TITHES Examined and Proved to be due to the Clergy by a divine right. Whereby the contentious and profane Atheists as also the dissembling Hypocrites of this age, may learn to honour the Ministers and not to defraud them, and to Rob the Church. The Contents hereof is set down in the Page next following. Written by George Carleton Bachelor in Divinity. Printed at London by T. Este, for Clement Knight dwelling in Paul's Churchyard at the sign of the Holy Lamb, 1606. The contents of this Book. CHAP. FOLLY. 1 The state of the question is set down, and the truth confirmed. 1 2 How Tithes stood before the Law. b 4. 3 How Tithes stood under the Law. Where it is proved that then this constitution of tithes was neither ceremonial nor judicial, but moral. 11 4 How Tithes stood in the time of the new Testament. 21 5 How Tithes stood in the ages of the Church after the Apostles, wherein the point in question is confirmed by the testimony of Fathers without contradiction, until Antichrist by usurped authority disordered the Church. 24 6 The objections answered, and the point in question confirmed. 35 To the most Reverend Father in God, my very good Lord, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury his Grace, Primate and Metropolitan of all England, and one of his majesties most Honourable Privy Counsel. Such hath been the prejudice of the times (most revered Father in God) not in this age only, but in many ages of the world heretofore: that many truths have lain either neglected, as covered in the dust, or oppressed by the countenance and multitude of such as commonly are ready to condemn the thing, which they will not vouchsafe to understand. The fear of which censures hath moved me to suppress for a long time, that which I had written of this question. In which purpose I should still have continued, if the reasons of other had not more prevailed with me than mine own opinion. Being therefore persuaded of your graces favourable acceptance, I have presumed to offer this as a pledge of my duty, which as it was intended for the service of the Church, so to whom may it more worthily be offered then to him, who as in place, so in care and resolution sitteth to advance the good estate of the Church. In offering hereof my case is strange and singular, for I must do it with protestation, that I am far off from thinking that the thing for which I plead will or can be effected, only the opinion which many have conceived of your Grace's wisdom and courage, for the advancement of the Churches oppressed estate, doth encourage me also to think that by your Graces care the oppressions of the Church may be mollified, if not removed: that the malice of injurious customs and prescriptions against the Church may be abated: that the use of impropriating may now at least be stayed from proceeding to any further greavance of the Church. In which service of the Church, as you shall hereafter leave a memorable name to yourself: so in the mean time you shall stir up the prayers of many for your preservation and continuance for the good of the Church of God, who with his plentiful graces bless and direct your ways to his glory and the comfort of his Church, through jesus Christ. Your Graces in duty and in the service of the Church to be commanded. George Carleton. To the Reader. seeing we are fallen into these last times, times dangerous and filled with much evil, wherein the furtherances of piety do daily decrease, and the Church herself even with that small portion which she hath left, is become an usual pray, either to the profane Atheist, that will violently rob her, or to the cunning hippocrite that under pretence of long prayers will devour God's house: I thought it fit to recommend this learned treatise to the indifferent reader, that men of place in the common wealth, endued with knowledge to support the truth, may make a conscience to assist the clergy for obtaining their own right, least under colour of some vain title or pretence of custom, the Lord himself complain both against them and us, that his house is a house of prayer, and we have made it a den of thieves. Our land, I confess, is fair and blessed like the kingdom of Canaan, but many of the people are like the Anakims, that eat up the clergy thereof: and though josias were a good king, yet the times were evil, and a punishment Numb. 13. 33. of the former sins reserved in God's justice to the 2. King. 22. 20. days that followed. And howsoever we cannot with josua Spelunca latronum. jos. 10. 23. find kings in this cave, yet I fear me, we may fetch out more than five times five of our great families made richer by the spoils of the Church, who have either come in dissemblingly like Icroboams wife, or boldly like Pharo to the Israelites, 1. Kings. 14. saying of the clergy, this people is stronger than we are, come let us work wisely with them, lest they multiply, Exod. 1. 9 10. and without a witness, the leprosy of Gehezie sticketh so fast unto their families, as many of our most ancient houses, I am persuaded, have been ruinated by this means, for the Church living dealeth as the ark with Dagon, 1. Sam. 5. casteth that down which they had of their own. If some of them dealt but as David with Saul, cut off the lap of our garment it were well (yet I would wish them to have remorse 1. Sam 24. 5. for it) but to use the Clergy as the king of the children of Ammon did the messengers of David (who shaved of half 2. Sam. 10. 4. of their beards, & cut off their garments in the middle) it is a contempt which the Lord will not suffer to escape unpunished. Now I doubt not but the diligent perusing of this treatise shall so persuade the consciences of all that are not already forestalled by some great sins, that tithes are the Lords Psal. 50. portion, holy to himself, that this portion he hath given to his ministers that serve at the Altar, and so consequently that they may not safely detain that from the Clergy which belongs unto them, but rather make restitution with all humility, and desire the Lord with penitent hearts to receive at our hands the tenth part, which in a peculiar manner holily is his own portion (for by another right, the cattle are his, Psal. 50. that are on a thousand hills) that so in mercy he may bless unto us, the nine parts that remain of all our substance, this fruit if it shall bring unto thee that readest, and rest and peace to the poor Clergy, that are torn with contentions for their own right, we shall have just cause to rejoice for thy good, and be ready to recommend our further pains to though blessing of thy prayers, and the benefit of this Church. Lambeth. janu. 4. 1606. WILLIAM COVELL. CHAP. I. The state of the question is set down, and the truth confirmed. COncerning Tithes (so far as I could learn) there have been 1. three opinions: First, that Tithes are mere alms, and that the Ministers of the word have right to nothing, but should live in high poverty. This opinion seemeth first to be brought by those who were called Waldenses, upon the abuse of Tithes, which they saw under the Church of Rome. It is recorded an opinion of theirs, by a writer whose name is not expressed, in the last aedition of Catalogus testium veritatis, tom. 2. lib. 15. This opinion john Wiclif and his scholars received from them, as he received matters of greater importance. It is recorded the opinion of john Wiclif by one Lib. 2. doct. fid. art. 3. cap. 64. Thomas Waldensis. And among those articles of john Wiclif condemned by the counsel of constance, this is one, Art. 18. Wiclives Scholars held the same: john Hus a Bohemian, William Thorp an Englishman, as appeareth by their examinations, recorded by master Fox. The same opinion hath been since taught by Anabaptists, and Trinitaries, as may be seen in a book, de antithesibus veri & falsi Christi. Anno Dom. 1568. Albae juliae. The second opinion is, that Tithes are not due by God's law, that is, a determinate quantity is not prescribed 2 in the word, but only as these men say, a reasonable or competent maintenance is enjoined. This is the opinion of them of the Church of Rome, as Bellarmin declareth, Tom. 1. contr. 5 lib. 1. cap. 25. the same is much received among our latter writers of the reformed Churches, which only show of a general approbation in this opinion, hath forced me many times, I confess, to lay aside my pen, thinking it much more safe to err with this approbation, then to strive for the truth against such a stream of gainsayer. For I will not think that of our men who have laboured in reformed Churches, which others might say, that they have denied Tithes to be due to the Church, upon a detestation of popery, wherein tithes were so much abused: but this I think, that they intending greater points of doctrine, suffered this to lie less regarded, and in a manner forgotten, as a thing not altogether so necessary, as those other points wherein they made especial choice to labour. Then the reverend regard of their names, their persons, their labours being removed from this question, we take this opinion unsound, and of less probability than the former. The third is, that tithes are due to the Ministers of the Church, by the express word of God. This is the judgement 3. of the ancient fathers, from the beginning without cross or contradiction, until the supreme authority of the bishop of Rome took them away by the means of impropriations. This is the conclusion which we purpose here, God willing, to confirm: First we will refute the two former opinions: then open the story of Tithes, and confirm the point in question: last we will answer objections. The first opinion that tithes are alms, implieth also those several branches which Bellarmine for enlarging The first opinion refuted. controversies, maketh several questions, or questionable errors. That they are not to be paid to evil Ministers, and that all ministers must resolve to live in high poverty, as it was termed. This opinion is thus overthrown by the words of the Apostle: Who goeth to warfare at any time at his own cost? who planteth a vineyard and eateth 1. Cor. ●. not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock? The reason stands thus, if he that goeth to warfare may of duty challenge his wages of the people for whom he fighteth, or he that planteth a vineyard may of duty challenge to eat thereof, or he who feedeth a flock may of duty challenge to eat of the milk of the flock: then the Minister fight for the people against their spiritual adversaries, planting a vineyard among them, feeding a flock in feeding them, may challenge of duty his relief, not beg it as alms: but the first is true; therefore the second. Out of which reason of the Apostle drawn from these examples, it appeareth farther, that by the law of nature the teachers are provided for, because by the law of nature he who goeth to warfare must be provided for, by them who set him to that service: by the law of nature he who planteth a vineyard eateth of the fruit: by the same law he who feedeth a flock eateth of the milk. If it be said, that alms are also to be given by the law of nature, for answer we must observe this distinction between alms, and that thing for which the Apostle here pleadeth. If alms be not given it is a breach of charity: but if this be denied, of which the Apostle speaketh, it is a breach of justice. For as it is injustice to deny wages to him whom you appoint to fight for you, or to debar a man from the fruit of that vineyard which he planteth, or to deny him the milk of a flock which he feedeth: so is it in like manner injustice to deny the Minister that maintenance for which the Apostle pleadeth. Now if it be injustice to deny the ministers maintenance, than he hath a right and part in the goods of those whom he teacheth, for justice giveth to every man his own, and not one man's right to another: whereby it is evident that the Minister hath a part and right in their goods whom he teacheth: Now to take this is not to take alms but to take his own So then by this reason alms are assuredly overthrown, because alms are not of duty and justice to be challenged, as these things are: therefore the Ministers maintenance standeth not by alms but by justice; as the soldiers wages stand not by alms but by justice; as by justice not by alms a man may eat the fruit of a vineyard which he planteth, or of the milk of his flock. The same is confirmed by those words, The labourer Luke 10. 7. 1. Tim. 5. 8. is worthy of his wages: No man saith, the beggar is worthy of alms. Now he that saith, the labourer is worthy of his wages, saith that of justice he may challenge it, not beg it as alms; for in as much as it is wages it is due by justice, but no alms are due by justice, for so should we take away all difference between justice and charity: therefore if alms, no wages: if wages, no alms. The second opinion faith, not tithes, but a competent The second opinion refuted maintenance is due by God's law, and this is urged to be most agreeable to the Apostles times, the words are only altered, otherwise this is the same with the former that saith, that tithes are mere alms; for this opinion bringeth in with it these consequences: first, that tithes, as tithes, are alms; for he that denieth that they are to be paid of duty and justice, proveth them alms: secondly, that ministers may not claim any thing out of God's word, and this also proveth alms. For he that saith to his parishoner, tithes I cannot claim, and therefore no certain thing out of the word, yet somewhat in conscience you should contribute unto me, what doth he else, but leave it to the choice of him to give what he list? and what is this but alms? If it be said, the people may agree to give a certain stipend, yet this is no otherwise then as they may agree to give alms. If any object that the Prince or Magistrate may appoint a certain competent maintenance, as this indeed is the common hold; I would have it noted that they who urge this, forsake the question which they pretend to decide, for this opinion of a competent maintenance is holden as agreeable to the Apostles times: but when they refer the matter to Princes, this is no way agreeable to those times. For it will never be proved that either then, or at any other time, princes did take order for this competent maintenance. Then this fancy of a competent maintenance, we reject for these reasons: first, it is not written or commanded in any scripture, therefore we have nothing to do with it. Let them who maintain it, show scripture for it, and we yield. Secondly, it can not by any deduction be drawn from scripture, therefore it may not be received, for those reasons that are brought in to prove it, as that the Lord hath ordained that they who preach the gospel should live of the gospel, and such like: these I say, do only prove the ordinary maintenance of the ministry, for they speak of the Lords ordinance. Now the ordinary maintenance of the Ministers, is a perpetual ordinance, which either hath always been used, or aught always to be used in the Church. But certain it is, that this competency is not the ordinary maintenance. Thirdly, this competency was never in use from the beginning of the world to this day. Now it is absurd to say that it is the ordinary maintenance of Ministers, which never was in use in any age. Fourthly, it crosseth the use of the Apostles times, because this competency is at the civil magistrates appointment, that use was not, this must be gotten by compulsion, that was not, this is not alms in their opinion who maintain it, that was. Of the Apostolic times, we shall consider in due place: now we reason thus. That which never was in use at any time in the Church, ought not to be held the ordinary maintenance for Ministers: but this competent maintenance was never in use. For before the law, tithes were paid by the patriarchs to the priests: under the law tithes were appointed to the Levites and Priests: in the Apostles times there was nothing but alms, as will appear when we speak of those times. After the Apostles times, tithes were in use again, this competency never had place in the Church. And even there where tithes are taken away from the Church, and put in lay men's hands: yet there is no competency established to supply that which was taken away: the Scripture commands it not, no Prince hath at any time ordained it, it never was, and therefore as we may well think never will be. Now to make the ministers ordinary maintenance (for that is it we seek here) to stand in such a thing as never was, and by likelihood never will be, seemeth much unreasonable, and therefore because it standeth with much better reason to deny this opinion, then to hold all the absurdities depending upon it, following the best reason we think it necessary to hold, that the ordinary maintenance of Ministers ought not to stand in this uncertain competency, which is only a devise in the brains of some men, and never came into practice in the Church. Again the Ministers maintenance must be and is generally acknowledged a moral constitution, but that this competency is no moral constitution it appeareth, because every moral duty ought always to be done, and sometimes hath-ben done by the godly; but this competency ought not always to stand, and will hardly be proved to have been done at any time, therefore surely not moral. Now in tithes it is far otherwise for we will show, they ought always to be observed, and even then when they were not paid, yet stood they always the ordinary maintenance. Moreover to maintain ministers is a service of God, but all the parts of the service of God are delivered in the word, therefore this competency must either be showed out of God's word, or taken for man's ordinance, and not Gods. Further in this competency many, I take it, are deceived, for every man will take upon him to define a competent maintenance: and that they call competent, which they think (as men dividing their alms) may suffice a minister. But the scriptures speaking much of this maintenance, do never term it a competency, or that which sparing men in their saving humour may call sufficient; but an honourable maintenance, and sometimes double honour. Now there would be found a great difference between that which the scriptures calls an honourable maintenance, and that which men distributing their alms do commonly account sufficient. Then this competency must either be ordained of God, or by man: if by God, it is tithes, for no other maintenance ordained by God can be showed: if by man, than it is not God's ordinance; now we seek God's ordinance, what God hath ordained for ministers, not what man appointeth. If any man say, it may be man's ordinance, and yet allowed by God, or that God ordaineth the general, but man appointeth the particular manner: we must entreat him to show us where God alloweth man either to make such an ordinance, or to change the parliculer which God hath ordained, seeing the Lord himself hath once ordained a maintenance, that must stand, until it can be showed that God hath given liberty to man to change it. here it must be well remembered, that to maintain ministers is a part of the worship of God, for thus jacob did worship God. Gen. 28. 22. And therefore if the maintenance be withdrawn, God is robbed saith Malach. 3. 8. God is moccked saith Paul Gal. 6. 6. 7. for of God's ordinances some are civil and do not immediately touch the worship of God: some are holy, which touch the worship of God immediately: when we speak of this ordinance, it may not be confounded with civil ordinances, for Magistrates are God's ordinance, but civil: in such civil ordinances, the particular manner thereof is left to man. But in God's holy ordinances, such I say as belong to the immediate worship of God, it is otherwise: for in such things man's inventions have no place, than they who say the general ordinance is Gods, but the particular manner thereof may be from man, do by consequence hold the Minister's maintenance to be a civil ordinance, not holy, which opinion I suppose no man of knowledge and learning will defend. But if we once leave this opinion, and confess directly that the Minister's maintenance is no civil ordinance, but holy, belonging to the moral immediate worship of God, then must it needs follow that man hath no authority therein, to invent or devise any particular manner, but must take it as it is appointed by God. Then if it must be granted, that one of these three is Gods ordinance, alms, this competency, or tithes: It is certain, first that alms in this point, and for this use are not ordained by God: it is no less certain that this competency is not God's ordinance, because God no where appointeth it, the Church never used it: where upon it followeth that for the maintenance of the ministry, there is no other ordinance, than tithes. CHAP. II. How Tithes stood before the Law. FOR the better satisfaction to the reader, and service to the truth, the labour would not seem unprofitable, if we drew as it were the story of this question along from the beginning to this time, which thing cannot be done exactly, because this matter is not remembered exactly by the ancients, and we must not so much stand upon narration, as upon disputation: but out of such remembrances as I could light on, I thought good to observe how men of all ages have thought of this point, that when it appeareth that the opinions which I reject are altogether new, and without any testimony or show of antiquity, men may be entreated more indifferently to think of the matter, at least I may seem not unworthy of pardon, if I err in this point, when it shall be seen that I follow not only the reasons which seem best, but all antiquity, none contradicting till of late years. For order's sake we will first consider how this stood before the law, then how under the Law, afterward how in the Apostles times, and somewhat after. Last of all, how in the time of the fathers. Before the law was given, we find tithes used by the Godly, as a part of God's service. First, we will show that by the law of nature, every man was bound to give something to God, of those temporal blessings which God giveth, than it shall appear that this (somewhat) was turned into tithes. Gen. 4. It is thus written. Cain brought an oblation to Gen. 4. 3. the Lord, of the fruit of the ground. Abel also brought 4 of the firstlings of his sheep, and of the fat of them, and the Lord had respect to Abel, and his offering, but unto Cain & to his offering he had no regard. It is expressly noted 5 in the text, that Abel offered the best of his flock, de primogenitis, & pinguissimis, the first, fairest, and fattest, which showed the sincerity of his heart. In Cain no such thing is noted, but the contrary understood, whether Cain did offer the tenth of the profit of his ground, and Abel the tenth of his sheep, that question I move not here, there is nothing expressly either for it, or against it: but out of these words this I observe. First, that to offer to God of such goods as God doth bless men withal, was from the beginning accounted a part of the service of God, for Cain and Abel both offered, knowing it was looked for at their hands. Secondly, it is hence manifest that they who offer their goods to God, may not offer the worst, and serve God like S. Antony his pig, with that which they make least account of: but they who serve not God with the best of their goods, are found to be followers of Cain. Thirdly, it appeareth also, that if there were not, neither ever had been any ministery ordained, yet notwithstanding men should have stood bound to offer of the best of their goods to God, for this offering seemeth to have been, before a ministry was established. If any shall contend herein, that these offerings were not tithes, I strive not, though with fair probability I might, but thus much appeareth: that by the law of nature presently after the creation, men did think in conscience themselves bound to give the best of their goods to God, as knowing that this was the will of God. It is likewise to be noted that God who from the beginning, as here we see, hath a right in every man's goods, may dispose his own right as it best pleaseth him: but in disposing this his right to his ministers, he disposeth and giveth it by the name of tithes. And this is that right which we seek out, not what man bestoweth, but what God giveth to his Church out of his own right, which right of the Lord in every man's goods, is declared here in the beginning, and the same right of the Lord in every man's goods remaineth unto the end of the world. This right which the Lord hath in every man's goods, himself nameth tithes, and who knoweth it better than he? When a man would offer this right to God, who knoweth how to offer him his own? who knoweth how to keep such a rule in this action, as to assure himself that the thing which he offereth is the Lord's part, as being neither more nor less than that which God hath manifested to be his own part. It followeth therefore that in offering to God this right, men must either offer tithes or else what themselves list, not what God prescribeth. Now these offerings whatsoever they were, were offered as tithes, and whosoever offered in this sort afterward, offered tithes, because God had manifested that the right which from the beginning he hath in every man's goods, is tithes. And therefore as soon as it can be showed that there was a Priest, then will it also appear that tithes were paid unto the Priest of the Lord. Now in the 14. of Gen. there is express mention of the Priest of the most high God, and withal express mention of tithes paid unto him: the words are these, And Melchisedech king of Salem brought forth bread and wine, and he was a Priest of the most high God, and he Gen. 14. 18. blessed Abraham etc. And Abraham gave him tithes of all. And unto these words that which the Apostle observeth Heb. 7. where he proveth two things: first the greatness of Christ's priesthood above the Levitical; this he proveth because Melchisedech did bless Abraham, for without all doubt the less is blessed of the greater: Then he Verse. 7. proveth not only the greatness, but the perpetual and unchangeable estate of Christ's priesthood, wherein it differed also from the priesthood of Levy. This he proveth in Melchisedech, and by him in Christ, because Levy in Abraham, paid tithes to Christ in Melchisedech, for (saith the Apostle) here men that die receive tithes, but Verse. 8. there he receiveth them of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. Out of these words we draw these observations. First, that under the law of nature, tithes were to be paid to the priest of the most high God, for these things are expressly delivered that Melchisedech was priest of the most high God, & that Abraham gave him tithes of all. Secondly, that this practice of the patriarchs is commended by the Apostle in the new Testament, which showeth that is no will-worship devised by them, but warranted from God, therefore we conclude, it was undoubtedly ordained by God, albeit the time and first institution hereof be not exactly declared, yet that it was ordained of God it appeareth aswell by that which we have said, because that right which from the beginning God hath in every man's goods, is declared by the practice of the patriarchs to be tithes: as also because Leuit. 27 it is said, tithes are the Lords, holy to the Lord, which words are not Levitical or ceremonial, as hereafter shall appear, but declare, that tithes were the Lords always, and that the Lord even from the beginning hath thus declared what part he hath in every man's goods. And upon this ground and reason the patriarchs paid tithes before the law. Thirdly, we note that ordinarily the priesthood (before the law given) was annexed to the eldest of the house, the first borne, as here to Melchisedech, which is thought to be Sem, the eldest son of Noah, as Lyra noteth, and the years agree: For Sem being an hundred years old, begat. Arphaxad, two years after the flood, and lived after that, 500 years. Gen. 11. 11. the end of which 500 years, falleth in the 50. year of Isaac his age, ten years before the birth of jacob and Esau. The Lord afterward took the Levites to his service, in place of the first borne. Num. 8. 16. this ordinary course was sometimes broken, and the birth right went from the eldest to another, yet thus much was always without change, the Priesthood did follow the birth right, and tithes the priesthood. Fourthly, Levy payeth tithes in Abraham, whereby it appeareth that to pay tithes is not a ceremony, for if it were, than should not Levy be noted heat for paying tithes, that thing cannot be a Levitical ceremony, which is contrary to the Levitical ordinances: but that Levy should pay tithes is contrary to the Levitical ordinances, which ordain that tithes should be paid to Levy. Now because it is against the ceremonies of the law, that Levy should pay tithes, therefore when Levy payeth tithes, he payeth them not as a ceremony of the law. Fiftly, we observe that before the law tithes were paid to Christ, so saith the Apostle, Heb. 7. 8. here men that die receive tithes, but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he lived. In which words the Apostle proveth, that in Melchisedech Christ received tithes. Now if tithes were paid to Christ before the Law, what reason may be brought why they should not likewise be paid unto Christ after the law ceased. Again, tithes paid to Melchisedech are here brought by the Apostle, as a reason to prove the perpetuity of Christ's priesthood, therefore tithes must be paid as long as Christ's priesthood standeth. Let the reason of the Apostle be considered: men that die receive tithes here, the Levitical tithes are but for a time, but when Levy himself payeth tithes (as before the law it was, and after the law it must be) then are they given to him of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. Then from these words of the Apostle there is a difference observed, between tithes as paid to Levy, and as to Christ: as to Levy they stood for Levy his time, but tithes die not with Levy: for they are still to be paid to him of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. Sixtly, hence we understand the manner and reason of paying tithes to Levy, for tithes are the Lords, as a right in every man's goods from the beginning to the end of the world. All tithes are the Lords, holy to the Lord, Leuit. 27. 30. he gave them for a time to Levy, so long as Levy should serve the tabernacle and no longer, when Levy ceased to minister at the Altar then tithes ceased to be due to Levy, but tithes than ceased not to be the Lords, for as they were his before the law, so they stand his for ever; because the Lord can never lose that right which at the beginning he had in the goods of every man. seventhly, whereas a question may be moved, whether the tithes which Abraham is said here to pay to Melchisedech, were tithes of the spoils (as some think they were) or of his own goods: I think the opinion and reason of the most judicious interpreter is here to john caluin, be followed, that Abraham paid tithes, not of the spoils, but of his own goods, because Abraham would not practise his liberality of other men's goods, but of his own. And in the text it is said, that Abraham had lift up his hand to the most high God possessor of heaven and earth, that he would not take so much as a thread or a shoe latchet of that which was taken, which he yielded to the king of Sodom, providing only to Aner, Escol, and Mamre their portions. It is then more than probable that he paid no tithes of the spoils, seeing he would not account any part thereof his own. Eightly, if Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedech of his own goods, the question may be moved, whether he paid them yearly or no? To which question in direct words we have no answer, and therefore we may be content to be ignorant where the scripture teacheth not, but in probability it seemeth he paid yearly, because they were yearly paid under the law; for tithes were not first instituted to be paid under the law, but before, and the same reason was before, which was under the law, for the priest, to whom (as Lyra speaking from these scriptures, saith tithes were due before the law) was no less yearly to be honoured then afterward; and they who lived before the law had as much reason to show their gratitude and obedience to God, as afterward. Neither could the distance of place be any hindrance in this matter, for Abraham dwelled at Hebron over against Sodom, and Metchisedech at Salem, which in the judgement of josephus is Jerusalem, both in the tribe of juda, not far a sunder. Ninthly, whereas against this, it may be objected out of the words of the Apostle, Heb. 7. 4. that Abraham gave to Melchisedech tithes of the spoils, for answer we must call that translation in some question which translateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoils, some learned men of late translate it so, but it was not so understood in former times. jerom. translateth it; de praeciputs, If it might be plainly showed, that the word in the use of good authors is taken for spoils, than we might make less question here. In the mean time we may doubt. It is commonly taken of the authors of the Greek tongue for primitiae, and sometimes pro primitijs manubiarum, but simply for spoils, not that we know, the Seriac translation taking the word in his usual sense, hath thus: To whom the patriarch Abraham gave tithes and first fruits. Isidorus saith, Abraham decimas substantiae post benedictionem dedit Melchisedech, sicut sucerdotibus benedicentibus sibi populus secundum legem decimas dabat. Lyra saith, Abraham dedit decimas ipsi. Melchisedech cui debebantur tanquam sacerdoti. Tenthly, admit (last of all) that Abraham gave tithes of the spoils (which thing we cannot yield without better proofs than we have yet seen) this is so far from crossing the right of tithes, that rather it confirmeth all more fully, for if Abraham gave tithes of the spoils, much more than of his own goods, the whole course of the Apostle his speech proveth no less, for how can any man's conceit be satisfied with the tithes of the spoils only, considering the Apostle speaketh so much of Abraham his paying tithes, insisting so long in it, drawing an argument of such weight from it: he whose kindred is not counted among them, received tithes of Abraham, ver. 6. here men that die receive tithes, but there he receiveth them of whom &c. ver. 8. Levy also which receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham, ver. 9 If there were no other tithes given by Abraham to Melchisedech, but of those spoils only, why is this compared with Levitical tithes, which were paid yearly? would the Apostle use this manner of speech of one only action, unless it showed the common use and practise how tithes were then paid to the priest, as by common use and practise they were afterward paid to the Lenites. By this than it appeareth out of the story of Melchisedech that tithes were, and are to be paid to Christ always, aswell after as before the law. Let us consider the next testimony we find in story before the law: the next is Gen. 28. where jacob voweth to pay tithes of all that God will give him, the words are these: Then jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will keep Gen. 28. 20. me in this journey which I go, and will give me bread to eat, and clothes to put on, so that I come again to my father's 21. house in safety, then shall the Lord be my God. And this stone which I have set up as a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all 22. that which thou shalt give me, I will give the tenth to thee. Out of these words it appeareth that it was the general opinion of the godly before the law given, that tithes ought to be given to God, for otherwise jacob did offend, unless he knew that this thing pleased God, as being appointed by him. But because Abulensis out of this place would prove tithes not to belong to the law of nature, that matter would be examined: his reason is, because jacob vowed tithes; now a vow, saith he, is not of those things which belong to the law of nature. But Abulensis himself perceiving that this proposition is not true generally, frameth an objection against himself, that by removing the objection be might the better settle that which he taketh to be the truth: his objection is, that a man may vow that which belongeth to the law of nature; as not to commit adultery, which objection he answereth thus: a man may not vow such things with condition, but absolutely. Now saith he, jacob vowed tithes with condition, therefore they are not such things as are contained in the law of nature. Beauties' words are much more peremptory: impium To. 1. Con. 5. lib. 1. ca 25. fuisset vovere decimas, si absoluté fuisset obligatus eas solvere. These words indeed being examined by the popish doctrine of vows, may stand as a gloes fit enough for a corrupt text, but being axamined by the truth of God, they shall find no place to stand in. First, where Abulensis saith, a man may not vow a thing belonging to the law of nature conditionally, it appeareth to be false, because as himself yieldeth, a man may vow not to commit adultery, so he must yield that a man may likewise vow to honour his parents, if God will prolong their lives, this is conditional and no less lawful than the other, and he that maketh it, can keep it only conditionally, so long as God will suffer his parents to live, if they die, he is freed from the possibility of performing his vow: so he that voweth tithes, can vow them no other way, but conditionally, if God will bless him with goods, as jacob doth, for it he have nothing, he is freed from the possibility of performing his vow. Other objections of Abulensis shall be answered in their place. Though the objection be answered, yet somewhat may happily stick in the mind of the reader, and we as seeking a truth, would cast all objections without favouring, for I protest, I have so captived my senses to the truth, that against the known truth I dare not stir, therefore I will freely open what I can. To that objection, that no moral thing may be vowed, because we are bound without a vow to perform such things: this answer may stand, that albeit we be bound without a vow to such things, yet it is lawful to vow them, that we may be stirred up with more exact care and zeal to such duties, as not only God hath bound us, but we also bind ourselves. Now that it is lawful to bind ourselves to those duties, whereto God bindeth us, it appeareth by the commended practice of the godly at all times. The people were bound to serve the Lord in the time of Asa, no less then at other times, yet they made a covenant and swore to serve the Lord, 2. Chron. 15. 12. 14. David was bound without an oath or vow, to keep the righteous judgements of the Lord, yet he bound himself by an oath: I have sworn and will perform it, to keep thy righteous judgements. Psal. 119. 106. And whereas David speaketh so often of paying his vows unto the Lord, the thing vowed and to be paid is moral. Psal. 50. 14. Offer to God praise, and pay thy vows to the most high. Psal. 56. 12. Thy vows are upon me, O God, I will render praise to thee, for thou hast delivered my soul from death, etc. And albeit things ceremonial might be vowed under the law, yet no otherwise but as they drew to some moral duty. And therefore when the people in vowing things ceremonial did so stick in the ceremony, that they looked no farther, then are such vows reproved, and they are taught, that the vows which please God, are obedience, a contrite heart, and such like. This which I have said will answer another objection. If tithes were always the Lords, we cannot vow them, for a vow must be of a thing that is ours. jacob then vowing tithes, showeth that they were not always the Lords, the answer is plain out of that which hath been said. It is lawful to vow unto the Lord that which is not ours, but his. For what thing is more the Lords, and less ours, than our obedience, yet we vow it, binding ourselves by a new promise to that whereunto the Lord hath bound us by duty. And therefore as David did vow to perform that obedience to God, which otherwise he was bound to do without a vow: so jacob doth here vow to pay tithes, though tithes be the Lords right; when this obedience cometh from a willing mind; it is acceptable: now a vow serveth to show a resolved and willing mind. Having done with the objections against this place, let us gather hence such observations as may confirm our purpose. First, it is evident hence, that jacob did not account tithes any part of the judicials, because no part of the judicials were to be offered in a vow to the Lord, but either things moral were vowed, or ceremonial as they lead men to moral obedience. The reason is, vows were a part of God's service, and judicials belonged not to the service of God, but were of things common, and for the civil government of men. Secondly, it must be considered that the thing wherein Jacob's vow standeth principally, is in these words, this stone which I have set up as a pillar, shall be God's house. Some interpreters take this to be the place where Abraham offered Isaac. Lyra saith, that all interpreters take it generally for that place where jerusalem stood afterward. jacob saying it should be the house of God, signifieth it should be as a temple where God should be worshipped, now unto the house of God he joineth tithes. Thirdly, if therefore the question be moved, in what sort these tithes were paid which are here vowed, whether as things given immediately to God, as were sacrifices, or vowed to God, that is to the priest of the most high God? I would gladly learn of other in such questions, but in the mean time, until I can learn a better answer, I think it best to understand the manner of Jacob's paying tithes, by the practice of his grandfather Abraham, who paid them to the priest of the most high God. And therefore jacob after that example vowing to pay tithes, may best be understood to pay them to the priest. Thus far having spoken of the time before the law, so far forth as scripture speaketh of tithes: before we come to the time under the law, let us consider how heathen men, having not the knowledge of the law of God, but only directed by a glimpse of the light of nature, did judge that tithes were to be paid to such gods as they worshipped, wherein howsoever they were corrupt, yet in that corruption may be seen some sparks of the light of nature before the law. I will not bring all, but only of many testimonies will show a few, whereby a man may judge of the rest, and understand how this question hath been conceived even among the heathen. Cyrus' king of Persia when he had overcome the Lydians, Herodot. Clio. offered the tithes of all to jupiter. Among the Romans the custom was ancient of offering tithes to their gods. Camillus' vowed tithes to the goddess called Mater Plutarc. Camil. Matuta, in case he should overcome the Ueians. After the victory in low of the tenth a cup of Gold was sent to Delphi, weighing eight talents, as Plutarch witnesseth in the same place. It is reported of Lucullus that he grew Plut. Lucullo. rich because he observed the use of paying tithes to Hercules. For that this was an ancient custom among the Romans, Macrobius proveth out of Varro, who writeth Lib. Saturn. 3. cap 42. Biblith. lib. 8. cap. 2. that it was the common custom among the anucients, vovere decimam. Herculi. Diodorus Siculus opening the reason of that custom saith, that when Hercules was friendly entertained by Potitius & Pinarius, he promised a happy life to such as should offer him the tithes of all their goods, which practice he saith remained in Rome till his time, multi enim Romanorum non solum medio cui sensu, sed qui ditissimi suat habiti, decimas Herculi voverunt, posteaque fortunatio res facti bona sua ad quatuor talentorum millia Herculi sacrarunt. In which place he reporteth the same of Lucullus, which after him Plutarch observed. Xenophon witnesseth that others used to pay tithes to Apollo. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 3. Neither was this thing observed only among the civil nations, but even so far as the sense of manhood reached it was spread also among the barbarous people. Pliny writing of the Sabaeans and Aethiopians, saith that Hist. nat. lib 12. cap. 14. & 19 in the spices, which those countries yield abundantly, the merchants may not meddle with any; before the Priests have laid out the tenth to their gods. And (which one general testimony may stand in place of many particulars) Festus saith: Decima quaeque veteres dijs suis offerebant. Which use being so general among all nations, doth show, that even from Noah it was dispersed among all people; though much corrupt in them, yet bearing in itself evident signs that it came from the incorrupt light of nature before the law given. For what other reason can be given why such an apparent resemblance of God's truth, should be kept and dispersed so far among all nations? And hereupon, I take it Franciscus junius departing from the judgement of other learned men whom otherwise he reverenceth, was moved to say thus much, decimae iure omni post hominum memoriam deo fuerunt sacrae. What is that, iure omni? but aswell written in the consciences of natural men, fortified by privileges of princes, as expressly declared in the word of God. Thus having declared so far as we can learn, how tithes stood before the law, let us consider the same in the time of the law. CHAP. III. How tithes stood under the Law. Where it is proved that then this constitution of Tithes was neither ceremonial nor judicial, but moral. THis being first out of controversy, that during all that time between the law first given, and last abrogated, tithes were to be paid to the levites by the commandment of God: the first question may be, whether tithes had their first institution and beginning in the law. We answer shortly, tithes were not first instituted in the law, but long before, even from the beginning. What then was instituted in the law? all that which concerning tithes was instituted in the law, was that tithes should be assigned to the Levites so long as they served the Tabernacle: this will appear if we consider the first and most principal places, wherein tithes are mentioned in the law. The first is Leuit. 27. the words are these. All tithes of the Leuit. 27. 30. land both of the seed of the ground, and of the fruit of the trees is the Lords: it is holy unto the Lord. Every tithe of bullock and sheep, etc. This is the first place that speaketh of tithes: in which words there is neither institution nor assignation, but a simple declaration of the Lords right. And hereunto the next place, Behold I have given Num. 18. 21. the children of Levy all the tenth of Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve in the Tabernacle of the Congregation. These two places are first in order, and principal unto which we must refer all that which in the law is spoken of tithes: the first testimony declareth the Lords right, the second showeth that out of his own right the Lord assigneth them to Levy, I have given them to the children of Levy. It containeth the end, and condition of the assignation, for the Lord assigneth tithes to Levy, only for the time of their service at the Tabernacle, for their service which they serve, etc. By this we may distinguish what is levitical, and what is perpetual in tithes. This proposition, all tithes are the Lords, is no way levitical, but containeth a perpetual truth. That which is levitical in this point, standeth in two things, which we may call the levitical assignation, and the levitical institution of tithes; for these words, I give all tithes to the Levites, for the service which they serve at the Tabernacle, do contain the assignation of tithes, for all tithes being the Lords, he doth here assign them over to the Levites for a time, during the service of the Tabernacle. This assignation we grant to be levitical, and to endure only so long as Levy shall serve at the tabernacle, that service once ended, tithes shall no more be Levy his right, but tithes shall be the Lords. The Levitical institution of tithes, is contained in the commandments of paying tithes to Levy, as where it is said, thou shalt bring thy tithes to the Levites, the Levite thou shalt not forsake etc. Where we see the commandment for paying tithes to Levy presupposeth the Levitical assignation, the assignation presupposeth the perpetual right of tithes to belong to the Lord. If these grounds were granted, the question were at an end, but because there will be question made of these grounds, let them be examined, to try whether they be sufficient to hold up that building which is to be laid upon them. The first is this, that this proposition, all tithes are the Lords, holy to the Lord: is not Levitical, this will thus appear. If all tithes were the Lords, holy to him before the levitical ministry instituted, than they are not levitical: but it is true and certain that all tithes were the Lords before the institution of the Levitical ministry: therefore certainly they are not Levitical, the proposition is evident, for that cannot be called Levitical, which was before the institution of the Levitical order, the assumption is no less true, because tithes were the Lords, holy to him aswell before as under the law, for if the Lord hath always a right in every man's goods, if this right was declared to be tithes, by the practice of the patriarchs, if that practice doth show that even then in their times tithes were the Lords, holy to him: it must needs be confessed that tithes were the Lords before the levitical constitutions. Now in that by the godly patriarchs tithes were paid to the Lord, is confirmed that tithes were always the Lords, and by that which here is said, all tithes are the Lords, is declared by what warrant the patriarchs paid tithes, this is sufficient to prove, that tithes were not instituted first in the law. It may be objected, that albeit tithes be not levitical, as being in use long before the levitical order, yet they may be ceremonial, for some ceremonies were in use before the levitical ceremonies, to this reserving a farther answer till anon, first, we say that tithes are ceremonial no otherwise, then as they are levitical, and this I suppose, that men which attend to this question will not deny me: If there be any ceremony in tithes, it is a levitical ceremony. This thing is granted by Abulensis, and all that have carried this question against us, and the common voice against us is, that tithes are levitical ceremonies. I ask no more, the rest will follow, for if tithes, have no other ceremony then that which is a levitical ceremony, then before the levitical order instituted, tithes had no ceremony in them at all: and after that order abrogated, tithes remaining still, have in them no ceremony. Now thus much we willingly yield, that all ceremonies may not properly be called levitical, as sacrificing, and the ceremonies that were in use before the levitical order, but those ceremonies which were ordained with and for the levitical order (as many were) may properly be called levitical ceremonies, so that if tithes have no ceremony but levitical, surely then before the Levites, they had no ceremony at all, to clear these things the better, leaving no doubt untouched, let us compare tithes and sacrifices together, whereby it may appear what is the difference between tithes, and such ceremonies as were in use before the law. Sacrifices were in use before the law, and in the law certain particular ordinances for the manner of sacrificing are commanded, those particular ordinances may be called levitical, but sacrificing itself is not: so tithes were in use before the law, and certain particular ordinances of paying tithes to the Levites commanded in the law, which particular constitutions we call levitical. Thus far sacrifices and tithes agree: here it will be objected that tithes were ceremonies before the law, aswell as sacrifices. The answer is in marking the true differences between sacrifices and tithes, which differences will show the one to be a ceremony, the other none. The differences are first in the property, secondly, in the end of both: First, the propriety of sacrifices and tithes considered, this difference appeareth between them: the propriety and right in tithes, is always the Lords, and not man's. Now albeit sacrifices are then the Lords, when they are once offered to him, yet till that time man hath the propriety and right in the thing which he sacrificeth, but in tithes man hath no right, because all tithes are the lords. Then in sacrificing man sanctifieth of his own to God, which before offering is his own, and if he should not offer it, remaineth his own still: but in paying tithes man giveth nothing of his own to God, but only rendereth to God that which always was his right: in not sacrificing godliness is violated, in not paying tithes not only godliness is broken, but justice also. Now a ceremony standeth not in paying to God that which is his, but in giving to God that which is thine own. For example, if thou give to God, honour, praise, and glory: here is no ceremony, thou givest to him that which was ever his right: but when men by carnal rites did make sign to God of their faith and obedience, than they gave him that which was their own in signification of other things. The second difference is, in the end of both, the end of sacrificing was to signify the great sacrifice upon the cross for the sins of the world, & therefore it was a ceremony, because it was a carnal type of that holy sacrifice, therefore to remain only until that sacrifice be exhibited. And in a word, the end of all ceremonies was to signify something, but the end of tithes, is the honour or maintenance of the ministry at all times. I say, not only the honour of the Levites, but of the ministers of Christ always, and therefore to remain so long as that ministery shall stand. And that this was the true end thereof, it appeareth. First, because tithes were paid to the priests before the law. Secondly, because they were particularly assigned to the priests and Levites under the law. Thirdly, because by the father's succeeding the Apostles, (as hereafter it shall be opened) they were challenged to the Church, as God's ordinance, for the maintenance of the ministry, and by the consent of all Christians yielded so. If this be not the end of tithes, let any man show and prove to us another end of them: if this be their end, even an honourable maintenance of the ministry, then certainly tithes are no ceremonies, because the end of a ceremony is only to signify something, and it hath no other end or use, whereby as we have the apparent differences between tithes and sacrifices, showing plainly the one to be ceremonial, the other not: so we have this truth no less cleared, that this proposition, all tithes are the Lords, containeth no levitical ceremony, but a perpetual truth. For the farther manifestation of this point, it must be considered, that upon this ground (all tithes are the Lords) the levitical assignation resteth, for whereas first the Lord maketh it manifest, that all tithes are his, and afterward assigneth them to Levy, it is declared that herein he doth wrong no man, for he giveth that to Levy, which by peculiar right and propriety is his own, no man hath right or propriety in the tithes of his own goods, but as every man hath a propriety in the rest of his goods, so hath the Lord in tithes. Then this right which the Lord hath in tithes, none can challenge from him, for otherwise some man might thus surmise, I am wronged if my goods be taken from me and given to Levy. In these words there is a secret answer to all such surmises, tithes are none of thy goods, thou hast no right in them at all, all tithes are the Lords. And that this is the true meaning of these words, it may appear, if we compare them with other places which sound like this, but cannot thus be expounded. It is said that, all the beasts of the forest are the Lords, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. Psal, 50. the earth is the Lords and all that therein is. Psal. 24. but these things are said to be the Lords in another sense, than tithes are. I remember well that sentence and rule of Hillary, that he who readeth scriptures as he ought, must not bring a sense to the words, but fet the sense from the words, and not compel the Scripture to speak as he in prejudice conceiveth. If I break this rule, it is of ignorance, not of wilfulness, & I will willingly take a rebuke, if I fail herein, especially from such as will both reprove and teach me. Things are said to be the Lords in diverse senses, when the earth is said to be the Lords, and such like: we understand that these things are the Lords, in two respects. First, in respect of a duty all creatures are the Lords, because he is their creator, for every thing created oweth a duty to the creator, as to the great Lord to whom all things owe their homage, albeit evil and corrupt men understand not this, and therefore are far from this dutiful obedience: yet they should in regard of this duty, set the service of God before all things whatsoever, because he is creator of all, this reason the Prophet toucheth where he saith, the earth is the Lords: for (saith he) he hath founded the world etc. Secondly, all creatures are said to be the Lords also, in respect of that power whereby he ruleth all, evil and corrupt men, though not understanding the same, and being far from yielding their dutiful obedience to the Lord, are yet subject unto this his power, for he directeth every thing to his proper end, in this respect the Prophet saith: He doth whatsoever pleaseth him in heaven and in earth. Psal. 135. And in these respects we understand those Scriptures that say, the earth and the creatures are the Lords, aswell because all things created owe a duty to him, and as it were their homage, as also because all things created, are governed by his power and providence. But when tithes are said to be the Lords, this is in respect of a propriety and immediate right, that he hath in tithes, for otherwise why should the Lord say that tithes are his, more than the other 9 parts? for in those former respects the 9 parts are his, even as the earth is his, etc. this then declareth an immediate right and propriety that the Lord hath in tithes, distinct from the respects of duty, power and providence, in which respects all the rest is his. And that the words force us, and not we them to this sense: it may farther appear by the words following, which do expound the place, and puts it out of doubtfulness. All tithes are the Lords holy to the Lord: These words (holy to the Lord) do interpret the former, and show in what sense tithes are the Lords, not only in respect of a general duty, or in respect of his power, but even in this sense, because the propriety and immediate right to tithes is not in man, but in God only, for that which is holy to the Lord, is separate from man, and man's use; in such things man hath no right at all, therefore if man keep tithes from the Lord, it must be confessed that this is usurpation and sacrilege. Moreover, we note the manner of these words. It is not said thou shalt pay all tithes to the Lord, for such a precept might argue an institution of tithes: but it is said, all tithes are the Lords, which words do not express any new institution, but declare an ancient right which was begun long before the law. It is farther to be considered, that the law observeth a distinction in holy things, by which distinction we may learn how tithes differ from other things, which by the levitical law were called holy, for things holy, or separate from man's use, are either such as the Lord separateth to himself, wherein man hath no right: or such things as man separateth to the Lord: now tithes are made holy and separate from man's use, not by man, but by the Lord himself. For it is said: Leuit. 27. 28. Nothing separate from common use, which a man separateth to the Lord, of all that he hath, may be sold, nor redeemed, but tithes may be redeemed Leuit. 27. 31. by adding a fifth part. Therefore tithes are such things, as man hath no power to separate from common use, because they stand separate from common use by the Lord, which showeth evidently that man hath no right or propriety in his own tithes, as he hath in the things which he may separate from common use to the Lord. Then the general ordinance of tithes was not instituted in the law, but long before, as appear both by the practice of the godly in former times, and by these words declaring the ground of that practice, which ground is the immediate right which the Lord hath always in tithes, for if the former practice, and that which we have observed of these words, All tithes are the Lords, be compared together, it is evident that the Lord did not then begin to have a right in tithes when the law was given. This right is not instituted in the law, but only declared, whereupon it followeth that this is right perpetual, for we call that perpetual whereof no beginning can be showed, but the use thereof proved from the beginning. Therefore we conclude that this proposition, All tithes are the Lords, holy to the Lord, containeth a perpetual truth, and no levitical ceremony. To confess the truth, I find myself in writing this which I know many are ready to gainsay, so affected as they who fortify an hold against the enemies, where the wall is weakest or lowest there the greatest force of the enemies is set to make a breach, so I find that we are now as it were in that breach, and if I can fortify this one piece so as to put the adversaries out of hope of entrance here, I shall be at more ease for the rest: for every man will grant me that tithes were due before the law, and under the law assigned to the Levites, but how the perpetual right is proved, or how this right may appear assumed again after the abrogation of the law, this is that whereat most stick, this is that which I must fortify. To that therefore which already we have spoken add that which the Apostle saith in the Epistle to the Hebrews, for he hath so fortified the matter that I know not what may be brought against him, in those words, Heb. 7. 8. here men that die receive tithes, but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth: who is he of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.? It is spoken there of Melchisedech, but it is verified in Christ, Melchisedech here is brought in to no other end, but as a type of Christ, to show how these things spoken of the type, are most true in the body Christ jesus: for there the Apostle proveth the greatness of Christ's priesthood and the perpetuity of the same, so that these things here spoken of the type, are declared to be verified especially & principally in Christ: then albeit Melchisedech be in some sort witnessed to live, because there is silence of his death, yet this is especially & principally true in Christ: then when the Apostle faith, that here he receiveth tithes who is witnessed to live, his meaning is that tithes are paid in the priesthood of Christ, not only in the levitical priesthood. here men that die receine tithes, but there he receiveth them of whom it is witnessed that he liveth, where we have an evident distinction between the levitical assignation, and the perpetual right of tithes. here men that die receive tithes, there is the levitical assignation, which was to have an end: but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth, in these words the perpetual right First, whether tithes be ceremonial. Secondly, whether they be judicial. To know whether tithes be ceremonial Whether tithes be ceremonial. (that we may add more proofs to that which we have said in this point) it seemeth needful to set down the definition of a levitical ceremony, which may be defined thus: a ceremony is a carnal type of an holy thing, which for the service of the Tabernacle is enjoined only until the time of reformation By an holy thing in this definition, we understand an evangelical truth, by the time of reformation we understand, the first coming and full appearance of our Lord jesus Christ. All the parcels of this definition are confirmed by the Apostle, Heb. 9 that it is a carnal type of an holy thing, it is proved. ver. 10. where they are called carnal rites, and ver. 23. they are said to be similitudes of holy or heavenly things, that such ceremonies were for the service of the tabernacle, he showeth, ver. 2. where first he describeth the tabernacle, and presently joineth the ceremonies, as belonging to it, and again, ver. 8. and 21. so that all those ceremonies had respect to the tabernacle, and that they were ordained to endure only until the time of reformation, it is delivered in express words, ver. 10. It may be objected, that albeit all these things be expressed in the Apostle his words, yet his meaning may be not to define a ceremony, but to describe diverse kinds of ceremonies, as namely, that of ceremonies some are carnal types, other for the service of the tabernacle, others to endure until the time of reformation, etc. we answer for our purpose all is one, whether it be granted that this is a definition, or a division of ceremonies: if it be a definition, tithes must agree to this definition, or else it can not be ceremonial: if it be a division of ceremonies, than tithes must agree to some part of it, otherwise they can be no ceremonies, but we say that tithes neither agree to the whole, nor to any part thereof, for they are neither carnal, nor types, nor carnal types of holy things, nor for the service of the tabernacle, nor enjoined to endure only until the time of reformation, if no part hereof agree with tithes, how is it possible this thing should be a ceremony, let us then examine the parcels. First, tithes are not carnal, for carnal in the Apostle his sense, is not taken for every worldly thing, but for such a worldly and rude element, or as the Apostle calleth it, Gal. 4. 9 such an impotent and beggarly rudiment as served for the institution of the rude and ignorant people of the jews, having no such use among Christians: but tithes served not for institution of the jews, for they did teach nothing, and yet they have among Christians the same use, which then they had: for they served then, as now also they do, for honour and maintenance of them who teach the people. Is it possible that this thing should be a Levitical ceremony, which hath the same use among Christians, which it had in Israel? farther, tithes are no types, for a type was instituted for no other use, but to signify an holy thing in Christ or his kingdom, but tithes were not instituted for this use to signify any thing in Christ or his kingdom, therefore no types, this appeareth plainly, because tithes are after Christ, as they were before, the honourable maintenance of the ministery always, therefore they signified no more then now they do, but as they were, so they stand still, or if any think that tithes were instituted only to signify some thing, let that thing once be showed. Now if they be neither carnal, nor types, how can they be carnal types, and by consequence they are not carnal types of holy things, but they are those holy things themselves, for to pay tithes sincerely to the ministers of Christ, is an holy thing, and this is enough to prove it no ceremony, for no ceremony is of itself an holy thing, but that this is, it is apparent, because now in the time of the gospel the same use of this thing is retained, when all ceremonies are abrogated, neither were tithes instituted for the service of the tabernacle. I speak here of the ordinance of tithes, not of the Levitical assignation: which assignation I grant was instituted for the service of the tabernacle, but the question of tithes in general, is much differing from this assignation, for tithes were before the law, this assignation was not, tithes are in use after the law ended, this is not, therefore there is as much difference between tithes in general and this assignation, as between things perpetual and temporary. Last of all, it is evident, that tithes were not enjoined until the time of reformation, for they are in use after that time, therefore we reason thus, no Levitical ceremony may be allowed to remain in the Church any longer than until the time of reformation, but tithes are, and have been by all godly allowed to remain in the Church after the time of reformation: therefore tithes are no such ceremonies, the assumption is in the manifest knowledge and consciences of all men: the proposition is proved out of the words of the Apostle, where he describeth ceremonies in these words, Heb. 9 10. carnal rites which were enjoined until the time of reformation. If those carnal rites were enjoined until the time of reformation, then manifestly it followeth that these carnal rites were to be abolished at the time of reformation, and are not to be retained in the Church after that time: here then of two things we must choose one, either to say, tithes are no ceremony, or to charge the Church of Christians of impiety in the highest degree, for appointing tithes for the maintenance of ministers, and so retaining a ceremony in the Church after the time of reformation, against the express doctrine of the Apostle. But now consider what answer is thought by some to be sufficient. This for sooth, that tithes are used now in the time of the gospel, not as a ceremony, but as another thing, they were under the law (say they) ceremonies, but now they cease to be, and are retained as some other thing: let them be as what you list, this is no sufficient answer to that which I have said, and to show the weakness hereof (because in this answer is placed all the hope of them who hold tithes ceremonies) let us take a little pains with it, for the invalidity of this poor shift being manifested, we may go with more ease through the rest. If this were a sufficient answer to say, we understand tithes now not as a ceremony, then surely nothing in any disputation can be proved, and because this matter reacheth farther than at the first show it seemeth, it shall not be unprofitable by the way of a short digression, to speak in general of insufficient answering, that is, of unexact distinguishing, where the truth is only sought out, without heat or contention, there the distinction of the answer will show itself so quick, as that it doth not only answer the sophism, but also carrieth force and power in itself to overthrow the contrary falsehood, but where the distinction hath not this life in it, there it discrieth itself to be, not as armour of defence as it should be, but only as that sudden help, which the man in danger of drowning catcheth after: for example, that answer which serveth for the common hackney in schools: verum est materialiter, non formaliter: let it be allowed for a sufficient answer, and what can be concluded? That the absurdity hereof may more plainly appear, I will recite certain examples. Thomas Aquinas concludeth, that concupiscence which 1. 2. q. 81. art. ●. ad. 1. passeth the bonds of reason is against nature. Dominicus▪ Soto not consenting to Thomas, and yet being unwilling to stand against him in contradiction, thinketh this a sufficient answer: that which Thomas saith is true, ratione formae, sed non natione materiae, nam ratione materiae (faith Soto) concupisentia illa est naturalis. Martin Luther made this objection against Indulgences, Indulgences are said to remit penances, but penances are good works, such as Fasting, Alms, Prayer and the like: therefore Indulgences are not good but pernicious, seeing they hinder men from good works. Bellarmin thinketh it sufficient to answer thus; Indulgences remit penances not as they Lib. 2. de Indulg. cap. ●●. are good works, non quatenus sunt bona opera, but as another thing, as if he should say, verum est materialiter, non formaliter. Just as these men distinguish in a ceremony, tithes are now retained not as a ceremony, but as another thing. If this kind of answer run for currant, who seeth not that this blind distinction is at hand ready against any truth though never so well concluded? for when a man hath concluded, that to drink till a man be drunk is a sin, some will find out this distinction, it is a sin materialiter, sed non formaliter: for I use, saith he, non quatenus, not as drunkenness, but as another thing. And why may not another frame the same distinction for whoredom, especially if he may allege the advise of some Physicians which hold such physic needful for his body. And so in other things, I would know how a man can conclude against the Ebionites, if this kind of answering be received for good? they receive circumcision with the Gospel: how will you disprove them? if you urge those words of the Apostle, If you be circumcised Christ profiteth you nothing: may not they answer Gal. 5. 3. the Apostle, verum est formaliter, non materialiter. We retain circumcision not formally, non quatenus, not as a sacrament, but as another thing. If this were nothing else but to mock the Apostles divinity, why should any be so much overseen, as to think this distinction may stand against us, which in the like case can not stand against the Apostle? Therefore it is not enough to bring a distinction, but the parts thereof should be confirmed out of the principles of that profession, wherein the disputation is, if the disputation be in Logic or Philosophy, than the parts of the distinction to be confirmed out of Logic or philosophy, if in divinity, than out of the scriptures. This sincerely practised would cut the sinews of many frivolous contentions which are so often moved and repeated again without end. Thus much concerning the idle and endless humour of writing, which proceedeth for the most part from insincere answering. Now to return to the former answer of those, who think they have said enough, when they say that tithes are not now established in the Church as a ceremony, but as another thing, it is as if they should say verum est materialiter, non formaliter. For the frame of a ceremony remaineth not, yet the matter, say they, remaineth. Which answer as in some place may stand, so here it cannot, unless the parts of this distinction be proved by scripture, which no man hath at any time as yet proved. For it should be proved by scripture that tithes were a levitical ceremony, and that the thing which once was a ceremony, may be retained in the Church of Christ, but we have showed the contradictary to both, that tithes were never a ceremony, by the description of a ceremony, and that the thing which was a ceremony may not be retained in the Church of Christians, because it was enjoined only until the time of reformation: and therefore we conclude, this answer is every way weak, and no sufficient exception against our cause. But for the latter part thereof, it may be thus objected, some things were ceremonies which yet are, or may be lawfully retained among Christians, as not to sow a vineyard with diverse kinds of seeds; not to plow with an Ox and an Ass; not to wear a garment of divers sorts, as woollen and linen together, Deut. 22. I answer these scriptures Deut. 22. do not speak of ceremonies, but of judicials. Of this answer, there are these reasons. First, throughout that Chapter he speaketh of things judicial, and in the Chapter next before, as also in that which next followeth, he declareth precepts judicial of all sorts, concerning matters of state when they go to war, touching public affairs, touching private, touching husbandry, touching a man's comely carrying of himself abroad and at home: For judicials reach not only to the great affairs of a state, but even to a comeliness in husbandry and apparel, of which civil comeliness these precepts are to be understood, and in a civil state well and exactly governed, to be received, for civil comeliness, and an exact order is to be settled in every part of the state. Another reason that these precepts are to be understood of judicials, not of ceremonies is, because these things cannot agree to the description of a ceremony, out of the Apostles words, for neither were these carnal types of holy things, neither were they instituted for the service of the Tabernacle. Again it can not be said that a ceremony is negative, as a precept may be, for they are not set down in negatives, this thou shalt not do, but in affirmatives in doing or using, for a ceremony is positively to represent an holy thing, for which cause the Apostle calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Heb. 9 24. Moreover in these and such like precepts we observe that albeit some signification may well be drawn from them, yet that will not suffice to prove them ceremonies, for from that which is written Deut. 25. Thou shalt not mussel the mouth of the Ox that treadeth out thy corn. The Apostle 1. Cor. 9 9 draweth a signification, and thereby a strong reason for maintenance of ministers, and yet I suppose, no man will hold that precept to be ceremonial, for it is judicial altogether, because it is of things in common use, therefore certainly judicial: even so are these precepts Deut. 22. to be understood. Wherefore the contrary appearances being removed, the truth of this conclusion will better appear, tithes are no ceremonies. Now as it is an easy matter for any without much learning to say tithes were ceremonies, and to rest there without reason, without discussing the manner and cause thereof, so if any would enter judiciously into the careful and conscionable search hereof, and open unto us the signification of this ceremony, and show us the proper end and use thereof, and prove with one sound reason, that tithes were instituted to signify something only for a time as all ceremonies were: I should for my part think my self much beholding to him; otherwise if thou shalt tell me a thousand times it is a ceremony, though this were true that thou sayst, yet because thou knowest not the reason and ground thereof, to thee it is as an untruth, he who holdeth this a ceremony, aught to bring an approved reason from the word, and declare the true end and use of the ceremony, which will open the signification thereof: till that be done, lie that saith it is a ceremony speaketh without understanding. We shall have less trouble to disprove the other opinion, Tithes not judicials. which holdeth tithes judicials, because it is holden with much less show of reason: for to be brief herein, we reason thus. No holy things are judicials: but all tithes are holy things, therefore no tithes judicials: The proposition of this syllogism is manifest by that distinction which must be acknowledged between things holy and common: holy things are taken from common use, which things are of two sorts, either such as the Lord separateth from common use, as the sabbath, and tithes, and such like: or such as man separateth from common use to the Lord, of which those words are Leuit. 27. 28. Nothing separate from common use, that a man doth separate to the Lord, of all that he hath, may be sold nor redeemed, and in the verse following, things separate from common use are expounded, separate from man. Thus are all holy things separate from common use or from man, but all judicials are of things in common use, not separate from man, therefore no judicials are holy things, no holy things judicials. By this which we have said, the question I hope is cleared which was moved in the beginning of this chapter, how tithes stood under the law, It appeareth that then they were not as ceremonies, nor judicials, but a perpetual ordinance and part of the moral truth. Before we pass from this place, I would add a word of the antiquity of these two opinions which I have last refuted. The judgements of former ages is a great presumption, and men of judgement will very hardly depart from an ancient opinion without great reasons. Now as the opinion which I seek to confirm is ancient, and hath been lield by the best learned in the Church from the beginning till these late years: so those other two opinions last spoken of, are both new, though the one somewhat elder than the other. That tithes are ceremonies, is an opinion devised about an hundred years since, not above: the other, that tithes are judicials is ancienter, for it was first devised by Alexander de Hales an English man the father of schole-divinitie, the first that wrote upon 3. part. q. 51. 3. the sentences. This Hales died in the year of Christ 1250. saith john Bale. The same opinion is maintained by Thomas Aquinas scholar to Hales. These their chieftains the schoolmen follow, and hence it is now a received 2. 2. q. 87. Art. 3. opinion among them of the Church of Rome, that tithes are judicials. But one thing I wish to be observed; that after the Pope had through corruption made tithes away from their proper Churches by impropriations, then forsooth to salve this corruption, lest it might have been thought open sacrilege, these devices were first invented. This I thought good to note, that it may be known that this corrupt opinion of tithes came in with infinite corruptions and depravations of the truth. CHAP. FOUR How Tithes stood in the time of the new Testament. LEt it be examined in the next place, how tithes stood in the time of the new Testament. In this time we find no express mention that tithes were paid, nor any express proof that they were not, but there is great probability that they were not. First, because we find no express testimony for them. Secondly, because that use of paying tithes, as the Church then stood, was so incommodious and cumbersome that it could not well be practised. And therefore as circumcision was laid aside for a time, whilst Israel travailed through the wilderness, not because the people of right ought not then also to have used it, but because it was so incommodious for that estate and time of the Church, that it could not without great trouble be practised: even so the use of tithes in the time of Christ and his Apostles was laid aside, not because it ought not, but because it could not without great encumbrance be done. And as circumcision was resumed as soon as the estate of the Church could bear it: so tithes were re-established as soon as the condition of the church could suffer it, for tithes can not well be paid, but where some whole state or kingdom receiveth Christianity, and where the magistrate doth favour the Church, which was not as then. Now as soon as it can be showed that a Magistrate did favour the Church, so soon will it also appear that tithes were established. Thirdly, moreover tithes were paid to the priests and Levites in the time of Christ and his Apostles, now the jewish synagogue must first be buried, before these things could be orderly done, when the synagogue was buried, and the estate of the Church could bear the practice, than were tithes brought into use in the Church. Fourthly, in the times of the new Testament and somewhat after, there was an extraordinary maintenance by a community of all things, which supplied the want of tithes, but this community was extraordinary, and not to last always: now as this extraordinary maintenance decayed, tithes being the ordinary maintenance of the ministery grew in use again, and if it should so happen, that the Church should be in the like case again as then it was, then must paying of tithes cease for the same reason, as than it did. And then might that community be reduced again for that time, that is, an extraordinary maintenance at an extraordinary time: but this could not prejudice the right of the ordinary maintenance, when fit time serveth, albeit then that for these reasons tithes were not used de facto in the time of the new Testament, yet it appeareth that de iure they ought to have been paid, if these encumbrances had not disturbed the convenient practice thereof: Mat. 23. 23 You tith mint, and anise, and cummin, and leave the weightier matters of the law, etc. these ought ye to have done, and not to have left the other undone, from which words tithing hath the approbation of Christ, as a thing that ought to be done, there is an apposition between things of the same kind, the greatest moral things in mercy and judgement, and the least moral things in paying the least tithes. Thus Origen and other fathers understand these words, as belonging no less to Christians, then to Hom. 11. In num. August. in Psal. 146. jews, Luke. 18. the proud Pharisee in his prayer saith: I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that ever I possess, where we find tithes accounted moral, as fasting. Heb, 7. 8. the Apostle showeth from Abraham's paying tithes to Melchisedech that Christ's priesthood is perpetual, not subject to change as was that of Levy, which declareth that tithes follow that priesthood which is perpetual. Briefly I reason thus, there is no proof through out all the new Testament, for any other ordinary maintenance of the ministry: therefore tithes remain still the ordinary maintenance. But because the Apostles times are so much objected against us for the pretended competency, we must better consider these times so far forth as they touch this maintenance. In the Apostles writings there be two things to be observed concerning this point. First the examples of that maintenance which then was in use. Secondly, the reasons and proofs which the Apostles use to move the people to contribute: both these things stand against the pretended competency, for if the examples be considered, that which was done appeareth to be nothing else but alms, if the proofs be weighed, they are such as prove another thing then that which then was practised, and if they be well examined they prove tithes due Now the Apostles reasons are good and strong, when as by such proofs as indeed prove the ordinary maintenance due, he calleth for some other thing of the people, because tithes the ordinary maintenance could not in that estate of the Church well be paid. If these things be examined in order, it will appear first by the examples and practice of that time, that those contributions were nothing but alms, for no man was compelled to give any thing, but every man gave as he was moved. It shall be sufficient of many to show a few examples, the Apostle speaking of such contributions Romans. 15. 26. 27. saith, it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain distribution, etc. By which words he describeth an alms, and in the words following, where he saith, It pleased them, & their debtors are they: he showeth this distribution was but alms, for if it were given at their pleasure, and if they who received it, were their debtors, surely it can be nothing but alms. The circumstances of that action prove no less, for they of Macedonia and Achaia, as likewise they of Rome, were not bound in any other duty then mere charity to maintain those at Rome. And as here we find that he accounteth it so, even so he calleth it in plain terms by the name of Alms, Act. 24. 17. After many years I came and brought alms to my nation. By this it may appear that the Apostle accounted such contributions as then were used in the Church, mere Alms. Tertullian speaking of this use, which as it seemed continued to his time, saith thus: unusquisque stipem quum velit, & si modo possit apponit, nam nemo compellitur sed sponte confert. Then from the use and practise of the Apostles times nothing can be proved but alms, and therefore this competent maintenance cannot be drawn hence, first because this competency by them who strive for it, is not meant alms: secondly because they who hold this, do think that the people may be compelled to contribute some thing, but this is directly against the use of the Apostles times, for no man was compelled, but that only was taken which was willingly given. Thirdly because they would have it at the appointment of the magistrate, which thing is not answerable to these times. This may suffice to prove that this competent maintenance doth not agree with the use of these times whereof we speak. This the Waldenses and after them john Wiclife did foresee, and well understood, that if the practice of the Apostles be urged in this point, then assuredly nothing can be claimed but alms. And therefore they urging that use did truly thereupon conclude that the ministers maintenance must be alms though they urged those times without reason, yet that being once granted the other must follow. Now let us consider the reasons which the Apostles use in moving these contributions, these reasons if a man consider them aright, do reach farther than they are applied; and indeed do conclude another thing, for seeing the contributions then practised were alms, and the reasons confirm a due maintenance, surely they confirm another thing than was practised at that time. For example the reasons whereof we have spoken, 1. Cor. 9 Who goeth to warfare at any time of his own cost? who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk? These reasons do not so much prove that which then was in use, as another thing: what that other thing is, that is here in question? we say tithes: other say, a competent maintenance, but these reasons prove the ordinary maintenance of ministers due. Now because tithes, the ordinary maintenance, could not be paid without great encumbrance, the reasons show that in place thereof for a time some other thing must of right be paid. So the Apostle reasoneth, 1. Cor. 9 13. Do you not know that they who minister about the holy things, eat of the things of the temple, and they who wait at the altar, are partakers of the altar? So also hath the Lord ordained that they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. This reason concludeth very strongly for tithes, and for nothing else, for it must be granted that the Apostles words concluding something certainly, do rather conclude that which was the ordinary maintenance commonly received in the Church, then that which was never in use in the Church, certainly not in those times. Now tithes were ordinarily received in the Church, as the ministers maintenance, but this competency as it is urged, was never in use in the Church, surely not in the Apostolic times. Now it were hard to say that the Apostle reasoneth for such a thing as was never in use. Again, the Apostle saith, the Lord hath ordained the ministers maintenance, this ordinance is not individuum vagum, but some certain thing, being a part of god's worship. Now we can say that tithes are the Lords certain ordinance, but who is able to say and prove so much for this competent maintenance? As for the use and practise of the Apostles times, assuredly it was no perpetual ordinance of the Lord, but an extraordinary use for a time: we seeking the ordinary maintenance, and this being extraordinary to endure but for a short time, shall never find that which we seek in the use and practise of those times. Then whereas the Apostle saith, the Lord hath ordained that they who preach the gospel, should live of the gospel, there must be some ordinance of the Lord showed, but none can be showed, but either tithes or the use of the Apostolic times, therefore this ordinance must either be tithes, or alms, but not alms: for this use of the Apostles times were extraordinary, therefore the ordinary and perpetual ordinance of the Lord for the ministers maintenance, can be nothing else but tithes, and that the reasons used by the Apostle do in truth confirm tithes, albeit they name not tithes, it is the judgment of divers fathers, as here after may appear. Now that which standeth with best reason, with the perpetual and ordinary practice of the Church before and since Christ's time, and hath the full consent and testimony of the ancients, I prefer before that which standeth with no reason, was never used in the Church, and hath the testimony of no ancient father. CHAP. V. How Tithes stood in the ages of the Church after the Apostles, wherein the point in question is confirmed by the testimony of fathers without contradiction, until Antichrist by usurped authority disordered the Church. HOW long that community of all things lasted in the Church, which began in the Apostles times, we cannot precisely determine, but it seemeth to have been in some use in Tertullia's time, for so he saith, omnia sunt Apol. cap. 39 indiscreta apud nos praeter uxores. Eusebius laboureth to prove out of Philo, that the Christians at Alexandria converted by Hist. Oct. lib. 1. cap. 17. Mark, had all things common. But the testimony of Philo speaketh of those who were called Essaei, not of Christians, yet that this community was long continued among christians, it is out of doubt. Some think that Vrbanus Bishop of Rome Ann. 223. did make some mutation in the use of this community, who first of all is reported to have retained lands to the Church use, for whereas before we read Act. 2. 34. as many as were possessors of lands, sold them and brought the price to the Apostles: Afterward it was thought expedient for the perpetual relief of the Church, that such lands should not be sold, and the price given, but the lands themselves should be given to the Church, Fassiculus temporum ascribeth this to Urbanus, praedia caepit ecclesia possidere huius (urbain) tempore, de quibus clericis & notarijs sumptus deputabant qui gesta martirum conscripserunt, antea vivebant more Apostolico qui in acts Apostolorum scribitur. Marsilius Patavinus saith likewise, that Vrban was the first that possessed lands and temporalties, yet it seemeth that Defence. P●●●. par. 2. c. 25. use began before Vrbanus his time, if Gratian cite truly the words of urban. Albeit there may be some question of the authority of this testimony, the credit whereof I will never seek to salve: yet because in a matter of story, it agreeth with other stories of that time, I think it not amiss for the stories sake to set it down as it is in Gratian, and in the first tome of counsels, Videntes autem summi sacerdotes, & alij atque Levitae, etc. that is, The chief Bishops and other, Cuns. 12. q. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Levites or ministers, and the rest of the faithful perceiving that whereas lands and inheritances were wont to be sold, and the price given to the Church, it might be more profitable if those lands and inheritances themselves were given to the Churches that are governed by Bishops, because the faithful that live in common might better be served and much more conveniently by the rents of such lands, both for the present time, and for the time to come, then by the price in money: hereupon those lands which before they were accustomed to sell, they begun to bestow upon Cathedral Churches, and to live of the rents. Now these lands were Matriabus ecclesijs. within the privilege of every such dioceses of the Bishops In dictione singularum parochiarum spiscoporum. who hold the place of the Apostles, and so the same lands are, and for the time to come aught to be. Out of these, the Bishops being faithful stewards hereof ought to minister all necessaries to them that desire to live in common, so that among them none want, for these things are the oblations of the faithful, by these means the cathedral churches governed by the Bishops have by God's help had such increase, and so many so well provided, that among them none that liveth in common wanteth any thing, but receiveth all necessaries from the Bishop and his ministers. And therefore if either now, or hereafter any shall take those lands, let him be accursed, etc. Out of which testimony, first it appeareth, that the community of things lasted in some sort to this time, and therefore tithes are not spoken of so long as this community was in use. It is also apparent by that which followed, that this thing was the first occasion that the community ceased, and that tithes came in use again. Secondly, we observe that the land and temporalties of Bishops were not for this end, and use given them, that they should keep all to themselves, but that they thence might comfort such as wanted, especially in the ministry. Thirdly, it appeareth plain sacrilege to take such lands and temporalties away from the Bishops and the Church. For first the lands were sold and the price given, afterward the lands were given, if it were in the choice of the givers, whether they would give the price in money, or in lands: I demand this question, when they gave the price in money, was it not sacrilege to take it back again, or any part thereof? as Ananias and Saphira did, Act. 5 1. Now if it were such sacrilege to take back the price, is not the same to be thought of the lands themselves? for in this question, what difference is between the lands, and the price of those lands? Now whereas the question may be moved concerning Abbey lands, which were given for superstitious uses: first the Civilians and Canonists are agreed upon the point: for the Canonists hold that a custom may make a law how erroneous soever the beginning was: the Civilians judge that if a thing be given to the Church for unlawful uses, those uses must be altered, but the thing remain. But now admitting that an error in the beeginning make a nullity in the gift from the beginning: yet we say this toucheth not Bishoprik lands at all, for whoseuer is diligent in the story of the Church, will confess a great difference between lands given to Bishopriks', and to Abbeys: for Bishopric lands were given presently upon the planting of Churches. And no story can show that ever there was a Church planted in the best times: but either lands were committed to the government of Bishops for the use of the Church, or else the price was brought to them, who then governed the Churches: but in Abbey lands the case was nothing like, for this endowment of Abbeys with lands was of late, in the time of superstition, brought in use, not upon the calling and planting, but upon the corrupting of Churches, For which cause it must be confessed that these two things, are not to be spoken of confusedly, as if one and the same case were in both, seeing they are from such differing beginnings, and for such differing ends. Thus much then may be drawn, I say not from Urbanus his testimony, but from the practice of the Church in the Apostles times, that whatsoever was given to the Church, there being no error or superstition in the gift, that of right aught to remain to the Church and to take that away, is sacrilege, what is sacrilege if this be not? Now as this doth maintain the right of Bishop's temporalties to the Church, because that gift was given to the Church in the beginning without error or superstition: so it maintaineth the right of tithes, which have been given by the common consent of Christians to the Church. If there were no other right saving this, that tithes have been dedicated to the Church, and in that dedication there was no error or superstition, this were enough to prove that tithes could not be taken away, no more than Ananias and Saphyra might take away any part of that which they had vowed to the Church. But when we have this reason added to the express will of God, that all tithes are the Lords, always to be given to him, as we have showed, herein must needs be double sacrilege, and manifest impiety committed, to take that away from God, which God and man hath decreed should be his. A learned and godly minister of Scotland hath set forth of late certain sermons against sacrilege, yet not touching this question of tithes in this sort, but rather declaring his opinion, that in some cases tithes might be changed into another means of sufficient provision, if such godly zeal were now among men, as was of old time, yet these cases wherein this change may be admitted, he doth not open, but as now the zeal of men standeth, he is utterly against the change. But it fareth with him, as it must needs do with all that sincerely write either against sacrilege or for the maintenance of ministers, for let a man thoroughly touch these points, and will he, nill he, he shall prove tithes due, as this man doth, though not purposing the same, for he proveth, that to take away any thing of that which is holy to God, is sacrilege. Now that tithes are ever holy to God, we have proved, both dedicated to him by man, and advouched by himself, so that of all things that can be called holy in this sense, nothing hath that place before tithes. If then sacrilege be in taking away holy things from God and his Church, it appeareth more in taking away tithes, then in any other thing whatsoever. Neither can sacrilege herein be excused though men should establish something in place of that holy thing taken away. First, because the changing of holy things is sacrilege no less (though happily a less kind of sacrilege) then taking away of the same. If Nabucadnezzer having taken away the holy vessels out of the house of the Lord, should in place thereof have put some other: might his sacrilege thereby be excused? or Beltassar taking the vessels of the Lords house, and in them banqueting with his Lords and Concubines, if he should in stead there of have placed other, could any justify his sacrilege therefore? no more can the taking away of tithes be justified, though something in place thereof should be appointed by men. Secondly, again albeit we should admit, that in some things of the Church this might be done, yet that it can be in tithes we utrerly deny, unless it be proved that the change is made by the same power and authority by which tithes are made holy to God: now we have showed that man did not make tithes holy to God and his Church, but the Lord himself. Herein than we have not only the consent of man, but the express approbation of God, so that if all the men of the world should agree to change tithes, yet this would not make it lawful without express warrant from God, who hath appropriated tithes to himself, and out of his own right assigneth them to the maintenance of the ministery. Thirdly, what reason should move any man to think it sacrilege, to take away lands given to the Church, albeit given for superstitious uses; and yet think it no sacrilege to take away or change tithes, which were not given for superstitious uses, but for maintenance of preaching? For he that alloweth some other provision in place of tithes, granteth that to take away tithes in some case, is not sacrilege: If the restitution of some provision in place of tithes could salve the Sacrilege, why may not the Sacrilege of men be excused, who take away as much of the Church lands as are at the value of ten thousand pounds, and in place thereof give ten pounds? For when any thing is taken away, that a thing of the same value should be restored, who can expect? and and who shall be judge? if then to give some thing in place of that which is taken away, salve it from the crime of Sacrilege, who seeth not to what a wretched estate the Church must needs be brought? for may not all be taken away, and something be given back in place thereof, and yet that something be as good as nothing? But they who admit that tithes may be taken away from the Church, do it with this caution, so that a sufficient provision be left. This is a castle in the air, that never stood on the earth. For if we speak of the ordinary maintenance of the preaching ministery, a sufficient maintenance is not, neither at any time hath been without tithes, and in this point the world is not like to alter. Then to speak of a sufficient maintenance without tithes, is but a conceit in the brains of some men, which never was brought into action never will be: God allowing a sufficient maintenance to the ministry, nameth it tithes. Now what stipend can man name that will supply the place of tithes? I suppose it would much trouble the wisest to name a stipend that would be sufficient at all times, but tithes are sufficient at all times, howsoever the price of things rise or fall, the minister hath his part with his people in all estates by tithes: which proportioning of the ministers estate making it able to answer all estates a like, whether dear, or cheap: proceeding from the wisdom of God cannot be bettered or matched by man's wisdom. Were it not then much easier to bring that ordinance in use, which standeth so agreeable with the laws of God, & nature, & of godly kings: then to devise strange courses, which never were in use; and being devised will never prove sufficient? But let us return to the use of this time whereof we speak. The use of giving lands to chief Churches, whether begun before Urban, or by him, so much as in him lieth, he confirmeth, providing that those lands so given may be retained to the use of the Church, such lands and possessions were then given to the head Churches of every country, and committed to the Bishops who governed those Churches, as to wise and faithful stewards to husband the same, according to the necessities of the Church through their dioceses. It grew afterward in process of time, that the Bishops held those lands for their proper uses, but this was from a latter use, the distribution of Church goods, being first brought into four parts, and by little and little afterward, as authority so power to maintain that authority falling into the hand of one man. The former use was so ancient, that it is hard to fetch the beeginning thereof. In the time of Urbanus Origen lived, for Hierom saith, that Lib de scriptor. eccles. Origen was 17. years old in the tenth year of Severus, and died about the 70. year of his age, so he lived long before and after the time wherein Urban sat in the Sea of Rome. In his time that order of the Church, which before was held in the community of all things decaying: tithes were accounted due, and called for. That thus they were accounted in his time, it appeareth by these testimonies: Quomodo abundat justitia nostra plusquam Orig. Hom 11. in Num. Scribarum & Pharisaeorum, si illi de fructibus terrae suae gustare non audent, priusquam primitias sacerdotibus efferant, & Levitis decimae separentur: & ego nihil horum faciens, fructibus terrae ita abutar, ut sacerdos nesciat, Levites ignoret, divinum altare nonsentiat? where Origen for the farther manifestation of his meaning doth distinguish these terms, lex, mandata, iustificationes, praecepta, testimonia, but forasmuch as serveth our purpose, he observeth that it is not written, haec est lex decimarum, as it is written of things ceremonial: haec est lex paeschae, lex Azymorum, lex circumcisionis, where Origen noteth that this is a mark of a ceremony, for of such it is never written saith he, hoc est mandatum Paschae, but haec est lex Paschae, etc. by which he proveth that tithes are no ceremonies, and he layeth down this position, Christus nos redemit de maledicto legis, non de maledicto mandati, nec de maledicto testimonij; aut iudiciorum, which sentence would be favourably expounded, as taking usaledictum for the obligation which did bring the curse with it: but I seek out only the judgement of Origen for the point in question: upon these reasons he saith plainly, hanc ego legem (speaking of the law whereby Ibid. tithes were paid) observari etiam secundum literam, sicut & alia nonnulla necessarium puto, and again, non videtur huinsmodi anima habere memoriam Dei, nec cogiture, nec credere quia Deus dederit fructus quos caepit, quos i●a recondit quasi alienes à Deo, si enim â Deo sibi dates crederet, sciret utique munerando Sacerdotes, honorare Deum de datis & muneribus suis, farther he expoundeth that saying, Mat. 23. these things you ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone: to be a precept no less for the use of Christions, than jews. Out of which testimonies we see plainly what Origen (whom Hierom accounteth the most learned of the Fathers) esteemeth of tithes. Of diverse things so expressly affirmed by him, we may especially observe two. First, that Origen (who by Hieroms account was borne in the year of Christ 188.) had received from his elders no other knowledge of this question, than this, that tithes are due among Christians, secundum literam, aswell as among jews. Secondly, it is to be observed, that as soon as we first hear any thing spoken of this question in the church we find that tithes were not accounted ceremonial, or judicial, but moral and perpetual precepts for the Church. Now as Origen receiveth and reporteth the doctrine of the Church before him, so immediately succeeding the Apostles, for between the death of john the Apostle, and Origen were but 84. years, so that which Origen here delivereth of tithes, was never crossed in the Church following, till Antichrist oppressed all. Now this seemeth to me, a very great presumption for the truth, if there were no more, that a sentence should be kept in the best times of the Church, so long uncontrolled, and never altered, till the mist of superstition came in, which changed all things. But let us consider the rest which follow. Next after Origen followeth Cyprian who reproving Cyprian ep. 66. Geminius Faustinus, whom Geminus Victor had made overseer of his will this he sharply rebuking as being against the Canons saith, that ministers (or as he termeth them by a word in use in that age, Presbyteri) have nothing to do with secular affairs: but as the Levites had no other business but to attend on the Altar, so the Lord had provided for ministers, that they might not be drawn by worldly occasions from their holy business: but might live of that honourable stipend with their brethren, In honore sportulantium fratrum. as they who received tithes of the fruit of the earth. etc. Tanquam decimas ex fructu accipientes ab altari & sacrificijs non recedant, sed die ac nocte celestibus rebus ac spiritualibus seruiant. Where he saith the ministers lived in honore sportulantium fratrum: It showeth that ancient use whereof we spoke before, that the goods of the Church, whether rends of lands, or tithes, or whatsoever other provision, were in his time retained according to the ancient custom, in the Bishop's hands, and out of them did the Bishop minister to the necessity of every one, for sportula was the stipend or allowance of each Presbyter or minister, which the Bishop then used to distribute among them, of the goods of the Church. This was the ancient use of the Church, before the division of Parishes: for at this time the division of Parishes was not yet instituted, so we find tithes paid before Parishes were divided: but then brought to the Bishop and by him distributed among the Ministers. It is the common opinion that Dyonisius did first institute the division of the parishes, who was Bishop of Rome by Hieroms account in the year 266. that is some Inter decreta Dionisij & caus. 13. q. 1. eight years after Cyprians martyrdom or origen's death, for they two died almost within one year. By this time parishes began to be divided, and tithes orderly assigned to several Churches. here the question may be moved, when began tithes to be distinctly assigned to their several Churches. This question we move for our ministers at the common law, who following a common error, and taking up some rumour without scanning, hold that tithes were not assigned to any certain Churches before the council of Lateran: and that in the former times before that council, it was lawful for a man to pay tithes to what Church he would; so he paid, it was no matter to whom. But this is a tale not only without all ground of story, but against the testimony of ancients: for presently upon the division of parishes, it was assigned to what several churches tithes should be paid. Gratian bringeth a testimony out of Dionysius himself to prove this. Ecclesias singulas, Caus. 3. q. etc. that is: we have assigned several churches for several ministers, and divided to each their parishes and churchyards, & appointed that every one should have their proper right, so that none may intrude upon the parish or right of another. The same is also confirmed by the testimony of Leo the fourth, who saith, de decimis etc. that is, concerning tithes not we only, but also those aunceaunts that have been before us, have thought good that the people should pay them to baptismal Churches. By a baptismal Church is meant such a Church where all who dwell within the circuit of that parish ought to be baptized, and it is distinguished by this name from Chapels, for albeit diverse Chapels were founded within the same circuit, yet it was the ancient order that Baptism might not be celebrated in those Chapels, but only in the chief Church in that circuit. This is confirmed out of a council of Toledo, plures baptismales Caus. 16. q. plures. ecclesiae in una terminatione esse non possunt, sed una tantummodo cum capellis suis. The counsel called Cabilonense about the year 650. hath thus: Ecclesiae antiquitus constitutae Ibid. Eccle. nec decimis, nec ulla possessione priventur, ita ut novis oratorijs tribuantur. And in case a man should build a Church or Chapel within his own liberty, yet he might not pay tithes to it, but the tithes must go to the ancient Church as in former times, for so saith a council of Worms about the time of Charles the great. Quicunque Ibid. qnicu● volverit etc. that is, If any man will build a new Church within his own liberty, he may, so he have the consent of the Bishop in whose diocese it is, but then the Bishop must provide that the ancient Churches lose not their right and tithes, by these new, but the tithes are always to be paid to the ancient Churches. Anastasius Bishop of Rome, Ann. 398. hath two testimonies to the same purpose, Statuimus etc. that is, we appoint Ibid. statuit that if any shall withhold the tithes and offerings which the people are to pay, or shall give them from the baptismal Churches without the knowledge of the Bishop, or of him whose duty it is to look thereto, and will not be ruled by their counsel, he be accursed and debarred from the communion. Now if hence any shall surmise that he may by the sufferance of the Bishop do this, because he is commanded without his knowledge not to do it: that is answered, Concil. Wormac: that the Bishop himself may not give that licence to pay tithes from Baptismal Churches; and in an other place it is said, that if the Bishop should do so, he should turn the house of God into a den of Ibid. q. 7. thieves, and should therefore be excommunicate without hope of return. Again, Anastasius saith, quidam laici qui vel in proprijs, vel in beneficijs suas habent basilicas, contempta Caus. 16. q. 1. Episcopi dispositione, non ad Ecclesias ubi baptismum & praedicationem, & alia Christi Sacramenta percipiunt, decimas suas daunt, sed proprijs Basilicis, vel aliis Ecclesiis pro libitu sue tribuunt, quod omnibus modis legi & sacris canonibus constat esse contrarium. The council of Chalcedon Can. 16. witnesseth that the country parish Churches were under the jurisdiction of several Bishops, and if a question rose to which Bishop the parish belonged, 30. years prescription was required to prove the right. If any city should be afterward renewed by the authority of the Emperor, than the ordination of Parishes should follow the new ordination of that city. Thus were parish Churches under the government of Bishops, and tithes assigned to their proper Churches, long before the council of Lateran: that counsel provided nothing at all in this point, only whereas the Regulars and Seculars were then devising a trick to defraud the Churches of tithes, the counsel provided to take order to stop that injustice, for the Regulars and Seculars when they let their houses or farms, would covenant that the farmer should pay tithes to them, hereby the Church to whose parish the farm belonged, was defrauded. To redress this abuse the counsel of Lateran, Cap. 56. ordaineth that such tithes should not be paid to the landlords, but to the parish Church. This is the rather to be noted, because it openeth the manner and beginning of that wickedness, which came in by such fraternities, for from these beginnings impropriations came in, now the counsel cunningly helped forward the matter, for by taking away private authority, there was a privilege cunningly thrust into the Pope's hands, and therefore this abuse was forbidden by the counsel, because they who would do it, must fetch a licence from the Pope, for before this time began those dispensations as hereafter will be showed. Before we proceed to the testimonies of succeeding Fathers, one thing I would note concerning patronages of Churches, for that is a thing not unworthy of knowledge, and pertaining to the question which I follow. The Church had of old, even from the Apostles times, or very near them, lands and possessions, which were disposed by the chief of the clergy, that is, Bishops, there were also, as parishes were distinguished, some portions of land assigned to every parish Church, Ministers then having temporalties, as now we call them, it could not choose but questions might arise concerning those possessions. Now when any troublesome question did arise, those godly men in the beginning would not be contentious in the law, no not for their own lands, wherefore because they should neither be drawn from the service of the Church through suits, nor yet lose their land upon the suit of contentious men: there were certain temporal men appointed either by godly kings, whom Marsilius Patavinus calleth Legislatores, or by such as gave those lands, to be Patrons of Churches, who might be ready to defend, the Church-rights, that the Bishops and Pastors might with more fruit, and less encumbrance apply their vocations. Marsilius Patavinus witnesseth thus much: Dominium Defence. pac. part 2 Cap. 14. temporalium quae sunt pro ministrorum Euamgelicorun sustentatione statuta, est legislatoris, aut eius vel eorum, qui per legislatorem ad hoc fuerint deputati, vel per eos qui talia dederunt, si fuerint singularès personae, quae supra dicta temporalia dederint, et ordinaverint ex bonis suio ad usum praedictum. Qui sequidem sic statuti ad ecclesiasticorum temporalium defensionem & vendicationem, vocari solebant ecclesiarum patroni. Nam antiquitus viri sancti atque perfecti ministri evangelici Christum imitari volentes, contra nullum volverunt contondere judicio. Our purpose is not to stay in examining every defect in Marsilius, whereunto he was carried by an earnest welwilling to the emperors cause, and an hatred against the abuses of the church as then it stood. Only we note that temporal patrons were appointed by the first doners, not to bestow church-livings, as now they do, but to defend the right of the land given to the church. For at the first, patrons had no more right, neither could retain any more to themselves then that which was common to all. This appeareth out of diverse testimonies (which I cite only for story sake: for although these be not undoubted testimonies, yet undoubtedly this use may be made of them) Whereas one julius had founded a church, Gelasius writeth to Senectior Bishop of that diocese, wherein the church was founded, to dedicate Or as the gloss seemeth to read the dotation. the same. Provided, that first julius did resign the donation: and he must know that he can retain therein no right to himself, praeter processionis aditum, qui omnibus christianis dibetur. What is meant by processionis aditus, I Caus. 16. q. 7. leave to the canonists to expound: but by the words it seemeth to be a thing common to all christians. It is likewise witnessed, that one Frigentius, founding a Church, retained no more than the former. The same is confirmed Ibid. by a constitution of the fourth Toledan council. Noverint conditores basilicarum in rebus quas eisdem conferunt, nullam se potestatem habere, sed iuxtà canonum instituta, Concil. Tolet. 4. can. 32. sicut ecclesiam, ita & dotem eius ad ordinationem episcopi pertinere. But in the same council it is granted, that the founders of churches in their life time only may nominate a minister to the church. Thus much concerning the beginning of patronages: where we may note how far this thing among many is drawn by corruption from the beginning: for patrons were first instituted for defence of the church rights from the wrong and insolences of corrupt and contentious men. But the rights of the church, are at this day every where overthrown, as it were by a common conspiracy of men, against the church & ministery, partly by ancient corruptions, partly by latter. And where can the church have her right, for corrupt customs? but do the patrons stand in the gap to defend the churchright? do they not look on whilst every one maketh haste to carry away the spoils, one inviting another as to a common prey. They will say, it were to much for them to defend the church in this spoiling age: yet this they should do from the beginning. Sed quis custodiat ipsos custodes? but I return to my story. We have showed out of such records as are least, when tithes began to be established in the church, after the Apostles: how parishes were separated, and tithes severally assigned to each limitation; that the use of paying tithes to limited churches was not a matter devised by the council of Lateran, but in better use, and more incorrupt order before that council then ever since: that the use of patronages in the beginning was for the defence of the church-rights. Now we are to inquire how the succeeding fathers did write of tithes after they were once assigned to particular churches. chrysostom teaching an husbandman how he may be a worthy Christian and do good works though he build no Churches, saith: quasi ducta uxore vel sponsa, vel data virgine, sie erga Ecclesiam affectus esto, dotem ascribe Hom, 18, i● Act. illi, ita benedictionis praedium multiplicabitur, quid enim non erit illic bonorum? parumne est obscero toreular benedici? panumne est Deum ex omnibus fructibus prius partem ac decimas accipere? ad pacem agricolarum hoc utile, and presently after, preces illic perpetuae propter te, laudes ac synaxes propter te, he doth not only teach them that they ought to pay tithes, but he giveth these reasons, because their service, prayers, preaching, is for thee: and because this is the means to have a plentiful blessing upon the rest, he witnesseth also the same use of paying tithes in his time, by reproving the abuses of Bishops and ministers, when they seemed more careful to receive tithes, then to procure the good of the people, of which sort many were in his time, and many more are in our days: Si populus decimas non obtulerit, murmurant omnes: at si peccantem populum viderint, nemo murmurat contra cos. Hom. 44. in Mat. Hierom speaking in the person of a minister of the gospel, saith thus. If I then being a part of the Lords inheritance, take not my part among my brethren, but as a Levite Ad Nepotia. de vitacler. and Priest, live of tithes, having meat and raiment, heerewithall I am contented. Again he saith, quod de decimis diximus, quae olim dabantur à populo sacerdotibus & In Malach. 3. 8. Levitis in Ecclesiae quoque populis intelligito. In which place he saith farther: Ecclesiae populis praeceptum est dare decimas, for proof he allegeth S. Paul, the elders that govern well, are worthy of double honour, especially they who labour 1. Tim. 5. most in the word and doctrine, expounding honour, maintenance: and understanding that maintenance, tithes. Out of which testimonies of Hierom (who is by Erasmus judged the most learned of the Latin Fathers) it may be observed. First, that the precept of tithes is taken to be part of the moral law, and aught to be in no less force among Christians then among jews, such strangers were the learned Fathers in these late devices which now are found out, that tithes should be ceremonial or judicial, for albeit these terms, decimae debentur iure divino, were not in use in those ancient times, yet the Fathers expressly delivered that which is aeqivalent, that Christians are bound to the law of tithes aswell as jews were: that the precept for paying tithes is now to be understood in the Church secundum literam. Secondly, we observe that the reasons used in the new Testament by the Apostles do truly in the Father's judgements conclude for tithes, and not for the pretended competency, which thing was utterly unknown to the Fathers. Ambrose faith: Quicunque recognoverit in se quod In serm. Quadrages. sideliter non dederit decimas, modo emendet quod minus fecit, quid est fideliter dare? nisi ut nec peius, nec minus aliquando afferat de grano, aut de vino, aut de fructibus arborum, aut de pecudibus, aut de horto, etc. In Augustins' time, it seemeth the people, at least in Africa, were very negligent in paying tithes, and therefore he exhorteth them very earnestly to that duty, Maiores nostri ideo copies Lib. 50. Homoliarum homel. 48. omnibus abundabant, quia Deo decimas dabant, & Caensari censum reddebant: modo autem quia discessit devotio Dei, accessit indictio fisci: noluimus partiri cum Deo decimas, modo autem totum tolletur. In which place he witnesseth two things. First, that it was the custom of the Church long before his time to pay tithes. Secondly, that this thing pleased God so much, that he blessed them who used it, so that therefore they had abundance: and that men now in his time wanted, because they were not faithful in this service of God: and therefore preaching upon the 146. Psal. upon these words, he maketh the grass to grow upon the mountains: he compareth the husband man to the mountain, that receiveth rain and bringeth forth grass, he compareth preaching to the rain, and tithes to grass, ecce mons es, accipe pluuiam, & da faenum, and therefore a little after he saith exime partem aliquam reddituum tuorum, decimas vis? decimas exime, quanquam parum sit, dictum est enim quia Pharisaei decimas dabant, & quid ait. Dominus, nisi abundaverit justicia vestra plusquam Scribarum & Pharisaeorum non intrabitis in regnum coelorum, & ille super quem debet abundare justicia tua, decimas dat, tu autem vix centessimam das. Where S. Augustin expoundeth the words of the Gospel as Origen and other Fathers did, as no less belonging, yea much more to Christians then to jews. He speaketh not doubting (as some understand his words) but because the people of his country were so far from performing this duty, if there be any doubt in his words, it is only in this, whether the tenth part were not too little, for so doth his words imply, decimas vis? decimas exime, quanquam paris sit. And he whom thou must exceed in righteousness payeth tithes, whereby he implieth, that thou must pay more, for he doth not leave it at the people's liberty to pay tithes, or not to pay, as some take it: but showeth them that were so far from this duty, that they ought to pay tithes and yet do more than that. Leo the first, lived in S. Augustins' time, but younger; Gratian citeth his words thus. Nullus decimas ad alterum pertinentes accipiat: not long after this, the council called Marisconense 2. was held, Caus. 16. q. 2. wherein it was thus decreed. Leges divinae sacerdotibus & ministris ecclesiarum pro haereditaria portione omni populi praeceperunt, Concil. Matif. 2. can. 6. decimas fructuum svorum sacris locis praestare, ut nullo habere impediti, spiritualibus possent vacare ministerijs: quas leges Christianorum congerics longis temporibus custodivit intemeratas. unde statuimus ut mos antiquus reparetur, ut decimas ecclesiasticas omnis populus inferat. This council was held about the year of Christ: 580. The testimony of the fathers of this council is to be observed They witness that the ordinance of tithes was very ancient in the church before them: and as ancient, so universally received among Christians. They witness likewise that the right thereof is from the law of God. Before this council almost an hundredth years, was held the first council of Orleans, which affirmeth the same. After this the same truth was likewise confirmed by diverse councils. Concil: Caebilonens: 2. cap. 19 council: Melens. cap. 2. Concil. Valent. cap. 10. Concil. Foreiuliens. cap. ult. Concil. Mogunt: cap. 17. Concil. Rothomag. which is thus cited by Gratian: Omnes decimae terrae, sive de frugibus, sive de pomis arborum, domini sunt, & illi sanctificantur Ones, boves, & Caus. 16. q. 1. caprae quae sub virga pastoris transeunt, quioquid decimae evenor it sanctificabitur Domino. The Fathers of this council show that they understood the precept of tithes Levit 27. literally, no otherwise to be understood for jews than Christians. Concil. Triburiens. cap. 13. and 14. saith thus: quid si dicerit Dominiss, nempe meus es ô homo, mea est terra quam colis, mea semina q●● spargis, mea animalia quae fatigas, meus est solis ardour: & quum omnia mea sint, tu qui manus accomodas solum decimam merebaris, sed servo tibi novem, da mihi decimam, si non dederis decimam auferam novem, si dederis mihi decimam multiplicabo novem. Si ergo querat aliquis cur decimae dantur, sciat quod ideo dandae sunt, ut hac devotione Deus placatus, largiùs praestet quae necessaria sunt, & ut ministri Ecclesiae exinde relevati, liberiores fiant ad spiritualis exercitij explecionem. Gregory the first saith thus: sicut offerre in lege iubemini, fratres Hom. 16. in Evang, charissimi, decimas rerum, it a ei offerre contendite decimas dierum, where Gregory expressly applieth the precept of tithes written in the law to Christians, teaching that christians in the law were commanded to pay tithes. Beda in his book called Scintillae proveth tithes due by Scriptures and Fathers, he citeth out of Augustin: decimae ex debito requiruntur, & qui eas dare noluerit, res alienas invadit. And again: haec est Domini iustissima consuetudo, ut si tu illi decimam non dederis, tu ad decimam revoceris: And many other testimonies. Caesarius Arelatens. Episc: saith, decimae non sunt nostrae, sed Hom: 9, Ecclesiae. Walafridus Strabo saith, decimas Deo & sacerdotibus eius dandas, Abraham factis, jacob promissis insinuat, De rebus ecclesijs. cap. 87. deinde lex statuit, & omnes doctores sancti commemorant. Leo the fourth, about the year of Christ, 840. is thus cited by Gracian, de decimis justo ordine, non tantum nobis, sed etiam maioribus visum est a plebibus tantum ubi sacrosancta Caus. 16. q. 10. baptismata dantur, debere dari. About this time and after it, tithes were established by constitutions of Princes, as by Charles the great, and other. Some learned men have thought, because some Princes have made constitutions for tithes to be paid to the Church: that therefore tithes are held by no other right then Prince's constitutions. But before this time tithes were always held by the laws of God, and not of Princes. I grant if Princes were so ungodly, as they were in the time of the Apostles, that they would not yield to God's ordinance herein, but would resist the same: then could not tithes be paid, as in the Apostles times for that cause they were not, but the right ceaseth not, and as wicked Princes cannot take away the right by stopping the practice: so godly Princes cannot make a right, but only confirm it, when by their good laws they yield to God's ordinance. Though Ezekias by a Godly law command the keeping of the Passeover: yet the Passeover may not therefore 1. Chron 30. be called the constitution of Ezekias. It is the more to be marveled, that men of learning are so hasty in concluding that tithes are nothing but princes constitutions, because they find them confirmed by some few princes. After this time the Church succeeding, agreed with the former Churches in this opinion, as appeareth by the testimonies recorded. Auent: lib. 3. Anual. Synod. Arelat: 4 cap 9 Synod. Anglic. cap. 17. in which place it is testified, that tithes ought to be paid, as it is commanded in the law, they testify also that no man can give acceptable alms of the rest, unless first he separate the tenth to the Lord, which he hath appointed for himself from the beginning, they testify farther, that many grudging to pay the tenth part, are therefore often themselves brought to atenth part: the same is confirmed by Rabanus Maurus, in Num. lib. 2. ca 22. & 23. Leges Boiorum apud Auent. lib. 3. Gregory. 2. apud Auent. lib. 3. Concil. Warm. cause 16. q. 1. Nicolaus 1. (about the year of Christ 858.) caus. 16. qu. 2. And thus in the story of tithes we are come to those timees wherein the change began, for all this while there was no change thought of in this question. After this, began those late devices where of we spoke before, for now the Pope being grown to such an incorrigle pride and liberty, that he would do all things after his own pleasure, no Prince or Emperor being able to bring him into order, began by his al-oppressing power to change this ordinance of tithes, which from the beginning remained untouched till now, for after it was once found out, that all things holy & profane, were ready merchandise for them that brought most: then came in exemptions first, and afterward impropriations, transfering tithes from one to an other: when exemptions first came in, I cannot certainly define. In the schism between two Popes Alexander the third, and Victor the fourth, Alexander prevailed by force & perfidiousness, as they speak who write thereof, of him it is testified: Cistercienses, Hospitalarios, & Templarios decimarum solutione exemit, before that time Catus. test. veril. tom. 2. lib. 15. john xv. gave the like privilege to Saint Benet's Monks at Casinum as witnesseth Leo Marsican: Hostiensis Episcop. Lib. 2. cap. 1. histor. Casinensis monasterij, in these words. hoc ultra johannem duodecimum, etc. in suo privilegio autoritate Apostolica addidit, nulli Episcopo licere ab ullo ex populis monasterio subiectis, vel a quibuslibet ubique terrarum ad se pertinentibus Ecclesijs, decimas vivorum seu oblationes defunctorum qualibet occasione percipere. This john was Pope Ann. 990. After this the merchandise of exempting and appropriating was well followed: this new practice of Popes against the ancient ordinance of God was first maintained by the wit of Alexander de Hales, and after by Thomas of Aquine as we have showed. Their devise is that tithes are judicials: they framed new distinctions to colour the Pope's usurpation, after he had first by impropriations broken the ordinance of God, and put tithes away from the teachers, which from the beginning of the world till these times, had not been done before. All the schoolmen in a manner follow these two in this question: who with their unfruitful disputations darkening the church, as they carried many parts of the holy truth into bondage, so it is not much to be marveled if this truth of tithes found among them the same entertainment, which other parts of the truth of greater importance did find. After this time the right of tithes seemed to lie buried by the Pope's usurpation, without great resistance: yet some were found though few, who against the flattery of schoolmen, preserved the truth of this question. Nicolaus Lyra, albeit carried into some superstitions by the stream of those times, yet taught this point not after the late schoolmen, but after the ancient fathers. So did Strabus an Anglosaxon the author of the ordinary gloss. johannes Semeca, author of the gloss upon Gratians decrees, did withstand Pope Clement the fourth, exacting tithes through Germany, which thing Semeca took to be unlawful, and was therefore excommunicate by the Pope, and put from the place of government, which he held at Halberstade. Against which injustice, Semeca appealed to a council, and had many great men favouring his cause. Whilst the contention grew hot between them, the death of them both ended the quarrel: the story is in Krantzius. And thus the Pope oppressing all with his greatness, making open sale of tithes, instituting impropriations, laid waste the Churches every where. And in this sort they stood until the time of reformation began by the blessed labours of them whom God raised up for that service. After which time the opinion that tithes were ceremonials was first devised. CHAP. VI The objections answered, and the point in question confirmed. THus far have we followed the story of Tithes from the beginning, though not so exactly as might be wished, yet so as serveth sufficiently to show how the right of tithes have stood: that they were always due to the teachers of the Church, before the law, under the law, and in the time of grace. And this is sufficient to show that this thing belongeth to the moral law, and so to the law of nature. For that which always remaineth the same in all ages of the church, doth surely belong to the moral law. Thus have tithes always stood the same in all ages of the church, until late corruptions breaking in like a flood, have taken away the knowledge and right difference of things. But if a man with judgement think of the matter, he will confess that late upstarts opinions, especially such as are maintained neither by scriptures, ancient fathers, nor reasons (for they who hold tithes from the church have no other argument than such as moved the Pope to take them away, might, and usurpation, and that most pleasing reason of gain) A man I say of judgement and indifferency must needs yield that these later opinions ought not to prescribe against so ancient a truth. Now lest any scruple might remain, we purpose last of all to consider the objections moved against our conclusion. Bellarmine passeth somewhat hastily by it, and maketh but one objection, but Alphonsus Tostales Bishop of Abula doth insist in the question and seeketh to breed more trouble. First he would prove that tithes belong not to the law of nature. Secondly, not to the moral law. And first he objecteth thus: God did institute in the old Testament, that tithes should be paid, therefore Abulens. in Mat. cap. 23. qu. 136. this is not pertaining to the law of nature: the reason is, that which is natural is not instituted by a law, for unto such things the bond of nature sufficeth: we answer, we find many things instituted in the law, which out of question belong to the law of nature, as the whole decalog. Abulensis reasoneth against this answer thus: things pertaining to the law of nature, are not put among other precepts, but only they are contained in the decalog, tithes are put with others. I answer to this last objection, and to the former thus: tithes have two respects. First, if we respect the general ordinance of tithes, they were not instituted in the law, for this ordinance was before the law, and so tithes were always the Lords, as we have showed. Secondly, if we respect the particular assignation of tithes to the Levites, this is all which was instituted in the law. Now this Levitical assignation is put with other precepts, but the general ordinance of tithes is included in the decalog. The parts of this distinction we have proved, wherefore all that Abulensis can prove by this argument, is only this, that the Levitical assignation was not belonging to the law of nature, which we yield. Again, where he saith, nothing belonging to the law of nature is set among other precepts, this is false: for those things which are included in the decalog, are often repeated among other precepts, therefore idolatry, whoredom, and such like are forbidden, not only in the decalog, but among other precepts: usury is against the law of nature, as natural men have witnessed, yet it is set among other precepts, and the Prophet Ezekiel showeth that all these, usury, idolatry, whoredom, etc. are the breaches of the moral law, Ezek. 18. therefore those things that belong to the law of nature are set among other precepts. To that objection which Abulensis draweth from Jacob's vow, we have answered before. Farther he objecteth thus: If they were of the law of nature, then should all nations be bound thereto, to this we have answered before, showing that all Christians have thought themselves bound thereto, and that even heathen men have thought no less. Another objection is: If they belong to the law of nature, then should they be due to God's ministers; and yet in the old Testament tithes were not given, nor any part of them, to the priests, which were gods chief ministers, but only to the Levites which were ministers of less place. I answer: where as Abulensis saith, the priests had no tithes, which saying he often repeateth; we think it enough to answer him with the authority of other. Lyra a jew borne and more skilful in the ancient affairs of the jews, than Abulensis, upon the 7. Heb. saith thus: Levitae generaliter recipiebant decimas a reliquo populo. Inter Levitas autem illi qui erant maiores illius tribus, videlicet sacerdotes summi filii▪ Aaron, non solum accipiebant decimam à populo, sed etiam de part Levitarum recipiebant, quae vocabatur decima decimae Num: 18. This testimony spoileth his argument. Hierom also witnesseth as much, in Malach. 3. Again, in the language of the fathers, this word Levites under the gospel is always used for a preaching minister. Whereby they signified that tithes were due to labouring ministers. Bishops were otherwise provided for: albeit in the beginning Bishops had the distributing of such things among the ministers. He objecteth farther. When GOD disposed of tithes Num. 18. He saith: I have given the tithes to the children of Levi, for their service at the tabernacle, etc. Wherein is meant, that he gave this possession but of late to the levites: and therefore commanded them to possess nothing among their brethren (thus much we grant, what is the conclusion?) now if tithes were due by the law of nature, then would not God take from them the right of possessing the land among the Israelites. We answer: this last inference is divided, there is no proof brought for it, neither is there any affinity between the antecedent and consequent: For GOD may command the Levites to possess no lands (other than was assigned to them, which was a large portion) because no worldly business should call them away from the service of GOD, and because the ministers of the gospel might be instructed, not to entangle themselves with the affairs of this world to much, in which sense the Apostle giveth that instruction to Timothy: no man that warreth doth entangle himself with the affairs of this life, because he would please him that hath cozen him 2. Tim. 2. 4. to be a soldier: and yet the general right of tithes may belong to the law of nature for all this. But admitting the conclusion, we say it concludeth only of the Levitical assignation, not of the general ordinance. Another objection is. The Levites by the law of nature were not dedicated to the service of the Tabernacle, therefore the tenth was not determinable by nature. We answer: The dedication of the Levites to the service of the Tabernacle was ceremonial. That therefore tithes should be ceremonial, the consequence holdeth not: no not so much as to prove the Levitical assignation ceremonial. It proveth that assignation only temporary not perpetual: For it is to last no longer than the service of the Levites. This is all that can be truly inferred. Another objection is thus: That thing is only pertaining to the law of nature, whose bond and duty may be determined by natural reason, but natural reason doth not determine numbers, for there can no natural reason be brought, why rather the tenth part then more or less should be paid. We answer by distinguishing both laws natural and moral. If we understand the law of nature to reach as far as the moral law in his largest sense, (as Abulensis understandeth it) than tithes belong to the law of nature, even as doth the sanctifying of a seventh day to God, and natural reason doth aswell determine the tenth in number as the seventh in number. And because Abulensis taketh natural in this sense, (for in Leuit. cap. 1. qu. 1. he saith: Moralia praecepta naturalia sunt) therefore in answering whensoever I admit tithes to belong to the law of nature, I would be understood to speak in this sense. But if we take the law of nature, for that which floweth from natural principles and is manifested to the natural man by natural means: so we grant tithes not natural. We may also distinguish things moral, for either they are moral by divine institution, or by nature: things moral by nature are those that belong to the law of nature, in which sense the moral law and natural law is all one. But moral by institution are all things beelonging to the true worship of God; which things as they come not from the principles of nature, so they are not known to the natural man. Among these things are a sanctifying of a seventh day by God, and sanctifying of tithes to God: which things are moral by divine institution, and so natural by a secondary declaration after, and upon the law of nature, and in that sense reduced to the law of nature, as all things that are revealed in the true worship of God, being moral, not by nature but by divine institution. Another objection is: If it were moral, then must it remain as it then stood, but than it stood so, as to be paid to the levites, not to the Priests, therefore it should not now be paid to the Priests, yet now it is paid to the Priests, we answer, this is a fallacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ambiguity is in this word Priest. They are not now given to such Priests as then were, but they are now given to the labouring ministers: who albeit in the time of Abulensis were commonly called priests, and (the word being understood aright) may justly be so called: yet in truth they answer not to the Priests of the old Testaments, but to the Levites, as we have showed. Again, we have proved out of Lyra and Hierom, that even then also they were given to the Priests. another objection is: tithes were the Levites right for their service: but there was no more reason to give tithes to Levites, then to Priests: this is answered, it resteth upon those grounds, that no tithes were then given to Priests, which is untrue, and that tithes were assigned to the Levites which speaketh only of the assignation, and not of the general ordinance. Another objection is: the service of the Levites was a greater thing, then that which was given for their service: but the service itself ceaseth, therefore all the Levites right ought to cease: we answer, we admit the conclusion. All the Levites right ceaseth, that is that Levitical assignation, but the perpetual ordinance of tithes, as it was before Levy can not be taken away by the particular assignation. Another objection he frameth thus: If it were natural, than it could not be changed nor altered by any dispensation: we answer, hoc illud est. This is the great objection that carried Abulensis, and all the rest to devise these quirks and subtleties against tithes, we can easily answer, that the Pope's dispensation herein was unlawful and impious, but all means must be attempted that man's wit can devise, before the Pope's high crown be touched. This is the obiecton which only was thought unanswerable, all the rest are but brought to fill up a number, as doing their service to this: now this reason is with us of no strength, what account soever the Papists make of it, and even among them, there are diverse which doubt not but that the Pope doth dispense with some things even against the law of nature, as appeareth by those cases, which are called casus Papales, Apud francis. Astesanum item Hostiensen. which are drawn also into verses beginning thus: Si sit Catholicus papam non judicat ullus. Wherein it is said that he hath power to dispense in exemptions and perjury, to dispense with that which is cursed anathemate, to dispense against all the rules and canons of the Church, to dispense with that sin which is greater than adultery, and such like, and therefore no marvel if he dispensed against the right of tithes. And these are the great reasons that Abulensis bringeth against this question. Bellarmine bringeth but one argument, and that to prove tithes not ceremonial, but judicial, he saith tithes are not ceremonial but judicial: nam non ordinantur immediatè De cleric● lib. 1. ca 25. ad colendum deum, sed ad aequitatem inter homines, but how doth he prove this? for faith he, God commanded tithes should be paid to Levy, because Levy was the tenth part of Israel, that there might be a proportion between their estate, and the rest: we answer this reason for paying tithes is found in no Scripture, but in Bellarmine's idle conceit, who afterward misliking it, overthroweth it, and findeth Levy to be the twelft part of Israel. Again, if this were a reason to pay tithes, than ought not tithes to have been paid before the law, for this reason had no place when Abraham and jacob paid tithes, farther the reasons that are in the Scripture do overthrow this reason, for God assigneth tithes to Levy out of his own proper right, because all tithes are the Lords Leuit. 27. If the Lord before and in the law had right to all tithes, than this true reason both taketh away Beauties false reason, and proveth that false which Bellarmine saith, tithes had no immediate ordination to the worship of God Last of all, if this reason conclude any thing against us, that tithes are not moral, because they have no immediate ordination to the worship of God, by the same reason it holdeth likewise against all maintenance of ministers, & yet they who deny us tithes, grant that some maintenance is due, and part of the moral law. Now look what ordination the maintenance which they yield us, hath to the worship of God, the same we prove of tithes: but Bellarmine saith as much for us, as we can desire, certum est (saith he) praeceptum de soluendis decimis, qua part divinum & naturale est, non posse ulla lege humana To. 1 con. 5. lib. 1. c. 25. vel consuetudine contraria aboleri, ac proinde certum est, Ecclesiam habere ius petendi decimas, etiam ubi consuetudo est, ut non soluantur, in hoc enim omnes theologi & Canonistae conveniunt. If this be so certain, than it is also certain that if it were not for the Pope's dispensations to the contrary, all Papists would assent to our conclusion. By this grant of Beauties we have gotten somewhat, that all the schoolmen and canonists, that is, in a manner all papists, hold that the precept of tithes is divine and of the law of nature in some sort, and that therefore the Church hath right to claim tithes; which words would be well noted, for if therefore the Church hath right to demand tithes, because in some sort tithes belong to the moral and natural law, then are tithes neither judicial nor ceremonial in any sort. For that which the Church may always demand is natural, and divine. But the Church, saith Bellarmine, may always demand tithes, that is, the tenth part, though custom be against it. Therefore the tenth part is due by the law of God and of nature. Now the Church hath not always right to demand things ceremonial, or judicial. By this which Bellarmine granteth, we have enough, for he proveth that the quota pars is natural and divine. And whether Bellarmine grant thus much or not, the force of the truth will compel every man to confess that the thing which must of right always be demanded in the Church, is natural, and divine. Now certain it is, that the Church hath no right to demand any other kind of maintenance than tithes. Abulensis (who seemeth to be much more curious than Bellarmine) moveth this question, quo nam iure debetur In Mat. 23, q. 148. decima? after much disputation, his resolute answer is, debetur iure canonico, quia non debitur iure naturae, nec divino, nec civili, quum illud non imponat onera pro ministris dei, neque est enim aliqua lex civilis quae obliget omnes Christianos, quum non sit aliquis unus princeps secularis omnium, sicut est unus princeps ecclesiasticus. In which words we observe the absurdities whereinto great wits must needs fall, when once they resolve to have the truth, as Saint james saith, in respect of persons, for by this it appeareth what they would hold if the Pope's authority to the contrary, did not set a bias upon their wits and words. First, he saith, tithes are due only iure Canonica, but what then must be said of those times before this ius Canonicum was invented? Tithes were proved by the ancient Fathers to be due, when there was no Canon law in the world, and were more sincerely held by the Church before, then after the Canon law came in, held by the Fathers from the law of God, and no other. Secondly, he granteth that tithes are not due, iure civili, and giveth reasons why they cannot stand by that law, which are well to be marked, because, saith he, tithes are the ministers right through all Christendom. Now neither do the civil magistrate impose those rights, neither is there any one civil Prince that ruleth over all christendom, therefore they are not, neither may be imposed by the civil laws. If this reason be good, then is it certain that tithes have nothing to do with judicials: for nothing is judicial, but that which may be imposed by the civil laws, this is an evident truth which none denieth that knoweth what are judicials, whereby it is no less evident that Abulensis doth utterly overthrow all that devise at once, which the schoolmen so busily build up. Thirdly, we reason from his enumeration of laws thus: Tithes are due by some law, either by the law of God, or by the civil laws, and Princes constitutions, or by the Canon law. But Abulensis and the rest of that side grant that they are not due by the civil law, and Princes constitutions: and we prove that they are not due by the Canon law, (because they were more duly, more orderly, and sincerely paid and held before the Canon law was invented, then ever they were since) therefore it must follow that they are due by the law of God. As this standeth against the Papists, so it standeth no less strong against such as hold tithes Princes constitutions: because it is proved that tithes were held as orderly, and duly in the Church, before they were confirmed by Prince's constitutions, as afterward. Prince's indeed may confirm or forbid the use, but they cannot make or take away the right. Wherefore seeing all that standeth against us is declared to be of no force: and that we have proved that the maintenance in the Apostles times, was nothing but alms: that tithes were established in the Church as the ancient ordinance of God: that this ordinance is not judicial because it is holy, and of things separate from common use: nor ceremonial, because it was not ordained to remain only until the time of reformation, but remaineth after that time: seeing these things stand thus, we may safely conclude that tithes are now due to the ministers of the Church by the express word of God, as they have been always accounted in the best ages of the Church. FINIS.