawful and fitting for Christian to pay Tythes (k) Chrys in Gen. Hom. 35. in Ep. ad Hebr. Hom. 12. Yea he saith Melchisedec was our Tutor in this matter S. Hierom also in many places declareth they were generally paid in his time He tells us That as a Priest or Levite he himself lived upon Tythes and Oblations (l) Hieron Epist 2. And again under the
name of First-fruits The First-fruits saith he (m) in Ezek. 45. of all our Provisions are offered to the Priests so that we taste nothing of New-fruits till the Priest hath first tasted thereof and this we do that the Priest may lay up our bounty and Oblation in his house so that through his prayers God may bless our houses Hence he affirms the Law for Tythes doth oblige Christians as to the Substance as was noted before And he calls Tythes the things that be God's (n) Id. in Matth. 22. Yea he adviseth the Clergy that are in the Towns to send part of their Tythes to those who served God in desert places which plainly proveth they were paid to the Priests in his dayes S. Augustin who next follows is full in many places of his Works for the proof of this And he intimates it was no new Custom nor Opinion to to pay Tythes as God's due For our Fore-fathers saith he therefore abounded in all plenty because they gave God his Tythes and Caesar his Tribute (o) August Hom. 48. And again Tythes are required as due debt and he that will not give them invades another Mans Right Whatsoever Art sustaineth thee it is God's and he requireth Tythes out of whatsoever thou livest by May not God say The Man that I made is mine the Seed that thou sowest is mine the Cattel that thou weariest in thy work are mine the Showers the Rain and the gentle Winds are mine the heat of the Sun is mine and thou that lendest thy hand deservest only the tenth part but God gives us a liberal reward for our pains reserving only the Tenth part to himself (p) Aug. de Temp. Ser. 219. The whole Sermon is most worthy to be read and is translated into English in Sir Henry Spelman de non Temerandis Ecclesiis being an evident Proof of the Ancients opinion that Tythes were of Divine Right which I might further prove by many more Instances But I will end these Testimonies of single Eminent Fathers with that of Prosper of Aquitain who speaking to the Clergy of his dayes saith We do willingly receive the daily Oblations and Tythes of the Faithful and shall we lay aside the care of the Flock (q) Prosp de Vit. Contempl lib. 1. c. 21. Now I hope the Quaker will not say all these were Papists or that the Church was Popish as early as Irenaeus and Origen and if not then he must recant his false Assertion That Tythes came in with Popery But to go on In the next place we will shew That the Decrees of Councils did confirm our Assertion That Tythes are due jure Divino And first let it be noted That though it be certain Tythes were paid from the earliest dayes of Christianity yet it was not for a long time directly enjoyn'd by any Humane Law either Ecclesiastical or Civil which shews the first Christians believed they were obliged to pay them by the Law of God And according to S. Augustin's Rule viz. That such things as were universally observed and owed not their beginning to any Council were to be thought to have been ordained by the Apostles Tythes and First-fruits must at least be of Apostolical Institution I find indeed many Ancient Councils suppose them to have been paid and ordering how they should be distributed by the Bishops as Can. Apostolic 38 41. Concil Gangrens Can. 7 8. An. 324. where they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiastical Tribute of Fruits And Concil Antiochen Can. 24 25. An. 341. where we read of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Profits of the Church or the Fruits of the Fields And also in the Canonical Epistle of S. Cyril of Alexandr to Domnus where we find mention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Ecclesiastical Revenues c. Among all these Instances that of the fore-mentioned Council of Gangra deserves more largely to be described as containing a full proof of the Ancient Donation of this Tribute of Fruits to the Church For this Synod complaining of the several mischiefs wrought by the Schismaticks of Eustathius his party mention these among the rest That they left the Houses of God and contemned the Church holding private Conventicles and teaching strange Doctrines there as well against the Church as those things that were done in it and despising the usual Garments did put on new and strange Habits And then they add The Ecclesiastical Tribute also of Fruits which of old time was given to the Church they challenge to themselves and those with them as being Saints (r) Bevereg Concil To. 1. p. 416. Conc. Gangrens Bin. ibid. p. 376. For which and other Quaker-like practices the Synod pronounces them to be accursed In this and the fore-cited places it appears That Tythes and First-fruits were given to the Church long before the Year of Christ 324. and paid by the People without any Laws to compel them so to do And the first Law which directly enjoyns them is the Decree of a Roman Council Anno 374. commanding That Tythes and First-fruits should be paid by the Christians and they which with-held them should be anathematized But there is some question whether that Council be genuine or no I shall therefore omit this and all those other Councils (ſ) Concil Tarracon Ann. 516. Cone Aurel. 1. An. 520. Conc. Brita sub S. Patricio c. which suppose them but do not enjoyn them and take notice that the first positive Ecclesiastical Law was made in the Council of Matiscon almost 300 years before K. Ethelwolph's Donation Anno 560. whose words do fully prove our Assertion of their having been paid from the beginning jure Divino For thus that Council speaks (t) Concil Matisc Can. 5. The Divine Laws taking care of the Priests and Ministers of the Churches for their Inheritance have enjoyned all the People to pay the Tythes of their Fruits to Holy Places that being hindered by no labour they may more duly attend Spiritual Ministeries which Laws the whole Company of Christians have for a long time kept inviolate wherefore we decree and ordain That the Ancient Custom be observed still among the Faithful and that all the People bring in the Tythes which maintain the Worship of God And the like Decree was made in Spain about thirty years after in the first Council of Hispalis An. 590. under the Famous Bishop Leander the Reformer of that Nation from Arrianism We ordain say they (u) Concil Hispal ap Ivon p. 2. c. 174. That all the Fruits and Tythes as well of Cattel as of Fruits be rightly offered to their several Churches by Rich and Poor according to the saying of the Lord by the Prophet Bring ye all the Tythes into the Store-house c. For as God hath given us all so of all he requireth Tythe of the profits of the Field and all Provisions of Bees and Honey Lambs c. And he that pays not Tythes of all these is
professing any Canonical obedience to the Pope which was first done by Ralph Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Anno 1115. and therefore they cannot justly be called a Popish Clergy But suppose again the Saxon Priests had been Papists that would not have made a Donation of Tythes invalid because Tythes are God's Right and the Grant was intended to God (g) Ad serviendum Deo soli Ingulph Deo contulit Math. West The Clergy of that Age were God's only publick Ministers and the Quaker's private Teaching was not then invented the Donors supposed them a good Ministry and as such endowed them for they esteem'd them to be God's Receivers and since there is no fault in God if there had been a fault in the Servant that could not prejudice the Master's Title Besides Almighty God hath now provided himself of Ministers that are no Papists but the most considerable Enemies to Popery in all the World so that if they had been a Popish Clergy and forfeited their own Right they could not forfeit ours and yet it is from a Protestant Clergy that the Quakers would take the Tythes Again T. E. must know that erroneous opinions in the Clergy do not make void the Rights which they have by the Laws of God or Man For the Jewish Priests in Christ's time were very erroneous in judgement and yet Christ pronounces they had a Right to Tythes even to those small Tythes not expressed in God's Law but Dedicated by the Pharisees for saith he These things ye ought have done Matth. xxiii 23. so doubtless we may say Though that Clergy were erroneous yet Ethelwolph ought to have given them God's due and the People ought to have paid it to them If they were erroneous neither Prince nor People knew it and they did not give these to maintain their Errors as T. E. maliciously insinuates but to maintain that which they believed to be a good Ministry and the true Worship of God and therefore the Donation remains good If I give alms to a poor Turk Papist or Quaker he is malicious who sayes I do it to maintain his Errors when I do it to relieve his wants (h) Misericordia solet juvare paupâ—rem non examinare justitiam Ambros de Nabeth However will any plead if I endow an Alms-house and suppose the Beads-men to be good Men but am mistaken and after my decease it appears the Persons which were chosen were of evil Principles or wicked Life that this makes my Donation to be wholly void We may say such evil Persons ought to be put out and better put in but be the Persons good or bad the Gift given to God stands good and is irrevocable § 18. Thirdly The Quaker objects ibid. That he did it upon evil motives For the good of our Souls and the forgiveness of our sins are the words of the Charter which shews it to be an effect of that Popish Doctrine of meriting Salvation by Good works and that he gave this as an expiation for his sins 'T is somewhat strange that T. E. should reckon both these for evil motives and it is the first time that I ever heard it called an evil motive to be moved to do a good work For the good of our Souls Again the desire of Remission of his sins was a good motive in it self onely he took an ill course to obtain it if he sought Expiation by Good works to merit pardon and salvation by good works is now a Doctrine of the grosser Romanists and I fear of some Quakers also who slighting the merit and necessity of Christ's death ascribe Salvation to the following the Light within yea T. E. himself pleads that there is no Salvation unless we have a sinless perfection and as if Christ had never died positively affirms Wheresoever there is sin there is also condemnation p. 97. Now he that looks for Salvation by his perfection doth hold that Popish Doctrine of meriting Salvation by Good works and he that proudly says he hath no sin to be remitted renders Christ's death as useless as he that believes he shall obtain remission by his Good works And therefore I doubt the Quaker will be found to be more a Papist than K. Ethelwolph For this Popish Doctrine of Merit and Expiation by Good works is not so old as that Age yea the learned Bishop Vsher proves that this Doctrine was not received here in Alselm's days for in his Directions to those who visited the Sick are these Questions and Answers A. Brother dost thou believe thou canst not be saved but by the death of Christ B. Yes A. Give him thanks for this with all thine heart B. I do A. If the Lord would judge thee say O Lord I set the death of my Lord JESUS between me and thy Judgement otherwise I cannot stand before thee (i) Vsher de Succes Eccles c. 7. §. 21. Yea Pope Adrian our Country-man calls Merits a broken Reed on which if we lean it will pierce our hand (k) Adrian in 4. Sent. And 't is evident from S. Bernard Durandus and others that the Church of Rome it self was not for Merits in this gross sense of 300 or 400 years after Ethelwolph's time And for his words in this Charter and some such like as are to be found among the most Orthodox Fathers they mean no more than that they hoped these good fruits meet for Repentance would be acceptable to God so that he perceiving their purposes of well-doing might of his great mercy bestow that pardon on them which Christ alone merited And hence the good King adds that they gave these also That the Priests might so much the more fervently pour out their Prayers to God without ceasing for them So that we may perceive they did not think this good work alone could expiate their sins or merit Salvation without God's mercy and to that end they desired the daily and importunate Prayers of the Church for them since they had learned from S. James That the Prayers of God's Ministers were a good means to obtain Remission James v. 14 15. But let us here also suppose they were led by those evil motives which T. E's malice falsly lays to their charge will he say that all the Donations of Papists who really are led by these Motives are invalid to those to whom they are made If so then all the Schools Hospitals and other charitable Gifts of Popish Donation are void which is a ridiculous Assertion The giving any thing to a pious use upon evil motives may endanger the Giver's losing his Reward in Heaven but it will not deprive the Receivers of the benefit of such a Gift on Earth and if we might not lawfully enjoy a Gift unless the Giver were moved by just and good motives to give it we could scarce enjoy any Donation of Papist or Protestant since we cannot certainly know whether they were induced to it by good or bad motives We conclude therefore That the Quaker falsly
a Man for all his talking since many wiser and better Men than T. E. have no Estate at all nor no Right to any Every Man hath a Natural Capacity but that alone gives no Title to an Estate it is therefore as a Man so Qualified that T. E. claims that is as a Purchaser or one to whom an Estate hath been given or as being descended from some so Qualified or else as invested with some Civil Office or Employment to which such an Estate is annexed Well the Priest hath a Natural capacity also as well as T. E. is as much and as good a Man as he but this alone gives him no Title to Tythes he claims them in a Spiritual capacity as T. E. claims his Estate in a Civil capacity And now why is not a Spiritual capacity as good a ground of claim to an Estate legally settled upon it as a Civil capacity Men in this Spiritual capacity are Men and need provisions as much as those in Civil capacities They are Subjects as well as the other and as useful Members of the Common-wealth as any and so deserve protection and defence by the Laws as well as others And all the Law-givers under Heaven have believed Men in Spiritual capacity were as capable of Temporal Rites and Priviledges as those in Civil capacities were and accordingly they have been endow'd and their Endowments confirmed by the Laws of all Nations so that I wonder what Crotchet came in the Quaker's head to fancy a Minister of Christ could not have the benefit of the Temporal Laws as well as the Mayor of a Corporation An Estate in Land Rent-charge or Tolls and Customs may be setled on the Mayor of such a City and on his Successors for ever and then whoso sustains that Charge and bears that Office hath as good a Claim by Law to that Income as T. E. hath to the Estate he is born to They claim under different Qualifications but one hath as good a Temporal Right for his Time as the other Now why is not a Minister in as good a capacity as either of these Why is not a Religious Office as Endowable as a Civil Office Sure his being a Minister of Christ makes him not uncapable of a Temporal Right for S. Paul saith the King is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. xiii 4. the Minister of God And by vertue of that Ministerial Function His Majesty claims many Temporal Rights besides the ancient Patrimony of His Family And will this saucy Quaker say he hath a better Title to his Estate than the King hath to the Rights and Revenues of His Crown But as to the Claim of a Priest it will be made evident by this Parallel Suppose some Prince or Great Man did out of his own Inheritance make a Donation of some certain Lands or Rents to an Elwood and entail it on the Family of Elwoods for ever if T. E. be the Heir of that Family he will say he hath as good a Right to this as if he purchased it And why may not the Priest claim his Tythes as justly as T. E. claims this Donative Was his Estate given by the Right Owners So were Tythes Was his given to the Family of Elwoods So were Tythes to the Order of Priests Was his given for Valuable Considerations That may be some question for who knows some hundred years after but it might be for doing some evil deed to please the grâ—â—t Donor such as that Donation to P. de Mawley was (Å¿) Dugd. Baronage of Engl. vol. 1. p. 733. However the Law finds him in possession and presumes the Considerations were good and so secures his Title But the Priests can and have made it appear that the Tythes were setled upon them by vertue of the best Considerations imaginable and therefore the Priests Claim is better than the Elwoods on this account that we can be sure we came well to our Right at first Now the Law finding a Priest and an Elwood both claiming by vertue of several ancient Donations and both in possession of their several Estates and looking on them as both Subjects and both Persons whose Rights the Government and Laws should defend the Law I say confirms both their Estates and Rights to them and their Successors Now if T. E. be descended from the Elwoods in a natural way of sucession so are we from the Priests in a spiritual succession and though this bold Quaker do often say we are no Priests I must tell him there is more fear he is no Elwood than we no Priests and our Ordination is easier to prove than T. E's Mothers Honesty But however the Law takes him for an Elwood and us for Priests and equally confirms our Claims So that I think all rational Men must say the Priests Claim and Temporal Right is as good as the Elwoods it differs not at all as to strength and validity unless the Priest have the better Temporal Right of the two § 24. He goes on in his folly and saith pag. 314. If the Case of the Priest and of T. E. as to Temporal Right be equal then the Priest must acknowledge he is no more a Minister of Christ than T. E. at least that he doth not claim them as a Minister of Christ any more than T. E. doth his Temporal Estate otherwise the Parallel will not hold The Maxim on which this Inference is grounded is this wretched absurdity That none can have equal Temporal Rights by the Laws unless they be equal in all Capacities Whenas all the World sees the same Laws do give equal Temporal Rights to Persons of all kind of Capacities for the same Estate may be enjoyed by a Judge first then by a Soldier then by a Merchant then by a Woman and all these in their several turns may have an equal Temporal right to this Estate though they be every one of different Capacities And if it be several Estates and the Persons enjoying them as different as can be in their Capacities the same Laws may give an equal Right to them all without altering their various Capacities Suppose the King have by the Law a Temporal Right to one Estate and some of His Subjects an equal Right to another Estate you shall hear T. E's wise way of arguing The King claims a Temporal thing so doth the Subject The King claims by a Temporal Right so doth the Subject The King hath no need of Scripture to prove his Right no more hath the Subject Yet for all this their Claim is not one and the same they must stay there the King must acknowledge himself no more a King than the Subject or else the Cases are not parallel Thus he takes his Quakers by the nose and would cokes them into a conceit That all Priests must be Elwoods or all Elwoods Priests before they can have equal Temporal Rights This is the inspired Oracle of Law and Gospel who doth not know how a Judge and a Plowman a Man
Masters Rules when they preached to the Gentiles We must not think saith Calvin on this place that there is a standing fixed Law prescribed to all Ministers of the Word while the Lord is commanding the Preachers of his Doctrine what he would have them do for a little time which piece of Ignorance hath deceived many so far that they would reduce all Ministers to this Rule without distinction (x) Calv. Com. in Harm Evang p. 218. Yet our Quaker is so confident of his absurd Exposition that secondly He saucily asks Kings and Princes where Christ gave them power to alter that Maintenance and set up another in the room of it arrogantly telling them in Corah's phrase having forgot the Censers already Numb xvi They take too much upon them unless they can shew where Christ gave them such Authority But let me ask this bold Questionist where Christ forbid them to give a better Maintenance He bid the Apostles be content with Meat and Drink but he did not forbid them to take more if it were freely given nor did Christ any where forbid those to whom the Gospel should be preached to give them any more It seems by T. E. that whatever any gave more than Meat and Drink was a contradicting Christs Command if it were but a Coat to cover their nakedness which is not mentioned in Christs Command No doubt he will ask the Primitive Believers who gave them order to sell their Estates and give them to the Apostles He will say They took too much upon them Was ever so much Folly and Impudence conjoyn'd Is it any affront to Christ to give nobly to his Service Or did Solomon do any injury to God to take away the ambulatory Tabernacle fit for the unfixed State of the Church and build a stately Temple Such exchange can be no robbery But because T. E. so pertly calls for a Command I shall tell him that an Hint is a Command to a Soul that loves God There is enough in that Divine Precept to put the forward Charity of a devout Christian upon giving Tythes at least Gal. vi 6. to give their Teachers a share of all their good things and 't is sure they will not give a little share who read They that sow plentifully shall reap plentifully 2 Cor. ix 6. The Tenth part was given by the Patriarchs chosen by God the Father paid by the Jews and not repealed by Christ and why should they give any less or other part Here then was their Authority to give Tythes to Gods Ministers Thirdly He says For any Magistrate to set out Tythes for a Maintenance is a direct opposition to Christ because they were commanded by God in the Levitical Law and Christ hath taken away Priests Law and Tythes all together How proves he this By Hebr. vii The Verse he cunningly leaves out being conscious to himself he had father'd a Lie on that Chapter in which there is not one word of Christs taking away Tythes no nor in any place of the New Testament Christ took away that Priesthood but he left another Priesthood which needs as much and deserves as good a Maintenance as that of Levi and therefore he never repealed the Law of Tythes And since it was so likely that Christians should pitch upon this same Tenth part which Jews and Gentiles had known to be consecrated to these Uses if Christ had disallowed this part it seems necessary there should have been an express Caution in Scripture against Tythes but since there is no such thing but onely a pretended Revelation to T. E. and the rest of his Quakers no body will believe Tythes were designed by Christ to be repealed And indeed T. E's Revelations will be of as little credit since it is likely he will not scruple to belie the Holy Ghost who hath forged Christ's Hand twice in this Paragraph first in saying He appointed that for a general and constant Maintenance which was onely on a special occasion secondly in affirming Christ had taken away Tythes which he never did repeal Thus this insolent Quaker makes our Lord to seal and cancel whatever pleases his Party § 28. We noted before it was his usual way to evade all serious Answers by some petty Cavil of which we have another Instance here For you having proved Tythes might be lawfully given and shewed that the Givers were the Right Owners of them asked If they might not do what they would with their own No saith T. E. pa 321. they might not spend it upon Harlots nor waste it prodigally nor make an Idol of it If the Quaker had been one of the Labourers in the Vineyard 't is like he might have drolled thus upon the Master thereof who in the Person of God saith Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with my own Matth. xx 15. T. E. would have answered No he might not put it to an evil use c. Whereas it is evident that as God there is speaking generally but is to be understood of Just uses so is it with your words here And this is to be understood in all general Expressions As if one promise his Friend that he will do for him whatever he will it must not be extended to oblige him to lie forswear steal or kill at his desire Those Deeds saith the Civil Law which hurt our Piety Reputation or Modesty and generally all things contrary to good Manners are to be reckoned Impossibilities and it is to be supposed we cannot do them (y) Papin L. Filius 15. de inst Cond How wilfully therefore doth the Quaker pervert your meaning which plainly was That a Man may do any thing fit or just with his own Why doth he instance in things manifestly evil and positively forbidden to make a Parallel for Tythes Can he prove Tythes as evil as Whoredom as Idolatry or Prodigality and as positively forbidden If so we will grant the Owners could not give their Estates to such an Use But till then he talks at random meerely to avoid the force of this Argument viz. The Owners were legally possessed to Tythes and might dispose them to so pious an Use as the Maintenance of God's Service is They might put their whole Estate to what just Use they pleased and therefore might give Tythes to so just an Use as God's Service § 29. On the former Foundation T. E. saith pag. 322. If Ethelwolph might not do what he would with his own much less might he give away other Mens It is affirmed by our most knowing Men That the Saxon Kings had all the Land in England in Demesn and therefore in charging all England with Tythes they charged no more than their own which is the reason of that seeming difference among the Historians who record this Charter Terrae meae and Regni mei since the whole Kingdom was his own Land in Demesn But to let that pass T. E. must needs be an egregious Dissembler to pretend here that