The Ministers Portion, Text

The Ministers Portion · Text

p. 11. Cor. 9.13, 14.

13Do yee not know that they which miniſter about the holy things, liue of the things of the Temple? and they which wait at the Altar, are partakers with the Altar?

14Evē ſo hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Goſpell ſhould liue of the Goſpell.

THis whole period of Scripture, from ver. 5. to 15. conſiſts of one diſcrete axiome, in ſumme this: Though I Paule hauehave power and right to liue at the charge of the Church, ver. 5. yet I hauehave not vſed that power, ver. 12. the reaſon whereof he giues; Leaſt hee ſhould hinder the Goſpell of Chriſt, through ſuſpicion of mercenary. Affection in preaching. Now for that it might be queſtioned whether he had any ſuch right or no, hee avowes the truth of his title; by arguments à genere, he was an Apoſtle & preacher of the Goſpell, ver. 1. Ergo had right. 2. prevē tingly, à pari, in the practiſe of others; ver. 5.6. as well as Peter &c. And for that the claime might not ſeeme equall betwixt Paule and Cephas and the Lords brethren, he ſheweth that to every miniſter of the Goſpell, maintenance is due for their worke ſake. By reaſons, 1. From voice of nature and conſent of nations in other ſemblant imployments▪ as who goes to war, &c. ver. 7. 2. From mandate of the law of God. Saith not the law of God the ſame, &c. ver. 8.9.10. 3. From excellency of bleſſings conferred by Miniſters, cōpared with qualitie of things exacted for recompence; If we ſowe ſpirituall things &c. p. 2ver. 11. 4. From allowed practiſe of Leviticall miniſtery, ver. 13. Laſtly, from expreſſe ordinance of Chriſt, the Lord hath ordained, &c. ver. 14. this the frame of the text.

Out of all which amounts this plaine Apoſtolicall concluſion; That maintenance is due from people to Miniſters for their worke ſake. Other proofes then are here ſet downe, it is needleſſe to vſe. Wee hauehave here more then two or three witneſſes, fiue ſound reaſons inforcing it. The bare word of an Apoſtle is enough to carry a point more doubtfull. How much more ſhould it ſway with vsus, when Gods ſpirit that ſpake in them, is pleaſed by ſo many reaſons to avouch it? Is it not then a ſound tenēt (trow we) of ſome, that Miniſters maintenance is meer almes? and that in iuſtice, and as due, they can challenge nothing for their labour in the word and doctrine?

1 Where then is Paules foreign, his right, lawful power and authoritie, to receaue maintenance from the people, v. 4▪2? How ſaith our Saviour, they are worthie of their hire, aaLuk 9 7.Luke 9:7Paule worthy of double honour bb1. Tim 5.17.1 Tim 5:17? 3 What great thing was this that Paule did in taking no maintenance, ver. 12.15? By theſe mens divinitie he had right to none.

2 And what ods is there betwixt this beggerly concluſion of thoſe old beggers, and that of late ſeparats, that make it Chriſts ordinance for Miniſters to liue of their peoples voluntary contribution; and hold it as Chriſts owne Canon, that no ſet maintenance ſhoulde be allotted vsus, no not by humane ordinance, but the people left at liberty to giuegive or not to giuegive, to giuegive much or little, otherwiſe then ſelfe devotion ſhall incline them? May I not ſay of this and the former as Ioſeph of Pharaos dreames,ccGen 41.25.Gen 41:25 the dreames are one? Words p. 3onelyonly hauehave made a variation. Miniſters muſt liue of the peoples voluntary contribution: me thinkes I heare S^t Pauls tenour for almes,dd2. Cor. 9.7.2 Cor 9:7 As every man wiſheth in his heart ſo let him giuegive. Their reaſons had need be pregnāt: let vsus view them. 1. Forſooth the Apoſtles thus lived. Reſp. J yeeld it of ſome of them: yea ſometimes made their own hands miniſter to their neceſſities: why force they vsus not to mechanicall trades? For ſo lived ſome Apoſtles. But 1 they had power to exact maintenance, ſith they had rightee1. Cor. 9.4, 51 Cor 9:41 Cor 9:5 to hauehave it. 2, Occaſionall practiſe binds not to imitation, but in occurrence of like occaſions When ſcandall inforceth to forbeare exaction, we will herein follow their holy example, leaſt by any meanes we hinder the Goſpell; ver. 12. and farther then this, their example vrgeth not.

Their ſecond reaſon is this: becauſe it muſt be ſeene that what the people giuegive this way, they giuegive of louelove, not for feare of the law. Reſp. and it muſt bee ſeene that the people ffPſ. 110.3.Ps 110:3come willingly at the daies of aſſembling. Therefore Magiſtrats may not compell by autoritie to ſerue the Lord asgg2. Chr. 34.31 32.33.2 Chr 34:31 good Ioſiah did, for now they beare the ſword in vaine. But thus J reaſon and ſo leaue them.

To every duty Magiſtrats may bind by lawe, & compel by puniſhment. Yeelding maintenance to Miniſters is a dutie. Therefore thereto may Magiſtrates binde by lawes. Miſerum eſt (ſaith the Poet) alienâ vivere quadrâ: if for any, miſerable; ſure moſt for a miniſter. This if any thing, breeds right trencher Chaplens, & would ſoon fill the Church with ſweet tongued & mealemouthed preachers.

3 I may not leaue vtterly vntouched our peoples, p. 4whether ignorant or affectionate errour: that thinke of their payments to Miniſters, as of almes to their beadſmen; forſooth we liue by them. I ſay no more but this, 1, Ifhh1. Cor. 9.11.1 Cor 9:11 we by them in carnall things, they by vsus in ſpiritual. Is the barter ſo hard as ſhould occaſion exprobratiō? 2. Not by you but by the Lords ordinance ii1. Cor. 9.14.1 Cor 9:14ſaith the Apoſtle.

And that Lord that hath given to the people the nines; hath allotted to vsus (audacter dicam) the tenthes as ours.

4 J would faine leaue this reproofe, but that J ſee the errour hath wound it ſelfe into the minds of many of holy profeſſion and practiſe, who yet delight to hauehave Miniſters acknowledge a debt, even for receit of dues; and deſire to hauehave conſcience free from all bonds more then of humane lawes, in this matter of recompencing our labours. Jf ought come elſe more then law or cuſtome, if but a cup of cold water; they ſupererogate ſurely in reſpect of the Miniſter. They much forget who ſaid,kkPhilemō. 19 thou oweſt vntounto me even thy owne ſelfe.

And of the generall thus farre. Now the inquiry J take it, is not impertinent here; ſith maintenance is due to Miniſters for their worke ſake, what portion or quā titie that is, that by Gods ordinance belongs to them. And me thinkes in a dutie ſo generally, though plainely taught, the conſcience of the hearers ſhould deſire a more particular direction. Yee will therefore (I hope) giuegive leaue ſomething more particularly to examin the matter. And herein J hold it not amiſſe, firſt to propoūd what is yeelded on all ſides, where is any ſoundneſſe of iudgement. 2. Then to adde ſome other principles, as p. 5plainely taught in the Scriptures of the new Teſtamēt. Laſtly to enquire and reſolue of the particular.

The grants on all ſides are theſe. 1. That there is a maintenancehh1. Cor. 9.4, 5 ad 15.1 Cor 9:41 Cor 9:5 in iuſtice due to Miniſters and their families for their worke ſake.

2 It is yeelded that it muſt be competent; not only for ſupply of naturall neceſſities, but for their furniture to every good work of their calling.

3 That it muſt bemm1. Tim. 5.17 18.1 Tim 5:17 liberall; not ſuch as every niggardly minde will iudge convenient and competent.

To which grants, let me adde theſe poſtulata, as plainely determined in the Scriptures.

1 That to the Miniſters of the Goſpell belongs a maintenance as large, as to the Leviticall Prieſthood; this me thinkes, excellencie of miniſtery,nn2. Cor. 3. 1. Cor. 9.2 Cor 31 Cor 9 and bleſſings conferred thereby, enforceth.

2 That this maintenance muſt riſe out ofnnGal. 6.6.Gal 6:6 all and every the goods of al and every of the people inſtructed.

3 Shall I adde another to me ſeeming more thē probable? that is, that the Lord hath as certainely provided for our maintenance vnderunder the Goſpel, as for theirs vnderunder the law. For had the Lord leſſe care of vsus? was there leſſe need in reſpect of the peoples backwardneſſe? no. But he entruſted magiſtrats with that care. Reſp. And were there not Magiſtrats among the Iewes?

4 That the Lord in the Leviticall law made proviſion for vsus that were to miniſter in the Goſpell. Its cleere by the Apoſtles twiſe alleaging that ordinance ofoo1. Cor. 9.9. 1. Tim. 5.18.1 Cor 9:91 Tim 5:18 not muzling the mouth of the oxe.

Thus farre I thinke we walke ſafely, ſith in the very ſteps of the holy Ghoſt leading vsus in the newe Teſtament. p. 6Let vsus now deſcend toward the particular.

Some tumbling downe headlong rather then deſcending, reſolue of a competency indeterminate; ſo the allowance be competent, all is well. Reſp. Then in caſe of this fancied competency, ſome of the inſtructed though wealthy perhaps, ſhall be exempted from the Apoſtles iniunction: for ſuppoſe ſome one or two of the well diſpoſed hearers, ſhall out of their privat, make a competent allowance; the reſt ſhall now reap our ſpirituall things, and not ſow their carnall. For as the ſaying is rife, enough in a miniſters maintenance, Enough is a feaſt: Gal. 6.6.Gal 6:6but ſaith the Apoſtle, Let him .i. every him that is inſtructed, make his inſtructer partaker of all his goodes 2. See concluſion ſixt; & duly weighing it, tell me whether thou find conſcience ſatisfied with this imaginary competency? For is there no certaine proviſion for Miniſters of the Goſpell, but this vncertaine competency? who ſhall iudge of it? Every man? mallem Cerberum metueres, as the Orator ſpeakes. The Magiſtrat? why would not the Lord leaue this to Iewiſh Magiſtrats? no not to Moſes, a man ſo gratious with him? and leaue it to magiſtrats vnderunder the Goſpell? 3. How hath he committed this to Magiſtrats? abſolutely or with limitation? if with limits, what are theſe bounds? forſooth a competency. Perceaue you not circling and meere vncertainties?

Leaue we this fancy, and ſee whether wee may find ſome other more certaine particular, to reſolue of. And ſurely when wee hauehave in vaine turmoiled our ſelues to avoid Iudaizing in this point of miniſters maintenance, we ſhall be forced at length to acknowledge Tenthes, p. 7which ſome call Jewiſh, to be the Miniſters appointed portion.

That the truth may the better appeare, J will propound the different opinions that J hauehave met withal in this point.

1 Browniſts in this queſtion thus peremptorily reſolue. That Tithes are ſo meerely ceremonious and Leviticall, that they cannot without betraying Evangelical liberty and diſavowing Chriſts Prieſthood, be retained as maintenance of Miniſters of the Goſpell. And how full ſoever of dotage this dreame may ſeeme: yet this J will ſay for them; They are madd with more reaſon a great deale, then any others which hold them ceremonies Levitical. Jf the aſſumption were true, their concluſion woulde ſoundly followe by doctrine of the Apoſtle. Gal. 4. & 5. Col. 2. &c.

2 Some others thinking them iudicials, reſolue; part, that they may be lawfully retained as the Miniſters ſtipend; part, that they are the moſt convenient maintenance can be allotted vsus.

3 A third ſort, that they are due by Gods law to Miniſters of the Goſpell; but theſe in explanation of them ſelues diverſly deriue them thence.

1. ſome thus: due by Gods law enioyning obedience to the magiſtrate in things lawfull and convenient. Theſe giuegive them no other ground in Gods word, then other humane ordinances.

2 Others, due by Gods law: in as much as the church (whoſe authoritie with them is divine) hath enioined their payment. So generally Papiſts.

3 A third ſort thus: due by Gods lawe; in reſpect of p. 8their conſecration to God, either by receaued cuſtome and conſent of Churches, or by donation of princes, or legacie of teſtatours. In which opinion I muſt needes profeſſe my ſelfe to hauehave beene long; and never to my knowledge of other; til of late being to deliver my iudgment to my people, J more purpoſely ſet my ſelfe to ſee what the truth was. And during that miſtake, I thus thought; that they could not without ſacrilege be alienated from their general end▪ my reaſons were theſe, 1 That J had found Salomon averring it to bee a qqPro. 20.25.Prov 20:25curſe to devoure holy things, and had ſeene the curſe exemplified on many. 2. That ordinance of the Lord J held morall & perpetuall,rrLevit. 27, 18, 19.Lev 27:18Lev 27:19 Nothing ſeparate from common vſe, no not of thoſe which man had ſeparated, might be againe vnhallowed, no nor redeemed. 3. That ſaying of the Apoſtle much ſwaied with me,ſſGal. 3.15.Gal 3:15 If it bee but a mans teſtament no man abrogats it .i. no man ought to abrogate it. And ſo much the more, for that being once an auditour of that iudicious divine M^r Perkins, whoſe memory is bleſſed; J heard him moue the doubt, whether things given to ſuperſtitious vſes, ſuppoſe to maintaine malmonging, might be alienated. And thus aſſoile to my remēbrance. That from the particular intention, wherein through ignorance they erred, alienation might be; but frō the generall ende, maintenance of Godes worſhip, they might not be aliened. Thus then & vponupon theſe grounds my concluſion is ſtill the ſame, though my media bee other, and ſomething more peremptory. Now becauſe it is a labour long and needleſſe to diſcuſſe every of the former differences (for the ſaying is true, verum eſt index ſui & obliqui:) J will firſt propound the concluſion p. 9with the explanation; 2. Proceed to confirmation; And laſtly annex ſolution of Arguments, ſuch as J hauehave met withall, having any ſhew of ground from the word of God, to overthrowe the concluſion.

The Concluſion in few words is this. Tithes are the portion, at leaſt part of that portion, by Gods word allotted to Miniſters for their ſervice in the goſpell.

By Tithes vnderſtande the tenth part of all the hearers increaſe:ttPro. 3 9.Prov 3:9 particulars may be read, Levit. 27.30. & alibi. In a word to vſe the diſtinction of Canoniſts, whither they be perſonall, of induſtry, negotiation; &c. or prediall, as of grounds, &c. or mixt, as of cattell: the tenthes of the whole encreaſe, not thoſe of Cumin & Aniſe excepteduuMat. 23.23.Matt 23:23, fal within compaſſe of our ſubiect.

1 Of Tithes amongſt Iews we may finde fowre ſorts diſtinguiſhed by their ends. 1. ſome, which for diſtinction ſake, we may call ſtipendary, aſſigned to Levits for recompence of their ſervice. Numb. 18.24.

2 A ſecond ſort which wee may call ſacrificatory: Tithes for ſacrifice. Some cal them Decimas ſecūdaneas, ſome Decimas decimarum: a tithe of the Levits Tithes to be given to Aaron, as an heaue offring vntounto the Lord. Numb. 18.28.

3 A third kinde you may ſtile Convivales, banquetting or feaſting tithes, appointed for ſolemne feaſtes at their generall aſſemblies to Ieruſalem, Deut. 14.22, 23.

4 The laſt ſort may be tearmed Eleemoſynariae. Some call them decimas pauperum, a tithe which for reliefe of the poore, widdowes, ſtrangers, &c. were every thirde yeare to be ſet out of their goods, ever and aboue the other annuall tithes, Deut. 24.29.

p. 10This diſtinction of tithes I thought good to mentiō out of the Leviticall law: though this I profeſſe, not to claime our tithes by the mandate given in lawe Leviticall.

Now our queſtion is, only of thoſe tithes which we called ſtipendary; the reſt being two ſortes of them apparently ceremonious; the third as plainly a iudicial ordinance. And of thoſe tithes ſtipendary, this is that we affirme, that by the word of God they belong for ever to Miniſters of holy things, and therefore in theſe daies to Miniſters of the goſpell, who alone hauehave now to do with publike miniſtrations of the worſhip of God.

Our reaſons are theſe: firſt grounded on Heb. 7.6.8. He whoſe deſcent is not coūted from them, receaved tithes of Abraham; and ver. 8. here men that die receiue tithes, but there he receaveth them of whom it is witneſſed that hee liveth. Compare Gen. 14.20.

The argument which this ſcripture affordeth, hath received much diſadvantage, by ſlender collection of many, thus only preſſing it; Tithes were paid to Prieſts before the Levitical law was given: therefore their paiment is foūded rather on morall then ceremoniall law. To which, anſwere is well given, that by as good inference, ſacrificing of beaſts may be proved a morality, ſith it alſo was in vſe before giving of the law by Moſes. That we may the better ſee the force of the Argument here given, let vsus a little conſider the frame and ſumme of the text.

The Apoſtle by occaſion of the peoples dulnes, having digreſſed from cap. 5.11. to cap. 6.20. returnes now to his purpoſe; namely to ſhew the excellencie of p. 11Chriſts prieſthood aboue that of Aaron, by avouching him a Prieſt after th'order of Melchiſedec. The concluſion is this: Chriſts prieſthood is more excellent thē that of Levi; or Chriſt is a greater Prieſt then any after Aarons order. The reaſon principall lyeth thus; He that is a Prieſt after the order of Melchiſedec is a greater Prieſt then the Prieſts after Aaron. But Chriſt is a Prieſt after the order of Melchiſedec, Ergo, &c. The minor hath firſt his proofe, 1. from a teſtimony of David, cap. 5.20. 2. frō that abſolute agreement betwixt Melchiſedec, & Chriſt: the partes whereof are theſe; 1. as Melchiſedec was king and Prieſt of the moſt high God, ſo Chriſt; 2. as Melchiſedec king of righteouſnes and prince of peace, ſo Chriſt. 3. as Melchiſedec his parents, kindred, beginning, and end of life are not recorded: ſo Chriſt, as man, with out father; as God, without mother, kindred, beginning, or end of life. Therefore Chriſt is truely a Prieſt after the order of Melchiſedec. ver. 1.2.3.

The maior remaines to be proved and that hath his proofe from ver. 4. to 11. the ſumme whereof is compriſed in this principall ſyllogiſme. If Melchiſedec be greater then Levi, then he that is a Prieſt after his order as Chriſt is; is greater thē Levi. But Melchiſedec is greater then Levi. Ergo, &c. minor proved, greater then Abraham greater then Levi. Melchiſedec is greater then Abraham. Ergo then Levi. minor proved: he to whom Abraham paid tithes, of whom he was bleſſed, is greater then Abraham. But to Melchiſedec Abraham paid tithes, & Melchiſedec bleſſed Abraham. Ergo is greater then hee, ver. 4.5.6.7.

A ſecond argument proving the greatneſſe of this p. 12Prieſt aboue thoſe of Aarons order, is laid down, ver. 8. A tithe taker .i. Prieſt, of whom its teſtified that he liues, is greater thē a tithe taker that dyeth. But the Prieſt after Milchiſedec is a tithe taker of whom its teſtified that he liveth; Levits take tithes and die. Ergo the Prieſt after Melchiſedec his order is greater then the Prieſts Leviticall. This is in my ſimple Logique the diſpoſition of the text. As for illuſtrations or amplifications by proſyllogiſmes, prolepſes, or otherwiſe, I purpoſely omit them Now me thinks, the text thus naturally reſolved, there needs no farther deduction of the Argument; yet that the ſimpleſt may ſee what footing tithes hauehave here thus I collect it.

The portion due to Chriſts prieſthood, is due to Miniſters of the goſpell: but tithes are the portion due to Chriſts prieſthood. Ergo. The minor is thus proved.

The portion due to Melchiſedec his prieſthood, is due to Chriſts prieſthood; reaſon, 1. for that Chriſts Prieſthood and Melchiſedecs are the ſame; or Chriſt is a Prieſt after that order: 2. other things enunciated of Melchiſedec, are true of Chriſt eminently and alwaies: as its eminently and alwaies true of Chriſt, that he is king of righteouſnes and prince of peace; eminently and alwaies true of Chriſt, he is without parēts, without beginning and end of life, that he bleſſeth Abraham and al his ſeed, &c. All theſe are more properly verified of Chriſt then of Melchiſedec his type. Why not then alſo this ever true of him; he taketh tithes?

Now I aſſume. But tithes are the portiō due to Melchiſedec his prieſthood, yea ever due to that Prieſthood. For 1 they were paid by Abrahā to Melchiſedec, 2. in the p. 13Apoſtles Logicke; a Prieſt and receiver of tithes are equipollents. In ſteed of ſaying men that die are Prieſts; he ſaith, men that die receiue tithes: in ſteed of ſaying hee that liues is a Prieſt; he ſaith, he that liues takes tithes: as if in his iudgement tithes and prieſthood were as inſeparable as kingdome and tribute.

Now the maior of the principall ſyllogiſme if any doubt of, to wit, whether the portion due to Chriſt be due to Miniſters, let him compare 1. Cor. 9 14. where is the expreſſe ordinance of Chriſt, that Miniſters ſhould liue of the Goſpell; 2. who in likelihood ſhould bee his receavers, but theſe that are in his ſtead, as its ſaid of Miniſters, 2, Cor. 5.20? 3. Beſides the ſame reaſon which the Lord aſſignes of Levi his ſharing in things to him ſelfe reſerved and ſanctified, is true of Miniſters, or elſe of none.xxDeut. 10, 8.9Deut 10:8Deut 10:9 God is Levits portion .i. Gods portion is Levits portion, becauſe they were taken to Miniſter before him. Why not then alſo Chriſts portion Miniſters portion, becauſe they only are aſſumed to Chriſt to miniſter in the Goſpell? A reaſō for not tithing of ſo plain deduction out of Scripture, if any can bring mee, hee ſhall much ſway me to his ſentence.

This argument I remember once to hauehave propounded ſomething otherwiſe, to this purpoſe. The portion due to Prieſthood after Melchiſedec his order, is due to Miniſters of the Goſpell. But tithes are that portion. Ergo. And thus propounding it, I receaue theſe anſwers: the propoſition ſeemes vntrue, except you can proue your ſelues Prieſts after that order. Reſp. Wherto I thus anſwered; that though we be no Prieſts after that or let yet is there truth in the propoſition, ſith Chriſt the high p. 14Prieſt of our profeſſion to whome originally they belong, hath ordained vsus to liue of his portion.

A ſecond anſwer was by limitation; the portion due (by law) to that Prieſthood is due to Miniſters. But with that limitation the aſſumption is falſe, Abrahams payment being an act rather voluntary, then by any iniunction from God. But contra, that that act of Abraham was no act in this ſenſe voluntary, but rather an act of neceſſary and inioined duty, is evident (me thinkes) by theſe reaſons. 1. For that gifts voluntary proceeding from bountie or liberalitie, imply a ſuperioritie or excellency in the giuer aboue the receaver. ForyyAct. 20.35.Acts 20:35 its a more bleſſed thing, in that kind, to giuegive then to receaue. But Abrahams paiment of tithes was teſtimony of his inferiority. Againe the phraſe it ſelfezzHeb. 7.4.6.Heb 7:4Heb 7:6 implies as much: Melchiſedec tithed Abraham, ver. 6. a phraſe that looſeth all his emphaſis if no iniunction had ſubiected Abraham to a neceſſitie of being tithed. 3. What mean they whē they ſay of Abrahams tithing, that it was done without law? would they be vnderſtood of Abrahams fact onelyonly, or of tithing at large as it was in vſe before the lawe written? Now ſure I wonder how firſtaaGen 14.20.Gen 14:20 Abraham, and then after himbbGen. 28.22Gen 28:22 Iacob, ſhould fall vponupon a tenth rather then a ſixt or twelfth part, if there were nothing preſcribed in their times for tithing? 2. How proue they but probably that it was without iniunction of law? If this be the reaſon for that we finde no mention of any law to that end given: by as good reaſon may they ſay of ſacrifices, and ſundry other actions religious, that they were arbitrary; ſith we finde no expreſſe mandate given of them in thoſe times. But thus mee thinkes wee may p. 15better reaſon from their practiſe to an iniunction; theſe facts of theirs were approved of God, therefore not done without iniunction from him. And of this argument and cleering thereof thus farre.

The ſecond argument hath his ground, Galat. 6.6. 1. Tim, 5.17. Prov. 3.9. where we read thus; Let him that is inſtructed, make his inſtructer partaker of all his goods; & elders that rule well are worthie of double honour, eſpecially they that labour in the word and doctrine. And honour God with thy ſubſtance, and with the chiefe of all thine increaſe. Out of which Scriptures, thus we reaſon. If there bee a portion to be ſet out vntounto God and his Miniſters, out of all and every the temporall goods of every one inſtructed, and no certaine portion to bee found in ſcriptures but tithes: then are tithes the portion allotted by Gods word to Miniſters for their ſervice. But there is a portion to be ſet out vntounto God and his Miniſters out of the temporall goods of every one inſtructed, and no other certaintie mentioned in ſcripture but tithes. Ergo tithes are the portion allotted by Gods word to Miniſters for their ſervice.

The conſequence of the propoſition depends vponupon this ground, that ſome certaintie is by ſcripture allotted vntounto Miniſters for their ſervice. Hereof if any demand proofe let him conſider theſe. Firſt, for that the Lord allotted a certaintie vntounto firſt borne and Levits: & thinke we it probable hee would leaue Miniſters of the Goſpell at randome to a competencie indeterminate? 2. Jn other caſes this argument goes current. The Lord preſcribes for the old Tabernacle all things neceſſarie even to the Beſome and Aſhpan; not a pin in the Tabernacle, p. 16but what hath his preſcript from God. Now ſurely of this we may ſay its not a pin, but even a Clavus Traba…is, one of the maſter nailes in our Tabernacle. And thinke we his word ſo ſufficient and abſolutely exact for all neceſſary preſcripts, yea circumſtances concerning worſhip, government, any thing: and this only, a matter of ſo great conſequence, left vnpreſcribed?

Laſtly, if no certaintie in this kind can bee found in Scripture, how wilt thou be able to ſhare out vntounto God his portion in faith? ſo that thou maiſt bee able to ſay, I hauehave giuen the Lord that portion of my goods which he requireth of me? Forſooth the Magiſtrats determination ſhall in this point bee the levill and rule of faith. Reſp. 1. Then muſt thou bee able to ſhewe that the Lord hath made Magiſtrats in this point his Carvers, which is vnlikely vt ſupra: 2, Suppoſe Magiſtrats make no proviſion, where is then the direction for thy faith? 3. Suppoſe they ſhall aſſigne Micah his allowance: wilt thou therewith be content? Then ſure al our lay perſons, our Micahs, hauehave faith well guided, conſciences rectified; ten ſhekels of ſilver, ccIudg. 17.10.Judg 17:10and a meales meat, and livery, they afford Sir Iohn. In faith thinke wee? ſurely according to Magiſtrats proviſion. And why blame we any more, impropriat perſons for ſo ſcāt allowance? perhaps becauſe not competent. Yea but the Magiſtrate thinks it competent. And that is in this caſe the line of faith▪ credam? non ſi mihi &c.

Touching the minor, for the firſt part ſee 1. Cor. 9.11. Prov 3.9. Gal. 6.6. in which place yee hauehave it in ſo many termes. Let him that is inſtructed, make his inſtructer partaker of all his goods. For the ſecond branch of it; that no p. 17other portion certaine is to bee founde in ſcripture; I meane which hath not an apparent ſignification of ſomething peculiar to that ſtate of the people vnderunder Levi, as firſt fruits, ſhare of other ſacrifices: wil appeare to any man, that wilbe pleaſed to enter induction of particulars. And may I not then conclude Tithes are the portion allotted vsus by the word of God? Yea what if I ſhoulde ſay even tithes are in ſome of theſe places more then obliquely pointed at? What meanes the Apoſtle to call for maintenance vntounto Miniſters vnderunder the terme of double honor?dd1. Tim 5 17.18.1 Tim 5:171 Tim 5:18 for that by honor he there meanes maintenance, the reaſon annexed will make a blinde man ſee. Surely S. Hierome having delivered his iudgement of that place, Mal. 3. Bring all my tithes into the ſtorehouſe, in theſe tearmes Eccleſiae populis praeceptum eſt dare decimas, alleageth preſently this place for proof, 1. Tim. 5.17. Elders muſt hauehave double honor. Againe what meanes the Apoſtle by that Epithete (double) honour? ſay ſome, double .i. large and liberall; but why double rather then treble, if he meant large, at large? Doth he not rather in that Epithet ſend vsus to conſider of thateeNumb. 8.16.Num 8:16 double portion of the firſt borne in whoſe roome Levi was aſſumed? And that which made their portiō double, was in part tithes, as ſhall hereafter at leaſt probably appeare vntounto vsus. Proceede we to a third reaſon which is grounded on Levit. 27.28. Prov. 20.25. Rom. 2.22. Mal. 3.8. where we read thus, Every thing ſeparate from common vſe, is moſt holy vntounto the Lord. And it is a ſnare to devour holy things, & after the vow to inquire. And thou which abhorreſt Idols, committeſt thou ſacrilege? And yee hauehave robbed me. Out of which places thus we reaſon. The portion p. 18which hath bin ſeparated from common vſe, to mainetenance of Gods worſhip vnderunder the new teſtament, is the portion allotted by the word of God to Miniſters for their ſervice.

But tithes are the portion, at leaſt part of the portiō ſeparate from common vſe to mainetenance of Gods worſhip vnderunder the new teſtamēt. Ergo &c. The maior is thus proved; becauſe the detainement or alienating of things ſo conſecrated, is ſacrilege. That this may the better appeare, it wilbee worth the while to conſider briefly what ſacriledge is: which out of M^r Zanchius Vrſine, and others, we may thus briefly deſcribe: Sacrilege is the taking away of things ſacred .i. deputed to holie vſes, or the maintenance of the worſhip of God. The matter about which this theft is converſant, are things conſecrated to God; of which there are two ſorts: ſome which God himſelfe either by reſervation, or expreſſe mandate, hath hallowed vntounto himſelfe; ſome which man hath hallowed and ſeparated from common vſe. of both read Levit. 27.28.29.30. Now that which makes vp the nature of ſacrilege, is, the taking away or detaining of things thus hallowed, and returning them to common vſe. Thus then I reaſon, the detainement or alienating of any thing ſeparate from common vſe, is ſacrilege. But detainement or alienating of tithes, is the detainement and alienating of thinges thus ſeparate. Ergo

To the propoſition theſe anſwers I hauehave partly read, partly heard in conference. 1. Vnderſtand it ſay ſome of things which hauehave beene conſecrate by law. Reſp. 1. no word of God forceth to ſuch limitation. For even of p. 19voluntary and votary conſecrations both Moſes, Levit. 27. and Salomon, Prov. 20.25. ſpeake. And was it not free to Ananias to conſecrate or not, more then generall lawes of piety or charity might ſway him, Act. 5.4. whiles it remained was it not thine owne? And after it was ſold was it not in thy power, ſaid Peter? yet was Ananias his detainement ſacrilege by circumſtances of the text and conſent of beſt interpreters. He is taxed by Peter not only for lying, but for theeviſh and clancular ſurreption of part of the price, ver. 3. and, ſaith Beza interpreting the word, Ad ſacrilegium etiam acceſſit deffidentia & hypocriſis. ſee alſo Centuriat. Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. Ambroſ. ſer. 9. Dum ex eo quod promiſerat, partem ſubtrahit, ſacrilegij ſimul condemnatur & fraudis. Sacrilegij quod Deum in pollicitatione fefellerit: fraudis quod, &c: 2. but grant it with that limitation; wee ſhall anone ſee, that with that limit we may aſſume of tithes that they hauehave bin conſecrated.

A ſecond reſtraint ſome hauehave thus given to the propoſitiō; vnderſtand it ſay they, of alienating things conſecrated without error .i. to maintenance of true worſhip of the true God. Well, agreed; let it be ſo limited, though with faire probability and conſent of no ſmall clarks, we might contend the contrary. Keckerman: Syſt. Polit. lib. 1. cap. 21.princeps iure non poteſt res ſacras & bona cultui divino etiam in genere deſtinata, etiam ea quae ſuperſtitioſo cultui ſerviunt, in vſum profanum tranſferre. But grant the limitation: can we not aſſume thus much of Tithes, that they hauehave bin conſecrate to maintaine pure worſhip of the true God?

Thirdly vnderſtand it ſay ſome, with theſe exceptions. p. 201. Except in caſe of the churches ſuperfluity; & this exception hath this ground; contentment with neceſſaries is required of Miniſters; for Moſes cries ſufficit at the building of the tabernacle: Reſp. What word of God or ſoūd reaſon giues liberty to alien ſeeming ſuperfluities of Miniſters rather then of other ſubiects? contentment with neceſſaries being equally required of all. And Moſes ſtaies addition of more; returnes or aliens nothing of what was brought by the people, no not though there were an overplus. But ſecondly grant the propoſition with that exception; in what caſe, in what times may we not with that limit aſſume of tithes?

Their ſecond exception is when alienation is neceſſary for preſervation of the Church. Reſp. An vſe of ſuch goods for the time, may perhaps in that caſe bee allowed: perpetuall alienation, beſides facts of ſome men, nothing makes probable. The ſhew bread was made common to David & his company in extremitie: but might it therefore be perpetually aliened, ſuch neceſſitie ceaſing?

Their laſt exception, when Princes hauehave no other meanes to remunerate ſubiects, faithfull in common ſervices. Reſp. What, I wonder, in ſuch caſe laies open Church goods to the will of Princes, rather then the goods of common ſubiects? Thus I reaſon and leaue them: privat goods of ſubiects, Magiſtrats may not alien from them for recompenſe of ſervants, much leſſe may the Lords portion bee transferred to ſuch vſes. See Gen. 47.22.

Thus then the propoſition is cleere as it was propounded: let vsus grant it with theſe limits or ſo many of p. 21them as hauehave any ſhew of reaſon to ſupport them. And thus conclude. The detainment or alienating of things by law conſecrated to pure worſhip of the true God, without ſuperfluity, anie longer then neceſſitie requires is ſacrilege. But tithes hauehave been by law conſecrated to maintenance of pure worſhip of the true God, are not ſuperfluous, and now no ſuch neceſſitie of their alienation. Ergo their detainment is ſacrilege.

The fourth reaſon followes. Whatſoever duty preſcribed in the word of God not either ceremoniall or Iudiciall, that is vndoubtedly of perpetuall obſervation. But payment of tithes is a duty preſcribed in the worde of God, and is neither ceremoniall nor iudiciall. Ergo of perpetuall obſervation. The propoſition I thinke none will doubt of, ſith there is no duty preſcribed in the word of God which fals not vnderunder ſome member of this diſtribution, and only Iudicials & ceremonies were temporary.

See we therefore whether our aſſumption for both parts of the predicate may bee avowed. And firſt that this is no dutie ceremonious; theſe reaſons evince. 1. Ceremoniall ordinances were all ſhaddowes of things to come, the body whereof is Chriſt. This no ſhaddow of things to come, for where is the body which this ſhadowed? ſome, who yet will hauehave it no ceremony but a iudiciall, frame this ceremonious reſemblance. The number of ten is a number of perfection, and by paying in this number, as by a ſigne, the offerer makes proteſtation of his owne imperfection, & of his expecting perfectiō in Chriſt. Prettie too too. Others thus, they were paid in ſigne of thankfulneſſe; others, in ſignum vniverſalis p. 22Dominij. Twentie ſuch like, a tolerable wit woulde deviſe: but can they ſhew vsus theſe ſignifications or ends of payment in the Scripture, even but obſcurely ſo much as by alluſion intimated? J dare ſay no, nor any other end, no not of their payment to Levits, but maintenance and recompenſe for their ſervice.

2 All ceremonies hauehave an analogicall reſemblance of the things they ſignified. Therefore calledffCol 2.17.Col 2:17 ſhaddows of things to come, becauſe that as the ſhaddowe carries though a darke, yet ſome reſemblance of the body whoſe ſhadow it is; ſo ceremonies of Chriſt: therefore tearmed alſoggHeb. 9.23. Gal. 4 9.Heb 9:23Gal 4:9 ſimilitudes of heavenly things, being ordained by their very ſemblances to teach the rude. This hath no Analogicall reſemblance either of imperfection, or thankfulneſſe, or Gods vniverſall dominion. For who can, J ſay, not only avow his frame, but even frame it except abſurdly? GiueGive vsus ſuch an analogy of this as we are able to ſhew of others, wee will then beleeue their payment, to hauehave beene levitically ceremonious. Of ſprinklings and purifyings, of Tabernacle, of Arke, of Propitiatory, of high Prieſt (and indeed of what not, that was truly a ſhaddow of heavenly things?) we finde their analogie in the word of God. For inſtance, ashhHeb. 9.7.2.Heb 9:7Heb 9:2 high Prieſt amongſt the Iewes alone entered into the holy of holies not without bloud: ſo Chriſt into heaven, &c. Can thoſe that ſo confidently avow tithes to hauehave been ceremonies, thus drawe out the ſimilitude betwixt thē and heavenly things?

3 Whatſoever ordinance was before leviticall lawe, not foreſhadowing Chriſt, that is no ceremonie. But payment of tithes ſuch.iiHeb. 14 & 28 & Col. 2 Heb. ….7. &c.Col 2 Ergo. No leviticall ceremony p. 23may be vſed after publiſhing of the Goſpel.Reclamante mundo, libera voce pronuncio ceremonias Iudaeorum & pernitioſas eſſe, & mortiferas chriſtianis. Hierom. epiſt. Auguſt. 11…. (The ſchool men ſay well, Iudicialia poſt Chriſtum be mortua, becauſe they bind not: ceremonialia, mortifera; their very reviving vnlawfull and deadly.) But payment of tithes, by conſent of all, except Browniſts, may be retained. Ergo.

5 J finde not that the Lord in propheticall ſcriptures taxeth ſo much the omiſſiō of ceremonies, or exacteth in ſo ſtrict tearmes their performance, as hee doth this of titheskkMal. 3 9.Mal 3:9. Something J finde of their faultie performance; ſomething, of their ſticking in them with neglect of moralities: and this to me is a preſumptiō, they were other then ceremonies.

Laſtly J never read Chriſt ſpeak ſo much of any Jewiſh ceremonie, as he did of tithes;llMat. 23.Matt 23 theſe things ought you to hauehave done. Though J confeſſe, as much might hauehave beene ſaid of ceremonies during thoſe times. All theſe conſidered, may J not conclude of tithing, it was no ceremonie? See wee whether perhaps it were a iudiciall, concerning only the nation of the Iewes, and founded on equitie particular to that people. This is indeed the olde tenent of Papiſts. But 1. ſay ſome, Judicials were all of duties from man to man. This ordinance of holy things to be done to God. Therefore not iudiciall.

But what, trow we, imagine Papiſts to bee the civill equitie of this ordinance, particularly concerning the nation of the Jewes? Forſooth ſaith Bellarmine out of Thomas, the tribe of Leui being but the tenth, or at moſt the twelfth or thirteenth part of the Jews: tenths muſt be theirs that equitie may be kept, and that tribe hauehave no greater portion then the reſt. Reſp. 1. But it is wel anſwered that this end of their aſſignement to Levi, hath p. 24no mention in Scripture: they are given to Levi for recompence of this ſervice, as the Lords portion primarily, other end or reaſon of their aſſignation wee finde none. 2. If this were the ende of their allotment to Leui: ſurely the Lord much forgat himſelfe, that beſides the tenthes of all mens goods, would allot them ſhare in ſacrifices and vowes, and 48 Citties with Suburbes of ſo large circuit as we read, Numb. 35.4.7.

3 Be it granted, that this was ſome reaſon of their aſſignement to Levi: how concludes this the ordinance in generall? For the iniunction of tithing was as old as Abraham llGen 14.20.Gen 14:20, when was no place for partition of Gods people by tribes. And if this be all they hauehave to proue them iudicials. J ſhall craue pardon for ſubſcribing to their iudgement. Laſtly, yeeld them Judicials: yet if of common equitie, if confirmed by poſitiue law, if conſenting with law of nature, if ſerving to vphold morall duties; binds not the ordinance for ever? J conclude therefore, ſith neither ceremoniall nor iudiciall, or if iudiciall, yet of commō equitie: therefore their payment is perpetually to be obſerved.

The laſt reaſon (for I had rather giuegive reaſons by weight then number) is taken frō practiſe of the church in all times frō beginning of the world downe to theſe laſt daies of reformation: ever ſince God had a miniſtry in the world, tithes were their maintenance. Before the law, the firſt borne; then, the ordinary prieſts, received tithes.mmGen. 14.20Gen 14:20 For that, that Melchiſedec was Shē Noahs eldeſt ſon, at leaſt by priviledge, if not by birth, few queſtion, none diſproue: for the time vnderunder the law, is no queſtion. For Apoſtles times or much of them, the vſe of p. 25tithes, perſecutiō or ſcandale forced to be intermitted. Yet continued that Ius ever in them, and their inferior Presbyters. And therefore they vrge yeelding of maintenance, ſuch no doubt in their generall aime as was certaine by the word of God; ſuch as had bin in vſe: yea plead for portionnnGal. 6 6. 1. Tim. 5.17.Gal 6:61 Tim 5:17 of al goods; for double honour. After when God was pleaſed to graunt even but a little reſt, & breathing time to the Churches, preſently came tithes againe to be the Miniſters portiō. Cyprian whoſe martyrdome fel into the yeare of the Lord 259. according to Euſebius his computatiō,Epiſt. 66. amongſt other goods of the church, more then intimats tithes to hauehave bin cō mitted to Biſhops as generall ſtewards by whom they were diſtributed to inferiour Miniſters. VponUpon occaſion taxing Geminius Victor for appointing Geminius Fauſtinus a presbyter, overſeer of his will, and thereby occaſioning diſtraction from his miniſtery, ſets down by way of aggravation the courſe eſtabliſhed in the Church of God for preventing ſuch diſtractions in the miniſtry. As by Gods owne authority and diſpoſition, the tribe of Levi received tithes from the other tribes, &c. that they might by no meanes be called away, or cōſtrained to thinke or deale with things ſecular: the ſame courſe and order is now holden in the Church, Vt qui in Eccleſia Domini ordinatione clerica promoventur, in nullo ab adminiſtratione divina avocentur, nec moleſtijs & negotijs ſecularibus alligentur, ſed in honore ſportulantium fratrum tanquam decimas ex fructibus accipientes, ab altari & ſacrificijs non recedant, ſed die ac nocte caeleſtibus rebus & ſpiritualibus ſerviant▪ this mentions Cyprian as a courſe in his time received in the Church. In the ſame age a few p. 26yeares after was Dionyſius biſhop of Rome about the yeare 266.Cant. 3. cap. 10.Song 3 This man (as Platina in his life teſtifieth; and as himſelfe of himſelfe, in his epiſtle to Severus,) aſſigned ſeverall Churches to ſeverall Miniſters, as pariſhes, leaſt one Paſtor might defraud another:Gratian cauſ. 13. q. 1. the queſtion being then, not whether to any, but vntounto what church, tithes were to be paid. The concluſion extant at large in the body of the Canon law, with ſome reaſons (both moſt cōſonant to his decree;) it will not be amiſſe briefly to collect; becauſe it is of ſome vſe in this matter of tithes. That which is proved there, is, that tithes are payable to the baptiſmall Churches, and to the Miniſters there ſerving God, and miniſtring to the people. After many teſtimonies heaped vp togither, Gal. 6.6. 1. Cor. 9. at length it is concluded with this expoſtulation; Quis plantat vineam, &c. who plants a vineyard, & eats not of the fruit thereof? Nos plantavimus vineam, & vos vultis edere? Item praecepit Dominus per Moſem, vt nemo mittat falcem in alienam meſſem. Haec meſſis noſtra eſt, & vos vultis falcem in eam mittere? Item Apoſtolus, they that ſerue at the altar liue of the altar; ſed numquid de eo cui nō ſerviunt? Qui in ſacrario operantur, cum ſacrario participant; ſed numquid cum illo in quo non operantur? &c.

That I may not ſpend time & paper whiles I doe but actum agere: for the next age, read what Hierome hath touching practiſe of the Church, in his epiſtle to Nepotian; Ambroſe his iudgement in ſer. quadrageſ.

In times ſucceeding, Chryſoſt. hom. 18. in Act. Auguſt. in Pſal. 146. &c: calling for tithes, and ſharply reproving their detainment or ſpare payment. For Councils, that one Synode called Matiſconenſis held anno 580; Cen…uriat.the ſecond p. 27holden at that citty, Can. 5. Cent. 6. cap. 9.not only ordaines their payment, but ſheweth the obſervation of that duety to hauehave bin of long ſtanding in the Chriſtian Church. Leges divinae conſulentes ſacerdotibus ac miniſtris eccleſiarum pro haereditaria portione, omni populo praeceperunt, decimas fructuum ſuorum locis ſacris praeſtare, vt nullo labore impediti, per res illegitimas, ſpiritualibus poſſint vacare miniſterijs. Quas lege. Chriſtianorum congeries longis temporibus cuſtodivit, intemeratas: nunc autem paulatim praevaricatores legum, poene Chriſtiani omnes oſtenduntur, dum ea quae divinitus ſancita ſunt, adimplere negligunt. Vnde ſtatuimus ac decernimus, vt mos antiquus à fidelibus reparetur, & decimas eccleſiaſticis famulantibus ceremonijs populus omnis inferat.

After this ſay the Century writers out of Aventine, Cent. 8. c. 7. de bonis Eccl.lib. 3. Annal decimas à profanis occupatas Carolomannus ſuo edicto reſtitui iubet. Tithes vſurped by ſeculars, or (as perhaps he names them for their fact) profane perſons, Charlemaine by his edict commāds to be reſtored. The ſame authors out of Crantzius his metropolis, lib. 1. cap. 8. talem ſtatum Carolus magnus, poſt impoſitum iugū Chriſti reliquit in provincia, vt liber eſſet populus à tributorum iugo, caeterum Eccleſijs & pontificibus iure decimarū obnoxius permaneret.

To leaue forrenners, in England Anno Dom. 786. Cent. 8. cap. 9.after accompt of theſe writers, was holden a Synode of all ſtates of the kingdomes and the decrees therof ſubſcribed, by the ſeverall kings then raigning; and their aſſeſſors, Biſhops, Dukes, and Cominaltie. In the 17 chapter of which Council thus we read. De Decimis dandis, ſicut in lege ſcriptum eſt, decimam partem ex omnibus frugibus p. 29tuis ſeu primitijs deferas in domum domini dei tui: rurſum per prophetam: adferte, inquit, omnem decimam in horreum meum, vt ſit cibus in domo mea; et probate me ſuper hoc, &c dicit dominus: ſicut ſapiens ait, nemo iuſtam Eleemoſynam de his quae poſsidet facere valet, niſi prius ſeparaverit domino, quod à primordio ipſe ſibi reddere delegauit: ac per hoc plerun que contingit, ut qui decimam non tribuit, ad decimam revertatur. Vnde etiam cum obtestatione praecipimus, vt omnes ſtudeant, de omnibus quae poſſidēt, decimas dare, quia ſpeciale domini dei ſui eſt: & de novem partibus ſibi vivat, & Eleemoſynas tribuat. More need not be added. How in after times the caſe of tithes ſtood amongſt vsus, practiſe of the Church in this land till the daies of Henry the 8, abundantly witneſſeth: exorbitancie enough from the primary rule of aſſignement to pariſh Churches might be noted; but till thoſe daies nothing is found of their whole alienation to ſeculars.

As a corollary here let vsus obſerue that tithes of England hauehave bin by law ſeparate from common vſe: the inference thence is out of former grounds, that they could never be lawfully alienated. Yes ſaid one once; for eius eſt tollere, cuius ponere. Reſp. Peter was not acquainted with any ſuch mixime in the caſe of Ananias; Syſt Polit. lib. 1. cap 21.and Levit. 27. Things once ſeparated from common vſe, are forever holy vntounto the Lord. And heare Keckerman, Princeps iure non poteſt &c. Things ſacred or goods deſigned, or deſtined to diuine worſhip, though but in a generality, yea though they ſerue to ſuperſtitious worſhip, Princes hauehave no right to transfer to common vſe. Jf his ſentence ſwaie nothing, heare his reaſon: Res ſacrae pertinent ad ſtatum & ſcopum …eipub. eminentiorem & perfectiorem, ideo ad inferiorem p. 13retrahi non debent. media enim perfectiorem finem reſpicientia, non debent abuſive ad imperfectiorem applicari. And Polanus, In Ezec. c. 48. verſ. 14.Ezek 48:14Res ſanctas è quarum numero eſt poſſeſsio Deo ſanctificata, ne que vendat, ne que permutet, neque transferat quiſquam. Ratio legi addita eſt; quia res ſanctae non ſunt hominum, ſed ipſius Iehovae, cui dicatae, cui conſecratae, Epiſt. 33.cui ſanctificatae ſunt &c. Ambroſe when one thus preſſeth him to deliver vp the Temple to the Emperour; becauſe all things were his: thus anſwers; Noli te gravare Imperator, vt putes te in ea quae divina ſunt imperiale aliquid ius habere; noli te extollere: ſed ſi vis diutius imperare, eſto Deo ſubditus: ſcriptum eſt; quae Dei Deo, quae Caeſaris Caeſari. But enough of this▪ we hauehave ſeen the practiſe of the church in all times, and ſo their iudgement for this duty of tithing; which alone, ſo long, ſo generally, on ſuch groūds continued, me thinkes proues more for their paiment, then any preſcription though never ſo gray headed, or even bald with age, can for their detainement.

J might ad to this continual practiſe of the Church, the vnanimous conſent of divines in iudgement, from Apoſtles daies downeward; till ſuch time as Popiſh Demi-ſacrilege had made ſeiſure of tithes, transferring them from parochial Paſtors to the Covēts of Drones: then began their Schoolemen to ſtudie ſhifts, whereby to iuſtifie the practiſe of their Synagogue, and after many diſputs, reſolved of this as beſt plaſter for that ſore, that forſooth they were Judicials. I might alſo adioine the conſenting practiſe of heathen by light of nature, yea ſuffrages of ſundry late divines; but that this taske is ſufficiently done by others; and authorities of men even beſt learned and devouteſt, beare little ſway p. 30in truthes ſo dangerous. This only I deſire, that in this queſtion we may contend with reaſons, rather then authorities: not that J feare to bee overlaid either with waight or number of voices; for the ods in both kindes I dare avow to be with vsus. But 1. whereto tends committing of divines in fight, except to worke diſtraction in people? And, 2. the ſaying of Auguſtine is me thinkes iudicious; Scripturarum autoritatibus, non quorumque proprijs, ſed vtriſ que communibus teſtibus, res cum re, cauſa cum cauſa, ratio cum ratione concertet. And of the proving part hetherto.

Let vsus now proceed to examine ſuch arguments as are brought by the adverſe part to diſproue this truth; ſuch J meane as ſeeme to hauehave any footing in the word of God. For other, others hauehave fully and often anſwered them. Thus then ſome reaſon. Tithes are not in all the new Teſtament ſpecified to bee the miniſters maintenance; ſo indeed reaſons Bellarmine; ſo Thomas, ſo Caniſius and many others of that rancke of honeſt men. In nova lege, in the new law .i. in ſcriptures of the newe Teſtament we finde no ſuch precept, Ergo not due to Miniſters by the word of God. Reſp. Now ſure J had thought it had beene ſufficient to hauehave found them grounded on any part of Scripture not particularly cō cerning the Church of the Iewes, becauſeoo1. Tim 3.16.1 Tim 3:16 the whole Scripture is given by inſpiration from God; and pp2. Pet. 1.19.2 Pet 1:19that word of Prophets (ſaith Peter) is a moſt ſure word, we ſhall doe well to attend thereto. And therefore hetherto it hath been a maxime amongſt divines; A parte ſcripturae non valet argumentum negativè. Jts a morall ſtatute given to Magiſtrats to puniſh with death,qqGen. 9.6.Gen 9:6 the ſhedder of mans blood; p. 31yet J finde it not ſpecified in all the new Teſtament: An ordinance irrevocable that the Sabboth bee kept with ceſſation from labours; yet ſpecification of the dutie J finde not in the new Teſtament. Sundry the like might be inſtanced, as by view of that place Ezek. 22 7. ad 12. to every man may appeare. Only let mee intreat men fearing God, not ſo farre to forget their reverence to the old ſcriptures, and the ſpirit that inſpired them, as to deny thē their ſhare with the new Teſtamēt in this honour; of being rule in part of their faith and practiſe. This age is ſtrangely in louelove with Epitomees, if faith it ſelfe ſhall be drawne to her compendium;Aug. de bono perfect. lib. 2. cap. 11. But let vsus beware we fall not into Manicheiſme. Chriſt ſaid of Moſes rrIoh. 5.45.John 5:45He ſhould iudge the Iewes, ſo ſhall hee and Prophets iudge Chriſtians alſo, as well as Evangeliſts and Apoſtles.

2 Who can queſtion this truth ſo cleare to all men? ſo neceſſary for all that will with Tertullian maintaine the fulneſſe of the Scriptures? That ſcripture teacheth as well what it implies, as what it expreſſeth. Teacheth it not particulars in generals? Effects or conſequents in principles? equals by equivalence? The concluſion is not expreſſed in ſcriptures of the new Teſtament; that precept of Sabboth is not abrogated: yet taught in the new Teſtament. SithſſMat. 5.17.Matt 5:17 no precept of the Decalogue abrogated; Ergo not that of Sabboth. The concluſion not expreſſed in the new Teſtament; Infants are to bee baptiſed, yet taught in the new Teſtament:ttAct. 2.38.39 Mar. 10.14. 1. Cor. 7.14. Act 10.47.Acts 2:38Acts 2:39Mark 10:141 Cor 7:14Acts 10:47 ſith to whome promiſes, kingdome, covenant, ſpirit belong, to them baptiſme. Ergo to infants. Theſe doctrines are all taught in the newe Teſtament, becauſe generals, principles, or equivalents p. 32are there taught. And ſo hauehave wee tithes preſcribed in the new Teſtament, vt ſupra. Yea more thē ſo implicite; as in former reaſons hath already appeared. Its by this occaſion nowe in my minde that Tertullian hath in his treatie de ſpectaculis; where bēding himſelfe to diſſwade Chriſtians from preſence at ſuch prophane and barbarous ſpectacles as were then in vſe, hee thus ſhapes anſwer to a reaſon of this mould: Quorundam fides (ſaith he) aut ſimplicior, aut ſcrupuloſior, ab hac abdicatione ſpectaculorum de ſcripturis autoritatem expoſcit, & ſe in incertum conſtituit, quod non ſignificanter ne que nominatim denuncietur ſervis Dei abſtinentia eiuſmodi: Some mens faith (ſaith Tertullian) whether over ſimple, or over ſcrupulous, demaundes our authoritie from ſcriptures for this abandoning ſuch ſights; and makes it ſelfe doubtful becauſe ſuch abſtinence is not there expreſly and by name inioined to the ſervants of God. Whereto he anſwers; planè nuſquam inuenimus, &c. Its true, ſaith that autor, we finde not in any place, that as it is apertly ſaid, thou ſhalt not kill, &c. ſo its expreſly defined, thou ſhalt not goe to the circle or Theater &c. but wee finde that general of David to touch this particular; Bleſſed is hee that hath not walked in the counſell of the vngodly, nor ſtand in the way of ſinners; if in no way of ſinners, then not in this: Nam apud ſpectacula & in via ſtatur, &c. There needs no application.

Now this argument the ſame for ſubſtance ſome hauehave vrged with this foreign; In ſcriptures of the newe Teſtament, where Miniſters maintenance is purpoſely treated of, no mention is to be found of tithes: And that is at leaſt a preſumption, their payment is no perpetual p. 33ordinance of God. For is it likely the particular would hauehave beene concealed? Reſp. Perhaps, and but perhaps not; 1 If either ſtate of the times had borne it, or 2. neceſſitie required, or 3. Apoſtles had beene willing to vrge the vttermoſt of right. But conſidering firſt the diſtreſſe of the times, was ſuch, as ſcarce any could call any thing his owne; 2. weighing againe how fully the particular was in the old Teſtament determined; laſtly pondering how loth the Apoſtles were, to exact right, leaſt any occaſion ſhould be given, to ſuſpect of mercenary or covetous affection in preaching: it was as convenient to omit particularizing the quantitie, as to remit the vſe of all right, as to ſome Churches ſome practiſed.

2 But yet this J finde; they call foruu1. Tim. 5.17.1 Tim 5:17 double honour. Forxx1. Cor. 9.5. ad 14.1 Cor 9:5 maintenance due by law of nature, and nations, and by ordinance of Chriſt, and that is either tithes, or elſe no certaine particular.

3 Who will vndertake to evidence the particulars of all duties of iuſtice, charity, temperance, even there where hee ſhall finde ſuch duties purpoſely preſcribed? Or be ſo bold (ne quid dicam gravius) as to exclude particularities of theſe duties from intention of Gods ſpirit becauſe the generals are only handled, vponupon ſuppoſed likelyhoods, or preſumptions truly preſumptuous? Leaue we therefore this argument, and ſee whither the reſt hauehave better colour. Bellarmine endevouring to diſproue the morality of this duty, thus reaſons; Moral duties hauehave ever bound conſcience, evē before the law of Moſes. But the lawe of tithes was not till the times of Moſes. Ergo. Reſp. the propoſition we acknowledge. The p. 34minor how will he proue? If hee ſhall reaſon from the ſcriptures ſilence; the ſame may be ſaid of adultery, Idolatry, periury, almoſt of what not? 2. We hauehave that which is equivalent to a precept; the approved practiſe of the Saints of God; yea if Lyra may be credited, an implied precept given to Iacob, Gen. 35.1. when he is commanded to build an altar at Bethel according to his vow made, Gen. 28. Looke backe to what is ſaid in clearing the firſt Argument, and thereby iudge whither the precept of tithing were in thoſe daies given, or not.

His next reaſon is this, Reaſon naturall teacheth not the payment of tenthes to Prieſts, but only of what is ſufficient to their ſuſtentatiō. Ergo not morall. Reſp. neither doth reaſon direct to keeping a ſeaventh daie, but only a ſeparation of ſome ſolemne times to Gods worſhip. But who would conſult with reaſon corrupted, & blinde ſince the fall, to determine of moralities? Since al it reacheth vntounto, even where it hath ſome helpe frō generall grace, are generalities only of morall duties?

His laſt reaſon, Matters of vow are no moralities: tithes wereyyGen. 28.22.Gen 28:22 vowed by Iacob: Ergo not commaunded. Reſp. And are all matters of vow things arbitrary, none moralities? What thinke yee of that ver. 21. vttered in ſome vow, and as it were with the ſame breath of Iacob; If the Lord will go with me, and keepe mee in the way that I ſhall goe, &c. then ſhall the Lord be my God? Was it a matter Arbitrary to Iacob to hauehave the Lord, and him only to be his God? being the ſubſtance of the firſt morall precept? Yet was it vowed by Iacob, as we ſee, on like conditiō with tithes. More inſtāces might be alleaged: but quorſum:

p. 35Proceede wee to argumentes of our owne divines. Tithes ſay ſome are originally in kings and civill Magiſtrates, and its their Miſhpat. i. ius to diſpoſe of them to civill or religious vſe. For ſaith the Lord; of Iſraels king, Hoc erit ius regis veſtri, &c: hee ſhall take tithes, 1. Sam. 8.15. Reſp. Is it poſſible men ſhoulde adviſedly thus reaſon out of this ſcripture?zzLevit. 27.30Lev 27:30 The Lorde had long ere this declared tithes to be his,aaNum. 18.24.Num 18:24 aſſigned thē to Levi for his ſervice in the tabernacle: and that vnderunder Magiſtrats civill though not kings. When in his wrath he giues a king to Iſrael, revoked he his ordinance of tithing to Levi? Who can think it? I ſtand not to diſpute the queſtion, whether the words deſcribe a king, or rather a tyrant. But this I am ſure is evident: the Lorde there ſhewes the many miſchiefes ſhoulde befall them as a plague for their reiecting the government by himſelfe eſtabliſhed, ſuch as ſhould make them cry vnderunder the burthen of his exaction. A courſe beſeeming an exorbitant tyrant, rather then a regular king. Iuſt: yea but this ſhalbe his Miſhpat. i. his ius ver. 11. Reſp. And why his ius rather then his guiſe? His right rather then his faſhion? As moſt render, and the word oft ſignifie. See 1. Sam. 27.11. was it his ius to take from the people their fields and vineyards, and beſt oliue yards to giuegive to his ſervants? As is ſaid, ver. 14. How then ſinned Achab bb1. Reg 21.1, 2, 3.1 Kgs 21:11 Kgs 21:21 Kgs 21:3in coveting the vineyard of Naboth? And deſiring to purchaſe it with mony? Yea, why offers he mony or deales by way of contract? It was his ius being a king, to take vineyards & fields from ſubiects to giuegive to his ſervāts: much more to keepe for his owne benefit and conveniency. 3. Alienation of poſſeſſions from tribes and families p. 36was flatly forbidden to the Iewiſh people, that Chriſts linage and deſcent might bee kept vnconfounded.

2 But what when it is yeelded hee had a tus to exact tithes of ſubiects? Muſt it needs be vnderſtood of tithes of Levits aſſigned them of God? and not rather of other tithes which he might craue in ſubſidium? asccGen. 47.24.Gen 47:24 fifts were once impoſed vponupon Egyptians. Certainely Ezechias, it ſeemes, thought tithes the Levits due, and therfore amongſt other precepts of reformation,2. par. 31. 4. 5. 6 requires their paiment to Levi, as thinking tithes committed to him (if at all to him) but as Church goods of old were vntounto Biſhops, non ut dominis, but ut oeconomis. And the people bring thē to Levites in the name of holy things that were conſecrated vntounto God.

Apoſtles received not tithes in their daies. Ergo. Reſp. That is hard, that I ſay not, (impoſſible to proue) 2. not tithes, no nor ought els of ſome churches, but made their owne hands miniſter to their neceſſities, that they might not be ſcandalous to weake brethren, nor chargable to afflicted churches; 3. yea ſuffered bonds, reproches, cruell deaths, &c. muſt therefore the Churches of all ages receiue like meaſure from her children? 4 The queſtion is de iure non de facto: & that ius was remitted, becauſe burthenſome to thoſe times, as circumciſion was in the wildernes, Ioſhua. 5.5.6.

If tithes be thus due to Miniſters, why not alſo firſt fruits for theſe alſo were commanded to be paid to Levits? Reſp. To theſe and all arguments following, this generall anſwere may ſerue; that wee claime not tithes by vertue of the precept given for Levites. Who ever p. 37heard vsus thus reaſon? God cōmanded tithes to be paide to Levites: Ergo tithes are due to the Miniſters of the Goſpell. But thus we claime them; as due to God by reſervation from the beginning, as following Chriſts prieſthood, as the only certainety mentioned in ſcripture, as conſecrated to God by conſent of Churches & Edicts of princes, as agreeing with the vſe and practiſe of the Church in al times For the mandate of God cō cerning Levi, we make it not the ground of our title to tithes. So that of theſe reaſons we may ſay as he, they are Nihil ad Rhombum. Yet that nothing be wanting to anie mans ſatisfaction, I anſwer, 1. that firſt fruits were paid to Aaron, ddHeb. 7 11Heb 7:11as to high prieſt, whoſe prieſthood is now paſſed to another; 2. vponupon a reaſon particular to that people; 3. for ſacrifice, as appeares at large, De…. 26. 2. ad 11. appeares there any ſuch thing of Tithes? Laſtly they were figures as ſhould ſeeme, of Chriſt,ee1 Cor 15.20.1 Cor 15:20 The firſt fruits of them that ſleepe; of beginnings of ſanctification, called by the ApoſtleffRom. 8.23.Rom 8:23 the firſt fruits of the ſpirit. Can any of theſe be avouched of tithes? Who thē ſees not manifeſt diſparity betweene the two?

If this be a duty of people to pay tithes to Miniſters: thē that alſo of Miniſters toggNum. 18.28.Num 18:28 pay tithes to the high Prieſt. Reſp. The argument proceedes from a falſe Hypotheſis, ſuppoſing vsus to claime tithes by mandate Leviticall. Which we vtterly diſclaime, vt ſupra. 2. But yet farther I anſwere; It followes not if one, then the other due. 1. ForhhPſ 50 12.13Ps 50:12Ps 50:13 that our high Prieſt needs them not: but only hath ordained for them thatii1. Cor 9.14.1 Cor 9:14 preach the goſpel. 2. Sacrifices are now ceaſed, to which theſe Decimae ſecūdaneae chiefly ſervedkkNum. 18.28 29.30.Num 18:28; ſo that their reaſon is no more but this, If p. 38tithes for ſtipend, then tithes for ſacrifice: he is meerely foreign that diſcernes not the inconſequence.

If precept of tithing be moral, thē that alſo ofllMal. 3 10.Mal 3:10 bringing them to one common ſtorehouſe. Reſp. This argumēt alſo proceedeth from like fained Hypotheſis. ſee ſupra. & yet hath no good cōſequence: for muſt the ſubſtance of a duty needs be Levitical, becauſe ſome circūſtances thereof concern only Iewiſh nation? Thē muſt Sabbath alſo evē for ſubſtance be ceremoniall, becauſe ſome circumſtances & ends belong only to Iews Deut. 5.15.

If precept of tithes be moral, then that alſo of Miniſters notmmNum. 18.24Num 18:24 having portiō amongſt their brethrē. Reſp. The ſame fallacy that before; for we claime not by precept given to Levi. And yet the argument follows not. 1. for ſaith Polanus (though I avow not his anſwere) that ordinance was figuratiue;Polan in Ezech. 44. v. 28.Ezek 44:28 foreſhaddowing Chriſt that had not where to lay his head. But 2 it was never forbidden Levits to hauehave portion amongſt their brethren in that ſenſe that theſe men take portion. TheynnNumb. 35. Levit. 25.34.Num 35Lev 25:34 Had citties with their ſuburbs which were their perpetuall poſſeſſion, and paſſed from father to ſonne; ſubiect to ſame lawes of Redemption as others. Wherefore Ieremie a Prieſtes ſonneooIer. 32.7.9.Jer 32:7Jer 32:9 buies the fielde of his vnckle as next of kin. See alſo 1. King. 2.26. Thus therfore vnderſtād that ordinance of Levits having no portion amongſt their brethren. No portion, that is, no ſuch portion, ſeparate frō their brethren, as had other tribes, not ſimply none: the Reaſon thereof was Iacobs prophecyppGen. 49.7.Gen 49:7 touching their ſcattering amongſt their brethren. Diſpoſed of alſo by Gods providence for greater conveniency of the peoples inſtruction, as alſo by ſituation of their citties inqqIoſh. 21.Josh 21 every tribe is me thinks probable. Laſtly a manifeſt p. 39diſparity there is between the two. For the childrē of Levits ſucceeded their parēts, & were for ever to be maintained by Levits portiō. Not ſo the childrē of Miniſters, except they berr1. Tim. 3. Titus. 1.1 Tim 3Titus 1 approved, & foūd meet for the miniſtery.

Laſtly they obiect the place, Numb. 18.24. vnanſwerable, as they thinke, and ſuch as if a man but turne to with a wet finger, he ſhall preſently ſee tithing a ceremonious ordinance. Now for my part I hauehave viewed the place, and with my beſt attention conſidered what may thence be deduced to proue it ceremoniall. Yet finde not that it concludes either the ordinance in generall, or yet that Leviticall conſtitution to hauehave beene ceremonious, for thus wee muſt frame the Argument. If tithes were aſſigned to Levi for his ſervice in the tabernacle: then is the ordinance of tithing meerely ceremonious; for that ſervice was ceremoniall. But tithes were aſſigned to Levi for his ſervice in the tabernacle. Ergo. Reſp. 1. To ſay nothing that that particular aſſignement concludes not the ordinance at large, but the ordinance for Levi only: I anſwere 2. that by as good inference they may proue reverence, obedience, defence of Miniſters, ceremonious duties, inaſmuch as even theſe alſo belonged to Levites for their ſervice in the tabernacle. For why muſt Iſraelits giuegive Levites honour, obedience, ſingular louelove, &c: but for their worke ſake? And what was their worke? But their ſervice in the tabernacle. So that now our people owe vsus no more honour, obedience, louelove, &c.ſſ1 Theſ. 5 12 13. Heb. 13.17.1 Thess 5:12Heb 13:17 for our worke ſake, as it is preſcribed. For theſe all belonged to Levites for their ſervice in the tabernacle, which was ceremonious. Briefly; they were given to Levites for their ſervice in p. 40the tabernacle, non quâ tabernaculi; but quâ ſervice. And therefore before tabernacle erected, they were paide to Prieſts, Gen. 14. 3. Was the whole ſervice of the tabernacle ceremonious? Nay were not ſome maine parts of it, apparently morall? What thinke we of teaching the people?tt2. Chr. 17.9. Act 15.21. Nehe. 8.3.6.7 8.2 Chr 17:9Acts 15:21 of Reading the ſcriptures, and giving ſenſe? of praiſing God? Were not theſe parts of tabernacle ſervice? And had not the Levites maintenaunce for theſe, as well as for ſlaying ſacrifices? Surely if this be the beſt and cleareſt reaſons againſt tithing, I muſt needes profeſſe, they are ſo farre from making me doubt of my concluſion, that they rather ſtabliſh my iudgment therin. And theſe are all the arguments I hauehave yet heard vrged by men of any iudgement, againſt the neceſſitie of paying tithes.

One other only which ſeculars vſe, I will annexe; & that is drawne from a perilous inconvenience enſuing vponupon this doctrine. What is it? Forſooth if tithes belōg to Miniſters & are payable to them only, according to the word of God: it wil come to paſſe, that a Miniſters portion ſhall exceed the allowance of two or three of his wealthieſt pariſhioners. But that, I tell you, is a ſhrewd inconvenience. Reſp. A miſchiefe which I wonder the Lord in his endleſſe wiſdome never bethought himſelfe to prevent amongſt the Iſraelits. The Levites, though according to the generall diviſion of Iſraell by tribes, they were but a twelfth or thirteenth part: yet according to exact number of perſons reckoned by polles, were ſcarce the ſixtith part of the people. The number of the people without the Levites, amounted touuNum. 1.46.Num 1:46 ſixe hundred and three thouſands, fiue hundred & p. 13fifty; to which if we adde their old men, and al from vnderunder twenty yeares amongſt them which came not into the firſt number,xxNumb. 1.3.Num 1:3 allowing but double ſo many for thē, they ariſe to about a thouſand thouſands and three hū dred thouſands. Now the Levites numbred from the infant to the old man, were found but two and twenty thouſands only,yyNum. 3 39.Num 3:39 and that is not aboue the ſixtith part of the people. Yet ſee, the Lord allots them the tenth of all the increaſe of the land: beſides ſhare in oblations,zzNum. 35 4.7Num 35:4Num 35:7 things conſecrate by vow, and 48. citties with ſuburbs of ſo large circuit, that according to Hieromes meaſure of the land, exceeded the portion of any other tribe in Iſraell. Its marvell none woulde vndertake to be the Lords Counſellour, and to tel him ſuch large allowance might make Levites prowde and lazy. But this large portion to the Lord ſeemed no inconvenience: howe ſeemes it ſo to vsus, in Miniſters of the Goſpell?

Againe, how fals it, that to other orders & rankes of men, as lawyers, gentles, &c. their portions exceeding by more then fourths the portions of others, are not maligned; the Miniſters of all other ſhould bee ſubiect to envie?

Laſtly, how is it, that men in their own, though far larger portion, know no meaſure, but adde continually thouſands to hundreds; and (as Agars horſleach) crie, giuegive, giuegive; and as the graue, knowe no meaſure of deſiring: yet of a miniſters ſtipend, of fiftie, or an hundred pounds, cry Sufficit; Its enough, and too much? What, I wonder, is that great ſervice theſe men performe, ſo over acceptable to God, or profitable vntounto men, aboue the worke of a miniſter? that they ſhould thinke themſelues p. 42worthy of all, whatſoever by a vijs & modis they can ſcrape togither; and yet to miniſters, for their work ſake, hardly beteeme double honour in proportion to the meane wealthy amongſt their people. Tempora, Tē pora, how are yee turned? But I conclude. Sith Tithes belong to Chriſts prieſthood, ſith no other certainety allotted to Miniſters in ſcriptures, ſith detainement is ſacrilege, ſith tithing no ceremony nor particularly Iudiciall, ſith confirmed by conſent and practiſe of the Church in all times, laſtly (which is not the leaſt) ſith reaſons againſt it are of ſo no force, as wee hauehave ſeene: therefore tithes are the portion due to Miniſters for their ſervice in the Goſpell.

Concluſion.What now remaines? but to admoniſh ſuch as feare God, to deliver their ſoules from the guilt of ſo fowle a ſinne as is this of ſacrilege. Why hang yee vp theeues that ſteale from men, oft times but as Salomon ſaithaaProv. 6.30.Prov 6:30 to ſatisfie their owne ſoules; and liue your ſelues in opē bbMal. 3.8.Mal 3:8robbery of God himſelfe? Far be it from mee to multiply ſins or to caſt vnneceſſary ſcruples into the conſciences of Gods people. But faine J would knowe for my learning, of ſuch as are ſo loth in this point to wound conſciences (alas, how ſenſeleſſe, and fleſhed in ſacrilege!) where God hath ever legitimated ſacrilege; or made it lawfull vnderunder the new Teſtament, to alienate from him things conſecrated to his worſhip: when turned the truth of that ſentence into a lie;ccProv. 20.25 Rom. 2. Act. 5.1.3.Prov 20:25Rom 2Acts 5:1Acts 5:3 It is a ſinne to devoure holy things, and after the vow to enquire. Nay the Lord it ſeemes, hath written it in the hearts of Naturaliſts with the point of a Diamond: howſoever ſome mens ſimple or wilful ignorāce, or impious profanenes, or inſatiable p. 43covetouſnes ſeemes to detain this point of truth, ddRom. 1.58.Rom 1:58as many other, in vnrighteouſnes. Whē Nabuchadnezzar had ſurpriſed the temple, & ſeized the ſacred veſſels appointed to Gods worſhip: in the middeſt of ſacriledge, he feares to be ſacrilegious; and therforeeeDan. 1.2.Dan 1:2 brings them to the houſe of his Gods, ſuppoſed by him to bee the only true Gods. Infinite I might be in propounding the ſentences, and cenſures, that heathen paſſed vponupon this point of impietie. And is there any man can doubt whither detainement of tithes be ſacriledge, or not? Shape to they ſelfe a deſcription of ſacriledge with any ſound limits determining its nature, and ſee whither vnderunder it fals not the detainement of tithes. I beſeech you therefore ſuffer the words of exhortation: GiueGive Caeſar, Caeſars; and God, that which is Gods. Neede I, I thinke, to preſſe it by reaſons? Not ſure if the belly had eares. But ſweete ſinnes, are the dangerous ſinnes, becauſe for the moſt part incorrigible; begetting in moſt, either a loathneſſe to bee informed, or obfirmation againſt all perſwaſions. Yet let vsus attempt; who knows whither the Lord may be pleaſedffAct 16 14.Acts 16:14 to open the heart, if but of one Lydia, to attend to the things which are ſpoken? Conſider therefore, I beſeech you, even in the bowels of Chriſt Ieſus; firſt the hainouſneſſe of this ſinne of ſacriledge. They erre inggZanch. de vitiis exter. Cult. oppoſit. Theſi 3… Zā chies iudgement, that make ſacriledge only a branch of theft, and breach of the eighth precept; yea rather it is a ſpecies of irreligion. Heare his reaſons. For whence proceedes it; but from contempt of holy things, & manifeſt vnreverence towards God himſelfe? wherefore ſteales any man things ſeparate to preſerue the miniſterie, but becauſe he contemnes the whole Miniſtery, yea p. 44God himſelfe to whoſe worſhippe they are conſecrated?

And wherevnto tendes ſuch fraudulent, or violent praying vponupon holy things: but to the vtter overthrow of all religion? Sathan knowes well, Gods outwarde worſhip cannot be continued without the Miniſterie, nor the Miniſtery without Miniſters, nor Miniſters without Church goods: and therefore provokes hee Tyrants and profane men, to invade the Churches poſſeſſions, that by that meanes he may hinder, if not wholly overthrowe, the ſtate of religion. To this purpoſe Zanchius. Shall I adde one other reaſon? The rather becauſe I ſee men thinke of this theft, even thoſe that thinke worſt, but as of thefts from men; they rob not God, but Miniſters (if any) while they detaine tithes, or other things hallowed. Now let them conſider, that the dominion, and propertie of all things hallowed, is Gods, and ſuch conſecration giues him ſeizure of them in ſee; the vſe only is the Miniſters.hhPolan. in Ezech. 48.14.Ezek 48:14 Quae ſanctificata ſunt Domino, non ſunt eorum, quibus data ſunt, ſed eius, cuius nomine poſſidentur. Things hallowed to God, are not ſo much theirs, to whom they are given, as Gods in whoſe title they are poſſeſſed. Therefore (ſaith the Lord to the Iſraelites detaining tithes from the Levits) Yee iiMal. 3.Mal 3hauehave robbed not Levi, whoſe they are in vſe, but ME, in whom is the property and dominion. Need any more reaſons, then the enormity of the ſinne? Heare then 2 the deteſtation wherein in al times amongſt all men, chriſtians, or heathen, this ſin was holden. To omit the bitter invectiues every where obvious, conſider the puniſhments appointed for the ſacrilegious.kkCent. 9. cap. 1. Charles the p. 45great in his time made this decree; that whoſoever ſhould invade, or waſte, or by any cunning meanes preſume to alienate the goods of the church, he ſhould legally be puniſhed by the Iudges, as an homicide, or ſacrilegious theefe, excommunicated by the Biſhops, deprived of burial; yea, as if his almes were infectious, or accurſed, none muſt receiue it. Amongſt the heathen no tortures were thought ſufficient for this ſin,llLactant. de orig. Error. c. 3 ſcourgings, burnings, rackings, hangings, any thing whatſoever their furie could deviſe to inflict.mmPlutarch. de his qui ſerò a numine puniū tur. At Delphos they vſed to caſt them headlong from a rocke, which they called Hyampeia. The Aethiopians had an herb they called Ophiuſa, as of vnpleaſing aſpect, ſo of farre more dangerous effect taken into the body. It ſo affrighted with phantaſmes of dreadfull ſerpents, that ſuch as drāk it made away themſelues.nnPlin. hiſt. nat. lib. 26. cap. 17. Obid (ſaith Pliny) cogebantur ſacrilegi illam bibere; for that cauſe were church robbers forced to drinke it.

Amongſt our ſelues, breaking vp of churches, & ſtealing the leaſt trifle, aggravates the theft, & makes the offender culpable of death. If the Philoſopher were now aliue, would he not laugh at the ſpectacle? To ſee the great theeues lead the ſmaller to the gallows? How is it a ſin more hainous, to violate a temple, then to alienate Church maintenance from the worſhip of God? 3. If none of theſe moue, oh yet let the blood of ſo manie ſoules periſhing by this, if not as a cauſe, yet as a greate occaſiō, waken vsus. Many motions I hauehave heard of, made for a learned miniſtery, that every congregation might hauehaveooIer. 3.15.Jer 3:15 a past or to feed them with knowledge and vnderſtā ding. For my part I ſay asppGal. 5.12.Gal 5:12 Paule in another caſe; vtinā p. 46excindantur; I would they were cut off that hinder it. But amongſt all, how is it that the point of maintenance comes not to be conſulted? It were to be wiſhed that the Apoſtolique zeale burnt now in Miniſters, that rather then ſoules ſhould ſtarue, they would freely giuegive what they hauehave freely receaved. But hee wasqqPerkins in Iob. 33. 23.Job 33:23 an holie man that ſaid, men are men, and muſt be allured by ſuch arguments as may prevaile even with fleſh and blood. It was Gods great wiſdome in the creation, firſt to provide food, before he made the Animal creatures. And it's aſhame to the Church in the daies of peace, to ſee men of beſt gifts therefore divert their ſtudies to other arts, becauſe the miniſtery affords not maintenance; for our Church moſt, where Gods allowance is ſo liberall, were it not that ſacrilege did intercept it.

4 May J not adde the miſchiefe temporall it hath brought vponupon the land? Complaints are frequent amongſt our people againſt incloſures the decayers (they ſay) of husbandry, by which, ſaith Salomon, even kings are maintained. I dare ſay, that peculatus, if J may ſo tearme it, hath not beene more hurtfull this way, then hath this ſacrilege. Cornefields were wont to laugh in our Gentlemens now paſtures; but tithes ſeeme more compendious to the ground of houſekeeping then the toileſome tediouſneſſe of tilling the earth. And ſcarfe a great man now adaies, though but niggardly hoſpitall, that can keep open dores without a Parſonage. It were wel me thinkes amongſt ſo many delicates, they would once in their liues eate one morcel of their own bread. Laſtly, if theſe perſwade not, yet let that terrour of the Lord prevaile with vsus;rrProv. 20.25.Prov 20:25 Its a curſe (ſaith Salomon) to devoure p. 47holy things, a curſed practiſe, that brings downe Gods vengeance vponupon the ſacrilegious.

Examples we hauehave ſeene many, and read of more: even kings themſelues hauehave not gone vnpuniſhed. TheſſZech. 5.4.Zech 5:4 flying booke of Gods vengance, Enter (ſaith Zecherie) into the houſe of the theefe, and conſumes it with the timber, and the ſtones thereof; leaues ſcarſe a monument where hee hath beene. Is God thus ſharpe againſt petite thefts, and will he leaue ſacrilege vnavenged? Search records divine, humane: where findeſt thou a rob-God without his vengance? obſerue theſe ſacrilegious amongſt our ſelues: its much if they proſper to the fourth generatiō; much, (though God be much in ſparing) if hee either leaue not them childleſſe, or their children graceleſſe, by one meanes or other makes them not vomit thoſe morſels of holy things, that they hauehave devoured. Tithes with lay men, are as thett1. Sam. 5 6.9.11.1 Sam 5:61 Sam 5:91 Sam 5:11 Arke with the Philiſtims, plaguing the vniuſt poſſeſſors, til they returne to the right owners.

Enough I hope of this firſt ſinne. And too much perhaps ſome wil ſay, too ful of tartnes. Let them remember the Callum is thicke, and needs a hot Cauterie. Yea but it may wound the conſcience; Vtinam. The remedy is at hand. Reſtituatur ablatum, vt dimittatur peccatum. Howſoever, for my ſoule, I dare notuuIſai. 5.20.Isa 5:20 ſpeake good of evill, Read Ezech. 13.22.

2 As to our people, wittie, alas, to their own harme, in ſhifting to detaine that little of the Lords portion ſtill left him, I ſay as**2 Par. 31.4.2 Chr 31:4 Hezechias (J would, I could hope with like ſucceſſe) GiueGive the portion to Prieſts, and Levits, to Miniſters of the Goſpell, that they may bee encouraged p. 48in the law of the Lord. Needes any more reaſons then the encouragement of your Miniſters. Heare Malachy; Detainment is robbery in the higheſt degree; ſacrilege;xxMal. 3 10.Mal 3:10 yee hauehave robbed mee, ſaith the Lord to withholders. 2. Robberie deteſted by Jdolaters; will a man, will an Idolater ſpoile his Gods? For ſhame let not Chriſtians ſpoile their God. 3yyLevit. 27 30Lev 27:30 Tithes are Gods by reſervation frō the beginning, Miniſters are but his receavers. 4. Payment ſets open the wondowes of heaven, and brings downe a bleſsing in abundance; 5. Detainement, a curſe, yea vponupon whole kingdomes. That ſaying of Salomon, let never bee forgotten;zzProv. 3.9.10Prov 3:9Prov 3:10 Honour God with thy ſubſtance and with the chiefe of all thine increaſe: ſo ſhall thy barnes be filled with abundance; is a bleſſing annexed to this dutie. Will any ſay its ſpoken only for that ſtate of the Church in Iſrael? Let him pervſe the whole booke, and inſtance but in one precept there given of Leviticall performances, except he will too abſurdly inſtare in propoſito.

More perſwaſions I wil not adde: how feare I, that J ſhall not perſwade, no not though J doe perſwade? Shal J preſume to ſpeake of the figleaues, men hauehave ſowne to themſelues to hide their ſhame? Some thus: To honeſt able Miniſters they thinke them due; but diſhoneſtie &c. makes vncapable. Reſp. With what conſcience then detaine yee from ſuch whoſe honeſty and abilitie your ſelues will teſtifie? 2 The Levites in Malachie his daiesaaMal. 2.7, 8, 9Mal 2:7Mal 2:8Mal 2:9 had broken the covenant, were become ignorant, partiall, contemptible: yet even in thoſe times called the Lord for tithes. 3. What law of God, or man, permits to private men detainment of dues even from the diſhoneſt.bbMat. 22.Matt 22 To wicked Magiſtrats tribute muſt be paid. 4. Tithes are p. 49due to Miniſters, not quâ probi; but quâ miniſtri: not for their honeſty; but for their Miniſterie.

As to thoſe other obiections, of cuſtomes,Vae tibi flumen moris humanit quamdiu non ſiccaberis? Aug. confeſſ. preſcriptions, exemptions &c. I ſay no more, but what the Apoſtle in this caſe;ccGal. 6.7.Gal 6:7 God is not mocked. A pretty mocke-God anſwere it will bee, at that great day when thou ſhalt ſtand before the great Proprietarie to bee examined, how faithfully thou haſt given Tithes according to his aſſignement; to tell him: for matter of tithing, thou hadſt a cuſtome to the contrary. Dally not with conſcience, deceaue not thy ſelfe, God ſure wil not thus be deluded.

Thus far of this queſtion at your requeſt; to whome vndeſerved kindneſſe hath engaged mee ſo farre, as my weake abilities can extend themſelus. Of this tract thus thinke; The Author thinketh himſelfe a man, & therefore ſubiect to errour. Yet would faine ſo carry himſelf, as to deſerue of Gods Church the eſteeme of an honeſt man, and therefore no lover of errors; much leſſe a Patrone of them againſt his knowledge and conſcience.

FINIS.

End of the text · William Sclater, The Ministers Portion (1612)