An Indictment Against Tithes, Postscript
A Poſtſcript.
THere being ſome room left, I thought good to fill it up with an Argument taken from the Authors Major, and Doctor Burges's Minor: And being put together, ſhall leave it to the judicious and impartial Reader to judge whether from both, he may not rationally conclude, That Tythes are unlawful.
The Authour of this Treatiſe hath proved as cleer as the ſun at noon day, That Tythes (as they are now required) were firſt dedicated upon falſe grounds, and for ſuperſtitious and baſe ends, moſt derogatory to God and Chriſt, and meerly to maintain and countenance a curſed Brood of Vipers in their lyes and beaſtly vanities So He.
Doctor Burgeſs comes in with the other part, and with great confidence aſſarts it: That Things not appointed by God from the beginning, but His Caſe concering the buying of Biſhops Lands, &c. pag. 30, 31.dedicated to him, without his order and allowance, is a laying aſide, and a rejecting the Commandment of God, and making the Word of God of none effect, Mark 7. 8, 9, 13. Yea, he ſaith further, (and let all Tythe-taking Prieſts note his words) If things are dedicated upon a falſe ground, SUCH A DEDICATION IS NO WHIT BETTER THEN THE HIRE OF A WHORE, OR THE PRICE OF A DOG (that is, then Money gotten by whoredom, and the ſale of a dog) brought into the houſe of the Lord, and dedicated to him; both which he abhorreth, and he looks no otherwiſe upon them, then as the offering of ſwines blood, the cutting off of a dogs neck, or the bleſſing of an Idol. And when it can be proved (ſaith he) that God accepted of ſuch offering in the time of the Law, then alſo it may be granted that he will own ſuch MONGREL DED'CATIONS in the dayes of the Goſpel. Again, It is apparent (ſaith he) that thoſe gifts to Biſhops, were no longer to be continued then the Function of thoſe to whom they were given, remained. Datur Beneficium, propter Officium: Office and Benefice, are Relatives: like twins, they live and die together.
Judge Reader, whether the Doctor be not entangled in his own words, according to that in the Poet:
Non eſt Lex justior ulla
Quam necis artifices arte perire ſua.
For if this be true which he ſaith, then none but Maſs-mongers ought to receive Tythes: For no man I think hath the face to deny it, but Tythes came firſt up in England for Maſſes to be ſung or ſaid for quick and dead: It was not given as maintenance to a Goſpel-Miniſter. And therefore by the Doctors own confeſſion, Tythes were no longer to be continued then the Function of thoſe to whom they were given did remain. So that if the Doctor deny the Function of a Maſs Prieſt, he muſt (if true to his own principle) deny taking of Tythes: for like twins, they live and die together.
A little more out of the Doctor. Things once given to God by his command, warrant or approbation, may not be al…ned to other uſes whilest the uſe of Gods appointment doth continue: but not all that men pretend or ſay they give to God. As in perſons, ſo in things, ſuch onelyonly as the Lord chuſeth or accepteth (and none elſe) are holy, Num. 16. 7. let men ſay or thinke what they will to the contrary Here I agree with the Doctor in both points. 1. That things dedicated to God by his own order and allowance, ought to ſtand, whilſt the uſe of Gods appointment doth continue. So likewiſe, things not appointed by God at firſt, but dedicated to him upon falſe grounds and ſuperſtitious ends, ought to be aliened; neither is it any ſin or ſacriledge to buy or ſell them. But ſuch are Tythes, as hath been proved. But the Doctor poſſibly will ſay, He wrote in the defence of the lawfulneſs of buying Biſhops Lands, not intending Tythes. It is true he did ſo, and tells us That Tythes are ſtill due by divine right to Chriſt. But the man is again ſnared in his own words, and may well cry out Heu patior telis vulnera facta meis.
The Argument which he brings to prove it lawful that Biſhops Lands may be aliened, diverted or purchaſed to common uſe, notwithſtanding their firſt dedication, is, Becauſe there is no warrant in Scripture for the giving of Lands to Biſhops, nor arguments to prove Chriſts acceptance of them, as holy to the Lord: There is no word (ſaith he) in the new teſtament, that requireth or countenanceth ſuch endowments. Ergo. There are ſix particulars, which he hath for Tythes, to prove them Jure divino, and are ſtill due (as he ſaith) by divine right unto Chriſt. But I deſire all men in all places to take notice, that there is not one word in any of his ſix particulars, which proves Tythes to be Gods Ordinance for the maintenance of Evangelical Miniſters. I ſay again, and will ſtand by it, He ſhews us not one Scripture in the New Teſtament, that ever the Lord required Tythes under the Goſpel. So that it is apparent enough he hath as little to ſay for Tythes from the Scripture, as for the Biſhops Lands: and I am perſwaded, ſhould theſe Tythes be aliened, diverted or purchaſed for common uſe, he and others, who are now great Champions for them, would face about, and undertake that there is no more ſacriledge or ſin to buy and ſell the Tythes of the nation, then Biſhops Lands. And I have good ground for what I ſay: for 1. what he waites againſt the Biſhops, for the alienation of their Lands and Revenues, is as full and direct againſt the Tythes of the Clergy, that they ſhould be taken away. Neither 2. can he juſtifie by Scripture his bold Aſſertion, viz. That Tythes are the proper maintenance ſet apart for the Miniſters of the Goſpel, and cannot be alienated without ſacriledge: I ſay he can no more make this good by the word of God, then the Biſhops could prove the buying or ſelling of their Lands to be ſacrilege.
I have onelyonly one thing to add, and it is, Humbly to adviſe all ſuch as ſhall read the preſent Controverſie concerning Tythes, to take heed they are not abuſed. For thoſe who commonly plead for them will deceive the Reader (unleſshe do obſerve their craft) by their extravagant and impertinent diſcourſes, uſing many words, but nothing to the Queſtion. But no man is more wild, and rangeth from the Caſe rightly ſtated, then Will. Prynne, We read of one Doria the Admiral of Genoa, being to fight at ſea againſt the Saracens, he fetcht his courſe ſo far about to gain the winde, that he could never come to ſtrike a blow before the battle was ended. Their manner is (and here lies Will. Prynn's proper gift, unleſs rayling) to blot much paper with proving what was never queſtioned; we have ſometimes a hundred Scriptures quoted to prove Tythes lawful under the Law; another while as many old Statutes made by popiſh Princes and Parliaments, commanding Tythes; Then the practice of Heathens and Pagans are cited, paying Tythes to their Prieſts. But what is all this to the matter? for what purpoſe and end are theſe things mentioned, if not to beguile an ignorant Reader? Ego de Alliis loquor, tu reſponderes de Cepis. They know well enough (or ate very ignorant about the queſtion of Tithes) what they ſpend moſt of their breath for, is not denyed by their Oppoſites. But the Caſe ſtated is principally thus: And I ſhall conclude with the Argument.
Things not appointed by God, but dedicated to him without his order and allowance, and upon a falſe ground, and for idolatrous and ſuperſtitious ends, as unlawful and ſinful are to be removed. So Doctor Burgeſs.
But Tythes under the New Teſtament were never appointed of God, but dedicated to him, without his order and allowance, upon falſe grounds, and for Idolatrous and ſuperſtitious ends. So the Author.
Therefore Tythes as unlawful and ſinful, are to be taken away.
FINIS.
End of the text · John Osborne, An Indictment Against Tithes (1659)