The Question of Tithes

The Introduction.

S Ince I began to smatter in judgment of questions, thus I have ever thought of the particular; that its amongst those, that may much more easily be defended, then euicted. So utterly inconsequentiall, are all arguments pretended against the divine right of Tything, yet so blind is prejudice, so earelesse the belly, so stiff and absurd covetousness, in denying principles, and in spite of all premises resolved to hold the conclusion of Sacrilege.

Difficultie of euiction ariseth hence: first, that opposites take from us appearing principles, and put us to prove them in our own science: secondly, have framed to themselves principles, which no man must dare to contradict, under peril of hissing at for absurdity: A principle it seems to my poor understanding. First, that precepts of God, never so ancient, having no appearing repeal, bind ever to the end of the world. Secondly, that men willing to loose Conscience from bond of any divine precept, such especially as but looks towards morality, must be able to show, by soundest evidence, the abrogating of that, from which they pretend to be enlarged. For what our Savior disclaims, dares any attempt? Dissoluing the Law in any Iot or title? without clear signification of the Law-givers will for cessation? Or suppose we, he speaks of the main only after the letter, and not of particulars, and degrees of duty, couched under the main? Of particulars and degrees of sin implied in the gross? who should not tremble at so profane arrogancy, that hears him protest his nullity in God's kingdom, who breaks, or teacheth breach of the lest commandment.

It is strange liberty these licentious times have taken; to cancel at pleasure, what their fancy distasteth in the Law of God.

How urgent is the caveat against Image making, for representation, or worship of the Godhead; how plentifully particularized, and backed with reasons? yet goes it for current doctrine amongst some Papists, that the precept was temporary, peculiar to Jews; in respect of their gross rudeness, and strong propension to Idolatry. Its a precept in casu, to swear the Lord liveth in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness. A toleration rather, say Anabaptists, limited to Jews, in their estate of weakness, and imperfection. No oath lawful to Christians in new Testament, in what cause soever, by what authority soever imposed.

Praecept of Sabbath, ancient, some think, as the world for the quota of time; we are sure, enrolled by God's own finger in the two Tables of stone; yet thought a mere Jewish ceremony, to vanish with other shadows of heavenly things, in this time of reformation.

Subjection to Christian Magistrates, enjoined in the first commandment with promise, lawless Anabaptists make proper to the State, and polity of ruder Jews.

Usury, so damned by Moses, Prophets, Councils, Churches, Heathens, is deemed a sin peculiar only to the people of Jews.

Were Nicholas of Antioch now alive; or Nichols the Familist, approaching as near to his heresy, as to his name; they would voice it as strongly, that fornication was a sin peculiar to Jews; And that Christians may live after the license of Plato his Common-wealth, rather then astrict themselves to these laws of Moses, made several, as their opinion seems, to the Jewish Nation.

May not David's Apostrophe beseem us in these times, Its time for thee, Lord, to lay to thy hand, for men have destroyed thy Law. What precept, with greatest instance pressed, may not a licentious Libertine plead to be exempted from? If it may be lawful, without ground to avouch it merely Judaical? Yea, how would my soul wish rather to be a Jew, that dissolute nature might be restrained in me by laws, and my Conscience enjoy the sweet comforts found in obedience, then to enjoy such liberties of Christians, such lawless license, to be Idolatrous, luxurious, impious, Sacrilegious?

Should not Christian Conscience be well advised, how it slights any the precepts of God? Had not the evidences need be praegnant, that induce us to believe our freedom from their obedience.

Think of it seriously, you that put us to plead our ius, while you keep possession of Tythes: whither it lie not rather on your Conscience, to prove repeal of that divine Law-given for Tything. Least that tax of our Savior laid on the Pharisees, light on you; full well have you abrogated God's commandment to stablish your own tradition, or rather fancy. And without fear to feed your own covetousness, and luxury, with God's reserved portion. Once we are sure, a law of Tything there was given of God: observed by Patriarchs, ancient Jews, and Christians; maintained by Fathers, to stand still in force: how may any dare avouch it abrogated without clearest evidence of the word of God?

Their principles, such as they are, received amongst the vulgus and their Chaplens, let us examine. 1. That is impregnable borrowed from Manichees, pointed at by Thomas; that Christians stand bound to no precept of Moses, or Prophets, which Christ, or his Apostles have not, in Scriptures of New Testament, given life unto. Would they, I trow, be so understood? that all Mosaical; and Prophetical precepts, which are not totidem verbis revived in New Testament; are now mortua? Apagesis Antinome.

Or sufficeth the protestation of our Savior that he came not to destroy the lest title of Moses his moral Law; and that of Paul, that faith doth not abrogate the Law, but rather stablish it, to countenance whatsoever Law given by Moses, explicated by Prophets, which was not either particularly judicial, or amongst the shadows of things to come. That yielded, till that of Tything be euidenced to be amongst the seuerals of the Jews, life it hath sufficient put into it by Christ and his Apostles, in their protestation, and auouchment for the general.

But who so is acquainted with their discreetest answers to arguments grounded on Scriptures of the New Testament, shall find them to exact a precept, punctually there speaking for Tythes; with such scorn shall he hear arguments of most apparent consequence thence drawn, rejected; because the conclusion for Tythes, under that name, is not extant in our testimonies Make the instructer partaker of all thy goods, said the Apostle. Part-taker, said an Arch-presbyter amongst them, not Tenth-taker; and pleased himself much in the elegance. As Levi ministering about holy things, lives of the Temple, &c. So hath Christ ordained for them that preach the Gospel, to live of the Gospel. To live of the Gospel, God forbid else; but had Paul meant Tythes, doubtless he would have named them. [unspec 2] Their second Principle then is this, that Scriptures of New Testament mean to oblige us to no duty, but what by name it commends unto us. Anabaptists, I think, and our lay-Parsons, are, in the grounds of their Tenants, coniurati; sworn brothers. Though Christ said, Baptize all nations; Though Paul baptized whole households; though Promises, spirit, kingdom, belongs to Infants, yet, after Anabaptists, never meant Christ to admit Infants to his baptism? for as easy had it been for him to name them, had he so intended, as to leave it determinable, by doubtful consequetiall deductions. [unspec 2] 3. Their third ground they have borrowed, unwittingly it may be, from the school of Thomas; the best Patron, I dare say, of their opinion. That the ancient practice of Abraham, and Jacob, before the law written, was arbitrary only, without any injunction, or precept of God. And yet, saith, Thomas, Abraham had his Prophetical instinct which was to him a law. And may we think their sacrificing, and like devotions, or pious offices, were done without injunctions? By faith Abel offered. Heb. 11. Therefore not without a word of God . Abraham kept God's charge, his commandments, his statutes, his laws.

The names, the same, as of those laws after given in writing, force us to think, they had their rule of faith, of worship, of life, according to which they were bound to frame their Religion, and life. Even of the particular, Abraham's Tything, it shall after appear, it was done of duty, of Justice, by injunction, and therefore not, as is supposed, arbitrarily.

Thus the introduction to our intendment. How loath am I, that covetousness should grow impious, so impious, as without warrant, or sound reason, to abrogate any law of God, intended to be perpetual: how fain would I persuade conscience, (and if there be any, it will be persuaded) to prove, before it affirm, the law of Tything abrogated; to evidence, before it plead exemption from it; They err, that think us only bound, by reasons to prove such laws perpetual: those that scize the Lord's ancient inheritance to themselves, those that detain any part of that portion, must prove it temporary, before they can warrant conscience in such practice, Cleerely God gave such a law; according to it, practiced Patriarchs, Jews, Christians upon persuasion of obligation; ancients, as many as treated it, judge it to bind the Christian Church. The authority, the reasons of none, except demonstrative, shall sway my judgment, nor ought to sway anies, to think it temporary, belonging only to the time, and state of the Jews.

A taste of Lay-men's reasons, much swaying their conscience, let me, though something out of place, give you; A pidling Cauiller, willing to show his wit, would needs frame argument against Tything, of the text, which gave me first occasion to treat the question. After many quarrellings against choice of that text of Paul, 1. Cor. 9. to support the conclusion, thus he quaerees. What if from this text he could frame an argument against Tythes? Ans. He should be to me Magnus Apollo. And if out of this, or any other holy text, you could handsomely but strain an argument, I would yield you the conclusion.

Its well with you, my Lay-masters, you have in our free hold the eleven points of the law. I dare say, you shall sooner fetch water out of a flint, then argument out of Scripture, to prove your ius to them.

Yet this Text would afford some Sampson one. What, trow we, may that be? if hire or wages be the maintenance belonging to ministers, then not Tythes: for hire is a civil thing, and from men by civil contract. Tythes are challenged from God, as a divine donation. Therefore Tythes, and wages, being of diverse nature, cannot both be the ministers maintenance. But the maintenance, belonging to ministers, is hire or wages. 1. Cor. 9.7. Ergo: not Tythes.

Ans. Wittie too too: quasi dicam, if an inheritance be the maintenance belonging to Levi, then not Tythes: for inheritances are civil things, descending lineally from father to son, settled upon posterity, by civil, or natural, or national law. Tythes are challenged to Levi from God, as a divine donation; but the maintenance belonging to Levi, is an inheritance. Numb. 18.21. Ergo, not Tythes. How easy is it to answer, that Tythes was that inheritance, and Tythes is this wages? Will you rest in an answer when you have it? The Apostle saith not, our maintenance, whatsoever it is, is wages, or hire given by civil contract. But from proportion of wages given in Justice to soldiers, &c. proves a reward or recompense, due to Ministers for preaching the Gospel. 2. Is every hire or wages due by civil contract? The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or wages of sin is death. Rom. 6.23. by civil contract think you? betwixt whom, and the sinner. 3. Alters this the nature of things, to have many efficients? Lastly, if hire, then not Tythes? what if Tythes be this hire? as it was Leuies inheritance. Then though hire, yet Tythes. Hyre imports the general, Tythes determine the particular: hath not this Sampson pulled the house upon our heads.

A second argument thence drawn, is from Paul's silencing of the particular, where he purposely treats of the general. Paul purposely treating of Ministers maintenance for perpetuity, mentions not Tythes, where one word yet had struck the matter dead.

Ans. Will it please you to know, that Paul's principal scope is not, to treat of maintenance; but to persuade the people, to yield of right in things indifferent, in favor of the weak, by argument drawn from his example. He yieldes in maintenance, therefore ought they in matters of less moment. His secondary intention is, to avow his right to maintenance: where, though grounds be laid that concern posterity, yet is not that his main purpose.

His conclusion in this second intention is, that he and Barnabas had right to maintenance: must he needs descend to express mention of the particular quantum? especially it being else-where sufficiently determined? what if he thought the people well enough able, out of the old Scriptures to inform themselves of the particular? This once is apparent. Scriptures of New Testament deal lest particularly, in matters plainly, and plentifully particularized in the old; as in those main moralities, of observing Sabbath, and forbearing usury, &c. is evident.

But to this Argument, Paul purposing to speak of ministers maintenance, mentions not Tythes. Ergo what? they are not due? or no thought in Paul of Tythes, as if I should say:

Moses purposing to set forth the history of Creation, mentions not Angels: are they therefore not created? or had Moses no thought of their creation?

Our Savior purposely treating of the Moral law, and continuance thereof, speaketh not particularly of the Sabbath. How much question hath the Church been pestered withal about that Subject? Sure our Savior much forgot himself, especially having prescience of things to come, that he gave not one touch at morality of Sabbath, where one word had stroke the matter dead. Are ye satisfied? such arguments are the best, that these men's Logic can frame;

Proceede we now 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to review of the question; stating it after our old course, for the Cauillers sake, who hath labored to perplex it; Who knows whether God will more bless our second endeavors?

THE MINISTERS PORTION.

T HE grants on all sides are these. First, that there is a maintenance in justice due to Ministers for their work sake. Secondly, Its yielded it must be competent, not only for supply of natural necessities, but for their furniture to every good work of their calling. Thirdly, That it must be liberal: not such as every niggardly mind will judge convenient and competent.

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

1. That to Ministers of the Gospel, belongs a maintenance as large, as to the Levitical Priesthood: this, me thinks, excellency of Ministry, and blessings conferred thereby enforceth.

Object. Yet Christ whose Ministry, and blessings were superior to ours, thought not necessary His excellency should be adorned with earthly things.

Answ. Now you are in the right. Neither thought he necessary, that th'excellency of his Kingdom should be adorned with Royal magnificence. What is your inference? therefore our Solomon's may not be clothed royalty? therefore nor his Ministers have where to lay their heads? Know you not that his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on earth, was to be carried in the habitude of a servant? and that by his poverty he should make us rich?

2. That this maintenance must rise out of all and every the goods of all and every the people instructed.

3. That the Lord hath as certainly provided for our maintenance under the Gospel, as for theirs under the Law. For had the Lord less care of us? was there less need in respect of the people's backwardness? no. But he entrusted Magistrates with that care.

Ans. And were there not Magistrates amongst the Jews.

Object. Is not the care of God shown sufficiently in ordaining maintenance without certainty?

Answ. That's not the quaere, whither sufficiently: but whither less or more by determining certainty, or by leaving all to man's arbitrement. As if I should ask; doth not the father, assigning his child to the care of friends at large, as carefully provide for his livelihood; as allotting his son a portion of lands and revenue, which none may by any means defeat him of? I should think his care more, that thus certainly provides, then his, who commits all to the doubtful regard of friends.

Object. But why thinks M. Selater, the people under the Gospel, as backward as those under the Law? When God hath promised more abundant Grace: Is not Justice a part of Grace? can Grace be without Justice?

Answ. Grace renewing cannot be without Justice: virtues gracious are connected. But the Grace of which Joel speaks, dreaming dreams, and seeing visions, or if there be any other, coming under the term of Gratia gratis data, may be without Justice: except perhaps we may think Judas just, because to him was given, as to others, power to do miracles. Howbeit it must be confessed, that Grace of illumination, and sanctification, is greater under the Gospel, then under the Law: 1. In extent of the subjects receiving; which are now all flesh, as well Gentiles, as Jews. 2. Mensura & gradu, where it takes place, making the terms of comparison equal. But think you, this Grace takes place in all under the New Testament? or meant the Lord to leave us to the gracious disposition of our sanctified people only, exempting others from bond of duty, in contributing to maintenance of the ministry? I assure you Sir, if I should measure men's Sanctification by their Justice in this kind, I should be forced to assign Sanctification rathest to men of lest knowledge; and to say of others, who have enclosed sanctity, and sincerity all to themselves, Non est qui facit iustum vsque ad vnum. Whither it be, that the holy morsel is sweet; or that they would have justice in this kind, seem mercy; or how the good year it falls, I know not; Terras Astraea reliquit: This Justice is taken to her wings, and fled far from our coasts.

4. That the Lord in the Levitical Law had eye to provision for us, that were to Minister in the Gospel. Thou shalt not mussell the mouth of the ox which treadeth out the corn, was a branch of Law Levitical; yet applied by the Apostle to enforce honorable maintenance of Ministers under the Gospel.

Thus far I think we walk safely, since in the very steps of the holy Ghost, leading us in the New Testament: Let us now descend toward the particular.

Some tumbling down headlong, rather then descending, resolve of a competency indeterminate; so th'allowance be competent all is well.

Resp. Then in case of this fancied competency, some as the instructed, though wealthy perhaps, shall be exempted from the Apostles injunction. For suppose someone or two of the well disposed hearers, shall out of their private, make a competent allowance; The rest shall now reap our spirituals, and not sow their carnals. For, as the saying is rise enough in a Ministers maintenance, enough is a feast. But saith th' Apostle, Let him, that is: every him, that is instructed, make his instructer partaker of all his goods.

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

Answ. It should seem then, the Grace of the New Testament is not everywhere alike abundant, and overflowing. In your countries it works more sparely. My self have known many, who, out of their own private, have given, over and above their Tythes ordinary to the Ignorant or idle Sheepheard, a largesse, as large as most men think competent, in zeal of their own and other men's salvation.

But what inconvenience, though contribution arise not out of all and every able man's goods?

Answ. They reap our spirituals without sowing their Carnalls. 2. They discharge not the duties laid on them by the Apostle, and so entangle their conscience with guilt of sin. An inconvenience call you that, [Object.] or a mischief? Not so, for that of Paul is but a counsel, not a precept. 2. A counsel to be obeyed in casu of the Ministers need. Then indeed the hearers are bound, to afford their Minister, a meals meat, or nights lodging, and such like cleemosynarie kindness, as they would afford another man in his necessity.

Answ. When will you cease to pervert the straight ways of the Lord? Are Ministers your Alms-men? Is nothing due to them ex lege Iustitiae for their labor in the word and doctrine, be they never so well stored of their own, but only in mercy, respecting their necessities? Is this the double honor Paul would have them thought worthy of? This th'ordinance of Christ, for Preachers of the Gospel, to live of the Gospel? what if our inheritances civil were as large, as yours? Is nothing due for our pains in the Gospel? how then live we of the Gospel? what is the laborers deserved hire? the soldiers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ?

In case of need, you that have this worlds good, will not see this Brother want. There, there so would you have it Ministers, to hang on your benevolence; to partake works of your mercy due to humanity; but neither by this, nor any other text of Scripture, to be entitled to anything for their work sake. [Object.] This and no more must be intended in this precept of the Apostle. For the charge is as great in the next verse, to relieve the poor.

Resp. But think you that also a counsel, not a precept. 2. Weigh well, you shall be forced to see, that what is said in the three next verses, belongs to the point in hand of Ministers maintenance, & not to benevolence towards the poor. Let me see what this merciful man hath said hitherto for the quality of our maintenance. One while its hire, as much, or little as you can make your bargain for; Another while, Alms: your servants, or your beads-men we are, one of the two certain. Sir, I would you knew, the only Master we serve is Jesus Christ: His servants we are. Our people's guides, rulers, superiors. And the maintenance we claim, is of that portion, which the God of heaven hath assigned us; which who without Sacrilege can detain from us? But proceed we in examining the likelihood of your competency. See conclusion the sixth: and duly weighing it, tell me, whither thou find conscience satisfied with this imaginary competency? for is there no certain provision for Ministers of the Gospel, but this uncertain competency? who shall judge of it? Every man? Mallem Cerberum metueres, as the Orator speaks. The Magistrate? why would not the Lord leave this to Jewish Magistrates? no not to Moses, a man so gracious with him? and leave it to Magistrates under the Gospel.

[unspec Object.] Jewish Magistrates were then entrusted. [unspec Sol.] Answ. What? as you would have them now Trusters for us; that the whole of our maintenance should depend upon their discretion, to assign, less or more? Where have you it? in what Scripture? in what Authentic Author? will the text in Malachi bear it? Let the reader be judge.

[unspec Object.] No such certainty was left to Levites, as we now claim. [unspec Sol.] Ans. No such certeinty. Ergo none? 2. Such certainty: so such as its the same for the general. Tythes, and Glebe, and votary consecrations. 3. Why none such? Ob. Tythes were then brought to one common Store-house, and thereout share given to everyone, according to his gifts, worth, number of children, and necessity. Ans. 1. Incerta omnia; whether worth, or necessity, or specialty of employment, were the rule of distribution: whether all Tythes were brought to one common storehouse at Jerusalem; or not rather laid up in the several Cities, assigned to Levites in the several Tribes. 2. Varies it the suchnes or identity of the matter of maintenance, that there were some variable circumstances appertinent to the payment or distribution? 3. Thus conceive your answer. The whole of Tythes was a certainty due to the comminaltie of Levites: The whole of Tythes is a certainty due to the comminaltie of Ministers. A portion of that whole, was due to every Levite. A portion of this whole, due to every Minister of the Gospel. 1. Res distributa was then certain, Tythes. 2. Obiectum distributionis, certain: Levites, not Laickes. 3. Modus distributionis, in respect of the particular, in a sort indeterminate, while the ordinance was for Levites to live in common: Our res distribuenda, is certain: the persons, to whom that portion must be distributed, as certain. The Modus distributionis, in a sort uncertain; as what number of people, or circuit of place to be assigned to particular ministers; what ministers to be deputed to oversight of this, or that congregation; yet ex hypothesi, certain; suppose such congregations assigned, to such ministers, the Tythes thence accruing belong to those ministers by Paul's rule. Gal. 6.6.

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

Leave we therefore this fancy: and see, whether we may find some other more certain particular, to resolve of. And surely, when we have in vain turmoiled our selves to avoid Judaizing in this point of Ministers maintenance, we shall be forced at length to acknowledge Tenthes, which some call Jewish, to be the Ministers appointed Portion.

That the truth may better appear, I will propound the different opinions that I have met withal in this point.

1. Brownists in this question thus peremptorily resolve. That Tythes are so merely caeremonious & Levitical, that they cannot without betraying Evangelical liberty, and disauowing Christ's Priesthood, be retained as maintenance of Ministers of the Gospel. And how full soever of dotage, this dream may seem; yet this I will say for them; they are mad with more reason a great deal, then any others which hold them caeremonies Levitical. If the assumption were true, their conclusion would soundly follow by doctrine of th' Apostle. Gal. 4. & 5. Col. 2. &c.

2. Some others thinking them Judicials, resolve: part, that they may be retained as the Ministers stipend: part, that they are the most convenient maintenance can be allotted us.

3. A third sort, that they are due by God's Law to Ministers of the Gospel: but these in explanation of themselves diversely derive them thence.

1. Some thus, due by God's law enjoining obedience to Magistrates in things lawful and convenient. These give them no other ground in God's word, then other human ordinances.

2. Others, due by God's Law, in as much as the Church (whose authority with them is divine) hath enjoined their payment. So generally Papists.

3. A third sort: due by God's Law; in respect of their consecration to God, either by received custom or consent of Churches, or by donation of Princes, or by legacy of Testators. In which opinion I must needs profess myself to have sometime been; till being to deliver my judgment to my people, I more purposely set myself to see what the truth was. And during that mistake, I thus thought: that they could not without Sacrilege be aliened from their general end. My reasons were these.

1. That I found Solomon averring it to be a Curse to devour holy things, and had seen the curse exemplified on many.

2. That ordinance of the Lord I held moral and perpetual. Nothing separate from common use, no not of those which man had separated, might be again unhallowed, no nor redeemed.

3. That saying of th' Apostle much swayed with me If it be but a man's Testament, no man abrogates it. 1. No man ought to abrogate it. And so much the more, for that being once an Auditor of that Judicious Divine Master Perkins, whose memory is blessed, I heard him move the doubt; whether things given to superstitious uses, suppose to maintain Massemonging, might be alienated. And thus assoil to my remembrance. That from the particular intention, wherein through ignorance they erred, alienation might be; But from the general end, maintenance of God's worship, they might not be aliened. Thus then and upon those grounds, my judgment is still the same, though my Media be other, and somewhat more peremptory.

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

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

Why then returns he to the matter of consecration?

Answ. Because that is one of his grounds of claim, laid down in the word of God; which once was his only, is now one amongst others. 2. Withall you must understand, there is a double consecration; one by God's reserving, or separating things to himself. Another, by human vow, or dedication. Master Sclaters mistake was, that they were due only by human consecration: his reformed judgment is, that they are holy to God, not only because vowed by men, but because reserved to God by himself from the beginning. Here is no tantologie.

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

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

2. Yield States to have interest in meum and tuum; have they dominion over that which is Dei? Suum cuique, is a good rule for states. Let them give to Caesar, what is Caesar's: to everyone, what is his own; only let God's portion be sacred, and kept inviolable: let his dominion and property be holden a transcendent.

[unspec Quaest.] But what if these dispersions into many hands was th'only means to banish Antichrist?

Answ. 1. Those many hands might have been as well Clericke as Layicke, and that end as well achieved. 2. But may you do evil, that good may come of it?

Object. Return of Antichrist was feared.

Answ. O worthy wight, and worshipped might he be; who never spared woman in his lust, nor man in his rage, yet feared the return of Antichrist. Credam? 2. But know you not Ignorance the greatest pillar of Antichrists Kingdom? If amongst any he may recover his old possession by a Postliminium, most amongst those congregations which are most stripped of Tythes; forced, poor souls, to content themselves with Priests of the lowest of the people, because the ancient salary is seized on, and possessed in Lay-fee. And see issues of such dealing, with means of reformation.

Quaest. But can any in error consecrate unto God? was Cain's sacrifice accepted?

Answ. What is your meaning? so as their act, as theirs, shall please God? and their persons be accepted, so we answer; no. And so much only presseth your instance in Cain. But so as to give God property in the thing consecrated, who doubts but they may? The Censers of Corah and Dathan must be employed about the Altar; because, though erroneously, yet they offered them before the Lord: therefore they are hallowed. And for this I am sure, you have Master Perkins firm in his post-humous Notes. Things consecrated erroneously, may be employed to the use of God's worship: yea the next heir of the Votarie, looseth all title to things so consecrated: and may not claim them from their general intendment: though to him, if to any, they belong of right, in case there be a nullity of erroneous consecrations.

Object. Price of a whore must not be brought into the Tabernacle.

Answ. That is, hire taken for her prostitution to filthiness: of turpe lucrum, God will have no sacrifice. Ergo, not of goods honestly gotten by the votary? 2. Besides, know you not that the case is ruled? that even of unjust perquisites, something may redound to poor, something to Church, where the parties suffering wrong, are not; or are unknown; 3. But is your Whore, the Whore of Babylon? Methinkes I smell you; I doubt our Albe, wherein we minister, will hear no better from you, then the Whores smocke, though in use long time before, Antichrist transferred it to his superstition.

Object. This were to sit in th' Idols Temple.

Answ. Understand you what you say? To retain the consecrations of Idolaters to God's service, how is it more to grace an Idol, then to keep up Temples, wherein Idols have been worshipped, and apply them to the worship of God? S. Paul could distinguish, betwixt eating an Idolothyte, and eating it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . It may suffice, that they be diverted to the worship of the true God, whether they were, in the general aim of the Donors, intended,

But quorsum haec tam multa? Its yielded you ex abundante in explication of the fourth Argument, that such erroneous consecrations give not God seizure in things devoted. A new and holy consecration without error we have of Tythes, and such like holy things; beside their ancient reservation from the beginning, with that protestation of the Lord. Tythes are holy unto the Lord: what this Mome hath gained by his quarrelling hitherto, the learned easily judge. Proceede we therefore to our conclusion, which is thus propounded and explained.

Tythes are the portion, at least, part of that portion, by God's word allotted to Ministers for their service in the Gospel.

By Tythes understand the tenth part of all the hearers increase: that is; to stop the mouth of the Cauiller, of his income or revenue. Particulars may be read. Levite. 27.30. Et alibi: In a word, to use the distinction of Canonists; whether they be personal, of mere industry, negotiation, &c. or praediall, as of grounds, &c. or mixed, as of Cattle, the tenths of the whole income, not those of Cumin & Annyse excepted, fall within compass of our subject.

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

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

Quaest. By God's word allotted. Intends Master Sclater without any ground of civil or ecclesiastical ordinance?

Answ. This Master Sclater means: though no ordinance of man should assign them unto us. Ipsissimum Dei verbum, hath made them ours.

In what Commandment?

Answ. As they are an honoring of God, so in the first: As they tend to preserve the public worship of God, so in the second and fourth: As maintenance of our persons, so in the fifth, being part of the honor due to the spiritual parent.

Object. But without any point of Consecration?

Answ. Though no consecration votary had been from man, yet were they ours by the word of God. Howbeit the laws for such consecrations given in the word of God, hitherto belong, and fall within our whole of the word of God.

Of Tithes amongst Jews we find four sorts.

1. Tithes of Levites. 2. of Priests? 3. for love Feasts: 4. and Tythes for the poor: hear us in Jerome's terms.

1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , hoc est, decimam partem omnium frugum Leuiticae tribui populus ex lege debebat.

2. Rursum ex ipsis decimis, Leuitae, hoc est inferior ministrorum gradus, decimas dabat sacerdotibus; & haec est quae appellatur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

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

4. Erant autem & aliae decimae, quas pauperibus recondebant; quae Graeco sermon appellantur. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Hieronym: in Ezech. lib. 14. ad cap. 45.

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

Whether payment of festival Tythes were intermitted in the third year, as M ^r . Selden would from the Septuagint's rendering infer, is a question to our main impertinent. Howbeit to me it seems improbable; for were they in that year freed from their appearing at Jerusalem? or might they in that year appear empty handed before the Lord? A Iustitium perhaps there might be in that respect for that Time. To the Septuagint I give the honor due to them; but dare not prefer them to the text, as now extant with points; especially where the reading of the original is so constant and vnuaried. Besides who knows not their manifold aberrations in matters of no small moment? as in that of the Chronology in Genesis, wherein so many have in vain labored a reconcilement. The observation out of their rendering must be confessed to be acute: yet hath in it rather witty diligence of observation, then solidity to build inference.

If any make question of whether sort we dispute; Tythes we mean of that Nature with those paid to Levites; which, perhaps, are therefore conveyed to them in the term of an inheritance, because the Lawgiuer would imply their perpetuity, and lineal descent from Ministry to Ministry unto all generations. The why nots raised about other kinds, will best be answered in discussing th'objections.

Of these Tythes this is that we affirm. That by the word of God they belong forever to Ministers of holy things; and therefore in these days to Ministers of the Gospel, who alone have now to do with public ministrations of the worship of God. Our reasons are these. The first grounded on Heb. 7.6.8. He whose descent is not counted from them, received Tythes of Abraham: and verse. 8. Here men that die, receive Tythes: but there he receiveth them, of whom its witnessed, that he liveth. Compare, Gen. 14.20.

The Argument which this Scripture affords, hath received much disadvantage, by slender collection of many, thus only pressing it. Tythes were paid to Priests before the Levitical law was given. Therefore their payment is founded rather on Moral then Caeremoniall law. To which, answer is well given; that by as good inference, sacrificing of beasts may be proved a morality, since it was also in use before giving of the Law by Moses. That we may the better see the force of the Argument, let us a little consider the frame and sum of the text. The Apostle by occasion of the people's dullness, having digressed from Cap. 5.11. to Cap. 6.20. returns to his purpose; that is, to show the excellency of Christ's Priesthood above that of Aaron, by avouching him a Priest after the order of Melchizedek. The conclusion is this. Christ's Priesthood is more excellent then that of Levi; or Christ is a greater Priest then any after Aaron's order. The principal reason lieth thus. He that is a Priest after th'order of Melchizedek is a greater Priest then the Priests after Aaron. But Christ is a Priest after th'order of Melchizedek. Ergo: &c. The minor hath first his proof. 1. From a testimony of David, Cap. 5.20. 2. From that absolute agreement betwixt Melchizedek, and Christ: the parts whereof are these. 1. As Melchizedek was King, and Priest of the most high God, so Christ. 2. As Melchizedek King of righteousness, and Prince of peace, so Christ. 3. As Melchizedek his parents, kindred, beginning and end of life are not recorded; so Christ, as man, without father, as God without mother, kindred, beginning, and end of life. Therefore Christ is truly a Priest after th'order of Melchizedek: verse 1, 2, 3.

The Major remains to be proved, and that hath proof from verse 4. to 11. the sum whereof is comprised in this principal Syllogism. If Melchizedek be greater then Levi, then he that is a Priest after his order, as Christ is; is greater then Levi. But Melchizedek is greater then Levi, Ergo, &c. Minor proved: Greater then Abraham, greater then Levi: Melchizedek is greater then Abraham: Ergo then Levi: Minor proved. He to whom Abraham paid Tythes, of whom he was blessed, is greater then Abraham. But to Melchizedek, Abraham paid Tythes; and Melchizedek blessed Abraham. Ergo, is greater then he. verse 4, 5, 6, 7.

A second Argument proving the greatness of this Priest, above those of Aaron's order, is laid down verse. 8. A tyth-taker, that is, a Priest of whom its testified that he lives, is greater then a Tithe-taker that dies. But the Priest after Melchizedek is a Tithe-taker of whom its testified that he lives. Levites take Tythes and die. Ergo, the Priest after Melchizedek his order is greater then the Priests Levitical. This is in my simple Logic the disposition of the text. As for illustrations, or amplifications by prosyllogismes prolepses, or otherwise, I purposely omit them. Now me thinks, the text thus naturally resolved, there should need no farther deduction of th'Argument: yet that the simplest may see what footing Tythes have here, thus I collect it.

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

The Minor is thus proved. The portion due to Melchizedek his Priesthood, is due to Christ's Priesthood. Reas. 1. for that Christ is Priest after that order. 2. other things enunciated of Melchizedek, are true of Christ eminently & always: as its eminently & always true of Christ, that he is King of righteousness & Prince of peace: eminently and always true of Christ, he is without parents, without beginning & end of life, that he blesseth Abraham & all his seed, &c. All these are more properly verified of Christ, then of Melchizedek his Type. Why not then also this ever true of him? He taketh Tythes. May we not assume? Tythes are the portion due to Melchizedek his Priesthood? 1. Paide they were by Abraham to Melchizedek, as due to his Priesthood. 2. In the Apostles Logic a Priest, and a receiver of Tythes are aequipollents. In steed of saying, men that die are Priests, he saith, men that die receive Tythes: In steed of saying, he that lives is a Priest, he saith, he that lives, takes tithes: as if, in his judgment, Tythes and Priesthood were as inseparable, as kingdom, and tribute: The Major of the principal Syllogism if any doubt of, to wit, whether the portion due to Christ, be due to Ministers, let him compare, 1. Cor. 9.14. where is th'express ordinance of Christ, that Ministers should live of the Gospel. 2. Who in likelihood should be his receivers, but those that are in his stead, as is said of Ministers, 2. Cor. 5.20. 3. The same reason which the Lord assigns of Levi his sharing in things to himself reserved, and sanctified, is true of Ministers, or else of none. God is Levites portion. 1. God's portion is Levites portion; because they were taken to Minister before him. Why not then also Christ's portion Ministers portion? because they only are assumed to Christ, to Minister in the Gospel. A reason for not Tything of so plain deduction out of Scripture, if any can bring me, he shall much sway me to his sentence.

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

Object. The proposition seems untrue, except you can prove yourselves Priests after that order.

Answ. Whereto I then answered, that though we be no Priests after that order, yet is there truth in the proposition, since Christ the high Priest of our profession, to whom originally they belong, hath ordained us to live of his portion.

A second answer was by limitation: the portion due [by Law] to that Priesthood, is due to Ministers. But with that limitation th'assumption is false: Abraham's payment being an act rather voluntary, then by any injunction from God.

Answ. But that that act of Abraham was no act: in this sense voluntary, but rather of necessary and enjoined duty, is evident (me thinks) by these reasons. 1. For that gifts voluntary, proceeding from bounty and liberality, imply a superiority or excellency in the giver, above the receiver. For its a more blessed thing in that kind to give then to receive. But Abraham's payment of Tythes was testimony of his inferiority. 2. Again, the phrase it self implies as much. Melchizedek Tythed Abraham; ver. 6. a phrase that looseth all his Emphasis, if no injunction had subjected Abraham to a necessity of being tythed. 3. What mean they when they say of Abraham's tything, it was done without law? would they be understood of Abraham's fact only? or of tything at large, as it was in use before the Law written? Now sure I wonder how first Abraham, and then after him Jacob, should fall upon a tenth, rather then upon a sixth or twelfth part, if there were nothing prescribed in their times for tything? 2. How prove they but probably that it was without injunction of Law? if this be the reason, for that we find no mention of any Law to that end given, by as good reason may they say of sacrifices, and sundry other actions religious, that they were arbitrary; since we find no express mandate given of them in those times. But thus me thinks we may better reasō from their practice to an injunction; these facts of theirs were approved of God; therefore not done without injunction from him. Thus far I suppose, this Argument cleared. Volumes of new cauills are behind; which makes me think it hangs much in the teeth of opposites.

Object. Thus is my Cauiller. Yield for a while Tythes due to the Priesthood of Melchizedek: will it thence follow they are due to Christ?

Answ. We shall tell you anon, when we have learnt your meaning. What is your meaning, by thus yielding them due to the Priesthood of Melchizedek? mean you the Priesthood after that order? Then it follows that they are due to Christ's Priesthood: for his is Priesthood after th'order of Melchizedek.

Perhaps that's not the meaning; but you suppose them due to Melchizedek, ration sacerdotij, non talis sacerdotij: or ration Typica.

Answ. Choose whether you list. If ration sacerdotij, then to Christ also; for in him is sacerdotium. And if this be the formal reason of Tythes object, quia and quâ sacerdos, then they are ever due to Christ, because that reason is perpetual in him: He is a Priest forever.

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

Ans. All and everything belonging to the Type, as a Type, must be verified of the Anti-type with this distinction, either literally, or mystically; not all literally, nor all mystically: what is not literally, must be mystically; what is not mystically, must be literally. And that you may see similitudes of heavenly things, and Earthly their Types, hold, some, after the letter. Read what is said of the high Priest of Jews as he was Type of Christ. He enters into the holy of holies not without blood: As he into the holy of holies, so Christ into heaven: that verification is mystical. As he not without blood; So Christ not without blood. That is literal. Melchizedek brought in as Christ type in the story, without father and mother. Is not this eminently true of Christ after the letter? Melchizedek without beginning or end of days: this also literally verified. Though then all things true of the Type materialiter sumpto, are not necessarily true of the Antitype; yet as many as belong to the type formaliter taken, as a Type, must, with that distinction be true of th' Antitype. And what is intended to be verified mystically, must so be verified in the truth: what is meant to be literally accomplished in the Antitype, must so be fulfilled.

The quaestions then are two. 1. Whether in taking Tythes Melchizedek was Type of Christ? 2. Whether that part of the Type be verified literally or mystically by the Apostles doctrine?

That in taking Tythes of Abraham, Melchizedek typed out Christ; hear M ^r . Junius in Gen. cap. 14. Ad intelligentiam illius Typi & accommodationem eius, duo maxim obseruanda. Nempe tum in ijs quae dicuntur a Mose, tum vero in ijs quae reticentur, constitui Typum. In ijs quae dicuntur; vt cum dicitur Malchitzedec, id est, Rex iustitiae: Rex Salem: id est, pacis: Sacerdos Dei Altissimi, benedixisse Abrahamo, et decimas accepisse. In quibus omnibus Typus Christi expressus obseruandus est, &c. What needs Testimony, when the Text affirms, the Tything of Levi by Melchizedek in Abraham, proves authentically th'inferiority of Levitical, to Christ's Priesthood.

That it is not mystically, but literally to be fulfilled in Christ's Priesthood, who can deny? for where is the mystical Analogy betwixt this Act of Melchizedek Typical, and Christ; as in his being King of Salem, and Melchizedek; verified this must be of Christ, either literally, or mystically: not mystically, Ergo, literally. And see if the text say not so much. He takes Tythes that lives ever: Who is that? Melchizedek as the Type; Christ as the Truth. Eminently its true of Christ after the letter, he lives ever; And he lives ever with this Epithet, to be a taker of Tythes.

Object. Nay, you say, The Spirit hath made answer for you against such wrestling; because he hath omitted to describe Melchizedek, or Christ to be a Tithe-taker. Levi indeed hath that Emphaticall Title, to be a Tithe-taker: Melchizedek hath no more but (He.)

Answ. No more but He. Is that the matter? but its that (He) to whom, what is said of Levi, must be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , applied: else 1. the sentence gapes: and 2. Paul fails in his comparison. There, that is, in Levitical Priesthood, men that die, take Tythes: here he, of whom its testified that he lives, must not that (He) have (takes Tythes) applied unto him? as verse. 21. These Priests are made without an oath: But this with an oath: What was this (with an oath) but made Priest?

Object. Melchizedek took once; follows it that Christ must take ever? Apage.

Answ. That but once you will never prove. And 2. May not one Act transient, being Typicall, signify a perpetual act in Christ, as well as the many Entrings of th'high Priest into the Holy of Holyes, Christ's once entering into heaven? Proh.

Object. Christ by this means claims from his Type.

Answ. Apage. How more Tythes from Melchizedek, then kingdom from David? His grand Title to Priesthood, and kingdom, is God's decree and ordination. The signification thereof in the Types, yet necessary it is, that th'Antitype should answer exactly to the Type; vt supra.

Object. But thinks any man they were due to Melchizedek or his Priesthood?

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

Object. There was no precept.

Answ. None read or expressed in so many letters and syllables: Nor any for Melchizedek to use function of Priesthood. Think we therefore he did it without calling?

Object. The act was voluntary in Abraham.

Answ. How understand you voluntary? willingly performed: so did Paul preach the Gospel willingly: that Act of preaching was in Paul voluntary: yet Woe had been unto him if he had not preached the Gospel.

Object. Not so; but voluntary, as matter of kindness, courtesy and bounty.

Answ. As some alms belike to the poor King of Salem: for such you would have all that's now paid to Ministers of the Gospel. But oppose you voluntary to matter of enjoined duty? then say I, payment so voluntary in Abraham, could not testify his inferiority to Melchizedek. No payment, except of duty, is testimony of inferiority. Abraham's payment of Tythes to Melchizedek, was testimony of inferiority; therefore it was payment of duty. You mistake if you conceive it said, that all payments of dues imply inferiority of the payer. Not so: But no payment, except of duty, testifies th'inferiority of the payer. What have we now to do with Kings paying wages to servants? and such like prattle. Its still true; except Abraham's payment to Melchizedek, had been of duty, it could be no testimony of his inferiority. Compare Rom. 13.5, 6.

Object. They were not paid of all, nor of his own, nor often. Therefore not due by any Law of God.

Answ. All uncertain. Of all, saith Moses. Gen. 14.20. that is, saith Master Calvin, reasoning from circumstances of the text, of all his own substance, and that commonly: for it is likely, he that had sworn to take nothing, from a thread to a shoe-latchet, for his own enrichment, would at another man's cost offer unto God? It was a Piaculum unto David to offer unto his God of that which cost him nothing. 2. Sam. 24.24. And as great scandal had Abraham incurred amongst those Heathens, by performing his Devotions at their charge, as by taking of theirs, for his own enrichment. 2. But how follows the Argument? if but once, nor of all; Ergo, not by Law.

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

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

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

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

Answ. Even so. That description of Christ's Priesthood by the ius of Tything, hangs in your teeth. Give me a reason of that trope; putting Tithe-taking for Priesthood, and see if it enforce not my inference. Priesthood and Tythes are as inseparable, as Kingdom and Tribute. But do Tribute and Tythes match?

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

But how a good-year fell Abraham and Jacob upon tenths without injunction? Forsooth Jacob by Abraham's example: Abraham by special direction from God.

Answ. By special direction? likely some inspiration: but had that direction the force of an injunction? then was Abraham's act of duty, and not arbitrary.

For sacrifices, their use held by tradition.

Answ. By tradition? Now how a good-year comes tradition in to be the ancient Rule of worship? Tradition, self-devised custom, without a precept from God. 2. Tradition we yield it was, in a sense, as matters of faith and worship were all traditionary, till the days of Moses: that is, they were delivered from father to son, without writing: so was that, that the seed of the woman should break the Serpents head, &c. In that sense Tradition: but what is not also a divine revelation? So tradition that sacrifices should be offered: but was not the precept extant for the matter of sacrifices? of clean not unclean beasts. 2. for the quality; of the best, not of their refuse? How else sinned Cain in bringing such a sacrifice? And is not Abel said, by faith to have offered a better sacrifice? and is there faith without a word of God?

Thus I conclude. Cain and Abel had sinned, if they had not brought sacrifices: Cain did sin in bringing such a sacrifice: therefore there was a Law for sacrifices, and the quality of them; for the rule is of perpetual truth, Where is no Law, there is no transgression. Likewise, Abraham had sinned, if he had not paid Tythes to Melchizedek. Therefore that bound Abraham to pay Tythes to him. For where is no Law, there can be no sin.

But how follows it on all this ground laid, that Ministers must live of Tythes.

Answ. Because they are ministers of holy things; therefore must live of Christ's portion; and that Portion is Tythes.

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

Answ. 1. It will trouble you to prove, that it implies not Tythes, though it express them not: That (So) and (Christ hath ordained) remit us to Tythes, or else to no certainty. 2. But quid hoc ad rem? That text is not, in this passage, alleged, to prove Tythes our portion, save only upon supposal; that Tythes are Christ's portion. That granted, since Christ hath made his Portion, his Ministers Portion, the Texts alleged will prove Tythes the Ministers: Deo gratias; I have done with a Trifler. I come now to satisfy my learned friend in his quaere about this Text. Thus he.

Truth is, that if we take the seventh of th'Epistle to the Hebrews as it is alone, without reference to whom it was written, and after what manner, and observing how th' Apostle (as in other things) works upon the present opinions and state of the Jewish Church, by that pia vafrities (as some call it) the Arguments for the right as D ^r . Sclater hath resolved them into Logical form, are such as he that answers them, might answer the proof of any Truth. Doubtless, he that herein answers D ^r . Sclater, answers more then all the rest of, &c.

Answ. Take we it therefore with all references possibly imaginable; and consider any circumstance probably competent to be considered; yield also th' Apostle to use, if not that pia vafrities, yet his prudence in working upon the present opinions of the Jews; what I wonder, may any these references, or obseruings afford, to cross th'Argument here founded. Particularize the references; 1. He writes to Hebrews, become Christians. 2. Confessedly infirm in judgment touching abrogation of Levitical Law; and adhaering too much to their first rudiments. 3. opinioned, as truth seems, that Ancient precepts Mosaical still bound the conscience, after exhibiting of the Messiah. What, to our main, will all this afford to nullify or disable the Argument here grounded? His pia vafrities, if it be conceited after Erasmus, his working upon advantage of their misconceits, and errors of judgment, hath here I dare swear, neither use, nor footing. For what is in all this passage misconceiued by those Christian Jews? whereout Paul should strayne his conclusion of Christ's superiority, to Levitical Priests? God swears him a Priest after order of Melchizedek: And without controversy, the less is blessed of the greater; To speak as the thing is, Levi was tythed in the loins of Abraham, savor any these asseverations of Paul's working on misconceites.

His prudence it was to ground his conclusions on Scriptures, and Propositions thereof, confessed by Jews as true; yet truly so confessed; and of force to afford him, out of their real truth, and intention of the inspirer, whatsoever inference he makes from them: so was it our Saviors, out of Moses writings to convince Sadducees, in th' Article of the resurrection: yet was there truth in his ground, and by undeniable sequel issues his conclusion out of the praemisses extant in Moses. When Paul at Athens alledgeth testimony of Aratus the Poet, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , we acknowledge his prudence impleading them from their own Authors: yet dare not think him so impiously vafer, as to lay for ground an erroneous conceit: or so imprudent a disputer, as to build his conclusion on a ground, from whence the Argument had not apparent deduction. I presume, this curt answer affords so learned and friendly an inquisitor, large satisfaction. Proceede we therefore to the other Arguments.

I thought, you see I thought, I had ended; and that the mouth of all Calumnie against this Argument had been stopped; when at last I am minded by a friend, that the grand Syllogisms labor of two foul maladies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and begging of the Quaestion.

Yet cannot be euidenced any change of terms, or so much as of affection of any term in the state: neither is either proposition tendered without proof to any man's credulity; nor without something, prius and notius in se, and virtual enough to infer the conclusion. Faire answer expect to your exceptions; howsoever, carried with tartness more then is meet, and elevation no less sometime then mucteristicall.

This is the frame.

The Portion due to Christ's Priesthood, is due to Ministers of the Gospel.

Tythes are the Portion due to Christ's Priesthood. Ergo:

The Minor is thus proved.

The Portion due to Melchizedek's Priesthood, is due to Christ's Priesthood.

Tythes are the Portion due to Melchizedek's Priesthood. Ergo:

The Propositions (you say) are both Sophisticall, because not propounded in fit terms to infer the conclusion: besides, have in them a begging of the question, presuming of that, which in good Divinity is not to be granted. And th' assumptions are both false.

But why, I wonder, are the terms unfit, being two of them the same without aequiuocation, wherein the conclusion is propounded; and the medium another, no whit homonymous, and applicable both to predicate and subject?

Forsooth, the true terms are these:

The Stipend or Wages due to Christ's Priesthood, is due to Ministers of the Gospel. And

The Stipend or Wages due to Melchizedek's Priesthood, is due to Christ's Priesthood. Sounds Stipend with you nothing but base Wages?

Emendemus in Melius: he was no Dunse that observed, there is emendatio in peius. These terms are neither truer, nor true; nor fitter, nor fit for the question: Truth is, fit for his purpose only, who means to leave the purpose, and to set up a shadow for himself to fight with. Could you, could any think, that in my term of Portion, which is part of Temporalties allotted, I should intend Wages? such as is paid to Hirelings, Maechanicall Artisans, or men of like employment: or if you take my other term of Praemium, or Recompence, was it intended, trow you, a Wages aequiualent to the Work?

I ever meant it an Honorarie, allotted by God, to be rendered from men, in acknowledgement of the virtue, excellency, worth of Christ's Priesthood, and his Ministers Work, who are employed by him in the commemoration and application thereof unto the people. This is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of that term: that other is vafra, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Where now is my Petitio principij? or what is that, so abhorrent from the grant of good Divinity? Forsooth, I presume there is a set Stipend or Wages belonging to the Priesthood of Christ, and Melchizedek.

Surely I never presumed it. Wages said I ever in all my Sermon? The term is strange to me. Marry this I presume, and yet am not presumptuous, That there is a set or fixed Honorarie belonging to the Priesthood of Christ, and Melchizedek. Will your Reasons force me to think otherwise? then I sit down.

Thus they are. 1. Christ needs none. 2. He requires none. 3. None can be assigned him answerable to his Work, being a Work of satisfaction for the sins of the whole World, a Work of infinite Merite. And for Melchizedek and his Priesthood; Since, 1. None due to Christ. 2. Since Scripture silent for any probability of any such thing. 3. Since it affords more then probability to the contrary: because he a King, therefore, 1. not needing it: 2. therefore bound rather to give to his Subjects and Family, then to take Wages from them: Yea, 3. Its ever counted base in a King, to take Stipend or Wages of Forreiners, or his own Subjects. Ergo,

Quorsum all this? what needs so much ado among friends?

Answ. Its not Wages we inquire of, but the Honorarie of the Priesthood. And of it, who dares avow, there is none due to Christ's Priesthood?

How fear I, least applying your Arguments to that Conclusion, which is the only you must insist on, I shall expose them to scorn; and make them appear such, as you affirm mine, weak as water, light as feathers, not worth staws, or the dust adhaering to them.

[unspec 1] Resp. What if Christ need no honorarie to be rendered from us? therefore is none belonging to his Priesthood? Though God needed nor Bullocks nor Goats in Holocausts, or Thanks-offerings, were they therefore not to be rendered from Jews? Though Christ needs not our Lands, or Liuings, or Liues, yet, in case of Confession, can they be but impiously denied him? Who knows not as much as Peter Lombard in this case, that all our service of God, inward, outward, redounds to ours, not to God's behoove? Belong they not therefore to our God? Christ needs not take: yet its our opus and vsus too to render him outward, inward service and sacrifice.

When God calls to Jews for Tythes under name of his own, that there might be meat in his House, no man is so mad to think of the living God, as is fabled or storied of th'Idol Bel and the Dragon. Yet must there be meat in his House for them to whom the ministration of his service was then committed. And though Christ, for his own Person, now needs not this Honorarie, yet needs he it in his Deputes and Assigns, whom he hath put in his stead, to commemorate and apply the virtues of his eternal Priesthood, and to keep in life and being, the Spiritual Priesthood, exercised by all Christians in the state of this life.

And doth he not require it? Honor God with [Ad. 2] thy substance, and with the chief of all thy increase; that he requires. Render Carnals to them that sow Spirituals: That he requires. Count Presbyters worthy of double honor; thats apertly the Honorarie we now speak of. For Wages, or hire, as you style and explain it, let it not be once named in this question, as becometh Saints: out upon that base conceit.

None can be assigned him, answerable to his work. [Ad. 3]

Resp. True as Gospel: nor Wages nor Honorarie aequiualent to his merit. Quid retribuam? saith David. Possibly nothing aequable to God's bounty; our goodness extends not to him: yet there was Poculum salutis, which he took and offered in testimony of thankfulness, for so many and great things done to his Soul. When Jacob according to his Vow erected th'Altar at Bethel, and (who questions?) paid Tythes to God that had kept him; dreams any man he meant it to the Lord as a Wage for his Work, in safe-guarding his Person, or Honorarie aequiualent to such merits? Lord, I am less then all thy Goodness and Truth, which thou hast shown me, &c. Why doubt we that it was a duty in Jacob, and such as found acceptance with God? Read also that excellent Blessing and Prayer of David, what time he delivers his own and the Peoples Offerings towards building the Temple: It will appear true which you say; the Honorarie was not worthy the Lord, yet due to him from David, and from the People.

What need I now proceed to particular answer, to what concerns Melchizedek’s Priesthood? The Scripture affords more then probability, praegnancie of proof for an Honorarie due to that Royal Priest, and Priesthood. Neither was it base, but honorable to that King of Salem, to be invested as well in the Honorarie, as in th'Office of that Priesthood. Will you now join in the close for the Honorarie, as you profess to do upon supposal of Wages? If Melchizedek received Wages, then you grant, it should be perpetual. What if he received th'Honorarie, will you then grant, must you not grant, that it should be perpetual? Iungamus dexteras. This little explication hath wrought our harmony in judgment for the main.

Must we yet buckle about th'assumptions? What think you? are they yet both false; and again, you say false, twice false, if my portion be not Merces, but Honorarium? What if there be no proportion betwixt the worth of Christ's Priesthood, and Tythes? Therefore not the Honorarie of his Priesthood? What though no proportion between the spiritual things we sow, and the carnal, we reap from the people? Ergo, Carnals no Honorarie due to Ministry for Spirituals? What though no proportion between the Quiet and Godliness and Honesty we live in by means of Kings, and the Tribute and Custom we render to those Earthly God's? Therefore not the Honorarie of Regalitie? I say not yet as you to me, Apagesis. Yet I advise, make no such inferences. How vain are they? who sees not their vanity? To say truth, how were they Honoraries, if there might be found mere parity or proportion betwixt them?

As to what is talked of Abraham's paying Tythes, as Wages, to Melchizedek, and the disproof thereof: Alas, its naught to purpose. We talk not of Wages. Whether the scrupulous Gentleman you mention, be the Cauiller I deal with, in my review, I know not: but find you both iumping on the same Conceits and Reasons in refutation. I refer you therefore, for farther answer, to what is said to him in my reply: And for more full satisfaction, to what is scholied by my much reverenced friend & quondam Colleague M. Montague, in his answer to M. Selden. Yet, that I seem not slightfull of such a friend, or willing to leap over Reasons for defect of answer, Thus briefly to your Reasons bent to prove, Tythes not paid by Abraham to Melchizedek of duty, or as you would be understood, ex debito Iustitiae.

1. No Covenant betwixt Abraham and Melchizedek: Ergo not paid ex debito Iustitiae. 2. This act of Abraham was an act of Piety and Devotion; Ergo, not of Justice. 3. Had it been imposed on Abraham by Law, all the Grace and commendation of it had been lost: for Law and Grace fight. 4. Jacob's Tything, being of the same Nature with Abraham's, was voluntary, save for his Vow. 5. Scripture expressly auowes Melchizedek had no Law to take; Ergo, nor Abraham command to pay Tythes. Thus is your Breuiarie.

But doth only Covenant and Compact breed [Ad. 1] Debts of Justice? Doth not also Commandment? Do not Benefits? &c. What Compact I wonder twixt Parents and Children, to oblige the Child to obedience and maintenance? A Commandment there is to honor, that is, to sustain the Parent; and its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , saith Paul, without Covenant, to obey in all things.

[Ad. 2] What? Because an act of Piety, therefore not of Justice?

Answ. Know you none but civil Justice passing betwixt man and man? Have you forgotten, that there is vniuersalis Iustitia, binding to render Cuique quod suum est? Not only to Neighbor and Caesar, but unto God, what belongs unto him? Is not Piety a part of this Justice? Is it not exactest Justice, which binds to render duty to our God? Why make you things fight, that are coordinate or subalterne?

[Ad. 3] And loose our Offices their Grace, which are done by commandment? Had not Abraham his command to offer Isaac? or ever passed act from him, by which he received more grace or commendation from God, then this of offering his son Isaac? Gaue not this the hent to that excellent commendation, and ratifying of enlarged Blessing? By this, won he not the style of God's friend, the greatest encomium God ever gave man? Remember you not the usual Quaere, whether muchnesse of obligation win not grace to the performance? or the resolution? Vbi major obligatio, major acceptatio; because melior est obedientia quàm victimae. I spare censure of your mis-applying Scriptures, in this and other passages. I wonder, I sorrow at it. But am vowed to keep close to substance of Answer.

And was it not in Jacob an act of Justice, setting [Ad. 4] apart consideration of his Vow? No: For he makes Tythes the matter of his Vow, which he ought not to have done, if they had been enjoined by any Law of God. You will not say so of the other part of his Vow, as I suppose.

But mean you good earnest? Think you it soothly true which Bellarmine saith? Impium fuisset Iacobo vovere Decimas, si absolute fuisset obligatus ease soluere: Is it your opinion, That no Vow may pass on any matter, whereto we are obliged absolutely, that is, by peremptory Praecept? when under Nehemiah, Princes, Priests, People, made Covenant, and entered into a Curse, to walk in God's Law, given by Moses, &c. Suppose you they erred in the matter of their Vow? were they not absolutely bound so to do? were they impious in so vowing? when under Jeremiah, They covenant to manumit their servants according to the Law; mistake they the matter of a Vow? were they impious, in so obliging themselves? Is it so impious, to add to the Bond of Praecept the Obligation of a Vow?

Laxe, you say, such Promises may be called Vowes; properly not Vowes. A Vow properly taken, is of some caeremonious work in the Old Testament; of some external and corporal exercise in the New; which whosoever affirms to be Moral duties, doth himself more injury, then he is aware of.

Answ. Sir, you minded me in the ingress, of Sophistry. Truly, truly, I have forgotten much of it; and count that forgetfulness half as virtuous as the Athenians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Yet pretty well remember my Logic Rules; amongst which, this was wont to be one Authentic: A negatione vnius speciei ad tollendum genus vniuersum non valet consequentia. Its no man, therefore no animal; think you that good consequence? Its no Vow of things left to our choice to do, or not to do; therefore no Vow at all? suppose you that good consequence? then farewell all Logic. The Act of Vowing passeth as lawfully, as properly on things commanded, as on those left Arbitrarie. What use Vowes of enjoined duties have, you are not to learn; and may see remembered by me, in answer to that Argument of Bellarmine. Give us now what differences you please of one and other sort of Vowes, whiles religious promise may lawfully be made to God of performing what he commands, the Argument will never proceed. Tythes were vowed by Jacob, therefore not commanded of God. Thus I conceive. A Vow properly so called, is a religious promise made unto God; is of two sorts, according to diversity of the matter: There is a Vow of things commanded; and a Vow of things arbitrary. Both are properly Vowes, however differenced by substance, or circumstance: therefore proceeds no argument from negation of one species, to removal of the universal.

[Ad. 5] Express Scripture you have, avouching Abraham's payment to have been without injunction, Heb. 7.5, 6.

Ans. Express Scripture? then lay I my hand upon my mouth, never more to open it to that assertion. But are you sure Scripture speaks it, and speaks it expressly? When Paul said Levi had commandment to tythe his Brethren, denied he Melchizedek had like warrant to tythe Abraham? Say, I beseech you, in sober sadness; say as Conscience dictates: as the Text leads you. Is this (indeed) made difference, to prove superiority of Melchizedek to Levi; that Levi tythed by Law, Melchizedek without Law? Where doth the Scripture express, or but imply that? yea, doth it not imply the contrary? What intends the Apostle, in comparing the tything of Levi with that of Melchizedek? but apertly to prove Melchizedek superior to Levi, even in this honor of Tything? or trow you, this proves a superiority in Melchizedek, to take without Law, whereas Levi takes according to Law? Say, I pray, whether is the baser Tenure? that by Law; or that by Curtesie, and at Will? I should think, that at Will. And if Levi took by Law, Melchizedek but of Curtesie, Levi sure had the preeminence. Far be it, the Apostle should bring argument to overthrow his intention. Truth is, the comparison there entered, lies only in the Subjects tythed, not in the ground of Tything. Levi tithes Brethren: Melchizedek, the Patriarch and chief Father of those Brethren, is therefore more excellent then Levi; inasmuch, as the very Prince of their race is subjected to his Priesthood, and bound to render the Honorarie thereof.

If you now shall ask, what Paul means to mention the Commandment or Warrant given Levi to tythe his Brethren? thus I should conceive: That whereas Tythes originally belonged to the Priesthood of Christ, typed in Melchizedek, a Law was necessary to assign them to Levi, and to make him capable of that honor; inasmuch, as without this special Law, Levi could never have made claim or title to that honor, which firstly was settled on the Priesthood of another Order. So, that upon the point, the difference stands not in Tything by Law, and without Law; or, better to express myself; Law is not here opposed to no Law, or injunction to vltroneousnesse of Tything; but rather this Law for Levi, to original right: Melchizedek tything Abraham by Right, or Law original: Levi his Brethren, by Law special, and grant for the time: To which end, particular Law was requisite, to inuest that Priesthood in the ius of Tything, which before was settled, as on the foundation in the Priesthood, after another Order.

The second Argument hath ground, Galat. 6.6. 1. Tim. 5.17. Prov. 3.9. where we read thus. Let him that is instructed, make his instructer partaker of all his goods. And, Elders that rule well, are worthy of double honor, especially they which labor in the Word and Doctrine. And, Honor God with thy substance, and with the chief of all thine increase. Out of which Scriptures, thus we reason: If there be a portion to be set out unto God and his Ministers, out of all and every the temporal goods of everyone instructed, and no certain portion to be found in Scripture, but Tythes; then are Tythes the portion allotted by God's Word, to Ministers, for their service. But there is a portion to be set out unto God and his Ministers, out of all the temporal goods of everyone instructed, and no other certainty mentioned in Scripture. Ergo, Tythes are the portion allotted by God's Word to Ministers for their service.

The consequence of the proposition depends upon this ground, That some certainty is by Scripture allotted to Ministers for their service. Hereof if any demand proof, let him consider these: 1. The Lord allotted a certainty unto first borne, and Levites. And think we it probable, he would leave Ministers of the Gospel to a competency indeterminate? 2. In other cases th'Argument goes current. The Lord prescribes for the old Tabernacle all things necessary, even to the Beesome and Ash-panne; not a Pinne in the Tabernacle, but what hath his praescript from God. Of this we may say, its not a Pinne, but a Clavus Trabalis, one of the master Nayles in our Tabernacle. And think we his Word so sufficient, and absolutely exact for all necessary praescripts, yea, circumstances, concerning Worship, Government, anything; and this only, a matter of so great consequence, left vnpraescribed?

Lastly, if no certainty, in this kind, can be found in Scripture, how wilt thou be able to share out unto God, his portion in faith? so that thou mayest be able to say, I have given the Lord that portion of my Goods, which he requireth of me. Can we doubt, whether God hath reserved in Christians possessions, his sanctified portion? Read, Prov. 3.5. Forsooth the Magistrates determination shall in this point be the level and rule of Faith.

Resp. 1. Then must thou be able to show, that God hath made Magistrates in this point his carvers, which is unlikely, vt supra. Suppose Magistrates make no provision, as hath befallen many states of the Church; imagine them Sacrilegiously rapinous; where is then the direction for thy Faith? Suppose they shall allow Micah's allowance, wilt thou therewith rest content? then have our Lay-Parsons Faith well guided, Consciences rectified. Ten Sheckles of Silver, and a Meales meat, and Liuerie, they afford Sir John. In Faith think we? Surely, according to the Magistrates provision. And why blame we anymore impropriate Parsons, for so scant allowance? Perhaps, because not competent. Yea, but the Magistrate thinks it competent. And that is, in this case, the Line of Faith. Credam? non si mihi, &c.

Touching the Minor: For the first part, see, 1. Cor. 9.11. Prov. 3.9. Galat. 6.6. In which place, ye have it in so many terms: Let him that is instructed, make his instructer partaker of all his goods. For the other Branch of it, That no other portion certain is to be found in Scripture; I mean, which hath not apparent signification of something peculiar to the state of People under Levi, as First fruits, share of other Sacrifices; will appear to any man, that will be pleased to enter induction of particulars. And may I not then conclude, Tythes are the portion allotted us by the Word of God? Yea, what if I should say, Tythes are in some of these places more then obliquely pointed at? What means the Apostle to call for maintenance unto Ministers, under the term of double honor? For that by honor, he there means maintenance, the reason annexed will make a blind man see. Saint Jerome having delivered his judgment of the place, Malac. 3. Bring all my Tythes into the Store-house, in these terms, Ecclesiae populis Praeceptum est dare Decimas, allegeth presently this place for proof. 1. Tim. 1.17. Elders must have double honor. 2. What means the Apostle by that Epithet (double) annexed to honor? Say some, large and liberal. But why double, rather then treble, if he meant large at large? Doth he not rather, in that phrase of speech, send us to consider the double portion of the first borne, into whose room Levi was assumed? and that which made their portion double, in likelihood was Tythes; as may hereafter, on a new inquiry, perhaps appear.

What saith my learned friend to this Argument? may it pass currant? All may be granted, without praeiudice to your Adversaries assertion, forasmuch as these words are left out, which are energeticall, and wherein the whole state of the Quaestion lieth; which are, one only set particular and perpetual portion. For say, that some certainty be allotted by Scripture to Ministers, for their service; yea, that it is to be set out of all and every the temporal goods of everyone instructed; and that there be no certainty expressed, but Tythes; and Tythes be the portion, for the present, allotted by God's Word for the Ministers service: what is all this to the purpose, if this certainty be alterable in it own nature; and that another (that being removed) may without sin, be placed in the room and stead thereof, the contrary whereof, is not by this Argument proved? for all that is, or can be concluded thereof, is this, that Tythes are the portion allotted by God's Word to Ministers (of the Gospel) for their service; which no man doubteth of. The question is, whether they be the sole and perpetual Portion, yea, or no.

Answ. Sir, in my Sermon, when I uttered and penned it, I dealt with Layickes; witty enough, some of them, to judge of a Consequence, though not much skilled in form: I have now to deal with a Clericke (too popular I fear me) and will afford him form praecisely; yet with this proviso, that he give me leave regularly to choose my terms. I like not your mending, it is (for I know you are a proverbial man) too Tinker-like. You shall have terms, such as due form affords, most energeticall, and terms explicated, that you may see I mean not to double. Categorically thus.

That portion, that's to say, determinate quantity of Peoples Temporal substance, which God hath allotted to Ministers of the Gospel, for their service, is that which of duty belongs unto them.

But Tythes are that determinate quantity of people's temporalties which God hath allotted Ministers of the Gospel for their service. Ergo.

Perhaps I have not yet sufficiently explained myself. Sure its more for lack of words then good meaning: Let me then in another particular par or parallel to this, express mine intention.

The determinate quantity of time which God hath reserved and sanctified to his service under the New Testament, is that which of necessary duty must be rendered him.

But the seventh of Time, is that determinate quantity which God hath reserved and sanctified to himself, Ergo.

These twins of Moral duties I willingly choose to combine, as well for that I find no munerall certainty (which yet is greatest) in any God's moral ordinances save in these two of Time and Substance; as also because, as those of Hippocrates, they weep and laugh, stand and fall together. I may add, because this of God's Time affords that of his reserved substance explication reciprocally, as that of Substance doth support to his Time.

What say you now, do you grant all? or want you your energeticall terms of only and perpetual. Why more I wonder for God's substance then for his Time? will it not follow? no other therefore solely this; And by God's word allotted, therefore perpetually and vnalterably to be rendered; I praesume it will for God's Time; why not also for his substance?

What use now of your limitations and distinctions? Allotment for the present, and for perpetuity; of alterablenesse in it own nature, and not in it own nature. Apply them, if you dare, to the point of Time, as you do to that of Substance. And tell me if your greatest admirers blot not you, as they have done us poor Tything-men, out of their book of the righteous.

But dic sodes, what mean you in saying th'allotment is alterable in it own Nature? What? that institution only and command determines their payment to be duty; and that the office of Tything is bonum only quia praeceptum. For my part I contend not. There are moralities such by institution only and by Law of God positive. Suppose now; if you will, their duenesse founded only on Law positive; will you infer, therefore alterable by man? As if I should ask, whether because another day is of it own Nature, setting apart consideration of God's allotment, ordinable to God's service, therefore the seventh may be changed: or whether, because our two Sacraments are in their own Nature alterable, and other elements, for anything that is in the Nature of these now instituted, might be substituted instead of these, therefore man hath power to alter them. I should think (such is my simplicity) God's Law and Ordinance perpetually binds to these, and no other: though there be nothing in their Nature repugnant to substitution of others. What God hath fixed, let no man move. What he hath determinately prescribed, who may dare alter. God's ordinance is the Ancientest boundarie; A curse is to him who praesumes to remove it.

Yea Sir, do you grant all? Saith God in his word to Ministers as once to Levi, I have given them Tythes for the service they do me in the Gospel? Shall any doubt whether th'allotment be of equal endurance with the service? or that th' honorarie may be changed, so long as the Service continues? Thus briefly. As to Levi they were assigned for his Service in the Tabernacle, and were vnalterably to be rendered so long as the Tabernacle stood: So to Ministers of the Gospel they must stand, upon this concession, so long as their Evangelical Service continues, that is, as I suppose, so long as the Sun and Moon endureth. Except perhaps you can evidence they are exceptiuely or disiunctiuely only allotted; Tythes or some other thing in room or stead thereof, which who will undertake to evidence by the word of God?

Our third reason hath ground on Levite. 27.28. Prov. 20.25. Mal. 3.8. Rom. 2.22. where we read thus. Every thing separate from common use, is most holy unto the Lord: And it is a snare to devour holy things, and after the vow to inquire And, thou which abhorrest Idols, committest thou Sacrilege? And, ye have robbed me. Out of which Scriptures thus we reason.

The portion separated from common use to maintenance of God's worship under the New Testament, is that portion allotted by God's word to Ministers for their service.

Tythes are of that portion so separate. Ergo.

The Major is thus proved: because the detainment or alienation of things so consecrated, is Sacrilege. That this may the better appear, It will be worth the while, to consider briefly what Sacrilege is, which out of M ^r. Zanchius, Vrsine, and others, we may thus briefly describe. Sacrilege is the taking away of things Sacred, that is, deputed to holy uses, or the maintenance and furtherance of God's worship. The matter about which this theft is conversant, are things consecrated to God: of which are two sorts. Some, which God himself either by reservation to himself, or by express mandate hath hallowed to himself; some, which man hath hallowed and separated from common use: wherein is also acknowledged by most prudent, a secret motion of God inclining to such consecration. Of both read, Levite. 27, 28, 29, 30.

That which makes up the nature of Sacrilege, is alienating or detaining things thus hallowed, and returning them to common use. Thus is the Reason. The alienating or detaining of anything separate from common use, is Sacrilege. But detainment or alienating of Tythes, is the detaining or aliening of things thus separate. Ergo.

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

Answ. No word of God forceth to such limitation. At building of Tabernacle, was there any law of God particular to contribute? Why then runs the tenor thus? Every man whose heart is willing, let him bring, Gold, Silver, Goats hair, &c. And even of voluntary and votary consecrations both Moses, and Solomon speak. And, was it not free to Ananias to consecrate or not, otherwise then general laws of piety or charity might sway him? Act. 5.4. Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was it not in thy power?

Yet was Ananias his detainement, Sacrilege: by circumstances of the Text, and consent of best interpreters. He is taxed by Peter, not only for lying; but for thievish and clancular surreption of part of the price, verse. 3. And saith Mr. Beza, interpreting the word; Ad Sacrilegium etiam accessit diffidentia & hypocrisis. There was then Sacrilege in his detainement, though dedication was voluntary. Centuriat: Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. Ambrose. Ser. 9. Dum ex eo quod promiserat, partem subtrahit, sacrilegij simul condemnatur & fraudis; Sacrilegij, quod Deum in Pollicitatione fefellerat, fraudis quod, &c. They are strange quaeres raised by giddy spirits, desirous to free themselves from stroke of this Argument; 1. As whether Sacrilege be a sin in these times of reformation; their meaning is, whether there be any possibility of a Christians falling into the sin of Sacrilege, otherwise then by defiling his body with the flesh, or depriving God of the honor immediately belonging unto him. A question, I confess, in these times somewhat disputable; wherein the very matter of Sacrilege is almost annihilated. It calls to mind the tears of Alexander in the known story, shed upon remembrance of his father Philip's frequent victories, and conquests so large, as there seemed no matter left for his ambition to work upon. How doth their covetousness mourn, and their hearts languish, that there is left them so little a gleaning, after the great harvest of their praedecessours? yet how gape they after that little prey upon holy things, yet vnsurprized? We live in a free state; give me leave freely to speak my mind. In my conscience I think it true, the clamours against Bishops calling, and things appendent thereto, hath had no other source, then popular envy at these fat holy morsels, which yet remain vndeuoured, could they but calm conscience, grumbling, I dare say, in many against th'attempt, and sway supreme Authority, the judgment threatened to the posterity of Eli, would soon be our fate; To bow down to our Lay-masters for a piece of silver, and a morsel of bread, that we might be appointed to one of the Priests offices.

And yet, with conscience they have taken order reasonable; Sacrilege none, except spiritual, can now be committed; matter of that sin, there is none; for God, in their opinion, hath reserved to himself no portion of earthly things: neither doth man's votary or voluntary devotion, give him seizure in anything, how piously so ever consecrated. Belike then, Sacrilege there can be none under the New Testament: for there is nothing de iure, separated unto God. Once impleading the sin of Sacrilege, I was admonished by a grave Praesbyter, to beware of multiplying sins; making more sins then God had made; me thinks I may remember him and his adhaerents; to take heed, how they lessen the number, or minish the quantity of sins so heinous. Is there no Sacrilege under the Gospel? Can none be committed in days of New Testament about things consecrated unto God? Genera peccatorum minuuntur. Bless yourselves you Epicures, and carnal Gospellers in this; feed yourselves without fear on things, as we say, consecrated unto God. You cannot now be Sacrilegious; no more (and yet I dare say so much) then you can be Idolatrous, murderous, luxurious. Paul said in vain (and I think he said it to men of this mould) thou that abhorrest Idols, committest thou Sacrilege? Rom. 2. Blush for shame at conceits so profane, and think it truest of this glutted covetousness, which Job long since spake of the general; He hath devoured substance, but the Lord shall cause him to vomit it.

A second restraint some have thus given to the proposition; understand it, say they, of alienating things consecrated without error: that is, to maintenance of true worship of the true God. Well agreed, let it be so limited, though with fair probability, and consent of no small Clerks, we may contend the contrary. Keckerman: Princeps iure non potest res sacras it bona cultui diuino etiam in genere destinata, etiam ea quae superstitioso cultui ferviunt, in vsum profanum transfer. But grant the limitation. Can we not assume thus much of our Tythes? that they have been consecrated to maintain pure worship of the true God?

3. Understand it say some with these exceptions.

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

Resp. What word of God or found reason gives liberty to alien seeming superfluities of ministers, rather then of other Subjects? spake Paul to ministers only when he said, Let your conversation be without covetousness, and be content with things present?

2. Moses only stays addition, of more, returns or aliens nothing of what was brought by the people, no not though there were an overplus.

3. Yea, however in this contribution to building of the Tabernacle, he proclaims a sufficit, yet when he glanceth upon the maintenance of the ministry, you have him praying God for abundance. Bless O Lord his substance. Deut. 33.11.

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

2. Their second exception is, when alienation is necessary for preservation of the Church. In such case Hezekiah's practice, may it not be imitated.

Resp. Perhaps yes: so you keep to your pattern: and infer not too far. View therefore 1. the matter of Hezekiah his alienation; you shall find it to be of things belonging rather to the ornaments of God's worship, then to the maintenance of the ministry. 2. Take it into your serious consideration; whether an action mutual, or relative, such as these are passing betwixt the giver and receiver, may not be in casu, on the one side lawful, on the other, sinful; As if I should ask; may I not without sin in peril of life, and to avoid violence justly feared, deliver my purse to a Thief? or doth not the Thief sin in receiving, or deteining it? We will suppose Hezekiah to have done lawfully, in delivering the treasure, and Ornaments of the Temple to the King of Assyria, thereby to redeem himself and God's people from his violence. But can you suppose Ashur less then Sacrilegious in accepting, or detayning them? For ever I bless his zeal, who to redeem Christian Captives, would exchange his silver Chalice, for wood: yet shall curse to hell him, who drives to this exigent, and think his cruelty, or covetousness no other then Sacrilegious. Though therefore necessity perhaps may exempt such alienation from crime of Sacrilege on the part of the deliverer, yet is not the action in all parts void of Sacrilege; yea, cannot be excused, on the receivers behalf, of profane irreuerence, and irreligion to Godward. Go now and triumph you Heluoes of holy things, sample yourselves from Hezekiah; But know, he is Sacrilegious, whosoever accepts or retains things holy to God, howsoever percase lawfully delivered into his possession from hands of the rightful Owners. 3. Can we but think Hezekiah minded as Rehoboam practiced? to restore what necessity forced him to decay? Read the story: perhaps you may bethink yourselves of restitution. 4. Let us yield to necessity; the force of it is great, to legitimate for the time, what nothing else can warrant. May retaining such things in that case aliened, be excused from Sacrilege, necessity ceasing? I ask your judgment. The show bread was made common to David and his company in extremity: might it therefore be perpetually commoned?

Their last exception: when Princes have no other other means to remunerate subjects, faithful in common services.

Answ. What, I wonder in such case, lays open Church goods to will of Princes, rather then the goods of common subjects? Thus I reason and leave them. Private goods of Subjects, Magistrates may not alien from them for recompense of servants: much less may the Lord's Portion be transferred to such use. Pharaoh King of Egypt, and Joseph his Viceroy, give immunity to possessions of Priests, when else the whole land is seized for the King: persuaded (I suppose) things Sacred to Religion ought at no hand be violated. Thus then the proposition is clear as it was propounded. Yield we it yet with these limits and exceptions, as many as have but show of reason to support them; and thus conclude. The detainment or aliening of things by Law consecrated to support pure worship of the true God without superfluity, any longer then necessity requires, is Sacrilege.

Tythes have been by Law consecrated to maintenance of pure worship of the true God, are not superfluous, and now no necessity of their alienation. Ergo, their detainement is Sacrilege.

TO this Argument made longsome by idle exceptions, thus my Brother Clerique. All may here be granted also without danger. For no man denies, that things consecrated in the New Testament, is the portion by the word of God allotted to Ministers: nor that the detainement or alienation thereof is Sacrilege: nor that (as the state of the Church now stands with us) Tythes are that portion; and so that Tythes are allotted by the word of God for our maintenance even under the New Testament. But the question is, whether any portion whatsoever once consecrated be perpetually and only due in all Ages; And so whether Tythes be that only and perpetual portion forever; which by this Argument is not proved. For howsoever the detainement and alienation of Tythes be Sacrilege (as things now stand with us) yet the change of Tythes into another kind of maintenance as good or better, is no Sacrilege. For that which D ^r . Carleton saith to the contrary, fol. 26. is of no force. For first there is a great difference between things consecrated to the use of God's worship in the Temple under the Old Testament (of which sort the vessels were whereof he speaketh) and things dedicated to the Churches and Ministers use in the New. For those were Types and Sacraments of other things (as appeareth by those very vessels, by 2. Tim. 2.20, 21.) but so are not these. Secondly, Tythes even in the Old Testament might be changed, so long as no detriment came thereby to the Levites, Leu. 27.31. So that though it were granted that Tythes were due iure diuino (which he takes for granted sophistically) yet by his own reason they may be changed, because the change is allowed by the same power and Authority by which they are made holy to God. Thirdly, he plays the Sophister manifestly in arguing a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter; for thus he reasoneth: It is Sacrilege to change Tythes for a maintenance and provision of less value then Tythes: Ergo, it is simply Sacrilege to make an exchange of them: which whether it be a good form of Reasoning, I leave to others to judge.

[unspec Answ.] My liberal Adversary, how shall I praise your bounty? What terms may I devise to commend it? Certeinly, but that I know there be many, for all your saying, who deny my praemises, I should think you and all men consenting to the conclusion; which you may, without new question, assure yourself to be meant of a perpetual and unalterable portion, even therefore, because consecrated.

But whereto I wonder all this show of granting all, except to show yourself witty? Why such circling? why speak you not in the terms of your Master that Heretic in Philosophy, and say any proposition is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . As once a Rabbi in that heresy, and other schism being demanded what he thought of the Sermon he sat to censure, said; the man and his matter and gifts he well approved; only one doctrine was not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

Thus take my answer to your question; Nothing sanctified may ever be commoned, except by Authority of that God to whom they are sanctified. Whether changed with your limits, is a question coincident, whereof anon.

Of things consecrated are two sorts; some which God; some which man sanctifieth: of God's sanctifying, you have instances many in Old Testament; of Time the seventh; of substance, once we are sure, the tenth. And of this kind, but you, now perhaps, none quaestions, whether any may be unhallowed without warrant from the Sanctifier.

Is the question of that which man sanctifieth; whether ever by man's own Authority it may warrantably be unhallowed? thus is the answer distinct, as suddenness permits it to be propounded: Sometimes God's act and man's in sanctifying passeth on the same matter; God sanctified the Sabbath, by ordinance to his own use; yet we read in Isaiah after some translations, If thou shalt call it a delight to consecrate it as Glorious unto the Lord. The temple of God is holy which ye are; our bodies and souls are God's; yet said Paul offer up yourselves unto God. Such votary consecration by man of things already holy to God, multiplies the obligations to render; aggravates malice of Sacrilege.

2. Sometimes man consecrates what God hath left common, as Ananias the price of his possessions: whether dominion or use, as Canonists distinguish, jointly or severally, it matters not here to specify: of this kind of things sanctified is all the question. For my part I doubt not but the character of God's first impression in Tythes, is indelible; and that man's votary consecration of them, gave them no new hallowing, but increased obligation to their payment. Howbeit ex abundante, I will suppose they have no other touch of holiness, then man's devotion hath put to them.

Thus is the Argument for the main upon that supposal. Its a curse to devour that which is sanctified; that is, anything that is sanctified, at any time. And after the vow to inquire; this last clause forceth to judge, he means of things votarily, or voluntarily consecrated by man. Will you say, while its sanctified; or as the case stands with them amongst whom its sanctified? You call to mind the idle evasion of Arminians in the question of Apostasy, whether it be incident to men regenerate. We say as S. John; He thats borne of God sins not the sin unto death: True, say they, quàtalis, or quandiu talis. Whereas every man knows that Apostasy proceeds not from regeneration; and that it implies a ceasing to be talis; and therefore necessarily excludes the quandiu talis. Every man knows, a sober man is not drunk as he is a sober man, or so long as he is sober; drunkenness proceeds not from sobriety; and it implies, to say, ebrius, quandiu sobrius.

Once sanctified, ever sanctified; if th'intendment of the votary were for perpetuity. I have heard of the rule, Eius est tollere; cuius ponere; but I ask your judgment, whether Ananias his revocation of part upon second thoughts, did excuse him of Sacrilege?

2. Besides there is by such vow or deuotiō of man, a new property and dominion given unto God in the thing devoted. Shall man, can man defeat God of that property? dic sodes.

Is the question now of the change? Whether the sanctified portion may be changed, and another with your cautions substituted instead thereof? I should think not. Especially if you mean as you must, a change of the whole kind, for perpetuity.

1. For that God allowed no change of the particular; Much less of the whole kind. Levite. 27.33. He shall not look upon it whether it be good or bad, but the Tenth must be rendered in the particular; because thats it that is holy to the Lord, said he, ever the tenth or the aequiualent.

2. Next, Solomon; Say not before th'Angel it was an error, I was mistaken in the matter vowed; take another which upon second thoughts is found better. Why should the Lord destroy thee not in thy time?

3. I find the command peremptory and praecise to pay that which is vowed, that is, as I take it, that very particular.

4. Because I observe paenaltie (as I conceive) inflicted in case of exchange attempted; Both the particular and the change must be the Lord's.

5. Upon grant of power to exchange, the matter of Sacrilege must be uncertain, and no man chargeable with that sin as upon certainty.

6. Why not diminution of part as free from Sacrilege, as exchange? which yet in Ananias his case is damned.

But is it naught to purpose which the now reverend Bishop of Chichester said to this point of exchange? hear him.

If Sacrilege be in taking away holy things from God and his Church, it appeareth more in taking away Tythes then in any other thing whatsoever. Neither can Sacrilege herein be excused, though men should establish something in place of that holy thing taken away?

1. Because the changing of holy things is Sacrilege no less (though haply a less kind of Sacrilege) then taking away of the same. If Nebuchadnezzar having taken away th'holy vessels out of the house of the Lord, should in place thereof have put some other, might his Sacrilege thereby be excused? or Beltazzar taking the vessels of the Lord's house, and in them banqueting with his Lord's and Concubines, if he should instead thereof have placed other, could any justify his Sacrilege therefore? no more can the taking away of Tythes be justified, though something in place thereof should be appointed by men.

His opinion you are not bound to subscribe unto; perhaps he is not yet grown classical: but what to his Reason? For things which God himself hath sanctified?

Forsooth; This difference there is betwixt things consecrated to the use of God's worship in the Temple under the Old Testament (of which sort the vessels were whereof he speaks) and of things dedicated to the Churches and Ministers use in the new: for those were Types and Sacraments of other things (as appears of those very vessels, by 2. Tim. 2.20, 21.) so not these.

Answ. Right so. Yet when I from ground as good or better affirm first fruits mystical resemblances of Christ and the gifts of the Spirit in this life given, how merrily game you at me?

But say in good sadness: is there in this point of vnalterablenesse without divine Authority a disparity betwixt things then consecrated by God in Old Testament, and those by him hallowed in New? or hath God given more liberty of exchanging things sanctified in New, then of those other hallowed in Old Testament? What one passage of Scripture have you to guide you? Belongs not this to both Testaments? Its a curse to devour holy things. And, thou that abhorrest Idols, committest thou Sacrilege? put differences, as many as you will, betwixt one and other in other respects, in this of unchangeableness whereof is question, you shall never be able to cut difference.

This it seems you saw well enough, and therefore your secondarily avoucheth with too much confidence, that Tythes might then be changed so long as no detriment came by th'exchange to Levites.

1. Belike then your difference is not universal for things consecrated in Old Testament; for some of them might be changed, as you do handsomely instance in proposito, the point questioned of Tythes. Phi, phi; why die you changeable? might they not be changed, and yet might they be changed? Pugnantia loqui te non vides? Or if you meant your unchangeableness particularly to the vessels of Service in the Temple, could no other particular of things then consecrated alterably be instanced in, but the Tythes in question? Why have you so forgotten notorious absurdities in disputation?

2. But think you indeed Tythes might then be changed in that sort which now we question? Might Israelites have changed that kind of maintaining Levites by Tythes, into another as good or better? Say I beseech you. Or had it not been profane arrogancy in that people to have altered God's praescript for the manner of maintenance, under praetense of bettering it?

Will your text prove it? It speaks indeed of redeeming a particular Tythe; not a syllable of changing the whole kind of maintenance into another for perpetuity.

3. Suppose you Redemption even of a particular approved? or rather tolerated? Tolerated I should think; and not allowed. Because mulcted with addition of a fifth part. That, in case a man were so headstrong in his affection that he would needs redeem, way should be given: Howbeit, by his paenaltie he must be taught that in the act and attempt he erred. My inducement is this: Because I ever observe addition of a fifth part ordered to be made over and above the satisfaction or amends for the trespass or damage, how else, but nomine poenae. Compare these Scriptures, Levite. 5.15. and 6.5. Numb. 5.6, 7. Et alibi. And aptly, it tended not to praeuent damage of Levites, which easily enough was, or might be praeuented in the price given for ransom.

But how glad am I to see you careful to praeuent damage of Levites in the exchange? and so cautionate for Ministers indemnity? In case of exchange of Tythes into another kind of maintenance, you cautionately provide, it must be as good or better. Et mox, exchange is no robbery in this kind, provided always that it be made, in an equal proportion at the least, so as if the Church be not bettered, yet it is not damnified.

Blessing on your heart for that yet, If ever Lay-Parson, or scrupulous Gentleman, or Customarie Parishioner cun you thank for your refutation, I much marvel. Say, I pray you, doth the scrupulous Gentleman so practice? Giues he the aequiualent to the Tythe? If I knew him, and he so practice, at first greeting I would civilly adore him. Miracle, mirror at least he should be to me, of all the Lay-Order of Parsons, whom I yet know. I may transgress Charity in my jealousy of that black Swan. But how fear I? least the little grumble of Conscience be calmed with that parcel of your opinion, Tythes may be changed into another kind of maintenance, and no care taken of your Prouiso, for substitution of an aequiualent.

Once I know ten or twenty pounds Coyne-stipend is no equal proportion to an hundred or two, or three, in Tythes; nor two-pence Rate or Custom aequiualent to ten or twenty shillings of Tithes. Think of it my Master Parsons of the Laity; your best Patron steedes you not, as you practice. But I return to the Refuter.

What say you to that of D ^r Carleton? When anything consecrated is taken away, that a thing of the same value should be restored, who can expect? and who shall be Judge?

Forsooth, he playeth the Sophister manifestly, in arguing à dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter; for thus he reasoneth: Its Sacrilege to change Tythes for a maintenance and provision of less value then Tythes. Ergo, its simply Sacrilege, to make exchange of them.

But doth he so reason indeed? you would make him a simple Sophister.

Answ. Thus rather conceive him; to apprehend that supposed (something) to be substituted in room of Tythes, of ambiguous acception: there is aliquid indefinitum; where something, is anything: And there is hoc aliquid, or aliquid limitatum, as in this case sufficient provision, or in your meaning, something aequiualent.

Is the something to be substituted, indefinite? any something, in lieu of Tythes? that restitution or substitution, according to D ^r Carleton, and according to clear evidence of Truth, cannot be excused of Sacrilege; for it may be of less value, its likely to be so.

Is it, hoc aliquid; aliquid limitatum; after the opinion there mentioned, a sufficient provision? that is a Castle in the air, as he there truly speaks; besides, not that sufficient maintenance which God hath allotted; and in all likelihood, not so sufficient: by consequent therefore sacrilegiously substituted.

Is it your aequiualent? as good or better? To this, thus he truly; None can name any so convenient as Tythes, to supply the place of Tythes; so as to be sufficient at all times, howsoever the price of things rise or fall. Which proportioning of the Ministers estate, making it able to answer all estates alike, whether dear or cheap, proceeding from the wisdom of God, cannot be matched by man's wisdom. Thus take him in form.

Every change of Tythes into another kind of provision, which is at any time of less worth or conveniency then Tythes, is sacrilegious. But all exchange of Tythes into any other kind of provision, is at some time necessarily of less worth & conveniency then Tythes. Ergo, all change of Tithes into any other kind of provision, is sacrilegious. Of the Major, your limits in exchanging, permit not you to doubt. The Minor is thus proved. No other provision can make the Ministers estate able at all times to answer all estates. Ergo, every exchange of Tythes into another provision is, vt supra, of less worth and conveniency. What think you? did the Doctor reason a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter? did not the Bachelor rather view him secundum quid, and not simpliciter? I should think this rather.

As to what you talk of Canonists opinion, and Ministers practice in commutation or composition for Tythes, it toucheth not the purpose: let all be granted lawful; what is this to a change of Tythes for perpetuity?

Remember you not your own Dunse Canonist, resolving that Tythes cannot be granted to a Laicke in fee? have you forgotten, that in question of selling particular Tythes, they distinguish betwixt things Tythable, and the ius of Tything? Sale of res decimabilis, they allow with cautions: marchandizing the ius of Tything, they make Simoniacal and Sacrilegious. Their reason is, because Ius decimandi is spirituali officio annexum. And in case such a permutation of Tythes as you speak of, were lawful, why not also a transferring of the ius of Tything?

To close this point, I must profess, I like not such permutations or compositions for Tythes, except in way of gratification, where scandal is feared. It hath brought upon the Church, Customs and Prescriptions, so many, of so long continuance, that of Tythe, except the name of Tythe, is left almost nothing to many Churches.

I profess not Canonist: yet thus much I know; Ministers have no perfect dominion in Tythes, or other endowments of the Church; & am inclined to think, they are at most but use-fructuaries therein. The whole right & dispose of Tythes is not in Ministers, no nor in the Church fundamentaliter or terminative: first and originally they are God's; by him as chief proprietary assigned to the Priesthood, for preservation of their office, & support of the service by them administered.

The fourth Reason followeth: The Law first allotting Tythes, to support of the Ministry, and worship of God, was moral; Ergo, they are perpetually the Ministers Portion. That Law conceive to be that which guided Abraham and Jacob in the practice of Tything: revived afterwards, and further explained, what time they were assigned to Levi.

That it was moral, perpetually binding, is thus evident; because in no respect caeremoniall, or particularly judicial to the state of Jews: you understand, I presume, by the Argument thus molded, that we mean it merely moral.

Rather saith my learned friend; mixti iuris; In diverse respects, Tythes are both moral, and caeremoniall, and judicial; as was also the Sabbath in the Old Testament. They are moral, as a sufficient maintenance for Ministers of holy things. Caeremoniall, as Rites of the Jewish Religion: Judicial, as maintenance of Levites and Levitical Priests.

Ans. So as you say; and not without consent and suffrage of some both old School-men, and moderne more Orthodox Teachers. There are Laws and duties of mixed nature; as long before M ^r Junius taught more then one introductorie teacher of School-divinity. But, I pray you, by Tythes mean you the quota? and say you, in that very quantity they are morally belonging to Ministers of holy things? Sir, we are brethren, why strive we? you grant the question. Let them be in what other respects you will, caeremonious, or judicial, or both; if in that quota they are morally due, I shall be ready to swear anon, they are perpetually due to Ministers of holy things. And me thinks by your example of the Sabbath, which you give for instance of the like, you should mean so. For that, I presume, you grant even in the quotient of Time-moral: though there were some accessories of Caeremonialitie and iudicialitie also perhaps annexed thereto. Besides, the very Name of Tythes determinately denotes that certain Portion; the Tenth part of Temporal substance. So that in saying Tythes are moral, though with a Quatenus, you say as much as, the tenth part of the people's Income by Law moral belongs to Ministers of holy things. Or else give us, I pray you, the other part of your distinction, or some other respect in which they are not moral. They are moral as a sufficient maintenance; not moral belike; as an insufficient maintenance; As if I should say; The seventh of time is morally prescribed, as it is a sufficient time to be spent in the service of God: not morally, as insufficient. Whereas to say Truth, God's determining this numeral certainty of Time and Substance to his service, noticeth it as that sufficiency which we must rest in.

And yet meethinkes you should not mean so as your words purport. For then, why strive you for lawfulness of man's exchanging that maintenance into another kind of provision as good or better. Surely upon supposal of that meaning, were I a man transported with passion, I should be ready to cry out as you; Oh horrible, Is it possible a Minister of Jesus Christ should teach that man may alter or reverse God's moral precepts? And if an Angel from heaven should say so, I know how to esteem him.

But how handsomely might a man with such a quatenus, maintain sacrifices and burnt offerings to be moral; yea and the duty whatsoever it is, that is most merely moral, to be caeremoniall and Judicial? The Sacrifices of the Lord God of Israel made by fire was Leuies inheritance; part of his maintenance; impleade me, if you list, for saying they are moral; urge as you well may, that they were merely caeremoniall; my distinction is ready; in diverse respects they are caeremoniall, and Judicial and moral. Caeremoniall as rites of the Jewish religion; Judicial as Leuies inheritance; yet moral as a competency, and part of sufficient maintenance assigned to Ministers of holy things. And could I not shift, trow you, to maintain prayer Ceremonial, or Judicial? Press me with your greatest instance to prove it moral; twenty to one but I shall find a quatenus, that hath under it as much truth, as yours in the case of Tythes; though as spiritual worship, its moral; yet as part of Tabernacle and Temple service, so its caeremoniall; as a mean to obtain and praeserue our sustenance and temporalities; so its Judicial. So be it if you will have it so.

But say for God's sake, and vex us no more with impertinent manners of speech. By Tythes the subject in this proposition, Tythes are moral, quatenus, &c. Mean you the tenth part of temporalities? Then Tythes are moral, and we have the purpose; And must you not so mean it, as in the other, Tythes, that is, tenth part are caeremoniall; and Tenthes are Judicial. Let the tenth parts be caeremoniall or judicial with what quatenus they will, if they be caeremoniall or judicial with a quatenus, then eatenus very Tenthes are caeremoniall or judicial; So let Tenthes be moral with a quatenus, yet eatenus the Tenth part of people's Temporalties by moral law belongs to Ministers of holy things. Briefly, mean you by Tythes, Decimam partem temporalis substantiae, in all three members; or mean you it in the two latter propositions, not in the first? If you mean it, Tythes are moral; if you so mean not, you play the absurd sophister, the idle disputant in taking away, or altering subiectum quaestionis.

I proceed to evidence the first member of th' Antecedent. That the law enjoining Tithes was in no respect caeremoniall. Caeremoniall ordinances were all shadows of things to come, the body whereof is Christ. This no such shadow, for where is the body which this supposed caeremonies duty should shadow? Some have sheaped us this resemblance. The number of Ten is a number of perfection, and by paying in this number, the offerer made protestation of his own imperfection, and of his expecting perfection in Christ. Pretty too too. Twenty such like a tolerable wit would devise. But can they show us this signification or end of payment in Scripture, but obscurely so much as by allusion intimated? I dare say no; nor any other end, no not of their payment to Levi: but support of God's worship and recompense of their service.

2. Levitical caeremonies have all analogical resemblance of the things they praefigured: Therefore called shadows of things to come. Because as the body carries a dark, yet some resemblance of the body whose shadow it is; so caeremonies of Christ and his benefits, &c. Therefore also termed similitudes of heavenly things, being ordained by their very semblance to teach the rude. Tything hath no analogical resemblance of imperfection, or thankfulness, or God's universal dominion: for who can, I say not only avow his frame, but frame it except absurdly? Give us such analogy of this, as we are able to show of others, we will then believe their payment to have been in part, at least, Leuitically caeremonious. Of sprinklings and purifyings, of Tabernacle, of Ark, of high Priest (and indeed of what not? that was truly a shadow of heavenly things) we find analogy in the word of God. Ergo, As high Priest amongst Jews alone entered into the holy of holies not without blood: So Christ into heaven: &c. Can those who so confidently avow tything a caeremonie, thus draw out the similitude twixt it and heavenly things?

3. No Levitical caeremonie may be used after full publishing of the Gospel; Schoolmen say well, Iudicialia post Christum be mortua, because they bind not: Caeremonialia mortifera; their very reviving is unlawful and deadly. But payment of Tythes by consent of all, except Brownists, may be retained. Ergo.

4. I find not that the Lord in Prophetical Scriptures taxeth so much th'omission of caeremonies, or exacteth in so strict terms their performance, as he doth this of Tythes. Something I find of their faulty performance, something of their sticking in them with neglect of moralities: And this to me is a praesumption, they were other then caeremonies.

Lastly, I never read Christ speak so much of any Jewish Caeremonie, as he did of Tythes; These things ought ye not to leave undone; though I confess as much might have been said of Caeremonies during those times. All these considered, may I not conclude of Tything, it was no Levitical caeremonie?

To these Arguments thus hath my friend. That all Caeremonies were shadows of things to come, I would not have supposed you would have held; but that I see it in Print.

And you may choose yet whether you will think it or no if you take my exegetical terms of limitation. For I mean of Caeremonies, Levitical, Mosaical, Aaronicall Caeremonies; as we use to take them contradistinctly to moralities and Jewish iudicials. And so understanding me, why would you not think it? I assure you I shame not to have it in Print.

For all men know that there are two sorts of Religious Caeremonies in all Religions whatsoever: some significant and Sacramental and Mystical, other some for decency and good order, And if Tythes be said to be Caeremonies of order, I know no exception can be taken against it. 2. But we may go one degree farther and say with Junius, that of significant or mystical caeremonies there are three sorts; one remembrances of things past; another demonstrations of things present: a third figures or shadows of things to come: or as Beza speaketh, Signa 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Sabbath may serve for an example in all these respects, and whether Tythes were so or no who can tell? This we need not be afraid to say, that Tythes were remembrances of benefits received in times past, and demonstrations of a thankful mind for the time present. For so they were in Abraham, Gen. 14.20. And Jacob Gen. 28.22. Yea in the whole time of th'Old Testament, seeing they were an oblation to the Lord, Numb. 18.24, 26, 27, 28. And for my part also I am half persuaded that they were shadows of things to come: If you ask me where is the body which they shadowed? I dare not tell you my mind, least you laugh me out of Countenance, and say its the devise of a tolerable wit. This therefore is that which I say, that seeing the bodies of all caeremoniall shadows are not made known unto us, it may as well be so for anything yet appeareth, as otherwise. And if it be not so in Tythes, yet if they be significant in the two former respects, yea if they were not significant at all, but only instituted for good order, it is sufficient to disprove that assertion, that all Caeremonies were shadows of things to come. Yea it is sufficient also to answer your second reason, Caeremonies have an analogical resemblance of the things they signified: seeing this praesumeth the former to be true, that Caeremonies are shadows of things to come: yea and the third too, for that hereby it appeareth, that that may be a caeremonie, which was before the Law not foreshadowing Christ. And whereas you say, No Levitical caeremonie may be used after publishing of the Gospel; and allege thereto the saying of the Schoolmen, Iudicialia post Christum mortua sunt; Caeremonialia vero mortifera, Junius seems to me to understand it better of Caeremoniall shadows only, and of Caeremonies Levitical so far forth only as any of them doth shadow something in Christ: granting that though in other respects they be in their own Nature mutable, yet that there is no absolute necessity of removal thereof. So that you see, that though it were granted that Tythes were shadows of things to come, yet they may be retained, so long as they are not retained in that regard.

And this answereth to the full, all that D ^r . Carleton allegeth to this purpose, Page 16, 17, 18, 19. Whether in jest or good earnest. For he also praesupposeth all Caeremonies to be shadows of things to come. Where by the way it is good sport to see what game he maketh of this: that we say, Tythes are now used in the time of the Gospel not as a Caeremonie but as another thing. And thereupon rideth the hackney distinction of Materialiter verum est, sed non formaliter, out of breath; to which nevertheless he must be beholden in the end whether he will or no. For fol. 35. pag. 2. When he answereth Abulensis, that Tythes have two respects; one in their general ordinance, another in their particular assignation; and in regard of the former not instituted by the Law, but only in the latter; what is this (I would fain know) but non materialiter, sed formaliter? &c. The rest my love covers.

Answ. For answer. I hope you think nor D ^r . Carleton nor poor me so simple or vnskilled, as not to know the notation of the name (whether of Cares the Tuscane town, or a carendo ) and the general notion of the Nature of Caeremonies. Well we understand it generally to denote any external rite of religion. This also we conceive, that there were Caeremonies in this general sense taken, in use amongst Jews, which sort sufficiently with the state of the Gospel. There are natural Caeremonies, such as lifting up of hands and eyes to heaven, bowing the knee, prostrating the body in prayer: Religious rites apparently Natural, and by Natures instinct in use amongst Gentiles as well as Jews. Neither much contend we, but there were some external rites of God's institution for Jews which yet are applicable to Evangelical worship.

But when we treat of Caeremonies contradistinct to moralities we mean and explicate our selves of caeremonies Levitical, Mosaical, or if you please so to term them, Aaronicall Caeremonies. Whose style in Paul is universally, elements, beggarly elements, shadows of heavenly things of things, to come; The law whereof was respective only of the Levitical Priesthood.

And of these this is that we teach; 1. That they were all figures of things to come. Similitudes of heavenly things; shadows of Christ and spiritual things then promised, now exhibited.

2. Of these we have further learned; 1. That they retained their virtue and power of binding till the death of Christ. 2. That they were after his death, for a time, liberae obseruationis, for more honorable bringing of the Synagogue to the grave; as not the now reverend Bishop of Chichester, but that old renowned of Hippo first spake. Were also for that time to be tempered in use by rules of Charity, in favor of weak Jews, till fuller preaching of the Gospel.

3. Yet were after promulgation of the Gospel mortiferae, and could not, as Thomas speaks, be used sine mortali peccato. Will you hear his reason because their use implied protestation of such faith, as who shall now in days of New Testament profess, were worthy to be branded with note of grossest heresy, no less then Judaism. The faith of fathers before Christ, and ours since him, is in the substance one; yet were th'Articles thereof to be specified in terms different. Theirs, as denoting Christ then to come; ours, as importing Christ already come. Proportionally their caeremonies were ordained to signify things to come; and use thereof implied such protestation in that people. As therefore he should sin mortally, whosoever should now in profession of his faith by words, say, he believes in Christ, yet to be borne, to die, to rise again: so no less mortally he, who shall use any real protestation or profession in fact of such faith, as who so useth these caeremonies, necessarily must do, I am non promittitur nasciturus, passurus, resurrecturus, quod illa Sacramenta quodammodo personabant: sed annunciatur quod natus sit, & resurrexit, quod haec Sacramenta quae a Christianis aguntur iam personant.

What trow you? Will our Arguments now proceed? Caeremonious ordinances Levitical were all shadows of things to come, carrying analogical resemblance of what they signified, &c. Videsis.

1. Not so; for every man knows all Religions have some caeremonies of order and decency; not all significant and mystical; And so might Tythes be caeremonies of order, say also of decency if you please.

Answ. Surely, I doubt not but the whole Levitical service of God was carried in the seemeliest fashion, and that there was strict observation of prius and posterius in all their Cultus. Let all things be done decently and in order, is a rule of the Law of Nature, and bound Jews as well as Christians. Neither make I question but Jews had directions even for the order and outward fashion of their caeremonious service, of God's own praescript, that the modus might be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But Sir you must remember, 1. That in the question of Tythes, and the like, whether they were Levitical Ceremonies or no, we inquire of the Materials of Levitical service; and not of the modus and externe fashion of performance, which commonly comes under the term of decency and order. 2. Next, I dare you to instance in but one caeremonie of order, if it were properly Levitical, upon condition to loose the benefit of this Argument if I evidence not, that it was of mystical signification; and Typicall of something belonging to Christ or his kingdom. Be it then that they had their caeremonies of order, yet if those also were shadowy and figurall, how helps your distinction to contradict our proposition?

2. Yet one step further you will adventure to go; and its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I warrant you. Not all shadows of things to come; for some were remembrances of things past; some demonstration of things present.

Answ. Even so; we have long since learned of M ^r . Junius his Masters, that signs are some Remoratiue, some demonstrative, some prognosticall. But can you name us the Levitical caeremonie, that was so commemoratiue of things past, or demonstrative of things present, that it was not also Typically prognosticall of things to come? I dare not be over confident; memory decays as age grows, and I am suddenned to address this answer to you. But cannot bethink myself, nor I (suppose) you, of any Levitical Caeremonie, whether sacrum or sacrificium, or sacramentum, or observantia, but was withal shadow of something to come. The passover, a remembrance of Angels passing over Israelites, yet withal a Type of Christ: The Manna reserved in the Ark, monument of the material bread miraculously given from heaven; but was it not also Type of Christ, the living bread which came down from heaven? That spite of the pie it must be true, which Paul hath; Levitical caeremonies were all shadows of things to come.

But say, I pray you, say soothely: do you think Tythes were Levitical caeremonies if it be yielded, that their payment in Old Testament was remembrance of benefits received, and demonstration of a present thankful mind? Think you all things done to God in remembrance of benefits received, in testimony of a thankful mind, Caeremonious, and Leuiticallie caeremonious? When Zachee offered that sweet smelling sacrifice, half his goods to the poor, in part to demonstrate present thankfulness for his late conversion, suppose you his fact a caeremonie, a Levitical caeremonie? when the devotion of our forefathers, built Synagogues for our Nation, and erected Hospitals in remembrance of benefits received from God, suppose you their act Leuitically caeremonious? when Pater Noster, that is, not Popery, but pore-blind devotion, gave Churches those large endowments of lands and other revenues which our Father, our more clear-sighted piety hath stripped them of, to rememorate pristine blessings, and demonstrate present thankfulness, can you think their fact therefore Leuitically caeremonious? This is my mind, in the main of all my morality, its all by me done to rememorate past benefits, to demonstrate my present thankful mind; yet can I not be persuaded, I am herein Leuitically caeremonious. What then though it be granted, Tythes were paid by Abraham and Jacob, and in the whole time of Old Testament in remembrance of benefits received, and to demonstrate a thankful mind present; doth

〈1+ pages missing〉