THis whole period of Scripture, from ver. 5. to 15. consists of one discrete axiome, in summe this: Though I Paule haue power and right to liue at the charge of the Church, ver. 5. yet I haue not vsed that power, ver. 12. the reason whereof he giues; Least hee should hinder the Gospell of Christ, through suspicion of mercenary. Affection in preaching. Now for that it might be questioned whe­ther he had any such right or no, hee avowes the truth of his title; by arguments à genere, he was an Apostle & preacher of the Gospell, ver. 1. Ergo had right. 2. prevē ­tingly, à pari, in the practise of others; ver. 5.6. as well as Peter &c. And for that the claime might not seeme e­quall betwixt Paule and Cephas and the Lords brethren, he sheweth that to every minister of the Gospell, main­tenance is due for their worke sake. By reasons, 1. From voice of nature and consent of nations in other sem­blant imployments▪ as who goes to war, &c. ver. 7. 2. From mandate of the law of God. Saith not the law of God the same, &c. ver. 8.9.10. 3. From excellency of blessings conferred by Ministers, cōpared with qualitie of things exacted for recompence; If we sowe spirituall things &c. [Page 2] ver. 11. 4. From allowed practise of Leviticall ministe­ry, ver. 13. Lastly, from expresse ordinance of Christ, the Lord hath ordained, &c. ver. 14. this the frame of the text.

Out of all which amounts this plaine Apostolicall conclusion; That maintenance is due from people to Mini­sters for their worke sake. Other proofes then are here set downe, it is needlesse to vse. Wee haue here more then two or three witnesses, fiue sound reasons inforcing it. The bare word of an Apostle is enough to carry a point more doubtfull. How much more should it sway with vs, when Gods spirit that spake in them, is pleased by so many reasons to avouch it? Is it not then a sound tenēt (trow we) of some, that Ministers maintenance is meer almes? and that in iustice, and as due, they can challenge nothing for their labour in the word and doctrine?

1 Where then is Paules [...], his right, lawful power and authoritie, to receaue maintenance from the peo­ple, v. 4▪2? How saith our Saviour, they are worthie of their hire, Luk 9 7. Paule worthy of double honour 1. Tim 5.17.? 3 What great thing was this that Paule did in taking no maintenance, ver. 12.15? By these mens divinitie he had right to none.

2 And what ods is there betwixt this beggerly con­clusion of those old beggers, and that of late separats, that make it Christs ordinance for Ministers to liue of their peoples voluntary contribution; and hold it as Christs owne Canon, that no set maintenance shoulde be allotted vs, no not by humane ordinance, but the people left at liberty to giue or not to giue, to giue much or little, otherwise then selfe devotion shall in­cline them? May I not say of this and the former as Ioseph of Pharaos dreames,Gen 41.25. the dreames are one? Words [Page 3] onely haue made a variation. Ministers must liue of the peoples voluntary contribution: me thinkes I heare S^t Pauls tenour for almes,2. Cor. 9.7. As every man wisheth in his heart so let him giue. Their reasons had need be pregnāt: let vs view them. 1. Forsooth the Apostles thus lived. Resp. J yeeld it of some of them: yea sometimes made their own hands minister to their necessities: why force they vs not to mechanicall trades? For so lived some A­postles. But 1 they had power to exact maintenance, sith they had right1. Cor. 9.4, 5 to haue it. 2, Occasionall practise binds not to imitation, but in occurrence of like occasi­ons When scandall inforceth to forbeare exaction, we will herein follow their holy example, least by any meanes we hinder the Gospell; ver. 12. and farther then this, their example vrgeth not.

Their second reason is this: because it must be seene that what the people giue this way, they giue of loue, not for feare of the law. Resp. and it must bee seene that the people Ps. 110.3. come willingly at the daies of assembling. There­fore Magistrats may not compell by autoritie to serue the Lord as2. Chr. 34.31 32.33. good Iosiah did, for now they beare the sword in vaine. But thus J reason and so leaue them.

To every duty Magistrats may bind by lawe, & com­pel by punishment. Yeelding maintenance to Ministers is a dutie. Therefore thereto may Magistrates binde by lawes. Miserum est (saith the Poet) alienâ vivere quadrâ: if for any, miserable; sure most for a minister. This if any thing, breeds right trencher Chaplens, & would soon fill the Church with sweet tongued & mealemouthed preachers.

3 I may not leaue vtterly vntouched our peoples, [Page 4] whether ignorant or affectionate errour: that thinke of their payments to Ministers, as of almes to their beads­men; forsooth we liue by them. I say no more but this, 1, If1. Cor. 9.11. we by them in carnall things, they by vs in spiritu­al. Is the barter so hard as should occasion exprobratiō? 2. Not by you but by the Lords ordinance 1. Cor. 9.14. saith the A­postle.

And that Lord that hath given to the people the nines; hath allotted to vs (audacter dicam) the tenthes as ours.

4 J would faine leaue this reproofe, but that J see the errour hath wound it selfe into the minds of many of holy profession and practise, who yet delight to haue Ministers acknowledge a debt, even for receit of dues; and desire to haue conscience free from all bonds more then of humane lawes, in this matter of recompencing our labours. Jf ought come else more then law or cu­stome, if but a cup of cold water; they supererogate surely in respect of the Minister. They much forget who said,Philemō. 19 thou owest vnto me even thy owne selfe.

And of the generall thus farre. Now the inquiry J take it, is not impertinent here; sith maintenance is due to Ministers for their worke sake, what portion or quā ­titie that is, that by Gods ordinance belongs to them. And me thinkes in a dutie so generally, though plaine­ly taught, the conscience of the hearers should desire a more particular direction. Yee will therefore (I hope) giue leaue something more particularly to examin the matter. And herein J hold it not amisse, first to propoūd what is yeelded on all sides, where is any soundnesse of iudgement. 2. Then to adde some other principles, as [Page 5] plainely taught in the Scriptures of the new Testamēt. Lastly to enquire and resolue of the particular.

The grants on all sides are these. 1. That there is a maintenance1. Cor. 9.4, 5 ad 15. in iustice due to Ministers and their fa­milies for their worke sake.

2 It is yeelded that it must be competent; not only for supply of naturall necessities, but for their furniture to every good work of their calling.

3 That it must be1. Tim. 5.17 18. liberall; not such as every nig­gardly minde will iudge convenient and competent.

To which grants, let me adde these postulata, as plainely determined in the Scriptures.

1 That to the Ministers of the Gospell belongs a maintenance as large, as to the Leviticall Priesthood; this me thinkes, excellencie of ministery,2. Cor. 3. 1. Cor. 9. and blessings conferred thereby, enforceth.

2 That this maintenance must rise out ofGal. 6.6. all and e­very the goods of al and every of the people instructed.

3 Shall I adde another to me seeming more thē pro­bable? that is, that the Lord hath as certainely provided for our maintenance vnder the Gospel, as for theirs vn­der the law. For had the Lord lesse care of vs? was there lesse need in respect of the peoples backwardnesse? no. But he entrusted magistrats with that care. Resp. And were there not Magistrats among the Iewes?

4 That the Lord in the Leviticall law made provisi­on for vs that were to minister in the Gospell. Its cleere by the Apostles twise alleaging that ordinance of1. Cor. 9.9. 1. Tim. 5.18. not muzling the mouth of the oxe.

Thus farre I thinke we walke safely, sith in the very steps of the holy Ghost leading vs in the newe Testa­ment. [Page 6] Let vs now descend toward the particular.

Some tumbling downe headlong rather then de­scending, resolue of a competency indeterminate; so the allowance be competent, all is well. Resp. Then in case of this fancied competency, some of the instructed though wealthy perhaps, shall be exempted from the Apostles iniunction: for suppose some one or two of the well disposed hearers, shall out of their privat, make a competent allowance; the rest shall now reap our spi­rituall things, and not sow their carnall. For as the say­ing is rife, enough in a ministers maintenance, Enough is a feast: Gal. 6.6. but saith the Apostle, Let him .i. every him that is instructed, make his instructer partaker of all his goodes 2. See conclusion sixt; & duly weighing it, tell me whe­ther thou find conscience satisfied with this imaginary competency? For is there no certaine provision for Mi­nisters of the Gospell, but this vncertaine competency? who shall iudge of it? Every man? mallem Cerberum me­tueres, as the Orator speakes. The Magistrat? why would not the Lord leaue this to Iewish Magistrats? no not to Moses, a man so gratious with him? and leaue it to magistrats vnder the Gospell? 3. How hath he commit­ted this to Magistrats? absolutely or with limitation? if with limits, what are these bounds? forsooth a com­petency. Perceaue you not circling and meere vncer­tainties?

Leaue we this fancy, and see whether wee may find some other more certaine particular, to resolue of. And surely when wee haue in vaine turmoiled our selues to avoid Iudaizing in this point of ministers maintenance, we shall be forced at length to acknowledge Tenthes, [Page 7] which some call Jewish, to be the Ministers appointed portion.

That the truth may the better appeare, J will pro­pound the different opinions that J haue met withal in this point.

1 Brownists in this question thus peremptorily re­solue. That Tithes are so meerely ceremonious and Le­viticall, that they cannot without betraying Evangeli­cal liberty and disavowing Christs Priesthood, be retai­ned as maintenance of Ministers of the Gospell. And how full soever of dotage this dreame may seeme: yet this J will say for them; They are madd with more rea­son a great deale, then any others which hold them ce­remonies Levitical. Jf the assumption were true, their conclusion woulde soundly followe by doctrine of the Apostle. Gal. 4. & 5. Col. 2. &c.

2 Some others thinking them iudicials, resolue; part, that they may be lawfully retained as the Ministers sti­pend; part, that they are the most convenient mainte­nance can be allotted vs.

3 A third sort, that they are due by Gods law to Mi­nisters of the Gospell; but these in explanation of them selues diversly deriue them thence.

1. some thus: due by Gods law enioyning obedience to the magistrate in things lawfull and convenient. These giue them no other ground in Gods word, then other humane ordinances.

2 Others, due by Gods law: in as much as the church (whose authoritie with them is divine) hath enioined their payment. So generally Papists.

3 A third sort thus: due by Gods lawe; in respect of [Page 8] their consecration to God, either by receaued custome and consent of Churches, or by donation of princes, or legacie of testatours. In which opinion I must needes professe my selfe to haue beene long; and never to my knowledge of other; til of late being to deliver my iudg­ment to my people, J more purposely set my selfe to see what the truth was. And during that mistake, I thus thought; that they could not without sacrilege be alie­nated from their general end▪ my reasons were these, 1 That J had found Salomon averring it to bee a Pro. 20.25. curse to devoure holy things, and had seene the curse exemplified on many. 2. That ordinance of the Lord J held morall & perpetuall,Levit. 27, 18, 19. Nothing separate from common vse, no not of those which man had separated, might be againe vnhal­lowed, no nor redeemed. 3. That saying of the Apostle much swaied with me,Gal. 3.15. If it bee but a mans testament no man abrogats it .i. no man ought to abrogate it. And so much the more, for that being once an auditour of that iudicious divine M^r Perkins, whose memory is blessed; J heard him moue the doubt, whether things given to superstitious vses, suppose to maintaine malmonging, might be alienated. And thus assoile to my remēbrance. That from the particular intention, wherein through ignorance they erred, alienation might be; but frō the generall ende, maintenance of Godes worship, they might not be aliened. Thus then & vpon these grounds my conclusion is still the same, though my media bee other, and something more peremptory. Now because it is a labour long and needlesse to discusse every of the former differences (for the saying is true, verum est in­dex sui & obliqui:) J will first propound the conclusion [Page 9] with the explanation; 2. Proceed to confirmation; And lastly annex solution of Arguments, such as J haue met withall, having any shew of ground from the word of God, to overthrowe the conclusion.

The Conclusion in few words is this. Tithes are the portion, at least part of that portion, by Gods word allotted to Ministers for their service in the gospell.

By Tithes vnderstande the tenth part of all the hea­rers increase:Pro. 3 9. particulars may be read, Levit. 27.30. & alibi. In a word to vse the distinction of Canonists, whi­ther they be personall, of industry, negotiation; &c. or prediall, as of grounds, &c. or mixt, as of cattell: the tenthes of the whole encrease, not those of Cumin & Anise exceptedMat. 23.23., fal within compasse of our subiect.

1 Of Tithes amongst Iews we may finde fowre sorts distinguished by their ends. 1. some, which for distincti­on sake, we may call stipendary, assigned to Levits for recompence of their service. Numb. 18.24.

2 A second sort which wee may call sacrificatory: Tithes for sacrifice. Some cal them Decimas secūdaneas, some Decimas decimarum: a tithe of the Levits Tithes to be given to Aaron, as an heaue offring vnto the Lord. Numb. 18.28.

3 A third kinde you may stile Convivales, banquet­ting or feasting tithes, appointed for solemne feastes at their generall assemblies to Ierusalem, Deut. 14.22, 23.

4 The last sort may be tearmed Eleemosynariae. Some call them decimas pauperum, a tithe which for reliefe of the poore, widdowes, strangers, &c. were every thirde yeare to be set out of their goods, ever and aboue the other annuall tithes, Deut. 24.29.

This distinction of tithes I thought good to mentiō out of the Leviticall law: though this I professe, not to claime our tithes by the mandate given in lawe Leviti­call.

Now our question is, only of those tithes which we called stipendary; the rest being two sortes of them ap­parently ceremonious; the third as plainly a iudicial or­dinance. And of those tithes stipendary, this is that we affirme, that by the word of God they belong for ever to Ministers of holy things, and therefore in these daies to Ministers of the gospell, who alone haue now to do with publike ministrations of the worship of God.

Our reasons are these: first grounded on Heb. 7.6.8. He whose descent is not coūted from them, receaved tithes of Abraham; and ver. 8. here men that die receiue tithes, but there he receaveth them of whom it is witnessed that hee li­veth. Compare Gen. 14.20.

The argument which this scripture affordeth, hath received much disadvantage, by slender collection of many, thus only pressing it; Tithes were paid to Priests before the Levitical law was given: therefore their pai­ment is foūded rather on morall then ceremoniall law. To which, answere is well given, that by as good infe­rence, sacrificing of beasts may be proved a morality, sith it also was in vse before giving of the law by Moses. That we may the better see the force of the Argument here given, let vs a little consider the frame and summe of the text.

The Apostle by occasion of the peoples dulnes, ha­ving digressed from cap. 5.11. to cap. 6.20. returnes now to his purpose; namely to shew the excellencie of [Page 11] Christs priesthood aboue that of Aaron, by avouching him a Priest after th'order of Melchisedec. The conclusi­on is this: Christs priesthood is more excellent thē that of Levi; or Christ is a greater Priest then any after Aa­rons order. The reason principall lyeth thus; He that is a Priest after the order of Melchisedec is a greater Priest then the Priests after Aaron. But Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedec, Ergo, &c. The minor hath first his proofe, 1. from a testimony of David, cap. 5.20. 2. frō that absolute agreement betwixt Melchisedec, & Christ: the partes whereof are these; 1. as Melchisedec was king and Priest of the most high God, so Christ; 2. as Melchi­sedec king of righteousnes and prince of peace, so Christ. 3. as Melchisedec his parents, kindred, beginning, and end of life are not recorded: so Christ, as man, with out father; as God, without mother, kindred, begin­ning, or end of life. Therefore Christ is truely a Priest after the order of Melchisedec. ver. 1.2.3.

The maior remaines to be proved and that hath his proofe from ver. 4. to 11. the summe whereof is com­prised in this principall syllogisme. If Melchisedec be greater then Levi, then he that is a Priest after his order as Christ is; is greater thē Levi. But Melchisedec is grea­ter then Levi. Ergo, &c. minor proved, greater then A­braham greater then Levi. Melchisedec is greater then Abraham. Ergo then Levi. minor proved: he to whom Abraham paid tithes, of whom he was blessed, is greater then Abraham. But to Melchisedec Abraham paid tithes, & Melchisedec blessed Abraham. Ergo is greater then hee, ver. 4.5.6.7.

A second argument proving the greatnesse of this [Page 12] Priest aboue those of Aarons order, is laid down, ver. 8. A tithe taker .i. Priest, of whom its testified that he liues, is greater thē a tithe taker that dyeth. But the Priest af­ter Milchisedec is a tithe taker of whom its testified that he liveth; Levits take tithes and die. Ergo the Priest after Melchisedec his order is greater then the Priests Leviti­call. This is in my simple Logique the disposition of the text. As for illustrations or amplifications by pro­syllogismes, prolepses, or otherwise, I purposely omit them Now me thinks, the text thus naturally resolved, there needs no farther deduction of the Argument; yet that the simplest may see what footing tithes haue here thus I collect it.

The portion due to Christs priesthood, is due to Mi­nisters of the gospell: but tithes are the portion due to Christs priesthood. Ergo. The minor is thus proved.

The portion due to Melchisedec his priesthood, is due to Christs priesthood; reason, 1. for that Christs Priest­hood and Melchisedecs are the same; or Christ is a Priest after that order: 2. other things enunciated of Melchise­dec, are true of Christ eminently and alwaies: as its emi­nently and alwaies true of Christ, that he is king of righteousnes and prince of peace; eminently and alwaies true of Christ, he is without parēts, without beginning and end of life, that he blesseth Abraham and al his seed, &c. All these are more properly verified of Christ then of Melchisedec his type. Why not then also this ever true of him; he taketh tithes?

Now I assume. But tithes are the portiō due to Mel­chisedec his priesthood, yea ever due to that Priesthood. For 1 they were paid by Abrahā to Melchisedec, 2. in the [Page 13] Apostles Logicke; a Priest and receiver of tithes are e­quipollents. In steed of saying men that die are Priests; he saith, men that die receiue tithes: in steed of saying hee that liues is a Priest; he saith, he that liues takes tithes: as if in his iudgement tithes and priesthood were as insepa­rable as kingdome and tribute.

Now the maior of the principall syllogisme if any doubt of, to wit, whether the portion due to Christ be due to Ministers, let him compare 1. Cor. 9 14. where is the expresse ordinance of Christ, that Ministers should liue of the Gospell; 2. who in likelihood should bee his receavers, but these that are in his stead, as its said of Ministers, 2, Cor. 5.20? 3. Besides the same reason which the Lord assignes of Levi his sharing in things to him selfe reserved and sanctified, is true of Ministers, or else of none.Deut. 10, 8.9 God is Levits portion .i. Gods portion is Le­vits portion, because they were taken to Minister be­fore him. Why not then also Christs portion Ministers portion, because they only are assumed to Christ to mi­nister in the Gospell? A reasō for not tithing of so plain deduction out of Scripture, if any can bring mee, hee shall much sway me to his sentence.

This argument I remember once to haue propoun­ded something otherwise, to this purpose. The portion due to Priesthood after Melchisedec his order, is due to Ministers of the Gospell. But tithes are that portion. Ergo. And thus propounding it, I receaue these answers: the proposition seemes vntrue, except you can proue your selues Priests after that order. Resp. Wherto I thus answered; that though we be no Priests after that or let yet is there truth in the proposition, sith Christ the high [Page 14] Priest of our profession to whome originally they be­long, hath ordained vs to liue of his portion.

A second answer was by limitation; the portion due (by law) to that Priesthood is due to Ministers. But with that limitation the assumption is false, Abrahams pay­ment being an act rather voluntary, then by any iniun­ction from God. But contra, that that act of Abraham was no act in this sense voluntary, but rather an act of necessary and inioined duty, is evident (me thinkes) by these reasons. 1. For that gifts voluntary proceeding from bountie or liberalitie, imply a superioritie or ex­cellency in the giuer aboue the receaver. ForAct. 20.35. its a more blessed thing, in that kind, to giue then to receaue. But A­brahams paiment of tithes was testimony of his inferi­ority. Againe the phrase it selfeHeb. 7.4.6. implies as much: Mel­chisedec tithed Abraham, ver. 6. a phrase that looseth all his emphasis if no iniunction had subiected Abraham to a necessitie of being tithed. 3. What mean they whē they say of Abrahams tithing, that it was done without law? would they be vnderstood of Abrahams fact onely, or of tithing at large as it was in vse before the lawe written? Now sure I wonder how firstGen 14.20. Abraham, and then after himGen. 28.22 Iacob, should fall vpon a tenth rather then a sixt or twelfth part, if there were nothing prescri­bed in their times for tithing? 2. How proue they but probably that it was without iniunction of law? If this be the reason for that we finde no mention of any law to that end given: by as good reason may they say of sa­crifices, and sundry other actions religious, that they were arbitrary; sith we finde no expresse mandate given of them in those times. But thus mee thinkes wee may [Page 15] better reason from their practise to an iniunction; these facts of theirs were approved of God, therefore not done without iniunction from him. And of this argu­ment and cleering thereof thus farre.

The second argument hath his ground, Galat. 6.6. 1. Tim, 5.17. Prov. 3.9. where we read thus; Let him that is instructed, make his instructer partaker of all his goods; & elders that rule well are worthie of double honour, especially they that labour in the word and doctrine. And honour God with thy substance, and with the chiefe of all thine increase. Out of which Scriptures, thus we reason. If there bee a portion to be set out vnto God and his Ministers, out of all and every the temporall goods of every one in­structed, and no certaine portion to bee found in scrip­tures but tithes: then are tithes the portion allotted by Gods word to Ministers for their service. But there is a portion to be set out vnto God and his Ministers out of the temporall goods of every one instructed, and no other certaintie mentioned in scripture but tithes. Ergo tithes are the portion allotted by Gods word to Mini­sters for their service.

The consequence of the proposition depends vpon this ground, that some certaintie is by scripture allot­ted vnto Ministers for their service. Hereof if any de­mand proofe let him consider these. First, for that the Lord allotted a certaintie vnto first borne and Levits: & thinke we it probable hee would leaue Ministers of the Gospell at randome to a competencie indeterminate? 2. Jn other cases this argument goes current. The Lord prescribes for the old Tabernacle all things necessarie even to the Besome and Ashpan; not a pin in the Ta­bernacle, [Page 16] but what hath his prescript from God. Now surely of this we may say its not a pin, but even a Clavus Traba [...]is, one of the master nailes in our Tabernacle. And thinke we his word so sufficient and absolutely ex­act for all necessary prescripts, yea circumstances con­cerning worship, government, any thing: and this only, a matter of so great consequence, left vnprescribed?

Lastly, if no certaintie in this kind can bee found in Scripture, how wilt thou be able to share out vnto God his portion in faith? so that thou maist bee able to say, I haue giuen the Lord that portion of my goods which he requireth of me? Forsooth the Magistrats determi­nation shall in this point bee the levill and rule of faith. Resp. 1. Then must thou bee able to shewe that the Lord hath made Magistrats in this point his Carvers, which is vnlikely vt supra: 2, Suppose Magistrats make no pro­vision, where is then the direction for thy faith? 3. Sup­pose they shall assigne Micah his allowance: wilt thou therewith be content? Then sure al our lay persons, our Micahs, haue faith well guided, consciences rectified; ten shekels of silver, Iudg. 17.10. and a meales meat, and livery, they af­ford Sir Iohn. In faith thinke wee? surely according to Magistrats provision. And why blame we any more, impropriat persons for so scāt allowance? perhaps because not competent. Yea but the Magistrate thinks it com­petent. And that is in this case the line of faith▪ credam? non si mihi &c.

Touching the minor, for the first part see 1. Cor. 9.11. Prov 3.9. Gal. 6.6. in which place yee haue it in so many termes. Let him that is instructed, make his instructer par­taker of all his goods. For the second branch of it; that no [Page 17] other portion certaine is to bee founde in scripture; I meane which hath not an apparent signification of something peculiar to that state of the people vnder Levi, as first fruits, share of other sacrifices: wil appeare to any man, that wilbe pleased to enter induction of particulars. And may I not then conclude Tithes are the portion allotted vs by the word of God? Yea what if I shoulde say even tithes are in some of these places more then obliquely pointed at? What meanes the A­postle to call for maintenance vnto Ministers vnder the terme of double honor?1. Tim 5 17.18. for that by honor he there meanes maintenance, the reason annexed will make a blinde man see. Surely S. Hierome having delivered his iudgement of that place, Mal. 3. Bring all my tithes into the storehouse, in these tearmes Ecclesiae populis praeceptum est dare decimas, alleageth presently this place for proof, 1. Tim. 5.17. Elders must haue double honor. Againe what meanes the Apostle by that Epithete (double) honour? say some, double .i. large and liberall; but why double ra­ther then treble, if he meant large, at large? Doth he not rather in that Epithet send vs to consider of thatNumb. 8.16. dou­ble portion of the first borne in whose roome Levi was as­sumed? And that which made their portiō double, was in part tithes, as shall hereafter at least probably ap­peare vnto vs. Proceede we to a third reason which is grounded on Levit. 27.28. Prov. 20.25. Rom. 2.22. Mal. 3.8. where we read thus, Every thing separate from common vse, is most holy vnto the Lord. And it is a snare to devour holy things, & after the vow to inquire. And thou which ab­horrest Idols, committest thou sacrilege? And yee haue robbed me. Out of which places thus we reason. The portion [Page 18] which hath bin separated from common vse, to maine­tenance of Gods worship vnder the new testament, is the portion allotted by the word of God to Ministers for their service.

But tithes are the portion, at least part of the portiō separate from common vse to mainetenance of Gods worship vnder the new testamēt. Ergo &c. The maior is thus proved; because the detainement or alienating of things so consecrated, is sacrilege. That this may the better appeare, it wilbee worth the while to consider briefly what sacriledge is: which out of M^r Zanchius Vrsine, and others, we may thus briefly describe: Sacrilege is the taking away of things sacred .i. deputed to holie vses, or the maintenance of the worship of God. The matter about which this theft is conversant, are things consecrated to God; of which there are two sorts: some which God himselfe either by reservation, or expresse mandate, hath hallowed vnto himselfe; some which man hath hallowed and separated from common vse. of both read Levit. 27.28.29.30. Now that which makes vp the nature of sacrilege, is, the taking away or detai­ning of things thus hallowed, and returning them to common vse. Thus then I reason, the detainement or alienating of any thing separate from common vse, is sacrilege. But detainement or alienating of tithes, is the detainement and alienating of thinges thus sepa­rate. Ergo

To the proposition these answers I haue partly read, partly heard in conference. 1. Vnderstand it say some of things which haue beene consecrate by law. Resp. 1. no word of God forceth to such limitation. For even of [Page 19] voluntary and votary consecrations both Moses, Levit. 27. and Salomon, Prov. 20.25. speake. And was it not free to Ananias to consecrate or not, more then generall lawes of piety or charity might sway him, Act. 5.4. whiles it remained was it not thine owne? And after it was sold was it not in thy power, said Peter? yet was A­nanias his detainement sacrilege by circumstances of the text and consent of best interpreters. He is taxed by Peter not only for lying, but for theevish and clancular surreption of part of the price, ver. 3. and, saith Beza in­terpreting the word, Ad sacrilegium etiam accessit deffi­dentia & hypocrisis. see also Centuriat. Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. Ambros. ser. 9. Dum ex eo quod promiserat, partem subtra­hit, sacrilegij simul condemnatur & fraudis. Sacrilegij quod Deum in pollicitatione fefellerit: fraudis quod, &c: 2. but grant it with that limitation; wee shall anone see, that with that limit we may assume of tithes that they haue bin consecrated.

A second restraint some haue thus given to the propositiō; vnderstand it say they, of alienating things con­secrated without error .i. to maintenance of true wor­ship of the true God. Well, agreed; let it be so limited, though with faire probability and consent of no small clarks, we might contend the contrary. Keckerman: Syst. Polit. lib. 1. cap. 21. prin­ceps iure non potest res sacras & bona cultui divino etiam in genere destinata, etiam ea quae superstitioso cultui servi­unt, in vsum profanum transferre. But grant the limitati­on: can we not assume thus much of Tithes, that they haue bin consecrate to maintaine pure worship of the true God?

Thirdly vnderstand it say some, with these excepti­ons. [Page 20] 1. Except in case of the churches superfluity; & this exception hath this ground; contentment with neces­saries is required of Ministers; for Moses cries sufficit at the building of the tabernacle: Resp. What word of God or soūd reason giues liberty to alien seeming superflui­ties of Ministers rather then of other subiects? content­ment with necessaries being equally required of all. And Moses staies addition of more; returnes or aliens no­thing of what was brought by the people, no not though there were an overplus. But secondly grant the proposition with that exception; in what case, in what times may we not with that limit assume of tithes?

Their second exception is when alienation is neces­sary for preservation of the Church. Resp. An vse of such goods for the time, may perhaps in that case bee allow­ed: perpetuall alienation, besides facts of some men, no­thing makes probable. The shew bread was made common to David & his company in extremitie: but might it therefore be perpetually aliened, such necessitie cea­sing?

Their last exception, when Princes haue no other meanes to remunerate subiects, faithfull in common services. Resp. What, I wonder, in such case laies open Church goods to the will of Princes, rather then the goods of common subiects? Thus I reason and leaue them: privat goods of subiects, Magistrats may not ali­en from them for recompense of servants, much lesse may the Lords portion bee transferred to such vses. See Gen. 47.22.

Thus then the proposition is cleere as it was pro­pounded: let vs grant it with these limits or so many of [Page 21] them as haue any shew of reason to support them. And thus conclude. The detainment or alienating of things by law consecrated to pure worship of the true God, without superfluity, anie longer then necessitie requires is sacrilege. But tithes haue been by law consecrated to maintenance of pure worship of the true God, are not superfluous, and now no such necessitie of their aliena­tion. Ergo their detainment is sacrilege.

The fourth reason followes. Whatsoever duty pre­scribed in the word of God not either ceremoniall or Iudiciall, that is vndoubtedly of perpetuall observation. But payment of tithes is a duty prescribed in the worde of God, and is neither ceremoniall nor iudiciall. Ergo of perpetuall observation. The proposition I thinke none will doubt of, sith there is no duty prescribed in the word of God which fals not vnder some member of this distribution, and only Iudicials & ceremonies were temporary.

See we therefore whether our assumption for both parts of the predicate may bee avowed. And first that this is no dutie ceremonious; these reasons evince. 1. Ceremoniall ordinances were all shaddowes of things to come, the body whereof is Christ. This no shaddow of things to come, for where is the body which this shadowed? some, who yet will haue it no ceremony but a iudiciall, frame this ceremonious resemblance. The number of ten is a number of perfection, and by paying in this number, as by a signe, the offerer makes protesta­tion of his owne imperfection, & of his expecting per­fectiō in Christ. Prettie too too. Others thus, they were paid in signe of thankfulnesse; others, in signum vniver­salis [Page 22] Dominij. Twentie such like, a tolerable wit woulde devise: but can they shew vs these significations or ends of payment in the Scripture, even but obscurely so much as by allusion intimated? J dare say no, nor any o­ther end, no not of their payment to Levits, but main­tenance and recompense for their service.

2 All ceremonies haue an analogicall resemblance of the things they signified. Therefore calledCol 2.17. shaddows of things to come, because that as the shaddowe carries though a darke, yet some resemblance of the body whose shadow it is; so ceremonies of Christ: therefore tearmed alsoHeb. 9.23. Gal. 4 9. similitudes of heavenly things, being or­dained by their very semblances to teach the rude. This hath no Analogicall resemblance either of imperfecti­on, or thankfulnesse, or Gods vniversall dominion. For who can, J say, not only avow his frame, but even frame it except absurdly? Giue vs such an analogy of this as we are able to shew of others, wee will then beleeue their payment, to haue beene levitically ceremonious. Of sprinklings and purifyings, of Tabernacle, of Arke, of Propitiatory, of high Priest (and indeed of what not, that was truly a shaddow of heavenly things?) we finde their analogie in the word of God. For instance, asHeb. 9.7.2. high Priest amongst the Iewes alone entered into the holy of holies not without bloud: so Christ into heaven, &c. Can those that so confidently avow tithes to haue been ceremonies, thus drawe out the similitude betwixt thē and heavenly things?

3 Whatsoever ordinance was before leviticall lawe, not foreshadowing Christ, that is no ceremonie. But payment of tithes such.Heb. 14 & 28 & Col. 2 Heb. [...].7. &c. Ergo. No leviticall ceremony [Page 23] may be vsed after publishing of the Gospel.Reclamante mundo, libera voce pronuncio ceremonias Iu­daeorum & per­nitiosas esse, & mortiferas chri­stianis. Hierom. epist. August. 11 [...]. (The school men say well, Iudicialia post Christum be mortua, because they bind not: ceremonialia, mortifera; their very revi­ving vnlawfull and deadly.) But payment of tithes, by consent of all, except Brownists, may be retained. Ergo.

5 J finde not that the Lord in propheticall scriptures taxeth so much the omissiō of ceremonies, or exacteth in so strict tearmes their performance, as hee doth this of tithesMal. 3 9.. Something J finde of their faultie perfor­mance; something, of their sticking in them with neg­lect of moralities: and this to me is a presumptiō, they were other then ceremonies.

Lastly J never read Christ speak so much of any Jew­ish ceremonie, as he did of tithes;Mat. 23. these things ought you to haue done. Though J confesse, as much might haue beene said of ceremonies during those times. All these considered, may J not conclude of tithing, it was no ce­remonie? See wee whether perhaps it were a iudiciall, concerning only the nation of the Iewes, and founded on equitie particular to that people. This is indeed the olde tenent of Papists. But 1. say some, Judicials were all of duties from man to man. This ordinance of holy things to be done to God. Therefore not iudiciall.

But what, trow we, imagine Papists to bee the civill equitie of this ordinance, particularly concerning the nation of the Jewes? Forsooth saith Bellarmine out of Thomas, the tribe of Leui being but the tenth, or at most the twelfth or thirteenth part of the Jews: tenths must be theirs that equitie may be kept, and that tribe haue no greater portion then the rest. Resp. 1. But it is wel an­swered that this end of their assignement to Levi, hath [Page 24] no mention in Scripture: they are given to Levi for re­compence of this service, as the Lords portion prima­rily, other end or reason of their assignation wee finde none. 2. If this were the ende of their allotment to Leui: surely the Lord much forgat himselfe, that besides the tenthes of all mens goods, would allot them share in sacrifices and vowes, and 48 Citties with Suburbes of so large circuit as we read, Numb. 35.4.7.

3 Be it granted, that this was some reason of their as­signement to Levi: how concludes this the ordinance in generall? For the iniunction of tithing was as old as Abraham Gen 14.20., when was no place for partition of Gods people by tribes. And if this be all they haue to proue them iudicials. J shall craue pardon for subscribing to their iudgement. Lastly, yeeld them Judicials: yet if of common equitie, if confirmed by positiue law, if con­senting with law of nature, if serving to vphold morall duties; binds not the ordinance for ever? J conclude therefore, sith neither ceremoniall nor iudiciall, or if iu­diciall, yet of commō equitie: therefore their payment is perpetually to be observed.

The last reason (for I had rather giue reasons by weight then number) is taken frō practise of the church in all times frō beginning of the world downe to these last daies of reformation: ever since God had a ministry in the world, tithes were their maintenance. Before the law, the first borne; then, the ordinary priests, received tithes.Gen. 14.20 For that, that Melchisedec was Shē Noahs eldest son, at least by priviledge, if not by birth, few question, none disproue: for the time vnder the law, is no questi­on. For Apostles times or much of them, the vse of [Page 25] tithes, persecutiō or scandale forced to be intermitted. Yet continued that Ius ever in them, and their inferior Presbyters. And therefore they vrge yeelding of main­tenance, such no doubt in their generall aime as was certaine by the word of God; such as had bin in vse: yea plead for portionGal. 6 6. 1. Tim. 5.17. of al goods; for double honour. Af­ter when God was pleased to graunt even but a little rest, & breathing time to the Churches, presently came tithes againe to be the Ministers portiō. Cyprian whose martyrdome fel into the yeare of the Lord 259. accor­ding to Eusebius his computatiō,Epist. 66. amongst other goods of the church, more then intimats tithes to haue bin cō mitted to Bishops as generall stewards by whom they were distributed to inferiour Ministers. Vpon occasion taxing Geminius Victor for appointing Geminius Fausti­nus a presbyter, overseer of his will, and thereby occasi­oning distraction from his ministery, sets down by way of aggravation the course established in the Church of God for preventing such distractions in the ministry. As by Gods owne authority and disposition, the tribe of Levi received tithes from the other tribes, &c. that they might by no meanes be called away, or cōstrained to thinke or deale with things secular: the same course and order is now holden in the Church, Vt qui in Eccle­sia Domini ordinatione clerica promoventur, in nullo ab ad­ministratione divina avocentur, nec molestijs & negotijs se­cularibus alligentur, sed in honore sportulantium fratrum tanquam decimas ex fructibus accipientes, ab altari & sa­crificijs non recedant, sed die ac nocte caelestibus rebus & spi­ritualibus serviant▪ this mentions Cyprian as a course in his time received in the Church. In the same age a few [Page 26] yeares after was Dionysius bishop of Rome about the yeare 266.Cant. 3. cap. 10. This man (as Platina in his life testifieth; and as himselfe of himselfe, in his epistle to Severus,) assig­ned severall Churches to severall Ministers, as parishes, least one Pastor might defraud another:Gratian caus. 13. q. 1. the question being then, not whether to any, but vnto what church, tithes were to be paid. The conclusion extant at large in the body of the Canon law, with some reasons (both most cōsonant to his decree;) it will not be amisse brief­ly to collect; because it is of some vse in this matter of tithes. That which is proved there, is, that tithes are payable to the baptismall Churches, and to the Mini­sters there serving God, and ministring to the people. After many testimonies heaped vp togither, Gal. 6.6. 1. Cor. 9. at length it is concluded with this expostulation; Quis plantat vineam, &c. who plants a vineyard, & eats not of the fruit thereof? Nos plantavimus vineam, & vos vultis edere? Item praecepit Dominus per Mosem, vt nemo mittat falcem in alienam messem. Haec messis nostra est, & vos vultis falcem in eam mittere? Item Apostolus, they that serue at the altar liue of the altar; sed numquid de eo cui nō serviunt? Qui in sacrario operantur, cum sacrario partici­pant; sed numquid cum illo in quo non operantur? &c.

That I may not spend time & paper whiles I doe but actum agere: for the next age, read what Hierome hath touching practise of the Church, in his epistle to Ne­potian; Ambrose his iudgement in ser. quadrages.

In times succeeding, Chrysost. hom. 18. in Act. August. in Psal. 146. &c: calling for tithes, and sharply reproving their detainment or spare payment. For Councils, that one Synode called Matisconensis held anno 580; Cen [...]uriat. the se­cond [Page 27] holden at that citty, Can. 5. Cent. 6. cap. 9. not only ordaines their payment, but sheweth the observation of that duety to haue bin of long standing in the Christian Church. Le­ges divinae consulentes sacerdotibus ac ministris ecclesiarum pro haereditaria portione, omni populo praeceperunt, decimas fructuum suorum locis sacris praestare, vt nullo labore impe­diti, per res illegitimas, spiritualibus possint vacare mini­sterijs. Quas lege. Christianorum congeries longis tempori­bus custodivit, intemeratas: nunc autem paulatim praevari­catores legum, poene Christiani omnes ostenduntur, dum ea quae divinitus sancita sunt, adimplere negligunt. Vnde sta­tuimus ac decernimus, vt mos antiquus à fidelibus repare­tur, & decimas ecclesiasticis famulantibus ceremonijs popu­lus omnis inferat.

After this say the Century writers out of Aventine, Cent. 8. c. 7. de bonis Eccl. lib. 3. Annal decimas à profanis occupatas Carolomannus suo edicto restitui iubet. Tithes vsurped by seculars, or (as perhaps he names them for their fact) profane per­sons, Charlemaine by his edict commāds to be restored. The same authors out of Crantzius his metropolis, lib. 1. cap. 8. talem statum Carolus magnus, post impositum iugū Christi reliquit in provincia, vt liber esset populus à tribu­torum iugo, caeterum Ecclesijs & pontificibus iure decimarū obnoxius permaneret.

To leaue forrenners, in England Anno Dom. 786. Cent. 8. cap. 9. after accompt of these writers, was holden a Synode of all states of the kingdomes and the decrees therof subscri­bed, by the severall kings then raigning; and their asses­sors, Bishops, Dukes, and Cominaltie. In the 17 chapter of which Council thus we read. De Decimis dandis, sicut in lege scriptum est, decimam partem ex omnibus frugibus [Page 29] tuis seu primitijs deferas in domum domini dei tui: rursum per prophetam: adferte, inquit, omnem decimam in horreum meum, vt sit cibus in domo mea; et probate me super hoc, &c dicit dominus: sicut sapiens ait, nemo iustam Eleemosynam de his quae possidet facere valet, nisi prius separaverit domi­no, quod à primordio ipse sibi reddere delegauit: ac per hoc plerun (que) contingit, ut qui decimam non tribuit, ad decimam revertatur. Vnde etiam cum obtestatione praecipimus, vt omnes studeant, de omnibus quae possidēt, decimas dare, quia speciale domini dei sui est: & de novem partibus sibi vivat, & Eleemosynas tribuat. More need not be added. How in after times the case of tithes stood amongst vs, practise of the Church in this land till the daies of Henry the 8, abundantly witnesseth: exorbitancie enough from the primary rule of assignement to parish Churches might be noted; but till those daies nothing is found of their whole alienation to seculars.

As a corollary here let vs obserue that tithes of England haue bin by law separate from common vse: the inference thence is out of former grounds, that they could never be lawfully alienated. Yes said one once; for eius est tollere, cuius ponere. Resp. Peter was not ac­quainted with any such mixime in the case of Ananias; Syst Polit. lib. 1. cap 21. and Levit. 27. Things once separated from common vse, are forever holy vnto the Lord. And heare Keckerman, Princeps iure non potest &c. Things sacred or goods designed, or desti­ned to diuine worship, though but in a generality, yea though they serue to superstitious worship, Princes haue no right to transfer to common vse. Jf his sentence swaie nothing, heare his reason: Res sacrae pertinent ad statum & scopum [...]eipub. eminentiorem & perfectiorem, ideo ad inferiorem [Page 13] retrahi non debent. media enim perfectiorem finem respici­entia, non debent abusive ad imperfectiorem applicari. And Polanus, In Ezec. c. 48. vers. 14. Res sanctas è quarum numero est possessio Deo san­ctificata, ne (que) vendat, ne (que) permutet, neque transferat quis­quam. Ratio legi addita est; quia res sanctae non sunt homi­num, sed ipsius Iehovae, cui dicatae, cui consecratae, Epist. 33. cui sancti­ficatae sunt &c. Ambrose when one thus presseth him to deliver vp the Temple to the Emperour; because all things were his: thus answers; Noli te gravare Impera­tor, vt putes te in ea quae divina sunt imperiale aliquid ius habere; noli te extollere: sed si vis diutius imperare, esto Deo subditus: scriptum est; quae Dei Deo, quae Caesaris Caesari. But enough of this▪ we haue seen the practise of the church in all times, and so their iudgement for this duty of ti­thing; which alone, so long, so generally, on such groūds continued, me thinkes proues more for their paiment, then any prescription though never so gray headed, or even bald with age, can for their detainement.

J might ad to this continual practise of the Church, the vnanimous consent of divines in iudgement, from Apostles daies downeward; till such time as Popish Demi-sacrilege had made seisure of tithes, transferring them from parochial Pastors to the Covēts of Drones: then began their Schoolemen to studie shifts, where­by to iustifie the practise of their Synagogue, and after many disputs, resolved of this as best plaster for that sore, that forsooth they were Judicials. I might also ad­ioine the consenting practise of heathen by light of na­ture, yea suffrages of sundry late divines; but that this taske is sufficiently done by others; and authorities of men even best learned and devoutest, beare little sway [Page 30] in truthes so dangerous. This only I desire, that in this question we may contend with reasons, rather then authorities: not that J feare to bee overlaid either with waight or number of voices; for the ods in both kindes I dare avow to be with vs. But 1. whereto tends com­mitting of divines in fight, except to worke distraction in people? And, 2. the saying of Augustine is me thinkes iudicious; Scripturarum autoritatibus, non quorumque proprijs, sed vtris (que) communibus testibus, res cum re, causa cum causa, ratio cum ratione concertet. And of the pro­ving part hetherto.

Let vs now proceed to examine such arguments as are brought by the adverse part to disproue this truth; such J meane as seeme to haue any footing in the word of God. For other, others haue fully and often answe­red them. Thus then some reason. Tithes are not in all the new Testament specified to bee the ministers main­tenance; so indeed reasons Bellarmine; so Thomas, so Ca­nisius and many others of that rancke of honest men. In nova lege, in the new law .i. in scriptures of the newe Testament we finde no such precept, Ergo not due to Ministers by the word of God. Resp. Now sure J had thought it had beene sufficient to haue found them grounded on any part of Scripture not particularly cō ­cerning the Church of the Iewes, because1. Tim 3.16. the whole Scripture is given by inspiration from God; and 2. Pet. 1.19. that word of Prophets (saith Peter) is a most sure word, we shall doe well to attend thereto. And therefore hetherto it hath been a maxime amongst divines; A parte scripturae non valet ar­gumentum negativè. Jts a morall statute given to Magi­strats to punish with death,Gen. 9.6. the shedder of mans blood; [Page 31] yet J finde it not specified in all the new Testament: An ordinance irrevocable that the Sabboth bee kept with cessation from labours; yet specification of the dutie J finde not in the new Testament. Sundry the like might be instanced, as by view of that place Ezek. 22 7. ad 12. to every man may appeare. Only let mee intreat men fearing God, not so farre to forget their reverence to the old scriptures, and the spirit that inspired them, as to deny thē their share with the new Testamēt in this ho­nour; of being rule in part of their faith and practise. This age is strangely in loue with Epitomees, if faith it selfe shall be drawne to her compendium;Aug. de bono perfect. lib. 2. cap. 11. But let vs be­ware we fall not into Manicheisme. Christ said of Mo­ses Ioh. 5.45. He should iudge the Iewes, so shall hee and Prophets iudge Christians also, as well as Evangelists and Apo­stles.

2 Who can question this truth so cleare to all men? so necessary for all that will with Tertullian maintaine the fulnesse of the Scriptures? That scripture teacheth as well what it implies, as what it expresseth. Teacheth it not particulars in generals? Effects or consequents in prin­ciples? equals by equivalence? The conclusion is not ex­pressed in scriptures of the new Testament; that precept of Sabboth is not abrogated: yet taught in the new Te­stament. SithMat. 5.17. no precept of the Decalogue abrogated; Ergo not that of Sabboth. The conclusion not expressed in the new Testament; Infants are to bee baptised, yet taught in the new Testament:Act. 2.38.39 Mar. 10.14. 1. Cor. 7.14. Act 10.47. sith to whome promises, kingdome, covenant, spirit belong, to them baptisme. Ergo to infants. These doctrines are all taught in the newe Testament, because generals, principles, or equivalents [Page 32] are there taught. And so haue wee tithes prescribed in the new Testament, vt supra. Yea more thē so implicite; as in former reasons hath already appeared. Its by this occasion nowe in my minde that Tertullian hath in his treatie de spectaculis; where bēding himselfe to disswade Christians from presence at such prophane and barba­rous spectacles as were then in vse, hee thus shapes an­swer to a reason of this mould: Quorundam fides (saith he) aut simplicior, aut scrupulosior, ab hac abdicatione spectaculorum de scripturis autoritatem exposcit, & se in incer­tum constituit, quod non significanter ne (que) nominatim de­nuncietur servis Dei abstinentia eiusmodi: Some mens faith (saith Tertullian) whether over simple, or over scru­pulous, demaundes our authoritie from scriptures for this abandoning such sights; and makes it selfe doubtful because such abstinence is not there expresly and by name inioined to the servants of God. Whereto he an­swers; planè nusquam inuenimus, &c. Its true, saith that autor, we finde not in any place, that as it is apertly said, thou shalt not kill, &c. so its expresly defined, thou shalt not goe to the circle or Theater &c. but wee finde that general of David to touch this particular; Blessed is hee that hath not walked in the counsell of the vngodly, nor stand in the way of sinners; if in no way of sinners, then not in this: Nam apud spectacula & in via statur, &c. There needs no application.

Now this argument the same for substance some haue vrged with this [...]; In scriptures of the newe Testament, where Ministers maintenance is purposely treated of, no mention is to be found of tithes: And that is at least a presumption, their payment is no perpetual [Page 33] ordinance of God. For is it likely the particular would haue beene concealed? Resp. Perhaps, and but perhaps not; 1 If either state of the times had borne it, or 2. ne­cessitie required, or 3. Apostles had beene willing to vrge the vttermost of right. But considering first the distresse of the times, was such, as scarce any could call any thing his owne; 2. weighing againe how fully the particular was in the old Testament determined; lastly pondering how loth the Apostles were, to exact right, least any occasion should be given, to suspect of merce­nary or covetous affection in preaching: it was as con­venient to omit particularizing the quantitie, as to re­mit the vse of all right, as to some Churches some pra­ctised.

2 But yet this J finde; they call for1. Tim. 5.17. double honour. For1. Cor. 9.5. ad 14. maintenance due by law of nature, and nations, and by ordinance of Christ, and that is either tithes, or else no certaine particular.

3 Who will vndertake to evidence the particulars of all duties of iustice, charity, temperance, even there where hee shall finde such duties purposely prescribed? Or be so bold (ne quid dicam gravius) as to exclude par­ticularities of these duties from intention of Gods spi­rit because the generals are only handled, vpon suppo­sed likelyhoods, or presumptions truly presumptuous? Leaue we therefore this argument, and see whither the rest haue better colour. Bellarmine endevouring to dis­proue the morality of this duty, thus reasons; Moral duties haue ever bound conscience, evē before the law of Moses. But the lawe of tithes was not till the times of Moses. Ergo. Resp. the proposition we acknowledge. The [Page 34] minor how will he proue? If hee shall reason from the scriptures silence; the same may be said of adultery, Ido­latry, periury, almost of what not? 2. We haue that which is equivalent to a precept; the approved practise of the Saints of God; yea if Lyra may be credited, an im­plied precept given to Iacob, Gen. 35.1. when he is com­manded to build an altar at Bethel according to his vow made, Gen. 28. Looke backe to what is said in clearing the first Argument, and thereby iudge whither the pre­cept of tithing were in those daies given, or not.

His next reason is this, Reason naturall teacheth not the payment of tenthes to Priests, but only of what is sufficient to their sustentatiō. Ergo not morall. Resp. nei­ther doth reason direct to keeping a seaventh daie, but only a separation of some solemne times to Gods wor­ship. But who would consult with reason corrupted, & blinde since the fall, to determine of moralities? Since al it reacheth vnto, even where it hath some helpe frō ge­nerall grace, are generalities only of morall duties?

His last reason, Matters of vow are no moralities: tithes wereGen. 28.22. vowed by Iacob: Ergo not commaunded. Resp. And are all matters of vow things arbitrary, none moralities? What thinke yee of that ver. 21. vttered in some vow, and as it were with the same breath of Iacob; If the Lord will go with me, and keepe mee in the way that I shall goe, &c. then shall the Lord be my God? Was it a mat­ter Arbitrary to Iacob to haue the Lord, and him only to be his God? being the substance of the first morall precept? Yet was it vowed by Iacob, as we see, on like conditiō with tithes. More instāces might be alleaged: but quorsum:

Proceede wee to argumentes of our owne divines. Tithes say some are originally in kings and civill Magi­strates, and its their Mishpat. i. ius to dispose of them to civill or religious vse. For saith the Lord; of Israels king, Hoc erit ius regis vestri, &c: hee shall take tithes, 1. Sam. 8.15. Resp. Is it possible men shoulde advisedly thus reason out of this scripture?Levit. 27.30 The Lorde had long ere this declared tithes to be his,Num. 18.24. assigned thē to Levi for his service in the tabernacle: and that vnder Magistrats civill though not kings. When in his wrath he giues a king to Israel, revoked he his ordinance of ti­thing to Levi? Who can think it? I stand not to dispute the question, whether the words describe a king, or ra­ther a tyrant. But this I am sure is evident: the Lorde there shewes the many mischiefes shoulde befall them as a plague for their reiecting the government by him­selfe established, such as should make them cry vnder the burthen of his exaction. A course beseeming an ex­orbitant tyrant, rather then a regular king. Iust: yea but this shalbe his Mishpat. i. his ius ver. 11. Resp. And why his ius rather then his guise? His right rather then his fashion? As most render, and the word oft signifie. See 1. Sam. 27.11. was it his ius to take from the people their fields and vineyards, and best oliue yards to giue to his servants? As is said, ver. 14. How then sinned Achab 1. Reg 21.1, 2, 3. in coveting the vineyard of Naboth? And desiring to pur­chase it with mony? Yea, why offers he mony or deales by way of contract? It was his ius being a king, to take vineyards & fields from subiects to giue to his servāts: much more to keepe for his owne benefit and conveni­ency. 3. Alienation of possessions from tribes and fami­lies [Page 36] was flatly forbidden to the Iewish people, that Christs linage and descent might bee kept vnconfoun­ded.

2 But what when it is yeelded hee had a tus to exact tithes of subiects? Must it needs be vnderstood of tithes of Levits assigned them of God? and not rather of o­ther tithes which he might craue in subsidium? asGen. 47.24. fifts were once imposed vpon Egyptians. Certainely Eze­chias, it seemes, thought tithes the Levits due, and ther­fore amongst other precepts of reformation,2. par. 31. 4. 5. 6 requires their paiment to Levi, as thinking tithes committed to him (if at all to him) but as Church goods of old were vnto Bishops, non ut dominis, but ut oeconomis. And the people bring thē to Levites in the name of holy things that were consecrated vnto God.

Apostles received not tithes in their daies. Ergo. Resp. That is hard, that I say not, (impossible to proue) 2. not tithes, no nor ought els of some churches, but made their owne hands minister to their necessities, that they might not be scandalous to weake brethren, nor charg­able to afflicted churches; 3. yea suffered bonds, repro­ches, cruell deaths, &c. must therefore the Churches of all ages receiue like measure from her children? 4 The question is de iure non de facto: & that ius was remitted, because burthensome to those times, as circumcision was in the wildernes, Ioshua. 5.5.6.

If tithes be thus due to Ministers, why not also first fruits for these also were commanded to be paid to Le­vits? Resp. To these and all arguments following, this generall answere may serue; that wee claime not tithes by vertue of the precept given for Levites. Who ever [Page 37] heard vs thus reason? God cōmanded tithes to be paide to Levites: Ergo tithes are due to the Ministers of the Gospell. But thus we claime them; as due to God by reservation from the beginning, as following Christs priesthood, as the only certainety mentioned in scrip­ture, as consecrated to God by consent of Churches & Edicts of princes, as agreeing with the vse and practise of the Church in al times For the mandate of God cō ­cerning Levi, we make it not the ground of our title to tithes. So that of these reasons we may say as he, they are Nihil ad Rhombum. Yet that nothing be wanting to anie mans satisfaction, I answer, 1. that first fruits were paid to Aaron, Heb. 7 11 as to high priest, whose priesthood is now passed to another; 2. vpon a reason particular to that people; 3. for sacrifice, as appeares at large, De [...]. 26. 2. ad 11. appeares there any such thing of Tithes? Lastly they were figures as should seeme, of Christ,1 Cor 15.20. The first fruits of them that sleepe; of beginnings of sanctifi­cation, called by the ApostleRom. 8.23. the first fruits of the spirit. Can any of these be avouched of tithes? Who thē sees not manifest disparity betweene the two?

If this be a duty of people to pay tithes to Ministers: thē that also of Ministers toNum. 18.28. pay tithes to the high Priest. Resp. The argument proceedes from a false Hypothesis, supposing vs to claime tithes by mandate Leviticall. Which we vtterly disclaime, vt supra. 2. But yet farther I answere; It followes not if one, then the other due. 1. ForPs 50 12.13 that our high Priest needs them not: but only hath ordained for them that1. Cor 9.14. preach the gospel. 2. Sacrifices are now ceased, to which these Decimae secūdaneae chief­ly servedNum. 18.28 29.30.; so that their reason is no more but this, If [Page 38] tithes for stipend, then tithes for sacrifice: he is meerely [...] that discernes not the inconsequence.

If precept of tithing be moral, thē that also ofMal. 3 10. brin­ging them to one common storehouse. Resp. This argumēt also proceedeth from like fained Hypothesis. see supra. & yet hath no good cōsequence: for must the substance of a duty needs be Levitical, because some circūstances thereof concern only Iewish nation? Thē must Sabbath also evē for substance be ceremoniall, because some cir­cumstances & ends belong only to Iews Deut. 5.15.

If precept of tithes be moral, then that also of Mini­sters notNum. 18.24 having portiō amongst their brethrē. Resp. The same fallacy that before; for we claime not by precept given to Levi. And yet the argument follows not. 1. for saith Polanus (though I avow not his answere) that or­dinance was figuratiue;Polan in Ezech. 44. v. 28. foreshaddowing Christ that had not where to lay his head. But 2 it was never forbidden Levits to haue portion amongst their brethren in that sense that these men take portion. TheyNumb. 35. Levit. 25.34. Had cit­ties with their suburbs which were their perpetuall posses­sion, and passed from father to sonne; subiect to same lawes of Redemption as others. Wherefore Ieremie a Priestes sonneIer. 32.7.9. buies the fielde of his vnckle as next of kin. See also 1. King. 2.26. Thus therfore vnderstād that ordinance of Levits having no portion amongst their brethren. No portion, that is, no such portion, separate frō their brethren, as had other tribes, not simply none: the Reason thereof was Iacobs prophecyGen. 49.7. touching their scattering amongst their brethren. Disposed of also by Gods providence for greater conveniency of the peoples instruction, as also by situation of their citties inIosh. 21. every tribe is me thinks probable. Lastly a manifest [Page 39] disparity there is between the two. For the childrē of Levits succeeded their parēts, & were for ever to be main­tained by Levits portiō. Not so the childrē of Ministers, except they be1. Tim. 3. Titus. 1. approved, & foūd meet for the ministery.

Lastly they obiect the place, Numb. 18.24. vnanswe­rable, as they thinke, and such as if a man but turne to with a wet finger, he shall presently see tithing a cere­monious ordinance. Now for my part I haue viewed the place, and with my best attention considered what may thence be deduced to proue it ceremoniall. Yet finde not that it concludes either the ordinance in ge­nerall, or yet that Leviticall constitution to haue beene ceremonious, for thus wee must frame the Argument. If tithes were assigned to Levi for his service in the ta­bernacle: then is the ordinance of tithing meerely cere­monious; for that service was ceremoniall. But tithes were assigned to Levi for his service in the taberna­cle. Ergo. Resp. 1. To say nothing that that particu­lar assignement concludes not the ordinance at large, but the ordinance for Levi only: I answere 2. that by as good inference they may proue reverence, obedience, defence of Ministers, ceremonious duties, inasmuch as even these also belonged to Levites for their service in the tabernacle. For why must Israelits giue Levites ho­nour, obedience, singular loue, &c: but for their worke sake? And what was their worke? But their service in the tabernacle. So that now our people owe vs no more honour, obedience, loue, &c.1 Thes. 5 12 13. Heb. 13.17. for our worke sake, as it is prescribed. For these all belonged to Levites for their service in the tabernacle, which was ceremonious. Briefly; they were given to Levites for their service in [Page 40] the tabernacle, non quâ tabernaculi; but quâ service. And therefore before tabernacle erected, they were paide to Priests, Gen. 14. 3. Was the whole service of the taber­nacle ceremonious? Nay were not some maine parts of it, apparently morall? What thinke we of teaching the people?2. Chr. 17.9. Act 15.21. Nehe. 8.3.6.7 8. of Reading the scriptures, and giving sense? of praising God? Were not these parts of tabernacle ser­vice? And had not the Levites maintenaunce for these, as well as for slaying sacrifices? Surely if this be the best and clearest reasons against tithing, I must needes pro­fesse, they are so farre from making me doubt of my conclusion, that they rather stablish my iudgment ther­in. And these are all the arguments I haue yet heard vr­ged by men of any iudgement, against the necessitie of paying tithes.

One other only which seculars vse, I will annexe; & that is drawne from a perilous inconvenience ensuing vpon this doctrine. What is it? Forsooth if tithes belōg to Ministers & are payable to them only, according to the word of God: it wil come to passe, that a Ministers portion shall exceed the allowance of two or three of his wealthiest parishioners. But that, I tell you, is a shrewd inconvenience. Resp. A mischiefe which I won­der the Lord in his endlesse wisdome never bethought himselfe to prevent amongst the Israelits. The Levites, though according to the generall division of Israell by tribes, they were but a twelfth or thirteenth part: yet according to exact number of persons reckoned by polles, were scarce the sixtith part of the people. The number of the people without the Levites, amounted toNum. 1.46. sixe hundred and three thousands, fiue hundred & [Page 13] fifty; to which if we adde their old men, and al from vn­der twenty yeares amongst them which came not into the first number,Numb. 1.3. allowing but double so many for thē, they arise to about a thousand thousands and three hū ­dred thousands. Now the Levites numbred from the infant to the old man, were found but two and twenty thousands only,Num. 3 39. and that is not aboue the sixtith part of the people. Yet see, the Lord allots them the tenth of all the increase of the land: besides share in oblations,Num. 35 4.7 things consecrate by vow, and 48. citties with suburbs of so large circuit, that according to Hieromes measure of the land, exceeded the portion of any other tribe in Israell. Its marvell none woulde vndertake to be the Lords Counsellour, and to tel him such large allowance might make Levites prowde and lazy. But this large portion to the Lord seemed no inconvenience: howe seemes it so to vs, in Ministers of the Gospell?

Againe, how fals it, that to other orders & rankes of men, as lawyers, gentles, &c. their portions excee­ding by more then fourths the portions of others, are not maligned; the Ministers of all other should bee sub­iect to envie?

Lastly, how is it, that men in their own, though far larger portion, know no measure, but adde continually thousands to hundreds; and (as Agars horsleach) crie, giue, giue; and as the graue, knowe no measure of desi­ring: yet of a ministers stipend, of fiftie, or an hundred pounds, cry Sufficit; Its enough, and too much? What, I wonder, is that great service these men performe, so over acceptable to God, or profitable vnto men, aboue the worke of a minister? that they should thinke them­selues [Page 42] worthy of all, whatsoever by a vijs & modis they can scrape togither; and yet to ministers, for their work sake, hardly beteeme double honour in proportion to the meane wealthy amongst their people. Tempora, Tē ­pora, how are yee turned? But I conclude. Sith Tithes belong to Christs priesthood, sith no other certainety al­lotted to Ministers in scriptures, sith detainement is sa­crilege, sith tithing no ceremony nor particularly Iu­diciall, sith confirmed by consent and practise of the Church in all times, lastly (which is not the least) sith reasons against it are of so no force, as wee haue seene: therefore tithes are the portion due to Ministers for their service in the Gospell.

Conclusion.What now remaines? but to admonish such as feare God, to deliver their soules from the guilt of so fowle a sinne as is this of sacrilege. Why hang yee vp theeues that steale from men, oft times but as Salomon saithProv. 6.30. to satisfie their owne soules; and liue your selues in opē Mal. 3.8. rob­bery of God himselfe? Far be it from mee to multiply sins or to cast vnnecessary scruples into the consciences of Gods people. But faine J would knowe for my lear­ning, of such as are so loth in this point to wound con­sciences (alas, how senselesse, and fleshed in sacrilege!) where God hath ever legitimated sacrilege; or made it lawfull vnder the new Testament, to alienate from him things consecrated to his worship: when turned the truth of that sentence into a lie;Prov. 20.25 Rom. 2. Act. 5.1.3. It is a sinne to devoure holy things, and after the vow to enquire. Nay the Lord it seemes, hath written it in the hearts of Naturalists with the point of a Diamond: howsoever some mens simple or wilful ignorāce, or impious profanenes, or insatiable [Page 43] covetousnes seemes to detain this point of truth, Rom. 1.58. as many other, in vnrighteousnes. Whē Nabuchadnezzar had surprised the temple, & seized the sacred vessels appointed to Gods worship: in the middest of sacriledge, he feares to be sacrilegious; and therforeDan. 1.2. brings them to the house of his Gods, supposed by him to bee the only true Gods. Infinite I might be in propounding the sentences, and censures, that heathen passed vpon this point of impie­tie. And is there any man can doubt whither detaine­ment of tithes be sacriledge, or not? Shape to they selfe a description of sacriledge with any sound limits deter­mining its nature, and see whither vnder it fals not the detainement of tithes. I beseech you therefore suffer the words of exhortation: Giue Caesar, Caesars; and God, that which is Gods. Neede I, I thinke, to presse it by reasons? Not sure if the belly had eares. But sweete sinnes, are the dangerous sinnes, because for the most part incor­rigible; begetting in most, either a loathnesse to bee in­formed, or obfirmation against all perswasions. Yet let vs attempt; who knows whither the Lord may be plea­sedAct 16 14. to open the heart, if but of one Lydia, to attend to the things which are spoken? Consider therefore, I beseech you, even in the bowels of Christ Iesus; first the hai­nousnesse of this sinne of sacriledge. They erre inZanch. de vi­tiis exter. Cult. opposit. Thesi 3 [...] Zā ­chies iudgement, that make sacriledge only a branch of theft, and breach of the eighth precept; yea rather it is a species of irreligion. Heare his reasons. For whence proceedes it; but from contempt of holy things, & ma­nifest vnreverence towards God himselfe? wherefore steales any man things separate to preserue the ministe­rie, but because he contemnes the whole Ministery, yea [Page 44] God himselfe to whose worshippe they are consecra­ted?

And wherevnto tendes such fraudulent, or violent praying vpon holy things: but to the vtter overthrow of all religion? Sathan knowes well, Gods outwarde worship cannot be continued without the Ministerie, nor the Ministery without Ministers, nor Ministers without Church goods: and therefore provokes hee Tyrants and profane men, to invade the Churches pos­sessions, that by that meanes he may hinder, if not whol­ly overthrowe, the state of religion. To this purpose Zanchius. Shall I adde one other reason? The rather because I see men thinke of this theft, even those that thinke worst, but as of thefts from men; they rob not God, but Ministers (if any) while they detaine tithes, or other things hallowed. Now let them consider, that the dominion, and propertie of all things hallowed, is Gods, and such consecration giues him seizure of them in see; the vse only is the Ministers.Polan. in E­zech. 48.14. Quae sancti­ficata sunt Domino, non sunt eorum, quibus data sunt, sed e­ius, cuius nomine possidentur. Things hallowed to God, are not so much theirs, to whom they are given, as Gods in whose title they are possessed. Therefore (saith the Lord to the Israelites detaining tithes from the Le­vits) Yee Mal. 3. haue robbed not Levi, whose they are in vse, but ME, in whom is the property and dominion. Need any more reasons, then the enormity of the sinne? Heare then 2 the detestation wherein in al times amongst all men, christians, or heathen, this sin was holden. To omit the bitter invectiues every where obvious, consider the pu­nishments appointed for the sacrilegious.Cent. 9. cap. 1. Charles the [Page 45] great in his time made this decree; that whosoever should invade, or waste, or by any cunning meanes pre­sume to alienate the goods of the church, he should le­gally be punished by the Iudges, as an homicide, or sa­crilegious theefe, excommunicated by the Bishops, de­prived of burial; yea, as if his almes were infectious, or accursed, none must receiue it. Amongst the heathen no tortures were thought sufficient for this sin,Lactant. de orig. Error. c. 3 scour­gings, burnings, rackings, hangings, any thing whatso­ever their furie could devise to inflict.Plutarch. de his qui serò a numine puniū ­tur. At Delphos they vsed to cast them headlong from a rocke, which they called Hyampeia. The Aethiopians had an herb they called Ophiusa, as of vnpleasing aspect, so of farre more dangerous effect taken into the body. It so affrighted with phantasmes of dreadfull serpents, that such as drāk it made away themselues.Plin. hist. nat. lib. 26. cap. 17. Obid (saith Pliny) cogebantur sacrilegi illam bibere; for that cause were church robbers forced to drinke it.

Amongst our selues, breaking vp of churches, & stea­ling the least trifle, aggravates the theft, & makes the of­fender culpable of death. If the Philosopher were now aliue, would he not laugh at the spectacle? To see the great theeues lead the smaller to the gallows? How is it a sin more hainous, to violate a temple, then to alienate Church maintenance from the worship of God? 3. If none of these moue, oh yet let the blood of so manie soules perishing by this, if not as a cause, yet as a greate occasiō, waken vs. Many motions I haue heard of, made for a learned ministery, that every congregation might haueIer. 3.15. a past or to feed them with knowledge and vnderstā ­ding. For my part I say asGal. 5.12. Paule in another case; vtinā [Page 46] excindantur; I would they were cut off that hinder it. But amongst all, how is it that the point of mainte­nance comes not to be consulted? It were to be wished that the Apostolique zeale burnt now in Ministers, that rather then soules should starue, they would freely giue what they haue freely receaved. But hee wasPerkins in Iob. 33. 23. an holie man that said, men are men, and must be allured by such arguments as may prevaile even with flesh and blood. It was Gods great wisdome in the creation, first to pro­vide food, before he made the Animal creatures. And it's ashame to the Church in the daies of peace, to see men of best gifts therefore divert their studies to other arts, because the ministery affords not maintenance; for our Church most, where Gods allowance is so liberall, were it not that sacrilege did intercept it.

4 May J not adde the mischiefe temporall it hath brought vpon the land? Complaints are frequent a­mongst our people against inclosures the decayers (they say) of husbandry, by which, saith Salomon, even kings are maintained. I dare say, that peculatus, if J may so tearme it, hath not beene more hurtfull this way, then hath this sacrilege. Cornefields were wont to laugh in our Gentlemens now pastures; but tithes seeme more compendious to the ground of housekeeping then the toilesome tediousnesse of tilling the earth. And scarfe a great man now adaies, though but niggardly hospitall, that can keep open dores without a Parsonage. It were wel me thinkes amongst so many delicates, they would once in their liues eate one morcel of their own bread. Lastly, if these perswade not, yet let that terrour of the Lord prevaile with vs;Prov. 20.25. Its a curse (saith Salomon) to de­voure [Page 47] holy things, a cursed practise, that brings downe Gods vengeance vpon the sacrilegious.

Examples we haue seene many, and read of more: e­ven kings themselues haue not gone vnpunished. TheZech. 5.4. flying booke of Gods vengance, Enter (saith Zecherie) into the house of the theefe, and consumes it with the timber, and the stones thereof; leaues scarse a monument where hee hath beene. Is God thus sharpe against petite thefts, and will he leaue sacrilege vnavenged? Search records di­vine, humane: where findest thou a rob-God without his vengance? obserue these sacrilegious amongst our selues: its much if they prosper to the fourth generatiō; much, (though God be much in sparing) if hee either leaue not them childlesse, or their children gracelesse, by one meanes or other makes them not vomit those morsels of holy things, that they haue devoured. Tithes with lay men, are as the1. Sam. 5 6.9.11. Arke with the Philistims, pla­guing the vniust possessors, til they returne to the right owners.

Enough I hope of this first sinne. And too much perhaps some wil say, too ful of tartnes. Let them remem­ber the Callum is thicke, and needs a hot Cauterie. Yea but it may wound the conscience; Vtinam. The remedy is at hand. Restituatur ablatum, vt dimittatur peccatum. Howsoever, for my soule, I dare notIsai. 5.20. speake good of evill, Read Ezech. 13.22.

2 As to our people, wittie, alas, to their own harme, in shifting to detaine that little of the Lords portion still left him, I say as2 Par. 31.4. Hezechias (J would, I could hope with like successe) Giue the portion to Priests, and Le­vits, to Ministers of the Gospell, that they may bee en­couraged [Page 48] in the law of the Lord. Needes any more rea­sons then the encouragement of your Ministers. Heare Malachy; Detainment is robbery in the highest degree; sacrilege;Mal. 3 10. yee haue robbed mee, saith the Lord to with­holders. 2. Robberie detested by Jdolaters; will a man, will an Idolater spoile his Gods? For shame let not Christians spoile their God. 3Levit. 27 30 Tithes are Gods by reservation frō the beginning, Ministers are but his receavers. 4. Pay­ment sets open the wondowes of heaven, and brings downe a blessing in abundance; 5. Detainement, a curse, yea vpon whole kingdomes. That saying of Salomon, let never bee forgotten;Prov. 3.9.10 Honour God with thy substance and with the chiefe of all thine increase: so shall thy barnes be filled with a­bundance; is a blessing annexed to this dutie. Will any say its spoken only for that state of the Church in Isra­el? Let him pervse the whole booke, and instance but in one precept there given of Leviticall performances, ex­cept he will too absurdly instare in proposito.

More perswasions I wil not adde: how feare I, that J shall not perswade, no not though J doe perswade? Shal J presume to speake of the figleaues, men haue sowne to themselues to hide their shame? Some thus: To ho­nest able Ministers they thinke them due; but dishones­tie &c. makes vncapable. Resp. With what conscience then detaine yee from such whose honesty and abilitie your selues will testifie? 2 The Levites in Malachie his daiesMal. 2.7, 8, 9 had broken the covenant, were become ignorant, par­tiall, contemptible: yet even in those times called the Lord for tithes. 3. What law of God, or man, permits to pri­vate men detainment of dues even from the dishonest.Mat. 22. To wicked Magistrats tribute must be paid. 4. Tithes are [Page 49] due to Ministers, not quâ probi; but quâ ministri: not for their honesty; but for their Ministerie.

As to those other obiections, of customes,Vae tibi flumen moris humanit quamdiu non siccaberis? Aug. confess. prescrip­tions, exemptions &c. I say no more, but what the A­postle in this case;Gal. 6.7. God is not mocked. A pretty mocke-God answere it will bee, at that great day when thou shalt stand before the great Proprietarie to bee exami­ned, how faithfully thou hast given Tithes according to his assignement; to tell him: for matter of tithing, thou hadst a custome to the contrary. Dally not with conscience, deceaue not thy selfe, God sure wil not thus be deluded.

Thus far of this question at your request; to whome vndeserved kindnesse hath engaged mee so farre, as my weake abilities can extend themselus. Of this tract thus thinke; The Author thinketh himselfe a man, & there­fore subiect to errour. Yet would faine so carry himself, as to deserue of Gods Church the esteeme of an ho­nest man, and therefore no lover of errors; much lesse a Patrone of them against his knowledge and consci­ence.