Moses and Aaron.  
OR THE MINISTERS RIGHT AND THE MAGISTRATE'S DUTY  
Vindicated from the Exceptions made against both, by Richard Kingsnoth, in a late Book of his, Entitled The true Tything of the Gospel-Ministers.  
By DANIEL POINTEL, a servant of Jesus Christ, and Rector of the Church of Christ at STAPLEHURST.  Prov. 18.17. He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him. Rom. 2.22. Thou that abhorrest Idols, dost thou commit Sacrilege? Psal. 77.20. Thou leddest thy People like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron. 
LONDON, Printed by T. C. for Samuel Gellibrand, at the Golden Ball in Paul's Churchyard: 1657.   

An Apologetic INTRODUCTION to my dear Brethren the Church and People of STAPLEHURST.  
I Have found this cause between me and my neighbour among the saddest things that have befallen me since God brought me to this place: And of many things deeply afflicting, this is not the least, that I am forced to a public vindication for a public offence, and therein know not how to clear myself without shaming an aged disciple, who is both the wrongdoer and the false accuser. It is not much agreeable to my spirit to print upon any thing (especially in this youth of mine) but to print upon this Subject hath been much more against my spirit than most things else; not but that the matters are weighty, and greatly useful to the Church's welfare, and the debates of this present time, so it will be a word spoken in season; But many others are concerned in it; and who am I, that I should stand up as a Champion for the two great Pillars of the Land, Magistracy and Ministry, in a time of shaking, through so many fierce contradictions against them both? 2. Besides, this Cause is fully pleaded already by sundry learned & judicious pens, never yet answered, nor ever likely to be answered; whereas (as to the matter of Tithes) though many indeed appear against the divine right, especially of our beyond-sea Divines, both Popish and Reformed; yet few or none of any judgement appear against the lawfulness of them. 3. Because all undertake of this nature are likely to meet with misconstructions enough from those men that know not how not to look asquint upon any thing we either say or do. That charity that thinketh no evil, how is it fled from the earth! it will be thought by many a sufficient answer to all that is brought on the Minister's behalf, to cry out covetousness; and to all on the Magistrates, to cry out persecution. 4. But then when an unwelcome cause must be managed after an unwelcome manner, the cause not to be handled in Thesi, but in Hypothesi, and that drawing in many personal things, and mixing affections with judgements; so that we have now to answer not Error only, but anger, peevishness, self-will, self-interests; and as flowing from them, calumnies, false accuse, unfaithful deal, etc. Upon these thoughts I have been tossed up and down in my mind, sometimes for replying, sometimes against it, till very necessity hath compelled me.  
At the first reading of this Book, I thought I might safely let it alone, and that it needed no answer; but when I understood how it was cried up by that party, and how prized by himself, and that this persuasion was entered into others (not Anabaptists) that some things in it were not to be answered; and seeing how unlikely it was that any Books, new or old, would ever be looked after by them to remove this prejudice, unless some one were brought to their hands from a person known to them, and fitted to this Book and Cause, in which many things of fact are mixed with the matter of right, which no man's Book could answer but mine, and which I have understood have and do lie in the way of some (though I hope not of many) who have had a greater account of my Ministry, till this unhappy debate sprang up: These things have resolved my former doubtfulness, and produced this Treatise here presented unto you.  

Dr. Tillesly's whole Book against Selden is of this purposely.  It hath added to my encouragement in this work, to see not much time needed in this question, to turn over the writings of Ancients, they to whom I writ valuing them not; and that work being done to our hands already by many for their sakes who do value them, and our Learned Adversaries of the Divine Right of Tithes acknowledging what is pleaded upon that account, not only out of the monuments of Heathens, they are said to have done it astutiâ Diaboli; more probable, I think, what we find in the famous Law of Edward the Confessor, That the withholding of Tithes was Instinctu Diaboli, then that the mere paying of Tithes was: Some also inquire why the 7th of time among the Heathens should not be as much astutiâ Diaboli, 
Rivet in Gen. 19  as the tenth of goods. As for Fathers, they are after a cleanly ingenuous manner put with patres excusari possunt, etc. So then Heathens & Fathers are confessedly ours, 
Clem. Alex. Stro. 5. p. 600. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Similia 6 to. Strom. 685.  we must try out the rest by Scripture only; for they that will not be pressed by us with the authority of Fathers, will not (I hope) press us with the Authority of later Popish Monks, the Pontificial Schoolmen, who are all in this cause (and good reason why) against us.  
Had my neighbour spared injurious speeches, and not filled his Book with so many unkind calumniations, but kept himself close to the question of right, I should never have found fault with his omitting the narrative of matters of fact; But seeing he hath sprinkled his Book all over with so much of that unsavoury salt, I am forced to let you understand thus much, that covetousness is a sin that hath deep roots, and is not plucked up many times when we think it is; and when it is stubbed up in the main root, it will yet leave many small fibras behind, which will often be a springing above ground, and require a constant hand, watchfully and industriously employed in plucking them up; and it would be more worth my neighbour's time, now in his old age, among other things, to inquire curiously into his own heart about this sin, rather than spend his approaches to the grave in peevish quarrelings with, and revile of his neighbour, who would fain have lived at peace with him. Did I take any joy in recriminations, it were no hard matter to evidence sore suspicions of covetousness in him, even in the matter in debate between us. I offer to take half the worth of what was (in my account) due to me, for peace sake; he offered about half of that which I would have taken; and no man but will say he might with as good conscience have offered enough as any thing; a greater proportion than a tenth freely given, would have prevented this suspicion, whereas a much less offered, and only to break off the agreement upon the account of the sum to be paid, does not. I promised upon his entreaty to forbear him, if he came in any reasonable time to pay me, and I kept my word above three years together: He promised to compound with me by the pound rend, consenting to my terms offered, and broke his promise, adding contempt to boot, by laying me down twenty shillings for three years, who had laid me down forty shillings for one year, as he said, because he had promised me. I dealt with him fairly and openly, he dealt deceitfully with me; for after he had chosen to compound with me by the yearly rent, liking that better, as he said, then to compound by the Acre, for than he might use his Land as he pleased, he offered to bring me his Lease, that I might see what rent he paid, whereas it is known there are some pounds reserved of his Rent which are not specified in his Lease: I am persuaded this was never done by his Landlord, my truly honoured friend, to abuse the Minister. The goods controverted I am ready to make good my claim to, by that which determines all men's claims among men to things of this nature, the just and righteous Laws of the Land; he avoids that trial, even with contempt, and rebellion after contempt to the lawful commands of the Supreme Magistrate, as not having any title at all to them that is pleadable in any Court of England; and if the Law of God makes them his, I desire to see that Law; such an evidence I hope will satisfy Magistrates and me too; If he detain them by man's Law, let him plead it; if by God's Law, let him show it; if by neither, 
P. .9  it plainly appears he hath no right at all, and I should pray him to detain them no longer; it is sin: I never doubted the lawfulness of receiving Tithes, he never denied the payment of them, or a composition for them, to buy his peace, till he had to do with me, whence I suppose he always held it lawful so to do; neither hath he given us one reason in his Book why his mind is changed. Add that he saves his goods, by a deed of gift to his Sons, and ventures his person, though a person of that moment to souls, as an Elder preaching freely to a Congregation baptised many years. What truth there is in this pretence, let his own heart judge; what honesty there is to convey a man's estate, to defraud creditors, let others judge; but what piety it is for an Elder of a Church, the freedom of whose person is of that precious value in the exercise of his Ministry, to secure his goods in a contest, and venture his person, when the debate was about the goods, not about the person, let the members of his own Congregation judge.  
These are sore suspicions in him, of the sin I am so often charged with, even in this very business; yet I dare not with all this evidence name him so; I know these deal may be referred to other causes; of which some are not so bad as covetousness, and some are worse: I only should advise him to consider his ways: Neither dare I wholly excuse myself from this sin, though I could say much to clear myself in the day of man, and I know this man's accusations are without proof: I hope, grace enabling me, to approve my heart to God, a greater witness then man. I say no more than this, he is aged; and I, though but in the thirty fourth year of my life, am weak, as being lately pulled back by a powerful hand of God, from the very Brink of an Hectic Fever, and still in a constant inclination thither again: we had need not accuse one another rashly; 
Rev. 12.10.  there is one will shortly accuse us both more vehemently than we can one another; and it will be our best wisdom to prepare both of us with all seriousness, how to answer his accusations.  

P. 21.  But how could this word drop from my neighbour's pen, that England's Priests never yet learned in every condition to be content? what not so much as one excepted, and never? I could tell you neighbour of one, the least of ten thousand, that professeth in the sight of God, that the greatest discontent he doth, and hath for a long time gone under, is his own, and yours, and other men's sins, and yet not of so vast an estate as may be an eyesore to stir up the plague of envy in any man. 
P. 18.  Oh Neighbour, in the fear of God consider what Spirit it is puts you upon judging the hearts of so many alive and dead, known and unknown to you, many of them such as have been the glory of the Churches of Christ all the world over. I say not, the Lord rebuke you, but I say, the Lord give you repentance, and make you know that a friendly admonition about the breach of God's Law is no threatening you, neither before in the eighth, nor now in the ninth Commandment. Let profane wicked ones, who will not get out of the danger of the Laws penalty, say they are threatened when they are told of a Law of God (the Law is not against them that are lead by the Spirit, 
Gal. 5.23.  direct them it does) but you are an old Disciple; other apprehensions become you, and a more willing conformity to the mind and will of God.  
I used no sharp words then, neither do I now; do not put forth your hand to take and keep your Neighbour's goods against the lawful owner's mind; it is against the eighth Commandment; do not bear false witness against the hearts of so many, multitudes of whom the world was not, is not worthy; it is against the ninth Commandment; God is the Judge, he will require it; think of it, I entreat you as a Father.  
That expression of my resolution to recover my right from him, if he and I lived together, as he proposes it, does savour at least of unadvised passion, if not of revenge; but he professeth he did not publish it with that intent, and I accept of his profession, though his repeating it often, and especially his leaving out my own explication of myself, that it was a resolution grounded upon conscience of my duty, that I ought not to lose the Title to so considerable a part of the public revenue given for the good of souls, of which I have only the benefit during my present service in the place (which in another place himself sets down) leave but small ground of credit to this profession of his. Had he now set both together, 
P. 6.  I am most resolved to endeavour the recovery of my right, if you and I live together, and added what follows; I say I am most resolved I shall sin if I do not, etc. it would have took out all suspicion of revengefulness out of the Readers mind concerning me; I being necessitated to write so openly, he misinterpreting my former soft and tender dealing with him, to be only a train to draw him into danger, and that there was a Snake under the leaf of my former smother expressions; & the reasons of my choosing that form of expression was, because his age and my weakness made it appear very likely, that one of us might be taken out of this life before this debate should be ended, considering his obstinacy and my duty: Which if it fall out either way, the question of right would be taken up by others, and the question of the present profit now due would fall to the ground, in case he died; if the pretended deed of gift be true (at least I then thought so) and in case of my decease before him, I was resolved to leave it free to those I should leave behind me, to do as God should direct them; and this (now I am fallen upon that unpleasing task) is one instance of unfaithfulness that his book is guilty of; he should not by setting down doubtful words without my explication have rendered me obnoxious to the censure of revengeful from those that do not know me; Though he professing to me, it was done without any malicious intent upon that account, I contradict not, but suppose it so as he professes.  
2. But then when he tells the world in his Preface, he hath adventured to answer all my arguments that (to his remembrance) I ever brought for Tithes, will need another confession from him, when he never had any from me, purposely insisted on, but that of lawful Donation, yea I professedly waved all other pleas to him; it being with me a general rule in this quarrelling age, that if I can persuade men to practise their duty upon principles which no man contradicts, I will never trouble them with those principles that are and; no one thing of all he pretends to reply to for the right of Tithes, as mine was mine indeed, except that of Donation. Here also I find him as becomes a Christian Offender, acknowledging his wrong-doing, that he answers other men's reasonings besides mine, and that he ought to have to the world as much: I add, And to have faithfully distinguished mine from other men's.  
3. In the same Preface he tells us his is but a mite in regard of what others have done in this thing, as if the right of Tithes were such a forlorn cause as had none to plead it, and multitudes had wrote largely against it, who when I questioned with him about it, could name but one, besides Brownists and Quakers, who rage more than they dispute.  

P. 3.  4. I never explained the Law said to be changed, Heb. 7.12. by the portion of Tithes, the Law or portion of Tithes; nay I professed the contrary, and it was the only answer, which upon conference I gave him when he used that Scripture.  
5. I never said it was but the Priesthood, nothing but the Priesthood is changed; the Text tells us that besides, and with the Priesthood there is a Law changed, in my account the Law of Ceremonial Worship, not Tithes: The National Teacher said none of those things.  
6. If the proportion be changed, be it so, words I never spoke, nor never shall admit; for a change is the substitution of one thing for another removed; if then the proportion of Tenth be changed, another is set up; a ninth, eleventh, etc. which none affirms.  

P. 4.  7. If Ministers have nothing but what their Flock in their Parish will freely give them, they may starve; and for this he comes upon me with, 
P. 12.  Sir, you have said enough, and afterwards calls this a strange Carnal reasoning: But these words I never said, neither can he ever make them good. Oh Sir, you have said too much; false slanderous speeches of your Brother are more strange and Carnal than this reasoning is, though I had used it.  

P. 5, 6.  8. Is. 49 23. brought as alleged by me, and a kind of an answer framed to it, which Scripture I used not to him, whereas 2 Chr. 31.4, 5. & Neh. 13.9. which I indeed used, have no answer at all given them.  
9 I wonder not you laboured so much the choice of such Parliament Men as have Personages of their own (as they call it) that helping themselves they might help you; 
P. 8.  untrue every word, I never laboured much in that business, I never heard any commend any Gentleman to the acceptance of the Country upon that account. I have inquired among my Brethren, and none of us knows one Gentleman that hath any Impropriations; I have heard of some great Impropriatours cried up on the other side; I do freely profess that, had I known of such a thing of any of them, I should have known great worth in him to balance that evil, or else I should never have given my voice for him.  
I call it an evil and a great one, most needful, to be reform. King James calls the Act by which they were taken away a Vile Act; and yet neither he not his Son take any effectual care to remedy that Vile Act. I hope after all our needless quarrels, some at last will find out the way of setting about that most necessary work, the buying in of Impropriations.  
10. Though I said some did affirm, etc. I never said so; 
P. 9 I have since seen this seemingly said by reverend Authors of a late very useful treatise: but it is an oversight to be winked at.  that Explication of Hebr. 7.12. which makes nothing changed but the Priesthood, can never come into the mind of a man in his wits.  
11. Did you not undertake to prove the affirmative (that Ministers maintenance ought to be under the Gospel, after the same manner as under the Law, from 1 Cor. 9.14.) No, I did not, I have more than once given it him under my hand that I did not; wherefore then brought you the examples of Hezekiah, & Nehemiah? not only my Papers once and again, but his own reasonings show him why: he had affirmed it must be under the Gospel as it was under the Law, 1 Cor. 9.14. but under the Law it was free. Abraham's payment to Melchizedec was free, jacob's vow was free, etc. so it ought to be under the Gospel: to which plea of his I denied not his reasoning out of 1 Cor. 9.14. but let him carry it there, only denying it to be free under the Law; telling him it was unlikely Abraham and Jacob should hit upon that proportion, without some signification of God's pleasure about it; for aftertimes the Law of God and man both are manifest (and by the way, if abraham's and jacob's fact were free, yet the Apostle in that place manifestly referring us in the similitude to the times after Moses, yea after the building of the Temple, when there were certain Laws, both of God and man, for the payment of Tithes, my Neighbours reasoning he used, did most certainly cut the throat of his own cause) and for the Laws of man, those two examples were given.  
12. When I asked you whether you did demand it by the Law of God? you answered no. I did not say so; only I waved that question, as being unwilling to trouble him with it.  
13. He adds immediately as from me; you were no Jew nor Levite, etc. This was not in answer to the question about the Law of God in general, as he relates it falsely: but in answer to the question of the Law of God, as it made Tithes due to the Levitical Priesthood, (as such) for I was no Jew, 
Aug. 25. 1656.  etc. This he wrote out of the Narrative of the Conference word for word, from whence he might have related the rest with faithfulness, for it was before him.  
14. When I asked you, Do you require it by the gift of Indulgent Princes? you say no. The quite contrary is most true; I always pleaded it to him by the gift of Indulgent Princes and people, and never used to him any Argument but that; and my similitude to make things plain to him was this: A testator dies, and leaves me a Legacy; his Executor refusing to pay, is constrained to it by order of Law; the Law here does not ground the Title, but the Testators will; 
P. 13.  it only confirms the will, and affords a remedy to the injured person. This he knows, and hath confessed was my Language to him; see what he Prints.  
15. Yet to deceive the simple, you plead both. I challenge him to name the person, to whom I have said otherwise in this, or in any other point than I have said to him, and then it will appear whether this be a slander or no.  
16. Your Predecessor takes 20. l. per an. of you to let you have the living, and cometh once or twice a year for his money, and Preacheth a Sermon to colour it over. Untrue, and incredible both! through the grace of God I am what I am; I hope they that know me, do not believe that I need lay our money to purchase a living; I was sought to from London at that very time, from a people there after a free and full Election, as I have to show under their hands; this in the midst of my relations and acquaintance; and was it likely I should wound my Conscience so deep without cause, that I might place myself in the dirt, far from my Friends, among a company of mere strangers; or if I were so vain as well as wicked, could not this money matter be carried closely, as such manner of purchases are want to be? were we all so many of us such sots, as to proclaim our wickedness in the face of the Sun? No, no, there was no such matter; if ever I saw God's hand in any particular providence all my life, it was in his overruling hand, disposing me for Staplehurst, and bringing me to it; it was Gods work, I am most undoubtedly assured of it, and not the Devils: had I not seen it most apparently, I had never stayed here; what was done between me and my Predecessor, was done before many witnesses: it was but this: Two Ministers consenting to Preach to the same people, by consent likewise share the proportion, both of time and maintenance which each should have, that there might be no difference about these things afterwards, a thing not only lawful to be done, but in a manner necessary, on my part with all sincerity undertaken and performed, God is witness; as for my truly honoured Predecessor, his integrity needs not my defence, he is able to do it himself in a season and manner convenient, if need be.  
17. More might be said from experience in this Parish, but I spare a most merciful Reviler! we are guilty in things it seems not to be named, such is the modesty and tender-heartedness of the man: For my part, where I walk out of the way of my duty, I desire not to be spared, let him or any man reprove me in a way of Gospel Charity: he that spares my sins, does not spare me, is cruel to me; I desire for ever so to think: But if the concealed matters be of the same nature as this which is expressed (and one would think impudent lies should not be uttered, and things true hid) oh that he would at last learn to spare his own soul, use no more false and uncharitable reproaches, and repent of these; even the Saints God is a consuming fire.  
18. They presently prepare war, Mic. 3.5. 
P. 19  there is no presently in the Text either in word or sense; but it's put in that I after above three years' patience may be the more deeply wounded by a false accusation: how often have I been thanked by this man, and commended for my long forbearance!  
19 Like the Priest's Boys. 1 Sam. 2.15, 16, 17. had my Neighbour pleased, I might have had that name of scorn put upon me, without changing the translation he uses into a worse, from a visitation Sermon; the Levites that Ministered unto the Priests in holy things, did begin their service from 30. years' age; 
Num. 4.3.  I have attained through God's patience some years above that, and yet can well enough bear that Title, without any injurious reflections upon the infirmities of old age: Alas how childish are such Contests as these in Print, and how unbeseeming the honour of Religion!  
20. 
P. 7.  I add one more drawn from the very cause (all these are personal) a thing more than once we are told of, and it tends to weaken the force of our civil constitutions in the behalf of Tithes. That those Prince's Laws that first established Tithes in England, did also establish the Catholic Faith of the Church of Rome, and all Traitors that denied it; whether this be a truth or no, 
Though with an impudence to amazement he bring it in with, Be it known to you.  I am sure he knows it not to be a truth; for being desired where thee Laws might be found; now he tells me of Henry the eighth, no great Establisher of Tithes, I think, to be sure not the first: by and by he tells me of Magna Charta, wherein Tithes are not at all mentioned (but included in general among the rights of the Church) And whether ever there were any Law that makes it treason, not to be of the Religion of Rome, let the skilful in the Law judge: heresy likely, 
More of this nature hereafter.  but treason not likely. These uncharitable Censures, and plain Falsehoods, I have privately demanded satisfaction for, and offered a fair debate of them before indifferent men (matters of Fact, coming most of them within the compass of an ocular demonstration, may admit of a speedy decision, if men will but see what is before their eyes) and this I did that I might prevent this ungrateful narrative, had it been accepted: and now I am still ready by the same means, to make good the narrative I have given to prevent unnecessary replies to this part of the discourse.  
I might add a Sponge full of Vinegar, to wipe out the bitter taunts and un-Christian mockings the Book is full of, 
P. 10. 1 Pet. 2.13.  I cannot omit one; a sad passage where he makes himself sport with the oath of supremacy, and our praying for the King as such, and of Gods not hearing our prayers for providence hath disposed otherwise: the calamity of Princes (which hath been in our times to the amazement and astonishment of the whole world, so great that I should suspect my heart much harder than I hope it is, if I did not think of with horror and trembling every time it comes into my mind) this man thinks fit to flout at. But these things are beside the cause I manage; the Lord cover them, and I shall gladly draw my skirt over them, having no engagement to speak to them but only to shame him openly; and that is not my design: it would be more joyful to me, wherein we do amiss, either of us, to endeavour mutually by all offices of mutual love, to bring each other to repentance.  
For you, my dear Brethren of Staplehurst, my glory and crown, whose conversion and building up in the Truth, is of greater sweetness to me then all the Tithe, either of poor or rich, however I am traduced (not shame almost could have been so unhappily hit upon as this) if ever I felt any sweetness and true joy in any thing all my life, it hath been in Gods crowning my labours with some success even among you, and in the assured hope of abundance more, his grace working with me; For you, I say, I have this word of caution; Let not the esteem of this injurious both speaker and doer, be vile in your eyes; much more let not the name of godliness, which he hath for so many years held out a profession of, be for his sake despised: Remember how easy it is, for rash and heady persons, to commit many things which are sorely to be repent of; and how hard a thing it is for even good men (in whom pride is not throughly mortified) to be willing to shame themselves, by an open confession of open miscarriages; that you remember what easy passage there is from the head to the heart, and with what care we are to keep the Devil out of our heads, as we would keep him out of our hearts, and hands, and pens; That you beware of the beginnings of contention; strife hath no end, no measure, no moderation; it cares not how it hits, so by hitting it wounds: Set up an Angel of heaven for an adversary, and after we have chased about him a while, he will be a Devil in our eye, fancy blinding our judgement, and self-conceit perverting straight resolutions, that whoever is not in all things on our side, is not thought to be on Gods-side; and what evil may be in causes and persons, we strongly conceit is; so as no evidence of things seen and felt can beat us out of it, because we are mightily persuaded things cannot be otherwise then we have conceited them. So our brethren are clothed in Bear-skins, and then worried by us; and as they do in the hunting of noisome beasts, that's best play which most certainly and speedily dispatches; and this is plain dealing without flattery; and whatever is short of the utmost of our power, either in word or action, belongs to our patience and mercifulness towards our and God's enemies.  
But learn we to overcome their evil with our good; if for our love men will be our adversaries, 
Ps. 109.4.  be we prayers; when they mock us, let not us mock them; when they despise us despise we not them; and let it not be said that we give them one reproachful word, who give us many; so shall we inherit the blessing we are called to. For the rest, Hold fast the form of sound words, 
1 Pet. 3.9. 2 Tim. 1.13.  and build up yourselves and your families in the most holy faith. Suffer not ignorance or Atheism to dwell either in your hearts or houses. Labour to feel truth as well as know it, especially that which concerns the preciousness of Christ to a penitent believer. Get your Lamps lighted, and let them shine out. Suffer not the Gospel to be dishonoured by so much as one unsavoury word from you. Be jealous over those reasonings which take you off from Christian fellowship; to do soul-good to, and receive soul-good from one another, makes any society Christian, all the rest is Heathen; it is a precious Article of our Faith, The Communion of Saints. Get those evidences of Faith which are the parting duties where the unbeliever walks not with the believer, heavenly-mindedness, self-denial, and (those hard duties) the mortifying of revenge even in its lowest degree, and the love of enemies: do you more than others for God, as you hope God shall do more for you then others. Be clothed with humility towards one another, and towards all men: God hath even in these our days had terrible controversies with proud selfconceited ones. And the very God of peace sanctify you throughout, through patience and comfort of the Scripture give you hope; make you a leading example of piety to our neighbour-people, and a real confutation of them who say God's Spirit hath left our Assemblies: That I may have comfort in you at that day, and you in me, that I may not have run in vain, nor laboured in vain. The prayers, I doubt not, of many of you, have preserved me a long time under deep languish, and have now, in a great measure, recovered me out of them. As you expect and hope for any good by my Life and Ministry, be instant in prayer, and watch thereunto with all perseverance, that utterance may be given to me, that I may speak as I ought to speak; that God would give me the bow of Jonathan, that turned not back, and the sword of Saul, that returned not empty: And that when I have preached to others, I myself may not be a Castaway.   


The Ministers first Plea for his Portion, The Divine Right of TITHES. To my Neighbour truly loved in the Lord, RICHARD KINGSNOTH.  
OMitting many things Doctrinal overly touched in your Book, which are nothing to our present Cause, I find some things which are something and much to the cause, are not so much as touched at by you; give me leave to put you in mind of considering them. I find two very material questions wholly neglected.  
1. Whether supposing Tithes not due by God's Law, but prohibited rather; and that our Laws for them are not only old, but corrupt, 
P. 22. P. 7.  like to the Law the Jews had Christ should die (by the way a soul mistake this, they had no such Law, but wickedly pretended it; what? the Jews Law was of Gods making, and did God make a Law requiring men to put Christ to death?) Yet is not a sinful Law of the Magistrate to be suffered under? and if we must suffer in one, may not, ought not a man to choose rather to suffer in his goods then in his person, and expose them to buy his own peace, as a man delivers his purse to a thief upon the way to save his life? (an honourable similitude your friends are wont to use to set forth the authority of those good Laws, under whose protection, next to Gods, you live) Why, neighbour, upon this ground you have acted hitherto, in paying, and preaching, as I am informed, for the payment of them; and is it not strange you should run over this foundation of your former practice, not so much as speaking one word of it? My neighbour, stay a while, and bethink yourself; what hath carried you off from your former peaceable principle, resolution, and practice? Have you considered the Apostles rule, That nothing be done through strife and vainglory? Let me put some thoughts into your mind. It is not to be imagined that Jeroboam and his Successors were so unpolitick as to take away the Levites Tithes: Priests he must have, and they must have a maintenance; why not that which was Gods own, 
They paid the third years Tithe, Act. 4.5. why not this too?  and which the people had been long accustomed to pay? He had no reason unnecessarily to make provoking changes in matters of Religion; and there is no mention of his or their doing any such thing: Doubtless this bait to tempt the Lords Priests to stay and countenance the Schism and Idolatry would never be neglected. Now did any Prophet forbidden this payment, or any of the Lords people scruple it? In the Family of David, instance in the long Apostasy under Manasses and Amon, what wicked Kings and Priests were then? yet none of God's people were restrained from paying their Tithes. In Christ's time, when the High-Priesthood was, and for a long time had been bought and sold, he that would give most undermining his fellow, many of them heretical Sadduces besides; yet is any relaxation of this duty even then? nay, are they not bound to it by Christ's own bonds, these ought ye, Mat. 23.23. In the Apostles times not one word to forbid any the payment of Tithes to the Christ-forsaking, and Christ-forsaken, blaspheming, persecuting Jewish Priests and Levites. Tithes were paid under Heathens to the Priests of Idol-Temples by the then Laws, no one Apostle, Father, Martyr, ever contradicting, and yet they were zealous against compliance with Idols too. He that shall but read Tertull. de Idololat. will find strictness enough, if not too much, that way; if Demetrius stood up so fiercely for his craft, not directly opposed by the Apostles, would not the Idol-Priests have stood up much more for their Tithes, if the Apostle had raised questions about this thing among them? 
Acts 19.17. 1 Pet. 2.13.  Nay Peter very ordinance will exact obedience active to all lawful commands; passive to all unlawful ones; and this among the rest, when the World was turned Arrian, Athanasius, Basil, etc. never taught that Tithes were unlawful to be paid unto Teachers of Arrianism; and at this day it is the constant resolution of all Protestant Divines to the quieting of scrupulous consciences that have asked advice from them often and often. 
Rivets dissert. in Gen. 14.  That those Prince's Laws which command Tithes to be paid to Popish Massing Priests, are to be submitted to by those of the Reformed Religion that live within the Dominions of such Princes: The like is the resolution of all Popish Divines concerning their Catholics that live under the Dominion of Protestant Princes, as appears by their general uncontradicted practice: But we must be used so as no Ministers of holy things were ever used, how bad soever, who enjoyed the countenance of public Authority; nay not so well as a thief that takes a purse. I put this case. Tithes are no private man's propriety (I speak of those paid to Ministers) let the user of land divide his own from what is not his own, and carry in what is his, leaving what is not his upon the ground, and then permit him that can bear it out in the Court of men (whether he have a just right or no, whether those Laws are righteous or no) to enter upon the land and carry it away. I ask now what Law of God this Farmer sins against, and whether he do not his most apparent duty? if the Takers title be not good, the Leaver hath none at all, and cannot remedy the badness of the Takers title; he is not made a Judge to punish an Idolatrous Priest, much less is he to mulct the Priest, and take the fine to himself. Pray think of this question you have overlooked, you make too much haste: Have you stood thus long upon this ground, and do you now relinquish it, without being beaten off with the assault of so much as one slight Argument?  
2. Neither do I find any thing concerning the unlawfulness of a Tenth, 
P. 21.  supposing it freely paid and without compulsion. I meet indeed with Christ's nailing ceremonies to his Cross, and Tithe reckoned among the rest, but you seem not to mean that Tithes are a ceremony as Tithes, but as a forced maintenance. Frequently you tell us of Tithe changed into a free gift, a tenth into any proportion determined by the mind of the giver. In one place indeed we have the proportion changed, 
P. 15.  but than it is from Levis to Melchisedeches and jacob's, from a tenth commanded to a tenth freely given and vowed at least; if theirs be the example, surely the tenth is not alone excluded. But my good friend, why this confusion? you found the questions distinguished to your hands, if Tithes be Ceremonies as Tithes, 
P. 18.  tell us plainly; if as stinted sums, and this is that which is abolished as sure as Christ is come in the flesh, tell us so plainly too, that we may deal with you upon certainties. I see the main weight of your Book is against a maintenance stinted by the Magistrate's Authority; and I took notice of it among the Brownists at the Conference at Hedcorne; and this is not done without great and deep advice: They knew, that to satisfy some men's clamours, and other men's scruples, consultations had been entered upon, to alter the present way into some other supposed more commodious and free from contradictions: If therefore they would fasten any thing to the Ministers disadvantage, they must let go the debate of Tithes as such, and take better hold; the Magistrate hath no power to enjoin any proportion at all; that will do it; this Principle fits their turn, it strikes home. Agreeable to this was the kill Argument in the Remonstrance (or Petition) drawn up by them, and intended to be presented either to the Protector or Parliament, had they sped in their choice: If they build again what they have destroyed, they shall be found transgressors. They had been, and were a destroying our Ministry as Popish and Antichristian (alas that we should be such eyesores to them for rescuing our people, not only from Popery, but even from Hell!) and they would not build us up by paying any thing to our relief (I was promised the sight of this Declaration when this was told me by an Agent in it, but upon second thoughts it was denied) No, sess them, tax them, exact first fruits and tenths from them in utmost rigour, eat them up, consume them, beggar them, make them weary of their work by defrauding them of that bread which should feed their families, and defray their extraordinary charges. But what think you will become of this public maintenance? who shall have it, the State, or the Landlord, or the Tenant? I have been answered to this question with they care not what they did with it, so we have none of it: well, and what when all's done? why, there is hope that some will join with Spill-hils Congregation; others with this party, others with another; every one will pull away something, when we are once removed out of the way.  
Think of this ye Rulers, and let this Pamphlet, and others of the like stamp, teach you what services you must do for these men before you can please them: 'Tis not Tithes they stick at; if that would have served their turn, I had been free from molestation this day. There is no man pays me the tenth of his increase, and much short of that would have contented me from this man. This you must do, you must make Laws against us, but none for us; that's the so much pressed example of the Primitive Magistrates; you must be Heathens both ways, or they are not contented; you must take that from us, yea from God (Concessimus Deo) which you never gave us, and of which you are but Feoffees in trust for God's ends, and the souls of men, who would not have one of your children left by you Orphans to be served so; and when you have taken this away, you must give us nothing by way of recompense, not so much as stick up a feather for the goose, as the proverb is. Strip us stark naked, and turn us out of all, that you may be the abhorring of God and good men for so doing, and then these giddy Masters will be pleased with you; you may guests how long; till they shall think fit to level other men's propriety as well as ours, and pull down Magistracy, after Magistrates have, to please them, pulled down their own greatest supporting Pillar, the Ministry. As for me, (though I fear not so great a perfidiousness from our present Rulers, yet who knows what devilish Tyrants God may raise up in his wrat?) Then I doubt not but the Lord will stand by me, and streng- me, and that he will beat down great mountains before me, I shall see Error, Diusion and sin, fall down before Truth, Unity, and Holiness: Me thinks I see them tumbling down in Staplehurst already; and in this confidence, if the Lord hath use of my Vast Estate, for his service, and the good of souls, I hope he will give me grace to lay it down at his feet, who gave it all to me, what ever it is: And I know multitudes of my brethren will subscribe this resolution with me, even all that are faithful. This one thing I add, that the Apostle never took this carnal way to overthrow either Pagan, 
2 Cor. 10.4.  or Jewish blaspheming Priests, by storming at their maintenance; and I am assured it will never thrive with them that do towards us, who are neither Jewish nor Pagan, I hope not in their account neither.  
Those questions which are to the purpose, that have something said to them, are some of them lightly passed over; yet what is said to them, I shall not neglect to answer.  
1. Concerns requiring maintenance from one that is not of our Parish-Congregation, but is separated from it, and doth not at all partake of our Ministry. It seems, Sirs, a toleration of you in your sinful separation will not serve your turn without special immunities above other men: Let men but take up a dissenting opinion, and proclaim it to the credit of their singularity, telling the world they can hold no union with the contrary-minded, and presently all their Land must be Tithe-free: Would it not be a desirable thing for Landlord's Rents, and all other debts to be paid thus? Oh how sweet would it be to drink away a Sabbath in a chimney-corner then! 
P. 3. 2 Cor. 8.13, 14.  But to the Reasons. 1 Cor. 9.7. The Planter must drink of his own Vineyard, and the Feeder eat of his own Flock. Answ. Not to trouble you with that brotherly assistance that Churches own to one another in case of need; but this I say, that this debt of maintenance takes not its ground from men's actual subjection to the word, but from their duty so to do: And the duty once stated, not attending on the word, is one sin; and not maintaiinng the Dispenser's of the Word, is another sin: Never did God provide that men should spare their purses, by being prodigal of their souls. 2. Suppose your Separation just, then indeed there will be no command of God to maintain that Ministry you are duly separated from, out of your own goods; yet there will lie a command of Gods to make another Separation, a Separation of that which is not your own from that which is; and to carry no more into your barn then your own goods, 
P. 20.  and leave the rest behind you. This (I hope) will satisfy you as to your first Reason.  
To the Second. Where it is demanded that I prove a command, or one tittle of a command, to any Gentile, to pay Tithes to such as were not related to them in covenant.  
Answ. No need of any such command to be produced. A baptised Christian under the Gospel, and an uncircumcised Gentile under the Law, hold no proportion to them; first you, than yours, is a good order. But for you, you have been related to the body of this people, at least in an implicit covenant, when you joined with others in calling that faithful, holy, humble Minister of Christ, Mr. Bigge, to Staplehurst, and subscribing toward his maintenance, which, among other papers, I have had the perusal of, I have seen; and how you walked with this people in way of seeking and enjoying God, in public, and in private, yourself and others can well remember: Separation imports a former union; you cannot therefore be in the same case as the Philistines and Canaanites, etc. who would dwell among the people.  
2. Yet because you promise fair, that upon the discovery of such a command you will submit, I shall offer you something towards the proof of it. I hope you take the whole Land to be a type, both that which was subdued, and that which was unsubdued; and that Tithes were a ceremonial tribute from a ceremonial land; would you not reason yourself thus? You know that no league was to be made with the inhabitants of the Land; and that the Law for Tithing ran universally of the whole Land before they had inherited it, not this part shall pay, another not: all was to be subdued, and all was to pay. Now put those two Laws together, Thou shalt utterly destroy them, and thou shalt duly Tithe all thy increase, and then see whether this conclusion follow not, That the Tithe of the whole Land was due to God by Gods own Law; the commandment supposing none should live there but Brethren, Jews, or Proselytes; it is therefore of their Brethren, Heb. 7.5. For the execution of this Law, there is no reason to expect that, neither is this demanded of me. Neither one Law nor the other was kept, and the Jews were not always in a condition to keep their own from the hands of strangers: Yet it may be considered, whether the Judges, when strong, would serve the Commonwealth of them, and not the Tabernacle; and that King Solomon should make a levy of their persons for the service of the Temple, and not of their goods. There was doubtless as full a right for this, as that. But will you indeed submit upon this Discovery? Admit it done, would you not say, Though they were then bound, they and the Jews too, yet now we are freed from that yoke of bondage? you would never do as you have said; your whole Book drives at something else. Again, let me admit that not proved which you call for; what conclusion will you draw hence to help your Cause? it must be no more than this, Let a professed Pagan come and dwell at Staplehurst, who is, and always was an Infidel, I may not demand Tithes of that man. Is this it you call for so eagerly, as if the deciding of the whole controversy were turned here? and promise so peremptorily that this done, you would submit? Fie for shame of such heedless extravagant speeches; plainly, the clearing of that question neither helps nor hinders; yet if it will do you any good, I think you have something towards it however.  
There is another question, which is more slighty touched by the former, the suing and imprisoning them that refuse to pay. I will not say you anywhere petemptorily deny it to be lawful in any case to use the Magistrates sword, for the recovery of our own from them that unjustly detain it from us; and by no other means will be brought to do their duty, though they be able; which is my very case with you: Yet you have some suspicious words that way, as when you call my using the Authority of Magistrates a Force; 
P. 20. P. 7.  and that word is suing for Tithes peaceable, sounds that way too much: Yet I rather think (though you call me to mind this before you writ them, and express your mind after them, as if you hap throughly considered the business, and at last resolved I think not) that you did not indeed mind what you wrote yourself: I am forced to conclude upon one, and I had rather conclude against your wisdom, then against your honesty; I hope you are not guilty of so wicked a doctrine: Unpeaceable to use the Magistrates help when there is no remedy? 
P. 16.  If this be your mind indeed, tell me, you that so bravely conclude it. This is the period of all, the Gospel must be free, and kept free from man's power; for this is the ordinance of God. Just so a Paul or an Angel, were the thing spoken of necessity to salvation, when this is not so much as true. It seems then, in matters of the Gospel, Magistrates (I suppose they are the men you mean, though Ministers also are men, and (I hope) have some power in the Gospel) may not meddle, by your leave: If then they may not meddle in money-matters, to determine of them, but he that uses them is an unpeaceable man; pray then what are they for? If you say this is no just debt, or that though Magistrates may determine of other money-matters, but not of this: they are the things mainly in question, and come now distinctly to be condesired.  
There is a threefold plea for the Right of Tithes. That of Law 

Divine.  
Humane.  
Free-gift.    
I always contented myself with the third, though protesting always that I denied not the two former; which peaceable way, seeing you interpret as my giving of them up, and bend the chief of your strength against those weapons were never brought out against you; I am forced to follow you, in defence of those reasons you choose to deal with; wherein I hope to make that appear to you which I then told you, That I was able to say more to both those grounds of Right, than you knew how to answer.  
And first, I shall let you see with what Scripture-evidence the divine Right of Tithes may be defended: In which I shall first lay down what tends to assert this Right, and then answer what you or others bring, so far as I know to the negative.  
I shall not fetch the Rise of Tithes from cain's bad Dividend: let the Scholar debate that with learned Montague, if he please. I writ not to the Learned, whom I am not fit to teach; nor against the Learned, whom I am not fit to grapple with. We will take it where we find it, without turning over any Translation but our own. That is, Gen. 14.20. And he (Abraham Heb. 7.2.) gave him Tithes of all.  
We must here proceed distinctly, and step by step. 
P. 2.  And the first enquiry is, Whether this were a freewill offering in Abraham, or an act of obedience to God's Statute-law? a freeewill offering, 
P. 15.  Neighbour, you think it, and upon this pin the main body of your frame hangs; the change pretended being from Aaron's proportion to Melchizedeches: Now you know, from a tenth to a tenth, is no change in the maintenance; and if Melchizedeches were due by a Statute-law as well as Levis, I hope we are agreed, and your Book is answered.  
Let's see now what you bring to prove this grand fundamental affirmation; what is it? nothing; 'tis strange, but most true; verily nothing, unless you intent the word gave in the Scripture recited for a proof; though I cannot think you so very ignorant of Scripture-language; it is a word that indifferently signifies either a free-gift, or a payment: had you consulted with me before you printed (as you might easily have done, 
Leu. 7.36. Deut. 26.13.  we dwell but two fields asunder) I should have advised you to strengthen this main foundation-pillar of your discourse a little better.  
But see now whether we can say any thing for the Law; that hath more conviction than your just nothing, or as good as nothing for the freewill offering. First, I shall begin with the History, as it is laid down in Gen.  
Can any reasonable man think that Abraham, a man so wholly moved by the direction of God, as appears in the story of his life, should now on the sudden determine in so singularly rare a passage without advice from God? To find out that something is due to Melchisedech as a Priest, would need no new consulting with God; we have that impression within us already: That this something, must be a proportion out of every thing, perhaps no need to consult with God anew about that neither; 'tis to sanctify the whole lump. But why this something should be a tenth proportion rather then any other, will need a new consulting with God about, unless you will suppose God's mind known about it already, either by nature, or by tradition (either of which ways gains the cause for us) otherwise that this needful consulting with God was not made, but that Abraham did it by his own private motion (God & he not being such strangers) is very dishonourable to the Patriarch to affirm, 
Hebr. 7.  and cannot but overthrow the Apostles reasoning from thence to such weighty truths; for what is to be made of this action if Abraham did it of his own head?  
It cannot be therefore b●● this action was done by the instinct of the Spirit of God; and that this instinct was a commanding instinct, and the command coming with that certain evidence to be of God, as would bind him as much as Scripture does us, writing giving not the Authority, but the evidence to the command. The conclusion than will be, Abraham had a command of Gods not to be resisted, determining him, without any further enquiry, to the proportion of a Tenth in what he gave to Melchisedech; and if this be it which Christ hath changed the Law to Melchisedeches freewill offering, you will not gain much, nor we lose much in the cause between us.  
But still, though this will prove the Law to Abraham, yet it will not prove the Debt to Melchisedech; he might be inspired to give an Alms; and this, though a Law to Abraham, would have been no debt of justice to Melchisedech; go on therefore, and see what is to be found in the Story for this also. At first sight it seems improbable that the King of Salem should need an Alms; or if you will not call it so, but an Honorary given out of respect to his office, but not due in strict justice; yet why so great a proportion? the Tenth of all was a matter of no small value; yea, though we should find no fault with our Translators rendering the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by spoils. Such honorary observances we find paid to Prophets, 
1 Sam. 9.7, 8. 1 Kin. 14.3. Gen. 31.8, 9, 10.  but never to Priests; and to Prophets in far smaller sums than this. Tenth of all was an high testimony of honour; and this no more than give and take, without so much as any such ceremony of respect as passed between two far meaner persons, Esau and Jacob. Sure though Melchisedech dealt like a King in his bread and wine, yet he much forgot himself, if this were not a known common due to his Priesthood, from others as well as from Abraham; this indeed would shut out such passages of courtesy between them, and, I suppose, did.  
Pretty fair this from so short a story towards the demonstration of our conclusion, That Tithes were not given by Abraham to Melchisedech out of free gift, but as a just due and right to Melchisedeches Priesthood. But go we on to the Comment upon this Text to the Epistle to the Hebrews, Ch. 7. See whether there is not enough to put the matter quite out of doubt, though a man should be never so morose and hard to be convinced.  
V 4. etc. we find giving of Tithes a demonstration of Melchisedeches greatness, and afterwards v. 9 a demonstration of Levis Priesthood, being inferior to that of Melchisedeches: Now, though every payment of a debt be not a testimony of inferiority, yet no payment which is not of a debt, is so. A gift of courtesy would never have proved such a thing, but if any thing, the quite contrary.  
V 6. we meet with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he tithed Abraham, amiss rendered, he received Tithes of Abraham. Beza's decimavit is better than the Vulg. decimas sumsit. Here one would guests Tithes to be Melchisedeches due in strictect justice; else he was overbold with Abraham: The word imports jurisdiction and right, if any thing.  
V 8. we find Levis taking Tithes and Melchisedeches compared together; and the difference stated; here men that dies; there he that lives; but in taking Tithes both one; so one, that one word serves for both. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tithe: expressed in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be understood in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: the thing so much the same, that the Apostle judges it unnecessary to add any word in the second member, but leaves us to borrow it from the former. Add that Melchisedeches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 6. answers to Levis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 5. and his was by command, and is so expressed.  
V 9 we meet with Levi paying Tithes, and payment is of a debt; and one would think as much from Abraham as well as Levi: It was but one act, and that immediately Abraham's, but remotely Levis; and beyond doubt it was more a debt from Abraham, then from Levi; for Abraham received the Benediction for which it was immediately, and in his own person. Now if any can find an English payment that is no debt in justice; yet the Greek will not suffer him to be so happy as to make any evasion; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Levi was tithed, will constrain him to acknowledge the debt beyond all hope of escape.  
Whether thus much will satisfy you, my good Friend and Neighbour, that Abraham's gift to Melchisedech was a just payment, and no freewill offering, I cannot tell; but I hope it will; and to that end I shall leave it with you.  
But yet our work is not done: The most Judicious Adversaries of the Divine Right of Tithes yield us the Law without all this ado; but differ from us in the determining what Law it is. Join we then issue with them in this debate.  
The Judicial Law cannot well come in dispute here; not only because the thing we speak of is of the things that are between man and God, not between man and man; but especially because Melchisedech was none of the stock of Abraham, whoever he was; so he and his could not be concerned in a Judicial Law, but by supposing Judicials universally to bind all mankind; and this is as much Morality as we shall desire to find, a positive Law of Gods, binding other Nations besides the Jews. If this be granted us, the rest that we would infer will quickly follow, and the cause is ended.  
But a branch of the Ceremonial Law it may be, as Circumcision, Sacrifices, etc. sent before to usher in the whole Body of that Law, as given under Moses: And if so, we shall find an expiration for it as for other Ceremonies at the cross of Christ (and I, for my part, if so, think so too, as to that, or any other Religious use, not appointed by Christ himself: It were a strange thing to see fleshly sacrifices offered up religiously, & men to put the world off with they do it to other uses and ends then for which it was done in the Law) it remains only, that yielding the consequent of the supposition, we demand a proof of the so. But here we press them too far; it may be, and it is possible, must serve our turns: And this is all we can have from those that plead only against the Divine Right, and from them that plead against the lawfulness of Tithes too. Strange! A Law of Gods is produced between us, & confessed; only the perpetuity of that Law is denied; yet no evidence at all given to prove the temporary nature of it: He that says a known Law of Gods was in the nature of it temporary, had need not only affirm it possible, but prove it certain. I take it to be evident they have nothing to say here, because where they have been often called upon to speak, and aught by such deep bonds of necessity, yet they say nothing. I add, concerning those learned men that deny no more than the Divine Right, That if this payment to Melchisedech may be truly and properly a branch of the Ceremonial Law, it may be an unlawful payment also; and if it be certain it was so, it is certainly unlawful also: Another man may see the congruity of this answer to their own stating of the question; but truly I cannot.  
So then we proclaim a Law found out, they deny it not; we proclaim again we find nothing in the Law why it should not be perpetual; they say not they do, only it is possible that they may; we proclaim again, Attempt it, show it, but they are silent.  
Ye we will not leave them; we will try what we can say to the Negative (ex abundanti) that payment of Tithes to Melchisedech was not by the force of a Law ceremonial.  
First, Melchisedech was a Priest of another Order, and not a Ceremonial Priest, else he should not be higher than Levi, nor for ever; nor should our Lord have been called a Priest after this Ord●●, rather than after the Order of Aaron. And the service for which Melchisedech received Tithes, was not any work of Sacrifice, but for his work of Benediction, as it is manifest in the Text, and acknowledged by the famous Capel; 
Gen. 14.19, 20. in Thesibus Salmur.  though I know not what to make of his Parenthesis following (quanquam nec ratio ista excludenda.) It is an high presumption to say positively that Melchisedech offered any Sacrifice at all, when Scripture says nothing of it: To be sure, as he is brought in (and so he is a type of Christ, and so he took Tithes) he offered none. The Papists will never find out a Sacrifice in the Bread and Wine, as busily as they hunt for it; a resemblance to our Eucharist the Fathers indeed have found out, but not a Sacrifice: And in this place we know Scripture silence is argumentative; Melchisedech being a Type, not as he did, or was at other times, but as he is storied to have been, and to have done then: and to this his Tithing doth belong, and to nothing else. Add that we find nothing Ceremonial in Melchisedeches Priesthood, to be verified a mystery by some other thing in Christ, not in his name, King of righteousness, King of peace; not in his Genealogy, without Father, and without Mother, not in the end mentioned of his life and office; not in the work of his Priestly office; all these were verified in Christ in the Letter; and 'tis wonderful that Tithing alone should be verified in Christ by a mystery, which mystery I think, is not yet expounded by any, that we may know what it is; much less proved and made good.  
If any shall say that the ceremonialness of Tithes, as paid to Melchisedech, consists not in their respective consideration, as paid to such a Priesthood, but in the absolute proper nature o● them: This at the first sight is utterly improbable, that a Priesthood not Ceremonial, should be maintained by a maintenance essentially and in itself ceremonial: But let that pass; if a Ceremony be defined A carnal Rite in Religion appointed by God to shadow out Christ, or some spiritual grace in Christ, till it expire with the death of Christ; I think it will pose the wit of man to show Tithes such a ceremony; for either this ceremony must be found out in the Tenth, or in the Law, determining any set proportion whatsoever.  
If men say the Tenth as Tenth, is that which is essentially ceremonial, it should be shown by what Scripture it is appointed by God so to be, that the mere Tenth abstracted from either Priesthood, should be in itself designed to a ceremonial use.  
2. What ceremonial use it could have, being common to Levi with Melchisedech, to whom it could not have that use; and whatever is Essentially Ceremonial, hath always a Ceremonial use.  
3. How a Tenth could be more carnal than a 9th. or a 11th. 
Hebr. 7.8.   
4. What there is in Christ which this Ceremony signifies.  
5. What burdensomeness there is in a tenth to Christians more than in a ninth, or even then a twentieth, except that it is the bigger sum?  
6. What other determinate proportion is shut up in its room, as it fared with other Ceremonies?  
Say we then the tenth as a maintenance by Law determined is the Ceremony. Then I ask 1. What one tittle in Scripture to prove this?  
2. How should this be more a ceremony then other stints, by name of time for worship?  
3. What answers this supposed Ceremony? not a freewill offering, taken to come in the room of a stinted sum; for that's not the body which answers this shadow: Spiritual sacrifices come in the room of fleshly ones, but they are not the body of them: no more can it be here, some other body must be found out for them, and what is that?  
4. Why a Law for maintenance should not be Ceremonious, but a Law for this or that should.  

Gal 6.6. 1 Tim. 5.17. 1 Cor. 16.2. Luc. 12.33.  5. Why Paul may determine it to something out of all men's goods that are taught in the word without a Ceremony, but may not limit the how much under danger of a Ceremony.  
6. Why the double honour designed should not be a Ceremony, but the express determination of the how much should.  
7. What Ceremony there is in the Apostles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what ever he hath thriv him; and whether that were not a determinate Law; why sell that you have, A determinate command, be not equally a Ceremony as what we speak of: Why more Ceremonious to say give a ninth with eleventh, etc. then sell all, and as it seems give all; for they might aswel keep it in land, as put it out to use or trade with it. He that can give a plain Scripture answer to such questions as these, that does not speak mere dreams of a man half asleep, and half awake, will exceed my understanding, and I dare say my Neighbours either, though with him this is the Ceremony, the Law, not the tenth.  
It remains then a moral Law it must be, by force of which this payment was made to Melchizedek: yet not so moral as that a tenth rather then a ninth or eleventh should be sufficiently gathered from principles of nature left to itself; numerical reasons are pretty things for a solitary fancy to delight itself with: but the fineness of these inventions will never engage conscience to practise, especially when the purses of men are concerned; yet this I will say for them, they are as good as those that are brought for the seventh of our time: in both which, the assigning, what proportion of our time and goods would please God, the reason of man being utterly defective, and needing help from a new Superior discovery, God hath helped us in both by a positive Law, guiding the blindness of reason, where it did not see its way; in matter of time indeed most expressly, not so in matter of goods, yet sufficiently enough, as hath been proved against the Defendors of the free will-offering, and is supposed by those we contend with now: yet if the tenth goods be in this respect disadvantaged above the seventh time, in that it hath not so express a positive institution, it hath the disadvantage abundantly made up, in that there is much seemingly against the morality of the Sabbath in the New Testament, whereas there is nothing against the morality of a tenth with any colour of sound reason produced, or to be produced, as I doubt not but when I come to those times, with Gods help I shall be able to demonstrate.  
But no such positive Law to be found in the New Testament: 
Dissert. in Gen. 24.20.  nay most excellent Rivet, neither is there any such to be found there for the seventh of time, it is enough that we find both in the Old Testament, and that by Law never yet repealed: and so great a Divine should not say, that the Gospel hath antiquated all the Old Testament constitutions at one blow, and left them alone which are reestablished by a New Testament confirmation; no sound proof or such a saying, and Christ's own most serious protestation is against it; yet whether such a positive may not be concluded from the New Testament also, 
Math. 5.17. etc.  shall be inquired into anon, so I dismiss for the present Melchizedeks tithing.  
The second time we meet with Tithes is in the Vow of Jacob: and this also is made a free will-offering by you my Neighbour, whom I now return to again, but without all show of reason, there being no appearance of any thing arbitrary in this thing; the Vow being aswell of having the Lord for his God, as of giving the tenth; 
Gen. 28.21, 22.  and Jacob being trained up in the steps of his Father and Grandfather's piety, had learned without doubt that proportion to be acceptable to God; it is not to be thought jacob's tithing was more free than Abraham's; for why should the Grandchild be less under a Law then the Grandfather was? Nay it your reasoning be good, though it had been free to Abraham, it must be a Law to Jacob, 
P. 2. P. 4.  unless jacob's due be supposed to bind his posterity for so many Generations, yea to this day if Christ had not changed it; whereas Abraham's payment binds not so much as his Grandchild, jacob's Vow was altogether as much personal as Abraham's Fact.  
Then if the Law stand good in jacob's time; the question next will be what Law it was, of which there being nothing determined about the persons that received them, nor about the uses they were put to, in this or in any other Scripture, I only conclude thus much, that there is no evidence of any thing ceremonial and temporary in this Example of his, but that in the same channel, in which we found Tithes running at first they run still, any thing from this instance before us to be drawn notwithstanding.  
Go on now to Moses time, where the statute Law is acknowledged: and from whence the greatest conjectures against the morality of Tithes are drawn; yet should we grant them as much as from their respect to the Levitical Priesthood may be concluded an intervenient transient ceremonial use; yet this would not way overthrow their first right originally, and (for what yet appears to the contrary) perpetually due to God, and by him conferred upon another Priesthood.  
Tithes have not their original from the Levitical Priesthood, for they ran a long course before; neither have they their expiration with the Levitical Priesthood, for they have run a longer course since: while they and the Levitical Priesthood were in society, a respect they had to that Priesthood; but now the same they are as they were before, without any respect to Levi and his sacrifices at all. This would make short work of the cause, & would not be disproved, but either by showing them not to have had any other Fountain but the levitical Priesthood, which is manifestly false and disproved already; they had a course long before, even by Law or that, Jordan like, they are swallowed up in the dead Sea of the Levitical Priesthood, and ought not at least to have appeared above ground ever after; which answer hath in part been overthrown, already, when it was shown that Tithes are not essentially, and in themselves ceremonial: and shall be more fully examined here after when it shall be made appear, that the Gospel hath made no alteration in this matter, nor changed the Law.  
But that I may not be said to pass slightingly over that where the main stress of the adverse cause is supposed to be, I shall view more exactly the passages which are found in the Mosaical Law about this matter.  
Those Laws of paying Tithes, were either such as bound the people, 
Num. 18.18.  or such as bound the Levites. Those that did bind the Levites, were to be paid from them to the High Priest. These we inquire not after now; we find them not before, and we find them not since, till the Pope had a mind to play the High Priest, and our Princes since to receive the money: but we acknowledge no such Officer since Christ's Reformation, therefore no such tithe endue to any.  
The Laws of Tithes from the people were of three sorts: One to Sacrifices and Feasts, which was Ceremonial: Another to the Poor, Stranger, and Levite, which was Judicial: A third to the Levites, which we suppose was Moral.  

Num. 18.21. Deut. 14.23. Num. 18.31.  The tithing for Sacrifices, and the tithing for the Levites were two distinct tithings: One was for Levis maintenance; the other for the Lords Feasts, to be eaten by him that paid it. One was to be paid to the Levite where he dwelled, there paid sure where eaten (I had almost said, that all the Antiquaries in the world should never persuade me to so unreasonable a thing, that from all parts of the inheritance of God's people on this side, and on that side Jordan, the Husbandman must carry his tith in kind unto Jerusalem, and that then I know not who should carry it back again to the Levites respective habitations; the Levites Cities were in all likelihood the Storehouses for the Fields near them) the other was to be carried to Jerusalem: One was to be eaten in any place; the other in the place which the Lord shall choose: 
Deut 14.6. Leu. 27.31, 32. Deut. 14.24.  One might not be redeemed, not the Tithe of the Hay, Corne. etc. but by adding a fift part, not of the heard at all; but the tith for the Feast might; so these two were plainly two distinct tithings, and both paid by the people every year.  
The third years tithing was distinct from them both; not all one with the tithing for the Feasts: for must the Feasts be neglected then? and the Law broken every third year? 
Deut. 16.16, 17. & 14.28, 29.16.12.  is nor the third years tith to be laid up within thy Gates, and eaten within thy Gates; whereas the tithes for Feasts were to be carried to Jerusalem, and eaten at Jerusalem? and why should the third year be called the year of tithing, if no more were done that year then at other times? plainly they are two distinct Laws, and must have a distinct obedience.  
The Tithes for Feasts were Ceremonial, and were never before, nor ever after; only from the equity upon which they were grounded, will one Argument among others be brought for our offerings, towards the furnishing of the Lords Table, though a far less proportion will serve for that use; so on all hands no ground of this Tithes continuance.  
The third years tithing was Judicial, a Statute for the Poor; and so continues in its equitable foundation, that a due provision be made by Law for the Poor, whom we have always with us.  
There remains now only that to the Levites to be inquired after, what appearance there is in the Laws about it for us to conclude, either for, or against the perpetual right of them; the Scripture that contains those Laws, if I have not been strangely overseen in my Search, are three and no more, Leu. 27.30, 31, 32, 33. Num. 18.21, 24, 31. and Deut. 18.1. Not many leaves these among the Levitical Satutes, though if many leaves had been found of them in Moses Law, they would not therefore have been presently Ceremonial, unless it were proved they were there as branches of the Ceremonial Law, and then one leaf, yea one Verse would serve the same.  
Now in none of these Scriptures do we find the Original Law, but only resolutions about the disposal of them, supposed due to God by a former right, and therefore the cessation of these Laws and how removed out of the way, will only after this disposal of them, but never overthrow Gods right in them, which they do not constitute but suppose. That in Leu. 27.30. tells us, it is the Lords, it is holy to the Lord; therefore not to be alienated, Verse 31, 32, 33. God challengeth his right to them already in being, and the Statute forbids encroachment upon that right; and this is, I think, the first time these Tithes are mentioned in Moses Law: and here we are referred to an higher claim, in which if nothing Ceremonial have appeared, than what ever becomes of these Scriptures, Tithes must stand still, their foundation root being not plucked up, though these after-authorities should lose their binding force.  
What the other two Scriptures determine, is not material to this inquiry, because though they should speak never so peremptorily in commanding them, yet they can be only confirmations establishing what is on foot already, and so must follow the Original one; for a thing can be Originally commanded but once: we have found them before in the Law of Moses, and there also in the current, not in the wellhead of them; for that we must seek higher than Moses if we would find it out, and I am persuaded, no man can fix his foot with any certainty of resolution sooner than the beginning of the world.  
And yet neither in them have we any Law commanding them from the people; but that supposed, and upon that the people offering them to the Lord (of debt now at this time, it is on all hands resolved on, 
Num. 18.21, 29.  not of free gift) And God assigning them to Levi for his service in the Tabernacle, as for Deut. 18.1. it is a short sum of Num. 18. The Priests to eat the offerings of the Lord made by fire, as in the beginning of Num. 18. it is at large declared; all the Tribe of Levi shall eat the Lords inheritance, as is declared at large, Num. 18.21.  
There are two rights found in these Laws; one from the people to God, and that right is supposed; the other from God to the Levites, and that right is stated, 
Num. 18.21.  and de novo expressed here: be it then that Levis service of the Tabernacle, for which this assignment was made, is ceased, and so the assignment with it, which is the later right; yet we want still the evidence of Gods giving up his right from the people: surely it should be shown not only where they cease to be Levis, but where they cease to be Gods; they come to Levi at the second hand, and Gods right is a distinct right from Levis, was before Levi's, and it would be inquired into, how it comes not to be Gods since; let the Detainers of Tithes show where God hath released them of this tribute.  
Neither let the excellent Capell. object here that we own ourselves, and all we have to God and Christ, quanti quanti jumus: for as this is most true now (and we desire to acknowledge it most equal, that we make our all his, who hath made his all ours) so it was ever more most true; and yet God reserved unto himself a special right to Tithes, 
Mal. 1.10.  as sufficient to testify our homage, and support his Worship, who would have none shut the doors of his house for nought, nor kindle a fire on his Altar for nought; there being enough left besides for the subsistence of them that used the Land under God, and were to live upon it: so it was then needful, and it appear●s that so it was done; so it is needful still upon the very same grounds, and notwithstanding what this reason produceth to the contrary, so it is still. Besides should not the most learned man remember, that the reason alleged is as strong in the point of time, as it is in the point of goods?  
Neither let others object this special right to be from the Jews only, as who held their Land of God by a peculiar gift, and because of the wonderful Fruitfulness of the Land. I cannot see any truth in the assertion: for can any man imagine that Abraham alone paid Tithes to Melchizedeck? and the same Law that is to the Jew is to the Proselyte; and the reason is equal to all that will have God for their God, that they should testify their homage to him, and maintain his Worship aswel as the Jews. And for the reasons of the assertion they seem of no weight.  
The first, in that all Nations hold their Lands of God as well as the Jews, though not led to them by such mighty signs.  
2. And Abraham paid his Tithes out of the spoils of war, if the word be duly rendered.  
3. Had not then a foot of promised land, which he could call his own when he paid his Tithe.  
4. jacob's vow was out of all that God should give him.  
5. All that is said for the right of personal Tithes, overthrows this pleading.  
6. This reason is nowhere assigned by God for the payment of Tithes by the Jews.  
7. Others are.  
8. If this were assigned, yet others are the principal, and of a perpetual and universal obligation; so this is gratis dictum.  
And the second reason hath as little weight as the first; for admit it all, it will only prove an Obligation to a lesser proportion, as lands are less in Fruitfulness: and what Scripture encouragement can any have to give less than a tenth? If New Testament Examples oblige us to any thing, it is sure to much more than a tenth, as I shall show anon; what there was therefore of special Fruitfulness in that land above others, had a charge of people answering it, yea exceeding it; so there was as little to spare for the Levite as out of other lands, where the increase might be less, and the people fewer indeed, considering how few the Levites were, and what Provision was made for them in the eight and forty Cities with their Suburbs, and the many ways that land was otherwise charged by God, of which there is some taste given above; reason would advise, let the Levite be contented with his settled Patrimony, wherein he sareth much better than any of his Brethren, and let him relinquish Tithes altogether; but so it seemed not good in the eye of God, but rather that whoever served him in peculiar services, should have peculiar encouragements beyond their Brethren, that his house may not lie waist, nor the Levites cry what a weariness is it? But why in such a Fruitful land as through God's blessing ours is, should the Fruitfulness of Canaan be given as a reason, why a tenth should not be paid among us as it was among them? God cease our murmur for the great plenty now for divers years afforded us, and make us never grudge God his portion, which we never gave him, else we may quickly hear of a Fruitful land turned into barrenness for the wickedness of them that dwell therein.  

Ps. 107.34.  I never heard of any yet undone by paying of Tithes; very Heathens have thought otherwise as well as Jews; I have heard of Families thought to be undone by alienating from God to themselves, and from Sacred uses to common.  
So then Gods they were and are from the people, be the Levites claim under God never so Ceremonial: if he never gave them up, then are they his still.  
Move we now a step further, and see into this very assignment of Gods to Levi: we shall find a respect it bears to certain uses, and to certain persons; 
Num. 18.21.  (or the respect it hath to uses, what saith the deed? for their service which they serve, so in general; than it follows even the service of the tabernacle of the Congregation; that bring what for the present they attended upon, including in it all their temple services, much divers from those under the Tabernacle) ●herein they served God, 
1 Chro. 25. and 26.26, 30, 33.  some in the Temple in several offices, others waited on the service of the Lord in the Provinces, in all the business of the Lord, and in every matter pertaining to God: And no sober man, I hope, will say, Tithes respected one part of their service, and that the meanest, 
Deut. 33.10, 11.  and not all and every part: if any should, Moses himself will rectify him, who makes Levis teaching judgements, and God's Law the prime consideration for, which he prays the Lord to bless his substance, before he menti●ns the incense, and the whole burnt-offering.  
And what were those judgements? only how to behave themselves in the Ceremonies of God's worship? so one, and he a Friend o● Tithes too; but most unadvisedly; there was not so great need to set L●vites in the Provinces for that, and the poor people needed teaching in something else, which being more excellent and difficult, would rather deserve honourable wages, than all that they performed besides; 
2 Chro. 17.8, 9  and if God did n●t suffer any to kindle a fire on his Altar for naught, much less was he likely to 〈◊〉 the Levites to take pains for naught in endeavouring by the Doctrines of Faith, repentance, and a new l●●e or obedience, to save the souls or people.  
The conclusion of this matter is, that all the work of the Levites not being Ceremonial; the choosest, and ●hat which diserves greatest wages being, for the substance of it, moral and perpetual Faith in the Messiah, and obedience to God's everlasting Laws: and there being no other reward for this service but this common one of Tithes, and God nor likely to set them about a work, and give them no present visible wages, which in no other service he ever did, and it being no sufficient answer, to say that by other means for other servicer they were provided already; therefore no need of a new assignment for this moral service; for so they would have been in their eight and forty Cities with their Suburbs, though they had no Tithes at all.  
It follows that the use of Tithes in this assignment respected not only a service of a temporary Ceremonial, but of a moral perpetual nature: and though the temporary use is now done with, yet the Law will still abide in its principal perpetual uses, though the accessary be vanished; especially when the pains which is taken away by the ceasing of one, is abundantly added to the Ministes of God's holy things in the other.  
And if any say, that because there was some respect to a Ceremonial service, though that not the only nor the principal, that therefore it is fit they should be nailed to Christ's Cross together with other Ceremonies;  
I would advise him, to consider what one duty that is most moral in his own account did not share in, and sympathise with the peculiar dispensation of those times; instance in prayer, a moral duty if any; yet turning the body, and lifting up the hand towards the holy land, towards Jerusalem, 
Dan. 6.10. 1 Kin. 8.29, 30, 33, 35, 38, 48. Ps. 5.7.  towards the house that is called by God's name, and towards the holy Temple; these and other things, even in prayer were Ceremonial; instance in what you will; some thing will appear to have been appendent to it, though the body of the duty be not so; we must therefore forbear nailing Tithes to the Cross of Christ, among other Ceremonies upon this account, till we can tell how to rescue all other duties from following them the same way. No; that whose use is merely, or at least principally to shadow, let that cease as having its consummation at the Cross of Christ; but let not that be dealt so with which hath another perpetual use for its principal design, and which alone is sufficient to support its standing, because of some Ceremonialness annexed, suitable to the nature of those things; for than we deface all.  
So then the right of God in Tithes remains yet firm, and the assignment of them for such uses remains good, as to the principal uses; and the ceasing of the rest overthrows not the very assignment, much less the Original Law, by which they are due to God.  
Yet again consider we the assignment, 
Num. 18.21. P. 10. Eph. 5.3, 4.  in respect of the persons to whom it was made; I have given the Children of Levi. To omit the merry jesting Triumphs we meet with here (only saying thus much in a serious cause against many that hold the same foundation with us jesting, and that with bitterness is not convenient, and does ill become Saints) yet thus much may with reason be affirmed;  
That Tithes were not assigned to Levi as Levi, but as set apart for the service of the Lord; let him be removed, and others set apart, the very reason which gave them him, qua set apart, will give them that too: this service is altered, a service remains; this service is altered in its inferior duties, in its superior and most noble duties 'tis still the same; repentance towards God, and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ (diversely indeed Preached, as the diversity of times was, but the substance of the duty one) and the assignment in reference to their service, was with such additions and alterations as it should please God from time to time to make, as he did, both in what they were to teach, first Moses, afterwards the Prophets added: first Tabernacle service, afterwards Temple service (a great alteration) the maintenance in all changes abiding the same.  
The line of the Priesthood we find altered, but how? by losing the reward of their Ministerial service, in case of receiving him whom they hitherto had Preached, and being sent forth by him to teach others to receive him also: we want a proof of this: the change was not in losing any thing they formerly enjoyed; but by taking in others of other Tribes and Nations, 
Is. 66.21.  as it was Prophesied, and the time of fulfilling Types, and removing partition Walls, being now come required; so others are joined with them to share in the same service (for substance) by the same authority; why then they should not share in the same reward, removing what is to be removed, and letling the rest stand, I ask a reason: Let me put a case; suppose God had abrogated sacrifice, and communicated the Priesthood, to chosen persons out of every Tribe, not taking all of Levi, nor confining it to Levi, both these before the coming of Christ in the Flesh, which he might have done; the Doctrine of Faith in the Messiah to come still remaining, & had made no change of the maintenance, but left it standing still: would any man say, that the still standing maintenance must not be the portion of the now present Priests? especially if no new provisions were made for them? No reasonable man, I think, would say so; that which might have been done then, is done now; and therefore plain it is, that so far as the assignment goes, we are not excluded from the benefit of it, upon the reasons forementioned (with Master Seldens good leave) and whoever will pluck Tithes out of our hands, must plead an alteration in the Gospel, supposed to be made in this matter, and must not rest in any thing barely producible out of this assignment to Levi. What is added about Tithes, in the Old Testament, is little helpful to the cause of them that plead against Tithes; being the confirmation of them by the voice of God, and the Edicts of Kings and Governors, of which we shall speak in the second plea; we may then draw all that hath been said into these summary conclusions.  
1. That when Tithes were first due to God, is nowhere to be found; we suppose it was Gods reserved Rent from the beginning.  
2. That Melchizedeck had a just right in Tithes from God, and not from the free gift of man.  
3. That this right was neither by Law Ceremonial, nor Judicial, but moral and perpetual.  
4. That Gods right in Tithes began not with the Levitical Priesthood, they had only from him the assignment of the use of them.  
5. That the expiration of this assignment to the Levitical Priest hood will neither abrogate Gods right (if he have taken them from Levi, he hath not therefore given them away from himself) 〈◊〉 revoke the grant to Melchizedeck and his Priesthood.  
6. That Gospel Ministers may claim Tithes from this assignment to Levi (at least in the equitable construction of it) as appointed to serve God in his house, though not as Levis race, nor for Ceremonial services from all that are, or aught to be, taught by, and would be accounted the Israel of God, any thing to be found in this assignemet to the contrary notwithstanding.  
I shall but step aside, to consider in brief that question, whether Tithes were not commanded under Moses by a Law Judicial? and than I shall follow our Adversaries in this cause, to their pretences for a change in New Testament times. Our engagement with them that plead the Judicial Law, is not so necessary, seeing to bring in a Judicial Law again, is not to deny Christ come in Flesh; all that would have the Judicial Law rule all, upon this supposition would yield us a Divine right in them; and none but upon the Foundation of equity, upon which Judicials are built, would grant us rather more than less. Yet let it not be injurious to the many great names of them at home and abroad, who are of this persuasion, if I propound my doubts, though not very necessary to the cause in hand. They seem to me not to have been due under Moses by a Judicial Law, for these reasons.  
1. They could not be Judicial, as paid by the people to God; 
Mal. 2.8.9.  whence it is called a robbing of God to detain them, nor yet as they were given by God to Levi. Judicials order things from man to man, not from man to God, nor from God to man.  
2. Judicials began with Moses polity (such as were merely so) at least with Abraham's Family becoming a people; for Political Laws suppose a body Politic to be Governed by them; but no time to be found, wherein Tithes began to be Gods, but the beginning of the world.  
3. Judicials (properly so taken) concerned the Jews only, but Tithes not so; it is not to be imagined, that Abraham only paid Tithes to Melchisedeck; he was a Priest to many besides Abraham, and from them was this due as much as from him.  
There is but one Politic reason, as I know of, given, why the Law for Tithes should be Judicial, and first given by the old Schoolmen; 'tis this, that by this means a proportion might be found out for Levi, who else had no inheritance among his Brethren; no great wonder this from the Schoolmen; but that Rivet should tell us among other reasons, this is (the forementioned) una & praecipua, is to be wondered at; one and the Chief, and another reason named? and this not named once? nay the quite contrary expressed? It was not because they had no inheritance, 
Num. 18.21.  therefore they should have Tithes; 
Num. 18.21.  but because they had Tithes, therefore they should have no inheritance. I would gladly know what politic reason would advise the Levites maintenance rather thus, then by giving them a distinct share answerable to their numbers among their Brethren. And if a maintenance this way were a matter of policy, why such a maintenance as gave a tenth proportion to them who were just the 41. 
Reynolds on Psa. 110. p. 477.  part, as some compute, scarce the 60, as Bellarmine, no consideration had of the charges and labour of them that occupied the land? Rather one would think upon that politic ground which respects the equal provision of the Tribes: Tithes ought to have been wholly laid aside, they having 48 Cities with their Suburbs, about a mile about, some of which were Royal Cities; which was a proportion far exceeding any of the other Tribes, considering the smallness of their numbers. So far is this reason from being praecipua, the chief, that it is not so much as una, no reason at all, neither can it be.  
We are now arrived at Gospel-times; hitherto Tithes are come along with us without any stop or contradiction: It is now to be enquired what becomes of them, whether they wax old now, and are ready to vanish, or abide in full force and virtue. I shall lay down what I conceive to be the resolution of the Gospel in the matter of Minister's maintenance in these following Conclusions.  

P. 16.  1. That Gospel-Ministers have a maintenance that is due to them of Right, and not of Alms. This will pass now Nemine contradicente, I am sure not my neighbour, who acknowledges a portion, though he stick at the proportion.  
Capel charges other Anabaptists with this vile saying; but my Neighbour shall stand acquitted of it for me. 
P. 4.  Nay he tells us, That it is to be feared, 
1 Cor. 9.14. Gal. 6.6. 1 Tim. 5.8. 1 Cor. 9.7.  that that faith will not avail to salvation in Christ, which doth not avail to the maintenance of his Ministers: I fear so to, if the disobeying Christ's ordinance, and the Apostles precepts; if highest ingratitude to them that show us the highest mercy; if defrauding the labourer of his hire (the hire, not of his work, but of his pains; and the soldier of his pay, the planter of his fruit, and the shepherd of his milk; 
Neh. 13.10.  if robbing God of his tribute due to him out of the good things he hath given us (on all hands something reserved, though we differ about the how, and the how much) if the ruining of our own, and many souls besides, while the services of God are either wholly neglected, or contemptibly administered for want of food in the Lord's house. But if this, and much more, be enough to ground such a fear; I think justly: and this the more, because it is a duty without controversy; no sober man debates it; no error can excuse the omission of it; a duty easily known; we reach it not by a long chain of curious consequences which may tyre a man of an ordinary understanding before he can, come at his duty to discern it: 'tis as plain as the soldiers pay, the husband man's bread, the shepherd's fleece, the labourer's hire: The neglect of it therefore no ignorance can excuse, as well as no error; it must lie wholly upon the will; its profaneness, or covetousness, or both. Yet if any, merely out of a careless inadvertency of their duty, have fallen into this ●in, I hope upon this joint admonition, they will be awakened to reform it, and will know from hencforth, that God hath his rent due to him as well as the Landlord; and that the Ministers right is as much a debt as any man's: So may they expect God should look down with a blessing on their habitations, as they bring out thence that which is holy, 
Deu. 26.13, 15.  as something there is of that nature confessed on all hands.  
Further, as Alms was not the appointed maintenance for Gospel-Ministers de jure, so neither was it the maintenance of the Apostolic Churches de facto; they did not plead the Jus, and use a mere benevolence. Even Carleton here is our, and his Instances are mistaken; for they concern not contributions to the Ministry, 
Rom. 15.26, 27. Acts 24.16.  but to the poor Saints at Jerusalem; and if of them his reason be admitted good, that they of Macedonia, and Achaia, and Rome, were not bound in any other duty then mere charity to maintain those at Jerusalem (it should be, not Rome, as it is falsely printed) yet I hope he will not say so of the Minister; 
Rom. 15.27.  and even of the poor Saints at Jerusalem the Apostle seems to mention another debt besides that of charity. I always took the debtors there to be, not the receivers, as he, but the payers for all it pleased them: and do so still; neither can it be otherwise, the Gentile partaking of the Jews spiritual things, aught to minister to them (the Jews) in their carnal things. To me it seems a contradiction, to affirm a thing due in justice, yet paid of Alms; and the foundation Carleton lays will not carry home the conclusion; for no man was compelled to give any thing, but every man gave as he was moved: all this is not sufficient to make an Alms. Suppose a Magistracy so corrupt, that an honest man may not by suit recover upon a bond lawfully due; yet the Creditor faithfully paying in this bond upon the force of a good conscience, may not be rightly said to give an Alms: But if any will call this so, he may call the other so too: Yet I should call both debts of justice.  
2. 
Gal. 6.6.  That this due maintenance ought to arise out of all the goods of them that are taught, none excepted; so neither the Tenants crop, privileged by sinful customs, or unprivileged, nor the Tradesman's gain, nor the Landlord's rent (the tenth increase being none of his goods; therefore though something, be given out of the whole increase, yet that something is nothing out of the Landlord's goods, he must give a portion out of his Rent, if he give any thing.) None of these exempted; the Apostles all goods forbids any thing to be privileged from this duty, and cancels what is already. This Conclusion also we have free from the contradiction of bad principles; could we easily free it from the contradiction of bad practices, we should not have such eager necessitous suing from all parts for Argumentations as we have. I desire thousands to consider how well they acquit themselves of this plain confessed Law of God. I say not that these things should be done to me; yet a Right it is.  
3. That the quantity of the proportion which every man is to give out of his goods, is not left to the mind and heart, the discretion and pleasure of him that is to give. This Conclusion is contradictory to your whole Book, my Friend and Neighbour, and therefore I shall pursue it throughly and closely. Let me tell you, at the beginning, 
P. 18.  that the mind and will of the giver is a vile word, a very vile word, and must be repent of, though it be the principle into which your whole Book is resolved; the freewill offering neither determined by God nor man, is no otherwise; as it excludes man's determination, I shall deal with it hereafter, as it excludes Gods, I have this place to deal with it in. And first I shall assert my own conclusion, then remove out of the way what you have said in defence of yours.  
1. I take this to be a neccessary inference from the first Conclusion; for if the mind and heart of the giver be the rule determining the something commanded in its proportion; than whatever is given more than a small matter above nothing, is mere Alms: For had we given out of all our goods the worth of a single penny, and had a mind and heart to give no more, we had done what in justice we are required, the Law being something, and the rule of measure our own mind and heart: The rest than is mere Alms, a gift of charity.  

Luke 10.7. 1 Cor. 9.7.  2. The similitudes Christ and Paul use in this matter, seem to me to import as much: The Labourers hire, and the Soldiers pay are not left to the pleasure of those they labour and fight for. Yet either is more reasonable than that Ministers should be left to the pleasure of those sinners whose sins they fight against; as soon leave the soldier for his pay to the pleasure of the enemy, nay rather; for an enemy will love a gallant adversary; but the more able and faithful Christ's soldier is, the more will the sinner hate him: I desire the Gentlemen of the Soldiery to consider this.  
3. The Excellency of the Ministry of the Gospel seems to bear out my Conclusion. God never did yet leave his Ministers, of what Order soever, to the pleasure of men, how much they would give them: And Christ's Ordinance is even so; that is not (I hope) then commanded; how not commanded? that's a wild Exposition of the even so, Neighbour, though it be yours. 
1 Cor. 9.14. The Archbishop reasoning with Thorp upon this ground is not to be contemned.   
But what need we insist upon these things, when we have plain commands determining other proportions, not this. And those determinations are either  
1. On the people sides; not as they have a mind and will, but as they have a power, 1 Cor. 16.2. 2 Cor. 8.3. or  
2. On the Minister's side more than one. 1. He must live, 1 Cor. 9.14. And this is more than the mind and heart of every giver will afford; many had rather see the witnesses carcases upon the ground, that they may be rid of their Tormentors. 2. But they must not barely live as men, but as Christians, so providing for their own, as that when that they are gone, their children and widows may not be chargeable to the Church. None but will allow thus much out of 1 Tim. 5.8. though many covetous wretches have filthily abused it (and do) to most exorbitant boundless provisions for, not the lives, but the lusts of theirs. 3. They must live as Ministers.  
1. Answerably to the dignity of their Calling, 1 Tim. 5.17. not mere necessity is to be regarded in the maintenance of him that labours in the Word and Doctrine, but honourableness.  
2. Answerable to the expensiveness of their Calling, which requires their whole time, 1 Tim. 4.15. their whole endeavours, no intangling business of life allowed to distract him from it, 2 Tim. 2.4.  
3. A stock in Books must lie dead by him, sufficient to set up many a considerable Trade; 
2 Tim. 4.13.  even Paul had his parchments. None are busier in Printing, than those men who quarrel so much against Ministers Books: It seems theirs must be bought up and read, but no man's else; these men are unreasonably impudent.  
4. Hospitality and mercy to the poor is enjoined him, and that not to be shifted of with a Let him do as he is able; 
1 Tim. 3.2.  for he ought to be able that he may do it. The poor will expect it from him, whether he hath it or no; and if he tell them he is not able, they will not believe him; reason fills not hungry bellies, but food; and if we have it for them, we shall marvellously further the entertainment of the Gospel by our freeness in communicating; and if we have it not, or they receive it not, it will be as great an hindrance.  
5. He must speak, exhort, rebuke with all authority, 
Tit. 2.15.  and not let any despise him; which that Minister that depends upon the mere pleasure of his hearers, for the bread he ears, is not like to do, at least shall be in a great temptation to deal insincerely with wealthy Benefactors, 
Priests Catech.  upon whose trencher he lives. That wretch whom Mr. Rogers of Dedham speaks of, who offered at a Communion a brass farthing, communicated something of his goods, and as much likely as he had a mind and a heart to; according to your rule Neighbour that man sinned not: But God is not mocked.  
So then certain it is that God hath not left us to the mind and will of th●se that are taught by us; God hath set other bounds to a people's duty then to do as they list: It is to their Power, and if need be, beyond their power; on the Minister's side, that he may live, and live honourably; that he may be furnished with necessary helps to his Ministry, that he may mind high service wholly, and not be distracted with care how to get bread for his faml●y, that he may be an example of charity to others, and an encourager of the poor in the love of godliness that he may be free from the despisings of poor profane ones, and from the proud insolences of the rich profane ones; that he may provide honestly for his own, and not leave behind him those that shall be burdensome to the Church when he is gone: So much as will answer all this are Gods bounds, not the mind and heart of the g●ver.  
Let us now see exactly and curiously all that is said for this monstrous licentious Doctrine. I find some things taken to this purpose out of the Old, and some things out of the New Testament.  
Out of the Old Testament we have  

P. 17, 18. Exo. 35.5, 21, 22, 29. 1 Chr. 29.5.  1. Examples. The people offering willingly for the Tabernacle, and for the Temple.  
Answ. True, we find freewill offerings here, and many times elsewhere, even in Sacrifices themselves; and we find stinted contributions also under the Old Testament as well; must of necessity one jugle out the other in the New Testament, which stood so friendly together in the Old? Or if they cannot agree now, one must give ground; Let Gods command maintain the field, and man's  go off; it is but good manners so to do: A voluntary act may expire without much ado, but a command of Gods not so easily; especially when the freewill offerings mentioned were single extraordinary acts, once done, and no more; whereas the Law was for a perpetual standing duty; and if a pattern be to be drawn for Minister's maintenance under the Gospel from what was done under the Law, it should rather be a standing provision, imitating a standing provision, rather than what was special and extraordinary; Ministers maintenance rather imitating Ministers maintenance, than something else, Moses preparing for the Tabernacle, or David for the Temple; I will tell you my Friend, what conclusion I should draw from these instances.  
That there is nothing in a free will-offering more Evangelical then in a Stint, that having been of use in the Tabernacle, in the Temple, & in Sacrifices too, than which nothing more Ceremonial. And I will tell you what manner of proof would have been to your purpose; could you have made it good, that a free will-offering was never used in the Old Testament, and a Stint always; whereas a free will-offering was always used in the New Testament, and a Stint never: but if we find both under both administrations, it seems the ways are in themselves indifferent to either.  
2. 
1 Chro. 28.9.  Your second Old Testament proof is from David's Command to Solomon, to serve the Lord with a willing mind. And the third is like to this; 
Ps. 110.3.  a Prophecy that Christ's people should be a willing people in the day of his power; a weighty proof, no less than six times repeated; what's the conclusion thence? it must be this, that God hath left his Minister's maintenance undetermined to the free will of them that are taught; if any way of concluding this out of these Scriptures, it must be thus: If God hath left the greater to the free will of men, much more the less; if no Law determining us in serving the Lord, nor in submitting to the Rule of Christ, than not in maintaining the Ministers; we admit the consequence; for should men be more under engagements to us than they are to God? But we abhor the Antecedent; what? God not determine us by his Command in the matter of his own service, and of subjection to his Son: but leave us in such high things to our own minds and hearts? Many Sons of Belial would fain have it so, and those men that cast off Scripture guidance, and count nothing sin but what they think so, have found out a way to persuade themselves it is so: But for you Neighbour, I do not think you to be so wicked; 'tis an Hackney reason this, in every ignorant man's mouth, and you took it up in the Highway, without examining it. The willingness in these Scriptures hath an opposition to constraint, not to a Command: Alas that you should not see this! Come I know, you will rectify this mistake; you will not dispute down all Gods and Christ's Laws, under pretence of disputing down Tithes. I know you will not try now, whether any better success may be hoped, for out of New Testament Arguments; they are  
1. That Command of Christ, Math. 10.8. which we are thrice told of.  
Answ. I. This Commission of Christ to the Apostles was not intended in all things to be a standing Law to the Church; the charge Verse 9.10. was extraordinary; the extent of their bounds to which they were confined was a straitened Compass, Verse 5.9. and their Commission temporary, it being to be with him, and that he might send them forth to Preach; occasionally in all likelihood, 
Marc. 3.14,  and where himself did intent to come; others will tell you this, and it will be hard to prove that this freely Verse 8. is not of the same nature as the without Shoes, Verse 10.  
11. But I give you this answer, that the Apostles were to heal the Sick, etc. freely; and that freely was by neither demanding any thing for their Cures wrought, nor yet taking any thing; had but thus much been permitted them, the Apostles might have grown exceeding rich, and the miracles would have lost their end, becoming a mere trade to get money by: 'tis daily seen that multitudes of ordinary Physicians grow very rich by taking only, without ever demanding any thing of a Patient, who often refuse, and never ask; the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports it, and so they had received; Christ in the Communicating this power to them neither asked nor took; you would not have this a rule for Teaching too? if you would Christ's own express words at the close of Verse 10. contradict you. I hope now you will let this Scripture go; the freely is another thing then what you took it to be, and does concern another matter.  
2. The rest of instances to establish your free will offering, are from the History of the Acts, and the Epistles.  

P. 3. Act. 24.17.  2 Cor. 8.1. They were willing to Contribute to Paul say you, nay do not thus deceive men that are willing to trust you upon your word; the gift was to the Saints, and Paul was but a Messenger among others, to convey it to them, Verse 4. of this speaks also Prov. 11.25. and which Scripture another mentions, though you do not, Rom. 15.27. it was to the poor Saints at Jerusalem: this it seems a debt too, and it is well it pleased them to do their duty, to all which I say only thus much, that Ministers are not the people's Almes-men, and that there is a wide difference between the poor of Churches, and the Rulers of Churches. That matters of charity should be determined by the discreet tender-heartedness of the giver may be allowed, but that matters of strict Justice should be so left at liberty, will by no means be hence concluded, and though the learned Capel. fetch the Minister's maintenance out of these Contributions to the Poor; this will hardly be made good by a clear Scripture proof in the Churches of the Gentiles (the Jewish had all things in common) and yet it will not help the cause, it is produced for by him, and may be by others; for though paid both at once, they are payments distinct in nature, having several grounds, and several measures to direct, and determine conscience, by as much as if they were paid never so much asunder.  

P. 18.  Yet this instance is made a Rule for all Churches to walk by, and to this purpose 1 Cor. 7.17. and 1 Cor. 4.17. are produced; neither of which speak to the matter of maintenance particularly, if at all. Now (to see the unhappiness of this man in all his reasonings) be all this granted that the Ministers maintenance is no otherwise determined by God then the Poors; and that the Apostles Ordinance about this, in one Church is a Rule for all Churches; it will then deserve an inquiry, to know what that Ordinance was: this we must take at the first Original Law about it, not upon an after-Act upon special reasons varying in one particular from the first general constitution; That we find a punctual Law indeed, and pretty general, 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. but this runs quite in another strain; the Rule is determinate, and a very straight one too; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Arian. Epict. l. 4.15. Proclaim that thou art at peace with all men, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whatever they do to thee.  not as God hath prospered him in (yet that is not the proportion of the heart, and mind of the Giver) but whatever he hath thriven in; the whole increase of their stock in trading that week; uncertain, you will say that, and whether we will or no, we must leave it to men's wills and consciences, unius cujusque arbitrio & conscientiae; what shall we leave so, most Excellent Capel? not the Law, that's determined in the Text, it must be his obedience to the Law; and that the Apostle left indeed not to men's wills (that's unhandsome, that word arbitrio) but to their consciences, that they deal faithfully in obedience to his Command, to the utmost of their knowledge; and for this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a caveat sufficient indeed. Answer this to that learned man's exception about personal Tithes, for which he brings those words.  
This being the Laws in Corinth, it met with a proud sturdy covetous people, with whom the whole increase of a great gainful trading that City flourished in, would have amounted to too great a sum for an evil eye contentedly to part with; the Apostle having notice of it, and their proneness upon every occasion to division, through the influence false Teachers had among them, taketh quite another course in the second Epistle from what he used in the first; not commanding them peremptorily without a reason, nor appointing them what to give in any sense of the words; but because of the hardness of their hearts, leaving them free in the sum, and endeavouring to raise them up another way, by many most melting Arguments in two whole Chapters, which course he had omitted altogether before; so it appears, this was a special indulgence upon special causes, relaxing the rigour of a severe Canon to the Corinthians, and to them only, as to all other Churches remaining in its full force & virtue. You will say, this could not last long, for men to bear all the losses in trading themselves, and others to carry away all the gain; true, no more it did not, the order itself expresses its own expiration; when the Apostle came to carry away their charity to Jerusalem, and for what I can see to the contrary, it was but one week's burden, so far is it from being a perpetual Law for Minister's maintenance, that it was not so much as a perpetual Law for Collections for the Poor; so exceeding inconsiderable is this allegation to the purpose in hand; yet one place there is which speaks to the Ministers maintenance indeed. Phil. 4.17, 18, 19 & we find divers such in the Old Testament (to Prophets especially) which were never therefore pleaded Rules, that so it ought to be done always, and no otherwise; yet this is plainly and fully to the instance.  
Payments to Ministers are either out of duty to supply them, as God hath Commanded them to be supplied; these have their measures bounded, and not left arbitrary to the discretion and will of the people: Other payments are out of courtesy, as Testimonies of that love and kindness, which is comely good people should, and many do bear to their Ministers; these are altogether arbitrary, a little signifying love aswel as much. Which of these two sorts the Philippians were, does depend upon the knowledge of the Apostles than state; if not necessitous, we may admit the free will-offering in this place, it being an Act of courtesy and Christian care; if necessitous (as it seems by Verse 14. and 16.) the Gift was not free, but a matter of plain duty (will any deny this?) bounded as hath been forementioned, and smelled never the worse in God's nostrils for being Commanded, and having an other Rule and measure besides man's own will.  

See v. 10.14.  The sum of this is, Contribution to the Apostle, in a necessitous condition, was in itself a duty, in its measure so far as it had a correspondency with God's bounds, than pointed out and known, as hath been declared, that was a duty too; if in any thing their bounty exceeded, this will be referred to their courtesy, and was indeed a free Gift; and as then, so it is now, the Stint does not thrust out the free Gift, if men have hearts to exceed.  

P. 2. P. 18.  But these are the Sacrifices alone which are accepted with God; that only, and God accepts no other; it must needs be so then indeed, we have cause to look to that; see what's brought to convince us.  
1 Chro. 28.9. Again that? What will not serving the Lord be accepted, unless without a Command? if will-worship become the only acceptable worship in your account, how at random do you write?  
1 Chro. 29.5, 6, 9 Accepted not doubt these were, but the word only is wanting; there were other Laws, acknowledged at that time, and were these snares to men? they must obey them because Laws, but they could not be accepted in their obedience to them, because Laws too? Oh do not write so reproachfully to the goodness of God.  
2 Cor. 9.14. and 8.1. Contribution is called a grace, and that to their power, Verse 2. was a grace enabling them to do their duty, if the Apostle reason well, Rom. 15.27. beyond their power was grace, enabling them to an uncommanded Act of mercy; obedience to just Commands is of grace: Where there is a Ye must needs be subject; 
Rom. 13.5.  this done for conscience sake is a grace, and accepted too: is it not so? still here wants the only.  
Phil, 4.17, 18, 19 The free Gift is an odour; fie, 
P. 2. P. 18.  why put you in the word free? 'tis the Gift, and that of duty; and yet the word only is not here: yea though I heed it well, it is not here; there can indeed be no safe account without we do our duty freely, as it hath an opposition to coaction and constraint; but as freely hath an opposition to a Law or Command (in which sense we dispute about it) that saying, there can be no safe account without it, is not so true, though he that gives no more than he must needs by the Laws of God and man, had need see that his parcimoniousness proceed not from want of love, for that will render his account unsafe.  
Prov. 11.25. 
P. 18.  The covetous man gives neither one way nor other by his good will, and we need not inquire how that will be accepted that is not; as for the liberal man's superabundant charity to the poor, of which that Scripture mainly speaks, accepted it will be no doubt; so also his hearty and willing Contribution, when he is Commanded to it by Law of God or man: what you add, God accepts of no other, nor will bless or water no other, is no conclusion from the Text; the like of the liberal man's maintaining his Minister, which is no matter of charity.  
Is. 66.3. The Lord will have no Sacrifice but what himself chooseth; who hath required this? Is. 1.11. Why these were all Commanded duties, and were therefore not accepted, because unduly performed; the Texts themselves give you the reason, why they were vain and hated. Is. 1.15. & 66.3, 4. And here also we plead a Command, and you plead against it, by telling us God accepteth no service but what himself chooseth: why man, you forget your side you are engaged for; just so would you speak were you on our side, and we take the Argument to be probable enough, and conclude therefore he hath bounded it, because he is most likely to know what will please himself, and most unlikely in a thing that hath so near a correspondence with his own worship, to leave men to the lusts of their own hearts, or at best to the blindness of their own reason, what a wilderness are you in here? you are to prove that no commanded proportion in a Minister's maintenance is accepted by God in Gospel times; and your reason is, no service uncommanded is accepted; you add also, going on as in a Maze, but that which the Teaching of the Spirit brings forth in the Faithful: Why the Teachings of the Spirit bring forth a conscientious obedience to Scripture Commands, that we affirm in this very case, will not God accept of it for the Scripture Laws sake? sure in writing these things you were not well in your mind. And so much of Scripture grounds against the Commanded proportion.  
Your reasons follow why that was done which was never done; all Stints removed and men left to their own minds and hearts. I might well spare them, for it is in vain to examine the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not. But you and yours shall never have cause to say that any thing produced stands unanswered; 
P. 19  your reasons are not to ensnare his Ministers with lucre; a sin indeed inconsistent with the duty of a Minister: but hath God ever told us that a set maintenance would make men Covetous? and that therefore he hath removed it? not a word; well, yet strong grounds for this are brought from reason; if any sound one, we will hear that too: no such thing neither; how then answer you this? show it if you can; why? by the experience of ages: nay that will not prove the point; if Ministers be covetous, the cause is not without, in evil Laws, but within them, in evil hearts: take those hearts away, and let the Laws stand, Ministers will not be covetous: take away the Laws, and let the hearts remain, they will be covetous still; nay more, for the more uncertainty of their Provisions, the more will covetousness distrust God; the more greedily will it take where it hath an opportunity; the more will it quarrel at the straitness of men's purses; the more will it look upon other men's goods with an evil eye; the more unlimited will desire range, having no bounds from God or man; the more niggardly will it be in spending, as not having any certainty of more coming in when this is gone. Every Minister will not do thus, should we be left at uncertainties, but every covetous Minister would; yet what if your experience of ages should prove partly frivelous, and partly slanderous?  
For this man propound to make their Sons Scholars, and blessed be God, a certain subsistence encourages then so to do; but do all design to make them rich? assuredly they shall lay out five hundred l. upon that design this way most unwisely, to make them serviceable to God, and live honestly they may, but this no covetousness, 'tis their flat duty.  
If a Parson be sick what riding and running, etc. if from a people, blessed be their hearts, who are so careful of their own souls; and blessed be the heart of that Patron, who is as tender as such a people, as if he were in their stead, if from Ministers and their Friends, 
1 Tim. 3.1.  no such heinous crime neither, if the desire be well grounded: yet in my Observation I have seen more good people inquire, where they shall find a good Minister; then good Ministers where they shall a find good people, or a rich either.  
In our striving for Parliament men, the word was, Is he for Tithes? if he be, let us all voice for him: and pray, was not your word, Is he against Tithes? we may keep our own better without covetousness, than you can pull away what is not your own without covetousness. Yet what Minister was so indiscreet as to use those words, I know not; frivolous are these slanders, that you add of men of vast estates (if I am concerned in this I am sorry) my vast Estate is such an eye sore to you; I would you were less covetous, than it would not be so; yet if a Poor needy Farmer; I have taken you for a Farmer, but for a poor needy one I never took you for: cannot in conscience; trust me, I doubt that yet if you should tell your Landlord, you cannot in conscience pay him Rent, I doubt he would not take himself bound to to accept of that answer; for the laying in Prison, it is not come to that; show your Title to the goods you unrighteously detain; and if the resolution of Justice go on my side, I shall afterwards consider what mercy to show you: in the mean time know, that the Warrants which have been out against you, have been for contemning, and rebelling against the Lawful Commands of Authority, requiring your appearance, to show cause why you detain the goods in question in your hands, 
1 Pet. 3.13.  which thing no wit of man can excuse from sin; the rest of being worse than Judas, saying, thus much I will have (as if we may not be Masters of our own courtesies, and define how much less than a due we will take, without being worse than Judas) the Priest's Boy, and the taking by force when a peaceable appeal to them, who by God and man are appointed, to end strife, is only used. Judas furnishing his table with what they freely gave not: what will you give me? should he so? for what? for selling of Christ? all these are Rave which become not a sober Christian Pen; so men writ when anger makes them weigh nothing, but how they may by't deepest, and most vex an Adversary. But I am not angry at the indignity of your comparison, much less shall I requite you railing with railing: I tell you truly how I am affected with it. I grieve at your sin, and pity your inconsiderateness; so I end your first reason, only requesting you to remember, that a Stinted maintenance is acknowledged by you, to have been Gods own maintenance; and you should take heed how you say that is a snare to covetousness.  
Second Reason: 
P. 23.  Because compulsion should not be an obstruction, or hindrance to the Gentiles embracing the Gospel. The Gentiles? why not the Jews too? put them both in, the reason is the same; but it touches not the cause. The question is about a sum Stinted, as you term it, not about the Ministers exacting the said sum, and compelling the unwilling to pay; men must first understand what the unsearchable Riches of Christ are, before they be persuaded to part with their riches for Christ, by any law, general or particular, of God or of man; this is well expressed by you that Ministers must forbear their own power, and lose their own right, and all to make the people in love with the ways of Christ: and this in challenging free contribution, yea and any other maintenance, 'tis all one; a commanded Stint unseasonably required would hinder the Gospel no more than a commanded free Contribution unseasonably required under penalty of damnation. Put me in the Apostles case, and if I then obey not the Apostles Example, let me lie under reproof: it were strange this to hear of Master Edgot, and Master Preachers to the newly converted Indians that they converted maintenance from those they Preach to; what is done for the support of such Ministers must come from other Churches, and I hope does to them: should I professedly forbear you, in order to the making you in love with the ways of Christ you are turned aside from; would not you scorn the motion? I did it to you for above three years, and to many others to this day, yet I see not that you are the nearer to repentance for it.  
Third Reason: Because that should be a badge by which Christ will have his Church known, even their willingness; this with all its proofs is answered already: the willingness of Christ's Subjects consists not in having no Command, but in a free ready obedience to the Command: for the other, to call that the badge of Christ's Subjects is no reason, is the very question between us.  

P. 24.  Fourth Reason: Because it should be a band of love still between Ministers and people; it will be hard to prove that a maintenance determined breaks love; no though by the Laws of man, but of that hereafter; and as hard to prove that the maintenance undetermined would remedy all: by no means, for will not the charging them with their duty in general, that the Minister have a portion under the penalty of damnation, telling them else they have not that Faith that works by love; and that their Faith will not avail to Salvation; and this continually urged up●n them, till they repent, anger them that love their money too well, aswel as if we Preached, yea sued for any maintenance determinately? Let this present maintenance be taken away, and people left to maintain their Ministers by free Contribution out of the nine parts remaining, this being diverted to other public uses, then suppose me but in a low degree covetous, and what will they do? what contentious questions about what Ministers may live upon; what apparel he, his Wife, and Children must wear; what services his Children must be put to, to ease the Church; what Servants he must keep in his Family; what Diet at his Table; what he may lay out upon Books; what Portion he may give with a Child; what to the Poor: A hundred such contentious questions, which when they shall come to be scanned by the Church, will make as much work for strife, as the heart of the Devil can wish: For when the matter is brought before the Church, what must they do? why they are according to God to determine it, and according to rule; so the reverend and holy Hooker (this is not according to the mind and heart of the Giver, 
Survey St. 3. P. 31.  no though Church Contribution be a free will-offering, in regard it should willingly and with a ready heart be tendered unto God; yet neither in the Old Testament, 
P. 37.  nor under the New the thing itself, nor yet the measure of it was left to a man's own dispose or liberty; then according to the heart of God it must be determined, and not according to the heart of man) but what is that proportion that is according to God, and according to the Rule? if a tenth, the cause is ended; if any other, we would gladly see it; if none, how is this like to be determined, according to God, and according to the Rule? general bounds are hardly hit at, when it comes to particulars, in defining either to the Minister his double honour, or to the Brother his ability and this will be much more difficult, when we consider what the end of this Church proceeding must be to the peremptory Refuser; excommunication for refusing this particular proportion defined by the Church, but now here defined by God. It is safely therefore advised to prevent such a Scandal, that it may not come by each man's knowing his proportion what he should do before he do it; and it is as safely practised in most of the Churches, Boston? excepted, that when these proportions will not be taken notice of, that the Town determines the matter by destraining not the Church by excommunicating; and well that too, only it would more cut off all contradicting strife, to bottom the destraint upon a determination of Gods, not of man's, it would doubtless if it were so determined in all 〈◊〉 the less is left to men's private determinations, the more are all doors to strife stopped; all men know their own, and all are contented, or must be whether they will or no.  
And indeed that we may close this third Proposition by confronting reason with reason, even for a special particular determination, and not only a general one opposite to the mind and heart of the giver: It seems hard to be believed that ever God should now at last leave his Ministers to the unconscionable consciences of men, who had never done it before. Are Gospel-Ministes the only persons likely to be neglected by God? or is the grace of the Gospel become so universal, as that a Law is now unnecessary? why not in other things as well? yea why not rather in any thing then in matters of money? Gospel-grace is not given to take away Laws, but to enable men to keep them: It were a better inference from the greater grace to conclude greater strictness of Laws then greater looseness, as many do, especially Ancients; yet amiss that too, but this far worse.  

Gal. 6.6.  However this greater grace is not received by every one; and 'tis every one that is taught is to communicate. God sends Ministers to multitudes, that profess the Gospel in their mouths, but deny it in their lives; who, the more holy the Minister is, will ha●e him the more; and the more convincingly he Preaches, will the more gnash upon him with their teeth, and be ready to run upon him as they did upon Stephen; and if any severity of Discipline be exercised upon them, will be ready to tear him also with their teeth: and is it reasonable to think God's Ministers left to the free-wills of these to communicate what they please, according to the mind and heart of the giver? or are such men fit Judges of their own abilities to give, and of a Ministers need and worth? For my part, I had rather trust a wicked Magistrate with this, than a wicked people; he would not be Judge in his own cause, and might have some sense of honour guiding him to a righteous decision. Yet if Christ had left us to such at people, I durst now judge Christ faithless and ignorant (O what conclusions are there for a silly worm to draw from any supposition, 
P. 11.  though never so impossible!) but I should say his ways were (though wise) yet most unsearchable and past my finding out.  
But a Minister shall have better entertainment from the godly, yea and sometimes from the wicked also; yet why should Christ lay a snare in godly people's way? If the rule now be according to a man's mind and heart, a small matter may satisfy that rule; if we judas not so wildly, but allow as much as in this conclusion I plead for; yet who sees not an hundred shifts for so witty a sin as covetousness is to elude bounds but generally defined? And are not God's people liable to covetousness as well as other men? I love not to touch these sores; yet the second conclusion may be instance enough well considered.  
But admit people willing to their power, and beyond their power, and in great tenderness of spirit should inquire what particularly must come out of their purses; where might a scrupulous conscience find that in which it may rest satisfied, as having done its duty? How hard is it for a man truly to know what is to his power? what the mere necessity of a Minister is in general, what of this Minister in particular? (We are most of us over-modest, or over-querulous) we can far easier tell the poor man's necessity, which is a debt only of charity, than the Ministers, which is a debt of the strictest justice that can be between man and man, and so had need be more severely bounded then then the other; and if conscience will be at a loss in judging of the necessity; how much more in the honour, and the double honour? Doubtless, if God hath not determined this thing, and Magistrates may not, these two evils will follow: It will be the way to bring Ministers to the mercy of hard stony consciences, who have no sense of duty, gratitude, honour, or any thing, so they may but keep their money: And it will be the only way to bring tender consciences to the mercy of Ministers, as the only sure way to remove scruples. 
1 Sam. 2.16.  Take as the soul desireth; it not be easy to find any other ground that will by firm, and not sink under him, without be taking himself to God's pattern of old, either as arule, or as an obliging example.  
The very like scruples would have arose, if the proportion of our time due to God had not been by himself determined, and if Gospel-freedom, and the abundance of grace in it, hath not left one uncertain, why the other? Fallen Nature is more plentifully instructed about generals; and the more it draws to Individuals, the more is it at a loss; and yet hither Nature bends, and without it rests not; for action is not of generals, it needs therefore some superior direction: Now to a man that views things only with the judgement of reason, it would seem very strange that God should expressly determine in Scripture A time, and a maintenance, in which nature can better discern what its duty is without any new direction; and yet say nothing of How much time, and How much maintenance, the thing Nature is at a loss, and needs help in. That for our relief he should determine that which is least subject to doubt, and leave that undetermined which is most. And what cause can any reason give why time should be particularly determined, which will not call for the like in maintenance? God's will indeed would carry it; but that's in question, and I am now led by example, from the reason, to conlud of the will; or rather supposing the will as proved above, and yet to be proved to give the reason why.  
It is the safety of a willing Christian to have his way plainly chalked out to him in all things, not to live and obey God at random; I never yet know that Christian that was willing to do his duty, but he was desirous to knew distinctly and particularly what his duty was (as on the other side I have known men that have been willing to shift off duty, love an uncertain doubtful determination of their duty:) And it may seem strange that God should utterly deprive this desire, which is of his own Spirits putting into them, of all possibility of satisfaction in this point; especially when in no one thing God hath done the like: The most likely instance is Alms to the poor; but the case is not like, the measure of charity being necessity, and that not possible to come under a certain rate (as we see daily by experience) in general, but more easy when it comes to the individual, the poor person that is to be relieved: Here therefore the set proportion cannot, need not be determined: Besides, it would do much to the overthrowing the very nature of charity, this determination; but Justice admits, rather of the two requires set bounds. And this Justice is capable of them, because it hath for its measure honour, which going beyond necessity, includes that, and all its ordinary varieties within it, and is not moved up and down with them; which honour having a respect to the excellency of the Evangelical service, and that Excellency being a standing Excellency, it follows that the honour is capable of a standing measure, which the poor man's box is not. And if the tender conscience wishes it so, and the nature of the thing proclaims it may be so, and the evidence of fact shows it hath been so, sober reason may require a cause why it should not be so still; and finding none, may suppose it is so.  
Especially considering yet further, That whatever special commendations may be of the  Offering, that is not at all excluded; though maintenance be defined thus, men are left at liberty to go beyond it: The like here, as in matter of time, Christians may redeem much (and aught) besides the seventh commanded proportion.  
So then we may have a stated proportion, and so have the conveniences one way, and yet be at liberty to exceed and go beyond, as occasion is, and Christian prudence shall direct; and so not lose whatever conveniences may be imagined the other way. And this sure, seeing it pleases you Neighbour, for a Close to harp upon this string, would be reasons resolution in this thing, if I know what reason is.  
Hitherto general bounds and no more; yet such as for ever exclude man's freewill from fixing its own bounds in this duty: For stayed we here, and went no further, all that could be concluded on that way would be but thus much, That God had left the resolution of particulars under these general to the faithfulness of men; whatever measure it is in particular that answers this general, is God's rule; and the work of discretion will be to apprehend aright what that is, and of conscience to determine obedience, and of the will to do it: Here is a latitude to man's judgement and discretion indeed (but no comfort in that judgement, being bound to resolve aright under pain of God's high displeasure: If God say, Let the Elder have double honour; Discretion must not say, This is double honour, when it is not; but what is so indeed, it must determine; and it were better to have been defined to our hands; much pairs would be saved by it, and the possibility of Error prevented) But to the Will there is no latitude at all, more than i● the measure were by God himself defined in particular. God says, Honour; Discretion says, This is honour: shall the Will contradict? only so far as Discretion is entrusted; the Will hath this misery, it follows a blind guide in stead of a seeing one, that is like enough to lead its self and it into the pit.  
But see what there is further to be found out towards a particular determination; I add therefore a Fourth Conclusion.  
4. That there is no countenance given in all the Gospel to a proportion less than a Tenth. We find no command of any under a Tenth; and no equitable reason will take it lower, either comparing our Ministry with theirs under the Law, so judging upon the account of Excellency; or comparing our Country, 
2 Cor. 3.6.  or indeed any, with Canaan (with due respect this to the never dying memory of that famous man of God Mr. Perkins) for where the Crops are more plentiful, prices commonly are answerably low; where less plentiful, higher; which will reduce such differences of Lands to an equality, so judging upon the account of necessity, no equity of taking things lower either way. Neither is there any certain example of less given by any; and there are certain examples many of more given; the Apostles left all; 
Marc. 10.21. Luc. 12.33.  and Christ commanded the young man to sell all, and many to sell what they had, give, and follow. The first Jewish Believers did so; and the withholding but of a part, after it was devoted whole, 
Act. 5.5, 10. 1 Cor. 16.2.  cost Ananias and Sapphira their lives, and we have cause enough to fear their souls too. Paul's Canon for the Churches (though extraordinary) contribution was the whole increase of their stock; 
2 Cor. 8.3, 4. Jam. 3.5, 7.  the Philippians went beyond their power, even beyond the Apostles Canon, else no need of their praying him with much earnestness to receive the gift; and the state of those times did necessarily require it, when the poor were mostly wrought upon by the preaching of the Word. That man that gave so little to the service of the Church as a Tenth in those times, was not like to be a faithful steward of what God had given him. Though I suppose the Apostles made use of much less when they had it for their own subsistence; and so (I hope) do many of us, where niggardly provisions do not utterly tie our hands from remitting any thing.  
5. That in case a Tenth reach not Gods general measure defined, than an higher measure is a duty. If you ask how far this higher measure must reach? even thus far, That they bring not that evil certainly visibly upon themselves, which by their contribution they are to remove from their Minister: For example, That we do not destroy our own lives to preserve his; that we leave not our own to certain Alms to prevent his leaving his so, etc. yea more, it will seem agreeable to Christian duty for men to deny themselves in many conveniences of life, and bind themselves up into a straighter compass then simply were fit, that all hindrances being removed out of the wa●, the Word of the Lord may not be bound, but may run, and be glorified; it being of far more importance to the Gospel, that such a one be not hindered in the course of his motion, then that any private man, at least, should not. And this is no strange resolution as to the Ministers measure, when the very same resolution we have as to the poor man's measure, the loss of his life through want of necessaries being to be prevented by any thing short of the loss of our own and ours: Here therefore much more, so far as the Minister's measure goes, it being far more necessary that God's truth and worship be upheld in the world, far more beneficial to ourselves and families to be instructed to salvation, for God's eternal and temporal blessings both to be bestowed on us and them, then that we leave great estates to our children, to be a sin to us, in withholding sacrilegiously, where it is due, and a snare to them soul and body as goods so derived commonly prove to be. In case therefore of need how dare we give so little as a Tenth, when all examples of New Testament Saints lead us higher? when God hath commanded the double honour, but no where commanded that we should enjoy the nine parts entire and whole to ourselves.  
And who will chide if I turn aside to weep over the degeneracy of them that call themselves Christians? How many riotous prodigals can find vast sums for Gaming, Races, Cock-fighting, gilt Watches, great Buildings, and multitudes of Followers, etc. when nothing can be found by them for the Ministers of Christ, more worth than thousands of such empty Kickshaws, though perhaps ready to perish for want? One suit of apparel made for one of our gaudy gallants might cloth many a Ministers family a twelvemonth, and one of their riotous feasts might feed such a family another twelvemonth. Yea when the portion of many wealthy Citizen's children shall be enough to provide honestly for twenty Ministers children; yet this man will grudge to give twenty shillings beyond the custom to supply his Ministers present need: Alas, he hath children of his own to provide for. Are these men Christians? are they not men that take earth for heaven? Wretched world! Such a grudging at the Tenth, when the first Christians thought not all too much to be laid at the Apostles feet! The Lord soften hard hearts; it is not my own case I am sensible of; I am better provided for then hundreds of Ministers that deserve far better than I; neither do I accuse my people; I scarce know that Faithful Minister, whose people are, for the generality, more loving to him than mine are to me: most of them (some few only excepted, and I despair not but that love and patience will melt them too) deal with me aswel as I desire; for I can say it truly through God's grace, I seek not theirs but them: 'tis the great cries and pressing of Ministers and people to procure Augmentions hath wrested this from me; I am sure that could never be if some did their duty beyond their power, or but any thing near to their power. And let it not be offensive to any, if I said thus much on the other side; that those Ministers who have considerable Estates of their own, and are not satisfied with this, and what their places afford them, but by importuning for Augmentations, divert that out of their brethren's Bellies which is intended to supply those that want, are likely to account sadly one day for what they gain so uncharitably to leave their Children Rich: Did Rich Ministers forbear this pressing in a time of straits, indeed not of purses so much as of hearts, and Rich people provide honourably for their Ministers above that small pittance, which devouring Impropriations in many places leave Ministers to; we should then have the crowding less at the doors of Commissioners for Augmentations, and Counsels of uniting Parishes laid aside, rather too great populous Parishes divided, or assistance set up in them, that especially in great Congregations we may once be restored to the primitive Order of having more Teaching elders then one in a place. Do we our duty in this thing, and see how long God will suffer us to want men; but Pardon begged for this digression, I return.  
6. It is most probable that the proportion answering those general ends, defined in the 3. conclusion, is ordinarily a tenth; and therefore that ordinarily a tenth is commanded still: he hath commanded the general Rule; he hath given the particular precedent; both these acknowledged; and who will not say, should we add no more, seeing Gods measure certainly obtains the general end, and it being uncertain whether man's will or no, that it is fit God's Example should guide us, only the case wherein a larger Provision is visibly necessary excepted? A very large step towards our conclusion, even from those premises which no man can or does contradict: but I stay not here. Add, that God hath now here given up his ancient right in the tenth, nor exchanged them for any other proportion determined or undetermined; determined none asserts, and undetermined none can justify, though they do assert it; it is in itself unreasonable to say, God hath let go the certain, and taken up the uncertain, you shall give me what you please? but so far as pretence; are made to set up the free will-offering, the third conclusion undertook them; so far as pretences are made for the charge of a tenth into any thing else, it is this conclusions talk to answer them. And here we are braved with an high challenge; Who dare affirm that the Law of Tithe is not changed? 
P. 5.  Hebr. 7.12. Well, if it be that Scripture which supports this wonderful confidence, that challenges thus the whole world, we shall follow you from the 5. P. where you but proclaim your challenge to the 14. & 15. where you endeavour to make it good. There I find you buckle to it with all your might, and to stir up our dull sluggish incapacity we are thrice called upon, heed it well, mind it well, observe it well: in obedience to direction we are very attentive; what shall we hear now?  
I. It is the scope of the Spirit, to prove that as certain as Christ is come in the Flesh, so certain is he a Priest, an High Priest, and so certain he changed the Priesthood? true all this, the change of the Priesthood and Law ceremonial is the Spirits scope, we heed it well.  
II. He bindeth it up with an also: we see the word also; a Law is changed aswel as the Priesthood, and because the Priesthood, therefore the Law, but that this or a part of this was Tithes (though you stoutly tell us so) we cannot see, neither in words nor sense, no though we look over these again, and mind it a thousand times over.  
III. But another lift at it, and another Heed it well: he doth not say, if it be, but it is changed: just so; you are in the very right, and the change of the Priesthood proves the change of the Law: very true; you have told us once already, and the Apostle told us so before you in express words; but Tithes we see not. O Neighbour, you that with this Scripture have so confidently challenged the whole world, know very well that, I requested you to prove to me, that the Law which is said to be changed, was the Law of Tithes, why have you not done it is the whole body of the ceremonial Law so great a part of Levi's service nothing? was it Tithes the Jews, and Judas king Gentiles were so Zealous to maintain? find we not many other things, and find 〈◊〉 that can any man think, the Apostle employed in writing against ●ith●s all the Epistle over (the change of this Law whatever it is, is that great design) and yet so strangely to shoot besides the Mark; as but this one Verse should be found in all his Epistle, to discover such a meaning, and in this no word of Tithes neither spoken nor meant; yea so immediately after those Verses, from which some so strongly, they think unaswerably, prove the Law of Tithes not changed? A man would look for p●●●h demonstrations against so many prejudices, that Tithes are an essential proper Branch of the Law of ceremonies, and have made this good by forcible Arguments, that could not with a good conscience be gainsaid. But behold, after so many solemn callings upon to mind it well, here's nothing but the Law is changed; therefore the Law of Tithes; as if there were no other Law could be changed but that; as sure as Christ is come in the Flesh, so I hear men speak most confident then, when they can prove least: For so saith the word, Verse 12. Nay do not so impudently belie Scripture; the word saith not so, and that it means so, you do not prove.  
2. Come we now to the next Scripture, 1 Cor. 9.14. What have we there? a likeness of maintenance, one would think at the first sight; but heed it well, and we shall find the quite contrary; well look upon it through the Glass of your exposition: here we find the things of the Temple and Altar expounded by Tithes, the living of the Gospel by Freely you have received, freely give; and the even so expounded by not so; it was then under the Temple I am sure by a Law, now without one; then something it was, and that something a determinate something; now nothing (such was the freely as it hath been proved, or something indeterminate, 
Matth. 10.8.  what men please, which is e'en as good as nothing. But not to pursue these wild conceits, for what glory is it? to name them is to confute them: this I should resolve, concerning this Scripture, as impartionally as I am able; that whereas there were two sorts of Provisions under the Law for the Ministers of God's holy things: one out of doubt Ceremonial, as the Priests share in the Sacrifices of the Altar; the other questioned whether it be ceremonial or no, the Levites Tithes; Paul by the even so constitutes a like to the former (as oblations at the Lords table) not the very same; not because the even so of itself will not require it, but because the nature of the things spoken of, will not bear it; but for the other provision doubted of, whether ceremonial or no, before we know how to interpret the even so, we must resolve that doubt; if it appear ceremonial as the rest, than the even so is to be interpreted by a like provision; if there appear nothing ceremonial in it, than the even so is to be interpreted by the very same; there being no reason here that the words should be straitened at all, so on both sides this Scripture will be yielded upon a supposition; suppose we it proved by them, that Tithes are a proper part of the Ceremonial Law; I shall yield this Scripture, and Heb. 7.12. to them, and the whole cause: on the other side let them suppose Tithes never to have been a part of that Law, and this duly proved by us (which I have endeavoured to do) they will have little cause to stand with us about this Scripture, or indeed about the whole cause.  
3. Christ and the Apostles now here have commanded tithes to be given. Answ. We are now enquiring after the change of the old command, and the now new command will not conclude that: but upon a very wicked principle, 
Matth. 5.17.  that whatever Old Testament Law is not particularly commanded in the New Testament, is void and of no force: a general confirmation we have, and all God's Laws stand till himself repeal them; but of the New Testament command about Tithes more anon.  
4. Neither Christ nor his Apostles ever took Tithes, yea they used another way themselves. Impossible this to be proved, yea as certain as Christians at first paid more than a tenth, which is most certain, so certain is it that they paid a tenth, and what becomes of this reason already? but allow it its truth it pretends to; what's the conclusion thence? Christ demanded not a tenth, therefore he renounced it; the Apostles made not use of their right, therefore they had none: inconsequent; who sees not it is so? yet to leave no appearance of shelter to them from this their last refuge, see we all distinctly.  

2 Cor. 8.9. Luc. 8.3.  1. Chr●st took no Tithes, be it so? he came to be poor, therefore to be Ministered unto; he had a right to the Kingdom as the Son of David, yet he took it not; to Tithes also as a Priest, yet in his own person he took them not, humiliation was his present business.  
2. But in his Ministers he then took them; the Levitical Priesthood standing till the Crucifixion of Christ; so what was paid to Levi the Figure was paid to Christ, as it is truly said, What was given to Melchizedech the figure was given to Christ. 
P. 2.   
The Apostles Example is considerable, either in Christ's time or after it. In Christ's time be it that they took no Tithes, they were stated by Gods own assignment to another Priesthood yet in being.  
2. The State of Christ was such as to be poor in his followers aswel as in his own person.  
3. If Christ took them not, how could they have them?  

Act. 10.38. Matth. 11.5.  4. The State of Christ and of his Apostles was a State of Peregrination, ever in motion: he went about doing good, and that was not a State of gathering and laying up of Tithes in kind.  
5. The poor were mostly wrought upon by the Preaching of the Gospel, who many of them had no Tithes to pay, the rest that had none to spare, having paid one Tenth already.  

Luc. 10.1, 19  6. There was no need; Ministers being then few, twelve standing ones, and seventy temporary ones, as appears by their commission, and their giving up their account upon returning; for them there was enough Ministered, and an overplus for the Poor, besides what help Christ brought in at several times by miracles; 
Jo. 13.29. Luc. 19.13, 33.  and who will say Tithes not paid, and more in the value, that hears what the Apostles did, what Zachaeus did, what Christ commanded the young man, others? all this enough to give a reason, why Tithes in kind were not taken by the Apostles in Christ's time without any purpose of repealing them.  
See then what further may be said of the Apostles practice after Christ's time, and that first among the Jews; be it that then they took no Tithes. The Levitical Priesthood than received them; who as they remained still by sufferance to an honourable burial, so they took Tithes by the same sufferance. 
Act. 21.20.   
2. It would have been exceeding scandalous to believing Jews, who were all Zealous of the Law, to have the Ministry of it removed out of the way, and Tithes taken from them.  
3. The Apostle themselves kept the Law; so making use of the Ministry of it must pay their Tithes to that Ministry, if they had any. 
Act. 2.44.   
4. They were then so poor that they w●●e constrained to sell all, and lay the price at the Apostles feet, for the Saints present supply, and more than once needed they large contributions from the Gentile Churches.  
As for the Gentiles themselves they had other burdens: Heathen Idol Priests, at least in many places, took away their tenth; and though we find not their whole Estates separated for the service of the Gospel, as for a time it was among the Jews, 
Jam. 2.5, 7. 2 Cor. 8.3.  yet it is beyond doubt they paid a tenth and more; the number of Believers being for the greatest part of the poorer sort, and they often sending relief to the Saints at Jerusalem, and doing it to their power, and beyond their power: if this was not done in kind, neither is it so with us in many places, only with this difference; then they paid much more in money, then if they had paid the tenth in kind; now they pay much less; yet what is this to the change of the way? there is a special reason for it, they were then in a moving condition through manifold persecutions; and though the Apostles in planting of Churches, and ordaining of elders in every City did endeavour to bring them to a se●ed fixed State, yet the rage of the Dragon gave them little rest; first by the angry Jewish little Dog, then by the fierce Heathen Mastiff, worrying them out of their goods, and lives too. Cruel edicts doing them much mischief; and the Licentious Plundering Soldiers much more. In such extremities there was no time of orderly Gathering, and laying up Tithes in kind; what they had was for the service of the Church; no man looked for more than from hand to mouth, all preparing for present Martyrdom: yet even then, as there was any breathing, some instances are of payments in kind, even of Tithes; though I suppose not in the bulk, but by Peice-meales, as the necessity of those times required; nothing then is to be drawn from these instances to prove God's relinquishing his right to Tithes; they paying more than a Tenth in value, & other reasons being abundantly given, why they did not pay a tenth in kind.  
What the great Lud. Capel. adds out of Matth. 23.23. from Christ's opposing Tithing Mint, and Anise, and Cummine to the weightier matters of the Law, which would not be if the Law were Moral, is of small moment; the opposition being not between the weightier matters and Tithe simply (would the Learned Man say that to pay Tithes simply under the Law, was not a weighty thing?) but between the weightier things and Tithes of mint, etc. so on the other side Christ's ought here, is insufficiently alleged for the morality of them, because at this time all three Laws were standing; so this Scripture may be let alone on both sides.  
Add we now for a close, for all that Tithes are Christ's Portion given, 
P. 2. Hebr. 7.8.  saith my Neighbour: but I say, paid by Abraham to Melchizedech, and in him to Christ. Levi a Tith-taker that dies; Christ a Tith-taker that lives; and so is Eternally due as long as such things are to be paid on Earth: if Christ be not a perpetual taker of Tithes, the Opposition is of no advantage on Christ's side, but Levi had it; for he was a Tith-taker many ages of Generations together; how then shall Christ take this due, being now in Heaven, but by those that are in his stead on Earth? 
2 Cor. 5.20.  so he ever received Tithes, even when he was in Earth, and much more so now he is in Heaven. This, and 1 Cor. 9.14. upon the supposition that Tithes are no part of the Ceremonial Law, have we as positive evidence that the particular determination of a tenth is still in force, besides all that hath been said to answer the pretences for a repeal.  
And what's the issue of all? are Tithes still of Divine right and to be resolved so by the force of these reasons? I humbly submit them and myself to the censure of them that are able to Judge, and will do it as becomes Christians without bitterness & disdain. As for you, my good Friend, & truly loved Neighbour, however I am dealt with by you, I only say thus much, do not scorn the question of the Divine right, till you have distinctly and plainly answered, what is here pleaded for it: I shall readily and thankfully receive any light may be given me by them that can see further than myself, even by you or any, communicated by word or writing: but mere words, and confident assertions will not do it, much less bitterness, and wrath, and clamours, and evil speaking. I may without arrogance affirm that nothing but plain Scripture demonstration must carry it against the reasons given; and such I hope I shall freely acquiesce in; there will be no need of reviling terms, as long as I am ready to lay down my error, and my Tithes with it, assoon as it is proved to be a Levitical Ceremony, and so a sin to take it, and not only nakedly affirmed; one clear Scripture ground will go further with me then a thousand empty affirmations; wasps without stings make an angry noise to fright Children, but they hurt them not.   

The Ministers second Plea for his Portion. The Magistrate's Power and Duty in making Laws for the Church.  
I Am now to begin a new Web, but that which I hope we shall see come about sooner, the power and duty of Magistrates to see God's Laws for the maintenance of his Ministers put in execution. A question wherein Magistrates have many Adversaries: but it is a great cause of grief to see some Magistrates their own Adversaries. The grand Adversary here is the Papist, whose usual reproach it is that our belief follows the State, and that our Religion is Parliamentary; but we can bear with such reproaches; it is more comfortable to see a Papist rail against the truth then trample over it; but that within those walls there should be found so many that think Religion an unfit thing to determine of, is a thing greatly to be lamented. May Papists for ever fear the name of a Parliament, under what cunning disguise soever they dress themselves, and may Parliaments never turn their fears into despisings, by making themselves Vile in their eyes; what are Magistrates less under Christ in the New Testament than they were in the Old? Does not reason tell us that the scope of Politic Societies is not merely to live, but to live well? and is there any living well without the Soul be provided for? Hath God declared and done so much against the Idolatry of the people of Israel; and do we not yet think, that the care of God's Worship is of main concernment to the temporal welfare of a people? Do such Magistrates think themselves keepers of swine, whose care is only that they have Meat and Drink, that they gore not one another, and be not a prey to them that invade them? Have not we Souls to provide a well-being for as well as bodies? What a torture and plague would it be for a man of a Spirit Zealous for Christ to be a Magistrate, if he must have great power put into his hands enabling him to do much, and yet withal his hands bound that he shall do nothing? I had rather be a Doorkeeper in the House of God in the meanest Office wherein, as such, I may Act for Christ, then in the highest Office of State wherein, as such, I may do nothing for Christ.  
But leaving expostulations, however most just, let's see upon what principles this power and duty stands.  
To begin with the beginning, we find Adam a King and Priest; Melchizedech, a King and a Priest; the Priesthood annexed to the Primogeniture, 
Hebr. 12.16.  which made Esau a profane person in selling his birthright: Regal and Sacerdotal power went together for many ages of the world: All that while their Constitutions for the well ordering of Worship had the force of binding Laws, if there were any such Constitutions, as such there must be, God then propagating his revealed truths through their hands by tradition, not as now by Scripture. I know him that he will Command, 
Gen. 18.19.  belongs to Abraham's. Princely and Paternal power, both in delivering down the Ordinances of God's Worship as Laws to his Children and Servants. And sure God did not join those two Offices in one person, but that the Authority of the Prince might win more awe from the then rude world, then if meaner persons were employed in the Priestly Office. Hitherto the whole power about holy things was in the Prince's hand, and this from the beginning; a good Argument that with such Alterations as God was pleased to make at several times, it is to continue to the end; the Magistrate hath power in God's holy things, from the beginning it was so. 
Matth. 19.8.  Not but that the Offices were distinct, though the person was the same, and the Acts several, and each deriving its functions immediately from God, but being in one they joined hands, and mutually strengthened each other by their several Interests; the Prince the Priest, by all Actions of a Prince; the Priest the Prince by all Actions of a Priest; so it should be now they are in several hands, and there is need both ways; we need not inquire which way most, though it be easy to guess: So it was then, and it is most unnatural to think it otherwise; every Authority will do it utmost to preserve itself.  
So they run in one Stream till they came to Moses; then they divide; and what is parted with at that division? So much will be removed to other shoulders, the rest abiding where it was; the time, and manner of doing, this is found, Leu. 8. where we find Moses the Magistrate executing the whole Priestly Office in the Consecration of Aaron and his Sons, which Act was done by him as a Magistrate aswel as a Prophet; for then the Magistrate devested himself of that power, which had rested upon him from the beginning of the world till now, and communicating to another Order, the Government as to both duties growing now too heavy to rest in one hand through the multitude of those that were governed, and the variety of Laws they were governed by; and what is now parted with? The exercise of the Priest's function in all the duties of that place; the  power of that holy ministration, but no more: the  power of ordering both the people and his Sons in matter of Worship, commanding all to do their respective duties, tithing, encouraging, etc. 
Leu. 10.3, 4, 12, 16.  This Moses parted not with, but exercised often afterwards, as the Story represents it to us, even quickly after the Consecration, though he never offered up Sacrifices with his own hands more; if any say these after-attempts of Moses ●ere merely Prophetical; and that the Princely power did not at all put forth itself in them, he will say so gratis and without proof; it appears no more was devested; the rest than was retained; and when we see it put forth, why should we doubt whither to refer it? Moses Prophetical Spirit was not necessary to direct about what God had already revealed, but about what was further to be received from God: But this was a power anciently communicated, long used; yea in new injunctions from God the receiving and communicating them were Actions of the Office Prophetical: but the binding people to the observance of them by a legal establishment, is the Action of the Office Princely, and its legislative power had by Moses indeed after a manner extraordinary; but belonging to that power, however Lawfully had and held of God. And this difference is altogether the same in the Laws against Murder and Adultery; Moses otherwise forbids them as a Prophet, otherwise as a Prince; and although my Neighbour unadvisedly limit civil Laws to things indifferent, 
P. 11.  yet I hope this upon second thoughts will not be stood upon.  
And this reserved power of Moses does yet further appear a certain and perpetual branch of his Princely Government, in that all succeeding Magistrates after him, Judges and Kings had it and used it; both those that were Prophetically inspired, and those that were not: the good ones to establish good things for the House of the Lord; the evil ones to neglect God's House, and draw people to Idolatry: the Priests never meddling with this matter; none but Jehoida appearing upon this Stage; and he in a time of great distress, as by right his wife next of kindred to the crown, the seed Royal being all destroyed in the King's Minority, as Guardian, 
2 Kin. 11.17, 18. 2 Chro. 23.18. & 24.15, 16.  Tutor and Protector to the King in his Infant State; yet even he for all his age, Authority, doing good in Israel both towards God and his House; yea, and towards the House of the King too: yet the King grown up, is under command even about the affairs of the Temple he was High Priest in; hath matters put into his hands, is called to account, reproved; 
2 Kin. 12.4, 7, 8.  and business otherwise ordered, consents to all that's done without any contradiction, as in a thing belonging not to his office, but to the Kings. If this had been an encroachment, no person so fit as Jehoiada; no season so opportune as under a young King so highly obliged for his life and Crown, to attempt the recovery of this power, and restore it to its proper place; he that had Authority and courage enough to keep in the Spirits of King, Princes, and People, 
2 Chro. 24.17, 18. 2 Kin. 12.2.  so strongly addicted to Idolatry all his days, would not have likely failed in a meaner business, that had belonged to his trust. But this not the work of one King or two, but of every one that was good, no way disallowed in them by God but extolled; and the best Reformers having this constant Character, that they did that which was good in the sight of the Lord. And whereas there was but one of them that presumed to execute the Priest's Office, 
2 Chro. 26.17, 18.  the Priests valiantly resisted him here; they knew what was within the King's Commission, and what not; seldom do men, a whole rank & Society of men, Generation after Generation, want courage to lay claim to, and vindicate their just powers: yea, and God himself presently testifies his dislike of this attempt, by smiting the Intruder with a Leprosy while he had a Censer in his hand, 
Verse 19 Verse 21, 23.  and was wroth with the Priests; and this never cured upon him to the day of his death; though a good King repenting doubtless, and pardoned, and many prayers offered up for him by all the Faithful: God would make him a standing example to after Princes, that they should not stretch beyond their commission in matters of Religion. Now if what was done, and that so generally, were an usurpation as well as this, likely God would have been jealous here too, and not have suffered himself to be perpetually nosed in matters he is so exceeding tender of; yet this never done, they not once blamed, but always commended, and the Neglecters ever branded with a Note of Infamy for their neglect; yea the thing so pleasing to God, that he delights to speak of the doing of so acceptable a thing, and will make mention of the name of that blessed Instrument he intends to make use of for this purpose, above three hundred years before he was born: 
2 Kin. 13.2.  yea, and an Heathen Cyrus shall be honoured with the like favour about two hundred years (compute the uttering of that Prophecy, 
Is. 44.28.  and the beginning of the seventy years how you please) before he was born for this very thing, not only for saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built: but for saying also to the Temple, This Foundation shall be laid; and God sure would never set so large a Character of honour so long before upon that Action, which if an unwarrantable exorbitancy from men's bounds of duty, could never have pleased him.  
Nay in this very thing we treat of Minister's maintenance, till Hezekiah's time, it seems there needed no Laws under the reign of good Kings; and the malice of bad ones afforded none, though like enough there needed then: but than what an express one do we find? 2 Chro. 31.4. this before the captivity; after the captivity another, Neh. 13.10, 11, 12. These I proposed to my Neighbour as appears, to which he adds, 
P. 5.  Is. 49.13. a place never once by me mentioned to him; and this which I mentioned not he frames an answer to, such as it is: but to that I did indeed allege he says nothing; if this be fair dealing Neighbour in your serious hours, for conscience to confer with itself, do you judge; yet this must not serve your turn: either therefore show us that these had no such power, it was a mere usurpation; or show us plain evidence of Scripture, for the revoking of this power, or yield to the unanswerable conviction of truth, for you may not slyly carry away such a matter as this is, by saying nothing to it.  
After Nehemiah's time the Priestly and Princely power meet again, not as at first Princes becoming Priests, but Priests becoming Princes: so it was for a time before under the Government of Eli, and so it continued, ●ill the Romans, a third party, 
1 Machab. 14.41.  between Brethren contending swallowed up all; whatever Authority those times may afford, it is wholly ours in this cause.  
Plain Resolutions these; for such a power in Magistrates once had, how came they so considerable a Pearl in the Crown of Princes to drop out thence? a plain express revoking is not pretended to, and consequences had need be very manifest in a matter of this weight; 'tis easy to daily with such kind of proofs, as he that found out a repeal for this power in Matth. 5.38, 39 and Gen. 49.10. such manner of proofs men may allege by the scores: but to do this sound, clearly, and convincingly will be an hard thing. This is the usual plea that the power of Magistrates, in making Laws about Church matters, was typical, and to cease upon the coming of Christ. Typical and Ceremonial are two words, that help us at a dead list many a time when we have nothing else to say; but pray Sirs, were Cyrus and Artaxerxes types of Christ too. Ezra 7.27. And how is it proved that all the Kings of Judah were Types of Christ? And if so in any respect, how appears it they were so as Lawmakers in matters of the Church? and if so, why not as much in matters of State? 
Matth. 28.18. Eph. 1.22: Rev. 2.23.  all power is given to Christ, and he is the head of all things to the Church; what else is killing Children with death but an execution of such a power? Spiritual Weapons cut off after another manner; yet if Typical, must it needs therefore be repealed? Melchizedech's benediction was Typical (most of any thing in his Ministry) yet I hope not repealed therefore. I have my Neighbour's Testimony with me in this business, who pleading for free will-offerings, 
P. 17.  finds them out in the old Law, and adds, This was Typical: Therefore I suppose to continue under the Gospel because Typical, if nothing else hinder; not therefore to be abrogated; that Type of Christ, whose fulfilling was mysterious, let that be abrogated by Christ; but that Type whose fulfilling was literal, may, and I suppose must abide still. Be it then Typical yet, as Christ blessed Abraham the Father of Believers by Melchizedech his Type; and now blesses Believers the Children of Faithful Abraham by Ministers, who are in his stead; so Christ may provide for the Church by Magistrates his Types under the Law; so now may he do the same by Magistrates, who in the Acts of their office are in Christ's stead too. I ask now, whether the mere consideration of a Type can overthrow this? In fine therefore whatever things are contained in this shift are uncertain, vain, empty all; and grant as much in courtesy as they can ask, yet then unconcluding too.  
I shall now see what may be said for the affirmative, that this power & duty still continues in Magistrates hands, now under Gospel times.  

Matth. 5.17. 1 Tim. 1.  I hope it will not be denied that the moral Law is of force now as ever, as a rule of duty; out of that there are two Commandments which resolve this power to be in the Magistrate: The fourth wherein the Stranger is Commanded to keep the Sabbath-day; and who shall engage him to this but the civil Magistrate? every Stranger within their Gates, was not a Proselyte to be kept in by the Authority of the word. Nehemiah's Example is a good exposition upon the Law in this thing.  
11. In the fifth Commandment none doubts but the Magistrate is concerned, and that what a private Father hath to do in his Family, that the public Father hath to do in the Commonwealth, so much at least, and more, and that man is a sad Father, who thinks himself not engaged to Command his Children in first Table duties aswel as in second Table one's; they are not worthy to be called the Children of Abraham, 
Eph. 6.4.  and have not learned what the Apostles nurture and admonition means; why not the same in second Table duties? The heart must be changed before an acceptable obedience can be yielded to these; and paternal Laws can as little change the heart in one as in the other: Instrumental causes must not be laid aside, because they can do nothing without the concurrence and guidance of the principal.  

Isa. 60.10. Ps. 2.  2. Due regard I hope will be had of Old Testament Prophecies, that describe the state of the New Testament to us; among many others take we that for instance, that which of your own accord Neighbor, you set up to frame an answer to, as supposing yourself best able to deal with; Is. 49.13. 
P. 6.  They shall bow down, that is, they shall submit to Christ: well; but what is the nursing Fathers & nursing Mothers? They shall bring them in the Arms of love; let that be it; a man would look to find good Law in a King's Arms: wholesome Ordinances well & duly executed, making it a dangerous thing to offend or wrong one of Christ's little ones. You add not scourge them with the rod of power; what in no case though they offend and deserve it? You have many such Anarchical expressions, I hope they droped from you unadvisedly: Christians are for the Magistrates arms, his love, care, protection, defence; from his person, State, Laws, Forces, every thing he hath; he is not to count any thing too dear for them, not his life: but he hath a Rod to chastise their wantonness; yea, and a Sword to cut off their temporal life, if they so deserve it. They shall wait for the Lord, not make the Lord wait for them? very pretty and Rhetorical! But where are the words that this interprets; it must be the last in that Verse, for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me. But this is not spoken of Magistrates, but of Christians who lay under heavy persecutions from Heathens, and waited for deliverance and exaltation from Christ; these have a promise not to wait in vain: Emperors that formerly sucked the blood of Christians, shall now hold out the breast to them: did you not see this? or would you not? Why do you apply the words to Kings and Queens? well as it is, what sense hath your exposition? They shall w●●● for the Lord, attend to the movings of the Lord in themselves 〈◊〉 in their people; is it thus? But how? without the use either of Ministry or Laws? or the Laws only excluded, but the Ministry admitted? It may be so, you say; but good Laws may have a subordination in their place, under the Lords moving aswel as good Preaching: then what is the not making the Lord wait for them? is it not hindering the Lords motions in themselves, and their people? a good sense this, the Lord make all men aswel as Magistrates do so; but this hath no oppositon to what is said by us and you; but must hit us, or you shoot besides the mark. You would mean, I suppose, they must wait for the Lords movings in their people, and not constrain them by Laws before the Lord make them willing; but this is quite contrary to making the Lord wait for them, for all the Musicalness of the words; therefore it mistakes the sense of the place it interprets, and it is hard to find what design is in it contradictory to us. But all this while my very Elegant Neighbour, the Nurse is forgotten; the Arms are not the only things make a Nurse (yet this is fair towards our cause from your own exposition) Nurses are wont to have breasts too, and they are indeed the essentials of a Nurse: now let our Magistrates have Arms by wholesome Laws to defend from injuries, and let them have breasts too by wholesome Laws, to provide sustenance for the Nurseling; we will think he play the Nurse well, and not otherwise; yet we will allow him a Rod, and a Sword too, for bad Christians, and for good ones also behaving themselves as the bad; though you dare not trust him with edged tools.  
Well, the Milk and the maintenance have a very near correspondence, we may think them the same: but may not this ●ow from private devotion constraining themselves, not from penal Laws constraining others, otherwise then as so good an Example may provoke them? not so; the private devotion of Princes may reach far, but this Nursery is too numerous to be provided for so; and such as the Arms are, such are the breasts; a Prince both ways rules, when he rules by his Laws. Besides it is not comely to straiten a promise without manifest reason; promises love to be understood in the largest sense they may; especially when we have the History of those Prophecies fulfilled, so largely interpreting them, as we have most amply, when the Roman-Empire became Vassal to the Throne of Christ; the Nurse then was very flush of Milk in both Breasts, that of free Gift, and that of Laws too; and if promises be doubtful, let the History expound them. So in other cases we are wont to say with good acceptance; how far it will be admitted here, I cannot tell.  
The next of our evidences is from several constitutions in the Gospel itself; they are.  

Matth. 28.18. Prov. 8.15.16.  1. The Sovereignty of the whole world put into the hands of Christ. Whence it follows, That all earthly powers are by and under him. By him Kings reign; and so are to rule for him their Supreme Sovereign, 
John 17.2. Eph. 1.22.  as all inferior Offices are for the safety, honour, and welfare of the Superior; and are bound as much to preserve the dignity of the power above them, as inferiors are bound to preserve their dignity. And as this power of Christ over all flesh, is with a peculiar reference to the good of his Elect; so all officers under him are reasonably thought engaged to eye these peculiarly, and tender them in their laws and government, whom their great Head and Sovereign particularly eye's and tenders, so far as they are able to know them from other men.  
I durst not omit this Reason, because some friends in this cause are unsatisfied with it, though, did not the weight of the whole Conclusion lie much upon it, I should have forborn. Now 'tis enough to say that this principle hinders not our Ass●●tion against the truth, against whoever that defend the Erastian way, the Ministers of Christ having from Christ as immediately and solely the power of Censure, 
Mark 16.19. & 1●. 18. John 20.23. 1 Cor. 5.12, 13.  as they have the power of Preaching and Administering the Sacraments, as to which acts no man can ever prove the Magistrate Vice Christi: we may safely then allow him to be so as to acts that are in his owns Sphere. And as the principle is not to the hindrance of our Assertion for Church-government; so neither is it to the furtherance of the Erastian, unless it were proved that this Vicegerency is in the acts of government controverted. Here that cause sticks, and I think will do for ever; not in the Vicegerency simply and universally, even as to those acts of power, which between us and them, do undoubtedly belong to him.  
2. Christ seems himself to acknowledge this power in the Magistrate standing before Pilate, Joh. 19 and a power is here acknowledged, and that not to be understood by way of extraordinary permission only to accomplish Gods great council about man's Redemption; for that would have been no extenuation of pilate's sin beneath the deliverers, who had such a power as that as well as Pilate. 
Acts 2.23.  Permission, lessens no man's sin: It must therefore be another manner of power, from whence the greater sin may truly be concluded: And what can that be but the government being now since Pompey reduced them into a Province, well settled in the hands of the Romans, God constituting Pilate a lawful Judge in such matters as Christ was brought before him for; to which constitution of Gods, it became Christ, 
Matth. 3.15. Luke 2.51.  who was made under the Law, and to fulfil all righteousness, to submit himself according to that dispensation of humility he then went through, according as he did in other things, and particularly in his subjection to his Parents, there being the same reason of obedience to the public Parent as there is to the private. They now that against all law and justice delivered him up, and maliciously insisted on false accusations, and 〈◊〉 false witnesses to depose against him, had the greatest sin: yet pilate's sin was great too, though theirs greater, in that he gave sentence, out of fear and popularity, against the truth and his conscience both; and so he condemned the Lord of glory, from whom he had his government and his very life. Yet still the power of judging about those things was from above: And what were they? Blasphemy and Treason. And what Blasphemy was it, against God merely? 
John 19.7.  No, against Christ. Christ arraigned as a blasphemer against Christ, he maketh himself the Son of God, 
Matth 27.63, 65, 66.  according to the High Priests own language, the Christ: I adjure thee by the living God that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Upon the acknowledgement of which (in sense, though not in words; so no doubt Christ meant it, and so they took it) do they condemn him as a Blasphemer; he is guilty of death. This was their charge then; He maketh himself the Son of God; he is a counterfeit Christ. Will any now say that Christ's acknowledgement of this power in Pilate respects only the other charge of Treason, not of Blasphemy? I doubt not but some will; for no shift shall be unessayed by which prejudiced men may resist the truth: But what least show of ground is there for such a thing? Pilate distinguishes them not in his Sentence, nor in his Inscription upon the Cross, the King (the Messiah) of the Jews includes both: And though Pilate had left out the Blasphemy at both times, yet this passage was at the Trial before the Sentence, whilst both Charges were hot in debate; yea it comes in immediately upon the charge of Blasphemy, v. 7. and pilate's fear upon it, v. 8. going into the Hall, and questioning Christ about it, v. 9 Will any man now limit Christ's general speech, which limits not its self to the matter of Treason (which at the present was not spoken of, that is returned to afterwards, viz.) and altogether exclude the charge of Blasphemy, which wholly and solely gave occasion to the speech? He must be a very wilful man that can do thus. So then belong it does to the Civil Magistrate to judge of the question about a counterfeit Christ, and that in the Sentence of Christ himself, when he was accused so to be. pilate's sin was not in enquiring into this question, but in passing Sentence against him as a counterfeit Messiah, who ought to have passed sentence for him as the true Messiah. And in what kind soever the Magistrate is to punish Malefactors, in the same kind is he to encourage them that do well. He, the duty of whose place is to punish the pretended Christ, and his followers, is by the same duty engaged to provide for the true Christ and his.  
3. Yet more: Of the Magistrate it is said, 
Rom. 13.3.  He is the Minister of God, for the praise of them that do that which is good; but a revenger to execute wrath upon them that do evil. 
1 Pet. 2.14. Tim. 2.2.  So largely, and without limitation Peter; For the punishment of evil 〈◊〉, and the praise of them that do well: And in order to these end, solemn prayers are to be made in all the Assembles of the Saints: Godliness and honesty, and in them with quietness, are the ends proposed, if in the commission the aimed at good of Magistracy be but generally expressed (that 〈◊〉 in all where the Law distinguishes not) yet in the prayer expounding the Commission, they are distinctly expressed, godliness committed to the Magistrates care as well as honesty; and first godliness, and honesty afterwards, no 〈◊〉 being truly honest but the godly man, and the manner the same in both, no binding of the Magistrates hands by distinctions feigned to serve the cause, in the one end, that of godliness; but the other end, that of honestly will be entangled therewith, they are set down in an equality, and must run the same hazards both. This the then Magistrates did not for godliness, no no● yet for honesty, sincerely, and in all the parts of it: But yet this they ought to do, and this Christians were to pray for them that they might do, 
V 4.  by coming to the knowledge of the Truth, that they might be saved themselves. This means might take effect, and did; when they once obtained the mercy of godliness and honesty for themselves, than they did their duty, by engaging all their regal power to bring others to them both.  
4. But of all matters that come within the compass oft his Dispute, the matter of Maintenance is least liable to contradiction, it being first the man that eats and drinks, not the Minister as such: And what belongs to a Magistrate in the judgement of these men, if not this, to see that every subject may live? Nay, in order to this very thing must they not take notice of, and allow of their ways of living by which they subsist? All governments Heathens, as well as Jewish and Christian, have ever done this: If then Magistrates ought not to take cognizance of the matters of the Church, how can they allow so many thousand families under them to live without any calling allowed by them and their Laws? Is it by mere connivance of Magistrates that we live? Why do they not compel us, as other idle persons, to labour with our hands? It men grant it lawful for Magistrates to vouchsafe us the allowance of Law, though not the establishment, that they may take this for a way of living just, honest, and useful for the Public, even as the day laborers, this will be enough to ground a provision for a just subsistence for one as well as for the other: if our way of life be such as may be allowed; they must see that we may live, and not perish in i●. A very Heathen, tolerating the Christian Religion within his Dominions, may, and aught to tell Christians, If you will be of this Religion, and have Ministers wholly attending on this very thing, to me they are so many dro●es, bring nothing to the hive; yet seeing ●o you they are necessary, you shall maintain them; to you they are Ministers, to me they are subjects; if you will use them, you shall keep them, they shall live among you. This would be reasonable language, honourable, and of right to be expected from a very Turk.  
But we have no Histories of any such thing done by Magistrates in the New Testament for the Religion of Christ: Admit this, yet our cause stands more firmly upon the forementioned pillars of right, than it could upon any examples of fact; we have the best plea. The Magistrates neglect here was their sin, and prayed against by the Church. Yet that nothing may be wanting which might be desired in this cause, we have Magistrates favourers of the Gospel, and the Apostles using them, and submitting to them: though not Supreme ones indeed, yet subordinate ones (and the consequence from these to them is good à majore) if the Rulers of the Synagogues were such. God never appointed any such Officer to minister in holy things, neither ever did they; and scourging (the punishment they used) is no Church-punishment. 
Luke 4.16, 17. Acts 13.15. & 18.8.  Now Christ submits to this power, never gainsaying them but when they executed their Office amiss: The like we find the Apostles to have done after him; and we may well think that Crispus, and other chief Rulers converted to the Faith, had no less authority in their respective Synagogues than they had before; it being no more than what the Kings of Judah had anciently practised, and now could not so fully, and with that authority be practised in Judaea, the government now being in the hands of Heathens: And in the several Plantations of Jews it could not possibly be otherwise, the power of Kings thus parcell'd and weakened, as it wont to be in the declinings of every Government. Such there must be, if any thing done in these matters at all, others playing the careless Gallios', and resolving not to be Judges in any such matters. And all this may be well allowed without clashing of their Authority, of whose warfare the weapons are spiritual. We acknowledge more in the Kings of Judah, then ever can be proved to have been in the Rulers of the Synagogues, and yet no diminution to those powers which Christ hath immediately stated upon the Ministers of his holy things.  
Add now for a close of all, 
Rev. 17.12, 16.  that the Magistrates are they that shall ha●e the whore, and make her desolate and naked; and this not only as a bloody Whore, but as a Whore, a Spiritual Fornicator from God: every one of them jointly in a most just engagement against her, and severally in their respective dominions; and he that hath power to punish, hath power to protect; he who is to pull down Antichrist, is to set up Christ, if for Christ's sake he means to pull him down. Now why should this Whore say to Kings, what have you to do with my Idols? Your Commission is but in civil things (hardly in them, neither a reference to Spirituals may hook them in too.) leave me to the Lords time; 'tis no wonder, she knows they are the persons appointed by God, to make her desolate and naked, and to eat her flesh, and burn her with fire; could she persuade them to let her alone with her Adulteries, she were safe then: But for those who would be thought the only through enemies of the Whore in the world, all having some confederacy with her more or less, but they who hate her, and petition for things purposely, as they say, that the Whore's Flesh may be eaten, and she burnt with Fire; these men, if they mean as they speak, deserve to be wondered at indeed. O ye Rulers, pull down Tithes, that Antichristian yoke, and impose nothing upon men's consciences in the room of them; let every one Worship God in his own way, that so you may eat the Whore's Flesh, and burn her with Fire; let her alone, that you may destroy her; touch her not, that you may make her naked; the most effectual means to ruin Antichrist this; they plot against us with all their wit and malice continually, and put their plots in execution unweariedly, sparing neither cost nor industry; and we are persuaded, the best course against them is to let them alone, and take their course, tamely to give up our throats to be cut by them; and this not only a duty from us, but the most effectual means to ruin them. I shall not wish these men's Daughters may play the Harlots, that they may learn by an home experience whether, let them alone, be the only effectual means to reclaim them. But such reasonings we must expect from men when they are appointed to destruction. Quos Deus vult perdere dementat prius.  
Now my good Friend and Neighbour, what is it you have to lay in the Balance against these many so strongly concluding reasons? one would expect nothing less than down right New Testament Laws against us, who shall read your peremptory conclusion, This is the period of all; 
P. 16.  the Gospel must be free, and kept free from man's power; for this is an Ordinance of God. An Angel of God let down from Heaven, charging mankind to fear God, and believe in Christ, could speak no otherwise, yea, and we are threatened too; who? every one, the Protector, 
P. 7.  if he find not out the old Romish Laws that have commanded Tithes, his sin will find him out; who else? the whole Nation, and Nations. It is no wonder that God's Judgements do impend Nations, whose Princes and Teachers hinder this odour (the free will-offering) Marvellous confidence! especially if we add the magnificent conclusion, 
More of this strain, P. 12.  as if it were an old Oracle out of Christ's own mouth; he that hath ears to hear, let him hear.  
A man would think nothing less than the Denial of Christ came in the Flesh; even the express Denial were threatened thus in these dreadful words; but 'tis no more than this, That Princes may make no Laws to command the people, to give the Spiritual Labourer his wages; they must do it of their own accord, or the Labourer must have nothing, and be contented too; for they own him no more than what they please to give him; if this be all, we are pretty well pacified, no great cause for such an outcry: yet if the evidence produced of God's mind in this thing be very plain and undeniable, that may do much, to bring us all into the danger of that dreadful and universal curse, as we shall answer the contrary at the day of judgement; 
P. 12.  We are pretty well used to bugbear words, and have observed where men speak most weakly, they speak most confidently. I shall therefore take the boldness to examine your reasons, as I can pick them out of that confused heap where they lie.  
Your reasons are either such as conclude against a command of God, or man in general, or such as conclude against a command of man's in particular: the Scriptures concluding generally, are Ps. 110.3. Exod. 35.5, 21, 22, 29. Phil. 4.17, 18, 19 2 Cor. 8.1. 1 Chron. 28.9. 2 Cor. 9.7, 14, 18. These have been answered distinctly and plainly above: 
P. 23, 24, 25.  Thither I shall refer you; for those reasons that are particularly directed against the Magistrate's power and duty, I shall answer them now.  
1. It does dishonour Christ in his prerogative, whose royalty it is to prepare for his Ministers. Matth. 28.19, 20. 
P. 3.  To prepare you mean food & subsistence for them, among many other things Christ prepares for his Ministers, that indeed is one; and we bless him for his Faithful preparing; he hath done according to his promise, by stirring up the hearts of Princes and people to contribute; and then by stirring up Magistrates, his Servants on earth, to establish and secure as Vigilant Feoffees, what is so contributed to the use of the Gospel; and we believe it is Christ's prerogative Royal, to chastise them that withhold from his Ministers the Meat which he hath thus prepared for them.  
Will this serve your turn? No; it must be another exercise of prerogative, by which he is supposed to prepare for his Ministers, only by stirring up people's hearts, without any establishment of man's; but does that Scripture prove such a thing? or any Scripture? or reason? or experience? or any thing? I have thought it the safest way to understand promises in the same sense, wherein we have seen them fulfilled; and we have found in all ages Ministers provided for, some this way, some another way; some in part this way, 
Act. 27.43, 44.  some in part another way; as the promise to Paul of the lives of all in the Ship with him was fulfilled, to some one way, to some another way, to all fulfilled: so here the promise is, I will be with you; and that includes comfortable provisions for life in their Ministry, but he does not tell them how, whether this way, or that; whether by Magistrates or without, whether by contributions in diem or for ever; whether ordinary or miraculous: any of these ways, or the like, he is as good as his word. It should therefore be demonstrated, that Christ hath reserved this royalty to himself solely and only, and that he will have no Instruments so serve in it under him: but why is this matter of money so sacred a thing that none but Christ may touch? hath he not committed greater matters than this to Instruments under him? Surely the matter is less in the eye of Christ, than it is in the eye of man; Atheistical man loves that the business of the purse should be heard only by the hearing of Christ; let him scape till then, he will venture that: but let it not be so with you my Neighbour; I would have you more afraid of the hearing of Christ alone then so, and not to count it a desirable privilege, that your purse matters may be reserved to that day's Trial; pray does Christ work upon the hearts of people to regeneration mediately? and is the parting with a little money so choice a business, that this alone he should work immediately? why? such a sole immediate preparation would exclude Church discipline, from meddling in this matter aswell as civil Laws; yea, and the Ministers Authority commanding it in his place aswell as the Magistrate in his; if those two ways be admitted, then 'tis not altogether immediately, and it will rest to show how the interposing of Magistrates under, and for Christ, in the executions of his commands, does more entrench upon the Sovereign Royalty of Christ, than the interposing of a Church or Minister: if any say, these do it by Christ's Authority, Magistrates not so; this is to beg the question, and the mere Royalty of Christ here alleged, will not conclude it against us; we must see what is further said for that.  

P. 2.  The Lord will have no service but what himself chooseth: Well, if this be a part of service, God may have chosen this; but be it that a Tenth is not determined by God, yet this reason fights equally against a determination, made by our own mind and heart, as by another man's: you suppose, I hope, that the Creatures will, be it whose it will be, ours, or another man's, makes will-Worship; did ye not consider this? we must both answer it, in case a Tenth be not of Divine right, nor any other portion determinately: I should answer it thus, that God hath made a portion due; if he have left the proportion undetermined, he will never charge men with sin, ourselves or any others, for meddling with that, which he hath imposed a necessity for them to meddle with; yea, though it were nearer to the Worship of God than Ministers maintenance is; if you say that man's own will may determine this undetermined thing of God; but the Magistrates may not: still this is the question, and the mere consideration of will Worship will not conclude against the Magistrate; follow on then further.  
That procuring Laws from the Magistrate for our maintenance, and using them (this is the utmost, I suppose, of what you would say, though you express it not) is not to trust Christ to provide for us, said without proof, very easy disputing this: but though you think us, 
P. 4.  bound to take your word, I shall not so impose upon you. I say therefore, we dare, we do trust Christ to provide for us, he hath done so, and we thankfully accept it, acknowledging it to his praise; and so long as he is pleased to continue this provision of his, we shall endeavour to use it in Faithfulness to his honour, and not count our lives dear unto ourselves, that we may finish our course with joy; and if ever he shall alter this provision, or permit it to be altered, whether by setting up another in its room, or by setting up none in its room, doubt not but there will be found both Faithful Ministers, who will dare trust Christ still; and Faithful people whose Faith will work by love, in communicating out of all their goods unto him that teacheth, whatever remisseness there be in the Laws of men, and whatever feigned pretences there are of necessity, etc. to excuse from the duty; 
Gal. 6.6, 7.  yet God is not mocked.  
In the mean time it is a principle of Religion, not to be unknown to a Teacher of others, that our trust in Christ for our necessary preservation must be in the use of honest means, that we may not tempt God; if God set Meat before us, we must not say when we need it, We will not eat it, for we will trust God. Indeed to leave the Lawful means of our preservation, and fly to unlawful means that we may secure our welfare, is indeed not to trust God, we look for a proof that it is thus in our present case, but we find it not here: Go on then.  
Would you have Governors to do that which God never commanded them nor us to do? 
P. 4.  What the Us hath to do in this matter where the question is about civil Laws, I could not readily find out; I will suppose the best sense of it; I can imagine your meaning may be thus much, Would you have our Governors impose that which God never commanded them to impose, nor us to pay? Then this begs the question on both sides, of God's command to us to pay; we have spoken in the first Sect of God's command to the Magistrate, to see those Laws of his obeyed in this present.  
Minister's maintenance is holy; 
P. 4, 6.  and Magistrates have power only in civil things: Suppose Ministers maintenance determined particularly by God, than it is holy as appointed by God, and as appointed to God both; yet even then would Magistrates have a power, though not to make any original Laws, to make them de novo due, which is done to their hands by the Law of God; yet to see God's Law executed and obeyed, and to redress the neglect of it: why not this aswell now as under the Law? What reason drawn precisely from the Holiness of the maintenance to the contrary? Again, suppose Ministers maintenance not determined particularly, but only in general; then holy it is as generally determined, and as separated to God and his service, not to be alienated without God's consent: but the particular determination, whether by private devotion, or by public Sanction, is not holy as such; only as it is the execution of a Law in general about maintenance, and as it now respects an holy use; both which were not in it before the consecration; else that would not be arbitrary; this than is civil, and therefore by force of this Argument belongs to the Magistrate; 
Is 5.4.  it not being holy till after the consecration, as in the case of Ananias and Saphiras sacrilege it is plain. And I would know what reason there is from this Argument against a Magistrate's determination, which may not be applied to a private Christians aswell? the hands of a Christian Magistrate may be as fit to make a civil thing holy, as of an Heathen Magistrate, yea as of a private Christian; for what does Magistracy ●ake men profane who were not so before? Show me a reason of this difference, why a private Christian by his own Voluntary determination may make a civil thing holy, when a Christian Magistrate may not; and rest within the bounds of this Argument if you can. If then the proportion determinate be not appointed by God; then before, and in its determination it is civil, after its determination alone it becomes holy; till then by your own reasoning 'tis fit for any hand, public aswel as private to meddle with.  
But what if the principle on which this unconcluding reason is built, be unsound also? I shall now try the strength of what you bring for the proposition, That the Magistrates power is only in civil things; therefore it was but in civil things; therefore Notes an Argument; let's see now what it is. 
P. 4.  Because when Peter and Paul gave this command, there was not one Christian King upon Earth; they knew not Christ; therefore what? that the commanded obedience is only in civil things: why? civil and holy are terms contradistinct, not civil and Christian: It is knowable without Gospel light that there is a God; that this God is to be Worshipped; that some persons are to be employed in his Worship as Ministers of his holy things; that to these an honourable maintenance is due from those for whose sakes they Minister. Heathen Magistrates might be bound to take care of these things though Christ had never been Preached to them and these things are holy too, so your conclusion will never be drawn from your premises, were they never so faultless, unless you will say that the Magistrate hath nothing to do to see that the name of God himself be not openly and professedly blasphemed; if you think so, speak out. But consider your therefore once again; if it be well inferred from the premises, it must be thus; what the Mgistrates in Peter and Paul's time did not meddle with, they have no power to meddle with now: but they did not meddle in matters of Christian Religion to establish any Laws for it and its Ministers; therefore, etc. A rare Argument for Papists and Sectaries to glory in! let them add too careless Gallios' Speech, 
18.15.  who professed he would be a Judge of no such matters; yea, and if they please the riot suffered by him before the very judgement seat! 
Acts 18.15.  most worthy Examples for believing Magistrates to take pattern by! But meddle they did not, belike out of tenderness of conscience; Nero good man was afraid to invade the Church's privileges, or to touch Christ's Royalty, to prepare for his Ministers; what an oversight was this before Gallio and Nero reform the world in it? what meant David to make such provision for the Temple, when Pharaoh meddled with no such things, when Israel was in Egypt (David's inspirations about these things were Prophetical, but his Sanctions about them were regal) nay and Nehemiah too struck upon the same Rock of error, as all the good kings of Judah had done before him, notwithstanding Pharaohs Example; for he also ventured to make Laws about the Worship of God, when Nebuchadnezzer had done no such thing when the people were in Babylon: Much in the same manner was Constantine guilty, who durst make Laws for the Church of Christ, wh●ch none of his predecessors ever did; Despise the laudable Examples of Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzer, Nero? an high insolence I assure you; pity we make not Nero's commissions exemplary as well as his omissions; and so engage Magistrates to persecute Ministers as well as not provide for them. Oh how many are the things those men never meddled with, not only towards Christ, but also towards God and their own subjects, which it was their duty to have meddled with! It should be such things belonged not their Office; therefore they did well in not meddling with them; whereas you conclude strangely they meddled not with it▪ therefore it belonged not to their Office. We reverence the Examples of holy men of God, approved in Scripture; but the Examples of Heathen not approved, yea condemned in Scripture, as I have already proved abundantly, such Examples we desire may not be imposed upon any for a rule of practice; and if that motion be embraced, this Argument is vanished. Well, shut you up your Argument from Examples thus: O ye Rulers be ye followers of Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzer, Nero, Trajan, Severus, Diocletian, etc. We on the other side will urge ours from Examples thus: O ye Rulers be ye the followers of David, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, Nehemiah, Constantine, Theodosius, etc. And let them Judge of the patterns which they like best, 
P. 7. 2 Cor. 11.8, 9, 11.  as most becoming that holy name that is upon them. The Apostles gave us no such Example: true; the than Magistrates were not in a case to relieve them; and the than Christians needed no complaints of that nature to be made against them: or if any did as the Corinthians to Paul, a supply was made elsewhere as to him from the Brethren of Macedonia, though they were apt to create a jealousy, whether he loved them or no, from whom he would receive nothing, which he prevents and removes; any of these will answer as strong an Argument as this is. There are many that are so happy as never to need a Magistrate for the recovery of any debt whatsoever (the Apostles never used them for this; 
1 Cor. 6.1.  and when some Corinthians did so, they are checked for it) yet the Magistrates have power to help such injured ones if need be, or they have power for nothing.  

P. 9  Christ gave no such Precept (to sue for Tithes) What then? therefore not lawful? Christ gave no such precept to sue for any debt, therefore not lawful: what think you? It is enough that Magistrates have a precept from Christ to execute Judgement; and though all men ought to make use of Magistrates Authority with much tenderness, as their last refuge, and Ministers especially above others: yet when there is no remedy, the wrong cannot be suffered under, and no mediation will serve the turn; it is then a liberty for them, and, as the case may be, a Duty, to make use of this Ordinance of Christ; and Ministers are not the only persons cut short of the benefit of this common relief; if we are, show where: I think we lie under a peculiar duty above others, in as much as what Title we lose, we lose not to our children, but to succeeding Ministers, and in them to the Church of God for ever. And whatever we have only the use of, we are bound to deliver it up as entire as we found it.  
But is suing for Tithes peaceabe? I think not; and I think yea: But must the matter go by your thinking and mine? Any that reads this, would take you to be as utter an enemy to Magistracy as ever Anabaptist was. Why should suing for Tithes be more unpeaceable than suing for any thing else? or a Ministers suing more than another man's? Suing is then unpeaceable, when it is upon claims known to be unrighteous (if I verily think what I sue for is not his that detains it, I am not unpeaceable, if I humbly submit my cause to the determination of those Ministers of God who serve for that very thing; 
Rom. 13.6.  no, though I be in a mistake, and it be his, not mine) if it be for trifles, which may be put up without any great damage: if we run hastily to strive, without trying all other remedies; if the free, fair, and speedy determination of the cause like to go against us be hindered by our peevish revengeful spirits: Such circumstances about suing may render it unpeaceable; but in its self it is not so, but a most necessary remedy to keep men in peace, and not to right wrongs received with their own hands.  

P. 9 Of the untrueness of the Relation, see P. 5.  Lest we should say you are the Ministers of men, and so no Ministers of Christ, you deny Prince's gift. Strange! If it be Prince's gift, will that make us more the Ministers of men then if it be people's gift? You should have put in laws in stead of gift, so as I explained myself; Correct that now; 'tis the Laws of men were then, and are now spoken of. Let us then see whether a maintenance so had will make us Ministers of men, and so no Ministers of Christ. One proof me thinks of this Argument might have been intimated at least, to make it appear only so formidable, as that when it was a great way off only foreseen, we should run away from it, & utterly deny that, which would have brought so dreadful a consequence upon us. The truth is, I foresaw no such consequence at all, much less was I afraid of it, neither do I yet, though you have told me it: For, supposing such a Law, might not a man have gifts and grace from God for the work of the Ministry, might he not be stirred up to the work? might he not be invited to a people destitute of help, and accept of the invitation? Might he not be ordained to the Office of a Minister of Christ by Pra●er and Fasting with the laying on the hands of the Presbytery? Might he not act in this Office as God's Ambassador, Teaching, Exhorting, Commanding, Reproving, Comforting, exercise all that belongs to him in the whole power of the Keys, by binding and losing all in God's name, and in Christ's stead? Might he not be still employed in bringing men from the power of Satan unto God, and in edifying those that have been already called? Have not thousands been so since these Laws have been in the world? Might they not receive all their encouragements from Christ, even this of faithful Magistrates under Christ, encouraging him in the work, as they commanded him to do his duty in the work? How will this one thing dash all, he hath his maintenance from Christ by the hands of Christian Magistrates, who should have had it from Christ by the hands of Christian people?  
But if this be to be Ministers of men, to be under the Authority of the Civil Magistrate; to be commanded by them to do our duty; to be liable to punishment from them in case we neglect our duty; to be encouraged by them in our faithfulness to our duty; We own ourselves Ministers of men in such senses, and hope to be found the rather Ministers of Christ for so doing: And we do withal profess ourselves bound thankfully to acknowledge all encouragements we receive from the Magistrates protection; to pray for them, and contribute our utmost endeavours to maintain their just Authority they have from God against all heady seditious Principles in matters of State, as they are bound to maintain that just Authority which we have from God against the like heady principles in matters of Religion. And we see, men would not believe it sooner; they that are giddy one way, are like enough to be soon giddy another way too. And when both do our duties towards each other, we shall give Papists and Atheists (that I include not you) leave to mock on with such jeers as this, or, which they please, to gnash their teeth.  
I say no more to this business then thus much, That Ministers and Subjects are the same persons, though under different Relations, both in the duties that belong to each agreeing very well together; and no good subject can from the supposition of the one, infer the denial of the other. It is the very Argument upon which Papists ground the Exemption of their Priests from the Jurisdiction of Princes. Pray do you forbear it, lest you make yourself as bad a subject as they.  

P. 17, 13.  If it be Civil, or Common, it may be done, or left undone, till the Magistrate compel it; and than it must be done. What strange work have we here! a Civil, or common thing; who would join those two words together to signify one and the same thing, but my Neighbour? especially when the common thing is explained by a thing indifferent, which may be done or undone, till the stamp of Authority set upon it make it necessary? What, are all Civil things such? that Minister's maintenance must needs be such among the rest, if it come under a civil Sanction? Well far your heart however, when you acknowledge that the stamp of the Magistrates power added to indifferent things, makes them necessary. But hath the Magistrate no power to set the stamp of his Authority upon things necessary? Are all things that come within his reach such as may be done or left undone, till he make Laws about them? I had thought that the great work of the Judicial Laws was to be a fence about the Moral; and that the main work of Magistrates was To be a terror to evil doers, and to be for the praise of them that do well; the Rule of which doing well or ill is the Law of God. The best excuse for these things, is, that you wrote at random, and mended not what you wrote.  
And that will further appear, if we take notice that this very foul mistake does most dangerously wound that very cause for which it is asserted. For, is it not your Doctrine, That the determinate proportion of what is to be paid to Ministers, is nowhere commanded by God: if so, then though a maintenance is due, yet this, or that proportion is indifferent; may be done, or left undone, and another chosen. Will not now the resolution of this quota pars according to your very rule, belong to the Magistrate, as a thing indifferent? The Consequence then to be heeded, will not be, if Magistrates please, Christ's Ministers shall have a maintenance; and if they so please, they shall have none: But if Magistrates please, they shall have this maintenanance in particular; or, if this please not, another; the determination of which indifferent thing (supposing it so to be) some men think will better become a faithful upright Magistrate, than the very best of our people, who are the persons must pay what is so determined. I hope we shall hear of this Argument no more, which is apparently false, and destructive to civil government in the proposition, and in the consequence cuts the throat of that cause for which it is produced.  

P. 11.  In the last place Scriptures are produced against compulsion, as they which hinder the Gospel, and make it chargeable: to which purpose are alleged 1 Cor. 9.15, 16, 17, 18. 2 Cor. 9.7. and 2 Thes. 3.8, 9  
All which places speak not of the Magistrates power in making Laws; 
P. 23.  but of the Ministers duty of remitting his maintenance due any how from a people, whether by a Law of man's, or by the free contribution of the people; yourself acknowledge they do immediately concern this, & so are not at all material to our persent question; for they are two things; The stating of a man's right by Law, which we speak of now; And the recovery of those rights so stated by him whose they are. They are just Laws by which a Landlord may recover his Rent of his Tenant, yet there may be many cases wherein the Landlord may abuse his power in the use of it, to the hindrance of the Gospel: So is it in an higher degree here. Yet he that would make Paul's example, even as himself commends it to the Elders of Ephesus, who were not, so far as we know, extraordinarily gifted, nor did receive help from other Churches, so far as we know; both which are considerable differences in Paul's example) had need consider well that he make the cases alike. 
Acts 20.34, 35.  He must suppose a people newly brought to the Faith of Christ, a Minister contesting with false Apostles, whose glory it was to preach freely: Where note, Neighbour, That it is the character of a false Apostle to Preach taking nothing, and of it to glory; and a Minister enabled by skill in an ingenuous Trade to earn his bread without destroying his bodily health. 
2 Cor. 11.12.  Where no public maintenance is already set apart for this Service, which is the Ministers propriety, and no man's else: this is our case, but was not Paul's, 
P. 9 Acts 18.3.  nor the Elders of Ephesus. We covet no man's silver, but allow every man to take a moderate share in what is ours, and allow it most contentedly, without grudging it them: For my part, God knows my sincerity. Whether this be not beyond Paul's Example, let others judge. And yet then, when the cases are made the same (if it were possible) what would Paul's Example bind to? only thus much, to deny ourselves in the possession and use of our Right upon weighty considerations for the Gospel sake; not in the right and title, that was eagerly stood to by him, and not denied by them. Now it hath been the matter of Right hath been in question between you and I, not the exacting of the use of this right where it is acknowledged; and this is none of mine, the Apostle durst not give up his right to a maintenance, neither dare I to this.  
Add as the Close of all, that whereas 2 Cor. 8. and 2 Cor. 9 are chief alleged against a constrained maintenance by the Civil Magistrates Authority; they do directly belong to provisions for the poor, only by consequence, if at all (of that above) provisions for Ministers. Now if the Magistrate determine any thing, as to us whom the places concern not but by consequence, you obey not: whereas if the Magistrate determine any thing, as to the poor, of whom the places alleged speak directly, you resist not, so far as ever I heard, none of you. Now what perverseness is this? Consider your ways.  
I have with most punctual exactness considered all that hath the least show of a reason against the Power and Duty of the Civil Magistrate. The Lord help you to a clear understanding, to discern the exceeding emptiness and insufficiency of them; and to an humble heart, that you may be willing, upon so plain and full a discovery, to lay aside your Error. The matter is of very great weight; and obstinacy in any evil, to preserve the reputation of our, wisdom, will be an heinous crime in any Cause, much more in this.  
As a Conclusion of this Discourse, I shall add some general Answers to other men's Exceptions against the Magistrates making Laws in matters of Religion; and then I shall have done with the second Plea.  
The first Pretence is the difficulty of defining to the Magistrate his due bounds in such matters: All yield some infirmities of mind, as to the belief of Truth allowable, as well as some infirmities of heart, as to the practice of Duty: And where shall we set the bounds? why such a difficulty now more than under the Old Testament? Hath Christ given us the Gospel to obscure the Truths of God, or to make them more illustrious? At least fix there; this at first sight is reasonable, let the bounds that then were, as to matters moral and perpetual, be now.  
2. May we not agree thus far, to restrain men from trampling under their feet that blood which must save them, and from doing despite to the Spirit of Grace, keep men from committing that sin which shall never be forgiven them? 3. Can we punish an Adulterer with death, and yet tolerate those filthy Principles through which he was led to commit it? 4. If men hold principles formally destructive of Civil Government; shall these by that Law be tolerated, by which Civil Government is upheld? For my part I profess, though I am not so self-conceitedly cruel as to wish nothing tolerated; yet I cannot but tremble at an Act of Toleration for any thing that is evil: For what is that but to make a State-allowance for men to sin? Should I hear of an Act of Toleration to but an officious lie, I should think it an evil greatly to be lamented; yet I would not have every such a one haled to the tribunal of public Justice for it. If any thing be to be declared in the matter of Toleration, it were more proper to declare severely what they will not tolerate, than what they will.  
But this Conscience is a tender thing, and may not be forced; Religion is not to be beaten, but persuaded into men; 
Gen. 9.27.  that's the way of the Gentiles Conversion Prophesied of. Why? Law's Politic have for their end to revenge the evil done, by executing wrath upon the doer, to the terror of others, the recovery and salvation of the offendor, only so far as is consistent with this. So in other matters, why not so here too? 
Rom. 13.4.  Must Conscience be made a sacred Asylum for all manner of villainies to have a refuge to, and there defy the justest Laws that are made against them? Thou shalt take him from my Altar that he die, saith God. Every Malefactor may escape thus.  
But are Penal Laws no helps towards the conversion of him that suffers them unadvisedly; sure God whips men so often into pure Consciences by several chastisements. A power indeed there goes with the Rod; but it would be a power alone if the Rod did nothing: Nor so fitly sure is chastening children, so often commanded unto Parents. All other Parents come to their children with a Rod heavenly and earthly; and they suppose and find it to their children's good profit: Shall the public Father alone either have no Rod, or his an unprofitable one? Rods do not change the heart, but they may awaken the secure quiet sinner unto a consideration of his ways; they may soften the heart's stubbornness, 
Eccl. 7.14.  though then 'tis another hand must set to the seal when the wax is softened: when they do least, they may restrain the impudent profession of sin, though they cannot remove the love of sin in the heart. Laws against Murder and Adultery cannot take away the inclination of the heart to such sins; yet are they not in vain. We cannot by law change a sinner's heart; but we may change his place by Law: Our Our Brethren in New-England can banish them whom they cannot reclaim. We cannot by Law change men's hearts; yet we may by Law encourage them who by Christ are employed for that very purpose, and remove from them those that seduce and pervert them; and this will go very far towards the changing of their hearts. If conscience be a thing that cannot be forced; why fear we making Laws about it? If Laws are good, they may direct, warn, draw a bad conscience; and it were not much harm if they could force it: better is a forced good, than a free evil: If Laws are bad, what fear we? they may discover a bad conscience, but they cannot force the good.  
But here is another sore Objection; Few men are good and great too, Not many mighty. buchanan's message to King James, when he lay upon his deathbed is too true, He was a going to that place whither few Kings would follow him. Will not this rather hazard the persecution of the good conscience, rather than the punishment of the evil? Were it not better that known Malefactors should be spared now, that hereafter if ungracious Magistrates be set up in wrath, God's people may be spared under them? Doubtless a very subtle device; and pity that Hezekiah did not wisely foresee what the conditon of God's people might be under his Son Manasses, and tolerate Idolaters under his Reign, that so Manasses might tolerate the true worshippers under his. Nay let us enlarge the politic counsel too: If Parents and Masters that are godly, should suffer sin in their children and servants, in hopes that the many Parents and Masters that are wicked, will do the like to their children and servants that are godly: would it not be deep design too? especially the good Parents and Masters being so few, and the bad so many? What care do men take sincere Christians may never feel the Cross! Yet that was one of Christ's Legacies to his; it was the Apostles glory, is that to which all they that will live godly are appointed: and the first Christians counted them happy that endured; but with us, how effeminate, and worldly, and ambitious a thing is the profession of Religion grown to be! Grace shall spare sin, that sin hereafter may spare grace: Have we this league within us too? or are we sure sin will stand to the terms? never look that wicked ones will deal so gently with the good conscience as we expect they should. Papists never yet gave us any such instances to hope so; and if the witnesses be not yet slain by them (and far wiser men than I think they are not) there is a sea of blood more to be added to what is under the Whore's skirts already: Pray how long is it since the Lion turned Lamb? Blood is an essential ingredient in the Religion of a Papist; and let those who have received the most deadly principles that Popery hath in the Doctrinal part of it already, add but the open profession of Popery; yea, let them but hold the same things with other names, and go on with their serpents, vipers, filthy beasts, dogs, and such names as these innocent meek ones please to give us, the Magistrate in the mean time clapping all sides on the back, only holding a sword between them to keep them asunder; and who can expect but these two Seas should in time meet in one? and that then words should be turned to blows, and we dealt with as those noisome creatures we are likened to are wont to be? This they would do, becoming Papists, though they were meeker than they are: turn the lamb into a wolf, and it will devour flesh, though it do not now: And if we tolerate not the name of Popery, it will be smally to our relief, if we tolerate the thing; names shed no blood. Look to it therefore ye Magistrates supreme and subordinate; drive away those bloodsucking Leeches out of the Nation, under what favoured disguise soever you find them. Let not those frogs of Egypt creep into your Lifeguard and Bedchamber. Papists have under every government shown us where they intent to begin: Let not Queen Esther think to escape when her fellow- Jew's are massacred.  
But why should we be enemies to the liberty of men's consciences? especially we that are so lately come out of bondage ourselves? what a tyranny is it to bereave men of that precious freedom which is purchased for them by the blood of Christ?  
It is so indeed; and if this be such a freedom as is purchased by Christ's blood, we have done, and shall never speak more against men's enjoying the sweet benefit of it. But did ever Christ purchase a freedom for us from those commands of men that require us to do our duty? did he do so to servants, or children, or wives, that he should he thought to do so to subjects? 
1 Pet. 2.15.  There were such ignorant and malicious ones that thought so in the Apostles time too; but Christian freedom was not to be abused so. What, does the grace of the Gospel intent to make us men of Belial, lawless, and without a yoke? to believe what we list, and do and speak in matters of Religion what we list? why not a freedom to murder, adultery, treason as well? Is it not as likely that Christ's blood should be shed for these, as for blasphemy against his own person? These are sad reasonings from men of wisdom; the Lord in mercy answer them, that men may once learn the truth of such maxims as these, That it is man's greatest slavery to be free to sin. That gevernment is in vain appointed, if men may do and speak what they please under it. That there is a great difference between execution of justice, and persecution. That Christ's blood was shed to make us free to good, not free to evil. That Christianity diminishes not the just rights of any lawful Superior, nor frees any from a due subjection to the powers over them; as it finds in those things, so it leaves: Saints must be subject, as well as other men. That though God alone make Laws to bind men's consciences, yet men may guide men's consciences to the obedience of those Laws, and punish the disobeying person, though they meddle not with his conscience. That it will be no plea allowed at the day of God, in matters of sin, to say, It was my Conscience: And if it will not excuse the sinner from Hell, he should not have had such a conscience; much less ought it to be a plea in the day of man, where the penalty is of a lower narure. That it is far better to suffer for doing well, than not to be restrained from doing ill. That Magistrates should have consciences as well as subjects; and if it be according to their conscience to be a terror to evil doers (I am sure it should be) why may not they plead this freedom of conscience upon the same ground as evil doers plead it, that they may go unpunished? If Magistrates omit a known duty, they wound their conscience; if the evil doer (suppose the well doer) suffer under the mistake of Magistrates, his conscience is not presently wounded here: who then should rather of the two be provided for? That a Liberty to obey God without fear of man, is a choice mercy, not so a liberty to disobey God. That when Magistrates lay more upon men, in matters of Religion, than God hath commanded, there Liberty of Conscience is a Jewel; but where they lay no more than things necessary, not so. When they can say truly It seems good to the Holy Ghost, no great harm if and to us follow, no not from them. That it is a more fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God, then of a mortal man; and that if we did judge ourselves, we should not be judged. We know the Story; The Mother's seasonable and sharp correcting her son, might have prevented her unprofitable weeping for him when she saw him at the Gallows. Therefore, That the allowing every man to worship God peaceably in his own way, becomes them only that suppose every man may be saved in his own Religion, living orderly, according to the Rules of it; and to such the Faith of Christ owes little: If this were true, it were better be for Mahomet, for his Rules afford greater liberty than Christ's do.  
But we are as much Heretics in their eyes, as they are in ours: It appears so indeed by the language they vouchsafe us. But the question is not what either side is named, but how justly. The Prince is as much a Tyrant in the Assassinates eyes, as he is a Traitor in the Princes: Strange! that we should not transfer the reason of these things as easily, and with as little scruples to matters of God, as we do to our own.  
But such things are contrary to the light of nature; things whereof we speak, are only contrary to revealed light, the light of Scripture. There is a generation that reject this distinction; I hope they will expect no benefit by it. For others, 'tis much that the gatherer of sticks on the Sabbath day could not find out this distinction to save himself from stoning with. Have we not as good evidences for the New Testament-doctrine, as they had for the old? The Doctrine of the Gospel is revealed sufficiently to damn them that will not believe it; and may not men be punished on earth for blaspheming it, for want of a sufficient Revelation? Take heed, do not make God unrighteous, who taketh vengeance. It is as hard a matter to be assured of that Law of Nature, No woman but one, that it is of God, as it is to be assured of that Law of Scripture, No Mediator but one, that this is of God. Let any man compare the Evidences for both, and he will quickly see this is truth; and yet the adultery of having two wives is justly punished with death. What man can see so much of the Law of Nature written in his own heart, as he may see of it written in Scripture? let him add the help of all the great Masters of Nature that ever wrote in the world. 
Rom. 7.7.  Paul was of our mind in this thing, when he tells us he had not known sin but by the Law. And Scripture is clearer in that which is knowable only by revealed light, than it is in that which in part is also knowable by the light of Nature, if in any thing it exceed its self in clearness.  
True, but men know not Scripture so well as they might, and they must be acquainted with this greater Light, else it will not condemn them. Not know Scripture? we know them that scorn to be pleaded for thus; they will tell you none know Scripture but they. But what do they not know? Not that there is but one Christ; that we are purchased by the blood of God; that to lie against the Holy Ghost, is a lie against God, etc. We speak not of things doubtfully defined, or of tolerable differences in the less vital parts of Religion: Men here may be ignorant of Scripture, and God forbidden we should stir up Magistrates against them, if they would hold peaceableness and unity; but are they ignorant of such things as these? how dare they? how can they? will God take this at their hands for a sufficient answer? and in their ignorance will they venture to blaspheme too? May not some Ranter with as good Arguments plead that Adultery is no sin? and Levellers, that to overthrow all propriety is no sin; and Traitors, that to assassinate Magistrates, is no sin? will ignorance excuse here? They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them. We are under the highest dispensation for the attaining of knowledge, and by it eternal life already: If therefore men hear not these, we may well conclude, Neither will they be saved though one rise from the dead.  
But these are innocent creatures, hurt no body with their evil; 'tis to themselves, and there is none the worse for it. Most false this of the smallest Error; that is, much more of those soul enormous ones against the first Principles of the Gospel. Why should God be provoked, and his vengeance brought upon the Nation? Is it not evil that the Word loseth its Authority, upon sinners, to their eternal undoing, through the perpetual violent clamours of contradicting men? That God's worship is visibly and professedly despised with that impudence, as no Turk almost durst do the like? That thousands of well-meaning people are drawn aside, to the hazard of their souls? That mutual evil speakings, estrangements, oppositions, heart-burnings boiling up the more for a State-connivance, prepare for civil Combustions, and letting one another blood? That all offices of mutual love are forgotten? The great Gospel-law of Unity broken; and we that live but two fields asunder, should be as far from one another, when called to assist in any work of mercy for common good, as if we lived at a hundred mile's distance? Pray why was Hymenaeus delivered to Satan? I would they were even cut off that trouble you. 
1 Tim. 1.20. Gal. 5.12.  What a word is this against false Teachers? Surely Paul was too surly, he was not merciful enough to tender Consciences. What need all that art in 2 Cor. against false Teachers? good men they were for Christ as well as he, only for Heresy and Division too: Why should Christ threaten the 7 Churches of Asia so sharply? Teaching Jezebel, a Prophetess, what harm had she done, that her children should be killed with death? See pray, False Doctrine was the sin of those Churches; Christ himself was the Threatener, he hath executed those threaten long since. Laodicea is not to be found upon the face of the earth, 'tis swallowed up under ground, so spewed out of the mouth of Christ too. So great an enemy to tender Consciences is Christ himself: To teach us all what a kind of mercy it is to spare Jesuits, and such Malefactors as are worse than Jesuits, for the whole Nation to be involved in the curse of God and Christ.   

The Ministers third Plea for his Portion. The Right of Donation.  
I Am now at last arrived at the last of our Pleas for the right of Tithes, my Neighbours own beloved free will-offering: the Plea I have alone insisted upon to him; it being with me a Rule, that if the same things may be obtained upon principles not controverted, I would never trouble men with those that were. I have found success in so doing with other persons in other matters (blessed be God) but have been extremely unhappy with my Neighbour in this: he it seems interpreting my peaceable forbearance of things controverted, to be from an inward conviction of the badness of the cause I was engaged in, and for filthy lucre's sake was resolved to persist in, and defend as well as I could; however the relieving of him from those uncharitable thoughts hath been the design of what hath been said upon the two former Arguments; that he may know there is enough from both to bottom, a good conscience on it what I have done and do. I have little to say to this third, because there is little said against it; 
P. 10.  if it were so, says my Neighbour, I must resign it; and yet himself shows us not one word to prove it was so; 〈◊〉 ●●mself gives us some instances public and private to prove at was so; yea the most part of that little answer he gives, runs upon the supposition that it was so; as that it was out of a Popish persuasion, that they were given by the Law of God, etc. yet he resigns not, though himself acknowledge he must if it be so, which he contradicts not by one Argument to the contrary; nay he supposes, nay he proves.  
To what purpose then my Christian Friend, that wild extravagant discourse of Tyrant Kings, giving away what's none of their own? yet conquest upon a righteous War is a just Title, though William was no Conqueror, held not his Crown by that Title; much less does Oliver Protector: The Beast Rev. 13. and the Whore, c. 17. what come they in for? Do they prove themselves the Beast's offspring by freely giving their own, and the Whores by taking what is freely given? Remember man, 'tis the Right of Donation is now stood upon, which you reply to. Why should I mind King Henry VIII. suppressing the Pope's supremary and taking it to himself? or our reverend Fathers the Bishops, the Lords Bishops? What's all this to the Title of Free Donation? and what is this better before God think you then the hood etc. This, what? Free Gift? Is this also from that Holy Father the Pope? What have we here to do with Henry the VIII. 
P. 11. P. 11.  taking of Parsonages, with Prince's Laws, or Pope's workings: Our Flock if Faithful, will be a willing people, they have been so, have freely given; it is not left to the Magistrates pleasure, Princes and people have freely given; what would you have more? the Donation does not confound itself, neither does your confused writing nothing to the purpose confound it.  
But we claim it as a free Gift! True, you told us so P. 10. 
P. 12.  but were sensible it seems of your wild running away from it, in that and the next Page: so now you will return to it; no, not now neither; 'tis a Bear's ear, he dares nor touch it; then I have no right to it, 
Luc. 12.42. Hebr. 13.17, 24. 1 Cor. 16.16. 1 Tim. 4.11.  but as a Rector; be it so as a Rector I claim it; what is this Doctrine new to you? Ministers are Servants, 2 Cor. 4.5. but for Jesus sake; and they are Rulers too; their Rule is Ministerial, they have an high merciful end for which they serve, and they Rule by directing and commanding to that way which leads by God's appointment to this end. Then I dare trust an old (the elder the better Title) Pope's Donation, Pope's man? their own who were owns of the Land; is it not so in your Plea as yourself relate it but three Lines before? Then Christ's Ordination: why? we speak now of Free-gift, is not that Christ's Ordination? Now being put from your Divine Plea, not by your reasons, I assure you: but be it so, we now speak of Donation. I pray tell me what proportion it is; but the Free-gift of the Giver? you have told the world twice, 'tis that very thing we speak of, did you ever find it a tenth by Christ's appointment? why? You have told men but just now we are put off from our Divine Plea; this is to stand, and crow over us a while after you have beaten us from that ground, with come hither again if you dare (you see I have ventured however) but pursue your Victory; you see we have taken field again upon another ground, that of Free-gift. I pray be not offended, I pray take it in good part, now speak to the business honestly and fairly, and I will not be offended; but this is tiresome, though not the first time you have exercised my patience, if not by the Law of God; again that? will you never have done conquerings? Nor by the Gift of indulgent Princes? we proclaim it by the Gift of indulgent Princes and people, and yourself have told the world as much for us twice already; what is it you now answer to but this? but by some old Popish Statute. I tell you we have done with Statutes now, Popish or not Popish: 'tis Free-gift we speak of. After Augustine's coming into England, tenths were not required, but Free-gift was the only maintenance: man, 'tis that you are now pressed with, Free-gift, and that of Tenths; we prove it from about those very times: Watch men blind, and in those days could but read a Homily; in those days? Augustine's? did they read in the Book of Homilies then? and what if they did, then or since? what's this to Donation? Yet now must they rather turn back again, as it were into Egypt for onions and garlic, then to feed upon Manna, the Lords Free-gift. Why, 'tis that very Manna we plead for, the Free-gift you speak of. Therefore thus to your Paper. For shame you should not have mentioned such a word, who have not printed it when you pretend to answer it; you might have put it easily into the empty page: But what to my Paper? It was Christ's Prerogative to provide for his house; he hath so done, and changed his Ministers wages into a Free-gift, and not Tithe; into a free-gift of Tithe, let it pass so now. Twice you have told men so, that thus we plead; and do not you yet know it yourself? Yet you have not done your wander; next come exceptions against Laws Civil, for the recovering of Tithes; be it a carnal reasoning to say, if a Minister may not sue, he may starve. What's this to Free-gift? A Free-gift may be sued for, as in the case of Legacies. 
P. 13.  Is it not strange (all things considered) well, you are a very considerate man; but what is so strange? that ever National Teachers should desert the Church of Rome, and yet love the Diana of Tithes so much. You that have considered all things, tell us but one reason why this should seem strange: But 'tis a Free-gift we love, 'tis that we now stand upon, your Diana, if that word please you so well: Rome would not trust Princes with such a thing; and truly it seemeth to me that this is that the National Teachers mainly want, to be not only Bishops, but Lord Bishops. No, no, oh dispute not against that, that cause will not now trouble you, you have another before you, he changed it into a Free-gift: the very thing we speak of. He left it not to the pleasure of Magistrates, than his faithful Ministers should hardly get a Livelihood; yes, by  Offerings, as well the Magistrate neglecting his duty, as if we suppose him to have none at all. But we trouble not Magistrates now; 'tis the Free-gift we speak of. Then the lying story (a most impudent slander) comes in, of me and my Predecessor, of which before. Nothing at all to the Donation, for four pages after an Answer to this Plea was undertaken.  
Reader, I relate not all this for the considerableness of what is said by him, or replied by me; nor yet to make myself and my Reader sport, to refresh us in a debate of seriousness; there needs no fool in the play here: But this I relate it for, that my Neighbour may see how little he hath said to the business against the only foundation I gave him for my Right in Tithes; and that the world may see, that notwithstanding any strength in his Reasons against my plea, we needed not have troubled ourselves to print, nor others in reading what we have printed.  
But you have done your wander, and now you come the third time to the business: You have played off and on long enough, you will fasten now. What say you now? you have spent four pages in roaming about, and now you come to it, You cut us off at the end of the four with six lines, and then easily conclude: I hope you will now desist. Why, the strength of your whole Book should have been bend upon this, to overthrow this Donation. You know it was my only Plea to you, and you confess as much; this you could not yield to, would venture any thing rather than pay upon this ground: And are six lines enough for that which hath so great a stroke in the whole Cause? Were I as censoriously addicted as yourself, I should from these things infer, that Faction and Emulation, that you may seem stout as well as others, hath carried you on in this Cause against your Conscience: But I do not so judge you; the Lord help you to judge yourself, and to be contented to shame yourself for your many miscarriages in this matter, by an humble reforming restoring Repentance, not only of your Brother's goods, but your brethren's good names, more precious to us then our goods. For my part, I had rather impute this to the craziness of your head, then to the malice of your heart.  
But these six lines are full of weight however, and strike the matter dead at a stroke: See what they are fraught with. 
P. 8.  I know no such thing, and therein you go beyond my memory and understanding, and I now must take your word for it. Your Landlord will expect you should take his word for his Title to the rest, and I may as well expect you should take my word for my Title to the Tenth. Tenants are not wont to inquire into Titles; if no stop according to Law, they pay their rent where it is pretended to be due. Yet I shall not engage you to take my word; you had time enough given you to search into the truth of my Plea. What if it be beyond your memory? that makes the Title the better in all Law and Reason, if possession be held by virtue of that gift all along; and why cannot you understand this? Is it so hard in other cases, as to the poor, to Hospitals, to Colleges, to Schools? Can you understand how gifts should be perpetually bequeathed to these, and is the like to Ministers only not to be understood? Can you understand how a man may by Will pass over his Estate to his children and their posterity for ever? and is it not as easy to be understood how he may give gifts to other persons out of those Lands, either for a time, or for ever? what thing more ordinary? How hard is man to understand what he would not should be true!  
But you know no such thing. Before you withheld your payment, you ought to have known the contrary: It seems for what you know you have wronged me; and, as it is certainly none of your, so it it may possibly be mine by as good a Right as ever man enjoyed a Legacy for aught you know. 
P. 10.  This may be then; and if it be, you must resign, yourself hath said it: Now what have you done to quiet Conscience in not resigning? have you consulted with those Records which might give light about such ancient things? Have you enquired of one able Lawyer, to know the truth of this pretended Right? Show me one among so many friends and adversaries that will give it under his hand, that the pretended Donation of Tithes in England is a mere forgery, a Constantine's Donation: Oh Neighbour, surely conscience hath been much asleep, if you can withhold a payment due upon the supposition of such a gift, by your own confession, without so much as once examining whether there were such a gift or no. Is it possible that a tender conscience should not tremble to keep goods in his hands, which for aught he knows, belong to another man, is, or may be sure they belong not to him, and that with so much eagerness of contention? I hope you are not altogether without such motions of fear; I would not have you past feeling.  
But it concerns me to prove such a gift who claim by it. By no means, no owner of Land, who hath enjoyed possession by descent for many generations, would think it equal to be forced to show how they came first into the Family. No Purchaser of Lands troubles himself with such a question; above 60. years' uninterrupted possession is enough. How many are able to show how their Estates come to them from 450. 
History of Tithes, c. 10. P. 235.  years? Even Mr. Selden, whose grant is counted most sparing, yields us so much for Parochial Tithes, and for Tithes paid at large, much sooner. And must Ministers be put to that which no man else is? are we persons uncapable of common Justice, the benefit of that which a Turk having possessions here might enjoy? are we wild beasts, that may be destroyed any how, per fas & nefas? Surely others will count it enough to justify a Title long enjoyed against any thing may be alleged by any man to the contrary: yea, and others will provide they bring their plea within the memory of man; otherwise they expect it should not be admitted at all; no man being supposed to be so long negligent in his own matters, if he be, currit lex contra negligentem; and there must be an end of strife. But so shall not I deal with you; do you show how a Right to the goods questioned, hath descended to you by any Lawful meant, from any person whosoever the owner of Spillshill farm, either within, or without the memory of man: and if I do not prove mine a better Title, I will give over my right.  
Suppose a Landlord, altogether unacquainted with the Laws of the Land, cannot at all prove his Title to his goods or land he holds, must he therefore forfeit them to him that uses the land, who hath no title at all to them? Examining old deeds of gift belongs to another profession, not to yours and mine. How many deeds of gift were never entered upon Record? how many Records are worn away by the injury of time, or consumed by several casualties? May we not verily believe that to be true, which is verily affirmed by all knowing men, friends and enemies, and that in a matter of fact, without further enquiry? I know no man that ever denied that such Donations have been, no not those those that prefessedly writ against them.  
Me thinks in a business that belongs to another calling, it might be a fair Argument to suppose such a thing done, when we see things that are not likely to have come to pass otherwise. Imagine the thing to be done now, if one or two might be gulled, or forced, might all men be cheated out of so considerable a part of their estates, let it go they know not how? or if this generation could be so stupid, would the next be in so deep a sleep too? so universal a violence upon that which our Forefathers were as tender of as we, their estates, pass away in silence ages after ages, no man among the many thousand covetous persons, haters of God, his Word, and the Ministry of it to this day not opening his mouth to the contrary: especially when we find such tugging about the manner of enjoying these deeds of gift, as about wood-land, new-broke ground, etc. They that had courage enough to question the manner, would they not much more have questioned the thing, if any just cause had been found? Less matters than this would satisfy me that the thing was done by consent, as their own act and deed; I know not what will you.  
Yet I shall try a little further. Donations are either public or private; we have both, if both will serve. Of the former you may peruse a Book entitled, The Civil Right of Tithes, by C.E. sent down to me by the name of Elderfield, among which the very first and most ancient hits our present Case. A deed of gift related in that famous Law of Edward the Confessor about Tithing, made long before under the first Saxon Christian King Ethelbert, Concessa sunt a rege, 
Civil. Right, P. 62. About the year 600.  Baronibus & populo, they are granted by King, Barons, and people: this you see not by tyrant Kings that thought every foot of land their own; but very orderly, King, his Barons theirs, and peoples theirs, and this in Kent too; and that I hope includes Spillhills Farm.  
What need we now look for private Donations since made? they were indeed more truly restitutions of what was sacrilegiously withheld through the calamity of those hard times under the Danish and Norman Invasions: 
The long uncertain fluctuating of Tithes, till they settled in a fixed Parochial Right, demonstrates the first payments, as to any Laws of men were arbitrary.  a thing can truly be given but once. We have the Record for above 1000 years; confirmed since, restored, pleaded, used, had, recovered since, to this very day: will not this alone constitute a Right? Yet Selden in his History of Tithes, and ●illesly in his Animadversions upon the History in both C. 8. & deinceps, give a reasonable number of such instances for private Donations out of several Records, and the late Archbishop of Canterbury had many such transcribed for him out of the Records of the Tower of London, as you may see in the Diary of his life, set out by Mr Prynne: From whence, and other places of Record, more may be fetched, though with some trouble (I suppose) and charge to him that shall be so scrupulously inquisitive into that which no man almost doubts of but my Neighbour.  
But admit these many arbitrary private Consecrations (or restitutither of what was long before consecrated) yet Staplehurst and Spillshill Farm will not be included in them; as if men were not privileged here to bestow their own goods (if yet they were their own) by free consent, as well as others were by troops in other places. Did others freely elsewhere, and were men here forced? done it was, possession hath been delivered up to the Rectors of Staplehurst, by them enjoyed many generations, none contradicting, who will say (though all Records should have perished; or nothing ever Recorded at all) but that the Consecration here was of the same nature as all elsewhere were, free and voluntary: yea, so far were men from being forced to do it, that they were forced to get leave to do it, and to sue that their said free donations might be secured by regal confirmation; such need was there thought to be, that bounds should be set to men's superaboundant bounty in those times.  
Be not contentious, Neighbour, pray be not; let this satisfy you that such a thing was done; it remains now to examine how well it was done. This more modest adversaries in this Cause are contented with: and why not well done? No man can lawfully give away the labours of another that is yet unborn; as if it were lawful for men by Will to make slaves of their posterity for ever. Pray look back to p. 2. Abraham gave it, and Jacob vowed it, the free vow of the Parent did bind the children. Yet children are not mentioned in either Abraham's gift, or jacob's vow. 〈…〉 with us have expressed their will to stand for ever; many of them with solemn imprecations against them that should ever alienate what they have so consecrated: yet neither of them were owners of much Land all their life-time, were not owners of a foot of Land at the time of those Dedications; yet they might bind their children to pay Tithe out of what they never gave them. As for our Fathers, if they bind their children to pay Tithe out of the Land they give them, they make their children slaves: I suppose without labour no Tithe-corn was; true, then as well as now. I would you would see how your pleading against our Donation confounds itself.  
Well, this was a slip in your memory (that I say, not in your conscience, to write any thing as it fits your present turn) which will you now part with, that Observation, or this Argument? The Observation is one of the main Sinews in your Book, 
P. 14.  Abraham and Jacob gave and vowed it freely; then God commanded it justly, and gave it to Levi graciously. The Free gift going before, made the reason of the equity of the command following after; which would have no force but upon this supposal, that their posterity was bound by the Free-gift of their Ancestors.  
What you will do here, I know not; I should advise you to let go rather this Argument, for all your confident conclusion upon it: I hope you will now desist. For pray tell me in seriousness, should your Landlord by a deed of gift pass over to you & your heirs all his right and title to Spillshill, and the Land about it, free from all encumbrances, even this of Tithes to the Minister, only charging it with a rent-charge of Tithe to the poor of Staplehurst for ever: would you cry out upon your Landlord as one that meant to make a slave of you? you would think there was you know how much given you by the year for ever, and a good pennyworth to him that uses it; paying him well for his stock and labour upon it besides. If the Rent-charge you are bound to should be a 9, or 8. you would count so much less given you, as the Rent-charge is increased; if he should set the Rent-charge higher than the land is worth, so much as when it is paid, there will not remain enough to pay the user for his pains; then I suppose you would entreat your Landlord to keep his gifts to himself, and be contented to be his Tenant still. This would not be to make you a slave; for here would be no violence; if you did not like his gift, you might let it alone: you know how to apply. I hope you will desist your using this Argument any more. And here's all I find against our Donation where it is purposely spoken to. But I shall ●●ean up out of the whole Book what is to be found to invalidate our plea. The next Exception is against the badness of the principles upon which it is supposed to have been done: they indeed amiss i●▪ will weaken the acceptance of such things with God, but not a good title among men. But see what is said. 
P. 6. Acts and Monuments, Charter of England. Tithing Table of England. P. 10.  They fetch all their ground for it out of the Mosaical Law of God. And again, A King on his deathbed did give the tenth of all his Land to the Priests that then were, but it was out of a Popish persuasion that they were due by the Law of God, and all was Popish then. If this be not true, surely you have overlashed too much. Examine we now the particulars. Were all Popish then? what, no Martyrs? Look your Book and see: but all within the communion of Rome were so. What Record have you for this? who says so besides yourself? none doubtless but they who are wont to ask us where our Church was before Luther. Our common answer to that Popish taunt is point-blank contradictory to this Assertion of yours, it was where it is now; for all was not Popish then, 
Anatomy of the Mass.  not in their form of worship: for did you never hear of the famous Peter Moulins Confutation of Popery out of their own Mass-book? much less were all Papists in that communion. Is it not known, that Luther rising up to preach against the Pope, did it plaudente orbe universo, the whole world applauding him. Did not the Christian world groan under the burden of Popish tyranny, and cry out for a free General Council, or any effectual means of Reformation? do not all our Writers against Rome prove by sensible demonstrations, that Popery that now is, was but a Faction in the Church, bringing in their innovations, now one, than another, till they were advanced into that body they are now in by the Council of Trent? yea, it was possible, that errors creeping in by degrees, and not imposed upon any of necessity, should at once carry away all like a flood before them, no man opening his mouth, nor so much as believing to the contrary: where was the voice of the true Shepherd then? could Arminianism rush in so upon us in the Bishop's times, or can it now as it is brought in again at the back door by Sectaries? yea, do not all know what moderation there was in many of the Trent-fathers', and how many of them were sent away in disgrace, all overborne by the violence of the Romish party: If all was Popish, what need the Pope fear so much a General Council as he did? what need that packing & shuffling as was in Trent? why so many Italian Bishops, many of them titular ones, thrust in, so much exceeding those from other Nations, that they might overbalance all good motions by their numbers? what need things be so strangely carried there, that their own friends cried shame of it, and the French Nation for a long time rejected it as an unlawful Council? and yet this a Conventicle packed for the nonce to carry on the Popish cause, otherwise great fear lest their cake should have proved dough too. Nay when many, I know not but all, of our Divines doubt not but God hath his company in the midst of Popery at this day, now that so considerable Bodies of Nations are departed from them, and they as evil men & seducers are wont to do, wax worse and worse; and they think Rev. 18.4. leads them plainly to be of that mind: yet this man makes no bones of concluding concerning the former much better times of Romish communion, that all was Popish then. Not likely such considerable bodies should have fallen off from them at the time of Reformation; and no doubt of them that shook their heads at the Romish abominations, yet durst not departed from that Communion, Erasmus was not the man only neither. I have found perverse men ready to say any thing rather than let go an error they have once espoused: Let it not be so with you, Neighbour, I am assured you wrote this inconsiderately, rashly, and headily, as you have many things in this Book besides. It is certainly untrue, and most dishonourable to our common Faith; no Papist but will be glad of such a concession; and no Protestant, I think, knowing or ignorant, ever yielded it but you. Let it go for shame, and let no more such frantic Assertions fall from you.  
That the Acts and Monuments fetch all their ground for Tithes out of the Mosaical Law, does not appear to me: I find little disputed for tithes; and two Martyrs, Walt. Brate in Rich. 2. time, and William Thorp in Henry 4. time, disputing against it; the former against the necessity of them, the later against the lawfulness: in both little is said in their behalf, only one word from the Archbishop to Thorp is of any weight, Thou wouldst hereby make the Old Law more free and perfect then the New Law, and this is a New-Testament Argument. I find also King Ethelstanes gift there Recorded, and for it alleged jacob's vow, a place in Matth. and a sentence much used by the Fathers, If thou withhold from God the tenth, he will withhold from thee the other nine: or to that purpose. But the Mosaical Law I find not urged by any, much less that only. Other things are said, that not at all; yet I may be deceived, something may escape my hasty search, you may perhaps find that ground elsewhere; yet that ground is not all, if anywhere at all; herein your relation must be blamed. So when it is said a King at his deathbed gave to the Priests that then were; I cannot certainly say no; yet I doubt this is not so, they were wont to give to God and the Church, and that it was out of a Popish persuasion that they were due by the Law of God. I want your proof for the fact; you did ill you set it not down.  
For the Charter of England, it only confirms the Rights and Liberties that were then known and had, of which Tithes at that time were an undoubted part, but expresses not them, nor any ground of them; much less was the Mosaical Law the ground, and all the ground. What meant you to affirm an untruth, where it is so easy to find you out? The Tithing-table of England is a Book I never saw; and you have not seen this seven years, that in it the Mosaical Law should be the only ground, is incredible; and if it should prove true, either you have a very good memory, or write at random, true or false at a venture.  
But be this so, they pleaded the Mosaical, and that only; yet all the Mosaical Law is not Ceremonial; Tithes may be morally due out of the Mosaical Law: and if so, for what you have demonstrated to the contrary, this may have pleaded right. But that we have done with; suppose the ground of the Plea (whatever it was) to be naught; yet it follows not that the obeyers of that Council acted upon those grounds: I have not found any certain evidence of such a thing; and the Laws about Woodland, etc. the prevailing customs in so many places about the manner of Tithing, cutting the Minister short of a precise Tenth, are evidences that the Divine Right of Tithes was not so much regarded by the Donors and Confirmers of them.  
Yet again admit Priests so pleaded for them, and people so gave them; will the Donation therefore fall to the ground? frame it then into a general rule. All those deeds of gift which are granted upon a mistaken persuasion, are ipso facto void and of no force. Do you not see this a manifest untruth? power to give, and power to receive, will make conveyances valid, be the principles moving thereto what they will. So you have dealt in this Argument unfaithfully with Authors, uncharitably, falsely, and dishonourably with the Churches of God; and all most apparently to effect nothing by it when you have done.  

P. 8.  But Tithes are a Popish thing; and we have covenanted against Popish Innovations. So you speak, and so you writ, God give the people hearts to make conscience of their Covenant. We should have been glad to have seen this prayer answered sooner; yet it will be better than worse, if but now. But than Tithes must pack away among Popish Innovations; if an Innovation, 
P. 7.  'tis a pretty ancient one; but how appears it to be a Popish one, a chief Relic of Popery? have you consulted with any about the judgement of Popish Writers? I am confident you have not. Never did I find men talk so peremptorily of the things they knew not, till I met with men of your temper. Indeed Neighbour, factious engagements make Professors do things sadly, to the blemishing of that Holy Name that is upon them. Why? the Popish Divines are generally against the Divine Right of Tithes. 
De Clericis l. 1. c. 25.  So Bellarmine, and he affirms that all the Schoolmen are on his side. Hear what Rivet says, Baronium communis Pontificiorum Theologorum sententia deserit: Baronius alone for the Divine Right of Tithes among the Popish Divines. So Capellus; Plerique si non omnes Ecclesiae Pontificiae Doctores & Theologi; the most, if not all, the Doctors and Divines of the Popish Church go against the Divine Right of Tithes; and no wonder, when the Monkish party (their chief Divines) did, and do suck so great a sweetness from them by drawing them to their dens, which the divine right would have conveyed to other men's doors. Whether Donations were Popish, 
P. 9  or no, by this you may plainly see: That alienations were Popish, yourself acknowledge; antiquity doth not clear it from iniquity, and I fear eternity will not; they fed upon the stipend per se, but did the work per Vicarium, and fling him the bone after they had picked off the meat. Be it for ever the brand of that Religion that Popery began this: And may this shame once be wiped off from our Reformation, that we have, and do continue in it.  
Lastly, Though I find it not in express terms in your writing, yet I suppose it is that you aim at, when you tell us the King on his deathbed gave it to the Priests that then were: 
P. 10.  And with others it is a principal main exception against the deed of gift, that it was not to such persons as we, but to Popish Priests.  
That's not so, Deo & Ecclesiae do the usual Grants run, to God and the Church. The errors were personal, and die with the person; the next being free from his Predecessors fault, will not be liable to his punishment: Yet a sober adversary will not say that all the Ministers, even in communion with Rome, when Tithes were first given, were Papists; yet if they were, suppose a gift be given to the Church of Staplehurst, and let the present Minister be Arian or Socinian, this man's heresy will not make the next Incumbent, a sound Orthodox Teacher, uncabable of the gift; for the gift was to the Church, and the error was the man's. So is it here.  
But suppose the giver intended this gift that Arianism and Socinianism should be sown among Gospel-truths, as tares among wheat. The case does not appear to be so here; but admit it, shall the whole grant be void because some one use of it is found unlawful? why then God hath blotted these had uses out of the deed, the rest remain, and as much need there is the gift should remain, to carry on the still continuing uses as ever, when they were all supposed good: Yea, it may charitably be supposed, that those very devout Donors, if they lived now, would blot out such sinful uses with their own hands, if they should know them displeasing to God, who therefore put them in because they thought them pleasing. If this will not serve men's turn, but the deed, because of some uses impossible to be fulfilled, appearing now unlawful, is to be accounted void as to all the rest, It will then return into the hand of Kings and Princes again (to the present Landlords and Tenants it cannot, whose it never was) and they have confirmed it by several Acts since the days of Reformation, unto reformed Ministers, as such, what was at first given to Popish Priests, as such (if yet it were so.) So if this be a flaw, it is made by those, who, if any men on earth, have power to heal it.  
And yet I doubt not but as great matters as can be found in those deeds of gift we speak of, will be found as well in most ancient conveyances, especially of public charity; either Popish reasons of the Dedication (pro remissione animarum, as well elsewhere as here) or Popish uses of the thing dedicated: Yea, in most old Wills of any that died any thing wealthy, we shall find something that favoured of the ignorant devotion of those superstitious times. And why should this be an Exception against our Tenure only, which is against no man's else, would be enquired into; unless this be it, that Ministers of all men are the only fit persons to be made a prey of, who have more reason to defend themselves against this plea, than any sort of persons whatsoever under the same condition, in that those gifts designed in part to such unlawful uses, were given to God and his Church, not to the person of any man: Now, though what is given to God for unlawful uses, may, and must be taken from those uses, and applied to other; 
Num. 16.38.  yet from God and his Church they cannot; no man can so firmly call that his own which is given him, as God does that which is given to him, and to God the things that are Gods, never to be alienated more.   

The Conclusion.  
Your Book I have done with: If any strength of reason hath escaped careful search, I am sorry for it; I hope none hath. If in any thing I have mistaken your mind, I shall be willing to be rectified: whether my Reply be unsufficient, or full, judge you, but do it as an humble meek spirited Christian should do: Let not any factious engagement to bear up a party, nor vainglorious desire to preserve the credit of your Book you have appeared to the world in, nor yet any scornful resolutions of pride, disdaining instruction from a man so much younger than yourself: Let not these, nor any thing else pervert a right judgement in you. Recantations are hard things, even to godly people; yet a greater man then either you or I, is more famous for Books of that nature, then for almost any other that he hath written: yet many of his writings against the Pelagians are choice pieces too. Therefore pray remember, that all error about God's Truths is sinful, the knowledge of the truth being as well commanded us, as obedience to it; and those errors are most especially sinful, which are about matters of practice; for they necessarily defile the whole man, and annoy others: And of these, if any more than others, they that cut asunder those sinews of society which unite men into bodies together; such as make us prey upon one another's goods, unfaithfully break serious and frequent promises, and then say all manner of evil falsely of those we have thus injured; disdain them if they be younger than ourselves; requite great tenderness with highest contumely, and mock that patience that would fain live at peace with us, put what we Please into their mouths to make them ridiculous; proclaim words well meant, necessarily spoken, if but liable to any misconstruction, concealing what would clear the suspicion, to make them odious; resolve after all to have nothing to do with them, and stir up the Saints to do the like. All this hath your error been fruitful in unto very unkind practices against me: lay now another such principle of error, to produce such practices towards others, and you will not be fit to be either Elder or member of a Church, nor yet to live in a society of men. If now you should add obstinacy to all this, how sad will your account be! I pray do not; and oh that any thing I could do might mollify you the Judge is at the door. Shall I be forced to write that to you which we are wont to speak to common profane persons to bring them to repentance? Nay, lee the love of Christ constrain you: you are an aged disciple, however of late years sadly misled, and misleading others. Why should the many palpable sins in this matter, which none can open his mouth for, and your best friends are ashamed of, stand upon Record to the ruin of souls? the Blasphemies, Heresies, Ambition, Covetousness, Covenant-breaking, Inconstancy, Unpeaceableness, Hellish rail, and most bitter, yet false accusations, one against another, which the Professors of this age are notoriously guilty of, have hardened multitudes of profane ones, and sent them by troops into hell. Have compassion on your own soul; have compassion on the souls of many others, whose ruin such language and such deal do most visibly endanger: The Lord deliver profane ones from imitating you in that which you stir up Saints to imitate you in. As for me, your unfaithful dealing with me cannot ruin my estate, nor your reproaches wound my reputation among them that know my life, to be neither covetous nor revengeful: And, as I am most assured I am set here of God for the good of this people, so I am most resolved to continue in the Lords work to the end; for which I beg his assistance, and in which I wait for his powerful presence unto much success in my undertake for the souls of those under my care; and I am most confident in the help of God, that your and all men's oppositions, whoever they be, will be as frustrate as theirs are wont to be who fight against God; and in this hope and strength of assurance I rest.  
In the mean time as to what concerns you, I would hearty advise you to examine once again before you die, with all serious humble selfdenying industry, those principles which have led you to so high an opposition against your Brethren, in these last years of your life. Lay aside your endeavours to support the Arminian cause; all your skill cannot add to what others have said for it before you: your attempts that way will but render you laughed at by some, and pitied for your arrogance by others. 
Rom. 16.17, 18. 1 Cor. 1.10. etc. 3.13. 2 Cor. 13.11. Eph. 4.2, 3.  Look home as you draw to your long home; set before your eyes the many plain Scriptures against division, and then compare them Faithfully with those Scriptures you suppose call you to it: the exceptions from the general Rule of Unity had need be as plain as the Rule itself is; you know what miseries have followed, not only to others good and bad; the good discouraged, and the bad hardened, but even to yourselves; for one added to your assemblies how many broken off, some of which prime leading men; you that have broken others, how hath God broken you? What vexation it hath created you to keep your own in Unity; what heart-breaking it is to see such Devilish Doctrines, and practices broke out of the camp of your Friend, your own heart knows best; the little success your way had in its first entrance into the world, to disturb and disgrace the Reformation in Germany, what fearful sins it broke out into, and what a shameful end it had, you have heard of. Now in these last days it hath removed it tents into England, and for a time bore a great sway; such men almost the only employed men in places of service and gain in Army, Navy, everywhere: it now is in its declining (pardon the confidence of the word) the fearful sins we see daily, and I doubt not but we shall see the shameful end too, though I hope not with that severity of the State upon you, God restraining you from such outrageous attempts against the civil pe●ce. Me thinks this should be looked upon as a seasonable admonition from God, to consider your ways; that you may be sure this sad unprosperous path is yet of Gods chalking out to you. Show me one instance of a truth of Gods, that hath had the like success, once and again: it was not so with the Reformation of Religion at that time attempted in Germany; it is not so with our Reformation here, though checked by manifold hindrances, yet it goes on, and vows only a time of healing among dissenting Brethren, to Crown and complete it; and I am most assured they, whose pride and faction hinders this (where principles are not hard to be reconciled) shall bear their blame, and that evidently before men, who ever they be; it never fell out with any truth thus as 'tis with your cause, never since the world stood. Consider your ways; you had need have a command as clear as any is in all Scripture, to secure you in such unprosperous paths, from the fear of Gods fight against you.  
If yet having done this work of trying your ways with all serious conscientious care, you find cause to settle in your received persuasion and practice: let me then advise again, and request of you to believe of us, that we are men that desire in all things to keep a good conscience, both towards God and towards men; that we do not wilfully shut our eyes against any known truth, nor resist any known duty; we speak our very hearts after much diligent search, and do not dissemble; we tell you that it nowhere appears to us, where God hath cast our Believers Infants, from that special covenant they were once received into, and from that Church membership that flows from thence; yea, when we suppose the evidences for the contrary are full, and not only not yet sound answered by any, but not answerable, we in this speak our very mind: And we desire you to believe us, when we profess ourselves amazed to see what miserable shifts you are put to establish the Foundations of the contrary side; 
Timetis dicere non Baptizentur, ne non solum facies vestrae sputisinficiantur virorum, verum etiam Capita Sandaliis muliercularum comminuantur. Aug. contrà Julianum l. 3.5. 〈◊〉 enim illi trati lavacrum regenerationis & remissionis peccatorum audent negare, ne hoc Christianae aures ferre non possint. 2. de peccat. origin. 1 Tim. 4.8. Gen. 17.7, 8, ●0. Gal. 5.3.  it grieves us to see some of you for this end, to revive Pelegianisme, by denying original sin (yet Pelagius durst not deny Infant baptism for all that, though often put to it. Aug. tells us what would have become of him, if he had, he would have been in danger of men's spittle and women's Scandals if he had; Christian ears could not endure such a thing) to see yourself and many others of you to hold original sin, universally remitted to all mankind by a general Covenant; strange this to us that there should be a Covenant remitting sins, which hath no condition on man's side; and that all the damned should have one sin remitted to them, when they have none else; the very best of you seem to us, to be left to sad plunges by denying Infants the benefit of our special Covenant, who with us and you hold original sin, and with us against you deny its univeversal Remission, when they know not what to say concerning the hope of any Infant's salvation, but leave them to God, that is in effect contentedly give them all up to Hell. That distinction of Spiritual promises to the Spiritual seed, only Fleshly promises to the Fleshy-seed, is verily to us an amazement; it overturnes the Foundations of Divinity; we verily believe that the same thing that gives us a Covenant Title to the Kingdom of Heaven, gives us a Covenant Title to a piece of bread; that Spiritual and temporal blessings dispensed by way of promise, to a particular person flow from one and the same Covenant; that 'tis Godliness hath the promise of this life as well as of that which is to come; that God puts them both together in the Covenant with Abraham and his Seed; that I will be their God is exceedingly more then I will give them the Land of Canaan: that God did not mock the Servant among the Jews and the Proselytes, when he gave circumcision as a sign between them and him, when he intended that on his part it should signify nothing: that God would never make man a debtor to him in the sign of the mutual Covenant, who by the same Covenant and sign of would make himself a debtor of nothing to man: that unbelief would never have kept the Jews, 
Hebr. 3.19.  whose carcases fell in the wilderness, from entering into the Land of Canaan, and Idolatry with other sins would never have cast them out again, if Canaan had belonged unto them, merely as the Fleshly Seed of Abraham: if the same Faith which was the condition of the Heavenly Canaan, were not also the condition of the Earthly: that Abraham is in vain made a pattern of justification to all Nations, if what was done in him was singular, and rested in his person; if circumcision were a seal of the Righteousness of Faith to him, and to him only; 
Rom. 4.11.  we conceive the Apostle excludes such fancies in his own express words; he received that he might be a Father; and what is this that he might be a Father? he explains himself that righteousness might be imputed to them also. I would hazard any ill consequent might be sound drawn from the Doctrine of Infant Baptism, then venture any one of these things; they are verily in our eyes monstrous imaginations of dreaming men all of them, to us it seems a certain truth, that spiritual promises to the Fleshly Seed of Abraham were a part and the chiefest of Abraham's blessing, & that this is come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ: 
Gal. 3.14. Rom. 11.16.  & that if the root be holy, so are the branches, is a truth universally verified of Jew & Gentile; & where God puts our children's names into the Sealed Indenture of Covenant between us & him, we dare not be so blasphemous to God, & unnatural to our Children, as to blot out their names again; these are our very thoughts: we shut our eyes against no light, but have weighed what is alleged on the behalf of your cause in the balance of our most impartial judgement, according to Scripture, and find it light: and our Request to you is, if you must suppose us to err in judgement (the Lord reveal even this unto you) that yet where our conversation is orderly according to the Gospel, you would spare our hearts, which are to be judged by a Severer one that knows them better and their secrets, than you do. 
Rom. 2.16.  That you would remember what benefit yourself once received in your most zealous following of such as we are, and would conclude it possible, that others may have the same benefit in their conscientious attendance upon us now; and so out of gratitude, charity, and wisdom to stand out of the way of that curse, which is wont to be the portion of them that heave at that burdensome stone; 
Zech. 12.3. 1 Thes. 2.16.  who hinder the Preaching of the word to ignorant carnal ones, that they may be saved, the objects of so much pity and compassion; and if it be their stubbornness that they will not follow your assemblies, yet let them be brought to Christ anywhere, and do you rejoice with us at such powerful experiences of mercy, and do not envy us; why should you seek to destroy us by Petitions, Remonstrances, Practices? Do not do so, it will not turn to your account; if you must divide, carry it no further than needs must, if you cannot have to do with us, 
P. 6.  as much as it were comfortable that you did, and we take it to be your duty; yet resolve not to have nothing to do with us: nothing is a hard word, and Actions suitable to such words are harder; no dealing was high arrogance in the Jews, 
Jo. 4.9.  even against Samaritans; Christ sets us there a more merciful Example; there is love, pity, Prayer, doing good, speaking well, furthering one another in what we agree, debating what we differ in with ingenuous openness, humility, 
These are better than nothing to do. Rom. 3.13, 14.  and meekness; if we must speak amiss of ways, be we tender how we speak amiss of persons: a great sumptome of an high inward Fever is a black fowl rough tongue. David and Paul both fetch the Character of the man who hath no fear of God before his eyes, in a great part from the viciousness of the tongue; the Spear broke Christ's side, 
Ps. 64.20. Eph. 4.30, 31 Judas 9.13, 15.  but reproach broke his heart; among the grieving sins to the holy Spirit of God we find bitterness and evil speaking; railing accusations are uncomely for Angels; fit only for raging waves of the Sea, that foam out their own shame, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. Remember Neighbour, that a day of Execution of Judgement is a coming for God to convince men of hard Speeches as of hard deeds, who will not be convinced of them sooner; but of you my Neighbour I shall yet hope better things, and shall be glad to see them by the humble acknowledgement of the many such your Book is filled with.  
As for mocking in matters that concern Salvation, and between persons whose age and quality of life should make more serious in common things; for you and I to get up into the seat of the Scorners, I cannot think of it without terror how lamentable it is; Oh do not so any more; remember Christ weeping and sobbing over Jerusalem almost every word he spoke; 
Luc. 19.41. etc. Judas 18.19.  do not in all things fulfil the Prophecy; Oh that it were fulfilled upon you in nothing! Do you remember what sin cost Christ for the Elect? and what sin must cost the Reprobates in Hell? and can you make a mock of sin? any sin? Plead not Eliah's Example to Baal's Priests; we are not the men, neither have you the Spirit; you will not, I hope, do that which follows in the History: The Lord soften my hard heart more and more, give me Jeremy's Fountain of waters, that I may weep day and night for my own, for yours, and for other men's sins: This sure is the true Ministers temper; With a mocking Spirit we shall Preach proudly, but with a weeping Spirit we shall Preach compassionately: and you may judge which is like to be the more successful. 
Act. 20.31.  Paul that laboured so abundantly, and whose Labours were crowned so plentifully, was one that ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.  

Rom. 14.15.  It was thought by the Apostle a piercing word, now walkest thou not charitably; more almost could not have been spoken to the shame of a Christian; let us mend the Characters of charity, and write them out in the hearts; 
1 Cor. 13. Phil. 3.16.  and if our debates be not then ended, they will be bounded; wherein our attainements are one, let us walk by the same Rule, mind the same things; and this will be a means by Prayer, and the conscientious Study of Scripture with humble conferences, 
15.  according to Scripture, to have God reveal to us wherein we agree not. Alienation of affections makes controversies endless more than the Intricacy of them; where judgement Rents a little Christ's seamelesse Coat, Passion and self Interest pursue the breach, and tear it from top to bottom: yea, most common it is that what Passion gins, reason must defend and make good; let us therefore walk together so far as we may, till we must needs part, then with Friendly seriousness debate the rest; and let a Scripture Spirit sway in our resolutions, not the Spirit of man which is proud and wilful, and then I am persuaded our much desired Peace may return to us.  
To this aim I direct these Papers of mine, humbly beseeching God, the Giver of that Wisdom which is pure and Peaceable, to prosper them, to accomplish what they are directed to; to instruct the ignorant, convince the gainsayers, comfirm the sound-minded; to mollify sharp and eager Adversaries, nor exasperate them; and than it will not grieve me, nor offend others that so unworthy a name as mine is hath been in Print.   
FINIS.   

READER,  
There should have been inserted p. 26. lin. 25. these few things following; which though they were omitted in that place by the Printers overfight: I desire thou wouldst take notice of them here; they are as followeth.  
THis gives a fair reason against the morality of a tenth of the tenth, if it was paid to the High Priest, for himself alone, & the other Priests shared with the Levite in the rest: but in case the tenth of tenth was paid to the High Priest for himself, & his fellow Priests; so make them sharers with him, not with the Levites, as is thought by some out of Neh. 10.38. Then somewhat more is to be said, why the tenth of tenth belongs not to our present inquiry, as being confessedly Ceremonial, whereas the Levites tenth was not. The reasons of this I humbly conceive, are from the great difference in the Officers under the Law, from the Officers under the Gospel, in point of,  
1. Number. Then the Priests, the Sons of Aaron were a small part of their Brethren the children of Levi; and therefore were well provided for by a tenth out of the tenth: Whereas it is otherwise under the Gospel comparing Bishops and Deacons together; they began with twelve on one side (though we exclude the seventy) and seven on the other side; and in all ages so it continued, Deacons fewer than the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments; a tenth therefore of a tenth cannot be observed now.  
2. Service. The difference between the Priest's service and the Levites being wholly Ceremonial; consequently the difference of maintenance, which in part was grounded on a different service (the Priests not being a tenth part of the Levites, though they had a tenth part of their provision) must be Ceremonial too; if the Priest prayed for, and blessed the people so did the Levite. Neh. 9.4, 5. 
2 Chr. 20.19.  If the Priest taught the people out of the Law, so did the Levite. 2 Chro. 17.8, 9 If the Priest executed Judgement in matters of the Lord, so did the Levite. 2 Chro. 19.8, 11. Take away Sacrifices and what was annexed to them, and their service are altogether the same: but so it is not between Bishop and Deacon under the Gospel (said in to God) the sum is, the Command of a tenth from the people might be moral, 
Survey of discip. pt. 2. p. 31.  yet the distribution of it) between Priests and Levites in part civil, referring to their different numbers; in part Ceremonial, referring to their different services; so the Reverend Master Tho. hooker's conclusion; upon the supposed morality of a tenth will not follow (Ergo the Ministers must have the tenth of a Tenth.)  
This foundation removed out of the way; the enforcement of this reason added by that excellent holy man falls to the ground with it. It is this (than Ministers must receive from them happily, who were never taught by them; as the Levites who taught in the particular Synagogues paid to the Priest, and to the Levites too, who administered in Jerusalem) this is supposed contrary to Gal. 6.6. but indeed is not; for cases may be where in they that are not taught are bound to contribute to a Teacher as well as they that are: Master Hooker might have observed one case at home in the Preachers to the convert Indians; we are all, both England's, New and Old, their Debtors of an honourable maintenance, though they never Teach us. They that do common service for all (as the Priests at Jerusalem did for the Levites as well as for the rest of the Jews) deserve a common provision from all. But however to put all out of doubt, as there is no such distribution of Offices for the people, as a part of the people's service to be performed by some Officers, where the people live; and a part by other Officers elsewhere; so there is not that distribution of payments: but he that is taught communicates to him that Teaches, and ordinarily to none else; none else being constantly attending to serve him else where▪ Tenth of tenths therefore on all hands are laid aside. That I may at once reply to what is offered by that most reverend man of God, against the morality of a tenth (this first Plea indeed the opposes; 
Pt. 2. p. 37. Pt. 4. p. 16.42.  but the second he is a fast Friend to) take a brief answer to his first reason also as what is above is to his second; it runs thus, this (the Gospel way) is raised out of all good things the person that is taught hath; but those Tithes in the old Testament were out of the seed of the Land, fruit of the Trees, or of the herd of the Flock. Leu. 27.30, 31, 32. Deut. 14.22, 23.) the place in Deut. speaks of Tithes for Feasts and Sacrifices; but let that pass: to the Argument, this may be considered of that, setting that question aside, whether personal Tithes were not due under the Law as well as predial; Doctor Burges hath offered something for it, and neither of these Scriptures say any thing against it. 
Gen. 28.22. & 14.15. Hebr. 7.4.  This I say, which is clear, that jacob's vow was of all; and Abraham's payment was of all, and of spoils (personal Tithes) by name; if the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be duly rendered) under the Law; Tithes are a right currant; the measure of them is not therefore to be taken thence, but from the evidences that are before, if Moses Law do not mention personal Tithes, 'tis enough if they do not renounce them; their dueness otherwise is stated already, if Abraham and Jacob did what they did by Law, of which hereafter. Here then is a wonderful agreement between Law and Gospel, of all says Abraham and Jacob, in all good things says Paul. This with all tender respect to the never dying memory of that blessed man, concerning what in this debate his reasons seem to be defective in.   

ERRATA.  
P. 2. lin. 24. for also inquired, read also will inquire, in Marg. 19 r. 14. l. 26. put with, r. put off with. p. 3. l. 3. offer, r. offered. p. 8. l. 3. yet see what he prints. p. 10. l. 10. shame, r. slander. p. 13. in m. Act. 4.5. r. Am. 4.4, 5. Act. 19 r. Act. 29. p. 15. l. 37. streng, r. strengthen. p. 17. l. antepenult, by, r. then. p. 18. Law 

Divine,  
Humane,  
Free-gift,   r. 

La 

Divine.  
Humane.    
Free-gift   p. 20. in m. Gen. 32. r. 33. p. 21. l. 12. deal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 23. l. 4. to be verified a mystery, r. to be verified in a mystery. l. 31. shut, r. set. p. 24. l. 16. with, r. tenth. p. 26. in m. Num. 18. 18. r. 28. & Deut. 14.23, 26. p. 27. in m. 16. 12. r. 26. 12. 30. how, r. now. p. 30. l. 12. bring, r. being. p. 31. li. 27. things, read times. p. 34. l. 5. I think justly, r. I fear so too. p. 35. in m. Act. 14.16. r. 17. p. 38. in m. Priest Catech. r. practic. Catech. l. 4. a Brass Farthing, r. a broken Brass Farthing. p. 41. in m. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 2, Laws, r. Law. p. 42. l. 32. if, r. is. p. 46. l. 18. converted, r. requited. p. 48. l. 31. there, r. these. p. 49. l. 19 by, r. abide. p. 51. l. 34. watches, r. coaches. p. 54. l. 3. charge, r. change. p. 55. l. ult. now, r. no. p. 56. in m. Luc. 10.1, 10. r. 17. p. 60. l. 5. a fine for his Sons, r. the Priests a fine; for Tithing, r. threatening. p. 62. l. 27. this, r. thy: p. 64. l 26. Is. 49.13. r. 23. p. 65. l. 12. but, r. you. l. 35. after rules add best. p. 66. l. 16. against, r. of. in m. Mark. r. Matth p. 67. in m. Matth. 27. r. 26. p. 69. l. 12. after prayed against by the Church, 1 Tim. 2.2. add this, that we find; we find also, an appeal to them in a case purely of Religion, Act. 25.18.19. and this supposes a power in these cases; yea Paul himself protests it, v. 10. when I ought. l. 34. of, r. with. p. 70. l. 1. why should this Whore say, r. why this Whore should say. l. penult. came, r. come p. 75. l. 5. a fine for thus, r. this. p. 77. l. 18. they & their, r. he & his p. 78. l. 35. mended, r. minded. p. 84. l. 10. deal therefore p. 85. l. 35. after letting add out. p. 86. l. 27. it, r. in l. 30. after was, add not. p. 94. l. 15. it was possible, re. was it possible. p. 97. l. 37. this, re. they. p. 100 l. 14. scandals, r. sandals. l. 38. after sign of, add it. p. 101. in m. Ps. 60.20. r. 69. 20. p. 102. lin. 1. after men add as well. lin. 26. mend the, re. mind his ibid. in the hearts, read in our hearts.