An Indictment Against Tithes, To the reader

An Indictment Against Tithes · To the reader

TO THE READER.

A Few months before the ſitting of this preſent Parliament, **In a Book Intituled, A two-fold Shaking of the Earth.I declared my opinion concerning the late Government by a Single Perſon, or the Second State-Apoſtacy; that is, how it ſhould be plucket up root and branch, by the Repreſentatives of the People. This Repreſentative of the People, (whoever they ſhould be, for I poſitively pitched upon none) I took to be the Earth-quake in Rev. 11. 13. Now ſo it is (and bleſſed be the Lord for it) we ſee the ſame is come to paſſ, to the great joy and comfort of all upright ones every where.

This bleſſed of the Lord (which is marvelous in our eyes) not onelyonly ſtrengthens me in my former opinion, viz. That the Earth-quake is begun: but likewiſe what I have there ſpoken concerning the effects of that Earthquake (as to Tythes, the carnal Church, Miniſtry, Worſhip and Government, with all the corrupt Laws of the Nation) will in ſome ſhort time, by this Earth-quake, be utterly razed down. The Sun may ſhine, and yet not be ſeen, becauſe it is under a cloud. I am perſwaded the great works of the last day are upon us, and the Spirit is moving upon the face of the waters, howbeit darkneſs covereth the earth.

But to the end I may not be miſtaken, when I ſpeak of the Earth-quake, I would not be underſtood as fixing either Perſons or Time: For howſoever, (as I ſaid before) the Earth-quake (I think) is begun among us, yet for the Inſtruments whom the Lord will make uſe of, to carry on his work, 'tis known onelyonly to himſelf. So likewiſe for the Time, though I humbly conceive it ſhall gradually go foreward, and have no more ſuch a death upon it, as it had before; Notwithſtanding, like the Hand of a Watch, the motion may be ſuch, as men looking upon it may not perceive that it turns about.

But ſeeing at this time, the great Controver ſie is about Tythes, awd that there is ſo much writing Pro and Con, I ſhall therefore lay down ſome few Reaſons why I think they will not long ſtand, but be taken away, as the firſt effect of the Earthquake.

That the Lord intends to have ſomething done againſt 1 Reaſon.Tithes, I have cauſe to think ſo, in that there hath been diſcovered of late, ſuch horrid Oppreſſion and Cruelty in Tythe-Takers, as I think the like was never heard of in any former Generation. In truth, it is almoſt incredible what inhumane and most unchriſtian cruelty hath been lotely exerciſed upon many poor people, for refuſing (of conſcience) to pay Tythes. Now doubtleſs this is for ſome good end; I ſay, there is ſomething in it, that the Lord ſhould juſt now bring ſuch things to light: for if we obſerve his wayes of old; Such wickedneſs as he brought to light by wonderful Providence, he ſoon after puniſhed moſt ſeverely.

There ſeems to be by the godly on all ſides, a great deſire to have all ignorant and ſcandalous Miniſters rejected 2 Reaſon.Now I think by this time, it doth appear to every one that underſtands the preſent ſtate of the Nation, how impoſſible it is, that ſuch unſavory ſalt ſhould be caſt out to the dunghil, while Tythes do ſtand. Thoſe that would be rid of Rooks, for the hurt and annoyance they do them, deſtroy their Neſt, If England be ever freed of ſuch unclean Birds, viz. ignorant and ſcandalous Prieſts, Tythes muſt be taken away: for the truth is, this is that which keeps them in publick places, as the Neſt doth the Rook. I cannot but wonder that ſuch who pretend to a godly and Goſpel-Miniſtry ſhould plead for Tythes, conſidering (and they cannot but ſee it, if they will open their eyes) that ſo long as ſuch a way of maintenance ſtands, moſt unworthy wretches will creep into publick places, what care ſoever be taken to prevent it. But

3. Howſoever ſome men have very little hope 3 Reaſon.(as things now ſtand) that this Parliament will take them away; yet this I ſay, (whatever they do or not do) many Reaſons may be given why the contrary may be expected from them.

1. It is well known that ſuch as are the Parliaments beſt and real Friends, and have at all times adhered to them, have not onelyonly often declared their diſſatisfaction concerning Tythes, but ſhewed in many particulars, what a grievous burden and oppreſſion they are to the Nation. Alexander was wont to ſay, His truſty Friends were his chiefeſt Treaſure.

2. Whatſoever encouragement is given to the continuance of Tythes, yet this we know, they who cry out loudeſt for them, are (for the most part) for a Single Perſon, or for them, Intereſt of Charles Stuart: I ſay, more a great deal for a King then a free Commonwealth.

Ingratus, ſi non, quiſquis amatur, amat. I much queſtion whether the eſtabliſhing of Tythes will ever bring over the National Clergy heartily to this preſent Government, or to ſubſcribe affirmatively ex animo to a Parliament, without King and Houſe of Lords. Now it is a State-Maxime, Not to truſt ſuch men too far, whoſe Friendſhip, if you have it, muſt be bought or hired.

3. Never Parliament had a fairer opportunity and more encouragement to do great things for the Interest of Chriſt and his people, and the publick Freedom of the three Nations, then this: both in reſpect of the Army and good people every where. But ſaith the Sluggard, There is a Lyon in the way. I anſwer, It is onelyonly feared, and nothing elſe. The ruines of Babels Tower ſeem big (they ſay) and very great at a distance: But the neerer thou come to it, the leſſer. Works of Reformation are Mountains far off; but when Men come to them with Zeal and Reſolution, they are mole-hills. And this the Parliament knows to be true, by ſome former experiences.

4. Who can think that the Lord will make uſe of him, and honour him in things of great concernments, if he have no heart for God and his Cauſe in lower and leſſer matters? He that cannot indure the light of the Candle, how will he indure the Suns light? If thou haſt run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, then how canſt thou contend with horſes? Jer. 12. 5. There are things expected, and to be managed by the Peoples Repreſentatives, far higher then what at preſent are under debate. The Lord will do his work, his ſtrange work; and bring to paſs his act, his ſtrange act, Iſa. 28. 21. And therefore if we are not fit to do a little, much leſs a great deal.

5. It is thought by ſome, that the Parliament ſees cauſe enough to take away Tythes, and intend to do it, when opportunity ſerves, becauſe they ſpeak in their last Vote, of looking out ſome better and more equal way. If it be true what is commonly reported, viz. That ſome poor men have been impriſoned for non-payment of a Groat and two Pence for Tythes; others forced to pay them, that had the Alms of the Pariſh; Poor Labourers that could hardly get bread for their Families, have had their little houſhold goods taken from them; Others forc't to pay 70 or 80 l. whereas the debt was not above 5 or 6 l. If theſe things, I ſay, be true, and the Parliament upon examination ſhall finde it ſo, I cannot but think they will conſider of ſome better and more equal way, and not ſuffer ſuch crying ſins in the Nation, eſpecially to be practiſed by men who call themſelves the Miniſters of the Goſpel, and Embaſſadors of Jeſus Chriſt. Beſides, in their laſt Act of Indempnity they declare to be much for mercy: new one would think men of ſuch vaſt pity, cannot but take ſome pity on other poor people, who are dayly undone through the oppreſsion of Tythes. Oh let not that be ſaid of them,

Dat veniam corvis, vexat Cenſura Columbas.

I have but this to add, and it is to wipe off an aſperſion which ſome would faſten upon us, as if in ſeeking to have Tythes down, we ſought to deſtroy the preaching of the Goſpel. To which I anſwer, We are ſo far from ſeeking to ſtop the paſſage of the Goſpel, as that one main end why we deſire the removing of them, it is to have the Goſpel thereby advanced, and ignorant and carnal people the ſooner turn'd from the Errour of their Wayes. And doubtleſs whenſoever this ſhall come to paſs, the truth of God, and the power of it will more increaſe and ſpread abroad, then ever it hath done ſince the riſe of the Beaſt. Again, Though we are against Tythes, yet not againſt a Godly Goſpel-Miniſtry, but would have it in all places (where it is) encouraged; yea, and care taken that the people every where thorow the Nation, may be inſtructed in a way agreeable to the Goſpel.

I have been often askt by Friends, why I have not anſwered William Prynne, in regard there is ſcarce a book which he hath lately publiſhed, but hath my name in it. Now to ſatisfie ſuch and others, 1. I know how to improve my time better, and to more advantage (eſpecially being an old man) then to anſwer one who hath no reaſon with him, but rayling; and in his writing is like to one that turns himſelf many times about, but moves not out of the place. All that he ſaith concerning me, is (Homaeologia) one thing often ſaid over and over. But 2. Howſoever he uſeth my name often, and quotes a book of mine, yet I never ſaw any Anſwer that he hath made to my Reaſons there againſt Tythes. But as Lizards, who out of the open field do run into buſhes, ſo he leaves the Queſtion, and Caſe truly ſtated, and hides himſelf under a multitude of frothywords, bitter Invectives, and old Motheaten Statutes, not any thing to the matter or purpoſe. What Origen ſaid of Celſus works, may fitly be applied to his later writings, Non eſt periculum ut eis ſubvertuntum ullus fidelium. Lib. 1. cont. Celſ.There is no danger leſt any faithful man be ſubverted by them. But 3. That the man is ſo froward and angry I marvel not, being (as is to be feared) under the ſprinkling of a Vial. He hath had ſomething of the mark of the Beaſt ſo long upon him, as no wonder if a noyſome and Grievous Sore be upon him for it: Neither do I expect (under the pain and torment he is) but he will more and more blaſpheme the name of God, & his Tabernacle, & them that dwell in heaven. 4. And to obſerve here the wiſe mans counſel, Pro. 26. 4, 5. thus far I take notice of the man: ſeeing he will be doing, and by the ten idle Queries which he put forth the other day, it is apparent his wit lies not that way; I will put this Queſtion to him.

Suppoſe a man hath a fair pool of water in his ground, the which in time becomes corrupted, Weeds grow, Mud increaſeth, and Frogs creep into it. Now to help this, the Owner cuts a new channel, and draws the Water out to another place, and leaves the filth and corruption behinde. The Queſtion is, (and the Caſe is put to Will. Prynne in the behalf of the Frogs) Whether the water be the Frogs, becauſe the pit is theirs in which the waters formerly ſtood, and whether the Frogs have cauſe to croak & foam, as if they had wrong done them; or condemn thoſe Fiſhes for Hereticks, Sectaries and Schiſmaticks, which refuſe the ſtinking Mud, for the other Chriſtal Stream.

This pit we will take to be the old Form of Government by King, Lords and Houſe of Commons; the Weeds and Mud, Tyranny and Idolatry of all ſorts and ſizes; the Frogs, Archbiſhops, Biſhops, and the whole Hierarchie, down to the Pariſh-Clerk, not excluding the Lawyers; the Waters, the juſt Rights and Liberties of the People, in things Civil and Eccleſiaſtical; the Owner, the People, in their Repreſentatives.

Now ſomething is already done in cutting a new channel, and drawing the Waters to another place, to wit, a free Commonwealth, and to leave the Weeds and Mud behinde: And here is ſome work for William Prynne, if he can leave his peeviſh paſsion, and be ſober a while, to ſhew us what wrong the owner doth to theſe Frogs, and why they muſt be Sectaries, Anabaptiſts, Jeſuites, &c. that prefer the ſweet and wholeſome waters of Truth and Righteouſneſs, before the Weeds and Mud of Tyranny and Idolatry, We will allow William Prynne the Pit, and the Weeds, and Mud: But the water is the Owners of the ground. And therefore if the Peoples Repreſentatives ſhall go forward in bringing away all the good Water to this other place, I mean a Commonwealth, and leave the Weeds and Mud to the Frogs in the Pit, there are not a few will juſtifie their doing againſt all that William Prynne can ſay for the Pit, the Weeds, Mud and Frogs.

For concluſion; Great is the difference among us, about the Good Old Cauſe; one ſaith it is thus, and another takes it otherwiſe: Now the way to be patient, quiet, contented, it is to take notice, that the Lord is coming forth to decide the controverſie. And it will not be long (I am ſtrongly perſwaded) but he will make it clear and certain, (that he may run that readeth) whether the Caſe which William Prynne hath ſtated, be the Good Old Cauſe, or what others otherwiſe have aſſerted. It was the Lord who by a wonderful appearing decided the Controverſie between Moſes and the Magicians; ſo afterwards between Elias and the Priests of Baal. I am apt to think the preſent difference about the Good Old Cauſe, will not be decided but by ſome viſible and eminent hand of God. There have been many Appeals (eſpecially of late) put up to God about it: and I am waiting (and many more) by faith and prayer, for an anſwer from Heaven: that is, ſhortly to ſee ſhame and final confuſion upon whatſoever is not the Good Old Cauſe, but cried up by corrupt men, for ſelf-intereſt; and what is the Good Cauſe indeed, to be glorious and alone exalted. Be ſilent O all fleſh before the Lord; for he is raiſed out of his holy habitation, Zech. 2. 13.

From my houſe without Biſhopsgate, at the three Stills, the 13th of the 5th month, 1659. John Canne.

p. 1AN INDICTMENT Againſt TYTHES.

THe conſideration of the great oppreſſion that is now exerciſed in this land, by impoſing upon men that intolerable burthen of Tythes, wich lieth heavy upon, and is grievous to the people of this Nation in general; and more particularly to the Husbandmen and Farmers of Lands, who after great labor and charges in plowing and ordering their Land, and ſowing their Seed, and maintaining their Family and Cattel, and payment of Rents, and other Charges and Taxes impoſed upon them, wait patiently for a plentifull Harveſt to countervail their pains and charges; but then cometh a Tythe taker with his Cart, and ſweepeth away (in the name of a Tenth) a fourth, if not a third part of the Husbandmans profit: But moſt eſpecially, this unlawfull payment of Tythes is moſt burthenſome to the conſcientious and faithfull Servants of Jeſus Chriſt, who deſire to obey him and his Commandments. Theſe (I ſay) and ſuch like conſiderations, have incited me to inquire ſeriouſly, and to ſearch out diligently; Firſt, the time 1. The time when. 2. By whom. 3. To whom, and to what end.when Tythes were firſt given in England. Secondly, by whom, and by whoſe Authority a Law for payment of Tythes was firſt eſtabliſhed, and after confirmed. And thirdly, to whom, and for what end and purpoſe Tythes have been formerly, and yet are paid in England. And of p. 2theſe I ſhall ſpeak briefly in order as I have laid them down. And firſt, to the time when Tythes were firſt given 1. The time.in England. I finde it affirmed by ſeveral Authors, that in the firſt Three hundred years after Chriſt, no Tythes were paid in England; but the Prieſts in thoſe times were maintained by the free benevolence and contribution of the people, as Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian do teſtifie. And in the next Three hundred years, in the time of the Danes and Saxons, Heatheniſm and Paganiſm did totally overſpread this Land, until about the year of our Lord Six hundred, when Gegory the great ſent over Auguſtine the Monk into England (aſſiſted with forty Preachers) to convert the Saxons from Paganiſm to Popery; which was effected in the time of Ethelbert, the firſt Chriſtian King of Kent, who being converted, was afterward an inſtrument for the converſion of his Nation the Saxons. This Ethelbert is reported to have been very bountifull to the ſaid Auſtine the Monk, and gave him the Lordſhip and Royalty of his chief City Canterbury; but that he gave him any Tythes, or ever commanded Tythes to be paid to him or to any other, or made any Law for payment of Tythes, it doth not appear to me by any Hiſtory: Nor can it be proved that any Law was made for payment of Tythes in England, until the year of our Lord 786. And then in the time of Off a King of Mercia (which was in 2. By whom.the time of the Heptarchy) there was a great Council holden in Mercia by two Legats ſent from Pope Hadrian the firſt; wherein (as it's reported) Tythes were firſt eſtabliſhed. So that the firſt Law for payment of Tythes came from the Pope, and decreed onelyonly by his Agents in the Kingdom of Mercia, being but a ſeventh part of England; and afterwards as Popery increaſed, ſo Tythes alſo were eſtabliſhed in other parts of England by the ſeveral Kings thereof, who out of an ignorant ſuperſtitious zeal (being thereunto perſwaded by the Pope and his Agents) did many things contrary to the Law of God. And this leads me to my third particular (viz.) to whom, p. 3and to what end and purpoſe Tythes were formerly given, and yet are paid in England.

It is reported, that the foreſaid Offa King of Mercia 3. To what end.was a man of a high ſtomack and ſtoutneſs, endeavouring by wars and bloodſhed to enlarge his own Kingdom; and after many conqueſts, making Egfryd his Son a King with him, in great devotion went to Rome, where (with the like zeal and example of Inas the Weſt-Saxon King) he made his kingdom ſubject to a Tribute, then called Peterpence, afterwards Rome-ſcot; beſides other rich gifts that he gave to Pope Hadrian for canonizing Albane a Saint. And returning home again (about the year of our Lord 795.) in honour of the Saint, and pretending repentance for his ſins, built a Magnifick Monaſtery over againſt Verolanium, indowing it with Lands and rich Revenues for maintenance of one hundred Monks: Alſo, in teſtimony of his repentance for the blood he had ſpilt, and the ſins he had committed, he gave the tenth part of all his own goods to the Churchmen and to the poor, hoping thereby to expiate his ſins, and to merit Salvation. The next in order was Ethelwolph the nineteenth King of the EthelwolphWeſt-Saxons, who (in his youth was committed to the care of Helmeſtan Biſhop of Wincheſter, and by him to Swithun a famous learned Monk of that time) took ſuch a liking to the quiet and ſolitary life (onelyonly enjoyed by men of Religion) that he undertook the Monkiſh vow and profeſſion, and was made Deacon, and afterwards elected Biſhop of Wincheſter. But the death of his father King Egbert immediately following, by great intreaty of the Nobles, and partly by conſtraint of the Clergy, he was made King, and was by the authority of Pope Gregory the fourth (whoſe Creature he was in both Profeſſions) abſolved and diſcharged of his vows. In the nineteenth year of his Reign, remembring his former Eccleſiaſtical Profeſſion, ordained, That Tythes and Lands due to holy Church ſhould be free from all Tributes or Regal Services: And in great devotion went himſelf to Rome, p. 4where he was honourably received, and entertained the ſpace of a whole year; new built the Engliſh-School, that Offa the Mercian King before had there founded; confirming alſo his grant of Peter-pence, and further covenanting to pay yearly Three hundred marks to Rome, to be thus imployed; One hundred to St. Peter's Church, another hundred to St. Paul's Light, and the third to the Pope.

It is alſo ſaid, that Athelſtan King of the Weſt-Saxons, Ethelſtan.about the year of our Lord 924. to pacifie the Ghoſt of his murthered brother Edwin (to whoſe death he is ſaid to have conſenced) did not onelyonly undergo ſeven years Penance, but alſo built certain Monaſteries, and decreed that Tythes ſhould be paid, by himſelf, his Biſhops and Officers, (but not by all his Subjects) hoping thereby to expiate his ſins. Such was the blindneſs and ignorance of men in thoſe times, being ſeduced and led away from the truth by the Pope and his ungodly Agents, being perſwaded in their hearts, that the Pope had power to pardon all their ſins, were they never ſo great and hainous.

Edgar (about the year of our Lord 959) is ſaid to Edgar.have confirmed the payment of Tythes upon as bad a ground as Athelſtan did.

This Edgar was a man of a vicious life, favourable to the Monks: he diſplaced the married Prieſts, and brought in Monks of ſingle life to poſſeſse their places: He built Forty ſeven, ſome ſay.and repaired divers. Monaſteries and Nunneries: he was cruel to Citizens, and a deflowrer of Maidens. The firſt act was committed againſt the Virgin Wolfhild, a ſacred Nun; the ſecond offence was againſt the virgin Ethelfleda; another of his laſcivious acts was joyned with the blood of Earl Ethelwold, that he might enjoy Elfrida his wife: And as one ſaith, For the moſt part ſuch ſeed-plots were ever ſown in the furrows of blood, as plainly appears in theſe and divers other examples.

Canutus alſo the firſt Daniſh King, who being guilty of Canutus.the blood of Edward and Edmund, ſons of Ironſide, and p. 5Heirs to the Crown, about the year 1016. confirmed Tythes, built the Abby of St Bennet in Norfolk; and in Suffolk he with great devotion built and endowed the Monaſtery of St Edmund; which Saint he moſt dreadfully feared, for the ſeeming Ghoſt of him often affrighted him; for which cauſe, as alſo to expiate the ſins of his Father, he confirmed Tythes, &c. Unto ſuch ſtrange illuſions were the Princes then led by the blinde Guides, that ever made gain of their devotions.

Many other ſuch like examples I might produce; but the few before mentioned may ſuffice to ſhew, Firſt, When 1. The time when.Tythes were firſt given in England. Secondly, By whom, and whoſe authority the firſt Law for payment of Tythes in 1. By whom.England was made: And thirdly, To whom, and to what end and purpoſe Tythes were firſt paid in England; not to Miniſters 3. To what end.of Chriſt to preach the Goſpel, but to Antichriſtian Idolaters, and to a wicked, idolatrous ſuperſtitious end, viz. for ſatisfaction of the ſins of the Donor, to maintain a popiſh, idle, ſottiſh Clergy, to ſay and ſing maſs, to pray for the ſouls of the Donors, their wives and children living and dead. And as at the firſt Tythes were given to Maſs-Prieſts to read and ſing the Latine-Maſs: So they have (for many years) been ſince continued for reading the Engliſh-Maſs (the book of Common-Prayer) as may plainly be made to appear by the Statutes of the ſecond year of Edward 6. and the Statute of the firſt of Eliz. and no Law extant for payment of Tythes to Miniſters for preaching the Goſpel: For although (heretofore in the time of the Biſhops) a Miniſter preached never ſo often, yet if he refuſed to read the Book of the Common-Prayer, he was by the Law to be deprived of his ſpiritual promotions. Seeing then that Tythes were firſt eſtabliſhed, and ſince continued upon ſo evil and ſandy foundation, and to wicked ends: Therefore they ought utterly to be aboliſhed, and rooted out of this and all other Chriſtian Common-wealths, as popiſh, idolatrous, ſuperſtitious, and derogatory to the worſhip and ſervice of God; becauſe God p. 6never commanded that Tythes ſhould be paid to any man, but to the Prieſts and Levites onelyonly, in the time of the Levitical Law, in the Land of Canaan, and not elſewhere; and by the Jews onelyonly, but never by the Gentiles.

But it is objected by the pleaders for Tythes in theſe Objection.our dayes, That Tythes are due to the Receivers thereof by a threefold Right: Firſt, by ancient donation thereof to the Church for maintenance of Chriſtianity, Four hundred years 1. Right.before the Donation in times of Popery: but they prove it not. Secondly, by the Law of the Land. And thirdly, by the Law 2. Right.of God; all which I ſhall (by Gods aſſiſtance) ſeriouſly examine, and according to my beſt underſtanding give a brief 3. Right.and ſatisfactory Anſwer thereunto in order as they are propounded.

To the firſt (viz. Donation) I ſhall not need to make Anſwer.any long anſwer, becauſe I have formerly proved, firſt, the time when, and by whom Tythes were firſt given in England. Secondly, By whom, and by whoſe authority they were by a Law firſt eſtabliſhed. And thirdly, To whom, and to what end and purpoſe Tythes were firſt given in England, and ſince continued.

If they were firſt given to the Church for maintenance of Chriſtianity (as is by ſome pretended) Four hundred years before the time of Popery: Then I deſire to know who were the firſt Donors of them, and to what Church they were dedicated; whether to the Church of Chriſt, or to ſome Idol-Temple: For I finde it reported by Sir Henry Spelman, that the Heathens and Pagans (before the converſion of the Saxons in England to Chriſtianity) gave In his larger work of Tythes.Tythes to their Idol-Gods and Goddeſſes; as the Arabians, to their God Sabin; the Siphnians, to their God at Delphos; the Romans to Hercules; the Epheſians, to Diana; and others, to Jupiter and Apollo, &c. So that if any man will boaſt of the Antiquity of Tythes to have been Four hundred years before the time of Offa, then he muſt claim them by an Heatheniſh Donation: for I am confident that there was no ſuch donation in England, until the year p. 7of our Lord 786. For in the Primitive times, for Three hundred years after Chriſt, no Tythes were paid in England (as I have already proved) although there were many Chriſtians then in England, and many Churches gathered in Aſia and elſewhere: And whereas it is alledged, that Conſtantine the great (who was the firſt Chriſtian Emperour) upon whoſe Donation ſome do much rely; I cannot finde that he did ever command Tythes to be paid in any place, or to any perſons: But I do read in the Hiſtory of his life, that he beſtowed Houſes, Lands, large favours, and Poſſeſſions upon Biſhops and Prieſts, and large gifts and favours upon Chriſtian people; but no Tythes mentioned amongſt all thoſe gifts and favours. And Sabellicus, (who was himſelf a Roman) queſtioneth the truth of thoſe large Donations. Yet doubtleſs his bounty was ſo great to the Biſhops and Prieſts of thoſe times, that thereby they became proud, covetous, and contentious; the ſeeds whereof were ſo deep ſown, that they are not yet totally eradicated.

To the ſecond right (as ſome call it) which (ſay Anſwer to the ſecond Right.they) is by the Laws of the Land: I anſwer, That I endeavour not to deſtroy, but to maintain the Laws of the Land, which are conſonant to, and grounded upon the Laws of God, and deſire that they may be rightly expounded, and righteous judgement given upon them; yea, even thoſe which are thought to make moſt for payment of Tythes.

I begin with the Statute of the 27 year of H. 8. whereby 1. Law for Tythes.Miniſters are enabled to ſue for Tythes: but where? In the Eccleſiaſtical Court onelyonly, and not elſewhere. For before that time, I find no Law extant to compel men to pay Tythes, or to be ſued at Law for non-payment of them. But onelyonly a decretal Epiſtle of Pope Innocent the third; which (ſaith Sir Edward Cook) was no binding Law: Alſo Inſtit. part 2.in the Two and thirtieth year of Hen. 8. another Act of Parliament was made eſpecially for the benefit of Impropriators, 2. Law for Tythes.who before that time had no power given p. 8them to recover Tythes; but in that Act is a ſpecial Proviſo, That no perſon Eccleſiaſtical or temporal ſhall ſue for any Tythes in any temporal Court, but onelyonly in the Eccleſiaſtical Court. Thirdly, in the ſecond year of Edward 6. another 2. Law for Tythes.Act of Parliament was made, whereby the two former Acts, of the twenty ſeven and thirty two of Hen. 8. and every Article and Branch therein contained, are ratified and confirmed: but upon ſerious conſideration of the ſeveral parts of this Act, it will appear, that it giveth no power to ſue for Tythes at the Common-Law, nor in any Court of Equity: For in the firſt branch thereof (which is a very imperfect one) it is ſaid, that every Subject of the King 1. Imperfect.ſhall ſet out and pay his predial Tythes; and that no perſon ſhall carry away any ſuch Tythes, before he hath ſet out for the Tythes thereof, the Tenth part of the ſame, or agreed with the Proprietor, &c. upon pain of forfeiture of the treble value, &c. So that it appeareth to me, that the forfeiture given by this Act, is not the treble value of the Tenth part of all a mans Corn and Hay, but a treble value of a Tenth part of the Tenth of Corn and Hay.

Secondly, it is not therein declared, who ſhall have, 2. Imperfect.ſue for, and recover that forfeiture of treble value. And no private perſon can claim a forfeiture given by any penal Law, except it be given him in expreſs terms by the ſame Law. Therefore I do conceive, that the forfeiture (if there be any ſuch) given by the firſt branch of this Act, ought to be recovered and imployed to the uſe of the chief Magiſtrate, or of the Common-wealth, and not of any private or particular perſon whoſoever.

Thirdly, it is not thereby appointed how or where the ſaid penalty ſhall be recovered, as in all other penal 2. Imperfect.Acts it is declared, That the forfeture ſhall be either to the King ſolely, or to the King and Informer, or to the Party grieved, to be recovered in ſome Court of Record, by Action of debt, bill, plaint or information. But there is no ſuch limitation in that Branch of that Statute. p. 9Therefore I do call it an imperfect branch; becauſe in two other branches of the ſame Statute of 2 Edw. 6. it is enacted and declared, That no perſon ſhall be convented or ſued for any Tythes before any other judge then Eccleſiaſtical.

And further, in a latter branch of the ſame Act, power is given to ſue at the Common-Law for the penalty forfeited, for not delivering in a Copy of the Libel and ſuggeſtion whereupon a Prohibition is granted. And for theſe conſiderations, and ſome other Reaſons following, I am perſwaded that the makers of that Law never intended that any penalty given by the firſt branch of that Statute, ſhould be recovered in any temporal Court, but (if any place, then) in the Eccleſiaſtical Court onelyonly: And I am induced ſo to judge, for theſe five reaſons following.

Firſt, becauſe, if they had intended to have given Reaſon 1.power to ſue at the Common-Law for any forfeiture given by that firſt branch, they would therein as fully have declared their meaning, as they did in the latter branch of that Act.

Secondly, Becauſe this Act is called an additional Act, Reaſon 2.added to the two former Acts of the 27 and 32 of Hen. 8. and herein onelyonly ſome penalties added, whereof that of treble value is one: but nothing taken away by this Act from the ſaid two former Acts; and therefore the Proviſo contained in the ſaid Act of the 32 of Hen. 8. (whereby all men are reſtrained to ſue for Tythes in any temporal Court) ſtandeth ſtill firm, in full force, and unrepealed: And it is, and hath been the opinion of ſome men, that this penalty of treble value expreſſed in the ſaid Act of 2. Edw. 6. was rather (in terrorem) to cauſe men for fear of a greater danger to pay their Tythes willingly, then that the ſaid forfeiture ſhould be exacted.

Thirdly, becauſe the Biſhops were at that time powerful Reaſon 3.in this land, and then ſitting in Parliament; and can it be conceived, that had they underſtood that the Parliament intended to give liberty thereby to ſue for that forfeiture … the Common-Law in temporal Courts, and p. 10thereby to deprive the Biſhops Courts of their Priviledges, and their Officers of their profits; that ever they would have conſented to the paſſing of that Act? for it is well known, that they did alwayes endeavour to uphold their Eccleſiaſtical Courts, and to continue and enlarge their own profits, pomp, and lordly dignity, and were more willing to hold Plea in Cauſes that belonged not to their Cognizance, then to abate any of their Priviledges, as appeareth, by a Prohibition directed to the Prelates, Archdeacons, &c. of the Dioceſs of Norwich, which is to be ſeen in Raſtals Abridgement.

Fourthly, becauſe all the Judges in their Anſwers to Reaſon 4.the Biſhops Objections, in the fourth year of the late King James, acknowledge, that if the queſtion be upon payment, or ſetting out of Tythes, they ſend it to the Eccleſiaſtical Court there to be determined.

Fifthly, becauſe it is moſt fit, that where the principal Reaſon 5.(viz. Tythes) are to be recovered, there the acceſſary (viz. the forfeiture) ſhould be demanded; for Tythes are the principal, the forfeiture of treble value is but acceſſary. Therefore they that ſay, that they ſue not for Tythes, but for the forfeiture of treble value, do but delude men; as if they would teach them to build an Houſe without a Foundation. Tythes are the Foundation; for if a man pay his Tythes, there can be no forfeiture, nor cauſe of action: So that it is a meer juggle, and a forged cavil of thoſe men who ſo object. Sir Edward Cook in the firſt part of his Inſtit. ſaith, That it is the moſt natural and genuine expoſition of a Statute, to conſtrue one part of the Statute, by another part of the ſame Statute; for that beſt expreſſeth the meaning of the makers.

And again, every penal Law is to be taken according to the letter of the Law, without wreſting or adding, and not according to mens various conceits and interpretations. And ſo King James very well told his Judges in the Star-chamber, in the year of our Lord 1616. charging them to do Juſtice uprightly, and indifferently, without delay p. 11or partiality; and yet not to utter their own conceits, but the true meaning of the Law; not making laws, but declaring the Laws, and that according to the true ſence thereof; remembring that their Office is jus dicere, and not jus dare; to declare the Law, not to give a Law. And the ſame King James in a Speech to the Parliament in the year of our Lord 1607. telleth them, That as every Law would be clear and full, ſo the obſcurity in ſome points of our written Law, and want of fulneſs in others; the variation of Caſes, and mens curioſity breeding every day new queſtions, hath inforced the Judges to judge in many Caſes here, by Caſes and Preſidents, wherein, I hope, Lawyers themſelves will not deny, but that there muſt be a great uncertainty: And where there is variety and uncertainty, although a juſt Judge may do rightly, yet an ill Judge may take advantage to do wrong; and then are all honeſt men that ſucceed him, tyed in a manner to his unjuſt and partial concluſions. Wherefore, leave not the Law to the pleaſure of the Judge, but let your Laws be looked into: for I deſire not the aboliſhing of the Laws, but onelyonly the clearing and ſweeping off the ruſt of them; and that by Parliament our Laws be cleared and made known to all the Subjects. So far King James.

And I deſire, with all mine heart, that you our Worthies, the Repreſentatives now aſſembled in Parliament, and all others that may ſucceed you, would ſeriouſly conſider, and ſet upon the regulating of the Laws of this Commonwealth, and repeal ſuch as are unneceſſary, reform ſuch as are faulty, explain ſuch as are dark and myſtical, and make ſuch new ones as may be to the glory of God, and comfort of all his faithfull and peaceable Servants.

But it may be ſome will here object and ſay, that Objection.Tythes are paid in England by an ancient cuſtom, and our Law is grounded much upon cuſtom.

Then I demand who firſt brought in that cuſtom, (was it Anſwer.not the Pope?) and why is not that cuſtom one and the p. 12ſame in all places of this Land? and why are there ſeveral and divers cuſtoms, and manner of tythings in ſeveral Pariſhes? And why are not all reduced to one kinde and manner of tything in all the Pariſhes of England? For in ſome Pariſhes the tenth of all the Corn, Grain, and Hay is paid in kinde, and in ſome Pariſhes onelyonly a ſmall ſum of money, and in others a piece of Meadow is allowed for the Tythe of all the Hay ariſing yearly within that Pariſh: Alſo in ſome Pariſhes tythe-milk is paid in kinde every tenth day during the greateſt part of the year, and in other places but two pence, or (it may be leſs) for a Cows milk for the whole year. If any one of theſe Cuſtoms be good and warrantable, why are not all the reſt made conformable thereunto? But if all be evil (as certainly they are) why are they not all aboliſhed? For it is a Maxime in the Law, Malus uſus abolendus eſt, An evil Cuſtom is to be aboliſhed. Doctor Ridley in his view of the Civil-Law, Pag. 147.ſaith, That the Cuſtoms we pay our Tythes by at this day, were ſetled upon this Kingdom by the Popes Legats in Provincial and Synodal conſtitutions. And Mr Selden in his Chap. 11.Hiſtory of Tythes, ſaith, As Tythes are popiſh, ſo are they likewiſe a Relique of Superſtition: Becauſe given at the firſt out of a ſuperſtitious opinion of ſatisfaction for the ſins of the Donor; yea, and as ſuperſtitiouſly paid at this day by many ignorant people, who think Tythes to be due by the Law of God, and ſo deceive themſelves. Let not any man think (ſaith Sir Henry Spelman) that he hath right to Tythes too hot, &c.Tythes, becauſe the Law of man hath given them to him: for Tully himſelf, the greateſt Lawyer of his time, confeſſeth, That nothing is more fooliſh, then to think all is juſt that is contained in the Laws or Statutes of any Nation. Experience teacheth us, that our own Laws are daily accuſed of imperfection, often amended, expounded, and repealed. Look back into times paſt, and we ſhall finde, that many of them have been unprofitable for the Commonwealth, many diſhonorable to the Kingdom, ſome contrary to the word of God, and ſome very impious p. 13and intolerable; yet all propounded, debated, and concluded by Parliaments. So Tully and the Roman Hiſtorians cry out, That their Laws were often by force, and againſt all Religion impoſed upon the Common-wealth.

And foraſmuch as it appeareth plainly, as I have formerly ſhewed, That Tythes were by Parliaments eſtabliſhed for Maſſing-Trieſts, to ſay and ſing Maſs, and ſuch other ſuperſtitious ſervices; and after confirmed for reading the Book of Common-Prayer: Therefore an Idolatrous gift and eſtabliſhment, unlawfull in the Givers, unlawfull in the Actors and Receivers, and therefore ought to revert to the right Heirs of the Donors; and all ought to repent of ſuch an ungodly action. The Prophet Iſaiah proclaimeth againſt ſuch Laws and Law-makers; Wo be Iſa. 10. 1, 2Isa 10:1Isa 10:2unto them that make wicked Statutes, and write grievous things. So alſo in Micah 6. 16. God threatneth to puniſh ſuch Law-makers, and Law-obſervers; The Statutes of Omri are kept, and all the manner of the Houſe of Ahab. &c. Therefore ye ſhall bear the reproach of my people. Statutes of Princes are no excuſe to tranſgreſs Gods Law; God cannot be confined, reſtrained, or concluded by any Parliament. Let no man therefore think that he hath right to Tythes, becauſe the Law of man hath given them to him; for the Law of man can give him no more then the Law of God will permit. The Law of man may Spel. 173.give a man jus ad rem, right to a thing, as to demand it, or to defend it againſt another man; but it cannot give him jus in re, right in the thing, to claim it in right againſt or without the Law of God. Right to the thing is a lame title; they muſt have Right in it, that will have a perfect title. The Law may make a man the poſſeſſ…r or enjoyer of a thing; but it cannot make him the very owner of the thing. The Books of the Law themſelves confeſs, That all Preſcriptions, Statutes and Cuſtoms againſt the Law of Nature, or of God, be void, and againſt juſtice. Now I might here proceed to their third right; but before I paſs p. 14from this their ſecond right, (as they call it) I deſire to anſwer one Objection which I have heard from the mouth of a Judge in this Nation, made in defence of the Statute for Tythes of 2 Edw. 6.

But (ſaith he) although ſome are of opinion that the Objection.Act of 2 Edw. 6. doth not give power to ſue for Tythes at the Common-Law: Yet it hath been the conſtant practiſe and determination of the Judges for many years, to maintain Actions at the Common-Law upon that Statute for the treble value of Tythes not ſet out; and that a hundred Judgments have been given in that Caſe.

To which I anſwer; If ten thouſand Judgments have Anſwer.been given in that Caſe upon a falſe ground, muſt all ſucceeding Judges of neceſſity follow their example, without a rule to guide them by? Sir Edw. Coke ſaith, That the Laws are the Judges Guides or Leaders, their ſafeſt Teacher and Fortreſs; and we know that Judges opinions are not alwayes to be taken for ſound and good Law; neither are we ſo to be bound up by them, that we may not receive a better opinion when it is offered. For ſaith Sir Edw. Coke, No mans authority ought to be ſo prevalent with us, that we ſhould not approve a better opinion, if any man offer it unto us. And I have already ſhewed how inconvenient Inſtit. part 1.and dangerous it is, for Judges to judge by Caſes and Preſidents, where there is no Law to guide them, nor a juſt Rule to direct them: For Judges are but men, they are not infallible, they are ſubject to failings: And ſome of the chief Juſtices of both Benches, and others very learned in the Laws of this Land, have erred groſly, Hub. de Bu…go. Thorp. Triſcilian Belknap. Lock…on, &c.and been puniſhed ſeverely, …ome by baniſhment and confiſcation of goods, and others by death, as may appear by ancient Records in Henry the third's time, in Edward the third's time, and in Richard the ſecond's time. But what need I look ſo far back for examples of this nature, ſeeing that there is one to be found amongſt us of late years, yet freſh in our memories, in the caſe of Ship-money, wherein all the Judges that then were (except two) gave p. 15Judgement againſt Mr Hampden, contrary to the known Laws of this Land? And of what evil conſequence that might have been, and how deſtructive to this Common-wealth, and to our Liberties, I leave to the judgements of all underſtanding men. For if that Judgement had continued upon Record, and in force, and not been reverſed by the Parliament, it might have been a Preſident for all ſucceeding Judges to judge by in future times; and ſo might we and future generations have been made meer Vaſſals and Slaves to the arbitrary will of our Governours. And for the further manifeſtation of the invalidity of the firſt Branch of that Act of 2 Edward 6. I am able to make it appear, that it lay dead, and no action of debt brought upon it at the Common-Law for the penalty of the treble value, for almoſt fifty years after the making of it, and no Judgement given upon it until the fortieth year of Queen Elizabeth; ſince which time, the ſucceeding Judges, being guided by the opinions of thoſe former Judges, without any other ground or warrant for their ſo doing, make it a ſtanding Law.

To the third Right, (as ſome do call it) which, ſay 3. Right anſwered.they, is by the Law of God; I anſwer, that ſome Pleaders for Tythes do cite ſeveral Texts of Scripture to prove what they would have: but having ſeriouſly examined and conſidered thoſe Scriptures, I do not finde one that will ſtand by them to prove their aſſertion.

Their firſt Scripture is in Gen. 14. 2. and 21. 22. to 1. Scrip.prove that Abraham and Jacob by the Law of Nature gave Tythes long before the Ceremonial-Law was inſtituted; and that God did afterwards confirm the payment of Tythes by the Ceremonial-Law, for the maintenance of the Prieſts and Levites; and that they ought ſtill to be continued for the maintenance of the Miniſters of the Goſpel.

Whereunto I anſwer, That true it is that Abraham Anſwer.gave Tythes to Melchiſedeck of the ſpoiles of his Enemies, (but not of all his own proper goods) and but at that one time onelyonly, and no more. And that Jacob vowed to give to God p. 16the tenth of all that he ſhould give him, is true alſo: but Non ex debito, ſed ex gratia.neither Abraham nor Jacob had a command from God ſo to do: So that it was in them a free offering onelyonly, and not of conſtraint.

Again, If Abraham and Jacob, being guided by Nature, without any command from God, gave Tythes, and that God (as ſome ſay) approving the ſame, afterwards gave a Law to the Jews, commanding them thereby to pay Tythes to the Prieſts and Levites, and after abrogated that Law: Then it is very clear, that by the taking away of that Law, Tythes are utterly aboliſhed and taken away; and men ought not to ſet them up again until they have a command from God ſo to do, leſt they come under the reproof that our Saviour gives to the Scribes and Phariſees, Matth. 15. 6. Thus have ye made the Commandments of God of none effect by your own Tradition. And I deſire all men to conſider, that as Abraham gave Tythes to Melchiſedeck, and Jacob vowed to give the tenth of his goods to God, long before the Levitical Law: So alſo Abraham and Jacob offered Sacrifice long before the Law was given; and ſo did Cain and Abel alſo long before them. Muſt we therefore now, according to their examples, offer Sacrifice becauſe they did ſo? God commanded the Jews onelyonly to pay Tythes in the Land of Canaan, which Law ceaſed with the Levitical Prieſthood; but God never commanded the Gentiles to pay Tythes in any place. Therefore the Levitical Law, or the examples of Abraham and Jacob, are not binding to us now in the time of the Goſpel, nor do they make any thing at all for payment of Tythes now, but rather ſtrongly againſt them. And how dangerous it is to do any thing in the worſhip or ſervice of God which he hath not commanded, appeareth plainly in the examples of Nadab and Abihu, for offering ſtrange fire, Levit. 10. 1. So alſo in Moſes, Numb. 20. 8, 9, 10. God commanded Moſes to ſpeak to the Rock, &c. But becauſe he without a command from God did ſtrike the Rock, therefore he was not ſuffered to enter p. 17enter into the Land of Canaan. Saul alſo for not deſtroying the Amalekites according to the command of God, 1 Sam. 15. 22, 23.1 Sam 15:221 Sam 15:23was deprived of his Kingdom; for this was counted to him for diſobedience and rebellion. Oh that theſe examples might work upon the hearts of all men, not to ſet up again by a Law that which God hath caſt down, and we by a ſolemn League and Covenant have ſworn to extirpate, as a Relique of Popery and Superſtition; even that bitter root of Tythes, ſo deſtructive to the true worſhip & ſervice of God, to the advancement of the Kingdom of Chriſt; and ſo prevalent in promoting of Antichriſt and his power and worſhip; it being one of the ſtrong holds and props of Antichriſt, whereby his Kingdom is upheld.

Their ſecond Scripture is in the 1 Cor. 9. 13, 14. Do 2. Scripture.ye not know that they which miniſter, &c. And they which wait at the Altar are partakers with the Altar: So alſo (for ſo the ancient tranſlation reads it, and the Greek renders it) hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Goſpel ſhould live of the Goſpel. But Doctor Gauden doth not approve of this Tranſlation, but he will have it (even ſo) according to the laſt Tranſlation; and thereupon he raiſeth ſuch a duſt to blinde the eyes of ignorant men, as that he would make them believe, that Tythes are See what Chriſt hath appointed his Miniſters to take for their wages, Matth. 10. 8, 9, Luk. 10. 8. Eſpecially not in Tythes.Matt 10:8Matt 10:9Luke 10:8due by a divine right; and that this, Even ſo hath the Lord or dained, &c. is a Goſpel-Ordinance, commanding Tythes to be paid to the Miniſters of the Goſpel: for he ſaith, That they do import an Ordinance of God, an Evangelical Inſtitution; and yet preſently after confeſſeth, that his Even ſo, extendeth not to all particulars properly Levitical, which are ceaſed. Then, ſay I, if his Even ſo, muſt not hold parallel in all that the Levitical Prieſts enjoyed; then it muſt hold in nothing: for either all or no part of the Ceremonial-Law (which typed out Chriſt) is abrogated. But the Levitical Prieſthood typed out Chriſt, and the Prieſts and Levites were maintained by Tythes; and that Prieſthood being abrogated by Chriſt, and that legal ſervice ended, the wages alſo by Tythes muſt of neceſſity p. 18end therewith. For it is ſaid, Heb. 7. 12. The Prieſthood being changed, there muſt then of neceſſity be made a change alſo of the Law.

The Apoſtle in that of 1 Cor. 9. doth not ſay that the Lord hath declared of old, and doth now by him renew it as an Ordinance of God; but it is the Doctors pleaſure to ſay ſo: they are but his own words; and thereby he perverteth the Apoſtles words and meaning: for I do not finde in the New-Teſtament any ſuch Ordinance for payment of Tythes; and therefore non-payment of Tythes is now no violation of Gods Law: For where no Low is, there is no Rom. 4. 15.Rom 4:15tranſgreſſion.

And I hope that all true Chriſtians will ingenuouſly acknowledge, that it is not ſafe for men to make a Law contrary to Gods Law, or to renew or eſtabliſh that Law which our Saviour hath abrogated. And here the Doctor having taken a great deal of pains to ſhew (according to his promiſe) a Goſpel-Ordinance for payment of Tythes to Goſpel-Miniſters; but finding none, he confeſſeth, that the Lord in the Goſpel hath not given any direct Precept for payment of Tythes. Therefore (ſay I) Tythes ought not now to be paid: for certainly, if the Lord Jeſus would have had his Miniſters in the time of the Goſpel to be maintained by Tythes, as the Prieſts and Levites were under the Law, he would (no doubt) in abrogating the old, have eſtabliſhed a new Goſpel-Ordinance for payment of Tythes.

But there is not the ſame reaſon, right, or equity, that the Miniſters of England ſhould be maintained by Tythes as the Prieſts and Levites were, who ſerved conſtantly at the Altar, and were daily imployed in the ſervice of God in ſlaying beaſts, and offering Sacrifice to the Lord.

For firſt, they were one whole Tribe; and if not a full Reaſon 1.tenth, yet near a tenth part of the People.

Secondly, they had none inheritance amongſt their brethren in the Land of Canaan; for the Lord was their portion.

p. 19Thirdly, the poor, the widow and the fatherleſs were to Reaſon 3.partake of the Tythes with them.

But firſt, the Miniſters of England are not the hundredth 1.part of the people of England.

Secondly, They (or moſt of them) have beſides their 2.Tythes, Glebe-lands, and ſome of them a competent eſtate in temporal fee-ſimple-Lands, and ſome of them have a good portion of goods and moneys, and ſome other profitable wayes to gain by.

Thirdly, Few of them feed the hungry, cloath the naked, 3.relieve the poor widows and Orphans, as they ought to do. And therefore how dare they pretend Scripture, Equity, or Reaſon for payment of Tythes to them, when God hath left no ſuch Rule upon Record in any part of the New-Teſtament? Nor did the Lord ever challenge Tythes of the Gentles, as he did of the Jews: and God is now ſo far from being honoured by payment of Tythes, as that he is highly diſhonoured thereby, and Jeſus Chriſt denied to be come in the fleſh; and the Levitical Prieſthood ſeemingly upholden and maintained.

But it is further aſſerted by the ſame Doctor, that Objection.Chriſt chalengeth Tythes as a Right and Due belonging to himſelf, and that he hath given them to the Miniſters of the Goſpel for their maintenance, and therefore are to be paid to the Miniſters of England at this day.

To this I anſwer, That when he or any other man ſhall Anſwer.prove this aſſertion by a poſitive text of Scripture in the New Teſtament, then ſhall I be ſilent, and oppoſe him no more. But I fear that this will not content him; becauſe he ſtill ſtrongly endeavoureth to prove his Scriptural right, (as he calleth it) 1 Cor. 9. 14. by multiplying a great ſound of words, but not according to the forme of ſound words; ten times repeating that pregnant place (as he calleth it) 1 Cor. 9. 14. Even ſo hath the Lord ordained, that they who preach the Goſpel ſhould live of the Goſpel. And this he would have to be an Ordinance of God for Miniſters maintenance by Tythes at this day: Even ſo, as the Levitical p. 20Prieſts were maintained by Tythes in the time of the Law. I deny not that they who preach the Goſpel ſhould live of the Goſpel; but it muſt be in ſuch a way, and by ſuch means as Chriſt hath appointed them; that is, as the Miniſters of the Goſpel lived in the Primitive times, by the benevolence and free gift of People, and not by Tythes. For Chriſt and his Apoſtles never had any Tythes or great Parſonages (as the Miniſters of England have) although they preached the Goſpel diligently from houſe to houſe, and from Country to Country. Our Saviour ſaith, Luk. 9. 58. Foxes have holes, and the Birds of the air have neſts, but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. He had not a great houſe to dwell in, nor worldly rich Revenues to maintain him (though he was Lord of all) he had not ſo much money as would pay cuſtom for himſelf and Peter, until it was taken out of the fiſhes mouth, Matth. 16. 27. And he ſaith, That the Diſciple is not above his Maſter, nor the ſervant above his Lord. Yet many of the Miniſters Matth. 10. 24.Matt 10:24of England, who ſtile themſelves the ſervants of Chriſt, ſtrive for great livings, fair houſes, dainty fare, and the pomp and pleaſure of this world, rather then to be rich in good works.

But to anſwer directly to his Even ſo.

Firſt, I ſay, that the Apoſtles meaning in that place 1 Cor 9. 14.1 Cor 9:14is either wholly miſtaken, or unjuſtly wreſted by the Doctor, to make good his aſſertion; for there is not one word of Tythes for Miniſters maintenance in all that Chapter. True it is, that the Apoſtle pleads there for a competent maintenance for the Miniſters of the Goſpel, but not by Tythes (as the Doctor would have it.) God himſelf appointed, that the Miniſters that ſerved at the Altar ſhould partake with the Altar, and that they ſhould receive Tythes, and ſuch part of the Sacrifices as was not conſumed by fire. But the Office of the Prieſts and Levites being aboliſhed, and the Law for Tythes abrogated, and no new donation of the like maintenance made by Chriſt, to the Miniſters of the Goſpel; by what right p. 21can the Miniſters of England now claim Tythes?

And further to his Even ſo, (which he urgeth ſo often) I anſwer, that I conceive, he buildeth but upon a ſandy foundation: for if he well conſidereth the Greek, he ſhall finde it to be there, foreign, which in our Engliſh Tranſlations is rendred, And ſo, or So alſo; and the word Even, is found onelyonly in the laſt tranſlation of the Bible.

But ſecondly, ſuppoſe that the Original may bear that Tranſlation, Even ſo; yet that will not prove, that it is a Divine Ordinance, enjoyning men to pay Tythes to the Miniſters of England: For I do not finde in any part of the New Teſtament, that God complaineth againſt Chriſtians for robbing him of his honor, & Chriſt of his homage, Miniſters of their maintenance, and the People of the means of Salvation, becauſe they pay not Tythes. But ſure I am, that many Miniſters of England rob God of his honour by their licentious converſation; Chriſt of his homage, See Heb. 2. 9.Heb 2:9by not acknowledging him to have died for all men; and men of their goods, by unjuſtly exacting Tythes to 1 John 2. 2.1 John 2:2ſpend upon their own luſts. So that it may be juſtly ſaid, that the taking of Tythes (and not the with-holding of Tythes) ariſeth from looſe principles, and argueth, that ſuch as take Tythes for preaching, without any Law of God to warrant them, are not the true Miniſters of Jeſus Chriſt: For there is no ſuch agreement between the Old and New Teſtament in point of Tythes, as the Doctor would have men to believe: Therefore I leave it to the judgement of wiſe conſcientious men, to judge whether I or the Doctor do erre in this point from the truth of the Scripture.

Some other Arguments have been alſo drawn from the Scriptures by others, defenders of Tythes; but I ſhall wave them at preſent, and follow the Doctor a little further; who in the next place goeth about to maintain the lawfulneſs of Tythes for Miniſters maintenance by a Catholick Cuſtom, confirmed by Antiquity and Univerſality: (two ſtrong props or pillars whereupon the Popiſh Religion, p. 22Idolatry, and will-worſhip is upholden) but I finde no ſuch cuſtom in the Church of Chriſt in the firſt Six hundred years after Chriſt, as it is affirmed by ſome Hiſtorians: By others, Eight hundred fifty five years, by others Nine hundred; and by others, not until the Council of Lateran, Anno 1215. or as ſome others do affirm, that in or about the year of our Lord, One thouſand two hundred, a decretal Epiſtle by Pope Innocent the third, dated at Lateran, was directed to the Archbiſhop of Canterbury, that Tythes ſhould be paid to the Pariſh Churches: For before that time, any man might have given his Tythes to what ſpiritual perſon he would: But (ſaith Sir Edward Coke) this Epiſtle decretal bound not the Subjects of this Realm, but they allowed the ſame, and ſo it became Lex terrae, a Law of the Land: And ſo by the Popes Law Tythes were paid in England (without any other Law, until the Twenty ſeventh year of Hen. 8. And I do not read that Tythes are at this day paid for the Miniſters maintenance in any Chriſtian reformed Church, except onelyonly in the Church of England. And if no cuſtom can commend, what is in its nature evil, or change it into good, (as the Doctor confeſſeth) then a Popiſh cuſtom of paying Tythes in England, (although moſt men approve it) cannot be good, nor ought to be followed; For we muſt not follow a multitude to do evil. For although Tythes be not preciſely in plain terms forbidden; yet they being no where commanded in the New Teſtament, we ought not to pay them; we are not to do more or leſs in the worſhip of God, then God in his Word hath commanded.

Therefore what Cuſtom hath been brought up and practiſed in England by Authority of men, without any precept or rule in the Word of God, is an evil Cuſtom, and ought to be aboliſhed. But the Cuſtom of paying Tythes in England was brought up and practiſed by authority of men, without any precept or rule in the Word of God: Therefore the Cuſtom of paying Tythes in England p. 23is an evil Cuſtom, and ought to be aboliſhed. That cannot rightly be called a free gift to God, or to this Miniſters, which is by a ſtrong hand and compulſion taken from men. But Tythes are by a ſtrong hand and compulſion taken from men: therefore Tythes cannot be called a free gift to God, or to his Miniſters.

But I intend brevity, and not to trouble the Reader with tautologies, or vain repetitions, and therefore do refer him to the former part of this my Diſcourſe; wherein I have ſhewed,

Firſt, The time when Tythes were firſt appointed to 1.be paid in England.

Secondly, By whom, and by whoſe Authority Tythes 2.were firſt ſettled by a Law in England.

And thirdly, to whom, and to what end and purpoſe 3.Tythes were at the firſt given, and afterwards continued in England.

And ſo I ſhall leave the Doctor, and proceed to anſwer another mans Arguments, who in one of his Arguments, Argument 3.drawn from Gal. 6. 6. ſaith; That people are bound to communicate to their Paſtors in all good things, (or in all his goods:) and then asketh the queſtion, What good things, or goods are theſe, if not Tythes, the Apoſtle refers to? And for proof of his Argument, he refers me to Beza, and St. Jerom.

Wereunto I anſwer, that what he hath ſaid, proves nothing Anſwer.to the point in hand: For the Apoſtle Paul ſpeaketh not one word of Tythes in all that chapter. And can it be by any man conceived, that the Apoſtle there intended to command payment of Tythes to Goſpel-Miniſters for their maintenance, and to bring the Galatians back to the Ceremonial Law, whereunto he did know them to be too much addicted? and therefore in the third and fifth chapters of that Epiſtle, he laboureth ſtrongly to take them off from the Ceremonial Law: and can it be thought, that he would then in the ſixth chapter refer them again to the Ceremonial Law, for Miniſters maintenance under the p. 24Goſpel? If the Apoſtle had ſaid, that by thoſe good things you are to underſtand Tythes to be communicated and given to the Miniſters of the Goſpel for their maintenance, I would have believed him: but becauſe he ſaith no ſuch thing, therefore this man refers me to Jerom and Beza, as if their teſtimony were ſufficient to ſatisfie me where the Scripture is ſilent. The Apoſtle in that place ſaith onelyonly, Let him that is taught in the Word, communicate unto him that teacheth him, in all good things, not naming Tythes or any particulars. But the ſame Apoſtle ſaith in 1 Tim. 6. 8. Having food and raiment, let us be therewith content: And herewith agree Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian and others, who ſay that the Clergy were then maintained by the benevolence of the People, and not by taxation. And Cyprian further ſaith, That about the year 240. the Prieſts had every man his allowance delivered monthly per Sportulas. And Origen in his ſixteenth Homily upon Geneſis, ſaith, Let us make haſte to depart from the Prieſts of Pharaoh (who enjoy earthly Poſſeſſions) to the Prieſts of the Lord, who have no portion in Earth, for that the Lord is their Portion. And in his 31 Homily upon Matthew, he ſaith, Becauſe it is written, The Lord hath appointed, that they which preach the Goſpel ſhould live of the Goſpel; That we therefore take not occaſion to ſeek more for our ſelves, then our ſimple diet and neceſſary apparel.

I have heard alſo a fourth Argument drawn from 1 Cor. 9. 11. If we have ſowen unto you ſpiritual things, is it a Argument 4. anſwered.great thing if we reap your carnal things? From whence they conclude, that thoſe carnal things there mentioned by the Apoſtle, muſt of neceſſity be Tythes: and ſo by wreſting the Scripture for their own ends, wrong both the Apoſtle and the Spirit of God, and would make men believe that the Apoſtle there pleadeth for Miniſters maintenance by Tythes; where the Apoſtle not ſo much as once nameth Tythes in that chapter, (as I have formerly ſhewed:) but ſome men endeavour to draw in Tythes there, by references of the New Teſtament to the Old, making p. 25Law and Goſpel all one, without putting any difference between them; and ſo by putting them together, would have them to hold forth ſo much, and yet they cannot finde a command for payment of Tythes to Goſpel-Miniſters in any part of the Old or new Teſtament.

A fifth Argument hath been brought by one, drawn 5 Argum.from 1 Tim. 5. 17. which (ſaith he) proves a maintenance for Goſpel-Miniſters, with an expreſs reference to the Old Teſtament for it, in ver. 18. And that the Evangelical Prophets in the Old Teſtament are for Tythes, as Mal. &c. and that expreſs places in the New Teſtament confirm them without all revocation.

Whereunto I anſwer, firſt, I do acknowledge, ſuch a Anſwer.maintenance for Goſpel-Miniſters, as Jeſus Chriſt hath appointed them to take, they may lawfully receive: But Chriſt hath no where appointed them to take Tythes, nor doth the Apoſtle in that place, 1 Tim. 5. 17. nor in any other place ſay, that Goſpel-Miniſters ought to be maintained by Tythes: Therefore Goſpel-Miniſters ought not to receive Tythes; and ſo this Scripture proveth nothing for him, but altogether againſt him.

Secondly, That God by the Prophet, Mal. 3. 8. complaineth that the people had ſpoiled him in Tythes and Offerings: But what maketh this for Miniſters maintenance by Tythes in the time of the Goſpel? for Tythes were of Gods own appointment to be paid by the Jews, for the maintenance of the Prieſts and Levites, and the poor; and Tythes were part of the Ceremonial Law, which was then in force, and not abrogated; for Chriſt was not then come in the Fleſh.

Thirdly, I cannot finde one expreſs place in the New Teſtament, commanding, or confirming payment of Tythes to Goſpel-Miniſters for their maintenance. For the true Miniſters of Chriſt preach not for hire. The Prophet Micah in chapter 3. ſets down that as a character of a falſe Prophet, ſaying, The heads thereof judge for rewards, p. 26and the Prieſts thereof teach for hire, and the Prophets thereof propheſie for money, &c.

Another Argument hath been brought for Tythes, from Matth. 22. 21. which proves as little to that purpoſe, 6 Argum.as the reſt of his Arguments do, there being not one word of Tythes in that verſe.

For the queſtion there is about giving tribute to Caeſar; but that Tythes are there (or in any other place of Anſwer.the New Teſtament) appointed by Chriſt for the maintenance of his Service and Officers in the time of the Goſpel, or that they are to be paid to him for that purpoſe, I finde no Scripture produced to prove it: but inſtead of Scripture, the teſtimony of Hierome, Pareus, and the Annotations on the Bible are alledged; but thoſe give me no ſatisfaction, I muſt have a word from Chriſt or his Apoſtles.

And further, I ſay that the ſpeech of the Prophet Malachi, and that of our Saviour in Matth. 22. 21. Mal. 3.Mal 3were uttered when the Ceremonial Law was in force, and before Chriſt had by his death put an end to the Levitical Prieſthood: ſo that this proves nothing for Miniſters maintenance by Tythes.

A ſeventh Argument is from Matth. 23. 23. and Luke 7 Argum.11. 42. where, ſaith he, Tythes are named.

To which I anſwer, that thoſe Scriptures do not prove a command from Chriſt for payment of Tythes to Goſpel-Miniſters, Anſwer.(though Tythes be there named) for the Levitical Prieſthood was not then aboliſhed, nor the Ceremonial Law abrogated: from which two Scriptures, whoſoever will derive a right to Tythes for Goſpel-Miniſters, muſt of neceſſity maintain the Ceremonial Law to be ſtill in force: For Chriſt did not then give a new Law for payment of Tythes, nor confirmed the old for payment of Tythes to Goſpel-Miniſters after his death; but onelyonly confirmed the old Law until the appointed time, that he by his death ſhould put an end to the Levitical Prieſthood, and Ceremonial Law: For he ſaith, That he p. 72came not to break the Law, but to fulfil the Law, and therefore he paid Tribute to Caeſar. And if any man will be pleaſed to view the Annotations on the Bible, (whereof my Antagoniſt ſometimes maketh uſe) he ſhall finde in the Annotation upon Luke 11. 42. theſe words, That Chriſt would not break the very leaſt Commandment, before all things were accompliſhed; but taught them to ſtick to the chiefeſt, and not prefer the inferiour Ceremonies, which muſt quickly be aboliſhed. So that whoſoever will not acknowledge that Tythes were part of the Ceremonial Law, and appointed of God for maintenance of the Levitical Prieſthood onelyonly, during the continuance thereof, and no longer; and that Chriſt by his death put an end to that Prieſthood, and ſo to that maintenance by Tythes alſo; Such a man (I ſay) may be ſaid to deny, that Chriſt is come in the Fleſh; and then ſuch a man hath not the Spirit of God: For the Apoſtle John ſaith, 1 John 4. 2, 3. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every ſpirit that confeſſeth that Jeſus Christ is come in the Fleſh, is of God: and every ſpirit that confeſſeth not that Jeſus Chriſt is come in the Fleſh, is not of God: and this is the Spirit of Antichriſt.

Another Argument for confirmation of Tythes, is 8 Argum.grounded upon Heb. 7. 8. where (ſaith the Opponent) the everlaſting God owns Tythes, and profeſſeth himſelf to be the Receiver of them, though not in perſon, but by his Miniſters.

For Anſwer hereunto, I ſay, when any Miniſter of the Anſwer.Goſpel can ſhew me an Ordinance of Chriſt in the New Teſtament, whereby he own Tythes, and hath ſubſtituted his Miniſters to receive Tythes in his name, and to his uſe, I ſhall believe it: But in the mean time I cannot be otherwiſe perſwaded, but that Tythes were meerly ceremonial, appointed of God for the maintenance of the Prieſts ahd Levites during the continuance of that Prieſthood onelyonly, and no longer. And therefore that Prieſthood which was typical and ceremonial being aboliſhed, Tythes p. 28muſt of neceſſity ceaſe alſo. For the Prieſthood being changed, there is made of neceſſity a change alſo of the Law, Heb. 7. 12. So that it appeareth plainly, that Tythes were part of the Ceremonial Law, and aboliſhed by Chriſt at his death, and not tranſlated to Goſpel-Miniſters for their maintenance (as ſome would have it to be.) And to prove this more fully, I will now alſo produce ſeveral other Scriptures and Teſtimonies to prove the utter abolition of the Levitical Prieſthood and Ceremonial Law (whereof Tythes were a part.) The Apoſtle Paul tells the Galatians, That they were under the Law till Chriſt came. But now after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggerly Elements whereunto ye deſire again to be in bondage? Gal. 4. 9. and Epheſ. 2. 15. Having aboliſhed in his fleſh the enmity, even the Law of Commandments, contained in Ordinances, &c. Again, Col. 2. 14. Blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances that was againſt us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his Croſs. And what were theſe weak and beggerly Elements, Law of Commandments, and handwriting of Ordinances, but the Levitical Ceremonies and duties enjoyned by that Law? And the Prieſthood being changed, there is made of neceſſity a change alſo of the Law, Heb. 7. 12. I will cite onelyonly one witneſs more, a modern learned Writer, to prove the repeal of the Law of Tythes: Doctor Hall, in his Paſſion-Sermon, upon the laſt words of our Saviour, at his death upon the Croſs, Conſummatum eſt, It is finiſhed, ſaith thus: What is finiſhed? Firſt, all the propheſies that were of him in the Old Teſtament, are fulfilled in the New. Secondly, all legal obſervations that prefigured him: For Chriſt is the end of the Law, Rom. 10. 4. What Law? Ceremonial and Moral: Of the Moral, it was kept perfectly by himſelf, ſatisfied fully for us. Of the Ceremonial, it referred to him, was obſerved of him, fulfilled in him, aboliſhed by him. All the Jewiſh Ceremonies lookt at Chriſt, and had their vertue from Chriſt, relation to him, and their end in him. (Thus far he)

p. 29And hereunto I might add alſo the teſtimony of thoſe two faithfull Martyrs, Walter Brute, and William Thorp, who deny Tythes to be due by the Goſpel: and alſo the example of that pious Worthy the Lord Cromwel, by whoſe counſel King Henry the eighth diſſolved the Abbies, Monaſteries, Nunneries, and all thoſe habitations of an idle, luxurious and adulterous people; and took away all their Lands, Tythes, and great Revenues, and converted them to temporal and civil uſes, to the benefit of his Subjects, as may be ſeen at large in Fox his Hiſtory of the Martyrs; whereunto I refer the Reader, becauſe I intend brevity, and not to trouble you with a tedious Diſcourſe.

Therefore having briefly ſhewed, how that threefold cord, ſo much boaſted of by the National Miniſters of England, is utterly broken in pieces, Tythes having no good foundation, either by donation, or by the Law of God, or of men;

I ſhall now ceaſe to proceed any further in the proſecution of this point at this time; but ſhall leave it to the judgement of all underſtanding men, who are not byaſſed by prejudice, nor blinded by covetouſneſs.

And if I have herein declared any thing contrary to the truth of the Scriptures, I deſire to be better informed, and my error to be manifeſted unto me, that I may repent of it, and not perſiſt in it: For, humanum eſt errare, belluinum perſeverare; It is incident to humane nature to erre, but it is a beaſtly property pertinaciouſly to go on, and to perſevere in an Error. But if I have done nothing herein but what I am warranted to do by the Holy Scripture: Then I deſire all men, as they deſire the glory of God and their own good, to refrain from giving or taking of Tythes, and from encouraging any man to take Tythes as wages for preaching the Goſpel.