REASONS WHY The People called QUAKERS do not pay TYTHES.

1. BECAUSE Tythes were appointed by God, only under the Mosaical Law, for the Portion of the Levites in lieu of their Inheritance in the Land of Canaan, as well as for their Service in the Temple, which being long abolished and destroyed, all Ob­ligation to pay Tythe, as of God's Appoint­ment, ceased therewith.

2. Because being a Part of the ceremoni­al Law, which was abrogated by our Savi­our's offering himself once for all a propitia­tory Sacrifice for the Sins of the whole World, to pay or receive Tythes now, is to continue that in Part, which he came to abolish.

3. Because we are of the Judgment, all compulsory Maintenance of Ministers is con­trary to the Doctrine of Christ Jesus our great Lord and Law-giver, who first and a­bove all others should be heard in this Mat­ter, [Page 4] and whose Injunction we are of Opinion virtually prohibits the Practice under the Gospel, as the same is expressed in his Charge to the first Ministers thereof, Matth. x. 8. Freely ye have received, freely give.

4. Because we find no Precept nor Pre­cedent in the New Testament for the receiv­ing or paying of Tythes: But on the con­trary we understand the Payment of Tythes, and all forced Maintenance of Ministers to be in direct Opposition to the Apostolical Doctrine and Practice, as the same are re­corded in the sacred Writings of that Age,Acts xx. 33, 34, 35. and evidently appears from the following concurring Scriptures. I have, saith Paul, coveted no Man's Silver or Gold, or Apparel; yea, you yourselves know, that these Hands have ministred unto my Necessities, and to those that are with me, I have shewed you, that so labouring you ought to support the Weak, For ye remember, Brethren, 1 Thes. ii. 9. our Labour and Travail, for labouring Night and Day, because we would not be chargeable to any of you, we preached unto you the Gospel of God. For we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you, 2 Thes. iii. 7, 8. neither did we eat any Man's Bread for nought but wrought with Labour and Travail Night and Day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you; and again, [Page 5] What is my Reward then? 1 Cor. ix [...]. 18, 19. verily that when I preach the Gospel I may make the Gospel of Christ without Charge that abuse not my Power in the Gospel. And the Apostle Peter who well understood his great Master's Mind herein, writes thus to those who had been called to the spiritual O­versight of the Churches. Feed the Flock of God which is among you, taking the Oversight thereof, not by Constraint, 1 Pet. v. 2.3. but willingly, not for filthy Lucre, but of a ready mind, neither as being Lords over God's Heritage, but being Ensamples to the Flock.

5. Because by Ecclesiastical History, par­ticularly Selden's History of Tythes, it ap­peareth that Tythes were not claimed, or said in the Christian Church for the three first Centuries.

6. Because Tythes were one of the many Innovations and Impositions introduced in the Church, in the Night of gross Darkness and Apostacy from the original Purity, and as such to be rejected, withstood and testified against in the Reformation or Return from the Apostacy.

7. Because Tythes for the sole Use of the Parish-Priest obtained not till about the 13th Century, when they were appointed [Page 6] to be so paid by a decretal Epistle of Pope Innocent III.

8. Because the Ordinance of the Pope, directing the Payment thereof, appears a plain Contradiction to the Ordinance of Je­sus Christ, whose Ordinances in point of Conscience, we are bound to obey.

"But we find it is urged against us, that the Clergy do not now claim Tythe by Di­vine Right, but as the Provision for their Support appointed by the Laws of the Land; that although they were formerly granted by Princes or People bigotted to Popery, and blinded by misguided Zeal, or paid in Compli­ance with the Ordinances of Popes or Popish Councils: Yet being now the Grant of the Parliament, and the Payment thereof by the Legislature ordained and made a Part of the Laws of the Land; it is the Duty of all, as Subjects to comply therewith, and to pay or set out their Tythe as the Law directs."

To this we answer, that we pay all due Respect to the Laws of the Land, and where for Conscience-sake, we cannot actively comply with the Law, we have patiently submitted to the Penalties annexed to the Non-compliance therewith: And when these Penalties become greivous, we have, with proper Respect, not thought it unreasonable [Page 7] or unbecoming us, to lay our [...] Case before Parliament, in order to seek Redress.

But this Objection appears to us more spe­cious than solid: The National Laws in this Particular are grounded on Considerations inadmissible by us, they enforce the Pay­ment of Tythes on the Supposition of Divine Right, as ^* due to God and holy Churh, who­ever therefore claims Tythe by the Laws, virtually claims them as due by Divine Right, for the Law, as far we understand, grants them on no other Considerations, and therefore our Reasons against paying them are not invalidated by the Reasoning of such as urge the Law of the Land against us.

Yet further our Scruple is really conscien­tious, we think our Saviour hath utterly a­bolished Tythes, with the ceremonial Law to which they belonged, and hath virtually prohibited all extorted Maintenance to Gos­pel Ministers; that his immediate Followers so believed and so acted is evident to us from the whole Tenor of their Writings: that his Authority in his Church is superior to every human Authority, we presume will be uni­versally allowed; that no Man or Body of Men as Men are infallible, is a Protestant Principle; and that neither the Magistrate [Page 8] nor the Legislature, more than any other Men can answer for our doing or omitting, what in Conscience we believe to be our Du­ty.

On these clear Principles we think our­selves justified in not paying Tythes, in with­holding our active Compliance with the Laws of the Land whieh enjoin us to pay them, and, declining voluntarily to contribute in any Way to the forced Support of Ministers: On the same Principles, we allow no Sti­pends for the Support of our own.

We admit the Power of the Civil Magi­strate and the Obligation of human Laws their full Scope in Civil Society, as far as they regard meerly Civil Matters, and so far we pay full Submission thereto, reserving to God the Things which are God's, parti­cularly the sole Dominion over the Consci­ence; whoever will carry his Reasoning from the Force of human Laws farther than this, in our Apprehension, will extend it be­yond the Limits of Scripture, of the Prin­ciples of the Christian Religion, and those of the Reformation.

From Scripture, where human Laws con­tradicted the Divine Law in the Conscience, we have sundry Instances of Divine Appro­bation [Page 9] attending the preferring of the Divine Law.

First, in the Case of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who refused Compliance with the King's Decree in falling down to worship the golden Image. 2dly, Of Daniel, who in Disobedience to the Law of the Medes and Persians, with his Windows open towards Jerusalem, prayed and gave Thanks before his God, as he did aforetime. 3dly, In that of Peter and John, who, when commanded by the Rulers of the Jews to speak no more in the name of Jesus, durst not yield Obedi­ence to their Command, reasoning thus: "Whether it be right in the Sight of God to hearken unto you more than to God, judge ye·" Acts iv. 19. On this Principle the Christian Martyrs sealed their Testimony with their Blood; and on this Principle the Protestant Reformers expired in the midst of the Flames.

We trust this Objection is now fully an­swered on incontestible Principles, and that no injurious Insinuations can be fairly drawn from our Reasoning, as if we meant any Parallel between the Rulers of those Times, and our own: We are fully sensible of our Obligation to the present Government, for their Indulgences to us: Our Conduct be­speaks our Disposition: To Facts as the best [Page 10] Witnesses thereof we appeal for the Upright­ness of our Intentions: To those intrusted with the Sword of Magistracy, we dare re­fer ourselves for a Testimony of our peacea­ble Demeanour and ready Obedience to the Legal Rule.

BRIEF REMARKS, &c.

THE modern Advocates for Ecclesiastical Impositions alledge,

1. That Tithes are become in this Nati­on, a Demand of a civil Nature, because they are given by the Laws of the Land.

2. That they are a Debt justly due to the legal Claimants, for the same Reason.

3. That they are equitable Demands, be­cause every Tenant in the Kingdom, of whom they are required, is allow'd the Va­lue of them by his Landlord, in the Rent of his Farm.

4. From these Premises they infer, that such as refuse actually to pay them when de­manded, whether they be of the same Com­munion with the Claimants, or conscienti­uos Dissenters from them, act contrary to [Page 4] moral Honesty, and the Precepts of the Gos­pel which command Submission to the high­er Powers.

The first of these Allegations appears to be founded upon a supposition, that Laws made by a civil Power render the Subjects of those Laws of a civil Nature. But certainly spi­ritual Matters do not change their Nature, and become civil, through any Exertion of human Authority concerning them.

Tithes were exacted in this Nation for­merly upon Principles wholly superstitious, as particularly appears from the Grant of King Stephen; the Preamble to which runs in this manner: ‘Because through the Pro­vidence of Divine Mercy, we know it to be so ordered, and by the Church's publishing it far and near, every Body has heard, that by the Distribution of Alms, Persons may be absolved from the Bonds of Sin, and acquire the Rewards of heavenly Joys. I Stephen, by the Grace of God King of Eng­land, being willing to have a Part with them who by an happy kind of Trading, exchange heavenly Things for earthly, and smitten with the Love of God, and for the Salvati­on of my own Soul, and the Souls of my Father and Mother, and all my Forefathers and Ancestors,’ &c. He then proceeds to [Page 5] the Confirmation of Tithes and other Grants, for the peculiar Emolument of Ecclesiasticks.

To claim Tithes as civil Dues because they have obtained the Sanction of the civil Power, is not according to the Sense of those Laws upon which that Demand is founded. See Stat. 27th and 37th of Hen. viii. which after supposing them, in the Phrase of those Times, due to God and holy Church, and that withholding the Payment of them, is acting against right and good Conscience, do not make an Assignment of Tithes to the Clergy, de novo, as a new Grant, but taking it for grant­ed, that they are due to them by Divine Right, ex officio, or by virtue of their office, do therefore enforce the Payment of them. And accordingly, both these Statutes, and that of Edward vi. which is grounded upon these, restrain all Suits and Trials on account of Tithes to the ecclesiastical Courts; which demonstrate they were not enacted as Dues of a civil Nature. Thus, these very Laws which are said to render this Demand of a civil Nature, evidently imply the contrary, by presuming it is of Divine Right; and as the Clergy claim Tithes upon the Authority of these Laws, they must claim them upon that Presumption. If they have no Divine Right, they have therefore no Right at all. The Truth is, they have procured Power, by Laws grounded on erroneous Principles, [Page 6] to demand and force them out of the Hands of the Owners.

Tithes are not imposed in the manner of a civil Tax. They are not paid to civil Of­ficers. They are founded on religious Con­siderations. The Intent of imposing them is, to support religious Ministers in the Pur­suit of religious Duties. Being not requir­ed for a civil, but a religious Purpose, the Payment of them is to be treated as a Matter of religious Concern.

I with pleasure acknowledge, that I am well assured, divers of the Clergy appear tender of exacting upon Dissenters from the legal Establishment, being neither willing to use Force upon Conscience, nor to claim any Part of the Property of those who receive no Obligation at their Hands. Yet the Con­duct of many sufficiently evidence, they have not yet laid aside the Practice of reaping where they have not sown, and gathering where they have not strawed. Notwithstanding which, it is a certain Truth, that no other Ministry upon Earth but that of the Tribe of Levi, who were allow'd no landed Inheritances, appear to have been Divinely authorized to receive Tithes of the People. These there­fore having a Divine Command for them, had a Divine Right in them; yet were not impowered to take them by Force, but to [Page 7] receive them as an Offering from their Bre­thren.1 Sam. ii. 16, 17. The just Condemnation of Hophni and Phinehas is a stand­ing Sentence upon all who succeed them in forcible Practices. In the fulness of Time, CHRIST,Rom. x. 4. who is the End of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth, by the Introduction of Christianity, abolished the Jewish Law and its Priesthood,Heb. vii. 12, 13. with all the Services and Appropriations thereunto be­longing. Since that Time, no Sett of Ministers upon Earth can shew a Divine Right to the Tenth of other Men's Produce, on account of their Ministry.

The Command of Our Lord to his Messengers is,Mat. x. 8. freely ye have re­ceived, freely give. This clearly intimates, his Ministry is not a scholastic, or human Acquisition, that a Man may be ex­pensively and externally bred to, or that he ought to be bred to for a Livelihood, but the free gift of GOD for the People, and that it ought to be as freely dispensed to them by his Ministers. Yet seeing it is just and necessa­ry these should be provided for, when called from their proper Employments at Home, to attend the Service of the Gos­pel Abroad,Ver. 10. for the Workman is wor­thy of his Meat; therefore they have a Right to partake of what is set before them, [Page 8] and to accept such Requisites as are freely communicated to them, by those who re­ceive them and their Doctrine, whose Duty it is to minister to their Necessities. Yet the Servants of CHRIST are not authoriz'd by him to demand, much less to force any Thing from those who reject their Testimony. They are not by the Scriptures allow'd, either Do­minion over their Faith, or over their Pur­ses. This hath been the Usurpation of after Times, under the grand Apostacy.

II. As the Foundation upon which Tithes are exacted is not of a civil Nature, neither can they be a just Debt upon those who are of distinct Societies in point of Religion from that of the Demanders. The Quakers in par­ticular, have no Connection with the legally established Clergy, but in a natural or in a civil Relation. They are not of the same religious Society with them, therefore these are no Ministers to them, and by consequence, can have no equitable Demand upon them as such.

The freeborn People, or civil Body of this Nation, since Protestantism gain'd the As­cendant, consists not of any one Sort of Pro­fessors, whether more or less in Number, but of many different religiously-connected Societies, each of whom has its own peculiar Ministers. The Ministers of any one of these [Page 9] Societies, are not Ministers to any other of these Societies; therefore no one particular Sett of these Ministers can, with Propriety, be called the Clergy, or Ministry of the Na­tion, nor any Demand be justly made upon the whole civil Body by them as such; for they are Ministers to no other Part of the Community, but that one religious Society they are joined to, and adopted by. And every Person freed from the Shackles of Pre­judice, and really disposed to Uprightness and Impartiality, must easily discover the Reasonableness of every such Society's sup­porting their own Ministers, who think they ought to be maintained, without seeking to save their own Pockets, by forcibly obliging those of other Societies to assist in defraying the Expences proper to themselves only. And as it is reasonable, it would not be less ho­nourable, in that large religious Body, out of whom the Legislature and Magistracy are selected, to maintain their own Ministers, without putting them upon, or allowing them in the disagreeable and disreputable Practice of distressing others for that Prupose. The Enjoyment of all the lucrative Advan­tages of Government amongst themselves, added to their own Possessions, would certain­ly well enable them to afford it. This would also contribute much to the Peace of the Com­munity, and the Security of private Familes, as it would prevent all future Occasion to gra­tify [Page 10] a Spirit in the Clergy injurious to them­selves as well as others, by entrusting them with a Power of an oppressive Nature, over the Liberty and Properties of those who con­scientiously dissent from them.

The encroaching Part of the Clergy have always adopted, with peculiar Fondness, the Words Right, Dues, and Property; and con­stantly stile their Demands by these Names, in order to impress them upon others as such, and too many have been taken with the Snare. These Terms are justly applicable to Inheritances fairly descended, to Possessions honestly acquired, or uprightly purchased. For in these the Proprietors have a just and moral Right, was there no external Law in Being to confirm it. To them just Law gives no Right, it only adds Security to Pos­session. If by any Law this Property be render'd insecure, or any Part thereof alie­nated from the Proprietor against his Will, or without yielding him an Equivalent, such Law is a Violation of Equity, which is GOD'S standing Law, and must therefore be in its Nature null and void; for no human Au­thority is divinely warranted to dispense with the Law of Equity. And as an Inge­nuous Writer observes, ^* ‘As I derive not my Property from the Laws, but only the [Page 11] Security thereof, the Legislature cannot properly reassume it, as they never gave it; unless my Possession thereof interfere with the publick Good, and then not with­out an Equivalent.’ But this cannot be said of such Possessions as are only given to any by Law, to which there is a prior or juster Claim in others.

An erroneously founded Law may autho­rize a Person to commit wrong with legal Impunity, but it cannot sanctify the Act of wrong, nor justify the Actor in reality. If it could, there would be no Necessity to render an Equivalent to private Possessors, for the Damage done to their Estates in order to the publick Service. But certainly the Legisla­ture judges Right, in impowering the Com­missioners and Trustees it appoints to erect publick Buildings, or to lay out Roads, to make Compensation to the Owners of private Property, for the Injury their Estates may suffer thereby. And why the Clergy should be indulged with a Prerogative to act as if Wrong was Right in their Hands, is what the rest of Mankind want a Reason for. 'Tis natural from their Station and Pretences, rather to expect a better, than a worse Ex­ample from them than from others. But their Predecessors, by taking advantage of the People's Ignorance, and the Superstition themselves had introduced, in Popish Times, [Page 12] craftily obtained Laws in favour of their lu­crative and ambitious Views; and though these Laws still remain in Being, yet their Foundation being wrong, they cannot be binding upon Conscience so as to compel ac­tive Obedience; because thereby those in Pre­judice to whom they are enacted, would of Right be obliged to become Parties to Injustice even in their own Wrong.

We have often been amused with an arti­ficial Distinction between legal Justice and moral Righteousness. But how can it be right to consider Law as seperate from Equity, and yet call it Justice? 'Tis paying too great a Compliment to Power, at the Expence of Truth and Righteousness; for what Justice can there be in Iniquity? If in any case legal Injunction differs from moral Right, it ap­pears to me so far from being right, that wherein it differs, it is wholly wrong; and no human Power hath Authority from GOD to supercede any Law of his, whether that which he writes in the Heart of Man, or that which is fairly gathered from the Pre­cepts of the New-Testament. All the Laws of Men inconsistent with either of these, are naturally void and of [...] force, because they are against a prior preceding indispensable Obli­gation, which all Men are under to their supreme Lord and Lawgiver. And, it is unquestion­ably the Duty of Christian Legislators, to [Page 13] make the Laws agreeable to the Precepts and Doctrines of the Gospel; otherwise the real practical Christian, who cannot yield actual Obedience to them, must be proportionably excluded from the Benefit of the Laws, whilst the Time-serving Sycophant, the occa­sional Conformist, and the inequitable Op­pressor, reap the full advantage of them.

III. It is alledg'd, that Tithes are equitable Claims, because every Tenant is allowed the Value of them by his Landlord, in the Rent of his Farm.

Were this a real Fact in the Case of others, it has no relation to the Quaker, who makes no such Bargain with his Landlord, nor who could accept of no such Conditions, were they proposed to him. He takes the Land simply as he finds it, and where it has the Incumbrance of Tithes upon it, he comes under no Obligation with his Landlord ac­tively to pay them, because it is against his Conscience to do it; but for Conscience-sake he peaceably suffers them to be taken from him. But this will not always content the Parson. If he cannot force the Quaker into the Sin of Hypocrisy, by an active and vo­luntary Delivery of Tithe against his Con­science, he'll sometimes absurdly complain he is defrauded. Thus his Demand is not only for what he improperly stiles his Due, [Page 14] but also for what cannot possibly be due to any Man: the Sovereignty of other Men's Con­science.

Our Compliance against Conscience hath frequently been urged by Clerical Advocates, as a point of Gratitude necessarily due to the Government, and expected by it, in return for the Relief it hath in other Respects af­forded us. As to the Government, we have not been wanting affectionately to ac­knowledge our Obligations, and to render it any Service in our Power, consistent with our religious Duty, and we cannot in reason imagine, that its View in easing our Con­sciences in some Particulars, is to lay us un­der Obligation to violate them in others.

The Pretence of Tithes being paid by the Land, and therefore allow'd by the Land­lord to his Tenant, that he may pay the De­mand for him, is fallacious. For though the Proprietor may be obliged to let his Land for less than he might do, was not the Burden of Tithe upon it, 'tis not because of any voluntary Contract between Landlord and Tenant, that the latter shall pay Tithe for the account of the former; nor is the Value left in the Tenant's Hands for that Purpose. Every considerate Person must readily dis­cover, it is not the Land, but the Increase that Tithes are taken out of; and that their A­mount [Page 15] is more or less, according to the Va­riation of the Increase: And if the Landlord is a Loser by reason of this Exaction, the Tenant is more so, the Tithe being taken out of his Increase, and in proportion there­to.

Anthony Pearson, in his great Case of Tithes, hath long since shewed, that it is not the Land which pays the Tithe, where there is Land in the Case, but the Produce which is raised by the Skill, Care, Expence, and Labour of the Occupier, in whose Power it is to make it much, little, or nothing, at his pleasure. If he sows it with Corn, it may happen, as it hath frequently done, that the Tithe is worth three times the Rent of the Land it grows upon. If he pastures it with Sheep, the Tithe will be less; and less still if he feeds it with Cows, or breeding Cattle. If he eats up his Grass by Horses, or barren Cattle, an incon­siderable Rate is required. If he plants Wood, and lets it stand for Timber, or stocks it with Beasts which are ferae Naturae, of a wild Na­ture, or lets his Land lie waste, or eats his Meadow, or Corn standing, no Tithe can be required. These Instances evince, that Tithes are paid by the Stock, or personal Estate of the Occupier, and not by the Land, for which the Tenant has not an Equivalent al­lowed him.

[Page 16]Though the Quaker pay less Rent for a Farm with the Burden of Tithes upon it; than he might was it free from that Disad­vantage, 'tis not by way of Agreement with his Landlord to pay Tithes for him, as will clearly appear by-and-by, but because his Landlord cannot let it higher to any Tenant, as every one is sensible the Tenth of the Produce, raised upon such Land, will be taken from him.

But was the Argument under Considera­tion a good one in any respect, it reaches not the Case where Quakers are the Land-Owners, nor where Land is out of the ques­tion, as in Cities, corporate Towns, and other Places where no praedial Tithe arises, and therefore a Modus, or certain Value in stead of Tithe, is demanded of the House­holders as such, for the Maintenance of the Clergy, as by Law establish'd.

We have already seen, where Tithes are taken, it is entirely from the Produce of every Husbandman's and Housholder's Estate, whether real or personal, from whence this Portion of their Property is alienated meerly by Law. And if when private Property is thus alienated from the right Owner, how­ever unjustly, it is then become the equitable Right of those the Law hath assign'd it to, the Law in such case doth not confirm and [Page 17] defend Right where it properly is, but changes Wrong into Right, and may upon the same Foundation, overturn all the private Property in the Kingdom, and cause it to change hands at pleasure, to the Ruin of the Right Owners, and for the peculiar Emolu­ment of those, in a separate Interest, who may have Address and Influence sufficient to procure the Enaction of such Laws in their favour. But surely this would be contrary to Equity, and that which would be totally wrong if wholly done, must be wrong in part so far as it goes, and will remain to be wrong so long as it is continued, If an Incum­brance imposed upon Land, or the Produce thereof, continue till it lessens the Value of the Land, such Incumbrance, can never by that Continuance, equitably become the Pro­perty of its Procurers, though it may be forcibly possessed by them. If we put the Case fairly, we may readily perceive in whom the Right centers.

A Person stands possessed of an Estate in Land, either by just Inheritance, or fair Purchase, clear of all Incumbrance: A mem­ber of artful Men, in combination for their own particular Interest, by untrue Preten­ces procure a Law to impower them to de­mand, and upon refusal to seize a part of the Increase arising from the Occupation of this Land, without rendering the Occupier any [Page 18] thing adequate for it: In consequence of this Imposition the Value of the Land be­comes lessen'd; so that during the Continu­ance of this Burden, if it happens to be sold, it must be disposed of for less than its real Worth. Who in this Case is the Loser? Certainly the Seller, and his rightly succeeding Heirs. If therefore the Purchaser stands just­ly indebted to any Person on account of the Abatement in Price, occasioned by the Incum­brance, it cannot be to the Tithe-Claimer, who has no equitable Right in the Estate, but to the Seller who has. But if the Tithe-Claimant annually takes from the Purchaser to the exact Amount, of the Seller's Loss, in point of Equity, he stands indebted to the Seller for it. If he take more than that Amount from the Purchaser, he stands indebted both to the Buyer and Seller. And if the Land-Owner, is oblig'd to let his Land at a Rent below its real Value, by reason of such Imposition, the Tithe-taker stands Debtor to him for the Amount of the Difference in his Rent; so he also doth to the Tenant, or Occupier, for all that is taken out of his Produce above this Difference. It is theirs in Equity, and must ever remain to be their Right, and the Right of their proper Heirs and Successors, unless by Gift, Sale, or Demise, they alie­nate it by their own Act, or Consent, and can never equitably revert from one Imposer to another, by virtue of human Law, which [Page 19] whenever it differs from, and enforces against Equity, is unequal, and what is unequal is immoral, and by consequence antichristian.

It has been alledg'd, that Because the Buyer paysless for the Purchase of an Estate, the Produce of which is subjected to the De­mand of Tithes, than he might do if it were not so, that he therefore consents to the Pay­ment of them by making the Purchase; wherein he also avails himself of the Law, by the Abatement he receives in the Price.

That he who purchaseth an Estate, the Produce of which is Titheable, pays less for it than if it had remained free from that De­mand, is true; but why? Because he can­not make a Rent of it answerable to the full Value: therefore it is worth no more to him than he gives for it. If a piece of Land is Tithe-free, the Buyer pays the full Value for it, and fixes a Rent accordingly. If it is liable to the Demand of Tithe, he pays less for the Purchase, and receives a Rent proportionably lower to the difference in Price: So that the Matter squares with the Landlord without his being affected with the Tithe. How then does he avail himself of the Law, in the Purchase, and bring him­self under Obligation to pay Tithe, which in reality he does not pay? If any Person receives the Benefit of the Abatement, 'tis not [Page 20] the Landlord, but the Tithe-Exactor, who takes it from the Occupier; and the Loss which accrues in the Abatement, falls upon the original Seller under the Incumbrance, and his Heirs. And where the Land-Own­er occupies his own Estate, he is liable to that Demand, not as Land-Owner, but as Occupier; and if he stands equitably indebt­ed to any Person, for the Abatement in the Purchase, it must be to those in whom the Right, according to Equity, remains; that is, to the original Seller abovementioned, or to his rightly succeeeding Heirs; and not to those Demanders whose Claim is founded on untrue Pretensions, and exacted by Law against Equity.

To those who plead the Gift of Tithes from former Possessors of the Land, or that alledge the Length of Time, the successive Claimants have been in Possession of these Impositions; I answer,

1. No Ancestor of mine had a Right to give away from me the Fruits of my Labour and Expence, which never could be his, for Purposes I cannot in Conscience and Equity comply with. My misled Predecessor never could be intitled to dispose of my Consci­ence and Properly for me, before I existed, in support of the prevailing Errors of his Age.

[Page 21]2. No length of Time, or term of Pos­session, can abolish the eternal Law of Equi­ty, nor render that right which stands upon a wrong Foundation. Right and Wrong are not convertible Terms; nor is it in the Power, of Time, either to reverse, or re­concile their contrary Natures, which must always necessarily remain in their true Dis­tinctions.

We have also been told, that by voting for Representatives to sit in Parliament, we give our Consent to all the Laws they make, and ought therefore to yield active Obedience thereunto without reserve.

Though I cannot acquiesce in this Positi­on, yet I am subject upon Principle, to what­ever is enjoined by the Legislature, yielding active Obedience, when according to my Conscience and passively submitting when opposite thereto. But though I submit to these Injunctions, I cannot esteem them as my Act and Deed, when in my Conscience I believe them to be wrong. That Elector who by giving his Voice for Representatives, obliges himself actively to obey every Thing they may enact, especially in religious Mat­ters, makes too full a surrender of his just Rights, to be warranted either by the Laws of God, or the Rules of right Reason; both [Page 22] which determine the perfect Resignation of the Conscience to be due to God only.

By divers of the same Arguments, which I have already consider'd, is the Demand upon us, for those called Church-Rates, en­deavour'd to be defended. I shall therefore now, just briefly add the Grounds of our Scruple against the Payment of them.

We cannot look upon these, any more than the Stipends of the Clergy, as a civil Tax: Because they are for the Support of Buildings pretended to be made holy by the Bishop's Consecration, and where such a manner of Worship is practiced as we cannot join with; for buying, washing, and mend­ing Surplices; for purchasing Bells, Organs, and Books to pray and sing by; for defray­ing the Expence of Entertainments for Priests, Church-wardens, &c. at Visitations; and for Fees to Registers, Apparitors, and the like Attendants on such an ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as the Doctrine of the Gospel doth not authorise.

IV. The Submission required in the New-Testament to the higher Powers of the Earth, is not a Resignation of the Rights of Conscience, nor of that unalienable Sove­reignty therein which belongs to GOD only, [Page 23] into the Hands of Men.1 Pet. i. 13. 'Tis a Sub­mission to every Ordinance of Man for the Lord's Sake, either actively when agreeable to the Conscience of the Subject, or passively when against it. This was the Subjection our Saviour led into, both by Precept and Example, and that his Apostles and true Followers practis'd through all Ages; of which the Persecutions they suf­fered are so many Proofs.

Whilst therefore in Matters of religious Concern, Things remain to be imposed on us, which we conceive to be contrary to moral Equity, and the Precepts of the Gos­pel, we must in Duty to the sovereign Lord of all, continue to bear our Testimony against them, by our Non-compliance with them. For our Constancy in this respect, we are often reflected upon with Asperity as unjust and obstinate, and assumingly called upon ei­ther to resign our Principles, or to counter­act them in Practice; and so to render our­selves either Cowards, or Hyprocrites.

With regard to the Charge of Injustice, I have already shewn to whom it properly be­longs, in these Cases. And respecting Ob­stinacy, what the Warmth of our Misinter­preters calls by that opprobrious Name, when applied to us, we think, in propriety should be stiled Firmness, or Constancy. [Page 24] Obstinacy is an Inflexibility in the Wrong, against sufficient Evidence. Firmness or Constancy, is a Perseverance in the Right, through all the Attacks of Opposition. The first ariseth from Ignorance, or Humour; the last from Principle. Upon this our Con­duct respecting the Demands I have consi­der'd is founded.

Our Principles, in brief, touching the Christian Ministry, are, that the true Mini­sters of CHRIST are the Messengers of CHRIST, therefore must be sent by himself; that the Dispensation of the Gospel is the Ministration of the holy Spirit, either primarily by its imme­diate Influence, or secondarily by instrument­al Means; therefore the instru­mental Dispensers of it must be Mi­nisters of the Spirit,2 Cor. iii. 6. and not of the Letter only, that consequently their prime and essential Qualification is that of the Spi­rit, in order to enable them to declare the Mind of GOD to the People,1 Pet. iv. 10, 11. and to speak profitably to their present Conditions; and that, as they at Seasons freely receive this true Qualification for the Ministry, they must in Duty admi­nister it as freely, without any Stipulation for, or View to temporal Interest whatsoe­ver. How then can we consistently receive, or actively support a Ministry different from all this? An Order of Men who upon their [Page 25] Entrance, pretend to receive the Holy Ghost as a necessary Qualification to the Ministry, and declare they trust they are inwardly moved by it to take that Office upon them, yet after­wards, in their Speeches and Writings, at least too generally, deny that the Holy Ghost is either necessary to the Qualification of a Minister, or that it is now to be expected, or experienced, and even deride the very Profession of it.Rom. viii. 9. Yet it is unde­niably true, that if any Man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his; and consequently cannot be a Minister of his.

If it be our Duty to walk in Sincerity, and to act in all things consistent with our religious Principles, how can we actively con­tribute to the Maintenance of a Ministry which denies and opposes them? How can we in opposition to the true Prophets, CHRIST, and his Apostles, actually support such as they concurrently declared against? Those who run,Jer. xxiii. 21 xiv. 14. 1. Pet. iv. 10, 11. Mat. vii. 7. Mic. iii. 11. yet are not sent of GOD, but one by ano­ther; who speak not as the Oracles of GOD, but after their own Ima­ginations, or the Traditions and Injunctions of others; who make use of their Ministry as a Means to supply their Wants, or to gratify their Ava­rice or Ambition, and have too frequent­ly [Page 26] been found imposing and oppressing under the Sanction of Law, against the true Intent and Tenour of the Gospel? Would not our actual Contribution to the Maintenance of such, indicate an Approbation of them, and be a Confirmation of their Practices?

And how can we coherently assist in the Support of those Formalities and Usages in Religion and Worship, which we are con­scientiously concern'd to disuse? We profess it to be our indispensable Duty, faithfully to follow that heavenly Principle which is Di­vine and unchangeable in its Nature. Can this admit us to pull down, what it led our Predecessors to build, with the Loss of their Liberty and Properties, and divers of them with that of their Lives also? Is CHRIST di­vided? Or, can he who is the same Yester­day, To-day, and For-ever, change with the Times, and fluctuate with the unstable Imaginations, and corrupt Interests of Men? To differ with the World in Profession, and to coincide with it in Practice, is irreconcile­able with the Stability of Truth. If we are led by the Spirit of Truth into a professed Dissent, we surely disown the Truth by a contrary Conduct; and whilst our Friends are pained for us, to see our Weakness, our Adversaries must despise us, to behold our Inconsistency.

[Page 27]Seeing therefore, we cannot actively com­ply with these Demands, without setting human Authority above Divine, without joining hands with things against our Consci­ences to practice, and without falling into the Absurdity of acting a Self-contradiction; notwithstanding the Abuses we receive from our Opposers, we must still chuse rather pa­tiently to suffer, than meanly to comply, or hyprocritically to conform.