Captain reported refusing the aircraft due to disagreement on maintenance actions.

Narrative

Previewed aircraft X for morning flight while still at hotel. Contacted Maintenance due to lack of details on previous flight return to Gate - maintenance write up. Found aircraft had history of candle lighting (fires in tailpipe) - most recent event had Airport Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) intervention during taxi out when fire was identified by preceding aircraft. This engine had also been written up for having Teflon contamination and had been identified for expedited engine swap. (Within 5 days). After conferring with Maintenance; Dispatch; Duty Pilot; and eventually the local ZZZ Maintenance Supervisor; I felt that the tailpipe fire issue; although addressed; didn't give me adequate assurance that the situation was unlikely to occur again. This; coupled with the impending engine swap; led me to believe this aircraft did not provide the safety margin I thought was adequate for revenue passenger travel; and refused the aircraft.Aircraft refusal was result of an engine due for maintenance and a previous event on that engine. I have expanded some thoughts in the Suggestions sections of this form below.Although seemingly unrelated; I would assume most aircrew are reluctant to depart on revenue flights with aircraft that have multiple engine anomalies. Especially those that have experienced repeat events. I was also not convinced that the leaking oil issue that was causing the tailpipe located fires was accurately and completely addressed. The optics of the situation; (where the aircraft was subject to an engine swap within five days); may lead one to infer (correctly or not) there may be reluctance to perform major maintenance on an engine that is due to be removed shortly; and lead to increased aircrew refusals of aircraft.