THE grants on all sides are these. First, that there is a maintenance 1. Cor. 9.4, 5. to 15. in iustice due to Ministers for their worke sake. Secondly, Its yeelded it must be competent, not only for supply of naturall necessities, but for their 1. Tim. 3.2. furniture to euery good worke of their calling. Thirdly, That it must be 1. Tim. 5.17, 18. liberall: not such as euery niggardly minde will iudge conuenient and competent.

To which grants, let me adde these postulata, as plainly determined in Scripture. Let no man mistake the terme, supposing them to be Lawyers quaerees, or matters of moot. My postulata are Mathematica, such as to my apprehension, in re­spect of euidence and certenty, admit none, ex­cept cauilsome, contradiction. Those granted, [Page 2] some inferences for the maine purpose, will, of their owne accord, follow. Thus you may num­ber them.

1. That to Ministers of the Gospel, belongs a maintenance as large, as to the Leuiticall Priest­hood: this, mee thinkes, 2. Cor. 3. excellencie of Mini­sterie, and 1. Cor. 9.11. blessings conferred thereby enfor­ceth.

Obiect. Yet Christ whose Ministerie, and bles­sings were superiour to ours, thought not necessarie His excellencie should bee adorned with earthly things.

Answ. Now you are in the right. Neither thought he necessary, that th'excellencie of his Kingdome should be adorned with Royall mag­nificence. What is your inference? therefore our Math. 6.29. Salomons may not bee clothed royaltie? therefore nor his Ministers Psal. 8.20. haue where to lay their heads? Know you not that his [...] on earth, was to be carried in the Phil. 2.7. habitude of a seruant? and that 2. Cor. 8.9. by his pouertie he should make vs rich?

2. That this maintenance must rise Gal. 6.6. out of all and euery the goods of all and euery the people instructed.

3. That the Lord hath as certainly prouided for our maintenance vnder the Gospel, as for theirs vnder the Law. For had the Lord lesse care of vs? was there lesse need in respect of the peoples backwardnesse? no. But hee entrusted Magistrates with that care.

Ans. And were there not Magistrates amongst the Iewes.

Obiect. Is not the care of God showne sufficient­ly in ordaining maintenance without certeintie?

Answ. Thats not the quaere, whither sufficient­ly: but whither lesse or more by determining certeintie, or by leauing all to mans arbitrement. As if I should aske; doth not the father, assigning his childe to the care of friends at large, as care­fully prouide for his liuelihood; as allotting his sonne a portion of lands and reuenue, which none may by any meanes defeat him of? I should thinke his care more, that thus certeinly prouides, then his, who commits all to the doubtfull re­gard of friends.

Obiect. But why thinkes M. Selater, the people vnder the Gospel, as backward as those vnder the Law? When God hath promised Ioel 2.28, 29. more abundant Grace: Is not Iustice a part of Grace? can Grace be without Iustice?

Answ. Grace renewing cannot be without Iu­stice: vertues gratious are connexed. But the Grace of which Ioel speakes, dreaming dreames, and seeing visions, or if there be any other, com­ming vnder the terme of Gratia gratis data, may bee without Iustice: except perhaps wee may thinke Iudas iust, because to him was giuen, as to others, Math. 10.1. power to doe miracles. Howbeit it must be confessed, that Grace of illumination, and sanctification, is greater vnder the Gospel, then vnder the Law: 1. In extent of the subiects [Page 4] receiuing; which are now all flesh, as well Gen­tiles, as Iewes. 2. Mensura & gradu, where it takes place, making the termes of comparison aequall. But thinke you, this Grace takes place in all vnder the new Testament? or meant the Lord to leaue vs to the gratious disposition of our sanctified people onely, exempting others from bond of dutie, in contributing to mainte­nance of the ministerie? I assure you Sir, if I should measure mens Sanctification by their Iu­stice in this kinde, I should be forced to assigne Sanctification rathest to men of lest knowledge; and to say of others, who haue enclosed sanctitie, and sinceritie all to themselues, Non est qui facit iustum vsque ad vnum. Whither it be, that the holy morsell is sweet; or that they would haue iustice in this kinde, seeme mercie; or how the good yeare it falles, I know not; Terras Astraea reliquit: This Iustice is taken to her wings, and fled farre from our coastes.

4. That the Lord in the Leuiticall Law had eye to prouision for vs, that were to Minister in the Gospel. 1. Tim. 5.18. Thou shalt not mussell the mouth of the oxe which treadeth out the corne, was a branch of Law Leuiticall; yet applyed by th'Apostle to enforce honourable maintenance of Ministers vn­der the Gospel.

Thus farre I thinke we walke safely, sith in the very steps of the holy Ghost, leading vs in the new Testament: Let vs now descend toward the particular.

Some tumbling downe headlong, rather then descending, resolue of a competencie indeter­minate; so th'allowance be competent all is well.

Resp. Then in case of this fancied competencie, some as the instructed, though wealthy perhaps, shall be exempted from the Apostles iniunction. For suppose some one or two of the well dispo­sed hearers, shall out of their priuate, make a com­petent allowance; The rest shall now 1. Cor 9 12. reape our spirituals, and not sow their carnals. For, as the saying is rise enough in a Ministers maintenance, enough is a feast. But saith th' Apostle, Gal 6.6 Let him, that is: euery him, that is instructed, make his instructer partaker of all his goods.

The supposed (saith the Cauiller) is without ex­ample, nigh to an impossibility.

Answ. It should seeme then, the Grace of the new Testament is not euery where alike aboundant, and ouerflowing. In your countries it workes more sparely. My selfe haue knowne many, who, out of their owne priuate, haue giuen, ouer and a­boue their Tythes ordinary to the Ignorant or idle Sheepheard, a largesse, as large as most men thinke competent, in zeale of their owne and o­ther mens saluation.

But what inconuenience, though contribution arise not out of all and euery able mans goods?

Answ. 1. Cor. 9.11 They reape our spirituals without sowing their Carnalls. 2. They discharge not the Gal. 6.6. duties laide on them by the Apostle, and so en­tangle their conscience with guilt of sinne. An [Page 6] inconuenience call you that, Obiect. or a mischiefe? Not so, for that of Paul is but a counsell, not a praecept. 2. A counsell to be obeyed in casu of the Ministers neede. Then indeede the hearers are bound, to affoord their Minister, a meales meat, or nights lodging, and such like cleemosynarie kindnesse, as they would af­foord another man in his necessitie.

Sol. Answ. When will you cease to peruert the streight waies of the Lord? Are Ministers your Almes-men? Is nothing due to them ex lege Iu­stitiae for their labour in the word and doctrine, be they neuer so well stored of their owne, but only in mercie, respecting their necessities? Is this the 1. Tim 5.17. double honour Paul would haue them thought worthy of? This 1. Cor. 9.14. th'ordinance of Christ, for Preachers of the Gospel, to liue of the Gospel? what if our inheritances ciuill were as large, as yours? Is nothing due for our paines in the Gospel? how then liue we of the Gospel? what is the la­bourers deserued hyre? the souldiers [...]?

In case of need, you that haue this worlds good, will not see this Brother want. There, there so would you haue it Ministers, to hang on your beneuo­lence; to partake workes of your mercie due to humanitie; but neither by this, nor any other text of Scripture, to be intituled to any thing for their worke sake. Obiect. This and no more must be in­tended in this praecept of th'Apostle. For the charge is as great in the next verse, to releeue the poore.

Sol. Resp. But thinke you that also a counsell, not a [Page 7] praecept. 2. Weigh well, you shall be forced to see, that what is said in the three next verses, be­longs to the point in hand of Ministers mainte­nance, & not to beneuolence towards the poore. Let me see what this mercifull man hath said hi­therto for the qualitie of our maintenance. One while its hire, as much, or little as you can make your bargaine for; Another while, Almes: your seruants, or your beades-men we are, one of the two certaine. Sir, I would you knew, the only Master we serue is Iesus Christ: His seruants we are. Our peoples Heb. 13.7.17. 1. Thess. 5.12. guides, rulers, superiours. And the maintenance wee claime, is of that portion, which the God of heauen hath assigned vs; which who without Sacriledge can detaine from vs? But proceede we in examining the likelihood of your competencie. See conclusion the sixt: and due­ly weighing it, tell me, whither thou finde consci­ence satisfied with this imaginarie competencie? for is there no certaine prouision for Ministers of the Gospel, but this vncertaine competency? who shall iudge of it? Euery man? Mallem Cerberum metueres, as the Orator speakes. The Magistrate? why would not the Lord leaue this to Iewish Magistrates? no not to Moses, a man so gratious with him? and leaue it to Magistrates vnder the Gospel.

Obiect. Iewish Magistrates were then intrusted. Sol. Answ. What? as you would haue them now Trusters for vs; that the whole of our maintenance should depend vpon their discretion, to assigne, lesse or [Page 8] more? Where haue you it? in what Scripture? in what Authentique Authour? will the text in Mal. 3.10. Malachi beare it? Let the reader be iudge.

Obiect. No such certentie was left to Leuites, as we now claime. Sol. Ans. No such certeinty. Ergo none? 2. Such certeintie: so such as its the same for the generall. Tythes, and Glebe, and votarie conse­crations. 3. Why none such? Ob. Tythes were then brought to one common Store-house, and there­out share giuen to euery one, according to his gifts, worth, number of children, and necessity. Ans. 1. Incerta omnia; whether worth, or necessitie, or specialtie of imployment, were the rule of di­stribution: whether all Tythes were brought to one common store-house at Ierusalem; or not rather laide vp in the seuerall Cities, assigned to Leuites in the seuerall Tribes. 2. Varies it the suchnes or identitie of the matter of maintenance, that there were some variable circumstances ap­pertinent to the payment or distribution? 3. Thus conceiue your answer. The whole of Tythes was a certaintie due to the comminaltie of Le­uites: The whole of Tythes is a certentie due to the comminaltie of Ministers. A portion of that whole, was due to euery Leuite. A portion of this whole, due to euery Minister of the Gospel. 1. Res distributa was then certaine, Tythes. 2. Ob­iectum distributionis, certaine: Leuites, not Laickes. 3. Modus distributionis, in respect of the particular, in a sort indeterminate, while the or­dinance was for Leuites to liue in common: Our [Page 9] res distribuenda, is certaine: the persons, to whom that portion must be distributed, as cer­taine. The Modus distributionis, in a sort vncer­taine; as what number of people, or circuit of place to be assigned to particular ministers; what ministers to bee deputed to ouersight of this, or that congregation; yet ex hypothesi, certaine; sup­pose such congregations assigned, to such mini­sters, the Tythes thence accrewing belong to those ministers by Pauls rule. Gal. 6.6.

3. Suppose it committed to Magistrates? how I demand; absolutely, or with limitation? if with limits, what are those bounds? forsooth a Competencie. Perceiue you not circling and meere vncertainties? Obiect. The Magistrate is bounded with no certentie of number or quantitie? Sol. Answ. What? Ergo, with no limits at all; which is the quaestion. Obiect. Yes, a rule he hath to follow, the word of God. Answ. That is large. But what is the rule, or limit prescribed for this particular by the word of God? Say if you can without circ­ling. Forsooth Competencie. You are coniured to your circle, and must not out of it.

Leaue we therfore this fancy: and see, whe­ther we may finde some other more certaine par­ticular, to resolue of. And surely, when we haue in vaine turmoiled our selues to auoide Iudaizing in this point of Ministers maintenance, we shall be forced at length to acknowledge Tenthes, which some call Iewish, to bee the Ministers appointed Portion.

That the truth may better appeare, I will pro­pound the different opinions that I haue met withall in this point.

1. Brownists in this quaestion thus peremptori­ly resolue. That Tythes are so meerely caeremoni­ous & Leuitical, that they cannot without betray­ing Euangelicall libertie, and disauowing Christs Priesthood, bee retayned as maintenance of Mi­nisters of the Gospell. And how full soeuer of dotage, this dreame may seeme; yet this I will say for them; they are mad with more reason a great deale, then any others which holde them caeremonies Leuiticall. If the assumption were true, their conclusion would soundly follow by doctrine of th' Apostle. Gal. 4. & 5. Col. 2. &c.

2. Some others thinking them Iudicials, resolue: part, that they may be retained as the Ministers stipend: part, that they are the most conuenient maintenance can be allotted vs.

3. A third sort, that they are due by Gods Law to Ministers of the Gospel: but these in explanati­on of themselues diuersly deriue them thence.

1. Some thus, due by Gods law enioyning obe­dience to Magistrates in things lawfull and conue­nient. These giue them no other ground in Gods word, then other humane ordinances.

2. Others, due by Gods Law, in as much as the Church (whose authoritie with them is di­uine) hath enioyned their payment. So generally Papists.

3. A third sort: due by Gods Law; in respect [Page 11] of their consecration to God, eyther by receiued custome or consent of Churches, or by donation of Princes, or by legacie of Testators. In which opinion I must needes professe my selfe to haue sometime beene; till being to deliuer my iudge­ment to my people, I more purposely set my selfe to see what the truth was. And during that mistake, I thus thought: that they could not without Sacriledge be aliened from their general end. My reasons were these.

1. That I found Salomon auerring it to be a Pro. 20.25. Curse to deuoure holy things, and had seene the curse exemplified on many.

2. That ordinance of the Lord I held morall and perpetuall. Leuit. 27.18, 19. Nothing separate from com­mon vse, no not of those which man had separated, might be againe vnhallowed, no nor redeemed.

3. That saying of th' Apostle much swayed with me Gal. 3.15. If it be but a mans Testament, no man abrogates it. 1. No man ought to abrogate it. And so much the more, for that being once an Auditour of that Iudicious Diuine Master Per­kins, whose memory is blessed, I heard him mooue the doubt; whether things giuen to su­perstitious vses, suppose to maintaine Masse­monging, might be alienated. And thus assoile to my remembrance. That from the particular in­tention, wherein through ignorance they erred, alienation might be; But from the generall end, maintenance of Gods worship, they might not be aliened. Thus then and vpon those grounds, [Page 12] my iudgement is still the same, though my Media be other, and somewhat more peremptorie.

Is not Master Sclaters conclusion to take away Tythes, is Sacrilege? Be not his other Media since his mistake reformed, because Tythes bee due iure diuino; absolutely and simpliciter, and not quodam modo, as by consecration; why then makes Master Sclaters consecration one of his fiue reasons?

Answ. Master Sclaters opinion is that Tythes are due iure diuino; that is, by principles, and Lawes of the word of God, absolutely due; by such absolute prescript as admits no repeale or dis­pensation.

Why then returnes he to the matter of consecration?

Answ. Because that is one of his grounds of clayme, laide downe in the word of God; which once was his onely, is now one amongst others. 2. Withall you must vnderstand, there is a dou­ble consecration; one by Gods reseruing, or sepa­rating things to himselfe. Leuit. 27. Another, by humane vow, or dedication. Master Sclaters mistake was, that they were due onely by humane consecration: his reformed iudgement is, that they are holy to God, not onely because vowed by men, but be­cause reserued to God by himselfe from the be­ginning. Here is no tantologie.

Obiect. Alienation was made by the whole state, which hath interest in meum and tuum.

Answ. 1. Varies it the Nature of the action, supposing it to be Sacrilegious, that whole states are engaged therein? Belike the multitude of [Page 13] offendours, parit errori patrocinium.

2. Yeeld States to haue interest in meum and tuum; haue they dominion ouer that which is Dei? Suum cuique, is a good rule for states. Let them giue to Caesar, what is Caesars: to euery one, what is his owne; onely let Gods portion be sa­cred, and kept inuiolable: let his dominion and property be holden a transcendent.

Quaeſt. But what if these dispersions into many hands was th'onely meanes to banish Antichrist?

Answ. 1. Those many hands might haue been as well Clericke as Layicke, and that end as well atchieued. 2. But Rom. 3.8. may you doe euill, that good may come of it?

Obiect. Returne of Antichrist was feared.

Answ. O worthy wight, and worshipt might he be; who neuer spared woman in his lust, nor man in his rage, yet feared the returne of Anti­christ. Credam? 2. But know you not Ignorance the greatest pillar of Antichrists Kingdome? If amongst any he may recouer his old possession by a Postliminium, most amongst those congregations which are most stript of Tythes; forced, poore soules, to content themselues with Priests of the lowest of the people, because the ancient salary is seized on, and possessed in Lay-fee. Neh 13.10, 11, 12. And see is­sues of such dealing, with meanes of reformation.

Quaest. But can any in errour consecrate vnto God? was Cains sacrifice accepted?

Answ. What is your meaning? so as their act, as theirs, shall please God? and their persons bee [Page 14] accepted, so we answer; no. And so much onely presseth your instance in Cain. But so as to giue God propertie in the thing consecrated, who doubts but they may? The Censers of Corah and Da­than must be employed about the Altar; because, though erroneously, yet Num. 16.38 they offered them be­fore the Lord: therefore they are hallowed. And for this I am sure, you haue Master Perkins firme in his post-humous Notes. Things consecrated er­roneously, ad Galat 3. may bee imployed to the vse of Gods worship: yea the next heire of the Votarie, loo­seth all title to things so consecrated: and may not claime them from their generall intendment: though to him, if to any, they belong of right, in case there bee a nullitie of erroneous consecrati­ons.

Obiect. Price of a whore must not bee brought into the Tabernacle.

Answ. That is, hire taken for her prostitu­tion to filthines: of turpe lucrum, God will haue no sacrifice. Ergo, not of goods honestly gotten by the votarie? 2. Besides, know you not that the case is ruled? that euen of vniust perquisites, something may redound to poore, something to Church, where the parties suffering wrong, are not; or are vnknowne; 3. But is your Whore, the Whore of Babylon? Methinkes I smell you; I doubt our Albe, wherein wee minister, will heare no better from you, then the Whores smocke, though in vse long time before, Antichrist transferred it to his superstition.

Obiect. This were to sit in th' Idols Temple.

Answ. Vnderstand you what you say? To retaine the consecrations of Idolaters to Gods seruice, how is it more to grace an Idol, then to keepe vp Tem­ples, wherein Idols haue beene worshipped, and apply them to the worship of God? S. Paul could distinguish, betwixt eating an Idolothyte, and eating it 1. Cor. 8.7 [...]. It may suffice, that they bee diuerted to the worship of the true God, whether they were, in the generall ayme of the Donors, in­tended,

But quorsum haec tam multa? Its yeelded you ex abundante in explication of the fourth Argument, that such erroneous consecrations giue not God seizure in things deuoted. A new and holy conse­cration without errour we haue of Tythes, and such like holy things; beside their ancient reseruation from the beginning, with that protestation of the Lord. Leu. 27. Tythes are holy vnto the Lord: what this Mome hath gayned by his quarrelling hitherto, the learned easily iudge. Proceede we therefore to our conclusion, which is thus propounded and ex­planed.

Tythes are the portion, at least, part of that porti­on, by Gods word allotted to Ministers for their ser­uice in the Gospel.

By Tythes vnderstand the tenth part of all the hearers increase: that is; to stoppe the mouth of the Cauiller, of his Pro. 3.9. income or reuenue. Particulars may be read. Leuit. 27.30. Et alibi: In a word, to vse the distinction of Canonists; whether they bee personall, of meere industry, negotiation, &c. or [Page 16] praediall, as of grounds, &c. or mixt, as of Cattell, the tenthes of the whole income, not those of Cummin & Annyse excepted, fall within compasse of our subiect.

Obiect. Part of the Portion: here is vncerteintie still, saith the Cauiller.

Answ. None at all. That part is our certeine Por­tion: other we haue; if you would know what: It is, whatsoeuer the regular deuotion of Princes, or people, shall please to adde as, an auctarie to our maintenance. Zepperus de lege Mosaica. lib. 4. cap. 40. Decimae, pars sunt illius stipendij, quod ministris pro officj sui laboribus, diuino & naturali iure debentur.

Quaest. By Gods word allotted. Intends Master Sclater without any ground of ciuill or ecclesiasticall ordinance?

Answ. This Master Sclater meanes: though no ordinance of man should assigne them vnto vs. Ip­sissimum Dei verbum, hath made them ours.

In what Commandement?

Answ. As they are an honouring of God, so in the first: As they tend to preserue the publike wor­ship of God, so in the second and fourth: As main­tenance of our persons, so in the fift, being part of the honour due to the spirituall parent.

Obiect. But without any point of Consecration?

Answ. Though no consecration votarie had bin from man, yet were they ours by the word of God. Howbeit the lawes for such consecrations giuen in the word of God, hitherto belong, and fall within our whole of the word of God.

Of Tithes amongst Iewes we finde foure sorts.

1. Tithes of Leuites. 2. of Priests? 3. for loue [Page 17] Feasts: 4. and Tythes for the poore: heare vs in Hieromes termes.

1. [...], hoc est, decimam partem omnium frugum Leuiticae tribui populus ex lege debebat.

2. Rursum ex ipsis decimis, Leuitae, hoc est inferior ministrorum gradus, decimas dabat sacerdotibus; & haec est quae appellatur [...].

3. Erant quoque & aliae decimae, quas vnusquisque de populo. Israel in suis horreis separabat, vt comede­ret eas cum iret in Templum in vrbe Hierusalem, & in vestibulo Templi: & sacerdotes ac Leuitas inuitarent ad conuiuia.

4. Erant autem & aliae decimae, quas pauperibus re­condebant; quae Graeco sermone appellantur. [...]. Hieronym: in Ezech. lib. 14. ad cap. 45.

Iosephus, though he mention three kinds onely, because he comprises the secundance in Tythes of Leuites, (perhaps hauing eye to those only payable from the people,) yet in effect acknowledgeth the quadripartite distinction; at least dischargeth not the people of their trietericall; thus presenting vs the Law from the mouth of the Law-giuer. Vltra duas decimas quas quotannis pendere iam iussi, 1. Alteram Leuitis, 2. Alteram in sacras epulas, 3. Tertia tertio quoque anno est conferenda, quae in egenas viduas & pupillos distribuatur. Antiquitat. lib. 4. cap. 8.

Whether payment of festiuall Tythes were inter­mitted in the third yeare, as M ^r. Selden would from the Septuagints rendring inferre, is a quaestion to our maine impertinent. Howbeit to mee it seemes im­probable; for were they in that yeare freed from their appearing at Hierusalem? or might they in that [Page 18] yeare appeare emptie handed before the Lord? A Iustiti­um perhaps there might be in that respect for that Time. To the Septuagint I giue the honour due to them; but dare not preferre them to the text, as now extant with points; especially where the reading of th'originall is so constant and vnuaried. Besides who knowes not their manifold aberrations in matters of no small moment? as in that of the Chronologie in Genesis, wherein so many haue in vaine laboured a reconcilement. The obseruation out of their ren­dring must be confessed to be acute: yet hath in it rather wittie diligence of obseruation, then soliditie to build inference.

If any make quaestion of whether sort we dispute; Tythes we meane of that Nature with those paide to Leuites; which, perhaps, are therefore conuey'd to them in the terme of an Num. 18. inheritance, because the Lawgiuer would imply their perpetuitie, and li­neall descent from Ministery to Ministerie vnto all generations. The why nots raised about other kindes, will best be answered in discussing th'obie­ctions.

Of these Tythes this is that we affirme. That by the word of God they belong for euer to Ministers of holy things; and therefore in these dayes to Mi­nisters of the Gospel, who alone haue now to doe with publique ministrations of the worship of God. Our reasons are these. The first grounded on Heb. 7.6.8. He whose descent is not counted from them, receiued Tythes of Abraham: and vers. 8. Here men that die, receiue Tythes: but there he receiueth them, of whom its witnessed, that he liueth. Compare, Gen. 14.20.

The Argument which this Scripture affoords, hath receiued much disaduantage, by slender colle­ction of many, thus onely pressing it. Tythes were paide to Priests before the Leuiticall law was giuen. Therefore their payment is founded rather on Mo­rall then Caeremoniall law. To which, answer is well giuen; that by as good inference, sacrificing of beasts may be prooued a moralitie, sith it was also in vse before giuing of the Law by Moses. That we may the better see the force of the Argument, let vs a lit­tle consider the frame and summe of the text. The Apostle by occasion of the peoples dulnesse, hauing digressed from Cap. 5.11. to Cap. 6.20. returnes to his purpose; that is, to shew the excellencie of Christs Priesthood aboue that of Aaron, by auouching him a Priest after the order of Melchisedec. The conclu­sion is this. Christs Priesthood is more excellent then that of Leui; or Christ is a greater Priest then any after Aarons order. The principall reason lyeth thus. He that is a Priest after th'order of Melchisedec is a greater Priest then the Priests after Aaron. But Christ is a Priest after th'order of Melchisedec. Ergo: &c. The minor hath first his proofe. 1. From a te­stimony of Dauid, Cap. 5.20. 2. From that absolute agreement betwixt Melchisedec, and Christ: the parts whereof are these. 1. As Melchisedec was King, and Priest of the most high God, so Christ. 2. As Melchisedec King of righteousnesse, and Prince of peace, so Christ. 3. As Melchisedec his parents, kinred, beginning and end of life are not recorded; so Christ, as man, without father, as God without mother, kinred, beginning, and end of life. Therefore [Page 20] Christ is truly a Priest after th'order of Melchisedec: verse 1, 2, 3.

The Maior remaines to be prooued, and that hath proofe from verse 4. to 11. the summe whereof is comprised in this principall Syllogisme. If Melchise­dec be greater then Leui, then he that is a Priest after his order, as Christ is; is greater then Leui. But Mel­chisedec is greater then Leui, Ergo, &c. Minor proo­ued: Greater then Abraham, greater then Leui: Melchisedec is greater then Abraham: Ergo then Leui: Minor prooued. Hee to whom Abraham paide Tythes, of whom he was blessed, is greater then Abraham. But to Melchisedec, Abraham paide Tythes; and Melchisedec blessed Abraham. Ergo, is greater then he. verse 4, 5, 6, 7.

A second Argument proouing the greatnesse of this Priest, aboue those of Aarons order, is laide downe vers. 8. A tyth-taker, that is, a Priest of whom its testified that he liues, is greater then a Tyth-taker that dies. But the Priest after Melchisedec is a Tyth-taker of whom its testified that he liues. Leuites take Tythes and die. Ergo, the Priest after Melchisedec his order is greater then the Priests Leuiticall. This is in my simple Logicke the disposition of the text. As for illustrations, or amplifications by prosyllogismes prolepses, or otherwise, I purposely omit them. Now me thinkes, the text thus naturally resolued, there should need no farther deduction of th'Argu­ment: yet that the simplest may see what footing Tythes haue here, thus I collect it.

The portion due to Christs Priesthood, is due to Ministers of the Gospel; Tythes are the portion due to Christs Priesthood. Ergo.

The Minor is thus proued. The portion due to Mel­chisedec his Priesthood, is due to Christs Priesthood. Reas. 1. for that Christ is Priest after that order. 2. other things enunciated of Melchisedec, are true of Christ eminently & alwaies: as its eminently & alwaies true of Christ, that he is King of righteousnes & Prince of peace: eminently and alwaies true of Christ, he is without parēts, without beginning & end of life, that he blesseth Abraham & all his seed, &c. All these are more properly verified of Christ, then of Melchisedec his Type. Why not then also this euer true of him? He taketh Tythes. May we not assume? Tythes are the portion due to Melchisedec his Priesthood? 1. Paide they were by Abraham to Melchisedec, as due to his Priesthood. 2. In the Apostles Logique a Priest, and a receiuer of Tythes are aequipollents. In steed of say­ing, men that die are Priests, he saith, men that die re­ceiue Tythes: In steed of saying, he that liues is a Priest, he saith, he that liues, takes tythes: as if, in his iudgmēt, Tythes and Priesthood were as inseparable, as king­dome, and tribute: The Maior of the principall Syl­logisme if any doubt of, to wit, whether the portion due to Christ, be due to Ministers, let him compare, 1. Cor. 9.14. where is th'expresse ordinance of Christ, that Ministers should liue of the Gospel. 2. Who in likelihood should be his receiuers, but those that are in his stead, as is said of Ministers, 2. Cor. 5.20. 3. The same reason which the Lord assignes of Leui his sha­ring in things to himselfe reserued, and sanctified, is true of Ministers, or else of none. God is Leuites portion. 1. Gods portion is Leuites portion; be­cause they were taken to Minister before him. Why not then also Christs portion Ministers portion? [Page 22] because they onely are assumed to Christ, to Mini­ster in the Gospel. A reason for not Tything of so plaine deduction out of Scripture, if any can bring mee, he shall much sway mee to his sentence.

This Argument I remember once to haue pro­pounded something otherwise, to this purpose. The portion due to the Priesthood after Melchisedec his order, is due to Ministers of the Gospel. But Tythes are that portion. Ergo, And thus propounding it, I receiued these answers.

Obiect. The proposition seemes vntrue, except you can prooue your selues Priests after that order.

Answ. Whereto I then answered, that though we be no Priests after that order, yet is there truth in the proposition, sith Christ the high Priest of our pro­fession, to whom originally they belong, hath or­dained vs to liue of his portion.

A second answer was by limitation: the portion due [by Law] to that Priesthood, is due to Mini­sters. But with that limitation th'assumption is false: Abrahams payment being an act rather voluntarie, then by any iniunction from God.

Answ. But that that act of Abraham was no act: in this sense voluntarie, but rather of necessarie and in­ioyned dutie, is euident (me thinkes) by these rea­sons. 1. For that gifts voluntarie, proceeding from bountie and liberalitie, imply a superioritie or excel­lencie in the giuer, aboue the receiuer. For Act. 20.35. its a more blessed thing in that kinde to giue then to receiue. But Abrahams payment of Tythes was testimonie of his inferiority. 2. Againe, the phrase it selfe implies as much. Melchisedec Tythed Abraham; ver. 6. a [Page 23] phrase that looseth all his Emphasis, if no iniunction had subiected Abraham to a necessitie of beeing tythed. 3. What meane they when they say of A­brahams tything, it was done without law? would they be vnderstood of Abrahams fact onely? or of tything at large, as it was in vse before the Law writ­ten? Now sure I wonder how first Abraham, and then after him Iacob, should fall vpon a tenth, rather then vpon a sixt or twelfth part, if there were no­thing prescribed in their times for tything? 2. How prooue they but probably that it was without iniun­ction of Law? if this be the reason, for that we finde no mention of any Law to that end giuen, by as good reason may they say of sacrifices, and sundry other actions religious, that they were arbitrarie; sith we finde no expresse mandate giuen of them in those times. But thus me thinks we may better reasō from their practise to an iniunction; these facts of theirs were approoued of God; therefore not done without iniunction from him. Thus farre I suppose, this Argument cleared. Volumes of new cauills are behinde; which makes mee thinke it hangs much in the teeth of opposites.

Obiect. Thus is my Cauiller. Yeeld for a while Tythes due to the Priesthood of Melchisedec: will it thence follow they are due to Christ?

Answ. We shall tell you anone, when we haue learnt your meaning. What is your meaning, by thus yeelding them due to the Priesthood of Melchisedec? meane you the Priesthood after that order? Then it followes that they are due to Christs Priesthood: for his is Priesthood Heb. 6.20. after th'order of Melchisedec.

Perhaps that's not the meaning; but you suppose them due to Melchisedec, ratione sacerdotij, non talis sacerdotij: or ratione Typica.

Answ. Choose whether you list. If ratione sacer­dotij, then to Christ also; for in him is sacerdotium. And if this bee the formall reason of Tythes obiect, quia and quâ sacerdos, then they are euer due to Christ, because that reason is perpetuall in him: Hee is a Priest for euer.

If catione Typicâ, then you demand: must all things be verified of the truth, that of the Type, and that ac­cording to the letter? then all that belonged to Aaron, or Sampson, must be true of Christ.

Ans. All and euery thing belonging to the Type, as a Type, must be verified of the Anti-type with this distinction, either litterally, or mistically; not all litte­rally, nor all mystically: what is not litterally, must bee mystically; what is not mystically, must be litte­rally. And that you may see similitudes of heauenly things, and Earthly their Types, hold, some, after the letter. Reade what is said of the high Priest of Iewes as he was Type of Christ. Heb. 9.7. He enters into the holy of holies not without bloud: As he into the holy of holies, so Christ into heauen: that verification is my­sticall. As Vers. 23, 24. he not without bloud; So Christ not without bloud. That is literall. Melchisedec brought in as Christ type in the story, without father and mo­ther. Is not this eminently true of Christ after the letter? Melchisedec without beginning or end of dayes: this also litterally verified. Though then all things true of the Type materialiter sumpto, are not necessarily true of the Antitype; yet as many as [Page 25] belong to the type formaliter taken, as a Type, must, with that distinction be true of th' Antitype. And what is intended to be verified mystically, must so be verified in the truth: what is meant to be literally accomplished in the Antitype, must so be fulfilled.

The quaestions then are two. 1. Whether in ta­king Tythes Melchisedec was Type of Christ? 2. Whether that part of the Type be verified litterally or mistically by th'Apostles doctrine?

That in taking Tythes of Abraham, Melchisedec typed out Christ; heare M ^r. Iunius in Gen. cap. 14. Ad intelligentiam illius Typi & accommodatio­nem eius, duo maximè obseruanda. Nempè tum in ijs quae dicuntur a Mose, tum vero in ijs quae reticentur, constitui Typum. In ijs quae dicuntur; vt cum dicitur Malchitzedec, id est, Rex iustitiae: Rex Salem: id est, pacis: Sacerdos Dei Altissimi, benedixisse Abrahamo, et decimas accepisse. In quibus omnibus Typus Christi expressus obseruandus est, &c. What needes Testimo­ny, when the Text affirmes, the Tything of Le­ui by Melchisedec in Abraham, prooues authentical­ly th'inferioritie of Leuiticall, to Christs Priest­hood.

That it is not mystically, but litterally to bee fulfil­led in Christs Priesthood, who can denie? for where is the mysticall Analogie betwixt this Act of Melchisedec Typical, and Christ; as in his beeing King of Salem, and Melchisedec; verified this must be of Christ, either litterally, or mystically: not my­stically, Ergo, litterally. And see if the text say not so much. Heb. 7.8. He takes Tythes that liues euer: Who is that? Melchisedec as the Type; Christ as the Truth. [Page 26] Eminently its true of Christ after the letter, he liues euer; And he liues euer with this Epithete, to bee a taker of Tythes.

Obiect. Nay, you say, The Spirit hath made an­swer for you against such wrestling; because hee hath o­mitted to describe Melchisedec, or Christ to be a Tyth-taker. Leui indeede hath that Emphaticall Title, to be a Tyth-taker: Melchisedec hath no more but (He.)

Answ. No more but He. Is that the matter? but its that (Hee) to whom, what is said of Leui, must be [...], applyed: else 1. the sentence gapes: and 2. Paul failes in his comparison. There, that is, in Leuiticall Priesthood, men that dye, take Tythes: here he, of whom its testified that he liues, must not that (He) haue (takes Tythes) applyed vnto him? as vers. 21. These Priests are made without an oath: But this with an oath: What was this (with an oath) but made Priest?

Obiect. Melchisedec tooke once; followes it that Christ must take euer? Apage.

Answ. That but once you will neuer prooue. And 2. May not one Act transient, being Typicall, signifie a perpetuall act in Christ, as well as the manie En­trings of th'high Priest into the Holy of Holyes, Christs once entring into heauen? Proh.

Obiect. Christ by this meanes claimes from his Type.

Answ. Apage. How more Tythes from Melchi­sedec, then kingdome from Dauid? His grand Title to Priesthood, and kingdome, is Gods decree and ordination. The signification thereof in the Types, yet necessary it is, that th'Antitype should [Page 27] answer exactly to the Type; vt supra.

Obiect. But thinkes any man they were due to Mel­chisedec or his Priesthood?

Answ. Any man? I dare say thousands after th'Apostle, and except your selfe all men of iudge­ment. Calvine; Quod debebat Abraham Deo, soluit in manum Melchisedec. They were therefore due debt from Abraham. Ius sacerdotij illius subindicat aeternae esse durationis: Hoc autem ideo additum est, ne videa­tur posterior lex (vt moris est) priori quicquam dero­gasse. Calvin. ad Heb. 7. There was then a Law for their payment to Melchisedec. Iunius ad Heb. 7. Mel­chisedec ab Abrahamo Decimas non dubitauit accipe­re, fretus authoritate Dei; et ex ea rite perfungens Sa­cerdotis officio. Authority then Melchisedec had to take; therefore Abraham praecept to pay Tythes.

Obiect. There was no praecept.

Answ. None read or exprest in so many letters and syllables: Nor any for Melchisedec to vse functi­on of Priesthood. Thinke wee therefore hee did it without calling?

Obiect. The act was voluntary in Abraham.

Answ. How vnderstand you voluntary? willing­ly performed: so did Paul preach the Gospel wil­lingly: that Act of preaching was in Paul voluntary: yet 1. Cor 9.16, 17. Woe had beene vnto him if he had not preached the Gospel.

Obiect. Not so; but voluntarie, as matter of kind­nesse, courtesie and bountie.

Answ. As some almes belike to the poore King of Salem: for such you would haue all that's now payd to Ministers of the Gospel. But oppose you volun­tarie [Page 28] to matter of inioyned dutie? then say I, pay­ment so voluntary in Abraham, could not testifie his inferioritie to Melchisedec. No payment, except of duty, is testimony of inferioritie. Heb. 7.6. Abrahams payment of Tythes to Melchisedec, was testimonie of inferioritie; therefore it was payment of duty. You mistake if you conceiue it said, that all payments of dues imply inferioritie of the payer. Not so: But no payment, except of dutie, testifies th'inferiority of the payer. What haue we now to doe with Kings paying wages to seruants? and such like prattle. Its still true; except Abrahams payment to Melchisedec, had beene of duty, it could be no testimony of his inferiority. Compare Rom. 13.5, 6.

Obiect. They were not payde of all, nor of his owne, nor often. Therefore not due by any Law of God.

Answ. All vncertaine. Of all, saith Moses. Gen. 14.20. that is, saith Master Calvine, reasoning from cir­cumstances of the text, of all his owne substance, and that commonly: for it is likely, hee that had sworne to Gen. 14.23. take nothing, from a thred to a shooe-latchet, for his owne enrichment, would at another mans cost offer vnto God? It was a Piaculum vnto Dauid to offer vnto his God of that which cost him nothing. 2. Sam. 24.24. And as great scandall had Abraham in­curred amongst those Heathens, by performing his Deuotions at their charge, as by taking of theirs, for his owne enrichment. 2. But how followes the Argument? if but once, nor of all; Ergo, not by Law.

Answ. q. d. Abel offered but once, for ought ap­peares; Ergo, without law. And yet by faith hee [Page 29] offered. Heb. 11.4. therefore not without a word of God.

Melchisedec tythed Abraham; if Tythes were not due, where is the Emphasis of the phrase?

Answ. Surely quite lost: for it imparts a ius in Melchisedec to take; therefore a debitum in Abraham to pay them.

This is all one as to say, a Tyth-taker for a Priest: Tythes and Priest-hood, are as inseparable as kingdome and Tribute.

Answ. Euen so. That description of Christs Priesthood by the ius of Tything, hangs in your teeth. Giue me a reason of that trope; putting Tyth-taking for Priesthood, and see if it enforce not my in­ference. Priesthood and Tythes are as inseparable, as Kingdome and Tribute. But doe Tribute and Tythes match?

Answ. Yes, in the point of inseparability from their subiect: As Tribute to Kingdome; so Tythes to Priesthood are inseparable. Will you stretch your comparison further? you wrong your Authour, and forget your rule; similia claudicant.

But how a good-yeare fell Abraham and Iacob vpon tenths without iniunction? Forsooth Iacob by Abra­hams example: Abraham by speciall direction from God.

Answ. By speciall direction? likely some inspira­tion: but had that direction the force of an iniun­ction? then was Abrahams act of duty, and not ar­bitrarie.

For sacrifices, their vse held by tradition.

Answ. By tradition? Now how a good-yeare [Page 30] comes tradition in to bee the ancient Rule of wor­ship? Tradition, selfe-deuised custome, without a praecept from God. 2. Tradition wee yeeld it was, in a sense, as matters of faith and worship were all traditionary, till the dayes of Moses: that is, they were deliuered from father to sonne, without wri­ting: so was that, that the Gen. 3.15 seed of the woman should breake the Serpents head, &c. In that sense Tradition: but what is not also a diuine reuelation? So tradition that sacrifices should be offered: but was not the praecept extant for the matter of sacrifices? of cleane not vncleane beasts. 2. for the qualitie; of the best, not of their refuse? How else sinned Cain in bring­ing such a sacrifice? And is not Abel said, Heb. 11.4 by faith to haue offered a better sacrifice? and is there faith without a word of God?

Thus I conclude. Cain and Abel had sinned, if they had not brought sacrifices: Cain did sinne in bringing such a sacrifice: therefore there was a Law for sacrifices, and the qualitie of them; for the rule is of perpetuall truth, Rom. 4. [...]5. Where is no Law, there is no transgression. Likewise, Abraham had sinned, if hee had not payde Tythes to Melchisedec. There­fore that bound Abraham to pay Tythes to him. For where is no Law, there can be no sinne.

But how followes it on all this ground layde, that Ministers must liue of Tythes.

Answ. Because they are ministers of holy things; therefore must liue of Christs portion; and that Por­tion is Tythes.

But that place. 1. Cor. 9.14. speakes not of Tythes.

Answ. 1. It will trouble you to prooue, that it [Page 31] implies not Tythes, though it expresse them not: That (So) and (Christ hath ordayned) remit vs to Tythes, or else to no certeintie. 2. But quid hoc ad rem? That text is not, in this passage, alledged, to prooue Tythes our portion, saue onely vpon suppo­sall; that Tythes are Christs portion. That granted, sith Christ hath made his Portion, his Ministers Portion, the Texts alledged will prooue Tythes the Ministers: Deo gratias; I haue done with a Trifler. I come now to satisfie my learned friend in his quaere about this Text. Thus he.

Truth is, that if we take the seuenth of th'Epistle to the Hebrewes as it is alone, without reference to whom it was written, and after what manner, and obseruing how th' Apostle (as in other things) workes vpon the present opinions and state of the Iewish Church, by that pia vafrities (as some call it) the Arguments for the right as D ^r. Sclater hath resolued them into Logi­call forme, are such as he that answers them, might an­swer the proofe of any Truth. Doubtlesse, he that herein answers D ^r. Sclater, answers more then all the rest of, &c.

Answ. Take wee it therefore with all references possibly imaginable; and consider any circumstance probably competent to be considered; yeeld also th' Apostle to vse, if not that pia vafrities, yet his pru­dence in working vpon the present opinions of the Iewes; what I wonder, may any these references, or obseruings affoord, to crosse th'Argument heere founded. Particularize the references; 1. He writes to Hebrewes, become Christians. 2. Confessedly in­firme in iudgement touching abrogation of Leuiti­call [Page 32] Law; and adhaering too much to their first rudi­ments. 3. opinioned, as truth seemes, that Ancient praecepts Mosaicall still bound the conscience, after exhibiting of the Messiah. What, to our maine, will all this affoord to nullifie or disable the Argument here grounded? His pia vafrities, if it be conceited after Erasmus, his working vpon aduantage of their misconceits, and errours of iudgement, hath here I dare sweare, neither vse, nor footing. For what is in all this passage misconceiued by those Christian Iewes? whereout Paul should strayne his conclu­sion of Christs superioritie, to Leuiticall Priests? God Heb. 7.21 sweares him a Priest after order of Melchise­dec: And Vers. 7. without controuersie, the lesse is blessed of the greater; Vers. 8. To speake as the thing is, Leui was tythed in the loynes of Abraham, sauour any these as­seuerations of Pauls working on misconceites.

His prudence it was to ground his conclusions on Scriptures, and Propositions thereof, confessed by Iewes as true; yet truely so confessed; and of force to affoord him, out of their reall truth, and intention of the inspirer, whatsoeuer inference he makes from them: so was it our Sauiours, out of Moses writings to conuince M [...] 22.31, 32. Sadduces, in th' Article of the resurre­ction: yet was there truth in his ground, and by vn­deniable sequele issues his conclusion out of the prae­misses extant in Moses. When Paul at Athens al­ledgeth testimony of Aratus the Poet, Act. 17.28. [...], we acknowledge his prudence impleading them from their owne Authours: yet dare not thinke him so impiously vafer, as to lay for ground an er­roneous conceit: or so imprudent a disputer, as to [Page 33] build his conclusion on a ground, from whence the Argument had not apparent deduction. I presume, this curt answer affoords so learned and friendly an inquisitor, large satisfaction. Proceede wee therefore to the other Arguments.

I thought, you see I thought, I had ended; and that the mouth of all Calumnie against this Argu­ment had beene stopped; when at last I am minded by a friend, that the grand Syllogismes labour of two foule maladies, [...], and begging of the Quae­stion.

Yet cannot be euidenced any change of tearmes, or so much as of affection of any tearme in the state: neither is either proposition tendred without proofe to any mans credulitie; nor without something, prius and notius in se, and vertuall enough to inferre the conclusion. Faire answer expect to your excepti­ons; howsoeuer, carried with tartnesse more then is meete, and eleuation no lesse sometime then mucte­risticall.

This is the frame.

The Portion due to Christs Priesthood, is due to Ministers of the Gospell.

Tythes are the Portion due to Christs Priesthood. Ergo:

The Minor is thus prooued.

The Portion due to Melchisedechs Priesthood, is due to Christs Priesthood.

Tythes are the Portion due to Melchisedechs Priest­hood. Ergo:

The Propositions (you say) are both Sophisticall, be­cause not propounded in fit tearmes to inferre the con­clusion: [Page] besides, haue in them a begging of the quaestion, presuming of that, which in good Diuinitie is not to bee granted. And th' assumptions are both false.

But why, I wonder, are the tearmes vnfit, beeing two of them the same without aequiuocation, where­in the conclusion is propounded; and the medium a­nother, no whit homonymous, and applicable both to praedicate and subiect?

Forsooth, the true tearmes are these:

The Stipend or Wages due to Christs Priesthood, is due to Ministers of the Gospel. And

The Stipend or Wages due to Melchisedechs Priest­hood, is due to Christs Priesthood. Sounds Stipend with you nothing but base Wages?

Emendemus in Melius: Remigius in Psalmos. hee was no Dunse that obserued, there is emendatio in peius. These tearmes are neyther truer, nor true; nor fitter, nor fit for the quaestion: Truth is, fit for his purpose onely, who meanes to leaue the purpose, and to set vp a shadow for himselfe to fight with. Could you, could any thinke, that in my tearme of Portion, which is part of Temporalties allotted, I should intend Wages? such as is payde to Hirelings, Maechanicall Artisans, or men of like imployment: or if you take my o­ther tearme of Praemium, or Recompence, was it intended, trow you, a Wages aequiualent to the Worke?

I euer meant it an Honorarie, allotted by God, to be rendred from men, in acknowledgement of the vertue, excellencie, worth of Christs Priesthood, and his Ministers Worke, who are imployed by him in the commemoration and application thereof vnto [Page] the people. This is [...], of that tearme: that other is vafra, and [...]. Where now is my Pe­titio principij? or what is that, so abhorrent from the grant of good Diuinitie? Forsooth, I presume there is a set Stipend or Wages belonging to the Priesthood of Christ, and Melchisedec.

Surely I neuer presumed it. Wages said I euer in all my Sermon? The terme is strange to me. Marry this I presume, and yet am not presumptuous, That there is a set or fixed Honorarie belonging to the Priesthood of Christ, and Melchisedec. Will your Reasons force me to thinke otherwise? then I sit downe.

Thus they are. 1. Christ needes none. 2. Hee re­quires none. 3. None can be assigned him answerable to his Worke, beeing a Worke of satisfaction for the sinnes of the whole World, a Worke of infinite Merite. And for Melchisedec and his Priesthood; Sith, 1. None due to Christ. 2. Sith Scripture silent for any proba­bilitie of any such thing. 3. Sith it affoords more then probabilitie to the contrarie: because hee a King, therefore, 1. not needing it: 2. therefore bound ra­ther to giue to his Subiects and Familie, then to take Wages from them: Yea, 3. Its euer counted base in a King, to take Stipend or Wages of Forreiners, or his owne Subiects. Ergo,

Quorsum all this? what needes so much adoe a­mong friends?

Answ. Its not Wages we enquire of, but the Ho­norarie of the Priesthood. And of it, who dares a­uow, there is none due to Christs Priesthood?

How feare I, least applying your Arguments to [Page] that Conclusion, which is the onely you must insist on, I shall expose them to scorne; and make them ap­peare such, as you affirme mine, weake as water, light as feathers, not worth strawes, or the dust adhaering to them.

1 Resp. What if Christ neede no honorarie to be ren­dred from vs? therefore is none belonging to his Priesthood? Though God Psa. 50.9, 10, 11, 12. needed nor Bullocks nor Goates in Holocausts, or Thanks-offerings, were they therefore not to bee rendred from Iewes? Though Christ needes not our Lands, or Liuings, or Liues, yet, in case of Confession, Mat. 10.37. can they bee but impiously denyed him? Who knowes not as much as Peter Lombard in this case, that all our seruice of God, in­ward, Psa. 16.2. Iob 22.2, 3 outward, redounds to ours, not to Gods be­hoofe? Belong they not therefore to our God? Christ needes not take: yet its our opus and vsus too to render him outward, inward seruice and sacri­fice.

When God calls to Iewes for Tythes vnder name of Mal. 3.8. his owne, that there might be meat in his House, no man is so mad to thinke of the liuing God, as is fabled or storied of th'Idol Bel and the Dragon. Yet must there be meate in his House for them to whom the ministration of his seruice was then committed. And though Christ, for his owne Person, now needes not this Honorarie, yet needes hee it in his Deputes and Assignes, whom he hath 2. Cor. 5.20. put in his stead, to commemorate and apply the vertues of his aeternall Priesthood, and to keepe in life and being, the Spiri­tuall Priesthood, exercised by all Christians in the state of this life.

And doth he not require it? Pro. 3.9. Honour God with Ad. 2 thy substance, and with the chiefe of all thy increase; that he requires. [...]. Cor. 9.11. Render Carnals to them that sowe Spirituals: That hee requires. 1. Tim. 5.17. Count Presbyters wor­thy of double honour; thats apertly the Honorarie wee now speake of. For Wages, or hyre, as you style and explane it, let it not be once named in this quae­stion, as becommeth Saints: out vpon that base conceit.

None can be assigned him, answerable to his worke. Ad. 3

Resp. True as Gospell: nor Wages nor Honora­rie aequiualent to his merite. Psal. 116.12, 13. Quid retribuam? saith Dauid. Possibly nothing aequable to Gods bountie; our goodnesse extends not to him: yet there was Poculum salutis, which hee tooke and offered in testimonie of thankefulnesse, for so many and great things done to his Soule. When Iacob according to his Vow erected th'Altar Gen. 35.1. at Bethel, and (who questions?) payde Tythes to God that had kept him; dreames any man hee meant it to the Lord as a Wage for his Worke, in safe-guarding his Per­son, or Honorarie aequiualent to such merites? Lord, I am Gen. 32.10. lesse then all thy Goodnesse and Truth, which thou hast showne me, &c. Why doubt wee that it was a dutie in Iacob, and such as found acceptance with God? Reade also that excellent Blessing and Prayer of 1. Chr. 29. Dauid, what time hee deliuers his owne and the Peoples Offerings to­wards building the Temple: It will appeare true which you say; the Honorarie was not worthie the Lord, yet due to him from Dauid, and from the People.

What need I now proceed to particular answer, to what concernes Melchisedecs Priesthood? The Scripture affoords more then probabilitie, praegnan­cie of proofe for an Honorarie due to that Royall Priest, and Priesthood. Neither was it base, but ho­norable to that King of Salem, to be inuested as well in the Honorarie, as in th'Office of that Priesthood. Will you now ioyne in the close for the Honorarie, as you professe to doe vpon supposall of Wages? If Melchisedec receiued Wages, then you graunt, it should be perpetuall. What if he receiued th'Hono­rarie, will you then graunt, must you not graunt, that it should be perpetuall? Iungamus dexteras. This little explication hath wrought our harmonie in iudge­ment for the maine.

Must wee yet buckle about th'assumptions? What thinke you? are they yet both false; and againe, you say false, twice false, if my portion be not Merces, but Honorarium? What if there be no proportion betwixt the worth of Christs Priesthood, and Tythes? There­fore not the Honorarie of his Priesthood? What though no proportion betweene the spirituall things wee sowe, and the carnall, wee reape from the people? Ergo, 1. Cor. 9.11. Carnals no Honorarie due to Ministerie for Spirituals? What though no proportion be­tweene the 1. Tim. 2.2. Quiet and Godlinesse and Honestie we liue in by meanes of Kings, and the Rom. 13.7. Tribute and Custome wee render to those Earthly Gods? There­fore not the Honorarie of Regalitie? I say not yet as you to me, Apagesis. Yet I aduise, make no such inferences. How vaine are they? who sees not their vanitie? To say truth, how were they Honoraries, if [Page] there might be found meere paritie or proportion betwixt them?

As to what is talked of Abrahams paying Tythes, as Wages, to Melchisedec, and the disproofe thereof: Alas, its naught to purpose. We talke not of Wages. Whether the scrupulous Gentleman you mention, be the Cauiller I deale with, in my review, I know not: but finde you both iumping on the same Con­ceits and Reasons in refutation. I referre you there­fore, for farther answer, to what is said to him in my replie: And for more full satisfaction, to what is scholied by my much reuerenced friend & quondam Collegue M. Mountague, in his answer to M. Selden. Yet, that I seeme not slightfull of such a friend, or willing to leape ouer Reasons for defect of answer, Thus briefely to your Reasons bent to prooue, Tythes not payde by Abraham to Melchisedec of dutie, or as you would bee vnderstood, ex debito Iustitiae.

1. No Couenant betwixt Abraham and Melchise­dec: Ergo not payde ex debito Iustitiae. 2. This act of Abraham was an act of Pietie and Deuotion; Ergo, not of Iustice. 3. Had it beene imposed on Abra­ham by Law, all the Grace and commendation of it had beene lost: for Law and Grace fight. 4. Iacobs Tything, being of the same Nature with Abrahams, was voluntarie, saue for his Vow. 5. Scripture ex­pressely auowes Melchisedec had no Law to take; Ergo, nor Abraham command to pay Tythes. Thus is your Breuiarie.

But doth onely Couenant and Compact breede Ad. 1 Debts of Iustice? Doth not also Commandement? [Page 34] Doe not Benefits? &c. What Compact I wonder twixt Parents and Children, to oblige the Childe to obedience and maintenance? A Commandement there is Exod. 20. Matth 15.4. to honour, that is, to sustaine the Pa­rent; and its Eph. 6.1. [...], saith Paul, without Coue­nant, to obey in all things.

Ad. 2 What? Because an act of Pietie, therefore not of Iu­stice?

Answ. Know you none but ciuill Iustice passing betwixt man and man? Haue you forgotten, that there is vniuersalis Iustitia, binding to render Cuique quod suum est? Not onely to Neighbour and Caesar, but vnto God, what belongs vnto him? Is not Pie­tie a part of this Iustice? Is it not exactest Iustice, which bindes to render dutie to our God? Why make you things fight, that are coordinate or subal­terne?

Ad. 3 And loose our Offices their Grace, which are done by commandement? Had not Abraham his Gen. 22.2 com­mand to offer Isaac? or euer passed act from him, by which hee receiued more grace or commendation from God, then this of offering his sonne Isaac? Gaue not this the Vers. 12.16. hent to that excellent com­mendation, and ratifying of enlarged Blessing? By this, wonne he not the style of Iam. 2.23 Gods friend, the greatest encomium God euer gaue man? Remem­ber you not the vsuall Quaere, whether muchnesse of obligation winne not grace to the performance? or the resolution? Vbi maior obligatio, maior accep­tatio; because melior est obedientia quàm victimae. I spare censure of your mis-applying Scriptures, in this and other passages. I wonder, I sorrow at it. [Page 35] But am vowed to keepe close to substance of An­swere.

And was it not in Iacob an act of Iustice, setting Ad. 4 apart consideration of his Vow? No: For hee makes Tythes the matter of his Vow, which hee ought not to haue done, if they had beene enioyned by any Law of God. You will not say so of th'other part of his Vow, as I suppose.

But meane you good earnest? Thinke you it soothly true which Bellarmine saith? Impium fuisset Iacobo vovere Decimas, si absolutè fuisset obligatus eas soluere: Is it your opinion, That no Vow may passe on any matter, whereto wee are obliged absolutely, that is, by peremptorie Praecept? when vnder Nehe­miah, Princes, Priests, People, made Neh. 10. Couenant, and entred into a Curse, to walke in Gods Law, giuen by Moses, &c. Suppose you they erred in the matter of their Vow? were they not absolutely bound so to doe? were they impious in so vowing? when vnder Ieremie, They Ier. 34.8, 13, 14. couenant to manumit their seruants according to the Law; mistake they the matter of a Vow? were they impious, in so obliging themselues? Is it so impious, to adde to the Bond of Praecept the Obligation of a Vow?

Laxè, you say, such Promises may be called Vowes; properly not Vowes. A Vow properly taken, is of some caeremonious worke in the Old Testament; of some ex­ternall and corporall exercise in the New; which who­soeuer affirmes to be Morall duties, doth himselfe more iniurie, then he is aware of.

Answ. Sir, you minded mee in the ingresse, of Sophistrie. Truly, truly, I haue forgotten much of [Page] it; and count that forgetfulnesse halfe as vertuous as the Athenians [...]: Yet prettie well remember my Logique Rules; amongst which, this was wont to be one Authentique: A negatione vnius speciei ad tollendum genus vniuersum non valet consequentia. Its no man, therefore no animal; thinke you that good consequence? Its no Vow of things left to our choise to doe, or not to doe; therefore no Vow at all? sup­pose you that good consequence? then farewell all Logique. The Act of Vowing passeth as lawfully, as properly on things commanded, as on those left Ar­bitrarie. What vse Vowes of inioyned duties haue, you are not to learne; and may see remembred by me, in answer to that Argument of Bellarmine. Giue vs now what differences you please of one and other sort of Vowes, whiles religious promise may lawfully be made to God of performing what he commands, the Argument will neuer proceede. Tythes were vowed by Iacob, therefore not commanded of God. Thus I conceiue. A Vow properly so called, is a re­ligious promise made vnto God; is of two sorts, ac­cording to diuersitie of the matter: There is a Vow of things commanded; and a Vow of things arbitra­rie. Both are properly Vowes, howeuer differenced by substance, or circumstance: therefore proceedes no argument from negation of one species, to remoo­uall of the vniuersall.

Ad. 5 Expresse Scripture you haue, auouching Abra­hams payment to haue beene without iniunction, Heb. 7.5, 6.

Ans. Expresse Scripture? then lay I my hand vp­on my mouth, neuer more to open it to that assertion. [Page] But are you sure Scripture speakes it, and speakes it expressely? When Paul said Heb. 7.5, 6, Leui had comman­dement to tythe his Brethren, denyed hee Melchisedec had like warrant to tythe Abraham? Say, I beseech you, in sober sadnesse; say as Conscience dictates: as the Text leades you. Is this (indeede) made diffe­rence, to prooue superioritie of Melchisedec to Leui; that Leui tythed by Law, Melchisedec without Law? Where doth the Scripture expresse, or but imply that? yea, doth it not imply the contrarie? What intends the Apostle, in comparing the tything of Leui with that of Melchisedec? but apertly to proue Melchisedec superior to Leui, euen in this honour of Tything? or trow you, this prooues a superioritie in Melchisedec, to take without Law, whereas Leui takes according to Law? Say, I pray, whether is the baser Tenure? that by Law; or that by Curtesie, and at Will? I should thinke, that at Will. And if Leui tooke by Law, Melchisedec but of Curtesie, Leui sure had the preheminence. Farre be it, the Apostle should bring argument to ouerthrow his intention. Truth is, the comparison there entred, lyes onely in the Subiects tythed, not in the ground of Tything. Leui tythes Brethren: Melchisedec, the Patriarch and chiefe Father of those Brethren, is therefore more excellent then Leui; inasmuch, as the very Prince of their race is subiected to his Priesthood, and bound to render the Honorarie thereof.

If you now shall aske, what Paul meanes to menti­on the Commandement or Warrant giuen Leui to tythe his Brethren? thus I should conceiue: That [Page] whereas Tythes originally belonged to the Priest­hood of Christ, typed in Melchisedec, a Law was necessarie to assigne them to Leui, and to make him capable of that honour; inasmuch, as without this speciall Law, Leui could neuer haue made clayme or title to that honour, which firstly was setled on the Priesthood of another Order. So, that vpon the point, the difference stands not in Tything by Law, and without Law; or, better to expresse my selfe; Law is not here opposed to no Law, or iniunction to vltroneousnesse of Tything; but rather this Law for Leui, to originall right: Melchisedec tything Abra­ham by Right, or Law originall: Leui his Brethren, by Law speciall, and graunt for the time: To which end, particular Law was requisite, to inuest that Priesthood in the ius of Tything, which before was setled, as on the foundation in the Priesthood, after another Order.

The second Argument hath ground, Galat. 6.6. 1. Tim. 5.17. Prou. 3.9. where wee reade thus. Let him that is instructed, make his instructer par­taker of all his goods. And, Elders that rule well, are worthy of double honour, especially they which labour in the Word and Doctrine. And, Honour God with thy substance, and with the chiefe of all thine en­crease. Out of which Scriptures, thus wee reason: If there be a portion to be set out vnto God and his Ministers, out of all and euery the temporall goods of euery one instructed, and no certaine portion to bee found in Scripture, but Tythes; then are Tythes the portion allotted by Gods Word, to Ministers, for their seruice. But there is a portion [Page] to be set out vnto God and his Ministers, out of all the temporall goods of euery one instructed, and no other certainty mentioned in Scripture. Ergo, Tythes are the portion allotted by Gods Word to Ministers for their seruice.

The consequence of the proposition depends vpon this ground, That some certaintie is by Scrip­ture allotted to Ministers for their seruice. Hereof if any demaund proofe, let him consider these: 1. The Lord allotted a certaintie vnto first borne, and Leuites. And thinke wee it probable, hee would leaue Ministers of the Gospel to a compe­tencie indeterminate? 2. In other cases th'Argu­ment goes current. The Lord prescribes for the old Tabernacle all things necessarie, euen to the Beesome and Ash-panne; not a Pinne in the Ta­bernacle, but what hath his praescript from God. Of this wee may say, its not a Pinne, but a Clavus Trabalis, one of the master Nayles in our Taberna­cle. And thinke wee his Word so sufficient, and ab­solutely exact for all necessarie praescripts, yea, cir­cumstances, concerning Worship, Gouernment, any thing; and this onely, a matter of so great conse­quence, left vnpraescribed?

Lastly, if no certaintie, in this kinde, can be found in Scripture, how wilt thou bee able to share out vnto God, his portion in faith? so that thou mayest bee able to say, I haue giuen the Lord that por­tion of my Goods, which hee requireth of mee. Can wee doubt, whether God hath reserued in Christians possessions, his sanctified portion? Reade, Prou. 3.5. Forsooth the Magistrates deter­mination [Page] shall in this point be the leuell and rule of Faith.

Resp. 1. Then must thou bee able to shew, that God hath made Magistrates in this point his car­uers, which is vnlikely, vt supra. Suppose Magi­strates make no prouision, as hath befallen many states of the Church; imagine them Sacrilegiously rapinous; where is then the direction for thy Faith? Suppose they shall allow Micha's allowance, wilt thou therewith rest content? then haue our Lay-Parsons Faith well guided, Consciences rectified. Iud. 17.10. Tenne Sheckles of Siluer, and a Meales meate, and Liuerie, they affoord Sir Iohn. In Faith thinke wee? Surely, according to the Magistrates pro­uision. And why blame wee any more impropri­ate Parsons, for so scant allowance? Perhaps, because not competent. Yea, but the Magi­strate thinkes it competent. And that is, in this case, the Line of Faith. Credam? non si mihi, &c.

Touching the Minor: For the first part, see, 1. Cor. 9.11. Prou. 3.9. Galat. 6.6. In which place, yee haue it in so many tearmes: Let him that is instructed, make his instructer partaker of all his goods. For the other Branch of it, That no other portion certaine is to bee found in Scrip­ture; I meane, which hath not apparent significa­tion of something peculiar to the state of People vnder Leui, as First fruites, share of other Sacri­fices; will appeare to any man, that will be plea­sed to enter induction of particulars. And may I not then conclude, Tythes are the portion allot­ted [Page] vs by the Word of God? Yea, what if I should say, Tythes are in some of these places more then obliquely pointed at? What meanes the Apostle to call for maintenance vnto Mini­sters, vnder the tearme of double honour? For that by 1. Tim. 5.17, 18. honour, hee there meanes mainte­nance, the reason annexed will make a blinde man see. Saint Hierome hauing deliuered his iudgement of the place, Malac. 3. Bring all my Tythes into the Store-house, in these tearmes, Ec­clesiae populis Praeceptum est dare Decimas, allead­geth praesently this place for proofe. 1. Tim. 1.17. Elders must haue double honour. 2. What meanes the Apostle by that Epithete (double) annexed to honour? Say some, large and libe­rall. But why double, rather then treble, if hee meant large at large? Doth hee not rather, in that phrase of speech, send vs to consider the dou­ble portion of the first borne, Numb. 8.16. into whose roome Leui was assumed? and that which made their portion double, in likelyhood was Tythes; as may hereafter, on a new inquirie, perhaps ap­peare.

What sayth my learned friend to this Argu­ment? may it passe currant? All may be granted, without praeiudice to your Aduersaries assertion, forasmuch as these wordes are left out, which are energeticall, and wherein the whole state of the Quae­stion lyeth; which are, one onely set particular and perpetuall portion. For say, that some certaintie be al­lotted by Scripture to Ministers, for their seruice; yea, that it is to be set out of all and euery the temporall [Page 36] goods of euery one instructed; and that there bee no certaintie expressed, but Tythes; and Tythes bee the portion, for the present, allotted by Gods Word for the Ministers seruice: what is all this to the pur­pose, if this certaintie bee alterable in it owne na­ture; and that another (that being remooued) may without sinne, bee placed in the roome and stead thereof, the contrarie whereof, is not by this Argu­ment prooued? for all that is, or can bee concluded thereof, is this, that Tythes are the portion allotted by Gods Word to Ministers (of the Gospel) for their seruice; which no man doubteth of. The quae­stion is, whether they be the sole and perpetuall Por­tion, yea, or no.

Answ. Sir, in my Sermon, when I vttered and penned it, I dealt with Layickes; wittie enough, some of them, to iudge of a Consequence, though not much skilled in forme: I haue now to deale with a Clericke (too popular I feare mee) and will affoord him forme praecisely; yet with this pro­uiso, that hee giue mee leaue regularly to choose my tearmes. I like not your mending, it is (for I know you are a prouerbiall man) too Tinker-like. You shall haue termes, such as due forme affoords, most energeticall, and termes explicated, that you may see I meane not to double. Categorically thus.

That portion, that's to say, determinate quan­titie of Peoples Temporall substance, which God hath allotted to Ministers of the Gospel, for their seruice, is that which of dutie belongs vnto them.

But Tythes are that determinate quantitie of peo­ples temporalties which God hath allotted Ministers of the Gospel for their seruice. Ergo.

Perhaps I haue not yet sufficiently explaned my selfe. Sure its more for lacke of words then good meaning: Let mee then in another particular par or parallel to this, expresse mine intention.

The determinate quantitie of time which God hath reserued and sanctified to his seruice vnder the new Testament, is that which of necessarie dutie must be rendred him.

But the seuenth of Time, is that determinate quantitie which God hath reserued and sanctified to himselfe, Ergo.

These twinnes of Morall duties I willingly choose to combine, as well for that I finde no munerall cer­teintie (which yet is greatest) in any Gods morall or­dinances saue in these two of Time and Substance; as also because, as those of Hippocrates, they weepe and laugh, stand and fall together. I may adde, be­cause this of Gods Time affoords that of his reser­ued substance explication reciprocally, as that of Substance doth support to his Time.

What say you now, doe you grant all? or want you your energeticall termes of onely and perpetu­all. Why more I wonder for Gods substance then for his Time? will it not follow? no other therefore solely this; And by Gods word allotted, therfore per­petually and vnalterably to be rendered; I praesume it will for Gods Time; why not also for his substance?

What vse now of your limitations and distincti­ons? Allotment for the praesent, and for perpetuitie; [Page 38] of alterablenesse in it owne nature, and not in it owne nature. Apply them, if you dare, to the point of Time, as you doe to that of Substance. And tell me if your greatest admirers blot not you, as they haue done vs poore Tything-men, out of their booke of the righteous.

But dic sodes, what meane you in saying th'allot­ment is alterable in it owne Nature? What? that institution onely and command determines their payment to be dutie; and that the office of Tything is bonum onely quia praeceptum. For my part I con­tend not. There are moralities such by institution onely and by Law of God positiue. Suppose now; if you will, their duenesse founded onely on Law posi­tiue; will you inferre, therefore alterable by man? As if I should aske, whether because another day is of it owne Nature, setting apart consideration of Gods allotment, ordinable to Gods seruice, there­fore the seuenth may be changed: or whether, be­cause our two Sacraments are in their owne Nature alterable, and other elements, for any thing that is in the Nature of these now instituted, might be substi­tuted in stead of these, therefore man hath power to alter them. I should thinke (such is my simplicitie) Gods Law and Ordinance perpetually bindes to these, and no other: though there bee nothing in their Nature repugnant to substitution of others. What God hath fixed, let no man mooue. What he hath determinately praescribed, who may dare alter. Gods ordinance is the Ancientest boundarie; A curse is to him who praesumes to remooue it.

Yea Sir, doe you grant all? Saith God in his [Page 39] word to Ministers as once to Leui, I haue giuen them Tythes for the seruice they doe mee in the Gospel? Shall any doubt whether th'allotment be of aequall endu­rance with the seruice? or that th' honorarie may be changed, so long as the Seruice continues? Thus briefely. As to Leui they were assigned for Numb. 18.21. his Seruice in the Tabernacle, and were vnalterably to be rendred so long as the Tabernacle stood: So to Mi­nisters of the Gospel they must stand, vpon this con­cession, so long as their Euangelicall Seruice conti­nues, that is, as I suppose, so long as the Sunne and Moone endureth. Except perhaps you can euidence they are exceptiuely or disiunctiuely only allotted; Tythes or some other thing in roome or stead there­of, which who will vndertake to euidence by the word of God?

Our third reason hath ground on Leuit. 27.28. Prou. 20.25. Mal. 3.8. Rom. 2.22. where we reade thus. Euery thing separate from common vse, is most holy vnto the Lord: And it is a snare to deuoure holy things, and after the vow to enquire And, thou which abhorrest Idols, committest thou Sacriledge? And, yee haue robbed mee. Out of which Scriptures thus wee reason.

The portion separated from common vse to main­tenance of Gods worship vnder the new Testament, is that portion allotted by Gods word to Ministers for their seruice.

Tythes are of that portion so separate. Ergo.

The Maior is thus prooued: because the detain­ment or alienation of things so consecrated, is Sacri­ledge. That this may the better appeare, It will be [Page 40] worth the while, to consider briefely what Sacri­ledge is, which out of M ^r. Zanchius, Vrsine, and o­thers, we may thus briefely describe. Sacriledge is the taking away of things Sacred, that is, deputed to holy vses, or the maintenance and furtherance of Gods worship. The matter about which this theft is conuersant, are things consecrated to God: of which are two sorts. Some, which God himselfe ei­ther by reseruation to himselfe, or by expresse man­date hath hallowed to himselfe; some, which man hath hallowed and separated from common vse: wherein is also acknowledged by most prudent, a se­cret motion of God inclining to such consecration. Of both reade, Leuit. 27, 28, 29, 30.

That which makes vp the nature of Sacriledge, is alienating or detaining things thus hallowed, and re­turning them to common vse. Thus is the Reason. The alienating or detaining of any thing separate from common vse, is Sacriledge. But detainment or alienating of Tythes, is the detaining or aliening of things thus separate. Ergo.

To the propositions, these answers I haue partly read, partly heard in conference. 1. Vnderstand it, say some, of things consecrate by Law.

Answ. No word of God forceth to such limita­tion. At building of Tabernacle, was there any law of God particular to contribute? Why then runnes the tenour thus? Euery man whose Exod. 35.5. heart is willing, let him bring, Gold, Siluer, Goates haire, &c. And euen of voluntarie and votarie consecrations both Moses, and Salomon speake. And, was it not free to Ananias to consecrate or not, otherwise then [Page 41] generall lawes of pietie or charitie might sway him? Act. 5.4. Whiles it remained, was it not thine owne? And after it was sold, was it not in thy power?

Yet was Ananias his detainement, Sacriledge: by circumstances of the Text, and consent of best in­terpreters. He is taxed by Peter, not onely for ly­ing; but for theeuish and clancular surreption of part of the price, vers. 3. And saith Mr. Beza, interpre­ting the word; Ad Sacrilegium etiam accessit diffi­dentia & hypocrisis. There was then Sacriledge in his detainement, though dedication was voluntarie. Centuriat: Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. Ambros. Ser. 9. Dum ex eo quod promiserat, partem subtrahit, sacrile­gij simul condemnatur & fraudis; Sacrilegij, quod De­um in Pollicitatione fefellerat, fraudis quod, &c. They are strange quaeres raysed by giddie spirits, desirous to free themselues from stroke of this Argument; 1. As whether Sacriledge be a sinne in these times of reformation; their meaning is, whether there bee any possibility of a Christians falling into the sinne of Sacriledge, otherwise then by defiling his body with the flesh, or depriuing God of the honour im­mediately belonging vnto him. A quaestion, I con­fesse, in these times somewhat disputable; wherein the very matter of Sacriledge is almost annihilated. It calls to mind the teares of Alexander in the known story, shedde vpon remembrance of his father Phi­lips frequent victories, and conquests so large, as there seemed no matter left for his ambition to work vpon. How doth their couetousnesse mourne, and their hearts languish, that there is left them so little a gleaning, after the great haruest of their praedeces­sours? [Page 42] yet how gape they after that little prey vpon holy things, yet vnsurprized? We liue in a free state; giue me leaue freely to speake my minde. In my con­science I thinke it true, the clamours against Bishops calling, and things appendent thereto, hath had no other source, then popular enuy at these fat holy morsels, which yet remaine vndeuoured, could they but calme conscience, grumbling, I dare say, in many against th'attempt, and sway supreame Authoritie, the iudgement threatned to the posteritie of Eli, would soone be our fate; To 1. Sam. 2.36. bow downe to our Lay-masters for a piece of siluer, and a morsell of bread, that we might be appointed to one of the Priests offi­ces.

And yet, with conscience they haue taken order reasonable; Sacriledge none, except spirituall, can now bee committed; matter of that sinne, there is none; for God, in their opinion, hath reserued to himselfe no portion of earthly things: neither doth mans votarie or voluntary deuotion, giue him sei­zure in any thing, how piously so euer consecrated. Belike then, Sacriledge there can be none vnder the new Testament: for there is nothing de iure, separa­ted vnto God. Once impleading the sinne of Sacri­ledge, I was admonished by a graue Praesbyter, to beware of multiplying sinnes; making more sinnes then God had made; me thinkes I may remember him and his adhaerents; to take heede, how they lessen the number, or minish the quantitie of sinnes so heinous. Is there no Sacriledge vnder the Gos­pel? Can none be committed in dayes of new Testa­ment about things consecrated vnto God? Genera [Page 43] peccatorum minuuntur. Blesse your selues you Epi­cures, and carnall Gospellers in this; feede your selues without feare on things, as wee say, consecra­ted vnto God. You cannot now bee Sacrilegious; no more (and yet I dare say so much) then you can be Idolatrous, murtherous, luxurious. Paul said in vaine (and I thinke he said it to men of this mould) thou that abhorrest Idols, committest thou Sacriledge? Rom. 2. Blush for shame at conceits so prophane, and thinke it truest of this glutted couetousnesse, which Iob long since spake of the generall; Hee hath deuoured substance, but the Lord shall cause him to vomite it.

A second restraint some haue thus giuen to the proposition; vnderstand it, say they, of alienating things consecrated without errour: that is, to main­tenance of true worship of the true God. Well a­greed, let it be so limited, though with faire proba­bility, and consent of no small Clerks, we may con­tend the contrary. Keckerman: [...] Syst. polit. lib. 1. cap. 21 Princeps iure non potest res sacras it bona cultui diuino etiam in genere destinata, etiam ea quae superstitioso cultui ferviunt, in vsum profanum transferre. But grant the limitation. Can we not assume thus much of our Tythes? that they haue beene consecrated to maintaine pure wor­ship of the true God?

3. Vnderstand it say some with these exceptions.

1. Except in case of the Churches superfluitie. And this exception hath this ground. Contentment with necessaries is required of Ministers; for Moses cryes sufficit at building of the Tabernacle.

Resp. What word of God or found reason giues [Page 44] libertie to alien seeming superfluities of ministers, rather then of other Subiects? spake Paul to mini­sters onely when he sayde, Let Heb. 13.5 your conuersation be without couetousnesse, and bee content with things praesent?

2. Moses onely stayes addition, of more, returnes or aliens nothing of what was brought by the peo­ple, no not though there were an ouerplus.

3. Yea, howeuer in this contribution to building of the Tabernacle, hee proclaimes a sufficit, yet when he glanceth vpon the maintenance of the mi­nistery, you haue him praying God for abundance. Blesse O Lord his substance. Deut. 33.11.

4. But yeeld the exception; In what case, in what times, may we not, with that limit, assume of Tythes?

2. Their second exception is, when alienation is necessary for preseruation of the Church. In such case 2. Reg. 1 [...].6. Hezekiahs practise, may it not be imitated.

Resp. Perhaps yes: so you keepe to your pat­terne: and inferre not too farre. View therefore 1. the matter of Hezekiah his alienation; you shall find it to be of things belonging rather to the ornaments of Gods worship, then to the maintenance of the ministery. 2. Take it into your serious consideration; whether an action mutuall, or relatiue, such as these are passing betwixt the giuer and receiuer, may not be in casu, on the one side lawfull, on th'other, sinnefull; As if I should aske; may I not without sinne in perill of life, and to auoide violence iustly feared, deliuer my purse to a Thiefe? or doth not the Thiefe sinne in receiuing, or deteining it? We will suppose Heze­kiah [Page 45] to haue done lawfully, in deliuering the trea­sure, and Ornaments of the Temple to the King of As­syria, thereby to redeeme himselfe and Gods peo­ple from his violence. But can you suppose A­shur lesse then Sacrilegious in accepting, or detay­ning them? For euer I blesse his zeale, who to re­deeme Christian Captiues, would exchange his sil­uer Chalice, for wood: yet shall curse to hell him, who driues to this exigent, and thinke his crueltie, or couetousnes no other then Sacrilegious. Though therefore necessitie perhaps may exempt such alie­nation from crime of Sacriledge on the part of the deliuerer, yet is not the action in all parts void of Sa­criledge; yea, cannot be excused, on the receiuers behalfe, of prophane irreuerence, and irreligion to Godward. Goe now and triumph you Heluoes of holy things, sample your selues from Hezekiah; But know, he is Sacrilegious, whosoeuer accepts or re­taines things holy to God, howsoeuer percase law­fully deliuered into his possession from hands of the rightfull Owners. 3. Can wee but thinke Hezekiah minded as 1. Kin. 14 26, 27. Rehoboam practised? to restore what necessitie forced him to decay? Reade the storie: perhaps you may bethinke your selues of restitution. 4. Let vs yeeld to necessitie; the force of it is great, to legitimate for the time, what nothing els can war­rant. May retaining such things in that case aliened, be excused from Sacriledge, necessitie ceasing? I aske your iudgement. The Mat. 12.4. shew bread was made common to Dauid and his companie in extremitie: might it therefore be perpetually commoned?

Their last exception: when Princes haue no o­ther [Page 46] other means to remunerate subiects, faithfull in com­mon seruices.

Answ. What, I wonder in such case, layes open Church goods to will of Princes, rather then the goods of common subiects? Thus I reason and leaue them. Priuate goods of Subiects, Magistrates may not alien from them for recompence of ser­uants: much lesse may the Lords Portion be trans­ferred to such vse. Pharao King of Aegypt, and Io­seph his Viceroy, giue immunitie to possessions of Gen. 47.22. Priests, when else the whole land is seized for the King: perswaded (I suppose) things Sacred to Re­ligion ought at no hand be violated. Thus then the proposition is cleare as it was propounded. Yeeld we it yet with these limits and exceptions, as many as haue but shew of reason to support them; and thus conclude. The detainment or aliening of things by Law consecrated to support pure worship of the true God without superfluitie, any longer then ne­cessitie requires, is Sacriledge.

Tythes haue beene by Law consecrated to main­tenance of pure worship of the true God, are not superfluous, and now no necessitie of their alienati­on. Ergo, their detainement is Sacriledge.

TO this Argument made longsome by idle ex­ceptions, thus my Brother Clerique. All may here be granted also without danger. For no man de­nies, that things consecrated in the new Testament, is the portion by the word of God allotted to Ministers: nor that the detainement or alienation thereof is Sacri­ledge: nor that (as the state of the Church now stands with vs) Tythes are that portion; and so that Tythes are allotted by the word of God for our maintenance euen vnder the new Testament. But the quaestion is, whe­ther any portion whatsoeuer once consecrated be perpetu­ally and onely due in all Ages; And so whether Tythes be that onely and perpetuall portion for euer; which by this Argument is not prooued. For howsoeuer the de­tainement and alienation of Tythes bee Sacriledge (as things now stand with vs) yet the change of Tythes into another kinde of maintenance as good or better, is no Sacriledge. For that which D ^r. Carleton saith to the contrarie, fol. 26. is of no force. For first there is a great difference betweene things consecrated to the vse of Gods worship in the Temple vnder the old Testament (of which sort the vessels were whereof he speaketh) and things dedicated to the Churches and Ministers vse in the New. For those were Types and Sacraments of o­ther things (as appeareth by those very vessels, by 2. Tim. 2.20, 21.) but so are not these. Secondly, Tythes euen in the old Testament might be changed, so long as no detriment came therby to the Leuites, Leu. 27.31. So that though it were granted that Tythes were due iure diuino (which he takes for granted sophistically) yet by [Page 50] his owne reason they may be changed, because the change is allowed by the same power and Authoritie by which they are made holy to God. Thirdly, he playes the So­phister manifestly in arguing a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter; for thus he reasoneth: It is Sacriledge to change Tythes for a maintenance and pro­uision of lesse value then Tythes: Ergo, it is simply Sa­criledge to make an exchange of them: which whether it be a good forme of Reasoning, I leaue to others to iudge.

Anſw. My liberall Aduersarie, how shall I praise your bountie? What tearmes may I deuise to commend it? Certeinly, but that I know there be many, for all your saying, who deny my praemises, I should thinke you and all men consenting to the conclusion; which you may, without new quaestion, assure your selfe to be meant of a perpetuall and vnalterable por­tion, euen therefore, because consecrated.

But whereto I wonder all this shew of granting all, except to show your selfe wittie? Why such circling? why speake you not in the tearmes of your Master that Heretique in Philosophy, and say any proposition is not [...]. As once a Rabbi in that haeresie, and other schisme beeing demaunded what he thought of the Sermon he sate to censure, said; the man and his matter and gifts he well ap­prooued; onely one doctrine was not [...].

Thus take my answer to your quaestion; Nothing sanctified may euer be commoned, except by Au­thoritie of that God to whom they are sanctified. Whether changed with your limits, is a quaestion coincident, whereof anone.

Of things consecrated are two sorts; some which God; some which man sanctifieth: of Gods sancti­fying, you haue instances many in old Testament; of Time the seuenth; of substance, once we are sure, the tenth. And of this kinde, but you, now perhaps, none quaestions, whether any may be vnhallowed without warrant from the Sanctifier.

Is the quaestion of that which man sanctifieth; whether euer by mans owne Authoritie it may war­rantably be vnhallowed? thus is the answer distinct, as suddennesse permits it to be propounded: Some­times Gods act and mans in sanctifying passeth on the same matter; God sanctified the Sabbath, Gen. 2.3. by or­dinance to his owne vse; yet we reade in Isay after some translations, If Isa. 58.13. thou shalt call it a delight to consecrate it as Glorious vnto the Lord. The 1. Cor. 3.17. temple of God is holy which yee are; our bodies and soules are Gods; yet said Paul Rom. 12.1. offer vp your selues vnto God. Such votarie consecration by man of things al­ready holy to God, multiplies the obligations to render; aggrauates malice of Sacriledge.

2. Sometimes man consecrates what God hath left common, as Ananias the price of his possessions: Act. 5.2. whether dominion or vse, as Canonists distinguish, ioyntly or seuerally, it matters not here to specifie: of this kinde of things sanctified is all the quaestion. For my part I doubt not but the character of Gods first impression in Tythes, is indeleble; and that mans votarie consecration of them, gaue them no new hallowing, but encreased obligation to their payment. Howbeit ex abundante, I will suppose they haue no other touch of holines, then mans deuotion hath put to them.

Thus is the Argument for the maine vpon that supposall. Its Prou. 20.25. a curse to deuoure that which is sanctified; that is, any thing that is sanctified, at any time. And after the vow to inquire; this last clause forceth to iudge, he meanes of things votarily, or voluntarily consecrated by man. Will you say, while its sanctified; or as the case stands with them amongst whom its sanctified? You call to minde the idle euasi­on of Arminians in the quaestion of Apostasie, whe­ther it be incident to men regenerate. We say as S. Iohn; 1 Ioh. 5.18. He thats borne of God sinnes not the sinne vnto death: True, say they, quàtalis, or quandiu ta­lis. Whereas euery man knowes that Apostasie pro­ceedes not from regeneration; and that it implies a ceasing to bee talis; and therefore necessarily ex­cludes the quandiu talis. Euery man knowes, a sober man is not drunke as he is a sober man, or so long as he is sober; drunkennesse proceedes not from so­brietie; and it implies, to say, ebrius, quandiu so­brius.

Once sanctified, euer sanctified; if th'intendement of the votarie were for perpetuitie. I haue heard of the rule, Eius est tollere; cuius ponere; but I aske your iudgement, whether Act. 5.2, 3, 4. Ananias his reuocation of part vpon second thoughts, did excuse him of Sacri­ledge?

2. Besides there is by such vow or deuotiō of man, a new propertie and dominion giuen vnto God in the thing deuoted. Shall man, can man defeate God of that propertie? dic sodes.

Is the quaestion now of the change? Whether the sanctified portion may be changed, and another with [Page 53] your cautions substituted in stead thereof? I should thinke not. Especially if you meane as you must, a change of the whole kinde, for perpetuitie.

1. For that God allowed no change of the parti­cular; Much lesse of the whole kinde. Leuit. 27.33. He shall not looke vpon it whether it be good or bad, but the Tenth must be rendred in the particular; because thats it that is holy to the Lord, said hee, euer the tenth or the aequiualent.

2. Next, Salomon; Say not before th'Angel Eccl. 5.6. it was an errour, I was mistaken in the matter vowed; take another which vpon second thoughts is found better. Why should the Lord destroy thee not in thy time?

3. I finde the command peremptorie and prae­cise to pay that which is vowed, that is, as I take it, that very particular.

4. Because I obserue paenaltie (as I conceiue) infli­cted in case of exchange attempted; Leuit. 27. Both the par­ticular and the change must be the Lords.

5. Vpon grant of power to exchange, the matter of Sacriledge must bee vncertaine, and no man chargeable with that sinne as vpon certeintie.

6. Why not diminution of part as free from Sa­criledge, as exchange? which yet in Ananias Act. 5. his case is damned.

But is it naught to purpose which the now reue­rend Bishop of Chichester said to this point of ex­change? heare him.

If Sacriledge be in taking away holy things from God and his Church, it appeareth more in taking away Tythes then in any other thing whatsoeuer. Neither can [Page 54] Sacriledge herein be excused, though men should esta­blish something in place of that holy thing taken away?

1. Because the changing of holy things is Sacriledge no lesse (though haply a lesse kinde of Sacriledge) then taking away of the same. If Nabuchadnezzar hauing taken away th'holy vessels out of the house of the Lord, should in place thereof haue put some other, might his Sacriledge thereby be excused? or Beltazzar taking the vessels of the Lords house, and in them banquetting with his Lords and Concubines, if he should in stead thereof haue placed other, could any iustifie his Sacriledge ther­fore? no more can the taking away of Tythes be iustifi­ed, though something in place thereof should be appoin­ted by men.

His opinion you are not bound to subscribe vnto; perhaps he is not yet growne classicall: but what to his Reason? For things which God himselfe hath sanctified?

Forsooth; This difference there is betwixt things consecrated to the vse of Gods worship in the Temple vnder the old Testament (of which sort the vessels were whereof he speakes) and of things dedicated to the Chur­ches and Ministers vse in the new: for those were Types and Sacraments of other things (as appeares of those ve­ry vessels, by 2. Tim. 2.20, 21.) so not these.

Answ. Right so. Yet when I from ground as good or better affirme first fruits mysticall resemblances of Christ and the gifts of the Spirit in this life giuen, how merily game you at mee?

But say in good sadnesse: is there in this point of vnalterablenesse without diuine Authoritie a dispari­tie betwixt things then consecrated by God in Old [Page 55] Testament, and those by him hallowed in New? or hath God giuen more libertie of exchanging things sanctified in New, then of those other hallowed in Old Testament? What one passage of Scripture haue you to guide you? Belongs not this to both Testa­ments? Its Prou. 20.25. a curse to deuoure holy things. And, thou that abhorrest Idols, Rom. 2.22. committest thou Sa­criledge? put differences, as many as you will, be­twixt one and other in other respects, in this of vn­changeablenesse whereof is quaestion, you shall neuer be able to cut difference.

This it seemes you saw well enough, and there­fore your secondarily auoucheth with too much confidence, that Leu. 27.31. Tythes might then be changed so long as no detriment came by th'exchange to Leuites.

1. Belike then your difference is not vniuersall for things consecrated in Old Testament; for some of them might be changed, as you doe handsomely instance in proposito, the point quaestioned of Tythes. Phi, phi; why dye you changeable? might they not be changed, and yet might they be changed? Pugnantia loqui te non vides? Or if you meant your vnchangeablenesse particularly to the vessels of Ser­uice in the Temple, could no other particular of things then consecrated alterably be instanced in, but the Tythes in quaestion? Why haue you so forgot­ten notorious absurdities in disputation?

2. But thinke you indeede Tythes might then be changed in that sort which now we quaestion? Might Israelites haue changed that kinde of maintaining Leuites by Tythes, into another as good or better? Say I beseech you. Or had it not beene profane [Page 56] arrogancie in that people to haue altered Gods prae­script for the manner of maintenance, vnder prae­tense of bettering it?

Will your text prooue it? It speakes indeede of Leuit. 27.31. redeeming a particular Tythe; not a syllable of changing the whole kinde of maintenance into ano­ther for perpetuitie.

3. Suppose you Redemption euen of a particular approoued? or rather tolerated? Tolerated I should thinke; and not allowed. Because mulcted with ad­dition of a fift part. That, in case a man were so head­strong in his affection that he would needs redeeme, way should be giuen: Howbeit, by his paenaltie he must be taught that in the act and attempt he erred. My inducement is this: Because I euer obserue addi­tion of a fift part ordered to be made ouer and aboue the satisfaction or amends for the trespasse or dam­mage, how else, but nomine poenae. Compare these Scriptures, Leuit. 5.15. and 6.5. Numb. 5.6, 7. Et ali­bi. And aptly, it tended not to praeuent dammage of Leuites, which easily enough was, or might be prae­uented in the price giuen for ransome.

But how glad am I to see you carefull to praeuent dammage of Leuites in the exchange? and so cauti­onate for Ministers indemnitie? In case of ex­change of Tythes into another kinde of mainte­nance, you cautionately prouide, it must bee as good or better. Et mox, exchange is no robberie in this kinde, prouided alwaies that it be made, in an aequall proportion at the least, so as if the Church be not bettered, yet it is not damnified.

Blessing on your heart for that yet, If euer Lay-Parson, [Page 57] or scrupulous Gentleman, or Customarie Parishi­oner cun you thanke for your refutation, I much maruell. Say, I pray you, doth the scrupulous Gentleman so prac­tise? Giues hee the aequiualent to the Tythe? If I knew him, and he so practise, at first greeting I would ciuilly a­dore him. Miracle, mirror at least he should be to me, of all the Lay-Order of Parsons, whom I yet know. I may transgresse Charitie in my iealousie of that blacke Swan. But how feare I? least the little grumble of Conscience be calmed with that parcell of your opinion, Tythes may be changed into another kind of maintenance, and no care taken of your Prouiso, for substitution of an aequiualent.

Once I know tenne or twentie pounds Coyne-stipend is no aequall proportion to an hundred or two, or three, in Tythes; nor two-pence Rate or Custome aequiualent to ten or twentie shillings of Tithes. Thinke of it my Master Parsons of the Laitie; your best Patron steedes you not, as you practise. But I returne to the Refuter.

What say you to that of D ^r Carleton? When any thing consecrated is taken away, that a thing of the same value should be restored, who can expect? and who shal be Iudge?

Forsooth, he playeth the Sophister manifestly, in arguing à dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter; for thus he reasoneth: Its Sacriledge to change Tythes for a maintenance and prouision of lesse value then Tythes. Ergo, its simply Sacriledge, to make exchange of them.

But doth he so reason indeede? you would make him a simple Sophister.

Answ. Thus rather conceiue him; to apprehend that supposed (something) to bee substituted in roome of Tythes, of ambiguous acception: there is aliquid indefini­tum; where something, is any thing: And there is hoc ali­quid, or aliquid limitatum, as in this case sufficient prouisi­on, or in your meaning, something aequiualent.

Is the something to be substituted, indefinite? any some­thing, in lieu of Tythes? that restitution or substitution, according to D ^r Carleton, and according to cleare eui­dence of Truth, cannot be excused of Sacriledge; for it may be of lesse value, its likely to be so.

Is it, hoc aliquid; aliquid limitatum; after the opinion there mentioned, a sufficient prouision? that is a Castle in the ayre, as he there truly speakes; besides, not that suffi­cient maintenance which God hath allotted; and in all likelyhood, not so sufficient: by consequent therefore sa­crilegiously substituted.

Is it your aequiualent? as good or better? To this, thus he truly; None can name any so conuenient as Tythes, to supply the place of Tythes; so as to be sufficient at all times, howso­euer the price of things rise or fall. Which proportioning of the Ministers estate, making it able to answer all estates alike, whether deare or cheape, proceeding from the wisedome of God, cannot be matched by mans wisedome. Thus take him in forme.

Euery change of Tythes into another kind of prouision, which is at any time of lesse worth or conueniencie then Tythes, is sacrilegious. But all exchange of Tythes into any other kind of prouision, is at some time necessarily of lesse worth & conueniencie then Tythes. Ergo, all change of Tithes into any other kind of prouision, is sacrilegious. Of the Maior, your limits in exchanging, permit not you to doubt. The Minor is thus proued. No other prouision can make the Ministers estate able at all times to answer all estates. Ergo, euery exchange of Tythes into another prouision is, vt supra, of lesse worth and conueniencie. What thinke you? did the Doctor reason a dicto secun­dum quid ad dictum simpliciter? did not the Batchelor ra­ther view him secundum quid, and not simpliciter? I should thinke this rather.

As to what you talke of Canonists opinion, and Ministers practise in commutation or composition for Tythes, it tou­cheth not the purpose: let all be granted lawfull; what is this to a change of Tythes for perpetuitie?

Remember you not your owne Dunse Canonist, resoluing that Tythes cannot be granted to a Laicke in fee? haue you forgotten, that in quaestion of selling particular Tythes, they distinguish betwixt things Tythable, and the ius of Tything? Sale of res decimabilis, they allow with cautions: marchan­dizing the ius of Tything, they make Simoniacall and Sa­crilegious. Their reason is, because Ius decimandi is spirituali officio annexum. And in case such a permutation of Tythes as you speake of, were lawfull, why not also a transferring of the ius of Tything?

To close this point, I must professe, I like not such permu­tations or compositions for Tythes, except in way of grati­fication, where scandall is feared. It hath brought vpon the Church, Customes and Prescriptions, so many, of so long continuance, that of Tythe, except the name of Tythe, is left almost nothing to many Churches.

I professe not Canonist: yet thus much I know; Ministers haue no perfect dominion in Tythes, or other endowments of the Church; & am inclined to thinke, they are at most but vse-fructuaries therein. The whole right & dispose of Tythes is not in Ministers, no nor in the Church fundamentaliter or terminativè: first and originally Leu. 27. Mal. 3.8. they are Gods; by him as chief proprietary assigned to the Priesthood, for preseruation of their office, & support of the seruice by them administred.

The fourth Reason followeth: The Law first allotting Tythes, to support of the Ministerie, and worship of God, was morall; Ergo, they are perpetually the Ministers Porti­on. That Law conceiue to be that which guided Abraham and Iacob in the practise of Tything: reuiued afterwards, and further explained, what time they were assigned to Leui.

That it was morall, perpetually binding, is thus euident; because in no respect caeremoniall, or particularly iudiciall to the state of Iewes: you vnderstand, I presume, by the Ar­gument thus moulded, that we meane it meerely morall.

Rather saith my learned friend; mixti iuris; In diuerse respects, Tythes are both morall, and caeremoniall, and iudiciall; as was also the Sabbath in the old Testament. They are morall, as a sufficient maintenance for Ministers of holy things. Caere­moniall, as Rites of the Iewish Religion: Iudicial, as maintenance of Leuites and Leuiticall Priests.

Ans. So as you say; and not without consent and suffrage of some both old Schoole-men, and moderne more Ortho­doxe Teachers. There are Lawes and duties of mixt nature; as long before M ^r Iunius taught more then one introducto­rie teacher of Schoole-diuinitie. Amandus de bello visu, &c. But, I pray you, by Tythes meane you the quota? and say you, in that very quantity they are morally belonging to Ministers of holy things? Sir, wee are brethren, why striue we? you grant the quaestion. Let them be in what other respects you wil, caeremonious, or iudiciall, or both; if in that quota they are morally due, I shal be ready to swear anon, they are perpetually due to Ministers of holy things. And me thinkes by your example of the Sabbath, which you giue for instance of the like, you should meane so. For that, I presume, you grant euen in the quotient of Time-morall: though there were some accessories of Caere­monialitie and iudicialitie also perhaps annexed thereto. Be­sides, the very Name of Tythes determinately denotes that certaine Portion; the Tenth part of Temporall substance. So that in saying Tythes are morall, though with a Quatenus, you say as much as, the tenth part of the peoples Income by Law moral belongs to Ministers of holy things. Or else giue vs, I pray you, th'other part of your distinction, or some other respect in which they are not moral. They are moral as a suf­ficient maintenance; not moral belike; as an insufficient mainte­nance; [Page 73] As if I should say; The seauenth of time is morally prescribed, as it is a sufficient time to bee spent in the seruice of God: not morally, as insuffici­ent. Whereas to say Truth, Gods determining this numerall certeintie of Time and Substance to his seruice, noticeth it as that sufficiency which we must rest in.

And yet meethinkes you should not meane so as your words purport. For then, why striue you for lawfulnesse of mans exchanging that maintenance into another kinde of prouision as good or better. Surely vpon supposall of that meaning, were I a man transported with passion, I should bee ready to cry out as you; Oh horrible, Is it possible a Minister of Ie­sus Christ should teach that man may alter or reuerse Gods morall praecepts? And if an Angell from heauen should say so, I know how to esteeme him.

But how handsomely might a man with such a quatenus, maintaine sacrifices and burnt offerings to be morall; yea and the duty whatsoeuer it is, that is most meerely morall, to bee caeremoniall and Iudici­all? The Ios. 13.14. Sacrifices of the Lord God of Israel made by fire was Leuies inheritance; part of his mainte­nance; impleade me, if you list, for saying they are morall; vrge as you well may, that they were meere­ly caeremoniall; my distinction is ready; in diuers respects they are caeremoniall, and Iudiciall and mo­rall. Caeremoniall as rites of the Iewish religion; Iudiciall as Leuies inheritance; yet morall as a com­petency, and part of sufficient maintenance assigned to Ministers of holy things. And could I not shift, trow you, to maintaine prayer Ceremoniall, or Iudi­ciall? [Page 74] Presse mee with your greatest instance to prooue it morall; twentie to one but I shall finde a quatenus, that hath vnder it as much truth, as yours in the case of Tythes; though as spirituall worship, its morall; yet as part of Tabernacle and Temple seruice, so its caeremoniall; as a meane to obtaine and praeserue our sustenance and temporalities; so its Iudiciall. So be it if you will haue it so.

But say for Gods sake, and vexe vs no more with impertinent manners of speech. By Tythes the sub­iect in this proposition, Tythes are morall, quatenus, &c. Meane you the tenth part of temporalities? Then Tythes are morall, and we haue the purpose; And must you not so meane it, as in th'other, Tythes, that is, tenth part are caeremoniall; and Tenthes are Iudiciall. Let the tenth parts be caeremoniall or iudi­ciall with what quatenus they will, if they bee caere­moniall or iudiciall with a quatenus, then eatenus ve­ry Tenthes are caeremoniall or iudiciall; So let Tenthes be morall with a quatenus, yet eatenus the Tenth part of peoples Temporalties by morall law belongs to Ministers of holy things. Briefly, meane you by Tythes, Decimam partem temporalis substan­tiae, in all three members; or meane you it in the two latter propositions, not in the first? If you meane it, Tythes are morall; if you so meane not, you play the absurd sophister, the idle disputant in taking a­way, or altering subiectum quaestionis.

I proceede to euidence the first member of th' Antecedent. That the law inioyning Tyths was in no respect caeremoniall. Caeremoniall ordinances were all shadowes of things to come, Col. 2.17 the body whereof is [Page 75] Christ. This no such shadow, for where is the body which this supposed caeremonies dutie should sha­dow? Some haue sheaped vs this resemblance. The number of Tenne is a number of perfection, and by paying in this number, the offerer made protestation of his owne imperfection, and of his expecting per­fection in Christ. Pretty too too. Twenty such like a tolerable wit would deuise. But can they shew vs this signification or end of payment in Scripture, but obscurely so much as by allusion intimated? I dare say no; nor any other end, no not of their payment to Leui: but support of Gods worship and recom­pence of their seruice.

2. Leuiticall caeremonies haue all analogicall re­semblance of the things they praefigured: Therefore called shadowes of things to come. Because as the bo­dy carries a darke, yet some resemblance of the bo­dy whose shadow it is; so caeremonies of Christ and his benefits, &c. Therefore also tearmed Heb. 9.23 simili­tudes of heauenly things, being ordained by their very semblance to Gal. 4.9. teach the rude. Tything hath no analogicall resemblance of imperfection, or thanke­fulnesse, or Gods vniuersall dominion: for who can, I say not only avow his frame, but frame it except absurdly? Giue vs such analogie of this, as we are able to show of others, we will then beleeue their payment to haue beene in part, at least, Leuitically caeremonious. Of sprinklings and purifyings, of Ta­bernacle, of Arke, of high Priest (and indeede of what not? that was truly a shadow of heauenly things) we finde analogie in the word of God. Ergo, Heb. 9.7.12. As high Priest amongst Iewes alone entered into the [Page 76] holy of holies not without blood: So Christ into heauen: &c. Can those who so confidently avow tything a caeremonie, thus draw out the similitude twixt it and heauenly things?

3. No Leuiticall caeremonie may be vsed after full publishing of the Gospel; Schoolemen say well, Iudicialia post Christum bee mortua, because they binde not: Caeremonialia mortifera; their very re­uiuing is vnlawfull and deadly. But payment of Tythes by consent of all, except Brownists, may be retained. Ergo.

4. I finde not that the Lord in Propheticall Scrip­tures taxeth so much th'omission of caeremonies, or exacteth in so strict termes their performance, as hee doth this of Tythes. Something I finde of their faultie performance, something of their sticking in them with neglect of moralities: And this to mee is a praesumption, they were other then caeremonies.

Lastly, I neuer read Christ speake so much of any Iewish Caeremonie, as he did of Tythes; Math. 23. These things ought yee not to leaue vndone; though I con­fesse as much might haue beene said of Caeremonies during those times. All these considered, may I not conclude of Tything, it was no Leuiticall caere­monie?

To these Arguments thus hath my friend. That all Caeremonies were shadowes of things to come, I would not haue supposed you would haue held; but that I see it in Print.

And you may choose yet whether you will thinke it or no if you take my exegeticall termes of limi­tation. For I meane of Caeremonies, Leuiticall, [Page 77] Mosaicall, Aaronicall Caeremonies; as wee vse to take them contradistinctly to moralities and Iewish iudicials. And so vnderstanding mee, why would you not thinke it? I assure you I shame not to haue it in Print.

For all men know that there are two sorts of Religi­ous Caeremonies in all Religions whatsoeuer: some sig­nificant and Sacramentall and Mysticall, other some for decencie and good order, And if Tythes be said to bee Caeremonies of order, I know no exception can be taken against it. 2. But we may goe one degree farther and say with Iunius, that of significant or mysticall caeremo­nies there are three sorts; one remembrances of things past; another demonstrations of things praesent: a third figures or shadowes of things to come: or as Beza spea­keth, Signa [...]. The Sabbath may serue for an example in all these respects, and whether Tythes were so or no who can tell? This we neede not be afraid to say, that Tythes were remembran­ces of benefits receiued in times past, and demonstrati­ons of a thankefull minde for the time praesent. For so they were in Abraham, Gen. 14.20. And Iacob Gen. 28.22. Yea in the whole time of th'Old Testament, see­ing they were an oblation to the Lord, Numb. 18.24, 26, 27, 28. And for my part also I am halfe perswaded that they were shadowes of things to come: If you aske mee where is the bodie which they shadowed? I dare not tell you my minde, least you laugh mee out of Counte­nance, and say its the deuise of a tolerable wit. This therefore is that which I say, that seeing the bodies of all caeremoniall shadowes are not made knowne vnto vs, it may as well be so for any thing yet appeareth, as other­wise. [Page 78] And if it be not so in Tythes, yet if they be sig­nificant in the two former respects, yea if they were not significant at all, but only instituted for good order, it is sufficient to disprooue that assertion, that all Caeremo­nies were shadowes of things to come. Yea it is sufficient also to answer your second reason, Caeremonies haue an analogicall resemblance of the things they signified: see­ing this praesumeth the former to be true, that Caeremo­nies are shadowes of things to come: yea and the third too, for that hereby it appeareth, that that may be a cae­remonie, which was before the Law not foreshadowing Christ. And whereas you say, No Leuiticall caeremonie may be vsed after publishing of the Gospel; and alleadge thereto the saying of the Schoolemen, Iudicialia post Christum mortua sunt; Caeremonialia verò mortifera, Iunius seemes to mee to vnderstand it better of Caeremo­niall shadowes onely, and of Caeremonies Leuiticall so farre forth onely as any of them doth shadow something in Christ: granting that though in other respects they be in their owne Nature mutable, yet that there is no abso­lute necessitie of remoouall thereof. So that you see, that though it were granted that Tythes were shadowes of things to come, yet they may be retained, so long as they are not retained in that regard.

And this answereth to the full, all that D ^r. Carleton alleadgeth to this purpose, Page 16, 17, 18, 19. Whether in iest or good earnest. For he also praesupposeth all Cae­remonies to be shadowes of things to come. Where by the way it is good sport to see what game he maketh of this: that we say, Tythes are now vsed in the time of the Gos­pel not as a Caeremonie but as another thing. And there­upon rideth the hackney distinction of Materialiter [Page 79] verum est, sed non formaliter, out of breath; to which neuerthelesse he must be beholden in the end whether he will or no. For fol. 35. pag. 2. When he answereth A­bulensis, that Tythes haue two respects; one in their generall ordinance, another in their particular assigna­tion; and in regard of the former not instituted by the Law, but onely in the latter; what is this (I would faine know) but non materialiter, sed formaliter? &c. The rest my loue couers.

Answ. For answer. I hope you thinke nor D ^r. Carleton nor poore mee so simple or vnskilled, as not to know the notation of the name (whether of Cares the Tuscane towne, or a carendo) and the generall notion of the Nature of Caeremonies. Well we vn­derstand it generally to denote any externall rite of religion. This also wee conceiue, that there were Caeremonies in this generall sense taken, in vse a­mongst Iewes, which sort sufficiently with the state of the Gospel. There are naturall Caeremonies, such as lifting vp of hands and eyes to heauen, bowing the knee, prostrating the bodie in prayer: Religious rites apparently Naturall, and by Natures instinct in vse amongst Gentiles as well as Iewes. Neither much contend we, but there were some externall rites of Gods institution for Iewes which yet are applicable to Euangelicall worship.

But when we treat of Caeremonies contradistinct to moralities we meane and explicate our selues of caeremonies Leuiticall, Mosaicall, or if you please so to terme them, Aaronicall Caeremonies. Whose stile in Paul is vniuersally, elements, beggarly elements, Col 2.20. sha­dowes of heauenly things of things, to come; Gal. 4 9. The law [Page 80] whereof was respectiue onely of the Leuiticall Priest­hood. Heb. 10.1.

And of these this is that we teach; 1. That they were all figures of things to come. Similitudes of hea­uenly things; shadowes of Christ and spirituall things then promised, now exhibited.

2. Of these we haue further learnd; 1. That they retained their vertue and power of binding till the death of Christ. 2. That they were after his death, for a time, liberae obseruationis, for more ho­nourable bringing of the Synagogue to the graue; as not the now reuerend Bishop of Chichester, but that old renowmed of Hippo first spake. Were also for that time to be tempered in vse by rules of Cha­ritie, in fauour of weake Iewes, till fuller preaching of the Gospel.

3. Yet were after promulgation of the Gospell mortiferae, 1. 2. Quaest. 102. Art. 4. and could not, as Thomas speakes, be vsed sine mortali peccato. Will you heare his reason be­cause their vse implyed protestation of such faith, as who shall now in dayes of new Testament pro­fesse, were worthy to be branded with note of gros­sest haeresie, no lesse then Iudaisme. The faith of fa­thers before Christ, and ours since him, is in the sub­stance one; yet were th'Articles thereof to be speci­fied in termes different. Theirs, as denoting Christ then to come; ours, as importing Christ already come. Proportionally their caeremonies were or­dained to signifie things to come; and vse thereof implyed such protestation in that people. As there­fore he should sinne mortally, whosoeuer should now in profession of his faith by words, say, hee be­leeues [Page 81] in Christ, yet to be borne, to die, to rise a­gaine: so no lesse mortally he, who shall vse any re­all protestation or profession in fact of such faith, as who so vseth these caeremonies, necessarily must doe, I am non promittitur nasciturus, passurus, Augustin. Cont. Faust. Man [...]h. lib. 19. cap. 16. resurrectu­rus, quod illa Sacramenta quodammodo personabant: sed annunciatur quod natus sit, & resurrexit, quod haec Sacramenta quae a Christianis aguntur iam perso­nant.

What trow you? Will our Arguments now pro­ceede? Caeremonious ordinances Leuiticall were all shadowes of things to come, carrying analogicall resemblance of what they signified, &c. Videsis.

1. Not so; for euery man knowes all Religions haue some caeremonies of order and decency; not all signifi­cant and mysticall; And so might Tythes be caeremonies of order, say also of decency if you please.

Answ. Surely, I doubt not but the whole Leui­ticall seruice of God was carried in the seemeliest fa­shion, and that there was strict obseruation of prius and posterius in all their Cultus. 1. Cor. 14.40. Let all things bee done decently and in order, is a rule of the Law of Nature, and bound Iewes as well as Christians. Nei­ther make I quaestion but Iewes had directions euen for the order and outward fashion of their caeremo­nious seruice, of Gods owne praescript, that the mo­dus might be [...]. But Sir you must remem­ber, 1. That in the quaestion of Tythes, and the like, whether they were Leuiticall Ceremonies or no, we inquire of the Materials of Leuiticall seruice; and not of the modus and externe fashion of perfor­mance, which commonly comes vnder the terme [Page 82] of decency and order. 2. Next, I dare you to instance in but one caeremonie of order, if it were properlie Leuiticall, vpon condition to loose the benefite of this Argument if I euidence not, that it was of my­sticall signification; and Typicall of something be­longing to Christ or his kingdome. Be it then that they had their caeremonies of order, yet if those also were shadowy and figurall, how helpes your distin­ction to contradict our proposition?

2. Yet one step further you will aduenture to goe; and its [...]. I warrant you. Not all shadowes of things to come; for some were remembrances of things past; some demonstration of things praesent.

Scot. in 4. dist. 1. Answ. Euen so; wee haue long since learned of M ^r. Iunius his Masters, that signes are some Remo­ratiue, some demonstratiue, some prognosticall. But can you name vs the Leuiticall caeremonie, that was so commemoratiue of things past, or demonstra­tiue of things praesent, that it was not also Typical­ly prognosticall of things to come? I dare not bee ouer confident; memory decaies as age growes, and I am suddenned to addresse this answer to you. But cannot bethinke my selfe, nor I (suppose) you, of any Leuiticall Caeremonie, whether sacrum or sacrifici­um, or sacramentum, or observantia, but was withall shadow of something to come. The passeouer, a re­membrance of Angels passing ouer Israelites, yet withall a 1. Cor. 5. Type of Christ: The Manna reserued in the Arke, monument of the materiall bread miracu­lously giuen from heauen; but was it not also Type of Christ, the Ioh. 6. liuing bread which came downe from heauen? That spight of the pie it must be true, which [Page 83] Paul hath; Leuiticall caeremonies were all sha­dowes of things to come.

But say, I pray you, say soothely: doe you thinke Tythes were Leuiticall caeremonies if it be yeelded, that their payment in old Testament was remem­brance of benefits receiued, and demonstration of a praesent thankfull minde? Thinke you all things done to God in remembrance of benefites receiued, in testimonie of a thankefull minde, Caeremonious, and Leuiticallie caeremonious? When Zachee offe­red that sweete smelling sacrifice, Luk. 19.8. halfe his goods to the poore, in part to demonstrate present thankful­nesse for his late conuersion, suppose you his fact a caeremonie, a Leuiticall caeremonie? when the de­uotion of our forefathers, built Synagogues for our Nation, and erected Hospitals in remembrance of benefits receiued from God, suppose you their act Leuitically caeremonious? when Pater Noster, that is, not Poperie, but pore-blind deuotion, gaue Churches those large endowments of lands and other reuenues which our Father, our more cleare-sighted pietie hath stript them of, to rememorate pristine blessings, and demonstrate praesent thankfulnes, can you thinke their fact therefore Leuitically caeremonious? This is my minde, in the maine of all my moralitie, its all by me done to rememorate past benefits, to demon­strate my praesent thankfull minde; yet can I not bee perswaded, I am herein Leuitically caeremonious. What then though it be granted, Tythes were paide by Abraham and Iacob, and in the whole time of old Testament in remembrance of benefits receiued, and to demonstrate a thankfull minde praesent; doth