An indictment against tythes: or, Tythes no wages for Gospel-ministers

AN INDICTMENT Against TYTHES.

THe consideration of the great oppression that is now exercised in this land, by im∣posing upon men that intolerable bur∣then of Tythes, wich lieth heavy upon, and is grievous to the people of this Na∣tion 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 un∣lawfull payment of Tythes is most burthensome to the con∣scientious and faithfull Servants of Jesus Christ, who de∣sire 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 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

these I shall speak briefly in order as I have laid them down. And first, to the time when Tythes were first gi∣ven 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 instru∣ment 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 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 onely by his Agents in the Kingdom of Mercia, being but a seventh part of Eng∣land; and afterwards as Popery increased, so Tythes al∣so were established in other parts of England by the seve∣ral 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,

and 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 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 Peter∣pence, 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 re∣pentance for his sins, built a Magnifick Monastery over against Verolanium, indowing it with Lands and rich Re∣venues 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 West-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 (onely 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 Ser∣vices: And in great devotion went himself to Rome,

where 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; con∣firming also his grant of Peter-pence, and further cove∣nanting to pay yearly Three hundred marks to Rome, to be thus imployed; One hundred to St. Peter's Church, ano∣ther hundred to St. Paul's Light, and the third to the Pope.

It is also said, that Athelstan King of the West-Saxons, 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 onely 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 perswa∣ded 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 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 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 Ethel∣fleda; 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 the blood of Edward and Edmund, sons of Ironside, and

Heirs 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 Mo∣nastery 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 illusi∣ons 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 Tythes were first given in England. Secondly, By whom, and whose authority the first Law for payment of Tythes in England was made: And thirdly, To whom, and to what end and purpose Tythes were first paid in England; not to Mi∣nisters of Christ to preach the Gospel, but to Antichristi∣an 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 li∣ving 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 read∣ing 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 promoti∣ons. 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 abolish∣ed, and rooted out of this and all other Christian Com∣mon-wealths, as popish, idolatrous, superstitious, and dero∣gatory to the worship and service of God; because God

never commanded that Tythes should be paid to any man, but to the Priests and Levites onely, in the time of the Le∣vitical Law, in the Land of Canaan, and not elsewhere; and by the Jews onely, but never by the Gentiles.

But it is objected by the pleaders for Tythes in these 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 before the Donation in times of Popery: but they prove it not. Secondly, by the Law of the Land. And thirdly, by the Law of God; all which I shall (by Gods assistance) seriously ex∣amine, and according to my best understanding give a brief and satisfactory Answer thereunto in order as they are pro∣pounded.

To the first (viz. Donation) I shall not need to make 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 Tythes to their Idol-Gods and Goddesses; as the Arabians, to their God Sabin; the Siphnians, to their God at Del∣phos; 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

of our Lord 786. For in the Primitive times, for Three hundred years after Christ, no Tythes were paid in Eng∣land (as I have already proved) although there were ma∣ny Christians then in England, and many Churches ga∣thered in Asia and elsewhere: And whereas it is alledged, that Constantine the great (who was the first Christian Em∣perour) 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 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 ex∣pounded, and righteous judgement given upon them; yea, even those which are thought to make most for pay∣ment of Tythes.

I begin with the Statute of the 27 year of H. 8. where∣by Ministers are enabled to sue for Tythes: but where? In the Ecclesiastical Court onely, and not elsewhere. For be∣fore 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 onely a decretal Epistle of Pope Innocent the third; which (saith Sir Edward Cook) was no binding Law: Also in the Two and thirtieth year of Hen. 8. another Act of Parliament was made especially for the benefit of Im∣propriators, who before that time had no power given

them to recover Tythes; but in that Act is a special Pro∣viso, That no person Ecclesiastical or temporal shall sue for any Tythes in any temporal Court, but onely in the Ecclesiasti∣cal Court. Thirdly, in the second year of Edward 6. ano∣ther 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 seve∣ral 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 shall set out and pay his predial Tythes; and that no per∣son 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 forfei∣ture of the treble value, &c. So that it appeareth to me, that the forfeiture given by this Act, is not the treble va∣lue 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, 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 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.

Therefore 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 forfei∣ted, for not delivering in a Copy of the Libel and suggesti∣on whereupon a Prohibition is granted. And for these con∣siderations, and some other Reasons following, I am per∣swaded 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 onely: And I am in∣duced so to judge, for these five reasons following.

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

Secondly, Because this Act is called an additional Act, added to the two former Acts of the 27 and 32 of Hen. 8. and herein onely 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 power∣ful in this land, and then sitting in Parliament; and can it be conceived, that had they understood that the Parlia∣ment intended to give liberty thereby to sue for that for∣feiture 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Common-Law in temporal Courts, and

thereby 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 Cogni∣zance, then to abate any of their Priviledges, as appear∣eth, by a Prohibition directed to the Prelates, Arch∣deacons, &c. of the Diocess of Norwich, which is to be seen in Rastals Abridgement.

Fourthly, because all the Judges in their Answers to 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 (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 acti∣on: 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 ex∣position of a Statute, to construe one part of the Statute, by another part of the same Statute; for that best ex∣presseth 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

or partiality; and yet not to utter their own conceits, but the true meaning of the Law; not making laws, but decla∣ring 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 onely 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 Wor∣thies, the Representatives now assembled in Parliament, and all others that may succeed you, would seriously consi∣der, and set upon the regulating of the Laws of this Com∣monwealth, 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 Ser∣vants.

But it may be some will here object and say, that 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 not the Pope?) and why is not that custom one and the

same in all places of this Land? and why are there several and divers customs, and manner of tythings in several Pa∣rishes? 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 onely 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 con∣formable 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, saith, That the Customs we pay our Tythes by at this day, were setled upon this Kingdom by the Popes Legats in Pro∣vincial and Synodal constitutions. And Mr Selden in his 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, 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, expound∣ed, 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 impi∣ous

and 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 for∣merly shewed, That Tythes were by Parliaments esta∣blished 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 Ido∣latrous gift and establishment, unlawfull in the Givers, un∣lawfull 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 unto 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 Sta∣tutes of Omri are kept, and all the manner of the House of Ahab. &c. Therefore ye shall bear the reproach of my peo∣ple. 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 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

from 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 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 main∣tain 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 been given in that Case upon a false ground, must all suc∣ceeding 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 opini∣ons 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 in∣convenient 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, 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

Judgement 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 conti∣nued 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, be∣ing guided by the opinions of those former Judges, with∣out 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 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 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 gave Tythes to Melchisedeck of the spoiles of his Enemies, (but not of all his own proper goods) and but at that one time onely, and no more. And that Jacob vowed to give to God

the tenth of all that he should give him, is true also: but neither Abraham nor Jacob had a command from God so to do: So that it was in them a free offering onely, and not of constraint.

Again, If Abraham and Jacob, being guided by Na∣ture, without any command from God, gave Tythes, and that God (as some say) approving the same, after∣wards gave a Law to the Jews, commanding them thereby to pay Tythes to the Priests and Levites, and after abro∣gated 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 un∣der the reproof that our Saviour gives to the Scribes and Pharisees, Matth. 15. 6. Thus have ye made the Com∣mandments 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 com∣manded the Jews onely to pay Tythes in the Land of Ca∣naan, 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

enter into the Land of Canaan. Saul also for not destroy∣ing the Amalekites according to the command of God, was deprived of his Kingdom; for this was counted to him for disobedience and rebellion. Oh that these exam∣ples 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 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 thereup∣on he raiseth such a dust to blinde the eyes of ignorant men, as that he would make them believe, that Tythes are due 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 Leviti∣cal, 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 abroga∣ted. 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

end 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 per∣verteth the Apostles words and meaning: for I do not finde in the New-Testament any such Ordinance for pay∣ment of Tythes; and therefore non-payment of Tythes is now no violation of Gods Law: For where no Low is, there is no transgression.

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 main∣tained 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 tenth, yet near a tenth part of the People.

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

Thirdly, the poor, the widow and the fatherless were to partake of the Tythes with them.

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

Secondly, They (or most of them) have besides their 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, 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 up∣holden and maintained.

But it is further asserted by the same Doctor, that 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 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 main∣tenance by Tythes at this day: Even so, as the Levitical

Priests 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 bene∣volence and free gift of People, and not by Tythes. For Christ and his Apostles never had any Tythes or great Par∣sonages (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 of 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 is either wholly mistaken, or unjustly wrested by the Do∣ctor, 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 Le∣vites 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

can 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which in our English Transla∣tions is rendred, And so, or So also; and the word Even, is found onely 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 Chri∣stians 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 ho∣mage, by not acknowledging him to have died for all men; and men of their goods, by unjustly exacting Tythes to spend 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 fur∣ther; who in the next place goeth about to maintain the lawfulness of Tythes for Ministers maintenance by a Ca∣tholick Custom, confirmed by Antiquity and Universality: (two strong props or pillars whereupon the Popish Religi∣on,

Idolatry, and will-worship is upholden) but I finde no such custom in the Church of Christ in the first Six hun∣dred years after Christ, as it is affirmed by some Histori∣ans: 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 hun∣dred, a decretal Epistle by Pope Innocent the third, dated at Lateran, was directed to the Archbishop of Canter∣bury, 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 be∣came 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 onely 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 com∣manded.

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 autho∣rity of men, without any precept or rule in the Word of God: Therefore the Custom of paying Tythes in Eng∣land

is an evil Custom, and ought to be abolished. That cannot rightly be called a free gift to God, or to this Mi∣nisters, which is by a strong hand and compulsion taken from men. But Tythes are by a strong hand and compulsi∣on 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 be paid in England.

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

And thirdly, to whom, and to what end and purpose 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, 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 no∣thing 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 chap∣ters 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

Gospel? If the Apostle had said, that by those good things you are to understand Tythes to be communicated and gi∣ven 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 one∣ly, 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 maintain∣ed by the benevolence of the People, and not by taxati∣on. And Cyprian further saith, That about the year 240. the Priests had every man his allowance delivered month∣ly 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 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 be∣lieve that the Apostle there pleadeth for Ministers mainte∣nance by Tythes; where the Apostle not so much as once nameth Tythes in that chapter, (as I have formerly shew∣ed:) but some men endeavour to draw in Tythes there, by references of the New Testament to the Old, making

Law and Gospel all one, without putting any diffe∣rence between them; and so by putting them toge∣ther, 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 Te∣stament.

A fifth Argument hath been brought by one, drawn 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 con∣firm them without all revocation.

Whereunto I answer, first, I do acknowledge, such a 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 main∣tained by Tythes: Therefore Gospel-Ministers ought not to receive Tythes; and so this Scripture proveth no∣thing for him, but altogether against him.

Secondly, That God by the Prophet, Mal. 3. 8. com∣plaineth that the people had spoiled him in Tythes and Offerings: But what maketh this for Ministers mainte∣nance 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,

and the Priests thereof teach for hire, and the Prophets there∣of prophesie for money, &c.

Another Argument hath been brought for Tythes, from Matth. 22. 21. which proves as little to that pur∣pose, 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 Cae∣sar; but that Tythes are there (or in any other place of the New Testament) appointed by Christ for the mainte∣nance of his Service and Officers in the time of the Go∣spel, 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. were uttered when the Ceremonial Law was in force, and before Christ had by his death put an end to the Levi∣tical Priesthood: so that this proves nothing for Mini∣sters maintenance by Tythes.

A seventh Argument is from Matth. 23. 23. and Luke 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, (though Tythes be there named) for the Levi∣tical Priesthood was not then abolished, nor the Ceremo∣nial Law abrogated: from which two Scriptures, whosoever will derive a right to Tythes for Gospel-Mini∣sters, 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 pay∣ment of Tythes to Gospel-Ministers after his death; but onely 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

came not to break the Law, but to fulfil the Law, and there∣fore 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 ac∣knowledge that Tythes were part of the Ceremonial Law, and appointed of God for maintenance of the Levitical Priesthood onely, 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 Spi∣rit of God: For the Apostle John saith, 1 John 4. 2, 3. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confes∣seth 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 Anti∣christ.

Another Argument for confirmation of Tythes, is 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 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 ceremo∣nial, appointed of God for the maintenance of the Priests ahd Levites during the continuance of that Priesthood onely, and no longer. And therefore that Priesthood which was typical and ceremonial being abolished, Tythes

must 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 (where∣of Tythes were a part.) The Apostle Paul tells the Gala∣tians, 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 whereun∣to 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 hand∣writing 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 onely 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 finish∣ed? 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 ver∣tue from Christ, relation to him, and their end in him. (Thus far he)

And 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 ex∣ample of that pious Worthy the Lord Cromwel, by whose counsel King Henry the eighth dissolved the Abbies, Mo∣nasteries, 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 prosecu∣tion 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, bellui∣num 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.

A Postscript.

THere being some room left, I thought good to fill it up with an Ar∣gument taken from the Authors Major, and Doctor Burges's Minor: And being put together, shall leave it to the judicious and impar∣tial Reader to judge whether from both, he may not rationally con∣clude, 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 confi∣dence assarts it: That Things not appointed by God from the beginning, but 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 ac∣cepted 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 gi∣ven, 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 con∣tinued 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 pre∣tend or say they give to God. As in persons, so in things, such onely 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 par∣ticulars, 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 main∣tenance 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 Bi∣shops Lands: and I am perswaded, should these Tythes be aliened, di∣verted 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 Re∣venues, 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 Bi∣shops could prove the buying or selling of their Lands to be sacrilege.

I have onely 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 de∣ceive the Reader (unlesshe do observe their craft) by their extrava∣gant 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 pro∣ving what was never questioned; we have sometimes a hundred Scri∣ptures quoted to prove Tythes lawful under the Law; another while as many old Statutes made by popish Princes and Parliaments, com∣manding Tythes; Then the practice of Heathens and Pagans are ci∣ted, 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 Op∣posites. 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 supersti∣tious 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.

Notes

• 1. The time when. 2. By whom. 3. To whom, and to what end.
• 1. The time.
• 2. By whom.
• 3. To what end.
• Ethelwolph
• Ethelstan.
• Edgar.
• Forty se∣ven, some say.
• Canutus.
• 1. The time when.
• 1. By whom.
• 3. To what end.
• Objection.
• 1. Right.
• 2. Right.
• 3. Right.
• Answer.
• In his larger work of Tythes.
• Answer to the second Right.
• 1. Law for Tythes.
• Instit. part 2.
• 2. Law for Tythes.
• 2. Law for Tythes.
• 1. Imper∣fect.
• 2. Imper∣fect.
• 2. Imper∣fect.
• Reason 1.
• Reason 2.
• Reason 3.
• Reason 4.
• Reason 5.
• Objection.
• Answer.
• Pag. 147.
• Chap. 11.
• Tythes too hot, &c.
• Isa. 10. 1, 2
• Spel. 173.
• Objection.
• Answer.
• Instit. part 1.
• Hub. de Bu••go. Thorp. Triscilian Belknap. Lock••on, &c.
• 3. Right answered.
• 1. Scrip.
• Answer.
• Non ex debito, sed ex gratia.
• 1 Sam. 15. 22, 23.
• 2. Scrip∣ture.
• See what Christ hath ap∣pointed his Mini∣sters to take for their wa∣ges, Matth. 10. 8, 9, Luk. 10. 8. Especially not in Tythes.
• Rom. 4. 15.
• Reason 1.
• Reason 3.
• 1.
• 2.
• 3.
• Objection.
• Answer.
• Matth. 10. 24.
• 1 Cor 9. 14.
• See Heb. 2. 9.
• 1 John 2. 2.
• 1.
• 2.
• 3.
• Argument 3.
• Answer.
• Argument 4. answer∣ed.
• 5 Argum.
• Answer.
• 6 Argum.
• Answer.
• Mal. 3.
• 7 Argum.
• Answer.
• 8 Argum.
• Answer.
• His Case concering the buying of Bi∣shops Lands, &c. pag. 30, 31.