An Indictment Against Tithes

TO THE READER.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dat veniam corvis, vexat Censura Columbas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

AN INDICTMENT Against TYTHES.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But to answer directly to his Even so.

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

And further to his Even so, (which he urgeth so often) I answer, that I conceive, he buildeth but upon a sandy foundation: for if he well considereth the Greek, he shall find it to be there, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which in our English Translations is rendered, And so, or So also; and the word Even, is found only in the last translation of the Bible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whereunto I answer, first, I do acknowledge, such a maintenance for Gospel-Ministers, as Jesus Christ hath appointed them to take, they may lawfully receive: But Christ hath nowhere appointed them to take Tythes, nor doth the Apostle in that place, 1 Tim. 5. 17. nor in any other place say, that Gospel-Ministers ought to be maintained by Tythes: Therefore Gospel-Ministers ought not to receive Tythes; and so this Scripture proveth nothing for him, but altogether against him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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