THE MINISTER'S PORTION.  
BY WILLIAM SCLATER. BATCHELAR OF DIVINITY and Minister of the word of God at PITMISTER in Somerset.   printer's device of University of Oxford 
AC: OX  
AT OXFORD, Printed by joseph Barnes. 1612:   

TO THE WORSHIPFUL Mr THOMAS SOUTHCOT ESQUIRE, at MOONES-OTERY in Devon, grace and peace.  
SIR, when I first meditated what at your instance I revised, and now almost enforced, publish: I expected contradictions from Mammonistes, and scarce hoped to persuade men savouring of better things. Such a holdfast is covetousness; so incredulous is prejudice. Farther opposition from brethren, and judicious men, was as far from my thought, as I am in this point from their opinion. But Austin saith well; 
Aug. count Advers. leg & prophet. li. 1. c. 2●.  Deus donat prodesse nobis non solûm quod docet veritas, verùm etiam quod obstrepit vanitas. And such opposings against truth are thus far for it, that they occasion more intentive search, and clearer discovery of the truth. My purpose is not to prescribe to any man's faith. Nam quis ego sum? Even the least of God's little ones. Yet as one that hath obtained mercy of God to be faithful, let me entreat this favour from men, to be heard on even terms, with men, I freely confess, of far greater gifts, yet, as I think, having no such evidence in this point, to carry away so handsmooth a conclusion of such dependence. This, I hope, will appear to any impartial reader, that the reasons here brought for tithes, are much nearer to demonstrative, than those against them are to probable arguments. My poor pains I have inscribed to your worship, as for many your well deservings of me, and the Church of God; so for that you first urged a review of the first rude draft, and have given me so many occasions to think you will not be the last in practising this unprofitable profitable conclusion, when once your judgement shallbe convinced. And though I love not to be peremptory, (for I know mine own blindness) yet this I think I may say; the reasons on both sides being peized in even balance, there will scarce be left place for an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or suspense of judgement, except men be resolute to hold their conclusion in despite of all contrary premises. Now the God of all truth direct our hearts to the knowledge and love, and obedience of the truth. And the same God that begun his good work in you, confirm, and perfect it to the day of our Lord jesus Christ. Amen.  
Your worships in the truest love, WILLIAM SCLATER.   
1. Cor. 9.13, 14. 
Do ye not know that they which minister about the holy things, live of the things of the Temple? and they which wait at the Altar, are partakers with the Altar?  
Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel.  
THis whole period of Scripture, from ver. 5. to 15. consists of one discrete axiom, in sum this: Though I Paul have power and right to live at the charge of the Church, ver. 5. yet I have not used that power, ver. 12. the reason whereof he gives; Lest he should hinder the Gospel of Christ, through suspicion of mercenary. Affection in preaching. Now for that it might be questioned whether he had any such right or no, he avows the truth of his title; by arguments à genere, he was an Apostle & preacher of the Gospel, ver. 1. Ergo had right. 2. preventingly, à pari, in the practice of others; ver. 5.6. as well as Peter etc. And for that the claim might not seem equal betwixt Paul and Cephas and the Lords brethren, he showeth that to every minister of the Gospel, maintenance is due for their work sake. By reasons, 1. From voice of nature and consent of nations in other semblant employments▪ as who goes to war, etc. ver. 7. 2. From mandate of the law of God. Saith not the law of God the same, etc. ver. 8.9.10. 3. From excellency of blessings conferred by Ministers, compared with quality of things exacted for recompense; If we sow spiritual things etc. ver. 11. 4. From allowed practice of levitical ministry, ver. 13. Lastly, from express ordinance of Christ, the Lord hath ordained, etc. ver. 14. this the frame of the text.  
Out of all which amounts this plain Apostolical conclusion; That maintenance is due from people to Ministers for their work sake. Other proofs than are here set down, it is needless to use. We have here more than two or three witnesses, five sound reasons enforcing it. The bare word of an Apostle is enough to carry a point more doubtful. How much more should it sway with us, when God's spirit that spoke in them, is pleased by so many reasons to avouch it? Is it not then a sound tenent (trow we) of some, that Ministers maintenance is mere alms? and that in justice, and as due, they can challenge nothing for their labour in the word and doctrine?  
1 Where then is Paul's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his right, lawful power and authority, to receive maintenance from the people, v. 4▪ 2? How saith our Saviour, they are worthy of their hire, 
a Luk 9 7.  Paul worthy of double honour 
b 1. Tim 5.17. ? 3 What great thing was this that Paul did in taking no maintenance, ver. 12.15? By these men's divinity he had right to none.  
2 And what odds is there betwixt this beggarly conclusion of those old beggars, and that of late separats, that make it Christ's ordinance for Ministers to live of their people's voluntary contribution; and hold it as Christ's own Canon, that no set maintenance should be allotted us, no not by human ordinance, but the people left at liberty to give or not to give, to give much or little, otherwise then self devotion shall incline them? May I not say of this and the former as joseph of Pharaos' dreams, 
c Gen 41.25.  the dreams are one? Words only have made a variation. Ministers must live of the people's voluntary contribution: me thinks I hear St Paul's tenor for alms, 
d 2. Cor. 9.7.  As every man wisheth in his heart so let him give. Their reasons had need be pregnant: let us view them. 1. Forsooth the Apostles thus lived. Resp. I yield it of some of them: yea sometimes made their own hands minister to their necessities: why force they us not to mechanical trades? For so lived some Apostles. But 1 they had power to exact maintenance, sith they had right 
e 1. Cor. 9.4, 5  to have it. 2, Occasional practice binds not to imitation, but in occurrence of like occasions When scandal enforceth to forbear exaction, we will herein follow their holy example, lest by any means we hinder the Gospel; ver. 12. and farther than this, their example urgeth not.  
Their second reason is this: because it must be seen that what the people give this way, they give of love, not for fear of the law. Resp. and it must be seen that the people 
f Ps. 110.3.  come willingly at the days of assembling. Therefore Magistrates may not compel by authority to serve the Lord as 
g 2. Chr. 34.31 32.33.  good josiah did, for now they bear the sword in vain. But thus I reason and so leave them.  
To every duty Magistrates may bind by law, & compel by punishment. Yielding maintenance to Ministers is a duty. Therefore thereto may Magistrates bind by laws. Miserum est (saith the Poet) alienâ vivere quadrâ: if for any, miserable; sure most for a minister. This if any thing, breeds right trencher chaplains, & would soon fill the Church with sweet tongued & mealemouthed preachers.  
3 I may not leave utterly untouched our peoples, whether ignorant or affectionate error: that think of their payments to Ministers, as of alms to their beadsmen; forsooth we live by them. I say no more but this, 1, If 
h 1. Cor. 9.11.  we by them in carnal things, they by us in spiritual. Is the barter so hard as should occasion exprobration? 2. Not by you but by the Lord's ordinance 
i 1. Cor. 9.14.  saith the Apostle.  
And that Lord that hath given to the people the nine; hath allotted to us (audacter dicam) the tenths as ours.  
4 I would feign leave this reproof, but that I see the error hath wound itself into the minds of many of holy profession and practice, who yet delight to have Ministers acknowledge a debt, even for receipt of dues; and desire to have conscience free from all bonds more than of human laws, in this matter of recompensing our labours. If ought come else more than law or custom, if but a cup of cold water; they supererogate surely in respect of the Minister. They much forget who said, 
k Philemon. 19  thou owest unto me even thy own self.  
And of the general thus far. Now the inquiry I take it, is not impertinent here; sith maintenance is due to Ministers for their work sake, what portion or quantity that is, that by God's ordinance belongs to them. And me thinks in a duty so generally, though plainly taught, the conscience of the hearers should desire a more particular direction. Ye will therefore (I hope) give leave something more particularly to examine the matter. And herein I hold it not amiss, first to propound what is yielded on all sides, where is any soundness of judgement. 2. Then to add some other principles, as plainly taught in the Scriptures of the new Testament. Lastly to inquire and resolve of the particular.  
The grants on all sides are these. 1. That there is a maintenance 
h 1. Cor. 9.4, 5 ad 15.  in justice due to Ministers and their families for their work sake.  
2 It is yielded that it must be competent; not only for supply of natural necessities, but for their furniture to every good work of their calling.  
3 That it must be 
m 1. Tim. 5.17 18.  liberal; not such as every niggardly mind will judge convenient and competent.  
To which grants, let me add these postulata, as plainly determined in the Scriptures.  
1 That to the Ministers of the Gospel belongs a maintenance as large, as to the levitical Priesthood; this me thinks, excellency of ministry, 
n 2. Cor. 3. 1. Cor. 9  and blessings conferred thereby, enforceth.  
2 That this maintenance must rise out of 
n Gal. 6.6.  all and every the goods of all and every of the people instructed.  
3 Shall I add another to me seeming more than probable? that is, 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. Resp. And were there not Magistrates among the jews?  
4 That the Lord in the levitical law made provision for us that were to minister in the Gospel. It's clear by the Apostles twice alleging that ordinance of 
o 1. Cor. 9.9. 1. Tim. 5.18.  not muzling the mouth of the ox.  
Thus far I think we walk safely, sith 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 than descending, resolve of a competency indeterminate; so the allowance be competent, all is well. Resp. Then in case of this fancied competency, some of the instructed though wealthy perhaps, shall be exempted from the Apostles injunction: for suppose some one or two of the well disposed hearers, shall out of their private, make a competent allowance; the rest shall now reap our spiritual things, and not sow their carnal. For as the saying is rife, enough in a ministers maintenance, Enough is a feast: 
Gal. 6.6.  but saith the Apostle, Let him i every him that is instructed, make his instructor partaker of all his goods 2. See conclusion sixth; & duly weighing it, tell me whether 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? 3. How hath he committed this to Magistrates? absolutely or with limitation? if with limits, what are these bounds? forsooth a competency. Perceive you not circling and mere uncertainties?  
Leave we this fancy, and see whether we may find some other more certain particular, to resolve of. And surely when we have in vain turmoiled ourselves to avoid judaizing in this point of ministers maintenance, we shall be forced at length to acknowledge tenths, which some call Jewish, to be the Ministers appointed portion.  
That the truth may the 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 Tithes are so merely ceremonious and levitical, that they cannot without betraying Evangelical liberty and disavowing 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, than any others which hold them ceremonies Levitical. If the assumption were true, their conclusion would sound follow by doctrine of the Apostle. Gal. 4. & 5. Col. 2. etc.  
2 Some others thinking them judicials, resolve; part, that they may be lawfully retained as the Minister's 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 the magistrate in things lawful and convenient. These give them no other ground in God's word, than 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 thus: due by God's law; in respect of their consecration to God, either by received custom and consent of Churches, or by donation of princes, or legacy of testators. In which opinion I must needs profess myself to have been long; and never to my knowledge of other; till of late being to deliver my judgement 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 alienated from their general end▪ my reasons were these, 1 That I had found Solomon averring it to be a 
q Pro. 20.25.  curse to devour holy things, and had seen the curse exemplified on many. 2. That ordinance of the Lord I held moral & perpetual, 
r Levit. 27, 18, 19  Nothing separate from common use, no not of those which man had separated, might be again unhallowed, no nor redeemed. 3. That saying of the Apostle much swayed with me, 
s Gal. 3.15.  If it be but a man's testament no man abrogats it i no man ought to abrogate it. And so much the more, for that being once an auditor of that judicious divine Mr Perkins, whose memory is blessed; I heard him move the doubt, whether things given to superstitious uses, suppose to maintain malmonging, 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 Gods worship, they might not be aliened. Thus then & upon these grounds my conclusion is still the same, though my media be other, and something more peremptory. Now because it is a labour long and needless to discuss every of the former differences (for the saying is true, verum est index sui & obliqui:) I will first propound the conclusion with the explanation; 2. Proceed to confirmation; And lastly annex solution of Arguments, such as I have met withal, having any show of ground from the word of God, to overthrow the conclusion.  
The Conclusion in few words is this. Tithes are the portion, at least part of that portion, by God's word allotted to Ministers for their service in the gospel.  
By Tithes understand the tenth part of all the hearers increase: 
t Pro. 3 9  particulars may be read, Levit. 27.30. & alibi. In a word to use the distinction of Canonists, whither they be personal, of industry, negotiation; etc. or predial, as of grounds, etc. or mixed, as of cattle: the tenths of the whole increase, not those of Cumin & Anise excepted 
u Mat. 23.23. , fall within compass of our subject.  
1 Of Tithes amongst jews we may find four sorts distinguished by their ends. 1. some, which for distinction sake, we may call stipendiary, assigned to Levits for recompense of their service. Numb. 18.24.  
2 A second sort which we may call sacrificatory: Tithes for sacrifice. Some call them Decimas secundaneas, some Decimas decimarum: a tithe of the Levits Tithes to be given to Aaron, as an heave offering unto the lord Numb. 18.28.  
3 A third kind you may style Convivales, banqueting or feasting tithes, appointed for solemn feasts at their general assemblies to jerusalem, Deut. 14.22, 23.  
4 The last sort may be termed Eleemosynariae. Some call them decimas pauperum, a tithe which for relief of the poor, widows, strangers, etc. were every third year to be set out of their goods, ever and above the other annual tithes, Deut. 24.29.  
This distinction of tithes I thought good to mention out of the levitical law: though this I profess, not to claim our tithes by the mandate given in law levitical.  
Now our question is, only of those tithes which we called stipendiary; the rest being two sorts of them apparently ceremonious; the third as plainly a judicial ordinance. And of those tithes stipendiary, this is that we affirm, that by the word of God they belong for ever 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: first grounded on Heb. 7.6.8. He whose descent is not counted from them, received tithes of Abraham; and ver. 8. here men that die receive tithes, but there he receiveth them of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. Compare Gen. 14.20.  
The argument which this scripture affordeth, hath received much disadvantage, by slender collection of many, thus only pressing it; Tithes were paid to Priests before the Levitical law was given: therefore their payment is founded rather on moral then ceremonial law. To which, answer is well given, that by as good inference, sacrificing of beasts may be proved a morality, sith it also was in use before giving of the law by Moses. That we may the better see the force of the Argument here given, 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 now to his purpose; namely to show the excellency of Christ's priesthood above that of Aaron, by avouching him a Priest after th'order of Melchisedec. The conclusion is this: Christ's priesthood is more excellent than that of Levi; or Christ is a greater Priest than any after Aaron's order. The reason principal lieth thus; He that is a Priest after the order of Melchisedec is a greater Priest than the Priests after Aaron. But Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedec, Ergo, etc. The minor hath first his proof, 1. from a testimony of David, cap. 5.20. 2. from that absolute agreement betwixt Melchisedec, & Christ: the parts whereof are these; 1. as Melchisedec was king and Priest of the most high God, so Christ; 2. as Melchisedec king of righteousness and prince of peace, so Christ. 3. as Melchisedec his parents, kindred, beginning, and end of life are not recorded: so Christ, as man, with out father; as God, without mother, kindred, beginning, or end of life. Therefore Christ is truly a Priest after the order of Melchisedec. ver. 1.2.3.  
The mayor remains to be proved and that hath his proof from ver. 4. to 11. the sum whereof is comprised in this principal syllogism. If Melchisedec be greater than Levi, than he that is a Priest after his order as Christ is; is greater than Levi. But Melchisedec is greater than Levi. Ergo, etc. minor proved, greater than Abraham greater than Levi. Melchisedec is greater than Abraham. Ergo then Levi. minor proved: he to whom Abraham paid tithes, of whom he was blessed, is greater than Abraham. But to Melchisedec Abraham paid tithes, & Melchisedec blessed Abraham. Ergo is greater than he, ver. 4.5.6.7.  
A second argument proving the greatness of this Priest above those of Aaron's order, is laid down, ver. 8. A tithe taker i Priest, of whom it's testified that he lives, is greater than a tithe taker that dieth. But the Priest after Milchisedec is a tithe taker of whom it's testified that he liveth; Levits take tithes and die. Ergo the Priest after Melchisedec his order is greater than 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 needs no farther deduction of the Argument; yet that the simplest may see what footing tithes have here thus I collect it.  
The portion due to Christ's priesthood, is due to Ministers of the gospel: but tithes are the portion due to Christ's priesthood. Ergo. The minor is thus proved.  
The portion due to Melchisedec his priesthood, is due to Christ's priesthood; reason, 1. for that Christ's Priesthood and Melchisedec's are the same; or Christ is a Priest after that order: 2. other things enunciated of Melchisedec, are true of Christ eminently and always: as it's eminently and always true of Christ, that he is king of righteousness and prince of peace; eminently and always true of Christ, he is without parents, without beginning and end of life, that he blesseth Abraham and all his seed, etc. All these are more properly verified of Christ then of Melchisedec his type. Why not then also this ever true of him; he taketh tithes?  
Now I assume. But tithes are the portion due to Melchisedec his priesthood, yea ever due to that Priesthood. For 1 they were paid by Abraham to Melchisedec, 2. in the Apostles Logic; a Priest and receiver of tithes are equipollents. In steed of saying men that die are Priests; he saith, men that die receive tithes: in steed of saying he that lives is a Priest; he saith, he that lives takes tithes: as if in his judgement tithes and priesthood were as inseparable as kingdom and tribute.  
Now the mayor 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 the express ordinance of Christ, that Ministers should live of the Gospel; 2. who in likelihood should be his receivers, but these that are in his stead, as it's said of Ministers, 2, Cor. 5.20? 3. Besides 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. 
x Deut. 10, 8.9  God is Levits portion i God's portion is Levits 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 tithing 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 Priesthood after Melchisedec his order, is due to Ministers of the Gospel. But tithes are that portion. Ergo. And thus propounding it, I receive these answers: the proposition seems untrue, except you can prove yourselves Priests after that order. Resp. Whereto I thus answered; that though we be no Priests after that or let yet is there truth in the proposition, sith 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 the assumption is false, Abraham's payment being an act rather voluntary, then by any injunction from God. But contra, that that act of Abraham was no act in this sense voluntary, but rather an act of necessary and enjoined duty, is evident (me thinks) by these reasons. 1. For that gifts voluntary proceeding from bounty or liberality, imply a superiority or excellency in the giver above the receiver. For 
y Act. 20.35.  its a more blessed thing, in that kind, to give then to receive. But Abraham's payment of tithes was testimony of his inferiority. Again the phrase itself 
z Heb. 7.4.6.  implies as much: Melchisedec tithed Abraham, ver. 6. a phrase that looseth all his emphasis if no injunction had subjecteth Abraham to a necessity of being tithed. 3. What mean they when they say of Abraham's tithing, that it was done without law? would they be understood of Abraham's fact only, or of tithing at large as it was in use before the law written? Now sure I wonder how first 
a Gen 14.20.  Abraham, and then after him 
b Gen. 28.22  jacob, should fall upon a tenth rather then a sixth or twelfth part, if there were nothing prescribed in their times for tithing? 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; sith we find no express mandate given of them in those times. But thus me thinks we may better reason from their practice to an injunction; these facts of theirs were approved of God, therefore not done without injunction from him. And of this argument and cleared thereof thus far.  
The second argument hath his ground, Galat. 6.6. 1. Tim, 5.17. Prov. 3.9. where we read thus; Let him that is instructed, make his instructor partaker of all his goods; & elders that rule well are worthy of double honour, especially they that labour in the word and doctrine. And honour 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 every one instructed, and no certain portion to be found in scriptures but tithes: then are tithes 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 the temporal goods of every one instructed, and no other certainty mentioned in scripture but tithes. Ergo tithes 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 unto Ministers for their service. Hereof if any demand proof let him consider these. First, for that the Lord allotted a certainty unto first borne and Levits: & think we it probable he would leave Ministers of the Gospel at random to a competency indeterminate? 2. In other cases this argument goes current. The Lord prescribes for the old Tabernacle all things necessary even to the Bosom and Ashpan; not a pin in the Tabernacle, but what hath his prescript from God. Now surely of this we may say it's not a pin, but even a Clavus Traba●is, one of the master nails in our Tabernacle. And think we his word so sufficient and absolutely exact for all necessary prescripts, yea circumstances concerning worship, government, any thing: and this only, a matter of so great consequence, left unprescribed?  
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 mayst be able to say, I have given the Lord that portion of my goods which he requireth of me? Forsooth the Magistrates determination shall in this point be the levill and rule of faith. Resp. 1. Then must thou be able to show that the Lord hath made Magistrates in this point his Carvers, which is unlikely ut supra: 2, Suppose Magistrates make no provision, where is then the direction for thy faith? 3. Suppose they shall assign Micah his allowance: wilt thou therewith be content? Then sure all our lay persons, our Micahs, have faith well guided, consciences rectified; ten shekels of silver, 
c judg. 17.10.  and a meals meat, and livery, they afford Sir john. In faith think we? surely according to Magistrates provision. And why blame we any more, impropriate persons 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 etc.  
Touching the minor, for the first part see 1. Cor. 9.11. Prov 3.9. Gal. 6.6. in which place ye have it in so many terms. Let him that is instructed, make his instructor partaker of all his goods. For the second branch of it; that no other portion certain is to be found in scripture; I mean which hath not an apparent signification of something peculiar to that state of the people under Levi, as first fruits, share of other sacrifices: will appear to any man, that willbe pleased to enter induction of particulars. And may I not then conclude Tithes are the portion allotted us by the word of God? Yea what if I should say even tithes are in some of these places more than obliquely pointed at? What means the Apostle to call for maintenance unto Ministers under the term of double honour? 
d 1. Tim 5 17.18.  for that by honour he there means maintenance, the reason annexed will make a blind man see. Surely S. Hierome having delivered his judgement of that place, Mal. 3. Bring all my tithes into the storehouse, in these terms Ecclesiae populis praeceptum est dare decimas, allegeth presently this place for proof, 1. Tim. 5.17. Elders must have double honour. Again what means the Apostle by that Epithet (double) honour? say some, double i large and liberal; but why double rather than triple, if he meant large, at large? Doth he not rather in that Epithet send us to consider of that 
e Numb. 8.16.  double portion of the first borne in whose room Levi was assumed? And that which made their portion double, was in part tithes, as shall hereafter at least probably appear unto us. Proceed we to a third reason which is grounded on Levit. 27.28. Prov. 20.25. Rom. 2.22. Mal. 3.8. 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, & after the vow to inquire. And thou which abhorrest Idols, committest thou sacrilege? And ye have rob me. Out of which places thus we reason. The portion which hath been separated from common use, to maintenance of God's worship under the new testament, is the portion allotted by the word of God to Ministers for their service.  
But tithes are the portion, at least part of the portion separate from common use to maintenance of God's worship under the new testament. Ergo etc. The mayor is thus proved; because the detainement or alienating of things so consecrated, is sacrilege. That this may the better appear, it willbe worth the while to consider briefly what sacrilege is: which out of Mr Zanchius Vrsine, and others, we may thus briefly describe: Sacrilege is the taking away of things sacred i deputed to holy uses, or the maintenance of the worship of God. The matter about which this theft is conversant, are things consecrated to God; of which there are two sorts: some which God himself either by reservation, or express mandate, hath hallowed unto himself; some which man hath hallowed and separated from common use. of both read Levit. 27.28.29.30. Now that which makes up the nature of sacrilege, is, the taking away or detaining of things thus hallowed, and returning them to common use. Thus than I reason, the detainement or alienating of any thing separate from common use, is sacrilege. But detainement or alienating of tithes, is the detainement and alienating of things thus separate. Ergo  
To the proposition these answers I have partly read, partly heard in conference. 1. Understand it say some of things which have been consecrate by law. Resp. 1. no word of God forceth to such limitation. For even of voluntary and votary consecrations both Moses, Levit. 27. and Solomon, Prov. 20.25. speak. And was it not free to Ananias to consecrate or not, more than 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, said Peter? 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, ver. 3. and, saith Beza interpreting the word, Ad sacrilegium etiam accessit deffidentia & hypocrisis. see also Centuriat. Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. Ambros. ser. 9 Dum ex eo quod promiserat, partem subtrahit, sacrilegij simul condemnatur & fraudis. Sacrilegij quod Deum in pollicitatione fefellerit: fraudis quod, &c: 2. but grant it with that limitation; we shall anon see, that with that limit we may assume of tithes that they have been consecrated.  
A second restraint some have thus given to the proposition; understand it say they, of alienating things consecrated without error i 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 clarks, we might contend the contrary. Keckerman: 
Syst. Polit. lib. 1. cap. 21.  princeps iure non potest res sacras & bona cultui divino etiam in genere destinata, etiam ea quae superstitioso cultui serviunt, in usum profanum transfer. But grant the limitation: can we not assume thus much of Tithes, that they have been consecrate to maintain pure worship of the true God?  
Thirdly understand it say some, with these exceptions. 1. Except in case of the church's superfluity; & this exception hath this ground; contentment with necessaries is required of Ministers; for Moses cries sufficit at the building of the tabernacle: Resp. What word of God or sound reason gives liberty to alien seeming superfluities of Ministers rather than of other subjects? contentment with necessaries being equally required of all. And Moses stays addition of more; returns or aliens nothing of what was brought by the people, no not though there were an overplus. But secondly grant the proposition with that exception; in what case, in what times may we not with that limit assume of tithes?  
Their second exception is when alienation is necessary for preservation of the Church. Resp. An use of such goods for the time, may perhaps in that case be allowed: perpetual alienation, besides facts of some men, nothing makes probable. The show bread was made common to David & his company in extremity: but might it therefore be perpetually aliened, such necessity ceasing?  
Their last exception, when Princes have no other means to remunerate subjects, faithful in common services. Resp. What, I wonder, in such case lays open Church goods to the will of Princes, rather than 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 Lords portion be transferred to such uses. See Gen. 47.22.  
Thus than the proposition is clear as it was propounded: let us grant it with these limits or so many of them as have any show of reason to support them. And thus conclude. The detainment or alienating of things by law consecrated to pure worship of the true God, without superfluity, any longer than necessity requires is sacrilege. But tithes have been by law consecrated to maintenance of pure worship of the true God, are not superfluous, and now no such necessity of their alienation. Ergo their detainment is sacrilege.  
The fourth reason follows. Whatsoever duty prescribed in the word of God not either ceremonial or judicial, that is undoubtedly of perpetual observation. But payment of tithes is a duty prescribed in the word of God, and is neither ceremonial nor judicial. Ergo of perpetual observation. The proposition I think none will doubt of, sith there is no duty prescribed in the word of God which falls not under some member of this distribution, and only judicials & ceremonies were temporary.  
See we therefore whether our assumption for both parts of the predicate may be avowed. And first that this is no duty ceremonious; these reason's evince. 1. Ceremonial ordinances were all shadows of things to come, the body whereof is Christ. This no shadow of things to come, for where is the body which this shadowed? some, who yet will have it no ceremony but a judicial, frame this ceremonious resemblance. The number of ten is a number of perfection, and by paying in this number, as by a sign, the offerer makes protestation of his own imperfection, & of his expecting perfection in Christ. Pretty too too. Others thus, they were paid in sign of thankfulness; others, in signum universalis Dominij. Twenty such like, a tolerable wit would devise: but can they show us these significations or ends of payment in the Scripture, even but obscurely so much as by allusion intimated? I dare say no, nor any other end, no not of their payment to Levits, but maintenance and recompense for their service.  
2 All ceremonies have an analogical resemblance of the things they signified. Therefore called 
f Col 2.17.  shadows of things to come, because that as the shadow carries though a dark, yet some resemblance of the body whose shadow it is; so ceremonies of Christ: therefore termed also 
g Heb. 9.23. Gal. 4 9  similitudes of heavenly things, being ordained by their very semblances to teach the rude. This hath no Analogical resemblance either of imperfection, or thankfulness, or Gods universal dominion. For who can, I say, not only avow his frame, but even frame it except absurdly? Give us such an analogy of this as we are able to show of others, we will then believe their payment, to have been levitically ceremonious. Of sprinklings and purifyings, of Tabernacle, of Ark, of Propitiatory, of high Priest (and indeed of what not, that was truly a shadow of heavenly things?) we find their analogy in the word of God. For instance, as 
h Heb. 9.7.2.  high Priest amongst the jews alone entered into the holy of holies not without blood: so Christ into heaven, etc. Can those that so confidently avow tithes to have been ceremonies, thus draw out the similitude betwixt them and heavenly things?  
3 Whatsoever ordinance was before levitical law, not foreshadowing Christ, that is no ceremony. But payment of tithes such. 
i Heb. 14 & 28 & Col. 2 Heb. ●. 7. etc.  Ergo. No levitical ceremony may be used after publishing of the Gospel. 
reclamant mundo, libera voce pronuncio ceremonias judaeorum & pernitiosas esse, & mortiferas christianis. Hierom. epist. August. 11●.  (The school men say well, judicialia post Christum be mortua, because they bind not: ceremonialia, mortifera; their very reviving unlawful and deadly.) But payment of tithes, by consent of all, except Brownists, may be retained. Ergo.  
5 I find not that the Lord in prophetical scriptures taxeth so much the omission of ceremonies, or exacteth in so strict terms their performance, as he doth this of tithes 
k Mal. 3 9 . Something I find of their faulty performance; something, of their sticking in them with neglect of moralities: and this to me is a presumption, they were other than ceremonies.  
Lastly I never read Christ speak so much of any Jewish ceremony, as he did of tithes; 
l Mat. 23.  these things ought you to have done. Though I confess, as much might have been said of ceremonies during those times. All these considered, may I not conclude of tithing, it was no ceremony? See we whether perhaps it were a judicial, concerning only the nation of the jews, and founded on equity particular to that people. This is indeed the old tenant of Papists. But 1. say some, Judicials were all of duties from man to man. This ordinance of holy things to be done to God. Therefore not judicial.  
But what, trow we, imagine Papists to be the civil equity of this ordinance, particularly concerning the nation of the Jews? Forsooth saith Bellarmine out of Thomas, the tribe of Levi being but the tenth, or at most the twelfth or thirteenth part of the Jews: tenths must be theirs that equity may be kept, and that tribe have no greater portion than the rest. Resp. 1. But it is well answered that this end of their assignment to Levi, hath no mention in Scripture: they are given to Levi for recompense of this service, as the Lords portion primarily, other end or reason of their assignation we find none. 2. If this were the end of their allotment to Levi: surely the Lord much forgot himself, that besides the tenths of all men's goods, would allot them share in sacrifices and vows, and 48 Cities with Suburbs of so large circuit as we read, Numb. 35.4.7.  
3 Be it granted, that this was some reason of their assignment to Levi: how concludes this the ordinance in general? For the injunction of tithing was as old as Abraham 
l Gen 14.20. , when was no place for partition of God's people by tribes. And if this be all they have to prove them judicials. I shall crave pardon for subscribing to their judgement. Lastly, yield them Judicials: yet if of common equity, if confirmed by positive law, if consenting with law of nature, if serving to uphold moral duties; binds not the ordinance for ever? I conclude therefore, sith neither ceremonial nor judicial, or if judicial, yet of common equity: therefore their payment is perpetually to be observed.  
The last reason (for I had rather give reasons by weight then number) is taken from practice of the church in all times from beginning of the world down to these last days of reformation: ever since God had a ministry in the world, tithes were their maintenance. Before the law, the first borne; then, the ordinary priests, received tithes. 
m Gen. 14.20  For that, that Melchisedec was Shen Noah's eldest son, at least by privilege, if not by birth, few question, none disprove: for the time under the law, is no question. For Apostles times or much of them, the use of tithes, persecution or scandal forced to be intermitted. Yet continued that Ius ever in them, and their inferior Presbyters. And therefore they urge yielding of maintenance, such no doubt in their general aim as was certain by the word of God; such as had been in use: yea plead for portion 
n Gal. 6 6. 1. Tim. 5.17.  of all goods; for double honour. After when God was pleased to grant even but a little rest, & breathing time to the Churches, presently came tithes again to be the Minister's portion. Cyprian whose martyrdom fell into the year of the Lord 259. according to Eusebius his computation, 
Epist. 66.  amongst other goods of the church, more than intimats tithes to have been committed to Bishops as general stewards by whom they were distributed to inferior Ministers. Upon occasion taxing Geminius Victor for appointing Geminius Faustinus a presbyter, overseer of his will, and thereby occasioning distraction from his ministry, sets down by way of aggravation the course established in the Church of God for preventing such distractions in the ministry. As by Gods own authority and disposition, the tribe of Levi received tithes from the other tribes, etc. that they might by no means be called away, or constrained to think or deal with things secular: the same course and order is now holden in the Church,  qui in Ecclesia Domini ordinatione clerica promoventur, in nullo ab administratione divina avocentur, nec molestijs & negotijs secularibus alligentur, sed in honore sportulantium fratrum tanquam decimas ex fructibus accipientes, ab altari & sacrificijs non recedant, sed die ac nocte caelestibus rebus & spiritualibus serviant▪ this mentions Cyprian as a course in his time received in the Church. In the same age a few years after was Dionysius bishop of Rome about the year 266. 
Cant. 3. cap. 10.  This man (as Platina in his life testifieth; and as himself of himself, in his epistle to Severus,) assigned several Churches to several Ministers, as parishes, lest one Pastor might defraud another: 
Gratian caus. 13. q. 1.  the question being then, not whether to any, but unto what church, tithes were to be paid. The conclusion extant at large in the body of the Canon law, with some reasons (both most consonant to his decree;) it will not be amiss briefly to collect; because it is of some use in this matter of tithes. That which is proved there, is, that tithes are payable to the baptismal Churches, and to the Ministers there serving God, and ministering to the people. After many testimonies heaped up together, Gal. 6.6. 1. Cor. 9 at length it is concluded with this expostulation; Quis plantat vineam, etc. who plants a vineyard, & eats not of the fruit thereof? Nos plantavimus vineam, & vos vultis edere? Item praecepit Dominus per Mosem, ut nemo mittat falcem in alienam messem. Haec messis nostra est, & vos vultis falcem in eam mittere? Item Apostolus, they that serve at the altar live of the altar; sed numquid de eo cui non serviunt? Qui in sacrario operantur, cum sacrario participant; sed numquid cum illo in quo non operantur? etc.  
That I may not spend time & paper whiles I do but actum agere: for the next age, read what Hierome hath touching practice of the Church, in his epistle to Nepotian; Ambrose his judgement in ser. quadrages.  
In times succeeding, Chrysost. hom. 18. in Act. August. in Psal. 146. etc.: calling for tithes, and sharply reproving their detainment or spare payment. For Councils, that one Synod called Matisconensis held anno 580; 
Cen●uriat.  the second holden at that city, Can. 5. 
Cent. 6. cap. 9  not only ordains their payment, but showeth the observation of that duty to have been of long standing in the Christian Church. Leges divinae consulentes sacerdotibus ac ministris ecclesiarum pro haereditaria portione, omni populo praeceperunt, decimas fructuum suorum locis sacris praestare, ut nullo labore impediti, per res illegitimas, spiritualibus possint vacare ministerijs. Quas lege. Christianorum congeries longis temporibus custodivit, intemeratas: nunc autem paulatim praevaricatores legum, poene Christiani omnes ostenduntur, dum ea quae divinitus sancita sunt, adimplere negligunt. unde statuimus ac decernimus, ut mos antiquus à fidelibus reparetur, & decimas ecclesiasticis famulantibus ceremonijs populus omnis inferat.  
After this say the Century writers out of Aventine, 
Cent. 8. c. 7. de bonis Eccl.  lib. 3. Annal decimas à profanis occupatas Carolomannus suo edicto restitui jubet. Tithes usurped by seculars, or (as perhaps he names them for their fact) profane persons, Charlemagne by his edict command's to be restored. The same authors out of Crantzius his metropolis, lib. 1. cap. 8. talem statum Carolus magnus, post impositum jugum Christi reliquit in provincia, ut liber esset populus à tributorum iugo, caeterum Ecclesijs & pontificibus iure decimarum obnoxius permaneret.  
To leave foreigners, in England Anno Dom. 786. 
Cent. 8. cap. 9  after account of these writers, was holden a Synod of all states of the kingdoms and the decrees thereof subscribed, by the several kings then reigning; and their assessors, Bishops, Dukes, and Commonalty. In the 17 chapter of which Council thus we read. De Decimis dandis, sicut in lege scriptum est, decimam partem ex omnibus frugibus tuis seu primitijs deferas in domum domini dei tui: rursum per prophetam: adferte, inquit, omnem decimam in horreum meum, ut sit cibus in domo mea; et probate me super hoc, etc. dicit dominus: sicut sapiens ait, nemo iustam Eleemosynam de his quae possidet facere valet, nisi prius separaverit domino, quod à primordio ipse sibi reddere delegavit: ac per hoc plerunque contingit, ut qui decimam non tribuit, ad decimam revertatur. unde etiam cum obtestatione praecipimus, ut omnes studeant, de omnibus quae possident, decimas dare, quia speciale domini dei sui est: & de novem partibus sibi vivat, & Eleemosynas tribuat. More need not be added. How in after times the case of tithes stood amongst us, practise of the Church in this land till the days of Henry the 8, abundantly witnesseth: exorbitancy enough from the primary rule of assignment to parish Churches might be noted; but till those days nothing is found of their whole alienation to seculars.  
As a corollary here let us observe that tithes of England have been by law separate from common use: the inference thence is out of former grounds, that they could never be lawfully alienated. Yes said one once; for eius est tollere, cuius ponere. Resp. Peter was not acquainted with any such mixime in the case of Ananias; 
Syst Polit. lib. 1. cap 21.  and Levit. 27. Things once separated from common use, are forever holy unto the Lord. And hear Keckerman, Princeps iure non potest etc. Things sacred or goods designed, or destined to divine worship, though but in a generality, yea though they serve to superstitious worship, Princes have no right to transfer to common use. If his sentence sway nothing, hear his reason: Res sacrae pertinent ad statum & scopum ●eipub. eminentiorem & perfectiorem, ideo ad inferiorem retrahi non debent. media enim perfectiorem finem respicientia, non debent abusive ad imperfectiorem applicari. And Polanus, 
In Ezec. c. 48. vers. 14.  Res sanctas è quarum numero est possessio Deo sanctificata, neque vendat, neque permutet, neque transferat quisquam. Ratio legi addita est; quia res sanctae non sunt hominum, sed ipsius jehovae, cui dicatae, cui consecratae, 
Epist. 33.  cui sanctificatae sunt etc. Ambrose when one thus presseth him to deliver up the Temple to the Emperor; because all things were his: thus answers; Noli te gravare Imperator, ut putes te in ea quae divina sunt imperiale aliquid ius habere; noli te extollere: sed si vis diutius imperare, esto Deo subditus: scriptum est; quae Dei Deo, quae Caesaris Caesari. But enough of this▪ we have seen the practice of the church in all times, and so their judgement for this duty of tithing; which alone, so long, so generally, on such grounds continued, me thinks proves more for their payment, than any prescription though never so grey headed, or even bald with age, can for their detainement.  
I might add to this continual practice of the Church, the unanimous consent of divines in judgement, from Apostles days downward; till such time as Popish Demi-sacrilege had made seizure of tithes, transferring them from parochial Pastors to the Covents of Drones: then began their Schoolmen to study shifts, whereby to justify the practice of their Synagogue, and after many disputs, resolved of this as best plaster for that sore, that forsooth they were Judicials. I might also adjoin the consenting practice of heathen by light of nature, yea suffrages of sundry late divines; but that this task is sufficiently done by others; and authorities of men even best learned and devoutest, bear little sway in truths so dangerous. This only I desire, that in this question we may contend with reasons, rather than authorities: not that I fear to be overlaid either with weight or number of voices; for the odds in both kinds I dare avow to be with us. But 1. whereto tends committing of divines in fight, except to work distraction in people? And, 2. the saying of Augustine is me thinks judicious; Scripturarum autoritatibus, non quorumque proprijs, sed utrisque communibus testibus, res cum re, causa cum causa, ratio cum ratione concertet. And of the proving part hitherto.  
Let us now proceed to examine such arguments as are brought by the adverse part to disprove this truth; such I mean as seem to have any footing in the word of God. For other, others have fully and often answered them. Thus than some reason. Tithes are not in all the new Testament specified to be the ministers maintenance; so indeed reason's Bellarmine; so Thomas, so Canisius and many others of that rank of honest men. In nova lege, in the new law i in scriptures of the new Testament we find no such precept, Ergo not due to Ministers by the word of God. Resp. Now sure I had thought it had been sufficient to have found them grounded on any part of Scripture not particularly concerning the Church of the jews, because 
o 1. Tim 3.16.  the whole Scripture is given by inspiration from God; and 
p 2. Pet. 1.19.  that word of Prophets (saith Peter) is a most sure word, we shall do well to attend thereto. And therefore hitherto it hath been a maxim amongst divines; A part scripturae non valet argumentum negatiuè. Jts a moral statute given to Magistrates to punish with death, 
q Gen. 9.6.  the shedder of man's blood; yet I find it not specified in all the new Testament: An ordinance irrevocable that the Sabbath be kept with cessation from labours; yet specification of the duty I find not in the new Testament. Sundry the like might be instanced, as by view of that place Ezek. 22 7. ad 12. to every man may appear. Only let me entreat men fearing God, not so far to forget their reverence to the old scriptures, and the spirit that inspired them, as to deny them their share with the new Testament in this honour; of being rule in part of their faith and practice. This age is strangely in love with Epitomees, if faith itself shall be drawn to her compendium; 
Aug. de bono perfect. lib. 2. cap. 11.  But let us beware we fall not into Manicheisme. Christ said of Moses 
r joh. 5.45.  He should judge the jews, so shall he and Prophets judge Christians also, as well as Evangelists and Apostles.  
2 Who can question this truth so clear to all men? so necessary for all that will with Tertullian maintain the fullness of the Scriptures? That scripture teacheth as well what it implies, as what it expresseth. Teacheth it not particulars in generals? Effects or consequents in principles? equals by equivalence? The conclusion is not expressed in scriptures of the new Testament; that precept of Sabbath is not abrogated: yet taught in the new Testament. Sith 
s Mat. 5.17.  no precept of the Decalogue abrogated; Ergo not that of Sabbath. The conclusion not expressed in the new Testament; Infants are to be baptized, yet taught in the new Testament: 
t Act. 2.38.39 Mar. 10.14. 1. Cor. 7.14. Act 10.47.  sith to whom promises, kingdom, covenant, spirit belong, to them baptism. Ergo to infants. These doctrines are all taught in the new Testament, because generals, principles, or equivalents are there taught. And so have we tithes prescribed in the new Testament, ut supra. Yea more than so implicit; as in former reasons hath already appeared. It's by this occasion now in my mind that Tertullian hath in his treaty de spectaculis; where bending himself to dissuade Christians from presence at such profane and barbarous spectacles as were then in use, he thus shapes answer to a reason of this mould: Quorundam fides (saith he) aut simplicior, aut scrupulosior, ab hac abdication spectaculorum de scriptures autoritatem exposcit, & see in incertum constituit, quod non significanter neque nominatim denuncietur servis Dei abstinentia eiusmodi: Some men's faith (saith Tertullian) whether over simple, or over scrupulous, demands our authority from scriptures for this abandoning such sights; and makes itself doubtful because such abstinence is not there expressly and by name enjoined to the servants of God. Whereto he answers; planè nusquam invenimus, etc. It's true, saith that author, we find not in any place, that as it is apertly said, thou shalt not kill, etc. so it's expressly defined, thou shalt not go to the circle or Theatre etc. but we find that general of David to touch this particular; Blessed is he that hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stand in the way of sinners; if in no way of sinners, than not in this: Nam apud spectacula & in via statur, etc. There needs no application.  
Now this argument the same for substance some have urged with this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; In scriptures of the new Testament, where Ministers maintenance is purposely treated of, no mention is to be found of tithes: And that is at least a presumption, their payment is no perpetual ordinance of God. For is it likely the particular would have been concealed? Resp. Perhaps, and but perhaps not; 1 If either state of the times had borne it, or 2. necessity required, or 3. Apostles had been willing to urge the uttermost of right. But considering first the distress of the times, was such, as scarce any could call any thing his own; 2. weighing again how fully the particular was in the old Testament determined; last pondering how loath the Apostles were, to exact right, lest any occasion should be given, to suspect of mercenary or covetous affection in preaching: it was as convenient to omit particularizing the quantity, as to remit the use of all right, as to some Churches some practised.  
2 But yet this I find; they call for 
u 1. Tim. 5.17.  double honour. For 
x 1. Cor. 9.5. ad 14.  maintenance due by law of nature, and nations, and by ordinance of Christ, and that is either tithes, or else no certain particular.  
3 Who will undertake to evidence the particulars of all duties of justice, charity, temperance, even there where he shall find such duties purposely prescribed? Or be so bold (ne quid dicam gravius) as to exclude particularities of these duties from intention of God's spirit because the generals are only handled, upon supposed likelihoods, or presumptions truly presumptuous? Leave we therefore this argument, and see whither the rest have better colour. Bellarmine endeavouring to disprove the morality of this duty, thus reasons; Moral duties have ever bound conscience, even before the law of Moses. But the law of tithes was not till the times of Moses. Ergo. Resp. the proposition we acknowledge. The minor how will he prove? If he shall reason from the scriptures silence; the same may be said of adultery, Idolatry, perjury, almost of what not? 2. We have that which is equivalent to a precept; the approved practice of the Saints of God; yea if Lyra may be credited, an implied precept given to jacob, Gen. 35.1. when he is commanded to build an altar at Bethel according to his vow made, Gen. 28. Look back to what is said in clearing the first Argument, and thereby judge whither the precept of tithing were in those days given, or not.  
His next reason is this, Reason natural teacheth not the payment of tenths to Priests, but only of what is sufficient to their sustentation. Ergo not moral. Resp. neither doth reason direct to keeping a seventh day, but only a separation of some solemn times to God's worship. But who would consult with reason corrupted, & blind since the fall, to determine of moralities? Since all it reacheth unto, even where it hath some help from general grace, are generalities only of moral duties?  
His last reason, Matters of vow are no moralities: tithes were 
y Gen. 28.22.  vowed by jacob: Ergo not commanded. Resp. And are all matters of vow things arbitrary, none moralities? What think ye of that ver. 21. uttered in some vow, and as it were with the same breath of jacob; If the Lord will go with me, and keep me in the way that I shall go, etc. then shall the Lord be my God? Was it a matter Arbitrary to jacob to have the Lord, and him only to be his God? being the substance of the first moral precept? Yet was it vowed by jacob, as we see, on like condition with tithes. More instances might be alleged: but quorsum:  
Proceed we to arguments of our own divines. Tithes say some are originally in kings and civil Magistrates, and it's their Mishpat. i. ius to dispose of them to civil or religious use. For saith the Lord; of Israel's king, Hoc erit ius regis vestri, &c: he shall take tithes, 1. Sam. 8.15. Resp. Is it possible men should advisedly thus reason out of this scripture? 
z Levit. 27.30  The Lord had long ere this declared tithes to be his, 
a Num. 18.24.  assigned them to Levi for his service in the tabernacle: and that under Magistrates civil though not kings. When in his wrath he gives a king to Israel, revoked he his ordinance of tithing to Levi? Who can think it? I stand not to dispute the question, whether the words describe a king, or rather a tyrant. But this I am sure is evident: the Lord there shows the many mischiefs should befall them as a plague for their rejecting the government by himself established, such as should make them cry under the burden of his exaction. A course beseeming an exorbitant tyrant, rather than a regular king. Just: yea but this shallbe his Mishpat. i. his ius ver. 11. Resp. And why his ius rather than his guise? His right rather than his fashion? As most render, and the word oft signify. See 1. Sam. 27.11. was it his ius to take from the people their fields and vineyards, and best olive yards to give to his servants? As is said, ver. 14. How then sinned Achab 
b 1. Reg 21.1, 2, 3.  in coveting the vineyard of Naboth? And desiring to purchase it with money? Yea, why offers he money or deals by way of contract? It was his ius being a king, to take vineyards & fields from subjects to give to his servants: much more to keep for his own benefit and conveniency. 3. Alienation of possessions from tribes and families was flatly forbidden to the jewish people, that Christ's lineage and descent might be kept unconfounded.  
2 But what when it is yielded he had a tus to exact tithes of subjects? Must it needs be understood of tithes of Levits assigned them of God? and not rather of other tithes which he might crave in subsidium? as 
c Gen. 47.24.  fifts were once imposed upon Egyptians. Certainly Ezechias, it seems, thought tithes the Levits due, and therefore amongst other precepts of reformation, 
2. par. 31. 4. 5. 6  requires their payment to Levi, as thinking tithes committed to him (if at all to him) but as Church goods of old were unto Bishops, non ut dominis, but ut oeconomis. And the people bring them to Levites in the name of holy things that were consecrated unto God.  
Apostles received not tithes in their days. Ergo. Resp. That is hard, that I say not, (impossible to prove) 2. not tithes, no nor ought else of some churches, but made their own hands minister to their necessities, that they might not be scandalous to weak brethren, nor chargeable to afflicted churches; 3. yea suffered bonds, reproaches, cruel deaths, etc. must therefore the Churches of all ages receive like measure from her children? 4 The question is de iure non de facto: & that ius was remitted, because burdensome to those times, as circumcision was in the wilderness, joshua. 5.5.6.  
If tithes be thus due to Ministers, why not also first fruits for these also were commanded to be paid to Levits? Resp. To these and all arguments following, this general answer may serve; that we claim not tithes by virtue of the precept given for Levites. Who ever heard us thus reason? God commanded tithes to be paid to Levites: Ergo tithes are due to the Ministers of the Gospel. But thus we claim them; as due to God by reservation from the beginning, as following Christ's priesthood, as the only certainty mentioned in scripture, as consecrated to God by consent of Churches & Edicts of princes, as agreeing with the use and practise of the Church in all times For the mandate of God concerning Levi, we make it not the ground of our title to tithes. So that of these reasons we may say as he, they are Nihil ad Rhombum. Yet that nothing be wanting to any man's satisfaction, I answer, 1. that first fruits were paid to Aaron, 
d Heb. 7 11  as to high priest, whose priesthood is now passed to another; 2. upon a reason particular to that people; 3. for sacrifice, as appears at large, De●. 26. 2. ad 11. appears there any such thing of Tithes? Lastly they were figures as should seem, of Christ, 
e 1 Cor 15.20.  The first fruits of them that sleep; of beginnings of sanctification, called by the Apostle 
f Rom. 8.23.  the first fruits of the spirit. Can any of these be avouched of tithes? Who then sees not manifest disparity between the two?  
If this be a duty of people to pay tithes to Ministers: than that also of Ministers to 
g Num. 18.28.  pay tithes to the high Priest. Resp. The argument proceeds from a false Hypothesis, supposing us to claim tithes by mandate levitical. Which we utterly disclaim, ut supra. 2. But yet farther I answer; It follows not if one, than the other due. 1. For 
h Ps 50 12.13  that our high Priest needs them not: but only hath ordained for them that 
i 1. Cor 9.14.  preach the gospel. 2. Sacrifices are now ceased, to which these Decimae secundaneae chiefly served 
k Num. 18.28 29.30. ; so that their reason is no more but this, If tithes for stipend, than tithes for sacrifice: he is merely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that discerns not the inconsequence.  
If precept of tithing be moral, than that also of 
l Mal. 3 10.  bringing them to one common storehouse. Resp. This argument also proceedeth from like feigned Hypothesis. see supra. & yet hath no good consequence: for must the substance of a duty needs be Levitical, because some circumstances thereof concern only jewish nation? Then must Sabbath also even for substance be ceremonial, because some circumstances & ends belong only to jews Deut. 5.15.  
If precept of tithes be moral, then that also of Ministers not 
m Num. 18.24  having portion amongst their brethren. Resp. The same fallacy that before; for we claim not by precept given to Levi. And yet the argument follows not. 1. for saith Polanus (though I avow not his answer) that ordinance was figurative; 
Polan in Ezech. 44. v. 28.  foreshaddowing Christ that had not where to lay his head. But 2 it was never forbidden Levits to have portion amongst their brethren in that sense that these men take portion. They 
n Numb. 35. Levit. 25.34.  Had cities with their suburbs which were their perpetual possession, and passed from father to son; subject to same laws of Redemption as others. Wherefore jeremy a priests son 
o jer. 32.7.9.  buys the field of his uncle as next of kin. See also 1. King. 2.26. Thus therefore understand that ordinance of Levits having no portion amongst their brethren. No portion, that is, no such portion, separate from their brethren, as had other tribes, not simply none: the Reason thereof was jacobs' prophecy 
p Gen. 49.7.  touching their scattering amongst their brethren. Disposed of also by God's providence for greater conveniency of the people's instruction, as also by situation of their cities in 
q Josh. 21.  every tribe is me thinks probable. Lastly a manifest disparity there is between the two. For the children of Levits succeeded their parents, & were for ever to be maintained by Levits portion. Not so the children of Ministers, except they be 
r 1. Tim. 3. Titus. 1.  approved, & found meet for the ministry.  
Lastly they object the place, Numb. 18.24. unanswerable, as they think, and such as if a man but turn to with a wet finger, he shall presently see tithing a ceremonious ordinance. Now for my part I have viewed the place, and with my best attention considered what may thence be deduced to prove it ceremonial. Yet find not that it concludes either the ordinance in general, or yet that levitical constitution to have been ceremonious, for thus we must frame the Argument. If tithes were assigned to Levi for his service in the tabernacle: then is the ordinance of tithing merely ceremonious; for that service was ceremonial. But tithes were assigned to Levi for his service in the tabernacle. Ergo. Resp. 1. To say nothing that that particular assignment concludes not the ordinance at large, but the ordinance for Levi only: I answer 2. that by as good inference they may prove reverence, obedience, defence of Ministers, ceremonious duties, inasmuch as even these also belonged to Levites for their service in the tabernacle. For why must Israelits give Levites honour, obedience, singular love, &c: but for their work sake? And what was their work? But their service in the tabernacle. So that now our people own us no more honour, obedience, love, etc. 
s 1 Thes. 5 12 13. Heb. 13.17.  for our work sake, as it is prescribed. For these all belonged to Levites for their service in the tabernacle, which was ceremonious. Briefly; they were given to Levites for their service in the tabernacle, non quâ tabernaculi; but quâ service. And therefore before tabernacle erected, they were paid to Priests, Gen. 14. 3. Was the whole service of the tabernacle ceremonious? Nay were not some main parts of it, apparently moral? What think we of teaching the people? 
t 2. Chr. 17.9. Act 15.21. Nehe. 8.3.6.7 8.  of Reading the scriptures, and giving sense? of praising God? Were not these parts of tabernacle service? And had not the Levites maintenance for these, as well as for slaying sacrifices? Surely if this be the best and clearest reasons against tithing, I must needs profess, they are so far from making me doubt of my conclusion, that they rather establish my judgement therein. And these are all the arguments I have yet heard urged by men of any judgement, against the necessity of paying tithes.  
One other only which seculars use, I will annex; & that is drawn from a perilous inconvenience ensuing upon this doctrine. What is it? Forsooth if tithes belong to Ministers & are payable to them only, according to the word of God: it will come to pass, that a Ministers portion shall exceed the allowance of two or three of his wealthiest parishioners. But that, I tell you, is a shrewd inconvenience. Resp. A mischief which I wonder the Lord in his endless wisdom never bethought himself to prevent amongst the Israelits. The Levites, though according to the general division of Israel by tribes, they were but a twelfth or thirteenth part: yet according to exact number of persons reckoned by poles, were scarce the sixtith part of the people. The number of the people without the Levites, amounted to 
u Num. 1.46.  six hundred and three thousands, five hundred & fifty; to which if we add their old men, and all from under twenty years amongst them which came not into the first number, 
x Numb. 1.3.  allowing but double so many for them, they arise to about a thousand thousands and three hundred thousands. Now the Levites numbered from the infant to the old man, were found but two and twenty thousands only, 
y Num. 3 39  and that is not above the sixtith part of the people. Yet see, the Lord allots them the tenth of all the increase of the land: besides share in oblations, 
z Num. 35 4.7  things consecrate by vow, and 48. cities with suburbs of so large circuit, that according to Hieromes measure of the land, exceeded the portion of any other tribe in Israel. It's marvel none would undertake to be the Lords Counsellor, and to tell him such large allowance might make Levites proud and lazy. But this large portion to the Lord seemed no inconvenience: how seems it so to us, in Ministers of the Gospel?  
Again, how falls it, that to other orders & ranks of men, as lawyers, gentles, etc. their portions exceeding by more than fourth's the portions of others, are not maligned; the Ministers of all other should be subject to envy?  
Lastly, how is it, that men in their own, though far larger portion, know no measure, but add continually thousands to hundreds; and (as agar's horseleech) cry, give, give; and as the grave, know no measure of desiring: yet of a ministers stipend, of fifty, or an hundred pounds, cry Sufficit; It's enough, and too much? What, I wonder, is that great service these men perform, so over acceptable to God, or profitable unto men, above the work of a minister? that they should think themselves worthy of all, whatsoever by a vijs & modis they can scrape together; and yet to ministers, for their work sake, hardly beteeme double honour in proportion to the mean wealthy amongst their people. Tempora, Tempora, how are ye turned? But I conclude. Sith Tithes belong to Christ's priesthood, sith no other certainty allotted to Ministers in scriptures, sith detainement is sacrilege, sith tithing no ceremony nor particularly judicial, sith confirmed by consent and practise of the Church in all times, last (which is not the least) sith reasons against it are of so no force, as we have seen: therefore tithes are the portion due to Ministers for their service in the Gospel.  

Conclusion.  What now remains? but to admonish such as fear God, to deliver their souls from the guilt of so fowl a sin as is this of sacrilege. Why hang ye up thieves that steal from men, oft times but as Solomon saith 
a Prov. 6.30.  to satisfy their own souls; and live yourselves in open 
b Mal. 3.8.  robbery of God himself? Far be it from me to multiply sins or to cast unnecessary scruples into the consciences of God's people. But feign I would know for my learning, of such as are so loath in this point to wound consciences (alas, how senseless, and fleshed in sacrilege!) where God hath ever legitimated sacrilege; or made it lawful under the new Testament, to alienate from him things consecrated to his worship: when turned the truth of that sentence into a lie; 
c Prov. 20.25 Rom. 2. Act. 5.1.3.  It is a sin to devour holy things, and after the vow to inquire. Nay the Lord it seems, hath written it in the hearts of Naturalists with the point of a Diamond: howsoever some men's simple or wilful ignorance, or impious profaneness, or insatiable covetousness seems to detain this point of truth, 
d Rom. 1.58.  as many other, in unrighteousness. When Nabuchadnezzar had surprised the temple, & seized the sacred vessels appointed to God's worship: in the midst of sacrilege, he fears to be sacrilegious; and therefore 
e Dan. 1.2.  brings them to the house of his Gods, supposed by him to be the only true Gods. Infinite I might be in propounding the sentences, and censures, that heathen passed upon this point of impiety. And is there any man can doubt whither detainement of tithes be sacrilege, or not? Shape to they self a description of sacrilege with any sound limits determining its nature, and see whither under it falls not the detainement of tithes. I beseech you therefore suffer the words of exhortation: Give Caesar, Caesar's; and God, that which is Gods. Need I, I think, to press it by reasons? Not sure if the belly had ears. But sweet sins, are the dangerous sins, because for the most part incorrigible; begetting in most, either a loathness to be informed, or obfirmation against all persuasions. Yet let us attempt; who knows whither the Lord may be pleased 
f Act 16 14.  to open the heart, if but of one Lydia, to attend to the things which are spoken? Consider therefore, I beseech you, even in the bowels of Christ jesus; first the heinousness of this sin of sacrilege. They err in 
g Zanch. de vitiis exter. Cult. opposite. Thesi 3●  zanchie's judgement, that make sacrilege only a branch of theft, and breach of the eighth precept; yea rather it is a species of irreligion. Hear his reasons. For whence proceeds it; but from contempt of holy things, & manifest unreverence towards God himself? wherefore steals any man things separate to preserve the ministery, but because he contemns the whole Ministry, yea God himself to whose worship they are consecrated?  
And whereunto tends such fraudulent, or violent praying upon holy things: but to the utter overthrow of all religion? Satan knows well, God's outward worship cannot be continued without the ministery, nor the Ministry without Ministers, nor Ministers without Church goods: and therefore provokes he Tyrants and profane men, to invade the Church's possessions, that by that means he may hinder, if not wholly overthrow, the state of religion. To this purpose Zanchius. Shall I add one other reason? The rather because I see men think of this theft, even those that think worst, but as of thefts from men; they rob not God, but Ministers (if any) while they detain tithes, or other things hallowed. Now let them consider, that the dominion, and property of all things hallowed, is Gods, and such consecration gives him seizure of them in see; the use only is the Ministers. 
h Polan. in Ezech. 48.14.  Quae sanctificata sunt Domino, non sunt eorum, quibus data sunt, sed eius, cuius nomine possidentur. Things hallowed to God, are not so much theirs, to whom they are given, as Gods in whose title they are possessed. Therefore (saith the Lord to the Israelites detaining tithes from the Levits) Ye 
i Mal. 3.  have rob not Levi, whose they are in use, but ME, in whom is the property and dominion. Need any more reasons, than the enormity of the sin? Hear then 2 the detestation wherein in all times amongst all men, christians, or heathen, this sin was holden. To omit the bitter invectives every where obvious, consider the punishments appointed for the sacrilegious. 
k Cent. 9 cap. 1.  Charles the great in his time made this decree; that whosoever should invade, or waste, or by any cunning means presume to alienate the goods of the church, he should legally be punished by the judges, as an homicide, or sacrilegious thief, excommunicated by the Bishops, deprived of burial; yea, as if his alms were infectious, or accursed, none must receive it. Amongst the heathen no tortures were thought sufficient for this sin, 
l Lactant. de orig. Error. c. 3  scourge, burnings, rackings, hangings, any thing whatsoever their fury could devise to inflict. 
m Plutarch. de his qui serò a numine puniuntur.  At Delphos they used to cast them headlong from a rock, which they called Hyampeia. The Aethiopians had an herb they called Ophiusa, as of unpleasing aspect, so of far more dangerous effect taken into the body. It so affrighted with phantasms of dreadful serpents, that such as drank it made away themselves. 
n Plin. hist. nat. lib. 26. cap. 17.  Obid (saith Pliny) cogebantur sacrilegi illam bibere; for that cause were church robbers forced to drink it.  
Amongst ourselves, breaking up of churches, & stealing the least trifle, aggravates the theft, & makes the offender culpable of death. If the Philosopher were now alive, would he not laugh at the spectacle? To see the great thieves lead the smaller to the gallows? How is it a sin more heinous, to violate a temple, then to alienate Church maintenance from the worship of God? 3. If none of these move, oh yet let the blood of so many souls perishing by this, if not as a cause, yet as a great occasion, waken us. Many motions I have heard of, made for a learned ministry, that every congregation might have 
o jer. 3.15.  a past or to feed them with knowledge and understanding. For my part I say as 
p Gal. 5.12.  Paul in another case; utinam excindantur; I would they were cut off that hinder it. But amongst all, how is it that the point of maintenance comes not to be consulted? It were to be wished that the Apostolic zeal burned now in Ministers, that rather than souls should starve, they would freely give what they have freely received. But he was 
q Perkins in job. 33. 23.  an holy man that said, men are men, and must be alured by such arguments as may prevail even with flesh and blood. It was Gods great wisdom in the creation, first to provide food, before he made the Animal creatures. And it's ashame to the Church in the days of peace, to see men of best gifts therefore divert their studies to other arts, because the ministry affords not maintenance; for our Church most, where God's allowance is so liberal, were it not that sacrilege did intercept it.  
4 May I not add the mischief temporal it hath brought upon the land? Complaints are frequent amongst our people against enclosures the decayers (they say) of husbandry, by which, saith Solomon, even kings are maintained. I dare say, that peculatus, if I may so term it, hath not been more hurtful this way, then hath this sacrilege. Cornefields were wont to laugh in our gentlemen's now pastures; but tithes seem more compendious to the ground of housekeeping then the toilsome tediousness of tilling the earth. And scarf a great man now adays, though but niggardly hospital, that can keep open doors without a Parsonage. It were well me thinks amongst so many delicates, they would once in their lives eat one morcel of their own bread. Lastly, if these persuade not, yet let that terror of the Lord prevail with us; 
r Prov. 20.25.  It's a curse (saith Solomon) to devour holy things, a cursed practice, that brings down God's vengeance upon the sacrilegious.  
Examples we have seen many, and read of more: even kings themselves have not gone unpunished. The 
s Zech. 5.4.  flying book of God's vengeance, Enter (saith Zecherie) into the house of the thief, and consumes it with the timber, and the stones thereof; leaves scarce a monument where he hath been. Is God thus sharp against petite thefts, and will he leave sacrilege unavenged? Search records divine, human: where findest thou a rob-God without his vengeance? observe these sacrilegious amongst ourselves: it's much if they prosper to the fourth generation; much, (though God be much in sparing) if he either leave not them childless, or their children graceless, by one means or other makes them not vomit those morsels of holy things, that they have devoured. Tithes with lay men, are as the 
t 1. Sam. 5 6.9.11.  Ark with the Philistims, plaguing the unjust possessors, till they return to the right owners.  
Enough I hope of this first sin. And too much perhaps some will say, too full of tartness. Let them remember the calum is thick, and needs a hot Cautery. Yea but it may wound the conscience; utinam. The remedy is at hand. Restituatur ablatum, ut dimittatur peccatum. Howsoever, for my soul, I dare not 
u Isai. 5.20.  speak good of evil, Read Ezech. 13.22.  
2 As to our people, witty, alas, to their own harm, in shifting to detain that little of the Lords portion still left him, I say as 
* 2 Par. 31.4.  Hezechias (I would, I could hope with like success) Give the portion to Priests, and Levits, to Ministers of the Gospel, that they may be encouraged in the law of the Lord. Needs any more reasons then the encouragement of your Ministers. Hear Malachy; Detainment is robbery in the highest degree; sacrilege; 
x Mal. 3 10.  ye have rob me, saith the Lord to with-holders. 2. Robbery detested by Jdolaters; will a man, will an Idolater spoil his Gods? For shame let not Christians spoil their God. 3 
y Levit. 27 30  Tithes are Gods by reservation from the beginning, Ministers are but his receivers. 4. Payment sets open the wondowes of heaven, and brings down a blessing in abundance; 5. Detainement, a curse, yea upon whole kingdoms. That saying of Solomon, let never be forgotten; 
z Prov. 3.9.10  Honour God with thy substance and with the chief of all thine increase: so shall thy barns be filled with abundance; is a blessing annexed to this duty. Will any say it's spoken only for that state of the Church in Israel? Let him peruse the whole book, and instance but in one precept there given of levitical performances, except he will too absurdly instare in proposito.  
More persuasions I will not add: how fear I, that I shall not persuade, no not though I do persuade? Shall I presume to speak of the figleaves, men have sown to themselves to hide their shame? Some thus: To honest able Ministers they think them due; but dishonesty etc. makes uncapable. Resp. With what conscience then detain ye from such whose honesty and ability yourselves will testify? 2 The Levites in Malachi his days 
a Mal. 2.7, 8, 9  had broken the covenant, were become ignorant, partial, contemptible: yet even in those times called the Lord for tithes. 3. What law of God, or man, permits to private men detainment of dues even from the dishonest. 
b Mat. 22.  To wicked Magistrates tribute must be paid. 4. Tithes are due to Ministers, not quâ probi; but quâ ministri: not for their honesty; but for their ministery.  
As to those other objections, of customs, 
Vae tibi flumen moris humanit quamdiu non siccaberis? Aug. confess.  prescriptions, exemptions etc. I say no more, but what the Apostle in this case; 
c Gal. 6.7.  God is not mocked. A pretty mocke-God answer it will be, at that great day when thou shalt stand before the great Proprietary to be examined, how faithfully thou hast given Tithes according to his assignment; to tell him: for matter of tithing, thou hadst a custom to the contrary. Dally not with conscience, deceive not thyself, God sure will not thus be deluded.  
Thus far of this question at your request; to whom undeserved kindness hath engaged me so far, as my weak abilities can extend themselves. Of this tract thus think; The Author thinketh himself a man, & therefore subject to error. Yet would feign so carry himself, as to deserve of God's Church the esteem of an honest man, and therefore no lover of errors; much less a Patron of them against his knowledge and conscience.  
FINIS.