§. 1. TO make out the Divine Right of Tythes, there are three Periods (he sayes, p. 19.) to be considered? 1. Before the Law; 2. Under the Law; 3. The Time of the Gospel. Concerning the • st Period, before the Law, sayes he (to his Dr. Sr.) you said very little in your Conference, as not designing to mannage this Argument.

But why did he say so little? Was it not because he had but little to say, and as I observed in my former Answer, Though he pretended to be a Minister of the Gospel, yet he took the Law for the surer holding, and therefore betook himself chiefly to that? No, sayes this Priest (to excuse him) 'Tis evident you laid aside this Weapon (of the divine Right) not out of any distrust of the Argument, but in very Truth you seem to have been loath to cast Pearls before Swine, who understand not the value of them, pag. 17, 18.

Was his Parishioner then a Swine with whom he discoursed on that subject, whom he called his Good • Friend and Neighbour, pag. 1. to whom he bore such true Friendship, pag. 2. whose serious Inclination, Modesty and Humility he commended, and the Expressions of whose Affection he accepted in all gratitude, pag. 3.

He hinted indeed before (pag. 6. of his Friendly Conference) that the Priests People were Beasts, and lean Beasts, no fatter for all the feeding; but then they seemed to have been Kine, he stroak't so much M • l • from them; but this Priest has explain'd the matter, and declared them arrant Swine, not considering that he hath made his Dr. Sr. a Swine • erd instead of a Shepherd.

But what am I concern'd in all this? Will he blame me because his Brother took up his Cause by the wrong end! If divine Right (as he sayes) be ant • cedent to any positive Constitution, why began he at the human Right? Or if he intended only to mannage the Argument of humane Right (as this Priest intimates for him, pag. 20.) why did he meddle with the divine Right? but seeing he gave a touch on each, why am I blam'd for answering both? He had • Reason the rather to have begun with the divine Right, and to have insisted on it too, and have mannaged that Argument (if he understood it) in as much as he began his Discourse upon a Passage taken out of a Book of E. B's, which related to the divine Right, not to the humane. Yet had he said nothing of Divine Right at all, it may be I might have said the less; but seeing he thought fit to say so much as might intimate a reserve for a divine Right, I think I had reason to examine the claim, and not as easily grant, as he did weakly beg the Question.

But he sayes, he perceives his Brother Priest had mentioned, that the divine Right of Tythes was derived from Melchizedeck, not from Levi. He's very angry I fell upon this Passage, and to vent his Passion bestows upon me the badge of a skulking Adversary: Why so? Because this Passage (he sayes) was single, not guarded with any Proofs or Reasons, stood naked, was an open place. Whose Fault was that? Did he expect I should have guarded it with Proo • s and Reasons for him? or that I should have been so mannerly as to have past it by because it was not guarded? He would not it seems have had me enter there, because it was an open place. Surely if I had meddled with nothing but what was guarded with Proofs and Reasons, I should have had little to meddle with; for his whole Book is either u • guarded or ill guarded.

But he would perswade his Reader, pag. 17, 20. That I had triumphed over this naked Sentence, (as he calls it) and over the Author too; nay, that I had boasted, I had disproved clearly the divine Right of Tythes; for which, the better to hide himself, he assigns no page of my Book; nor do I know any Passage in it, from which, without • positive Resolution to abuse me, he could draw such an unfair inference. The most I said (that I remember) was in pag. 282. and the words these, That Tythes were not paid by Abraham to Melchizedeck, but given, and that but once, and that too upon an Accidental Occasion, nor then out of his own proper Estate (but out of the Pillage of Sodom, which he by the Sword had recovered from the Plunderers) I think I need not stick to say I have already prov'd. Whethe • this was an immodest Expression, considering what I had before offer'd in the four preceding pages of my Book; and whether he hath dealt fairly with me from hence, to represent me as triumphing, and boasting that I had disproved clearly the Divine Right of Tythes, let the ingenuous Reader judge.

§. 2. My first Opponent in his Friendly Conference, pag. 135. had affirmed, that those that ins • st upon the divine Right of Tythes, derive them not from Levi, but Melchizedeck: In my Answer to which, pag. 277. I said, It is then inquirable, whether o • no Tythes were ever due to Melchized • ck: That which should make them due, must be a Command, they were not due to the Levitical Priesthood, until they were commanded to be paid; but after they were commanded to be paid, they become due; and so long as the Command stood in force, it was an Evil to detain them. But we do not find, throughout the Scriptures any Command from God that Tythes should be paid unto Melchizedeck. Upon this the Author of the Right of Tythes sayes, pag. 20. My first words do declare, I do not understand the Question.

But I believe, either this Priest doth not understand the Question, as the other stated it; or else he thinks the other Priest did not understand how to state it as he should do; and therefore he hath undertaken to state the Question anew. The Case was plain enough to be understood before; and I am content to abide the Reader's Censure, whether by my Answer to it I under •• ood it or not. I confess, I did not then understand how this man Eighteen Moneths after would alter it, no more then I now do how another of them Eighteen Mone •• s hence may vary it again, if this mans work succeed no better then the former. The former Priest said, The divine Right of Tythes was derived from Melchizedeck. Now because no Right could be derived from Mel • hiz • deck to another, which was not first in Melchizedeck himself, I thought it justly inquirable, Whether or no Tythes were ever due to Melchizedeck? And because no certain and positive Evidence could be produced of Melchizedeck's Right to Tythes, I judg'd it necessary to consider what way Tythes might come to be due to • him, and therefore said, that which should make them due must be a Command. This also I demonstrated by an • nstance from the Levitical Priesthood, to whom it is on all hands acknowledged they wer • due, after they were commanded to be paid to them, not before; therefore I said, They were not due to the Levitical Priesthood, until they were commanded to be paid; but after they were commanded to be paid they became due: and so long as that Command stood in force, it was an Evil • to detain them. This the Priest was willing to dash out, lest as the Right of the Levitical Priesthood to Tythes, depended upon an express Command, so an equality of Reaso • should drive him to seek a Command, on which to ground Melchizedeck's Right to them also, which he very well knew he could no where find.

He attempts therefore to mend the matter by a new stating of the Question: And whereas the other Priest had asse • ted, that the Divine Right of Tythes was derived from Melchizedeck, not from Levi; this Priest sayes, pag. 20. The Ass • rtors of the Divine Right of Tythes do not make them originally due either to Melchizedeck or Levi, but to God himself, &c.

To whom Tythes were originally due, was not the Question; but from • hom the present Priests do deriv • a Divine Right in Tythes to themseves, whereby Tythes may become due to them by a D • vine Right, which the former Priest asserted to be from Melchizedeck. He does not claim Tythes from God, to whom they were originally due; but from Melchizeck, to whom how they became due, and from whom have they come to be due to these Priests, had well become him to have proved.

§. 3. He sayes, The Tenth belongs to God.

I say, All belongs to God, the Nine Parts as well as the Tenth; for the Fulness of the Earth is the Lords, Psal. 24. 1. not a part only; the Cattel on a thousa • d Hills ar • his, Psal. • 0. 12. not the Tythes of them only. That Scripture therefore Prov. 3. 9. Honour the Lord with thy Su • stance, is misapplyed by the Priest, and, as he restrains it to the Payment of Tythes, is not a binding Rule to Christians as well as Iews; C • ristians being no where commanded by God to pay Tythes, as the Iews expresly were. But the Christian doth then honour God with his Substance, when thankfully receiving the Goods of this World from the Hand of the Lord, he doth in God's holy Fear so use them, as not to abuse them, 1 Cor. 7. 31. when both in eating and drinking, and whatsoever else he does, he does all to the Glory of God, according to the Exhortation of the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 10 31. 'Tis not to be doubted but that God, from whose Bounty and Blessing all is received, might reserve to himself what share he pleased; but what he might do is one thing, what he did another: That he ever did appropriate the tenth part, I find not in Scripture exprest, excepting only in the time of the Levitical Priesthood, for which there was a particular Reason. He then chose the Iewish Nation to be his peculiar People, which People being divided into twelve Tribes, he separated one entire Tribe, the Tribe of Levi, to attend the Service of the Tabernacle • The Land of Canaan he divided amongst the other e • eaven Tribes, but gave the Tribe of Levi no Inheritance amongst them, Numb. 18. 20, 23, 24. Deut. 10. 9. for they being wholely imployed in that service, could not have leisure to attend the Plough, or other Rural Occupations. Seeing therefore he had excluded them from a share of the Land (the manuring of which would have taken them off from the Service he had designed them to) and that by this means their Brethren, the other Eleaven Tribes, amongst whom their part was shared, did all fare so much the better, their respective Lots bein • so much the greater, he commanded the Eleaven Tribes that had the Lands, to pay the Tythes of the increase thereof, out of whic • this twelf Tribe should be maintained. And while that Priesthood and Polity stood, which Tythes were suitable and appropriated to, this Tything Command was in force, and no longer. But that eve • God did reserve the tenth, or command the payment of Tythes to any, before the constitution of the Levitical Priesthood, or since the Dissolution thereof, I no where read in Scripture. This is proper for the Assertors of the Divine Right of Tythes to prove, and indeed so absolutely necessary, that if they fail of this, all they can say beside will be too weak to bear their Title up: For in a matter of so great moment, it is not • are Conjectures or meer Suppositions, nor Probability neither, will serve the turn, but positive Precept. The Levitical Priesthood was not left to such Incertainties. Though this Priest is willing to take it for granted, that the men of that Age wherein Abraham lived, knew and understood by the Light of Nature, that the tenth part belong'd to God, and was therefore to be paid to his Priests: yet we find God himself did not think fit to hazard the Levitical Priesthood on such uncertain terms, but secured their Maintenance to them by an express Command, which left no room for any Doubts or Scruples. And can it be imagin'd, that the Omm • scient God, whose Eye at once fore-sees all Events, would leave the Maintenance of his Gospel-Ministry, so much nearer to him then the Levitical Priesthood, to depend upon the ambiguous and doubtful Constitution of a single Act of Abraham's, or a Vow of Iacob's uncertain when, or where, or how performed? No doubtless, it cannot reasonably be supposed, that he who took such particular Care of the Legal Priesthood (which was to last but for a 〈◊〉 ) and was so punctual in appointing Tythes for their Maintenance, not thinking either Abraham' Gift or Iacob's Vow sufficient ground for them to claim upon, although they were the cho • en Priests of God, without a plain and positive Command, would leave his Royal Priesthood, the Publishers of his Everlasting Gospel, so ill provided of a Claim to Tythes, as to be necessitated to strain a Title out of Abraham's Gift and Iacob's Vow, if he had ever intended Tythes should be the Maintenance of his Gospel-Ministers.

What else doth this Assertor of the divine Right of Tythes offer in proof of his Assertion, but Conjectures and Probabilities, as he calls them, as in page 30. where speaking of Abraham's giving to God the tenth of all the Spoils, he adds, As in all Probability he was wont ordinarily to do, of all that he got by God's ordinary Blessing. So again, pag. 31. T. E. cannot prove Abraham did not pay Tythes 〈◊〉 , and I can make it appear very probable he did. Again, There are ancient Authors and probable Reasons to induce us to beli • ve, &c. pag. 33. Again, speaking of 〈◊〉 being Sem, We cannot (say • he) be 〈◊〉 i • a matter of so great antiquity: but I ho • e these things may suffice to make it very probable, that Melchizede • was Abraham's Priest in Ordinary, pag. 34. And though he is able to shew no better ground then such probable Mayb • 's as these, yet he sticks not to require his Reader's Assent as fully as if he had produced the most positive Proofs and plain Demonstrat • on: for speaking of Abraham's pitching upon the Tenth, he says, p. 25. In all R • ason we ought to bel •• ve it was first revealed by almighty God to him, &c. And speaking of Sacrificing bein • believed to be revealed by God to Adam, he says, The like we may believe also concerning this of dedicating the tenth part, pag. 26. Again, speaking of so • e Heathens that vow'd the Tenths to their Gods, he says, Which therefore we mu • t believe they had by Tradition from the first Patriarchs, who received it by Revelation from God, pag. 27. Yet in the next page sayes, It is not necessary (since the Scripture is silent) I should deter • ine, whether Abraham was immediately directed to it, or whether he learnt it from Melchizedec. Thus he argues from may be to must be, and from must be to may be back again, finding nothing firm, nothing certa • n, whereon to build a divine Right to Tythes.

Yet fain he would have it so, and therefore labours to perswade his Reader, pag. 21. that from the Example of Abraham's Giving and Iacob's Vowing the Tenth, there was a Claim made of this te • th part, as being originally due to God long before. And for thi • Claim he quote • Levit. 27. 30. All the Tythes of the Land is the Lord's. But he greatly mistakes, and mis-applyes that Text; for thought the te • th, the nineth, the Eighth and the all was originally due to God long before, yet as a tenth, distinct and separate from the rest, it doth not appear to have been due long before, nor seems to be here mention'd by Moses, with relation to any such former Re • erve or Claim, but with respect to the L • vitical Priesthood, which was then settled in Aaron, the great Grand-child of Levi; for which Priesthood he who was Lord of the whole, when he gave the Lands to the other eleaven Tribes, reserved this as a Subsistance more suitable to their Service, and a Compensation for their part of the Land.

But the better to colour this Conceit, of Tythes being claimed in Levit. 27. 30. as due long before, he perverts another Text, and puts a plain Abuse upon his Reader; for he says, pag. 22. The first time Tythes are mentioned, Exod. 22. 29. they are not directly enjoyned, but supposed due, and forbid to be with-held: Whereas in Ex. 22. 29. Tythes are not mention'd at all, nor in all the Book of Exodus, that I observe, nor else • where as enjoyned, supposed due, or forbid to be with-held, until the 27th of Levit. 30. mention'd before the words in Exod. 22. 29. which he says doth not directly injoyn, but supposes Tythe due, and forbids t • em so be with-held, are these, Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe Fruits, and of thy Liquors; the First-born of thy Sons shalt thou give unto me. Here is not a word of Tythes; and yet this Priest hath so little regard to Truth, and so much to his own Interest, that he sticks not to say Tythes are in this place mentioned and supposed due. Neither of one part of that which is here mention'd, namely, the First born, which is here c • mmanded to be given to the Lord, is this the first mention; but it was both mention'd and expresly commanded before, Exod. 13. • . while the People of Isra • l were yet in Aegypt: and in Numb. 3. 13. the very day is assigned whereon God did appropriate this part to himself, and from which (with Reverence so to speak) he dates his Claim thereto: All the First born (saith the Lord) are mine; for on the day that I smote all the First-born in the Land of Egypt, I hallowed unto me all the First-born in Israel, both Man and Beast, mine they shall be, I am the Lord. Here's the time preci • ely s • t down, here's the day expresly mention'd, on which God did sanctifie the Firstborn to himself, on which (and not till which) he assumed to himself a peculiar Right to the First-born distinct and separate from the rest, which yet was above four hundred year • after Abrah • m's Gift to Melchizedec. Let the Asse • tors of the Divine Right of Tythes, shew as plainly (if they can) when God did appropriate to himself the Tythe or Tenth Part, distinct from the other nine, before the time of the Levitical Priesthood, for whose Maintenance he then appointed it. Can it with any colour of Reason be supposed, that he who so precisely and punctually set down the very day whereon he chose to himself the First-born, which related but to that typical state of the Iews, would have given no hint, nor left any Footsteps at all of his Right and Claim to Tythes before the Constitution of the Levitical Priesthood, if he had indeed sanctified them to himself before, and intended them to be continued after the Dissolution of that Priesthood, for a Maintenance to his Gospel-Ministers!

§. 4. The Priest sayes, pag. 22. Though God have a right to the tenth part of our Substance, yet he cannot be his own Receiver: So that we are to enquire 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.

What he is not able to prove, that he is willing to take for granted. I acknowledge that God, who is Lord of all, hath a right to all our Substance, and may command and dispose the whole, or what part thereof he pleaseth: But that God hath a distinct right • o the Tenth, more then to all or any of the other nine parts, and that by the Law of Nature, anteced •• t to any positive Constitution; as this • riest makes the Assertor • se • tors of the divine Right of Tythes to ass • rt, is more then I have yet seen proved either by this, or any other of the Assertors of the divine Right of Tythes, that I have hitherto met with. And till this be proved, 'tis needless to inquire who should be the Receiver: Though even in that also, the Priest falls short, taking that to be a dictate of Reason, which right Reason did never dictate to him: for what is due to the Master, ought to be paid to such of his Servants, a • he appoints to receive it, whether they be his next and immediate Servants or not: for it is not their being next unto him, that doth authorize them to be his Receivers, but his deputing them unto that Service.

Again he sayes, pag. 23. Abraham, in paying his Tythes (which were Gods part) unto Melchizedec the Priest of the most high God, did confirm this dictate of Reason, &c.

What else is this but begging the Question, and that twice in two lines. He supposes Abraham paid his Tythes (which the Scripture no where saye • he did) and that Tythes (as Tythes, as a distinct part) were then Gods part, (which the Scripture no where 〈◊〉 they were) and if this would be granted him, he would then infer that Melchizedec had indeed a Right to Tythes, and perhaps also that from him a right to Tythes might be derived to a Gospel Ministry. But he runs too fast to hold that of which he is willing to make no question, is the main Question in this part of the Controversie, namely, Whether in Abraham's time, and antecedent to any positive Constitution, Tythes as Tythes, or a Tenth part distinct from the rest, was any more Gods peculiar part, then the other Nine: And whethers Abraham in giving (as the Texts express it) the Tenth of his Military Spoils to Melchizede • , did pay a just debt to Melchizedec, which he could not without injustice have with-held; or whether that gift of Abrahams was a grateful acknowledgment, and voluntary • eturn of kindness to Melchizedec, for his so friendly Congratulation, Fatherly blessing, and bountiful present of Bread and Wine to himself and his weary Followers: This is indeed the sum of the matter, the very thing on which (and which alone) a claim of Tythes from Melchizedec to any others, can with any reason be supposed to turn. And if my Opponents, either first or second, would stick to this, and (though but for a while) deny themselves the pleasure and delight they seem to take in railing and reviling, deriding and jeering, insulting and boasting, disdaining and scorning; and would apply themselves to mannage this Argument with that gravity & seriousness that becomes the Subject, I should not doubt to see this Case brought to a speedy and fair Issue. But then I should expect to meet with more forcible Arguments, more cogen • Reasons, more evident Proofs, and plainer Demonstrations then Suppositions, Conjectures, Probabilities, Likelihoods, and May-be's; and that which is a p • orer way of Reasoning then all the rest, and is indeed too low and mean by much for such lofty pretences to Learning and Scholarship, as my Adversary makes for himself and his Brethren, viz. to put the Defendent to prove the Negati • e, as he has done me mor • then once, and more then conduces to the credit of his cause. As in pag. 31. I may ask him (sayes he) where he reads, that Abraham did not pay them. And a few Lines lower in the same page, T. E. cannot prove Abraham did not pay Tythes ordinarily, and I can make it appear very probable he did.

But he hath so accustomed himself to call Abraham's Gift a Payment, that forgetting himself, he brings me in as using the same Phrase, as if I also admitted that, which I have offered to much reason against; his words are these, pag. 30. So that T. • .' • saying he doth not read in Genesis that Abraham paid his Tythes constantly, is no Argument, &c.

But where doth T. E. say this? He quotes no place, no • indeed had any to quote; for I no where said so; but he hath put a double abus • upon my words, first, in making me to say I do not read in Genesis, &c. As if I had limitted the Story of Abraham and Melchizedec to the Book of Genesis only, or had allowed no Evidence for proof of this pretended Right to Tythes, but what could be found in Genesis: And accordingly he playes upon me, T. E's saying he doth not read in Genesis,—is no • rgument, unless all that Abraham ordinarily did were recorded there. (to wit, in Genesis) And, I may ask him where he reads there (to wit, in Genesis) that Abraham did not pay them, pag. 31. whereas my words were general, We do not find throughout the Scriptures, (which is more the • in Genesis only) any command from God, that Tythes should be paid unto Melchized • c, pag. 278. and If Tythes had been due from Abraham to Melchizedec, then must Abraeham have paid Melchizedec Tythes of all his Substance, of all that he possest: But no such thing appears at all, pag. 279. What pretence could the Priest have to thrust in Genesis here! But his other abuse in the latter part of the sentence is somewhat more gross. T. E's saying, he doth not read that Abraham paid his Tythes constantly, is, &c.

These words are not in my Book, but are a meer artifice of his own, to insinuate as if I had yielded that Abraham paid Tyth • s at that time, upon that extraordinary occasion, and had only seem'd to doubt whether he paid them constantly or not: whereas nothing 〈◊〉 more plain, then that I all along deny that Abraham over paid Tythes at all. This is an art this Priest is expert at, but I'll assure him 'tis a black one, and will never credit him or his Cause. He served me so once or twice before, in his 16. page, quoting me thus, Tythes were wont to be claimed as of divine Right, but I find this Priest is not hardy enough to adventure his cause upon that Title. Whereas my words are not, I find this Priest is not hardy enough; but I do not find this Priest hardy enough. Which variation how small so ever it may seem to some, yet as Illiterate as he takes me to be, I understand the different sense of those two Expressions, and how little he is to be trusted; which I am the more confirm'd in from his next Period, where speaking of me, he sayes, He perswades his Quakers, that they who were wont to claim Tythes d • jure divine, were more bold then wise.

These words were not in my Book, but a suggestion of his to abuse me; for which (whatever I think of others) I have cause enough to think him more bold then honest. Nor has he only gleaned on this passage, but insisted deliberately on it, and presented his false suggestion to the highest advantage he could make of it. For he sayes, Let us therefore see who and what they were whom T. E. thus Cens • res: Truly no less (sayes he) then Origen, Cyprian, S. Hierom, S. Augustin, divers Christian Councils of Old, Justinian, and the Imperial Roman Laws, Charle • the Great, and the French Capitulars, the Saxon Kings and Councils of this Nation, & all Monarches and Parliaments of later times, particularly K. Henry 8. & Edward 6. together with the most famous common Lawyers, as also the unconcern'd and incomparably learn'd Sr. Hen. Spe • man, with divers other excellent Writers, two many to recite.

These were too many to have recited, unless he had had more cause for it: At this rate, he may father what Falshoods he pleases upon his Adversary, and then call him an obscure and empty Qu • ker, as he does me; but he may withal assure himself, he shall never by this means acquire the repute of a just man, or a fair D • sputant.

§. 5. He sayes, pag. 23. T. E. is very impertinent in inquiring what command there is in Scripture to Abraham to pay his Tythes to Melchizedec: for there was not any Scripture at all in Abraham's time. No doubt he thinks every Body impertinent that calls in question his beloved Tythes. But wherein doth the Impertinency lie? I hope a divine command for the payment of Tythes had not been Impertinent to his Claim. I am sure a human command for the payment of them now is the most pertinent point he has to claim by; and that his Brot • er Priest understood full well, which made him step so lightly over the former, and stick so close to the latter. But I am impertinent it seems for inquiring for a command in Scripture.

Where else I wonder would he have had me inquire! Is any other Book so pertinent as that to seek a divine Command in? Aybut, sayes the Priest, there was not any Scripture at all in Abraham's time.

If he means that Writing is not so ancient, he forgets himself; but if he intends that the Scriptures we now have, were not then written (which is more probable) that will not render me a whit the more impertinent for inquiring what command there is in Scripture to Abraham to pay Tythes, since we find in Scripture many Commands are mentioned, which were of a much elder date then the • criptures in whi • h we read them.

There was as much Scripture to be sure when Abraham gave this Gift to 〈◊〉 , as t • ere was before when he was called out of his Country, when Circumcision was instituted, and when 〈◊〉 , t • e Heir of Promise, was made an Offering: and yet for every of these (and many other 〈◊〉 besides) we have express Command recorded in those Scripture • , which afterwards were written. Nay, if we will look back to the times before the Flood, we shall find a Command to Noah for the making of the Ark, G • n. 6. 14. And indeed the first Command that ever was given to man, is plainly and fully exprest in Gen. 2. 16, 17. And must I needs be impertinent in inquiring what Command there is in Scripture to Abraham to pay Tythes, and that upon this only Reason, that there was not any Scripture at all in Abraham's time! If no Command at all had been remembred in Scripture of elder date then the Scripture it self, or then this Act of Abraham's, this Exception of the Priest had been less impertinent: but seeing, even from the very infancy of the World, the divine Commands are recorded, and more especially in so many particular Instance; in Abraham's own time, and to Abraham himself, whether is more impertinent, I in calling for a Command in S • ripture to prove Melchizedec's Right to Tythes, or the Priest in sobbing me off with this evasive Answer, that there was not any Scripture at all in Abrah •• m's time, let the understanding Reader judge.

He confesses Moses indeed did write a brief History of those times four hundred years after: but since he comprises the 〈◊〉 of two thousand three hundred 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, o • how they we • e directed in such an Action, pag. 24.

Though it cannot be expected, that in so brief an History Moses should set down all particulars, or shew what Reason the Pat • iarchs had for, and how they were directed in all their Actions: yet in an Action of so great moment as this is made, from which so large a claim and weighty Title is derived, it may reasonably be expected he should have been more particular, full and plain; and would no doubt have been so, had the Divine Wisdom, by which he writ, intended Tythes to be a Gospel-Maintenance, and to be claimed from hence.

How many other Passages, which seem to be less material, doth he insist more largely on, as the Des •• iption of Places, the Names of Rivers, Mountains, Towns, &c? How exact is he in setting down the Fashion and Dimensions of the Ark, • ow punctual in computing the time of the Flood's beginning, increase, continuance and decrease, not contenting himself with the year only, or with the Moneth, but adding even the very day? • nd when he comes to Abraham's • ime, he gives the very Circumstances of the things he treats of, as in 〈◊〉 account of his going into Aegyp • , and what be • el him there, Gen. 12. his parting with Lot, and the Occasion thereof, Chap. 13. the memorable Battel fought in the Vale of Siddim, between four Kings and five, the Occasion of that War, the Names of the Kings on either side, and of the place where the Battel was pitcht, twice over, the Success of the • ight, the Plunder of Sod • m, and L • t's Captivity, Abraham's Muster, Pursuit, and Rescue, Gen. 14. In every of which he is more particular then in this Passage of Abraham's giving Melchi • edec Tythes; which as it was done upon an accidental Occasion, so Moses runs over it, as briefly as may be, giving it only a transient touch: And indeed, the whole Passage seems to be but a kind of Parenthesis; for in the 17th Verse Moses says, The King of Sodom went out to meet Abram (after his return from the Slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the Kings that were with him) at the Valley of Shaveh, which is the King's Dale. Then in the next Verse, he mentions Melchizedec; And Melchizedec, King of Salem, brought forth Bread and Wine: and he was the Priest of the most high God. Vers. 18. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God Possessor of Heaven and Earth. Vers. 19. And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine Enemies into thine hand. And he gave him Tythe of all, Vers. 20. This is the full and whole Account which Moses gives of this matter; and then immediately in the next words resumes his Discourse of the King of Sodom, Vers. 21. And the King of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the Person • , &c. What could he have said less? How could he have mention'd this Passage of Abraham's giving Tythes in fewer words, and with less remark! which cannot reasonably be imputed to the brevity of his History, by any one that shall duly consider how copious he is upon other Subjects, setting down at large even the smallest Circumstances, as besides the former instances, will plentifully appear in the story of Abraham's Servant fetching a Wife for Isaac, Gen. 24. Of Iacob's suppla • ting his Brother, Chap. 27. Of his Service with Laban, Chap. 19, 20, 21. To omit the story of Ioseph's being sold into Aegypt, and what be • el both him and his Brethren there. But this is an Art the Priest hath, to perswade his Reader there is more in this Passage then the brevity of the History would give room to express. The History was written by Moses, who was inspired thereto by God, and as it is irrational to imagine that this Passage of A • braham's giving Tythes to Melchizedec, would have been past over so lightly, and left so bare, if it had had relation to future Ages, & that in the Times of the Gospel, a Right to Tythes was to be derived from hence (as the Author of the Friendly Conference says it is, pag. 135.) so it is great Impiety to suggest that any thing was here omitted, which it was necessary for the Church of God to know and understand. The Spirit of God hath said expresly, Abraham gave Tythes of all. The Spirit of God hath said expresly, It was the Spoyls which Abraham gave the Tenth of, Heb. 7. 4. And who is man, that he should take upon him to add or alter! Darest thou say he pa • d, when God says he gave! Darest thou say, it was of his own Substa • ce, when God says it was of the Spoyls! Darest thou say, he did this ordinarily, when the Spirit of God hath thought fit to mention this one only extraordinary time! Add thou not unto his Words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a Lyar, Prov. 30. 6.

§. 6. But he says, p. 29. To give and to pay is all one in this Case, or else the Apost • e was over-seen, who not only saith he gave the Tenth, Heb. 7. 4. but, Levi paid Tythes in Abraham, Vers. 9.

Neither is to give and to pay all one in this case, nor yet was the Apostle over-seen: for the Apostle most properly accommodates his Speech to the several times it had relation to. When he speaks in Vers. 4. of Abraham, in whom it was a free and voluntary Gift, he uses the word Gave, as Moses had done before him; but when in Vers. 9. he speaks of Levi (whom he figuratively mentions, with an [as I may so say] for he speaks not personally of Levi himself, but of his Offspring, the Levitieal Priest-hood who received Tythes which Levi never did himself) then I say, refering to the time of the Law, in which God had commanded the payment of Tythes, he expresses himself by the word Gave. So that it is manifest he varied his Expression according to the persons he treated of, and the different times his Speech had relation to. When 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 & Hez • 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 obs • u • c: So that what he sayes, pag. 30. That the word Give in Genesis 14. doth no more prove Tyt • es were not due to Melchizedec, • ure divino, th • n the same in Chronicles proves they were not due to the Levites, jure divin • , will not hold. The disproportion between Me • chized • 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 • ive in Gen • 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which he • enders He • 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 • 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 Tyt • 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 In • 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. 'Tis 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 Pa • 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 Sext • 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 • uris Barbarus ille sibi sumpserit in hoc loco mutiland • ! i. e. See what Authority that Barbarous man takes upon him in maining this place. And further calls him home con • 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 Seld •• 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 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 • 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 t • 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 Argumen • 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 Melchizede • , 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 S • 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 r • 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 Falla • 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) • ave relation to a particular Case, to an • extraordinary Occasion, as the Priest himself says, therefore Th • s • 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 • 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 Pr • 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 • 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 Abraha • 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 • 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, Affir ••• ti incumbit probati • ; 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 Ma • re were his con • 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 l •• t his Confederates to dispose of their own shares as they saw good, Gen. 14. 1 • , 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 accidental Passage as the Quaker would have this to be, yet the Apostle draws a solid argument from thence.

What then? May not a solid A • gument be drawn from an accidental Passage? Let any one considerately read the place (in Gen. 14.) and see if he can find any ground to believe either that Abraham came thither with an intention to pay Tythes, or that Melchizedec came thither with an expectation to receive Tythes: and not rather, that Melchiz • dec understanding Abraham's Success and Return, went forth to meet him, and congratulate his Victory, bringing with him a Present of Bread and Wine, to refresh him and his Soldiers after the Fight: In Requital of which Noble and Princely Present Abraha • gave him the tenth of the Spoyls.

§. 9. The Author of the Right of Tythes finds fault with my arguing, because it is negative, and says, p. 31. My n • gative arguing is of no more force, then it would be if I 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. 5.

Negative arguing I thought had been proper for him whose part it is to deny; as it belongs to him to prove, who undertakes to affirm. But waving that, I thu • answer to the substance of his Objection. Although the Patriarchs before the Flood did doubtless somthing else then beget Sons and Daughters, yet nothing that they did which the Spirit of God thought • it to pass by unrecorded, had any relation to future times, or was to be Exemplary to the Church of God in after Ages. The like concerning Abraham. 'Tis not to be doubted but he did more then is recorded of him. But that then, whatsoever it was, had no relation to future times, nor was to be Exemplary to the Church of God in after Ages; for if it had, the Spirit of God, who recorded what is written, would not have omitted that. So that take it which way he will, this Dilemma will attend him; either that Abraham did not pay Tythes ordinarily, and so there was nothing of that to be recorded, or that if he did pay Tythes ordinarily, his so doing had no relation to future times, nor was to be Exemplary to the Church of God in after Ages, and therefore was not recorded. Hence then, I hope, my negative arguing (as he calls it) will appear to be of • ufficient force to prove, that a Right to Tythes now cannot be grounded on, or derived from any Act that Abraham did, which the divine Spirit did not think fit to record: for what the Priest says in another place, pag. 62. Express • nocent, non expressa non nocent, i. e. Those things that are expres • hurt, those things that are not exprest hurt not, is very true, if it be rightly apply'd. But as they hurt not him against whom they are urged, so they help not him by whom they are urged, which he should have done well to have consider'd. I'll therefore invert his Axiom (which holds as true the one way as the other) and present it to him again; Express • 〈◊〉 , non expressa non prosunt, i. e. Those things that are exprest do help, those things which are not exprest do not help. All his Pretences then of Abraham's paying Tythes ordinarily (how oft soever he repeats them) not being exprest, but leaning on Conjecture, do him no good at all; they cannot help him, nor stand him in any stead.

§. 10. In his next Section he is offended with me for saying, Tythes could not be due to Melchizedec upon a Right • ounded in natural Justice and Equity; my words (p. 280.) are these, He cannot plead tha • Tythes were due to Melchizedec upon a Right founded in natural Justice & Equity, since there was not in those days any setled publick Worship, wherein he could perform any outward Priestly Office or Service, for which Tythes might have been a Compensation. He in the reciting of this Sentence, leaves out the words outward service, that he might have the more room to strike at me, and call me (as he does pag. 35.) a poor Quaker, as bold as blind, saying, that I have exposed my self to the Scorn of all knowing men by this absurd Position.

If the Position appear absurd, it is he that hath made it look so, by mangling it. But as it stands in my Book I am not ashamed to own it. And if he or any other can shew me what settled publick Worship there was in Abraham's dayes, in which any outward Priestly Office or Service was to be perform'd, for which Tythes might have been a Compensation, I will acknowledge him to be a knowing man indeed.

He says, He might confute this Position from that place of Gen 4. • 6. Then began men to call upon the Name of the Lord; which must (he says) be meant in publick; for in private they did it before, ibid.

Methinks his copious Reading should not suffer him to be ignorant of the various Judgments of Learned Men concerning this Text, whether it should be rendred. Then began men to call upon, or then began men to prophane the Name of the Lord; I think it not safe for me to exercise my small Schollarship in the disquisition. Let it suffice for my little Reading to observe, that Hierom reads it not in the plural (as our English Translation is) Then began men to call, &c. but in the singular of Enos, Iste caepit invocare nomen Domini, He (Enos) began to call upon the Name of the Lord. And Pagnine, though he turns the Text, Tun • caeptum est ad invocandum in nomine Domini; yet adds in the Margin, Invocari nomen, vel pollui, i. e, To call upon or pollute the Name, &c. But Tremellius and Iunius read it down-right prophane, Tun • caeptum est profanari in invocando nomine Domini, i. e. Then began men to prophane in calling upon the Name of the Lord; to which Genebrard, Brought • n, and others assent. And indeed the sequel of the Story shews those times more inclined to Prophanene • then Piety, for in all those six Generations between Enos and Noah, we find but one man, Enoch only, that is said to have walked with God, Gen. 5. and in the 6th and 7th Chapters we read, the Wickedness of men was grown to that height, that God repented he had made man, and by an universal Deluge swept all Mankind away, excepting only Noah and his Family, which were in all but Eight Souls. All which being duly weighed, I leave it to the judicious Reader's consideration, whether in those times there was any settled publick Worship, wherein any outward Priestly Office or Service was to be performed, for which Tythes might have been a Compensation.

But he argues, that Melchizedeck did perform God's publick Worship solemnly and constantly at Salem; and by that had a Right founded in natural Iustice and Equity, to receive Tythes from all within his Iurisdiction.

And this he infers from Moses' s calling him the Priest of the most high God, from St. Paul's making him a Type of Christ's Priesthood, and from his fixed Residence at Salem, p. 36.

This has indeed as fair an appearance as any of the Probabilities he has yet brought forth; yet this will not do his business. For here is not in all this any mention of any settled publick Worship, wherein he could perform any outward Priestly Office or Service, for which Tythe might have been a Compensation. No such thing is here exprest; and according to the Axiom which the Priest himself uses (pag. 62) Non express • non nocent, those things that are not exprest, do not hurt. Besides, his being called the Priest of the most high God, doth not necessarily inse • an Exercise of such a settled publick Worship as my words import, which had relation to external 〈◊〉 and Ceremonies, as the word [outward Servic • ] in my Book (which the Priest left out) do plainly evidence; so that he might well enough be called the Priest of the most high God, and yet have no such outward Priestly Office or • Service to perform in any settled publick Worship, for which Tythes might have been a Compensation. And indeed, my Opponent himself, describing Mel • hizedco's Worship, doth sufficiently shew it was of another kind then what my words had relation to. For he says, pag. 39. His Worship was altogether spiritual, praising God, praying for Abraham; offering no bloody Sacrifices, but ONLY bringing forth Bread and Wine. So also says Sparrow in his Rationale of the Common Prayer, pag. 338, 339. Melchizedec had no other Offering that we read of, but Bread and Wine. Whereas it is plain my words aimed at such a settled publick Worship as co • sisted in external services. But sure he doth not think that Melchizedec did pray for Abraham and bring out Bread and Wine constantly at Salem: For that he ever did either the one or other constantly, or any more then that one time, is NOT EXPREST, not likely.

Then for his having a fixed place of Residence at Salem, which is another part of my Opponent's Argument, upon which he grounds his Question, What is a Priest fixed in a City for?

It is to be considered, that his Residence at Salim is not mention'd with relation to his Priesthood, but to his Kingship; he was King of Salem, that was Reason enough for his Residence there. So Moses calls him, Gen. 14. 18. And so the Apostle twice together, Heb. 7. 1, 2. But neither of them called him Priest of Salem, much less affirmed (as my Opponent does) that he had • Right founded in natural Justice and Equity, to receive Tythes from all within his Jurisdiction of Salem, for praising God, praying for Abraham, and only bringing forth Bread and Wine.

§. 11. But my Adversary, not content with Melch • zodec's being the Priest of the most high God, will needs have him to be Abrahams Priest in ordinary too, pag. 33, 34 Not considering perhaps, that himself had • ot Abraham (according to St. Hierom's computation, as he saith) twenty two Miles from Melch • zedec, a distant somewhat of the largest for a Priest in Ord • nary; and yet he placed them as near together as he could too. For though he sayes St. Ierom compu • es the plain of Mamre, which is Hebron, where Abraham dwelt, to be but twenty two Miles distant from Ierusalem, yet he should not be ignorant of the different Judgments of the Antients about the place; some taking Salem to be Ierusalem, others not. And that Hierom there delivers the Opinion of others, not his own, which was far otherwise, viz. that Salem and Mamre were about eighty Miles asunder, as Selden notes in the Review of the first Chapter of his History of Tythes, pag. 452. Yet to countenance this conceit of his, that Melchizedec was Abraham's Priest in Ordinary; he tells us what the Iews think, viz. that Melchizedec did continue to be the Priest of Abraham's Family long after: for when 〈◊〉 Twins strugled in the Womb of Rebe •• a, it is said, 〈◊〉 went to inquire of the Lord, Gen. 25. 22. that is (s • yes he) by S • m, say the Hebrews, or by Melchizedec, as others, pag. 33. 34.

For the Opinion of the Hebrews, that she inquired by Sem, he quotes Lyra: and for the Opinion of others, that she inquired by Melchizedec, he quotes Iunius and Tremellius upon that place, which is Gen. 25. 22.

Lyra I have not by me, but Tremellius and Iunius I have. And considering with my self how greatly he hath abused me in the mis-reciting of my words, I thought it would not be amiss to examine his quotation, and see whither he had dealt any fairer with them. But when I had turned to the place, and there read in the Text, Abi • t ad consulendum Iehoram, and in the Annotation upon it, per aliquem Prophetam, fortasse soceram, qui idem di • itur Propheta supra, 20. 7. I must confess I was amazed, and somewhat troubled, to think I had to do with one of so great confidence and so little honesty. For he affirms expresly that Iunius and Tr • melli • s upon this place say, Rebe • ca went to inquire of the Lord by Melchizedec, whereas Iunius and Trem • llius upon this place make no mention at all of Melchizedec, but say plainly, She went to inquire of the Lord, by some Prophet, perhaps by her Husbands Father (which was Abraham) who himself is called a Prophet before, in C. 207. Who would have thought a man of his Learning would have been beholding to a false Quotation! Who would have suspected one of his Abilities would have served one such a slippery trick! Did he think, because he had a mea • illitterate Adversary to deal with, he might therefore quote anything without danger of discovery? or did he hope no man of under • tanding would take the pains to read him? O lucky man at least in this, that he hath not publisht his Name with his Book • which if he had, I am confident he would have exposed himself as fully to the scorn of all sincere and knowing men, by this Forgery, as he fancies I have done my self by that which he calls an absurd position. But for my part, I shall wonder the less hereafte • at his unfair dealing with me, whom he calls a poor Retailer and • leaner, since I find even those men, whom I suppose he himself need not be ashamed to Glean after, receive no better treatment at his Hands. But concerning the Question it self, Whether Rebecca went to inquire of the Lord by Melchizedec or some other? not only the seve • ty, and Epiphanus (whom he makes to be mis-led by following their Chronology) but A • ias Montanus, in his Chronologia sacrae Scriptura, and Hugh Broughton in his Consent of Scripture, make Sem to be dead some Years before Rebecca's conception; whose Computations if we may credit, we must conclude either that M • lchizedec was not S • m, or (which is more likely) 〈◊〉 Rebecca went not to inquire of 〈◊〉 her Father in-Law, Abraham, being a Prophet and at hand.

§. 12. In his 37. page, he charges me with a gross mistake, in saying, I 〈◊〉 not find any one Instance (this single gift of Abraha • 's excepted) of giving or receiving Tythes, in all that four Hundred Years between this time of Abraham and the Levitical Priest-hood • For he sayes, There is a plain Instance in holy Iacob, Gen. 28. 22. who made a solemn Vow to give unto God the Tenth of all his Gains.

If he would have convicted me of a mistake, he should have brought an Instance of giving Tythes, not of vowing them only. My words have respect to the 〈◊〉 of giving; his Instance to the intention chiefly: I was not ignorant that Iacob had made a conditional Vow to give; nor did I question his performance of his Vow: but I observed that the Holy Ghost had buried it in silence, not vouch • asing to record it for an Instance. And thereupon I said, I do not find any one instance (this single Gift of • braha • 's excepted) of giving or receiving, much less of demanding or paying Tythes in all that space, &c. Which words of giving or receiving, demanding or paying have a manifest relation to the ultimate act or performance, of which the Holy Ghost hath not thought fit to leave an Instance; which silent Omission of the Holy Ghost hath no reflection on Iacob's integrity, but only argues that the thing it self was not by God designed for our Example.

But let him call this a mistake of mine, yea, a gross mistake, if he please, and thereupon exercise (as he does) the levity of his Wit, and ease himself of a frothy Jest, he can not thereby hurt me, whatever he may himself. I'll therefore take the less notice of that, and apply my self to consider Iacob's Vow; which not being mentioned at all by the former Priest, I had no occasion to take notice of, in my Answer to him. I find this Vow of Iac • b was made upon an extr • ordinary occasion, as well as that Gift of Abraham. Iacob being afraid of rough Esau, who had threatned to take away his Life, was fain to leave his Fathers House and Country, and with his Staff only to flee to Padam Aram to his Uncle Laban for refuge; and being on his way benighted, he lay down on the Ground to Sleep, having no other Pillow for his Head then an heap of Stones. In this distrest condition did the Lord God appear unto him in a Dream, and said, I am the Lord God of Abraham thy Father, and the God of Isaac: the Land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy Seed. And thy Seed shalt be as the Dust of the Earth; and thou shalt spr • ad abroad to the West, and to the East, and to the North, and to the South: and in thee and in thy Seed shall all the Families of the Earth be bl • ssed: And behold I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again unto this Land: for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of, Gen. 28. Jacob hereupon awaking in the sense of Gods presence, and seiz'd with fear at so wonderful an appearance, set up his stony Pillow for a Monumental Pillar, and calls that place the House of God. And as the Lord had freely, unrequested, made him so gracious and so large a Promise; so he again, in token of his thankfulness to God, freely and unrequired, did vow a Vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me Bread to eat, and Rayment to put on; so that I come again to my Father's House in peace: then shall the Lord be my God. And this Stone which I have set for a Pillar, shall be Gods House: And of all that thou shalt give me, I will surely give the Tenth unto thee, Gen. 28. This is the Vow, and this the occasion of making it; which was both voluntary and conditional, Voluntary, in being unrequired; Conditional, in depending on the performance of Gods promise to him, as the conditional Particle [If] demonstrates. Had Tythes been then a divine Tribute, he needed not have vowed to Give them; justice would have obliged him to have paid them, whether he had Vow'd or no. Nor had it then been in his Power to have made his Obligation conditional (as he did) but Tythes he must have paid, whether God had • een with him, preserved him in his way, and brought him back in peace, or no. This Vow of Iacob's therefore, being spontaneous and altogether free, Contributes nothing at all to the making up of a divine Right to Tythes.

§. 13. Another passage in my Book that seems to gall him sore, is this, If Tythes had been due to Melchizedec, yet could not the Clergy of this Age derive any Right from him to them, in as much as they are not of his Priest-hood: To this he sayes, I hope T. E. will grant, that Christ was of his Priest-hood. And if he grant this, we must ask, whether or no his Apostles were not his Successors? and then, whether we do not derive our Succession from them? pag. 39.

That Christ was of his Priest-hood I grant, and that his Apostles were Followers of him: But that these Priests are Followers of the Apostles, as the Apostles were of Christ, I deny; and think it would be worth their while to prove. He sayes, Melchizede • had th • same Priest-hood with the Ministers of the Gospel.

In some respects it may be called the same; but whats that to him, unless he also were a Minister of the Gospel! He can produce (he sayes, pag. 40) the plain words of many Fathers, affirming, that the present Ministers of the Christian Church are of Melchizedec's Priest-hood.

This is very smoothly and crustily worded to beguil an unwary Reader, and make him believe the pres • nt Ministers have the approbation of those Fathers. What Ministers I pray must the Word Present here be understood to relate to, the then present, or the now present? If he intends the then present Ministers, that lived in the several Ages of those Fathers (as he calls them) he plainly shuffles and evades; for the question was not concerning them, but the Clergy of this Age expressly. But if by pr • sent he means the now present Ministers, the Clergy of this present Age, what could he have said more absurd, as well as false, then that he can produce the plain words of St. Hierom, Chrysostom, Augustine, Epiphanius and Theo • hilact (the latest of whom has been dead well near a Thousand Years) affirming that the present Ministers (t • e Clergy of this Age) are of Melchiz • dec's Priest-hood. But seeing he leans so hard upon the judgment of certain Fathers (as he calls them) whose plain words he sayes he can produce, but does not; I will produce him the plain words of one, (I will not say a Father, but) a great Man in the English Church, Andrew Willet, who in his Synopsis of Popery, fifth general Controversie, pag. 315. sayes, It is great Blasphemy to say, that every Popish Priest is after the order of Melch • 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 •• lchized • 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 Priest • Fathers have in plain words affirmed, That the present Ministers of the Chri •• ian Church are of Melchized • e's Priest-hood; the Priest may do well to reconcile tho • e Fathers with these Doctors (for so were these also st • 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 carna • Commandment, but a • 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 imp • 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, b • it never'so false and •• reasonable.

This is the Language that this Learned man (who sayes he will not meddle with scurrility, because Rail • 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 Priest • ood to Melchizedec, aff • rming that they were made Priests after the Law of a Carnal Commandment, but • e after the Power of an Endless Life. I oppose the present Priest • 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. 'Tis 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 Lif • ; 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 an Endless Life bad made him a Priest: but he says, he is a Priest according to the Law of the Gospel (in which he speaks falsly also) whose Eternal Duties, says he, have in them the Power of an Endless Life. If he has this Power no nearer him then in the Duty, by what Power then shall he Perform the Duty? How vast a Difference is there between these Priests & those whom these pretend to be Suc • essors to! Paul was an Apostle not of men, neither by man, but by Iesus Christ, and God the Father, Gal. 1. 1. He did not turn the Power off from himself to the Duties of the Gospel (as this Priest does) but he declar'd he receiv'd the Gospel it self, and his Apostleship or Ministry therein, by the Revel • tion of the Son of God (Christ, the Power of God, 1 Cor. 1. 24.) in him, Gal. 1. 12, 15, 16.

The Priest adds, And as this Law must never change, so neither must our Priesthood, but, like that of Melchizedec, shall endure forever.

The Law of the Gospel is indeed unchangeable, and so is Melchizedec's Priesthood; but the changeableness of these Priests and their Priesthood is an evident token that they are not Priests of his Order, nor made according to the unchangeable Law of the Gospel. How many Turns and Changes has here been amongst them within little more then the last Century! One while a Popish Priesthood, another while a Protestant, then Popish again, anon a Protestant; and in later times, among the Protestants by themselves, one while an Episcopal Priesthood, by and by a Presbyterial, anon an Independent, and now an Episcopal again. Is this the unchangeable Priesthood he talks of, that, like Melchizedec's, shall endure forever! Methinks the remembrance of former times should convince him of his Weakness. If this man himself was not then a Changer, and trudg'd with his Lamp that way which he saw the Oyl was likely to run (which the concealing his Name gives cause to suspect) I would ask him, where he, and the Priests whose Cause he advocates, were blessing and bringing forth their bread and their Wine between twenty and thirty years ago, when a Common-Prayer Priest was rare to be seen.

He goes on thus, And as we bear the same Office with him (Melchizedec) and do the like Work, we deserve the same Reward, and may expect Tythes as well as he, pag. 42.

I do not find he ever expected any. However, since these Priests pretend to bear the same Office with • elchizedec, it will not be amiss to observe what they themselves make his Office to be. This Priest says, p. 39. His Worship was altogether spiritual, praising God, praying for Abraham, only bringing forth Bread and Wine. Sparrow Bishop of Exon, in his Rationale of the Common-Prayer, says much-what the same, Melchizedec had no other Offering, that we read of, but Bread and Wine, p. 339.

Now if this was the Office of Melchizedec, and these Priests pretend to bear the same Office with him, how comes it to pass that they have so much other Work to do, as Marrying, Burying, Sprinkling, Churching of Women, and much more, which it doth not appear Melchizedec did at all concern himself with? Surely, either their Office is larger then Melchizedec's and so not the same with his; or else, they go beyond their Office, when they intermeddle with these matters.

But however, he says, They do the like Work as Melchizedec did. His Work was to bring forth Bread and Wine, which he did frcely like a King, not putting Abraham to the Charge to pay for it. But these bring forth neither Bread nor Wine, but put the people to the Charge to buy them; and if any be left, though the people pay for it, yet the Priests will be sure to have it. And He not only presented Abraham with Bread and Wine, but he blessed him too, before Abraham gave him the Tythes: but these Priests are ten sold forwarder to curse then to bless, especially if it be in a Case of Tythes, as the numerous Excommunications witness. Nor are they content with Cursing only, but many a godly conscientious man's Life have they taken away by long and hard Imprisonments, and many an honest industrous Family have they Ruined by their frequent Rapines. Is this like Melchizedec? Surely no; it more resembles those blind Watch-men, whom the Prophet Isaiah inveighs against, Chap. 56. who all look't to their own way, every one for his Gain from his Quarter: And those False Prophets, against whom the true denounced the Judgment of God, that bite with their Teeth, and cry Peace: and he that putteth not into their mouthes, they even prepare War against him, Mi • . 3. 5. in whose natur • and practice these being so apparently found, may justly, expect the same reward that those blind Watch-men and false Prophets received.

I have now attended him through his first Period, the time before the Law, and I hope have sati • fied the R • a • er, that nothing he hath produced from thence can warrant him any Right to Tythes. In 〈◊〉 foregoing discourse upon t • is Period I have shewed, that There is no command ex • ant for the paym • nt of Tythes before the Levitical Law; That It is not at all absurd, but altogether reasonable and • ust, to demand and insist on a positive Precept for the payment of them; That • t is a meer evasi • n to pre • end ther • was 〈◊〉 • ight be a command, though not recorded; and to alledge the shortness of the Story as a reason why it was omitted, since so many other things, of far less mo •• nt then this, are so p • rticularly and circumstantially delivered; That It is an empty shift to say, A command • n Scripture for the paying of Tythes in those times, is no • to be exp ••• ed because the Scriptur • s were not then written; so many Co •• ands being 〈◊〉 in Scripture of el • er date then the instance of Abra • am and Jacob g • ving and vowing Tythes. That The • riests Plea of a 〈…〉 being Originally due to God, is but a precavious Plea, a begging of the Question; and if considered as a peculiar part distinct from the other nin • ▪ is altogether false; if not so considered, conduces not at all to his purpose; That To suppose a t • nth part, as a tenth distinct from the rest, to b • due to God Originally, is to clip the Wing of his Soveraign 〈◊〉 , and turn him off with a part only, who is, and ought to be acknowledged, Lord of all. That • f it 〈◊〉 posible to be 〈…〉 Melchizedec, yet that no right could descend from him to these Priests, they being no kin at all to him, in point of Priest-hood. In fine, That The whole fabrick which this Priest has raised in this Period, how much whitewasht and varnisht soever it may appear, is built upon a Sandy Foundation of meer Suppositions, Conjectures, Cuesses, Probabilities, Likely-hoods, May-be's; not having in it one solid Stone of de •• nstrative Truth • r firm Pillar of sound Reason to support it.

HItherto no right to Tythes appears. I now follow him to his second Period, comprehending the whole time of the Mosaic Law, under which the right of Tythes to the Levititical Priest-hood is recognized by all. But in as much as these Priests disclaim all Right and Title by that Law, it cannot be expected this Period should produce any thing to the advantage of their claim, though something it may against it.

Here I must crave the Reader leave to make a short digression, to remove a Cavil urged by the Author of the Conference, the occasion whereof was thus; At his entrance upon the discourse of Tythes, in his Conference, pag. 131. he mentioned a Book of Edward Burrough's, called, A just and righteous Plea, &c. Out of which he collected a Quotation in these words, pag. 132. Tythes are now not to be paid according to the first Covenant, neither is the first Priest-hood to be upheld that once gave and received Tythes; Now should we pay Tythes according to the first Covenant, and uphold any part of that Priest-hood, which took Tythes, &c. then should we deny Iesus Christ to be come in the Flesh. Hereupon, he took occasion to quarrel about the Priest-hood, ignorantly taxing E. B. with ignorance in the Nature of the first Priest-hood, and alledging that If by the first Priest-hood he meant that of Aaron, then he had presented to the King and Council notori • us falsity, affirming it to be the first Priest-hood, there b • ing before him • Priest to whom Levi himself paid Tythes, Heb. 7. 9. &c. This, because I saw it to be a meer Quibble, a • atch at word • , not pertinet to the subject he was upon, but tending only to a Jangle, I took no notice of in my Answer, but stepped as directly as well I could into the matter it self of Tythes. Hereupon in his Vindication, pag. 2 • 4. he boastingly vaunt • and insults over me for passing by so consid • rable a passage, as he it seems takes it to be. But I assure him I therefore passed it by, because I looked upon it as a very inconsiderable passage, and do still. Nor should I have thought it now deserved my notice, but that his unfair Inferences therefrom de • erve reproof. He intimates that my silence hath given the World an occasion to look upon E. B. as a meer Cheat and Imp • stor, and sayes, He had not that Inspiration, which himself and his Parishoner had been discoursing of.

Po • r weak man! He may soon at thi • rate, give the World an occasion to look upon himself as a Slanderer and Back-biter; but will never gain belief to his false suggestions with any, to whom E. B. was known, whose Name is honourable amongst the Righteous, and his Memory sweet as a pretious Oyntment. As to the Cavil it self, which the Prie •• hath raised, it is altogether groundless. For it is evident that E. B. • id there call the L • vitical Priest-hood the first Priest-hood with respect to that Priest-hood that succeeded it, which is the Gospel ministry. In which sense it is both generally understood & commonly called the first Priest-hood. And as well might the Priest blame the Apostle for calling that Covenant which was made with the Iews, the first Covenant (which he doth 〈◊〉 then once in his Epistle to the Hebrews, Chap. 8. 7. and 9. 1.) as find fault with E. B. for call • ng the Iewish Priest-hood the first Priest-hood. There needs not much be said in this case, to shew the emptiness of this Cavil, which of it self is obvious to every Eye. But he takes notice that E. B. was an occasion of my Convincement; and thence himself takes fresh occasion to raise his wonder, at my not answering this passage before. He may for that reason the rather believe, that I did not esteem it worthy of an Answer, since if I had, he may reasonably conclude I would not have been backward to vindicate one to whom I was so greatly obliged. It is very true indeed, that the Lord made E. B. instrumental to the turning me from the Darkness (wherein I once sate under the teaching of the National Ministry) unto the true Light of Christ Jesus; which with joy of Heart, and a thankful mind, I acknowledge, and my Soul blesses the Lord in the sense of his mercy extended to me therein. And of that faithful Servant of God (whom the Priest in derision calls m • Patriarch) this certain Testimony I have to bear, That he was endued with Power from on high, and the Spirit of the Almighty rested on him; of which amongst many thousands I am a witness. But to proceed,

In the same place, Vindication, pag. 295. the Priest charges me with cunningly passing over his Arguments, and skipping four pages at the entrance of his discourse of Tythes.

This Accusation is utterly false, as will appear by comparing my Book with his. He began with Tythes in his Conference at the bottom of pag. 131. He spent pag. 132. in quibling about the first Priest-hood. Then in pag. 133. having disowned all Titles to Tythes by vertue of the Ceremonial Law, he started a Question, Whether Tythes are not purely Ceremonial, &c. which he answered in the Negative, and withal shewed how far he understood them to be Ceremonial: To all this I answered in my former Book, called Truth prevailing, bestowing two pages thereon, pag. 282, 283. Then in pag. 134. of his Conference he drew a comparison between the Prophets of the Levitical Priest-hood, and the present Clergy: To which I answered in pag. 348, 349, and 350. of my said Book. Judge now Reader whether was skipping over four pages, and passing by his Arguments. But of this let this suffice. I now return to the former Subject, from which the unfair dealing of my disingenuous Adversary hath occasioned this digression.

§. 1. That which is chiefly to be inquired in, our passage through his second Period, viz. th • time under the Law, is, 1. Whether Tythes were a part of the Ceremonial Law, 2. Whether they were abrogated by Christ. The Priest begins with the last of these, and offers to prove, after his manner, that Tythes were not abrogated by Christ, Let not th • Quaker (sayes he) so far mistake, as to think that the abrogation of the Levitical Law concerning Tythes, was an abrogation of Tythes themselv • s, pag. 4 • .

I Answer, so to think is no mistake, but a certai • Truth. They were commanded by that Law, and never commanded by any other: While that Law stood in force, they were uph •• d by it: but when that L • w wa • disa •• ulled, they fell together with it.

He sayes, ibid. Our Lord abro • ated the Levitical Law concerning the modes of Gods Worship, but he did • ot abrogate Gods Worship.

In abrogating the Levitical Law, • e abrogated whatsoever had dependance on that Law, which Tythes had. The Worship of God, considered simply, had no dependance on that Temporary Law, but was grounded upon the Law of Nature, in the best acception thereof, and so was not sub • ect to an abrogation: but the modes, manners, or wayes of Worship, being of the Nature of that Levitical Polity, and Instituted by the Law 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 maintenanc • of hi • Priests or Ministers: for as the Worship of God is grounded on the Divine Law of Nature, so th • Mai • 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 Mai • tenance, which was by Tythes. Sacrifice, • urnt-offerings, Washings and other External Observanc •• 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 g • ounded on the Law of Nature, and the Sacrifices, and other outward Services which were the •• des of it, were Ceremo • ial, and as such abrogated by Chri •• ▪ • o the Maintenance it self was the Substan •• , whic • was founded on Natural • ustice and equity, and Tythes, which were the modes of it, were Cere • 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 m • des of it, are abrogated: N • ither let any think, that Tythes are any wh • t less C • r • monical, because of t • at small mention of them in th • • tories of Iacob, so long before the L • vitical Law was given: for many things done by those, and other Patriarchs before them, were as certainly and plainly▪ in their own Natures Cer • 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 co • duce to the clearing this Case, • nd determining this Controversie. And could men be perswaded to lay aside Passi • n▪ and Interest, and come fairly and un • yass • d to the considation hereof, there • ight yet be hopes of a fairer Issue then th • 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, M • ans, or M • de by which that Maintenance is raised. My present Adversary, Author of the D • 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, a • d • er • abrogated by Christ▪ But the main duty of Worshipping God continued in forc • still, saye • he.

And so say I also▪ But then he falls i • to his forme • Error concerning Tythes with the Worship of God, to which they are by no means a suitable Parallel. Even s • (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, N • w when Christ did abrogate that Ministry and Dispensation (namely, of the Law) there Appe • dixes must needs be abrogated with it; but the main duty (which was so before the C • 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 befor • 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 hi • 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 V • 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 antec • d • nt to the Levitical Law; for proof of which he cites (as before) Ex • d. 22. 29. where Tythes are so far from being claimed and supposed due, that they are not so much as m • ntion • d at all. He adds Levis. 27. 30. which thus speaks, And all the Tythe of the Land, whether of the S •• d of the Land; or of the Fr • 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 y • 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 ow • use.

§. 3. But the Priest hopes to Demonstrate that Tythes were not abrogated by this comparison, Th • putting on (sayes he) a new State, doth not make o • e a new man, nor doth the pulling it off again Kill • im.

This is very true, but falsly applyed: for he makes Tythes to be the man; but what then shall be the S • it? If he would apply his comparison rightly, he should make Mainte • ance to be as the • 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, Th • re may be many alterations in Circumstances, the Essentials still remaining the same. I pray consider now, Is not Tyth • a Circumstance of M • intenance? Can any one imagine Tythe to be an Essential? Essential is that which belongs to the being of • thing, without which that thing cannot be. But that maintenance may be without Tythes, and consequently Tythes not Esse • tial to • aintenance, not only the lowest Degree of Reason will teach, but experience also of former and the present Age confirm: The Apostles of our Lord had Maintenance sufficient; yet no man (with a name) dares say, they had it by Tythes. And in other Countries at this day among Protestants, the Clergy receive their Maintenance by a Standing Salary from the State without any mention of Tythes.

§. 4. From the Levitical Law, he sayes, they may leave something to cle • r that Title which thy have to Tythes from other Laws; and on • of his Lessons is, That the Levitical Law was a Pattern for Christ t • i • itate, in his provision for Gospel Ministers; as St. Paul teacheth us, where he sayes, Know y • not, that they which Minister about holy things [i. e. the Levites] liv • of the things of the Temple, [i. e. Tythes] and they which wait at the Altar, [i. e. the Iewish Pri • sts] are partakers with the Altar, [i. e. the Sacrifices and Oblations] Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel, 1 Cor. 9. 1 • , 14. which Words [Even so] do manifest (saith he) 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, page 46.

In thinking Christ took the L • vitical Law as a pattern for himself to imitate, in his Provision for Gospel Ministers; this man very much mistakes. The very contrary appears most plain in Sacred Story. Freely ye have rec • ived, freely give, was our Lords Command to his Disciples when he sent them forth to preach, Mat. 10. 8. and freely receive what is freely given by those that receive you and your Message, was the Provision he allowed them, Luke 10. 7, 8. And a sufficient Provision too it proved, even though they went as Lambs amongst Wolves, Vers. 3. for when they returned he asked them, Lacked ye any thing? and their Answers was, Nothing, Luk. 22. 35. Had Christ intended to follow the Levitical Law, and by that Pattern to bestow Tythes on his Gospel Ministers; it cannot be doubted but he would, by a plain and positive Precept, have fixt and settled that Maintenance on his, as his Father before had done on the Levitical Priesthood; and not have le • t it to the uncertain construction of an Even so: If the place it self [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] should be allowed to be Even so rendered, which Baraturus by [It • ] only; Hierom, Montanus and others by [Ita et] and Tompson that Englisht Baza's Lati • e, reads it (not [Even so] from which Word Even the Priest would hook in an Identity of Maintenance, but) so also. But suppose it allowable to read it Even so as the Vulgar Translation hath it, yet will the particle [Even] in that place appear to every judicious and disinteressed Reader to have relation to the matter, not the manner, livelihood it self, not the way or means of livelihood; imploying, that Christ was not less careful of his Ministers under the Gospel, then God had been of his Priests under the Law, which I hope it will be granted he might very well be, though he did not appoint them the self-same Maintenance. And indeed, when this Priest sayes, pag. 47. These 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; he is not much beside the Mark, if he rightly understand the main and essential part, which is simply a maintenance, without respect to the mode or way, by which it should be raised.

Again, he sayes, 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 then would afford them an honourable Maintenance. It is not to be doubted the Levitical Law, in the Ages succeeding that of the Apostles, was but too much imitated by the Christians. He that reads the Writings of those Times, and observes the bulk of Iewish Ceremonies, that have gradually crept into the publick Worship of Professed Christians • will find no cause to question it. And though the Christians in those times were very commendable for providing honourably for Christs Ministers; yet in recurring to the Levitical Law, then abrogated, and fetching Examples from thence, they did not deserve commendation. Nor is there any need for Christians now to look back to the a • tiquated Ceremonies of the Law for Example o • Incitement to their duty herein, since such is the Power and Efficacy of the Gospel, that it opens the hearts of those who receive it, to Communicate freely of their car • als, to those from whom they receive Spirituals. Thus was it with Lydia, the Thyatiress, when her heart was opened: She was not backward to entertain them who were Instrumental to her Conversion, but even constrained them to come to her House and abide there, Act. 16. 14, 15.

These men peradventure may think such a Maintenance not honourable enough. But they should remember, that it was honourable enough for the holy Apostles, and for our Saviour himself also, who though he were Lord of all, yet did not disdain to be thus provided for, but by his own Example laid the Foundation of this Gospel Maintenance, as we read in Luk. 8. 2, 3. where Mary Magdalen, I • anna the Wife of Chuza, Herod's Steward, and Susanna, and many others are remembred to have ministred to him of their Substance. Was this accepted by the Master, and will it not content them who call themselves his Servants? They had need then be put in mind, that the Disciple is not above his Master, nor the Servant above his Lord. And that, It is enough for the Disciple that he is as his Master, and the Servant as his Lord, Matth. 8. 24, 25. And were these men indeed what they pretend to be, they would not think slightly of that Maintenance, which our blessed Saviour was contented with. But verily, their despising and rejecting this, and creeping to the Magistrate for another, is Argument enough that for all their pretences, they are not the Servants of humble Jesus.

§. 5. To shew that the Levitical Law for Tythes was a pattern for the Christians of old, he gives us a quotation out of Origen, thus, 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 be saith to his Disciples, Except your Righteousness exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, Matth. 5. 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 devour the • 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 mad • 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 Potherbs, 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 A •• 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 weig • 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 su • pose Christ intended his D • 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 Sense • What therefore the Pri • 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, m • re abundantl) would he have it d • 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 Na • l'd them to his Cross! that were to deny h • m come in the Flesh. What Origen himself therefore saith, That it is the part of a wise Interpreter to find out • 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 beforehand the Priest despises and disdains (reproachfully calling him Renegad • , 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 • harisees, Mat. 23. Wo he to you Ser • 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 singula • 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 Melchized • c, of the Tribe of Iudae, not of the Tribe of Levi; who gave no new Commandment of tything any thing to him and to his Priests, whom he would place after him, but when his Apostles said to him, Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee, what then shall we have? He did not answer them thus, Tythes shall • e paid you, neither did he promise them a temporal, but an everlasting reward in Heaven: For he, both for Food, and also for Apparel, taught his Disciples not to be careful.—And Paul, right-well remembring this Doctrine, instructeth Ti •• thy, and saith thus, But we having Food, and wherewithal to be covered, let us therewith be content, 1 Tim. 6. Thus fa • Brute, whom Fox enrolls amongst the holy Confessors of Jesus, Martyrol. vol. 1. pag. 146. Era • mus a • so, in his Paraphrase on Luke 11. Upon the words [ye Tythe Mint, &c.] sayes thus, These things which God commanded for a time to be kept according to the Flesh, ye ought not to omit; but those things which God would have chiefly to be done, which are perpetually good, and acceptable to him, ought first of all to be performed. Observe here how he accounts of Tythes; not as things perpetually good and acceptable to God, but as things commanded for a time, to be kept according to the Flesh: To which the Iews (Israel after the Flesh) were bound; but the Christians (Israel after the Spirit) are free from that bond. With these take the judgment of Andrew W • lle • in his Syno • sis of Popery, and • n the fifth general Controversie, pag. 3 • 4. Where setting down the Jesuits Argument for the Morality of Tythes, out of Matth. 23. 23. He thus Answers it, We must consider in what time our Saviour Christ to spake unto the Pharisees, for as yet neither the Law, nor the Ceremonies thereof were fully abrogated: Christ was Circumcised, and Mary his Mother purified according to the Law, Luk • 2. 21, 22. Our Saviour also biddeth the Leper to shew himself to the Priest, and offer a gift as Moses commanded, Matth. 8. 4. Yet none of all these Ceremonies now stand in force, though Christ did them at that time, and bad them to be done. The same Answer may serve also concerning his Injuction to the Pharisees as touching their Tythes. Thus he, by which it is past doubt that, although he was a zealous Advocate for Tythes as a Maintenance, yet he acounted them not Moral, but Ceremonial.

§. 6. The Priest hath yet another document from the Levitical Law, namely, That the substance of that which was required then, is due still not by vertue of that • aw, but because there is an inkerent equity in th • thing, pag. 48.

The Substance is a Maintenance in which there is an inherent equity, that the Labourers should be rewarded, but that this Maintenance should be by Tythes, was not the Substance in which the inherent equity stood, but a Circumstance, Ceremony or Mode, due only by vertue of that Law while it stood, and no longer. For though it be equal that the Labourer should be rewarded for his labour, yet the equality of the reward stands not in Tythes, or a tenth part, which may either exceed or • all short of the Labourers just desert, and so not prove an adaequate reward to his work. That the substance of that which was required in the Law, is due still, he sayes, pag. 48. Is Origen's meaning in the af • resaid place; and so (he sayes) we must interpret St. 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 only to give Tythes but to sell all.

But where is there a command to Christians, either to give Tythes, or to sell all? Hierom prest it from Mal. 3. which had direct reference to the Iews, and cannot possibly be made a Command to Christians. And for Christians selling all, there is mention indeed in holy Writ of some that did so, but not that they were commanded so to do; that was voluntary.

But the Priest explains Hierom's meaning, that is (sayes he pag. 49) so much of the command as was Moral, so much as was grounded upon eternal Reason, ought to stand.

That is not specifically Tythes, but a Maintenance in general. It is the Maintenance that is Moral, and grounded upon eternal Reason; but no man methinks th • nks should have so little a reason, as to think Tythes, as Tythes, as a certain and definite part, are grounded upon eternal Reason. It was not an eternal, but • emporal Reason, (suitable to the Iewish Polity) on which Tythes were grounded under the Law, and that was the •• ason they did not remain, but fell together with that Law.

He Argues further, That God is Eternally Lord of the World, and must alwayes be Worshipped, and alwayes have Ministers, and these must alwayes be Maintained out of their Masters Portion, Page 49.

So they may, and yet not by Tythes, if God be Lord of the World: for then all being his, neither he nor his Ministers need to be • yed to a Tenth. Why not a Ninth, an • ighth, a Sixth, or any other part if he pleases? Has the Eternal reason of • ythes tyed God who is Lord of all the World, to the Tenth part only. Plainly these men, while they pretend to honour God as the Eternal Lord of the World, would make him in reallity Lord but of a Tenth Part of it. That they make his Portion, which he must take or none. And if they might be believed, all should depend upon this Tenth; without Tythes no Maintenance, without Maintenance no Ministers, without Ministers no Worship. This I'm sure is not Gospel Language. But this is like his former comparison of the Oyle and the Lamp.

But whatever this Priest talks of the Law of Nature and Eternal Reason (to beget a reverance in Peoples mind to Tythes, and make them how their Necks the more willingly to his hard and heavy Yoke) we may see that Tythes were not reputed of Divine Right by the Eternal moral Law, if we consider the Alienations that have been made of them to common uses in Hen. 8. time. And though the Priest may think to wipe off the Objection by e • claiming against Hen. 8. and his Parliament, and by branding them with the Horrible Name of Sacriledge, as he does in his Vindication. pag. 305. Yet when he shall come to consider that those Alienations have been confirmed by Edw. 6. and Q. Eliz. and allowed by all Succeeding Kings and Parliaments ever since; and that the Statutes made for those Alienations, stand yet in force; I take him to be too great a Time-server to pursue his Argument of Sacriledge, at least with his Name to it. However, if he will charge Sacriledge on all the Princes & Parliament, from Hen. 8. to this day, that will not remove the Objection, but sti • l it will appear that, whatever he thinks of them, they have not thought Tythes to be due by the Eternal moral Law. And indeed, if we look upon the practice of the Priests themselves, we shall have reason to think that they thems • 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 alienate • to Common uses; and if such alienation be Sacriledge, Why then do they themselves alienate them? D • 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 als • 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 a • 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 tha • 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 the • e true words untru • , 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 th • 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 a • 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, • 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 Leviti • al Law. That a tenth part (or Tythes, which is the same) is not due by the Law of Nature, Melan • ton affirms, saying, The Quota (the tenth part) is not Natural, but the Aliquota (some part) that st •• 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 Nature • 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 s • 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 the Text. But if it be not recorded there, Why makes he himself so over-wise? Eccles. 7. 16. And yet, if he could prove, or I should grant, that Tythes had been Commanded to be pai'd before Moses's time, yet would not that prove Tythes any whit less Ceremonial, since many things that were revealed to and required of the Patriarchs before the M • saie Law, were clearly Ceremonial, and afterward both required by the Ceremonial Law, and Universally acknowledged to be abrogated with it, as Bloody Sacrifices, Circumcision, &c. Yea, the distinction between Clean and Unclean Beasts, was observed before the Flood, as appears, Gen. 7. 2. which yet I think the Priest will not deny to be Ceremonial and ended.

• e has indeed a notable knack of s • pposing 〈◊〉 he knows would be difficult to prove. For in his p. 22. he sayes, Though God have a right to the tenth part of our Subst •• ce yet, &c. And pag. 24. We know from the Light of Nature, that part of our Substance is due to God: and this he repeats frequently. But what Nature is it he talks so much of, by the Light and Reason whereof he has learnt to make Man's part nine times as big as GODS, and yet sayes, God is Eternally Lo • d of the World? Surely it is a Corrupt and selfish Nature, whose counterfeit Light gives him so false a sight of things.

He hath shewed, he sayes, That Tythes rely on an Internal Rectitude in the thing it self, and an Eternal Reason of it.

How can that be? He plunges himself into these absurdities by not distinguishing between Maintenance in general, and Tythes which are but a particular mode or way of raising Maintenance, by Confounding which, he thus confounds his own sence. If he were pleading for a Maintenance in general, his argument there were good and pertinent: for there is no doubt, an Internal Rectitude in the thing it self, that he that Labours should be rewarded for his Labour, and an Eternal Reason of it from the equity of the thing. But to suppose an Eternal Reason that the tenth part only and no other must be this reward, is utterly repugnant to all Reason and equity, since possibly the fifth part may be too small, or the fifteenth too great • compensation for the work. In the time of the Law by which Tythes were commanded, though there was an Internal Rectitude for a Maintenance, and an Eternal Reason of it; yet the providing and raising that Maintenance by the way of Tythes, did not rely on an Internal Rectitude, but on an EXTERNAL: no • was there then an Eternal Reason for raising the Maintenance by that particular way of Tythes, but a temporal, suitable t • the Polity of that State. The Ox that trod out the Corn was not to be muzzled, but for the Labour and Service he did he was to be fed; and this depended on an Internal Rectitude in the thing it self: but he that should thence in • er, that the certain quantity of Meal which should be given to the Ox, or the Specifick kinds of Food he should eat, did rely also on an Internal Rectitude in the things themselves, would hereby sufficiently convince the World, that he himself had but too much need to have his own Understanding rectified. From what has been said, the Reader I presume may collect, that my Opponent hath much mistaken the matter, in making Tythes, (which is not the Substance, the Maintenance it self • but a Circumstance of the quantity of Maintenance) to rely on an Internal Rectitude in the thing it self, and an Eternal Reason of it.

He adds, that he has shewed Tythes were paid by those Patriarchs who lived long before the Ceremonial Law, by Virtue of the Preceding Declarations of the Divine Right unto them. Indeed the man is much to be blamed. He seems to have abandoned all Regard to Truth and Modesty, and to be resolved to say anything that may suit his purpose. Where hath he • hewed that the Patriarchs before the Ceremonial Law did pay Tythes? Or how indeed is it possible he should shew this? when as before that Law, Tythes are but twice mentioned at all in holy Writ, and in each place expresly said to be given, without any word of payment. But that he should not only say they paid what the holy Text sayes plainly they gave, but also affirm they paid it, by Virtue of the Preceding D • cla • ations of the Divine Right unto them, whenas no such Preceding Declarations, or any Declaration at all of the Divine Right, appears in the Divine Reco • d, but the H. G. hath been altogether silent therein, and not thought fit to leave any monument or Footstep of a Divine Right to Tythes in those Times, is an arrogant and presumptious piece of Confidence.

He confesses, pag. 50. That all things done by the Patriarchs were not eternal Duties, instancing in Circumcision, which, he sayes, was not grounded on the Law of nature, nor imposed for any eternal Reason or internal R • ctitude in the things. But if Tythes, as Tythe, that is, as it is a certain and determinate quantity, not the aliquot • , b • t the quota, not the Maintenance simply, but a proportion of Maintenance, is not grounded on the Law of Nature (as Melancton is before remembred to observe) nor was inj • yned for any eternal (but temporary) Reason, or internal (but external) Rectitude in the thing (which whether it was or no, let the judicious Reader, from what hath been said judge) then surely there is no more gr • und for Tythes to stand and remain upon now, then for Circumcision. And that Tythes and Circumcision were a like Ceremonial Epiphanius intim • tes, when lib. 1. ord. 8. he gives Tenths for one of his Instances of Shadows contained in the Law, making them equal with Circumcision. And O • c • lampadius on Ez • k. 44. ranks Sacrifices, first Fruits and Tythes altogether, and calls them expresly Cerem • nial. He instances also in bloody Sacrifices, which, he sayes, ibid. were purely Ceremonial, and cease when that La • ceas • th. And yet these very bl •• dy Sacrifices, which he acknowledges ceremonial and ceast, were a great, if not the greatest part of the Maint • nance of the Priest • under the Law: For the Priests themselves had not the Tythes, but the Title of the Tythes, that is the hundred part, which the Levit • s paid them out of the Tythes which they re • eived. From which instance it is evident, that although Maintenance it self be Moral, and grounded on the Law of Nature, yet the • ode or manner of that Maintenance may be Ceremonial, yea, purely Ceremonial, as he acknowledges those bloody Sac • ifices to have been which are ceast.

He sayes, ibid. he might add, that The Proph • ts (who are not wont to reprove the People for • mission of things purely Ceremonial) declaim against the Jews for • etaining their Tythes, for which he cites M • l. 3. 10. But he might see (if he pleas'd) in the eighth Verse where the Reproof is, that the Prophet joyning Tythes and Offerings together, reproves the Iews alike for the omission of each, whence I may better argue, that Tythes are of the same nature with those Iewish Offerings, which I think the Priest will not deny were ceremonial and ceast. And does not the same Prophet, Chap. 1. ver. 7, 8. reprove the Iewish Priests for offering polluted (i. e. common) Bread, and for offering th • Blind, the Lam • and the Sick for Sacrifices? What else were these things • ut Ceremonial, purely Ceremonial? And yet this Priest, that he might still keep Tythes on foot, sayes, The Prophets were not wont to reprove the People for omission of things purely Ceremonial.

He adds, ibib. that Nehemiah calls his care in this (viz. Tythes) a good deed, desiring God to rememb • r him for it, Nehem. 13. 14. It was no doubt a good deed in Nchemia • h to take ca •• that Tythes should be duly paid according to the Law which required them, which in his time was in full force. But what is this to the purpose: Doth this argue that Tythes were not Ceremonial, or that it is a good Deed to pay them now, when the Law that required them hath been so long abolished? Was nothing Ceremonial that Nchemiah took care of? No man with a name I think will affirm it.

But Tythes, he sayes, pag. 51. in all the new. Testament are not reckoned • p among things purely Ceremonial, or declared to be repealed, as Circumcision, Sacrifices, Washing, Jewish difference of Meats, and Jewish Feasts, &c. are. Th • se (he sayes) are repealed by • am • , but so are not Tythes, as being a thing that never were purely Ceremonial, pag. 51.

There was no need that Tythes should be repealed by Name. It was sufficient that the Law by which alone they were due, was repealed; which that it was, the Autho • to the Hebrews plainly shews, Chap. 7. For having said, Ver. 5. That they that are of the Sons of Levi, who receive the Office of the Priest-hood, have a Commandment to take Tythes of the People according to the Law; and having next shewed that that Priest-hood, which had a Law to take Tythes by, was at an end, he t • ence concludes plainly and positively, vers. 12. that The Priest-hood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law. Here now is a plain repeal of that Law by which Tythes were given, as well as of that Priest-hood to which they were given. And Tythes standing by this Law, and the reason of them depending o • the I • wish Polity; the repeal of this Law took away the right of Tythes, as the removing that Polity did the Reason of them.

That Tythes are indeed Ceremonial, and were so reputed by men of Note in several Ages, cannot reasonably be doubted by any who are acquainted with Books. Take a few of many Evidences that might be brought to prove it.

Epiphaniu • ranks Circumcision, Tythes and Offerings at Ierusalem altogether, making the payment of Tythes as much a part of the Ceremonial Law, as the other two. His words (speaking of some who kept the Feast of Easter on the fourteenth Moon, according to the Iewish Law for the Passover, fearing lest otherwise they might incur the Curse of that Law) are these. If they avoid one Curse, they fall under an • ther. For such shall be also found accursed a • are not Circumcised, such accursed as do not pay Tythes, and they also are accursed that do not Offer at Ierusalem. H • res. 50. (see Selden's History of Tythes, Review, c. 4. pag. 461.) As if he had said, If they have regard to the Ceremonial Law, then have they as much reason to be Circumcised, to pay Tythes, and to offer at Ierusalem, as to observe Easter, according to that Law. But if they are not bound to Circumcision, Tything and Offering at Ierusalem, then neither are they bound to keep that Feast on the fourteenth Moon, since all these things are alike Ceremonial. This I take to be the fai • sense of Epiphanius his Argument; which plainly shews, both that Tythes were not paid in his time (which was about the Year 380.) and also that he esteemed Tythes to be of the same Nature with Circumcision and Iewish Offerings, to have had their dependence on the same Law, and to have stood and fallen together: for he compares Tythes to Circumcision and Iewish Offerings, which are undoubtedly abrogated. And thus Selden understood him.

Oecolampadius on Ezek. 44. calls Tythes expresly Ceremonial. His words are, Priests, that is Christians, should not be greedy of filthy Lucre, neither shall they have their lot upon this Earth, but a free Inheritance in Heaven, and the Lord himself will be their reward and inheritance; what shall be wanting to them whose own God is, the very fountain of good things So they shall be free in their minds; nevertheless to them that serve at the Altar, it is given to live of the Altar, and they may eat of the Sacrifices, receive first Fruits, receive Tythes. These things are Ceremonial; but. Paul shews thereby that it is lawful to receive Food and Rayment, for God addeth a Blessing to his Ministers that do well. They did receive therefore of the Sacrifices, i. e. The Apostles have spiritu • l joy of these who Sacrifice themselves to God, and the growth of the Church is their Glory; their first Born and other things are blessed. Thus he.

Walter Brute (who, in the Reign of K. Richard the second, about the Year 1400. was Persecuted for his Testimony against Popery) plainly calls the payment of Tythes a Ceremony. His words (speaking of the ceasing of Shadows and Ceremonies, and of the ending of the Aaronical Priest • hood) are these, Whereupon I marvel that your learned men do say, that Christian Folk are bound to this small Ceremony of the payment of Tythes, and care nothing at all for other as well the great as the small Ceremonies of the Law. And a little after (having shewed that Circumcision was one of the greater Ceremonies of the Law, and yet that Paul told the Galatians, Whosoever was Circumcised was bound to keep the whole Law) he sayes, In like manner we may reason, If we be bound to Tything, we are Debter • , and bound to keep all the whole Law. For to say that men are bound to one Ceremony of the Law, and not to others, is no reasonable thing. Either therefore we are bound to them all, or to none. Also, that by the same old Law, men are not bound to pay Tythes, it may be shewed by many Reasons, which we need not any more to multiply and increase, because the things that be said are sufficient. For he had said a pretty deal before upon this Subject, shewing the end both of that Priest-hood to whom, and of that service for which Tythes were appointed. Forasmuch (sayes he) as the labour of those Sacrifices did cease at the coming of Christ, how should those things be demanded, which were ordained for that labour? And seeing (adds he) that the first Fruits were not demanded of Christians, which first Fruits were then (in the time of the Law) rather and sooner demanded then the Tythes: why must the Tythes be demanded, except it be therefore peradventure, because that the Tythes be more worth in value then the first Fruits. In the end he concludes, Wherefore seeing that neither Christ, nor any of the Apostles, commanded to pay Tythes; it is manifest and plain, neither by the Law of Moses, nor by Christ's Law, Christian People are bound to pay Tythes: but by the Tradition of Men, they are bound, Martyrol. vol. 1. pag. 446, 447.

The Bohemians also not long after, in their 15th Article against the Popish Clergy, say thu • , They receive Tythes of men, and will of right have them, and preach and say that men are bound to pay them Tythes, and therein they say falsly. For they cannot prove by the New Testament, that our Lord Jesus Christ commanded it, and his Disciples warned no man to do so, neither did themselves receive them. But although in the Old Testament it were commanded to give Tythes, yet it cannot thereby be proved that Christian men are bound thereto. For this precept of the old Law had an end in the first Year of our Lord Jesus Christ, like as the Precept of Circumcision. Wherefore well-beloved, consider, and see how your Bishops seduce you, and shut your Eyes with things that have no proof Christ saith in the eleaventh of Luke, Give Alms of those things that remain, but he said not, Give the Tenth of the Goods which ye possess, but give Alms, &c.

William Fulk, in his Annotations on the Rhemists Translation of the Bible, in Answer to those Iesuits, who, with this Priest, would needs have Tythes to be due by the Moral Law, saith thus (§. 4. on Heb. 7.) The payment of Tythes, as it was a Ceremonial duty, is abrogated with other Ceremonies. But as it is a necessary Maintenance of them that serve in the Church it MAY be retained, or ANY OTHER stipend appointed, that may be sufficient for their Maintenance, be it MORE or LESS then the tenth part. But that there is any Sacrificing Priest-hood, to whom it is due in the New Testament, the old payment of Tythes doth not prove: Neither did Christ himself, our high Priest, ever make claim unto them: nor his Apostles, the Ministers of the Church, but only to a sufficient living by the Gospel, to be allowed of their temporal Goods, to whom they ministred spiritual Goods, 1 Cor. 9. 14. Gal. 6. 6. Thus he (a man of no small note in the English Church in Q. Elizabeth's time) by which it is evident that he accounted Tythes a part of the Ceremonial Law, abrogated by Christ. And although he thought they might be retained as a necessary Maintenance of them that serve in the Church, yet he layes no more or greater stress on Tythes, then on any other sufficient stipend, whether it were more or less then the tenth part, which is directly contrary to this Priests Assertion, of Tythes being due by the eternal moral Law, which the Jesuits maintained and Fulk denyed.

Of the same judgment with Fulk was Andrew Willet (a man of great account in the English Church in K. Iames his time) He, in his Synopsis Papismi, fifth general Controversie, pag. 313. sayes in the name of the English Church, We also acknowledge (as Bellarmine seemeth to grant, Chap. 25.) that to pay precisely the tenth, is not now commanded by the Law of God▪ as though that order could not be changed by any human Law, as the Canonists hold, but men necessarily were bound to pay Tythes. And a little after, Though (sayes he) the Law of Tenths be not now necessary, as it was Ceremonious: but it is lawful either to keep that, or ANY OTHER Constitution for the sufficient Maintenance of the Church, whether it be MORE or LESS then the tenth part: yet we doubt not to say, that this provision for the Church-Maintenance by paying of Tythes, is the most safe, ibid. Here he plainly calls the Law of Tythes Ceremonial, acknowledging that men are not necessarily bound by the Law of God to pay Tythes now: and although he accounts the paying of Tythes, grounded upon human Laws, th • safest provision for the Church-maintenance; yet he holds it equally lawful (with respect to the Law of God) to appoint any other sufficient Maintenance, although it be not precisely the tenth, but either more or less then the tenth part. Which is utterly destructive of the morality of Tythes. And indeed, he makes Ministers Maintenance in general to be grounded in Equity upon the Moral Law: but Tythes to depend upon positive Laws, and he shews he understood the Moguntine Synod so. But for the Levitical Law of Tything, he calls it plainly a politick Constitution of that Country. His own words are, The Levitical Priest-hood being one whole Tribe, it was thought reasonable that the tenth part of their Brethrens Goods should be alotted to them; which being a judicial and politick Constitution of that Country, doth neither necessarily bind Christians now, neither is forbidden, but left in that respect indifferent. And a little after, Although it be a wise and politick Constitution, that the People should pay their Tythes, and MAY conveniently be retained, yet it is not now of necessity imposed upon Christians, as though no other provision for the Church could serve but that, pag. 314.

Much more might be alledged out of these mens Writings, to this purpose: but this in this place may suffice to shew, that the judgment of the Church of England in those times, was quite another thing in this case, then it is now represented by this Priest to be. But leaving these Testimonies to the Reader's consideration, return we to the Author of the Right of Tythes.

§. 9. He comes now to conclude his second Period, in the close of which he again repeats his so oft reiterated Suppositions. I conclude, sayes he, page 51. that part of our Substance being due to God by the Natural and Divine Law. (For he will yet allow God to have right but to a part: and it were worth inquiry how God who is Eternally Lord of the World, pag. 49. came to be disseized of his right to the whole, and who it was that so compassionate to make him a Title to some part again) And the Inspired Patriarchs (sayes he) being taught by Revelation. (Of which Revelation (say I) there is no Revelation, but a bold presumption of his own) That the tenth (sayes he) was his part, and the Priests of God were his Receivers (which if it were true (say I) had been Title sufficient for the Levitical Priests, without a particular Law on purpose to make them due) God himself (adds he) having approved also this payment (which (say I) was not a payment, but a free and voluntary Gift) by a Renewed claim (sayes he) (though never claim'd before, say I) and an express assignation (sayes he) of his Right under the Levitical Law to the Priests for the time being (but not to any other Priests (say I) without a new assignation) and the same God (sayes he) having the same Right still to his part (and the same Lord of all, say I, having the same Right still to all) and the same occasion (sayes he) to use it for the Maintenance of his Ministers at this day (not so, say I, for he neither hath such a Tribe to maintain, nor such Service to imploy them in at this day as then.) Hence (sayes he) I suppose it will follow, That (unless an express repeal can be shewed) the Gospel Ministers in Gods Name, may justly claim Tythes as due to them still, and that by a Divine Right too.

What a Series of premises hath he drawn his Discourse through, to Issue it at last in a Suppositive Conclusion! But it is the less to be wondered at, since his premises are mostly Suppositive also, leaning on conjecture and relying at best but on probability. But in this last Clause I must needs say he has exprest himself with more Caution and less Confidence then usually: for he speaks with a Reserve [unless an express repeal can be shewed] to which I return him a twofold Answer. 1. That an express repeal is not of absolute necessity, and that for two reasons, 1. Because, the Right which he pretends, and insists so much on, antecedent to the Levitical Law, is not grounded upon an express Command; and what is not expresly commanded, needs not be expresly repealed. And therefore he might very well allow me the same Liberty (if I either needed or listed to use it) of arguing a Repeal form Suppostitions, Guesses, Conjectures and Maybe's, which himself uses to prove a Right. And not only so, but I might also urge Argumentum ad hominem, and put him shrewdly to it, by asking him, Where he reads that Tythes are not repealed; and telling him (as he doth me, pag. 31.) That he cannot prove Tythes are not repealed, and I can make it appear very probable they are. But having Noted this as a weakness in him, I will not Answer him after this manner, because I would not be like unto him. 2. Because the express Assignation of the Right of Tythes under the Levitical Law, was (as hims • lf words it, pag. 51.) to the Priests for the time being; and common Reason and experience tell us that when a Deed or Assig • ment is made to a man for his life, there is no need, upon the Death of the Assigne, of a new deed to declare the old one void, the Death of him sufficiently declaring that, to the Term of whose Life the Assignment was at first restrayned. Now the Assignation of Tythes to the Priests under the Levitical Law, was for and during the life of that Priesthood (if I may so express it) and had that Assignment been made void while that Priesthood lived, there had then indeed been need of an express Repeal. But seeing it was not made void in the life tim • of that Priesthood, but continued in force as long as that Priesthood lived, the Death or Dissolution of that Priesthood did vocate the Assignation in course. And there is no more Reason to expect an express Repeal of it, then there would be, if the Parliament should make a Law to continue for three years, to expect that, at the three years end, they should make another Law on purpose to declare the first void.

Thus it appears that an express Repeal of Tythes by name was not of absolute necessity, in relation to either Claim. Not in relation to the Ant • -Levitical Claim, that Claim it self not being grounded upon any express Command: nor with respect to the Assignation he speaks of under the Levitical Law, that Assignation being at first limited to a certain time, to the P • iests for the time being, as himself expresses it, pag. 51. Yet Secondly, to put it out of all doubt that Tythes are indeed ended with that legal Priest-hood, the holy Apostle, by the Divine Spirit, hath most plainly and expresly affirmed, That the Priest-hood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law, Heb. 7. 12. Here is an express Repeal of the Law, by which the Assignation of Tythes to that Priesthood was made.

Thus have I brought him to the end of his second Period, and in the way have made it evident that Tythes were not founded on the Law of Nature, but on the Levit • cal, Ceremonial Law; that they had not an inherent equity in them, nor did rely on an internal Rectitude, or eternal Reason, but on an external Rectitude and temporal Reason, suitable to the Polity of that State. That as the Sacrifices and other Ceremonies of the Law, were not the Worship of God it self, which was founded upon the Law of Nature; but • odes and Circumstances of performing that Worship, proper to that Dispensation, which fell with that Polity, and were abrogated by Christ: So Tythes were not the Maintenance it self, which was founded upon the Law of Nature; but a Circumstance of the qua • tity or proportion of maintenance, a Mode, Manner, Means, or Way, by which the Maintenance was therein provided and raised, which being proper to that dispensation, fell together with the other Ceremonies of that Polity, and were abrogated with them by Christ; That Tythes are not Essential to Maintenance, but that Maintenance hath been and is without them; that Christ did not make the Levitical Law a Pattern for himself to imitate in providing for Gospel Ministers; that the Righteousness of the Disciples exceeding that of the Scribes and Pharis • es, had not relation to tything, but to the weightier matters of the Law, Judgment, Mercy and Faith; that Tythes being assigned by the Levitical Law, to the Priests for the time being (ie. for the time of that Priesthood's continuance only) the dissolution of that Priesthood hath vocated the Assignments, and put an • nd to Tythe • .

Thus far then my way is clear'd, and nothing lest unremov'd, on which, with any colour of Reason, a Claim to Tythes may be Grounded.

§. 1. I Now go on to his third and last Period, the Times of the Gospel. He begins it with a Concession of mine, That a Maintenance in general to the Ministers of the Gospel is just, reasonable, and establisht by a Divine Authority.

With this grant he is greatly pleased, and hopes from hence to scre • a Right to Tythes; but he is as greatly mistaken also, for Tythes I am sure can never be squc • s'd out of that Concession. He attempts it thus, Let him (sayes he, pag. 52.) 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.

This might very well have been spared, being no more then is contained in the Grant it self: I expect his Inference, which such an one as it is, here follows, And why then (sayes he) should not that Maintenance still be so due, which God directed before the Law, approved under the Law, and never repea • ed after the Law? pag. 52.

Pro thesaur • carbones! I expected he would have drawn up some notable Conclusion from my Concession; but instead thereof lo a 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 •• 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 ('tis 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 Mel • 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 Melchi • 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 S • 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 • inisters, affirming that Christ had ordained [even so] that we should l •• 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 what the Maintenance is, although it doth that there is a Maintenance. But the Priest explains his [even so] that is, sayes he, the Rights of God under the Gospel; What are they? Has not God a Right to ALL under the Gospel, as well as he had under the Law and before it? How then doth this express what the Maintenance is? unless he means that he would have all? Besides, he adds another branch of this Maintenance, viz. Acknowledgments made to God for the mercy revealed in the Gospel, and these he seems to make distinct from the Rights of God: for First, he reckons the Rights of God, and then these acknowledgments made to him. But what are these? are they not voluntary, arbitrary, uncertain? And is this to set forth a certain Maintenance? How doth this man darken Counsel by words without Vnderstanding? Job 38. 2.

But while he charges me with notorious falshood in saying, the Apostles intent in this place is not so much to set forth what the Maintenance is, as who they are from whom it is to be received, which is indeed a plain Truth; is not he himself guilty of the notorious falshood he labours so much to fasten on me? in saying here, Not a word in all this who should pay it; when as from the very entrance of his Discourse upon this Subject, the Apostle labours to convince the believing Corinthians, that it was from THEM he might r • ceive Maintenance. And he grounded his Argument on this especially, that THEY had been taught by him, and had received his Ministry. Are not YOV my Work in the Lord? saith he, Vers. 1. If I be not an Apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to YOV: for the Seal of my Apostleship are YE in the Lord, Vers. 2. Then besides the instances he uses of a Souldier, a Planter, a Shepherd, he Argues plainly from THEIR having received first of him, Vers. 11. If we have sown unto YOV Spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall rea • YOVR Carnal things and Vers. 12. If others he partakers of this Power over YOV, are not we rather? From all which it is most apparent that he makes his labour amongst THEM and THEIR receiving his Ministry, the Ground and Reason of his Demand. Is not his Expostulation with THEM particularly, who had received the Gospe • through his Ministry? saith he not expresly, is it a great thing if we shall reap YOUR Carnal • ? YOURS, who are my work in the Lord; YOURS, who are the Seal of my Apostleship in the Lord; YOURS, unto whom I have already sowed Spiritual things; And is there not a word in all this who should pay, or who they are from whom the Maintenance should be received. Was this man well advised to Tax me with a notorious falshood, for but saying, The intent of the Apostle is not so much to set forth what the Maintenance is, as who they are from whom it is to be received? (by which words [not so much] it appears I did not wholly exclude the Maintenance, but shewed that the Maintenance was not in this place so particularly and plainly described as the Maintainers) and yet himself not blush to say, The • e is not a word in all this 〈◊〉 should pay it: Let him shew me from this text if he can, as plainly and particularly what the Maintenance is, as I have done him, who they are from whom it is to be received. Then in the instances of the O • the Souldier, the Shepherd, and Vinedresser, he abuses me not a little. Can these, sayes he, (as St. Paul brings them in) belong to those who • ay the Maintenance? Doth the Ox pay his Master Maintenance? Or the Souldier give his Prince a St • pend?

Can he (say I) believe that this was my meaning? Or do my words admit such a construction? Doth not my application of each of those instances convict him evidently of dishonest dealing? Do I not say expresly, the Ox was to be fed by him whose Corn he trod out, pag. 284. Is this to make the Ox pay his Master Maintenance? Do I not make the Souldier maintainable by him for whose defence he fights? pag. 285. Is this to make the Souldier give his Prince a Stipend? Say I not most plainly, He that plants a Vineyard m • y eat of the Fruit, but it must be the Fruit of the Vineyard which he hath planted; And that he that feeds a Flock may eat of the Milk, but it must be the Milk of the Flock whi • h he feeds? ibid. And doth not the Apostle say the same? Is not this the free and unconstrained sense of the place? With what Face then then can this Man calm an Abuser of Scripture, and affirm that all the Instances do shew the contrary to what I would squeez out of them? Have men that have no Names, no Fore-Heads neither! The Ox (he sayes) must not be starved, who is willing to work, though he be not actually imployed by him that feedeth him, pag. 55.

Who said he must? Was it likely I would have the Ox starved, when I said expresly, The Ox was to be fed? Is feeding the way to starve him? Doth not this unjust man know fulwell, that the Question was not whether the Ox should be fed or no; but who in equity are bound to feed him, they by whom he is imployed, they for whom he labours, they whose Corn • e treadeth out; or they who do not imploy him at all, they for whom he never labours, they whose C • rn he doth not • read out, nor can, and whose business or service he is not at all fit for? This was the plain case, as my words manifest, The Ox (said I, pag. 284.) that trod out the Corn (in the time of • he Law) was not to be mu • zled, but was to be fed by him whose Corn he trod out: but it was not agreeable to the equity of that Law, that whi • e the Ox trod out Corn for one man, another should be bound to keep him, that had been unreasonable. Now how unrighteous is this man, from hence to insinuate that I would have the Ox starved? and how impertinent, to argue that the Ox must not be starved, though he be not actually imployed by him that feeds him? thereby fallaciously intimating▪ that the controversie rested upon that point, whether the Ox should be fed, though by him for whom he laboured, any longer then he was in actual imployment, which was no part at all of the Controversie; but whether while he was imployed in one man's service, while he was treading out Corn for one man, another, for whom he did no service, should be bound to keep him. This I said was unreasonable, and not agreeable to equity. The same I now again affirm, and dare expose it to the strongest assault my Opponent is able to make against it. Now for the latter place, Gal. 6. The Priest sayes, S. Paul tells them, they must give the Ministers a part of all their good things; and is not that (saith he) a declaring what the Maintenance is? By this he would again insinuate that I had altogether denyed there was any kind of character or description at all of the Maintenance in these Texts, which is very unworthily done of him: for he knows fulwell my words are not positive, but comparative. I do not say the Apostle doth not at all set forth what the Maintenance is, but that the intent of the Apostle 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. And that the Maintenance it self is not so much set forth, not so plainly, fully, particularly and positively declared and described in these Texts, as the maintainers, the Persons from whom it is to be received, I have already shewed on the former Scripture, and shall do now on this also. Let him (saith the Apostle) that is taught in the word, communicate unto him that teacheth, in all good things. Here now is most plainly and fully declared who it is that is thus to communicate, who it is from whom the Maintenance is to be received, namely, he that is taught in the word: but what the Maintenance is to be is not so plainly, s • fully, so particularly set forth; but in a general term, In all good things. No quantity exprest, whether a tenth, a fifth, a fifteenth, or a twentieth part, but lest to the free will of the giver, which renders the proportion uncertain. In which respect, the Maintenance here is not so plainly, particularly and certainly exprest, as it is from whom it should come, which is positively and certainly bounded and limited to him that is taught in the word.

§. 3. He confesses, pag. 55. (for he cannot avoid it) that the Apostle sayes indeed, He that is taught in the word must give this; but that (sayes he) is to distinguish Christians from Heathens, of which the World was then full. The Heathen (he acknowledges) was not bound to maintain the Gospel-ministers, but the Catehumen, the Christian who was or might be taught, if his own Laziness, or Pride, or Obstinacy hindred not.

Is this according to the Text? Doth the Apostle say, Let him that is, or might be taught, not if his own Laziness, or Pride, or Obstinacy hindred, c • mmunicate, &c? He who was so careful to Preach the Gospel of Christ without charge, 1 Cor. 9. 18. He that would not reap Carnals, but where he had before sown Spirituals, nor there neither alwayes; He who was so wary whom he received of, that he would not use the just power he had of receiving Maintenance from them who were his own work in the Lord, and the very seal of his Apostleship; can it be thought that he would be maintained by the Lazy, the Proud, the Obstinate! May it be supposed that he, who sayes, Let them that are taught in the word communicate, &c. would have them also communicate, who are not taught, but are hindred from being taught by their own Laziness, or Pride, or Obstinacy! If all such should be drawn in to maintain the Gospel-Ministers, who then should be left out! Upon what reason then were the Heathens exempted? might not they have been taught, if their own Laziness, Pride, or Obstinacy had not hindred? So that, although the Priest sayes, The Heathen was not bound to maintain the Gospel-Ministers; yet according as he has glost the Text, and by the same reason upon which he would bring in such as might be taught, but are not; the very Heathen is liable to be brought in also to this Communication for the Ministers Maintenance, because, though he is not, he might be taught if his own Laziness, Pride or Obstinacy did not hinder. This is indeed a notable way to advance the Priests Maintenance: but neither is this way agreeable to natural Reason or Gospel-Truth, nor are they Ministers of the Gospel, who can receive, much less exact a Maintenance after this manner.

He sayes, ibid. That still this (speaking of Gal. 6. 6.) proves not T. E.'s foolish inference, That none must contribute to a Ministers Maintenance, but those that are taught by him actually. What quirk he couches under the word [actually] I know not. Sure I am, he found it not in any inference of mine. However, if he intend no more by being actually taught then the Apostle expresses, [Let him that is taught, &c.] I shall not think much of his calling me Fool, having so good and so wise a Man as the Apostle Paul to bear me company in this Reproach. And indeed, I had rather be thought a Fool, for sticking to the Apostle's sense, then found a Knave by perverting • is sense, to uphold a selfish interest. But if the Priest had been desirous of an Inference of mine to consute, he needed not have formed an Inference for me: for in pag. 286. of my Book, he might have found a pai • together, very pertinent to this purpose, as having respect not to this Text only, but that of 1 Cor. 9. also, in these words, All therefore that can be inferred from these Instances will amount to no more then this, First, That a Gospel Minister may expect and receive a Gospel Maintenance from such as receive his Ministry. 2dly. That a Gospel Minister oug • t not to expect any Maintenance from those that do not receive his Ministry. This is plain and full, and as I take it, close to the Point; & it may be he takes it so too, which made him not willing to undertake it, but fairly pass it by.

He adds, ibid. That these places say nothing against a Gospel-Minister's receiving Maintenance from all professed Christians.

This is somewhat like his saying before that I could not make it appear Abraham did not pay Tythes. If from these places he would derive his Claim, it will not be enough, that they speak not against what he claims, but it is requisite they should speak for it, and that plainly too. But these places are so far from speaking for such a Latitude as he aim at, of scraping Maintenance from all, taught or untaught, that • o but bear the Name of Christians, that they speak against it. The instances of the Ox, the Souldier, the • lanter, the Shepherd, do sufficiently shew, that as Maintenance is due to those that labour, fight, take pains and care for others, so its due from them for whose sak • s the labour, hazard, pains and care is undergone and to whose benefit it redounds. And in the two last instan • es of the Planter and Shepherd (which may explain the other two, being of like application) the Apostle sends the Planter for Fruit directly to the Vineyard of his own planting; and the Shepherd for Milk, to the Flock of his own feeding. The Shepherd was not to go to another Flock, and say, These are Sheep too, and therefore I'le Milk them, I'le Fleece them: but he was to consider, whether he had fed them, and if he had not fed them, he had no reason to expect Milk from them. For if Paul had not sowed unto the Corinthians spiritual things, it had then been a great matter for him to have reaped their carnal things. But he grounds the reasonableness and equity of his Right to their carnal things, upon the labour he had bestowed on them, and benefit they had received by him in spiritual things. And in his other Epistle to the Galatians, he plainly shews that as he that teaches was to be communicated to, so the Communication was to be from him that was taught. And as this was the Doctrine, such also was the Practice of the Apostle. He was not forward to pick up a Maintenance from every one that profest Christianity, as appears in the case of Lydia, who was fain to use more for • ible Arguments, then her bare profession of Christianity, but to get him to her House, beseeching him, and those that were with him, if they judged her faithful to the Lord, to come into her House, and abide there, Acts 16. 15. Neither were the Disciples, when they were sent forth to Preach permitted by their Master to receive so much a • Food from any but those that received their Message, Luk. 10. 8, 10, 11. So that all along the New Testament, wheresoever there is mention of Ministers Maintenance, it is with relation to them that own the Ministry.

But this the Priest doth by no means like, well knowing the loss that he and his Brethren would sustain, if none should be bound to maintain them, but such as own their Ministry; and therefore he uses all his, endeavour to avoid the force of this Argument. He would put it by, first, by urging, pag. 56. that according to the Quakers Principles, the Christians of Old were all immediately taught by inward Revelation; And if so (sayes he) what need any Gospel-Ministry at all? What need of outward Means? What need had they • o have any Teachers of the Word? Or with what equity could this Teacher require Maintenance of them, that had no occasion for his teaching at all?

If the Christians of Old were all immediately taugh • by inward Revelation, yet it doth not thereon follow, that there was no need of any Gospel Ministry at all, as he supposes. For if the Christians of old were all immediately taught by inward Revelation; yet a time there was when they were not so taught, but were unconverted to the Faith of Christ. The Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians, Chap. 5. Vers. 8. tels them, Ye are now Light in the Lord. But withal he adds, Ye were sometime Darkness. Now how came these Ephesians to be changed • rom Darkness to Light? Was it not by the means of a Gospel Ministry? Doth not the same Apostle speaking of the Ministry committed to him, Acts 26. 16, 17, 18. say expresly that he was made a Minister, to open the Eyes of the Gentiles, and to turn them from Darkness to Light, & from the Power of Satan unto God? Thus the Ephesians, who were sometimes Darkness, came to be Light in the Lord, having their Eyes opened, and being by this Ministry turned from the Darkness to the Lig • t. Nor was it thu • with the Ephesians only, but with both Iews and Gentiles in general • The work of the Gospel Ministry was to turn both Ie • s and Gentiles from the Darkness and Unbelief of Iudaism and Gentilism to the Light and Faith of Christ Jesus. Now if after they were so turn'd from the Darkness to the Light, and from the Unbelief to the Faith, they were immediately taught by inward Revelation; yet it cannot possibly be supposed they were so taught before they were so turned, while they were in the Darknes • , and in the Unbelief. So that there was need of that Ministry to turn them from Darkness to the Light, and from Unbelief to the Faith, in order to bring them to that inward Revelation by which they might be taught. Hence it appears, that if what he asserts to be according to the Quakers Principles should be granted, viz. That the Christians of old were all immediately taught by inward Revelation, yet his inference from thence of no need of a Gospel Ministry at all, is fals • , since there was need of a Gospel Ministry to bring them to that State wherein they might be so taught. And though this work of gathering People out of the Iewish and Heathenish States to the Christian Faith, of turning them from the Darkness (in which they could not see) to the Light of the Gospel (by which they might see the Divine Mysterie • of the heavenly Kingdom) was the first and chief work of the Ministry; yet was it not the only end or service to which that Ministry was appointed, and for which it was indued with Power from on High. For when Christ ascended up on High, and led Captivity Captive, he gave Gifts unto men, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ, Eph. 4. So that the work of the Ministry was not only to bring to the Faith, but to build up th • Saints in the Faith, whereunto they were brought by it: which twice in one Epistle the Apostle Paul affirms, 2 Cor. 10. 8. and 13. 10. And very Serviceable to the Saints was the Ministry of that day, even to them who knew the Truth and were established in it, them that had received the anointing, had it abiding in them, and were taught by it, by exhorting them to keep to it, and to abide in it; by putting them frequently in Remembrance of their duty, and stirring up their pure minds thereto, in which they were helpers of the Saints joy. Here then the Priest is found in an Error, in infering a Conclusion which doth not follow from his own premises. For if it were granted him that the Christians of old were all immediately taught by inward Revelation; yet it doth not thence follow, that there was no need of any Gospel Ministry at all; since it is evident a Gospel Ministry was altogether needful to gather them to the true Faith, and direct them to the inward teaching; and very useful and serviceable to confirm and build up in the Faith, even those who are come to the anointing in themselves, and were taught by it.

But seeing the Priest upon a false hope that he had gotten an advantage, adventures so far as to argue equity, a thing rare to be found amongst them; and upon a wrong conclusion asks, With what equity could this Teacher require Maintenance of them, that had no occasion for his Teachi • g at all? I will assure both him and his Brethren (in the name of all my fellow Quakers, as he calls them, the meanest of which (that is truly such) I heartily embrace as my fellow) that the Quakers, as they have no good Opinion of his or his Brethren's reaching, so they have no desire to be taught by them, nor have any occasion for their teaching at all, being far better taught without them. And hereupon I ask him in his own words, With what equity be and his fellow Priests can require Maintenance of them, that have no occasion for their teaching at all?

His second shift to void the force of those Text • which restrain the Ministers Maintenance to them that receive and own the Ministry, and to justify the Priests practice of extorting Tythes from those that are not taught by them, is an exact Parallel Case, as he calls it, which he thus brings in, pag. 57. Suppose a pious man▪ sayes he, an hundred Years ago did endow a Free-School with 20 l. per annum, to be raised out of the profits of a parcel of Ground, worth 200 l. per annum, (that is, the tenth part of the profits) on condition that all the Boyes in such a Town should be taught, gratis. Now suppose there be a Master legally invested in this School, resident at it, and ready to • each all the Boyes of that Town, if they will come, it being the same trouble to him to teach 10. as 20. but it may be not above 10. of 20. Boyes within that Town will come to be taught, the rest are Truants, and do not come. If T. E. himself were the Heir or Tenant to this 200 l. per annum, would he thin • it just or reasonable to stop 10 l. of the 20 l. because half the Boyes do not co ••• to be taught. This (he sayes) is the very case between the present Clergy and the Quakers.

But he mistakes in this as well as the rest. His Parallel will not hold between the Quakers and the Boyes; for the Boyes in this case, whether they come to School or stay away, are not concerned in the Maintenance of the Master, but the Quakers whether they hear the Priest or stay away are concerned (more then they should • e) in the Maintenance of the Priest. The School-master has no advantage at all from the Boyes, if they come to be taught, for he receives his stipend from another hand, without any dependance on the Boyes. And if the Boyes come not to be taught, they suffer nothing, they lose nothing, for as they receive nothing, they pay nothing. But the Case is far otherwise between the Priest and the Quakers. For the Priest comes for his Mainten • nce to the Quakers, and has his dependance on their labour, and whether the Quakers come to hear or no, to be sure he make them pay, that is, he tears away their Substance from them. See now the difference between the Boyes and the Quakers; the Boyes pay nothing though they are taught, but the Quakers must pay though they are not taught. The Boyes are taught for nothing: the Quakers pay for nothing. Is this his exact Parallel, his very Case! If he would have made the Boyes Case Parallel with the Quakers, he should have supposed the Masters stipend was to be raised out of the Boyes earnings, as the Priests Maintenance is extorted out of the Quakers labours; and then, if the Boyes had found the Master as uncapable of teaching Grammer, as the Quakers have found the Priests uncapable of Preaching the Gospel; or if the Boyes had found the Master had taught false Latine, as the Quakers have found by sad experience, the Priests have taught false Doctrine, I think the Boyes would have been much more commendable for seeking out an abler Teacher, then the Master could have been excusable for taking away the Poor Boyes Money, when he neither did, nor could do them any good. I might here shew the disparity and unaptness of his Comparison in many other particulars also, both as to the Donation, the certainty of stipend, &c. But this which is said will I doubt not sufficiently manifest, that instead of shewing the fallacy of my arguing (which by this Parallel he undertook to do) he hath but shewed his own weakness.

§. 4. In his 10th Section, pag. 58. He charges me thus, T. E's second device to take off his former grant of a general Maintenance establisht by Divine Authority, is pag. 286. That Christ hath expresly s • t down what this Gospel Maintenance is, viz. only Meat and Drink, Mat. 10. 10. Luke 10. 6, 7, 8. 1 Cor. 9. 4. Upon which he thus comments, Tru • y this seems some-what strange, sayes he, that T. E. should first say, Divine Authority hath only establisht a maintenance in general, and in the next page but one, affirm, That the same Authority had particularly exprest what this maintenance must be. If (sayes he) Christ have allotted the particular maintenance, then he hath not left it • o generals; if he have established it only i • general, then hath he not exprest the particulars. One of these (adds he) must be false, for indeed there is a • manifest contradiction.

In his Parallel but now I noted him of Weakness, but here I cannot excuse him from Wickedness in thrusting in words as mine, which he certainly knows are not mine, that he might thereby pervert my meaning. Disingenuity is too mild a word to express such dealing as this is by; this is plain dishones • y. Truly (sayes he) this seems some-what strange, that T. E. should first say, Divine Authority had only establisht a maintenance in general, and in the next page but one, affirm, that the same Authority hath particularly expressed what this maintenance must be. Here he affirms, that in one page I say, Divine Authority had only established a Maintenance in general, and that in the next page but one I affirm, the same Authority hath particularly expressed what this Maintenance must be; where the words [only] in the first place, and [particularly] in the second, are not my words, but his own, thrust in on purpose to abuse me, and render my sayings absurd and contradictory. In the first of those places, pag. 284. he refers to, my words are plainly thus. That a Maintenance in general to the •• inisters of the Gospel, is Iust, Reasonable, and established by a Divine Authority, I grant. Here's no such word as [only] and yet he affirms, that I here say, Divine Authority had only established a Maintenance in general. In the other place, pag. 286. My words are, But what this Gospel Maintenance is, is expresly set down by Christ himself. Here's not the word [particularly] and yet he sayes, I here affirm, That the same Authority hath particularly expressed what this Maintenance is. And the better to perswade the Reader that • had so written as he reports me, when he first repeats my saying that Christ hath expresly set down what this Maintenance is, he adds in the same Character [viz. only meat and drink] as if he had taken these words also out of my Book together with the other; and then sayes, Truly, this seems some-what strange. Doth it so more shame for him that made it seem so. Truly it would seem the more strange to me also, that he should deal so unjustly by me, had he not served me in the like manner more then once before. Nor can it be supposed this happened by chance, since he insists deliberately on it, and argues from it. For he sayes, If Christ have allotted the particular maintenance, then he hath not left it to generals; if he have established it only in general, then he hath not expressed the particulars. And he improves his argument to this conclusion, One of these must be false, for indeed there is a manifest Contradiction. But does he not know which of them is false? I will tell him then, 'Tis that which he has falsified, to make the contradiction. But till he had thus corrupted them, there was neither falshood nor contradiction in them, nor any thing else that might seem strange. For, if the first part had been a Position, as it was but a Concession, yet I hope it had been no Contradiction to say, first, That a Maintenance in general is established by a Divine Authority; and afterwards, That Christ hath expresly set down what this Maintenance is.

But he goes on upon this willful mistake, that I say, The Maintenance is only Meat and Drink. And having first bestowed his usual Livery of folly upon me, he yields, pag. 60. that in those Texts which I cited out of St. Matthew, and St. Luke, the Maintenance set down is Meat and Drink. When the Apostles (sayes he) went to the prejudiced and unbelieving Jews with the first news of the Gospel, meat and drink was as much as they could expect; and Christ bids them to take that and be contented. But this he sayes was upon a particular occasion, and to apply these Rules to all Ministers, or to the general Commission he gave them afterwards, is the most rididulous and absurd thing imaginable.

Though the Disciples were then sent but into the Cities of Iudea, yet the Service they went upon was the same then as after, viz. Preaching the Gospel. And if the Iews, amongst whom they then went, were prejudiced and unbelieving, both Iews and Gentiles, amongst whom they went afterwards, were prejudiced and unbelieving also. So that to urge this as a reason why meat and drink was as much as they could expect, and therefore that they were to take that and be contented, is weak arguing; for it supposes they were to be content with that, because they could get no more, whereas they were not to take so much as that, unless it were freely given, and by them that were worthy; he who opened the hearts of any to give that, could have enlarged their hearts to give much more, had he pleased. But if to apply the Maintenance in these places exprest, to the general Commission given afterward be absurd (as he sayes) where shall we find any other Maintenance to apply to that Commission, since he that gave the Commission mentions no other Maintenance but this?

But he sayes, pag. 60. When Christ bids his Apostles to take Meat and Drink, and be content, he doth no where forbid them to receive more, if good men freely gave it to them.

I do not say he did. But the Question is not what freedom they might use in receiving what good men freely gave them: But what was due unto them for their Service, and what they might justly expect. Which although my injurious Opponent would in my Name limit to Meat and Drink only; yet as I used not those terms [Only Meat and Drink] so neither do I think the intent of our Saviour was to tye up his Ministers to Meat and Drink only, in the strict and literal sense of the words, but by the phrase of eating and drinking to intimate the necessary Conveniences of Life. And so the Apostle Paul seems to understand it, when speaking of Maintenance, with reference to these Texts, as his Phrase gives ground to believe, he sayes, Have w • not power to eat and to drink, 1 C. r. 9. 14. and in another place, Having Food and Rayment let us be therewith content, 1 Ti • . 6. 8. Which Phrase [Food and Rayment] is commonly understood to express the necessaries of man's Life. What therefore he urges hereupon (viz. that If Christ had determined Meat and Drink for the ONLY Gospel-maintenance, then the Apostles had been great Sinners in receiving the price of Possessions sold and dedicated, and that they must have returned them back again, as must also St. Paul have done the wages he took of other Churches, and those liberal presents he received from the Philippians) is all grounded on a mistake that I restrain the Gospel-maintenance to Meat and Drink only, as if it were not lawful for a Gospel-Minister to receive any thing but Meat and Drink only, though never so freely offered by such as receive his Ministry, and reap the benefit of it. Whereas he that shall impartially read what I have there written, and not strain my words to a Construction which the scope and drift of them cannot fairly bear, may clearly see, that I do not strictly tye the Maintenance to Meat and Drink only, since I there qu • te and apply the words of the Apostle, Having Food and Rayment (which is more then Meat and Drink only) let us therewith be content. Besides, the scope of my Argument in that place was not to shew what freedom a Gospel-Minister may have, or how far it may become him to use that libe • ty, in receiving what is freely and voluntarily given by those that own and embrace his Message: but what he may justly look for, and expect to receive as his Right, and from whom. Now we know there is a great difference between expecting or looking for a thing as a just due, and receiving or accepting a thing as a free gift or benevolence: Which distinction the Priest not observing, hath argued thus loosly and at random, urging the free Gifts and voluntary Presents made to the Apostle by some Churches whom he had Planted, Watered, and bestowed much of his labour upon, as Examples and Presidents for himself and his Brethren of the Clergy to demand, require, exact, extort and by force take from People now their Goods and Substance, not only against the Owners will, but even from such as they have neither Planted, Watered, nor Laboured for; such as receive not, nor own their Ministry.

Here the other Priest in his Vindication, pag. 301. hath a particular Crochet, from my saying, What this Gospel-Maintenance is, is expresly set down by Christ himself, when he said to his Disciples, Eat such things as are set before you. Eat and Drink such things as they give▪ &c. he infers, According to this Rule Tythes are a Gospel-maintenance, which have been expresly set before us, expresly given us. A pretty quirk! Because those things which were freely, chearfully & without any constraint, set before the Apostles or given to them, were the proper Maintenance appointed for them; therefore Tythes, which poor men full sore agai • st their wills (as well as beyond ther abilities) are compelled, by the three Corded Whip of treble damages, to set out for the Priests, is a Gospel-Maintenance also. Is it not a sign they have an ill cause to mannage, who are fain to make use of such pittiful shifts as these? But if he can satisfie himself that Tythes are a Gospel-Maintenance because set before them, (although they who so set them are constrained thereto) yet what will he say to the case of those others, who preferring their Christian freedom before outward Liberty, and an undefiled Conscience before all Worldly priviledges and advantages, cannot by any terrors be induced to set the Tythes before the Priests, or give it to them (as well knowing that neither are those Priests the Ministers of Christ, nor Tythes a Gospel-maintenance) but for their faithful Testimony against them, have their Bodies shut up in nasty Holes and stinking Dungeons, and their Goods made Havock of by the Priests means, and forcibly taken from them? Will he call this a Gospel-maintenance also; Such a Maintenance may please such a Ministry; but they who know the Gospel, understand better, and cannot be so deluded. But the Priest adds, That if Tythes were not Melchizedec's due before such time as Abraham gave him them; yet when they were so given him, they were without all dispute, which (sayes he) will sufficiently make good our Title to Tythes (could we lay no other claim unto them) wherefore it was (sayes he) that I said before, That if they were not due by a divine appointment, yet are they now due by a voluntary dedication of them.

That those Tythes which Abraham gave Melchizedec were Melchizedec's after Abraham had given him them, is indeed without dispute; but for the Priest thence to infer, That that will sufficiently make good their claim to Tythes, is an absurd and very irrational Inference. Though that gift of Abraham's did intitle Melchizedec to the things thereby given; yet it did not entitle him to any thing else, either from Abraham or any other person. So that if the Priest had any right to claim from Melchizedec, yet could he not thereby extend his claim any further then to those particular Spoils which Abraham gave Melchizedec. For if Melchizedec himself could not by vertue of that Gift claim any thing else, much less then can any other. And though the Priest finding Ethelwolf's Donation not so credible as he hoped it would have been, would now make as if in his former words, Confer. pag. 146. [viz. That if Tythes were not due by a divine appointment, they are now due by a voluntary dedication of them] he had reference to this Gift of Abraham's, yet is it but a meer shift and evasion: for it is manifest that by the Civil Powers and Nursing Fathers of the Church, he had direct relation to Ethelwolf and others who lived near his time. But men who account their Tongues their own, will take the liberty to say any thing.

§. 5. In his 11th Section, he undertakes to shew, That our Lord Iesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel-Ministers; and that they may be proved also out of the New Testament to be due Jure divino, pag. 61.

This indeed is somewhat to the purpose. If he prove this, the Controversie is ended. But if he has no better Evidence to prove Tythes due jure divino under the Gospel, then he has offered to prove them so due before the Levetical Law, he will fall very much short of his undertaking. Let us see however what he has to offer in this place, where his greatest strength may be expected.

His first medium to prove that our Lord Jesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel-Ministers, is this, That there is no Repeal of Tythes in all the New Testament.

This is no more then he hath said before over and over, and which I have already discovered the weakness & emptiness of, having plainly shewed, that there was no necessity of an express Repeal of Tythes by name, either in relation to the Claim made to them from a pretended Right before the Law, that pretended Right not being grounded upon an express Command▪ or with respect to the Assignation of them to the Levitical Priest-hood by the Levitical Law, that Assignation being but temporary, and limitted to the continuance of that Priest-hood, made (as this Priest sayes expresly, pag. 51.) to the Priests for the time being; and so to expire in course with that Priest-hood. And yet, to put the matter out of all doubt that Tythes are ended with that Priest-hood where the Apostle mentions the change of the Priest-hood, in the very same place he affirms, that the Law is changed also, which he argues as a necessary Inference from the change of the Priest-hood. For the Priest-hood being changed (sayes he, Heb. 7. 12.) there is made of necessity a change also of the Law. And that he speaks there with relation to the Law of Tythes, as well as the other parts of the Levitical Law, is most clear from Ver. 5. where he saith, And • erily they that are of the Sons of Levi, who receive the Office of the Priest-hood, have a Commandment to take the Tythes of the People according to the La • , &c. But now, the Sons of Levi being discharged from the Office of the Priest-hood, and that Priest-hood, which stood in that Tribe of Levi, being changed, that Law also is changed, according to which those Sons of Levi, who executed the Office of that Priest-hood, had a Commandment to take Tythes of the People. I appeal to every judicious Reader, whether this be not the free and natural sense of the Apostles words. And may not this be called A Repeal of Tythes? Then neither may the other be called a Repeal of the Priest-hood: for neither here, nor elsewhere, that I remember, is it said in so many Syllables, The Priest-hood is repealed. Yet as there is enough said here, to warrant a Conclusion that the Priest-hood is ended, though the word [Repeal] be not used; so is there in like manner enough said here, to warrant a Conclusion that Tythes are ended also, though the word [Repeal] is not used.

He adds under this Head, That Our Saviour did not revoke Tythes, so far as they were Moral, and a necessary provision for his Ministers; so far as they were founded on the Law of Nature, and Primitive Revelation, and grounded on an eternal Reason, pag. 62.

All this is but a new begging of the old Question. I deny that Tythes were Moral, founded on the Law of Nature, or grounded on an eternal Reason. This is true of Maintenance in general, but it is not true of the Modes and Circumstances of Maintenance, whereof Tythe is one. For Tythe (as I have said before) is a mode or way of raising Maintenance, a Circumstance of the quantity or proportion of Maintenance. And though it be a dictate of the Law of Nature and eternal Reason that there should be a Maintenance, that the Labourer should be rewarded; yet doth not the Law of Nature prescribe the certain quantity or proportion of Maintenance, nor the way or m • ans by which it must be raised. These depend not on an eternal, but on a temporal Reason, variable according to the diversity of times, places and occasions.

He adds further, If Tythes had been the only thing of this kind to be abolished, it seems necessary there should have been an express Revocation of them, which we are sure there is not; and therefore expressa nocent, non expressa non nocent.

Tythes were not the only thing of this kind to be abolished: for all the other Ceremonies of the Law were abolished as well as Tythes; and yet, as necessary as it seems to him, he shall not find an express Revocation of the one half of them. Will he thence infer that they are not all revoked, or that those remain still in force, of which there is not an express Revocation! He understands better I hope. But if he will admit other Ceremonies of the Law to be abolished; notwithstanding there appears no express Revocation of them, he cannot with Reason insist that Tythes are therefore not abolished, because no express Revocation of them appears. But how strangely partial is he, and misguided by a selfish Interest, who would have Tythes due without an express Command, but will not allow them to be ended without an express revocation! His Rule, expressa nocent non expressa non nocent, is so far from confirming him, that it utterly overthrows his Cause, and rases the conjectural and suppository Foundation of a Right to Tythes before the Law. For there's his Non expressa (things not expre •• ) which do not at all hurt me, nor help him. And for his expressa nocent, I have already found him enough exprest, even in point of Repeal and Revocation, in those words of the Apostle Paul [The Priest-hood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law] Heb. 7. 12.

He concludes this first part of his proof thus. We may reasonably believe, That Iesus intended they should remain of Divine Right as they had been reput • d alwayes before.

Is this cogent? Nay, is it indeed urgent or persw • sive? How does he prove that Tythes had alwayes before been reputed of Divine Right? Without b • gging the Question he can do nothing. But why should we reasonably believe Jesus intended Tythes should remain of Divine Right? Because he took away the Law, by which they were due, and the Priest-hood to which they were due? Were these arguments of his intention that Tythes should remain! With much more reason may we believe that Jesus intended they should not remain, seeing he (who knew as well as this Priest, that the Assignation of them was made but to the Priests for the time being; and that therefore, without a new Institution, they would be void in course at the dissolution of that Priest-hood) did not think fit, either by himself or his Apostles, to give so much as an intimation, either by word or practice, that Tythes should remain for the Maintenance of Gospel Ministers. Had Christ intended a continuance of Tythes, it is not to be doubted but he would have signified his intention. But seeing no such thing is exprest, the Priest must remember his own Axiom [non expressa non nocent. i. e. things not exprest, do not hurt] and be content.

§. 6. Thus I have gone through the several parts of his first Medium, in which there is no strength at all to prove his Position, that our Lord Je • us and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers. I come now to his second, which runs thus, But this is not all, for there are positive Laws which do fairly intimate, that Tythes were to be the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers, when the Church was settled, page 62.

'Twas well what he said before was not all, for if it had, he had as good have said nothing. And truly I somewhat Question whether what he sayes now will be much more to the purpose. 〈…〉 here are positive Laws, he sayes, which do fairly intimate, &c.

Are intimations the proper Results of positive Laws? If the Laws are positive, methinks they should declare positively, not only hint things by intimation. But waving that, (and his other less positive proofs, such as our Saviour's affirming, Tythes ought to be paid, in the Time of the Law, when all men grant they were due, &c. which, he sayes, plead only a probability, and which I deny to plead so much as a probability) I hasten after him to those two plain places (as he calls them) which I take to be the positive Laws mentioned before, which, he sayes, do fairly intimate, that Tythes were to be the maintenance of the Gospel Ministers, when the Church was settled. The first of these two plain places, is That (he sayes) of St. Paul, 1 Cor. 9. 14. affirming, That like as the Jewish Priests and Levites lived of the Tythes and Oblations under the Law, even so there was a special Ordinance of Christ, that they who preach the Gospel should live of t • e Gospel: that is, sayes he, of those good things which should be dedicated and offered in gratitude for the Gospel, p. 63.

How hard is this poor man put to it, to piece up something that might look a little like a proof. This is at least the third time, that he has been driven to his [Even so] and yet he is even at a loss still. For supposing the partcle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be necessarily rendred [Even so] as it is, what can be thence inferred? That Gospel Ministers should live of the Gospel Even so, as the Iewish Priests and Levites lived of the Tythes and Oblations under the Law? What, just as they lived? exactly after the same manner? Why then the Ministers of the Gospel should not have the Tythes, but the Tythes of the Tythes, that is, but the hundredth part; for even so the Iewish Priests bad, the Levites had the Tythes, and paid this hundredth part, or Tythe of Tythe to the Priests, and the rest of the Priest Maintenance was made up by Oblations. So that if the Priests now will needs as Gospel Ministers be maintained, and live even just so as the Iewish Priests lived, they must introduce the Iewish Oblation • again, the Burnt-Offerings and Bloody Sacrifices, as in the time of the Law, and so deny the one Offering, and become Debters to the whole Law. This looks strangely; and yet I see not how it can be avoided, if they will strain the Particle [Even] to an exact parity of Maintenance between Iewish Priests and Gospel Ministers, and if they do not strain it to such a parity, they cannot squcese Tythes out of it; for then they that preach the Gospel may live of the Gospel, as well as the Iewish Priests and Levites lived of the things of the Temple, and of the Altar, and yet not by Tythes. And indeed, notwithstanding his [Even so] that he sayes to explain what it is to live of the Gospel, that is (sayes he) of th • se good things which should be dedicated and offered in gratitude for the Gospel, is fa • enough from proving it must be Tythes: for this shews the Maintenance was to be what Believers were willing freely to give, which might as well be a S • xth, or a Twelfth, a Fifth, or a Fifteenth part, as a Tenth, according as their ability would permit, or the occasion should require. And if it were in the Donors choi • e what part to give, that leaves no place for a Divine Right to Tythes. Thus then we see this first of his plain places, and positive Laws, is so far from affording a positive proof that Tythes were to be the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers, that it doth not so much as fairly intimate it.

But to help out the matter he adds pag. 64. That the blessed Iesus who ordained this, did incline the hearts of pious Christians to dedicate Tythes and other Oblations made in gratitude for the Gospel.

This I shall have occasion to take further notice of, when I shall come anon to examine his Dedications, Donations and Charters. In this place let it susfice, that what he takes for granted, I deny, and expect proof of. The World is not ignorant what heaps of Oblations and Dedications have been made, under pretence of gratitude for the Gospel, by many whose hearts the Blessed Jesus did never incline thereto.

I come now to his second plain place or positive Law, as he calls it, which he thus brings in, Le • t any should say, This Text supposes something will be given, but doth not enjoyn the Christians to give, • e have another Law directed to the People, containing both their duty and the Ministers Right, Ga • . 6. 6. Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.

His former Text, he sayes, supposes something will be given, and this en • oyns something shall be given, but neither one nor • other expresses what part. What proof then can either of these places afford that Tythes, or the tenth part, was to be the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers, and that our Lord Jesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers, whenas neither of these places mention Tythes or any certain quantity! He that is taught in the word is to Communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. That he doth as really, though not so largely, who giveth but an hundredth part, as he that giveth a tenth. And on the other hand, if he that is to be the receiver may take the liberty of fixing the quantity, he may if he please, make it a third part or a half, as well as a tenth. We see then no certain Conclusion can be drawn from these Texts as to the proportion or quantity of Maintenance, that being left wholly free, and at the disposal of the Giver. Consequently Tythes, which are a certain quantity cannot be proved by these Scriptures to be established by our Lord Iesus and his Apostles for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers. Thus these two plain places and positive Laws (as the Priest calls them) are plain and positive enough against him and his Brethren, to prove, that they ought not to exact Maintenance from those that deny their Ministry: but will not prove what he would have, viz. Tythes for the Gospel Maintenance, either positively, or by fair intimation.

To back his insufficient proofs, he ru • s over again his overworn Stories of the Antiquity of the tenth part, how it was made known by God to be his part by Revelation, and learn'd by the Heathens by Primitive Tradition, and much more of the same Rank. In all which his Conclusions, are no more forcible then that in all reason it ought to be that part; and there is no reason to 〈◊〉 , but that this is the share or portion of Gospel Ministers, pag. 66.

But this being so groundless, and having been so often Answered, I think it not worth my while to stay upon; but proceed to an Objection he makes, pag. 67. There is (sayes he) but one Objection against this, viz. That Tythes are not mentioned in the Gospel or Epistles to be the very part.

If there were no other Objection but this, yet this is such an one as he can never be able to remove. A grand Objection indeed, st • ongely inforced against himself by the Maxim urged by himself, (pag. 62.) Non expressa non nocent, Those things which are not exprest do not hurt This shuts out all his Conjectures, and Suppositions, and restrains him closely to what is exprest. But seeing (by his own confession, pag. 67.) Tythes are not exprest, not mentioned in the New-Testament to be the Gospel-Maintenance, how rash and over-confident was he in the entrance of his 11th Section to assert (pag. 61) That our Lord Jesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel-Ministers, and that they may be proved also out of the New-Testament to be due, jure divino! Will he undertake to prove that out of the New-Testament, which he confesses is not mentioned in the New-Testament, and yet at the same time tell us, Non expressa non nocent! What man of reason, modesty or name would not be ashamed of this! But besides this which he hath brought, there are other Objections against Tythes being the Maintenance of Gospel-Ministers, namely, That Tythes or a tenth part is a Ceremony, Mode, or Circumstance of Maintenance, and as such was a part of the Ceremonial Law, which being abrogated by Christ, was not fit to be received amongst Christians; That a Maintenance by Tythes, or any other certain, fixed and determinate quantity, is not agreeable with the Nature of the Gospel, which as it self is free, so ought the Maintenance also to be; this being one of the Believers Priviledges under the Gospel: The Law was a State of Bondage; the Gospel is a State of Liberty. The Law represented the condition of Servants; the Gospel that of Sons. The Law treated those that were under it, as Children in Nonage under Tutors and Governours; the Gospel treats them that receive it, as men arr • ved to an adult age. Besides, under the Gospel, Tythes are not an equal way of Maintenance, in respect either of the Giver, or of the Receiver, or of the Service.

Many other Objections might also be urged against Tythes being a Gospel-Maintenance, but these may serve to convince the Priest, that he was too hasty in concluding there is but this one Objection which he has brought. But leaving these, at least at present, let us see how he attempts to remove that one Objection which himself has urged, viz. That Tythes are not mentioned in the Gospel or Epistles to be the very part. To this, sayes he, I reply, There are very good Reasons why Tythes are not mentioned in the New-Testament, by name; His first reason is, To avoid all occasion of scandal to the Jews, whose Priests were then in Possession of them.

There is no weight at all in this reason; for we see that in that very Epistle which was written to the Hebrew • or Iews themselves, the Apostle tells them expresly (and argues it forcibly and undeniably) that the Iewish Priest-hood, and the Law by which they took Tythes, together with that Covenant, and the whole Iewish Polity, were abrogated and ended by Christ. And he that had written all this so Plain, so Full, so Home, needed he avoid mentioning Tythes as a GospelMaintenance, for fear of giving Offence to the Iews! What can be more irrational! What could have been said more Offensive to the Iews then he in that Epistle writ! Besides, whatsoever was written by the Evangelists or Apostles, whether it were Historical or Epistolary, it was written for, and dedicated to the Believers in Christ Jesus; not to Unconverted Iews, but to those who were turned from Iudais •• to the Christian Faith; which whosoever truly was, must needs be brought from off the Iewish Priests, and see the end of that Priest-hood, by the Springing up of a New one. It cannot then with Reason be supposed, that they who believed the Iewish Priest-hood ended, and Consequently that Tythes were no longer due unto it, would in zeal to that Priest-hood have taken Offence at the mentioning of Tythes for a Gospel-Maintenance, or that the holy Pen-men did for that Reason omit the mention of them. But further, If it might with any shew of Reason be allowed that in not mentioning Tythes as a Gospel-Maintenance, Regard was had to the Iews: Yet what Relation at all could this Reason have to the Gentiles, unto whom the far greater part of the Epistles were written? Will he supose the Gentiles would have been Offended at the Trasferring of Tythes from the Iewish Priests to the Gospel-Ministers? That indeed may well be supposed; but not upon the score on which he grounds his Reason. They might justly indeed have been scandaliz'd, had the Iewish Ceremonial Maintenance by Tythes been introduced among Christians; but not out of any love or zeal for the Iewish Priests, of whom they had not so great esteem, and to whom they bear not so much good Will. Neither is this all, but the emptiness and lightness of this Reason will more fully yet appear to him that shall consider, that some of the Apostles lived to see the Iewish Priests actually dispossest of Tythes, and that Nation dispersed and scattered, the Synagogue not only dead, but buried, and the whole Iewish Polity destroyed, and yet after all this, no claim put in to Tythes, no exortation to pay them, no mention of them as a Gospel-Maintenance. If therefore one should suppose the Apostles forbore to claim Tythes as the Gospel-Maintenance, while the Iewish Priests were possest of them, and that Polity had yet some shew of standing, in condescention to the Jews, and to avoid all occasion of scandal to them; yet surely he must abandon all Reason, and utterly renounce his Understanding, that can believe they forbore upon this Reason to claim Tythes afterwards also, when they had seen the Temple raised to the Ground, the Jewish Priests actually dispossessed, and that whole Polity totally subverted. If Tythes had been intended for the Gospel Ministers Maintenance, and in tenderness to the Iews, (as he fancies) had been suffered a while to run in their old Channel, till the whole Jewish Polity had been D • stroyed, yet what shew of Reason can be given, why those Apostles that lived to see the whole Iewish Polity Destroyed, did not then turn Tythes into their New and proper Channel, and expresly declare, That Tythes were the Maintenance established by Christ for the Gospel Ministers?

His second Reason why Tythes are not mentioned in the New Testament to be the Maintenance of Gospel Ministers is this, There was not any need for Iesus 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 God's own choice; by the grounds on which they were given, and the ends for which they were imployed, pag. 68.

If his Particle [before] refers to his second Period, the time of the Levitical Law, he then speaks to no purpose at all, that Law being ended, and any Title thereby disclaim'd by the present Clergy. And if it relate to his first Period, the time before the Levitical Law, I have then already refuted this Reason of his over and over; and doubtless were he not at • great strait, he would not thus nauseat his Reader with Tautologies. That Tythes were due to God before the Levitical Law, and sufficiently declared so to be by Revelation, Example, Reason, &c. he has beg'd a Concession of beyond all degrees of Modesty, but not offer'd one solid Reason to prove. Of the ground on which they were given, and the end for which they were imployed before the Law, there is nothing exprest, and he knows who said, Non expressa non nocent, i. e. Things not exprest, hurt not.

His third Reason why Tythes are not mentioned in the New Testament to be the Maintenance of Gospel Ministers is, Because the devotion of the Christians in those dayes was so great, that they gave more then a tenth freely, Selling all and following Christ, and bestowing on the Apostles more then they were in a condition to receive, pag. 69.

That the Christians in those dayes gave more then a tenth, is more then he can prove. For though some of them sold their Possessions, and laid the price thereof at the Apostles Feet, yet was not that given to the Apostles for their proper use, but deposited as in a common stock or treasury, for the common supply and maintenance of them all, while they lived together in that Community, which was not long. But what part soever it was that they gave, it is enough for my purpose that it was a Gift, a free Gift. And if our Lord Jesus did not think fit to make any new determination of the tenth part by Name, pag. 69. after that the old determination thereof under the Law was determined and ended by hi • Death; but committed his Ministers to the Christians devotion for Maintenance, how comes this Priest so confidently to affirm, pag. 61. That our Lord Iesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers? How strangely doth he contradict himself herein, when in one place he is positive that our Lord Iesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers, pag. 61. in the other as express, That our Lord and his Apostles did not make a new determination of the tenth part by name, pag 69. and urges Reasons to prove that they neither did nor needed make any new Law for Tythes; as first, The great devotion of Christians in those dayes, pag. 69. Secondly, The expectation our Lord Iesus might have, that the joyful Message of his Gospel should be so thankfully 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, pag. 70. Thirdly, The fore-sight our Lord Iesus had, that his Grace would open the Hearts of Kings and Princes, and other devout persons to give more then a tenth part of their good things, to those in his Name and for his sake, who were sent to Preach the Gospel. Fourthly, That 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. Fifthly, That this was more agreeable to the freedom and ingenuity of Sons, which Christians are compared to. Sixthly, That positive Laws were likely to be made when the decayes of Piety and Charity did require them, pag. 71. These are the Reasons he offers for proof that our Lord Iesus and his Apostles did not make a new determination of the tenth part by name, and that in the very same Section, wherein he so confidently affirmed, That our Lord Iesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers. If they have established Tythes, they have then established a tenth part by name; for Tythes are denominated, or take their Name, from the number Tenth. (Decimae a decimo) But that neither Christ nor his Apostles have established a tenth part by Name, and consequently have not established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers, the Reasons before recited, which the Priest himself hath given, do plainly enough prove. For besides the great and prompt devotion of Christians in those dayes, our Lord Iesus (he sayes) might expect that the joyful Message of his Gospel should be so thankfully 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.

So then it seems our Lord Jesus did not think fit to compel Christians by a positive Law to pay Tythes, but left the gratifying his Messengers to that freedom, which he foresaw his Grace would open their Hearts to: for to maintain Christ's Ministers by the compulsion of a positive Law, was (as the Priest rightly observes) suitable to the s • rvile state of the Iews, which Christians, who are compared to Son • , ought not to be subjected to, but le • t to the exercise of a voluntary Charity, which is more agreeable to the freedom and ingenuity of Sons. Therefore he sayes, Since such times were coming, our Lord might probably on purpose decline determining the proportion too expresly. In all which he hath notably argued against himself, and sufficiently proved that the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministry ought to be by free gift, voluntary Charity, uncompelled, that the compulsion of positive Law in this case, is a badge of Iewish servility not agreeable to the Christian State, which stands in and acts from the freedom and ingenuity of Sons, and that therefore our Lord Iesus and his Apostles did not make any new Law for Tythes, did not make any new determination of a tenth part by name, and that our Lord might probably on purpose decline determining the proportion too expresly. But what now is become of his first Assertion, That our Lord Iesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers? Did Christ establish Tythes, and yet on purpose decline determining the proportion expresly? Is not Tythe or a tenth part an express determination of the proportion? What manif • st contradiction has this over-hasty man run himself into! Again, if (as he sayes, pag. 68) There was no need for Jesus to make any new Law for Tythes. If our Lord and his Apostles did not make a new determination of a tenth part by name, pag. 69. If our Lord might probably on purpose decline determining the proportion too expresly, that Christians might have the opportunity of a voluntary Charity, pag. 70. If he expected they to whom his Gospel was sent, should do as much freely to the gratifying his Messengers, as the servile Iews did by the compulsion of a positive Law. And if this free, gratuitous and voluntary Charity was more agreeable to the freedom and ingenuity of Sons, which Christians are compared to, then the servile compulsion of a positive Law. And if positive Laws were likely to be made when the decays of Piety and Charity did require them, pag. 71. which could not be in the Apostles dayes, when the devotion of Christians was so great, that they gave (as the Priest sayes) more then a tenth freely, and bestowed on the Apostles more then they were in a condition to receive, pag. 69. I say, if all this may serve to • rove that our Lord Jesus and his Apostles left the 〈…〉 of the Gospel Ministers to the free and 〈◊〉 Charity of Christians, fore-seeing that his 〈◊〉 would open their Hearts thereto, pag. 70. and 〈◊〉 made no positive La • to compel them to the 〈◊〉 servility of paying Tythes, what then becomes of those positive Laws he speaks of, pag. 62. which he sayes do fairly intimate, that Tythes were 〈…〉 Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers, when the Church was settled? Is there any thing in this but •••• radiction and confusion?

He has yet one Reason more why Tythes are not mentioned in the New-Testament to be the Maintenance of the Gospel-Ministers, and that is, 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, pag. 71.

Had he assigned this for a general Reason, why Tythes should not be paid at all under the Gospel, he had said something to the purpose. But in restrayning his Reason to the State of the Church in those dayes only, he falls short. Besides, how knows he that Believers then were willing to have paid, and Gospel Ministers to have received Tythes, had opportunity served? I believe the contrary, and have many Reasons inducing me thereunto; but since he affirms it, let him prove it. However, if Tythes (as he dreams) were to be the Maintenance of the Gospel-Ministers, when the Church was settled, the want of opportunity for the paying and receiving them regularly at that instant, could be no good Reason why they were wholly passed over in silence, and no mention made of them to that purpose in all the New-Testament, unless he would suppose that all that was mentioned in the New-Testament had Relation to the then present State of the Church, and nothing to the future. But if some things relating to the future State of the Church are mentioned in the New-Testament, then surely so might Tythes have been also, had they been intended for a Gospel Ministry's Maintenance, when the Church was settled.

He adds, That 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, pag. 71.

That could be no prejudice to the Iewish Priests, because Tythes were not due to them, or required to be paid, till their wandring in the Wilderness was over, and they settled in the Land of Canaan; and an express command there was for the payment of Tythes to them when they were so settled. But these Priests can produce no Command for the payment of Tythes to them either before the times of Persecution, in those times, nor after them. It is not then a nonpayment of Tythes regularly in the times of Persecution that prejudices these Priests: but that which prejudices their Claim is, That Tythes were never du • to them at all; they have no Command, nor ever had, to claim Tythes by.

Yet he sayes, Our Lord Iesus and the Apostles said so much in the New-Testament, that the Primitive Christians understood them to intend Tythes for the Gospel-Maintenance, pag. 71.

How knows he this, seeing the Scripture is silent of it? Had the Primitive Christians understood Tythes to be intended by Christ for the Maintenance of his Ministers, no doubt they would have paid them: for they knew full well that Saying of our Lord, He that knows his Masters Will, and doth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes. Their non-payment of Tythes, therefore is a sufficient Argument that they did not understand Tythes to be appointed by Christ for the Maintenance of his Ministers.

He adds, That they (to wit our Lord Jesus and the Apostles) said enough to shew, that the Ancient Divine Right to the tenth part should be continued.

I wish he had quoted his Text for this, that I might have known whence he had it: for I have read the New-Testament more then once, and yet I Solemnly profess, I never read this there.

But sayes he, pag. 7 • . 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, &c.

This! Which? What means he here by This? Did the not mentioning Tythes at all in the New-Testament for a Gospel Maintenance, establish (thinks he) the Divine Right of Tythes under the Gospel? Or did our Lord and his Apostles not making a new Determination of the tenth part by name, do this? Or did his purposely declining to determine the proportion too expresly? Or what else may we suppose his [This] can relate to, which may be thought sufficient to establish the Divine Right of Tythes under the Gospel. Certainly either he is very Dark, or I am very D • ll: for in good earnest, I do not understand, what to refer his Particle [This] unto. But whatever it is, I perceive he would have it sufficient, not only to establish a Divine Right of Tythes under the Gospel, but also, 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, pag. 72.

This is much to the same purpose, as if he should have said that Tythes being due, jure divino, are due, jure divino. If ever Popery should prevail here, and this man turn Fryar, 'tis fit he should be of the Mendicant Order, he is so ready at begging. Two Questions has he very confidently begged in these two Lines. First, That Tythes are Originally due to God, which that they are as Tythes, as a tenth part distinct from the other nine, or more peculiarly then the rest, I have before more then once denied and disproved. Secondly, That Christ hath assigned Ty •• es to the Gospel-Ministers. Hath he so? and yet Tythes not mentioned in the Gospel or Epistles to be the very part, p. 07. Tythes not mentioned in the New-Testament, by name, ibid. That methinks is strange. What! an Assignation ple • ded, wherein the thing pretended to be assigned, is not so much as named, nor the certain quantity described! Who ever heard of such an Assignation before? But how doth it appear there is such an assignation? for we have hitherto but his bare word for it. Before, when he spake of the Levitical Priest-hood's Right to Tythes (of which no Body doubted) he was very forward to produce an express assignation, and a Text withal to attest it. But now, when he speaks of the Gospel-Ministers Right to Tythes, (which needs the clearest proof, and plainest demonstration) his assignation and evidence are both to seek. Is this to shew that our Lord Jesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel-Ministers? Is this to shew that Tythes may be proved out of the New-Testament to be due, jure divino? pag. 61. Is this to prove the Divine Right of Tythes sufficiently established under the Gospel, (pag. 72.) to say that Tythes being originally due to God, and by Christ assigned to the Gospel-Ministers, are now due to them, jure divino? Can any one doubt but that if Tythes were indeed assigned to the Ministers of the Gospel, they were then unquestionably due to them jure divino? Or can it be imagined, that I or any man else would grant the first of these, and deny the latter Was the Question wheth •• , If Christ had assigned Tythes to the Gospel-Ministers, Tythes would thereby have been due to them? Or was it not, Whether Christ had indeed assigned Tythes to the Gospel-Ministers or no? This belonged to him to prove; and does he think to carry it without proof, by a sly supposing it? He deceives himself. He sayes of me, pag. • . I write to please an illiterate Sect; and I may gull the unlearned Quakers into a Belief, &c. But I wonder what learned Sect he wrote to please, and what sort of Readers he hoped to meet with, or what scantling of Vnderstanding (as his phrase is) he suited his Discourse to, when he said, Tythes being Originally due to God, and by Christ assigned to the Gospel-Ministers, are now due to them, jure divino! Did he hope to perswade his Reader by begging instead of proving, and by taking that for granted which indeed the main Question in Controversie, and which requires the most evident Demonstration? He might perhaps by this means gull some hasty heedless Reader; but • en of Sence and Understanding are not satisfied with such put-off's. Fair Words may please Fools, but Wise men look for fair Proofs. Would he think I dealt fairly with him, if I should say, that he being a Deceiver is not a Minister of Christ? The Conclusion is true, if it be drawn from a true Proposition. It is clear enough, that he is not a Minister of Christ, if he be a Deceiver; but whether he be a Deceiver or no, is the Question, on the proof of which, the Truth of the Conclusion depends. Now if instead of proving this Proposition [That he is a Deceiver] I should take it for granted, and without more ado infer from thence, that he is no Minister of Christ, I should do by him just as he has done by his Reader. He sayes, Tythes being by Christ assigned to the Gospel-Ministers, are now due to them by Divine Right. The Conclusion here is undoubtedly true, if the Proposition be true from which it is drawn. No man in his wits will deny, that Tythes are due to Gospel Ministers, if Christ have assigned Tythes to them: But that's the Question in Controversie; that's the Proposition to be proved, on the proof of which the Truth of the Conclusion depends. Now instead of proving this Proposition [That Christ hath assigned Tythes to the Gospel-Ministers] he takes it for granted, and with no more ado infers from thence, that Tythes are now due to Gospel-Ministers, jure divino. Is this like a Disputant? Doth this become a man of his high pretences to Schollarship and Learning? Let the intelligent Reader judge.

§. 7. I am now come to the end of his 11th Section, in which he undertook to shew, That our Lord Jesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers; and that they may be proved out of the New-Testament to be due, jure divino. Before I proceed to his next Section, I desire the Reader to observe, First, that my Opponent hath faln so far short of proving the establishment of Tythes by Christ and his Apostles for the Maintenance of Gospel-Ministers, that he hath plainly acknowledged Tythes are not so much 〈◊〉 named in the New-Testament, pag. 67. (as indeed they are not, with relation to Gospel-Ministers) Secondly, That though he sayes, there are positive Laws, pag. 62. yet he dares not say, those Laws speak positively, but only that they do fairly intimate that Tythes were to be the Maintenance of the Gospel-Ministers, pag. 63. And to take off the force of his positive Laws more fully, and shew how little positive they were with respect to Tythes, he himself proves at large, that Iesus did not make any new Law for Tythes, pag. 68, 69. and gives among others, this Reason for it, That Iesus might expect his Messengers should be gratified freely. Nay, so eager he is to shew why Jesus made no new Law for Tythes, that no considering how destructive it would prove to his former talk of positive Laws, pag. 62, 63, 64. he fairly argues the compulsion of a positive Law to be Iewish and Servile; and voluntary charity to be more ag • eeable to the freedom and ingenuity of Sons, which Christians are compared to, pag. 70, 7 • . Thirdly, That those two Texts, those two Plain places, as he calls them, Cor. 9. • 4. and Gal. 6. 6. make no mention at all of Tythes or any certain part. They shew that some Maintenance is due, they shew to whom it is due, and from whom, but they shew not the quantity of that Maintenance, and Consequently, do not prove Tythes to be it. Besides, he sayes, pag. 69. Our Lord and his Apostles did not make a new Determination of the tenth part by name; and pag. 70. Our Lord • ight probably on purpose decline determining the proportion too expresly, &c. Now Tythes being an express Determination of the tenth part by name, it is evident even from his own Positions, that Tythes or a tenth part was not Determined by our Lord and his Apostles, to be the Maintenance of Gospel Ministers. Fourthly, That although my Opponent begins this Section with a great deal of confidence, and seeming Resol • tion, undertaking to shew, that our Lord Iesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers, and that they may be proved out of the New-Testament to be due, jure divino. Yet in the Prosecution of this Argument he flags and sinks; he is not positive and plain, but delivers himself doubtfully and fearfully. (We may reasonably believe, sayes he, that Iesus intended they should remain of Divine Right, pag. 62.) and in the close of the Section miserably begs the Question, that Christ hath assigned Tythes to the Gospel Ministers, and on that precarious bottom would set the Divine Right of Tythes. Thus far then we have gone, and find no firm Foundation for a Divine Right to Tythes under the Gospel. No Institution of them; No New Determination of them; No Establishment of them; No Mention of them in all the New-Testament, as a Maintenance for Gospel-Ministers.

Now Reader, in the close of this Section take the Judgment of two eminent Divines (so called) of the Church of England, and see how contrary this Priest is to them. The first is Fulk in Q. Elizabeth's time, The other Willet in K. Iames his time. Fulk on Heb. 7. §. 4. having shewed that the payment of Tythes, as it was a Ceremonial duty, is abrogated with other Ceremonies by the death of Christ, and that any other sufficient Stipend, whether it be more or less then a tenth part, may be appointed as well as Tythes, adds, But that there is any Sacrificing Priest-hood, to whom it (namely Tythes) is due in the New Testament, the old payment of Tythes doth not prove. Neither did Christ himself our high Priest, ever make claim unto them: nor his Apostles the Ministers of the Church, but only to a sufficient living by the Gospel, to be allowed of their temporal Goods, to whom they ministred spiritual Goods, 1. Cor. 9. 14. Gal. 6. 6. Thus he, by which we may see he was far enough from thinking what this Priest affirms, viz. That Christ and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers, and that they may be proved out of the New Testament to be due jure divino, and that Christ hath assigned Tythes to the Gospel Ministers, &c. seeing he sayes plainly both that the old Ceremonial payment of them is abrogated, and no new claim made either by Christ or his Apostles to Tythes, but only to a sufficient living by the Gospel, and that too to be allowed of their temporal Goods, to whom they ministred spiritual Goods. And he quotes the very same Texts to prove the Apostles did not claim Tythes, but only a sufficient Maintenance, which this Priest has brought to prove, that that Maintenance ought to be Tythes, namely, 1 Cor. 9. 14. Gal. 6. 6.

Willet in his Synopsis of Popery, fifth general Controversie, pag. 315. repeating a Canon of the Council of Orleans, thus, As it is in the will of the giver to give what pleases him, so if he find him stubborn and froward which receiveth it, it is in his power to revoke the gift; sayes thereupon, We see then that the Word of God hath laid no such necessity upon Tythes, for then this Council would not have permitted such Liberty. And a little after, setting down the fifteenth Article of the Bohemians against Tythes, he adds, Therefore Tythes are not necessarily due by the Word of God. And a few lines lower, This (sayes he) may further appear by the practice of other Churches, that the payment of Tythes (though of all other most fit) is not imposed as a necessary Law. Then instancing several Churches other wayes maintained, he adds, I alledge not the practice of these Churches, as allowing the same (for I prefer the condition of those Churches, which yet do enjoy the antient provision of the Ministry by Tythes) but only to shew, that the •• stom • f Tything is not imposed by any necessity. And speaking of Melchizede • 's Priest-stood, he sayes, Wherefore seeing Melchizedec's Priest-hood only resteth in Christ, and is not translated to any other, and that the • e is now no Sacrifice le • t but Spiritual, of Praise and Thanksgiving, Heb. 13. • 5. it follows that by reason of any such external Priest-hood • r Sacrifice, Tythes are not now due unto the Church, neither in any such regard ought to be challenged. Again, pag. 316. If there were any such Priest-hood, and Tythes in that Right did appertain to the Church; it is most like that our Saviour Christ and his Apostles would have challenged them: But there is no one precept in the New Testament concerning paying of Tythes, but only for a sufficient Maintenance for the Ministers of the Gospel. Judge now, Reader, whether this man thought (as the Priest does) That our Lord Jesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers; That Christ hath assigned Tythes to the Gospel Ministers; and that they may be proved out of the New Testament to be due jure divino. But leaving these Testimonies to the Reader's censure, I proceed now to examine his Right to Tythes by Donation, and voluntary Dedication, which in his next Section he makes way for, but does not directly enter upon, being diverted by a passage or two in my Book, which it seems lay in his way.

§. 8. First he falls with great anger upon me; for saying in pag. 287. of my Book, called, Truth Prevailing, Though Christ d • ny Tythes, y • t if men will grant them, it will serve the Priests turn. This he calls a most malicious Inference, pag. 72.

But who sees not the Truth of it? Care they (I speak of the generality of them) how they come by them, so they can get them? Regard they whether they have them from God or Man? If some among them do, yet that this Priest doth not, no man that indifferently reads his Book, can doubt. But he thinks to pinch me closer upon this point; I know, sayes he to his dear Brother, 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, pag. 73.

I should not have thought this passage worth Transcribing, but to detect his weakness, and shew him how severely he jerks himself, while he thinks to lash me. If I do not produce the place of Scriptur • where Christ doth deny Tythes to be given to Gospel Ministers, he Brands me for a manifest Slanderer of Christ. He himself sayes, Our Lord Iesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers, pag. 61. yet produces no place of Scripture where our Lord Jesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers, but on the contrary confesses, Tythes are not mentioned in the Gospel or Epistles to be the very part, pag. 67. and that Tythes are not mentioned in the New Testament by name, ibid. Nor only so, but affirms Our Lord and his Apostles did not make a new determination of the tenth part by name, pag. 69. and that Our Lord 〈◊〉 probably on purpose decline determining the pr • portion too expresly, pag. 70. Now after all this, 〈◊〉 that can so freely stigmatize me for a manifest Slanderer of Christ, what will he think fit to call himself? what badge will himself vouchsafe to wear? He sayes, Christ hath assigned Tythes to the Gospel Ministers, pag. 72. but himself hath not assigned any place of Scripture for the proof thereof. Shall I take the liberty to say by Retortion, Let him produce the place of Scripture where Christ hath assigned Tythes to the Gospel-Ministers, or else he is a manifest Slanderer of Christ in this suggestion?

The next occasion he takes to fall upon me, is for taking King Ethelwolf's for the oldest Charter. And here (according to his usual Incivility) he liberally bestows upon me the liveries of folly and falshood. You did (sayes he to his Brother, pag. 73.) prov • this voluntar • Dedication (with respect to this Nation) by King Eth • lwolf's Charter. Not because that was the first or oldest Donation of Tythes, as T. E. foolishly and falsly suggests, pag. 299.

To the same purpose, pag. 74. And because the Quaker dreading all higher antiquity, and omitting al • inquiry into preceding Church History, doth cunningly suppose Tythes no older amongst Christians then thi • Charter, &c.

This is his charge; how justly grounded will appear by comparing it with that part of my • ook, out of which he seems to draw it. My words are these, pag. 299. If he had any Charter or settlement of Tythes of Older Date then that of Ethelwolf (which was about the Year 855.) he should have produced it, and probably so he would. However, since he did • ot, I have no reason to think he has any elder. Where now is my folly, where my falshood in this? 〈◊〉 I foolish in thinking he would have produced an older Charter if he could, when his business was to clear the Donation from all suspition of Pop • ry, and his interest led him, in order thereto, to produce th • most antient Charter he could find? Or was I false in saying, I had no reason to think he had any elder Charter, since he, whose main concern it was, did not bring forth an older? Or was it an argument I dreaded all higher Antiquity, because I only refuted the highest Antiquity he brought, and did not make it my busine • s to seek out for him an higher Antiquity then he could find for himself? Belong'd it to me to search into preceding Church—History to help him to a more authentick Charter? What VVeak, what Childish, what Trifling work is this! Let him not lay his Brother's Weakness at my Door; but let him take his Brother to Task, and teach him to manage his Cause more warily hereafter.

HE now purposes a Method, in which he promises to proceed in his following Discourse. First, he sayes, He will look back into the Ages before K. Ethelwolf, and shew by what Authority and presidents he made this Donation. Secondly, He will consider the Donation it self, and the State of those Times in which it was made. Thirdly. He will note how it hath been confirmed since. And then, Fourthly, Wipe off T. E's particular blots thrown upon this sacred Maintenance, pag. 74.

In this Method I intend to follow him, with what brevity I can, not insisting on every particular which might be spoken to in this part of his Discourse; because the human Right necessarily depending on the D • vine, and the Divine Right hitherto remaining altogether unproved, what can be urged in Defence of the Human Right will have the less weight, and need the less Answer.

§ 1. He begins with the Apostles Times, and sayes, pag. 75. 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 Scriptures, but also of many and other things, which being Collected every Lord's-Day, was delivered to the Bishop, saith Justin Martyr.

Should I now take the liberty to deal by him, as he in his 10th Section (pag. 5 • .) dealt by me, I might here help him to as soul a contradiction, as he did there make for me. I did but grant my Adversa • ies Position, that a Main • enance in general to the Ministers of the Gospel is—established by Divine Authority, pag. 284. and after said, What this Maintenance is, is expresly set down by Christ himself, pag. 286. He thrusts the word [Only] into my Grant, and reports me to say, Divine Authority had only established a Maintenance in general, and thereupon infers, if he have established it only in general, then hath he not expressed the particulars; not sticking at a down-right forgery, that he might • ender me contradictory to my self. Now if I would be so unworthy and dishonest as to imitate him herein, how strange a contradiction might here be made by adding the word only to his g • neral Rule, and making him say here, The Apostles had given only a general Rule for the Faithful to Communicate, &c. w • en as he had said expresly but a little before, The Apostles had established Tythes (which is a particular quantity) for the Maintenance of the Gospel-Ministers, pag. 61. But his unfair dealing by me shall not, I hope, make me forget how to behave my self towards him. Nor would I in this place have mentioned this (having noted it before) but to s • t more clearly before his Eye the Crimson die of his own Crim • . But leaving this, l • t us enquire what Truth there is in his Allegation. Upon this general Rule of the Apostle, he sayes, The Primitive Christians did alwayes make liberal Oblations to their Pas • ors, not only of Houses and Lands, as we read in holy Scripture, but also of Money and other things.

In what part of holy Scripture did he eve • • ead that the Christians gave Houses and Lands to their Pastors? That Text had been worth quoting. St. Luke indeed, in his History of the Acts of the Apostles, doth mention some that sold their Houses and La • ds, and brought the prices thereof, and laid them down at the Apostles Feet. But he cannot be supposed to refer to this for two Reasons. 1. Because he makes this Ob • ation of Houses and Land • by the Christians to their Pastors, to be the effect of that general Rule given by the Apostle to the Faithful to Communicate unto their Teachers in all good things, mentioned in the Epistle to the Galatians, whereas thi • selling of Possessions, and living in a Community, was not only long before that Epistile was written, but sometime also before he that writ it was himself converted to the Christian Faith; and therefore could not be done in Observance of that general Rule. 2. Because in that History of the Apostles Acts, St. Luke doth not say, that any made Oblations of • ouses and Lands; but the clean contrary, viz. that as many as were Possessors of Lands or Houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the Apostles feet, Acts 4. 34. to the end. So that here was not an Offering of Houses and Lands, but of Money, which the Priest mentions besides, as distinct from the Oblations of Houses and Lands, and as leaning upon another Authority: for he refers the Oblatio • of Houses and Lands to the proof of holy Scripture; but the Oblation of Money and other things to the Testimony of Iustin Martyr. The Apostles (he sayes) having given a general Rule for • he Fait •• ul 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 Iustin Martyr. Here its plain he makes the Oblations of Houses and Lands distinct from that of Money and other things. The former, he sayes, we read in holy Scripture, the latter he tells us Iustin Martyr saith. If he has read in holy Scripture this Oblation of Houses and Lands, I desire he would direct to the place, that I may read it also. But if be no where reads this in holy Scripture, but adds this amplification as a Flourish to his D • scourse, he is the more to be blamed in this, and the less to be credited in the rest. How lean a Case doth he advocate, that needs the help of such sorry shifts!

Besides, he abuses his Reader in his application as well as in his allegation; for he intimates as if those liberal Oblations had been made by the Primitive Christians to their Pastors for their proper use and Maintenance; whereas it is evident in holy Scripture that they who sold their Possessions, and laid the prices at the Apostles feet, did deposit that money in a common Stock or Treasury, for the Maintenance of all such as were gathered into that Community; out of which Stock Distribution was made unto every man according as he had need, Acts 4. 35. So that those Oblations were not made as a peculiar Maintenance for the Apostles or Pastors, but for the common Maintenance of all the Faithful, as well hearers as teachers, in that place. And when afterwards the inconvenience of that Way appearing, they came to make Weekly and Monethly Contributions, the Mo • ey so collected was not appropriated to the use of the Apostles, Pastors or Teachers, but both intended for, and imployed to the Relief of the poor Saints in general, as may be seen in divers places of Scripture, particularly in 1 Cor. 16. where concerning the collection for the Saints, the Apostle advises, that upon the first day of the week, every one should lay by him in store, as God had prospered him, Promising withal, that when he came to them, whomsoever they by their Letters should approve, he would send to carry this Gift of theirs to Ierusalem; yea, and to go himself with it, if need require. And in his second Epistle to the same Church, Chap. 9. he reminds them of this Charitable Work, which in general terms, he calls a Ministring to the Saints; and though he exhorts them to liberality and bounty, yet so far is he from prescribing any certain quantity, that he leaves all to this absolute liberty, Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give, Vers. 7. and in the 9th Vers. alluding to the words of the Psalmist, he plainly shews this charitable contribution was for the Relief of the Poor; He hath dispersed abroad, he hath given to the Poor, &c. And that these contributions were for the Poor, he speaks expresly, Rom. 15. 25, 26. But now I go unto Jerusalem, to Minister unto the Saints; for it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia, to make a certain Con • ribution for the poor Saints which are at Jerusalem. It was not therefore fairly done of the Priest to perswade his Reader, that these weekly Collections made by the Christians for the Relief of their Poor Brethren, were Oblations or Offerings to their Pastors and Teachers for their peculiar use, as he seems to do: Which yet if they had been, it would not in any measure have proved Tythes, since no certain quantity is exprest, much less a tenth; nor any forced Maintenance, they being altogether free and voluntary.

§. 2. But he is willing to hasten from Scripture-evidence, finding nothing there that may serve his purpose; therefore he sayes, pag. 75. Not to expaliate into the whole Maintenance of the Christian Bishops and Priests in the first Ages, he will come to enquire whether they had nothing in that Maintenance Answering to Tythes; yea, Whether they had not Tythes given them by a voluntary Devotion.

For this he offers the Testimony of Irenaus, thu • , pag. 76. We ought 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 Olations among them, and there are Oblations among 〈◊〉 .

And a little after, thus, As the Jews gave their tenths, so the Christians gave all they had freely and cheerfully to the Lords uses, not giving less then they, as having a greater hope.

In the first of these places no mention at all is made of Tythes, but of first Fruits, and that with respect to the Law of Moses, not binding to Christians. In the latter it is evident the Christians did not give Tythes, or any thing answering Tythes: for the words are express, they gave all they had freely and chearfully to the Lords uses. So that neither of these places serve his end.

But because he here (and else-where in Ancient Writers) reads the word first fruits, he would perswade his Reader that first Fruits and Tythes are all one, the same thing under divers Names; and that the very fir • t Christians dedicated their first Fr • its of all the Earth's productions to God, pag. 77.

• ere this true, that the very first Christians dedicated their fi • st Fruits of all the Earths productions to God, m • t • ings some mention of it should have been in holy S • ripture. But neither any hint at all do I there find that they did so, nor any exhortation to them, in any of the Epistles so to do. Since therefore no proof of thi • can be drawn from Scripture, and that • renaeus and others that writ after him, speak o • the time • in w • ich they lived, I conclude the Priest was somewhat mistaken in fathering thi • dedication of fi • st Fruits upon the very first Christians.

Then for • is other conceit, That first Fruits a • d Tyt • es si • nifi • the same thing, the evidence he offer • are, T • e Apostolical Canons, which (he sayes, pag. 77.) were the Decrees of divers Christian Synods made in the times of Persecution, and of great Authority in th • C • ristian Church.

But doubtless were he not at a very low Ebb, he would never have mentioned the Apostolical Canons (as they are called) which though to credit his Cause, he pretends to have been of great authority in the Christian Church, yet he must not be the man he would willingly pass for in point of Knowledge and Reading, i • he be now to learn that many learned and knowing Men have long since exploded & rejected them, a • Suppositions and false. Perkins against Coccius, in his Pr • blem of the Church of Rome, pag. 7. sayes, The Book of the Canons of the Apostles is said to be Apocryphal, and quotes Isidor • affirming the same. The first that mentioned them, he sayes, was Epiphanius (who wrote about the Year • 80.) and in the sixth Council of Constantinople they were condemned. Selden also in his History of Tythes, • . 4. pag. 43. calls them plainly counterfeit Canons; and in his Review on that Chapter, shews more at large that they are so.

§. 3. The Priest quotes here a Sentence out of Origen, wherein first Fruits are mentioned, but not a word of Tythes; yet in his application of it, pag. 79. he makes Origen conclude from hence, that the Law of Tythes and first Fruits ought to stand in force among Christians; but therein he wrongs Origen, whose words are, Haec diximus asserentes modatum de primitijs frugum vel pecorum debere etiam secundum literam stare, i. e. These things we have said, affirming that the Commandment co • cerning the first Fruits of Fruits and of Cattel ought to stand even according to the Letter. These are Origen's words, into which the Priest (for his own end) hath slyly thrust the word [Tythes] and made him say the Law of Tythes and first Fruits ought to stand. What credit is to be given to such a Man!

Nor deals he much better with Cyprian whom he quotes next, after this manner, To him (sayes he, pag. 79.) we may add St. Cyprian, who lived about forty years after, who commending the Nobleness of the • irst Christians, blames those, who did not give the Tythes out of their Inheritance, which (sayes the Priest) Cyprian would not have done, but that he believed Christ intended Tythes for the Maintenance of a Gospel Ministry.

He that shall fairly consu't the place, will easily see that the Priest hath quite missed Cyprians meaning • for he doth not blame them for not giving Tythes; but comparing the Oblations of the Primitive Christians, with those of the time wherein he lived, he shews the decay of Devotion to be such, that they did not then give so much as the tenth part of what the first Christians gave. His words, as I find them in Selden's Review, c. 4. are, Do •• s tunc et fun los renundabant, et the sauros sibi in calo repomentes, distribuenda in usus indigentium praetia Apostolis offerebaut. At nunc patrimonio nec decimas damus; et cum vend • re jubeat Dominus, emimus potius et augemus, i. e. Then they sold Houses and Farms, and laying up Treasures for themselv • s in Heaven, they offered the Prices to the Apostles, to be distributed for the uses of the Poor. But now we do not give so much as th • Tenths of our Patrimony; and whereas the Lord commandeth to sell, we rather buy and increase. Whence it is plain, Cyprian doth not either require Tythes, or blame them that did not give Tythes. But uses the word Decimas rhetorically to perswade the Christians of his time to greater Liberality and Charity, by the example of the first Christians, to whose free bounty, what these gave would not (if compar'd) be so much as a tenth part. And thus Selden, in the place forequoted understood him. But no more reason is there to suppose Cyprian did here blame the Christians fo • not giving Tythes out of their Patrimonies, then there would be to imagine he blamed them for increasing their Estates by purchase, which the Christian Religion doth in no wise prohibit Christians by just and lawful means to do. And for that Book it self of Cyprians, de Vnit • te Ecclesiae, out of which the Priest makes this quotation for Tythes, although it be not wholly rejected, yet is it suspected to have been corrupted in more places then o • e. Perkins against Coccius sayes expresly of it, Cypriano liber de unitate Ecclesia corruptus est ad stabiliendum Primatum Petri, Problem. pag. 14. i. e. Cyprians Book of the Vnity of the Church is corrupted to establish the Primacy of Peter; of which he gives divers instances.

The Priest goes on, To this (sayes he, of Cyprian) we may add the Testimony of that antient Book which • ears the Name of • lements Constitutions. What would not he stick to add, how adulterate s • ev • r, that might seem to add some fresh colour to his decayed and dying Cause. T • ese Constitutions which bear the Name of Clement, are less Authentick (if less can be) then those fore-mentioned Canons which are called Apostolical. Perkins in his Problem against Coccius, pag. 8. proves from Eus • bius, • uffi • us and others, that There are many things 〈◊〉 under the Name of Clement Romanus; of which having given diver • instances, he adds, The eight Books a • so of Apostolical Constitutions, written by the same Clement, des • rve no greater credit. And for Selden's Opinion of them, take it in his own words, For Constituti • ns of the Church; if you could believe thos • suppos • d to be made by the Apostles, and to be Collected by Pope Clement, the first, you might be sure both of payment in the Apostles times, as also of an express Opinion as antient for the right of Tenths.— But • o man that willingly and most grosly deceives not himself, can believe that this Constitution, or divers others there, are of any time near the Age of the Apostles, but many hundred Years after. The little worth, and l • ss Truth, of the whole Volumn is enough discovered by divers of the learned: and it was long since branded for a Counterf • it in an • e • umenical Cou • cil, Synod. 6. in Trullo. Thus he, in his History of Tythes, c. 4. pag. 42. and much more to the same purpose, in his Review of that Chapter, but this I take to be sufficient to detect the falsness of those Constitutions, and my Opponents weakness in urging them.

His next Author is Ambrose, out of whose Sermons 33. and 34. he takes two quotation • . The first thus, It is not 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, pag. 80.

The Particle [now] in this quotation is not in Ambros • , but added by the Priest. The other quotation is long, but to the same purpose, and that which seems most material • n it is the latter clause, that of all the Substance which God gives a man, he • ath reserved the tenth part to himself, and therefore it is not lawful for a man to retain it.

Here he sayes, The Lord Commands us to pay Tythes yearly, and that he hath reserved the tenth of all to himself; but the Text he offers in proof thereof, he fetches from the Levitical Law, which neither is obliging to Christians, nor do the Priests themselves claim by it; nay, they renounce it, as may be seen both in the Conference, pag. 133. and in the Right of Tythes, pag. 46. What ava •• these Testimonies then to thei • Cause, which are drawn from that Law which they themselves disclaim; were it never so undoubted that the quotation • themselves were genuine; which yet there is very great cause to question. For what likelihood is there that Ambrose, or any other of those Ancient Writers, could so far forget himself, as from a particular Precept given to the People of the Iews to infer, that God hath Comm • n • ed Christians to pay Tythes yearly, &c? But that the Writings of those Fathers (as they are called) have been corrupted in general, men co • versant in History are not ignorant; and in particulary Ambrose his Sermons ar • by Perkins accounted Spurious, or Counterfeit. Problem • . page 20.

Next to Ambrose he brings Epiphanius, pag. 81. saying, The Scripture exhorteth the People that out of their just Labours they should give to the Priests for their Maintenace, First Fruits, Oblations, and other things.

To this a twofold Answer is to be given. 1. That here is no mention of Tythes; and though the Priest, for want of better proof, would fain have first fruits understood for Tythes, yet so contrary is it to all reason, that no man of Judgment can be in danger to be so misled. 2. When he saith, the Scripture exhorteth the People to give the Priest • First Fruits for their Maintenance, since we are certain no Scripture of the New-Testament doth so exhort, he must necessarily be understood to speak this with relation to the Levitical Law, which as it was designed for, and given to, so it did particularly concern the Iewish Nation, not the Christians. And that the Payment of Tythes were not in use in Epiphanius his time, nor accounted necessary, Selden proves from Epiphanius his own words (in Heres. 50.) The whole Passage, as it lies in Selden's History of Tythes, Review. c. 4. pag. 461. take as followeth; When he (viz. Epiphaniu • ) tells us (sayes Selden) of the Tessuresde • atitae, or those which thought the holy Easter must be kept on the 14th Moon, according to the Law given to the Iews for their Passover, and that because they apprehended that the keeping it otherwise was sub • ect to the course of the Law; he sayes, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, they do all things, or agree generally with the Church, sa • ing that they were too much herein addicted to the Iewish Custom. And in his Argument against them, he shews, that the Course hath not reference only to the Passover, but also to Circumcision to Tythes ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) to Offerings. Wherefore (as he goes on) if they escape one curse, by keeping their Easter according to the Law of the Passover, they thrust themselves into many other. For (saith he) they shall find them also accursed that are not Circumcised, and them cursed that pay not Tythes, and them cursed that Offer not at Ierusalem. Let any man now (sayes Selden) consider if this Bishop, that was least unacquainted with the Customs of the Christian-Church, understood not clearly that no necessary or known use of payment was among Christians in his time, of Tythes, no more then o • Circumcision, or Offering at Ierusalem. Doth he not plainly reckon it as a thing not only not in Christian use, but even equals it with what was certainly abrogated? Is not his Objection shortly thus? Why do you not observe Circumcision and Tything, and Offerings also at Ierusalem, which are all subject to the like Curse? And because some kind of Offerings indeed were in use among Christians, therefore in the Objection he providently ties them to Ierusalem. But of Tything he speaks as generally as of Circumcision. Thus far Seld • n of Epiphanius. By which the Reader may judge, Whether Christians paid Tythes in Epiphanius his time, or whether Epiphaniu • accounted the Payment of Tythes a Christian duty, who so plainly equals Tythes with Circumcision and Iewish Offerings, which are most certainly abrogated.

To • piphanius the Priest joynes Chrysostom, whom he reports to speak after this manner, It is lawful and fitting for Christians to pay Tythes, and that Melchizedec was our Tutor in this matter, page 81.

Doth this sound at all like Chrysostom? Is it likely he would say Melchizedec was our Tutor in paying Tythes? Did Melchizedec then pay Tythes? To whom I wonder? Or did he teach that Tythes are to be paid? Wh • re I pray? That Golden-mouthed Doctor (as his name imports) understood the Text and himself better then to have let fall such an expression. But his Writings have run the same fate with others of those earlier time • , being in many places partly through inadvertency, partly through design, corrupted. And Perkins out of Sixtus Senensis the Library-keeper, reckons above a hundred homilies that bear the name of Chrysostom, which yet are reputed Spurious. Problem, pag. • 4. &c. And Selden, in his History of Tythes, C. 5. pag 56. giving the Opinions of the Fat • ers of that Age, sayes Chrysostom, perswading even Labourers and Artificers to give bou • tifully their Offerings to the Church for holy uses, according to the Apostolical Ordinance in the Churches of Co • inth and Galatia; brings the Iewish liberality in the payment of their Tenths for Example (beneath which he would not have Christians determin their Charity) adding, that he speaks these things not as commanding or forbidding that they should give more, yet as thinking it fit that they should not give l • ss then a tenth part. Whence it is plain that Tythes were not yet generally paid nor held du • ; but the Mi • isters & the Poor were alike maintained by the free Gifts and Voluntary Oblation, of the P • ople, which through the coldness of Devotion, falling short of answering the necessary ends, as formerly, gave occasion to these men to excite their Charity, and provoke them to more liberality by the Example of the Iews, who paid the tenth of their increase. Hence it is, that in some of their Writings the word [Decimae] sometimes occurs. And from their frequent Inculcation of this, as a Provocation to t • e Christians to equal at least, if not exceed, in charity and bounty the Iews, an Opinion about this time, Ignorance and Superstition Co-operating the • e to, began in some places to enter the Church, Tha • Tythes were due. But then they were claimed and received in the name of the Poor, and the claim derived from the Mosaical Law, as Selden proves at large, C. 5. But for the first four hundred years after Christ Selden is positive. No use of Tythes occurs till about the end of this four hundred years, are his words, C. 4. pag. 35. And again, Till towards the end of the first four hundred years, no payment of them can be proved to have been in use, ibid.

The Priest's next quotation is of Hierom, whom he makes to say, That as a Priest or Levite, he himself lived upon Tythes and Oblations, pag. 81.

In this he deals not well with his Reader: for he gives not Hierom's own words fairly, but taking a piece only, represents his sense far otherwise then it is. Hierom's words are these, Si ego pars Domin • sum, et faniculus hareditatis ejus, nec accipio partem inter caeteras tribus, sed QVASI Levita et Sacerd • s vivo de decimis, et altari serviens altaris oblation • sustent • r, habens victu • et vestitum, his contentus ere, et ••• dam crucemnudus sequ • r. i. e. If I am the Lords par • , and a cord of his Inheritance, and receive n • sh ••• amongst the rest of the Tribes, but live LIKE AS • Levite and a Priest of the Tythes, and serving at the Altar am sustained by the Offering of the Al • ar, having Food and Rayment, with those will I be content, and naked fo •• ow the naked Cross. Its plain that Hier • m here alludes to the Iewish Priests and their Maintenance, and therefore uses the word Tythes as suiting his comparison of a Levite. But it doth no more follow from hence that Hierom really lived upon Tythes, then it doth that he was really a Levite, of a certain Tribe, and neither had nor might have any Patrimonial Estate amongst his Brethren; all which might with like reason be infer'd from these words, by him that would take them literally & strictly, not comparatively and with allusion. And it may be observed, that though in the first part of his Sentence, pursuing his Simile of a Levite having no part among the other Tribes, he mention • Tythes which was the Levites Maintenance, yet in the latter part, he hath a plain reference to the words of the Apostle Paul, 1 Tim. 6. 8. Having Food and Rayment, let us therewith be content. Another quotation he gives out of Hierom upon Matth. 22. where he sayes, Hierom call • Tythes the things that be Gods.

But that Homily upon Matthew is rejected by Perkins in pag. 23. of his Problem, and ranked amongst several other Works, which he sayes, by the common judgment of all men ar • falsly ascribed to Hierom.

His next Author is Augustin, who, he sayes, pag. 82. intimates it was no new Custom nor Opinion to pay Tythes as Gods due.

His words as he cites them are, For our fore-Fathers therefore abounded in all • lenty, 〈…〉 they gave God his Tythe, and Caesar his Tribute.

That Tythes were not paid in the Apostles times, is both evident from Scripture, and granted by the Priest: That Tythes were not paid in the first two Hundred Years after Christ, may be fairly Collected from Tertullian, who speaking of the Christian Monethly Contributions in his time, sayes, Modicam unusquis que stipem menstruâ die, velcum velit, et si modo velit, & si modo possit, appo • it: Nam nemo compellitur, sed sponte confert. i. e. Every one layes down a small piece of Money on the Monethly day, or when he will, and if so be he be willing, and if so be he be able: For no man is compelled, but bestows freely, Apol. c. 39. Then for the next fifty Years, those words of Cyprian (cited but misapplied by the Priest) if the place be not depraved) shew that Tythes were not then paid. For he noting the coldness of their Charity then, compared with the liberality of the first Christians, sayes, They then sold Houses and Lands, and brought the Prices to the Apostles to be disposed for the use of the Poor: but now we do not give so much as the Tenths; which plainly shews that Tenths or Tythes were not paid in his time.

And about the Year 380. What Epiphaniu • writes of the Tessaresdecaticae, cited but now out of Selden, puts it out of doubt that Tythes were not paid in his time, at least in the Greek Eastern Church. And if Tythes were not paid in Epiphanius his time, certainly the Custom of paying them, and Opinion of their being due (if any such Custom or Opinion had been general) in Augustin's time (who was Born before Epiphanius died) must needs be somewhat new. But if Andr • w Willet's judgment be of any force with the Priest, he is very plain and positive as to this Case. In Au • ustin's time (sayes he) it was no general Law nor Custom in the Church, that Tythes should be paid, Synop. Papism. 5. gen. Controv. pag. 314. And yet there is ground to suppose, that in Augustin's time, in some places, and at some times, some Persons did give Tythes; but not that there was any general, settled or constant payment of them.

He adds another quotation from Augustin's Sermon de Tempore, 219. thus, Tythes are required as due Debt, and he that will not give them invades another man's right—Whatsoever art sustaineth thee, it is Gods: and he requireth Tythes out of whatsoever thou livest by.

He gives us more of him, but this the most material, and sayes, The whole Sermon is most worthy to be read—being an evid • nt proof of the Antients Opinion that Tythes were of divine Right.

Whether that Sermon were Augustin's or no, is a great Question. Selden (a curious searcher into antiquity) susp • cts it, his words of it are, About Harvest he made it, if it be his; for it hath been doubt • d whether it be his or no. And in the Margin he sayes, The very words of this Sermon are in that counterfeit Treatise falsly attributed to St. Augustin, and inscribed De Rectitudine Catholicae conversationis, History of Tythes, c. 5. pag. 54. Which Treatise Perkins places amongst those Writings of his, which by the common judgment of all men are reputed spurious or counterfeit. But be it true or false, the Priest hath not given his quotation out of it fairly; but hath omitted those Text, which shew whence he derived the claim to Tythes, namely from Malachy 3. and other Texts of the Old Testament relating to Tythes and first Fruit, among the Iews, but not obliging Christians, yea, disclaimed by this very Priest, pag. 46. • nd hath also left out several passages, which shew that Tythes were then claimed not for the Priests, but the Poor. Decima Tributa sunt egentium Auimarum: redde ergo Tributa Pauperibus. i. e. Tythes are the Tributes of needy Souls: therefore pay the Poor their Tributes. And in that very place from which the Priest gives us these words [Tythes are required as due debt, and he that will not give them invades another man's right] and there leaves off with a—it follows thus, Et quaenti pa • peres in locis ubi ipse habitat, illo decimas non dante, fame mortui fuerint, tantoru • homicidiorum reus ante tribunal eterni Iudicis apparebit, quiae Domino Pauperibus delegatum suis usibus res • rvavit. i. e. And look how many Poor, in the places where he lives, shall perish through Hunger, by reason of his not giving Tythes, of so many Murders shall h • be found guilty before the Tribunal of the eternal Iudge, because he hath kept to his own use that which was appointed by the Lord for the Poor. From these passages, it is manifest both whence the Opinion of the Right of Tythes, then entring the Church, was taken, (viz. the Levitical Law) and to whom they were then supposed to be due, viz. the Poor. And he might also (had it suited his interest) have added another passage in the same place, which gives a taste of the state of those times (if the Sermon be allowed genuin) in point of Doctrine. The words are these, Qui ergo sibi aut premium comparare, aut pec • atoru •• desider at indulgentiam promereri, reddat Decima • . i. e. He therefore that desires either to purchase a reward to himself, or to merit Pardon of his Sins, let him pay Tythe. By which the Reader may observe, how far the Mystery of Iniquity had by that time wrought, and to what pass the State of Christianity was then come, when Tythes began to be preacht up, and paid.

The Priest sayes he could further prove the Opinion of the Ancients, that Tythes were of divine right, by many more instances. But (saith he) I will end these Testimonies of single Eminent Fathers, with that of Prosper of Aquitain, who speaking to the Ciergy 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? pag. 83.

That Tythes by the private devotion of some began to be given in Augustin's time, is already noted; and that such Gifts were more frequent in Prosper's time (which was about fifty Years after) is not unli • e • y. Nor need we question, but the Clergy then did willingly (as he sayes) receive th • m, especially if we consider how much even in those times, they were departed from the purity and soundness of the Gospel. Of which occasion will offer to speak at large hereafter. At present therefore take only a touch out of Prosper himself in his Book, De promissionibus et praedictionibus Dei. Orationibus sanctorum (sayes he) me expiari ob omina peccato posse confido. i. e. I firmly believe that by the Prayers of the Saints, I may be purged from all Sin.

But this saying of Prosper, That the Priests did willingly receive what the People offered, although it may prove that Tythes were sometimes given; yet it cannot prove any general or constant payment of Tythes.

I have no • gone through the Testimonies he hath brought of which some are reputed false and co • nterfeit, as the Apostolical Canons, Clements Constitutions, and the Sermons attributed to Ambrose. S • me suspected, as that of Augustin De tempore. Some not fairly cited, as Origen, Cyprian, and Hierom. Some Misapplyed, as Iustin Martyr, Irenaeur, and Epiphani •• . Some speak of Tythes by way of comparison only, and with allusion to the Iewish State. Some mention Tythes by way of provocation to stir up the People to greater Charity and Liberality. Some about four hundred Years after Christ, Preach up Tythes to be due, but to the Poor; and enforce the Claim from the Mosaical Law, and other Writings of the Old Testament. But none of them, (I except those Spurious Constitutions and Canons) say, That Christ Appointed, Established, Confirmed Tythes, or that the Apostles either in • oyn'd or approved the payment of them, or that they were at all paid in the first Ages of Christianity. So that hitherto we have found no Divine Right to Tyth • s under the Gospel, unless any will so far deceive themselves as to acknowledge that for a Divine Right now in force which depended on the Levitical Law, and by its abrogation ceased.

§. 4. At the close of his Testimonies, the Priest sayes, 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, pag. 84.

That which in my former Book, I said of Tythes having their institution from Popery, was with relation to that Chart • r of Ethelwolf, which the Priest grounded their Dedication on, and to the Definition of Popery which he then gave, of which more hereafter. However, I see no necessity either: to affirm, the Church was Popish as early as Irenaeus and Origen, or to recant what I have said in my former Book concern • ng the institution of T • thes. For he hath not proved, and I deny, that Tythes were instituted, required or paid in the times of Irenaeus or Origen, or well-nigh two hundred Years after. But of the times in and about which Tythes began to be thought due, and as so paid (which Selden is positive, was not till about the end of the fourth Century, and the beginning of the fifth) and of the State of the Church then, and some what earlier also, not to speak my own Sense, I will give the Reader a short View, and submit it to his judgment.

About the Year of C • rist two hundred (as early as Origen) Prayers, Offerings and Sacrifices for the Dead began to be in use in the Church. Tertullian, who lived in that time, mentions these things in his Book De Corona Militis, and sayes, They sprang from Tradition.

As early also was the Opinion of Purgatory received in the Church, and believed. Both Tertullian and Origen held it, as Perkins confesses, Problem page 175.

Much about the same time crept in the Opinion of the Intercession of Saints departed this life, from which sprang the Custom of Praying to Saints. And though for some time this was disputed amongst the Learned of those times, yet towards the latter end of the fourth Century (much about the same time that Tythes began to be thought due) this Custom of Praying to Saints grew in use in the Church. And Perkins acknowledges, that the Antients, especially after the year four hundred, did not only sin, but were guilty of Sacriledge; for they some itmes place (saye • he) their Hope, Faith and Confidence in the Saints; of which he gives divers instances, page 93.

Reliques began to be had in veneration, and to be carried up and down, and flocked a • ter about the Year three hundred, idem. p. 81.

The going on Pilgrimage came in fashion about the Year three hundred and twenty, and prevailed so fast, that about the end of that Century, it was made a part of the Worship of God, idem. pag. 119.

The use of Chrisme was instituted by Pope Sylvester, about the Year 330.

Extream Vn •• on was Decreed by Pope Innocen • the first, in the Year 402.

Monkish Life began about the Year 260. idem▪ pag. 226.

The Caelibate, or single Life of Priests, began to be Preacht up, by or before the Year 300. And about the Year 380. it was commanded by the publick • udgment of the Church, and a Vow of perpetual chastity declared necessary, and injoyned, idem. pag. 192.

By these few instances the Reader may give a guess at the State of the Church in those dayes, wherein Tythes began to get up. How much worse it grew afterwards in the following ages, when Tythes came to be settled and established by Laws, I shall have further • ccasion anon to shew. In the mean time I proceed to examine the Authorities the Priest urges from the Decrees of Councils.

§. 5. As an Introduction to his Con • iliary Testimonies, he gives his Reader a Note, pa • . 8 • . First, (sayes he) Let it be noted, That 〈…〉 be certain Tythes were paid from the earlie •• da • es 〈◊〉 Christianity; yet it wa • not for a long time direct • y i • joyned by a • y human Law, either Ecclesiastical or Civil: which shews the first Christians 〈◊〉 , they were obliged to pay them by the Law of God, pag▪ 84

This is a Note worth the noting. He sayes, It is certain Tythes were paid from the earliest days of Christianity. The earliest dayes of Ch • istianity! Why did he not say, pag • 67. O • e Reason why Tythes are not mentio • ed in the New • Testament by nam • is, To avoid all occasion of Scand • l to the Jews, whose Priests were then in Possession of them? Would the 〈◊〉 have been offended at the mention of T • thes in the New-Testament, which they were not like to see and would they not have bee • offended at seeing Tythes paid by the Christians to their Ministers? Did he not there say, Ma • y things were suffered a while to run in their o • d chan • el, till the whole Jewish Polity was Destroyed? And will he now make Tythes to be turned out of their old Channel, • nd to • un in a new one from the earliest dayes of Christianity, before the • hole Iewish Po • ity was Destroyed? Did he not there say, It would have been used as a prejudice to the young beginnings of the Gospel, if the Preachers had presently claimed the Maintenance, which others were legally in • tated in? And will he here say, The Chris • ia • s did pay to their Preachers the Maintenance which others were legally instated in, and that from the earliest dayes of Christianity? Did he not say, •• g. 71. The State of the Church in the Apostles dayes was such, that Believers, though they wer • willing, could not have opportunity to pay Tythes regularly; nor could the Gospel-Minist • rs receive them? And will he here say, Tythes were paid from the earliest dayes of Christianity? And that this is certain too? Certainly this des • rves to be [nigro carbone notatum] Noted with a black Cole. He had forgot perhaps, that his Brother Priest (whom he defends) had said in his Conference, pag. 157. I confess the Apostles had not the Tythes in their dayes—the Levites themselves were in Possession of them, which they kept, during the continuance of their Nation and Temple • Besides, you ought to consider, that Tythes, or any other fixed Maintenance, was utterly inconsistent with their unfixed State of Life; being to Preach the Gospel in all Nations, they became an improper▪ Maintenance for them; a • d besides, you are to consider, that the Apostles needed them not, for as they had their Gifts, so their Maintenance by a Miraculous Pr • vidence.

Here one of the Priests sayes, Tythes, or any other Maintenance, was improper for the Apostles, and utterly inconsistent with their State • That the Apostles neither needed Tythes, nor had Tythes, nor could have had them if they would, because the Levites Possest and kept Tythes, during the continuance of their Nation and Temple, which was not utterly Destroyed till about thirty seven Years after Christ's Death. The other Priest sayes, It is certain Tythes were paid from the earliest dayes of Christianity. Is not this pretty? How justly might I here re • ort what he most unjustly threw at me, pag. 59. One of these must be false, for ind •• d there is a manifes • co • tradiction. Let them lay their heads together again and see if they can reconcile it.

But it seems however, this early payment of Tyth • s was not for a long time directly enjoyned; which was seasonably noted by him to excuse himself from giving some early constitution either Ecclesiastical or • ivil for the so early payment of them. But this Non-Injunction, he sayes, shews The first Christians believed they were obliged to pay them by the Law of God.

He's very much out. For, First, T • at the first Christians paid Tythes at all, is not only denyed, but learnedly disproved, and Tythes proved not only improper for, but utterly inconsistent with the Apostolical State, by his own dear Brother the other Priest in his Conference, pag. 57. And Secondly, If Tythes had been as certainly paid in the next Ages to the Apostles, as it is certain they were not paid in the Apostles Time, yet would not such a practice any more have proved that the Christians believed they were obliged to pay them by the Law of God, then it would have proved the Christians in Tertullian's time, who Prayed and Sacrificed for the Dead, without the Injunction of any Human Law, either Ecclesiastical or Civil, for a long time, did believe they were obliged so to Pray and so to Sacrifice, by the Law of God; which that they were far enough from Be • ieving Tertullian sufficiently shews, when speaking of those things, he sayes, If thou demandest the Laws of these and other such like Disciplines, thou wilt find none in the Scriptures. Thou wilt find Tradition pretended for the Author, Custom for the Confirmer, and Faith for the Observer. lib de c •• on. mil.

He adds, ibid. That acco • ding to S. Augustine' • Rule, viz. [That such things as were Vniversally observed, and owed not their beginning to any Council, were to be thoug • t to have been ordained by the Apostles] Tythes and first Fruits must at least be of Apostoli • al institution.

This is grounded on a Supposition (at which he is very notable) that Tythes and first Fruits were Vniversaly paid. I deny it, both as to time and place. Let him first prove that, and then he may expect • further Answer. Now to his Councils.

§. 6. In his first Regiment of Councils, that which leads the Van, pag. 85. is the Counterfeit Canons falsly ascribed to the Apostles; of which enough hath been said before to det • ct them, and shame • him for urging them. Next comes up the Council of Gangra held about the Year 324. in the seventh and eighth Canons of which, Tythes (he sayes) are called [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] which he Englishes (but ill) E • c • esiastical Tribute of Fruits. But bearing with the Translation, let him shew (if he can) that Tythes are mentioned, by name, in any Canon of that Council. If not, Why abuses he his Reader in saying, Tythes are there called Ecclesiastical Tribute of Fruits? A like falshood he imposes on his Reader in his next quotation of the Council of Anti •• h, held in the Year 341. (as he sayes, but in the Year 345. sayes Burdegalens • s) in the twenty fourth and twenty fifth Canons, of which he reads (he sayes) The profits of the Church, or the Fruits of the Fields.

But what is that to the proof of Tythes? Could th • Church have no Profits or Fruits of the Fields but it must needs be Tythes? If Tythes had been named 〈◊〉 that Council, why did he not shew that? But if they were not named there, why does he play upon his Reader, and endeavour to perswade him they we • e? Is he not ashamed to say, he finds many Antient Councils suppose Tythe • to have been paid, and • rdering how Tythes should be distributed by the Bishops, and yet cannot shew out of those antient Councils (as he calls them) that Tythes were so much as oncé named in them?

To these Councils (for credit sake, and to increase the number) he adds the Canonical Epistle (as he calls it) of St. Cyrill of Alexandria to Domnus, where, he sayes, he finds, mention of Ecclesiastical Revenues.

What then, is nothing an Ecclesiastical Revenue but Tythes? If he had found that Revenue there called Tythes, he had t • en found something to his purpose; but as it is, it helps him not at all. See now what his great boast of MANY Antient Councils, which suppose Tythes to have been paid, &c. is come to. The first has long since been branded for a Counterfeit, the two next have not a word of Tythes, the fourth and last is not the Decree of a Council, but the Epistle of a single Person, and that sayes nothing of Tythes neit • er. And yet, such is the immodest Confidence of the man, that he doth not stick to say, pag. 86. In the fore-cited places it appears, that Tythes and First Fruits were given to the Church long before the Year of Christ 324. So indeed I think they had need to have been, if they had been paid (as he boldly sayes, 'tis certain they were) from the earliest dayes of Christ • anity, pag. 84. But as that is very fairly disproved, by his own dear Brother, in his Friendly Conference, pag. 157. So this remains yet to be proved by himself, or any other, that like himself, has so much confidence and 〈◊〉 littl • credit, as to undertake it.

But how comes it we have no more of these antien • Councils produced? Why brought he not forth the Council of Caesaria (holden about the Year 200.) which Burdegalensis calls the first Council after the Apo •• les times? why past • e over the several Councils of Carthage, held about the Years 236. and 253? Why slipt he those • olden at Antioch about the Year 270? Why mentioned he not the Council of Sinuessa in Campania, nor the fi • st of Ancyra, held about the Year 2 • 0? Why took he no notice of the Council holden at (Cirtes) in N • midia, about the Year 304? Of the second of Ancyra, about the Year 309? Or of the Neo-Caesarian, about the Year 313? And (to pass by the Roman and Elibertine Councils under Sylvester) how came he to omit that great and universal Council (as some call it) holden at N • ce, about the Year 320? Were some of these Councils rejected? so were some of them he urged. Was there no mention of Tythes in these? no more was there in those he alledged. And doth it not look strangely that so many Councils, held in s • veral parts of the World, should not have a word of Tythes; and yet this man should talk of Tythes being certainly paid from the earliest dayes of Christianity • Pray hear what Selden sayes upon this subject, chap. 4. of his H • story of Tythes, pag. 43. speaking of the Opinion of them that would have Tythes to be an Ordinance of the Apostles, Had it been (sayes he) the Apostles Ordinance, or the use of the Church in the Primitive times, Origen, Tertullian and Cypria • (having such occasion to mention it) could not have be • n so silent of it. And is it likely (adds he) that all the old Councils from thence, till near s • x Hundred Years after Christ (which, being authentick beyond exception, have special Canons for the Lands and • oods poss • st by the Church, the Offerings, Revenu • s, and such more) could have omitted the name of Ten • hs, if either such use or Apostolical Law had preceded? They (sayes he) talk of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Goods of the Chu •• h, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈◊〉 Offerings of first Fruits; but have not a word any where of the tenth part. And (adds he) 〈◊〉 those counterfeit Canons also (meaning those called the Apostles Canons) one is inde • d of first Fruits (although, touching them by that Name, certainly no Law was made under the Apostles) but no words of Tenths, Thus he.

§. 7. Thus far of those Councils which he supposes suppose Tythes to have been paid. Come we now to those other which, he sayes, directlye joyn them, of w • ich the fi • st he gives is, The Decree of a Roman Council in the Year 374. commanding, That Ty •• s and first Fruits should be paid by the Christians, and they which with-hold them should be anathematized, pag. 86.

This is the first of his direct Injunctions for the payment of Tythes; and he had no sooner set down this, but he began to bethink himself, that this Council, if it came to be examined, would scarce stand the tryal, and therefore without more ado, in the very next words he sayes, But there is some question whether this Council be genuin or no; I shall therefore (sayes he) • mit this, and all those other Councils which suppose them, but do not enjoyn them, pag. 86.

The Proverb sayes, we may judge of a Man by the Company he keeps. But if we should judge of his Cause, by the Evidences he brings to prove it, what may the Cause be thought to be, when the Witnesses are Counterfeits, Cheats, corrupted and fals • ? What shameful work is this?

But now he comes to one which he calls a positiv • Ecclesiastical Law, and the first too; and yet that was not made till the Year 5 • 0. as he sayes, but Selden places it in the Year 586. It is the Council of Matiscon (a Bishoprick in the Diocess of Lyons) which he sayes, pag. 87. speaks thus, The divine Laws taking care of the Priests and Ministers of the Churches, for their Inheritance, have injoyned all the People to pay the Tyth •• of their Fruits to holy places, that being hindred by no labour, they may more duely attend spiritual Ministries, which Laws the whole company of Christians have for a long time kept inviolate.

T • us far his English differs little from the Latine, as Selden has it, saving that where his English is, That being hindred by no labour: The Latin • adds, per res illegitimas, i. e. by Vnlawful things. But in the latter part of his quotation, which contains the Decree it self, there is no correspondence between the Latine and his English; so great a Liberty of variation doth he take. The Latine in Selden's (History of Tythes, c. 5. §. 5.) goes on thus, Vnd • statuimus ut Decimas Ecclesiasticas • mnis Populus inferat, quibus Sacerdotes aut in Pauperum usu • aut 〈◊〉 Captivorum redemptione • erogatis, suis orationibus pacem populo ac Salutem impetrent. i. e. Whereupon we ordain that all the People bring in the Ecclesiastical Tythes, which being bestowed either for the use of the Poor, or for the Redemption of Captives, the Priests by their Prayers may obtain Peace and Safety for the People. Instead of which his English runs thus, Wherefore we D • cree and ordain, That the Anti • nt Custom be obs • rved s • ill among the Faithful, and that all the People bring in the Tythes, which maintain the Worship of God. Let the Understanding Reader compare now, and see what he can find in this English to Answer that in the Latine [quibus Sacerdotes, aut in pauperum usum, aut in captivorum redemptionem erogatis, suis orationibus pacem populo ac s •• utem impetrent] or what in the Latine to Answer this in the English [That the Antient Custom be observed still among the Faithful; And, That Tythes maintain the Worship of God.] This is a fault this Priest is too frequently guilty of: he gives not his quotations in the Authors words, but in his own, concealing the Author's, that he may the more safely and undiscerned twist his quotations to his purpose, and thereby lead his Readers judgment Captive Hoodwi • kt. His design here was to prove the Antiquity of Tythes in the Christian-C • urch, to contenance which, he is not content with what is said in the Decree, viz. That the Christians have kept these Laws inviolate for a long time; but adds, The Antient Custom. And because the words of the Decree shew what Service Tythes were then • ut to, namely, the us • of the Poor or R • demption of Captives, he leaves that out, and inst •• d thereof puts in [which maintain the Worsh • p of God] And having thus formed it for his purpose, he thinks now he has got enough to serve his turn. These words (he sayes) do fully prove our Assertion of Tythes having been paid from the beginning, • ure divin • , pag. 87.

But he mistakes in this too, and that not a little. This Council falls a gr • at 〈◊〉 too low to prove his Assertion. For how should these, who lived so near the end of the sixth Century, understand the Practice of the first Times, what was done in the beginning, and what was paid in the earliest dayes of Christianity, better then they whose lot fell nearer to the first Times by well-nigh the one half? Or what likelihood is there, that if Tythes had been paid from the beginning, from the earliest dayes of Christianity, no one of those many Councils before remembred, should so much as once have mentioned Tythes, especially seeing divers of them speak particularly of the Offerings, Oblations, Rev • nues and Treasure of the Church? But this Council intimates, that Tythes had been paid for a long time.

What then, must that long time be extended to the very beginning, to the earliest dayes of Christianity? No such matter. Selden sayes, That long time they speak of, might have had perhaps beginning from the Doctrine of those two great Fathers St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, about the Year 400. History of Tythes, pag. 48. From which time to this Council, there having passed about one hundred and eighty years, might not improperly be called a long time. The common use of speech will • ustifie it. But the Decree mentions Divine Laws, from whence the Priest infers Tythes were paid from the beginning, jure divino.

But Selden, in the place fore quoted, shews, that the Laws there called Divine, were but the Mosaical Laws, which these Priest • , both one and 'tother, refuse to claim by, Friend • y Co •• erence, pag. 133. Right of Tythes, pag. 46. T • us much of the particular parts of the Decree. Now of the Council, it self, it is observable, that as it was but a provincial Council, and so affords no general Determination; so (as Selden Notes, pag. 58.) Not so much as any Canon of it is found mentioned, as of received Authority, in any of the more Antient Compilers of Synodal Decrees: which he there shews at large. But leaving what hath been said of this to the Readers observation & judgment, I go on to examin his next quotation out of the Council of Hispalis, which he Dates in the Year 590. and delivers in these words, We ordain 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 Bee's and Honey, Lambs, &c. And he that payes not Tythes of all these, is a Thief to God himself, pag. 88. His observation on this is, That they all declare Tythes to be due, jure divino.

But whence fetcht they their Opin • on of the Divine Right of Tythes? Do they not deduce it from the Words of the Prophet, and ground their Decree thereupon? And had not those Words of the Prophet a direct reference to the C • remonial Law? And is not the Ceremonial Law ended and abrogated by Christ? And do not these Priests disown any claim from it? Friendly Co • ference, pag. 133. Right of Tythes, pag. 4 • . What trifling then is it thus to Argue! Besides, there is great ground to sus • ect the credit of his quotation. Selden Nothing the falshood which some c • mmit, who out of Iuo, attributed an express Canon for the payment of first Fruits and Tenths, to the provincial Synod of Sivil, and giving the words of that Canon, little different from these quoted by the Priest, sayes, The old Manuscript Copy of Iuo hath it, ex concili • Spanensi, and the Printed Book ex concilio Hispalensi. Then sticking a little at the word [Spanensi] he adds, Whatever he meant by it, clearly the whole Canon is of much later time, the first words of it also being nothing but the Syllables of one of Charlemains Laws, that was not made till 780. years from Christ. He observes also that Gratian warily abstained from using these Canons; and a little after concludes positively, That among the known and certain Monuments of Truth, till about the end 800 years, no Law Pontificial of or Synodal (saving that of Mascon) Determins or Commands any thing concerning Tenths, although very many are which, speaking purposely and largely of Church Revenues, Oblations, and such like, could not have been silent of them, if that quantity had been then established for a certain duty. He then shews that the Canonists and others in later Ages, compiling their Decrees, have made those words, by which the Offerings of the Christians were expressed, to serve as if they had expresly named Tythes (in which Observation he seems to take this very Priest by the Nose) and concludes thus, He that reads those old Canons only, as they are so applied, in late Authority, to Tythes, might perhaps soon think that at first they were made specially and by name for them. The matters (sayes he) is plainly otherwise. What was ordained in them about Tythes, is out of them in later times (Tythes & Oblatio • s being then supposed of equal right) expresly extended also to Tythes. And to this purpose he cites Frier 〈◊〉 , (in Prolegom ad To •• . 1. Con • il.) thus, Licet forsan fals • t • li sint Pontifici, vel cert • tali Co • cilio per scriptorum inc • rian ad scripti. i. e. Although perhaps (speaking of such Canons) they are falsly ascribed to such a Pope, or to such a Council by the carelesness of Writers. Thus far Selden, Hist. Tythe • , c. 5. §. 5.)

And in his sixth Section of the same Chapter, mentioning again the Decree of Masoon, which was but Provincial, he sayes, No Canon as yet was received in the Church generally, as a binding Law, for payment of any certain quantity; which not only appears (sayes he) in that we find none such now remaining, but also is confirmed by the Testimony of a great and learned French Bishop (in whose Province also Mascon was) that could not be ignorant of the received Law of his time. He lived and wrote very near the end of this four Hundred Years (I think (sayes he) in the very beginning of the next, which, according▪ to S • lden's division, must be the Year 900.) And, in a Treatise abou • the dispensation of Church Revenues, expresly denyes, that befo • e his time any Synod or general Doctrine of the Church had determined or ordained any thing touching the quantity that should be given, either for Maintenance or building of Churches. He gives the Testimony of this Bishop in his own words, thus, Ja • vero de donandis rebus etordinandis Ecclesijs, nihil unquam in Synodis constitutum est, nihil a Sanctis Patribus publice praedicatum. Nulla enim compulit necessitas, fervente ubique religiosa devotione, et amore illustrandi Ecclesias ultro • estruante, &c. (i. e. But now concerning endowing • nd ordaining Churches, there has never been any thing decreed in Synods, nor publickly preached by the holy Fathers. For there has not been any necessity for that, religious Devotion being every where warm, and the desire of adorning Churches burning of its own accord. And then adds, This Author is Agobard Bishop of Lyons (very learned and of great judgment) and had not so confidently denyed what you see he doth, if any Decree, Canon, or Council, generally received, had before his time commanded the payment or offering of any certain part. And to confirm the Truth of this Bishop's Testimony herein, he adds, that Neither in the Codex Eccl • si • • niverculis, or the Codex Ecclesi • Romane, or Africane, Fulgentius Ferrandus, Cresconius, or Isidore's Collection (all which, in those elder Ages, were as parts of the Body of the Canon Law) is once any mention of the name of Tenths. Thus far Selden. By which it may appear that Tythes had not so early a settlement in the Church as the Priest would perswade his Reader.