Defense and Justification of Tithes and Infant Baptism, Argument and answer 9 – Argument and answer 29
Anthony Peirſon's Caſe.
Thirdly, (ſaith he) If there be any who have ſomething to ſay for them, which is not herein touched, it ſhall be acceptable to me.
Mr. Bourn's Anſwer.
I anſwer, if Anthony Peirſon, or the Reader pleaſe to read over again my Juſtification of Miniſters maintenance by Tythes, he may find ſomething which he hath not touched, ſeveral places of Scripture opened to prove the Divine Right of Tythes to the Miniſters of Chriſt, and divers arguments preſſed, to which he hath ſaid nothing, or nothing to the purpoſe.
Again, for his Hiſtory in general: It is a rule, that Rectum eſt index ſui & obliqui, that which is ſtreight is a declarer both of its own rectitude, and of that which is crooked; It is ſo here, a true Hiſtory of Tythes will eaſily diſcover a falſe, if the Reader pleaſe to read my Hiſtory of Tythes, in which it is manifeſt they are the Lords portion, and reſerved-part for the maintenance of his Miniſters, both before and ſince the coming of Chriſt; and ſo Tythes proved to be due by Divine Right; and to compare it with his Hiſtory, in which he endeavours to ſhew that Tythes, and Miniſters maintenance, both before and ſince Chriſt, were but arbitrary Devotions, and meer Alms given at mens pleaſure to the poor (as in divers places he affirms) I conceive the falſehood of his opinion will ſoon appear, and I need ſay no more for anſwer, it will be evident that his Faith depends but upon humane teſtimony, and a view of ſome mens practiſes, without conſidering the grounds and Reaſons of their payment of Tythes, which was conſcience enlightened that they were Gods due, and paid upon that account, both by Abraham, Jacob, and the Jewiſh Nation, yea by Gentiles before, and by Chriſtians converted to the Faith ſince Chriſt his Aſcention to Glory.
But although this be ſufficient to anſwer, yet according to my ſhort time (the Printer ſtaying for my paper) I ſhall give you ſome further Animadverſions upon his Hiſtory of Tythes.
Anthony Peirſon's caſe.
He begins Page 1. God (ſaith he) having choſen Aaron and his Sons for the office of Prieſthood, and the reſt of the Tribe of Levie for the ſervice of the Tabernacle: he gave all the Tenth in Iſrael to the Levites for an inheritance for their ſervice.
Mr. Bourn's anſwer.
Firſt, you may obſerve he begins his Hiſtory of Tythes with Levie, as if no mention of Tythes had been in Scripture before Moſes and Levie, when as if you read, Gen. 14.20. and Gen. 28.22. you may find that both Abraham pay'd Tythes to Melchizedeck, (not as a free gift from him, but as Gods Right, and an owning of him to be Gods High Prieſt, and Tythes Gods reſerved part, as I have proved at large in my Hiſtory of Tythes; and upon this account Jacob vowed to pay Tythes, not as a will worſhip, odious to God, Col. 2.22. and ſpoken againſt by the Spirit of God in that holy Apoſtle.
Anthony Peirſon's Caſe.
Again in the ſame Page he tells us, That beſides the Tythes, the First-fruits alſo were given to the Priests, but yet he would inſinuate, that they were but as the Owner pleaſed, and at the devotion of the Owner, for which he quoteth in the margin, Deut. 18.4. and Ezek. 45.13.
Mr. Bourn's Anſwer.
For anſwer: if the Reader conſult thoſe places of Scripture, he ſhall find Deut. 18.3, 4. this ſhall be the Prieſts due from the people; both for Offerings, and Firſt-fruits: and if due, then not at the peoples devotion as Peirſon would infer, becauſe a direct quantity is not expreſſed; if the Firſt-fruits were a duty, then not an arbitrary devotion. And here I pray you conſider what Doctrines we are like to have of his collection, when he endeavours to draw a falſe Doctrine from the firſt Scripture he names, and to lay this as a Foundation to build his opinion, That Tythes and Miniſters maintenance are but Devotions arbitrary, to be given or not given at mens pleaſure, as it God had no right in them, which is the drift of his Hiſtory.
And if you read that other Text, Ezek. 45.13. the direct part what ſhall be offered is expreſſed: and what ground is there then of gathering a Doctrine hence of arbitrary devotion, as if no command from God, but at mens pleaſure; as he would have Tythes to be: the Lord open his eyes to ſee his Error.
I paſs over what he hath ſaid, little to this purpoſe.
Anthony Pierſon's Caſe.
Page 3. He proceeds, A view of the Doctrines, Decrees, and practiſes of Tything from the Inſancy of the Chriſtian Church to this day.
And in this view he tells us, that when Chriſt was preached, the Apoſtles and Miniſters of Jeſus Christ did not go about to eſtabliſh the Law by which Tythes were given in the former Prieſthood, but preached freely, and did not require any ſetled Maintenance, but lived of the Free Offerings and Contributions of Saints, Hierom. in vita Mar. Philo Judaeus.for which he alledgeth Scriptures, Acts 11.29. 1 Cor. 16.2. and that Chriſtians lived together in ſocieties, for which he alledgeth other teſtimony.
Mr. Bourn's anſwer.
For anſwer, I grant this to be ſo in thoſe Primitive times, as Acts 4.31. &c. when they had all things common, then the Apoſtles and Miniſters of Chriſt had their part, yea when men ſold their Lands, and brought their money into the common Treaſury of the Church, they laid it down at the Apoſtles feet: Read my Book, p. 55.then was no need to deſire Tythes, or any ſetled maintenance, they having no certain dwelling-places. But I have anſwered this at full in my Defence of Tythes, to which I deſire the Reader to look back, where he may find full ſatisfaction; this community of Goods in thoſe times of neceſſity and danger, doth nothing hinder, but that when better times came, and Churches were ſetled, the Duty of Tythes might be required and paid as it was in after ages, as I have evidently manifeſted: and this as a due by Divine Right to the Miniſters of Chriſt.
Anthony Peirſon's Caſe.
pag. 4.5.And all thoſe humane teſtimonies he brings of Tertullian in Apologet, cap. 39. the practiſe of the Church, according to St. Paul's direction, 1 Cor. 16.2. And Euſ bius, that this cuſtome continued till the great Perſecution under Maximinian and Diocleſian, Euſ…bius lib. 4. c. 22.as appears by divers, as Origen, that Lands were given to the Church, &c. and uſed in common, Miniſters had but their maintenance with the people, not by Tythes.
Mr. Bourn's Anſwer.
I grant that in thoſe times of perſecution it was the beſt way for Miniſters to live, and for the Church, they having many poor to maintain of the common treaſury; Juſtification of Tythes, p. 55, 56.but this will nothing diſprove the Divine right of Tythes to be paid to Gods Miniſters, as it was when times of perſecution were ended, as I have proved at large in my Juſtification of Tythes,
Anthony Peirſon's Caſe.
For that he ſaith page 3. They preached the Goſpel freely.
Mr. Bourn's Anſwer.
I anſwer: for that direction of Chriſt, Mat. 10.7, 8. Freely you have received, freely give: this relates to that power of working miracles, of healing the Sick, cleanſing the Leapers, raiſing the Dead; for theſe freely you have received, freely give. But for preaching of the Goſpel, Chriſt when he ſent his Apoſtles, he giveth them no proviſion, yea wiſheth them to take none, but to receive and expect their maintenance from their hands to whom they brought the Goſpel, and this out of Chriſt his part which was in their hands: for we muſt not think that Chriſt would have his Labourers paid out of other mens eſtates, but out of his own, and out of that they muſt be payed, for ſaith he, The Labourer is worthy of his meat, Mat. 10.8, 9, 10. and worthy of his reward, Luke 10.7. &c. and this to be paid out of Chriſts own reſerved part, not out of other mens goods; as if Chriſt had ſaid, fear not proviſions, for the people to whom I ſend you, to turn them from darkneſs to light, and from the power of Satan to God, they have my goods in their hand, (viz. the Tenth of every encreaſe, or elſe the price of the redemption of it,) and I will rule their hearts to pay You my Labourers out of my part in their hands for your labour in my work: This not as a free benevolence, but as a duty due to me and to you, Luke 10.7.for it is my Ordinance that thoſe that preach the Gospel ſhould live of the Goſpel, 1 Cor. 9.14. as afterward the Apoſtle Paul did witneſs; ſo that this preaching doth nothing hinder the Divine right of Tythes, as in my Defence (to which I refer the Reader) I have declared at large.
Our Friend Anthony Peirſon brings in divers more humane teſtimonies to the ſame purpoſe, to prove (as he would have it) no right of Tythes, nor ſetled maintenance to be given as a due for the Miniſters of the Goſpel, but to live of the benevolence and charity of the peole together with the poor.
Anthony Peirſons caſe.
For this he brings Origen Homily upon Gen. and Urban Biſhop of Rome, Anno about 227 after Chriſt. Cyprian Biſhop of Carthage, Prosper and others, about 250 years after Chriſt, in which times it ſeemeth that Lands were given to the Church for maintenance of poor Saints, as well as the Miniſters, and Miniſters were thus maintained, not by Tythes.
Mr. Bourn's anſwer.
If I grant this, as I may, yet this hinders not that Tythes were Gods right in all Ages; but this was ſtill a time when the Church was ſubject to perſecution and dangers, and many poor, and ſo a neceſſity to live in Societies, as the people of God did in thoſe dayes; a full anſwer you have in my Juſtification of Tythes to belong to Chriſt and his Miniſters, Hom. 23. ad Epiſt. 1. a Cor. … in cap. 16 Ambroſ. Tom. 5. Serm. in Aſcenti Domini.by Divine right, and yet all places were not in like condition, even in thoſe times.
Now Sir, you proceed forward, and bring in Hierom and Chryſoſtome, (who you ſay) did preſs payment of Tythes; and Ambroſe Biſhop of Millan, about the year 400 after Chriſt, preſſed the payment of Tythes.
Anthony Peirſon's caſe.
And page 5. Auguſtine (ſay you) in Sermon de tempore in Tom. 10. This is the just cuſtome of the Lord, that if thou doſt not give the Tenth to him, thou ſhall be called to the Tenth thy ſelf: And after Decimae ex debito requiruntur, tythes are required as due debt, you add Leo, Severine, and Gregory.
Mr. Bourn's anſwer.
Thus you have now alledged divers Antients who do not only declare for payment of tythes,but for payment of them by Divine right, or as a duty; Gregory's judgement was that the tenth of all was to be given to God, as many others; and truly any man that rightly conſiders the Hiſtories of the Church, and what is written by the Antients, may ſee clearly, that howſoever in the beginning and dangerous times, tythes were not preſſed for weighty Reaſons, as I have ſhewed in my Defence, page 44, yet ſo ſoon as ever the Church came to a ſettlement, and they were more free from perſecution, tythes were preached, and preſſed, and payed as a duty, not as alms, or liberal devotions as you would make men believe.
Anthony Peirſon's caſe.
Again page 6. he affirms,that from the opinions of theſe, and other antient Fathers who took their ground (as he thinks) from the Law, tythes were brought into the Church, but not received as a general Doctrine, that Tythes ought to be payed till about 800 years after Chriſt.
Mr. Bourn's anſwer.
Firſt, how know you that theſe antient Fathers took their ground out of the Law, that Tythes ought to be pay'd, as if it had been the Levitical Law only? why might they not take their ground long before that Law, even from that payment of Tythes by Abraham to Melchizedeck the Prieſt of the moſt high God, and from Jacobs Vow, and what Chriſt ſpake, and his Apoſtles writ in the Goſpel, and Epiſtles, eſpecially that to the Hebrews, chap. 7. I am ſure ſome of the Fathers do alledge arguments from divers of theſe, See my Book, pag. 59, 60, 61, 62, &c.and ſo it might be from a light to the conſcience, that Tythes are Gods part, and Chriſts right for maintenance of his worſhip and ſervice, & hence might preſs the payment of them. For what you ſay, that the Doctrine was not received till the 800 year, certain it doth not appear, but the contrary, for many Writers before that time did aſſert the payment of Tythes, and that as a due, yea by Divine right, as I have declared in my Defence of Tythes; read my Book, with Doctor Slater, and Doctor Tilſeley his Animadverſions on Mr. Seldens Hiſtory, and others.
Anthony Peirſon's caſe.
In his 7. page and following he endeavours to prove, That Tythes belonged to the Poor above 800, 900, 1000 years after Chriſt, and that the Clergy was not to uſe them as their own, and people had more willing mind to give them for the poor, than the Prieſts, but after in the year 1274. there was a Law that people ſhould not give them at their pleaſures, but to the Church; this by Pope Gregory.
Mr. Bourn's anſwer.
I anſwer: that before that time there were amongſt the people divers things out of order; it was ſome reaſon till Miniſters of the Goſpel were ſetled, people ſhould have more liberty to pay their Tythes where they pleaſed; but yet they were paid, and due to be paid long before that time, and that Law was good by whomſoever it was made, That Tythes ſhould be payed to the Church where Miniſters were ſetled to preach the Goſpel, or to be pay'd to them for their labour, in the Word and Doctrine, which was moſt agreeable to the Divine Inſtitution.
Peirſon's Caſe.
Now page 8, 9. &c. Peirſon brings Hiſtory to witneſs payment of Tythes; I ſhall not trouble the Reader (ſaith he) with a relation of Joſeph of Arimathea coming into Brittain, ſent by Phillip the Apoſtle in the Reign of Arviragus (as Hiſtory reports) he about the year 600, & of Auguſtine the Monk, who came and preached the Goſpel in this Land, and when they had brought a great part of the Nation to the Faith, they began to preach up the old Romiſh Doctrine, that Tythes ought to be paid, &c.
Mr. Bourn's anſwer.
For anſwer: I deſire the Reader to obſerve, he relates indeed the ſtory of Joſeph Arimathea coming into Brittain to preach the Goſpel, but he leaveth out the Hiſtory of that gift of Gleab lands in thoſe dayes at Glaſſenbury, for the maintenance of them that preached the Goſpel: yet he confeſſeth that when the people were converted to the Faith, then they preſſed the payment of Tythes: this ſaith he, about 600 years after Chriſt; and yet he ſaith they began to preach the old Romiſh Doctrine, that Tythes ought to be pay'd. I would ask firſt, how old the doctrine of payment of Tythes was at Rome 600 years after Chriſt? if it was an old doctrine within 600 years after Chriſt, certain then it was in or near the Primitive times, as indeed it was in ſome places long before the Pope, or the univerſal Biſhop of Rome was born, for Origen ſpeaks of the payment of Tythes, who lived near the Primitive times about 200 after Chriſt, as I have ſhewed in my Juſtification of Tythes, read page 59, 60.
Secondly, I demand, why old Romiſh Doctrine? for Hierom was not Biſhop of Rome, and yet he approveth of Tythes; and Auguſtine Biſhop of Hippo in Alexandria, and divers in other places in thoſe times writ of Tythes as due to be paid, and due by divine Right; but he would fain make Tythes Romiſh, that he might make them odious; though they were thought by the Lord the beſt way to maintain his ſervants for his worſhip and ſervice, and indeed are Gods right, and Chriſts right for the maintenance of his Miniſters to the end of the world.
Anthony Peirſon's caſe.
Anthony Peirſon goeth on page 9. &c. As concerning Laws (ſaith he) for Tythes, in the year 786. of a King of Merceland, and Elſwolph King of Northumberland made Decrees that thoſe two Kingdoms ſhould pay Tythes. And Ethelwolf King of the Weſt Saxons in the year 855. made a Law that the Tythe of all his own Land ſhould be given to God; and he tells us out of the Hiſtory, that at that time the Nation being under heavy preſſure by the Danes, Bernredus King of Mercia, and Edmund King of Eastangles being preſent, he called a Counſel, and they to remove the judgements then over them, granted the Tythe of all their Land to God and his ſervants; and divers other Princes after made Laws for the payment of Tythes; thus Anthony Peirſon.
Mr. Bourn's anſwer.
To which I anſwer, that even this making Laws for Tythes, and that when Judgements of God were upon the Land, this certainly doth witneſs evidently that they were perſwaded in their conſciences that Tythes were due to God and his ſervants, and the detaining of them was a ſin, and therefore they made Decrees and Laws to pay them to God, as due to him and his ſervants by divine right, for had they not believed that the payment of Tythes had been well pleaſing to God, they would never in that time have made Laws that Tythes ſhould be pay'd to God for his ſervants.
Anthony Peirſon's caſe.
Now that the Reader may underſtand (ſaith he) the ground that ſome men pay'd Tythes, I have in the margin, declared the grant of King Stephen, pro ſalute animae meae, &c. For the health of my ſoul, &c. I Stephen King of England do grant Tythes, &c.
Mr. Bourn's anſwer.
I anſwer ſtill, though there was ſome errour in king Stephen, yet this doth witneſſe that there was a Conſcience in him, perſwaded that Tythes were Gods due; and therefore he confirms Tythes, as other Princes upon the ſame ground had done before him.
Peirſon's Caſe.
In the tenth page, Wickl…ffe (ſaith he) did make a complaint to the Parliament (which he ſets down in Wickliffes words, Ah Lord God that people ſhould be conſtrained to find a worldly Prieſt unable both in life and cunning, in pomp, and pride, covetiſe, and envy, drunkenneſſe, gluttony, and lechery, in ſymony and hereſie, with fat horſe, and jolley, with gay ſaddles and bridles, &c. when within few years they pay'd Tythes and Offerings at their own wills to the worſhip of God, and fairneſs of the holy Church, &c.
Mr. Bourn's anſwer.
Let the Reader obſerve, Wickliff doth not complain that Tythes were paid, but to ſuch prophane & wicked men; ſtill this doth argue a due of Tythes to be paid, and that for Gods worſhip, whatſoever Anthony ſaith to the contrary.
Anthony Peirſon's caſe.
Anthony Peirſon proceeds to add to Wickliff, VValter Boute, and VVilliam Thorpe, and others, whoſe arguments, ſaith he, are at large in Fox his Acts and Monuments, they did in their dayes bear teſtimony againſt Tythes, for which ſome of them ſuffered in flames, (as he thinks); this page 14.
Mr. Bourn's anſwer.
To this I deſire the Reader if he can to read the Hiſtory in the Book of Martyrs, page 669, 670, &c. and you cannot find that they or any other were burned, or ſuffered flames becauſe they ſpake againſt Tythes, for there were other Articles which were more fundamental, for which they ſuffered death: had there been nothing elſe but Tythes, no doubt they would not have laid down their lives againſt Tythes, as Anthony Peirſon would make men believe. Again particular mens opinions do not determine the right which God hath in the world, and the encreaſe of the earth for the maintenance of his worſhip and ſervice; the Scripture-proof is ſufficient to witneſs perpetuity of Tythes. Anthony would handle the Queſtion whether Tythes be due or not.
Anthony Peirſon's caſe.
But Peirſon alledgeth the Laws for Tythes, page 15, 16, 17. &c. ſome made by the Pope, and Papal decrees, and the opinion of Schools, Popes exemption, &c. as if Tythes had not been Gods part before.
Mr. Bourn's anſwer.
I anſwer: if tythes be due to the Miniſters of the Goſpel by divine Right (as I have proved) theſe ſeveral claims of ſeveral men do not infringe, nor can theſe Laws or Cannons of Popes hinder Chriſt or his Miniſters from challenging tythes as Gods reſerved part for his worſhip and ſervice. I may ſay the ſame for the Laws of King Henry the Eight, and ſince, Edward the 6. Queen Elizabeth; thus we bleſs God for theſe good Laws, and confirmations, and ſettlement of the paiment of tythes to the Miniſters of the Goſpel by ſo many Honourable Parliaments, for whom we pray that God will guide them ſtill in his waies for the maintenance of his worſhip and ſervice, and for the good of the Common-wealth, yet this will not therefore conclude againſt the Divine right of tythes, good Parliaments and godly men have been, and are more willing to pay and eſtabliſh the paiment of tythes, becauſe they are perſwaded a godly Miniſtry ought to be maintained and countenanced, and this way of tythes is a way which God himſelf hath preſcribed of old, and the Kingdoms that have received the Goſpel, have approved and practiſed in ſeveral ages of the world; this ſtill confirms the divine right of tythes.
I let paſs his ſeeming Anſwers to Objections, as to Abrahams paiment, and Melchizedecks receiving of tythes before Levies Prieſthood, page 17, 18, 20, &c. and the reſt, I have given anſwer to that in my Juſtification of Miniſters maintenance by tythes, which may ſatisfie any good man that is not prejudiced againſt the Miniſters of Chriſt, or hath not ſome ſelf-end in his not being ſatisfied.
Anthony Peirſon's Caſe.
But Anthony Peirſon cryeth out, page 25. VVhat a ſhame it is, that a man ſhould be compelled to ſet out the tythes of his own Goods, &c.
Mr. Bourn's anſwer.
I anſwer, though the goods be his own, the Corn, Hay, &c. yet the tenth is not his own, nor ever was, neither theirs or their Fore-fathers, never bought nor ſold with the Land, but are Gods reſerved part, as we have proved to the full, and they are by right from Gods Law to be tythed, and by the good Laws of the Nation, to which Miniſters may lawfully appeal for recovery of their juſt Rights, Paul did appeal to Caeſar for his juſt defence, Acts 25.1.
Anthony Peirſon's caſe.
But Anthony Peirſon objects, if any claim tythes by my Anceſtors gift, may I not ask him to whom, and for what my Anceſtors gave them? all thoſe tythes ſince Auguſtine the Monk were given to Popiſh Prieſts for ſuperſtitious uſes, or cauſes Popiſh.
Mr. Bourn's Anſwer.
I anſwer: there were no tythes given them, as if thoſe that gave them had any right of their own in them originally, they did not give them to God, but reſtore them to God again, when they had been ſtollen, and unjuſtly detained from God, and abuſed, that continuing to be pay'd, they might be for maintenance to Chriſts Miniſters in times of Reformation, and this no more than what duty men owe to God, witneſs our Saviour, Render to Caeſar the things that are Caeſars, and to God the things that are Gods, Mat. 22.21. for his other Objections page 14. &c. I have anſwered; ſee my Book.
Anthony Pierſon's Caſe.
And for that Anthony Peirſon alledgeth out of learned Mr. Shepheard, page 28. that tythes was never claimed in reſpect of any ownerſhip of the Land, but Ex debito by the law of God, for ſubſtraction whereof no remedy lay at the common law, and therefore if a Parſon, let a leaſe of a Gleab to another, with all appurtenance, yet he himſelf ſhall have the tythe of it, page 28.
Mr. Bourn's Anſwer.
I entreat the Reader to confider here is a teſtimony of the claim of tythes by the law of God, or divine right; this in antient times. It is no new doctrine then as in my Juſtification I have declared at large.
Anthony, Peirſon's caſe.
For his other Objections which he prevents, and anſwers, they are nothing to the claim of tythes by divine right, but by humane right; that Land (ſaith he) which any man hath bought, or his Anceſtors, it was bought with this ſuppoſal, that it ought to pay tythes, and ſo bought cheaper, then it ſhould have been if the Land had been free from Tythes.
Mr. Bourn's anſwer.
But I anſwer: it is true, that the Land was ever charged with tythes, but not that the Land is free from tythe, for the Land payeth tythe Hay, and tythe Corn; and the tythe of Cattel is not in reſpect of the Cattel, but in reſpect that they feed upon ſuch Lands; therefore Anthony Peirſon is deceived, and tythe neither ſold nor bought, therefore muſt be paid.
Peirſon's Caſe.
For his laſt Objection, that preſcription is an old device.
Mr. Bourn's anſwer.
I anſwer, if preſcription be good in Law againſt a Miniſter for non-payment of tythes, or of ſmall compoſition, why may it not be good for a Miniſter for payment of tythes, whatſoever Anthony Peirſon would declaim, or exclaim to the contrary?