the Priest himself answers It was propagated by Tradtion among the Heathens Right of Tythes pag. 26. again which therefore we must believe they had by Tradition from the first Patriarchs pag. 27. That they received it by Tradition is probable enough though not from the first Patriarchs who are no where in Holy Writ remembred to have paid Tythes But from the Iews by whom Tythes were preceptively and constantly paid there is reason sufficient to perswade they might learn it And so it seem'd to Selden The payment of the Tenth sayes he c. 3. pag 34. very likely came to them the Arabians from the use of it among the Jews their Neighbours as also to the Carthaginians from their Ancesters the Paenicians that spake the same Language â—ith the Jews and converst most with them Now if the Gentiles practised it in imitation and by example of the Iews what relation has their practice to this first Period or time before the Law But whether it be more reasonable to think that the Gentiles received it by Tradition from the first Patriarchs by whom we never read that Tythes were above once actually given and once Vowed to be given or from the Iews by whom they were constantly and publickly paid I leave to the Readers judgment and will conclude tâ—is Paragraph with what concludes the Review of Selden's Chap. 3. pag. 459. where having shewed that the Pelasgi in Vmbria Sacrificed the Tythe of their Children to Apollo See now sayes he when you truly know the ancient Tything among the Gentiles how well they conclude here that draw an Argumenâ— from the general Law of Nature or Nations as if by that Law any such use of payment of Tythes had been established amongst them as was continual or compulsory § 8. In my Answer to the former Priest p. 278. amongst other Reasons which I offer'd to prove that Tythes was not a proper Debt or just Due from Abraham to Melchizedeâ— this was one That if Tythes had been due from Abraham to Melehizedec according as they are now demanded which must be proved before a Divine Right to them as they are now demanded can be derived from Melchizedec then must Abraham have paid Tythes of all his Substance of all that he possest But no such thing appears at all We do not read that Abraham gave him Tythes of his own Estate but that which he gave him the tenth of was the Spoyls which he had recover'd from the Kings that had plunder'd Sâ—dom To this the Author of the Right of Tythes thus answers p. 30. That was an extraordinary occasion wherein Abraham having got a Victory by God's Blessing did give to God the tenth of all he had now gotten as in all probability he was wont ordinarily to do of all that he got by God's ordinary Blessing only this as more especially remarkable is recorded in this short History Seeing this was an extraordinary Occasion he should not urge it for a President much less lay so great a stress upon it as he does Let him read what his Brother Priest sayes in page 127. of his Conference When any Text says he hath a râ—lation to a particular Case that Text must not stand for a General Rule but must be apply'd to a like Occasion for its a most grand Fallaâ—y to draw an universal Conclusion from particular Premises Now these Texts in Gen. 18. and Heb. 7. wherein Abraham's Gift to Melchizedec is mentioned â—ave relation to a particular Case to anâ— extraordinary Occasion as the Priest himself says therefore Thâ—sâ— Texts must not stand for a General Rule but if he will apply them at all he must apply them to a like Occasion to wit a Military Expedition wherein some notable Victory is in an extra â—rdinary manner obtained as this was not 〈◊〉 them for a general Rule for according to his Brother's Position it is a most grand Fallacy from particular Prâ—mises as this Gift of Abraham upon an extraordinary Occasion was to draw an universal Conclusion that Abraham ordinarily did pay Tythes and that Christians now must Thus then he is pincht off of his extraordinary hold by his own dear Sir the Author of the â—riendly Conference And for what he talks of Abraham's giving the tenth ordinarily he hath far less ground then for the former for in the former viz. that Abraham on that extraordinary Occasion did give and Melchizedec receive he may as to fact be positive though not as to intention but in the latter viz. that Abrahaâ— did ordinarily give the tenth of his ordinary increase he can be but suppositive at most His Arguments and Reasons are may-be's and likelihoods and his Proofs but probabilities strongly inforced with this notable Demonstration that it is not said in Scripture Abraham did not pay them and that I cannot prove the contrary pag. 30 31. Will he take it then for granted that Abraham did whatsoever I cannot prove he did not That would be pretty indeed After the same manner the other Priest also argues in his Vindication pag. 296. where to my saying Had Tythes been due to Melchizedec then must Abraham have paid him Tythes of all his Substance c. He replies We know nothing to the contrary but that he did so and I â—an affirm the one as well as he deny the other Is this like a Disputant It is enough for a Respondent to deny But is it enough for the Opponent to affirm He says else-where in his Conference p. 152. It is the Opponent's part to prove That is somewhat more I think then bare affirming And the Maxime is Affirâ—â—â—ti incumbit probatiâ— i. e. He that affirms must prove But in his Vindication pag. 296. he adds that The Spoyls were in strictness Abraham's own Estate having obtained them with the hazard of his Life in a Iust and Righteous War This is indeed a pretty fetch yet so plain and manifest a fetch that it will not stand him in any stead Whether the Spoyls were strictly Abraham's own Estate by the Law of Arms I will not undertake to determine especially since it appears by the story that Aner Eshcol and Maâ—re were his conâ—ederates and ran equal hazard of their Lives with him in the same War and that he took not upon him to dispose of the whole although to the King of Sodom from whom it was taken but lâ—â—t his Confederates to dispose of their own shares as they saw good Gen. 14. 1â— 24. However whether it was in strictness his own Estate or no to be sure it was not his own Estate in that sense wherein I spake it and wherein Tythes are now demanded So that his urging this here is altogether beside the business and at best but a shew of an Answer But he carps at my saying The Occasion of Abraham's thus giving the tenth of the Spoyl to Melchizedec seems to be altogether accidental This seems to him to be a meer Trifle and he says Vindication pag. 197. As meer an
thereof were abrogated by its Repeal Now the parralel holds not between the Worship of God and Tythes but between the worship of God and the maintenancâ— of hiâ— Priests or Ministers for as the Worship of God is grounded on the Divine Law of Nature so thâ— Maiâ—tenance of his Ministers is founded upon a Principle of Natural justice and equity And as God by the Levitical Law instituted divers Modes Manners or wayes of this Worship so by the same Law he appointed the Mode Manner or Way of this Maiâ—tenance which was by Tythes Sacrifice â—urnt-offerings Washings and other External Observancâ—â— were the modes of that Worship that is they were the means or wayes by which that Worship was performed and Tythes were the modes of that Maintenance that is they were the means and wayes by which that Maintenance was raised As therefore the Worship it self was the Substance which was gâ—ounded on the Law of Nature and the Sacrifices and other outward Services which were the â—â—des of it were Ceremoâ—ial and as such abrogated by Chriâ—â— â—o the Maintenance it self was the Substanâ—â— whicâ— was founded on Natural â—ustice and equity and Tythes which were the modes of it were Cereâ—onial and as such by Christ abolished Yet so that as the Worship it self remains though the Sacrifices which were the modes of it are abolished So the Maintenance it self still abides though the Tythes which were the mâ—des of it are abrogated Nâ—ither let any think that Tythes are any whâ—t less Câ—râ—monical because of tâ—at small mention of them in thâ—â—tories of Iacob so long before the Lâ—vitical Law was given for many things done by those and other Patriarchs before them were as certainly and plainly in their own Natures Cerâ—monial then as they were afterwards when Commanded by Moses Certainly were this thing rightly understood and well considered that Tythe is but a mode a way mean or manner of Mainteance and consequently Ceremonical it would greatly coâ—duce to the clearing this Case â—nd determining this Controversie And could men be perswaded to lay aside Passiâ—n and Interest and come fairly and unâ—yassâ—d to the considation hereof there â—ight yet be hopes of a fairer Issue then thâ— present face of things bespeaks Doubtless the great Ground of these men Error who stickle so much for Tythes is there not distinguishing between the Maintenance it self and the Way Manner Mâ—ans or Mâ—de by which that Maintenance is raised My present Adversary Author of the Dâ—vine Right of Tythes acknowledges p 43. That all the modes and circumstances of Gods Worship enjoyned by the Levitical Law and proper to that dispensation and relating to Christ to come fell with that Polity aâ—d â—erâ— abrogated by Christ But the main duty of Worshipping God continued in forcâ— still sayeâ— he And so say I also But then he falls iâ—to his formeâ— Error concerning Tythes with the Worship of God to which they are by no means a suitable Parallel Even sâ— sayes he in the Case of Tythes they had not their Foundation upon nor their Original from the Levitical Law God had a Right to them before c. Thus he runs on in his old strain repeating his former groundless supposition for a whole page or more and then concludes pag. 45. thus Nâ—w when Christ did abrogate that Ministry and Dispensation namely of the Law there Appeâ—dixes must needs be abrogated with it but the main duty which was so before the Câ—remonial Law remains still The main duty does indeed remain still which is a maintenance to Gods Ministers but his mistake is in making Tythes to be this main duty whereas Tythes being but the mode means or way of performing the main duty of Maintenance were really Appendixes of that Iewish Polity and though known and sometimes but rarely used before the Ceremonial Law was actually given forth were yet even then in their own Nature Ceremonial as well as those other modes and wayes of Worshipping by Sacrifice c. which though in frequent use with the Patrirachs long beforâ— the Prom lugation of the Ceremonial Law or mention made of Tythes are yet acknowledged to be of the Nature of that Dispensation and Polity and by Christ to be abrogated with it § 2. But here I cannot omit to take notice that in hiâ— repetition of his former fancy of a Divine Right to Tythes before the Law be abuses the holy Text First in saying The Fathers of the Israelites had made a special Vâ—w to pay this Divine Tribute meaning Tythes hereby insinuating that Iacob understood Tythes to be a known due or Tribute which he was before obliged to pay when as both his voluntary unrequired and conditional Vow plainly speaks the contrary and the words of the Vow expresly are I will surely give he doth not say pay the tenth unto thee Secondly in saying There was no need for God to institute Tythes anew and that accordingly he claims them supposes them to be his due by a right antecâ—dâ—nt to the Levitical Law for proof of which he cites as before Exâ—d 22. 29. where Tythes are so far from being claimed and supposed due that they are not so much as mâ—ntionâ—d at all He adds Levis 27. 30. which thus speaks And all the Tythe of the Land whether of the Sâ—â—d of the Land or of the Frâ—it of the Tree is the Lord it is holy unto the Lord. This does not at all prove an antecedent Right or Claim to Tythes distinct from the rest for he had but a little before asserted his Right to the whole Land when giving a reason why he would not have any one sell his Possession forever he sayes For the Land is mine for yâ— are Strangers and sojourners with me c. 25. 23. So there be claims the whole Land as his own and here he first appropriates the Tythes to his owâ— use § 3. But the Priest hopes to Demonstrate that Tythes were not abrogated by this comparison Thâ— putting on sayes he a new State doth not make oâ—e a new man nor doth the pulling it off again Kill â—im This is very true but falsly applyed for he makes Tythes to be the man but what then shall be the Sâ—it If he would apply his comparison rightly he should make Mainteâ—ance to be as the â—an 〈◊〉 Tythes to be as the Suit and then he might infer aptly enough that as the pulling off the Suit doth not kill the man so the putting off Tythes doth not destroy the maintenance And plainly Tythes though to pursue his comparison it was once made and worn as a Suit yet when it was grown old and had done its Service it was cast off and laid aside never to be worn again He adds Thâ—re may be many alterations in Circumstances the Essentials still remaining the same I pray consider now Is not Tythâ— a Circumstance of Mâ—intenance Can any one imagine Tythe to be an Essential Essential is that which belongs to the being of â— thing without which that thing cannot be
he all along looks upon the Quakers with an evil Eye of contempt disdain and scorn so he lifts up himself and his Brethren of the Clergy scarce finding words big enough to express the high conceit and loâ—ty Opinion he has of his own and their Abilities The leading Quakers sayes he perceiving the Clergy of England so able and industrious to discover all their evil Designs c. pag. 12. Again They know while the Clergy have these provisions they will have Books and leasure to Study and Learning enough to 〈◊〉 all their silly pretences pag. 13. Again 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 Subsisâ—ence from â—s 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 â—s pag. 14. These are the Brags these the Insults these the Vauâ—ts these are some of the Rhodomontadroes of this Polemical Priest who in the pride of his Heart and haughtiness of his Mind looks on the poor Quakers with the same Eye of Scorn and Contempt as did the monstroâ—â— Philistine of Old upon the little Stripling David But when he takes occasion to mention me how is he put to it to find words sufficiently significant of his high disdain as in pag. 4. So MEAN a Creature Again in pag. 5. I judge it necessary to lay aside all Considerations of the MEANNESS of the Adversary And when he hath a mind to throw dirt on me rather then want a pretence to do it on he will use the help of his invention and suppose things not in common sense supposeable As when he sayes Dr. Sr I perceive our strutting Quaker looks on you with a scronful Eye and sayes pag. 277. Tythes were wâ—nt to be claimed as of divine Right but he finds this Priest is not hardy enough to adventure his câ—use upon that Title Sure he takes himself to be very terrible for he believes none but a hardy man dareâ— sâ—t upon him pag. 16. How can it reasonably be supposed that I did charge the Author of the Friendly Conference with want of hardiness in respect of my self Can he imagine I took that Book to be designed as an Onset upon me nothing is more irrational Again he sayes pag. 17. 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 How weakly is this argued for a man of so great Learning One of my scantling of understanding might happily have spoken as pertinently as this The Author of the Friendly Conference did not lay aside the Weapon of divine right out of any great Opinion of his Adversaries skill Why did he know what skill his Adversary had before he try'd it Nay did he know before-hand or could he fore-see who his Adversary should be Surely either this great Learn't man in the wantonness of his Wit hath over-shot himself or else he must make his Dr. Sr. a Diviner instead of a Divine This he did to fasten on me an imputation of self-conceit and stick his strutting Epithet upon me but in pag. 3. when he had a mind to Badge me with the scornful Title of a poor Retailer he sayes I gleaâ—ed my Quotations out of Fisher against Bishop Gauden and that with so little skill that when the Printer in Fisher had mistaken Fimicus for Firmicus this poor Retailer calls him Fimicuâ— also pag. 115. which very Page of my Book detects his unfair dealing and clearly convicts him of manifest falshood for I there quote Gauden's Book of Oaths and the very page in Gauden's Book out of which I took that Seâ—tence notwithstanding which so little regard has he to speaking Truth that he charges me with gleaning it out of Fisher. But this is not the only instance of his unfair dealing by me as I shall have occasion hereafter to shew He seems highly offended that I called Tythes the Priests Delilah the very Darling Minion of the Clergy What ever Reasons induced me so to call them I think he hath sufficiently proved that I therein exprest my self aptly enough for he hath not only leap over all the rest of my Book and singled out this which was the last Chapter in it shewing thereby how near and dear this is to him and that whatever becomes of the rest this shall have a distinct Treatise for its perticular defence but in his treating of it also he delivers himself in such Pathetical expressions and speaks so feelingly of it that one may easily perceive it is one of his nearest concernâ— if not the nearest of all Hear what he sayes pag. 13. speaking of the Quakers with-holding Tythes from them They see sayes he they cannot quench the Lamp and therefore they would stop the Oyl that nourishes it Tythes then it seems in his own account is to the Priests what Oyl is to the Lamp that which makes it shine that which makes it give any light that which makes it of any use or service can any thing be nearer No Oyl no Light no Tythes no Preaching no Penny no Pater noster Did ever any who assumed the Name of a Minister of the Gospel speak after this rate before stop the Oyl the Lamp â—oes out the Lamp has done shining with-hold Tythes the Priest gives over the Priest has done preachâ—â—â— Without Oyl the Lamp will not burn without Tythes the Priest will not Preach Methinks this might 〈◊〉 â—nough to let the People see what a Ministry they 〈◊〉 under and seriously to consider Whether the dim Light their Lamps gives be worth the Oyl it spends them Certain it is that in thus comparing the Priests to the Lamp and the Tythes to the Oyl making Tythes the cause of the Priests preaching as the Oyl is of the Lamps burning this Priest hath spoke the very Truth though somewhat unadvisedly and 't is much if this unwary Expression don't lose him all the preferment he promised himself for his elaborate Book of the Right of Tythes which smells so strong of the Lamp But howsoever he speeds in that his own comparison will justifie me for calling Tythes the Priests Delilah the very Darling and Minion of the Clergy But more fully to discover his foundation and standing take another expression of his in the same page And because they dare not engage this Army they attempt to force them to disband for want of Pay It seems then this Army of Priests fight for Pay and without Pay fight who will foâ— them they will disband firstâ— But I am of Opinion they will consider twice before they disband once Men once in Arms are seldom forward to disband while either Pay or Plunder lasts How have they behaved themselves towards those that have no need of such an Army nor
he speaks of Abraham who lived before Tythes were commanded to be paid he sayes he Gave vers 4. But when he speaks of the Levitical Priest-hood who lived after Tythes were commanded to be paid he alters his phrase and sayes he Paid vers 9. Abraham gave Levi paid which distinction the Apostle needed not have used had he understood as this Priest does giving and paying to be all one in this case It is very proper he sayes to say We give a man that which is his due pag. 29. That must be understood in such cases only where the due is altogether certain and unquestionable such as are the instances he has given of David Hezâ—kiah one whereof saith Give unto the Lord the honour due unto his Name Psal. 29. 2. The other commanded the People to give the Priests their portions 2 Chron. 31. 4. Neither of which admitted any doubt since every one knew that Honour was due to the Name of the Lord and none could be ignorant that Tythes were due to the Priests then the Law of God expressly speaking it But in a case of so great ambiguity as this claim of Tythes from Melchizedec which is so utterly void of all certainty that the very terms it is exprest in must confirm at least if not constitute a Title to the thing claimed to express a Due by the word Give would be not only not very proper but very improper and obsâ—uâ—c So that what he sayes pag. 30. That the word Give in Genesis 14. doth no more prove Tytâ—es were not due to Melchizedec â—ure divino thâ—n the same in Chronicles proves they were not due to the Levites jure divinâ— will not hold The disproportion between Meâ—chizedâ—c's case and that of the Levites is too great unless he could shew as plain a command for the former as he knows can be brought for the latter The word Give in Chronicles doth no way prejudice the Levites Right because it was undeniably grounded upon an indisputable Command But the word â—ive in Genâ—sis doth greatly prejudice the pretended Right of Melchizedec because there is no command in Scripture from which such a Right might be derived After the same manner argues the other Priest in his Vindication of the Conference pag. 295. urging for an Example the words of Ioshua Chap. 7. Ver. 19. My Son give Glory to God which being the same with that of David Psal. 29. 2. is answered in that But he seems to take it a little ill that I took no notice of a Greek word he had in his Margin Conference pag. 135. viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he â—enders Heâ—ithed Abraham and sayes in his Vindication pag. 296. Now since T. E. pretends to understand Greek and this passage being in my Book how came he to pass it by I passed it by as believing it to be of no moment at all since if I should allow him even his own rendition He Tythed Abraham it imports no more then He received Tythes of Abraham as both Beza's Latine and the vulgar English have it Heb. 7. 6. beyond which sense if he would strain it the word will not bear it verily it is an Argument of a very weak Cause when men are put to such hard shifts as to squeez a Title out of one perticular and extraordinary Action and are â—ain to strain the words also whereby that action is exprest to give some countenance to their Claim But blessed be God the Holy Ghost hath hedged them out and either through propriety of Speech or divine Providence let them grant which they please hath so worded this Transaction that in both those Texts where it is spoken of there is no mention at all of Due or Payment with relation to Abraham but altogether of giving Thrice over it is said He gave Gen. 18. 20. Heb. 7. 2. and 4. but never that he paid § 7. To prove that Tytâ—es were accounted due in this Period before the Law he urges The practise of certain of the Heathens giving Tythes to their Gods whereof some seem more perticular some more general The more particular instances are of the Tyrians and Carthaginians the Inâ—abitants of the Island Syphnus and the Romans The more general are of the Greeks for which he cites Dydimus the Grammarian and of all Heathens in general for which he quotes Paulus Diaconus 'T is true Dydimus sayes It was a Greek Custome to Consecrate the Tenth of their gain to the Gods But how that saying of his to be understood Selden in his History of Tythes c. 3. well observes 〈◊〉 sayes he those Grammarians mean for he mentioned Suidas also that all men paid their Tythes in Greece and that of every kind of their Spoils or abundance they deceive much and are deceived You must understand them as speaking of what was sometimes and by Vow or special Thanksgiving done The other out of Paâ—lus Diaconus which sayes The Ancients offered all their Tenths to their Gods is rejected both by Scaliger and Selden also who shew that Paulus Epitomizing Sextâ—s Pompeius Eestus to whom this saying is Originally ascribed has mangled and corrupted the place and he is severely lash't for his Pains by them both especially by Scaliger whose words are vide quantum â—uris Barbarus ille sibi sumpserit in hoc loco mutilandâ— i. e. See what Authority that Barbarous man takes upon him in maining this place And further calls him home conâ—identissimus ac ineptissimus A most confident and foolish man And Selden sayes plainly If it be understood of Tythes used to be given by all or of all things it is false Nor did that learned man stick to draw an Argument against this Opinion from Scripture silence Scripture I mean not sacred but prophane the Writings namely of a Learned Heathen Had the Offering of Tythes sayes Selden in his History of Tythes pag. 29. been usúal of Yearly increase Cato that in his De Re Rustica hath so fully the Ceremonies of Sacrifices to be used by the Husband-man in his Harvest had never omitted it Whence by the way observe that Argument from Scripture silence though prophane has been held good by men of Learning although this Priest to avoid the stroke of it sayes it is not valid Right of Tythes pag. 37. But to the Testimonies brought all acknowledge that some of the Heathens did at some times and upon some occasions Vow Give and Consecrate Tythes to their Deities and Seldâ—â— proves it was no otherwise Nay he instances in some the Locrians who gave not a Tenth but a Ninth part C. 3. S. 3. And Diodorus Siculus tells us l. 2. c. 2. The Egyptian Priests had the third part of the Revenue of the Kingdom From all which we may gather that these Heathenish Oblations and Consecrations were neither general in point of place constant in point of time nor certain in point of quantity Then for the ground of their thus doing if it be ask't whence they learnt it
the order of Melchâ—zedec And a little after The Scripture maketh this difference between the Priest-hood of Aaron and the Priest-hood of Melchizedec that the Priests of the Law were many because they were taken away by Death but Christ's Priest-hood is eternal because he dieth not Heb. 7. 23. But if there should be many Priests after Melchizedec's Order there should herein be no difference at all Wherefore seeing â—â—lchizedâ—c's Priest-hood only resteth in Christ and is not Translated to any other c. Thus Willet and to the same purpose said Fulk before him Now if the Priestâ— Fathers have in plain words affirmed That the present Ministers of the Chriâ—â—ian Church are of Melchizedâ—e's Priest-hood the Priest may do well to reconcile thoâ—e Fathers with these Doctors for so were these also stâ—led who so plainly affirm that Melchizedec's Priest-hood only resteth in Christ and is not Translated to any other But the reason I formerly gave why the Clergy of this Age are not of Melchizedec's Priest-hoods seems to offend him more then all the rest It was this That Melchizedec was not made a Priest after the Law of a carnaâ— Commandment but aâ—ter the Power of an endless Life But every one knows that these men are made Priests after the Law of a carnal Commandment This has so nettled him that he is out of all patience sayes my Reason is ridiculous that I have learnt to Cant that I am an idle and impâ—rtinent man that this is an impudent Slander that T. E. can prattle in Scripture phrase that I am a boasting Quaker and will not stick to say any thing bâ— it never'so false and â—â—reasonable This is the Language that this Learned man who sayes he will not meddle with scurrility because Railâ—ng is not Reasoning pag. 12. hath upon this occasion for want of better Arguments or breeding or both thrust in to help swell the number of his pages But overlooking this let us see what else he has to offer that looks at all like Reason He sayes pag. 41. The Apostle speaking of the Jewish Priests in that place Heb. 7. 16. saith They were made Priests after the Law of a carnal Commandment that is according to Moses's Law which consisted of outward and weak Commandments reaching only to the purifying of the Flesh. Now sayes he what an idle and impertinent Man is this to say we are made Priests according to Moses's Law and that every one knows this O impudent Slander Are we bound to all the Sacrificings Washings and other Levitical Rights and Ceremonies at our Ordination I will not here as justly I might retort his Idle and impertinent Epithets nor yet his impudent Slander But I will tell him he seems very willing to mistake that he might excuse himself from a direct Answer He charges me with saying They are made Priests according to Moses ' s Law I no wheresay so no where intend so for indeed I do not think their Ordination so fairly grounded since all acknowledge the Law of Moses though now abrogated to have had a Divine Institution I said These men are made Priests after the Law of a Carnal Commandment Doth that necessarily imply Moses's Law May no Law no Commandment be called carnal but that which did bind to Sacrificings Washings and other Levitical Ceremonies That 's strange indeed Nay may not every Law every Commandment which is not spiritual be properly enough called Carnal as Carnal is understood in opposition to Spiritual What though I used the Apostle's Phrase must that Allusion tye my sense to the subject he was upon No such matter He opposes the Levitical Priestâ—ood to Melchizedec affâ—rming that they were made Priests after the Law of a Carnal Commandment but â—e after the Power of an Endless Life I oppose the present Priestâ— to Melchizedec shewing that these are not of his Order though for Tythes sake they pretend it in as much as he was made a Priest not after the Law of a Carnal Commandment but after the Power of an Endless Life whereas these men are made Priests after the Law of a Carnal Commandment but it does not follow that this must needs be the same Law by which the Levitical Priests were made unless he thinks there can be no others By what Law then are the Popish Priests made out of which this Priesthood sprang By what Law are the Turkish Priests made I hope he will not say either of these are made Priests by the Power of an Endless Life as was Melchizedec nor yet by the Law of Moses yet by some Law or other no doubt they were made What will he call that Law Spiritual or Carnal Let him call it as he pleases I insist not so much on the Names as on the Natures of things nor regard so much Words as Matter Notwithstanding what he hath said the Difference yet remains the Opposition is still as plain between Melchizedec and these Priests He was made a Priest not after the Law of a Carnal Commandment but after the Power of an Endless Life These are made Priests not after the Power of an Endless Life but after the Law of a Carnal Commandment which plainly shews they are not of his Order and so cannot derive any Right to Tythes from him if Tythes could be proved to have ever been due to him He goes on ibid. 'T is evident we are not Priests according to that Carnal Outward Changeable Levitical Law Neither did I say ye were But are ye not Priests according to a carnal Law an outward Law a changeable Law though not according to that very Levitical Law But says he we are Priests according to the Law of the Gospel whose Eternal Duties have in them the Power of an Endless Life What a quaint Device is this to avoid the force of a Text Was not the Scripture-Phrase plain pertinent enough or did it not suit his purpose Were he indeed a Priest after Melchizedec's Order he need not have used this variation Had he been made a Priest by the same Power of an Endless Life by which Melchizedec was the same words would have very well served to have exprest the same thing But he being conscious to himself that he came to his Priesthood by another way boggles at the Text and instead of the Power of 〈◊〉 Endless Life puts in the Law of the Gospel which the more to cover from the Reader 's Observation he mis-cites my words also making me say Melchizedec was made a Priest after the Law of an Endless Lifâ— whereas my words agreeing with the Text are He was made a Priest after the Power of an Endless Life pag. 281. This Power of an Endless Life is a heavy Stone to all these carnal man-made Priests and therefore they struggle to get from under the weight of it and endeavour to put it from them as we see in this Priest who thrusts this Power from himself and places it in the Duties He durst not say the Power of
devour the â—ruits of the Earth so that the Priest knows not of it the Levite is a stranger to it and God's Altar receives nothing Herein sayes the Priest Origen speaks my sense fully pag. 47. By this then we know fully what the Priests sense is in this case let us see now how much or rather how little this sense of his agrees with Truth When Christ said to the Pharisees concerning tything Mint c. These things ye ought to have done c. the Law by which Tythes were commanded to be paid was in force and therefore the Pharisees in observing the Law did but what they ought to do But though they were in that part so observant of the Law yet in other parts more material they were wholly negligent Now as that caution of our Saviour to his Disciples Except your Righteousness exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees c. was not given with particular relation to the Pharisees punctuality in tything Mint c. being spoken long before and upon another occasion so neither can it with any colour of reason be supposed that the excess or superabounding of the Disciples Righteousness above and beyond the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees was to consist in a more exact observance of the Ceremonies of the Law which were then even expiring and the Disciples daily fitting for the manifestation of a more glorious and lasting Administration But the Scribes and Pharisees who were so exact in those smaller and lighter matters of tything Mint c. did break great and weighty Commands of God and taught men so as appears in Matth. 15. 6. where Christ tells them You have madâ— the command of God for honouring of Parents of no effect by your Tradition and in Mark 7. 13. where the same passage is recorded He adds And many such like things do ye of which there is a large Bed-roll in the 23d of Matthew For these Pharisaical Tythers did shut the Kingdom of Heaven against men neither entring themselves nor suffering others They devoured Widows Houses were full of extortion and while they were so exact in tything the very Pot-herbs they omitted the weightier matters of the Law Iudgment Mercy and Faith Now while the Righteousness of the Pharisees stood in a nice and exact performance of those lesser matters the Disciples Righteousness was to shine forth in the performance of those weightier matters Judgment Mercy Faith c. wherein as they were exercised their Righteousness would as really exceed the Righteousness of the Pharisees as the things themselves in which they were conversant viz. Judgment Mercy Faith c. did excel those things which the Pharisees were busied about to wit tything of Mint and Aâ—â—ise And how great a preheminence and preference the one sort has of the other may sufficiently appear in the Vers. 23. where Judgment Mercy and Faith are comparatively to Tythes called the weigâ—tier matters But the disproportion is more clearly set forth in the next Vers. where Tythes are compared to the Gnat one of the least of Insects but Iudgment Mercy and Faith to the Camel one of the greatest of Animals which Metaphors drawn from the two Extreams do evidently enough denote the different Natures of the things there handled one sort of which viz. Judgment Mercy c. is plainly Moral the other viz. tything of Mint c. as clearly Ceremonial Now to suâ—pose Christ intended his Dâ—sciples should exceed the Righteousness of the Pharisees in the ceremonial and lesser parts of the Law in which the Pharisees were themselves but too apt to exceed and that he should enjoyn this too on no less penalty then Exclusion from the Kingdom of Heaven is contrary both to Reason and true spiritual Senseâ— What therefore the Priâ—st quotes from Origen and sayes is fully his own sense too may not by any means be received at least as he understands it For he sayes That which Christ would have done by the Pharisees mâ—re abundantl would he have it dâ—ne by 〈◊〉 Disciples But who can admit this in 〈…〉 terms as it is here laid down Christ would have the Pharisees have kept the whole Law even every Ceremony and Circumstance therein commanded which being then in force they ought to have done but would he have his Disciples do this more abundantly now that himself hath Naâ—l'd them to his Cross that were to deny hâ—m come in the Flesh. What Origen himself therefore saith That it is the part of a wise Interpreter to find out â—hat things in the Law are to be Literally observed and what not the same may well be said of his Writings There is need of great caution and sound judgment in quoting what he has written For though he was a Man of great Learning yet was he too apt to run the wrong way for which he has been not lightly censured by many And indeed his aptness to allegorize the Scriptures makes it seem the more strange that he should take this place literally and yet he hath even here exprest himself so darkly too that it would puzzle I think a wise Citator to find out who that Levite is to whom under the Gospel Tythes should be paid according to the Letter of the Law But leaving the Priest to untye that Knot I here present thee Reader with the judgment of Walter Brute upon this Text whom though I know before-hand the Priest despises and disdains reproachfully calling him Renegadâ— Right of Tythes pag. 139. because he strikes at their Diana Tythes yet I make no doubt but amongst honest men he will at least he never the worse if not the better thought of He having shewed that Tythes were Ceremonial and the Law abrogated by which they were due to the Levites goes on to disprove the pretences of those who claim a Right from those words of Christ to the Pharisees His words are these Whereupon some do say that by the Gospel we are bound to pay Tythes because Christ said to the â—harisees Mat. 23. Wo he to you Serâ—bes and Pharisees which pay your Tythes of Mint Annise Seed and of Cuminin and leave Judgment Mercy and Truth undone O ye blind Guides that strain at a Gnat and swallow up a Camel This word soundeth not as a Commandment or manner of bidding whereby Christ did command Tythes to be given but it is a word of disallowing the Hypocrisie of the Pharisees who of Covetousness did rather weigh and esteem Tythes because of their own singulaâ— Commodity rather then other great and weighty Commandments of the Law And me seemeth that our men are in the same predicament of the Pharisees which do leave off all the old Law keeping only the Commandment of Tything It is manifest and plain enough by the premises and by other places of Scriptures that Christ was a Priest after the order of Melchizedâ—c of the Tribe of Iudae not of the Tribe of Levi who gave no new Commandment of tything any thing to him and
have reason to think that they themsâ—lves do not really believe that Tythes are due by the Eternal moral Law whatever they pretend to keep simple People in awe for do not they Alienate Tythes themselves Do not they pay Tenths which are the Tythes of the Tythes to the Crown See Right of Tythes p. 231. If Tythes as they pretend may not be alienateâ— to Common uses and if such alienation be Sacriledge Why then do they themselves alienate them Dâ—th not this plainly shew that either they do not believe Tythes to be due by the Eternal moral Law or else that they herein sin against their own Consciences and Knowledge § 7. But that which comes next is such a piece of Logick as would make a serious man smile When the Levitical Priesthood failed sayes he pag. 49 there must be another and a better and therefore we may claim Tythes as Gods due and as his Ministers Portion c. What a pretty pair of Non-sequiters is here Because there must be another and a better Priesthood when the Levitical failed doth it therefore follow these must needs be they upon which of the premises I wonder doth this conclusion lean that there must be another Priesthood or that it must be a better If it rest on the former that there must be another Priesthood that no doubt there may be and yet not be these if on the latter that it must be better then past all doubt it cannot be these since these are so far from being better that they are not a little worse But if upon the failure of the Levitical Priest-hood there must be another a better and it were possibly to suppose these to be that doth it thence follow that these may claim Tythes What empty arguing is this Right Reason would rather have inferred that if indeed the old Priest-hood had stood the old Maintenance by Tythes might also have continued but the old Priest-hood being ended the old Maintenance by Tythes is ended also And as there was to be another Priest-hood wholly another not the same corrected or reformed so there should alsâ— be another Maintenance wholly another not the same a little variated which should excel the old Maintenance as this other Priest-hood was to be a better Priest-hood then the former and that in the same Notion of meliority This I am sure would be not only more rational but more agreeable also to the words of the Apostle 2 Cor. 5. 17. Old things aâ—e passed away behold all things are become Now. So also the Divine Iohn Rev. 21. 5. Behold I make all things new Which words are there delivered with a very Remarkable Emphasis He thaâ— sate upon the Throne said Behold I make all things new And he said unto me Write for these words are true and Faithful How Vnfaithful then are these Priests who endeavour to make theâ—e true words untruâ— by claiming and contending for the old legal Maintenance by Tythes which long since is de jure passed away But he hath yet another fetch They need not he sayes claim them by the Levitical Law as it is Ceremonial What then will they claim them by the Levitical Law but under some other Notion How doth he twist and twine about to get a claim by the Levitical Law to which alas his dear Brother has foreclosed his way by saying plainly in general terms they derive them not from Levi Conference p. 135. § 8. And now sayes the Priest to his Brother 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 thâ—se Patriarchs who lived long before the Ceremonial Law by Virtue of the preceding Declaration of the Divine Right unto them pag. 49. If this Faith hath no better Foundation then his hope the man is in an ill case for I assure him I am so far from being brought to confess he hath made good the second Position also that I declare I aâ— fully satisfied he hath made good neither first nor second yet And though he enumerates many and great matters which he pretends he has shewed yet unless he means that saying is shewing â—he hath not shewed any one particular of those many which he speaks of He sayes he has shewed that Tythes were grounded on the Law of Nature and Primitive Revelation but he has no otherwise shewed it then by saying so In pag. 21. he begins with it and sayes Gods right to Tythes is founded primarily upon the Law of Nature c. and four or five Lines lower he adds Natural Reason teacheth us to give God some part of his gifts back again c. Then in the same page he concludes Some part of our Substance being therefore due to God c. So that at first he begs the Question and on that precarius bottom sets his Building He takes for granted that which is denyed and then cryes out he has shewed and so indeed he has the weakness of his Cause or his own inability to manage it If to find Gods Right he would look into the Law of Nature he shall there find that God has a right to all and to all alike He is the God of Nature the Universal Power by which all things were made and by which all things subsist An equal Right he has by the Law of Nature to all that his hands have made or ever was brought forth by his productive FIAT But nothing can constitute to him a distinct and particular Right to a tenth or any other part so as to make that part per excellentiam more peculiarly and eminently his then the rest but his own appropriation and assumption thereof to himself which cannot be proved of Tythes before the Levitiâ—al Law That a tenth part or Tythes which is the same is not due by the Law of Nature Melanâ—ton affirms saying The Quota the tenth part is not Natural but the Aliquota some part that stâ—â—ds in equity founded on the Law of Nature but the Quota or tenth part is founded on the Ceremonial and judicial Law which Law says he are proper to Moses's Polity and belong not to us seeing God hath utterly Destroyed it 1 Tom. page 303. Delibert Christiana And for Tythes being founded on Primitive Revelation he shews it much after the same manner as he doth that they are grounded on the Law of Natureâ— for he sayes we ought to believe it pag. 25. We may believe it p. 26. We must believe it p. 27 c. But I would know of him whence he has his Revelation that Tythes were founded on Primitive Revelation He is too great a sâ—offer at Inspiration to pretend to know it that way Doth he read it any where in the holy Scriptures He should then have done well to have given us
Petition Petitio Principij a begging of the Question namely that Tythes were directed by God before the Law and never repealed after the Law for their being approved under the Law conduces nothing to their continuance under the Gospel He would very fain all along have it granted that Tythes were grounded on the Law of Nature that the tenth part was alwayes Gods particular part as he is eternally Lord of the World and that the Patriarchs before the Law were by special â—â—velation commanded to pay Tythes but this cannot be granted He knows the Proverb Win it and wear it If he can prove it let him if not he must be content to forego it And for the repeal of Tythes after the Law it is before Demonstratively Argued both from the Dissolution of the Priesthood to which the expiration of the Term for which and the express repeal of the Law by which they were granted He adds ibid. If the Divine Authority hath established a Maintenance that supposeth it was such a Maintenance as was due before according to T. E. pag. 318. I deny that the establishing a Maintenance doth suppose there was a Maintenance due before but it doth not infer a parity of Maintenance It doth not follow that because there was a Maintenance due before therefore the Maintenance thus established must needs be the same or such a Maintenance as was before due Neither is this according to me as he sayes but according to himself and his perversion of my words pag. 318. Where noting my opponent of instability in his Position I observe that he uses the words Create and Establish promiscuously as if they were synonimous And to shew their different acceptions I tell him That if he will say Temporal Authority hath created 't is his own words a Right to Tythes he thereby cuts off all pretentions to any Right antecedent to that Creation If he will say that temporal Authority hath only establisht a temporal Right to Tythes that supposes a temporal Right to them before Observe I did not say that supposes such a temporal Right to them as was before but that supposes a temporal Right to them before So here when I say Divine Authority hath established a maintenance in general c. the word ESTABLISH doth not suppose it to be such a Maintenance as was due before but supposes only that there was a Maintenance in general due before which is far enough from restrayining it to a particular kind of Maintenance Thus he at once abuses me and his Reader and makes good the saying Posito uno Errore sequuntur Mille. For upon this false and weak Supposition that the establishing of a Maintenance supposes it to be such a Maintenance as was due before he bestirs himself to prove that Tythes were due before In order whereunto after his wonted manner supplying his Defects with Confidence he peremptorily affirms pag. 53. that the Maintnance paid to Gods Ministers before the Law and under it was Tythes The payment of Tythes under the Law is not questionable as well as not imitable But for the time before the Law I desire him to be less peremptory and more Demonstrative If he please I would gladly know who those Ministers were to whom Tythes as a Maintenance were paid before the Law seeing the Scripture remembreth Melâ—hizedec only to have received Tythes and that but once nor then as a PAYMENT but a GIFT And when he is upon this Subject he may seasonably explain his next Sentence also which is this The Priest-hood of Melchizedec and of Levi both were so maintained namely by Tythes The instance of Levi is clear but not to this purpose But that the Priest-hood of Melchiâ—edec was maintained by Tythes will be hard I think for him to prove Melchizedec himself as I noted before never received Tythes but once that we read of and then he was at a considerable charge too for it cannot be thought so great a Troop as Abraham led with him three hundred and eighteen of his own Domesticks besides his Confederates Aner Escol and Mamre could be refresht with Bread and Wine for a small matter which expence deducted out of the Tythe he received unlikely it is the remainder should be enough to maintain him all the time of his Priest-hood if he who was a King and by the Apostles comparison Heb. 7. greater then Abraham had needed such a Maintenance And for Iacob though it is not to be doubted but he performed his Vow yet after what manner he performed it is not agreed on some thinking he paid his Tythes in kind to they know not whom of which number this Priest is one pag. 38. Others with greater probability and better Authority that he offered them by way of Sacrifice immediately to God However it was Melchizedec could not have them if we understand him to be Sem since most agree that Sâ—m was buried long before So that the holy Text affords no countenance at all to this over-bold Assertion that Melchizedec's Priesthood was maintained by Tythes § 2. He charges me pag. 53. with striving to pervert two Texts 1 Cor. 9. and Gal. 6. 6. by two limitations First in saying The Apostle's intent in those Scriptures is not so much to set forth what the Maintenance is as who they are from whom it is to be received namely such as receive their Ministry such as believe them to be true Ministers such as are taught by them c. This he saves is a notorious falshood for in 1 Cor. 9. St. Paul is all along speaking of the Ministers Right to be maintained This is far enough from proving my words a notorious falshood namely that his intent is not so much to set forth what the Maintenance is as who they are from whom it is to be received for his speaking of the Ministers Right to be maintained is not a setting forth what the maintenance is But he would perswade his Reader that the Apostles drift was chiefly to set forth what the Maintenance is for sayes he He shews what Maintenance was due to the Jewish â—inisters affirming that Christ had ordained even so that we should lâ—â—e of the Gospel that is the Rights of God under the Gospel and the acknowledgments made to him for the Mercy therein revealed The things of the Christian Temple and Altar were to be our Maintenance And is not this to say what the Maintenance is not a word in all this who should pay it This yet even as he has worded it though he has added his own divination to the Text doth not so much express what the Maintenance is as from whom to be received He sayes The Apostle shews what Maintenance was due to the Jewish Ministers affirming that Christ had ordained even so that we should live of the Gospel What Even so as the Iewish Priests lived under the Law What! just the very same Maintenance as they had in every respect Not so I trow then this doth not express
Remedies in Courts against such as do not give them Tythes and that they are not backward to use those Remedies to the utmost degree of Severity and Rigour is a known and certain Truth confirm'd by the ruin of many an industrious Family and sealed with the innocent Blood of many a Conscientious Man who has dyed a Prisoner at their Suit for Tythes But I hope he will not argue from Fact to Right and infer that it ought to be so because it is so The Popish Priests as I shew'd him in my former Book pag. 360. had Law on their sides oâ—ce in this Nation as well as he and have it still elsewhere and others of another Name within our own remembrance had Law on their sides and the same Law too and were forward enough to use it by which the present Priests recover Tythes Had these therefore will he say a right to Tythes If he affirms it he knows what follows if he denyes it the consequence is plain That Lâ—w and Right 〈◊〉 not inseparable He sayes To contrive by Sophistry and Probabilities to shew a thing cannot be which we see with our Eyes is to nibble not dispute I did not go about to shew that what he sees with his Eyes cannot be but I endeavour'd fairly and without Sophistry to prove that what he sees with his Eyes in this case should not be not that it cannot be but that it connot rightly and justly be And upon the Priest's comparing his Right with the Parishioners and making them to stand upon the same bottom I argued for four or five pages together shewing the ground of their Claims to be different the one temporal the other spiritual and plainly proving that a temporal settlement of Tythes is not sufficient to give the Priests a right thereto because Tythes arâ— claimed upon considerations that are not temporal but spiritual see Truth prevailing pag. 311 312 313 314 315. To all which the Author of the Friendly Conference in his Vindication repeating these words of mine That I claim my Estate in a natural and civil capacity without relation to a ministerial Function returns this Reply pag. 310. This will pass for an Argument when he can prove that the Ministers of the Gospel ought to be reputed Outlaws and what is set apart for such ought to be exposed to the Rapine of every sacriligious Ruffian And if humane Laws be a good Plea for other men I do not know why they should be a bad Plea for us and this sayes he may serve to answer several of his pages where he beats the Air with a repetition of a company of vain and empty words Is not this a strange Answer what part of it is either sober or at all pertinent to the matter But letting pass the former part of this Answer which bespeaks him a fitter man to wrangle with Ruffians then discourse with sober and civil people since in the latter part he sayes If humane Laws be a good Plea for other men he does not know why they should be a bad Plea for them I will adventure once more to incur his Displeasure by telling him that one Reason is because his Plea being spiritual grounded upon a spiritual consideration is not sutable to those humane and temporal Laws as otâ—er mens Pleas which are not spiritual but temporal are And when his Brother Priest insists on the Divine Right of Tythes and claims them by the Law of God if one of his Parishioners or any Lay-man should say as this Priest does If Divine Laws may be a good Plea â—or other men I do not know why they should be a bad Plea for me and thereupon produce either the Law of Moses or some Text in the New Testament to prove his Title to the Estate he claims would not he be apt to smile at his Parishioner and inform him that he claiming in a civil capacity not upon spiritâ—al but temporal Considerations must have recourse to humane Laws for the Confirmation of his Claim and not expect to have a civil Claim grounded on humane and temporal Considerations secured and made good unto him by the spiritual and divine Law of God With how much more Reason might his Parishioner even laugh out-right at him who pretending to be a Minister of Christ and in that capacity or Qualification claiming Tythes as due to him not upon temporal but spiritual Considerations betakes himself to humane Laws to make his Title good But leaving this as a sufficient Reply to that little piece of insufficient Answer which he is pleased tâ— afford to so many pages of mine I turn me to the other Priest who I find uses many more words though not much more to the purpose § 2. In my Answer to the first Priest pag. 311. I said I shall discover his Fallacy further by telling him not only that I enjoy my Estate as a temporal Right but also that I claim it in a natural and civil Capacity without relation to a ministerial Function or spiâ—itual Office as a Man not as a Minister of Christ. But the Priest doth not claim Tythes in this Capacity He claims in a spiritual Capacity although his Claim be false his Claim depends upon a ministerial Function He claims not as a Man but as a Minister of Christ for such he pretends to be though he be not His Claim therefore to Tythes and my Claim to my temporal Estate differing in the very Ground and Nature of them that which will make good my claim to my Estate will not make good his Claim to Tythes Foâ— my Claim to my Estate being grounded upon a natural or temporal consideration only a temporal Right is sufficient to make it good But his Claim to Tythes being grounded upon a spiritual consideration as he pretends to be a Minister of Christ a temporal Right is no way equal or suitable to his Claim The first part of these words the Priest recites and thereto thus replyes Right of Tythes pag. 143. T. E. doth not claim meerly in his natural Capacity nor barely as a Man for all his talking since many wiser and better men then T. E. have no Estate at all nor no Right to any Every mâ—n hath a natural Capâ—â—ity but that alone gives no Title to an Estate it is therefore as a man so qualified that T. E. â—laims that is as a Purchasâ—r 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 annext What I meant by a natural Capacity is explained by the word civil as also by the following words without relation to a ministerial Function or spiritual Office which plainly shews I there opposed not a natural capacity to a civil capacity for I joyn them together but a natural capacity to a spiritual capacity and therefore when I mention the Priests Claim I say he claims in a spiritual capacity his Claim
or that the Reformation laid the Office aside If the Reformation did not lay the Office aside the Reformation was therein too short for the Officâ— was undoubtedly evil and did deserve to be laid aside But the laying of that Office asâ—de doth not infer that there are no Priests now Unless he thinks that all Priests are of one and the same Office and so puts no difference betwixt Light and Darkness Good and Evil. If he think so I must then ask him whether he exercises the same Office that the popish Priests now do at Rome and elsewhere What their's is is pretty well known and if his be the very same with their's it will not be hard to guess what his is But if he will reckon his not the same with their's but another and better Office he may thereby see that there may be Priests now although that Office which was once exercised here and is still in divers popish Coâ—ntries be laid aside Doth the erecting of a false Office make void the true or cannot the right Office of Priests remain if the wrong be taken away Or will he say that was a right and true Office which was exercised here by the popish Priests till the time of the Reformation Then he justifies the same Office still which is yet exercised by the popish Priests in Italy Spain and other Countries Certain it is that no such Office was ever appointed by Christ or known among the Apostles They had no Office for saying of Masses for praying for the Dead that their Souls might be delivered out of Purgatory for receiving Auricular Confession and for many other things which were the peculiar Services of this Office These things were not known amongst them but sprang up after the Apoâ—â—olical Times in the Apoâ—â—acy and continued till the Reformation But iâ— as he says the Reformation did not lay the Office aside what is become of it by whom is it executed Do the Priests who receive Tythes now in England perform the samâ— Office that those popish Priests did then Do these say Masses and pray for the Dead Do these receive Auricular Confession and take upon them to absolve the people from their Sins This was the Office of those Priests but none I hope of these Priests will acknowledge this to be their Office how then are the Offices the same But that that Office of Priesthood to which Tythes were given and by vertue of which Tythes were so long held and enjoyed in England before the Reformation was a popish Office and as such laid aside by the Reformation no man I think that understands those times and has not an Interest to serve can doubt And if the Office was laid aside in which the pretended property was vested how should the property remain and not be laid aside together with the Office But what Shifts will not Priests make for their Profits sake §13 His next Cavil is at my saying The Priest's Title lies in the Gift of the Owner which I shewed by this That the Priest hath no power to take one Sheaf or Ear of the Husbandman's Corn from oâ—â— his Ground untill the Owner hath severed it as Tythe from the remainder and thereby first disseized himself of that part and by his own Act given the Priest a Title thereunto And although the Law supposing Tythe due to God and Holy Church enjoyns the owner to set it out yet if he refuse he incurs the Penalty of that Law for his refusal but the Property of the Tythe remaiâ—s intire in himself To this the Priest says pag. 191. It is an odd kind of property which we have to a thing that we may not keep in our Possession and a strangâ— Gift which we must give whether we will or no and be punisheâ— if we do not give it He might better say It is an odd kind of Property thâ— Priest claimâ— to a thing he never had in possession nor they fâ—om whom he claims it and which there is no certainty in nor knows he whetâ—er it be much or little As for the Owner he may keep in his possession the thing in which he hath a Propriety viz. Tythes and the Priest cannot dispossess him theâ—â—of although by Laws grounded on a Religious Mistakâ— he may cause him otherwise to suffer for not dispossessiâ—g himâ—elf But he says pag. 192. he will give a parallel case There are says he many free Râ—nts and 〈◊〉 Payments which the person charged with them must bring to such an House in such a Town as such a day and then and there disseize himself of the said â—oney by a tender thereof to the Lord or his Assigns which Lord need never deâ—aâ—d this Money and yet may take the forfâ—iture if it â—e not brought to him and tendered This is not a parallel Case to Tythes for in this Case of Rents and Customary Payments the Lord or other person claiming them may for default of payment either enter upon the Lands out of which such Rents and Payments issue or bring his Action of Debt against the person charged therewith which argueâ— he has a Property in the thing he claims But it is not so in the Case of Tythes If the Owner refuse to set them out the Priest cannot enter upon the Land nor regularly bring an Action of Debt against the Owner but can only recover the Penalty of the Statute for his not making him a property by setting them out Which plainly shews the Priest hath not any property in Tythes nor is by the Statutes themselves understood to have any civil or Teâ—poral Right thereto but is only supposed to have a divine Right and upon that mis-supposition the Statutes injoyn the Owners to make the Priest a temporal Right by setting out of Tythes Besides Free Rents and Customary Payments are certain and not in the power of the Occupant to extinguish or alter But it is far otherwise in the Case of Tythes It is in the poweâ— of the Occupant to make the Tythes much little or nothing and that without any Fraud to his Ancestors for if a man stock his Land with Horses he is liablâ— to very little Tythes if any and I think not to any unâ—ess it be by particular Custom of the place But if he plant Woods and let them stand for Tiâ—ber no Tythe at all can be demanded and what then bâ—comes of the Priests Property has not he a fine property the meaâ— while which another man without any Fraud or Indirect Dealing may extinguish when he pleases Is it not plain by this that the Priest's Title lies in the Gift of the present Owner who may chuse whether the Priest shall have any thing or nothing And is the Case of Free Rents and Customary Payments a parallel to this Can he who standâ— charged with those Payments extinguish or alter them at his pleasure Can he make them more or less as he sees good If not how then is that a parallel Case 〈◊〉 this
he hath in this very Period expressed himself very unlearnedly and inconsiderately The Apostles he says shewed the way in this practice not intending that any Vagabond Speakers should be allowed after once the Christian Church was settled Vaâ—abond Speakers It seems then with him those Speakers that are not fixt to a parish or place are Vagabonds and though such were allowed in the Christian Church before it was settled yet after once it was settled no Vagabond Speakers were to be allowed Doth he not already begin to perceive how for want of a little consideration he has stigmaâ—iz'd the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord with the infamous Brand of Vagabonds Could all his Learning furnish him no better than with such a Roguish Epithet foâ— to Rogâ—es the word Vagabond is usually now applied How little Reason has this boasting man to vaunt of his own Leâ—rning or undervalue another's § 23. In his next Section he makes a faint attempt to help the other Priest off who had so far over-shot himself in his Conference pag. 157. that among other Reasons why the Apostles had not Tythes he gave this for one That they needed them not for as they had their Gifts so their Maintenance by a miraculous providence which he grounded upon Lukâ— 22. 35. The falseness of this Argument I plainly shewed in my former Book called Truth Prevailing pag. 352. Whereupon this Priest in â—is Right of Tythes pag. 226. says I hope when T. E. considers how wonderfully God opened the hearts of the first Christians not only to give the Apostles Meat and Drink but to sell all and give the price to them he will upon second thoughts correct that passage pag. 352. and allow this to be an extraordinary and miraculous Providence of God's to encourage their first beginnings Tâ—e other Priest grounded his Miracle upon the Apoâ—tles wanting nothing when they were sent forth without Puâ—se and Scrip Luke 22. 35. This Priest finding that too weak to bear him up adds to it the believers â—elling their Estates Acts 4. 34 35. and to serve his End corrupts the Text too saying they sold all and gave the price to the Apostles as if they had transferred their own property to the Apostles which they did not but deposited it as in a common Bank which was committed to the care and trust of the Apostles to distribute but wherein the Apostles themselves had no more propriety than any other of the Church Therâ—fore the Text says not that they brought the Prices of the things sold and gave them to the Apostles which would imply an investing the Apostles with a peculiar propriety therein but that they brought the prices of the things that were sold and laid them down at the Apostles Feet which imports no more than a committing it to their care in whom the Trust was reposed as Treasurers of the coâ—mon Stock for the maintenance of the whole Society Whence it follows in the Text And distribution was made unto every Man acâ—ording as he had need In all which I confess â— do not see the Miracle he talks of â—nd if he himself will have this to be a Miracle he must then acknowledge Miracles are not ceased the same thing â—aving been practised by others of late Years and I think by some yet in Germany But if the selling of Possessions and living in a Community had been a Miracle yet it could not reasonably be assigned for a Reason why the Apostles did not take Tythes for we read not that it was used in any of the Gentile Cities that were converted to Christianity but only at Ierusalem and there too for a short time So that if this had been a Reason why the Apostles took no Tythes at Ierusalem yet it could not â—e a Reason why they took none at Rome at Corinth at Ephesuâ— at Coloss at Thessalâ—nica at Philippi and other places where they preached the Gospel and where this practice was never used nor at Ierusalem neither after it was disused Neither is 〈◊〉 true which the other Priest says viz. That the Apostles needed them not for the Apostle Paul testifies of himself that he had learnt to suffer Need Phil. 4. 12. and amonâ—st othâ—r Hardships reckons his Necessities 2 Cor. 6. 4. 12. 10. And it appears he used to work for his living Acts 20. 34. which the lfine-fingâ—red Priest now adayes scorn to do Thus all these seeming Reasons appear to be indeed but empty Shews and vain Pretences and the very true and right Reason why the Apostles did not take Tythes was because they knew that Tythes were a part of the Ceremonial Law given to the Jews and abrogated by Christ. The other Priest in his Conference pag. 158. said If you conclude that we must be in all things 〈◊〉 were thâ— Apostles then must you of the Laity now do as the Laity did then who sold their Possessions and laid them down at the Apostles Feet Acts 4. And I can argue the one with the same Reason you can the other This I plainly disproved in my former Book called Truth prevailing pag. 353. shewing the different grounds on which the Apostles and other Believers then acted the one being positively bound and under a necessity to preach the Gospel the other being altogether free and under no necessity to sell their Estates but did it voluntarily So that what-ever the Priest at first thought the same Reason will not serve to argue the one as the other and that may probably be the Reason that he having no other Reason was fain tâ— let his Argumeâ—t wholely fall and take no further notice of it Nor makes the other Priest in his Right of Tythes any other Reply to it than this T. E. saith indeed they sold their Estates voluntarily p. 353. which is most true and we do not desire any to sâ—ll theâ— involuntarily now But adds he pag. 227. when our people sell all voluntarily as they did we will quit our Claim to Tythes Indeed will ye so what after all this â—usle and Contest for a Divine Right of Tythes will ye quit yoâ—â— Claim thereto upon condition the people will â—ell all as once Believers did See Reader now the horrible Deceit and false Dâ—aling of this man in the Management of this Controversie and how contrary he has argued to his own Judgment Hath he not said over and over That Tythes are God's part God's due How oft hath he called Tythes a sacred Maintenance a divine Tribute a sacred Revenue c Did he not affirm they were grounded on the law of Nature and primitive Revelation and that they relie on an internal Rectitude and an eternal Reason pag. 49 Did he not assert That our â—ord Iesus and his â—postles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers pag. 〈◊〉 Was he not positive That our Lord Iesus and the Apostles said enough to shâ—w that the antient divine Right to the tenth part should be continued and the
then he that so believing payes it inflicts a Penalty on himself which beside the Injustice is contrary to Nature Again says he I cannot remember ever to have read of any sort of People in the World before who counted it a Sin to pay an Imposition supposed unjust which is no more a Sin than to be Stockt or Whipt to be Fined or Imprisoned all which we may submit to without Sin To submit to Stocking Whipping Fining or Imprisoning is one thing but for a man to Stock Whip Fine or Imprison himself is another so to suffer for not paying Tythes is one thing and to pay Tythes is another This he sayes and therefore cunningly changes his Voice from Active in paying Tythes to Passive in being Stockt Whipt c. When he speaks of the payment he says If I were in their Case I would pay my Tythes c. And I never read of any who counted it a Sin to pay an Imposition c. Here he uses the Active to pay But when he says it is no more a Sin than to be Stockt or Whipt to be Fined or Imprisoned he turns from Active to Passive for to pay is Active to be fined or Imprisoned is Passive This Fallacy of his he thought perhaps the unlearned Quaker would not find out He says We may submit to Stocking Whipping Fining and Imprisonment without Sin 'T is very true and so we may to Death also but doth it thence follow that a man may without Sin put himself to death be his own Executioner and kill himself If it be evil for a man to do this how can he without evil do the other If he may not put himself to death by the same reason he may not stock whip imprison or fine himself And if Tythes be a penalty as the Priest says they are to one that believes the payment of them unjust he may no more execute that penalty on himself by paying Tythes than he may execute the other penâ—lties of Stocking Whipping Imprisonment or Death by putting himself in the Stockâ— by Whipping himself by clapping himself into Prison or by putting himself to Death But seeing the Priest says If he were in our Case he would pay his Tythes c. Let me put him the Question Whether if he were in our Case and were sentenced to be Hanged as some of the Quakers purely for their Religion and conscientious Obedience to God have been he would forth-with take an Halter and Hang himself He connludes That it is no Sin to pay Tythes though it were a Sin in the Law to command them and in the Priests to tâ—ke them pag. 230. The other Priest also in his Conference pag. 15â— says After all this Out-cry against Tythes do the Quakers think the paying and receiving of them to be a Sin And in his Vindicatâ—on pag. 300. he complains that this Question was not Answered and says It was the most considerable passagâ— that he had That Tythes were a part of the Ceremonial Law given to â—he Ieâ—s and taken away by Christ's death is largely proved before They were a part of those Offerings which by the One Offering were ended and so ended as never to be offered again because the Offering of them again would have been a denyal of that one Offering by which they were taken away Now as it would be a Sin to offer the other Offerings of the Law the Burnt-Offerings Meat-Offerings Drink-Offerings c. although commanded so is it also a Sin to offer the Offering of Tythes although commanded thereunto If all the Offerings Sacrifices and Ceremonies of the Law should now be set up again as it would be Sin in them that should set them up or command the performance of them so would it be sin in them also that should act therein or consent thereto If a man should bring forth his Oxen Bullocks or Sheep to be made a Sacâ—ifice or Burnt-Offeringâ— as of Old this would be sin in him that should so do although commanded as well as in him or them that should so command But if a man being so commanded should refuse and his Oxen or Sheep be taken from him by force or against his will and made a Sacrifice or Burnt-Offering the sin would lie upon them that thus command or Act the man so refusing would be guiltless before the Lord. If a man should be commanded to Circumcise himself or to offer himself to be Circumcised that man if he should actually Circumcise himself or consent to be Circumcised by another would be guilty of sin before the Lord notwithstanding his being commanded But if he who is thus commanded shall refuse to Circumcise himself or to consent that another shall Circumcise him and he be taken by force and Circumcised against his will the Sin will lie at their door who thus command or Act and the man himself thus refusing to act or to consent unto the Act will be guiltness before the Lord. Now Tythes being ended by Christ as well as the other Offerings of the Law and as Circumcision it is a sin to pay Tythes now and a denyal of the one Offering Christ Iesus as it would be a sin to offer the other Offerings of the Law now or to be Circumcised And as in those Cases the being commanded would not excuse them from Sin that should perform those things so neither in this case of Tythes will the being commanded excuseâ— them from Sin that pay them But if a man conscientiously refuses to pay them and dares not act therein nor consent thereto though his Tythes should be forcibly taken from him or any Penalty be inflicted on him he in his thus conscientiously refusing to act therein or consent thereto yet not resisting but quieâ—ly suffering will be found guiltless in the sight of the Lord. Hence it appears that to pay Tythes is a Sin as well as to receive them And thus the one Priest's false Position and the other Priest's most considerable Passage are plainly and fully answered § 25. His next Section treats of the First Fruits and Tenths paid by the Clergy to the Crown against which he says the Quaker hath nothing to say hut only that this Power once stuck in the Tripple Crown Where he found this he might have found more for in the same placo pag. 355. in Answer to the other Priest who called First Fruits and Tenths one of the Faireâ—â— Flowers belonging to the Crown I said No Flower can be fair in an English Crown which was taken out of a Pope's Mitre And if nothing else could be said against it but that it once stuck in the Triple Crown that alone were enough to make it unworthy to be worn in an English Diadem Hence it appears I not â—nly had more to say but said more also against this Flower as they account it of First Fruits and Tenths than only that it once stuck in the Tripple Crown for I shewed that being taken out of a Pope's Mitre it could