The Question of Tithes, Tract

The Question of Tithes · Tract

p. 1THE MINISTERS PORTION.

THE grants on all ſides are theſe. Firſt, that there is a maintenanceaa1. Cor. 9.4, 5. to 15.1 Cor 9:41 Cor 9:5–15 in iustice due to Miniſters for their worke ſake. Secondly, Its yeelded it muſt be competent, not only for ſupply of naturall neceſſities, but for theirbb1. Tim. 3.2.1 Tim 3:2 furniture to eueryevery good worke of their calling. Thirdly, That it muſt becc1. Tim. 5.17, 18.1 Tim 5:171 Tim 5:18 liberall: not ſuch as eueryevery niggardly minde will iudge conuenient and competent.

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

1. That to Miniſters of the Goſpel, belongs a maintenance as large, as to the Leuiticall Prieſthood: this, mee thinkes,dd2. Cor. 3.2 Cor 3 excellencie of Miniſterie, andee1. Cor. 9.11.1 Cor 9:11 bleſsings conferred thereby enforceth.

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

Anſw. Now you are in the right. Neither thought he neceſſary, that th'excellencie of his Kingdome ſhould be adorned with Royall magnificence. What is your inference? therefore ourffMath. 6.29.Matt 6:29 Salomons may not bee clothed royaltie? therefore nor his MiniſtersggPſal. 8.20.Ps 8:20 hauehave where to lay their heads? Know you not that his foreign on earth, was to be carried in thehhPhil. 2.7.Phil 2:7 habitude of a ſeruant? and thatii2. Cor. 8.9.2 Cor 8:9 by his pouertie he ſhould make vsus rich?

2. That this maintenance muſt riſekkGal. 6.6.Gal 6:6 out of all and eueryevery the goods of all and eueryevery the people instructed.

3. That the Lord hath as certainly prouided 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 hee entruſted Magiſtrates with that care.

p. 3Anſ. And were there not Magiſtrates amongſt the Iewes.

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

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

Obiect. But why thinkes M. Selater, the people vnderunder the Goſpel, as backward as thoſe vnderunder the Law? When God hath promiſed llIoel 2.28, 29.Joel 2:28Joel 2:29more abundant Grace: Is not Iustice a part of Grace? can Grace be without Iuſtice?

Anſw. Grace renewing cannot be without Iuſtice: vertues gratious are connexed. But the Grace of which Ioel ſpeakes, dreaming dreames, and ſeeing viſions, or if there be any other, comming vnderunder the terme of Gratia gratis data, may bee without Iuſtice: except perhaps wee may thinke Iudas iuſt, becauſe to him was giuen, as to others,mmMath. 10.1.Matt 10:1 power to doe miracles. Howbeit it muſt be confeſſed, that Grace of illumination, and ſanctification, is greater vnderunder the Goſpel, then vnderunder the Law: 1. In extent of the ſubiects p. 4receiuing; which are now all fleſh, as well Gentiles, as Iewes. 2. Menſura & gradu, where it takes place, making the termes of compariſon aequall. But thinke you, this Grace takes place in all vnderunder the new Teſtament? or meant the Lord to leaue vsus to the gratious diſpoſition of our ſanctified people onelyonly, exempting others from bond of dutie, in contributing to maintenance of the miniſterie? I aſſure you Sir, if I ſhould meaſure mens Sanctification by their Iuſtice in this kinde, I ſhould be forced to aſſigne Sanctification ratheſt to men of leſt knowledge; and to ſay of others, who hauehave encloſed ſanctitie, and ſinceritie all to themſelues, Non eſt qui facit iuſtum vſque ad vnum. Whither it be, that the holy morſell is ſweet; or that they would hauehave iuſtice in this kinde, ſeeme merciemercy; or how the good yeare it falles, I know not; Terras Aſtraea reliquit: This Iuſtice is taken to her wings, and fled farre from our coaſtes.

4. That the Lord in the Leuiticall Law had eye to prouiſion for vsus, that were to Miniſter in the Goſpel.nn1. Tim. 5.18.1 Tim 5:18 Thou ſhalt not muſſell the mouth of the oxe which treadeth out the corne, was a branch of Law Leuiticall; yet applyed by th'Apoſtle to enforce honourable maintenance of Miniſters vnderunder the Goſpel.

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

p. 5Some tumbling downe headlong, rather then deſcending, reſolue of a competencie indeterminate; ſo th'allowance be competent all is well.

Reſp. Then in caſe of this fancied competencie, ſome as the inſtructed, though wealthy perhaps, ſhall be exempted from the Apoſtles iniunction. For ſuppoſe ſome one or two of the well diſpoſed hearers, ſhall out of their priuate, make a competent allowance; The reſt ſhall nowoo1. Cor 9 12.1 Cor 9:12 reape our ſpirituals, and not ſow their carnals. For, as the ſaying is riſe enough in a Miniſters maintenance, enough is a feaſt. But ſaith th' Apoſtle,ppGal 6.6Gal 6:6 Let him, that is: eueryevery him, that is inſtructed, make his inſtructer partaker of all his goods.

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

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

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

Anſw. qq1. Cor. 9.111 Cor 9:11They reape our ſpirituals without ſowing their Carnalls. 2. They diſcharge not therrGal. 6.6.Gal 6:6 duties laide on them by the Apoſtle, and ſo entangle their conſcience with guilt of ſinne. An p. 6inconuenience call you that, Obiect. or a miſchiefe? Not ſo, for that of Paul is but a counſell, not a praecept. 2. A counſell to be obeyed in caſu of the Miniſters neede. Then indeede the hearers are bound, to affoord their Minister, a meales meat, or nights lodging, and ſuch like cleemoſynarie kindneſſe, as they would affoord another man in his neceſsitie.

Sol.Anſw. When will you ceaſe to peruert the ſtreight waies of the Lord? Are Miniſters your Almes-men? Is nothing due to them ex lege Iuſtitiae for their labour in the word and doctrine, be they neuer ſo well ſtored of their owne, but only in merciemercy, reſpecting their neceſſities? Is this thess1. Tim 5.17.1 Tim 5:17 double honour Paul would hauehave them thought worthy of? Thistt1. Cor. 9.14.1 Cor 9:14 th'ordinance of Chriſt, for Preachers of the Goſpel, to liue of the Goſpel? what if our inheritances ciuill were as large, as yours? Is nothing due for our paines in the Goſpel? how then liue we of the Goſpel? what is the labourers deſerued hyre? the ſouldiers foreign?

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

Sol.Reſp. But thinke you that alſo a counſell, not a p. 7praecept. 2. Weigh well, you ſhall be forced to ſee, that what is ſaid in the three next verſes, belongs to the point in hand of Miniſters maintenance, & not to beneuolence towards the poore. Let me ſee what this mercifull man hath ſaid hitherto for the qualitie of our maintenance. One while its hire, as much, or little as you can make your bargaine for; Another while, Almes: your ſeruants, or your beades-men we are, one of the two certaine. Sir, I would you knew, the only Maſter we ſerue is Ieſus Chriſt: His ſeruants we are. Our peoplesuuHeb. 13.7.17. 1. Theſſ. 5.12.Heb 13:7Heb 13:171 Thess 5:12 guides, rulers, ſuperiours. And the maintenance wee claime, is of that portion, which the God of heauen hath aſſigned vsus; which who without Sacriledge can detaine from vsus? But proceede we in examining the likelihood of your competencie. See concluſion the ſixt: and duely weighing it, tell me, whither thou finde conſcience ſatisfied with this imaginarie competencie? for is there no certaine prouiſion for Miniſters of the Goſpel, but this vncertaine competency? who ſhall iudge of it? EueryEvery man? Mallem Cerberum metueres, as the Orator ſpeakes. The Magiſtrate? why would not the Lord leaue this to Iewiſh Magiſtrates? no not to Moſes, a man ſo gratious with him? and leaue it to Magiſtrates vnderunder the Goſpel.

Obiect.Iewiſh Magiſtrates were then intruſted. Sol.Anſw. What? as you would hauehave them now Truſters for vsus; that the whole of our maintenance ſhould depend vponupon their diſcretion, to aſſigne, leſſe or p. 8more? Where hauehave you it? in what Scripture? in what Authentique Authour? will the text in uuMal. 3.10.Mal 3:10Malachi beare it? Let the reader be iudge.

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

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

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

p. 10That the truth may better appeare, I will propound the different opinions that I hauehave met withall in this point.

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

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

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

1. Some thus, due by Gods law enioyning obedience to Magiſtrates in things lawfull and conuenient. Theſe 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 diuine) hath enioyned their payment. So generally Papiſts.

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

1. That I found Salomon auerring it to be a wwPro. 20.25.Prov 20:25Curſe to deuoure holy things, and had ſeene the curſe exemplified on many.

2. That ordinance of the Lord I held morall and perpetuall.xxLeuit. 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 th' Apoſtle much ſwayed with meyyGal. 3.15.Gal 3:15 If it be but a mans Testament, no man abrogates it. 1. No man ought to abrogate it. And ſo much the more, for that being once an Auditour of that Iudicious Diuine Maſter Perkins, whoſe memory is bleſſed, I heard him mooue the doubt; whether things giuen to ſuperſtitious vſes, ſuppoſe to maintaine Maſſemonging, might be alienated. And thus aſſoile to my remembrance. That from the particular intention, wherein through ignorance they erred, alienation might be; But from the generall end, maintenance of Gods worſhip, they might not be aliened. Thus then and vponupon thoſe grounds, p. 12my iudgement is ſtill the ſame, though my Media be other, and ſomewhat more peremptorie.

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

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

Why then returnes he to the matter of conſecration?

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

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

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

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

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

Anſw. 1. Thoſe many hands might hauehave been as well Clericke as Layicke, and that end as well atchieued. 2. ButzzRom. 3.8.Rom 3:8 may you doe euill, that good may come of it?

Obiect. Returne of Antichrist was feared.

Anſw. O worthy wight, and worſhipt might he be; who neuer ſpared woman in his luſt, nor man in his rage, yet feared the returne of Antichriſt. Credam? 2. But know you not Ignorance the greateſt pillar of Antichriſts Kingdome? If amongſt any he may recouer his old poſſeſſion by a Postliminium, moſt amongſt thoſe congregations which are moſt ſtript of Tythes; forced, poore ſoules, to content themſelues with Prieſts of the loweſt of the people, becauſe the ancient ſalary is ſeized on, and poſſeſſed in Lay-fee.Neh 13.10, 11, 12.Neh 13:10Neh 13:11Neh 13:12 And ſee iſſues of ſuch dealing, with meanes of reformation.

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

Anſw. What is your meaning? ſo as their act, as theirs, ſhall pleaſe God? and their perſons bee p. 14accepted, ſo we anſwer; no. And ſo much onelyonly preſſeth your inſtance in Cain. But ſo as to giuegive God propertie in the thing conſecrated, who doubts but they may? The Cenſers of Corah and Dathan muſt be employed about the Altar; becauſe, though erroneouſly, yetaaNum. 16.38Num 16:38 they offered them before the Lord: therefore they are hallowed. And for this I am ſure, you hauehave Maſter Perkins firme in his poſt-humous Notes. Things conſecrated erroneouſly,ad Galat 3.Gal 3 may bee imployed to the vſe of Gods worſhip: yea the next heire of the Votarie, looſeth all title to things ſo conſecrated: and may not claime them from their generall intendment: though to him, if to any, they belong of right, in caſe there bee a nullitie of erroneous conſecrations.

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

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

p. 15Obiect. This were to ſit in th' Idols Temple.

Anſw. Vnderſtand you what you ſay? To retaine the conſecrations of Idolaters to Gods ſeruice, how is it more to grace an Idol, then to keepe vp Temples, wherein Idols hauehave beene worſhipped, and apply them to the worſhip of God? S. Paul could diſtinguiſh, betwixt eating an Idolothyte, and eating it bb1. Cor. 8.71 Cor 8:7foreign. It may ſuffice, that they bee diuerted to the worſhip of the true God, whether they were, in the generall ayme of the Donors, intended,

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

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

By Tythes vnderſtand the tenth part of all the hearers increaſe: that is; to ſtoppe the mouth of the Cauiller, of hisddPro. 3.9.Prov 3:9 income or reuenue. Particulars may be read. Leuit. 27.30. Et alibi: In a word, to vſe the diſtinction of Canoniſts; whether they bee perſonall, of meere induſtry, negotiation, &c. or p. 16praediall, as of grounds, &c. or mixt, as of Cattell, the tenthes of the whole income, not thoſe of Cummin & Annyſe excepted, fall within compaſſe of our ſubiect.

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

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

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

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

In what Commandement?

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

Obiect. But without any point of Conſecration?

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

Of Tithes amongſt Iewes we finde foure ſorts.

1. Tithes of Leuites. 2. of Prieſts? 3. for louelove p. 17Feaſts: 4. and Tythes for the poore: heare vsus in Hieromes termes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 19The Argument which this Scripture affoords, hath receiued much diſaduantage, by ſlender collection of many, thus onelyonly preſſing it. Tythes were paide to Prieſts before the Leuiticall law was giuen. Therefore their payment is founded rather on Morall then Caeremoniall law. To which, anſwer is well giuen; that by as good inference, ſacrificing of beaſts may be prooued a moralitie, ſith it was alſo in vſe before giuing of the Law by Moſes. That we may the better ſee the force of the Argument, let vsus a little conſider the frame and ſumme of the text. The Apoſtle by occaſion of the peoples dulneſſe, hauing digreſſed from Cap. 5.11. to Cap. 6.20. returnes to his purpoſe; that is, to ſhew the excellencie of Chriſts Prieſthood aboue that of Aaron, by auouching him a Prieſt after the order of Melchiſedec. The concluſion is this. Chriſts Prieſthood is more excellent then that of Leui; or Chriſt is a greater Prieſt then any after Aarons order. The principall reaſon lyeth thus. He that is a Prieſt after th'order of Melchiſedec is a greater Prieſt then the Prieſts after Aaron. But Chriſt is a Prieſt after th'order of Melchiſedec. Ergo: &c. The minor hath firſt his proofe. 1. From a teſtimony of Dauid, Cap. 5.20. 2. From that abſolute agreement betwixt Melchiſedec, and Chriſt: the parts whereof are theſe. 1. As Melchiſedec was King, and Prieſt of the moſt high God, ſo Chriſt. 2. As Melchiſedec King of righteouſneſſe, and Prince of peace, ſo Chriſt. 3. As Melchiſedec his parents, kinred, beginning and end of life are not recorded; ſo Chriſt, as man, without father, as God without mother, kinred, beginning, and end of life. Therefore p. 20Chriſt is truly a Prieſt after th'order of Melchiſedec: verſe 1, 2, 3.

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

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

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

p. 21The Minor is thus proued. The portion due to Melchiſedec his Prieſthood, is due to Chriſts Prieſthood. Reaſ. 1. for that Chriſt is Prieſt after that order. 2. other things enunciated of Melchiſedec, are true of Chriſt eminently & alwaies: as its eminently & alwaies true of Chriſt, that he is King of righteouſnes & Prince of peace: eminently and alwaies true of Chriſt, he is without parēts, without beginning & end of life, that he bleſſeth Abraham & all his ſeed, &c. All theſe are more properly verified of Chriſt, then of Melchiſedec his Type. Why not then alſo this euer true of him? He taketh Tythes. May we not aſſume? Tythes are the portion due to Melchiſedec his Prieſthood? 1. Paide they were by Abraham to Melchiſedec, as due to his Prieſthood. 2. In the Apoſtles Logique a Prieſt, and a receiuer of Tythes are aequipollents. In ſteed of ſaying, men that die are Prieſts, he ſaith, men that die receiue Tythes: In ſteed of ſaying, he that liues is a Prieſt, he ſaith, he that liues, takes tythes: as if, in his iudgmēt, Tythes and Prieſthood were as inſeparable, as kingdome, and tribute: The Maior of the principall Syllogiſme if any doubt of, to wit, whether the portion due to Chriſt, be due to Miniſters, let him compare, 1. Cor. 9.14. where is th'expreſſe ordinance of Chriſt, that Ministers ſhould liue of the Goſpel. 2. Who in likelihood ſhould be his receiuers, but thoſe that are in his ſtead, as is ſaid of Miniſters, 2. Cor. 5.20. 3. The ſame reaſon which the Lord aſſignes of Leui his ſharing in things to himſelfe reſerued, and ſanctified, is true of Miniſters, or elſe of none. God is Leuites portion. 1. Gods portion is Leuites portion; becauſe they were taken to Miniſter before him. Why not then alſo Chriſts portion Miniſters portion? p. 22becauſe they onelyonly are aſſumed to Chriſt, to Miniſter in the Goſpel. A reaſon for not Tything of ſo plaine deduction out of Scripture, if any can bring mee, he ſhall much ſway mee to his ſentence.

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

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

Anſw. Whereto I then anſwered, that though we be no Prieſts after that order, yet is there truth in the propoſition, ſith Chriſt the high Prieſt of our profeſſion, to whom originally they belong, hath ordained 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 th'aſſumption is falſe: Abrahams payment being an act rather voluntarie, then by any iniunction from God.

Anſw. But that that act of Abraham was no act: in this ſenſe voluntarie, but rather of neceſſarie and inioyned dutie, is euident (me thinkes) by theſe reaſons. 1. For that gifts voluntarie, proceeding from bountie and liberalitie, imply a ſuperioritie or excellencie in the giuer, aboue the receiuer. ForffAct. 20.35.Acts 20:35 its a more bleſſed thing in that kinde to giuegive then to receiue. But Abrahams payment of Tythes was teſtimonie of his inferiority. 2. Againe, the phraſe it ſelfe implies as much. Melchiſedec Tythed Abraham; ver. 6. a p. 23phraſe that looſeth all his Emphaſis, if no iniunction had ſubiected Abraham to a neceſſitie of beeing tythed. 3. What meane they when they ſay of Abrahams tything, it was done without law? would they be vnderſtood of Abrahams fact onelyonly? or of tything at large, as it was in vſe before the Law written? Now ſure I wonder how firſt Abraham, and then after him Iacob, ſhould fall vponupon a tenth, rather then vponupon a ſixt or twelfth part, if there were nothing preſcribed in their times for tything? 2. How prooue they but probably that it was without iniunction of Law? if this be the reaſon, for that we finde no mention of any Law to that end giuen, by as good reaſon may they ſay of ſacrifices, and ſundry other actions religious, that they were arbitrarie; ſith we finde no expreſſe mandate giuen of them in thoſe times. But thus me thinks we may better reaſō from their practiſe to an iniunction; theſe facts of theirs were approoued of God; therefore not done without iniunction from him. Thus farre I ſuppoſe, this Argument cleared. Volumes of new cauills are behinde; which makes mee thinke it hangs much in the teeth of oppoſites.

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

Anſw. We ſhall tell you anone, when we hauehave learnt your meaning. What is your meaning, by thus yeelding them due to the Prieſthood of Melchiſedec? meane you the Prieſthood after that order? Then it followes that they are due to Chriſts Prieſthood: for his is Prieſthood ggHeb. 6.20.Heb 6:20after th'order of Melchiſedec.

p. 24Perhaps that's not the meaning; but you ſuppoſe them due to Melchiſedec, ratione ſacerdotij, non talis ſacerdotij: or ratione Typica.

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

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

Anſ. All and eueryevery thing belonging to the Type, as a Type, muſt be verified of the Anti-type with this diſtinction, either litterally, or miſtically; not all litterally, nor all myſtically: what is not litterally, muſt bee myſtically; what is not myſtically, muſt be litterally. And that you may ſee ſimilitudes of heauenly things, and Earthly their Types, hold, ſome, after the letter. Reade what is ſaid of the high Prieſt of Iewes as he was Type of Chriſt.hhHeb. 9.7.Heb 9:7 He enters into the holy of holies not without bloud: As he into the holy of holies, ſo Christ into heauen: that verification is myſticall. AsiiVerſ. 23, 24. he not without bloud; So Christ not without bloud. That is literall. Melchiſedec brought in as Chriſt type in the ſtory, without father and mother. Is not this eminently true of Chriſt after the letter? Melchiſedec without beginning or end of dayes: this alſo litterally verified. Though then all things true of the Type materialiter ſumpto, are not neceſſarily true of the Antitype; yet as many as p. 25belong to the type formaliter taken, as a Type, muſt, with that diſtinction be true of th'Antitype. And what is intended to be verified myſtically, muſt ſo be verified in the truth: what is meant to be literally accompliſhed in the Antitype, muſt ſo be fulfilled.

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

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

That it is not myſtically, but litterally to bee fulfilled in Chriſts Prieſthood, who can denie? for where is the myſticall Analogie betwixt this Act of Melchiſedec Typical, and Chriſt; as in his beeing King of Salem, and Melchiſedec; verified this muſt be of Chriſt, either litterally, or myſtically: not myſtically, Ergo, litterally. And ſee if the text ſay not ſo much.kkHeb. 7.8.Heb 7:8 He takes Tythes that liues euer: Who is that? Melchiſedec as the Type; Chriſt as the Truth. p. 26Eminently its true of Chriſt after the letter, he liues euer; And he liues euer with this Epithete, to bee a taker of Tythes.

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

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

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

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

Obiect. Chriſt by this meanes claimes from his Type.

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

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

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

Obiect. There was no praecept.

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

Obiect. The act was voluntary in Abraham.

Anſw. How vnderſtand you voluntary? willingly performed: ſo did Paul preach the Goſpel willingly: that Act of preaching was in Paul voluntary: yetll1. Cor 9.16, 17.1 Cor 9:161 Cor 9:17 Woe had beene vntounto him if he had not preached the Goſpel.

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

Anſw. As ſome almes belike to the poore King of Salem: for ſuch you would hauehave all that's now payd to Miniſters of the Goſpel. But oppoſe you voluntarie p. 28to matter of inioyned dutie? then ſay I, payment ſo voluntary in Abraham, could not teſtifie his inferioritie to Melchiſedec. No payment, except of duty, is teſtimony of inferioritie.mmHeb. 7.6.Heb 7:6 Abrahams payment of Tythes to Melchiſedec, was testimonie of inferioritie; therefore it was payment of duty. You miſtake if you conceiue it ſaid, that all payments of dues imply inferioritie of the payer. Not ſo: But no payment, except of dutie, teſtifies th'inferiority of the payer. What hauehave we now to doe with Kings paying wages to ſeruants? and ſuch like prattle. Its ſtill true; except Abrahams payment to Melchiſedec, had beene of duty, it could be no teſtimony of his inferiority. Compare Rom. 13.5, 6.

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

Anſw. All vncertaine. Of all, ſaith Moſes. Gen. 14.20. that is, ſaith Maſter Calvine, reaſoning from circumſtances of the text, of all his owne ſubſtance, and that commonly: for it is likely, hee that had ſworne tonnGen. 14.23.Gen 14:23 take nothing, from a thred to a ſhooe-latchet, for his owne enrichment, would at another mans coſt offer vntounto God? It was a Piaculum vntounto Dauid to offer vntounto his God of that which coſt him nothing. 2. Sam. 24.24. And as great ſcandall had Abraham incurred amongſt thoſe Heathens, by performing his Deuotions at their charge, as by taking of theirs, for his owne enrichment. 2. But how followes the Argument? if but once, nor of all; Ergo, not by Law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For ſacrifices, their vſe held by tradition.

Anſw. By tradition? Now how a good-yeare p. 30comes tradition in to bee the ancient Rule of worſhip? Tradition, ſelfe-deuiſed cuſtome, without a praecept from God. 2. Tradition wee yeeld it was, in a ſenſe, as matters of faith and worſhip were all traditionary, till the dayes of Moſes: that is, they were deliuered from father to ſonne, without writing: ſo was that, that the ooGen. 3.15Gen 3:15ſeed of the woman ſhould breake the Serpents head, &c. In that ſenſe Tradition: but what is not alſo a diuine reuelation? So tradition that ſacrifices ſhould be offered: but was not the praecept extant for the matter of ſacrifices? of cleane not vncleane beasts. 2. for the qualitie; of the beſt, not of their refuſe? How elſe ſinned Cain in bringing ſuch a ſacrifice? And is not Abel ſaid,ppHeb. 11.4Heb 11:4 by faith to hauehave offered a better ſacrifice? and is there faith without a word of God?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anſw. Take wee it therefore with all references poſſibly imaginable; and conſider any circumſtance probably competent to be conſidered; yeeld alſo th' Apoſtle to vſe, if not that pia vafrities, yet his prudence in working vponupon the preſent opinions of the Iewes; what I wonder, may any theſe references, or obſeruings affoord, to croſſe th'Argument heere founded. Particularize the references; 1. He writes to Hebrewes, become Chriſtians. 2. Confeſſedly infirme in iudgement touching abrogation of Leuiticall p. 32Law; and adhaering too much to their firſt rudiments. 3. opinioned, as truth ſeemes, that Ancient praecepts Moſaicall ſtill bound the conſcience, after exhibiting of the Meſſiah. What, to our maine, will all this affoord to nullifie or diſable the Argument here grounded? His pia vafrities, if it be conceited after Eraſmus, his working vponupon aduantage of their miſconceits, and errours of iudgement, hath here I dare ſweare, neither vſe, nor footing. For what is in all this paſſage miſconceiued by thoſe Chriſtian Iewes? whereout Paul ſhould ſtrayne his concluſion of Chriſts ſuperioritie, to Leuiticall Prieſts? God rrHeb. 7.21Heb 7:21ſweares him a Prieſt after order of Melchiſedec: AndssVerſ. 7. without controuerſie, the leſſe is bleſſed of the greater; ttVerſ. 8.To ſpeake as the thing is, Leui was tythed in the loynes of Abraham, ſauour any theſe aſſeuerations of Pauls working on miſconceites.

His prudence it was to ground his concluſions on Scriptures, and Propoſitions thereof, confeſſed by Iewes as true; yet truely ſo confeſſed; and of force to affoord him, out of their reall truth, and intention of the inſpirer, whatſoeuer inference he makes from them: ſo was it our Sauiours, out of Moſes writings to conuinceuuM… 22.31, 32. Sadduces, in th'Article of the reſurrection: yet was there truth in his ground, and by vndeniable ſequele iſſues his concluſion out of the praemiſſes extant in Moſes. When Paul at Athens alledgeth teſtimony of Aratus the Poet,wwAct. 17.28.Acts 17:28 foreign, we acknowledge his prudence impleading them from their owne Authours: yet dare not thinke him ſo impiouſly vafer, as to lay for ground an erroneous conceit: or ſo imprudent a diſputer, as to p. 33build his concluſion on a ground, from whence the Argument had not apparent deduction. I preſume, this curt anſwer affoords ſo learned and friendly an inquiſitor, large ſatisfaction. Proceede wee therefore to the other Arguments.

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

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

This is the frame.

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

Tythes are the Portion due to Chriſts Prieſthood. Ergo:

The Minor is thus prooued.

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

Tythes are the Portion due to Melchiſedechs Prieſthood. Ergo:

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

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

Forſooth, the true tearmes are theſe:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1Reſp. What if Christ neede no honorarie to be rendred from vsus? therefore is none belonging to his Prieſthood? Though God bbPſa. 50.9, 10, 11, 12.Ps 50:9Ps 50:10Ps 50:11Ps 50:12needed nor Bullocks nor Goates in Holocauſts, or Thanks-offerings, were they therefore not to bee rendred from Iewes? Though Chriſt needes not our Lands, or Liuings, or Liues, yet, in caſe of Confeſsion, ccMat. 10.37.Matt 10:37can they bee but impiouſly denyed him? Who knowes not as much as Peter Lombard in this caſe, that all our ſeruice of God, inward,Pſa. 16.2. Iob 22.2, 3Ps 16:2Job 22:2Job 22:3 outward, redounds to ours, not to Gods behoofe? Belong they not therefore to our God? Chriſt needes not take: yet its our opus and vſus too to render him outward, inward ſeruice and ſacrifice.

When God calls to Iewes for Tythes vnderunder name ofeeMal. 3.8.Mal 3:8 his owne, that there might be meat in his Houſe, no man is ſo mad to thinke of the liuing God, as is fabled or ſtoried of th'Idol Bel and the Dragon. Yet muſt there be meate in his Houſe for them to whom the ministration of his ſeruice was then committed. And though Chriſt, for his owne Perſon, now needes not this Honorarie, yet needes hee it in his Deputes and Aſſignes, whom he hath ff2. Cor. 5.20.2 Cor 5:20put in his ſtead, to commemorate and apply the vertues of his aeternall Prieſthood, and to keepe in life and being, the Spirituall Prieſthood, exerciſed by all Chriſtians in the ſtate of this life.

And doth he not require it?ggPro. 3.9.Prov 3:9 Honour God with Ad. 2 thy ſubſtance, and with the chiefe of all thy increaſe; that he requires.hh…. Cor. 9.11. Render Carnals to them that ſowe Spirituals: That hee requires.ii1. Tim. 5.17.1 Tim 5:17 Count Presbyters worthy of double honour; thats apertly the Honorarie wee now ſpeake of. For Wages, or hyre, as you ſtyle and explane it, let it not be once named in this quaeſtion, as becommeth Saints: out vponupon that baſe conceit.

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

Reſp. True as Goſpell: nor Wages nor Honorarie aequiualent to his merite.kkPſal. 116.12, 13.Ps 116:12Ps 116:13 Quid retribuam? ſaith Dauid. Poſſibly nothing aequable to Gods bountie; our goodneſſe extends not to him: yet there was Poculum ſalutis, which hee tooke and offered in teſtimonie of thankefulneſſe, for ſo many and great things done to his Soule. When Iacob according to his Vow erected th'AltarllGen. 35.1.Gen 35:1 at Bethel, and (who queſtions?) payde Tythes to God that had kept him; dreames any man hee meant it to the Lord as a Wage for his Worke, in ſafe-guarding his Perſon, or Honorarie aequiualent to ſuch merites? Lord, I am mmGen. 32.10.Gen 32:10leſſe then all thy Goodneſſe and Truth, which thou haſt ſhowne me, &c. Why doubt wee that it was a dutie in Iacob, and ſuch as found acceptance with God? Reade alſo that excellent Bleſſing and Prayer of nn1. Chr. 29.1 Chr 29Dauid, what time hee deliuers his owne and the Peoples Offerings towards building the Temple: It will appeare true which you ſay; the Honorarie was not worthie the Lord, yet due to him from Dauid, and from the People.

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

Muſt wee yet buckle about th'aſſumptions? What thinke you? are they yet both falſe; and againe, you ſay falſe, twice falſe, if my portion be not Merces, but Honorarium? What if there be no proportion betwixt the worth of Chriſts Priesthood, and Tythes? Therefore not the Honorarie of his Prieſthood? What though no proportion betweene the ſpirituall things wee ſowe, and the carnall, wee reape from the people? Ergo, oo1. Cor. 9.11.1 Cor 9:11Carnals no Honorarie due to Miniſterie for Spirituals? What though no proportion betweene thepp1. Tim. 2.2.1 Tim 2:2 Quiet and Godlineſſe and Honestie we liue in by meanes of Kings, and theqqRom. 13.7.Rom 13:7 Tribute and Custome wee render to thoſe Earthly Gods? Therefore not the Honorarie of Regalitie? I ſay not yet as you to me, Apageſis. Yet I aduiſe, make no ſuch inferences. How vaine are they? who ſees not their vanitie? To ſay truth, how were they Honoraries, if there might be found meere paritie or proportion betwixt them?

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

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

But doth onelyonly Couenant and Compact breede Ad. 1 Debts of Iuſtice? Doth not alſo Commandement? p. 34Doe not Benefits? &c. What Compact I wonder twixt Parents and Children, to oblige the Childe to obedience and maintenance? A Commandement there isrrExod. 20. Matth 15.4.Exod 20Matt 15:4 to honour, that is, to ſuſtaine the Parent; and itsſſEph. 6.1.Eph 6:1 foreign, ſaith Paul, without Couenant, to obey in all things.

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

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

Ad. 3 And looſe our Offices their Grace, which are done by commandement? Had not Abraham histtGen. 22.2Gen 22:2 command to offer Iſaac? or euer paſſed act from him, by which hee receiued more grace or commendation from God, then this of offering his ſonne Iſaac? Gaue not this the uuVerſ. 12.16.hent to that excellent commendation, and ratifying of enlarged Bleſſing? By this, wonne he not the ſtyle ofwwIam. 2.23Jas 2:23 Gods friend, the greateſt encomium God euer gaue man? Remember you not the vſuall Quaere, whether muchneſſe of obligation winne not grace to the performance? or the reſolution? Vbi maior obligatio, maior acceptatio; becauſe melior eſt obedientia quàm victimae. I ſpare cenſure of your miſ-applying Scriptures, in this and other paſſages. I wonder, I ſorrow at it. p. 35But am vowed to keepe cloſe to ſubſtance of Anſwere.

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

But meane you good earneſt? Thinke you it ſoothly true which Bellarmine ſaith? Impium fuiſſet Iacobo vovere Decimas, ſi abſolutè fuiſſet obligatus eas ſoluere: Is it your opinion, That no Vow may paſſe on any matter, whereto wee are obliged abſolutely, that is, by peremptorie Praecept? when vnderunder Nehemiah, Princes, Priests, People, made xxNeh. 10.Neh 10Couenant, and entred into a Curſe, to walke in Gods Law, giuen by Moſes, &c. Suppoſe you they erred in the matter of their Vow? were they not abſolutely bound ſo to doe? were they impious in ſo vowing? when vnderunder Ieremie, They yyIer. 34.8, 13, 14.Jer 34:8Jer 34:13Jer 34:14couenant to manumit their ſeruants according to the Law; miſtake they the matter of a Vow? were they impious, in ſo obliging themſelues? Is it ſo impious, to adde to the Bond of Praecept the Obligation of a Vow?

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

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

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

Anſ. Expreſſe Scripture? then lay I my hand vponupon my mouth, neuer more to open it to that aſſertion. But are you ſure Scripture ſpeakes it, and ſpeakes it expreſſely? When Paul ſaidzzHeb. 7.5, 6,Heb 7:5Heb 7:6 Leui had commandement to tythe his Brethren, denyed hee Melchiſedec had like warrant to tythe Abraham? Say, I beſeech you, in ſober ſadneſſe; ſay as Conſcience dictates: as the Text leades you. Is this (indeede) made difference, to prooue ſuperioritie of Melchiſedec to Leui; that Leui tythed by Law, Melchiſedec without Law? Where doth the Scripture expreſſe, or but imply that? yea, doth it not imply the contrarie? What intends the Apoſtle, in comparing the tything of Leui with that of Melchiſedec? but apertly to proue Melchiſedec ſuperior to Leui, euen in this honour of Tything? or trow you, this prooues a ſuperioritie in Melchiſedec, to take without Law, whereas Leui takes according to Law? Say, I pray, whether is the baſer Tenure? that by Law; or that by Curteſie, and at Will? I ſhould thinke, that at Will. And if Leui tooke by Law, Melchiſedec but of Curteſie, Leui ſure had the preheminence. Farre be it, the Apoſtle ſhould bring argument to ouerthrow his intention. Truth is, the compariſon there entred, lyes onelyonly in the Subiects tythed, not in the ground of Tything. Leui tythes Brethren: Melchiſedec, the Patriarch and chiefe Father of thoſe Brethren, is therefore more excellent then Leui; inaſmuch, as the very Prince of their race is ſubiected to his Prieſthood, and bound to render the Honorarie thereof.

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

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

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

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

Reſp. 1. Then muſt thou bee able to ſhew, that God hath made Magiſtrates in this point his caruers, which is vnlikely, vt ſupra. Suppoſe Magiſtrates make no prouiſion, as hath befallen many ſtates of the Church; imagine them Sacrilegiouſly rapinous; where is then the direction for thy Faith? Suppoſe they ſhall allow Micha's allowance, wilt thou therewith reſt content? then hauehave our Lay-Parſons Faith well guided, Conſciences rectified.xxIud. 17.10.Judg 17:10 Tenne Sheckles of Siluer, and a Meales meate, and Liuerie, they affoord Sir Iohn. In Faith thinke wee? Surely, according to the Magiſtrates prouiſion. And why blame wee any more impropriate Parſons, for ſo ſcant allowance? Perhaps, becauſe not competent. Yea, but the Magiſtrate thinkes it competent. And that is, in this caſe, the Line of Faith. Credam? non ſi mihi, &c.

Touching the Minor: For the firſt part, ſee, 1. Cor. 9.11. Prou. 3.9. Galat. 6.6. In which place, yee hauehave it in ſo many tearmes: Let him that is inſtructed, make his instructer partaker of all his goods. For the other Branch of it, That no other portion certaine is to bee found in Scripture; I meane, which hath not apparent ſignification of ſomething peculiar to the ſtate of People vnderunder Leui, as Firſt fruites, ſhare of other Sacrifices; will appeare to any man, that will be pleaſed to enter induction of particulars. And may I not then conclude, Tythes are the portion allotted vsus by the Word of God? Yea, what if I ſhould ſay, Tythes are in ſome of theſe places more then obliquely pointed at? What meanes the Apoſtle to call for maintenance vntounto Miniſters, vnderunder the tearme of double honour? For that by yy1. Tim. 5.17, 18.1 Tim 5:171 Tim 5:18honour, hee there meanes maintenance, the reaſon annexed will make a blinde man ſee. Saint Hierome hauing deliuered his iudgement of the place, Malac. 3. Bring all my Tythes into the Store-houſe, in theſe tearmes, Eccleſiae populis Praeceptum est dare Decimas, alleadgeth praeſently this place for proofe. 1. Tim. 1.17. Elders must hauehave double honour. 2. What meanes the Apoſtle by that Epithete (double) annexed to honour? Say ſome, large and liberall. But why double, rather then treble, if hee meant large at large? Doth hee not rather, in that phraſe of ſpeech, ſend vsus to conſider the double portion of the firſt borne,zzNumb. 8.16.Num 8:16 into whoſe roome Leui was aſſumed? and that which made their portion double, in likelyhood was Tythes; as may hereafter, on a new inquirie, perhaps appeare.

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

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

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

p. 37But Tythes are that determinate quantitie of peoples temporalties which God hath allotted Miniſters of the Goſpel for their ſeruice. Ergo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yea Sir, doe you grant all? Saith God in his p. 39word to Miniſters as once to Leui, I hauehave giuen them Tythes for the ſeruice they doe mee in the Goſpel? Shall any doubt whether th'allotment be of aequall endurance with the ſeruice? or that th' honorarie may be changed, ſo long as the Seruice continues? Thus briefely. As to Leui they were aſſigned for aaNumb. 18.21.Num 18:21his Seruice in the Tabernacle, and were vnalterably to be rendred ſo long as the Tabernacle ſtood: So to Miniſters of the Goſpel they muſt ſtand, vponupon this conceſſion, ſo long as their Euangelicall Seruice continues, that is, as I ſuppoſe, ſo long as the Sunne and Moone endureth. Except perhaps you can euidence they are exceptiuely or diſiunctiuely only allotted; Tythes or ſome other thing in roome or ſtead thereof, which who will vndertake to euidence by the word of God?

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

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

Tythes are of that portion ſo ſeparate. Ergo.

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

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

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

Anſw. No word of God forceth to ſuch limitation. At building of Tabernacle, was there any law of God particular to contribute? Why then runnes the tenour thus? EueryEvery man whoſe bbExod. 35.5.Exod 35:5heart is willing, let him bring, Gold, Siluer, Goates haire, &c. And euen of voluntarie and votarie conſecrations both Moſes, and Salomon ſpeake. And, was it not free to Ananias to conſecrate or not, otherwiſe then p. 41generall lawes of pietie or charitie might ſway him? Act. 5.4. Whiles it remained, was it not thine owne? And after it was ſold, was it not in thy power?

Yet was Ananias his detainement, Sacriledge: by circumſtances of the Text, and conſent of beſt interpreters. He is taxed by Peter, not onelyonly for lying; but for theeuiſh and clancular ſurreption of part of the price, verſ. 3. And ſaith Mr. Beza, interpreting the word; Ad Sacrilegium etiam acceſsit diffidentia & hypocriſis. There was then Sacriledge in his detainement, though dedication was voluntarie. Centuriat: Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. Ambroſ. Ser. 9. Dum ex eo quod promiſerat, partem ſubtrahit, ſacrilegij ſimul condemnatur & fraudis; Sacrilegij, quod Deum in Pollicitatione fefellerat, fraudis quod, &c. They are ſtrange quaeres rayſed by giddie ſpirits, deſirous to free themſelues from ſtroke of this Argument; 1. As whether Sacriledge be a ſinne in theſe times of reformation; their meaning is, whether there bee any poſſibility of a Chriſtians falling into the ſinne of Sacriledge, otherwiſe then by defiling his body with the fleſh, or depriuing God of the honour immediately belonging vntounto him. A quaeſtion, I confeſſe, in theſe times ſomewhat diſputable; wherein the very matter of Sacriledge is almoſt annihilated. It calls to mind the teares of Alexander in the known ſtory, ſhedde vponupon remembrance of his father Philips frequent victories, and conqueſts ſo large, as there ſeemed no matter left for his ambition to work vponupon. How doth their couetouſneſſe mourne, and their hearts languiſh, that there is left them ſo little a gleaning, after the great harueſt of their praedeceſſours? p. 42yet how gape they after that little prey vponupon holy things, yet vnſurprized? We liue in a free ſtate; giuegive me leaue freely to ſpeake my minde. In my conſcience I thinke it true, the clamours againſt Biſhops calling, and things appendent thereto, hath had no other ſource, then popular enuy at theſe fat holy morſels, which yet remaine vndeuoured, could they but calme conſcience, grumbling, I dare ſay, in many againſt th'attempt, and ſway ſupreame Authoritie, the iudgement threatned to the poſteritie of Eli, would ſoone be our fate; To bb1. Sam. 2.36.1 Sam 2:36bow downe to our Lay-masters for a piece of ſiluer, and a morſell of bread, that we might be appointed to one of the Prieſts offices.

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

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

3. Vnderſtand it ſay ſome with theſe exceptions.

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

Reſp. What word of God or found reaſon giues p. 44libertie to alien ſeeming ſuperfluities of miniſters, rather then of other Subiects? ſpake Paul to miniſters onelyonly when he ſayde, Let ddHeb. 13.5Heb 13:5your conuerſation be without couetouſneſſe, and bee content with things praeſent?

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

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

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

2. Their ſecond exception is, when alienation is neceſſary for preſeruation of the Church. In ſuch caſeee2. Reg. 1….6.2 Kgs 1:6 Hezekiahs practiſe, may it not be imitated.

Reſp. Perhaps yes: ſo you keepe to your patterne: and inferre not too farre. View therefore 1. the matter of Hezekiah his alienation; you ſhall find it to be of things belonging rather to the ornaments of Gods worſhip, then to the maintenance of the miniſtery. 2. Take it into your ſerious conſideration; whether an action mutuall, or relatiue, ſuch as theſe are paſſing betwixt the giuer and receiuer, may not be in caſu, on the one ſide lawfull, on th'other, ſinnefull; As if I ſhould aske; may I not without ſinne in perill of life, and to auoide violence iuſtly feared, deliuer my purſe to a Thiefe? or doth not the Thiefe ſinne in receiuing, or deteining it? We will ſuppoſe Hezekiah p. 45to hauehave done lawfully, in deliuering the treaſure, and Ornaments of the Temple to the King of Aſſyria, thereby to redeeme himſelfe and Gods people from his violence. But can you ſuppoſe Aſhur leſſe then Sacrilegious in accepting, or detayning them? For euer I bleſſe his zeale, who to redeeme Chriſtian Captiues, would exchange his ſiluer Chalice, for wood: yet ſhall curſe to hell him, who driues to this exigent, and thinke his crueltie, or couetouſnes no other then Sacrilegious. Though therefore neceſſitie perhaps may exempt ſuch alienation from crime of Sacriledge on the part of the deliuerer, yet is not the action in all parts void of Sacriledge; yea, cannot be excuſed, on the receiuers behalfe, of prophane irreuerence, and irreligion to Godward. Goe now and triumph you Heluoes of holy things, ſample your ſelues from Hezekiah; But know, he is Sacrilegious, whoſoeuer accepts or retaines things holy to God, howſoeuer percaſe lawfully deliuered into his poſſeſſion from hands of the rightfull Owners. 3. Can wee but thinke Hezekiah minded asff1. Kin. 14 26, 27.1 Kgs 14:261 Kgs 14:27 Rehoboam practiſed? to reſtore what neceſſitie forced him to decay? Reade the ſtorie: perhaps you may bethinke your ſelues of reſtitution. 4. Let vsus yeeld to neceſſitie; the force of it is great, to legitimate for the time, what nothing els can warrant. May retaining ſuch things in that caſe aliened, be excuſed from Sacriledge, neceſſitie ceaſing? I aske your iudgement. The ggMat. 12.4.Matt 12:4ſhew bread was made common to Dauid and his companie in extremitie: might it therefore be perpetually commoned?

Their laſt exception: when Princes hauehave no other p. 46other means to remunerate ſubiects, faithfull in common ſeruices.

Anſw. What, I wonder in ſuch caſe, layes open Church goods to will of Princes, rather then the goods of common ſubiects? Thus I reaſon and leaue them. Priuate goods of Subiects, Magiſtrates may not alien from them for recompence of ſeruants: much leſſe may the Lords Portion be transferred to ſuch vſe. Pharao King of Aegypt, and Ioſeph his Viceroy, giuegive immunitie to poſſeſsions of hhGen. 47.22.Gen 47:22Priests, when elſe the whole land is ſeized for the King: perſwaded (I ſuppoſe) things Sacred to Religion ought at no hand be violated. Thus then the propoſition is cleare as it was propounded. Yeeld we it yet with theſe limits and exceptions, as many as hauehave but ſhew of reaſon to ſupport them; and thus conclude. The detainment or aliening of things by Law conſecrated to ſupport pure worſhip of the true God without ſuperfluitie, any longer then neceſſitie requires, is Sacriledge.

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