TO the Countrymen Farmers, &c.] The Au­thor very considerably addresseth this Pamphlet to those who are as Mar­chant-men to men of War; where he may probably expect some purchase, and not many knocks.

It is for your sakes, &c. Job. 1.7. & 2.2. 1 Pet. 5.8.] Satan might have said as much to sinners, and Pha­risees to their Proselytes, for whose sakes they travelled, not to save, but to destroy them; Are they not much beholden to you? There is but one God, one truth, which whether you or we follow, let the prudent Reader judg, when he hath seri­ously considered what is here objected and answered.

You might be truly informed,] Be but sincere to make that one word (truly) good, and I will have no controversie with you.

Of all that I could find written, &c.] I, on your side; I do not conceive that you would be so tenacious of your error, had you but so diligently read the truth, which many have clearly written on this subject.

More than two years last past] You see me to confess ei­ther much want of apprehension, or will to understand any, but those who were of your party and opinion.

It shall be acceptabl to me to receive it] on which promise, I offer you this following discourse.

The state of the question in hand, understand thus; Whether Tithes for Gospel Ministers maintenance are due to them, by the unchangeable morality of Gods Law? This we affirm; hence we claim; to this what ever you object, we shall endeavour to answer; against this law, no reason can conclude, no authority or decrees of man be of value. To your objections now; you say of Tithes.—

[Page 2]— But they were for the Levites] That the Priests you say received no Tithes of the People, for these belonged to the Levites: whence if you would infer, that Tithes belong not unto Gospel Ministers, succeding them, it were a meer cap­tion to beguile your Reader; for we are to know, that first Priests were Ministers of the Lord, Joel 1.9, 13. & 2.17 and next, in that Tithes are confessed to have been due to the Levites, they must be confessed to have been due to the Priests; for all the Priests were Levites, though all the Levites were not Priests. The Priests were of an higher order and dignity, in the service of the Tabernacle, in which they were to Minister; the Levites were to bear the burdens of the Tabernacle, when it was to be removed; to prepare the wood, water, fire, ves­sels and instruments, for the Sacrifice and holy rites, &c. Now the Priests as they had a more excellent Office, so had they a more honorable Portion. For first, they had the Tythe of their brethren, the Levites part, the tenth part of the Tythe of all the Land; which because they were but few, (as I shall shew anon) was a large allowance unto them: So that as the learned Mr. S. Nettles observeth it, Ans. to the Jewish part the history Tythes. it appears by pra­ctise, that the Priests received Tythes, as well as the Levites; ‘So much doth Chimki intimate on Mal. 3.10. He com­manded the people to pay the tenth of their yearly encrease unto the Levites, and the Priests; and this is plainly taught by the Apostle, Heb. 7.5. For verily they which are the chil­dren of Levi, which receive the office of the Priesthood, have a Commandment to take according to the Law, Tythes of the people, &c. which by Lyra is explained thus, Levitae genera­liter recipiebant decimas à reliquo populo: inter Levitas autem illi qui erant majores illius tribus, videlicet Sacerdotes summi, filii Aaron, non solum accipiebant decimam cum Levitis à po­pulo, sed etiam, de parte Levitarum recipiebant quae vocabatur decima decimae. Num. 18. And therefore by all this it is evident, that the Priests received Tythes of the people, and not only the inferior Levites.’ Hererto add, that in the general grant of the tenth to the Children of Levi, for an in­heritance in respect of their service in the Tabernacle, Num. 18.21. The whole Tribe both Priests and Levites are included. [Page 3] Here it seems the Pamphleter followed Mr. Selden too close, and caught some knock, which made him forget his own words; pag. 12. when he comes there to speak of the Popes working under colour of Jewish lawes, he saith (By which Tythes were given to the Levitical Priesthood) dic sodes, How given to the Priest-hood, if no Priest received them? Truly, Priests were by their vocation, more honorable then the rest of the Levites, as being to perform the holy ceremonies within the Sanctuary, therefore they received a more honorable portion than the rest of the Levits; for they had the tenth of their part of the Tythes of all the land. Now because they were but few in respect of the whole Tribe of Levi, of which were num­bred above 22000, Therefore considering the first fruits, and their fees out of the Sacrifices, and other offerings, Num. 3.39, 43. besides their part of the Tythes, they had a very large allowance ap­pointed them, by the Lord. I had done with this point, but that I desire the Reader to consider how our adversary crosseth himself; somtimes denying, sometimes affirming the same thing. pag. 1. he saith, No Tythes did the Priests receive of the People; but pag. 3. he saith, The Priest-hood which had a Command to take Tythes of their brethren. Thus his first foun­dation failes him.

So was their maintenance distinct] That which you said im­pertinently before, you now make an introduction, Pag. 2. to that which you would fetch in, scil. That the Levites maintenance was Tyths, but the Priests was distinct from that; ergo, What? the Priests maintenance was not Tythes, neither ought the Ministers succeding them to be Tythes; but you have marred this argument, by your own former concessions.

Which were figures, &c.] Who, or what were figures, because you express not, I owe no answer; only I conjecture what you reach at.

Changing the Priesthood, which had a command to take Tythes of their brethren, Pag. 3. there was made of necessty also a change of the Law] True there was made a change of all that was changeable therein; that is, the ceremonial part thereof; if you mean a change of all simply, you had need study the point wo years more; for here would be a begging the question and [Page 4] paralogisme, a dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simplicitèr. There was a change of the Law, not simply, and in all the branches thereof (as the Antinomians would have it) but of the ceremonial and judicial part thereof. The morality is unchangeable in the whole and every part thereof; save only, that which was even therein ceremonial, and so alterable; as bringing titles to Jerusalem, &c. observation of the seventh-day-Sabbath from the Creation, &c. But the morality is unalterable and indispensable, in respect of all times, places and persons. In the rest which followeth, you seem a while to fight with your own shadow.

Nor did the Apostles (you say) go about to establish the law by which Tythes were given] your foundation is here laid on a false ground, and such will your superstruction be; you suppose Tythes given by the ceremonial Law; in Abrahams example (as we shall hereafter see in its convenient place) it appears, that Tythes were due some hundreds of years before God gave the ceremonial Law by Moses; and God did not then give tithes to the Priesthood of Aaron, as a new donation for their maintenance, but only determined them according to that pre­sent age of his Church; as for the moral Law, on which Tithes are grounded, Rom 3.31. the Apostle saith plainly— Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea we establish the law. Yea, out of the ceremonial law, he takes out this mo­rality, appliable for Ministers of the Gospel, Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? 1 Cor. 9.7. &c. Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? &c. for it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzle the mouth of the Ox that treadeth out the corn—for our sakes no doubt this is written, &c. Do ye not know, that they which Minister about holy things, live of the things of the Temple? And they which wait at the Altar, are partakers with the Altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel.

But freely preacheth the Gospel, &c.] What inferr you from hence? The Apostles required no Tythes, ergo Gospel-Mini­sters ought to require none. First, I say, if the Apostles ex­ample (without respect to the difference of the several states [Page 5] of the Church newly planted, and peaceably constituted) must prescribe us in all things, then are we bound to suffer perse­cutions; to have no setled charge, but to travel up and down to preach to all Nations; which implies not a few impossi­bilities. Secondly, If your conclusion be, the Apostles took no Tythes, ergo the Gospel-Minister hath no right to them: The answer is apparent in the forecited place, where Paul saith, It was not because he had no power, but for the exigents of those times. For,

1. Christianity was yet but a stranger on Earth, believers being very few, in respect of the numerous heathens bred up in Idolatry.

2. Tythes, (whereof the heathens had some knowledg by the principles of nature, or otherwise) were generally paid to the Idol-Priests of the Pagans and Idol-service, as by Tythes paid to Hercules, and many other like may appear. See Sir H. Spelman larger work of Tythes, c. 26.

3. Christians being generally in Cities, they had few pre­dial Tythes, and so they were incompetent to maintain Mini­sters

4. For the first 300 years until the reign of Constantine, per­secution almost every where raging, so that few Christians were masters of their own lives, liberties or possessions, but were almost every day counted as sheep for the slaughter; Rom. 8.36. 2 King. 5.26. almost every place streaming Christian blood: Therefore as Elisha said to Gehazi, Was this a time to take? And that from new converted people, lately clensed from the filthy Leprosie of sin? Was it not rather a time to give if they possibly could, to the relief of those they taught? Every thing hath its time; the time was not yet come, that a constituted Church should demand her own. In the Wilderness wherein the people were in frequent travels, the very seal of Gods Covenant Circumci­sion was intermitted by the space of 40 years together, and in the Apostles times, their often journying, and perils of waters, Josh. 5.7 perils of robbers, 2 Cor. 11.26, 32 33. &c. and frequent persecution enforcing them to flie for their lives, gave them no possible means of recei­ving Tythes, but as the Levites received them not in their travel, but when they were setled in Canaan; so the Apostles, [Page 6] after Christs ascension being in continual travel through one part or another of the world, and one while in prison, ano­ther while in flight and persecution; what, convenience in such condition had either Christians to pay or Ministers to receive Tythes, which were to be taken in the seasons of their matu­rities, and only on those places where they grew to be due? nor ere that time came, they who in right ought to receive them, were by the guidance of the holy Ghost, in some other Country preaching the Gospel, many hundred miles from the place where their Tythes grew due. See it in S. Peters example, walking through all quarters, Act. 9.32. &c. Sometimes at Lydda, or Joppa; sometime at Jerusalem, at Babylon, or Egypt sometimes; 1 Pet. 5.13. or the Apostles Paul and Bar­nabas, somtimes at Antioch, Seleucia in Syria, Salamis, Paphus in Cyprus, Perga in Pamphilia, Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Act. 13. Act. 14.6. Lystra, Derbe in Lycaonia, Phrygia, Galatia, My­siae, Samothracia, Philippi in Macedonia of Greece; S. Barthol­mew in India; Jerom Catal. Script. Eccles. S. Thomas in Persia, Hyrcania, Bactria; S. Ma­thew in Ethiopia, &c. What should these men have done with their Tythes? Where should they have had Barns for them, who were so little masters of their selves? What se­curity could they have had, either to gather or keep such things from rapine and spoil? If in a Church and State so lately setled, so happily governed in peace, we have had so much ex­perience of plundering and sequestration, What think you could have come to the Apostles and their primitive succes­sors, if before the Churches peace, they had claimed their Tythes?

5. Charity of Christians in those first ages of the Church was so abundant toward those that taught them, ( Gal. 4.14, 15.) that they needed not any other supply by Tythes; but when that began to grow cold, it was but reason that their due to Tythes should be revived, and their proper right clai­med and received. How long this charitable contribution con­tinued, it is uncertain, but as it decayed, good Princes by Gods providence in the overspreading encreases of Christia­nity, did well to make laws for the maintenance of Gods wor­ship; and for the same, what so good a way could they take, [Page 7] as that by Tythes, which Gods wisdom had apointed? So Princes gave not Tythes to the Clergy, by their laws, but only as need required, restored them to the just Proprieters. God gave them, though in several ages he put it into the minds of Councels to require them, and of religious Princes to make co­ercive laws, to bind their Subjects to pay them.

6. Another cause of intermission of their claim, was that high opinion of the devouter Clergy of voluntary poverty; which dream of theirs, Gods providence made use of, to make their persons venerable, and their doctrine of more esteem among the Gentiles, when they saw that their teachers aimed not at their own ease, safety, honor or enriching, but only sa­ving of souls.

7. Lastly, Fear of scandal caused, not only St. Paul to forbear his claim, and using his just power 1 Cor. 9.12. 2 Cor. 11.12. but others also. Hence probably it came to to pass, that so little mention is made of Tythes in the primitive age of the Church, or the exaction of them; yet we must remember that St. Paul saith; it was not that he had not power to have used his right, as he plainly shews; 1 Cor. 9.4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, &c. So that if it be granted that in those several obstru­ctions, for some ages we neither read of any claim, or use of Tythes: What can our adversaries hence infer? No use or claim, ergo, no jus decimandi? Neither read we of any use of the Sabbath, in all the history of the Patriarchs recorded by Moses, or of any Priestly or Prophetical function, neither taxing the neglect, or exhorting to the use or observation there­of; but can we reasonably conceive, that these ancient Saints either so long omitted the sanctification of the Sabbath, or Priestly exercises of Religion? no use, therefore no opinion of the right. What think you of the 40 years intermitting Circumcision (whereof we have before spoken) did that take away all opinion of the right?

—Weekly Offerings for the Saints, &c.] for the poor Saints: What argument is this against Tythes? Good Christians now relieve the necessities of the Saints, where collections are made for them; Doth this impeach their duty of paying Tythes? Nay, but this ought ye to do, and not to leave the other undone. [Page 8] —This way of contribution continued in the Church, &c.] how long, it is not uncertain; but certainly the Pamphleter was not well advised, to say that it continued till the great persecution under Maximinian and Dioclesian about the year 304. before which time his vouchers, Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian were dead; which appears (saith he) by the writings of Tertul­lian, Origen, Cyprian. Tertullian flourisheth about the year 208. then wrote he against Marcion: Origen flourished about the year 232. and died about the year 252. And Cy­prian was crowned with Martyrdome (by Eusebius computa­tion) in the year 259. in the eight persecution under Valerian, as other Chronologers reckon. Dioclesian caused that long and bloody Persecution, which was the tenth in order. Your self confess in your next Paragraph save one, Pag. 4. that Cyprian lived about the year 250. Now suppose that the specified contri­bution did continue till the year 304. how can that appear by the writings of Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian? Did dead men write for your Assertion? But learn to bring your un­truthes closer together; and at least to hold the Poets rule, to write ficta possibilia: possible, though not true things.

Pag. 5. By whose writings it also appears, that there was not the least use or practise of the payment of Tythes in those former ages] Hence you would conclude that there ought to be none now, but that Ministers must live on the abundant charity and con­tributions of charitable people now. To which I first answer, Shew us that charity of people towards their Ministers now adays, and then urge their example against Tythes; but while you take from us all that you can, their example is improperly pleaded against us, which you will not have to hold for us. Next I say, that by their writings it neither doth, nor can ap­pear which you here say; and how prove you this your ne­gative?— There was not the least use or practice of payment of Tythes in those former ages, besides those which we have to shew for the contrary. Know you not, that many excellent wri­tings are lost, and so never come to our sight? Like divers famous Cities mentioned by Strabo and other Geographers, whereof little else now remains, but the bare names: read the industrious Erasmus his complaint, in the end of Jerom's [Page 9] Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers, where after other expres­sions of our loss of eminent Authors, he concludeth— Verum hic dolor extimulare debet onmes bonis addictos autoribus, ut id certè quod superest, tanto legant avidius, quanto minus est quod temporum ruina nobis fecit reliquum; moreover who knows not, that both sacred and Ecclesiastcal, and other Authors wrote many Treatises, pro re natâ, and as enemies of the truth gave them emergent occasions of necessary defence thereof, without which most probably they had therein been si­lent: For what need they have written, or armed themselves or others, when none opposed? But now dato, & non con­cesso; Suppose that we read not in the writings of ancient Councels or Fathers any the least use or practise of the pay­ment of Tythes; What? Therefore no Tythes were paid in those former ages? Nay, but you do not know, that all that which our Saviour Christ himself did, never came to our knowledg? Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his Disciples, which are not written in this book, John 20.30. & 21.25. There seems an impossibility of writing all: done, but not written concludes, à non scripto, ad non factum, non valere argumentum. Again, in the writing of the history of the Creation, Moses mentioneth not the Creation of Angels; What will you say that Angels were not created, because in Moses writings we read not of their Creation? Nay, but Moses saith Gen. 2.1. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished and all the host of them. You may say, and that truly, in that general word all, are comprehended the particulars, though not nominalitèr and expresly named; for indeed omne, or totum est, extra quod nihil est; and why, I demand, where the Apostle saith, Gal. 6.6. Let him that is taught in the word, communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things; that is, in all his goods, for he would not teach any to offer è rapina holocaustum, to rob others to pay his teacher: and why may not the Apostles all comprehend the unspecified particulars, Tythes and Offerings, as well as Moses, all comprehendeth unspecified Angels? By this it appears how feeble your main argument is to prove, no use or practise of payment of Tythes, because we read them not commanded or paid in express words [Page 10] in the New Testament, and seldome in ancient councels of the first age of the Church; yet ye will not deny Tythes ex­presly specified and paid; Heb. 7. Abraham paid Tythes, or gave a tenth of all to Melchisedech.

pag. 5.Of Ambrose you say, But his authority he produceth wholly from Moses writings] And would you desire better authority then Moses writings, which Christ the Lord of the Prophets citeth? See whither blind zeal precipitates men?

But you say, They imposed their own opinion with so heavy Penalties] How were they their own opinions, if from the Law given to the Israelites, they take (as you confess) their whole Doctrine? 2 Pet. 1.19. St. Peter would teach you better, That no prophesie of the Scripture is of any private interpretation; But h ly men of God spake, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. And what say these men of God as to this matter, more or less then God spake by the Prophets Moses and Malachi, Ye are cursed with a Curse, Deut. 33.11. Mal. 3. ye have robbed me in Tythes and Offerings?

pag. 6.You say Tythes, Easter, Pentecost] Now for another si­gary: Our question is concerning Tythes; What are Easter and Pentecost to that? Will he not bring the Poles Artick, and an-Arcick together if he please?

But you say, It was not a general received Doctrine that Tythes ought to be paid] Nor as it seems by you, is it now; it sufficeth us that the devouter sort (as your self confess,) gave Tenths or greater parts of their annual encrease; And who knowes not that the better part of the people is very seldome the greater.

You say,— Fathers, Popes, Bishops] Praesto: pretty Leger­demain: you shuffle in Popes, hoping as it seems in that company to render Fathers and Bishops odious to the vulgar; but if we consider the original of that name, Papa was once a name of honour and reverence, importing only Patrem Patriae, a fa­ther of the Country; and so was it long used in the better part, as Cypriano Papae, Cyprian l 2. ep. 7. 16. l. 3. ep. 11, 12. so ad Cornelium Papam. This use of that name continued until after the time of Gregory, (the last of the good Roman Bishops and the first of the bad.) When Boni­face 3. obtained of the Emperor Phocas, that the Church of [Page 11] Rome should be called Caput omnium Ecclesiarum, which his predecessor Gregory gave for the mark of Antichrist, or his fore-runner, then was his Seat quickly exalted to Supremacie; not only above all Bishops of the Western Churches, but also to a claim of Superiority over Kings, Princes and People: hence the name Papa, Pope, began to fall into an odium with all those who received not the marke of the beast, Rev. 13. But if Popes did in any thing declare or determine Truth and Equity, would you eo nomine, reject it? Remember that the Pharisees, Scribes, sitting in Moses Chair (though bitter enemies to the Person and Doctrine of Christ) were to be heard: Yea, If the devil confess Christ to be the Son of the most high, would you reject it, as devilish? Nay, but con­sider that though the Devil spake it, it is the truth of God, which when Satan uttereth, he speaks not his own. God hath so over-ruled some wicked men, as to make them instrumental to that eminent good, which he, who can do nothing but good, fore-ordained to do by them. See it in the example of Judas, the high Priests, Herod and Pontius Pilat, Act. 4.27, 28.

You say, None of the first 8 general Councils of the Church, did so much as mention the name of Tythes] While none contradicted, there was no cause why they should speak of them; yet were the issue and determination of your con­troversie put upon antiquity, we could say enough thereof: We can prove that Tythes are more ancient then the law of Moses, who shews that Abraham paid them; and you cannot shew them taken away by any law of God: why general Councels did not make Canons for them, Agobardus ci­ted by Mr. S [...]l­den. some give this rea­son, Nulla enim compulit necessitas, fervente ubi (que) religiosa devotione, &c. indeed the actual payment of Tythes was not exacted in the infancy of the Church of Christ, but respited until the greater interests of Faith and Obedience to the Gos­pel were setled in a Church constituted: yet Paul sheweth that there was much due unto him, in respect of his Mi­nistry, 1 Cor. 9. but concluded that he had not used that liberty, but as the time, and present condition of the Gospel required, suf­fered all things, that he might not hinder the propagation [Page 12] thereof; and that he might stop the mouths of backbiters. Add hereto, that there appeared more probability that men of the world and Pagans, would more readily entertain the truth which cost them nothing, and when the Ministers could not be suspected to preach for gain, honor or any selfishness, but only for their auditors Salvation.

That which you say, That Tythes were never so much as named in the first 8 general Councels] makes nothing against their right; yet you may know, that though we avow not the Canons attributed to the Apostles, to be indeed the chil­dren of those fathers, yet that the first of them are very an­cient, and neer the Apostles times, it may appear in that Dionysius exiguus, who lived within 400 years of the Apostles, translated them out of the Greek, and received long before in the Eastern Church: Sr. Henry Spel­mans large work of Tythes, c. 20. of which City you may see Plin. lib. 3. c. 1. Stra. lib. 3. &c. Bin. To. 4. See thereof the fifth Canon; likewise the Council Agrippinense is cited, Anno 356. Decreeing that Tythes should be called Dei census, Gods rent. The Con­cilium Hispalense, or Spalense, as Garsias citeth it, held about the time of Gregory 1. about the year 603. in a fragment thereof saith, Omnes primitias & decimas, tam de pecoribus quam de frugibus, dives simul & pauper Ecclesiis suis rectè offerant: The same citeth Mal. 3. and thereon saith, Sicut enim Do­minus omnia dedit, ita de omnibus decimam exigit, ut de fru­ctibus agri, &c. siquis autem haec omnia non decimaverit, praedo Dei est, fur, & latro, & maledicta quae intulit Dominus Cain—con­geruntur. That is, all the first fruites and Tythes, both of Cattle and Fruits, let both rich and poor, duly offer (or set out) to their Churches; for as the Lord gave all, so of all he requireth the tenth, as of the fruits of the field, &c. If any man will not pay Tythes of all these, he is a Thief, and rob­ber of God, and the curses which the Lord brought on Cain—are heaped upon that man. The second Councel of Ma­tiscon, Carranz. Sum. Concil. Anno 588. by some accounted a general Councel, (because therein all the Metropolitan Bishops met) saith Canon 5. Leges nam (que) divinae consulentes Sacerdotibus ac Mi­nistris Ecclesiarum, pro haereditaria portione omni populo prae­ceperunt, decimas fructuum suorum locis sacris prestare—quas leges Christianorum congeries longis temporibus custodivit inteme­ratas: [Page 13] unde statuimus, ut decimas Ecclesiasticas omnis populus inferat. That is, Divine Laws providing for Priests and Mi­nisters of Churches, have commanded all the people for an hereditarie portion, to bring the Tythes of their fruits to the holy places, which laws, multitudes of Christians have kept inviolable a long time. Therefore we decree, that all the peo­ple shall bring in their Ecclesiastical tenths. Concil. Turo­nense held in the time of Charls the great, An. 813. saith, Nonas ac decimas, qui res Ecclesiasticas tenent, solvere recto­ribus Ecclesiarum ordinati sunt. It were easie to add hereto many more Testimonies of ancient Councels; but because others have sufficiently travelled herein, I shall refer the Rea­der who is desirous to be further satisfied, to the large work of the learned Sir H. Spelman, c. 20. Dr. Tilsley Animad. on hist. of Tythes, Preface and Catalogue; only let me have leave to inform them, who know not what is the difference between a general and a provinciall Councel. In a general Council omnes provinciarum Episcopi conveniebant: yet the forecited Councel of Matiscon ordained, Ut quolibet triennio, universalis Synodus celebraretur; which would not be intended concerning a General Councel in the first acceptation, except that Matiscon Councel may be allowed for a general one, as some account it: for a Provincial could not prescribe a General one, though the General might prescribe the Provincial.

The Provincial thus differed from the General, in numbers of voices and suffrages, as in that it was of inferiour authority to the General. But concerning this matter, I shall content me to observe, That

1. No humane Constitutions, can any more give credit to precepts divine, on which all must ground, then many Torches can give light to the Sun, which can be discerned by none but its own light, nor can all testimonies or decrees of men impair the truth of God.

2. Testimonies of men, are not to be valued by number, but weight; nor weighed by any, but the standard of the Sanctuary, the word of God; and so far forth to be received, as they hold weight therewith; that is, divine truth.

3. Christ promised his presence, where two or three should [Page 14] be gathered together in his name, whose truth is not limited unto, or by multitudes in Councels: As the little Mole-hill may as truly have the Sun-beams shining upon it, as the vast Mountain; so may few gathered together in Christs name, be as truly assisted by the Spirit of Jesus Christ, as where a multi­tude are met together. Yet here are two Cautions very necessa­ry to be held: 1. That not every assembly which saith, lo here is Christ, is to be taken for such as are indeed gathered toge­ther in the name of Christ; but such are so to be esteemed, who sincerely hold the truth of Christ 2. Though holding the truth of Christ with a comfortable assistance of Gods Spirit, as to their own particular Interest; yet may they not presume to make and give Laws for the Churches publick discipline: But if Christ be with them, they must shew it in their peaceable obe­dience to authority and order; either actively, (if with good conscience they may) or passively, if otherwise they cannot.

4. We may note, that in the general Councels venerable for truth and antiquity, some have dissented and depar­ted.

1 King. 18.19. 1 King. 22.6, 85. The major part have not always been the best, nor the lesser the worst: Ahabs Prophets were hundreds against one Elijah, and so against one Micaiah.

6. Generall Councels, though exceeding the Provincial in number and suffrages, yet may they not excel them in weight; there may be error of many (as may appear in the second Ni­cene Councel, can 7. Decreeing for Images; and the Councel of Trent, &c.) and there may be truth in few. The Apo­stles in the Councel at Jerusalem were not many, but suffi­cient to determine for the world, because assisted by the Spirit of God.

7. Provincial Councels as occasion was offered them, De­creed that Tythes should be duly paid; which if the Gene­ral did not meddle withall, it may be conceived, that it was because they had no occasion thereof presented to them by any complaint: and they being then in pursuit of the enemies of truth, would not divert to the care of things thereto subor­dinate, and much inferior.

[Page 15]These things laid down, the prudent Reader may be satis­fied concerning this argument of Councels, and perceive the weakness thereof, and the falshood of that assertion, that these Councels did not so much as name or mention Tythes, until the Lateran Councel, Ann. 1119. and after a little pawse he saith, Ann. 1180. Oh for the whetstone!

— For the use of the poor] This ointment (said Judas) might have been sold for much and given to the poor, but this he said, pag. 7. not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, &c. Mat. 26 9. Joh. 12.6. Now whether the poor are here intended and mentioned for love and care of them, or malice to the Mini­sters, against whom you bring this argument, God knows, and all good men know, that a Sacrilegious person is a thief. I fear your Charity would be contented that any one (the devil not excepted) should have your Tythes, would he but send his Tything-Carts abroad for them, so that Ministers might be deprived of them, your work were done: If some Charles Martell would take the Churches estate to pay Souldiers, you would resolve upon the question it were Christian policy. But to your often repeated objection, we say that there were Tythes allotted for the poor, distinct from the Ministers Tythes, who have willingly relieved the poor, and would do still, but that you have so pillaged them, that you have scarce left themselves bread.

You say farther— not any (Councels) that expresly supposed them a duty of common right, before the Councel of Lateran, held in the year 1215.] Were this so much as probable, it would condemn the Christian world, and the Prelates of much defect herein. We are too sure that many are faulty herein now, because Satan hath blinded the minds of many, and stir­red up sundry impostors to write and speak against the ordi­nance of God for support of the Ministry, his design being to steal away the oyl from the Tabernacle lamps, that their light failing, his Kingdome of darkness may be advanced: but if now, Governors should set out some more strict decrees for Ministers, more easie recovery of their Tythes then for­merly have been, seeing the apostacy of so many sectaries; would those decrees be any proof in future ages, that Tythes [Page 16] were never supposed a duty of common right, before the year 1659. or some following time.

Yet (you say) were they free to dispose them, were they pleased until the Popish Councels restrained their liberty] Say now, bona fide, were Tythes, due to Priests and Levites under the Law, or Ministers of the Gospel, ever free to be disposed of by the people, in a setled state of any Church constituted, where the people pleased? If you mean tenths for the poor, they are out of the verge of this present controversie, and so you trifle: If you mean Tythes for Ministers, and main­tenance of Gods service, we justly require your proof; we know that under the law God never allowed any such liberty to his people; neither can it appear in the Gospel, that ever he left the Ministers thereof to a less certain and deter­minate maintenance, then he did the Priests and Levites; here now being the Ministry of a more excellent Testament esta­blished upon better promises; and how else did Paul avow his power therein, 1 Cor. 9. however in those times of the Chur­ches troubles, he used it not?

You say farther— The old Roman doctrine, that Tythes ought to be paid] And was the law for paying Tythes, old Roman doctrine? Was Moses a Roman? Or was Christ a Roman, who allowed the same in the Pharisees practise? But, to take your meaning, with favourable interpretation of unad­vised words; I must put you in mind, that the old Roman do­ctrine was pure, Rom. 1.8. when S. Paul commended their faith, and so it continued unto their latter apostacy. I so much reverence antiquity, as to avow, that, quod antiquissimum, verissimum. To your following Allegations, I say, what laws and canons for Tythes among the Saxons determined, doth not prove that Tythes are not due to Ministers by divine right? And as to the rest, I say, if they made laws to bind the people to obey Gods moral Law, they did well therein: and concerning the people so bound, it is pity that they (as we now) needed such coercive laws to restrain their Sacriledge.

To that which you say, pag. 10. That notwithstanding the many Laws, Canons and Decrees of Kings, it was left to the owner to confer it where he pleased;] We answer to these tauto­logies, [Page 17] if they were true, that is no wonder, if there was no absolute reformation at once, specially there where the peoples great Diana, secular interest, hath a part. But now consider, Of what strength is your argument, à facto ad jus faciendi? They did (say you) leave it to the owner, to con­fer it where he pleased; ergo, it was just and lawfull so to do; that consequence will appear notoriously faulty in other in­stances. For example, The people of Judah built them High places and Images, and Groves on every high hill: yea, 1 King. 14.23. in Asa's good reign, The high places were not removed: 1 King. 15.14. In that miscellanie of Religion, 2 King. 17.29.32. (to which may be added our modern confusion) Every Nation made Gods of their own, and put them in the houses of the high places which the Samaritans had made, &c. and made unto themselves of the lowest of them, Priests of the high places. So Jero­boam made Priests of the lowest of the people, 2 Chro. 33.17. which were not of the sons of Levi; whosoever would, he consecrated him, 1 King. 12.31. and he became one of the Priests of the high places. And this became a sin to the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off: he made him Priests for the Devils, and for the Calves which he had made: 2 Chron. 11.15. Under him the people fell to Ido­latry; their fact concluded it not just: and in the Prophet Malachies time, the people did not pay their Tythes and Offerings: Did that exempt them from the curse, Mal. 3. because there were multitudes of offenders? No, no, it brought it upon the whole Nation; no examples of multitudes shall ex­cuse Sacriledge.

And Parishes (you say) are but of late erection] What would not he make his ignorant Reader swallow? Page 10. Damasus speaking of Dionysius who lived about the year 260. saith, Presbyteris Ecclesias divisit, & caemiteria parochias (que) & dioeceses constituit: he distributed unto Priests, Churches and Church-yards, and appointed Parishes and Dioceses. Vit. Pontif. Dionys. init. So also Platina in the life of Dionysius testifieth, in the 2d. Councel of Car­thage, the argument of the 11 Canon is, Bin. Concil. To. 1. Ʋt nullus parochiam alienam praesumat invadere. That no man should presume to invade anothers Parish: which Councel though but Provincial, was confirmed by a general Councel in Trullo: C [...]rranz. sum. concil. this was held [Page 18] in Cyprians time, that ancient Martyr. In the decrees of Ur­ban in the year 230. it is said of lands dedicated and given to the Church— ipsae verores inditione singularum parochiarum, &c. In the Ancyran Councel, Ib. Carran. held about the year 308. approved by the Necene, it was decreed that Bishops and their Ministers, should endeavour utterly to root out that devillish invention and art of sortiledge— è parochiis suis. Ib. Carran. pag. 157. In the 3 Canon of the Councel of Antioch, we read thus, Si quis presbyter aut diaco­nus, aut omnino quilibet ex Clero parochiam propriam derens vel omnino demigrans in alia parochia, &c. This Councel was approved in the sixt general Councel of Constantinople. In the Councel of Sardis, it was ordained, Canon 18.19. That no Bishop should ordain a Minister, ex aliâ parochiâ, without the consent of his Bishop. In the Laodicean Councel, Canon 14. see the like. It were easie to weary the Reader with such proofs: And is not it a notorious falshood to say that Parishes are but of late erection? One thing is here considerable, that when there were but few Christians, Parishes were of much greater circuit of land, then since the more abundant plan­tation of the Gospel, wherein for the ease and accommodation of Parishioners, many Chappels of ease erected, have since by Acts of Parliaments been made Parish Churches, subject to the Bishops and their Diocesses.

Pag. 11. The people (you say) then generally being Papists, did yield their obedience] Yet that God had ever some good corne among those tares I conceive you have so much faith to believe, (if you believe that he had in all ages a Catholick Church,) though possibly you have not so much Charity as to confess that he had such excellent Saints then, as are among you now in this last and worst of ages.

You say, What before was owned for a gift, was now claimed as a debt] Shew, if you are a true man, who ever owned it as a gift or free benevolence of men, except those who knew not, or would not acknowledge the divine institution of Tythes: we own them as Gods gift, and therefore as mans due to be paid unto us. God made us not your almes-men, but in things spiritual our peoples rulers; Heb. 13.7, 17. watchmen and guides set over them in the Lord. 1 Thes. 5.12. And so not to live of your [Page 19] benevolence, but duty, as spiritual Parents; and shew if you can, why that duty should be less determinate and certain, then it was under the law to Priests and Levites: that he ever reser­ved out of the rest which he gave to Israel, to himself and to his service, never leaving it arbitrary to mans will or wisdom to appoint, no not to Moses himself; And how prove you that he leaves us to your will and charity now? All acknowledg a Law for paying Tythes to those who serve about holy things, shew us in any one Text of the Old or New Testament where that law is repealed, or the whole of Ministers maintenance left to the peoples pleasure?

Seeing (you say) themselves in a snare] To you it seems that the ordinance of God is a snare; this discovereth your dange­rous condi ion, and is an impious expression.

Again you say, The Pope hath been imperious, or in a great heigth of pride] What is that to us? If so, it was his sin, for which he is responsible to God, who can make wicked men in­strumental to some eminent good; as in the example of Judas (as to the passion of Christ for our Redemption and Salvation) appeareth; to whom we may add the rest, who did therein that which the hand and Councel of God determined before to be done. And who can deny but that he might also work good by the Popes commanding Tythes to be paid for the support of the preaching of the Gospel, to the then living elect, the power­full instrument of Salvation, however it proved a savour of death to many, possibly of those that preached it, but obeyed it not.

Next you trouble your readers about Canon-laws, and Pa­rochial payment of Tythes setled. What, suppose you that no good could be professed, done or setled in that time, wherein error and wickedness had miserably overspread a Church? I suppose you will not on second thoughts conclude so; when you mind not the propagation of the Gospel in Israel, when the Jews, Princes, Priests and people generally persecuted the faith of Christ,

Next you talk of the poor; Pag. 11. For whose sakes (you say) Tythes were chiefly given] If you mean that these specified Parliaments did settle Tythes chiefly for the relief of the poor, [Page 20] you do but trifle; knowing that Tythes were anciently ap­pointed for several uses. 1. Ornament of Churches. 2. For the poor. 3. For love Feasts. 4. For Ministers mainte­nance. What ever Parliaments enacted, must be judged by Gods laws: human law is to our duty à mensura mensura [...] à lege divina, [...]ae. q. 19. whose end is the utility of men; therefore to that supream power and justice must we look, and in that rest. So that this your argument is childish and impertinent, except you could shew that we take human Laws and Statutes of Par­liaments, to be the ground of our right to Tythes; we say after that ancient Councel of Matiscon forecited; God hath appoin­ted them for our inheritance, or hereditary portion.

You say moreover, He that did not pay, no great punishment could they inflict on him, but excommunication] You mean I suppose that men could not, you cannot be ignorant of the power of God to punish the Sacrilegious, who hath denounced the curse on them: Mal. 3. but was excommunication no great pu­nishment, 1. Cor. 5. in the Apostles sence delivering to Satan? Pos­sibly you account this punishment the less, because herein the sacrilegious were but delivered to their own Master. As for the exemptions you mention, we dislike them as well as you: as little to your purpose is that which you say in your fol­lowing censure of Popish imitation of Jews, l. 1. c. 7. c. 8. &c. ib. c. 4. &c. which as to those rites which your Durand citeth in his Rationale, we ut­terly dislike.

But you say, Henry 8. being a Papist. &c.] One thing is remarkable, you use to call all Popery, which suits not with your fancy. If Henry 8. did any thing according to Gods Will and Word, that is no more Popish, than that was Devillish, which the Devil said, Mar. 5.7. Henry 8. was a Papist, and he made a Law, that every man should set out his Tythes; What is the conclusion yon drive to; ergo, paying of those duties is Popish; Poor Sophistry! You are not igno­rant that this were a Sophism, Non causae pro causâ: His being a Papist, was not the cause of his making that law for Tythes, but (as your self confess) because he believed that Tythes were due to God and his holy Church. In that you call that the Popes doctrine, (which by your own party is confessed to be [Page 21] grounded on the Law of God,) you commend the Popes Do­ctrine, though with an intent to calumniate ours.

And you say, First of our Parliament laws for Tythes, Pag. 12. and that upon which the rest are grounded.] Here is another noto­rious untruth: Was our Henry 8. before Athelston, who reigned in this land about the year of our Lord 924? Would you have your readers believe that Henry 8. made a Law, about 600 years before he was born, and crowned King? Was he King of this land before Edgar, living about the year 959? or before Canutus, who reigned here about An. 1016? or Wil­liam the Conquerer, Henry 1 Henry 2. Henry 3. Hist of Tythes c. 8. by Wil­liam Selden cited as Law-makers for the payment of Tythes to the Ministers? One thing out of the learned S. H. Spelman, I desire the Reader to consider; King Henry 3. Large work of Tythes. (saith he) In the 9th. year of his reign, by that sacred Charter made in the name of himself and his heires for ever, granted all this anew unto God. We have granted, saith he, unto God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for us and for our heirs, for evermore, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her holy rites inviolable. Magna. c. 1. ‘And that this Charter might be immortal, and like the sanctified things of the Temple forever inviolable; It was not only forti­fied by the Kings Seal, (the sacred anchor of the Kingdome) but by his solemn Oath, and the Oath of his Son, and the No­bility of the Kingdom: yea, the whole Kingdom yielded themselves to stand accursed, if they should at any time af­ter impeach this grant; and therefore in the 25 Edward 1. a special Statute was made for confirmation of this Charter; wherein, among other things it is ordained, that the Bi­shops shall excommunicate the breakers thereof; and the very form of the sentence is there prescribed, according to which, upon the 13 Mai. An. 1304. Edward 1. Boniface the Arch-bishop of Canterbury, and five other Bishops so­lemnly denounced this curse in Westminster-Hall, the King himself with a great part of the Nobility being present: First against all them that should willingly and malitiously deprive or spoile Churches of their rites. Secondly, A­gainst those that by any art or device, infringed the liber­ties [Page 22] of the Church or Kingdom granted by magna Charta. Thirdly, Against those that should make new Statutes against the Articles of these Charters, &c.’

And now consider, you that have English hearts to love and pity your Country: what these Pamphleters aim at, who lay stumbling blocks before the people, that they may bring the curse upon this Nation, which must inevitably come upon it, (if sacrilegious hands be permitted to take away the Churches rites) for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it, Mal. 3.

If Tythes had no other ground, but only the laws of Prin­ces, and that they were not before the enacting of those laws, and solemn dedications due; yet consider 1. What came to Ananias and Saphira; Act. 5.4. &c. the Apostle told him, that whilst the land remained in his hands, it appertained unto him as a true proprietor, and when is was sold and in money, that was also his own; it was then arbitrary, and he might have otherwise disposed of it; but when he had given it to the advancement and service of the Gospel, he made it sacred, and all due to God and his assignes; and therefore keeping back any part thereof, he lyed to God: and if it were sacriledg to take away any part of that which had been dedicated to holy uses, by a mans own donation and dedication of the whole; What is it to rob and take away from the Church that which God his self hath dedicated and consecrated to the same, (suppose in money, glebe, or other land given toward the maintenance of Gods worship, or Tythes) on which came also a second bond, by the Vow, Oath, and free-will offering of the whole body of a republick in the representative thereof, consisting of King, Nobles, Clergy and Commons lawfully assembled in Parli­ament? But some say though our former Kings and Parli­aments were bound by their vow and dedication of Tythes, or Lands given to the Church or Churches, because they lifted up their hands to God to give the same, what is that to us? very much: for lawfull vows of fathers descend and are obligatory to their Children and posterity; and so in the blessing to the per­formers, as we may see in the example of the Rechaebites, Jer. 35.18, 19. and in the curse to the violaters of the same; therefore because Joshua and the Princes of Israel (though [Page 22] deceived by the Gibeonites, a people among the rest of the Ca­naanites, devoted by Gods own commandment, to destruction) had lifted up their hands to God, to spare them alive, they were bound by their Oath, so to do; and so were their Children to succeeding Generations. So that when Saul, after many Generations, out of a perverse zeal, slew them, 2 Sam. 21 1, 2. God puni­shed that fact even in Davids reign, Three years, year after year there came a famine upon Israel, until it was revenged on the family of Saul. Many instances of Gods justice in this kind neer us of eminent great and honorable families utterly ruined (the main cause, to men appearing, being sacriledg, impropri­ating Tythes and laying into their own hands those destructive morsels of gl [...]be and other lands formerly dedicated with a so­lemn curse in the Acts of Mortmain) might hereto be added, even from Henry 8. who (before his giving away Tythes, and things consecrated to Gods worship unto impropriators hands) prosperous in an hopefull issue, yet, as to posterity, that doom was determined which was pronounced by the Prophet Jere­miah on Coniah, Write this man Childless—. Jer 22.30. The curse so ma­ny years before solemnly and publickly imprecated, came upon divers of our principal Nobility, and other illustrious Families, and still doth, whose names I spare; only I hint this, that all whom it concerns, may be warned to disgorge those sacred morsels, which they yet hold, lest they prove destru­ctive to them and theirs; and that the Reader may at once per­ceive of what validity all the rest of the like arguments are, wherewith this Pamphleter and his associates endeavour to puz­zle the minds of illiterate readers; and that all may consider what severe whips God yet holdeth over those who hunger for sacred morsels. You know the embleme, the Eagle snatching up a piece of flesh from the Alter, to carry up to her nest of young ones, with it carried a coal of fire cleaving to the flesh, which consumed the nest, and destroyed the whole air.

But you say, Some of our famous Reformers, pag. 14. did in their days, bear their Testimony against Tythes &c.] I answer, first I conceive that you call them famous reformers, ironically, and by way of irrision. Next I say, whatever they, or the Bohe­mians by you cited, speak against Tythes, is of no more value [Page 24] then mans testimony against Gods Ordinance. Lastly, that one Bernard saw not all, it is no wonder, the most learned know but in part now, that the sun from the rising appears not in his full light at once, none can rationally wonder; and why should we that the reformation was not perfected all at once?

You say, In your following heads of recapitulation, He will find the knowledg of those things which be needfull] Yes, no doubt to confirm him in your errour; but there can be no ne­cessity of sinning.

Tythes (you say) were paid to the Levites, that did the common services of the Tabernacle, &c. how the payment of Tythes to Ministers, succeeds the payment of Tythes to the Le­vites, (you say, we) had need to consider] We consider the Apostles rule, 1 Cor. 9.13, 14. which is, They which mi­nister about holy things, live of the things of the Temp [...]: and they which wait at the altar, are partakers with the altar. Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel. Secondly, we consider, that Melchi­sedech received Tythes, in the figure of Christ, the King of Righteousness and Peace: and that Tythes are due to Christ and his assignes, the Ministers of the Gospel, not as a Levi­tical, but as a moral duty, belonging to God▪ long before either Levites or ceremonial Law were in being; and therefore they continue under the Gospel, because moral duties are unchangeable. And it is observeable, that Melchisedech met not Abraham the father of the faithfull, with bloody Sacri­fice, like a Priest of the Law, but with a supply of bread and wine, the elements of a Gospel-Sacrament, which the Mini­sters are to divide unto the people: That Tythes are not Le­vitical or Ceremonially due, it may appear, because

1. They are much more ancient then the Levitical Law.

2. Secondly, Tythes are positively declared to be the Lords, and so to belong to his Ministers about holy things for ever.

3. Ceremonies of the Levitical-law were all significative, as of somthing to be performed by Christ, for the work of our re­demption; but so are not Tythes.

[Page 25]4. Tything now used, is not after the manner of the Leviti­cal Law, but after the manner of Abrahams paying tythes to Melchisedec, who was not of the tribe of Levi: So our tything, is now to Christ, who was of the tribe of Judah, Heb. 7.13. of which no man gave attendance at the Altar.

5. The end whereto tythe was ordained, is moral in point of Piety, Justice, and Gratitude.

First, Piety, for that will maintain the worship of God.

Secondly, Justice, for that is to give every man his due: Now the laborer is worthy of his reward; 1 Tim. 5.18. 1 Cor. 9.14. and God hath ap­pointed tythes for a reward or maintenance of those who serve him in the Gospel, as well as under the Law.

Thirdly, Gratitude, for benefits received of him, to whom we ow and offer such thanks; adde hereto, that these are to be paid, to incourage and sustain the laborers in the work of the Lord; as Hezekiah commanded the people to give the portion of the Priests, and the Levites, that they might be encouraged in the Law of the Lord, 2 Chron. 31.4.

And we may here consider, that in the Levitical Law, the Lord had regard to provision for Gospel Ministers; for he saith in one of the branches thereof, — Thou shalt not muzzle the Ox that treadeth out the Corn; which the Apostle applieth to inforce payment of honorable maintenance of Gospel Mini­sters: Neither was that equity new, neither the Gospel it self: The first appearance whereof, which we read of, was from the beginning, when God said, It, that is, the seed of the Woman, Gen. 3. Gal. 4.4. Christ —made of a Woman, shall bruise thy head; that is, the Serpents head, (in which his life and venome principally lieth.) This Gospel promise lay hid for ages and generations, Ephes. 3.9. Col. 1.26. Exod. 4. Heb. 9.7. & 18.22. Gen. 3.19. & 4.4. Gal. 4. Joh. 1. under dark and mysterious shadows and figures: So that though the Law, like Tamars Zarah, as it were first put out the hand, which was before its birth, marked with a skarlet thred (blood and death;) yet in some sort the Gospel was first born, like Pharez, Gen. 38.28, 29, 30. and was, as the day light, by little and little, toward the fulness of time (wherein the Sun of Righteousness should arise to enlighten the World) mani­fested. See Gen. 49.10. Numb 24.17. Isai. 7.14. & 11.1, 10, 12. Dan. 9. Mich. 5, &c. and at the last clearly inter­preted, [Page 26] 1 John 3.8. Rom. 6.22. & 8.2, 3. 1. Cor. 15.55, &c. Hos. 13.14. For this purpose the Son of God was mani­fested, that he might destroy the works of the Devil, ruine death, and hell. And because God would manifest this his mercy to the World, for the comfort and confirmation of his Elect in all ages, after mans fall, he still sent out some Interpreters and Preachers of his Sacred Mystery, furnished with such means as might every ways enable them thereto, and support them as to their humane necessities. And it is not probable, that an al­wise God would slack his hand, and appoint a less certain, de­terminate, and comfortable maintenance to the Ministers of the most excellent Testament (the Eternal Gospel) than he did un­to the Priests of the more imperfect, which was to cease and be done away: So that the Gospel-maintenance, as to the Moral equity thereof, was before the Law of Moses, given many hundred years after the Gospel-promises.

2.Your second Observation, is, That amongst the Jews, no outward Law was appointed for the recovery of Tythes; but he that did not pay them, robbed God, &c.] And think you, that robbing God, against which the curse of the whole Nation was denounced, had no punishment following it? Think you not, that every sin separating between the sinner and God, the sole Fountain of Blessedness, was not a sufficient punishment to it self in the guilt thereof? And do you conceive, that we are now bound by Israels Judicial Laws, any further than some Statute Law of this Nation makes them in force to binde us? It seems grievous to you, that any Law is made by good Princes and their great Councils for recovery of Tythes; but for which, you and others of your Sect, would venture on Gods Justice, as if it were a light matter, by the contempt of Divine Laws, to fall into his hands, Heb. 12.29. who is a consuming fire.

But know you, that it is both lawful and necessary for those who have Legislative power in Republicks, of authority to ex­ecute Justice, to binde their Subjects from running into sin, and pulling down curses upon their Souls; and therefore to en­act Laws to compel them by respective punishments to obedi­ence to Gods Moral Laws: As in case of prophanation and common swearing, for which the Land mourneth, adultery, murder, theft, oppression, &c. I suppose you will allow.

[Page 27]You say again, That Tythes were not for the Levites onely. 3.] It is easily granted. Jerom on Ezek. lib. 14. cap. 45. shews, That there were tythes of four sorts: First, For the Levites; Secondly, For the Priests; Thirdly, For Love-feasts; Fourth­ly, For the Poor. Which whether this Pamphleter dissembleth, that he may have something to say, though to no purpose, ex­cept to trouble the Reader, I know not.

You say again, That when the Levitical Priesthood was changed by the coming of Christ Jesus, 4. the Law for tything was also changed, as Paul writ to the Hebrews.] Now Samson will pull the House upon his own head: That very Text which you cite, is point-blanck against your self; the Law (that is, the Ceremonial Law) was changed, therefore something was ap­pointed in its place: What, but the Gospel and the Ministery thereof? And as the Office, so of the necessity of humane condition, respect must be had for the supplies thereof, whereby it may continue. There was therefore a change of this Law, as to that which was Ceremonial, for example in the manner of paying Tythes to the Priests and Levites, the place where, at Jerusalem, or other publick store-houses thereto appointed; but not in respect of the morality, or any branch thereof: So that the Priesthood after the order of Melchisedec, is not a­bolished, nor the Tythes to the same belonging; as the Apo­stle shews, Heb. 7.8. saying, And here men that dye receive tythes, but there he receives them, of whom it is written, that he liveth; that is, Christ. So then tythes still follow the Priest­hood; and so the Apostle makes a Priest, and a receiver of tythes equivalents: Instead of saying, Men that dye are Priests, he saith. That men that receive tythes: And instead of saying, He that lives is a Priest, he saith, He that lives takes tythes. As if in his judgment, Tythes and Priesthood were as insepara­ble in point of right, as Kingdom and Tribute; and so the por­tion due to Christ, is still due to his Assigns, the Ministers of the Gospel, who are his receivers, and in their Ministration in his stead, 2 Cor. 5.20. And so hath Christ appointed, 1 Cor. 9.14.

But to your Objection, I suppose, your familiar, on which you rely, is known to you, except coming up Janus-like, [Page 28] double faced, you do not so well mark it: The one is a Paro­logism, à dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter; the other is your old acquaintance, Petitio principii: We say, that changing the Priesthood, the Ceremonial part of the Law onely was changed; but not the Law for tything, which is Moral. You say that Paul wrote so (that the Law for tything was also changed.) Pauls words to the Hebrews in the cited place, are these. — The Priesthood changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law You corrupt the Text, by adding there­to (of tythes) shew us these words, — The Law for tything was also changed, either in that place, or any other writing of St. Paul, or in all the New Testament, and we will rest satis­fied therewith, and never more speak for tythes. But seeing you cannot, for shame, and danger of these plagues which are threatned, Revel. 22.18. leave that cause, which you cannot uphold without so many untruths, and falsification of the sacred Scripture.

You say, For the first three hundred years, while the purisy and simplicity of the Gospel was retained, no tythes were paid among Christians.] If this were true, what could it make against our right to tythes? The causes which hindred their pay­ment, are laid down in our answer to that which you objected in your third Page. Also for that you speak concerning the A­postles free Preaching of the Gospel, to which I here adde, that Origen, who flourished about 226. or 230. in his 11. Hom. in Numb. after many other forcible perswasions to pay their tythes, by that which Christ said to the Pharisees, This ought you to have done, &c. he presently addeth, — How therefore shall your righteousness exceed the righteousness of Scribes and Pharisees, if they dare not taste the Fruits of their Land. —Priusquam primitias sacerdotibus offerant & Levitis decimae separentur? Lib. 1. ep. 9. Cyprian, whose Martyrdom fell not long after, speaking of the Levites tythes, saith, Quae nunc ratio & forma in clero tenetur, &c. And he blameth Victor, for appointing Geminius Actorem his Attorney, because he would not have him distracted from his Ministry, and citeth these things as a De­cree of his Ancestors. The same Father in his third Tract, De simpl. Praelat. speaking of the times before him, complaineth [Page 29] of Charities growing cold, — Tunc domos, & fundos voenunda­bant, —Distribuenda in usus indigentium precia Apostolis of­ferebant: Ut nunc de patrimonio ne decimas damus. —Sic in nobis emarcuit vigor fidei: Sic credentium robur elanguit. —Then they sold Houses and Lands, and offered the price to the Apostles to be distributed, for the use of the poor; but now we scarce give tythes of our Patrimonies. —Thus hath the vigor of Faith languished in us, so hath the power of Believers grown faint. Much concerning this hath been noted by others, there­fore I content me with these two antient witnesses; but what now would you hence conclude? What, that craft and impurity brought in tythes among Christians? But that were a poor falla­cy, Non causa pro causa: Such as the old man used, who said, That Tenterden Steeple was the cause of Goodwin Sands: For (said he) just as that was building, they began to appear: But if in the Primitive Church they had not the use of tything, under­standing Readers will consider that which hath been said there­in, persecution everywhere raging, could not suffer the people to pay, or Ministers to receive their tythes. Yet no time can prevent God in his reserved right; no use or practice of paying tythes, while persecution hindred; therefore there was no jus in re, non sequitur. Tythes came into use in Christian Churches so soon as the owners their selves retained use and dominion in their Possessions; except in case of Scandal at the first plant­ing the Gospel. See 1 Cor. 9.4. 1 Cor. 12.15, &c. 1 Thes. 2.9.

That as the mystery of iniquity began to work, &c.] Again, 5. here is a Fallacia non causae pro causá. Say soberly, Think you that the working of the mystery of iniquity was the cause of Ministers Preaching of that, which God had commanded to be done? Or was that mens imagination (as you say) the ground whereof, you confess, was fetcht from the Law of Moses? It is to be hoped, that your second thoughts will be better. Your sixth Observation is nothing to the purpose, and therefore deserves no answer.

You say, That in the first payment of tythes, Pag. 15. they were not paid as tythes, but as Free-offerings, at the bounty of the giver, &c.] Say now, when, where, or by whom were tythes ever paid other­wise, [Page 30] than by Gods Ordinance, from the first mention of them, unto this present; and shew us, if you can, how identity ad­mits of disparity. Payment of tythes, not paid as tythes? You say, As Free-offerings, not as answering any Law that required the tenth part, &c. This hath, and will appear most false; mean time circular Arguments are usque ad nauseam, tedious and absurd tautologies, odious to the prudent Readers. But, Abraham paid tythes to Melchisedec, and Jacob vowed a tenth to God, which no doubt, he also paid: Did these acts of theirs answer no command, or motion of Gods Spirit equivalent thereto? Heb. 11.13. How then is it testified, that these died in the faith? Can faith, as to please God, be without a divine precept? If you would suppose, That Abraham gave tythes to Melchise­dec, as of meer benevolence to some distressed Prince, how think you came Jacob to vow a tenth, rather then some other part? how so great a part of the world, if not by imitation of Gods people constantly and religiously paying tythes? What­ever you conclude of these, certainly they were not guilty of Will-worship, of whom God testifieth, that they died in the faith.

It was not (say you) a received Doctrine, that tythes ought to be paid till about the year One thousand and two.] It is easie to answer, That with Unbelievers, the Gospel which Christs Sa­cred Lips Preached, was a Doctrine not generally received. Was the Jews unbelief, which gave that holy Doctrine no better re­ception, any prejudice to the truth of Christ? He said of John Baptist, Matth. 11.14. If ye will receive it, this is Elias which was for to come: And again, Matth. 17.12. I say unto you, that Elias is come already—: What if the Jews then would not, or Papists now will not receive this Doctrine, as their learned Cardinal Bellarmine, Tom. 1. l. 3. c. 6. de Pontif. Rom. & Tom. 4 de gra. Prim. hom. c. 14. who affi meth, That Enoch and Elias shall come before the end of the world, to oppose Antichrist, and to convert the Jews. Doth mans unbelief any whit annul the truth of Christ? You see the feebleness of this your Argument, from the generality of mens not receiving a Doctrine, to conclude it not true. Your nineth and tenth Ob­servations, are to no purpose against us.

[Page 31]Moreover you say, 11. That tythes were brought in as a duty ow­ing to God, and were so required and enforced, &c.] This may be an Argument against you, it is nothing against us. But we say more, What can any Law made by man, have for so sure a ground, as the Law and Commandment of God, upon which all Humane Laws and Decrees are, or ought to be grounded? And who gives Divine or Civil property (as to justice inde­feaceable) but God, whose the Earth is, Psal. 24.1. and all the fulness there­of? From him we claim our portion. As for the Coercive Laws of Princes, giving us a jus ad rem, we look upon Gods good providence therein, and thankfully acknowledge their favors, for the preservation of Gods worship, and our Ministers subsistence; without which, it is too evident, that many mens Atheistical confidence would embolden them securely to ven­ture on the Justice of God, as they commonly do, when there are no witnesses of their sacriledge present: They have no Law of Conscience to hinder them, from taking away what they can from Ministers.

You say again, That till the year Twelve hundred, 12. or there­abouts, it was the common practice, for every one to bestow his tythes where he pleased.] Supposing it a free-gift, the owner had fair colour so to do. But were this true, as it is far from it; what were the common practice of every one, against the Law of God, more or less than a general Rebellion against him? And your self in your next Observation, shew the mischief en­suing on such arbitrary dispositions; to wit, inriching those lives of Drones, Abbeys, and Monasteries: And you also con­fess, That all exemptions from payment of tythes, came from the Pope. You say here, To bestow his tythes; as if they were alms of free benevolence, and not duty by God injoyned: But we claim a right, not depending on your charity, knowing it too well. You are not so kinde to the Prophet, 1 Kings 17.6. as the Ravens at the Brook of Cherich, they brought him Bread and Flesh in the morning, and likewise in the evening; but you would rather starve your Prophet, and pick out his eyes. Your fifteenth and sixteenth Observation, we conceive make nothing against us.

[Page 32]Next you talk of tythes, That they are the same thing, whe­ther claimed by an Abbey, or Impropriator, or a Priest, and stand upon the same ground and foundation, &c.] That they are the same in materiâ subjectâ; it is true, but to no purpose urged: Would you intimate, that there is in the Creatures tythed such an inherent mischief, as that quatenus ipsum, they must needs be evil, which are once tythed, whether taken by Gods Law, or by man impropriated? If so, the madness of your Argument sufficiently appears. Sacrificing flesh to idols, did not in St. Pauls judgment, 1 Cor. 10.25, 27, 28. so pollute it, but that it might be eaten, asking no question for Conscience sake. That you mention an Impropriator, or a Priest, and tythes, standing on the same ground. If you mean by Priest, a Minister of the Gospel, and tythes impropriated, you cross your own Concessions, and the Dictates of Gods Law. Truly by your obscure grumbling, you seem to be very angry, and that you would fain bite, but that you know that your Toothless Argument cannot hurt us. And this, possibly so discomposed the Animal, that (as if he had forgotten on which side he is) in his seventeenth Observa­tion, he doth ingenuously confess, A state of a Church de­clining to corruption, and error, clearly to be discerned and traced in that; as the power of truth was lost, so was the fruit thereof, which caused such earnest pressing to needful contributions; Pag. 15. and when that would not serve, Laws and Decrees were made to force them: But in the beginning it was not so; for while the purity and simplicity of the Gospel was retained, there needed no pressing; for their charity then abounded, not onely to the tenth part (that is, tythes) but for greater parts. Antonii gladios potuit contemnere, si sic omnia dixisset.

18.Next you say, That the right of tythes was never cleared, even among the greatest Papists.] What is that to us? Ipsi vi­deant; were ever all Cases of Conscience cleared among them? advise with your own Casuists.

Further you say, In all ages there were those that withstood the payment of them.] What then? we know it to our grief: Hereto you may cite this present age, with a— witness our self at—

[Page 33]Conclude now (we challenge you thereto) but conclude categorically, Whatsoever hath been withstood by some in all ages, is not good or just. The payment of Tythes to Mini­sters, hath been withstood by some in all ages; ergo, the payment of Tythes to Ministers, is not good or just.

To such a conclusion your medium looks, if you deal ra­tionally; and if so, who sees not the falshood of your ma­jor Proposition, which can neither by you, nor any Sophister in the World be proved? For if that were universally true, that whatsoever hath been withstood by some in all ages, is not good or just; What would become of the holy Gospel it self? You know what the Jews at Rome said to Paul, Act. 28.22. As concerning this Sect, we know that every where it is spoken against. What truth was ever yet so evident to all men, that it found no contradiction? Blind Harpaste will contend, that the room hath no light. Antiquity wanted not an Anaxagoras so paradoxical, Fir. Lactant. as to affirm that the snow is black; of all truths, Satan will be sure, that the Gospel shall never want Adversaries: some Jewes or other, to gain-say the preaching thereof, and to withstand the Ministers, as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses; 2 Tim. 3.8. some tinkerly Alexander the Copper-Smith. 2 Tim. 4.4. O but some of the Martyrs (saith our Antagonist) among other things, suffered in flames, you say, for that, sci. denying payment of Tythes. We answer, possibly a Martyr may not know all things, and therefore may err in some; but still we must remember, that it is the Cause, not the Punishment, which makes the Martyr. Few are perswaded, that either the Conclave which canonized Garnet, had power to make him a Saint; or that your Neoteric Saints have authority or warrant from God to unsaint the Evangelists, Apostles and Disciples of Christ, by the holy Ghost and Church, ever since their times, owned for Saints; Rom. 1.7. Rom. 16.15. 1 Cor. 1.2. 2 Cor. 1.1. Eph. 1.1. &c. and so by calling, we fear least their next attempt should be to devest St. Mathew, St. John, St. Thomas, &c. and to send them out among the vulgar, by the names of Mat, Jac and Tom: But now justifie your assertion, and shew us any one Martyr of Christ, who ever was of your opinion, in denying the payment Tythes, and suffering death for the same.

Next you demand, Page 16. Whether any person have a true and le­gal [Page 34] property in the tenth part of another mans encrease] Con­cerning such legality, by the Laws of man, I conceive you make no question; concerning divine Law, if your quaere be; that upon the matter, is to doubt, whether God hath property in mans encreases, or hath power and right, to as­sign the same to whom he will? For the first part of such a question, I take it to be indisputable, with all those who take Gods Word to be their rule and guide; he saying expresly, all the Tythes of the Land; whether of the seed of the Land, or the fruit of the Tree, is the Lords; it is holy unto the Lord — so of the Tythe of the Herd, or of the Flock, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord, Levit. 27.30, 32. And con­cerning these he saith, Ye have robbed me, though the Jewes said (as many amongst us now, think it is no robbing of God, to take away, M l 3. or detain Tythes from his Ministers) Wherein have we robbed thee? God saith, Ye have robbed me in Tythes and Offerings; and therefore were they cursed; even the whole Nation. As for the second part of the doubt, all know, that the right and absolute Proprietor, who holds not of any other, but is the Lord Paramount, hath right and free power to assign his propriety to any other, or others. Now God doth as ex­presly say, Numb. 18.24. &c. The Tythes—I have given to the Levites to inherit: Of which, he yet reserved to himself the Heave-offering, as it were a Quit-rent for their acknow­ledgment of his Soveraign right over all. Now from his grant we claim a moral, and so an unalterable right due to those, whom he appointeth to serve about holy things, and not solely from the Laws of good Princes and States, though as your self pre­sently confess in the same Paragraph, Tythes are to be paid, because commanded by the State, and that Law and equity obli­ges the payment. That which you after say, That the person that claims them, may have no particular interest, is contra­dictory to the forecited Scriptures, and your own Concessions; as also by that which immediatly you grant, it appeareth false; where you say, if a true legal Property be in another person to the tenth part of my encrease, I ought in conscience to yeeld and set it forth, because it is not mine. To which we say, First, What can be a true or legal Property, if that be not such, which [Page 35] God himself gives, makes the conveiance, and in his holy Word testifieth, that he hath given and setled as Inheritance, and for such service, on those whom he hath appointed to mi­nister about holy things? Next we say, that you can have no right in Tythes; that they should become yours either by pur­chase (for who hath right to sell Gods part, and that invito Domino?) Nor by descent or prescription.

The first (you say) claims these to be due, jure divino, and produce the Law of Moses for it, &c.] What other mens opi­nions are, or have been, cannot make our right and claim by Gods divine donation by the moral Law, void; and therefore we trouble not our selves about them.

I have (you say again) diligently for two years and more, Page 17. laboured to enform my self, &c.] Here you bring an argument from the time you have spent in studying this point, and im­plied unerring faculty of apprehension. For if this were not, no time can profit to good information. Concerning the vali­dity of this reason, I leave to others to judge, who better know your abilities of Art and Nature than I yet do; but now give me leave to ask, what Authors studied you? Very likely, some, who were in the same error with you; others who could have informed you better, you condemn unknown; and be­cause your aim is to uphold a party, for the carrying on a secret design, you did not receive the love of the truth, and therefore cannot want strong delusions: and so may you still be of their form, who are ever learning, and never able to come to the know­ledg of the truth, if you study to deceive your self and others: which if it be not so, I am confident that you may find enough in the writings of sound and Orthodox Divines, to unde­ceive you, if at least you will not shut your eyes; if the vail be laid over your eyes, none but God can make you see; whom we pray, in his good time to remove it.

You speak again, of changing the Law by Christ, &c.] Con­cerning the change of the Ceremonial Law, you have been an­swered; that change is granted you, without advantage to you, or apparent damage to us. See what hath been said to your 14 pag. Further we say, that Christ changed not the moral Law, in any one jot, or title thereof, as to the morality of [Page 36] it; Matth. 5. he protested against it, who is the faithful and true wit­ness: So that the precepts thereof, having no repeal appearing in all Gods Word, binde for ever unto the worlds end. Shew us if you can, where the Law-giver ever repealed the Law for tything. Bring us any one Text of holy Scripture, either ex­presly declaring it, or by necessary consequence concluding it: Which seeing you cannot do, abuse not the Scripture, making it to speak what you please, to hold up your party: In a right use of Scriptures, we must carry sense from them, not bring it to them. Your pretending to an absolute change of the Law, causeth your ignorant and credulous Readers presently to think, they are discharged from all duty to Moral precepts; not con­sidering, that it must continually binde all men; and that the Ceremonial and Judicial Law were positive for a time, and ap­pertaining to Israel onely, 12ae. q. 122. 1. 2m. as determinationes moralium; which being changed, the Moral Law still continues. A discharge of obedience hereto granted, what an Harvest would the Devil reap from these pernicious Tares, which you scatter in the Lords field? and what unspeakable confusion would follow? what (out of Hell) can be imagined more damnable? Consider therefore what designs of Satan your captious disputes carry on: You will say you intend no such thing; Parum interest quo animo fe­ceris, quod fe­cisse malum est. but it skills not with what intent you do that which is evil to be done.

You say, Much more colour had the Quiristers, &c.] Homo suavis; a merry man, I trow: But I am not at leisure to ex­change words concerning odde Crotchets.

But say you, How doth Gospel-Ministry succeed to the Le­vites, &c.] We have spoken hereof before, and say more; first, they succeed the Legal Priesthood, as they are Ministers of holy things; and therefore must live of Christs portion, which is tythes, though their office in some things differ, as shall appear in its place. Next the Apostle will shew you. Heb. 7.12. The Priesthood, saith he, being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law: Where note, that he saith not, that the Priesthood is abolished, but changed: So the Law in the Morality thereof, is not abolished, but the Cere­monies, and things thereto belonging, are changed. Now changing presupposeth a suffection or substitution of some other [Page 37] thing, in place of that which is removed: So the Ministers suc­ceed in place of the Levitical Priesthood; and their honorary and maintenance accompanieth the same. Now the portion due to Melchisedec's Priesthood, which is a permanent order, is tythes; these being due to Christs Priesthood, are due to Christs Ministers. As for your buzzing about here and there, and no where se [...]ling, concerning the Priesthood, it is nothing to pur­pose. And what, say you, was the Primitive Church assured of for some hundred years? After you have done trifling, we shall have it; that the Church for some hundreds of years ne­ver called for tythes: Your own citations of Jerom, Ambrose, Augustine, &c. shew this to be grosly false; except by some hundreds, you mean onely the first three hundred, where­in the rage of persecution, neither permitted Christians to pay, nor Ministers to receive their tythes; concerning which, we have already spoken, in answer to the same objection.

You say again, What is this to the payment of tythes?] Pag. 18. What that Abraham paid tythes? very much. First, this imports a right in Melchisedec to take them, and therefore a debitum in Abraham to pay them; who having a special direction, by some inspiration, which had the force of an injunction, Abra­ham's act was of duty, not arbitrary benevolence; yea, by the Moral Law, which before the exact transcript thereof on the Tables of Stone, was the very same with the Law of Nature, which bound not onely Abraham, but all persons respectively, to all times and places. For, to worship God is a Moral Pre­cept, though for the time, the determination thereof, 12 ae. q. 99. as to the manner how, appertained to the Ceremonial, which being antiquated and changed into another manner of worship under the Gospel; yet is still the same in point of Morality, which bound and unchangeably bindeth all. You possibly may say, Abraham paid tythes but once; but there needs no other proof, that he constantly paid them at other times, as well as that once specified to Melchisedec, because God testified concerning him, saying, Gen. 18.19. I know him, that he will command his children, and his houshold after him; and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; which is after­wards interpreted, Deut. 32 46. By doing all the words of this [Page 38] Law. Adde hereto, that he onely is good and just, who is constantly so, and accordingly Jacob also paid tythes; because the Morality of the Law, universally binding to this duty of E­quity and Justice, bound all men and ever respectively to do the same; how else fell Abraham and Jacob upon a tenth, rather then on a fifth, seventh, or twelfth part? Without faith it is impossible to please God, as also to do any thing in faith, which God commandeth not.

You say more, that— few are now left, who will onely stand to it, and the generality are of a contrary minde.] Few are now left: We may thank your rage for that. But I demand, doth the appearing paucity of any Truths, Professors disparage their Cause? What then shall we think of Eliah crying, — I onely am left? Were there not then many thousands on the Pro­phets side, whom he knew not of? might it not even then, have been answered to him, as Elisha said to his servant, 2 Kings 6.6. — Fear not, for they that be with us, are more then they that be with them? But what you mean by, onely stand to it, I know not, but doubt — hic ambiguo ludimur: Mean you onely stand to it, that jus of receiving of tythes, and so wave and dis­claim all right, which in confirmation of the same, good Princes and Parliaments, or Donations and Bequeathments, which well-affected men have given us, by several Laws and Acts, in di­vers ages past? That were foolishly and ingratefully done, so to value these grants, to which, you confess, your self bound to obey, Even for Conscience sake. That the generality are against Right and Truth, I do no more wonder, then that you are—

And so (you say) the greatest part of the people of England deny tythes to be due by Gods Law.] To this, and that which immediately precedeth, I think no more answer then this neces­sary; if so, it is the more shame for them. Concerning the end of paying tythes, you have been answered: As for Impro­priators, they are out of the verge of our present question, which concerns the Ministers portion; yet here we may use the saying of Boniface, Archbishop of Mentz, in his Epistle to Cuth­bert, Archbishop of Canterbury. Our complaints (saith he) hereof, are not much unlike to a dogs barking at theeves and [Page 39] robbers breaking open, digging through and rifting his Masters house. —Quia defensionis auxiliatores non habeat, Spelm. Concil. & decret. pag. 239 submurmu­rans ingemiscat, & lugeat: Because he cannot have helpers for defence, yet growling he will grumble and whimper.

And this (you say) leaves every man free to give to him that teacheth) I am sure you are not very free to give to him that teacheth; and for all this preceding Miscellany, you leave us in doubt, what you mean by, this leaves? this what? your irre­solute conclusion, and confused resolution? Do these make for your dream of the Castle in the air, Competent maintenance for Ministers, and that arbitrary, voluntary contribution? If you mean voluntary, to import willingly performed, as all good works must be, we accord. Paul Preached the Gospel willing­ly; that act of Preaching was a voluntary act of Paul, 1 Cor 9.16, 17. yet wo had been unto him, if he had not preached the Gospel, because a dispensation of the Gospel was committed unto him

Concerning those you speak of, who you say, Pag 19. are transformed as Apostles and Ministers of Christ, who have the form, but want the power, who teach for filthy lucre, &c.] We may take up the Eunuchs quere — Of whom speaks he this? of himself, Acts 8.34. or of some other man? Where is the power of godliness on your part, when you broach many falshoods, setting up impious doctrines of men, instead of Gods oracles? Non soles te respicere cum aliis maledicis? Is it filthy lucre in us to require the por­tion which God hath appointed us, or in you, who would take it from us? Gods Word doth evidently enough shew, to any whose eyes are not closed by prejudicate opinion, That, as there was a Legal service, to which belonged a legal maintenance, a Temple and an Altar service; to which, God allotted Temple and Altar portions or maintenance to them, who there served; so, by the same Moral equity, there is a Gospel service, preach­ing, administration of Holy Sacraments, &c. to which apper­tain the things, or temporal perquisites belonging to the main­tenance thereof, which is laid down in sundry places of holy Scripture. See Gal. 6.6. Prov. 3.6. 1 Tim. 5.17. Now if there be a portion to be set out unto God, and his Ministers, out of all and every the temporal goods of every one instructed in the Gospel, according to the sum and purport of these places of [Page 40] holy Scripture, and no certain portion or maintenance for Mi­nisters, be found in Gods Word, but tythes; then are tythes, the portion and maintenance allotted by Gods Word to Mini­sters for their service: But there is a portion to be set out to God and his Ministers, out of all the temporal goods of every one instructed in the Gospel, and no other determinate certain­ty for Ministers maintenance, mentioned in holy Scripture; Ergo, Tythes are the principal portion allotted by Gods Word to Ministers for their service: And no reason can our adver­saries alleage, to make it probable, that God would have Gospel-Ministers means of subsistence, less certain and definite then the Priests and Levites means was under the Law. To conclude, a Law for payment of Tythes, for the maintenance of Gods publick worship, all confess; shew us in all Gods Word, where that Law was ever repealed.

Pag. 19.But you say, He always took care for such as he sent forth, and they never wanted, &c.] And what reason can you shew, why they now should? I presume not to ask, why so many of Christs faithful Ministers have of late been driven into great wants, and so are still? Your device of competent maintenance, doth here but corvis hiantibus illudere. They who were sent out by Christ (you say) reaped the fruit of their labor: What proves this, but that they ought to do so still?

Concerning Churches, which you say were gathered; we say you ought to consider, a great difference between a setled or constituted Church, and that which in the Primitive Age of the Gospel, was setling, and there to be constituted: Therefore that which was then done, cannot reasonably prescribe a main­tenance for Ministers of a Church constituted. There was, be­sides persecution, unadvised zeal of voluntary poverty; a Bird as rare to be found in this age, as a Phenix or black Swan: There was danger of scandal given; we know none now, except taken, not given, in requiring our Tithes, of such as you.

Herewith (say you) let our now called Churches be proved, &c.] God be blessed, we have a more just and certain proof then your Lesbian rule to try our Calling by; Christ saying, By this shall all men know, that ye are my Disciples, if you love one another; and for the rest, The laborer is worthy of his hire: [Page 41] This is appointed us by the Lord of the Vineyard by God, out of his own reserved part; not contracted for, or arbitrarily de­termined by man. This we understand, that which God knew to be a proportionable honorary; not that which fickle man fancieth to be so. This is no mercenary wages, such (as your 1 own party confess) are upon Covenant, Compact, Agreement or Promise. Now it cannot appear that ever the Apostles main­tenance was grounded on Covenant, Compact, Agreeement, Promise, &c. but on Gods Providence and Ordinance.

Mercenary wages is definite, particular as to the sum a­greed 2 on between party and party; so was not the Apostles maintenance in any of the Churches, to which they preach­ed: Yea, say you, for their preaching was free. Why they took not Tythes: you have heard formerly, that they had maintenance from the Churches, is above all dispute; but you would have us preach freely; that is, taking no Tythes: because in the Primitive Church, Charity abounding, you say, it appeareth not that Tythes were paid: To which, we say, be you such first, as those Christians were to their Teachers, and then talk of gathering Churches, and our ceasing to take Tythes. In the mean time, you cannot reasonably require us to leave our good way, seeing you will not leave your evil one, of sharking Ministers.

Wages is or ought to be proportionable to the merit of 3 those, that serve by Covenant; but the maintenance of the A­postles and Ministers could not, can not be such: for they Mi­nister Spiritual things, and reap Carnal. And now, Why quarrel you our receiving these supplies of the World, to which we Preach? And from what part thereof should we reaso­nably expect to reap, but from that, on which we sow? 1 Cor. 9. God hath determined that we shall live of the Gospel, which we preach according to the equity of the moral Law; for this one and the same justice is to be observed in the Law and Gospel. 12ae. q. 108. 2. o. 19. The School-men well note, that the Gospel commands no other Moralities, then the same which the Law commanded.

And here (you say) rulers should have wisdom, &c.] Rom. 13.4. We take you for a pretty Counseller of State; and the Apostle saith of the Magistrate He beareth not the Sword in vain; for he is [Page 42] the Minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath on him that doth evil. But in vain carrieth he the Sword, who hath not wisdom to direct it: And is that wisdom which you here offer our Magistrates, for Counsel of State, to leave Christ's King­dom to his own rule? What to punish no offenders? To cry to Christ as those rebellious Tribes, 1 King. 14.16. See to thine own house David? What would become of such in­active Magistrates, and such a Laish? For defect of Justice in the due execution thereof, Judg 18.7. Gen. 18.25. Ezek. 5.8. the Lord the Judg of all the Earth will do right; as he saith, because they had not kept his judgments—Therefore thus saith the Lord God, behold, I, even I am against thee, and will execute judgment in the midst of thee, See also Ezek. 11.9. 2 Chron 24.23, 24. in the sight of the nations. So when Joash hearkened to wicked Counsel, and did not justice upon delinquents, the Lord brought upon Princes and people the Assyrian Army, so they executed judgment upon Joash. Thus will it still come to pass, that for want of Magistrates due execution of justice, God will come, and punish both people offending, and Ma­gistrates conniving, or not punishing. And do you not mark what a parcel of singular wisdom here is presented to Ma­gistrates?

Neither (say you) is his spirit diminished, that it cannot, or will not send forth, and fit Ministers for his service, or that he needs Ʋniversities, &c.] That God can fit teachers, even by infused habits of knowledg, none doubt; but from his Po­wer to conclud his Will, were but a wide inference. His Spirit is not diminished, he can make many Worlds; Doth this conclude that he will? He can do whatsoever he will do; Will you thence infer, that he will do what ever he can? He needs no Ʋniversities; neither did he in the days of Prophets, yet had he then his Naioth in Ramah, 1 Sam. 19.22, 23. a School of Prophets. So had he in the Apostles times; yet when the learned St. Paul, brought up at Gamaliels feet, wrot directions to Timothy, 1 Tim. 5.13, 16. 3 Tim. 2.15, he saith, give attendance to Reading, Exhortation and Doctrine; the fruit whereof, he presently sub­joins, for in doing this, thou shalt both save thy self and them that hear thee: so study to shew thy self approved unto God, a work­man that needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. [Page 43] All this your party believe they can do, without any Analytical order; but if the Orator should hear you, he would say, This is not dividere, but frangere.

But, to our purpose again: I demand, Doth Gods power to give other means of enlarging mens hearts to his service, annul his Ordinance in the use of accustomed means? What then would the brain-sick Super-ordinarian not conclude against Preaching of the Gospel, and use of holy Sacraments?

Against use of Ʋniversities, you bring an Argument, à fine: You say, Students go thither to learn Greek and Hebrew, the original; that they may understand what Christ spake, and the Apostles preached.] And do you not think that were worth their time and charge? What were all knowledge in the world with­out this? But sure you are not ignorant, that our Grammar-Schools send few Students to the Universities without a compe­tent knowledge of the Greek; neither that there are many other excellent things, besides Tongues, to be learned at the Universities. As for the Mother-tongue of Christ and his Apo­stles, I suppose you are not to learn that it was Syriac, much differing from the Greek and Hebrew, both in character and form of words. I here remember you, that the Apostles, Acts 2. after they had received the Holy Ghost, as occasion served, and need required, spake all tongues; but writ the Canon and Rule of Faith, the New Testament, in Greek; as the Prophets wrote the Old in Hebrew. If they that heard them speak in their own Language, could not understand their Doctrine, but that it seemed foolishness to them; If they had heard them speak in unknown Tongues, would they no say that ye are mad? 1 Cor. 14.23. But the cause of their not understanding their Doctrine in their own native tongue, was, because the iudgment denounced, Isai. 6.9, 10. was upon them; and because the God of this world had blinded their eyes, which believed not: So that the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ could not shine unto them. Know­ledge of Tongues, none but the stupidly-ignorant will deny to be a shining light: Possibly a blinde man, or he that winks, is not benefitted by it; but would you conclude, that therefore they who are of entire sensories, and willing to see, are, as you say, Nothing the nearer for it? What think you, that the wis­dom [Page 44] of God thought good to furnish his Apostles and Disciples with the gift of Tongues, and interpretation thereof; was that a vain and fruitless Donation? Were they, who thereby had the mysteries of salvation written in Scriptures, brought home to them in their mother-tongue, no nearer to the knowledge of the Gospel? The Apostle saith the same, which Reason and Expe­rience confirm, 1. Cor. 14.11. — If I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be to him that speaks, a Barbarian; and he that speaks, shall be a Barbarian to me: And are they not nearer to the know­ledge of the Gospel, who understand the Greek, in which it was originally written, then they who are ignorant of that Tongue? Egyptian darkness, quintessence of dunsery! Who ever heard of so professed a Purple John, as you here personate? What, was the Scripture written in English? or were the Interpreters thereof assisted with such infallibility of spirit, even in things less then fundamental, that they could not erre in any thing? which if you hold not, you must confess, that they who under­stand the original must be nearer the knowledge of the Scriptures, then they who do, and needs must take up that which they do know, upon trust. Qui benè didicit, benè docet: And on the contrary, he that never well learned, can never teach well. I may boldly affirm, that the want of learning, knowledge of tongues, and good arts have bred all these Schisms and divisions amongst us, which render us odious and contemptible among the Nations at this day; and that it was Satans master-piece against unhappy England, to beget a contempt of learning, by emboldning a rude vulgar, to contemn the persons of the Mini­sters.

To your Objection again, we say, That Gods Spirit needed no Ʋniversities to instruct men; but all sober men know, that they have need of Universities, wherein they may be instructed. What then? God can make an Ass speak; but surely it were not wisely concluded, Gods Spirit is not diminished, &c. there­fore we will have no more Universities, but such Teachers, as that dull Beast, shall serve our turns to make us Saints of the new Edition. And seriously, were all men of your minde (at least, of which you would seem to be) to take away our Univer­sity bred Ministers, by taking away their setled livelihood, [Page 45] necessity would so inforce, that ere long you must be served by such animals, as could onely bray pure nonsense by the glass—. Hoc Ithaci cupiunt—. Consider whether this be not a Jesu­itical plot, whereof I heard one of them say, at the very begin­ing of our troubles, — There is a design set upon you, which when you hear, will make your ears tingle.

But you say, Our Consciences must be judge, who those Mi­nisters are, &c.] Auditum admissi risum teneatis amici! Pag. 10. What? Professed blindmen challenging Prerogative to judge of colours? Ambitious Absolom did but wish, 2 Sam. 15.4. O that I were made a Judge in the Land— But you plead priviledge, Our Conscience (you say) must be judge: And do you not see what a Church and Ministry we were like to have, if these men might be judges? Think you that they would allow any, but such as they knew were surely involved in their Heresie? But now speak clearly, and mistake not Opinion for Consci­ence: Opinion is grounded on probability, or that which but seems so unto deluded mindes; but Conscience, on the infal­lible Word of God, in which can be no falshood. Shew us now (if you be true men) that this is indeed your Conscience, and we will go along with you: But excuse us, if we subscribe not unto such dull and stupid opinions, for which you cannot shew, that Christs Ministers were ever, in your sense, made manifest. But you would have Magistrates punish, and restrain the evil: We wish it so, but doubt that you would wince, when you were under the lash for Sacriledge; and your Opinion could not save your—

You say, Would not this ease the Magistrate, and be more ac­ceptable to God?] To so impious and vain a question, it is enough to answer, No.

Who (say you) made him a Judge, &c?] He or they who made him a Magistrate and a restrainer of the evil. Pag. 20.

A third sort (you say) plead for Decrees, &c.] I am loath to be expensive of precious time, in examination of that which others plead; and I content me to say, concerning the rubbish, which you here scrape together, That those things have been sufficiently answered, by the learned and most industrious Dr. Tilsley, Animad. on Hist. of Tythes; to whom I refer [Page 46] the Reader, who desireth further to be satisfied concerning those things.

And then (you say) about that time, it came to be received and believed, that tythes ought to be paid, &c.] I cannot but think you dissemble your knowledge, who say, That it was a­bout a thousand years after Christ, before it came to be received and believed, that tythes ought to be paid. Origen, Cyprian, Jerom, Ambrose, Augustine, &c. believed them to be due, and payable, or else they would not have pleaded so earnestly for them; and you know, that these lived some hundred of years before the time which you mention: Consider what your self have confessed, and for shame contradict not that.

You say, That in England, as well as other Nations, every man might have given his tythes where he pleased, till about the year One thousand two hundred.] If that were true I could not but think it great pitty, that they were so long ignorant. But must we still be troubled with your Crambe, and often repetitions of one and the same falshood? surely it is already nauseous to the understanding Reader.

Page 21.— Pleaded for Humane right] To this, and many things else gathered out of Mr. Seldens History of Tythes, I answer again, That it skills not much what others plead: God gave Ministers the jus and right of Tythes, from that time that he had a Church: I say, Jus in re, a right in Tythes, though Humane Laws may be said to give them Jus ad rem; that is, a Law and Custom of Court, to claim and recover them as their right. To this, if Kings and Parliaments have contri­buted their power and authority, by Laws and Decrees; they did justly and religiously therein: For therefore God put the power into their hands, well knowing, how malicious Satan is against Ministers of the Gospel; and how (in his ambition to bring men to his Kingdom of Darkness and Atheism) the sub­til Impostor works (as you do) on the worldly minder of Neu­ters in Religion; who wouldly gladly be of the cheapest one, that they might spare their purses, and the newest, that they might be in the fashion.

[Page 47]Now for Statutes of Kings and Parliaments, suppose they have power concerning mutual Humane rights, i. e. Meum and tuum; God onely hath right in his reserves: Suum cuique, is the Rule of Justice; and Christ said, Give to Caesar, that which is Caesars; to every one that which is his; onely let Gods Portion be sacred and inviolable. We look therefore on Statutes, as effects of Gods mercy towards his Church, making Kings and high Powers her Nursing-fathers; and yet we say, that we ground not our Claim and Interest therein. God here­by used a Coercive power to restrain the Sacriledgious, because of the hardness of their hearts, who regard not Gods Laws, but fear Mans.

The Law (you say) doth not give any man a property.] But sure the Law of God doth; of, and by which we hold, from whence we claim our portion. And we further say, That if no Humane Law, Act, or Decree, had been made for us on this be­half, yet had we a firm right to that, which God assigned us by his Will, revealed in his Word: Yet we thankfully acknow­ledge, that we ow very much to the Laws and Grants of good Princes, Magistrates, Councils, and Judges, for our actual re­covery of our dues, without which, it may too easily appear by you, and your party; how little comfort and support, mens consciences would afford Ministers, notwithstanding your pre­tended sufficient maintenance for them, whose Judges you would appoint your selves: Was not Ticonius your Tutor, August. Ep. Vincent. Cic. Acad. q l. 4. or one of that Sect, who said, Quod volumus, sanctum est? or some Protagoras, affirming, Id cuique verum esse, quod cuique videa­tur?

You say, He that saith, they are onely due by Humane Right, Pag. 22. &c.] We know not any of ours, who say so: We say they are due by the Law of God and Man, and recoverable by Humane Laws to God subordinate: As, Stante Repub. Israeliticâ, peculiar Rights and Interests by the Moral Law due and claim­able, were justly recovered by the Judicial, which God ap­pointed as a subsidium thereto, and Band of Obedience; the execution whereof, was by men appointed to judge: so now, For Magistrates are still to execute justice according to those Laws, which by Statute or Statutes, are made Judicial to us: [Page 48] And if our Magistrates may justly judge for me, I may as just­ly claim and recover my right by the same Law and Equity: Adde hereto, That Councils may and ought to make Laws, to binde the people to obey Gods Moral Law, and by just punish­ments, appoint restraints of transgressors thereof, that it may be well with them and their children: For, Salus populi supre­ma Lex. This may appear, if we consider either first or second Table; As in case of prophanation and common swearing, or prophanation of the Sabbath, or against Murder, Adultery, Theft, we have wholsome and necessary Laws. Now if for the obedience to God, Humane Laws be good and necessary in respect of one Moral duty; why not in others? As, if for the maintenance of Gods worship in the quotâ parte of time by God reserved, and thereto still necessary: Why is it not as just and necessary in the quotâ parte of our substance, by the same Law of God reserved to, and necessary for the same? To the matters in your following Cavils, concerning Civil Rights, Ministers Proprieties, and Courts wherein they have been, or ought to be recovered, you vainly trouble your Reader; our claim being from Divine Law, whereto all Laws and Courts ought to be subordinate.

Pag. 22.You say further, That the Act (for Tythes) gives nothing, but commands what was before.] Herein you say true; For God gave them from the beginning, and man confirmed them in sundry times following.

Next, you demand how Laws of Kings and Parliaments, &c. binde the Conscience?] Your self have formerly answered; but the Apostle more definitively, saith Rom. 13.1, 5. Let eve­ry soul be subject unto the higher powers. — Ye must be subject (needs be subject) not onely for wrath, but also for conscience sake: 1 Pet. 2.13. And St. Peter, Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man, for the Lords sake. And—will this double band hold Samson if it doth, sin not against Conscience, Satan-like endeavoring to seduce others, and draw them in society of sin.

Pag. 23. Tythes (you say) be not due by the Law of God.] This is a shameless begging of the question, which will never be approved by us, or proved by you.

[Page 49]But you say, Who hath set them up, the Law of man at best?] Here is another begging of the question at another door, as also in the following words, where you say, in the place where God disanulled his own command. We offer here again to joyn issue with you, and challenge you to shew us any one Text of Gods Word, whereby it appears, that God ever disanulled or repealed his Law of Tything. For the rest, if you could cite and urge as many Decrees of Princes, or Acts of Parliaments against us, as you have cited for Tythes; yet no Decrees of men can Impeach our Right therein; see­ing God by the Magna Charta of his holy Word, hath setled it, for an Inheritance upon the Ministry.

You demand, Who put this power into the hand of man, Pag. 23. to raise a compulsory maintenance for Ministers:] The Apostle will tell you, Rom. 13.4. The Magistrate is the Minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath on him that doth evil; Is not execution of wrath a compulsory means, think you? Or is not Sacriledg evil in your Theology? That you further say, that the Ministers of Christ never lookt for, or durst own such a way of provision. We say, First, That the maintenance of Ministers ought to be willingly aforded them, not grudg­ingly or sparingly, as also their ministration; this is, as to the first intention of the Law; but if men will be obstinate, Compulsion is a second intention hereof. Secondly, Suppose that Ministers did not own such a way of provision for recovery of Tythes, before such Acts of Parliament were made for them; What hindereth but that they may justly use such Laws, now Enacted and in Force?

You proceed — What Nation in Europe, will not say they have a Christian Magistracy?] Do you not forget how great a part of Europe is under the Turk? Your many following impertinences should have had no answer, but that you say, heavy punishments are inflicted upon such as cannot for conscience sake conform unto them: To which I say, it was never well since mens Consciences were tied to their Purse-strings, and that opi­nions not so much as probable, must go for Conscience. Shew us Gods Word for your Conscience, and we will submit to the same bond; but we think it an abominable Idolatry, to [Page 50] set up opinions of beguiled Men, instead of Gods sacred O­racles.

Concerning— This day of clear and Sunshine light] We say, Isai. 8.20. to the Law and to the Testimony, if they speak not accor­ding to this word, it is because there is no light in them. To this Law we appeal, and willingly submit; Doth this savor, in you tender sensory, of the old Popish Spirit? Who sees not your endeavour to re-establish Popery, though you so much seem to speak against it? And now let me bonâ cum veniâ, tel you, that either your hypocrisie, or ignorance is somthing gross. And is this as you say, a shame to our reformation? Or is the pra­ctise of you deformers a shame to Christian Religion? It is probable that you carry on the Jesuits design of reducing Eng­land to darkness of Popery again, by decrying Ministers right, to a setled maintenance; that by taking them away, you may remove the Candlestick out of his place, the light of the Gos­pel from us, and then you may possibly bring many to Pope­ry and Atheism. I must needs say, that this personated Ze­lote speaks much against Popery, but works what he can for it; on whom I look as on Thames-water-men, with their faces one way, but labouring might and main, to carry their Passengers and Vessel another.

You add— Were the Law just commanding Tythes, &c.] What will he not question, Pag. 24. who doubteth of the equity of the Law? I hope you mean humane Law, which yet is founded on Gods Law; and have you not learned of Socrates, to doubt of all things? Concerning treble damages, or other punish­ments which the Law hath appointed obstinate transgressors; I suppose you know, that the plaintifs charges of the Suit, com­monly exceed the dammage justly awarded him, towards his re­paration therein; so that even under the tender hands of just Judges, the remedy is more burdensome, than the disease; these punishments therefore are but just. What injustice is it, think you, to force a Thief or Possessor malae fidei to restore the goods of another man, which he hath injuriously possessed him­self of, and still deteineth? What injustice can be in a legal reinvesting the true owner? And in case that the iniurious re­fuse to submit to the Law, to compel him by some severe [Page 51] punishment by Law provided in such case? And if this be justice in one case, Why shall it not be so in another kind of wrong or robberry? Why not in case of Sacriledg, the worst of robberies, if in inferior thieveries? O, but you say our consciences tell us, that detention of Tythes from Mini­nisters, is no sin. What if a Thieves Conscience (as you ac­count Conscience) should tell him, that had robbed you, that stealing is no sin; Would you not pursue him, and prosecute law against him? I doubt in your next scruple, your weak and tender Consciences will tell you, that 'tis a sin, to pay your Land-lords any Rent, or at least their sin, to Distrain or Sue for any, though you can, but will not, for your Conscience sake forsooth pay him any: And will not the next question in your Schools, be whether it be lawful In foro Conscientiae, to pay any Debt?

— To set out Tythes, &c.] You say, this is against his Con­science; once again we require you to shew us any one Text of Scripture, prohibiting seting out of Tythes; that we may know, that it is Conscience, and not Opinion, grounded on humane fancy, malice, greedy desire of enriching your selves by pillaging the Ministers, which moveth you to think so.

You say,— This age so much pretends to reformation]—and every one cries wo, wo, and he complain's, that help's to make it so.

Are you not a chief pretender to Reformation? Why then trouble you the sacred peace of the Church? And truly, I fear, that it will come to pass which you next say, that Papists (your honoured Patrones) shall rise in judgment against you, and condemn you; they own some Order, Unity, Govern­ment and Law; they have some shew of Devotion and reli­gious Charity; but in our new Sectaries, I see very little of these, if any at all. Your following objections in this Page, are but quarrelsom, captious, as to the present, not deserving answer.

You say— By conscientious men, Pag. 25. far more heavy than the loyns of the Law] Conscientious men, and Opinatours, are with you, convertible terms; as concerning abuses in offices, we are ignorant; But what if there were such things? What were this [Page 52] to our Cause? You say nothing against those wealthy Kerns, who by detaining Tythes, begger poor Ministers and their Fa­milies, which we know to be true: In this, 'tis marvel, but you think they do God service. John 16.2.

You say, The Pope himself hath no such penalties.] No? what think you of his holy House, forsooth, his Inquisition Preaching with fire and faggot? You say, You write what you can prove by manifold instances. It may be so in some things im­pertinent; and possibly you are acquainted with the Popes Ecclesiastical Courts, and (what ever you seem under your pre­sent disguise) are a right trusty Advocate for them.

You say, Priests are not able to pay tenths unto the Protector, &c.] What Priests you talk of, we enquire: We own not that title in any, but Christ, a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec, that faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, Heb. 2.17. And as we conceive, ancient Councils, Fathers, and the Rubrick of our Church Liturgy, attribute that name to Ministers of the Gospel, Cyprian. ep. Caecilio. l. 2. ep. 3. by way of analogy and allusion to that, which was under the now-antiquated Ceremonies of the Law. So Irenaeus, l. 4. c. 20. saith, — Sacerdotes autem sunt omnes Domini Apostoli—semper Altari & [...]eo serviunt: That is in respect of their succeeding the Levitical Priesthood, and allusion to their service. So Cap. 3.32. Sacrificium Deo cor contribulatum; and Cap. 33. — Incensa Johannis in Apocalyp­si, orationes ait esse sanctorum: For, as Cyprian saith, Adv. Jud. l. 17. the old Priesthood was to cease, ut novus sacerdos veniret, qui in aeternum futurus esset; that is onely Christ. See Heb. 7.23. an elegant figure whereof immediately preceded Christs coming, when Zachary, the Levitical Priest, was to come out and bless the people, he was dumb: For then God would bless his people by his Son Christ, the Eternal Priest, after the order of Melchisedec; who not onely auspicated his preach­ing with sundry blessings, but ascending into Heaven, lifting up his hands, Matth. 5.2, &c. Luk. 24.50, 51. blessed his Disciples. When he was to come into the World, the Priest, the son of Aaron, could not speak; that by that sign, God might teach his people to expect another Priesthood, and Priest, in whom not onely Jews, but all the Nations of the World should be blessed: Gal. 3.8. And this was also in­timated, [Page 53] in that the Levitical Priests were after the morning Sacrifice onely, to lift up their hands, and bless the people; but not after the Mincha or evening Sacrifice; Maimon. tract. de Orat. c. 14. Heb. 1.1, 2. & 13.10, 15. for in the eve­ning of time, God spake unto his people by his own Son Christ. To our purpose again, the Lords Table may be called an Altar; and praises of God, a Sacrifice, as it is written, By him there­fore, let us offer the Sacrifice of praise to God continually: So will we render the calves of our lips, Hos. 4. [...]. So are all the Ser­vants of Christ Priests; not by propriety of speaking, Rev. 1.6. & 5.10. & 20.6. 1 Pet. 2.5. but as they are also called Kings, by analogy and representation. Nor do I remember where Ministers are called [...], Priests in the Gospel. Here it is necessary to consider, 1. How Ministers may be called Priests. 2. How not, or wherein there appears a real difference between them, and Levitical Priests, properly so called.

1. In that the Apostle saith, The Priesthood being changed; Heb. 7.12. he implyeth, that the Office of Ministration in the publick worship of God is not abolished, or taken quite away; so that there is nothing substituted in the place thereof, but that the Office, as to the morality thereof, so continues as that Ana­logically, Ministers of the Gospel may in some sense be called Priests. The Prophet Joel makes them convertible terms, Joel [...].17. say­ing, Let the Priests, the Ministers of the Lord, weep—: And the Prophet Isaiah speaking of the calling of the Gentiles, Isai. 66.21, &c. saith, I will also take of them for Priests, and for Levites, saith the Lord.

2. The Levitical Priest served at the Altar, that is, Did there that service, which by Gods Law he was there to per­form: And so the Minister is to do that service in the Church, which God hath, under the Gospel, appointed and setled on him in his Calling thereto, and separation from the people, in preaching the Gospel, Praying, Administration of the Holy Sacraments, and those other Ministerial Functions, which are peculiar to his Calling.

3. That Priests had their certain and determinate allowance and maintenance assigned them out of the encreases of the Earth (by Gods donation) for his service; Hebr. 7.5. never being left to the curtesie, or charity of men, no not the faith Moses to dis­pose [Page 54] of; and so have the Ministers of the Gospel: In both which, it was and is sacriledge, to alienate, take away, detain, or change the whole or any part thereof, otherwise reserved by God to his own service, and assigned to the Ministers thereof, or to reduce the same to common uses.

4. The Ministers of the Gospel succeeding the Legal Priests in the publick service of God, as persons in their Office sacred, to which they are set apart, or separated, Rom. 1.1. Gal. 1.15. may not desert, or be distracted from their Calling, nor impro­priated to any other. Thus, and in such like respects, they may analogically be stiled Priests; as hath been said, thanksgiving may be called a Sacrifice, Psal. 116.17. Spiritual, not bodily or proper; Psal. 141.2. as Prayers are Spiritual incense. Let my prayer be directed as incense in thy sight, and the lifting up my hands, as the evening sacrifice; and as I said, the Lords Table, may be called an Altar; not properly, but by way of allusion to that, to which it succeeded: So may Gospel Ministers be stiled Priests.

2. Herein observe, That the Legal Priests, and the Mini­sters of the Gospel differ.

1. The Legal Priests were to be onely of that tribe of Levi, and family of Aaron, Exod. 40.13, 14. But the Ministers of the Gospel (if lawfully called) are limitted to no one stock or family, but may be of any: So that the Legal Priests were in some sort, born to the Priesthood; but Ministers are separated thereto: Therefore the Lord taking to himself, a people under the Gospel out of all Nations, Isai. 66.20, 21. saith, And I will also take of them for Priests, and for Levites.

Judg 6.37, &c. Deut. 32.2, &c.2. The Levitical Priest was to execute his Function among the people of Israel onely: Then Judea like Gideons Fleece had the dew of Heaven, the Doctrine and Mysteries of Salva­tion, and the floor of the world beside was dry; as it is writ­ten, Psal. 147, 19, 20. He sheweth his Word unto Jacob, his Statutes and his Judgments unto Israel; he hath not dealt so with any Nation. And as for his Judgments, they have not known them. And so Christs injunction bound his Disciples for a time, Go not into the way of the Gentiles; Matth. 10.5. & 28.19. but after his Ascension, the Ministers are to go into all, or any part of the world, to Preach [Page 55] the Gospel to every creature: Now the floor hath the dew, Mark 16.15. Rom. 11.25. Eph. 2. Col. 3.11. Gal. 3.28. and the fleece is dry, since that blindness is come upon Israel. Now the stop of the partition wall is taken down; and in Christ, there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, bond and free.

3. Levitical Priests offered real, external, visible, material, proper, and bloody Sacrifices; but the Ministers of the Gos­pel offer onely spiritual Sacrifices, Prayers, Praises, Thanks­giving, as they are an holy Priesthood, 1 Pet. 2.5. Revel. 1.6. to offer up spiritual Sa­crifice, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ: For he hath made us Kings and Priests unto his Father.

4. The Levitical Priest was to officiate in outward Ordi­nances of a worldly Sanctuary, which were shadows of good things to come, which Rites are now antiquated: Heb. 9.1. & 10.1. Col. 2.20. 1 Cor. 9.11. 1 Pet. 2.5. But the Mi­nisters of the Gospel officiates in things spiritual and permanent; therefore the Levitical Priesthood is utterly ceased. These things which then prefigured Christ to come in the flesh, and to die for our Redemption, after his coming and fulfilling all things fore-ordained, prefigured under the Law, and foretold by the Prophets, are done away and abolished; as not onely dead, but a killing letter, a ministration of Condemnation: Before which, the Law killed non effectivè, or per se, Gal. 5.2. 2 Cor. 3.7, 9. 12ae. q. 97. 2, 3m. but occasione ar­reptâ, non datâ; by reason of mans infirmity. But now after the Passion of Christ, the Ceremonial Law is not onely Lex mortua, but in the profession and observation thereof, Morti­fera; because thereby Christ shall nothing profit men; because such Ceremonies hold out an expectation of Christ the Saviour of the elect to come: Which whoever now professeth, Gal. 5.2, 4. is An­tichristian, renouncing the true and onely Redeemer already come in the fulness of time, and so cutting himself off from all hope of Salvation; there being no other name given under Heaven among men, whereby we must be saved; Acts 4.11, neither is there salvation in any other. Now the present Ministry is of the Everlasting Gospel of Christ; and the Ministers thereof, Revel. 14.6. are Ambassadors of Christ, and his Deputies for the Gospel on Earth, who is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec; who changeth not by Death and Succession, as the Levitical Priest, but liveth ever; and is a faithful High Priest over the [Page 56] House of God: Other Priesthood, in propriety of speaking, we own none.

To conclude, we must consider, that some names which once were venerable and honorable, have in process of time, become opprobrious and disgraceful terms, as

1. The word Tyrant. Servius in Aenei. l. 7. tells us that with the Grecians, Tyranni & Regis nulla discretio est. And Suidas sheweth also that it was once, [...]. Nomen melioris ominis, ac levius, until Dyonysius, and others like, by their cruelty dis­honored it: Since, it signifieth the worst of men, because of bad, the greatest; such as Jerom describeth, Tom. 1. ad Deme­triad. de virg. servand.

1. The name Papa, (as hath been said) was once of great re­verence, until the eminent impiety of some so called, embased the same.

3. The name Magus, was once among the Persians, an ho­norable title, as also among others. Suidas gives [...], by [...], lovers of God: And Jerom saith, Magi differunt à maleficis; aliqui honesti, &c. such for continence he specifieth, Lib. 2. adv. Jovin. Serv. in lib. 4. Aenei. Yet the Romans condemned Magic, pro­brosa enim ars habita est. And Jerom in Eph. Proem. notes, that the Ephesian Idolaters were given to magic, Which ever (saith he) follows idolatry. This might be instanced in many great ex­amples.

4. Possibly, the Hebrew word [...] was once also of honest signification, which some learned men give by Caupona, a Victualer: So Vatablus, Pagnin and Val. Shindler, after the Chaldee, John 2.1. 1 Kings 3.27. he gives this reason, speak­ing of the Spies. Si fuisset meretrix, hi viri ad illam non di­vertissent, ob suspiciones, & scortatorum advenientium metum. The seventy whom the New Testament Writers, Josh. 2.1. generally fol­low, because it was then their Vulgar Greek, render it by [...], meretricis, and so [...], meretrices, 1 King. 3. deriving it from [...] scortatus fuit, but the Rabbins derive the word which we speak of, from, [...], among other things signifying cibatus est in the Chalde: It may seem, that the ill behavior of such Wo­men, had caused the word so much to decline to infamy.

[Page 57]5. Certainly, that sacred name of Priest, in proper signifi­cation among the Jews, and in Analogical among Christians, by the rebellion of some of them against God and his Christ, and their impurity of example in the declining condition of the Church, in the mouths of the Vulgar, from an honorable signification became disgraceful; though those of better under­standing, knew and know how to use it to the reverence of Gospel Ministers.

I have thus much digressed for their sakes, who do not, Pag. 25. but would understand these things, and now again to our adversary and his course eloquence.

You say, Oh shameful Reformation! what compel a man himself to set out the tythes of his own goods, to maintain a hire­ling Priest, &c.] The Orator would here say, Let this pervers­ness be in the equity of Greeks, Qui maledictis insectantur eos, à quibus de veritate dissentiunt: Shameful Reformation! Hireling Priest! O shameful scurrility! I say not [...], or bona verba quaeso; possibly your canine eloquence would break you, if it had no vent. For my part, I have no list to bark again at so angry a Cur; had I any such custom or minde, I could say with Jerom, Possum remordere sivelim, Ad Dominon. ep. l. 2. possum genuinum den­tem laesus infigere. But I say onely consider with whom the Apo­stle araigneth revilers, 1 Cor. 6.10. and what is the root of rail­ing— Perverse disputings of men of corrupt mindes, and destitute of the truth; and mark well, if in that glass, you do not dis­cern your own countenance.

That you wish for, Old Priests, and old Ecclesiastical Courts (that is, Popish) I easily believe, that herein you do not dis­semble: But if there be any such abuses, as you pretend; what is that to the cause of tything? doth an abuse by man, in your logick conclude, a just cause to take away the holy use of that which hath been abused? if that were so, how little good would be left us of all the Creatures of God? and what cruelty is it, Pag. 26. think you, severely and according to Law, to punish obstinate offenders, who can, but will not let go that, which they have robbed just owners of?

Next you stomack it, that some say Minsters have as good right to the tenth part, as the owner hath to the other nine.] [Page 58] which is most true: Consider for the better understanding hereof. 1. The common or civil right of men, which the Laws of Nations give, and confirm to every possessor bonae fidei, by purchase, discent, &c. this right to the creatures, a Turk or Pagan may have, in that determinate portion which he posses­seth. 2. The divine right which man had in his Creation, but lost in his fall, and utterly forfeited in the first Adams attain­dor; this was restored again to believers in the second Adam, Christ; of which he saith, 1 Cor. 3.22, 23. All are yours, and ye are Christs: This belongs only to the Elect. In both these kinds, we are to observe. 1. a Right common to any, so all or any may have a civil right to any kind of Creature. 2. A Right peculiar to some as being separated from the common Condition, by some special Act of Gods Providence, of which sort are Tythes given by him, to those, who serve about holy things, in his publick Worship: which being laid down, it may appear that Ministers of the Gospel have as good right to the Tenth or Tythe, as the owner hath to the other nine parts; if at least you will grant that God giveth as good right, by his divine donation, as any sale or assignment of man can make.

But you say— Yet am I not bound to pay them, &c.] True, if neither Laws of God, Pag. 26. Mark. 5.3. nor man can bind you; but that like the Masterless Gadaren, possessed of the Devil, you break Chains and Fetters, and no man can bind you; but if divine or humane Law can hold, you are bound to pay, and that by such a Bond, as no Laws, Decrees, Statutes or Dispensations of Man, can discharge you from; but to speak to them, whose Consciences tell them, that the Law of God is, and ought to be their rule. How posterity stands bound in publick Grants, Donations, Vows or Covenants, consider in the example of Israel and the Gibeonites, before mentioned; how in private legacies and bequeathments, the Apostle will inform you Gal. 3.15. Though it be but a mans Testament, yet if it be confirmed, no man disanulleth it. That is, no man ought to make it void by any violation thereof; but this belongeth to another question; our claim being grounded not on the assign­ment or grant of man, but on the revealed. Will of God, who [Page 59] commanded To give Tythes of all the encrease of their Land, &c. Numb. 18.21, 26, 30. And to make their Teachers partakers of all their good things, Gal. 6.6. Doth this bind men (think you) to pay the setled maintenance of Ministers Tythes Predial, Personal, and Mixt? Or are you resolved, to suspend your obedience to God herein, until you be delivered into the ever­holding Chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgment? Be well advised in time, for there will be no change in eter­nity.

And doth your next Supposition conclude it arbitrary, 2 Thes. 3. to work or live inordinately? Or were there not the like propositions, between Tythes and yearly values of the Lands, on which they grew under the Law, to any that can be pretended to? What sober man amongst you, ever grumbled at the nimietie of wealth? Who quarrelleth at the largeness of a Lords Estate, who is a Peer of the Land, or a Gentlemans, or Yeomans, as too much for him and his Family, except some lawless, impious Leveller? Though perhaps one of these Estates be fourty times more than the Ministers incom; and possibly the Laicks revenue is spent in Luxury, Debauchery, or Idleness at least, while the poor Minister is envied, and grudged his portion of Gods blessing, the Earths encrease, which he gives you with him, (that I may not say, for him) the Minister I say, spending many carefull hours Night and Day for your Souls Edifica­tion, Comfort and Salvation— Sudat & alget—like Jacob over Labans Flock at Padan-Aram, in the day consumed with drought, and by the frost in the night, and his sleep departeth from his eyes, Gen. 31.40.

You say, A tenth part of the encrease is generally more worth, than the Land on which it grows] What have you dwelt at Gerar, where Isaac reaped an hundred-fold in a Year? Or is it because you have little skill in the Georgicks? I am confident, that this one untruth would yield you a Million by the year, if you could make it true; but were it as you say, did ever much encrease of fruits make an exception in Gods grant of them, as that the Tythes should be holy to him and his ser­vice, and paid to the Priests of the Sanctuary, or Ministers of the Gospel; provided that they did not exceed such, or such [Page 60] a value? Methinks in reason, the more bountifully God giveth encrease of the Earth, the more willing men should be to ren­der him that part thereof, which he hath reserved (as it were a Lords-rent) unto himself, and his own service; and here excuse me, that I tell you your objections seem not much un­like the declamation of some ill-contrived Orator, so un­distinctly hudled out, that neither doth the Speaker well con­sider, nor the hearer easily understand what he saith, more then that, quod vult, valdè vult.

Your following Cavils and Cases, Pasturing and Stocking Land, Mal. 1.14. may shew, that you have craft enough to beguile the Minister of due maintenance; but cursed be the deceiver: and it were but lost labour, to teach others this skill, seeing that too many without your Magistery have enough of the knave already.

Pag. 28.Next you talk, Of new payment of Tythes, &c.] To which we answer, That payment of Tythes, is evidently as old as A­braham; and for ought you know, as Adam. To the rest of your Objections present, we say, Abusus non tollit usum; that which hath been abused by some, may yet be returned to the true service of God again. So the censers of the rebellious Israelites, made covers for the Altar of God; and truly the annexed reason is remarkable— For they were offered before the Lord, therefore they are hallowed, Numb. 16.38. And is not the same reason good for reducing Tythes (abused to super­stitious uses in former times) unto the present true worship of God, seeing they were hallowed, not by the dedication of a rebellious Corah, but by God himself; and that to his own holy service? And what els means our Saviour by the Parable of the strong mans Fort, Luk. 11.22. and reprizal of all his impropriated Vessels, but Christs overcoming Satan, and recovering the bo­dies and souls of his Elect, from his Power and Captivity? Body and Soul must perish eternally, if that alteration which is wrought in the sinner, by the Spirit of Sanctification, make him not acceptable and beloved of God, as a son, who was before his reconciliation by Christ, an enemy. How else saith the Apostle (speaking of many sorts of pollution by sin,— Such were some of you: Rom. 5. [...] Cor. 6.10. but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but [Page 61] ye are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God: Upon the accompt of reducing that to a good use, acceptable to God, which hath been abused unto evil, we retain our Churches, and Oratories, and worship God in Spirit and in Truth therein, though they have been in times of Popery, houses of Idols, and Idolatry.

To your many following impertinencies, if I should follow you in your Wilde-Goose-Chase, I should tire the patient Read­er; therefore I onely adde, That there is much difference be­tween tythes of Mines, Quarries of Iron, Brass, Tin, Lead, Coles, and that which the Earths superficies brings forth, as Corn, Grass, Fruits, Wood, &c. though by your leave, all these are increases of the Earth; and therefore tythable. Sir Edward Coke, by you cited, limits his sentence, with a Till they be severed from the Land: So that though no tythe be paid of the Land, yet are they to be paid from the Land.

Your frequent talking of Popery, is but to make your in­cautious Reader believe, that you are no Papist; and that you may insinuate into the peoples mindes an odium against Mini­sters, whereas indeed in such seeming-opposition, you do your uttermost endeavor to bring in Popery.

You further say, When I bought my Land, I bought not the tythes, &c.] This you say, some object; to which you frame your answer: But we require our liberty to answer for our selves. Neither could you, nor any man buy out Gods part; for that no man had power to sell you: So that in your convey­ance, there needed no specification of Covenant for, or exemp­tion from a tenth part of the increase of the Land, that being presupposed payable by Gods reservation thereof unto his own service. What ever man buyeth or selleth, in point of com­mutative justice, Gods part cometh not within the compass thereof; neither can it be sold or alienated; neither can any sale or purchase of man lessen or impeach his right, or any part thereof, which he never granted to any but those whom he ap­pointeth to serve about holy things.

Next, you bravely say, I answer, Pag. 29. that I have already proved all Land is tythe-free, &c.] Indeed I think he meant it— Mag­nis tamen excidit ausis: Tell me now in sadness, who can free [Page 62] the earth from the charge of tythes, but that supream power of God, who gave them for an inheritance, unto those whom he designed to his publick service? Here we require your expli­cation of this term, Tythe-free; mean you this in respect of any Humane Law, Ordinance, Provision, or Prescription of Men thereto pretended? If so, it is to no purpose, seeing, as hath been said, None but God hath power of giving or alie­nating tythes. Now, once again, we challenge you to shew us, where God in holy Scripture, ever repealed his Law of tyth­ing. Further we say, that all the habitable parts of the Christian world, which yield increase, are tythable, and none exempted there-from, by Gods Law; in which, if you beat our ears, with a thousand beggings of the question, you shall never obtain it of us.

That you say, Tythes are a burden which the Pope laid on us,] Is a fallacious assertion; the Heathen could here teach you, that quod in divinis rebus sumes, Plaut. Mil. glor. sapienti lucro est: But God laid this duty on us, which you call a burden; and this grant of his, no Ordinance or Law of Man (though enjoyning the same duty) can more drown, than a Lease can a Fee-simple. Mans Laws are alterable, but the morality of Gods Law is not.

Next you talk of Theeves and Robbers] Whom you mean, I onely guess at, and say, Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione que­rentes? Clodius accusat maechos—What? great Theeves, make hue and cry after true men? you Church-Robbers, stealers of tythes (of whom you are at best, an a better) are the Theeves and Robbers, Mal. 3. in Gods judgment, if there be any such on these borders.

You say next, That you may by as good reason, be eased of your tythes, as of the Popes yoke.] Which is in effect to say, that you may as justly cast off Gods Law, as the Popes; is this Popery, ho? The reason offered as to the question, if formed, would appear to be a fallacia non causae pro causa. Your Land, you say, was purchased when the Popes authority lay heavy on this Land. That being cast off, you would infer, that we may with as good reason cast off tythes which he commanded to be paid: Yea, but consider a superior command and cause, I mean, a Divine in­forcing that duty of paying tythes (although the Pope had not at all commanded such payment) and your fallacy is dissolved.

[Page 63]You say, First to preach that tythes are due, Pag. 29. and then to limit them to Parishes, &c.] And why not? Gods Word warranting the one, and mans just accommodation requiring the other? Once again I say, as concerning Parishes, there is a parochial or particular dueness of tythes, or that of Parishes, to the Mini­ster there officiating in Gods publick service: And there is a general dueness of tythes, that is to say, of tythes to be paid to the body of the Ministry; which is by Gods providence distri­buted into several parochial Cures, where they are by the in­creases of the Earth, thence arising, to be maintained, that they may there preach the Gospel, and administer the holy Sa­craments, &c. unto the people there inhabiting.

You say again, That tythes were at first, as charity at most, as a freewil-offering of the owner.] This is an absurd falshood, and a shameless begging of the question; and you seem to dis­pute non ad idem; but circularly. Speak plainly; Do you mean, that Mans charity giving, and not Gods Law commanding, brought tythes to be the Ministers maintenance? If so, it is apparantly false, by Gods several commands to pay them to the Levitical Priesthood; wherein I suppose, you will not af­firm, that Mens charity was the first, or principal moving cause; or do you mean, that the freewil of man, in this busi­ness of tythes, preceded that command of God, as a cause the effect? or that posito Dei mandato, man did yield a free and chearful obedience, in paying tythes, as God had command­ed? Which voluntary act, was as Pauls preaching of the Gos­pel, such as that wo had been to him, if he had not done it? Express your terms and sense, and let us have no after-reckon­ings: We know that Gods Children yield a chearful and a volun­tary obedience; they do their duty commanded, not moillingly, grudgingly, or of necessity; and, 2 Cor. 9 7. 1 Pet. 5.2. 1 Cor 9.17. that God loves and rewards chearful obedience, and such are all acts of true Religion, volun­tary, not compulsory; the Spirit of God making us willing of un­willing; so carrying about our wills, and affections, as Astro­nomers say, the primum mobile doth the inferior orbs of Heaven in their Diurnal motion from East to West, contrary to their Natural motion, yet by an admirable influence, Citra violenti­am: So we can admit tythes paid by Gods servants, to be a [Page 64] free-will offering, respectu offerentis, but not ex parte praecipientis; as if man instituted, and paid them without Gods Command for the same; and as if they were works of Supererogation. We know, that in every good which we do, God worketh both velle & perficere: Phil. 2. we acknowledg, that they are not rightly performed by any pure Naturals of man, but of Gods free Grace, both Jubentis quod vult, & praestantis quod jubet. So Israel brought a willing Offering unto the Lord, every man and woman, whose heart made them willing, to bring for all manner of work, Exod, 35.29. which the Lord had commanded to be made by the hands of Moses. But our Adversaries would fain have it, that Tythes were but as some votive Obligation of the Owners, which they needed not to have dedicated or paid, ex­cept themselves pleased. This is the Witchess Herodias which they so ambitiously pursue, that they might once conclude an Arbitrary maintenance for Ministers: and do but mark the Circle, to which this mole is Conjured. Fain would they have Gods Ordinance undermined, and dissolved into such Imagi­nary Principles, as might bear this castle in the Air, that Tythes should henceforth, be only what men in Charity and Free-will would give their Ministers. Thank you for you kindness, gentle Sir. but get you Alms-men where you will, we are none of them. The Papist hath too much advantage already, in their large maintenance, open Presses for their Students Works, liberal Contributions for any advancement of his Cause; while our Presses are too much shut to good Studies, Contributions; rare is Honesty, and if the Jesuite could but yet more discourage us, by taking away the remainder of Ministers necessary main­tenance by Tythes, his work were done, and England undone. To the reverend Ministers, I entreat leave to say— If they be Prophets, and if the Word of the Lord be with them, let them now make Intercession to the Lord of Hosts, Isai. 27.18. that the Vessels which are left in the house of the Lord—go not to Babylon.

And now limit them (that is Tythes) to Parishes, &c.] That which you speak, Page 30. may pass muster among your Imper­tinences, as to the present question; concerning Parishes, I have already spoken; Gen. 14.18. here I only add, 1. That the first place of Scripture mentioning a Priest, mentioneth Tythes paid [Page 65] unto him. 2. The first place also wherein, House of God, Gen. 28. [...]8. [...]2 or Church is spoken of, there also are Tythes, the maintenance of the Priest-hood vowed to God; as some note by that name, whereby Parish-Churches were anciently called; that is, tituli—lapis iste quem posui in titulum erit Domus Dei: So Da­masus in the life of Evaristus Bishop of Rome. Anno 112. saith— hic titulos in Urbe Roma divisit Presbyteris: Platins. vit. E­va [...]ist. Onu­thrius compu­ [...]eth Anno 96. Concil. To. 1. Pag. 106. e [...]i. 1606. And the Nicen Council, c. 21, mentionth Parishes, as Carraza reciteth the Canons thereof, out of the second Epistle of Julius: So that by those divisions, the Congregations were assigned to such and such Churches, and the Tythes thence arising, belonged to the Ministers there serving, as hath been noted, from Gal. 6.6. what the Popes you speak of got of first-fruits, impropriate Tythes, &c. is a loss to our Clergy, and therefore not advi­sedly urged by you against them.

That which you further say, that— No man can prescribe to have Tythes, &c.] Were somthing against those who make prescription the ground of their claim, which concerns us not, who claim from divine donation.

Again you say— many may prescribe to be free from Tyithes, or part thereof] Consider of what value prescription can be against Gods unchangeable moral Law, and your second thoughts will tell you, that antiquity of error can never make any good Prescription. Christ yielded the Pharisaical glosses antiquity on their side, Math. 5.21. &c. ye have heard of old time, that it was said by (or to) them, &c. which he presently corrected with his— but I say unto you, &c. The rest of your following discourse savoureth strongly of your siding with the Popish party: as your stomaking the Title of the head of the Church, which we understand to be the supream Governor, under God, of inchurched men: neither is this, as you say here, The Kings new Authority, as the head of the Church. For what say we more therein, than Tertullian many hundred years since said— We honor (saith he) the Emperor as we ought—Ʋt hominem a Deo secundum— & solo Deo mino­rem—Sic enim omnibus major est, dum solo vero Deo minor est. In Scap. c. 2. I conceive that you are not to learn that Caput importeth a Chief, First, or Principal.

[Page 66]But you say, That all Arch-Bishops, Bishops, &c. were no longer to hold of the Pope, Page 30. but of the King; and not to claim their benefices by Title from the Pope, but of the King, by ver­tue of that Act of Parliament: and here the succession from the Pope was cut off and discontinued, &c.] A grief to all good hearts, think the Papists; But why should this trouble you, if you be none of them? What is this to us, who acknowledg neither dependance on, nor Succession from the Pope?

You say more— And so all their Right, Title and Claim, was and is at an end] What because the Popes donation is at an end, must Gods also be involved in the same ruin? How will that conclusion follow? The abuse and usurpation is taken away, ergo, the right use and just possession must down? Are Gods Laws, grounded on the Popes Decrees and Grants? I never yet heard that claimed by any of you: And what wilde Logick stands your discourse upon? Country-men, open your eyes, and let not these Wolves in Sheeps-clothing any longer beguile you; the Fox under a stupid Animal's skin, enough discovers his appetite to catch Geese, and to bring you and your Children into the miserable darkness of Popery and the Tyran­ny thereof. Consider before it be too late, how easily they will do it, if by taking away the Ministers of Christ from you, depriving them of lively-hood, they bring into their places, Popish Priests and Jesuits; if they get footing here again, their little finger will prove heavier than your Ministers loyns were to you; Tythes would not long suffice them.

John 9.21.Next yout talk of Impropriators Claim by purchase. Con­cerning one of them we only say, as the Parents of the once blind man answered the Jews, he is of age, ask him, he shall speak for himself. Here we thank you for your ingenuous Con­fession— those (you say) that sold him (Impropriations) had no good Title, neither can theirs be made good, which is derived from them.

Page 31. By which (you say) it doth plainly appear, that no man at this day, can claim Tythe of another, either by divine or hu­mane Right, &c.] If you speak of Impropriate Tythes, we have nothing here to do with them; If of Appropriate, we say, if begging the question would serve your turn, we would [Page 67] at once confess— actum est de decimis: but you are here come to the same point of your Circle, in evident begging the que­stion, saying— no man at this day can claim Tythes of another, either by Divine or Humane Right: prae clara verba, sed verba; What? Caesar's, Veni, Vidi, Vici? A singular faculty you seem to yourself to have; no sooner do you think a thing, but it must plainly appear to be so; but that we sufficiently know your quality of begging the question, we might think that some miles gloriosus were entred into the Scene, telling how many thousand flying Enemies he fetcht down with his limed Bar­bolts, and slew in one day. To the next we say, that we are not called to meddle with State-Interests; and concerning the Pope and his, we have here nothing to do; only we mark how the declining of the Pope's Supreamacy sticks in your Sto­mack.

Now (say you) to plead for such wages of unrighteousness] You dare call Gods Donation, wages of Ʋnrighteousness; Page 3 [...]. speak­ing as they who care not what, (though blaspemy) but how much they speak. To that which you say, concerning Priests receiuing Augmentations; I say, I know no Priest so much favoured here, I know some reverend Ministers who are.

Which (you say) they may as well take away (meaning Gleb-land) as their predecessors did the revenues of Abbeys and Monasteries] Yet your selves confess, Page 33. that they were the Hives of lazy Drones. We wish that in their just dissolution, they had been better imployed; but affirm that none can ju­stifie the taking away things consecrated to Gods service; but you constantly grumble at the decay of Popery; we wish that your vizard were pulled off, that speaking bare-faced your in­cautious reader might discerne, on which side you are.

Whose Tythes (you say again) are often as much worth as the Land] I once heard one, Page 34. who being censured for repor­ting a gross untruth, replied, that he had told it so often, that his self began to think that it was true. But I hope you here speak Philosopher-like— ex aliorum sententia, not your own, but others opinion.

— Forthwith throw away Tythes, &c.] We thank you, as much as though we did, and shall think of your Motion.

[Page 68]You say— So long as they continue, there can never be any possibility of raising maintenance in such places] If you mean so long as impropriations continue, &c. per nos, alia pax esto; if otherwise, your argument hence derived, as to the taking away Tythes, is very feeble, being a fallacia non causae, pro causâ. For what hinderance can paying and receiving of sythes be to those places, where none are payable as praedial, as in Towns and Cities, wherein are no fields? But consider you that fear God, what Azariah acknowledged. 2 Chron. 31.10. Since the people began to bring the Offerings (with their Tythes, as appears there, v. 5, 6.) We have had enough, for the Lord hath blessed his people: which was according to that which God speaks, Mal. 3.10. Bring ye all the Tythes into the Store-house—and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

Next you ask concerning Towns and Cities, or Lands Im­propriate, where there is no competency of maintenance by Tythes— Must they never have an able Minister? Have they no share in our Gospel, because they have no maintenance? I an­swer, the cause why such as you specifie have no greater share of our Ministers pains, is not so much because they have no maintenance, as because they will have none; while Gadaren-like they value their swine, or temporal interests, more than the Gospel. And now think you that they do not put the Word of God from them, and judg themselves unworthy of ever­lasting life; not only who contradict the Word when it is preached, but they also who take a course, that it may never be preached unto them? I speak of them, who dwelling in populous Towns and Cities, will not agree together to levy some such means for the support of an able Minister, as may keep him alive, and enable him to the service of God. But to pass by this fault of Towns-men and Citizens, &c. we can justifie by thousands of witnesses, that the Gospel hath been powerfully and diligently preached in sundry Towns, by able Ministers, where no maintenance was either raised by any Im­propriator, or otherwise could be by any appropriated Tythes, [Page 69] there growing, I will add without any reward of their pains, either retributed by the auditors, or expected by those preachers.

You demand again — Have you not a more righteous Rule?] What than that, which Gods Word prescribed? This and your following farrago libelli, may be satisfied with this answer, that it is a dangerous thing to account a mans self more wise than God, and a foolish presumption to endeavour any amendment of his Ordinances; needs must he find his human wisdom foolishness, who opposeth it to divine. Your objection from the inequality of paying, is vain; for who can be ignorant that there were inequalities of Estates under the Law, or that every man was bound to pay according to that which he had, not ac­cording to that which he had not? Your following cavils are more suitable to the gallfull pen of some apostate Julian, or jeering Lucian than the writing of any professed Christian.

To that which you say, of Throwing away Tythes as an old relique of Popery] We answer, that when you have proved them to be such, you may have some ground for such a motion; till then we require your patience, if we hold fast Gods Or­dinance, and the Ministers just maintenance.

Further you say, Halt no longer between two, &c.] Aeschylus Ja­sonem ebrium (n scena quâ­dam) induxi [...], quo vitio labo­raba [...] ipse po­eta tragicus, comentitus He­roas. Athenae. l. 10. c. 7. We must tell you Sir, here you entitle us to your own faults, as that drunken Poet Aeschylus did the noble hero Jason, and other Grecians to his own vices; 'tis you who halt between Papist and a Schismatical pretender to Reformation. So Ahab would have put the crime of troubling Israel, on the Prophet of the Lord: as for us, God knows that our souls desire is to cleave stedfastly unto him and his sacred Ordinances; and we have not yet temporized (as too many have done) God preserving us in our suffering of hard things; Is this halting with Sir Gre­gory Nonsense?

Next you talk of A more Gospel-like way of maintenance, &c.] To which 'tis easily answered, that not only you, but no Crea­ture, Men or Angels of Heaven, can prescribe a more Gospel-like way, than that which God hath appointed, and Christ ap­proved.

The light which you talk of, we own not for such, who have a more sure word of Prophesie, unto which as unto light, that [Page 80] shineth in a dark place, we attend until the day dawn—As for those ignes fatui of Mens inventions, we neither value them, nor find any cause to follow them.

Next you speak of a way to establish the Nation upon a sure foundation of true freedom, as to the conscience] We say, 1. Use not your Liberty for a cloke of malitiousness. 2. Be­ware that you be not of their number, of whom the Apostle speaks, 1 Pet. 2.16. 2 Pet. 2.18.19. who when they speak great swelling words of vanity—while they promise them liberty, they themselves are the ser­vants of corruption. 3. If you dissemble not, but bear good will to your Countries freedom, and good conscience; we cannot but pitty the seeming disproportion between your zeal and knowledg, as we would pitty to see mettle in a blind jade.

Jer. 15.19.As for giving content to separate Congragations, our rule is the same which, God of old gave the Prophet — Let them return unto thee, but return not thou unto them. And as for sa­tisfying such as are self-excommunicate, and divided from the womb of the Church, we pitty them, but must leave them to Gods tribunal: for our selves we have learned of the Apostle, Gal. 1.10. If I yet please men, I should not be the servant of Christ. That on which you spend your Rhetorick about con­tention for Tythes, as if that were a sufficient cause why they should be taken away, is very childish. Tell me, have there not been, and still are many bloody contentions about the prea­ching of the Gospel of Christ? What, would it be a sure foundation of true freedom, as to the conscience, to obey the command of those Rulers, Elders and Scribes, Annas, Cai­phas, &c. Not to speak at all, Act. 4.18. nor teach in the name of Jesus? Is it your best prescript for the cure of the head-ache, to cut off the head? medice cura teipsum. But seriously, your argu­ment is a fallacia accidentis, a wholsom way were for the peo­ple duly to pay and set out their Tythes according to Laws divine and humane. I conceive that no man would be so ill-advised, as to sue for his right, if he might have it without trouble and charge of Law.

That you say, Paying unreasonable, &c.] You speak like your self. But doth paying Tythes hinder Tillage, and the staff [Page 81] of bread as you pretend? Here is again another fallacia ac­cidentis, if that be true which you say; or a fallacia non causae, pro causa, if false. It is not paying of Tythes, which is the obstruction to plenty, but mens unbelief; God himself saying, Prove me now if I will not—pour you out a blessing, &c. Mal. 3.10. Of what kind? Of the encreases of the Earth? And what is the condition to which that promise relateth? Is it not paying Tythes, and leaving their Sacriledg?

Let no man (say you) henceforth think it strange, &c.] We shall not think it strange, that some men refuse to pay Tythes, while there is a Devil to tempt them to Sacriledg; nor wonder that some will pay Tythes, because we have a good God, who though he justly permit many to strong delusions, that they may perish, yet will he preserve his elect, and encline their hearts to obey his Laws and Ordinances, that it may be well with them, and theirs.